[0:00]The new Epstein emails, what do they tell us about President Trump, Russia, and others in Epstein's formerly wide circle of associates? We will dig deep on that. President Trump has been presented with
[0:12]new military options in Venezuela. Is the United States preparing strikes inside that country? And if so, on what authority? Turmoil inside the Heritage Foundation,
[0:23]long at the center of the conservative movement, may reflect deep schisms on the right over democracy and authoritarianism. Hello everyone, I'm Major Garrett in
[0:42]Washington. Welcome to The Takeout. We have said here before and we will say it again. When it comes to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and those who abetted them, we
[0:52]will remain focused on the victims, not the politics. There is a political angle, of course, and it will play out in full and possibly furious view inside the House
[1:03]of Representatives next week. That's when House Speaker Mike Johnson says the House will vote on a discharge petition to seek the release of the full
[1:13]Epstein files. That House vote would be one part of the legislative process. Many would have to follow, including, if it came to it, President Trump signing that
[1:23]legislation. The prospect of that signature seems, at this moment, dim. But Epstein's victims have been at this quest of transparency and accountability
[1:33]for a very long time. They do not relish this agonizing quest, but appear undeterred in it. In the House, Republicans and Democrats on the Oversight Committee are on
[1:44]different tracks in terms of evidence they are pursuing and when they release it. Yesterday, Democrats released documents and emails and their meaning already the
[1:54]subject of intense debate. We will ask one of the foremost journalists in all Epstein matters, as well as an Epstein victim, about this particular moment in
[2:04]the Epstein saga, for its importance and potential political power appear only to be growing. Not because the victims of Jeffrey Epstein are political, but because,
[2:14]possibly for the first time, their simple, persistent calls for visibility, clarity, and justice have, for whatever set of reasons, become salient,
[2:24]unsilenceable. We begin with Weijia Jiang at the White House. Weijia, the White House appears in its statements to be at sort of a battle stations point
[2:35]of view on this, combative and locked in. What is it today that the White House is saying? Major, the White House would prefer not
[2:46]to be saying anything about this. This is a story that the president and his team wants to go away. In fact, it's very telling that last night on live television in the Oval Office, President
[2:58]Trump signed that funding bill into law to formally reopen the government. And it's one of the rare times he decided not to take a single question from
[3:09]reporters while inside that room doing exactly what he did. Um and so that squares with what we have seen from other administration officials, too,
[3:20]which you're right, they will certainly be the first to defend and the first to uh call out Democrats who they say are simply trying to paint a false narrative
[3:30]of the president. But again, this is not something that they are actively trying to address um because, again, they would rather talk about just about anything
[3:41]except Jeffrey Epstein. Weijia, I remember covering the first Trump administration and there were tangles then with Michael Wolff, an author who wrote a book about the Trump administration then. Michael Wolff is
[3:53]back in this conversation now and the White House has plenty to say, not very much of it complimentary, about Michael Wolff. Right, this is a long-time reporter who
[4:03]has written extensively, even an entire book about uh Donald Trump, President Trump. And he is in these emails, which is why he is also at the center of many
[4:14]of these attacks from White House officials. In fact, just yesterday, he was on a podcast describing the relationship that he found in his reporting between Epstein and President
[4:25]Trump. Um and essentially said, "Look, this wasn't just two guys who happened to know each other, who ran in the same circles. These were two guys who spent a lot of time together, who knew a lot
[4:36]about each other. And today, the director of White House Communications, Steven Cheung, who is often quite colorful in his statements, uh issued
[4:48]one about Wolff to say that he is a lying sack of expletive and has been proven to be a fraud. He goes on to say that Wolff routinely fabricates stories
[5:00]um and called him sick and warped and said he has uh a case of Trump's Arrangement Syndrome, Major. So, uh you know, this is not particularly new for Steven
[5:11]Cheung, but it is very telling uh that he is going directly after Michael Wolff, who again um just spoke out about the emails yesterday. Getting us started tonight on
[5:23]the North Lawn of the White House, Weijia Jiang, thank you so very much. Earlier, I spoke with Annie Farmer. She survived sexual abuse at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein and has advocated for the full release of the Epstein files.
[5:34]Please take a listen. First question, Annie, you appeared on the steps of the Capitol not so long ago advocating for the discharge petition, a legislative vehicle
[5:45]to possibly win the release of all the Epstein files. How are you feeling at this moment when it appears that might actually happen in the House? It was incredible to see Grijalva um you
[5:58]know, sworn in yesterday finally and know that her signature gets us, you know, one very big step closer to pursuing this transparency that we are all um we've all come together to
[6:08]support and really to demand. So, it felt I think it felt surreal for many of us to know that we were we were closer to the truth than ever before. There are those who look at this, Annie,
[6:19]and wonder, is there a political agenda? Do you want to address that? I'd be happy to address that. Yeah, I mean, I think that one of the many
[6:31]frustrations that survivors in this case have felt and expressed is that we this this case has been politicized, but it is not political. This is not a
[6:40]partisan issue. The sexual abuse of children and young women is is in no way partisan. And in fact, you know, when my sister, Maria Farmer, first reported
[6:51]this, that was 1996. We've had five administrations uh you know, come and go since then, right? Like many, many directors of the FBI. This is always something that
[7:02]survivors have wanted is more information about what went wrong here. Why was there Why was just Why didn't we see justice? So, the fact that um you
[7:13]know, there has been more call and interest at this time, I think that just means that, you know, Americans have are learning more and are more interested in wanting that information to be released,
[7:24]but um for us, it is not political. And of course, some now in positions of prominence within the Trump administration were vocally calling for
[7:34]that transparency not so long ago. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I think that that's, you know, one of the things that is confusing to us is that, you know, there
[7:45]have been people that have been that were part of that are part of the administration that campaigned on um making sure that these files would be released. And I think that really made a
[7:57]lot of Americans, you know, more curious and want to understand what had gone wrong. And now they're in positions of power and we're just saying, "Please follow through with your promises." Right? Um and it hasn't happened. And in
[8:08]fact, you know, the way that things have um unfolded, there has been it felt like just one stall after another and that's really hard on the individuals
[8:18]that, you know, like myself, um my sister, so many of the survivors I know personally, this trickle of information is really difficult, right? Um we're
[8:28]just asking for the the full files to be released, so we don't have to continue to live, you know, in this roller coaster world where you never know what's coming one day to the next.
[8:39]When I talked to the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, about this several weeks ago, he said, "Well, we need to be very careful about the victims, about the survivors, and that we don't release information that is harmful to them,
[8:51]either reputationally or otherwise." From your vantage point, Annie Farmer, is that a valid point of view? Of Yeah, of course, it is important that
[9:01]survivors who do not want to be revealed would not be revealed. But I think that the this Epstein Transparency Act has that built into it. And I feel that, unfortunately, that is being Protecting
[9:12]the survivors is being used as an excuse to delay the release of this information. All of the survivors that I know and am in touch with are in support of this bill because it does have provisions
[9:23]built in for that. So, saying, "No, we can't pass this legislation because we need to protect survivors." I don't I don't think I don't believe it. You have a unique perspective on all
[9:33]this, Annie. You are, I believe, the only person to identify yourself by name and testify against, and correct me if I'm wrong, both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
[9:44]So, you have been among the most brave, if not the most brave, survivor. All of this cascading around you, uh I just want to check, how are you
[9:55]doing? How are you feeling? Um well, I just you know, I guess for me I want to say that I think you know, my ability to come forward and speak out is really based on the the women that have
[10:06]inspired me. You know, first of all, my sister Maria Farmer who was the first to report Epstein in 1996. Um and and then also very much Virginia Giuffre. You
[10:16]know, I think right now the world is getting to know her better through her memoir and um you know, her powerful example of being so bold and clear about speaking out about these crimes was also
[10:28]you know, very much an inspiration for me. Um but I think that luckily there are many of us and as we come together, I think we just feel stronger and stronger. The more voices we have, the
[10:39]louder we get and I think that um we are nervous right now because it feels like there's a lot at stake, but I also think we feel we feel really emboldened. Um
[10:50]and I'm hopeful that we're at a place where we are really going to see um that all of our us coming together is going to make a difference. Before I let you go, Annie, two questions. President Trump again this
[11:01]week described this as the Jeffrey Epstein hoax and there have been lots of reporting about the way that Ghislaine Maxwell has been treated in this different federal
[11:11]prison she has been moved to. I'd like your thoughts on both. Sure. Um yeah, first in terms of the the you know, comment about it being a hoax, I think it's um
[11:22]I I feel confused about what that means. I never know what he means when he says that. Obviously, there's so many of us. I don't think the American people think this is a hoax, but what I will say is there has been a lot of misinformation
[11:33]that has floated around this case for a long time. And actually that misinformation is very damaging to those of us involved um and very confusing. And so to in my mind, the best way of
[11:44]making sure we have the facts about this straight and we can separate fact from fiction when it comes to the Epstein case is to release all of the DOJ's files, right? They investigated. There's
[11:56]a ton of information. So I I think that that just speaks to the importance of transparency. Um and then on your second question in terms of Maxwell's treatment, you know, I think we've just
[12:07]seen more and more that um it feels like she is getting this yeah, this privileged treatment that is not typical for an inmate, especially someone who is
[12:17]a sex offender at her level and it's extremely problematic. You know, it seems like further evidence that there's these two different sort of um systems
[12:28]of justice at play and because of her connections and because of her privilege and perhaps because of what she knows, she is being given you know, benefits that others are not and I think it sends
[12:38]a very dangerous message and I hope that that I hope that that ends. Annie Farmer, thank you very much for your time. Thank you so much, Major. I want to bring in Barry Levine who has
[12:51]covered the Jeffrey Epstein story for years. He is the author of an excellent book, The Spider, Inside the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
[13:00]So, the release of the emails yesterday, when you looked at those and you want to tell my audience what to focus on, sort of separate the signal from the noise,
[13:10]what advice would you give them? Well, Major, I was looking for two things. One, of course, and I wrote an op-ed in The New York Times back in the summer, what I would look for for
[13:21]answers in the Epstein files. It's unfortunate that it took the oversight committee to step around the DOJ and go to Jeffrey Epstein's estate and subpoena uh
[13:33]the emails that we saw yesterday. But I'm looking for two things and one, of course, which is on the minds of everyone is what exactly was the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and President
[13:44]Trump and I think that we learned some startling news from that and also I'm looking for additional names of men
[13:54]that could possibly be prosecuted who aided Jeffrey Epstein in his sex trafficking and I think we learned a little bit of both yesterday.
[14:05]And in the emails, it is quite clear that Jeffrey Epstein had a wide almost incalculably wide circle of associates.
[14:16]People who were celebrities, people who were either in foreign governments or leaders of foreign governments, business tycoons and the like. What does that tell you? You probably
[14:26]knew most of that, but did you find anything revelatory there? Well, Major, I think it reinforced the research that I did on my book that Jeffrey Epstein has always viewed
[14:37]himself as smarter than everybody else and he also has collected people all along the way, particularly over the two decades through his sex trafficking. And
[14:47]that was always to get secrets and bits of information about individuals that he could pass to other people. He trafficked in this. And that was something that we saw in the emails. I
[14:58]mean, here he was offering up what he called insight into Donald Trump to the Russians, to Putin. So, this man, of
[15:07]course, he was a monster. The sexual abuse and the rapes of these underage girls for two decades, but at the same time,
[15:17]this man was able to communicate with people very close to heads of state who were taking information from him seriously. It just shows you how
[15:29]diabolical Jeffrey Epstein was. Did you read, Barry, in those emails evidence of complicity with Jeffrey Epstein?
[15:39]Well, I think that there was possible complicity involving some of the um statements that he made in some of the emails to uh individuals. Um
[15:51]Again, there was there was new names in some of the emails that I think investigators need to look at. In particular, I jumped on the name of a uh modeling agent who in a similar fashion
[16:02]to Jean-Luc Jean-Luc Brunel who brought underage girls from overseas to Jeffrey Epstein for abuse. There was another man. What was interesting about this other individual is that he also apparently
[16:14]provided young models for Donald Trump's modeling agency uh when Donald Trump ran that agency. It's not to say that there was wrongdoing on the part of Trump's
[16:25]modeling agency, but it is interesting how both Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump were moving in the same circles with enablers
[16:35]um for for both of their agencies. I want to play for you sound, Barry, from Michael Wolff, the author we talked about earlier in the program on the Daily Beast podcast. Please listen.
[16:46]Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein had this deep relationship. They knew everything about about each other and then they then they fell out with enormous acrimony, but for more than a
[16:57]decade, that's what they were doing and their obsession was women, girls, models. Barry, evaluate that. I've got about a
[17:08]minute. Yeah, I mean, that that pretty much is true. Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump partied together, they entertained um
[17:18]women together, particularly back in the '90s uh at at Mar-a-Lago and elsewhere in Palm Beach and New York. Uh that is not surprising. What, of course, is most
[17:29]interesting from the emails is the fact that Jeffrey Epstein claims that Donald Trump knew about him and the women and
[17:40]and of course, this is something that is a question in terms of did Donald Trump really know about Jeffrey Epstein's conduct? When did he learn that, if so?
[17:51]And did he do anything to report that information to authorities? And we do not have, Barry, to your point, clarity on that question of what knowing
[18:01]means, Yes. what knowing represents and what knowing might portend as this goes forward either judicially or politically. Barry Levine, thank you so much for your time. I
[18:11]appreciate it. Thank you, Major. To another top story that we're following, a very important one. US forces have killed four people in the latest strike on an alleged drug boat in
[18:20]the Caribbean. This is the 20th strike by the United States that has targeted vessels in both the Caribbean and Pacific. All of those vessels are described as drug carrying vessels from
[18:31]designated terrorist organizations. And here's the really important part. Multiple sources tell CBS News that senior military officials yesterday briefed President Trump on potential
[18:42]military operations for Venezuela. Among the options, strikes on that country. I want to bring in James LaPorta who's been following this for CBS News. James,
[18:53]what can you tell us? So, your intro pretty much lays out what we know about the latest strike. Um we know four people are dead. We know that the air strike occurred on Veterans Day on on Tuesday.
[19:04]And and you know, the only other fact we know is that no US servicemen were injured. Other than that, we don't have a video. Uh typically, the Defense Department, President Trump have they have declassified those videos
[19:16]>> And posted them almost posted them very rapidly. very rapidly. So, we don't have a video yet, but given that we've almost had a video after every one of these strikes, I would suspect that we they would probably very likely publish that
[19:27]soon. But that's the the facts that we know and and so far with this latest strike, that brings the total to [snorts] 80 dead and uh two rescued. About the options presented to President
[19:39]Trump, in what context were those options presented? Actionable? Do we imagine something might be decided in the next few days? And what do you what does your reporting, James, tell you
[19:50]about the internal US government deliberations about the legality of anything inside Venezuela. Right. So, the military the the fence department is a is a planning institution. They'll say that themselves.
[20:00]>> all the time. They say it all the time. Uh what they've been doing over the past couple months uh in addition to the strikes on on these alleged drug boats
[20:09]is moving the chess pieces in a sense. What that gives uh them options to present to the president to give him a basically a a Waffle House menu of
[20:19]choices that he could choose from. Uh And this week was important because the carrier group USS Gerald Ford entered the area of operation. >> That's right. And here's the option that that gives. I I I was talking to um
[20:31]uh senior leaders in the military by moving the Ford into place uh it gives you the option to suppress enemy air defenses in Venezuela.
[20:40]Venezuela has the S-300, which is a uh missile defense system. Uh uh so by moving the Ford into place you can have what's called SEAD or suppression of
[20:50]enemy air defenses. The Ford has nine different um um fighter squadrons on board. They also have planes that specialize in jamming. Uh communications, GPS, things like that.
[21:01]Uh so you would move the Ford in place to sustain those operations against enemy air defenses which opens the door for land strikes. If in fact that is what the president wants to do.
[21:12]>> Correct. And so far so this meeting at the White House yesterday was to present this these options to the president. He has not decided. He has not decided yet. Uh our our sources were clear that he's
[21:22]not made a decision. But it was to go over here's the chess pieces we've moved into place. This is the current intelligence that we have and this is what you you you could if you were so
[21:33]inclined. That's right. James LaPorta, excellent reporting. I appreciate that very very much. Still to come on The Takeout. Arguments from lawyers for James Comey and Letitia James to dismiss both cases presented against them. We
[21:44]look at what happened today inside the courtroom. Also it required [music] divisions within the Democratic Party to reopen the government. Our political panel weighs in on the state of the party post
[21:55]shutdown. [music] Plus Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and a conservative think tank under fire. [music] A dive into the state of anti-Semitism on the far right.
[22:03]The Takeout returns in 90 seconds. Welcome back to The Takeout. Attorneys representing both James Comey and
[22:15]Letitia James appeared in court today to argue for the dismissal of their federal indictments on grounds that the prosecutor who obtained those charges was appointed unlawfully. Lindsay Halligan was tapped as the interim US
[22:27]attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in September after serving as a senior aide to President Trump. Her office secured the indictments against the former FBI director and the current New York attorney general after
[22:38]President Trump publicly called for them to be prosecuted. Scott McFarland following all this for us. Scott, what happened today? Pretty short hearing considering the scope and size and unprecedented nature
[22:49]of what was being argued. For about 90 minutes different arguments from James Comey's defense attorney and Letitia James' attorney, but they kind of had some crossing paths. What they're both saying is that Lindsay Halligan was the
[23:01]only Justice Department prosecutor in the room with the grand jury when they secured the indictments. Her name was the only one on the case initially. So if she's not lawfully appointed these
[23:11]cases collapse. There's no second chair in the grand jury room or on the charging documents. Now what the Department of Justice argued in response is that in the days after the attorney general
[23:21]they called ratified or validated the case, put her name on it as well. It complicates things in several different ways, but for James Comey statute of limitations is over. If
[23:31]there's a complication due to the nature of the prosecutor's appointment that could be fatal for the case. Is there any other grounds the defense for either Comey or James will pursue separate from this argument presented today?
[23:43]>> You bet. Next week they're going to both argue that they are the victims of vindictive selective prosecution. Forget the legality of the prosecutor herself. They're going to argue this is political. It's a weaponized government
[23:53]and they're going to show all the prior statements Trump has made about each of them. In fact this is interesting. Letitia James has submitted to the court a few dozen pages of printed out Truth
[24:04]Social posts from the president in which she is specifically name-checked. A component of a broader argument for vindictive prosecution. Something else will happen today in regards to Eric Swalwell, a member of Congress,
[24:14]California Democrat. Also a one-time impeachment manager in a Trump impeachment trial. Eric Swalwell is the latest person who's a critic of the president to get a recommendation from a
[24:24]Trump official in the housing agency for criminal referral for possible prosecution for some type of mortgage fraud for a second home. Similar arguments have been made against Adam
[24:34]Schiff against Lisa Cook of the Federal Reserve, against Letitia James. In Virginia criminal referrals to the Department of Justice are like press releases. Anybody can send a criminal referral but this Department of Justice has seen fit
[24:46]to act on some of them. Scott McFarland, always a pleasure, sir. Thank you. More than a dozen Democrats in the House and Senate if you put them all together voted with Republicans this week to end the government shutdown. Are we seeing
[24:57]the party hit a small small snag [music] when it comes to unity? Or is this something bigger and more important? We'll discuss next. You're watching The Takeout. Welcome back. Thanks for hanging out
[25:13]with us. Here's a look at what else we and now you are watching this evening. Pennsylvania Democratic Senator John Fetterman hospitalized after a fall near his spokesperson says he felt light-headed
[25:23]due to an irregular heartbeat and fell. Fetterman only sustained minor injuries but remains in the hospital for observation. The senator had only one quote to pass
[25:33]along saying "If you thought my face looked bad before, wait until you see it now." Well, that's how you handle a pratfall. You make a quip about it. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced
[25:44]today that TSA agents who showed quote "exemplary service" during the government shutdown will receive $10,000 bonuses. The exact parameters for the extra pay
[25:55]were not clear, but Noem went on to say "It is for those who showed up each day and then also took on extra shifts." Air traffic control employees are expected to get back pay in the coming
[26:05]days now that the 43-day-long government shutdown is over. I think what is so important for folks to understand is that
[26:16]this problem is bigger than one person. And it's actually as big as the the minority leader in the Senate. That Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and it reinforced what
[26:27]some of the Democrats are thinking that the shutdown vote highlights some fissures within the Democratic legislative block in the House and Senate. And that was a sort of side eye reference to the minority leader of the
[26:39]Senate, Chuck Schumer who many believe Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is at least thinking about challenging in the future. I want to bring in our political panel, Republican strategist Ashley
[26:50]Davis and Democratic strategist Megan Hayes. Megan, let me start with you. What do you make of what AOC has to say and how she was always name-checked as the reason Schumer was being
[27:00]intransigent during the shutdown itself? Well, I think that's a little bit short-sighted of what we're doing. We also her comments are a little short-sighted. I don't The Democrats and the rest of Congress understood that we
[27:10]Democrats lost leverage if the subsidies expired. So they needed to make a deal and Republicans made it known what, 15 times that they were not going to make a deal. So they got back pay for employees. They got the riff people
[27:21]reinstated. They got snap benefits you know, funded for another year. And then they got they were guaranteed a vote. That is the best that they were going to do. But if you went any further you were going to snarl traffic for Thanksgiving and the goodwill was going
[27:32]to wear off for Democrats. So I do think it's a little short-sighted of of AOC to be so um so bold in her statement, but I do understand that this politics and she's taking political she's going to
[27:42]take political cover under it. Ashley, your interpretation of the way the Democrats approached the shutdown and how the shutdown ended. Was it for you entirely predictable? Well, absolutely, but I actually have to
[27:53]say like both sides were just wrong. Like why are we shutting down the government? I mean maybe I've lived in Washington way too long. But I just think that it's not good for the American people. I mean we're playing
[28:04]politics. Republicans were playing politics. Democrats were definitely playing politics. And it just wasn't a good outcome. And by the way, we could have shut this down four weeks ago because the same outcome
[28:14]came. But on the AOC front I would have to say it's kind of like the Trump movement was. I mean obviously a lot older, but I mean AOC is a movement which is people just tired of government.
[28:26]>> of insurgent voice within the Democratic Party. Just not the Democratic Party, just government. >> Right. In general. I mean that's what Trump did. That's why Trump had a lot of the African-American vote. He had a lot of the Hispanic vote. He had a lot of
[28:37]the people that never voted before because it was people tired of government. Uh and that's exactly what AOC's doing and Ilhan Omar. So, something is happening in California
[28:49]after the election results. Proposition 50 passed overwhelmingly. Now the Trump Justice Department is trying to sue over the legality of that. And also an indictment was released yesterday of the former chief of staff of Gavin Newsom,
[29:00]the Democratic governor. Megan. I mean I think that people get infected >> focus on Gavin Newsom. Yeah. I Yeah. I I just think that people get infected with power and clearly she did something wrong and this really has nothing to do
[29:11]with Gavin Newsom or anybody else. She stole money out of someone's campaign >> According to the indictment. According to the indictment. Sorry, allegedly. And that's that's that is illegal and she needs to pay the consequences. But it doesn't matter if she worked for Gavin Newsom or if she worked for Ashley
[29:22]Davis. Like she did something illegal and she should be held or being alleged she did something illegal. That's the consequence of having people that work for you. >> Especially as a politician. But I mean listen. Do I like what Gavin Newsom
[29:32]stands for? No. But is it his fault? No. Right. And on this question of the legality of Proposition 50 Gavin Newsom and the attorney general of California have said bring it on. We
[29:43]know what we did. We know why we did it and we have every legal right to do it. Ashley, that's probably not going to go very far. No, it's not. But listen, I I said this from the beginning, too, which is why we get along so well. I mean, I'm like when we did this in Texas, this is
[29:54]what's happening. I mean, if you look at what's happening with redistricting >> at Trump's behest in Texas. Absolutely, but let's be honest. It started in Illinois like years ago. I mean, so I mean, and and and and and and and and
[30:05]and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and and >> this is not If we want to have
[30:17]bipartisanship in this country, and especially in the government, like this is not how it works, to be honest with you, because it's going to be more polarizing. >> Right. It just creates more antagonism and more sort of pitch battles state by
[30:28]state by state. >> But I also think that you're really polarizing people in a weird way, because you are expecting people to vote a certain way that is we have been seeing time and time again, they do not vote that way. And I think that Trump overplayed his hand in Texas with
[30:40]thinking all these Latino voters were going to go for him in the in the valley, and they're just not. And so, they're trying to redistrict, and and you saw in the last election in in New Jersey and Virginia that overwhelmingly that coalition went back to Democrats.
[30:52]So, they could really be overplaying their hand in Texas. >> Well, let's like say this, though, like they may vote for him, but they may not vote for a Republican. No, and so, I totally agree with you. So, like if you're redistricting all
[31:02]this way, like Trump has, just like AOC may with the like young voters, like all the Republicans keep saying, "Let's run against AOC." And I'm like, "No, she brings out something."
[31:14]>> And Ashley, you know, there's something I want to pursue with you for a moment. We have about a minute or so left. Um Republicans are talking about the post-Trump world. >> Mhm. He's not going to be on the ballot. He is a driver of turnout. He has been in every single election he's been at
[31:26]the top of the ballot. But this post-Trump world, what does it look like? Who leads it? What are your thoughts on that? I think it's way too early. I I wonder if people are just tired of the
[31:37]Trump world in 2 and 1/2 years when, you know, someone's running again. I mean, does Right now, the frontrunners, obviously, are J.D. or whatever you want to say. Marco Rubio. Those are the two ones who sort of look at each other. Every time they're in the club together,
[31:49]they're staring at each other. >> because if people are just tired of the Trump world, is that real? And but J.D.'s not Trump. Like no one's Trump. That's right. No one can bring out the vote.
[32:01]>> That's right. I'm just tired of people asking who the Democratic leader is going to be, so we can definitely shift that over and keep asking, but people are tired are going to be tired of the cast, just like they were in 20, and that's how we ended up with Joe Biden and not Donald Trump again. So, it'll be
[32:12]really interesting to see who takes the mantle. Ashley give us and Megan Hayes. Appreciate it. Thanks so much. Remember, the candy doesn't eat itself. I know. [laughter] I'm looking at it. Oh, over here. Camera one. You keep pointing at it. I'm keep
[32:22]reading there. Next, the influential conservative think tank that has found itself front and center in the fight over anti-Semitism on the far right. It's called the Heritage Foundation. More on that when we come back. You're
[32:31][music] watching The Takeout. Welcome back. The president of the very
[32:42]influential conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, is facing internal backlash for defending Tucker Carlson's recent interview with white nationalist and Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. The
[32:53]Heritage Foundation, you probably remember, known for crafting Project 2025. Its president, Kevin Roberts, has since apologized for these comments that
[33:02]sparked several resignations. And we will always defend our friends against the slander of bad actors who serve someone else's agenda.
[33:13]That includes Tucker Carlson. I disagree with and even abhor things that Nick Fuentes says. But canceling him is not the answer, either.
[33:24]Michael Warren has been covering this story, and it's been moving in many different directions for The Dispatch. Michael, I'm so glad you're with us. Thank you. You wrote a piece called Conservatism at the Crossroads. What are the crossroads, and what are
[33:36]the ramifications of these crossroads? Well, it's a question that, as you were talking about in the in the previous segment, Major, sort of where is the future of the Republican Party? And
[33:47]the conservative movement is such a huge part of the Republican Party. Where will conservatives go? Will they sort of draw the line at defense of neo-Nazis and
[33:59]platforming neo-Nazis? And that's really the origin of this whole debate. Kevin Roberts gets up there, that video that you played, defending Tucker Carlson
[34:09]after there was a lot of outrage among conservatives, among conservatives who are pro-Israel, and among conservatives who don't want to associate with neo-Nazis after Tucker Carlson had that
[34:20]interview with Nick Fuentes. A lot of people reacted to Kevin Roberts' defense saying, "What are you doing this for? Why are you going out of your way to defend Tucker Carlson in this moment?"
[34:31]He's eating a lot of crow for this. He's, as you said, facing a lot of resignations from the Heritage Foundation, but also from a sort of broad anti-Semitism, fighting anti-Semitism project that other
[34:43]coalition groups had joined. A lot of those groups have since left that project. And it's been It's been a real problem PR-wise for him, but I think it also suggests that the conservative
[34:55]movement is trying to figure out where that line is, what they're willing to tolerate, who they're willing to tolerate within their movement, and who they're willing to say, "That's too far. We don't want to be associated with
[35:06]you." I don't think they've figured out the answer to that question. And Michael, it seems that there is a stark and very important generational divide within conservatism
[35:18]about liberal democracy, not liberal capital L, small L liberal democracy, the founding principles of this country, authoritarianism, and the like. It's a It's a good question. I've been
[35:32]led to believe since I published this initial story, a lot of people say, you know, it's the loudest voices among young conservatives and the young right who are sort of agitating for more
[35:42]authoritarian views. But the fact is is that that gets a lot of attention, and it can influence minds. And there are a lot of young people for whom the fights
[35:51]of, say, the Ronald Reagan era or and the George W. Bush era feel like fights that conservatives have lost. They want to get, you know, sort of down and dirty, and they view,
[36:03]you know, questions about constitutionalism, rule of law, and sort of following those, as you say, small L liberal democracy rules are for chumps. And in a lot of ways, Donald Trump has
[36:15]opened the door for this. Donald Trump is hard to pin down ideologically, but I think we can all agree he he doesn't like to follow the rules. And that's really opened the door for a lot of these young conservatives for whom
[36:27]Donald Trump is is really the only conservative or Republican president that they they know of. Michael, we got about a minute and a half. You spent a minute talking about President Trump, J.D. Vance, the vice president. They
[36:38]have been silent while all this has been roiling for the past two or three weeks. How much longer can they be that way? I I guess as long as they choose to be, hoping maybe that this kind of blows
[36:50]over. Although, it's interesting that this continues almost every single day. There continues to be another development, another person associated with, say, the Heritage Foundation who
[36:59]who pulls away or or speaks out. And I think that suggests that maybe it's not going away. I don't think Donald Trump particularly cares about what's going on at the Heritage Foundation. He was
[37:11]frustrated, in fact, with the Project 2025 stuff that that kind of frustrated his campaign in 2024. I think J.D. Vance has going to have a lot of questions lobbed at him on that debate stage in
[37:23]2028. And I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Ted Cruz, who's been very vocal on on this point and critical critical of Tucker Carlson, if he's the one lobbing those questions and and tough
[37:34]questions for the vice president as maybe they both run for president. Michael Warren from The Dispatch, I appreciate your time, sir. Frank, thank you very, very much. Next, a new book that argues the fall of the Soviet Union was incomplete, and the Cold War,
[37:45]believe it or not, never ended. My conversation with Russian-born journalist Mikhail Zygar on his new book on the state of Russian fascis- fascism. I'll say it correctly. That's next here
[37:56]on The Takeout. >> [music] >> Welcome back to The Takeout. A new book
[38:11]takes a very close look into the fall of the Soviet Union and what it calls Russia's, quote, short-lived victory over totalitarianism. Earlier, I spoke to Mikhail Zygar on his book The Dark
[38:22]Side of the Earth. Let's listen. I want to get to the book The Dark Side of the Earth, but first, Russia's in the headlines a lot for Americans now. What parts of your book or what things
[38:33]you want of people to understand from your book apply to headlines today involving Russia, whether it's Ukraine or anything else? I think
[38:44]somehow I feel that the title of the book applies to the world we live right now, because we are somehow on the dark side of the Earth, because we somehow we live in the world that does
[38:55]not believe in in democracy any longer. And it seems to me that there we all remember all those years when when democracy was fashionable everywhere across the world. It was like It was not
[39:07]okay to be a dictator. A A lot of dictators in the Eastern Bloc or in Latin America, Augusto Pinochet, who was who was Chilean dictator, and he was not close to Soviet Union. He was kind of
[39:17]pro-Western dictator. But he he resigned. He accepted the referendum at the same time when when pro-Soviet dictators were abdicating, were accepting their
[39:28]the wills of of their peoples. So, in the late '80s, in the early '90s, democracy was everywhere. Francis Fukuyama called it the end of history.
[39:38]And yeah, it was not the end, but still, it was clearly the the bright side of the earth. We were we knew that the future the future
[39:48]the future had had to be better. And now we have completely different world. We see that like democracy is not that cool. It's okay to be dictator for many guys for
[40:00]Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orban. A lot of people in different parts of the world are not not shy to be that to be authoritarian.
[40:10]So and it does seem to me that a lot of people in the world are really hesitating about about democracy. Does it really exist?
[40:20]So yeah, I I think as such the I brought this book because yeah we we should remember how how Soviet how authoritarian system collapsed and it
[40:31]collapsed because of because of people who believed in democracy. A lot of people truly uh people in the Soviet Union and in in Western in Eastern Europe. People a
[40:42]lot of people really did that and Soviet Union was crushed mostly by those true believers. And why do you think we are in this
[40:53]space now? Because you raise a very important question very early in the book. Who won the Cold War? It's hard to answer now. Harder than it was maybe 20 years ago.
[41:04]20 years ago it looked clear. The West won the Cold War. But it feels like to your point there's not if not decay the sense of skepticism if not deep-seated suspicion about the
[41:13]benefits of democracy. So who really won this great ideological conflict of the 20th century? You know, it's a bad taste to answer with with a question, but another
[41:24]question I've got for you and has it really ended? Has it really ended? Maybe that's an even better question. >> Probably probably we we are still living
[41:34]through the some some kind of new Cold War or or maybe it's the same Cold War because a lot of people love Cold War. We we we used to think that there was
[41:45]some kind of generation of cold of cold warriors and that generation kind of gone. But we we definitely see that Vladimir Putin is the person who was brought up
[41:56]in Soviet Union. He was he was raised with Soviet values and what is the most important Soviet value? Cynicism. He was raised with that knowledge that he should not believe in
[42:07]anything. There is no communism, there is no better future. You should be cynical, you should try to to take anything you you you can find
[42:17]and he's now exporting that that kind of cynicism and and he is very cynical in in recreating or in in maintaining the
[42:28]same the same old Cold War. And a lot of a lot of I think he's not the only one. A lot of people in the world love Cold War. And how should we think about what you just said in the context of the
[42:39]Russian invasion of Ukraine? Yeah, I think Russian invasion of Ukraine is needed by Vladimir Putin because he wants he wants this war. He wants
[42:49]to have external enemy. He wants to repress Russian people. He wants to recreate the atmosphere of of fear in the country because the
[43:00]you know, I'm um I'm writing quite a lot about Russian invasion of Ukraine, about Russian politics and for for me it has always been the war for Russia mostly rather
[43:11]rather than a war for Ukraine because yeah, it's terrible that the victims of this war are the Ukrainians, but Putin started it because he wants to stay in power forever. He
[43:23]wants to keep you know, he belongs to the generation that never had a hope to come to power. You can listen to our entire
[43:34]conversation on your favorite podcast platform. Happy Thursday everyone. [music] This is the takeout. Relentlessly curious, reliably civil, occasionally clever. The daily report is coming up
[43:45]next.