Speaker 1: Hi, I'm Molly John Fast and this is Fast Politics,
Speaker 1: where we discussed the top political headlines with some of
Speaker 1: today's best minds and Washington Post ABC News IPSOS poll
Speaker 1: says Democrats have a fourteen point advantage in certainty that
Speaker 1: they will vote in the midterms, the widest since at
Speaker 1: least two thousand and six. We have such a great
Speaker 1: joke for you today, talking FEDS. Harry Littman stops by
Speaker 1: to talk about the interesting details of the DOJ hiding
Speaker 1: a report that alleges trumpet sexual interactions with the minor.
Speaker 1: Then we'll talk to Congressman Jared Moscow. It's about how
Speaker 1: the public might be able to see more of the
Speaker 1: Epstein files. But first the news.
Speaker 2: Milly, I know last night you were like, I can't
Speaker 2: believe how much I enjoyed President Trump's State of the
Speaker 2: Union speech. You were just texting me feveredly like, yes,
Speaker 2: these are the greatest moments of my life. Well, I'm
Speaker 2: going to shock you here to tell you since I
Speaker 2: was being very sarcastic, that's how everyone else felt. And
Speaker 2: this is the least popular speech of the century that's
Speaker 2: been pulled.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about this poll here. Donald Trump's State of
Speaker 1: the Union speech least popular this century. Usually polls are
Speaker 1: split like four ways or five ways, you know, disagree,
Speaker 1: strongly disagree, you know, a neutral option, agree and strongly agree.
Speaker 1: What happened here is that Donald Trump he has like
Speaker 1: the haters. They're really strongly disagreeing, and his hater numbers
Speaker 1: are really really high.
Speaker 2: Would you say that this might be the haters and
Speaker 2: the losers.
Speaker 1: So voters are unconvinced that Trump will lower the cost
Speaker 1: of living, and there's a reason for that, and that's
Speaker 1: because he won't.
Speaker 2: What was also really interesting is the c SPED dial
Speaker 2: poll last night that tanked for him. Like people, even
Speaker 2: the Republicans turned down the dial toy. We don't believe
Speaker 2: that what do you say is true?
Speaker 1: It was a speech where Trump did a lot of
Speaker 1: his usual shtick, and the cost of living problems are big,
Speaker 1: and you have someone who has literally come into office
Speaker 1: and has made things worse and was offered I mean,
Speaker 1: I think voters sort of understand that. Overturning the tariffs
Speaker 1: the way the Supreme Court did gave Donald Trump an
Speaker 1: off ramp, which he refused to take. Nearly two thirds
Speaker 1: of speech watchers said they had at least a somewhat
Speaker 1: positive reaction to Trump's speech. So remember those are, by
Speaker 1: the way, Republicans, right, because most of the people who
Speaker 1: were watching that speech were Republicans, and they didn't like
Speaker 1: it as much as they had liked it last year.
Speaker 1: So I mean, you're really seeing, like the speech and
Speaker 1: the pulling all sort of reflecting the same sense, which
Speaker 1: is that after a decade of this, even Trump's most
Speaker 1: fervent folks are getting exhausted.
Speaker 2: Well, if you wanted more proof about how unpopular he is.
Speaker 2: During the State of the Union last night, Democrats won
Speaker 2: three elections.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So they were special elections, as there are often
Speaker 1: on Tuesdays. These were two in Pennsylvania and one in
Speaker 1: the Great State of Maine and their state legislative seats.
Speaker 1: And again you have a democratic governor in both of
Speaker 1: those states, and Shapiro is like this very popular governor.
Speaker 1: Mills polls much as well. But they both need to
Speaker 1: have a democratic state house in order to get anything done.
Speaker 1: So these are big wins for both of them. And
Speaker 1: again it just shows that special elections Democrats have been
Speaker 1: wildly overperforming.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we've been seeing that consistently throughout the last year.
Speaker 2: Since Trump was elected and goes along with a lot
Speaker 2: of pulling are seeing So I know you and I
Speaker 2: have often been skeptical of some pulling, but uh, the
Speaker 2: elections keep lining up with the polls.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: All that's about to change, though, because the face of
Speaker 1: this administration, that giddy young fellow, everyone's favorite FBI.
Speaker 2: Head can get you here is either face or the
Speaker 2: eyes of the administration.
Speaker 1: I was trying not to do that.
Speaker 2: Well, what the FBI is always watching, BALI that's what
Speaker 2: I met by that.
Speaker 1: Yes, so the FBI, which has historically been headed by
Speaker 1: a serious suit wearing kind of boring Republican but you know,
Speaker 1: sort of can I.
Speaker 2: Give you another pushbuck suit wearing j Edgar Hoover. I
Speaker 2: don't think that's what it was.
Speaker 1: We knew just said.
Speaker 3: So.
Speaker 1: The job once occupied by boring tall guy James call
Speaker 1: me is now occupied by short, party loving Cash Battale.
Speaker 1: This weekend, he took the jet to the men's hockey game,
Speaker 1: where he then did an incredible TikTok of drinking beer
Speaker 1: in Milan discuss So.
Speaker 2: When Charlie Kirk, who is a hero for them, was murdered,
Speaker 2: it took a little while for the investigation to get
Speaker 2: started because somebody was busily traveling on some jets that
Speaker 2: they weren't supposed to do.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, and we keep seeing this again and again.
Speaker 1: When the federal government works, nobody thinks about it. It's like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's like federal aviation. When it works, you
Speaker 1: just don't think about it if you're a normal airline flyer.
Speaker 1: But when it doesn't work, everybody notices. And so we
Speaker 1: saw this this summer when the FBI took somebody in
Speaker 1: it wasn't the right guy. Tweeted about how they had
Speaker 1: somebody in custody. Wasn't the right guy. And this is
Speaker 1: the thing we've seen before too, with a lot of
Speaker 1: these different high profile cases, is that the FBI take
Speaker 1: somebody in the follow a tip it doesn't work. And
Speaker 1: this is a whistleblower who I think has got a
Speaker 1: good point here. And look, there's a reason that the
Speaker 1: FBI is historically though again to talk about Hoover for
Speaker 1: a minute, hasn't always been nonpartisan, but it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be nonpartisan. Is because catching bad guys should not be
Speaker 1: a partisan activity. It should just be something that the
Speaker 1: FBI does. That was not why Cash Buttel took the job.
Speaker 1: He took the job to do cool shit like going
Speaker 1: to the Olympics, and during the time when he was
Speaker 1: supposed to be looking for the killer of Charlie Kirk,
Speaker 1: they couldn't get the planes because Patel had been engaged
Speaker 1: in irresponsible joy riding on FBI operated aircraft's at the
Speaker 1: expense of the American taxpayer. I just want to point
Speaker 1: out this is not all that different than what everyone's favorite.
Speaker 1: Christy no secretary of private jets. She's trying to buy
Speaker 1: a new one. She also does.
Speaker 2: That, you know, a legal deportation mascot has circled around
Speaker 2: my brain a lot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a good one. I don't know as someone
Speaker 1: who enjoys plastic surgery, I thought she looked like she
Speaker 1: was melting last night too much. Baby.
Speaker 2: I think that's a general vibe for her. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 2: So when we think of the woke leftist Marxist as
Speaker 2: mister Trump likes to talk about, you know who, I
Speaker 2: often think of that with that as Goldman Sachs. You know,
Speaker 2: they are so so anti capitalist, so and so. One
Speaker 2: of the things we do this economy is built on
Speaker 2: right now, is ai one of the weird things we're
Speaker 2: seeing is all these companies release people from their jobs
Speaker 2: and then go, oh, this didn't help. These AI agents
Speaker 2: are working the way that all the hypists told us
Speaker 2: they would. And so now we have a report from
Speaker 2: Goldman Sachs that is very similar to a report from
Speaker 2: Apple that also said nearly the exact same thing, which
Speaker 2: is AI added basically zero to US economic growth last year.
Speaker 1: Yes, in case you're wondering if AI is a bubble,
Speaker 1: gold In Zacks says, yes, AI added basically zero, which
Speaker 1: means the Donald Trump hockey video, one of the great
Speaker 1: pieces of AI slop, is not adding to our economy.
Speaker 1: I am shocked. It turns out that the AI revolution
Speaker 1: is we don't actually view AI investments as strong growth positive.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of misreporting the impact of
Speaker 1: AI investments had on the US GDP growth in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. It's much smaller than is often perceived. Oh,
Speaker 1: I feel like we're you know, it's like wiley coyote
Speaker 1: running off the cliff.
Speaker 2: You know. And I keep thinking of it's not a
Speaker 2: house of cards. It's a house of cards where the
Speaker 2: cards are printed on it, or a bunch of pictures
Speaker 2: of a very muscular Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Things are going great. Harry Littman is a former US
Speaker 1: attorney in the host of the podcast Talking Feds. Welcome, Welcome, Harry.
Speaker 1: We're having our Talking Feds fast politics matchup, mash up,
Speaker 1: not match up the hope. I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about these Epstein files. So the big news is
Speaker 1: that Congressman Garcia, who actually we've all been talking to.
Speaker 1: I interviewed him yesterday. He's on the scene as the
Speaker 1: ranking member of oversight. James Comer is of course the
Speaker 1: chair of the oversight. Because Republicans control the House, they
Speaker 1: control the committees. But basically this has been reported by
Speaker 1: NPR and also our friend Roger Sullenberger. But there are
Speaker 1: all of these missing files, and what we have is
Speaker 1: the numbers of the files are in the FBI disclosure
Speaker 1: but then the files are missing. Talk us through what
Speaker 1: we're seeing with the Epstein files, and this is just
Speaker 1: this strane of documents.
Speaker 4: It's really true.
Speaker 5: By the way, Good to be with you, Molly, mash
Speaker 5: up excellent, excellent old culture reference. So look, here's the
Speaker 5: important thing, Molly. These are the crown jewel kinds of documents.
Speaker 5: When it came time to what has been revealed before,
Speaker 5: what hasn't What everyone wanted to see was so called
Speaker 5: three oh two reports filed by FBI agents to memorialize interviews.
Speaker 1: I want you to explain exactly what a three tozho
Speaker 1: two document is because I've heard about it endlessly, but
Speaker 1: no one has ever said down and explained to me
Speaker 1: what it is.
Speaker 4: You come in. You're a victim.
Speaker 5: First of all, we saw in that horrendous hearing with
Speaker 5: BONDI most of the victims haven't even had a chance
Speaker 5: to go to the DOJ. This is one who did
Speaker 5: sat down with an FBI agent and gave her a story,
Speaker 5: and the FBI agent sort of mechanistically writes down everything she.
Speaker 4: Said, so we know what the allegations are.
Speaker 1: And that's what a three to OO two and.
Speaker 4: The three h two is that report.
Speaker 5: So from the start we knew there'd be emails that
Speaker 5: don't talk about much. So, by the way, you're really awesome.
Speaker 5: New York Times op ed shows the panoramic scope of
Speaker 5: this whole thing, with all the currency that isn't straight
Speaker 5: up sex trafficking. But these are the very memos that show,
Speaker 5: among other things, what he's alleged to have done, but
Speaker 5: also when the DOJ knew about it and what they
Speaker 5: did about it. So here these are the majority of
Speaker 5: three h two reports from a victim who we know
Speaker 5: was talking about Trump, and somehow mysteriously they've disappeared. It's
Speaker 5: just one example NPR did its detective work. There could
Speaker 5: be others, but this alone, Molly, are the very sorts
Speaker 5: of documents that people who know what's in an FBI
Speaker 5: file have been most eager to see. What exactly did
Speaker 5: the victims tell you? What are the allegations? This is
Speaker 5: the sort of document would use, for example, to build
Speaker 5: a criminal investigation or whatever you would do with it.
Speaker 5: But this is the real, you know, kind of money
Speaker 5: documents of the of the pile.
Speaker 1: And they're missing.
Speaker 5: First of all, I think there's something like fifteen in
Speaker 5: total from this victim. Only one has been made public.
Speaker 5: Apparently some others have been revealed to Congress, but the
Speaker 5: majority have just not been revealed, which we know only
Speaker 5: because NBR happened to stumble across it. So it goes
Speaker 5: to this broader point, if I can, which is somehow
Speaker 5: DOOJ and Todd Blanche, even though they were late and
Speaker 5: non compliant, all the way never said anything about redactions.
Speaker 5: They seem, I think, to be an aposter of raising
Speaker 5: it out with a couple million documents undlivered at least
Speaker 5: from what they'd estimated, and just hope that like, oh,
Speaker 5: we're sort of done now. We did our best, and
Speaker 5: this is an example of what their best it is.
Speaker 1: So let's talk about a three or two for a second.
Speaker 1: We have all of these victims who are hanging out,
Speaker 1: going to events. Some are going to be at the
Speaker 1: State of the Union tonight. We know that Schumer is
Speaker 1: bringing Danny Belski, who's one of the clearest communicators of
Speaker 1: the victims, and I met her before. She's really great.
Speaker 1: All of these victims have told Representative Garcia, have told me,
Speaker 1: have told others that they have sat for three O
Speaker 1: two's and they do not want their testimony to be redacted,
Speaker 1: and they don't understand why it would be redacted. Explain
Speaker 1: to us why a three to two, what the rationale
Speaker 1: for these reactions are if there is a rationale, And
Speaker 1: I also want you to talk about the way this
Speaker 1: law was written. It's written so that BONDI was supposed
Speaker 1: to explain the reactions.
Speaker 4: Great questions and look you and I were together.
Speaker 5: We've been on deadline whin I was with a victim
Speaker 5: who's and I want to add one thing, which is
Speaker 5: my understanding. And this was from the BONDI hearing a
Speaker 5: lot of them wanted to but never got the chance
Speaker 5: to talk to the FBI. Anyway, the FBI sits down
Speaker 5: and takes down everything, including the names of the people
Speaker 5: who were involved, especially the names of the people who
Speaker 5: were involved, and these missing documents we have reason to
Speaker 5: think have Donald Trump all over them, and maybe others who.
Speaker 4: Else could substantiate this, etc. Etc.
Speaker 5: Now the Epstein Transparency Act, this is also really important
Speaker 5: because there are normal rules that the DOJ could apply
Speaker 5: when asked to give documents, for example, don't give over
Speaker 5: grand jury documents. Epstein Transparency Act voted on by every
Speaker 5: member of Congress, but one signed in the law by Trump.
Speaker 5: Trump saw that it says, here are the narrow reasons
Speaker 5: you can redact, and only these, so your other reasons
Speaker 5: are out the window. Redactions they're supposed to make. One
Speaker 5: of them is for victim confidentiality, so we're not supposed
Speaker 5: to find out victim's names. Of course, as it turns out,
Speaker 5: we found out not only victims' names, but also pictures
Speaker 5: and what was redacted a lot of names. It sure
Speaker 5: appears of big shot customers or people otherwise involved with Epstein.
Speaker 5: Witness again your New York Times up in all kinds
Speaker 5: of people.
Speaker 4: He was a concierge to the rich.
Speaker 5: As you put it, they get somehow get blacked out
Speaker 5: even though there's no legal authority. But the final point
Speaker 5: that you raised about Bondie, and there's a lot going
Speaker 5: on with redactions, Yes, they're required, so you can evaluate
Speaker 5: them because anything they could react could potentially yield. They
Speaker 5: have to give a real reason. Well, in this case,
Speaker 5: we're saying this, and here are the three reasons that qualifies.
Speaker 5: They've done that exactly zero times. They've made a few
Speaker 5: kind of general thoughts about why they did it, and
Speaker 5: they've given Congress or court nothing to work with. They
Speaker 5: say they will down the line. That's a really big
Speaker 5: deal for you know, from the lawyer's standpoint, knowing if
Speaker 5: they've done it right. Okay, hey, my turn, but I
Speaker 5: want to stick with Epstein. You know, we find out
Speaker 5: in the last week this huge disconnect between you know,
Speaker 5: clearly the center of Epstein's activity and as you put
Speaker 5: it again is big concierge service doling out jobs in
Speaker 5: Woody Allen movies or the like. Is the United States,
Speaker 5: and here the fallout has been relatively muted and basically
Speaker 5: zero in the government I'm thinking of Howard Latnik in particular.
Speaker 5: But in Europe it's been huge their investigations, not necessarily
Speaker 5: even about the sex stuff. Andrew is now under criminal
Speaker 5: arrest because of maybe having fed him private information. What
Speaker 5: is the kind of political underpinnings of the fact that
Speaker 5: until now the fallout is next to nothing here, the
Speaker 5: real fallout, you know, in terms of like careers and
Speaker 5: as you and like Asha. When Goppa's point about shame
Speaker 5: so much less here than Europe, what the hell?
Speaker 1: So I think that there are two things happening here.
Speaker 1: One is that so there have been two arrests. One
Speaker 1: was Andrew, and we had the King of England saying like,
Speaker 1: don't stop justice on my account. And then we had
Speaker 1: Peter Mandelsson who had been brought in as the ambassador
Speaker 1: to the UK. And remember we had had a UK
Speaker 1: ambassador who was a woman. Was just a very strange
Speaker 1: changeover and again Peter Mandelssohn may end up being the
Speaker 1: undoing of this government of the UK government because he
Speaker 1: was put in this job. So not only have a
Speaker 1: UK government that is grappling with Epstein, we have real
Speaker 1: accountability for even tearstormer stormers. So we really have a
Speaker 1: moment where the UK looks just wildly ahead of us.
Speaker 1: But what I would say is that we don't I
Speaker 1: don't know how this will play ultimately, and I think
Speaker 1: it's worth pausing for that and just saying that for now,
Speaker 1: it looks like Trump is covering for his government, and
Speaker 1: he's keeping people like Howard Lutnik staunchly in place, and
Speaker 1: maybe that keeps on, but maybe it doesn't. I think
Speaker 1: that accountability, you know, you can evade it for only
Speaker 1: so long. And so while Trump is making a case
Speaker 1: that he can keep Howard Lutnik in there, that he
Speaker 1: can keep there are many many people in the Trump
Speaker 1: cabinet who are in a Epstein world. Right, You've got Lutinik,
Speaker 1: You've got John falen Flew on the plane, and you
Speaker 1: have just a lot of trumb right Donald Trump numerous times,
Speaker 1: I think we'll see more of this accountability. And I
Speaker 1: think that Trump's polling is through the floor and his
Speaker 1: whole thing has been like he never fires anyone. But
Speaker 1: there's a reason that people fire people. They fire members
Speaker 1: of their cabinet, and there's an argument to be made
Speaker 1: that Trump would be better off if he would fire people. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I want to talk about the three or twos for
Speaker 1: another minute, Okay, because we're looking at these documents that
Speaker 1: are missing, and news Channel four in the UK said
Speaker 1: that this is only like four somewhere between two and
Speaker 1: four percent of all of the tranches of data because
Speaker 1: they were looking at the numbers the terabyte the Trump
Speaker 1: administration BONDI says that's it, this is all of it,
Speaker 1: or that maybe there's another three million documents missing. I
Speaker 1: wonder if you One of the things that I've been
Speaker 1: struck by is that supposedly there are members of the
Speaker 1: FBI who are quietly saying that there's more that clear alay,
Speaker 1: if you're a member of the FBI, you've been doing
Speaker 1: this for a long time, you have dedicated your life
Speaker 1: to this, right, you did this instead of doing perhaps
Speaker 1: more high paying job in the private sector. Like there
Speaker 1: are clearly whistleblowers out there who may or may not
Speaker 1: come forward. I wonder what you think there's clearly more documents,
Speaker 1: more accountability, and were you one of those whistleblowers, what
Speaker 1: would that look like.
Speaker 4: Yeah, so it's a great and important question.
Speaker 5: First, this two to four percent or any kind of
Speaker 5: quantitative assessment of the like is meaningless. It's always been
Speaker 5: clear one that there are a relative small number, and
Speaker 5: next if the denominator is three million of incendiary documents,
Speaker 5: and two that this administration really knows how to be selective.
Speaker 5: The very first day when it was supposed to give
Speaker 5: over everything, magically one hundred documents appear. That made the
Speaker 5: whole thing look like it had to do with Bill Clinton.
Speaker 4: That was not done randomly.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 5: If there are two percent of three million that have
Speaker 5: to do with Trump and they've been withheld, that's a scandal. Second,
Speaker 5: on again on the three h twos, you make a
Speaker 5: really look the FBI.
Speaker 4: It's not that they've just devoted their career.
Speaker 5: The rank and file of the FBI, there's very good
Speaker 5: reason to think is just furious with the administration. Even
Speaker 5: though they are tend to be politically conservative, they have
Speaker 5: been so mistreated and bible and politicized. Patel and Bonji,
Speaker 5: you know, are such jokers. This is a legal point
Speaker 5: to make but it's true, it's really really precarious to
Speaker 5: try to cover up a document because there are so
Speaker 5: many copies here and there. So I think it is
Speaker 5: likely that individual agents might well know. Third on the
Speaker 5: way on, how how would it then work for them
Speaker 5: to bring it to light? First, there's all the unofficial
Speaker 5: routes that you know as well as I better, where
Speaker 5: you know, somebody gives you a call. But there is
Speaker 5: also whistleblower protection. Now, this administration, as part of its
Speaker 5: process of completely you know, corrupted protections for employees of
Speaker 5: the executive branch, and we can look at the whistleblower
Speaker 5: complain against Christy newm has done things to bottle those
Speaker 5: up or or kind of make them seem unimportant with
Speaker 5: their own hand picked inspectors General. But I tend to
Speaker 5: agree with you that while it's hard to really identify
Speaker 5: the mechanism, man oh man, if there's somecendiary stuff there,
Speaker 5: at a minimum, they're playing with fire trying.
Speaker 4: To suppress it. Just too many different copies.
Speaker 1: If there's incendiary stuff, they're playing with fire.
Speaker 4: Absolutely, you know that better than I.
Speaker 1: Right, because why because the leaks, oh.
Speaker 5: Yeah, if it comes out, it's not just the content
Speaker 5: it's the fact of the cover up that used to
Speaker 5: be the Washington adage. I mean the eighteen and a
Speaker 5: half minutes for Nixon for our older like me listeners. Okay,
Speaker 5: a general question, but we are at a point and
Speaker 5: you've just averted to it where his numbers are really
Speaker 5: plunging historic lows. And I do think it's sort of
Speaker 5: catching on this notion, certainly in places like Minnesota that man,
Speaker 5: oh man, this is whatever I reason I voted for him,
Speaker 5: this is not the America I wanted, and the price
Speaker 5: to democracy it's really corrosive, et cetera. But you see
Speaker 5: a lot of Democrats saying that don't get too cocky
Speaker 5: on this stuff. You really have to make it. It
Speaker 5: also so happens he's totally whatcher the economy. The terroifts
Speaker 5: are going to be paid for by the American people.
Speaker 5: So I just wonder if you have views about the
Speaker 5: Dems need to not go too strong on the sorts
Speaker 5: of things I think about every day, the erosion of democracy,
Speaker 5: and to stay on you know, kitchen table issues.
Speaker 1: No, I think it's a huge mistake to just to
Speaker 1: do that. Used to do everything, and especially people are
Speaker 1: so mad about Epstein and you know, I think just
Speaker 1: make it Ebstein in the files, the releases. Where are
Speaker 1: the cover up, Pam Bondy. I mean the idea that
Speaker 1: you should focus just on one thing, especially when it
Speaker 1: is so clear that the American people are not moron
Speaker 1: and that they can hold all sorts of opinions at once.
Speaker 1: So I think that the whole thinking that they can
Speaker 1: only talk about one thing is a mistake.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 1: So let's talk speaking of not being able to talk
Speaker 1: and think about more than one thing at once. I
Speaker 1: want you to explain to us when we look at
Speaker 1: the criminal complaints around Epstein. So one of the things
Speaker 1: when I talked to Robert Garcia was on our last
Speaker 1: episode he talked about how he's hoping that other states
Speaker 1: will continue with criminal charges out of the Epstein flows.
Speaker 1: Talk us through what it would look like if you
Speaker 1: were a New York Attorney general, or you know, if
Speaker 1: you were trying to make criminal cases out of some
Speaker 1: of these documents, what it might look like.
Speaker 5: Yeah, man, another great question. And you're you're you should
Speaker 5: go to law school. Well, you already have been in
Speaker 5: And I do want to point out, by the way,
Speaker 5: your new subspact pure unadulterated. Mollie is really stormed out
Speaker 5: of the gate. Okay, in general, big big issue parallel
Speaker 5: jurisdiction between state and federal. In general, you have to
Speaker 5: have something happen in a state that's a crime.
Speaker 4: New York's a great example.
Speaker 5: They have a what's called the Martin Act that gives
Speaker 5: them all because New York is the seat of so
Speaker 5: much stock, the New York Stock Exchange and the like
Speaker 5: that a lot of things that would be federal fraud
Speaker 5: are also fraud there. And then it's also the case
Speaker 5: a lot of these potential crimes are really kind of
Speaker 5: tawdry and you know, sort of uh small in their
Speaker 5: fact pattern, and if they took place in an individual state,
Speaker 5: it's basically there are it's more the case than not, Molly.
Speaker 5: I guess this is how I put it, that a
Speaker 5: crime within a state's borders that has a federal statute
Speaker 5: will have a state statute. So you know, it's both
Speaker 5: that the facts took place there, so there's jurisdiction, but
Speaker 5: then also at least certain states, new York pre eminent
Speaker 5: among them, have ways, like the Feds have ways of
Speaker 5: getting at things broadly. Even though the downstream impacts are
Speaker 5: kind of nationwide because of how they originated.
Speaker 1: Say your tiss James's office, you're working in that office,
Speaker 1: you see a allegation, say you see a three or
Speaker 1: two that's redacted, but not that redacted, So that means
Speaker 1: you have a witness, you have a crime. Say you
Speaker 1: have an unindicted co conspirators list. Can you make a
Speaker 1: case from that?
Speaker 4: Well, that's the question exactly.
Speaker 5: We're seeing this in Minnesota, where states normally would get
Speaker 5: the cooperation of the federal government for the shootings of
Speaker 5: Pretty and Good, and not only aren't they getting it,
Speaker 5: the Feds are trying to actually impose obstacles and say.
Speaker 4: We're not going to give you this name.
Speaker 3: Were not.
Speaker 5: So the answer is, yeah, you got to start from
Speaker 5: scratch and develop it. You couldn't use the three to
Speaker 5: zero two anyway, but it's now been made publicly available.
Speaker 5: Lots of cases originate in public materials like what was
Speaker 5: in the paper yesterday. But you've got to start from scratch.
Speaker 5: So you got to find this favor. And by the way,
Speaker 5: here's a big thing. If we're thinking about Epstein statutes
Speaker 5: of limitations for certain sex assault crimes or murder, there
Speaker 5: isn't one, but for a lot of the hijinks of
Speaker 5: the sword you document again and then New York times
Speaker 5: off bad. This statute would already have run. So lots
Speaker 5: of procedural obstacles, and the Feds are going to make
Speaker 5: it harder. But theoretically, yes, you just got to start
Speaker 5: from scratch.
Speaker 1: But the statute of sex crimes is there has been
Speaker 1: extended in New York State.
Speaker 4: That's right. Two things.
Speaker 5: It had a window where you could bring claims that
Speaker 5: had to do with then that's why Trump was also
Speaker 5: charged with a crime in the e Gen Carrol case.
Speaker 4: I think that was a narrow window.
Speaker 5: But in general, sexual assault statutes of limitations sometimes go
Speaker 5: forever because it's so often the case that the damage
Speaker 5: or even the knowledge of it doesn't fully develop and
Speaker 5: tell a victim is older. So for the sex crime jest.
Speaker 5: But you know, your point is really important. I think
Speaker 5: how he had such a network of different things. Andrew
Speaker 5: has been arrested not because of this. That's that's also
Speaker 5: the same behavior that the general counsel of Goldman Sachs
Speaker 5: had to resign over a lot of that stuff will
Speaker 5: be really hard to reach for. Statute of limitations reasons now,
Speaker 5: but still have political salience.
Speaker 1: Right exactly, all right, So do you have another question
Speaker 1: for me?
Speaker 4: So I want to switch to the refunds and the tariffs.
Speaker 5: There's you know we're finding out now they're trying to
Speaker 5: put it on other grounds, et cetera. I don't want
Speaker 5: to ask about any of the law stuff, but I
Speaker 5: think we can expect even though the Department of Justice
Speaker 5: said last year, if this is struck down, we'll return
Speaker 5: it all. Give me a break, they're going to impose
Speaker 5: all kinds of obstacles. It could be you know, legal
Speaker 5: tangles for years and years. As Trump said, I just
Speaker 5: want to ask you politically, you know, what's going to
Speaker 5: be the impact of people not seeing companies not seeing refunds.
Speaker 4: How volatile an issue.
Speaker 5: Is this if they just you know, never never give
Speaker 5: the money back.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So FedEx just soon today for the refunds. So
Speaker 1: it is certainly possible that we see a real court case.
Speaker 1: And look, you know, here's what's going to happen. Since
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has said no go on the tariffs, Trump
Speaker 1: has tweeted a lot of angry stuff, and since going
Speaker 1: to be ten percent, and then it's going to be
Speaker 1: fifteen percent. I think there's a scenario.
Speaker 6: Where FedEx sues and Trump decides that he's going to
Speaker 6: like push back in the court of public opinion, and
Speaker 6: then the ADMIN is going to quietly settle, Like we've
Speaker 6: seen that before, that admin quietly loses in court.
Speaker 1: Trump loves the tariffs because they are a vehicle for kryptocracy,
Speaker 1: because he can negotiate in a way that is kryptocratic
Speaker 1: at best. I think I still think there's a scenario
Speaker 1: where they lose in court and it doesn't matter and
Speaker 1: he just keeps obfuscating.
Speaker 5: Or then maybe FedEx but lather rents, repeat with the
Speaker 5: other companies.
Speaker 1: Fedick's a huge company, and they'll be more if they
Speaker 1: sense that there's possible when this could be very bad
Speaker 1: for Trump world. And again, I don't think that FedEx
Speaker 1: is ideological. I think they're practical. So you know, this
Speaker 1: is like a dumb It's not dumb because it's what
Speaker 1: Trump wants. It does the thing that Trump wants it
Speaker 1: to do. But I still think it could unravel the
Speaker 1: whole thing.
Speaker 4: Well, it's always fun. See you next month.
Speaker 1: Than great to see you. Congressman Jared moscow Itz represents
Speaker 1: Florida's twenty third district. Welcome, Welcome, Congressman Jared.
Speaker 3: What's going on? Alli? How you doing?
Speaker 1: How are you.
Speaker 3: Living the dream? Over here in Congress? Everything is great?
Speaker 3: Why is there something going on? I s could know
Speaker 3: about nothing?
Speaker 1: Oversight it seems to be in a Twitter war with
Speaker 1: GOP rapid response on Twitter formerly Twitter now acts the
Speaker 1: Epstein files. Talk us to where you guys are with
Speaker 1: the Epstein files.
Speaker 3: Well, look, first of all, you know, the Overset Committee
Speaker 3: is run by my dear friend James Comer.
Speaker 1: That's right, a giant among men.
Speaker 3: Yes, a man of many words, as you know, right,
Speaker 3: He's only interested in transparency, of course, you know. And
Speaker 3: now we find out there are fifty three pages missing
Speaker 3: that the DOJ is holding back because it has stuff
Speaker 3: in there about Donald Trump. We find out that there
Speaker 3: are apparently boxes of documents around the country that Epstein
Speaker 3: has hidden in all sorts of filing cabinets. We don't
Speaker 3: know if the FBI has those are Now you know,
Speaker 3: the members myself included, went over to the DOJ to
Speaker 3: look at these unredacted documents, and they tracked what documents
Speaker 3: we were looking at.
Speaker 1: Pam Bondi, Yeah.
Speaker 3: You know, they spied on us so that they would know,
Speaker 3: you know, how how to deal with it in committee.
Speaker 3: You know, they have mismanaged this thing from the beginning,
Speaker 3: even though this is what Dan Bongino and Cash Betel
Speaker 3: why they wanted to come to the FBI, Right, Pam Bondy,
Speaker 3: you know the here's the binder, the list is on
Speaker 3: my desk. Then there's no lists. I mean, this was
Speaker 3: their thing. And you know, then the President launched the
Speaker 3: war on his own people, you know, saying that this
Speaker 3: was a hoax, and you know it's a hostile act
Speaker 3: if they released the files, and then of course after
Speaker 3: they were forced to release it by all of Congress,
Speaker 3: everyone in the House except one person, and the entire Senate,
Speaker 3: then all of a sudden, they were the most transparent
Speaker 3: executive branch in American history. And so here we are
Speaker 3: the drip, drip, drip. We continue to see it. You know,
Speaker 3: we're seeing other countries arrest people, by the way, right,
Speaker 3: we're seeing that happen. We're seeing in other countries people
Speaker 3: lose their jobs. Here we haven't. We haven't seen that
Speaker 3: account ability. You know, I know, the stuff about Howard
Speaker 3: Lutnik came out, You know, we learned that wasn't true.
Speaker 3: What he said. He barely knew and barely had, you know,
Speaker 3: anything to do with him. You know, he went to
Speaker 3: his house one time and he saw the massage table
Speaker 3: and he said, I'm never going to be alone with
Speaker 3: him again. And then we find out he went to
Speaker 3: Epstein Island with his entire family and had business ties
Speaker 3: with him. Apparently, you know, Cash Pttel told us Trump's
Speaker 3: name barely in there, less than one hundred, right, and
Speaker 3: then we find out it's in there like thirty eight
Speaker 3: thousand times. Okay, you know, Cashpttel under oath says that
Speaker 3: the only person who trafficked girls was Epstein, only to himself,
Speaker 3: nobody else. Then we get the documents, we find out
Speaker 3: there's co conspirators. We find obviously that he trafficked it
Speaker 3: to other people, and we find out he had a
Speaker 3: whole ring of people who were recruiting these girls, grooming them,
Speaker 3: and where they were shipping him these girls from out
Speaker 3: of the country. Just totally disgusting behavior.
Speaker 1: When you went to the DOJ, were you able to
Speaker 1: see things unredacted or were things still stuck with reactions.
Speaker 3: There's a bunch of stuff that's unredacted, so we were
Speaker 3: able to see that, But there are tremendous amount of documents.
Speaker 3: In fact, I would say the majority of the documents
Speaker 3: were still redacted, and they were sent into this electronic
Speaker 3: system all redacted. They were sent to us redacted. So
Speaker 3: when we look at them and we pump from the
Speaker 3: redacted that I can't unredacted because they were scanned in
Speaker 3: as redacted. We don't know what those documents are. We
Speaker 3: have suspicions that some of those are the FBI.
Speaker 1: Memos that were not TEO twos, Right.
Speaker 3: Oh twos, that's exactly right. In fact, we have none
Speaker 3: almost none of those. Almost all the three O two's
Speaker 3: are still redacted. We think obviously that's where there's a
Speaker 3: lot more evidence on how far and wide this goes.
Speaker 3: And clearly now that we're seeing stuff about the president
Speaker 3: that was taken out of the documents, hard to say
Speaker 3: now that there's not a cover up going on.
Speaker 1: I want you to talk about these. So when you
Speaker 1: go to the DOJ to look at the documents, what
Speaker 1: like the law is written in such a way that
Speaker 1: it is Pambondi or whoever at the DOJ is supposed
Speaker 1: to explain the reactions. So what happens when you go
Speaker 1: to the DOJ and you say, like where?
Speaker 3: Like sure? So, first of all, so you walk into
Speaker 3: this building, which is more heavily guarded than the Capitol. Okay,
Speaker 3: you eventually get in. They first allowed us to bring
Speaker 3: a staff member. Okay. Then they said no more staff.
Speaker 3: You can't bring a staff member. So we go in
Speaker 3: by ourselves. We go all the way up to the
Speaker 3: tenth floor. Okay. On the tenth floor is nobody. There
Speaker 3: is nobody working on this floor. Everyone I guess is
Speaker 3: either it was fired or they're working mobile, but there's
Speaker 3: nobody there. They bring you into a room the three
Speaker 3: or four people that are working the files. There are
Speaker 3: four computers set up okay on a system that you've
Speaker 3: never used before. There's a twenty five page manual next
Speaker 3: to you, okay on how to use the system. Even
Speaker 3: though you only have forty five minutes to go through
Speaker 3: the documents, you have to disregard to the manual and
Speaker 3: you have to learn in real time on how to
Speaker 3: go through the system. The people there can't answer any
Speaker 3: questions on why it was redacted, not because they can't
Speaker 3: because they don't know. They are strictly technical people on
Speaker 3: the system. If you want to know how to search
Speaker 3: for something, you accidentally logged out, they'll log you back in.
Speaker 3: By the way, every member has their own special login.
Speaker 3: That's how they're tracking us. That's how I knew I
Speaker 3: was being tracked before it was even I'm like, why
Speaker 3: do I have my own login? Why do I have
Speaker 3: my own password? What's the point of that? And so
Speaker 3: it's a very cumbersome system. It's just a huge data
Speaker 3: dump into this thing. You don't have enough time in
Speaker 3: the world just to start opening things. You have to
Speaker 3: be searching. So you have to have an EFTA number
Speaker 3: from a document that was made public that was redacted,
Speaker 3: and then you can go search for the unredacted version
Speaker 3: of that document.
Speaker 1: Wild Now, I'd love it if you would talk us
Speaker 1: through Is there some recourse now? Because the administration has
Speaker 1: technically broken this law.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, like multiple times. First of all, they didn't
Speaker 3: give us the documents on time. Then they redacted stuff
Speaker 3: they shouldn't have redacted. They unredacted names of victims that
Speaker 3: were supposed to be redacted, They redacted co conspirators. Okay,
Speaker 3: I mean so yeah, No, there's all sorts of things
Speaker 3: that they've broken in the law. Although, because you know
Speaker 3: this administration and they're so great to work with, they
Speaker 3: then if you saw it, they released the name of
Speaker 3: new people that are in the Epstein files, and they
Speaker 3: put a bunch of people on the Judiciary Committee in
Speaker 3: the files. Because now if there's like an email, you
Speaker 3: know because you went and research that your name is
Speaker 3: now in the file. So I'm apparently in the files.
Speaker 3: So we're like, all the Democratic members of the Judiciary
Speaker 3: Committee are now in the files.
Speaker 1: Is there anything you can do at this moment? Like
Speaker 1: can you hold these people in contempt? Is there like,
Speaker 1: is there any protocol for like a lawless administration like this?
Speaker 3: Or Now, well, I think you're gonna continue to se
Speaker 3: information come out slowly, right, and then we're going to
Speaker 3: continue to follow that. So we're gonna ask questions, we're
Speaker 3: gonna have hearings. But Maley, obviously the real stuff's gonna
Speaker 3: happen in January of next year. We can win the
Speaker 3: win midterms of November, and how came Jeffries gets the
Speaker 3: gavel mid January.
Speaker 4: We're going to immediately.
Speaker 3: Come out of the gate with these investigations, the subpoenas
Speaker 3: are going to be written. Okay, on November tenth, all
Speaker 3: of this stuff is going to be written and will
Speaker 3: immediately be filed in the middle of January when I
Speaker 3: as soon as I came holds that gavel up stuff
Speaker 3: goes out the door, and it's gonna be all sorts
Speaker 3: of investigations. Clearly, it's gonna be Epstein. Clearly, it's gonna
Speaker 3: be the Katari plane, It's gonna be the crypto money, right,
Speaker 3: It's gonna be the watches. Why is Donald Trump selling watches?
Speaker 3: You don't have a ten thousand dollars Trump watch mom.
Speaker 1: Now yet I'm waiting for a gift from the admin.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, start with the Trump Bible and then upgrade
Speaker 3: to the watch.
Speaker 1: We've seen some Maga women do incredible things. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about Lauren Bobert, who ultimately sort of more
Speaker 1: Christian than Mike Johnson saying.
Speaker 3: That, wa wait, are you really gonna ask me, Jared
Speaker 3: moscoits to talk about Lauren Bobert's Christianity? Is that really?
Speaker 1: I am?
Speaker 3: We're just appreciate about Christ. This is gonna go over
Speaker 3: great with the wife. Let's go ahead.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I just want to talk about like it
Speaker 1: does seem like there are maga women in the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives who are standing up for other women.
Speaker 3: Well, here's what I would say. I would say Lauren Bobert,
Speaker 3: Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor, Green, Anna, Pauline a Luna. You
Speaker 3: have seen the four of them now on multiple occasions.
Speaker 3: When it's come to colleagues that are a colleagues of
Speaker 3: mine that are involved in sexual harassment or sexual assault,
Speaker 3: they've gone after their own Republican colleagues on that. And
Speaker 3: when it's come to the Epstein victims, they have been
Speaker 3: opposite Trump and the administration when it's come to the victims.
Speaker 3: And so they've been doing that as a block. Even
Speaker 3: when the administration, by the way, brought them into the
Speaker 3: Situation Room in the White House, you know the place
Speaker 3: you know that you know we've launched wars from and
Speaker 3: the President goes for like national security briefings. They brought
Speaker 3: these women members of Congress to the Situation Room to
Speaker 3: scare them. First tried to buy them off with appropriations
Speaker 3: and projects, and then threatened primaries against them to pull
Speaker 3: their name off of the Massy Discharge petition. And they
Speaker 3: held strong and told the White House they weren't going
Speaker 3: to do that, and that's how we were able to
Speaker 3: get to the two eighteen. We don't get to the
Speaker 3: two eighteen without those women.
Speaker 1: I've been really impressed by that.
Speaker 3: I mean, if you like Lauren so much, you should
Speaker 3: go to a play with her.
Speaker 1: Anyway, Moving on, hilarious, hilarious, Sorry, let's talk about what
Speaker 1: it looks like right now. So Republicans have a one
Speaker 1: vote majority in the House. We're in a sort of
Speaker 1: partial government shutdown at this very moment. Do you think
Speaker 1: there's a world in which this appropriation is dhs? I mean,
Speaker 1: is there negotiation happening? And what does it look like?
Speaker 3: There's no negotiation happening neither side obviously rightfully so on
Speaker 3: our side, we're not going to give in on a
Speaker 3: lot of these changes we want to see. By the way,
Speaker 3: not only do I want policy changes, Molly, I want
Speaker 3: Christy Noman to be fired. The idea that we're going
Speaker 3: to agree to policy changes and expect Christy Nome Okay
Speaker 3: to implement this makes absolutely no sense to me. So
Speaker 3: she needs to go. She's the absolute weakest link to
Speaker 3: the president's administration. If this was the show Apprentice, he
Speaker 3: would have fired her long ago. I mean she took
Speaker 3: his immigration issue, okay, which to help get him elected.
Speaker 3: In August, he had a sixty percent approval rating on immigration.
Speaker 3: It's now thirty nine percent. That's it's rarely because of
Speaker 3: how Christinome has executed these immigration policies, what she's done
Speaker 3: with Ice, the fact that American people being shot in
Speaker 3: the streets of America, masked men just going around barging
Speaker 3: into people's houses without warrants. Okay, this is all on
Speaker 3: her and she should have already been fired, you know.
Speaker 3: So you know, and then obviously as far as you
Speaker 3: know where we're at. You know, look, I feel terrible
Speaker 3: for the people who work at Homeland, whether they're in
Speaker 3: FEMA or TSA or the Coastguard. I feel terrible for them.
Speaker 3: They're caught in the middle of this. It's why I
Speaker 3: support legislation that they should get paid while this is
Speaker 3: going on. I support legislation at the FEMA emergency aid
Speaker 3: should still go out while this is going on. They're
Speaker 3: not willing to negotiate on any of this, Molly, So
Speaker 3: right now it's going to stay partially shut down, and instead,
Speaker 3: you know what they're gonna do. They're gonna try to
Speaker 3: play games, okay, and they're gonna be like, oh, there'll
Speaker 3: be no fast tsa line at the airport. They're gonna
Speaker 3: try to make people's lives miserable, not because they can't
Speaker 3: pay for it, because they're just going to do it
Speaker 3: on purpose to try to put pressure on Congress to
Speaker 3: make a deal. We sometimes because the security reason and
Speaker 3: have to get escorts. Well, they've suspended all the escorts,
Speaker 3: you know, exposing members of Congress to security risks. They
Speaker 3: try to put pressure on us. That's not going to work. Okay,
Speaker 3: none of this is going to work. The American people
Speaker 3: watched this with their own eyes on TV.
Speaker 1: ICE has billions of dollars, hundreds of billions.
Speaker 3: They got one hundred and seventy billion dollars in the big,
Speaker 3: beautiful bullshit of a bill. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So is there any world in which that money goes
Speaker 1: to Homeland while this negotiation is happening. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: like the interest.
Speaker 3: Well, look, I don't know what Russ vought over at
Speaker 3: Omb is cooking up over there. You know, he did
Speaker 3: cook up Project twenty twenty five, which, of course the
Speaker 3: presidence that he heard nothing about and then made the
Speaker 3: author of the head of the O and B. Don't worry.
Speaker 3: We haven't forgotten. But obviously, look, they're trying to move
Speaker 3: money around, they're trying to do stuff, but they they
Speaker 3: want to get this reopen, right, there are things that
Speaker 3: are constraining their efforts. This is how we know. If
Speaker 3: they could do whatever they wanted with ICE, even with
Speaker 3: all that money, they would just say leave it closed, right,
Speaker 3: leave it closed, and they would still do it. But
Speaker 3: they're not. They're not. They're trying to get it open.
Speaker 3: And look, they're going to have to move out of
Speaker 3: their corner. I mean, the idea that masks people are
Speaker 3: going to be allowed to roam the streets. I wouldn't
Speaker 3: vote for something that allows that to still happen as
Speaker 3: one of the most Unamerican things ever. And look, they
Speaker 3: are criminals and there are gang members in this country.
Speaker 3: They should be rounded up and they should be deported.
Speaker 3: American people voted for that. I support that, but that's
Speaker 3: not what this is. But that's not what they're doing.
Speaker 3: And we have police officers that go into tough neighborhoods
Speaker 3: every single solitary day in this country. They don't get
Speaker 3: to put masks on their face neither should this division
Speaker 3: of law enforcement. As my Republicans friends like to say,
Speaker 3: there should be no masks.
Speaker 1: Republicans have made some big bets on redistricting. I'm seeing
Speaker 1: some polls that show that they they may have tipped
Speaker 1: themselves into a dummy mander. Do you think that's right?
Speaker 1: And looking at Florida, which is a state that has
Speaker 1: seemed so red for so long, and then now you
Speaker 1: have a Democratic mayor in Miami and it looks like
Speaker 1: that Ice may have really alienated Latino voters. Are you hopeful,
Speaker 1: do you see anything or do you think it's just
Speaker 1: too optimistic?
Speaker 3: Well, look, I think in some areas, right, because they
Speaker 3: use old numbers and the ground is shifted beneath them, right,
Speaker 3: I think there'll be some areas that they thought they
Speaker 3: would pick up seats that they're then they're now going
Speaker 3: to lose. And then of course they for forced democratic
Speaker 3: states to have to play the game. It's not a
Speaker 3: game we wanted to play. But if you don't play,
Speaker 3: you lose. So we had to play, and we played,
Speaker 3: and we played hard. And look, in some instances we've
Speaker 3: either made sure that their efforts have been neutralized or
Speaker 3: maybe even we can gain a seat or two. Can
Speaker 3: I be honest, I don't know if any of this
Speaker 3: is gonna matter, because I think you're going to see
Speaker 3: a huge victory in November anyway. I don't think we're
Speaker 3: gonna win the House by one or two or three seats.
Speaker 3: I think we're gonna win the House in a much
Speaker 3: larger number. We're a plus six on the generic ballot.
Speaker 3: I think Democrats are in a good spot. The President
Speaker 3: is upside down on his two strongest issues, immigration and
Speaker 3: the economy. Those are the two things that propelled him
Speaker 3: into office, the two things he ran on, and he's
Speaker 3: upside down on both of those issues as far as
Speaker 3: Florida's concerned. Obviously, Look, the President lied about t PS
Speaker 3: for Venezuelan's. He told them that they were fine, then
Speaker 3: he got rid of TPS. He lied about TPS for Haitians.
Speaker 3: He told them they when we fine, then he got
Speaker 3: rid of TPS. And yeah, the Cuban community is watching
Speaker 3: all of this, thinking to themselves, this is ridiculous. This
Speaker 3: is part of what they escape from Cuba and other
Speaker 3: areas in Latin Americas. The Latin American community watches some
Speaker 3: of this, and so yes, a we now have a
Speaker 3: democratic mayor in Miami, and I think you're going to
Speaker 3: see major changes in the voting block in both the
Speaker 3: Puerto Rican community and in which is in like Orlando,
Speaker 3: Orange County area, and in the Cuban community in Dade County.
Speaker 3: As far as Florida's concerned, Look, Florida is the Maga
Speaker 3: capital of the world. Okay, you know that's where we
Speaker 3: have all the boat parades. If you've never been, Molly,
Speaker 3: I highly recommend you go to one. Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 3: you know, but get some son.
Speaker 1: Yeah, oh son, I love son son.
Speaker 3: Yeah. I could see that. But DeSantis and Trump are
Speaker 3: going to try to do something there. I think they're
Speaker 3: really waiting to see what happens with the Voting Rights
Speaker 3: Act of the Supreme Court. They want to get these
Speaker 3: black voting districts struck down. So really, if the Supreme
Speaker 3: Court does that, then there are a lot of seats
Speaker 3: around the country that could get redrawn. The question is
Speaker 3: really going to be about timing if the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: does historically what they do voting rights cases. Voting cases
Speaker 3: things that can affect an election, are usually the last
Speaker 3: decision of the session, so that would be in June.
Speaker 3: So if that happens, you're not gonna be able to
Speaker 3: do anything with the twenty six election. But Republicans in
Speaker 3: Florida set a special session to deal with redistricting at
Speaker 3: the end of April, so there's some belief that maybe
Speaker 3: they could get that decision earlier. If they do get
Speaker 3: that decision earlier, they will try to redraw three four
Speaker 3: of us out of our seats in Florida. I think
Speaker 3: that's what the governor has said, even though, by the way,
Speaker 3: we have a constitutional amendment that the voters voted for
Speaker 3: in Florida that forbids that exact sort of behavior. So
Speaker 3: whatever they do, it's going to go to the state
Speaker 3: Supreme Court, and we want to see how that works.
Speaker 1: Jesus Congressman, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.
Speaker 1: No no moment, jesse Caannon.
Speaker 2: Biy let me set the stage for you. So we
Speaker 2: saw blockbuster reporting in The New York occur, previous reporting
Speaker 2: from BBC that Elon Musk. When you're on his X
Speaker 2: for You page, what you see if you are interacting
Speaker 2: with far leftist content is a ton of right wing
Speaker 2: content too. But if you're a right winger, you see
Speaker 2: barely any leftist content. So to get to that Byared
Speaker 2: has a really really great piece of journalism that the
Speaker 2: White House is running. One of the main accounts that
Speaker 2: is boosted by this an account that I, as a
Speaker 2: leftist get all the time Johnny Maga.
Speaker 1: Yes, Johnny Maga, by the way, I thought Johnny Maga,
Speaker 1: who I have blocked. Of course, I was sure Johnny
Speaker 1: Maga was just like some guy in India, you know,
Speaker 1: some kind of bought farm in another country. But it
Speaker 1: turns out that actually it's run by a White House staffer.
Speaker 1: And that's important because and this is by the way,
Speaker 1: good reporting on the part of Wired, is that Johnny
Speaker 1: Maga is run by a White House staffer. And this
Speaker 1: is the account that tweeted out the video depicting Barack
Speaker 1: and Michelle Obama's apes. That means that the Trump white
Speaker 1: House is involved in you know, when Trump said he
Speaker 1: didn't even watch it, it turns out his people made it.
Speaker 1: And I think, like that's really important. We often like
Speaker 1: let Trump kind of dismiss things, weasel out of them,
Speaker 1: and this it's a really big deal. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's just like what we saw with homeland security. It's
Speaker 1: just really really bad and worrying, and it's also the
Speaker 1: way in which Elon's X is trying to shape the narrative.
Speaker 1: It's funny because it's like you just think about it.
Speaker 1: Johnny Maga an account created in September twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: It was originally had a different handle, which referenced Wade's birth.
Speaker 1: Here the guy who works in the Trump White House.
Speaker 1: By the way, normal in white houses would be like
Speaker 1: everyone who knew about this would get fired.
Speaker 2: Yeah. This reminds me of when the White House Briefing
Speaker 2: Grouper they had the inside plant who was also a
Speaker 2: mail scorch. Because it's like the modern day version.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but Garrett Wade, it is just yet another day
Speaker 1: in the.
Speaker 2: Trump woind astroturfing to pretend he has real support.
Speaker 1: That's it for this episode of Fast Politics. Tune in
Speaker 1: every Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday to hear the best
Speaker 1: minds and politics make sense of all this chaos. If
Speaker 1: you enjoy this podcast, please send it to a friend
Speaker 1: and keep the conversation going. Thanks for listening.