Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - 7/15/25: SCOTUS Greenlights Education Dep Destruction, MAGA Says Trust Trump On Epstein, Megyn Kelly Vs Shapiro, GOP Blocks Epstein Files Release & MORE!

Episode Date: July 15, 2025

Krystal and Emily discuss SCOTUS greenlights Trump Ed Department attacks, Charlie Kirk says trust Trump on Epstein, Megyn Kelly dismantles Ben Shapiro, Republicans block Epstein file release, Cuomo launches doomed Zohran challenge.   To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show AD FREE, uncut and 1 hour early visit: www.breakingpoints.comMerch Store: https://shop.breakingpoints.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Just like great shoes, great books take you places. Through unforgettable love stories and into conversations with characters you'll never forget. I think any good romance, it gives me this feeling of like butterflies. I'm Danielle Robay and this is Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club. The new podcast from Hello Sunshine and iHeart Podcasts, where we dive into the stories that shape us on the page and off. Each week, I'm joined by authors, celebs,

book talk stars, and more for conversations that will make you laugh, cry, and add way too many books to your TBR pile. Listen to Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club on the iHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Join iHeartRadio app. Apple podcasts are wherever you get your podcasts. Join iHeartRadio and Sarah Spain in celebrating the one-year anniversary

of iHeart Women's Sports. With powerful interviews and insider analysis, our shows have connected fans with the heart of women's sports. In just one year, the network has launched 15 shows and built a community united by passion. Podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports. Thank you for supporting iHeart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors, Elf Beauty, Capital One,

and Novartis. Just open the free iHeart app and search iHeart Women's Sports to listen now. So what happened at Chappaquiddick? Well, it really depends on who you talk to. There are many versions of what happened in 1969 when a young Ted Kennedy drove a car into a pond. And left a woman behind to drown.

Chappaquiddick is a story of a tragic death and how the Kennedy machine took control. Every week we go behind the headlines and beyond the drama of America's royal family. Listen to United States of Kennedy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey guys, Sagar and Crystal here.

Independent media just played a truly massive role in this election and we are so excited about what that means for the future of this show. This is the only place where you can find honest perspectives from the left and the right that simply does not exist anywhere else. So if that is something that's important to you, please go to breakingpoints.com, become a member today,

and you'll get access to our full shows, unedited, ad-free, and all put together for you every morning in your inbox. We need your help to build the future of independent news media, and we hope to see you at breakingpoints.com. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Breaking Points. Emily Trishinsky, great to see you this morning. Thanks for having me here......

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . ..... before getting into a memo, apparently went out, Emily, to MAGA of basically, move on from Jeffrey Epstein. We're done talking about this. And some creators at least are getting the message. Charlie Kirk, I saw Dinesh D'Souza, some Congressman Mike Lawler as well.

So, kind of interesting there. Yeah, we have some interesting clips. The Charlie Kirk clip, I think, is particularly worth diving into. Yes. In addition, interesting debate between Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro on whether there's any there there about some of the various theories surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. So that's an interesting one as well. Megyn Kelly really in her element when she's diving into these kind of legal debates.

So that's a fun one to watch. We have Ro Khanna joining. He had introduced an amendment to compel the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files and lo and behold, Republicans voted it down in committee. So, Congressman Kahn is going to join us to talk about that. Also going to ask him a couple of questions about Zoran Mamdani and what he means for the future of the Democratic Party. So that should be great. We've got Trump threatening additional tariffs on Russia. At this point, he has just sort of fully embraced the neocon and Biden administration, Ukraine policy. I think it's fair to say.

We're also taking a look at a number of things coming out of Israel, including Bibi Netanyahu saying that the eighth front in the war is quote unquote, disinformation. So that's an interesting comment to dive into. And I'm going to interview a guy named Joshua Aaron. He is a tech entrepreneur and he developed an app called Ice Block which allows people sort of like ways where users input like where the traffic is except it's for tracking ice so that people can have heads up of where ice

is and where these raids are going on. So pretty interested. He's talking to him. He's kind of come under fire, Emily, also directly from the Trump administration. So want to get his reaction, all that. Yeah, absolutely. Big show. I'm excited to watch that interview. Yes, indeed. And to those of you who are premium subscribers,

thank you so much. If you want to become a premium subscriber, BreakingPoints.com, you get the full show uncut, no ads, in your inbox every day, early as possible. We also have that full Friday show available for you and the premium AMA, among other benefits as well. So thank you so much for your support. And like I said, if you wanna become

a premium subscriber, breakingpoints.com. All right, let's go ahead and get to this SCOTUS decision. This is quite a significant one, I would say, and it came down along partisan lines. Let's put this up on the screen. So the Supreme Court, I'm reading here from CNN, on Monday said President Trump may proceed with his plan to carry out mass layoffs

at the Department of Education, the latest win for the White House at the conservative high court. In an unsigned order, the justices lifted for now a lower court ruling that had indefinitely paused Trump's plan. The Supreme Court's decision puts that ruling on hold while the legal challenges play out. Within two hours, the Department of Education sent notices to employees indicating it is

immediately resuming its plans to shrink the department. So Emily, from a legal perspective, you had a block, an injunction on the mass firings at the Department of Education. Of course, this president, consistent with a lot of sort of conservative, ideological direction, including Project 2025, said he wants to completely dismantle the Department of Education and was going about it by firing thousands upon thousands of employees.

The court stepped in and said, hey, this is a congressionally mandated agency. Like you can't just take it apart willy-nilly yourself without going through Congress. And so there was this indefinite pause in place. The Supreme Court is not actually ruling on the merits of that, at least not yet. What they're saying is that the firings can proceed

while this all plays out. But of course, the impact of that is effectively that the Trump administration gets to get their way because once you pull these agencies apart, it's not like you can just put Humpty Dumpty back together again if then even at the end of the day, the Supreme Court says, oh no, actually we were wrong, you can't do this.

Not that there's any guarantee that they would rule in that direction anyway. And what a lot of people actually that are pressuring the Trump administration to go further and further on the right, look at this and say, okay, so somebody else can step in, say a Republican doesn't win president in 2028, unless you keep going further and further, somebody else is going to be able to step in and just rebuild, to your point, Crystal, the Department of Education.

And it'll be like the Trump administration basically never happened. So now he's going to get pressure to go even further and to keep going and try to get, so basically what I'm saying is I wouldn't be surprised at all if the court has to decide whether it's the education department or something else in the next term, whether or not the Trump administration can,

without codifying this through Congress, without going back through Congress, can de facto disassemble these congressionally, what's the right word for it, these congressionally approved or these congressionally mandated departments without actually going through Congress just by firing. And education was happening at peak Doge

on the political level. There's another interesting point about all of this. It was all of this was happening when the swirl of Doge was being defended bitterly by Elon and the Trump administration. Everyone was all excited about it. And now that the dust has settled, they're in a different political climate.

So they're to keep going because they're getting so much pressure on it, but it may play differently with the public at this point. Yeah, well, there's a few things to say about that. I mean, first of all, it's worth noting the Supreme Court, although they have taken some high profile decisions that have cut against the Trump administration, specifically in the case of like, Kilmar, Brega, Garcia, there've also been quite a lot of decisions like this that have gone in their favor

that have specifically lifted injunctions in these orders where they don't even, I mean, this has a profound impact on the country and yet they don't even bother to like write up their reasoning for why they're going in this direction, which I think is kind of astonishing in and of itself. But in terms of this conservative ideological project, the Supreme Court has by and large,

overwhelmingly backed up the Trump administration and done basically what they were put there to do ultimately. So I think that's worth knowing. The other thing to say about the Department of Education, which handles if there's discrimination in a school system, all this like backstopping civil rights, handles all of the like aid and loan disbursement and all of that. There's also, you know, additional funding that goes to goes to low income schools, schools

that have kids that have disabilities. Like there's, you know, those are some of the significant things. They also do a lot of research into education and best practices, etc. The Trump administration has at at the same time, that they are gutting the Department of Education and saying they want to send it basically all back to the states. They are also, in a certain sense,

aggressively using the Department of Education to go after their ideological adversaries. So the anti-Semitism jihad, which is being used to undercut any number of really high- know, high profile sort of elite universities. That comes out of the Department of Education, you know, the attack on Harvard's accreditation, things of that nature. That all comes out of this Department of Education. So on the one hand, they are really hobbling their ability to perform basic functions and the traditional functions of that agency. On the other hand, they are aggressively using it

for their own sort of ideological weaponization in their own ends. And Ryan and I interviewed the chief author of the Project 2025 chapter on the Department of Education. And from the outside perspective, they had a systematic process for disassembling the Department of Education, basically, that involves off-ramping a lot of its core functions,

whether it's loans to Treasury or sort of legal issues and those questions to the Department of Justice. And so can the Trump administration, and this is a really significant question for people like me, who believe that a lot of these functions of the education department would be better at Treasury and Department of Justice

and sending so much power back to the states. The Trump administration, to your point, and Sagar mentioned this on Tucker Carlson's show last week, they are using Title VII and Title IX in similar ways to the Obama administration as a sort of fundamental concept in the Biden administration, meaning they're using it as leverage to extract concessions from these different schools. So these are federal bureaucrats essentially threatening Harvard or Columbia, whatever,

with title seven violations, title nine violations. And with that goes all of your federal funding. At least that's the threat that these administrations have made from here in DC, which is something that conservatives don't typically agree with. So yeah, they're using that, they're significantly using those powers right now to threaten and pressure higher education. And in theory, at least, those powers would go to the Department of Justice and you wouldn't have a massive, I guess, bureaucracy in the education department,

which again, Crystal, they like those powers right now. Yeah, well, and I mean, I think we've also had the example of Texas and the way that these cuts can have real costs. I'm not saying lives will be lost here, but I'm saying that you can't just slash and burn agencies. This is an incredibly incompetent administration. So the idea that they're gonna be able to like effectively and efficiently pick up the pieces and distribute them to other

agencies and everything is going to proceed apace, I think is pretty far-fetched. So, you know, I think we'll be waiting to see what the potential fallout is here because yes, most education funding comes from states and localities, but there is a significant chunk that does come from the federal government. Pell grants are obviously administered from the federal government. There are some key, you know, for students who have disabilities, who have any sort of what they call an IEP, that all flows through the funding for that all flows through the federal government. So there are some, you know, significant things here

that people will definitely miss if they're gone. Last, I was just going to say, Crystal, last thought. If there is anywhere that this administration is able to kind of like land the plane and execute the long-standing conservative blueprint to get rid of a department, it's with this one because it's such a, again, it's long-standing, it's such a, this has been something that's been developed

over the course of decades. If they can't do this one, they probably can't do anything. So that's something to keep an eye on. Well, I just hope that future president of AOC is watching and is going to take the same hatchet to ice. That's what I'm hoping. So learn a little bit from this Democrats. Just go out and do it and then ask questions later.

First, the courts to come in after you and block you because apparently they're not gonna do that. So what happened at Chappaquiddick? Well, it really depends on who you talk to. There are many versions of what happened in 1969 when a young Ted Kennedy drove a car into a pond. And left a woman behind to drown. There's a famous headline, I think,

in the New York Daily News. It's, Teddy escapes, blonde drowns. And in a strange way, right, that sort of tells you. The story really became about Ted's political future, Ted's political hopes. Will Ted become president? Chappaquiddick is a story of a tragic death and how the Kennedy machine took control.

And he's not the only Kennedy to survive a scandal. The Kennedys have lived through disgrace, affairs, violence, you name it. So is there a curse? Every week we go behind the headlines and beyond the drama of America's royal family. Listen to United States of Kennedy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts.

you get your podcasts. American history is full of wise people. Well women said something like no 99.99% of war is diarrhea and 1% is glory. Those founding fathers were gossipy AF and they love to cut each other down. I'm Bob Crawford, host of American history Hotline, the show where you send us your questions about American history and I find the answers, including the nuggets of wisdom our history has to offer. Hamilton pauses and then he says, the greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar. And Jefferson writes in his diary, this proves that Hamilton is for a dictator

based on corruption. My favorite line was what Neil Armstrong said, it would have been harder to fake it than to do it. Listen to American history hotline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. Welcome to Pretty Private with Ebene, the podcast where silence is broken and stories are set free. I'm Ebene and every Tuesday I'll be sharing all new anonymous stories that will challenge

your perceptions and give you new insight on the people around you. On Pretty Private, we'll explore the untold experiences of women of color who faced it all, childhood trauma, addiction, abuse, incarceration, grief, mental health struggles, and more, and found the strength to make it to the other side. My dad was shot and killed in his house. Yes, he was a drug dealer. Yes, he was a confidential informant, but he wasn't shot on a street corner. He wasn't shot in the middle of a drug deal.

He was shot in his house unarmed. Pretty Private isn't just a podcast. It's your personal guide for turning storylines into lifelines. Every Tuesday, make sure you listen to Pretty Private from the Black Effect Podcast Network. Tune in on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

Let's go ahead and get to this latest with regard to MAGA. You mentioned Charlie Kirk. So he got a phone call, I could put actually A2 up on the screen. He apparently got a phone call from Trump who called him to express his support for Bondi after being shown a clip of Charlie Kirk seemingly supporting Dan Boncino over Bondi

at the Turning Point USA conference. So effectively the memo went out to Kirk to stand down. And I think that same memo has gone out to many other MAGA influencers. The result of that being this clip of Charlie Kirk saying, you know what, for now, I'm just gonna move on from this. Let's take a listen. Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein

for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the administration. I'm gonna trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done, solve it, balls in their hands. I've said plenty this last weekend. Trust Trump, Emily. That's really something.

He posted on X after that to say, listen, you know, it's not that we don't care anymore. It's just that it's like we have to at some point trust who's there. And that is such a weird. Can you imagine? I'm serious in all of this. I know he is like genuinely friends with people in the administration. And I do think he gets credit for letting Tucker and others go to his conference over the weekend and say basically whatever the heck they wanted to on this.

And that's great. But can you imagine being like, I'm just gonna trust people who we've given enormous power to? That is such a bizarre, I get that he's friends with a lot of these guys, but the idea that we just handed these people mass surveillance powers, confidential information,

and they've done nothing to earn the trust except for like flip-flop, and now we just have to sort of let go and like, God. Yeah, yeah, no, that's right. And we're gonna watch Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro in a little bit, but he did a sort of more sophisticated version of the same thing of like, yeah, no, that's right. And we're gonna watch Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro in a little bit, but he did a sort of more sophisticated version of the same thing of like, listen, I was open to various theories,

but when that memo came out and JD Vance and Dan Bongino and Cash Batal and Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and all these people that I trust said, there's no there there, I think there's no there there. So I'm moving on. Dinesh D'Souzy, we don't have an element for that because I just saw this last night. But I wanted to read his quote

because he said something similar. He said that it's time to move on from Epstein, quote, they have closed the case. And here's his reasoning. He says, if we're so obsessed with Epstein that we're jumping up and down about Epstein and we're claiming to walk out on MAGA, first of all, Trump's not up for election again,

but who are you going to vote for, the Democrats? He concluded, part of being on a political team is maintaining a certain amount of maturity, recognizing you can't win them all, recognizing there are some things that are important to you that are less important to the guy you put in charge who's trying to focus on things right in front of him. And so having a sense of perspective, having a sense of balance, having a sense of maturity, I think is more important even than getting to the bottom of what really happened with Jeffrey Epstein. So Emily, we need to just stop being so immature

about these things. That's, I mean, incredibly bizarre. Part of being on a political team? What? That's exactly, I mean, that's actually the, if you reverse that and had a Democrat posting that about Biden and the Epstein case, or the Clintons and the Epstein case, it's so obviously insane.

Like you could just, it's so obviously insane. And I get it by the way, it's kind of frustrating because the Trump administration has created a spectacle of this, a complete mess of this, when there actually are kitchen table questions that matter more to the average person than the Epstein case. Now they can walk and chew gum at the same time,

they can care about both things, but it's like kind of ridiculous that we're out here litigating all of this again, because the Trump administration promised transparency, came in and said, no, but to let up on it because you're MAGA and you're on the team and you trust them. They have done nothing, nothing to suggest that they're operating on the up and up on this.

And so the only way that you could get to that point is if you have like really good friends who you trust, who are calling you and being like, listen, this is all good We're going to take care of it for now. Just calm down which is They're not gonna take care of it. They're they're not they're getting a little bit smarter crystal I will say about how they're going to Posture on it. I had so I had Benny Johnson on After party last night and Benny said, this was his quote, everything has changed over the last 48 hours or so that

the Trump administration, he had Laura Trump on his show earlier in the day saying basically like, yeah, I think he's heard and I think you're going to see more. And Benny says he's been told, Benny has not let up on it. He said he's been told that there is more coming. So they're, my point is- Thanks to new binders? Yeah, I don't think we're getting anything significant out of that.

My point is that I think that they realize they now have to at least keep acting like they're taking the case seriously rather than being like, it's done and dusted, case closed. I have to tell you, I watched the, to the point of like, oh, this isn't that important, like everyone just move on. I watched the Epstein Netflix docs last night just to refresh my memory.

And first of all, what was done to those then girls, now women? I mean, Virginia Giffrey killed herself. Like, she was tormented. They all had their lives tormented, and they were completely abandoned by the justice system. And all the way up into the point of Epstein quote unquote killing himself,

which I just don't believe. I just don't believe, sorry, in prison. So that they never really had their day in court. Now they did get to go, and they actually were really grateful to that judge for they got to go and they got to speak and have their day to be heard and be listened to. And that was really important to them.

But that you had this spiderweb, I mean, this part we know, I mean, we know 100%, this pyramid scheme of molestation of young girls, and it was covered up at every single level. That's not a thing that you can as a society just say like, well, that was in the past, let's just let that go. But obviously more significant than that is all of the implications of the many powerful people

that were in this circle and the very strong possibility that he was an Intel asset, very likely for Masat. So I just, I'm sorry, like I don't buy that this is not an important issue, that this is something we should just, oh, that was the past, he's dead now, who cares? No, it actually matters that we get to the bottom of what happened here.

And then you also have the question of just like basic public trust. And this goes back to the JFK assassination and the coverup there, and how that really was sort of the beginning of the public disgust and disenchantment with their own government. And if you have that here too,

I mean, it has profound implications for society. I'm not saying it's the only thing that matters, but to your point, does that mean like, you can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time? It's the only thing you can focus on? No, but people deserve a lot more than what they've gotten from the Trump administration, what they've gotten from anyone,

but there were explicit promises that were made here. There were promises that were made to help secure this election bid. There were careers that were made to help secure this election bid. There were careers that were made by Cash Patel and Dan Bongino, who were happy to get rich doing podcasts, floating these theories, and then now that they're in there,

just, oh, we put out a memo, it's over case closed, everybody needs to move on. So- Trust us. Yeah, so no, I don't think it's mature to pretend that none of this happened and put it in the past and just move on, because the societal implications

to me are extraordinary. They are quite significant, they are quite grave. Well, and it cannot possibly be said enough that the timing of all of this happened the day before Netanyahu came to the White House. And then a couple of days before, an Israeli official was quoted anonymously in the New York Times saying their intelligence suggests not all of the enriched uranium

was destroyed in the 12 day war. So why do I say that? I have no idea definitively whether or not there's a connection, but it is a strong reminder that our foreign policy may currently be influenced by all of this because for example, if you are coming out and you're Donald Trump and you're Kash Patel or Pam Bondi or whomever and you are relying on Mossad, Saga reported during the 12 Day War that our intelligence

about Iranian nuclear capabilities was coming from Israel. If you are relying on that intelligence, you think you're relying on that and that's absolutely necessary to have a window into a potential other nuclear hostile nuclear power. You come in, you want to spill all of the secrets and someone's like, no you can't do that. We will no longer know what is happening in Iran because we have been relying on the Mossad operation and the the Mossad surveillance for years and years. Then hey that's how you get from point A to point B, in my opinion, and what happens with that crystal

is influence over our foreign policy continues from this disgusting and ugly scandal. Well, and just to put it really bluntly, if the President of the United States is a pedophile and Mossad has that information and is using it to control him and our foreign policy, you know, I think it's pretty important that we know that. I think that's a rather important piece of information

and thing to get the bottom of, just me personally throwing that out there. Others disagree though. Here is Republican representative Mike Lawler. This is one of these guys that's like held up as a moderate, you know, but just like votes along with the party on absolutely everything in any case. Except for salt.

He absolutely would not vote unless he got that salt deduction up. Well, and that was a bipartisan concern from members in that region in particular. But in any case, he says the same thing. Who cares? Let's move on. Let's listen. Listen, I'm probably not the person to ask because I don't speak in conspiracy theory. But at the end of the day, there's a lot bigger issues facing this country

than Jeffrey Epstein. The guy is dead and buried. Let's move on. Okay. If somebody committed a crime, if somebody affiliated with Jeffrey Epstein committed a crime, they should be prosecuted. with Jeffrey Epstein committed a crime, they should be prosecuted. In the absence of that, frankly, this seems like a colossal waste of time and effort, and frankly, a lot of nonsense. There are a lot of issues facing this country right now. A dead pedophile ain't one of them.

And I think, look, I mean, it technically is a conspiracy theory, because you're talking about an actual conspiracy, but that's also just an attempt to delegitimize all of this and sort of put it in the bucket of QAnon, which is preposterous. I mean, mainstream reporters, go read Julie K. Brown, go read what is out there, go read what our own government has said about Jeffrey Epstein and the files

that they were able to procure from his various residences and the tapes and the photos that they pulled from his mansion in the Upper East Side. Go talk to people who are saying like, okay, well, how did he even make his money? Right? This is not loony-toons. There are legitimate, like documented, unanswered questions about how all of this went down.

And so it's really frustrating to me when people just try to put this in the QAnon bucket, like, it's all just, like, preposterous tinfoil hat stuff. Stop gaslighting us. Like, stop pretending like this wasn't a real thing that really happened. That's exactly what they're... Yeah. And again, we know if this were a Biden administration, people like Mike Lawler would not be saying what they're saying. And if you trust the Trump administration so much,

then go look at what the Trump administration said until they got the keys. No, it would be one thing if they had come out and dismissed all of the said case closed with mountains of evidence suggesting why Everything they have produced so far has been absurd and I know we're gonna get into this because Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly got into this But like the evidence that they have produced to tell us there is no there there that Epstein Just truly did kill himself, which may actually be true. I don't particularly believe it, but that could be true.

It's not mutually exclusive with the idea that he was involved in a blackmail scheme or was intelligence. But they put forth that video that Wired scraped the metadata of and was like, this is not the raw footage. And they then said, well, we can't also, we have all of this stuff, but we can't release it because it would be re-traumatizing victims and it would be putting like pedophile stuff onto the internet, like child pornography onto the internet.

None of that is convincing whatsoever. And so all you have to do is listen to what they said before they were implicated in being the people who could actually release this information, Mike Lawler, and you should listen to those versions of these same people, because I think they made some great points. Yeah, true.

Put A4 up on the screen, I mean, apparently Fox News got the memo as well. As of noon, there were zero Epstein mentions. However, Joe Biden and the auto pen scandal, quote unquote, had a 46 mentions. So, you know, really focused on the here and now with that one. And then just as a reminder of all of the weirdness,

and we went through yesterday, a bunch of the Trump connections with Jeffrey Epstein, which are substantial, just as a reminder of the weirdness with which he has always approached this case. And the fact that, you know, he would get asked, oh, you're gonna release the JFK files, you're gonna release the RFK files,

like you're gonna release the UFO files, yes, yes, yes. You're gonna release the Epstein files, yes, well, maybe not actually, no, I don't think I will release those. He always got squirrely on that one. But he also was really weird when, remember, during the first Trump administration, when Epstein was killed, and then there were questions about,

Epstein killed himself, I'm sorry, and then there were questions about whether or not Ghislaine Maxwell would be found guilty. Apparently we now have indications Trump thought about pardoning her as well. And when he got asked about her trial and what he wanted to see happen, he said he wishes her well. Let's take a listen to that.

Mr. President, the other day a reporter asked you about Ghislaine Maxwell. You said, quote, I just wish her well, frankly. I've met her numerous times over the years, especially since I lived in Palm Beach, but I wish her well, whatever it is. Mr. President, Ghislaine Maxwell has been arrested on allegations of child sex trafficking. Why would you wish such a person well? Well, first of all, I don't know that, but I do know that- She has.

She's been arrested for that. Who knew that? Her friend or boyfriend- Epstein. Was either killed or committed suicide in jail. She's now in jail. Yeah, I wish her well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well.

Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty. I mean, do you know that she's guilty? Oh, so you're saying you hope she doesn't die in jail. Is that what you mean by wish you well. I'd wish you well. I'd wish a lot of people well. Good luck. Let them prove somebody was guilty. I mean, you do know that she's guilty. Oh, so you're saying you hope she doesn't die in jail. Is that what you mean by wish her well? Her boyfriend died in jail, and people are still trying to figure out how did it happen? Was it suicide? Was he killed?

And I do wish her well. I'm not looking for anything bad for her. I'm not looking bad for anybody. And they took that and made it such a big deal. But all it is is her boyfriend died, he died in jail. Was he killed? Was it suicide? I do, I wish her well.

What a bizarre answer, Emily. So, I mean, it's so strange that he, I mean, it's not, so I'm curious what you make of this, because like in a sense, it's not, so I'm curious what you make of this, because like, in the sense, it's not strange at all, right? Like it makes complete sense, but just from the perspective of like, why would you be so transparently wishy washy on the alleged child sex predator,

as Jonathan Swan put it there, when you know that there are these like voluminous connections, as he even pointed out there, listen, whether or not he's directly implicated in any of this, there's a significant question of whether he was trying to signal to Ghislaine Maxwell that to talk, and now the Daily Mail has a source. I don't know if you've said this story,

Crystal, you probably did. The Daily Mail is saying that Ghislaine Maxwell is ready to reveal the truth about Jeffrey Epstein and is ready to speak. So enormous grain of salt, Daily Mail anonymous source, but I mean, that could be pretty interesting, Crystal. Yeah, well, let's hear it. I mean, listen, she's obviously a convicted criminal.

I mean, this is a disgusting, horrific person who deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison. There's no doubt about it. But she also would certainly be in a position to know. And I have a feeling that she feels pretty bitter that she's the only one who went to prison for this, you know, sex trafficking ring. Again, she deserves it.

She should be there, but there are others who likely should be there as well. So what happened at Chappaquiddick? Well, it really depends on who you talk to. There are many versions of what happened in 1969 when a young Ted Kennedy drove a car into a pond. And left a woman behind to drown. There's a famous headline, I think, in the New York Daily News.

It's Teddy escapes, blonde drowns. And in a famous headline, I think, in the New York Daily News. It's, Teddy escapes, Blonde drowns. And in a strange way, right, that sort of tells you. The story really became about Ted's political future, Ted's political hopes. Will Ted become president? Chappaquiddick is a story of a tragic death and how the Kennedy machine took control. And he's not the only Kennedy to survive a scandal. The Kennedys have lived through disgrace, affairs, violence, you name it. So is there a curse?

Every week we go behind the headlines and beyond the drama of America's royal family. Listen to United States of Kennedy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcast, or wherever you get your podcasts. American history is full of wise people. Well women said something like no 99.99% of war is diarrhea and 1% is glory. Those founding fathers were gossipy AF and they love to cut each other down. I'm Bob Crawford, host of American History Hotline, the show where you send us your questions about American history and I find the answers, including the nuggets of

wisdom our history has to offer. Hamilton pauses and then he says, the greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar. And Jefferson writes in his diary, this proves that Hamilton is for a dictator based on corruption. My favorite line was what Neil Armstrong said, it would have been harder to fake it than to do it. Listen to American history hotline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to Pretty Private with Ebene, the podcast where silence is broken and stories

are set free. I'm Ebene and every Tuesday I'll be sharing all new anonymous stories that will challenge your perceptions and give you new insight on the people around you. On Pretty Private, we'll explore the untold experiences of women of color who faced it all, childhood trauma, addiction, abuse, incarceration, grief, mental health struggles, and more, and found the strength to make it to the other side. My dad was shot and killed in his house. Yes, he was a drug dealer. Yes, he was a confidential informant.

But he wasn't shot on the street corner. He wasn't shot in the middle of a drug dealer. Yes, he was a confidential informant, but he wasn't shot on a street corner. He wasn't shot in the middle of a drug deal. He was shot in his house, unarmed. Pretty Private isn't just a podcast. It's your personal guide for turning storylines into lifelines. Every Tuesday, make sure you listen to Pretty Private from the Black Effect Podcast Network. Tune in on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Let's go ahead and get to this Megyn Kelly, Ben Shapiro debate,

which I watched all of it and I thought was pretty interesting. You know, Megyn didn't take like a hard position of like, I definitely think that he was killed, or I definitely think that there are other powerful people who are implicated or whatever. She was more in the like, I really don't think was killed, or I definitely think that there are other powerful people who are implicated or whatever. She was more in the like, I really don't think we know exactly what went on here,

and Shapiro was in the camp of like, nope, nothing to see here, let's move on. Let's go ahead and take a listen to this first piece, which to me was just extraordinary, because Ben says this thing of basically like, yeah, I was open to it, but once we got that memo, then I was like, oh, I guess there's nothing to see here. Let's go ahead and take a listen to that.

The government admits this. The FBI established that Epstein used paid employees to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls, not only for his own sexual gratification, but also for the sexual gratification of others. So I don't know exactly what that means, Ben,

but I know that's our government admitting in court that Jeffrey Epstein worked in concert with others to obtain minor girls, not only for himself, but also for the sexual gratification of others. Who? Who are the others? Who? Who specifically?

That hasn't been answered. We've heard names babied about. One obvious answer is Ghislaine Maxwell, right? Who's in prison right now for having engaged in the sexual abuse of children. Right? And one of the other people that you just mentioned is one of the others, right?

Nadia, whatever her name is. So, you know, that is sort of the big open question that everyone was asking was, okay, who's that like Stephen Hawking? Right? Because he was one of the names who was mentioned or Ellen Dershowitz was one of the names who was mentioned. Lex Wexner.

Or Ahud Barak or Lex Wexner, right? Like all these were, and again, here's my thing. I was open to every single one of these theories until the DOJ and FBI put out a memo saying we have looked at all the evidence and here's what we have come to. Right, this is my view. You were persuaded by that memo without more,

I mean, like I wasn't persuaded. I also trust Dan. I'm not persuaded by a memo. What I'm persuaded by is the fact that I have not seen evidence that they have seen. And so I'm not prepared to call Dan Bongino, Cash Patel, President Trump, JD Vans and Tam Bundy all liars. It's not the same though. Their two-page memo says no credible evidence.

No credible evidence. Well, somebody's made a judgment call there and there's a, you could drive a truck through that exception. What'd you think of that, Em? Well, it's exactly what we were just talking about, that if the Trump administration, let's say even the two of us, and people who have covered the story seriously and skeptically for years,

if the Trump administration came out and produced evidence beyond trust us and a not raw piece of video that they told us was raw, and said, listen, we really did look into it and we're going to show our work here and give you a reason to believe us, other than, again, literally just trust us. That's all we've gotten so far. And so to say I take their word for it, the conspiracy theory that is years and years in the making

where you have all of this public reporting, as I was listening to that, I was just frustrated that from a rational perspective, there's so much evidence in the category that there's a lot more to see than what the Trump administration is telling us, which is why even non-conspiratorial people are onto the quote unquote conspiracy bandwagon in this case, because there's mountains of public evidence reporting that this goes much, much deeper. And so from a rational perspective, it doesn't make sense to dismiss the case because you trust the word of people in power.

It's just, it's weird. And I think it sounds like someone trying to get to the conclusion that nothing happened. Yeah, and I mean, very interesting that the same people who are the most vociferously pro-Israel and banging the drums the most for war with Iran and all of these sorts of things, also tend to be the ones in the hardcore,

there's nothing to see with regard to Epstein camp, also notable. Let's go ahead and take a listen to this next part because this is potentially newsworthy. Meghan claims she actually has sources in the administration who say, no, this is a lie. This isn't what happened whatsoever. Let's go ahead and take a listen.

I have the names of the people who are making the claim that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself and that the most gross and extreme of the conspiracy theories or theories, just don't even call them conspiracy theories, the most extreme version of the theory is not true. I have names of the people who are claiming that. They are all in the administration. And this is my point.

If other people want to make those claims that are counter to that, then they should provide evidence or at least put their names on it so we can question them about that as well because otherwise we're just in the realm of pure speculation. And frankly, I just don't find that useful. to that, then they should provide evidence or at least put their names on it so we can question them about that as well. Because otherwise we're just in the realm of pure speculation. And frankly, I just don't find that useful. I would love more useful information. This is why I'm angry at Pimbandi. I think there should be all the useful information possible.

But the same thing holds true for people who are making claims on the other side. Otherwise I can claim that he was working for a cadre of space aliens who are blackmailing high-profile Americans in order to protect from a future invasion. And there's just about as much evidence for that as many of the claims that are being made on the other side. All right, well, let's talk about that. Any claim that is made requires evidence. Any claim that's being made requires actual evidence.

And at the very least, in the absence of evidence, the incredible names of the people that I can either trust or not trust, ranging from, again, the President of the United States and Vice President to the head of the FBI, the AG and the Deputy Head of the FBI. Well, I think it's very hard to say those people need to come out and put their names on these claims when they're working for an administration, this one and the one before, that didn't want that

to come out. You're asking somebody to countermand the people they work for. How am I supposed to falsify their claims? Now we're working in the realm of the unfulfilled. You're not. But look, Ben, you can't come to me and say everybody I know says he killed himself. And then I respond saying, I actually have my own sources who say he didn't. And then you say, well, your sources are not valid because they won't put their names on it. OK, well, nothing there. Let's go down the list and then we'll talk about why they might be saying that.

My sources are the president of the United States, the vice president of the United States, Kash Patel, the head of the FBI, Dan Bongino, the deputy head of the FBI, and Pam Bondi, the attorney general. And those aren't just my sources. They're everybody's sources because they publicly came out and said this. Okay. Trump hasn't specifically weighed in on that specific aspect of it. We've all seen the limited things that Trump has said and tweeted on this.

And JD Vance was calling for transparency and suggesting otherwise prior to taking office. He hasn't commented on this so far, so he's not one of your sources. So somebody should ask him. He's the vice president. You've got Cash, you've got Dan, and you've got Pam, and we've already discussed that memo in full detail. I'm talking about people behind the scenes who prior to Trump taking office,

I'm not going to get too specific, but trust me, I have high-level sources who have said they don't believe any of that, any of that. Okay. And I'm not going to out them for purposes of convincing you, but you're telling me name them. No, I'm not going to, I don't have authorization. And then you say, well, I dismiss all of it

because you won't name them. Hold on, Megan, I'm not saying you should name them. I'm saying they should name themselves because otherwise they are being complicit in one of the greatest cover-ups in the history of the American public. That's easy for you to say, Ben. That's very easy for you to say.

Why is that easy for me to say? Why? Because you'll have your job and you'll have your millions, no matter what they do. Are you kidding? Megan, give me a break. So Emily, he's saying there, oh, well, if people think differently, then they should come forward as if that's a casual and easy thing to do and wouldn't have any potential personal consequences for them whatsoever.

And we all agree with that, by the way. Yes, of course, come forward. But again, it's not the rationalist perspective to say, because people won't put their name on it, it doesn't, it sort of undermines their credibility. It's like, if you go deep into this story, I mean, people have died, by the way. People who may have had things to say

have died under suspicious circumstances beyond just Jeffrey Epstein. There are a lot of, and I don't know Like people who may have had things to say have died under suspicious circumstances beyond just Jeffrey Epstein. There are a lot of, and I don't know that those add up to a conspiracy theory, but they're worth thinking about. And it's obviously true that when the stakes of something are so high, when you have the former labor secretary saying, and then not denying, they also talked about this, not denying really

that he said Epstein belonged to intelligence. He was told that Epstein belonged to intelligence and to give that plea deal that Epstein got back in 2007. Well, you have that over and over again over the series of years. Then, I mean, there's nothing again, rational about saying, saying okay because these people won't come forward then we have to just go on the evidence that people in the government are telling us to trust that. I find other things strange and to me it does seem like someone trying to get from point A to point B like they want to justify the end and maybe for Ben it's partially because he's deeply frustrated

justify the end and maybe for Ben it's partially because he's deeply frustrated with the like weird little alt-right mouth-breather who are using this for purposes of like rink anti-Semitism, maybe, and that's an explanation as to why someone would stretch from point A to point B by just deferring to the president who himself is implicated at all of this. I mean, Pam Bondi, who was state AG of Florida when charges, further investigations and charges could have potentially happened, as Julie K. Brown has pointed out, it's not in any way a persuasive defense.

Yeah. Well, and just your point about the many questions and some other people who also died under questionable circumstances. Jean-Luc Brunel was a pedophile and criminal and was a close associate of Jeffrey Epstein who allegedly sent Epstein multiple underage girls, I think 12-year-old girls, for his birthday to sexually abuse, allegedly.

He also killed himself in prison and oh, interesting, the cameras were off there too, huh? And it was not also recorded. So you know, you've got that, you've got all of the questionable circumstances surrounding Epstein's death. Oh, those cameras happened to be off. Oh, the prison guards happened to be asleep. Oh, you know, the official autopsy says,

oh, it was a hanging and it was a suicide, but when his brother had this further investigated, they said, I've never seen a suicide that would be consistent with the particular fractions of these bones in the neck. So yeah, to just pretend like none of that is real, like it's all just a conspiracy theory, it's grotesque. And you know, the last thing I'll say here,

Sager tweeted this out yesterday and I think this also bears mentioning. Here are the list, he says, of Israeli prime ministers linked to Epstein. Number one, Shimon Peres introduced Ehud Barak to Epstein. Number two, Ehud Olmert, named as an Epstein associate by USVI. Number three, Ehud Barak.

Connections too vast to paraphrase. He's the one who really had the deepest Epstein connections from Israel. And Netanyahu met with JP Morgan after a parent Epstein intro. So there's just, you know, we're just supposed to dismiss all of that. That's just a conspiracy that there could be any there,

that's worthy of further investigation. And the most suspicious thing from Pan Bondi, I thought, is when she got asked about the potential intel connections, she played dumb, like, oh, I haven't really looked into that. As if she had no idea that anyone had speculated that, or there were any potential ties there whatsoever.

I didn't really think about that. Didn't really look into that. Okay, girl. Didn't she say, she was like, I'll have to get back to you. Have to get back to you. Why don't you? Please get back to us, Pan Bondi. Get back to think about that. Didn't really look into that. Okay, girl. Didn't she say, she was like, I'll have to get back to you. Have to get back to you. Why don't you? Please get back to us, Pam Bondi.

Get back to us on that. We're still waiting on that. Incredible. All right, let's go ahead and move on to Congressman Ro Khanna, who introduced this amendment to try to force transparency. Unfortunately, it was voted down yesterday,

but want to get all the details on that. So what happened at Chappaquiddick? Well, it really depends on who you talk to. There are many versions of what happened in 1969 when a young Ted Kennedy drove a car into a pond. And left a woman behind to drown. There's a famous headline, I think, in the New York Daily News.

It's, Teddy escapes, blonde drowns. And in a strange way, right, that sort of tells you the story really became about Ted's political future, Ted's political hopes. Will Ted become president? Chappaquiddick is a story of a tragic death and how the Kennedy machine took control. And he's not the only Kennedy to survive a scandal.

The Kennedys have lived through disgrace, affairs, violence, you name it. So is there a curse? Every week we go behind the headlines scandal. The Kennedys have lived through disgrace, affairs, violence, you name it. So is there a curse? Every week we go behind the headlines and beyond the drama of America's royal family. Listen to United States of Kennedy on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. American history is full of wise people.

Well, women said something like, you know, 99.99% of war is diarrhea and 1% is glory. Those founding fathers were gossipy AF and they love to cut each other down. I'm Bob Crawford, host of American History Hotline, the show where you send us your questions about American history and I find the answers, including the nuggets of wisdom our history has to offer. Hamilton pauses and then he says, the greatest man that ever lived was Julius Caesar. And Jefferson writes in his diary, this proves that Hamilton is for a dictator based on corruption. My favorite line was what Neil Armstrong said. It would have been harder to fake it than to do it.

Listen to American History Hotline on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. [♪ music playing, drum beat playing, beat drops to beat of drum beat. Welcome to Pretty Private with Ebene, the podcast where silence is broken and stories are set free. I'm Ebene and every Tuesday I'll be sharing all new anonymous stories that will challenge your perceptions and give you new insight on the people around you.

On Pretty Private, we'll explore the untold experiences of women of color who faced it all, childhood trauma, addiction, abuse, incarceration, grief, mental health struggles, and more, and found the strength to make it to the other side. My dad was shot and killed in his house. Yes, he was a drug dealer. Yes, he was a confidential informant, but he wasn't shot on a street corner. He wasn't shot in the middle of a drug deal. He was shot in his house unarmed.

Pretty Private isn't just a podcast. It's your personal guide for turning storylines into lifelines. Every Tuesday, make sure you listen to Pretty Private from the Black Effect Podcast Network. Tune in on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. So we are fortunate to be joined this morning by Congressman Ro Khanna, who as I just mentioned,

we can put B2 up on the screen here, guys, had introduced an amendment to the Genius Act that would require both the preservation of all Epstein records would also require the Attorney General to release all Epstein records within 30 days. And Congressman, I know we have a not positive update on the status of that amendment.

So first of all, thank you for joining us. And second of all, if you could just bring us up to speed here. Sure, I introduced a pretty simple amendment. It would demand the full release of the Epstein calls. The rules committee voted on it last night. Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated. All four Democrats voted for it.

Ralph Norman, a Republican to his credit, voted for it, but seven Republicans voted against it. And they're basically choosing to protect rich and powerful men over the assaulted, abused, and abandoned young women. And it's really appalling. Did they try to negotiate anything with you and maybe say, all right, that 30 days, let's make it 60 days, or were they just basically, other than Ralph Norman, flat nose on the amendment?

They were flat nose. I mean, they made the argument that, oh, it's not germane to the Genius Act. But if you look at the Genius Act, actually, it has such broad findings about the internet that it is germane because a lot of these crimes took place over the internet. So they could have, that's just an excuse. They could have easily voted for it.

Or they could have offered their own amendment or they could have said, own amendment, or they could have said, Roe, we'll bring yours with some similar amendment for a vote on the House floor. But look, the reality is, and everyone knows this in this town, that these are people who are donors to politicians. These are people who play golf with the elite in Washington. These are foreign leaders that we do not want to embarrass. These are people connected to our or other intelligence agencies that we do not want

to take on. So, there is a protection here going on of rich and powerful men. Congressman, one of the things that has been theorized based on a number of connections here is a potential link between Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad. Is that something that you think is a possibility? What is your view there? Well, look, no one knows because that's exactly why we need the files released. I mean, the reality is, if frankly, if you're the Mossad, you wouldn't be calling for the release of these files unless you have something to hide.

Why not? If you really believe that there is a conspiracy therein, this is not true, then release the files, release the interview memos, release the evidence. Now, I understand people say, well, look, DOJ policy is that you shouldn't release things unless you charge someone. And there's a lot of validity to having that policy. You don't want the government just destroying people's lives if they're innocent by having a media campaign.

But in this case, given that the president of the United States campaigned on the release, given that the attorney general said that there is a client list, given all of the allegations of agencies involved and foreign governments involved, the president should say as a national security matter,

as a matter of public interest, I'm making an exception and releasing all the files for sunlight on this. If Democrats retake the House of Representatives in the midterms, are there avenues that you can or plan to pursue in order to get further transparency from the federal government on this? Absolutely.

Well, I'm going to pursue it now. I'm not going to rest. I'm going to pursue it in our Oversight Committee to see if we can get the files through the Oversight Committee. I think we need to have votes in committees, if not on the House floor. And you see with Ralph Norman, there will be some Republicans willing to join us. And certainly, if we take back the House, we should be subpoenaing these files, subpoenaing Pam Bondi, subpoenaing anyone involved.

But the Democrats now should be pushing for the release of these files. And people say, well, why didn't you push earlier during Trump won or Biden? The reality is you didn't have an attorney general look at the evidence and say there is a client list. You didn't have a president of the United States say we're going to release it. And so there is now a public outcry. And regardless of how you felt about it in the past while the process was going on, now we should have a clear consensus that this should be released, whether under Trump or a Democrat, it just should come out. There were obvious connections between Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein. He was on the plane some, I think, 26, 27 times, something like that. There was a worker on the island who said

that he saw former President Clinton on that island. President Clinton has denied any wrongdoing there. There are also obvious connections between Jeffrey Epstein and the current president, including Epstein says that they were besties for over a decade. Trump himself has this infamous quote about how close they are and how much Jeffrey Epstein loves beautiful women,

and particularly those on the younger side. He himself was on the plane some seven times, et cetera. Are your Democratic colleagues on board with full transparency here? Do you feel like there's sort of unanimity in the caucus, or do you have some people who are a little more uncomfortable about what potentially could be revealed or just feel like, you know what,

this isn't the fight to pick, this isn't the thing to focus on right now? I think initially know what, this isn't the fight to pick, this isn't the thing to focus on right now. I think initially they were saying, this isn't the fight to take, and they thought, oh, this is, you know, engaging in conspiracy theories. But the reality is, it's not conspiratorial. There are rich and powerful men who, like I said,

abused, assaulted, and abandoned young girls. And the public has a right to know that there is not impunity for them. And now I think there is a greater consensus that the Democrats need to be on the side of full release. The Rules Committee wouldn't have taken up my amendment if leadership and Jim McGovern didn't show leadership. So at this point, the Democrats are in full release. But what I think is important is we don't just make this a one or two day effort,

that we are capable of relentlessly driving for the release of these files. Let's go ahead and move on to the New York City mayor's race, which has proved to be extraordinary. Zoran Mamdani coming from out of nowhere to defeat Cuomo in the Democratic primary. Quite overwhelming. I think it was ultimately like a 12-point margin, wasn't even really close. He was able to, you know, clear after the first round that Zoran would be successful. He did something that, you know, leftists have always sort of hoped they would be able to pull off, which he's truly changed the electorate. The surge in youth voting was really extraordinary. But Andrew Cuomo,

even though he was defeated in the Democratic primary, has now officially announced that he is going to continue into the general election. He posted a rather interesting launch video yesterday. Let's go ahead and take a look at that. Hello, I'm Andrew Cuomo. And unless you've been living under a rock, you probably know that the Democratic primary did not go the way I had hoped. The fight to save our city isn't over.

Only 13% of New Yorkers voted in the June primary. The general election is in November, and I am in it to win it. My opponent, Mr. Mondani offers slick slogans, but no real solutions. For the next few months, it's my responsibility to earn your vote. So Congressman, I'll give you a moment to catch your breath after the tour de force of that charismatic presentation. But my question for you is,

hey, what happened to Vote Blue No Matter Who? This guy won the Democratic primary. Why is it so hard, not only for Andrew Cuomo, who we all know is a complete egomaniac, to get on board, but so many Democrats are, you know, toadling their thumbs and refusing to endorse Zoran, even after the Democratic voters said, hey, this is our guy.

Well, it shows why the Democratic establishment is so out of touch with the grassroots of our party. Zoran won because he ran a brilliant campaign. He talked about the high rent. He talked about high grocery prices. He talked about the high costs of transportation. All the things that we didn't emphasize nearly enough in 2024, he talked about the moral

stakes of the bombing in Gaza and the killing of women and children there and how he was opposed to that, and he didn't back away from that. And he inspired a lot of people because of his campaign. And so the obvious reaction should have been, OK, he won. Let's get behind him. Let's endorse him. Yet we still have Democratic leaders who have not endorsed him. He's obviously going to win for mayor.

I mean, the billionaires trying to stop him are not going to succeed. And it's just embarrassing that you have this old guard clinging on, trying to cling on to power. You know, Napoleon once said, it's worse than a crime, it's a blunder. That's how I feel about the old guard. It's not their immorality, it's their stupidity about politics that is sort of staggering.

And what's it been like in the House Democratic caucus over the last few weeks as people have digested Mom Donnie's surprise win. I mean, there's something interesting just about Andrew Cuomo getting in the race, meaning he thinks he will have endorsements and donors and all of that. So Congressman, what's your sense of where

your fellow Democrats, as you speak with them, are people trying to learn from Zoran anymore? Have they just landed on dismissing it and getting behind Cuomo? What's going on? Yes, some are learning. It's the progressive caucus that are learning. We're actually meeting him tomorrow morning at the DNC Breakfast Club. But it's the same divide in this party. Those of us who want to move the party in a different direction, we're against these overseas wars, including the war in Iran, where I led the War Powers Revolution with

Thomas Massey, against a funding net who's bombing in Gaza, who are for taxing wealth, who are for having rent caps and stopping Wall Street from buying single-family homes. Here's that progressive movement. And of course, they'd say, look, let's learn from what Mamdani did in terms of social media and in terms of issues. And then there's the camp that says, no, no, no, this is too far. This is what's wrong with the Democratic Party. And it's, you know, the Democrats just have to be open

to having this fight within our party. I mean, yes, we have to come together on things like the Epstein file, but there's a divide in the party. And the question is, are we going to go in a progressive direction, or are we going to go with more of the same? And I think that should be fought out.

And Congressman, you know, in my opinion, and in the opinion of New Yorkers and according to the polling and opinion of Americans, the things he has proposed, his specific policy proposals are not radical at all. I mean, five grocery stores, what now? This is the Soviet Union, affordable childcare, oh my God, crazy, like the rest of the developed world.

Being able to afford housing, like a rent freeze for already rent stabilized apartments, I mean, the rest of the developed world. Being able to afford housing, like a rent freeze for already rent stabilized apartments. I mean, none of this is really crazy. And so it seems to me that the two things that moderates really object to is number one, just the label socialist, which to me, I'm like, okay, well, you don't like the label,

but let's deal with what specific policies do you actually think are so extreme that you can't even exist in the same party with him, as Dean Phillips said. But to me, the real divide is over Israel. And you had Hakeem Jeffries, let's put this up on the screen, this is B5, he's talking to Punchbowl, he still has not backed Zoran,

which I think is extraordinary from a democratic leader and obviously who represents New York. And he said this thing that really infuriated me because it's just dishonest. So Punchful says, Mumdani's past use of the phrase globalized the Intifada will be quote, part of our discussion according to Jeffries. And the reason this is dishonest

is because Mumdani never has used that. There's no evidence he even ever used that phrase, but he was asked about it and gave his understanding of what it means and why it lands different in different contexts, et cetera. And yet there's been so many sort of smears and lies of him and directly Islamophobic attacks, like from Senator Kirsten Gillibrand,

that a sort of mythology has grown up that he is out there using this particular phrase and, you know, is apparently part of what's keeping Hakeem Jeffries from getting behind him and outright endorsing the Democratic nominee chosen by the voters. Well, every Democratic leader should endorse Mamdani. Mamdani has clearly said that he does not believe that globalize the Intifada should be used as a phrase and that he is going to make the safety of Jewish Americans a very, very high priority, just like he's going to make the safety of Muslim Americans and Hindu Americans and Christian Americans a high priority.

Brad Lander, a Jewish American, endorsed him. I have no doubt that Zoran is going to work with the Jewish American community here, concerns about antisemitism, and he understands antisemitism violence has increased. So I think we need to have the facts now. There may be a difference. I don't believe that people should be using the word globalized intifada and condemned it.

And if people in the party want to say that, they can and still support Mamdani. I don't understand why there is this hesitancy to support him when he's going to be the mayor, when he's connecting with a lot of people. And by the way, he's had the votes of a lot of Jewish Americans. How much do you think that Israel is going to be a central dividing line in the party? because you have an extraordinary distance between the base of the party and how they feel about Israel and our policy vis-a-vis Israel at this point, and democratic leadership as evidenced by Chuck Schumer,

Hakeem Jeffries, et cetera. And it seems to me like this sort of schism just cannot persist. Well, I think it goes to the sense of, do we believe in human rights? Do we believe in a politics that is free of any special interests? And I think there are a few key places which are huge divides. I mean, did you support U.S. government funding going to Netanyahu in the offensive war in

Gaza? Of course, I was one of 40 or 50 members of Congress who voted no on that. There are a lot of people today who, if asked, in the Democratic Party would still defend their vote or say they would have supported that funding. That is a huge moral line, much like the Iraq war. Do you believe that the United States should recognize Palestinian self-determination in the Palestinian state? There are many Democrats who would not believe and support that. Even, you know, I don't believe Hamas should be part of the Palestinian state, but I think we should recognize a non-Amas Palestinian state.

And so those are two of the lines that do you believe in UNRWA and the funding of UNRWA there. So, I think it is a moral issue similar to the Iraq War. And there are a couple fault lines which make it clear which side someone is on. Congressman, finally, I have to ask you about this appearance you did with Congressman Randy Fine, newly elected Republican. Bad timing.

Well, let's take a look at the ending of your appearance, and I think part of why people objected to it so much, then we can get into some of his statements. Well, let's take a look at the ending of your appearance, and I think part of why people objected to it so much, then we can get into some of his statements. I'll get your response. Let's go ahead and take a look. Well, first of all, let me just say, I am one of those people who's extraordinarily proud

of being American. One of the reasons I'm proud is you can have a Democrat of Hindu faith standing side by side with a Republican of Jewish faith, having a civil conversation on your show. And we need more of that in this country to bring this country together. So a noble sentiment,

but of course you're talking about Randy Fine and we can put this up on the screen. Shortly thereafter, he said to Ilhan Omar, I'm sure it's difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists, so calling a member of Congress that you serve with and he serves with a Muslim terrorist. But to your point about the bad timing,

it's not like this was the first thing that he had said in a May, 2025 interview. He said, it starts with recognizing we have a quote, Muslim problem. It starts with recognizing that violent Islam is not the exception. He had already called Rashida Tlaib and Zoran Hamdani Muslim terrorists. He had called for theida Tlaib and Zoran Hamdani Muslim terrorists.

He had called for the nuking of Gaza. He celebrated the murder of a Turkish-American activist in the West Bank. I could go on, but I guess, did you know about these things? What were your thoughts going into this interview? No, Chris Cuomo called me on. As you know, I go on all media. It's one of the dangers of doing it. He said, can you debate a Republican member of Congress on the Medicaid cuts?

I said, I'm happy to. I got there. Randy Fine was there. He's been in Congress for a whole of four months. I had no idea candidly who he was. And so Chris Cuomo does this whole spiel about how people aren't proud of being Americans and Democrats in particular in polling aren't proud of being Americans. And I say, well, look, I'm really proud of being American.

And the fact that you have a Hindu-American, Jewish-American, Democrat, Republican on the show debating is proof of that. And then we have a total conversation where I thought I got the best of him on the Medicaid cut and no one pays attention to that. And of course, they have the clip, but his statements are bigoted. I've said that. And then afterwards, my phone blew up

and people started sending me all the things he said. And of course I condemn them, but there are 435 members of Congress. This guy's been around for four months. And when you go on a lot of these shows and you debate people, you don't vet their entire record. Yeah, I got you. Do you think, you know, one of the things that really bothers me is that Rashida Tlaib was censured by the Congress

for saying from the river to the sea, there's a whole flap over something, you know, she had said about investigations into Palestinian activists in Michigan where she was smeared as an anti-Semite, even though there is zero evidence that she as an anti-Semite, even though there is zero evidence that she is an anti-Semite. And then here's this guy who has said, the most disgusting things you can imagine. I mean, literally calling for nuking Gaza and starving civilians and saying,

there are no innocent Palestinian civilians, smearing multiple of his colleagues at this point as quote unquote Muslim terrorists. And it's just like barely a blip. I mean, I'm not, I'm not necessarily blaming you for not knowing that he had said all of these things because it gets no coverage in the news media. Like there's very little outrage when he says these disgraceful, bigoted, genocidal things.

And yet anytime there's even a question, like Zoran saying, responding to a question about globalized antifada, this is like a major news cycle. So I would appreciate you speaking to that kind of disparity too, and the reaction between these various sentiments. Well, I think it's changing. I think it's changing because of independent media.

I think it's changing because of social media. Trust me, my phone blew up after that interview, so people are paying attention. But you're right. There's an asymmetry. If you're a woman of color, as Rashida Tlaib is or Ilhan Omar is, and you're speaking out for Palestinian rights, and especially if you're of Muslim faith, there's no doubt that you face There's no doubt that you face far greater scrutiny, a far greater condemnation than if you're speaking out in support of Israel or Netanyahu. Now, I am not, I was not for the censoring of Rashida Tlaib, obviously. I don't think that we should be playing this game of censoring comments of members of Congress on either side, because we should condemn them. They should be awfully condemned, but I'm pretty big on free speech, and I fear that the line can

get blurry. And if you start to censor every time... But I mean, calling your colleague a terrorist, a Muslim terrorist. Well, I mean, I obviously think it's worse than what Rashida Tlaib did. And so I guess if you're going to censor Rashida, we should censor him. But my point is, you know, at some point, we've got to recognize that Democrats benefit from free speech, because really, the speech that often gets censored is a speech of people speaking up for Palestinian human rights or questioning the establishment. And the tragedy is that the appalling part was the censoring of Rashida Tlaib. But certainly, there should be more outrage at what Fine has done and a clear demand for him

to retract and apologize, and it should get more attention. Yeah, from Speaker Johnson. That's and apologize and it should get more attention. Yeah, from Speaker Johnson. That's another from other Republicans and from Speaker Johnson too, who have to my knowledge not said much at all about Randy Fine. Yeah, exactly right. All right, Connor, so we know you have a hard out. Always appreciate your time and your willingness to engage with us. It's great to see you.

Thank you. Thanks for having me. Yeah, a pleasure. [♪ music playing, fades out. [♪ music ends. Just like great shoes, great books take you places. Through unforgettable love stories, and into conversations with characters you'll never forget. I think any good romance, it gives me this feeling of like butterflies.

I'm Danielle Robay and this is Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club, the new podcast from Hello Sunshine and iHeart Podcasts where we dive into the stories that shape us on the page and off. Each week I'm joined by authors, celebs, book talk stars, and more for conversations that will make you laugh, cry, and add way too many books to your TBR pile. Listen to Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Join iHeartRadio and Sarah Spayne

in celebrating the one year anniversary of iHeart Women's Sports. With powerful interviews and insider analysis, our shows have connected fans with the heart of women's sports. In just one year, the network has launched 15 shows and built a community united by passion. Podcasts that amplify the voices of women in sports.

Thank you for supporting iHeart Women's Sports and our founding sponsors, Elf Beauty, Capital One, and Novartis. Just open the free iHeart app and search iHeart Women's Sports to listen now. So what happened at Chappaquiddick? Well, it really depends on who you talk to. There are many versions of what happened in 1969

when a young Ted Kennedy drove a car into a pond. And left a woman behind to drown. Chappaquiddick is a story of a tragic death and how the Kennedy Machine took control. Every week we go behind the headlines and beyond the drama of America's royal family. Listen to United States of Kennedy on the iHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is an iHeart Podcast.