Bulwark Takes - Tim Miller: Trump Fired the Epstein Prosecutor—What’s He Hiding?

Episode Date: July 20, 2025

Tim Miller joins Alex Witt to unpack Trump’s ongoing legal chaos, a surreal wave of right-wing Epstein conspiracies, and why the GOP’s obsession with distraction is only making things worse.

Discover the exciting action of BedMGM Casino. Check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer, or enjoy over 3,000 games to choose from like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Lifts, Make Insta-Deposits or Same Day Withdrawals. Download the BedMGM Ontario app today. Visit BedMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wage your Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly.

If you have questions or concerns about gambling or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Ben MGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Hey everybody, Tim Miller from the Bullork. I just got off a weekend stint with Alex Witt on MSNBC and we're discussing a lot of the swirling controversy around Epstein, as well as the firing of Maureen Comey, which we've talked about here a couple of times, I find to just be utterly outrageous in the extreme

and a total betrayal. I just, I don't understand how the QAnon type voters, the MAGA voters who claim to care about the prosecution of sex criminals, could see the firing over the prosecutor who oversaw the arrest of sex criminals as anything but an utter betrayal and the administration revealing that they don't actually care at all about this. Something we all know, but you know. I'll talk a little bit about something I haven't gotten into that much, which is this notion of getting Elaine Maxwell to testify in Congress. And I've been rewatching the Epstein documentary

over the weekend. And I do think this is likely not going to happen during the Republican Congress and should not be the core of the Democrats' campaign next fall. But I think that if the Democrats take back the House, they should do everything in their power to get Gillian Maxwell to testify.

There is just so much more underneath the surface of this story that could at minimum implicate pedos and sex criminals. And possibly more than that, shed some light over Donald Trump's relationship with the couple. So stick around for that. Alex Witt on The Weekend Show and me chatting it all up.

We'll be back here tomorrow for the Monday Board Podcast with Bill Kristol. We'll have a lot more all week. So we'll be seeing you soon for the Monday Board podcast with Bill Crystal. We'll have a lot more all week. So we'll be seeing you soon. Subscribe to the feed. Tim, I first want to ask about that suggestion from Alan Dershowitz to give Ghislaine Maxwell so-called use immunity and then have her testify to Congress. Well, just in this last hour, Joyce Vance told me that Congress could just subpoena her. They don't need a use immunity reason for doing so. Do you see any scenario where Ghislaine Maxwell testifies to Congress

and could that lay all questions to rest? Well, I don't know if anything could lay all questions to rest at this point, but it certainly would be useful to have Ghislaine Maxwell testify to Congress. It's hard for me to get inside her head at this point, and obviously she's serving time. What would be the value for her? What could be offered to her? Maybe that's what Dershowitz is saying, though any immunity suggestions for Dershowitz offers a pretty bad

flashback to the original Epstein arrest way back in 2006, seven, eight, where he was given immunity and his and Maxwell was given immunity at the time from further prosecution when he got that sweetheart deal. So you know, look, I don't know what she would want to do. I think certainly, you know, if you're the Democrats looking ahead to the midterms, thinking that subpoenaing Glenn Maxwell would make a lot of sense for them next year, depending on what happens in the meantime. And I think that that is all going to continue to be part of the Discussion I don't think any of this is going to go away

So trump has moved pretty quickly tim to file that 10 billion dollar lawsuit against rebert murdoch and the wall street journal after the report About the alleged epstein letter which trump denies writing and nbc news has not seen a copy But now it threatens to put his relationship with Epstein under greater scrutiny with this lawsuit. Is this a gamble on his part? What is, look, I think that the gamble that Trump is making, and you know, he's not subtle about these sort of things, you don't really have to read between the lines, is that he can cowl Rupert Murdoch in the way that he has other media outlets. He mentioned in the True Social Post about this lawsuit,

the lawsuit against George Stephanopoulos in ABC, and the lawsuit against 60 Minutes and CBS, which both settled. And so I think that is the gamble that he is making. On the other side of this, to your point, discovery is not gonna be good for Donald Trump related to Jeffrey Epstein. And there's a very extensive friendship.

Anytime this stuff comes up, there are these old tabloid articles from the from New York and London during the 90s when Trump was a private figure about how he would spend time with Maxwell and Epstein. So there obviously is more information out there. Allegedly, this alleged letter, birthday letter, was in the 2006 DOJ filing. So I think that is a risk, but if you're Trump, that's kind of a tomorrow risk. And I think you figure that you can kick the can and that this and all this would take a lot of time.

But let me ask you, though, Tim. I mean, certainly, Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal are very aware of the history that you've just chronicled, the recent history of Donald Trump getting money, extracting money from media corporations. The Wall Street Journal says, we stand behind all this reporting. You'd think they wouldn't take a risk at encouraging the wrath and a $10 billion lawsuit

from Donald Trump unless they were pretty darn sure they had what they needed to hold up in court. I would say certainly. And I think there's some just sort of anecdotal evidence of this. I mean, there was kind of rumors that this Wall Street Journal story was coming for days before it actually did in media circles.

There's some reporting on this by Oliver Garcy and others. And to me, that signals that, look, they were working on this. They were ensuring that their sourcing was solid. They had a team of lawyers looking at it. I mean, they were working on this. They were ensuring that their sourcing was solid. They had a team of lawyers looking at it. I mean, they got threatened by, according to Darcy, the president, but at least to the White House. So absolutely, I don't think that there's any reason

to believe that the Wall Street Journal was reckless in this reporting. And so I think that they're probably on pretty solid ground. Tim, as far as MAGA is concerned, it's not giving up on getting access to the details from the Epstein files. Here's some of that. Where are my fellow weaklings at? Because that's what Trump called us yesterday, right? He also, during a press conference, said that we were stupid for still caring about the Epstein files.

So I think now we're arriving at the important question here, which is, who is Trump protecting? It's the administration and their handling of this, which is why everyone's talking about it. You're like, shut up! Don't talk about it! You have put the gun in your mouth and ours collectively. Stop it! Stop it!

They're pretty clearly letting him know that he's not driving the narrative on this. How much worse, Tim, can the MAGA pressure get? Well, I guess it depends what you mean by worse. I think at some level Trump is going to make a bet that his core supporters are going to come back around and that they'll get distracted and move on from something else. This is why he's posting on social media today about the Washington football team's name, right?

He's like looking for anything to get those folks to talk about. The problem that he has, and he's probably right about that as far as his core supporters, the problem that he has is there are two groups. One that you just showed a couple of those from Alex Jones and Candace Owens, who are really outside of the Republican Party infrastructure and they thrive on conspiracy theories and contrarianism and anti-establishment talk they're not gonna stop talking about this and then you have that other group of people who were never really you know Republicans in the first place the Joe Rogan's of the world who've been

covering the story for a decade and care about it they're not gonna stop and just because Donald Trump tells them to so I think that is the issue for him like he can get the Republican Party in line, but these media outlets have different incentives and they're driven by, A, what they believe, but also what their viewers and listeners believe. And they're not gonna just shut up about this because Donald Trump wants them to. Is there an impact though, if this continues, Tim,

for Donald Trump? I mean, he's not running again, politically speaking? Well, that's a good question. He benefits a lot from this notion that he can do anything and that the base will still be with him, right? And so sure, maybe he's not running again. But look, and he's gotten all the Republicans

in the House and the Senate to vote for every piece of legislation, even some very unpopular ones over the past month or two a lot of that is based on the fact that like you don't want the worst thing for you to get on the wrong side of Trump because then the base gets mad at you if he loses that aura that that kind of invincibility power with the base I do think that has political ramifications for him it doesn't mean like the end is near or whatever but I do think that that it could impact his control over over the party So same kind of question to you Tim I'm curious what you make of boring Comey being fired the timing of it as well as the aspects of retribution

Yeah Obviously, it seems like retribution the fact that the this is either related to hers last name being Comey or the fact that she was The prosecutor and Epstein or Matt and Maxwell's cases or maybe both that this is either related to her last name being Comey or the fact that she was the prosecutor on Epstein and Maxwell's cases, or maybe both. What exactly was the impetus for it? I'm sure we'll find out in reporting in the coming weeks. I would say this about it though. I think what it reveals to me is just kind of stepping aside

from the meta political commentary of it, is if you take Maga world at face value, right? That they want pedophiles and elites to be prosecuted, like the people that committed sexual crimes against minors, they care about prosecuting them, and that is a big problem. Then the firing of Maureen Comey should be more outrageous, even, than the lack of release of the Epstein files.

And this is a person, this is a woman who specialized in prosecuting sex crimes. She prosecuted the very elites that, you know, the MAGA and the QAnon world says that they want to be taken down. She prosecuted Epstein, Maxwell, Diddy. For the Trump White House to shed somebody, you know, with that specialized expertise and that record of successfully holding people to account is just really shameful. And I think betrays that they have no actual interest

in prosecuting, you know, the perpetrators of these types of crimes. Can I ask you, Tim, something else seems a little outrageous. That is Laura Loomer. She is not elected. She seems to have incredible influence within the White House.

Her role in all of this is what? What is she getting out of this? And why does she have the ear of the president and multiple people within the White House and the administration? I think she's the heir of Trump because Trump wants anybody that he sees as willing to be loyal to him and be fight and fight for him.

And that's what he wants. This is why he picks people for the cabinet who he thinks do a good job on Fox. He wants people that are going to be out in public fighting on his behalf. He sees that Laura Loomer does that. Whether there's anything more to that, I don't know, but at minimum, that is I think why she has his ear.

And look, I think that you've seen it over and over again. I think that she's seen a way for her to wield power is not by actually doing things, but by burning stuff down, by taking out people that she sees as disloyal within the administration. I also think Trump is very susceptible to that. He feels like in the first term, he had a lot of disloyal people around.

So if there's gonna be somebody out there doing the dirty work, letting them know who the, whatever, never Trumpers are inside the White House, he's gonna listen to them. So that is, I think, where her power emanates from.