Pod Save America - Trump's Secret Epstein Letter Revealed

Episode Date: July 18, 2025

The Wall Street Journal publishes a shocking 50th birthday letter Donald Trump wrote to Jeffrey Epstein that discusses a "wonderful secret" the two shared. Jon and Dan react live to The Journal's letter, discuss Trump's attacks against his supporters who still want the Epstein files released, and debate why the Department of Justice decided now was the right time to fire Maurene Comey — the federal prosecutor who worked on both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal cases. Then the two talk through Senator Josh Hawley's sad attempt to roll back the Medicaid cuts he just voted for and President Trump's draft termination letter for Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Then Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar stops by to talk about Texas Republicans' attempts to redraw congressional maps to sway the 2026 midterms elections. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Pazze of America is brought to you by Articul. I love Articul furniture. We've got a lot of it here. We've got tables, we've got chairs, we've got couches. They all look really good. We've had them for years now. They've held up perfectly. They were shipped super fast, which is not normal

when it comes to furniture. And it was a great price. Articul makes it effortless to create a stylish, long-lasting home at an unbeatable price. With a curated range of mid-century modern, coastal, and Scandi-inspired pieces, Articul products are designed to shine on their own or pair seamlessly with nearly any other Artikl product. This thoughtful design approach makes it incredibly easy to mix and match, helping you

create a space that feels cohesive and stylish. Every item is chosen for craftsmanship, design, and lasting value. Artikl carefully carries its collection, selecting only high-quality, meaningful, and enduring pieces. Articl offers fast, affordable shipping across the U.S. and Canada, with options for professional assembly if you prefer a hands-off experience. Have a question or need help with your design choices? Articl's customer care team is available seven days a week, offering knowledgeable support and even free interior design services to help you get your home just right.

With Articl's 30-day satisfaction guarantee, you can shop with confidence, knowing that if you're not completely in love with your new furniture, you can easily return it. This peace of mind ensures you can invest in your home without hesitation. ArtiCle is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim, visit artiCle.com slash crooked,

and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's artiCle.com slash crooked for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. Welcome to Pod Save America. I'm Jon Favreau. I'm Dan Pfeiffer. Dan, welcome back. God, it's what a week to be gone. It's been so long. Well, then I was gone the week before.

It's been like, this is the longest we haven't podcast together in a long time. Here's the thing, we're always podcasting. It's just sometimes the market fronts are on. That is very true. Where did you go on vacation? I was on a family trip with my parents and my brother, my sister-in-law, my niece in Hawaii. There you go.

Yeah, it was very nice. Well, it's good to have you back. We have a packed show for today. We're gonna talk about Trump threatening to fire the Fed chair, the Republican Congress going after Big Bird and Daniel Tiger, new midterm polling from Trump's pollster that should scare the hell out of Republicans, the party's attempt to pick up seats in Texas by redrawing the maps, the return of Andrew Cuomo, and then Dan's interview with the chair of the House Progressive Caucus, Texas Congressman Greg Kassar. But we got to start with the question

that's weighing heavily on all Americans as they huddle around their kitchen tables each night. Where are the Epstein files? We had some of this from Shane Gillis hosted the ESPYs this week and this was at the very beginning of his opening monologue. Actually there was supposed to be an Epstein joke here but as it got deleted. Must have probably deleted itself right? Probably never existed actually. Let's move on as a country and ignore that. Uh.

I would say the joke before that was quite funny as well, which was about Trump wanting to stage a UFC fight on the White House lawn and saying, last time Trump staged a fight in DC, Mike Pence almost died. People weren't sure if they could laugh at that one as hard. And then I feel like, then they got into it and they laughed at the upstart one pretty hard. Anyway, this is basically Donald Trump's answer too, though his is serious and not a joke.

Trump's latest answer is that the Epstein files he promised to release, the files from a child sex trafficking case that Trump's own Department of Justice was set to prosecute in 2019 before Epstein died in federal custody. Those files are actually just a big hoax created by none other than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden. And if you are a supporter of Trump's, who still might have some questions about his latest theory on the Epstein files, you are, according to Trump, quote, stupid, a weakling, and someone whose support he no longer wants. That's right, according to Trump's latest posts

and comments, you are officially excommunicated from the MAGA movement if you still have any questions about his good old friend, his late friend, Jeffrey Epstein. The man, he's on his plane at least seven times, partied with him, once said that he knows he likes girls and he likes them young. He says, this is all Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, but now if you have any questions about the promise he made in the campaign to release the files, you are stupid and you are not welcome in MAGA anymore. The White House also said on Thursday

that the president does not want Pam Bondi to appoint a special prosecutor, even though some of Trump's closest supporters like Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer have called for one. Republicans in Congress blocked votes all week on measures that would force the DOJ to release more information from the Epstein files, though Republican Thomas Massey, who Trump has threatened with the primary challenge, is teaming up with Ro Khanna to force a vote

via discharge petition, which is a long and complicated procedure that probably does have enough votes to succeed, which is also one reason why, as we're recording this and Trump's debating this package of cuts that we'll talk about later, they can't move forward on it because Republicans may attach a measure that may be binding or not binding to vote on whether there should be a release of the Epstein files, probably because they know Massey has the votes on a discharge petition. And all this is because Donald Trump just keeps making this worse every time he speaks or posts about Epstein. Here's some of what he said in just the last 24 hours.

I call it the Epstein hoax. The sad part is it's people that are really doing the Democrats work. They're stupid people. Does that mean that you're effectively disowning any supporters who are now calling you names? I lost a lot of faith in certain people, yeah, I lost. Because they got duped by the Democrats. In the case of Epstein, they've already looked at it and they are looking at it and I think all they have to do is put out anything credible. But you know, that was run by the Biden administration for four years. I can imagine what they put into files just like they did with the others. I mean, the Steele dossier was a total fake.

So Dan, there's this MAGA influencer named Luke Radowski, who is so shocked by Trump's handling of the Epstein scandal that he posted this to his half a million Twitter followers. What if Donald Trump is being held hostage by a foreign entity and he knows the only way to tell people about this is by being very obvious about it? Is that believable or not believable? He had a poll. So far, not believable is winning, but only 55 to 44. Wow.

What do you think the margin of error is in that poll? Who do you think? I think that's one theory about what's happening here. The other theory that seems more plausible to me is that Donald Trump either knows or believes strongly that he's mentioned in the Epstein files and that's why he is acting like a complete lunatic right now.

It is hard to avoid that conclusion and I have been trying in my mind to think about other possibilities. Also there's Oliver Darcy broke this news. There is apparently a Wall Street Journal story in the works with some more, I don't know if it's evidence from the Epstein files or just elsewhere about Trump's relationship

with Jeffrey Epstein that Trump is so mad about. He is calling everyone at the Wall Street Journal, including the editor to try to kill the story. Uh, so everyone is, uh, everyone's excited about that except Donald Trump, I guess. I mean, it, when you run through the evidence, right, Trump's long relationship with Epstein, his long history of sexual misconduct, his long

history of complimenting in very gross ways young women, certainly young women below age. The fact that he is quoted as talking about in the quote you just read, knowing that Jeffrey Epstein liked young girls, that they partied together. And then you get to the point here where they say they're going to release it. Pam Bondi says the client list is on her desk. And then if right after that, they're like, Oh, sorry, no client list exists. There's nothing here. Turn around, go away.

And then the way Trump talks about it, he keeps saying, we'll release anything credible, and then he keeps making these accusations at anything that there could be some sort of malfeasance on the record. So if perchance these ever come out through Congress, through subpoena, through leaks, that if Trump's name is in there, then obviously it's part of some Democratic hoax and Merrick Garland, who we've known to be very aggressively anti-Trump over the years, was in there just like writing Trump's name in. Like the most plausible answer here is that Trump's name is in there and that's why he's acting this way.

I don't know what other reason he would be putting himself through this, acting this way, opposing the special counsel. If there really was no there there, then this would be one way that his closest allies, people who like him the most, like Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer, want him to do, but he says no to that. Can I just point out a potential flaw in the president's logic in this latest theory that the Democrats created the Epstein files or the Democrats under Biden, I guess,

slipped in some files that are incriminating for Trump that aren't real. So to believe this, you would have to believe that the Biden administration, Merrick Garland, like you said, starts throwing in some fake incriminating news about Donald Trump and the Epstein files during the Biden years, chooses not to release them or leak it in any way because I guess they wanted to hold out the possibility that someday, if Donald Trump becomes president again, his Department of Justice would stumble upon the fake files and then put out a statement

that in no way claims they're fake. Yes. Yeah, you have identified a flaw. You've identified a real flaw. It is so fucking stupid. This was, and it was like, you know, Obama and Hillary, like, this is like predating any of this stuff, right?

For three consecutive presidential elections, we did not use this completely made up smoking gun that we had. We were playing the long game. You can't be releasing damaging information about Donald Trump while he's running for president a third time. You've got to wait until he's president and then still do nothing.

Yes. You know, as you mentioned, I was on vacation last week when this was all happening. And so I have a lot of pent up takes about this. One of them I would just like to share here is that in the initial, when this started coming out and the mega focus were getting mad about it, one of the things you saw a lot of even credible people say is obviously there's something bad about Trump in the files while Joe Biden was president, America

almost attorney general that would have come out. Have any of you people met Merrick Garland was attorney general, that would have come out. Have any of you people met Merrick Garland? Right? There's nothing more believable than Merrick Garland was just sitting with a giant smoking gun about Donald Trump and the F-scene files in his top desk drawer for four years and would, and I've met, maybe this is admirable, I guess,

not violate the independence of the justice department in any way, shape or form. This idea that obviously Merrick Garland and Joe Biden would have put this out, has never met, and does not remember how much they love norms, right? So it's very, that is, I do not find that to be a compelling answer, reason,

that there is nothing in these files. Can I throw out one overly generous possibility here of what's really going on? You go on the playground podcast once and now you're doing Trump defense? They would not have an over. I mean, it's an overly generous possibility here of what's really going on. You go on the Flagrant podcast once and now you're doing Trump defense? They would not have an over here. No, no, they would not.

They are leading the, I love what they're doing here. So I started thinking about this because, um, both of the rumors of the Wall Street Journal story and I read a post from, uh, from Ben Wittes, who's been on this podcast at Lawfare. So Ben Whittes' post is like, hey everyone, of course DOJ shouldn't be just dumping a bunch of sensitive information from a case

that wasn't tried into the public's hands. And first of all, a lot of the files, a lot of this information is under seal by the courts. And so you would have to get a judge to unseal it. It's not Pam Bondi's decision. It's not the attorney general's decision to just throw this out there. It would be against the law to release a lot of this information. Other information, as the Trump people have said, would, you know, involve some

of these victims and you don't want to further hurt the victims by just throwing a bunch of information out there. And then there is information about people who have not been charged with anything, people who may have given evidence or testimony against Jeffrey Epstein. And now you're going to just publicly release their testimony.

Now we might think, well, if it's about Donald Trump or whatever else, I'm like, yeah, of course, let's get it out there. But as a practice, if you had a Department of Justice that was operating on the up and up, which we do not, but if you did, we would not want the Justice Department to just start, if you go give testimony to the Justice Department or you go talk

to give evidence, I'm going to just like put everything you said out there, right? So there's a whole bunch of things. Now, Ben suggests, which I think is a very good suggestion, he's like, you can still get a lot of this information. We have a body called Congress, which can certainly launch an entire investigation and the Justice Department is supposed to work with.

And, you know, obviously Democrats don't have subpoena power now, but if we took back the House, you know, then you could imagine a congressional investigation that gets to the bottom of a lot of this. And then, so you have that, right? Can I respond to that part for a second? Sure, sure, sure, yeah.

That is an explanation for why the Epstein file should not be released. That is not Donald Trump's explanation for why the Epstein file should not be released. But this is my second part of it, which is, so say this Wall Street Journal story's true and George Conway's tweeting out that he heard a rumor that it might be something about like a birthday card

that Trump wrote to Epstein that was overly nice or something. But like, you can imagine that Donald Trump hates anything that causes any kind of reputational damage like this, especially if it's such a big deal that has captured the attention of the entire country. And what if it's just a very sort of gross, like, you're the best, we've had the best times and it's not like incriminating, but it's just deeply embarrassing. And you, and you combine

the deeply embarrassing information about Donald Trump that's still not incriminating with the Justice Department thinking, well, we have an excuse, which is we can't release a lot of this information anyway. Now, again, it's one possibility. I don't even think I buy it, but to me, the reason I bring it up is it is the most generous possibility I could imagine about this whole thing. I can't imagine another one that's more generous. But that he's in there. Yes. I don't know how he's not in there. If he wasn't in there at all and if he felt sure about it, why not just say some version, some Trumpian version of the first thing

that I said that Ben would have supposed to, which is like, hey, it's against the law, hands are tied, it's only about victims, there's no other, that's it. And just like keep repeating that. Yeah, but he's not doing that, which is the thing. And we know Donald Trump is, I was here, some friends texted me today and they said, basically like, why wouldn't he just release it?

The guy's been charged, you know, he's been, he's on the excess Hollywood tape, there's all these accusations out there, he's sort of a famous, he's a famous adulterer, like, why does he care about this? It's like, well we- I got the same question from some of my high school friends. But the, but we know he does care about these things

because the reason he's a convicted felon is he paid off. He paid a large amount of hush money illegally to Stormy Daniels to try to cover up that affair becoming public. And so this is, this is actually the sort of behavior that Trump engages in when he's worried about reputational damage. And how do you think about the reputational damage with his base right now, with his like some of his strongest supporters in MAGA media, influencers, all that, because you know, they've gone back and forth. I think there was everyone is a lot of them. Most of them, I would say,

were pretty upset at the beginning. Some of them have, you know, gotten back on board with Trump. Some of them are still trying to figure it out. You got this from neo-Nazi Nick Fuentes, who dined with Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago famously, along with Kanye West right before he launched his third campaign. He said, fuck you, you suck. You're fat, you're a joke, you're stupid, you're not funny. We're gonna look back at MAGA movement as the biggest scam in history.

The liberals were right. Ouch. Tough. That's a tough one. How do you think about this? Do you think this is long-term damage from these folks, from the MAGA elite, let's call them? Yeah, I do.

I do think there's, there is a, a breaking of the core trust here because what happens, let's say they put something out at some point, right? Either Congress forces them or Trump gives in. These people aren't gonna believe them because they feel that Trump has lied to them and lied to them repeatedly.

And what I think is just really interesting about this is these, not Nick Fuentes per se, but Megyn Kelly, Steve Bannon, Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, these are media people. These people have an audience. Prior to the Epstein scandal, furor, whatever you wanna call this, if you were anti-Trump in the right-wing media,

there was no place for you. You faced a terrible backlash. Places like the Weekly Standard shut down because there was no business in media in right-wing media and being anti-Trump. If these media folks were getting blowback from their audience, they would stop. But instead it seems like based on their behavior

and some metrics, like they're actually getting a boost in engagement. And that says something about where at least the hardcore MAGA base is, and I think even more importantly over the long-term, is it flips the incentive structure in right-wing media. Right, where now you have it, the incentive was to be as pro-Trump as possible.

That's where the audience was, that's where the engagement was, that's where the money was. There's basically a viable end to be to Trump's right, to be an anti-Trump MAGA person. And that really will change the discourse because Trump has depended on essentially unanimity from his media allies for the last decade.

And if he doesn't have that, that does have real political ramifications beyond just this scandal. I would say to either be on Trump's right or to just be part of a crowd that is disappointed with Trump for whatever reason, right? And this is like not uncommon in politics in general in both parties, right?

You support your candidate, you support your candidate, you love your candidate, you get your candidate into office, your candidate now has power, and then your candidate disappoints you in some number of ways. And the more disappointments, and the more core the disappointments are to why you supported them in the first place, the angrier you're going to be. And now he is facing that both with the like super extreme, right? Some of the Trump curious, Manosphere types. Um, so the, the pod, the flagrant podcast, the flagrant podcast, Theo, you know, uh, Joe Rogan,

right? Like those, those types, I think it could leave a mark. I could also see, what do you think Republicans in Congress and Republican politicians are thinking right now? Because I could also see with them thinking, you know, we just got to wait for this. This is just going to blow over at some point because it is impossible in this information environment to hold people's attention on one thing for

too long. And so, you know, if we make some, some noise about possible transparency and we're for transparency and maybe we'll vote on some non-binding resolution or maybe it'll be binding, but then the DOJ will tell us to go fuck ourselves. And at some point people are going to turn to something else and this will blow over and we just got to kind of say the right thing now. And I think we can just, just hold on tight.

I think that's where that congressional Republicans will be is they want to try to chart a lane between. and I think we can just hold on tight. Yeah, I think that's where the congressional Republicans will be, is they want to try to chart a lane between the audience that very much wants transparency and angering Trump too much. So if they could do some sort of non-binding resolution, what they probably don't want is a bunch of votes in a row every time they want to do something for the next 18 months that says that they're against transparency here,

they're against releasing the files, because that will have some consequences for them, because they need that base to turn out, right? That's the difference between holding the house and losing the house. So I think they're going to try to find some sort of, probably unsatisfactory middle ground there. And what about White House options here?

Like, you know, there was, as I mentioned, Laura Loomer, Steve Bannon, and others were urging of Pam Bondi to announce a special counsel, As I mentioned, Laura Loomer, Steve Bannon, others were, um, urging of a Pambondie to announce a special counsel or Trump to tell Pambondie to appoint a special counsel. Caroline Levitt at the White House briefing today said the president does not want that special counsel.

And I'm wondering what other options they have at the White House to let the air out of this balloon a little bit, or maybe they don't care. Maybe they just don't, maybe they don't wanna even try. It seems like their strategy is to try to just muscle through to the next crisis. And Trump's been trying to create them, right? He's like trying to prosecute his Adam Schiff.

He's making announcements about the sweetener's use in Coca-Cola. He's trying to find some way to change the subject. He has thus far failed to do that. If they, like special counsel is an option, if they wanted to go that route. Like even, you know, I don't know that anyone should ever want a special counsel, right?

There was a very famous meeting in the Clinton administration in the middle of the Whitewater crisis, where the, I think it was Bernie Nussbaum's White House counsel was in the room, the political advisors like George Stephanopoulos, and they had a debate and the political advisors wanted the Clintons to call for an independent counsel. Back when we had independent counsel law and the lawyers were like,

that's insane. The Clintons were agreed with the political people. They called for independent counsel. That independent counsel was Ken Starr. It's like the next seven years of their lives were miserable. So maybe you don't want that. You could say, you could announce we're going to one way to do this. I don't know that I'm going to give communications advice to them, but, uh, one thing you could do is announce that you're going to do a review and you're going to release everything you can release in 90 days. Right.

Like that. That's a classic Trump tactic to just kick it down the road. You could just pretend like you're in Sorkin's in charge and do, say we're going to do a two hour primetime press conference about it. You could sit and do an interview. Certainly not with Trump. You need, you'd need a, uh, you'd need a person to do that interview trying to think of who

could do it, who could do it? Like, uh, maybe you send Mark or Rubio out. Yeah. Yeah. So fellow Floridian, uh, Mark or Rubio. Um, yeah, no, I think that they,, I think that they probably just don't care. I kind of thought that they would, I was a little worried that they would say,

okay, special counsel Ed Martin, or in fact, do you know who Lauren Boebert suggested for a special counsel to look into this child sex trafficking case? I do know the SSP, is it better for the podcast if I pretend like I don't? Go for it, go for it. It's Matt Gaetz, right?

It's Matt Gaetz. Yes. Yes. We are looking at, well look, if you want someone- The almost attorney general. The almost attorney general who may know a thing or two about a Florida based sex trafficking ring. Yeah, sure does. Allegedly.

Allegedly. Sure does. Yeah, that would be a real troll. That would be a real troll. You're getting a subject matter expert there, I guess. This is an ad by BetterHelp. The world is a very stressful place these days. It's not just your home life. It's not just work life.

It's all the things happening in the world we're bombing around, throwing people off Medicaid. Stuff is bleak. Workplace stress though, it's one of the top causes of declining mental health, with 61% of the global workforce experiencing higher than normal levels of stress. But not here, right? Everybody here is happy?

I feel great. Yeah, look at that. All those thumbs up. Look at that, look at that. That's right, you better be happy. It's a battle of stress. Most of us can't wave goodbye to work, but we can start small with a focus on wellness,

like things that make you feel better overall, like working out, getting out in the sun, walking, talking to friends. Gotta walk. A holiday is great, but it isn't a long-term solution. Don't forget that therapy can help you navigate whatever challenges the workday or any day might bring. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 5 million people globally.

And it works with an app store rating of 4.9 out of 5 based on 1.7 million client reviews. It's also convenient. You can join a session with a therapist at the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life. Plus, switch therapists at any time. As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can help provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise. Our listeners get 10% off their first month at betterhelp.com slash PSA. That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P, dot

com slash PSA. All right, so no special counsel, but the justice department did fire Maureen Comey on Wednesday, an SDNY prosecutor who went after Epstein and Galeen Maxwell. And yes, if you're wondering, she is related to that Comey. Maureen happens to be James Comey's daughter. What do you make of this? Probably doesn't fix any of Trump's Epstein problems, huh? No, things seems to make them much, much worse, right?

Like if you had a lot of, like you have a lot of questions about what's going on here that all of a sudden out of the blue, Trump fires the person who prosecuted Epstein, Maxwell, and Diddy, the racist questions about Diddy. What do we know about the connections there? Like I am assuming that this is an idea that has like been working its way through the system.

Like there's someone in charge of petty revenge and they finally got around to firing her. They just happened to do it right at the worst possible moment. Right person for the wrong thing kind of thing? Yeah, it's just a truly insane thing to do right now. The theory that the New York Times floated in its New York Times way, which is not directly,

but just sort of through their kind of vague language, is she was mentioned in a Politico story last week about not wanting to release some of the information and evidence in the Epstein case for the reasons I mentioned earlier, because victims, sensitive sensitive under seal, all that. And I think the New York times said, um, she may be getting set up to be a scapegoat by the Trump administration. Cause then they could say, Oh, see, she was the one withholding all this evidence. But I was like, the only problem there is now that they've got rid of her, who's,

who's holding up the evidence now. If trouble went to the right wing Mac and people and was like, look, I'm trying to do it, but Jim Comey's daughter is stopping me. Like, and now she's finally out, but she took it with her, she took the files with her. My assumption here in, uh, last New York Times way is that they've been wanting to fire her a

long time, but they thought it was probably a bad idea to fire her in the middle of the Diddy trial. And so they just waited till that was over and then fired her, which also happened to be in the middle of the Epstein scandal. You might say that they 86'd her, you know? Oh, there you go. Is that?

Oh, man. The traditional use of that, by the way. Yes, okay, thank you. So we're starting to get polling on this. Quinnipiac poll taken over the weekend has 63% of voters disapproving of Trump's handling of the Epstein situation, only 17% approve. When you narrow that to Republicans, 40% approve, but a full 36% disapprove. A Reuters poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday had similar numbers, and it has 69% of voters

nice saying they think government is hiding key details about Epstein. So that's people's views on it, not great. What's your guess on the salience of this issue for people and particularly Republicans? I'm just going to guess that if you ask people what they care about most, cost of living, the economy, jobs, immigration, Epstein's gonna fall well below all of those things. But I think that's sort of an overly pedantic way of looking at this issue. What this issue is about is not about the Epstein files per se.

It's about, it goes to the crux of what is decided the last several elections, which is a question, like we live in a perpetual change election and it is who, people are dissatisfied and angry about the political system that they view to be corrupt and broken and helping protect rich and elites and the politically connected. And this entire thing is about Trump going from someone

who was coming to Washington to break up that corrupt political system to being someone who is now wielding power to protect the very elites himself included. And so it goes to something much bigger that I think doesn't show up in polls. What we really should be tracking on this is how people feel about Trump as a change agent or an outsider or part of the status quo. We haven't seen that polling yet. Or I think CNN did ask different qualities. And this is sort of not the perfect substitute for that, but cares about people like you.

And he's quite low on that. Yeah, and he's been low on that for a while. That's always been, he lost that to Harrison election. One notable polling out there is there's a data for progress poll that shows that 55% of Republicans who have heard a lot about the F-scene files disapprove of how Trump has handled them. He has a net approval rating among people who've heard some of them and a decent approval

rating of people who've heard none about them, which is weird to have an opinion on that. But so there is this argument here that the more attention that this gets, the more people hear about what Trump is doing, the very suspicious circumstances in which he changed his position on releasing the files will hurt him more with Republicans. One more question before we move on this topic. Maybe for good, probably not. No, we are talking about this next week. I'm telling you that right now.

Democrats, they have jumped all over the issue, which we urged them to do. And- I mean, you uh, I was on vacation, but that's right. I did, I did. Me and Tommy did. So our special Epstein correspondent Tommy Vitor. Um, so what do you think about it?

Broadcast from Epstein Island. Essentially. Yeah. I haven't seen him. Uh, anything, anything Democrats have to be careful about. And I ask this only because you can, you can almost feel Republicans, some of the MAGA people,

starting to get negatively polarized. And that like, if the Democrats are having too much fun on this, and then I'm going to be, now I'm going to flip, and I'll be on Trump's side. I haven't seen that happen like completely yet. But there's a balance there. What do you think about that? Yeah, I think the Democrats should talk about this.

We want to keep the story in the news and I use the news in the most, in the broadest sense of the news, not necessarily in the New York Times, but the social media conversation. But we shouldn't put too much spin on the ball. We should want transparency. We just want answers.

We want the exact same thing Donald Trump said he wanted like six minutes ago. We wanna know what's in the files. They should be released and leave it at that. Cause there is this risk of polarizing the issue, right? And it's where people just revert to their partisan priors. If we overdo it and there's no real advantage in overdoing it because the audience that we are trying to reach here is primarily

Republicans, right? And in this case, actually more hardcore partisan Republicans. And so the best messages to do that is not Democrats. Right? It is. So I like one thing I wrote a message back newsletter about this earlier this week, where one of the things I encourage Democrats to do is instead of posting your own social media videos about yourself, talking about it, just share the conservative. Yeah.

Magnum, many fights. Yeah. The Joe Rogan and Andrew Schultz, all these people, Theo Von, these people who had real influence with some segment of voters, get that content out there, right? That's what we should be sharing. That's more valuable than like a witty refrain,

a tough tweet, you know, whatever else it is. It's just like, we should just recognize every messaging strategy begins with understanding your audience. And then the second question I always ask yourself is who's the best messenger for that audience? Very often in this particular situation, the best messenger for that audience

is not gonna be Democrats themselves. It doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it, but how we talk about it matters. I also think you need to be, you should be honest about how you've always felt about this case, right? Like it is, it is not really believable for someone who has never talked about releasing the Epstein files for the last four years to suddenly be like, oh, it's the most important issue to release the Epstein files.

What I do think is that Trump's handling of this case is so, like it is even surprised me how insulting it is to his own supporters intelligence. And I think he has insulted their intelligence plenty of times over the last decade. But this is, this is like a new level where they, it is obvious that he is lying when he says that this was created by Obama and Hillary Clinton and Biden, and it's a hoax and all that shit. Like, it is such an obvious lie that even the biggest Trump supporter

is not gonna believe, at least privately, if not publicly. And I think getting people to really sit with this idea that this guy that you really believed in and voted for many times is lying to you and thinks you're stupid enough to just kind of believe the lie or really doesn't care if his lie is so bad that you don't believe it. Like he just doesn't give a shit about you.

And you know, as we go on in the next however many years we fucking have to deal with him, it's something to think about. The next time he makes a promise, the next time he tells you think about the next time he makes a promise the next time he tells you something the next time He doesn't fulfill one of the things he promised he'd do in the campaign You know, you got to wonder is he lying again like he was lying in the Epstein files So let's talk about more traditional kitchen table issues We learned this week from the Labor Department that inflation is on the rise again Prices are on the rise again. Biggest jump since January.

The culprit is Trump's tariffs, which are starting to hit people in a hopeful sign that he's willing to change course. When presented with new information, Trump did pledge to back off his trade war. Now, just kidding. He didn't do that at all. He threatened to fire the Fed chair, the Fed

chair he appointed because Jerome Powell won't cut interest rates and Powell won't cut interest rates, and he won't cut interest rates on account of Trump's trade war. On Tuesday night, Trump showed Republicans in Congress a draft termination letter for Powell and asked them whether he should send it. Firing Powell could do significant economic damage and is illegal unless there's actual cause to fire him. Sure enough, Trump told reporters that quote, he probably wouldn't do it unless Powell quote has to leave for fraud,

which is a reference to a multi-billion dollar renovation of the feds DC headquarters, which Trump and a lot of his aides and allies are calling fraudulent as a way to have an excuse to fire Powell. How big of a deal do you think this is? I mean, it is potentially a massive deal. Like if Trump were to fire Powell, it would fundamentally change how the US economy is viewed around the world, right? Like one of our strengths is that the US dollar

is the global reserve currency. It's the currency that is thought to be so safe and so stable that it's what most federal reserves and other countries keep to ensure stability in their economies. If all of a sudden US monetary policy is believed to be in the hands of someone who is operating at the whims of an erratic, wannabe authoritarian, that would have massive impact on the global economy. It is a deeply dangerous situation. And even just the, like, if you watch the Dow Jones average this week on the date that story came out

that he had written that letter, it's like going up, going up, drops right down. Trump makes his remarks that he's not gonna do it. It goes back again. Like this is gonna have massive, there'll be massive market volatility around this. I heard our, uh, old friend and colleague, Jason Furman talking about this.

Did you listen to Jason Furman on Derek? Derek's office. I sure did. I went for a walk this morning and that's exactly what I listened to. And you will Jason's point. It helped me understand it too. He was like, it's the reason that the fed is

independent, the reason it's important that the Fed is independent and insulated from political pressure is that if you're not insulated from political pressure you are likely to wanna make decisions that help in the short term. Or you're tempted to make decisions that help in the short term. So like, maybe I'll cut interest rates a little bit now

because that'll help juice the, you know. And if you're completely insulated from political pressure, you can make decisions that might have some issues in the short term, but long term are going to be the best for the economy. So people know, the rest of the world knows that you are making decisions based on what you believe is best for the American economy, which a lot of the rest of the world depends on. And if we're just now thrown in fed chairs to cater to the whims, the short term whims of Donald Trump, who's the most short term thinker we've ever had as president, then we're really fucked. Now, apparently, there's a story in Politico that the lawyers

in the White House may have convinced Donald Trump not to do this. A, because he'll lose in court. B, because all the economic damage it can do. And they just think that this, this whole like let's fire Powell for cause and the causes these renovations that have gone over budget. And we don't think he was honest to Congress about how they went over budget is just sort of bullshit.

One administration official from, from the Trump White House said to Politico, whether or think he was honest to Congress about how they went over budget is just sort of bullshit. One administration official from the Trump White House said to Politico, whether or not it's illegal, I don't know, but is it a good thing to point out to damage this guy's image? Yeah. That was honest. That really sums it up, doesn't it? Yeah. I mean, I think the Wall Street Journal had a very big story on this and they came sort

of the same conclusion that there is no there there on this idea that you could use these renovations to get to cause, right? Because the cause here, you can be fired for essentially malfeasance or failure to fulfill your duties and the courts have been pretty clear that refusing to cut interest rates at the president's command is neither malfeasance nor failure to fulfill your duty. And that what Trump is really trying to do here is put so much pressure, political pressure on pal that he will either resign on his own or cut interest rates earlier to appease Trump. So according to the times, the person who drafted the termination letter was Bill

Pult, Pulte, who knows the Trump lackey who is now in charge of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Pulte has been attacking Powell on Twitter for not lowering rates, which is what you do as the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. He's also been driving the effort to exploit the renovation thing. And get this, he's also the person pushing to investigate Tish James and now

Adam Schiff for mortgage fraud. So it seems to me like, uh, using one of your top housing appointees to go after your political enemies for phony fraud charges and renovation bullshit is the bigger scandal than, uh, than maybe splurging on a new Renault. Yes. It's not in the, uh, job description for the head of the FHA to be just a, like

a, an attack dog on Twitter or elsewhere. It's very, it's very strange and actually probably makes you raise questions about what's actually happening at FHA. If this is how this guy's spending all of his time. Yeah. Someone, you know, in, in Project 2025 planning clearly looked at housing and was like, oh, this is one way we can go after people. Mortgage fraud, that's pretty, we can play pretty fast and loose with mortgage fraud.

Polta just right before we started recording just tweeted, I am told by very reliable congressional sources that there may be a criminal referral coming from one or more Congress members to the DOJ for Jay Powell's alleged perjury about the, uh, two and a half billion dollar building. So now they're just gonna, they're just gonna do a criminal referral. Cool. Really?

Just like very normal country we live in. Un fucking believable. But that, like it, I mean, this is what they want. Right? Oh, did Adam Schiff do anything? No, he didn't do anything wrong but like now people are like well Trump says Adam Schiff's a criminal and Adam Schiff says he didn't do anything and I don't know and then the administration official that told Politico well we're just trying to damage their reputation we don't know if

it's legal you know that's that's how they win. Another Trump lackey on his way to a lifetime appointment is Emil Bové, Trump's former personal lawyer turned top Justice Department official who told DOJ lawyers they may have to say fuck you to the courts, brokered the deal to drop the prosecution of Eric Adams in exchange for his complete loyalty to Trump, and oversaw the mass firings of DOJ lawyers who worked on January 6th prosecutions. On Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Bové's nomination to the full Senate on a party line vote after chairman Chuck Grassley refused to let Democrats debate the whistleblower report on Boves, which led the

Democrats to storm out of the hearing. What do you think is the, uh, is the fuck you to the courts guy going to get a lifetime seat on the courts? I mean, this is the Republican Senate that confirmed Tulsi Gabbard to be the head of the DNI and RFK Jr. to be the head of HHS and a weekend Fox anchor to be head of the Pentagon. So yeah, it seems like they're probably gonna do what Trump wants here again, which is just the amount of disregard you have

must have for your own duties and your own oath of constitution to put this guy on the court of all people. like there, cause it's not like it's, if it's not him, it's going to be Zoran Mondani. Like there's just be another right-wing person that Trump would put on there. And so just to have like, just, they just don't take their jobs seriously at all.

They have no sense of separation of powers of independence of advice and consent. It's just whatever Trump wants that they do, no matter how ridiculous it is. The person I can't figure out is Tom fucking Tillis, who is not running again now, talked a lot about how free he is to say what he wants and talked about how, you know, the Pete Hegseth thing,

he now regrets that vote and he voted for RFK Jr. Cause Bill Cassidy told him to just give him a chance and it'd probably be fine. And then also said, and then voted against Ed Martin, crazy Ed Martin, and said then, well, I'm not voting for any nominees that think that January 6th was okay. Well, Emil Bové, uh, fired all the January 6th prosecutors and did all the pardons.

And Tillis is somehow just voting for him, voting for him out of committee. The guy who's told the DOJ Trump officials like, hey, we may have to say fuck you to the courts who encouraged lying to a judge over the deportations. Like what is Tom Tillis doing? What do you have to lose at this point? His next job.

Unfucking believable, man. There's just like these heights, we've seen this before. There's two dynamics that happen with these. We saw it with Jeff Flake. We've seen it with some other people leaving. Is one, they're starting to wonder what they're gonna do next, right? Which usually involves working

in some sort of Republican lobbying firm or law firm or trade association. And so you have to find some way to balance your previous independence with doing the party's bidding. And there's this other like, terror, this is just stupid way to run a government, but there is this like high school dynamic of Tom sales has to go have lunch with all these people every week and doesn't want to be the asshole every single time. And so he will put a different asshole on the court just to,

so he has someone to sit next to with the lunch table. So yeah, so now the guy who, uh, who put Eric Adams in his pocket, it's the most corrupt fucking deal ever, is now on a appeals court, gonna go to appeals court, and possibly the Supreme Court, if Alito or Thomas retire in the next couple years. That's who we could get on the fucking Supreme Court.

["Spring Day"] Paz de America is brought to you by Smalls. Killin' me Smalls. In today's political climate, one thing is certain. Your cat is running a dictatorship. In their first executive order, they want our next sponsor, Smalls, for every meal. More like an in-pur-action. Smalls cat food. More thumbs up, more applause. Packed recipe is made with a preservative free ingredients

you'd find in your own fridge and it's delivered right to your door. That's why cats.com named Smalls their best overall cat food. Man, they nailed that URL early. To get 60% off your first order plus shipping, head to smalls.com and use our promo code crooked for a limited time only.

Here's some reviews from real Smalls customers. Jennifer M said, after every feeding, he gets this burst of energy and starts running around the house. And his fur is softer and more vibrant with higher contrast. Honestly, I wouldn't recommend anything else. How about that review? Smalls was started back in 2017 by a couple of guys

home cooking cat food in small batches for their friends. A few short years later, they've served millions of meals to cats across the US. After switching to Smalls, 88% of cat owners reported overall health improvements. That's a big deal. The team at Smalls is so confident your cat will love their product, you can try it risk free.

That means they will refund you if your cat won't eat their food. What are you waiting for? Give your cat the food they deserve for a limited time only because you are a Pod Save America listener. you can get 60% off your first Smalls order plus shipping by using my code CROOKED. That's 60% off when you head to Smalls.com and use promo code CROOKED. Again, that's promo code CROOKED for 60% off your first

order plus free shipping at Smalls.com. So the Republican Congress is really crushing it this week. They're about to pass a bill that would claw back about $9 billion that Congress already appropriated. Much of it would have gone to help sick, starving people, mostly children, in poor, war-torn countries all over the world. The cuts will also defund NPR and PBS because local radio and Sesame Street and Daniel Tiger are all too woke for Republicans.

But none of these cuts will come close to making a dent in the $4 trillion that Trump and Republicans just added to the deficit because of an economic plan that gives huge tax cuts to the rich while gutting Obamacare and Medicaid, a vote that at least one Republican senator is already regretting. Missouri Senator Josh Hawley has introduced legislation that would undo some of the Medicaid cuts he just voted for two weeks ago. Meanwhile, millions of Americans who buy their own health insurance are about to pay a lot more because of what Trump's bill does to the Affordable Care Act and those price increases are gonna

hit this winter. The notices could come as early as this fall One of Trump's favorite pollsters Tony Fabrizio has been circulating a memo that finds generic Republican candidates trailing generic Democratic House candidates by an average of three points in the country's most competitive House districts But for Brizio says that if Republicans in Congress most competitive house districts. But Fabrizio says that if Republicans in Congress undo their Obamacare cuts and extend these premium tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, the polling shows they would actually lead the Democrats

in these districts. If they don't extend them and Democrats run on that, polling shows that the Republicans would lose by double digits in these districts. What do you think the chances are that Republicans will try to run on saving Obamacare? Is that something we're gonna see? I would love to know who paid Tony Fabrizio for this poll.

Because I just do not- Probably that coalition of people who are trying to extend the tax credit. Yeah, there's a couple of them. Some combination of like left and right or not. Like I assume the insurance companies are involved in here somewhere. Yeah, I think like insurance companies like it.

I think patient advocates like it, right? Doctors probably like it. But just this idea that Trump's pollster is just out there pushing for the extension of Obamacare tax credits on his own. Seems not particularly credible to me. Having said that, I have seen Democratic polling on this, which shows that it's not,

doesn't ask the exact same questions, but makes it very clear that this is a very powerful issue and that Republicans will pay a price because these premiums will go up next year. This is not like the Medicaid cuts and everything else that they have kicked past the midterms. And so you will, it's 24 million people, I think, last I checked.

And so there's a lot of people in all that country who are going to do it. And Democrats, if we do this right, both in how we handle the one big, beautiful bill and or one big ugly bill, whatever we want, what are we calling it these days? And. I'm calling it Trump's economic plan because I'm not forcing myself to say big, beautiful bill or big, beautiful betrayal or whatever the fuck the Democrats are saying. Yeah, there's, yeah, there, it's so hard to say, but the goal here is to make Republicans own

healthcare in America, right? So that every single decision, whether it's a hospital closing, changing in Medicaid reimbursement rates, any premium increase anywhere, it has to do with how Republicans have handled this. And so Democrats should absolutely run on it. And I don't see Republicans coming to save the day here, but we should make them pay for it, for sure. Yeah, just on the, there was a headline in the Detroit Free Press that one insurance, big insurance company in Michigan already announced double digit premium increases for next year.

And maybe not related directly to what just passed, but double digit premium increases, in addition to losing a credit that was helping people pay for those premiums, is going to be an even higher price for people to pay. And every single time there's a headland like that, Democrats should fucking scream about it to voters. And there are people who are on Medicaid today who at some point will not be on Medicaid, they'll have to buy insurance on the exchanges if they're lucky enough to have insurance at all. And they will pay more because of what the Republicans have done. Speaking of Medicaid, what do you think about famed Medicaid moderate Josh Hawley's legislation trying to undo the cuts that he just voted for. Just get the fuck out of here.

I mean, just what are we doing? Like you could have, you, if you don't like the cuts, you know what you could have done? Vote against the bill. You could have stopped it. Unbelievable. I do think that some of the comments and moves like those from Haw Holly and others

are really gonna come back to bite them in the midterms. I mean, to your earlier point about the Epstein stuff, you don't even have to have a bunch of Democrats yelling about healthcare. You can just have Republicans like Tom Tillis or Josh Holly or Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski talking about how this is going to hurt people. And then you pair that with actual people who are feeling like they're paying a lot more money or lost their health insurance and talking about it. And it's pretty compelling, I think. There's a great clip of Holly talking about how bad these cuts are, like six minutes before he

ends up saying he's going to vote for him. But like that's something that if you're running a congressional race in Missouri or frankly, anywhere else you could use that. It's as long as you just label it Republican Senator, right? You don't have to believe me. Here's what Republican Senator Josh Hawley said. Here's what Republican Senator Tom Tilley said. Here's what Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said.

On and on. Any thoughts on the 9 billion in cuts to life-saving aid for poor kids in Daniel Tiger's neighborhood? I will just say that if this cut to PBS means that PBS Kids is gonna stop making new episodes of Wild Kratts, my kids will storm the Capitol like it's January 6th. Charlie loves Wild Kratts.

Wild Kratts is, I mean, Wild Kratts is a great show. It has turned my kids, particularly my Jack, my four year old son knows so much about such insane facts about animals. Yeah, Charlie will say that, I'm like, how did you know that? Jack, my four year old son knows so much about such insane facts about animals. He will walk. Yeah. Charlie will say that I'm like, how did you know that? He's like, oh, it's the Wild Kratts Tony.

He's got the Wild Kratts on television. I always say, did you learn that in school? No, I learned that on Wild Kratts. Like he just kept going around telling everyone that the Gila monster lives in the Sonoran desert wherever he goes. But like the more, and a more serious point is to pass these cuts to life-saving aid for poor kids

and to public broadcasting a few weeks after you gave a trillion dollars in tax cuts to the top 1% in this country is so gross that it's hard to take. And as it was happening, as I said, I was debating this, Lisa Murakowski said that there was a tsunami warning in Alaska as the vote was happening. And that in the rural parts of Alaska, the only way people got to hear about the tsunami warning was on the public airwaves, right? Local public radio. And with these cuts in big cities,

they're probably gonna be able to make up the difference with fundraising and tote bags and all the other things that PBS and NPR do, but it's gonna be rural parts of the country are gonna lose their radio stations, lose their local TV because of what Republicans did. And to what point? It is a drop in the bucket compared to all the money they just sent out that order rich people.

Yeah, the Republican line now is, everyone's got cell phones, everyone's got mobile phones, they don't need, no one gets their alerts, their weather alerts from a public radio and then someone was like, only 12% of people do it. I'm like, well, okay, that's 12% of people who aren't gonna get fucking emergency alerts. What are you talking about?

Just use something else. Also, I realize foreign aid does not pull well. I get it. Like there was a story in the Atlantic this week that they're incinerating, incinerating about a million dollars worth of food that we already bought. Taxpayers already spent the money on and was supposed to go again to like starving children in Afghanistan and Pakistan and some war torn countries and some really

tough places and we already bought it. It was, it was in a warehouse in Dubai and now because Marco, because first Elon fucking Musk and now Marco Rubio refused to do anything about it, now it's expired, could have fed a million and a half kids, million and a half kids. And now it's just, it's just wasted food, wasted food.

And now we're cutting, um, Tim Miller pointed this out. So they're going to cut a hundred million dollars from UNICEF. UNICEF like helps kids in, in life or death situations and, cause we couldn't spend a hundred million on that in the, in the bill and the economic plan, tucked in the economic plan

that just passed $300 million for security at Mar-a-Lago and all of Trump's other homes. $300 million for security for Trump, because I guess he can't pay for that. But, um, but a hundred million dollars we couldn't do just for UNICEF to help starving kids. Kind of says everything. That's, that's where we're at right now. It's sin raiding food and can't even help starving kids. Fucking ridiculous. One other way Republicans are trying to improve their midterm

chances is by redrawing house districts so they can pick their voters. Their first target is Texas where Trump and governor Greg Abbott are pressuring the Republican state legislature to hold a special session on redistricting years ahead of schedule in order to, in Trump's words, pick up five seats, pick up five house seats. He's also suggested that other states could follow, but in a pleasant surprise, Democrats are fighting fire with fire.

Tommy and I sat down with Gavin Newsom this week, who broke news right here in this studio about the options he's considering. Let's listen. We can do a special session. I can call for one today if I chose to we can then Put something on the ballot and I could call a special election We can change the Constitution with the consent of the poll the voters and I think we were win that or you can look at

Other avenues which we are exploring which are pathways with the legislature To do urgency clauses with two-thirds of legislature in both of our houses, to move forward with legislative redistricting in between the constitutional construct, which is every census, the Independent Redistricting Commission does a new map, but it's silent about what happens in between. So it's a novel legal question and it's being explored. So not every Democrat is on board. California assembly member, Alex Lee,

head of the state's progressive caucus, said that, quote, trying to save democracy by destroying democracy is dangerous and foolish. Another anonymous democratic consultant told Politico that the optics would be, quote, horrendous and indefensible. That said, most other Democrats in California and in

Washington DC are supportive. What do you think? Is this a close call? I don't think it's a close call. I think I wish we lived in a world where we could, where the Supreme Court thought would rule against partisan gerrymandering as an assault on democracy. They have chosen not to do that. I wish we lived in a world where we could pass a law banning partisan gerrymandering as Democrats tried to do that. I wish we lived in a world where we could pass a law banning partisan gerrymandering as Democrats tried to do when the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, but we don't. And so the only way that we can stop partisan gerrymandering is through mutually assured destruction, right?

Oh, Texas, you wanna do it? California will do it. Florida, you wanna do it? New York will wanna do it. And that is what we have to do. Cause if the idea is Republicans do whatever they want and we will wave the white flag, we were never going to solve these problems because we will never have the majorities necessary to actually pass a law to ban nonpartisan redistricting. If Republicans think that they can come out on the bad end of partisan redistricting

nationally, then we can maybe get them the table at some point for them to actually get a deal, to actually pass legislation. If they think they can always win, if the dice comes up with the right roll at the end of every decade with the census, then they're going to keep doing this. And so we have to fight fire with fire. I don't think it's a close call at all. Yeah. Nonpartisan, independent, redistricting for everyone or we don't disarm unilaterally.

Like I just, it's very easy because you need, I mean, this is about national house races. This is about national control of the house. So it's not a state by state thing really, even though that's who is drawing the districts, right? And so, I don't know, like I just, I, yeah, we can be like, oh, you know what's anti-democracy? Anti-democracy is like the Republicans winning the house back or winning the house again and we have no check on Donald Trump for all four years while he's in office. Like that, that to me is more anti-democracy

than trying to fight fire with fire on this one. So, all right, Dan, here's the Wall Street Journal story has published. I'm just reading this now for the first time. The Wall Street Journal has reviewed a book put together for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday. As part of that book, a letter was submitted by Donald Trump. Trump's letter features a drawing of a naked woman and this text, which imagines a conversation between Trump and Epstein.

There's a voiceover that says, there must be more to life than having everything. The note began, Donald. Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Jeffrey. Nor will I since I also know what it is. Donald. We have certain things in common Jeffrey. Jeffrey. Yes we do come to think of it. Donald. Enigmas never age. Have you noticed that? Jeffrey. As a matter of fact it was clear to me the last time I saw you. Trump. A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret.

What? Wow. I mean. What the fuck? Huh. Oh, in an interview, in an interview with the journal, oh no, we should, everyone hold on, everyone hold on. Yes.

In an interview with the journal on Tuesday evening, Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture. This is not me, this is a fake thing. It's a fake Wall Street Journal story. I never wrote a picture in my life. I don't draw pictures of women. He said, it's not my language, it's not my words. I'm gonna sue the Wall Street Journal

just like I sued everyone else. Wow, did they publish the letter? Is that in here? I want to see the picture. That is, oh yeah, where is the picture? Here, let's look. Don't worry. We'll put it up if we can.

It doesn't look. I'm not seeing a picture in here, which is real disappointing. Also, good sources from George Conway. Yeah. Yeah. He was pretty, he was, he nailed that one. Wow.

That is, that is wild. May every day be another wonderful secret. We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Enigmas never age. Have you I agree. Enigmas never age. Have you noticed that? Enigmas never age. Man, I could really use a textual analysis of this. Well, that's what we got for now.

Yeah, I mean, this is great. Thank you to the news guys for putting this out in minute 68 of this podcast or whatever. Well, and now we can segue seamlessly from that to a couple of other New York fucking bozos. That was a brilliant segue, right on the fly. We got Andrew Cuomo and Eric Adams still to talk about. Andrew Cuomo announced on Monday

that he will give this whole campaign for mayor thing another go. By running as an independent candidate in the general election, Cuomo made on Monday that he will give this whole campaign for mayor thing another go. By running as an independent candidate in the general election, Cuomo made the announcement in a video that went viral for all the wrong reasons. Let's listen. 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. But as my grandfather used to say, when you get

knocked down, learn the lesson and pick yourself back up and get in the game. And that is what I'm going to do. My opponent, Mr. Mondani, offers slick slogans, but no real solutions. You deserve a mayor with the experience and ideas to make it happen again, and the guts to take on anyone who stands in the way. The Republican nominee for mayor, perennial candidate, Curtis Sliwa, had a quippy retort to Cuomo's candidacy. Let's take a listen. Andrew Cuomo is a creep,

slapping fannies and killing grannies. Oh, well done. Well done, Curtis Slewa. Slapping fannies and killing grannies. Curtis Slewa. Slewa? Slewa? Slewa, I think. Slewa, yeah, it sounds like Slewa.

Meanwhile, sitting mayor Eric Adams, who also intends to run as an independent, has just been sued by his own former police commissioner for running the department as a criminal racket. That follows four similar separate lawsuits from former officers filed last week, accusing Adams of selling promotions among other things. I don't know, Dan, you think, uh, you think Mamdani has any chance against these powerhouses? Just what?

I don't know. I mean, just the Cuomo video is just really, it's a piece of work. It is a. Now, Dan, you, you mocked this video on Twitter. I did. Um, and ended up in the New York post and a Cuomo campaign staffer consultant hit back hard at you.

And, and all of us, I guess we, we caught some strays, your cohost here. Cause it says, well, if it's coming from the insular guys of pod save America, we must be doing something right. And let me just say, thank you for lessons on insularity, Andrew Cuomo's campaign. From a guy who did no interviews, talked to no voters, doesn't seem to want the job he's running for, isn't sure why he's running, doesn't know what to do other than run for office and has decided to, I mean, we just, let's back up a step just with Andrew Cuomo. He was the democratic governor of the state.

He is a scion to the most famous democratic family in New York. He gets his ass kicked in the primary, right? He didn't lose. The Trump family? Right. He didn't get, he didn't lose a little bit. He wasn't close, there's no allegation

of that it was taken from him, but he's running as an independent to try to take it from the Democrat. And that's a wild thing to do, and it's wild that any one of the Democratic Party would support him, and it's wild that much of the Democratic Party, that all the Democratic Party is not united behind Zoran here, right?

That we have a choice of a Democrat, an independent who has been accused of a lot of corruption and malfeasance, a independent who is engaged in a, some sort of bribe with Trump and a Republican. And we're not going to back Zoran because he has too progressive for you. It's insane, the whole thing's insane. You support the Democratic nominee

if you're a Democratic official. Yeah. If you're a voter, you do what the fuck you want. You wanna vote for a Republican, vote for them. Yeah, you can do that. But if you're a Democratic official in this party, you support the person who wins the primary. If the person who wins the primary

is too conservative for you, you support them. If they're too liberal for you, you support them. That's like, that's we set the rules. That's what we do. I will just do some live reporting here, which is I had friends who were at the Wu-Tang show on Wednesday night at Madison square garden. Zoran walks in. I heard.

Crowd goes bananas. That's pretty cool. Right. Yeah. That's very cool. I don't, I don't see the crowd going bananas for Andrew Cuomo anywhere. You don't think of Wu-Tang crowd? Yeah. No, I don't, I don't see the crowd going bananas for Andrew Cuomo anywhere. You don't think of Wu-Tang crowd?

Yeah. No, I don't know. I don't know what crowd. I mean, the Wu-Tang crowd, I hate to say this because it pains me personally, but maybe not such a young crowd anymore, John. This is our final tour. Maybe like, like a Frank Sinatra cover singer.

Yes. I don't know. Um, okay. When we get back from the break, you'll hear Dan's conversation with new congressional progressive caucus chair, Greg Kassar about redistricting in Texas, what house Democrats are planning to do on the Epstein files and

the federal government's response to the heartbreaking floods in his home state of Texas. Uh, two quick things before we get to that. Got some new merch in the crooked store that'll help spread the word that we are not okay with what ICE is doing here in California, if you didn't already know, and around the country. You can check out our new Friend of Immigrants and California Bear Flag

Tees at crooked.com slash store. Also, Dan, you're out with a new episode of Polar Coaster. What'd you guys cover? We went deep on all the polling we've seen about Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and talked about why this scandal is really not going anywhere for Trump and it could leave some lasting damage. And we also talked about really interesting new polling from Gallup that shows that Donald Trump and Stephen Miller are making America pro-immigrant again. That it's very, very, very interesting stuff which shows that Trump may be winning the battle

but losing the war on immigration in this country. Well, if you want to hear that episode, and you should, and submit questions for a future one, head to crooked.com slash friends, or subscribe on Apple Podcasts. Pods of America is brought to you by Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol. Let me tell you, if there's a surefire way to wake up feeling fresh after drinks with friends, it by Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol. Let me tell you, if there's a surefire way to wake up feeling fresh after drinks with

friends, it is Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol. Zbiotics Pre-Alcohol Probiotic Drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic. It was invented by PhD scientists to tackle rough mornings after drinking. Here's how it works. When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut. It's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough days after drinking. Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme.

To break this byproduct down, just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night. Drink responsibly and you'll feel your best tomorrow. As you know, I'm an evangelist for Z-Biotics. You're a huge fan. I'm Billy Graham for Z-Biotics. Wow.

I literally will not have a drink without it. I've been in Ubers to go out for the night and see my friends and turned around. And Tommy also believes that Hurricane Katrina was caused by gay people. I don't think that's Billy Graham. That's not Billy Graham. That's not Billy Graham.

That's not Billy Graham. That was Falwell. I'm the oral Roberts of Z-Biotics. Pat Robertson maybe? I don't know. Joel Osteen. We're kind of afield from what we're supposed to talk about. Literally, I cannot recommend Z-Biotics enough.

This is reminding me that I need to pack it for a long weekend I'm going on. Give it a shot. What's the worst that can happen? It'll probably feel a lot better. Summer is here, which means more opportunities to celebrate the warm weather. Before that, backyard barbecue and brew, glass of Pino watching the sunset at the beach, or cocktail by the campfire, don't forget your Z-Biotics pre-alcohol. Drink one before drinking and wake up feeling great and ready to take on the next day and all that summer has to offer.

Go to zbiotics.com slash crooked to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use crooked at checkout. Zbiotics is backed with 100% money back guarantee so if you're unsatisfied for any reason they'll refund your money, no questions asked. Remember to head to zbiotics.com slash crooked and use the code crooked at checkout for 15% off. Joining me now is the new chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, Texas Representative Greg Kassar.

Congressman Kassar, welcome to the pod. Thanks so much for having me on, man. All right. We got a lot to talk about today. Let's start with redistricting in your home state of Texas. John and I talked about this a little bit earlier on the podcast, but Trump wants Republicans in Texas to redraw your state's congressional map, to get them a whole bunch more seats and try to hold on to power in what should be a tough election.

What do you think of their plan and what are the consequences? Look, Donald Trump doesn't have a plan to win the upcoming midterms. He has a plan to rig the election rules. He knows that kicking over 15 million people off of their health care, giving all these benefits to his billionaire buddies is deeply unpopular. And so he's trying to figure out how he can completely change the rules of the game in the middle of all this.

And he's basically demanding Texas Republicans completely redraw the map, not just nibble around the edges, violate the Voting Rights Act in ways we've never seen before, and see if he can use that as a roadmap to steal even more districts and even more seats just all in his quest to hold on to a little bit of power. And what's interesting about this is that it likely puts Republican incumbents in a

really risky situation because you don't just change five Democrat seats. You probably change the entire Texas map and those Republicans could start having crazy districts that don't make sense. They could represent whole new areas, be vulnerable to Republican primaries, be vulnerable to a Democratic challenger. And so those Republican congressmen have to decide whether in this moment where it's their own voters on the line, their own necks, their own districts, whether they're going to stand up for themselves or just be Trump's water boys.

Obviously, even though some Republican incumbents could be at more risk, we do want to stop this plan. How can that be stopped? House Minority Leader Jeffries urged Texas Democrats to do the quorum bust by leaving the state, something that Texas Democrats have done before. What's the right way to stop this, the right way to fight this? There's basically three steps in my mind. First, we need to buy time. And that's why House Democrats in the state of Texas need to be ready to fill a buster, to bust quorum, which means if 50 House Democrats leave the building, you shut down the session,

they need to be able to march in the streets to buy time so that folks like Governor Gavin Newsom, who's out there speaking out saying that other states may start reaping what the Republicans sow so that that pressure can start to build up. Republican members of Congress in other states and in Texas, like I said, need to start feeling the pressure as well. And Democrats need to make sure we fully fund campaigns to be ready to take on those Republican incumbents and we use that to buy time. Then we also need folks to speak up all over the country. This needs to become a national issue because the Voting Rights Act as we know it is under threat here. Texas is already racially gerrymandered to hell. If they want to squeeze out five more seats, that means Trump is basically ripping

everything up, sending us basically to pre-1965 on many of our voting rights laws. So we've got to fire up the country. And then if they end up doing it, we've got to make them pay for it. We can't let this work because then it will just be their playbook every single time. How is what they might do violate what remains of the Voters' Rights Act after the Shelby County decision about a decade or so ago? Yeah, they got rid of preclearance, meaning that states that have a history of discrimination now are basically off the hook for that past discrimination and can do stuff like this call session that should be about rebuilding from the flood and instead just do redistricting in a week or two. That's got, we lost so much of that. We lost so much of them now being able to say they can gerrymander in a partisan way, but they're still not allowed under section two to chop up and racially gerrymander

such that say communities of color can't just be chopped up into five or six districts in a way that completely dilutes their vote. At this point, if Trump wants to demand five more districts from the Republicans, then he may be trying to completely do away with that section of the Voting Rights Act. And if he asks the Supreme Court to rubber stamp this Texas map, then that could be essentially what he uses all over the country. This is a five alarm fire in Texas. It's probably, I think, the biggest political story that people haven't heard of. And this five alarm fire could start spreading all across the country.

Have you talked to members of the California delegation? Are they on board with what Governor Newsom is at least floating? The members of the California delegation I know are all in on saying that Republicans might just reap what it is that they sow. So I ultimately am going to let folks from other states speak up for themselves, but here's what I'll say. I think, I believe in ending gerrymandering across the country, but that means across the country. I think that states, blue states should say they're going to implement independent commissions when Texas does. I don't think that you get to national ends to gerrymandering by blue states just signing up to do it and red states not having to pay any kind of a cost for continued

gerrymandering and diluting the votes of communities of color. Yeah, it seems like there really are only two options to deal with partisan gerrymandering in this country because the Supreme Court has opted out of that fight. Is one- To put it politely. To put it politely, yes. They basically set up this incredibly absurd system where the way to deal with being gerrymandered is to vote, even though you lost the power we brought through gerrymandering. It's very effective.

But two ways, one is national legislation, which folks tried to do during the Biden administration. And then the second way is mutually assured destruction, which is essentially what you're suggesting, which is Texas has to know that if they move, California will move. Florida has to know if they move, New York will move, and so on, and we can't just wave the white flag and let them do it, right? And in the same sort of analogy, in a world of mutually assured destruction,

you can eventually do cooperative, you get rid of a nuke, I get rid of a nuke, and eventually you get to nuclear nonproliferation. If that's where we want to be. But in my view, we have to stop the growing autocracy and authoritarianism, get back to a reasonable democratic majorities, and then no longer have the kinds of Kristin Sinema's and Joe Manchin's who frankly, I think in my view put themselves over the future of the country.

Yeah, absolutely. Okay, we're talking right after the house has passed three big pieces of crypto legislation. One of them is now headed to Trump, two of them are headed to the Senate. You voted against all of them. Can you explain to people what these bills do and why you opposed them?

Yeah, so I think what folks need to know is that these were extremely light touch, in my view, regulation of cryptocurrency. Look, we established laws to protect us from big market crashes like we had in the 1920s. We established those laws after the Great Depression. And of course, they did not foresee cryptocurrency coming. But in my view, there's a lot of lessons to be learned from that. The Biden administration tried to apply some of those laws

to cryptocurrency. And the crypto industry and crypto lobbyists sued the Biden administration, didn't want to follow those laws we created after the Great Depression. So we wound up in what is kind of a vacuum where they didn't want to follow those laws, and the Trump administration wasn't going to enforce them. So they put forward this kind of a vacuum where they didn't want to follow those laws and the Trump administration wasn't going to enforce them. So they put forward this kind of light touch regulation.

What does that mean for you? If you have cryptocurrency and there's very light regulation, it means somebody could take advantage of you, could make a killing telling folks that this thing is worth a ton and then leave you in the dumps. People essentially could get screwed out of their money I think if there's not strong enough rules and if you don't own cryptocurrency that's actually my greater concern with this regulation, light touch regulation because the AFL-CIO came out against these policies because your pension, your

retirement funds could get wrapped up in this. My fear is that five or 10 years from now, these votes and this light touch cryptocurrency regulation could look like credit default swaps in 2008. It could be the vulnerable point that results in people that had nothing to do with this losing their money. And in my view, the reason we wound up

with light touch regulation rather than something more thoughtful for this evolving industry is because the cryptocurrency industry bought the president, bought the Republican party and took out guys like Sherrod Brown who were trying to get to, I think kind of the law of the 1920s upgraded to the 2020s kind of environment. I mean, a decent number of your democratic colleagues

have voted for these bills, is that right? That's right. And I, you know, of course everybody gets to vote their district and vote their conscience, but I, and I understand their argument that they would rather, if the crypto industry doesn't want to follow the 1920s rules, which I think that they should have,

because those are the rules in the books, that they would at least like them to follow these minimal rules. I fear that if these minimal rules become the baseline, that a lot of people could put their money in this thinking it's safe, thinking it's regulated, and lose it five or 10 years down the line. And as somebody here in my mid-30s,

I can kind of see five or 10 years down the line coming soon. Yeah, that's fair enough. Um, there is a sort of a school of thought among some, you know, this has been pushed by Mark, you know, fellow Texan, Mark Cuban, among others, that one of the things that hurt Kamala Harris in the election, at least with a segment of younger, particularly young male voters was that Biden administration's approach to crypto in the sense that they were not pro-regulation, but sort of anti-crypto, right?

Do you think that like, this is an industry that exists, it is, it's developing that, you know, Eve, let's stipulate that these regulations were too light touch, this is not what you want, but is there a middle ground there you're looking for? Yeah, I would want to get to a place where you have good rules for the folks that choose to invest in crypto. I feel like I sit down and talk to actual crypto

voters and we can have a good conversation. I'm concerned that the crypto lobby written bills are a big problem here. But look, frankly, in my view, I was in Nevada during the beginning of the Harris campaign. I traveled all over the state of Texas. And what I heard, I almost never ever from an independent or swing voter heard that cryptocurrency was their top issue. I heard that paying the rent and making sure

that their child care wasn't so damn expensive and that government actually worked for them and didn't sound so corrupt in both parties. That's what I heard time after time after time. And I think that we just got to stop getting pulled into thinking that sort of the DC bubble of politics is, you know, what's dominating there. But I also understand that there are millions of people, tens of millions of people that have crypto and we want to make sure that we're speaking to them as being protected and not just let the industry lobby speak for them.

The Senate last night or this morning, depending on what time zone you're in, passed a bill cutting, essentially codifying the Doge cuts. It's going to take $9 billion of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. I heard you guys were reporting that they're defunding Daniel Tiger. We're very upset about the Daniel.

Daniel and Tiger, but my kids are sort of, they've moved into Wildcats now, and they're very, very upset that Wildcats could be defunded. In the old days, like 10 years ago, there used to be three parties on the hill, Democrats, Republicans, and appropriators. And the idea that Congress would allow a president to take away money that they appropriated

was impossible to imagine. Is there any chance these rescissions get stopped in the House? Or are they just going to green light this as they always do? Well, the way that we've been able to slow it down so far is by trying to force votes on releasing the Epstein files. That seems to be one of the only places where these guys just do anything for Donald Trump. And I don't know why sometimes I get

surprised when it's the same thing over and over and over. You never get your hopes up, right? No one ever made money betting on the independence of these guys. It's billionaire bootlicking first, but then before first is Trump ass kissing. And so yeah, they've got this thing about NPR, and Trump is saying he's going to run over the appropriators,

and they're headed that way. Then we're saying, well, why don't you release the Epstein files while you're at it? And that slowed them down a little bit, but now it sounds like a bunch of the people that have said, release the Epstein files a million times, are now like, well, maybe after Trump is gone. They'll just do anything the guy asks.

And at the end of the day, I'm a relatively new member of Congress. This is my third year here. I was hoping that you would get here and be able to have more reason debates and figure some stuff out in the back room. But at the end of the day, I just think that some, for some of these folks, we just have to beat them because there has to be a cost to just being such a bootlicker. As we're recording this, the Republican House Rules

Committee has been meeting. They're trying to find out. They're all very worked up by the fact that the Democrats keep asking for votes on the release of the Epstein files. They're trying to figure out what to do about that. Is this a Democratic strategy you guys are going to keep doing, keep pushing this?

I mean, we absolutely should, because we've got to, like I said, we've got to show people just how absurd the thing is, right, that Trump and the Republicans went and sold this as one of their top policy platforms, and as soon as Trump tells them not to, that they won't. And so I think we've got to make that really clear. And then I think it's also part of making clear to independent voters and for people that this is the issue that they care about that Democrats are willing to say

I want us to show we're willing to say look just because you're really rich and powerful you don't get off the hook Because clearly, you know Epstein was interacting with a bunch of really rich and powerful people and rich and powerful people getting off The hook is something that's really upsetting And rich and powerful people getting off the hook is something that's really upsetting. And I think as a Democratic party, we have to say, release the Epstein files and you don't get a free pass just because you got a lot of money.

Do you have a theory as to why Trump did such a 180 on this? Getting inside Trump's head or Laura Loomer's head about why she ended up picking it, there's already enough mental health strains in this job. I, you know, all right, all right. I'll, I'll, I will free you from the obligation to it's like, I, I make sure I go for a run or another workout every morning and I tried to stop getting in Trump and Laura Loomer's heads. That's okay.

All right. So fair enough. All right. I, you will, you have, I will let the record show you've passed on the opportunity to irresponsibly speculate about what's in the Epstein files. So we will take that. For whatever that's worth. I mean, it would have been great content, but I understand why you did that.

Moving on to a much more serious topic. I want to talk briefly about the awful floods in Texas, the administration's response. You've called for the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to do an investigation. What do you see in the response that has you concerned? And is there any chance that Congress will learn any lessons from this in terms of funding for the National Weather Service or other disaster response or climate resilience or whatever else? Yeah. So first of all, the devastation is ongoing. There's still over 100 people missing. Search and rescue is ongoing. All these people dying, including these kids, horrific and tragic.

And I think part of respecting the dead is making sure that there's accountability and that we ask real hard questions like why FEMA whistleblowers said that Secretary Kristi Noem waited 72 hours to approve search and rescue at the federal level. I mean you should only have to think about that for 72 seconds max so we should be asking those questions. You have severe understaffing at the National Weather Service. We need to know whether that reduction in staffing had an impact in this case. And if, you know, we had one of the chief meteorologists for the central Texas area vacant, they say they brought some other folks in, who'd they bring in? How did that go? And if there were two disasters happening at once, and as we know,

you know, there was floods in Rideau, so right after this, what would have happened? We've got to ask those questions to respect the dead and to see, you know, how do we protect people in the future? So that's why I authored a letter asking the inspector general to look into this. That's an independent investigation. And I've got some news to break here on your podcast, not on purpose. As I was putting these AirPods in, my staff mentioned that the inspector general has confirmed that they're going to launch the investigation. That's part of being on the oversight committee.

That's one of the pieces of democracy that we still got that we can use. And so there will be an independent investigation into this. I also think that we have to call the question about whether we're going to fully fund FEMA and fully staff the National Weather Service after this. We can't just let this happen, give our thoughts and prayers, and then completely ignore that Elon Musk and Donald Trump have severely cut the staffing at the Weather Service, which is supposed to anticipate floods and hurricanes and disasters like this, because just a few minutes extra notice getting to a little bit of higher ground saves lives. Myself, some of our listeners are just so heartbroken by what's happened in Texas.

Just reading the stories about the girls at the camp is so horrifying. Is there anything that our listeners around the country can do to help to contribute to the recovery there? Yes, there is the community foundation of the Hill Country, which so you can maybe the folks here at Podsafe can put that information up in a place that you can get it. They are distributing funds and that is a really important thing because we are just we have a lot of rebuilding to do. And then something else we can all do is recognize that these disasters are going to get worse and worse, more and more frequent. In places like Texas, we've used to hurricanes and floods, but not this often, not this big, not this frequent,

plus freezes, plus wildfires all over the country. So making sure that we take care of one another, look out for one another, contribute what you can, even just a few bucks to helping in the Hill Country, and then keep speaking out because as a community, we can reduce the damage from these sorts of disasters, but we've gotta take care of one another. And I think getting involved in local government

is a huge way of participating. I'm a former city council member, and let me tell you, the decisions are getting made there about putting in the infrastructure to about doing, putting in the infrastructure to prevent floods and putting in the infrastructure for early warnings or hardening your city against wildfires. So I'm in Congress now, but I also really encourage folks listening to get involved at the local level because you can make a big difference to save lives in the future.

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us. It was a pleasure to talk to you. Thanks a bunch, Dan. That's our show for today. Tommy, I'm going to go to you. Thanks a bunch, Dan. That's our show for today. Tommy Love-It and I, he still does this show. He's still a co-host. He's back. He'll be back with a new show on Tuesday. Have a great weekend. Bye, everyone. If you want to listen to Pod Save America ad free or get access to our subscriber discord and exclusive podcasts, consider joining our Friends of the Pod community at

crooked.com slash friends or subscribe on Apple podcasts directly from the Pod Save America feed. Also, please consider leaving us a review to help boost this episode and everything we do here at Crooked. Pod Save America is a Crooked media production. Our producers are David Toledo, Emma Illich-Frank, and Saul Rubin. Our associate producer is Farah Safari. Austin Fisher is our senior producer. Reed Cherlin is our executive editor. Adrian Hill is our head of news and politics.

The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Cantor is our sound engineer with audio support from Kyle Seglen and Charlotte Landis. Matt DeGroote is our head of production. Naomi Sengel is our Executive Assistant. Thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Haley Jones, Ben Hefkoat, Mia Kelman, Keryl Pellivive, David Tolles, and Ryan Young.

Our production staff is proudly unionized with the Writers Guild of America East.