The Bulwark Podcast - Bill Kristol: It's the Crimes and the Cover-Up

Episode Date: July 21, 2025

Our government disappeared hundreds of Venezuelans to a hellish Salvadoran prison for 125 days. When Trump's and Stephen Miller's whole CECOT plan even became too much for the dictator who runs El Salvador, Marco Rubio helped orchestrate a political win for Venezuela's strongman, Nicolas Maduro—who gets to look like a white knight in the hostage exchange. Meanwhile, the administration still has not recovered from its rake-step claim that there was no Epstein list. Did Bondi release her memo because the 1,000 FBI personnel who were made to review the Epstein documents kept finding Trump's name? Cover-ups are hard. Plus, now the Dems have new reasons to not cooperate with Republicans. Bill Kristol joins Tim Miller. show notes Tim and Sam's livestream after Andry and the other Venezuelans were released from CECOT Bill and Sarah discuss the Epstein timeline for 'Bulwark on Sunday' Rep. Boyle on not cooperating with Republicans on the budget Lauren on Democratic messaging for the midterms

Checking off your to-do list? Here's an easy one from Pennzoil. Get up to a $30 MasterCard prepaid virtual card with the purchase of 10 liters of Pennzoil Ultra Platinum at Canadian Tire. Maximizing engine protection and getting a reward for it? That's two checks on your list. Pennzoil. Long may we drive. Offerants 83125, valid at participating locations only. Valid email address required. Terms apply. See pennzoworld.ca slash offer for details. MasterCard is a trademark of MasterCard International Incorporated. Hello and welcome to the Bulldog Podcast.

I'm your host, Tim Miller. It is Monday, July the 21st, and I'm here with Bill Kristol, as is our habit. How are you doing, Bill? I'm doing fine. How are you? I'm doing pretty good. I binged the Epstein documentary over the weekend, so we'll get to that in a minute, but that's where I am. You thought you were obsessed with the Epstein case. I was staying up after the husband and child were in bed, you know, binging the documentary. I actually had a fairly Epstein-free 48 hours at a wedding,

a family wedding, and then seeing kids and so forth. But though I did take 45 minutes off to do the podcast with Sarah yesterday where we obsessed about Epstein and lamented the fact that more people weren't obsessed about it, but we can discuss that. We can. That's good that you're in the obsessed camp in the internal, subtle internal bulwark split that's you and me and Sarah, you know. Yeah. And obsessed is maybe an understatement for me.

So we will discuss. I want to do it though first, start with the news that came out late Friday. So after we did the podcast of this, what they're calling a prisoner swap, but it was really a hostage exchange between the United States and Venezuela. The 250 some odd Venezuelans that we had kidnapped and disappeared to El Salvador got sent back to Venezuela, the country they had fled in exchange for some Americans that were being held hostage in Venezuela. The government was trying to claim that this was just a prisoner deal between El Salvador

and Venezuela, which doesn't even pass the laugh test. Obviously the United States that had claimed that they had no ability to effectuate, you know, return for any of these men, obviously, were the key factor in this swap. And the good news, and we did, if you want to see it on Friday night, kind of an emotional live stream with André Hernandez Romero, the makeup artist we've been covering a lot, his lawyer, and she's the lawyer for about seven or eight of the other folks that were detained as well as some other immigration experts, and Sam got on with me.

If you want to catch that live stream that we did on Friday night, you can get the audio on the Bullwork Takes feed. If you haven't been checking that out, that's where we're kind of putting our rapid response video audio products. So go check out Bullwork Takes on your podcast player of choice. You know, at the top level, it's kind of like I wrote in the newsletter about this this morning. There's like a relief, and thank God that he and these other men are alive. At the same time, it's combined with just this feeling of rage

that we're even in this situation. But I'm wondering what you think about the developments. A couple of people at the wedding, we were at Saturday, and I had seen your, the live stream Friday night, I think we'd probably been driving, and very much liked it, and thought you were properly emotional about what had happened, and properly both joyful,

but also angry that it had to happen, and angry that it's not clear it's not still happening, or it won't happen again, right? I think that's, you know, you make that point this morning in the newsletter too. Yeah, and I think that the good news here from a policy standpoint is that the El Salvador Secot policy seems to be a failure. I mean, they might send more people there in the future, who knows, but they had a plan to send a lot of folks there. They'd initially sent the

three planefuls. They were going to send more. And that plan totally unraveled because in large part because of their incompetence. You know, they tried to, you know, they did so in spite of legal rulings against them. And even Bukele, you know, reportedly, according to the New York Times said that he was like, wait a minute, who are these people? You told me you're sending me to the worst people. And I was like, I've seen some of these guys and I don't think that's true. Right. So even the fucking dictator of El Salvador is like, you got, you went a little overboard. I think it shows that that attempt was a failure.

So that's good. And it's good these guys are free. I should just say this morning, we'll continue to follow this. They haven't actually been released. They're still being processed in Venezuela, according to the lawyers we've spoken to. Andre and some of the other detainees have talked to their families, had a chance to be on the phone with them and said that they're going to come home today or tomorrow, but they're still in this process.

So that part is good. The thing is, though, is that we're here now in a place where, okay, well, they just got 45 more billion from Congress to do a domestic fucking detention archipelago and they still have the other policies of like the policy of being able to send migrants to a third country, not to their home country is a policy they're still enacting. So again, it's nice that the El Salvador policy was, I think, disrupted in large part by the legal and political reaction to it, but they got a lot more to come. Yeah, I feel like what could almost generalize that statement, there's been a pretty decent

legal and political reaction against, I would say, Trump's super aggressive deportation policies, the detentions. We haven't seen the effects of the tripling of the size of ICE and the tripling of the detention capability yet, but obviously that'll have real effect. Also just the way ICE is behaving, the masks, the seizure of all these people who were doing nothing but trying to get a job or doing their jobs or selling things from street vendors in LA, the whole thing.

So I think on the one hand, the reaction's been probably will constrain them a little. On the other hand, they seem determined to just plunge ahead. I mean, I'm very struck by that. I did a conversation with our friend, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, I guess last week, and he's really also, I mean, we would have six months ago said maybe they would be more politically sensitive. Trump would respond to the ag and hotel people calling him, and he did for like 24 hours, saying, oh, maybe we're going too far.

But that is not the order that Miller and Homan received, apparently, and it's certainly not the ones they're transmitting. The degree to which, I mean, the fanaticism of this is really amazing. And it seems to be getting carried out. There's apparently reports of dissatisfaction with the nice and grumbling and so forth. But basically, they have tens of thousands of people, and they've got other law enforcement people roped in, and some of them are unhappy, the police forces,

but they're kind of, a lot of pressure to go along, a lot of financial incentives to go along, actually. I was just going to say, now they've got this slush fund, they're going to be able to pay people to go along. So, that's part is very, yeah, I mean, it's great that these people are back and it's great that that particularly grotesque, you might say, you know, leading edge of the deportation agenda has been curbed for now, but it's bad and it's going to get worse.

I mean, I don't know what it's going to look like in six months, honestly, in terms of if they keep doing this. Yeah, just to sit on that a second about the leading edge. It was a category difference. The immigration regime overall is horrible, but like what we did in El Salvador, where they kidnapped these people, disappeared them. They're gone for 125 days in the whole. The reports that we've heard from at least a couple of the folks have gotten out is that they were beaten.

One guy said we were beaten for breakfast, beaten for lunch, beaten for dinner. And it's like they had no access to a lawyer, no access to their family. There was a story just that came out just before this deal that there was a couple dozen of them that weren't even confirmed to be there. Like they literally disappeared them. They were not on the list that the government had put out. And it was only revealed via hacking. So, I mean, like this treatment is, you know, I hate to kind of do the superhero movie reductive good guy, bad guy thing, but it's like, it's the way that the villains in the world have treated people. And it's really more similar to how Putin dealt with people in a, the Brittany Griner

situation, for example. It's like, we're going to hold somebody hostage that committed a minor violation of some crime and we're going to use it to get something out of the West, right? Like that's us that was doing that. We're going to use these men as pawns to get something out of Venezuela. Just on the Rubio geopolitical thing, it's almost literary how much of a bad actor he is just on specifically the topic that had been animating to his political career. Right? I mean, it's like these men are fleeing a communist country in Latin America like the

Rubio family have. They come to America, they are kidnapped without any due process, they're treated as if they're in a communist regime and jailed as political enemies, essentially, despite not having done any political activism against the United States. And then they're traded back to the communist leader, who Rubio is now handing a political, this is a huge political win for Maduro, where Maduro can now domestically say,

oh, he was the white knight that saved these Venezuelans from the evil capitalist gringos. And be accurate in that assessment, essentially. Imagine just how fucking evil you have to be to give a win to Maduro and to make Maduro seem like the good guy. And to me, it's just for Rubio, it's like that whole confluence of his backstory and doing this to people fleeing communism and then giving a geopolitical win to Maduro.

And it's a total just utter failure on his part. And I feel like that does get lost a little bit in all this. I mean, those of us who knew him once upon a time said for a while, I think, after he became Secretary of State, you know, he must really be unhappy to satisfy with this or unhappy or, you know, doesn't really want to be doing this. He has to, he feels he has to suck up to Trump. That's unfortunate. That's foolish.

But I don't know. Maybe he's just crossed some Rubicon in his own mind, honestly, in his own psyche. And this is where he is. And he's sort of put his past out of his mind and everything he said as a senator and as a candidate and as a human being, honestly, until 2015 or 16 has just been memory-holding. I don't know. Let me ask you one question, because you would have a better feel for this than I. I feel like there's a bit of a religious, but particularly Catholic backlash against

this. There have been the archbishop, various bishops who have sort of denounced this in California, but I think elsewhere as well. I think 25 Knights of Columbus showed up at the Florida detention center to pray the rosary for those who were incarcerated there. I don't know, I just, maybe, I don't know how much effect it has, but do you sense that a little bit? I mean, I remember thinking about this.

I did Christmas mass with my family at a church that has a lot of immigrants in Colorado, because we were in the mountains over the holidays. I can't remember thinking that, like looking around the church being like, God, bad stuff is coming for this community. I don't exactly know who is documented and who is not in this church, but it's hard to imagine that in a Spanish-speaking Catholic church, a lot of working class folks, that there's nobody that has, you know, mixed immigration status or, you know, who is not here, who is not documented. And that is like a built-in community, right? Like, so there is, I think, both like kind of the backlash within the Hispanic community, folks that like, that this is more draconian than they expected. And there have been some examples

of this at churches. And then at the elite level, I mean, you know, the Catholic Church like anything is anymore a split, like it's polarized, right? There is a whatever, Francis Leo wing and like a MAGA wing. But for the ones that are more in the Francis Leo mold, the immigration is kind of a safe place to advocate on politics, right? It is a tradition, it's part of the traditional, you know, kind of Catholic social justice outreach and teaching. And so, you know, it's the kind of thing that you can talk about in the context of church, you know, that's different from Epstein.

You know what I mean? Like if you're anti-Trump or whatever, like it's not, you're not going to go up there and do a homily about whatever the latest random Trump scandals, immigration stuff you can though. And there's action you can do, right? Like going down and providing service to migrants in these communities. We saw that in the first Trump term. So I think there's potentially something to that. I have to tell you about this game-changing product I use before a night out with drinks. It's called pre-alcohol. Let's face it, after a night out with drinks, I don't bounce back the next day like I used to. I have to make a choice. I can either have a great night or a great next day. That is until I found pre-alcohol. Zebiotics, 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 that byproduct, not dehydration, that's to blame for rough next 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. I told some of you who were there for the live stream when Andre and the other Venezuelans had been released that I was jamming it in before I went to my friend's birthday party and we did that. I just did this. We talked to the great Lindsay Teslowski, the lawyer at Immigrant Defenders,

who was advocating for Andre. It was tireless and that, who continues to be tireless. And closed that up, closed down the computer here, the camera, went downstairs, had my pre-alcohol, boom, went out to the French Quarter. And I was rollicking on Saturday, no problems here. Go to zbiotics.com slash The Bullwork to learn more and get 15% off your first order when you use The Bullwork at checkout. Zbiotics is back 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 The Bullwork and use the code The Bullwork at checkout for 15% off.

I just want to run through a couple of the immigration things. George Reddus, I mentioned him on Friday. It was a security guard in California. He was arriving to work when federal agents surrounded his car, broke his window, pepper sprayed him, dragged him out. He's a US citizen and a veteran. He ended up being held in detention for three days and he was released, but that's a US citizen that was just racially targeted and targeted because of where he worked.

There's a story from Human Rights Watch this morning. Migrants at a Miami immigration jail were shackled with their hands tied behind their backs and made to kneel to eat food from styrofoam plates like dogs, according to a report published by the Human Rights Watch on the overcrowded South Florida facilities. Then there's this strange story about Luis Leon. So I don't want to just caveat this at some time. It's so strange. Maybe, I guess there's at least an outside chance that this is a hoax, but 82-year-old man was granted political asylum in the US in 1987.

He lost his wallet containing his green card, went to get it replaced, and they arrested him. The family was later told he died in ICE custody. Then they later found out he was in a hospital in Guatemala. He was not Guatemalan. He was, I think, Chilean. Guatemala's Migration Institute says they have no records of him being in Guatemala. So we're, you know, we still don't exactly know what's happening.

And that part of it, I mean, it's terrible to seize these people in the first place and the way it's being done. It's awful. But also, okay, they make, they seize this US citizen and veteran. They presumably discovered he's a US citizen and veteran in two hours, four hours. I mean, what are we talking about here? It's not hard these days, right? They do have computers, I said, at the immigration centers. There's a big backlog. Yeah, good point. And they want, I guess, in addition to the humiliation of the feeding of these other people in overcrowded facilities and stuff, they want to, I guess, humiliate people.

They want to send a message to other people. I, Aaron, really stress this in our conversation. The self-deportation agenda, they need that to get anywhere close to their goals, and also it's what they believe in. They really do want all these people gone. So they know they can't literally probably seize them all. They need them to leave. What causes them to leave?

Well, part of it is just how badly one is treated in these centers. And there's apparently evidence from the past that if you're in one of these places, the place in the Everglades for an X number of weeks, or maybe a month or two or something, much more likely to say, you know what, this isn't worth it. Maybe you have been in touch with a lawyer. Maybe there's some appeal pending. It's going to take another three months.

They can hold you. This is not like being a US citizen where they release you after 70, where they could, but they don't release you after 48 hours on your own recognizanceance or with some bail or something and someone's custody and someone's vouchers for you and you get to live as a free person while your appeal is pending. No, you're in this horrible place. You say, you know what? Okay, I'll go back. I'll go back. This is all part of the plan. This is not like, oh, that's a weird kind of fluke that they detained the guy much longer than they needed to.

No, no, that's exactly right. They don't mind these stories. Unless it rises to the level of Trump, and Trump feels like he's embarrassed, right? They're not like Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem and Tom Homan. Again, that's part of what their agenda is, is to treat the migrants like subhumans and be capricious and hope that some of them just check out. I mean, they say it.

It's explicitly, it's not a secret. Yeah. All right. Hey, y'all, just got a new package this weekend from one of our favorite sponsors at Quince. So I'm excited to talk to you about why I keep going back to their lightweight layers and high quality staples that are becoming everyday essentials for me and for Toulouse, to be honest. Quince is the kind of stuff you'll actually wear on repeat, like breathable flow knit

polos. I'm not a polo man, but you might be. Crisp cotton shirts and comfortable lightweight pants that somehow work for both weekend hangs and dressed up dinners. The best part, everything Quince has is half the cost of similar brands. By working with top artisans and cutting out the metalman, Quince gives you luxury pieces without the markups. I got a new, what I call podcast shirt coming. Something that looks nice from kind of a chest up here for you guys. So I'm working

on one of those. I think it's arriving today. The kiddo got a new kind of breathable summer shirt and new swimwear because we're going to do a little quick family vacation here in a couple of weeks and a little weekend trip. So she needs some updated swimwear and she's going to be looking good in Quince. You should join us. Stick to the staples that last with elevated essentials from Quints. Go to quints.com slash the board for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's q u i n c e dot com slash the board to get free shipping and 365 day returns quints.com slash the board. All right. Let's do Epstein. As I said, I watched the documentary. It's like a five

parter. So a lot of time when I'm doing my podcast research now, I watched the documentary. It's like a five-parter. So a lot of time. When I'm doing my podcast research now, I listened to everything on 2x speed, and they haven't done that yet on Netflix documentaries. I kind of wanted it to be on 2x speed, so I could make it through as quickly as possible. So does this date from before the Max? What period is this from? Yeah. So the original documentary was done in 2020, and it was focused on Epstein. And then there was a supplemental on Maxwell in 2022. So this was all during the Biden administration. I hadn't watched it. I'd read, you know,

Julie Brown's archive on all this. So I was like, decently, you know, so a lot of it was not unfamiliar to me, but some of it refreshed my memory. One of the interesting things about it, I guess I want to start here, there are all these new little wrinkles. Trump really just from a PR standpoint botched this so badly. By putting out this document and creating this feeding frenzy, there's some new material that came up which we're going to get into related to Trump, but it also unearthed re gives people an excuse to bring back up stuff that had been known, but not really discussed or not really given as much attention to. Anyway, one of the things that really jumped out to me

as something that creates a huge vulnerability for Trump now is one of the main characters in this documentary, Maria Farmer, went to the FBI in 1996 and said that Epstein was abusing her and her sister. And they didn't get into this in the documentary, but now it's related to it in a New York Times story that was out over the weekend, was apparently during that report, she named Trump also. And Trump hadn't done anything to her, but she'd said that she was with Epstein and like Trump came by the office or something,

and she's standing there and she thought he was kind of hovering over her. And she said that Epstein said to Trump, no, she's not for you. She kind of has some implications for what, maybe there are others that are for him. I don't know. So she gives its word to FBI 96. It's relevant because Epstein doesn't get arrested for a decade after that, until 2006. And during 2006, it was the local Florida, local Palm Beach cops that were after them.

And when they were trying to make it, to take it to the FBI, they needed it to be, to go across jurisdictions, right? And it was this woman's report from 96 that made it, that rose it to an FBI type case, right? Because I think it had happened in New Mexico or Ohio, I forget. So anyway, the fact that the Trump connection goes back to that, like the original FBI report on Epstein

is obviously noteworthy and speaks to this now question of, okay, well, how much is he in the vials? Seems like quite a bit. I mean, yes, I assume he's fouling quite a bit. I mean, yes, I assume he's following quite a bit. I mean, there's so much public information. That's the thing, right? Leaving aside that they had access to Epstein's own records, someone said Trump is, I'm a little fuzzy on the black book. Maybe you know more about this than I do.

And then some names are circled. I think this is legitimate reporting though. I think it's Julie Brown actually either reported it or confirmed it. 35 names are circled. They're the kind of, I don't know, special friends of Epstein. It's unclear if they're all clients or quote clients

or friends. And Trump is one of them. So again, the closeness to Epstein, very clear. Way back. And of course, the video, that video of them yucking it up is early 90s maybe. And then the story about the two of them, 24-something young women being invited to something at Mar-a-Lago, sort of like it's going to be a party. it up is early 90s maybe and then the story about the two of them get 20 or something

young women being invited to something at Mar-a-Lago sort of like it's going to be a party. Yeah, this was also another thing that came out this weekend is a time story that there was a calendar girl party or something at Mar-a-Lago. It's only Trump and Epstein, right? It's not a party. I mean, Trump only invited Epstein among the men to be there. And there's one, I guess one of the, yeah.

The sickness of it all. You know, I do feel like I was trying to think of a way to summarize where we are. I mean, I think one thing is I'd say before all this came out, this was sort of access Hollywood level, plus the MAGA interest in Epstein's and related to QAnon stuff, which has made it slightly different. But still, it was sort of reports of things or in the case of access Hollywood, an actual tape of Trump, but it didn't prove that he did anything exactly. It just proved him boasting to Billy Bush, I guess you could say, and that's pretty bad. And it did do a lot.

People forget, everyone says, oh, well, that's only Access Hollywood. It almost derailed his campaign in October of 2016. That was not nothing, but whatever. We're in a new era now, and I'm sure that's not... So I thought pre the last two weeks, the was the Epstein issue was a kind of excess Hollywood type thing. Now we're way beyond that. We've got, you know, we're now dealing with there.

There was no crime in access Hollywood and what may have been crimes that Trump did. You talked about what would have been a crime and how do you done? What would have been a crime, but we don't have, not the concrete. I mean, would you read the indictment? I mean, Epstein was of course convicted of crimes. Maxwell was convicted of crimes. And Trump's, I'm going to say, adjacent to that criminal enterprise, either almost certainly

knowing about it, sort of, but maybe not really, or maybe knowing about it really, or maybe being tangentially connected, or not tangentially, just connected to it. So there's that. And then the second thing, if people haven't focused on enough, I don't want to jump ahead, but is he's the president of the United States and they're covering it up.

I mean, so you have both the crime and the cover-up. I don't think people, you know, it's not like when Trump tried to cover up things as a private citizen, Stormy Daniels, $150,000, they got him on something in New York. But again, that's different from using the government or the United States to cover up paper files that exist about a crime, a criminal conspiracy, which the president of the United States, when he was a private citizen, was connected to or mentioned in, let's just say. In this respect, people who keep saying, oh, none of this stuff ever gets to Trump, we don't have a case. I was trying to think, do we, we don't really have a case study of this combination, the criminal conspiracy

and the government cover-up under Trump, you know? Right, because he was out of government, right? Like when he was trying to get out of the other various criminal conspiracies, whether the classified documents case, you know, for example, or some of this. I mean, I guess was there an attempt to cover up some of the Ukraine phone call stuff, I guess? But that's not, again, that was like not really a crime. Yeah, and that was him pressuring a government to do something.

It wasn't exactly a criminal, well, it was sort of, but it wasn't exactly a criminal conspiracy. Now, when you think about the first term in 2019, they arrested Epstein. So in a way, they were being more aggressive than the Obama Justice Department, you could argue. And then, you know, he dies. So that became a conspiracy topic, but couldn't really prove Trump had anything to do with that. So yeah, I do think it's new. People are being too blase. A lot of our friends and a lot of the

journalists, I think, and, oh, he always avoids these things. And this is going to be just like the others. Just one more thing on like, again, not a new piece of information, but information that people were really reminded of, you know, because of the nature of how the story goes. The Stacey Williams, you know, who was not underage, I think she was in her early 20s, so she was a young woman, but she is dating Epstein and Epstein brings her by Trump's office and Trump gropes her. And she was one of the initial accusers when you go back to like that first, you know,

in the 2016 campaign, like after the Access Hollywood, when there are all these different women that are making credible accusations of sexual harassment or assault against Trump. Again, one of them was Epstein's quasi-girlfriend at the time that he brings by Trump Tower. And so there are a couple of interviews about with her over the weekend. And Epstein takes it for granted. It doesn't look like Epstein's offended by this, right? I believe if one brought one's girlfriend over and some of your friends started to grope her,

that might be hard on the relationship, you know? But not in this case. I got a buddy who just dropped one of a mutual friend over, not a grope, over a consensual relationship with the girlfriend. So yeah, you could see them being upset. So their behavior is more that of co-conspirators than buddies who like to have a good time. Yes, good point. All right, so on the cover up, the Dick Durbin letter over the weekend.

He writes this, according to information my office received, the FBI was pressured to put approximately 1000 personnel and its information management division on 24 hour shifts to review approximately a hundred thousand Epstein related records. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14th through the end of March was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBI New York field office personnel. My office was told that these personnel were instructed to flag any records in which President Trump was mentioned. So talking about the cover-up part of this, and again, the decision to not release this now does not come after,

it would be bad. It would be one thing if it was like, oh, the DOJ, they'd been lying this whole time about Epstein and they didn't really even look at it that deeply. And they're just like, sorry, guys. It turns out we're not going to investigate this after all. That still would have been a huge controversy in MagaWorld. But okay. But that is not what seems like happened. It seems like they spent huge amounts of government resources to go through everything. And then once they saw what was in there, decided not to release

it, possibly because of the extent of how many records that mentioned Donald Trump, and which now we presume they have like a file, a catalog of the times Trump was mentioned. I mean, if it was flagged, right, then at some level, somebody was collecting all of those flags. That's really important, such an important point I was thinking about it yesterday. I assumed, incorrectly, I think, that two, three weeks ago when the whole thing, you know, when the memo came out from Bondi and Patel, that they hadn't done a real search, that it was all kind of fake.

You know, they had done a fake review. Me too. And decided, hey, nothing there. Which is, if you were going to just determine to cover it up from the beginning, that's presumably what you would do. I mean, why would you? You don't want 1,000 agents to have seen different things and have the possible ability of having a chat with a Wall Street Journal reporter and so forth.

So it seems like, I don't know if that was a Trump, if that was Bondi sort of acting maybe a little bit without talking to Trump because she really believed that they wanted to have it. Or Patel. Or Patel and Bongino, right? Again, it's important to remember that Patel and Bongino not only were active participants in the conspiracy and making claims, you know, that there was this big conspiracy that included a lot of deep state officials, a lot of prominent

Democrats. So I don't think it's crazy. They believe their own BS. Right. And then they got in there and they thought this was part of their remit, that they'd promised their listeners on the podcast that they were going to nab the Epstein co-conspirators. And so then they ordered a bunch of their underlings to do it. And I assume they'd have to talk to Bondi about that, but definitely Patel and Bongino

too, I would think. I talked to a couple of legal types who've been at DOJ and FBI, who knows, their experience in the past has nothing to do with Epstein. So who knows if their sense of how things work is how things now work. Obviously, it's a very different world. But they think Bondi and DOJ would be central to it. FBI is not really set up to do this kind of thing to the degree to which they're now doing it.

I mean, some of the reporting suggests pretty intense of DOJ involvement. So, Bondi at least has to agree and then put some resources behind it and so forth. They didn't check with Trump, maybe they did check and Trump was just kind of, I go ahead, but he assumed they would arrange it all so there was no problem.

Bondi knows a little bit about Epstein. She was Florida Attorney General and totally failed to investigate anything from 2011 maybe to 18. I can't remember something like that. Two terms, I think. She's a bit of a villain, I think, in Julie Brown's account of the total failure to take

any of the evidence seriously, any of the victims, many of whom were in Florida. Obviously, a lot of this happened in Florida. Some of it happened in Florida. So anyway, I'm a little bewildered, but they seem to have done a very extensive search. And as you say, they, I mean, they would have, when they do these searches, they would have had lists of everyone in a sense. I mean, it's not like the FBI doesn't do, like we do, word searches and put them into a different document, you know? So they would have had Trump, you know, 37 times, whatever. But someone, it would be interesting to find

out about this, what moment it was in mid-late March when Bondi and or Patel and or, you know, Bongino or some deputy to them discovered, oh my God, you know, we have to reverse course in effect on this. It does feel like they wanted to put out something, which I guess your point's right about that. If you've been screaming and yelling about it for years, you think, okay, I'm going to put out something and also keep people happy and nag a world and also get credit for investigating something that Obama and Biden didn't or something, right? It's very hubristic. And I guess you go in there, and the fact that these people are such amateurs probably

contributes to this, but you go in there and you're thinking, all right, we're going to tell people to flag the Trump stuff. I'll just pocket veto that or whatever. We'll put it over here in a secret file to be dealt with later. And in the meantime, we'll go out and put out evidence against Bill Clinton and whoever else, Bill Gates or whoever, Prince Andrew, whoever they think are the villains in the situation, I guess. And then they just sort of felt like, well, you know, we're running everything.

We're in charge. Like, we'll be able to do that. I don't know though. I, that's so stupid in retrospect. Like the risk, there's so many risk points, like of different people that could leak a conversation hubris and being true believer, like not believing that, I kind of believing the story that Trump had dumped him actually before the bad stuff happened.

And that was for people in Maggot world who are deep in the sauce on this. They already had to come up with a rationale for why Trump was not a bad guy, even though because they knew that he hung out with them, right? And it was that, oh, in 2004, whatever it was, he banned him from Mar-a-Lago. And so Trump is with a good guy here. I guess maybe they'd convince themselves of that. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know.

The hubris is excited about it or just the, or maybe that they're doing the search, they're pretty confident. It's all going great from their point of view. Not great, but it's going fine. They're going to have some report. And then they discover something in mid-March and suddenly it's, oh my God, or they talk to Trump. I mean, this is also possible, right?

Hey, we're doing this good search of the Epstein documents, just like you wanted Mr. President. He's like, I want to know what's in that before you guys do anything. right there. Hey, we're doing this good search of the Epstein documents just like you got your water, Mr. President. No, I want to know what's in that before you guys do anything. Suddenly, it's like, oh, it didn't the flagging Trump come a little late, maybe I think in the search, I think, as I recall from one of the TikToks, it's that's not the first thing they say first, they say just do a search. And they reverse that mid-March moment would be interesting. I

hope I trust reporters are looking in that that in some depth, what might have happened to cause this. But then they also, you said something about, didn't they realize this would go wrong? But to be fair, there weren't really leaks that we know of at the time. If they hadn't put out that statement two weeks ago,

that was also unbelievably stupid. I mean, that is to say, I think from their point of view, don't you just sit on it forever? This search is very complicated. We're very, very careful about not being sure that when we, and if we've released something that no one who's innocent, and certainly none of the victims, would have any personal identification, blah, blah, blah.

And so you just put it off, at least for a while, and you find sometimes it's at least it works. It's just a total rake step. Yeah. And it was a total self-own. They absolutely did not need to put out that statement. Nobody would have been talking about it. I know there'd be a handful of mega obsessives that would have been hassling them about it. But yeah, you probably could have found some other chum.

Again, having now being a fake expert, having watched five hours of documentary on it late night over the weekend, there certainly are other co-conspirators who have not been indicted, really Dapstein, who are not Trump. And so, you know, you could do that. Like, there are a million potential things that they could have done besides just put out a press release saying, oh, nothing to see here. And you don't think, I don't recall, at least, do you that MAGA world was intensifying pressure on bonding and Patel? Where's the report? Maybe it was, I wouldn't know. There was some chatter, because she had given out those, and the original sin was she gave

out those ridiculous binders, and it made some of their own people look dumb, right? So, like, there were some people that were mad at them in MagaWorld, and this is kind of stuff where it comes by in my feed, and, you know, it all sort of blurs together. So, I kind of don't really remember who was the point person on being mad. But I do remember seeing people that are like, you're making us look dumb, right? Like you handed this out, like this is a serious thing. We've got to go after these people.

Like we need a neck, whatever the next step is from the binders. There was a little bit of that pressure, but like not nothing unmanageable. Here's a question you and I have been in a different lives, slightly involved in trying to, you know, deal with the press when there are adverse news coming. Is it conceivable they got a call from the journal two weeks ago?

I mean, I don't know. We don't know what. I don't think when the journal got the information it got. It's also the journal, I think, understandably, has been slightly murky about, at least they clearly, 100% believe in it. I assume they've fully checked out the provenance and the authenticity of the information, but it's unclear exactly what they got when

they got it. And we still haven't seen it. Like, you know, they haven't shown us. Right. Is it possible that it's two and a half weeks ago, the journal begins to call us and says, hey, we need to talk to you about the Epstein files. We have some information here. Obviously, we're not going to report it until we give you a chance to explain. And they're like in total panic mode and decide to put out

that statement as a kind of preemptive. It has a vague feel to me of clever campaign people who are going to preempt the story that's coming, right? I believe you and I have done such things once or twice. Not related to sex crimes with minors though, but you know, the concept of a move. Thank God. Thank God. But I mean, yeah, no, it wouldn't be. But we wouldn't do that, I don't believe. But the, but this is another reason why these coverups are hard.

The journal is a player in this. We're going to learn more about what they have, what they got, when they got it, what the reaction of the administration was. And so, Sarah and I discussed this some yesterday. I mean, these scandals have a certain dynamic of their own once they get going, often. The one thing this one doesn't have, I've cautioned Sarah, who's very, you know, I mean, she was great and gung-ho and the media should investigate, which it should. In past scandals, one reason they keep going is that there's a special counsel, or sometimes the Department of Justice itself, or sometimes the state.

House oversight. Yeah, house oversight. Someone is investigating. So on the one hand, there's the stonewall side of things, which is always the White House and whatever they control. And on the other hand, there's the investigative side of things, and they clash. But there is someone, this case, they've got Justice, FBI, the Congress totally sewn up, so far as one can tell, at least the majority in the Congress,

and therefore the official committee proceedings. So it's really a little, I'm a little worried. If you ask me why can they suppress this, my instinct is to say no, it doesn't usually work. The coverup doesn't usually work, but they have an awful lot of assets on the coverup side. Many more than Nixon had, many more than Reagan had in DeRond-Contra, many more than Clinton had in 98.

They don't have the, especially they don't have a special counsel with the authority of the Justice Department to subpoena, indict, put people under oath. So I guess maybe they'll certainly they'll move heaven and earth to cover it up, to support the cover up. I agree with that though. And this gets us into the political with the Democrats. Lauren Egan wrote a great newsletter last night just kind of about how the Democrats are thinking about how this could be useful and tied into sort of a broader message about

how Trump ran as a populist who cares about regular folks, but his administration has been all about protecting elites and tax cuts for the rich and now protecting prominent child predators. And I think there's something to that. And I think that the Democrats then, assuming they take back the House, then do have an opportunity to call Jolene Maxwell from prison if they choose call whoever. And I think that now this FBI, this is where the Durbin letter is, I think, so important. Because that gives them a tangible thing, like the House Democrats, a tangible thing to investigate that's not like Donald Trump's behavior in the year 2003.

It's Cash Patel and Pam Bondi's behavior in the year 2025. Did they receive incriminating evidence about Trump and stifle it? And did they report that to Trump? And did Trump order them to stifle it? No, you get that's your classic, literally your classic kind of Watergate-Iran contra question of what did the president know, when did he know it? And I very much agree they should focus a lot, I mean they should focus on the crimes as this kind of out of justice to the victims for one thing and also because Trump wanted

the journal to get, the birthday card is pretty, in my view, reasonably incriminating. But the cover-up is the issue that, you're right, that the Democrats can really focus. That is the Trump administration. Who knew what when? Who made the order in March to reverse course? And if there was one, who looked at the files? Can we have testimony if it's not just from Bondi and Patel, but from some of the people who went through? You know, the deputies, the subordinates. I mean, there's a ton they can do there. They can do it if they take the House. They can run on doing it to some degree. We need an investigative body here.

This is not being investigated by special counsel. It's not being investigated by justice. It's not being investigated by the Republican Congress. We need to bring to light this cover-up. It's not a totally and nothing issue, I don't think, in an actual 26th congressional campaign. I don't want to spend more than one minute on this, but it is just worth noting in the flailing Trump reaction to this. His social media over the weekend was even more unhinged than usual. He's posting about arresting Barack Hussein Obama over some fake scandal that's too arresting Barack Hussein Obama over some fake scandal that's too arcane to even justify explaining to the listeners.

But also as part of that, he wants to investigate all the other Russia hoax people that accused him falsely of coordinating with Russia. And he put out a list of AI pictures of nine Democrats in orange jumpsuits. Deport Rosie O'Donnell has been on his list recently. He brought out this old saw. He wants the Washington football team to change their name back to the Redskins. I mean, this is the sign of somebody who's like desperate for at least the right wing media to talk about anything other than Epstein.

Yeah, the football thing is kind of just classic, distraction, desperation. The initial thing I just thought quickly was I was getting a little tied up, but that's crazy actually, because he's now legitimizing the notion that there's been massive cover-ups of ability, I mean, if you took it all seriously,

it's obviously nonsense, but there've been massive cover-ups of crimes throughout the federal government, and those should be investigated. Okay, well, you know what, investigate if you want. I mean, we can't stop Trump's Justice Department from looking at Obama and Clinton and for all we know they are incidentally after they've talked about it at times, Bonte and Patel and Trump himself. But if you're going to investigate them, investigate Epstein and Trump, right? I mean, I think the right

position to be in if you're going to be justifying a cover-up is, you know what, we have to govern this country We're very concerned about rising prices We're concerned about bringing peace to the Middle East blah blah blah And we don't need to have you attracted by all this past stuff But by guns be by guns that would be a little crazy for them to be saying this at this point given MAGA You know propaganda for the last few years, but it wouldn't be some people might say okay fine You would need to move on they should be in the move on camp,

not in the let's investigate everything camp. And so in that respect, they're opening a door for the Democrats, right? Yeah. And I think if you're an average MAGA person, right, and there's some of these folks, whatever, you've been going along with these conspiracies for 10 years, and you'll believe whatever Trump says, and Mr. Trump is the best, and you're kind of in a cult, and so you'll go along with it. But, and you're already seeing this, but people who are more in the Joe Rogan camp that are into conspiracies, quack conspiracies, they're not so much MAGA, right? And so they got aligned with Trump as part of the kind of quack alignment that we had. They're like, eventually people start to feel like, wait a minute, you've been president

now twice. Like, you're talking about how there are this huge criminal conspiracy against you, dating back to the Obama administration. They tapped your wires and James Clapper and Comey and they're all involved. It's like you haven't indicted any of them. Where's the evidence? You are in charge now. You have the DOJ.

When you're sitting in Mar-a-Lago, Norma Desmond, bleeding about how they should be arrested, it's like, okay, well, that's silly and ridiculous. But now, you're in charge. So, do it. Okay. So, put your money in your mouth. Eventually, people start to... And I think that there's an interplay between that and Epstein, which is like, you've breached the trust with the conspiracists. Even conspiracy theorists want to believe that there's at least some level of trust, that they're not being made for fools. Right now it seems like they're being made for fools,

and I think some of them are going to figure it out. No, I think that's a good point. That's well said. But I'd also say, I'm curious what you think about which way does that cut? Does that cut to them actually intensify actually going after a bunch of Democrats and sort of trying to find people to indict because as a kind of to prove your point, right? I mean, this, I think it's a problem as you got, you need to have grand juries. From the

start, dating back to January, like what were our worries? Like I always was worried, like, you know, they're going to create major hassle for people, like they're going to create major hassle for people. They're going to come after them. I don't want to even put anybody's name into the ether right now because I don't want to manifest that. But they're going to hassle people and create all this trouble. But even still, it's like, okay, you need to have crimes. You still have to go to a grand jury. Donald Trump just can't call people up for military tribunals, at least at this point. So maybe they do that.

Who is going to do it? They've demonstrated a ton of competence across, well, obviously with some misses within the immigration space, that's spending, OMB vote. We haven't exactly seen it across these other areas. And so I don't know. I don't know. I don't want to jinx it. But...

Don't jinx it. No, no. I mean, just one more point. That's an interesting question. Just like grand jury, DC grand jury, but I guess they could be one down in Island Canada, District in Florida, which makes me, which is, I believe is where they're suing the journal, interestingly. That also is desperation.

I mean, that is to say, they could have taken the position on the birthday card that, look, we're not going to comment on it, and God knows what cards were in that book, and we don't know if he wrote it. He doesn't remember writing it, but it was whatever, meaningless. I mean, it would be a little hard to say. That's a little makes it tries to make it access Hollywood-ish locker room talk. They felt that was damaging enough, or they felt that what was going still to come is going to be damaging enough that they had to take the position it's a hoax, literally,

that this thing was invented, that it's not done by Trump. I just can't believe the journal does not have extremely good proof, I'm almost going to say, that this is a legitimate 2003 birthday card. The doodle is by Trump and presumably it's a doodle on a script that he had dictated or whatever and been typed by someone at his direction. One can then interpret this script as the sort of ridiculous dialogue as much as one wants. I interpreted it pretty dark and sick, but they felt they couldn't sustain that. I think that's interesting. I mean, that is Trump's first instance has always been lots of people's and Nixon's first instance is denied. It's not true. It's not true. You

know, didn't Trump say that about Access Hollywood for like 12 hours? Yeah, yeah. It doesn't sound like me. It doesn't sound like, yeah. It's not my voice. But then within like, that became ridiculous, of course, and then he just went to the kind of locker room talk. They can't go to locker room talk on this one, I think, either because the card itself is so damning or because they know there's more stuff to come and so they have to make

it all a giant, I guess, conspiracy to get him. What is their actual, they can say, okay, it's fake. I'm suing the Wall Street Journal. What's their actual account? can say, okay, it's fake, I'm suing the Wall Street Journal. What's their actual account? Someone made up this card? I mean, some human in 2024 or 2025 knew about this book of Epstein and was able to slip this card into, I mean, you think about it for a minute,

it's a pretty far-fetched argument they're now making. And I think it shows a kind of desperation, but it also shows, I think, knowledge, maybe, on Trump's part of what is there. Really quick on the Hill, one other thing. Brendan Boyle, the Democratic ranking member on the Budget Committee, has an op-ed in the Bullock over the weekend about this upcoming government funding fight. We're about two months out from it, so there's a little bit of time.

It's an interesting take, again, about where the Democrats are now. We had this rescission bill where essentially there's this bipartisan budget that gets passed, which is an extension of a lot of the Biden budget, really, a couple of months ago. And the Republicans then last week take out 9 billion from it via party line vote 50-50, including some really insanely harsh removals of pretty modest budget line items. Boyle's point is, okay, well, so now here we are. Democrats can't be expected to do any deals with the Republicans going forward.

How can you do that if you're going to come to a bipartisan deal and then the Republicans are going to go the next week and be like, oh, we're just going to take out everything that's the Democrats' priorities. To me, it just signals a posture that has changed from what a lot of us were complaining about at the beginning of the year, which was, can we work with them in certain areas, look at good faith? There was another example of this. I think Mark Warner said at a town hall recently that he regretted voting for the Lake and Riley Act now in retrospect. It does seem like that there's been a change in posture from the Democrats.

Right. I mean, remember, it takes the rescission legislation takes only 50 votes, 51 votes to sustain the president's attempted revoking of these funds like reconciliation only takes 51 votes. The budget takes 60 votes. That's why the Democrats had the ability to stop it. That's why Schumer's decision to go ahead and in effect, okay, the continued resolution, I think it was, but that was a budget in March, whatever.

It was controversial because they did need Democratic votes. That's why the September issue becomes very edgy. If it's not reconciliation, it's obviously not a decision. They'll need Democratic votes and the Democrats' attitude. There's a reason there's been no rescission legislation since the late 90s. The rescission was kind of complicated. I don't know if we remember it exactly, but the legislative line on Nubita was struck down and this was kind of an alternative to it. Anyway, there's a reason it hasn't been done for almost 30 years because you can't have a situation where the Democrats

go along with some bipartisan-ish compromise on spending for HHS or anything else, DOD or whatever. And with 60 votes, that's how they get some say in the situation. And then the Republicans get 51 votes to rescind it, which is what just happened, right? That's why the Democrats genuinely feel agreed. It's not just they don't like the policies. This is like a double cross in effect. There's a reason this didn't happen under Bush, under Obama, under Biden, under Trump won even.

They just, it was so obviously a way to stack the deck. And yeah, I'm interested. So I agree that that combined with the general exasperate, correct exasperation of the Democrats or sense that they don't, they get no reward for being a little bit bipartisan or a little bit accommodating. It will be interesting to see what happens in September. All right, Bill Crystal. They're giving us plenty to talk about, I guess.

So we've got that going for us. I can't complain about that. Yeah. Enjoyed the trip back to DC. Everybody else, we got a good one coming tomorrow. So we'll be back here. Make sure to check us out. And we'll be talking to you then.

Peace. Make sure to check us out and we'll be talking to you then. Peace! I find myself in custody With each and every question, words come so easily Floods in well Salvador I don't know what and I don't know what for I've seen the picture for myself Where did that label go? I tried it out but it didn't work so I'll choose the future for myself It's time to start all over Take only one thing spent away Head for the check-in lights and get up into the air

It's time to take new measures Someone will put us up tonight For fun, a place of rest I've almost got you inside Fly to El Salvador I don't know what and I don't know what for I've seen the picture for myself Where did that label go?

I tried it out but it didn't work so I'll choose a picture for myself First class and big hotels I can't crop up my finger on it Videos and global sales I can't crop up my finger on it Free drinks that you pay yourself I can't crop up my finger on it The Bulldog Podcast is produced by Katie Cooper with audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.