The Young Turks - WSJ's Explosive Report - July 17, 2025

Episode Date: July 18, 2025

Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month Shopify trial and start selling today at ⁠shopify.com/tyt A top Manhattan prosecutor involved in the Epstein investigation has been fired, raising eyebrows. The Senate approves Trump’s sweeping plan to eliminate foreign aid and public broadcasting funding, while Josh Hawley continues his bizarre reversal streak—introducing a bill to undo Medicaid cuts he previously backed. Hosts: Ana Kasparian & Cenk Uygur SUBSCRIBE on⁠ YOUTUBE⁠ ☞ ⁠ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks⁠ FOLLOW US ON: ⁠FACEBOOK⁠  ☞  ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TWITTER⁠  ☞      ⁠ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks⁠ ⁠INSTAGRAM⁠  ☞ ⁠ ⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks⁠ ⁠TIKTOK⁠  ☞ ⁠         https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks⁠ 👕⁠MERCH⁠  ☞⁠      https:/www.shoptyt.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You're listening to The Young Turks, the online news show. Make sure to follow and rate our show with not one, not two, not three, not four, but five stars. You're awesome. Thank you. All right, welcome to Young Turks. Lots of twists and turns in the Epstein case. It just does not end. So Cenk Uygur, Ana Casparen with you guys. We've got a variety of topics for

you guys today, including near the end, we're going to talk about this couple who got caught cheating at the Coldplay concert. Hilarious video, I don't know if you guys have seen it yet. I have my theories.

But my- Allegedly. Allegedly, of course. There's two hilarious twists in that story you might not have seen. But also check out our poll on tyt.com. I think you'll enjoy that one.

All right, but anyway, that's later in the program. But in the meanwhile, we have Republicans who are frauds and of course, corporate rule everywhere as far as I can see. All right, so let's do the news.

All right, well, a story that actually broke last night while we were live on air, but I wanted to kind of sit on it and wait until it developed further is the firing of fascinating figure within the Justice Department. Let's get into it. further is the firing of fascinating figure within the Justice Department.

Let's get into it. Maureen Comey was for 10 years an extremely successful, dedicated and ethical assistant US attorney in the Southern District of New York. She was a high ranking person in that office. She became the head of

the Public Integrity Unit. She supervised the case against Robert Menendez, the corrupt senator. She became the head of the Public Integrity Unit. She supervised the case against Robert Menendez, the corrupt senator. She tried Jelaine Maxwell. She tried P Diddy. The idea that she got fired is

a disgrace to the Justice Department. This is an outrage that this one got fired. Let me add. As we all know, President Donald Trump is desperately trying to get Americans

and his base in particular to drop the story about the Epstein files and the fact that the Trump administration reneged on its promise to release the Epstein files. Which is why it's so strange that while he wants that to happen, the Trump administration has decided to fire a woman by the name of Maureen Comey, who happens to be the woman who prosecuted Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Now, Maureen Comey shares a name with James Comey because she actually

happens to be his daughter. So that might have something to do with the firing, but I'm gonna give you all the details as we know them and you can decide for yourselves. Now again, Comey is the daughter of Trump's main foe, biggest foe, and that's James Comey. And has worked for the US Attorney's Office for nearly a decade and prosecuted both Jezai Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. She's also the prosecutor in the Sean Diddy Combs case, which did not turn out the way that I suspected it would turn out. I mean, he ended up getting the most serious charges dropped and essentially just got

convicted for paying for sex workers. But nonetheless, Comey was informed of her firing in a letter that cited Article 2 of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the President according to two of the people who spoke to the New York Times about this. According to CNN, the reason for her firing remains unclear. It wasn't immediately clear and

there is something that we can maybe nibble on here. A person familiar with the situation said, being a Comey is untenable in this administration given her father James Comey is quote, constantly going after the administration, end quote.

I don't think that's true. I don't think James Comey is constantly going after the Trump administration. But I do know that Trump absolutely despises him and probably felt uncomfortable with having his daughter serve in

the Justice Department. Now, obviously questions are being raised about whether her involvement in the Epstein prosecutions was the real reason for her ouster. Now just two days ago, Donald Trump claimed that the Epstein files,

which by the way earlier he said don't exist, were actually concocted by Obama and James Comey. These files were made up by Comey. They were made up by Obama. They were made up by the Biden. And we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax with all of the different things that we had to go through. We've gone through years of it. Okay, so making this out to be a democratic hoax is hilarious to me. And reporter Maggie Haberman was asked on CNN about what she

thought about Comey's firing and what it's related to, whether it's related to the ongoing Epstein file scandal, and here's what she said. It's hard to ignore the fact that she was involved in some of the cases involving Jeffrey Epstein. Time will

tell whether this was the reason why, whether folks suggest that she had something to do with that. As you say, she apparently was not given a specific reason. And Article 2 was cited as under the powers of Article 2 and the executive branch. She was dismissed. The president has obviously no love for James Comey, but this would potentially feed into a line of what he is trying to allege is some broader effort that's separate from him. Before we get to the statement that she put out to her colleagues in regard to her firing, I just wanna kind of skip ahead to this tidbit, this is graphic seven. In 2017,

the gossip site Radar Online sued the FBI in the Southern District under the Freedom of Information Act, of course, seeking the release of documents related to the Epstein files. Now, as I mentioned, Comey happened to be a prosecutor in that case. And she wanted to essentially suppress the release, right? So in a declaration submitted in that case in January of 2024, Comey wrote that releasing the documents could damage the government's case in a potential retrial of Ms. Maxwell, including by subjecting witnesses to possible embarrassment and harassment that could make them less likely to testify.

And ultimately, the judge overseeing the case sided with the FBI and agreed with that argument. So, Comey has a history of trying to suppress the release of the Epstein files, which is why I really do call into question

whether that was the real reason she was fired. But I mean, now that Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted, maybe there was a possibility that she was fired. But I mean, now that Ghislaine Maxwell has been convicted, maybe there was a possibility that she was open to releasing the Epstein files and maybe Trump and the administration was

concerned about that, who knows? All we can do at this moment is speculate because there's been no reason given for her firing. What do you think, Cenk? I think it's super clear. So first on Maureen Comey, well, there's two parts to her, right?

So her not wanting to release the files, that drives me crazy. Because of this nonsense excuse they keep giving, it's such obvious horse crap about we're worried about the victims, the witnesses. You never heard of a black marker?

Nobody knows how to redact? Why do they keep saying that? It's the easiest thing in the world to redact. You're going to have to be stupid to fall for that. So, I've no one's ever heard of it before, I guess we'll just have to

tell you the victim's names too. No, you don't. No, that's to protect the guilty. So the fact that she did that is troubling and it bothers me. But overall her record is actually and she lost the Diddy trial. But you think they're firing her

because she lost the important parts of the Diddy trial? No, no, no, no. So why are they firing her? So here's the obvious part. Number one, she's actually the only one who has prosecuted Epstein and Maxwell.

So if you're looking to cover up the crimes, you're kind of pissed at the one prosecutor in the country who actually prosecuted them. Number two, her last name is Comey, how did they get this lucky? So it's James Comey's daughter, so

it's a perfect scapegoat. So they could then turn around to their base and go, say that Comey's told you. It's all fake, Russia, Russia, Russia with James Comey, Epstein hoax with Maureen Comey. And they're hoping that it does

two things. One is stop the bleeding, right? And just make sure you got something on the wound there, distract the part of your base that wants to believe you. because obviously, look guys, we say, okay, we'd love for

the Trump voters to flip. But if you're a Democrat, look guys, we say, okay, we'd love for the Trump voters to flip. But if you're a Democrat, would you have flipped to Trump within six months of Biden? I don't know any Democrats or very many Democrats that would have done that. Apparently, Trump found enough by

the end that did that, right? But so he's thinking, okay, I can close off most of the damage here, but then that leads to the next part, which is for the part of MAGA that really wanted accountability and really wanted to hold the establishment and

the elites accountable, they're jettisoning you. So it's like one of those science fiction movies, they're up in space and they close the door and you can't get back in and then they hit the eject button you're off in outer space.

So they've decided that they're going to move on without that part of the base. So, but for the guys and by the way that part of the base now, which is a trippy part that has like Marjorie Taylor Greene's got one foot in each base Tucker crosses

more on that side Alex Jones weirdly is kind of on that, the one side being jettisoned, etc, right? So for those guys, they're going to hate every part of this, and now the fact that he's calling it no longer the Epstein files, but the Jeffrey Epstein hoax,

is just rubbing it in their face. And it's like, hey, hand me some salt, I'm going to pour it in their wounds. And if that wasn't enough, and as you saw earlier today, Nancy Pelosi came out and said, Epstein's just a distraction.

Basically, we should let Trump off the hook on this one. Really. Yeah, let me look. No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum Points on your first five orders. I was curious why Nancy Pelosi of all people would have that take because when it comes to Donald Trump and his foibles, I mean, she loves to just constantly focus on them, emphasize them. I mean, it's a way in her mind of hurting Trump.

So it's weird that in this moment when you have pretty significant portion of his base turning on him, she's not taking advantage of this opportunity for political reasons. And so saying that it's a distraction is fascinating.

I looked into it a little further. Look, she has a very friendly, close relationship with members of AIPAC. In fact, the former president of AIPAC is her very close friend. And I think neighbor, if I'm not mistaken, but

don't quote me on that. But they were close friends for 25 years. She has been on multiple interviews talking about her close, loving relationship with Israel. So maybe she's fearful that the release of the Epstein files

would confirm some of our biggest fears that it was all really just part of this big blackmail operation in order to essentially blackmail powerful politicians and various figures in this country to kind of play ball with the foreign policy that Israel wants.

I don't know, but I don't see this as a distraction. I see this as an incredibly messy cover up and yeah, I don't know. We'll see what happens. But let me just say one other thing that might kind of reinforce what

you're saying in regard to your speculation as to why Comey got fired. Trump's been in office for several months now. So why isy got fired. Trump's been in office for several months now. So why is she getting fired now? Why didn't she get fired right away, especially during this federal

workers purge that took place at the beginning of the second term? I think the timing is a little suspicious. Of course, of course, it's not a legitimate firing. They're firing her to be a scapegoat. There's no question about that. And on Nancy Pelosi, look, we it's not a legitimate firing, they're firing her to be escape code, there's no question about

that. And then Nancy Pelosi, look, we can speculate about a lot of different reasons why the government wants to cover up the Epstein files. But what is clear is, this is the Uniparty, the Democrats

and the Republicans, they have both blocked the Epstein files for whatever reason. It might be as simple as Clinton and Trump are both on them, or it could be the other nefarious reasons. But either way, the government, both parties have

decided there is no way in hell we are ever going to release these, right? So this is Nancy Pelosi helping Donald Trump. So because what that does, guys, if you're on the left or the right and you look at it and you go,

that actually confirms my suspicions, right, and you look at it and you go, that actually confirms my suspicions, right? That doesn't make it less suspicious. That makes it more suspicious that this is the one time Nancy Pelosi's agreeing with Donald Trump, right? But for mainstream media, it's the exact opposite. Once Pelosi says move on, they're all gonna move on. And they've all started, now they've come back to calling anyone who believes that the list should be

released and that Epstein was killed, conspiracy theorists. And they're all now saying conspiracy theorists, conspiracy, like they're trying to jettison everyone in that camp and they get the establishment firmly back in charge.

Nothing to see here guys, hundreds of girls just raped themselves. There was no powerful politicians or rich people or anyone involved, but the US government has made a decision. They're gonna protect the guilty. And now by the way, if you're a Democrat and you were going haha about Trump, which we were and I am to this day, because we've been consistent on it all along. And now it's your beloved Pelosi and all of a sudden you can turn around and go, yeah,

maybe it is a distraction, we should move on. No, no all of a sudden you can turn around and go, yeah, maybe it is a distraction, we should move on. No, no, no, then you're no better than the cultists, right? So- Yeah, so by the way, final thing that I'll add to all of this, it's kind of remarkable how many powerful people in government

are just masked off about this whole situation. So former FBI director Andrew McCabe says the Epstein file shouldn't be released because quote, there isn't actually any public right to be able to see into sensitive FBI files. Okay, so just straight up saying, we don't believe in transparency. We don't believe in letting the American people know what type of perverts run their government.

I think that there's a deep public interest in knowing, okay? And Jeffrey, former FBI Director Andrew McCabe said that. Okay, so there we go, uniparty, totally coalescing, right? What do you mean we don't have a right to see it? Hundreds of underage girls were raped, we don't have a right to prosecute the people who did it. We don't have a right to find out who did it, we don't have a right to justice, says a guy who was in

the Justice Department. See, Democrat, Republican does not matter. The government, the US government, for whatever reason, is obviously complicit. It's the most obvious thing I have ever seen.

So Cenk, I promised it so I want to just mention what Maureen Comey wrote to her colleagues in an email. She says yesterday was unexpectedly my last day in the office. I was summarily fired via memo from Maine Justice that did not give a reason for

my termination. If a career prosecutor can be fired without reason, fear may seep into the decisions of those who remain. Do not let that happen. Fear is the tool of a tyrant wielded to suppress independent thought. Instead of fear, let this moment fuel the fire that already burns at the heart of this place, a fire of righteous indignation at abuses of power, of commitment to seek justice for victims, of dedication to truth above all else.

I have a different interpretation of what the Justice Department is. Sorry. Yeah, I hear you. And so she, it's a nice statement. I don't know that any fire actually burns. I think that everybody's going to

be totally scared and do whatever Trump says. But okay, my last couple things here are CNN ran a total BS poll from earlier saying, Trump's ratings are going up and Democrats ratings are going down because of the Epstein files.

They better not talk about the Epstein files anymore. Come on guys, every part of this is so brazen and over the top. So here, as I always do, I'll do a prediction so you'll see if I'm right or wrong and see if I understand it well or maybe

Harry Antony and CNN's got this figured out, right? My prediction is within a week or two when you get a couple of real polls in, they won't be able to play games around the dates of the polls. And yes, Trump will have taken a significant downturn in the polls. If I'm wrong about that, okay,

then by the way, I will recalibrate because that means that everyone online is not real, right? So maybe it didn't reach Kansas, maybe it didn't reach the middle of the country, we'll all find out together in a week or two. But my guess is no,

his polls are going to be badly heard. And so, and why? Guys, he did it again today. This is the third or fourth time he's done it. He called his own supporters weaklings, equated them to

the radical left lunatics. And he said, quote, I don't want their support anymore. Who says that about their own voters? Actually, Democrats sometimes say that. Okay, so now I'm going to give

the last word to one of our members on YouTube, Simon Moody. And we love doing the show with you guys, so hit the join button below. Simon wrote in, a woman who has a track record of prosecuting rich and powerful men successfully. Yeah, why would Trump want her, God? I can't imagine.

Okay, yet another good point. Book club on Monday. Gym on Tuesday. Date night on Wednesday. Out on the town on Thursday. Quiet night in on Friday. It's good to have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too, because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are.

Visit Specsavers.ca to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists. All right. Well, let's talk a little bit about what just happened in the Senate, it's not getting a lot of attention because of the Epstein scandal, but I think it's worth knowing about. Yesterday, Republican Senator Tom

Tillis slammed President Donald Trump for pushing a bill that would essentially defund both public broadcasting and foreign aid programs. Now he was already in the middle of a lot of trouble, and he was already in the middle of Donald Trump for pushing a bill that would essentially defund both public broadcasting and foreign aid programs. Now he was already basically

planning to retire, he's not going to be seeking reelection. So he doesn't have to worry about losing reelection for criticizing Donald Trump. Which is why it's super weird that Tillis voted for the bill anyway, allowing it to pass in the Senate, 51 to 48. Now Tillis supposedly didn't like the legislation because the White House

used what's known as a rescissions bill. Now, if you've never heard about that, I don't blame you. I actually hadn't heard about that because a rescissions bill hasn't really been an issue blame you. I actually hadn't heard about that because a rescissions bill hasn't really been an issue since the 1990s. Now, what is it? Well, it's a push for about $9 billion in spending cuts.

And that spending was already approved by Congress earlier this year. So understand what I'm saying. Congress approves funding for these programs and a rescissions bill essentially cuts that previously appropriated money from those programs. Congress, rescissions bill essentially cuts that previously appropriated

money from those programs. Congress, by the way, is obviously notoriously protective over its constitutional control over federal funding. That's why they're known to hold the power of the purse. And the rescissions bill rarely gets passed or a rescissions bill rarely gets passed or a recisions bill rarely gets passed because it's essentially handing that power over to the White House. So the last time a rescission's bill was passed was all the way back in 1999 under President Bill Clinton. Now, Tillis was upset because the White House failed to provide specific details for what exactly would get cut. There's a lack of specificity. So the Trump White House, of

course, has called for a cut to public broadcasting, called for cuts to foreign aid programs. But how much are we talking about? Where are the cuts going to hurt the most? We don't know the details and

neither does the Senate, but they passed the bill anyway. Tillis states that conservatives, particularly, I find it remarkable just how open we are to not demanding the details before we vote. Well, Tillis states that conservatives particularly, I find it remarkable just how open we are to not demanding the details before we vote.

Well, Tillis, you don't know the details before you voted and you voted yes. So who are you to talk? But let me continue, he also says, but I'm not going to hold it up because of the relatively small size of it.

But I think going forward, it would be virtually impossible to get another rescission package done at any scale if they don't do their homework. Now from what is being reported at the moment, the bill cuts about $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. And that's the very entity that provides the funding for, partially the funding for NPR and PBS. People think that NPR and PBS are wholly funded through

taxpayer dollars, that's not the case. Which is why both organizations are still expected to survive despite the cuts. However, these two organizations then send money to local stations. And some of those local stations

require 50% of their funding to come from public money. And so those local stations might not survive. Now, many public broadcasters, again, receive more than 50% of their budgets from the corporation for public broadcasting. Senator Bernie Sanders accused Trump of targeting journalism, writing that Trump, like all authoritarians, doesn't like criticism or objective reporting. He just wants to be flattered. That's why he wants to defund NPR and PBS. If democracy is to survive, we need a strong independent media. I will vote to support public broadcasting. Now look, in previous stories that we've covered, previous videos that we've done, we've called

out organizations like NPR where we feel that they didn't do adequate reporting or they didn't do a good job. They're not perfect, okay? Just like any other news organization, they make mistakes or biases seep into their reporting. But to target these organizations,

I think is really politically motivated more than anything else. So I mostly agree with what Bernie Sanders is saying there. Now the rest of the cuts are directed at foreign aid, but again, the details are pretty unclear. Senator Susan Collins, who's considered one of the more moderate Republicans actually voted against the bill and stated that the rescissions package has a big problem. No one really knows what program reductions are in it. For example, there are $2.5

billion in cuts to the development assistance account, which covers everything from basic education to water and sanitation to food security, all things that the Trump administration has shown that they don't really care much about. But she continues saying, but

we don't know how those programs will be affected. And even Senator Mitch McConnell, who voted for the bill, complained about this, saying, I want to make it clear, I don't have any problem with reducing spending.

We're talking about not knowing. They would like a blank check is what they would like, and I don't think that's appropriate. I think they ought to make the case. Well, they didn't make the case and you voted for the bill. What is this? If I say something, so Cenk, if I say, no, I have a problem with covering the story.

The story hasn't developed enough. We don't have all the details. It would be irresponsible to cover it. I would be ridiculous to then immediately cover the story right after I complain about it. It's just insane, but go ahead. So that goes to the core of the issue, guys. What do we tell you? We tell you ahead of time, all of them pass.

Look at that. It's taking money away from things that are positive, like humanitarian aid, boo, PBS, NPR, etc. And so what are they going to do? 51-48. No, Susan Collins and

Markowski voted no. Tillerson McConnell had objections. Now don't hold it against the Republicans. No, no, I definitely hold it against the Republicans. It's always going to be, look, they just had enough votes, 51,

almost every time, right? Now, Markowski and Collins, you guys can now go going to be, look, they just had enough votes, 51 almost every time, right? Now Murkowski and Collins, you guys can now go pretend to be moderates back in your home states as we pass every single bill and play these nonsense games, right? So, okay, now what did they do? They took 9 billion out.

Remember the package they just passed mainly tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, added 4 trillion to the debt. Do you know what 4 trillion minus 9 billion is? 4 trillion. It's not going to make a dent.

It's not even going to come close to making a dent. So what's the point of this? It could do this. And plus, by the way, they say, look, we took away the stupid humanitarian aid. We had no more Mr. Nice Guy.

America says, okay, yeah, we'll still do war. We'll still bomb Iran, okay? But we won't do any of the positive stuff we were doing. That'll show the world. And on top of that, all the foreign aid is cut except

for, you all know, right? I mean, this is now comical. I don't even have to say. So of course, except for, you all know, right? I mean, this is now comical, I don't even have to say. So of course, except for Israel, but also Egypt and Jordan, why? because they have a peace deal with Israel and they're allies with Israel.

By the way, I like that they have a peace deal. I like that they're rewarded for that peace deal, but it is like over the top. They're like, that's it, no more money for anyone. Well, obviously, everything to

Israel and their allies, but we mean the rest of the world we have no interest in, only Israel. Come on guys, come on. Yeah. Look, it's essentially paying off Israel's neighbors to keep it cool. Yeah, that's right.

Don't have an- But that's not a bad thing, I want peace in the region, right? No, no, that's fine, that's fine. But again, it kind of goes to show you what our government's priorities are. And by the way, it also creates a situation in which, as we know, Israel is free to bomb all of its neighbors with impunity. Yeah, cuz nobody fights back, right? And so, and look, I don't want anybody fighting, but they just drop bombs on Damascus anytime

they want. They're threatening to drop bombs on Tehran again. They drop bombs on Lebanon anytime they want, but they're not the aggressors. No, your eyes are lying to you, your ears are lying to you, etc. Last thing, this is my god rescission, and this is a power of Congress, and we won't give it away. Trump has it right away, right away, right away, they give it away. And the only positive out of this

whole thing is, at least it wasn't unconstitutional. Because sometimes what Trump does, a lot of times what he does with executive orders is, well, that's it, I'm not paying that anymore, even though Congress authorized it, right?

You don't have that option. So at least they went back for a congressional vote, got the congressional vote. We might not like the result, but at least that part of it was done right. Fair show in America. Republican Senator Josh Hawley, who really fancies himself as a hero of working class

Americans, voted for President Donald Trump's massive omnibus bill, which of course gives huge tax breaks that disproportionately benefit the rich, while also cutting funding to programs like Medicaid and food assistance for the poor. But recently, Hawley introduced a bill that would reverse some of those Medicaid cuts, probably knowing full well that there isn't a chance in hell that that bill would pass. So is this a PR stunt or is he real about passing this legislation?

That's the question I want you to ask yourselves as I give you more details. So in order to understand how Holly flip flopped on this issue, allegedly, we need to get into this Medicaid provider tax. So bear with me, I know it can get

a little complicated. Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and states. Remember, Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and states. Remember Medicaid is run by the states, but it's partially funded by the federal government. States cover the upfront cost of care and then are reimbursed by the federal government for at least 50%. The provider tax is a state imposed fee on hospitals and other healthcare providers to help fund the state's share of the Medicaid program.

So every single state except for Alaska has at least one provider tax. But Trump's budget bill changes how provider taxes can be implemented. So the bill freezes the current provider tax thresholds for all states for two years. This is a disaster, by the way, and can be implemented. So the bill freezes the current provider tax thresholds for

all states for two years, this is a disaster by the way, and reduces the allowable level of provider taxes for expansion states by 0.5% each year until it reaches 3.5% in fiscal year 2032. So oftentimes, and this drives me nuts,

when these debates take place about the work requirements, most this drives me nuts, when these debates take place about the work requirements, most Americans, I think, not most Americans, but there is a portion of American voters who think like, yeah, if you're able-bodied, you should be working. You shouldn't be living off

government cheese. But the cuts to Medicaid went much deeper than work requirements. And this is exactly what I'm referring to when I talk about this whole provider tax situation that was baked into the omnibus bill. Now expansion states refer to

states by the way that adopted the Affordable Care Act, which expanded the amount of Americans that can qualify for Medicaid and also provided additional federal dollars to states to run their Medicaid programs. Now, Hawley's bill would undo the provider tax moratorium and reduction that was baked into Trump's omnibus bill. Furthermore, Trump's budget includes a rural

health transformation fund, thanks to Hawley's efforts. And Hawley's new bill would double its funding from 50 to $100 billion, and also extend its lifespan from five years to 10 years. Now I'm going to get to Holly's messaging about why he voted for

the bill and why he's proposing this legislation now. But before I do, Cenk, what are your thoughts so far? Okay, look, I give Holly a little bit of a chance like you did, because he stopped taking corporate PAC money, right?

So and then he introduced some piece of legislation that were actually a little bit populist. And he became a little bit more of an interesting person than the standard corporate robots in Congress. But at the end of the day,

he's still a Republican. So what did he do? He cut Medicaid and then did a lot of theatrics around it. Before he cut Medicaid, he's like, I'm really against cutting Medicaid. Now after cutting Medicaid, you know what he's saying?

I'm really against cutting Medicaid. Brother, you already voted. The ship's already sailed, right? So don't tell me you're against cutting Medicaid when you affirmatively voted to butcher Medicaid, butcher it, right? So now you want to bring back

a portion of it in this bill. All right, because we're fair, I'll go back to giving you not full credit, but partial credit if you get it passed. If you convince enough Republicans and Democrats to pass the bill. If you don't pass the bill,

you get zero credit, then it's just an advertising campaign. I'm going to screw you over, I'm going to stab you in the back, but I want you to pretend that I'm a populist. No, right now, Josh Hawley has zero credit.

Agreed, and look, at the moment, he could prove me wrong, but at the moment, I do regret ever giving him credit. I think he's full of crap. I think this is a PR stunt. Now, Hawley published a piece, an opinion piece in the New York

Times saying don't cut Medicaid. You cut it. You already cut it. Yeah, you voted for it, okay? In it, I'm going to read a few excerpts from what he claims. He says, a noisy contingent of corporatist Republicans,

call it the party's Wall Street wing, wants Republicans to build our big, beautiful bill around slashing health insurance for the working poor. But that argument is both morally wrong and politically suicidal, which is why I voted for it.

Okay, there's more. If Congress cuts funding for Medicaid benefits, Missouri workers and their children will lose their health care and hospitals will close. It's that simple. And that pattern will be replicated in states across the country. Yes, we know Senator Hawley, people like us have been reporting on that. And in fact, there have been other senators who were worried about the political ramifications of voting yes

on this bill, and they voted yes anyway. And I would venture to say he happens to be one of them. Now Trump himself, he writes, has been crystal clear on this point. Since taking office, he has repeatedly rejected calls for Medicaid benefit cuts. Okay, so now we're doing, we're running interference, running cover for Donald Trump here. Because obviously he was lying, he wanted the bill to pass, and he wanted to justify the tax cuts by saying that it's partially paid

for, which it isn't by the way, it's barely paid for, a fraction of it was paid for, by cutting Medicaid to the tune of $1.1 trillion. In the end, this bill is going to add $3.4 trillion to our already insanely high $37 trillion in

federal debt. Again, Holly voted yes on this. Just the other week he writes, Trump said we are doing absolutely nothing to hurt Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security, nothing at all. Which is a lie, which is a lie, Josh Holly, and you know that.

In June, Hawley stated, quote, this has been an unhappy episode here in Congress, this effort to cut Medicaid. And I think frankly, my party needs to do some soul searching. If you want to be a working class party, you've got to deliver for

working class people. You cannot take away healthcare from working people. And unless this is changed going forward, that is what will happen in coming years. So I'm going to do everything I can to stop that.

Except vote. Except exactly, exactly. Look, he knows this bill is going nowhere. He knows it. Republicans are not going to be willing to cross their daddy, Donald Trump,

in Congress specifically. These politicians are pathetic, they're cowards, all they care about is themselves, their donors. So he knows once you pass that omnibus bill, you're not going to be able to reverse the damage. And I'm going to go even further.

If the next administration happens to be a Democratic administration, I'm willing to bet that they won't reverse the Medicaid cuts. And the reason. I'm willing to bet that they won't reverse the Medicaid cuts. And the reason why I'm saying that is just based on their behavior in previous administrations. I mean, Biden made all these promises about reversing some of the damage of Trump's 2017 tax cuts. He did nothing to push for the passage of those provisions in legislation at all. to push for the passage of those provisions in legislation at all. I'm gonna raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. Okay, but Trump cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.

So why is your starting bid 28%? Look, I know that some people get real touchy when they hear people like us refer to our current political landscape as a uniparty. But just pay close attention to what their priorities are. Pay attention to what their promises are when they're running and what they actually do when they're voted into power.

Yeah, I don't care if people get touchy. Yeah, after they took out the Green New Deal part the Republicans did from Biden's bills, he passed nothing that was progressive, nothing. You've been had, you've been took

if you're a Democrat. And if you're a Republican and you like Josh Hawley and thought he was a populist, you've been had, you've been took. These guys always give to their donors, not complicated at all. I'm going to read one member here,

Beverly on tyt.com, said, Hawley worked with Bernie on some legislation in the past. I had some hope for him too, Anna, you're not alone. This super smart audience we have paying attention to all this, he did.

He seemed to be co-sponsoring some positive bills, that's why we gave him credit. And that makes sense, because at the time he was doing the right thing on those particular issues, right? That we didn't say, okay,

you should trust Holly from now on. We never say that, right? And why? Because we know things like this are going to happen. And so first of all, by the way, be a member at tyt.com slash join and you'll be part of the show. Okay, so now, Holly says,

it's the Wall Street wing that wants to cut Medicaid. So he cut Medicaid, so I guess Holly's in the Wall Street wing, that's his language, right? And that editorial was written before they voted on it. So all this tough guy talk and

a big splashy New York Times editorial, I'm fighting for Medicaid. And she's like, and our party has to do some soul searching. And then he does every single terrible thing he said the Republican Party was going to do.

Well then, brother, I guess you should do some soul searching, right? So look, but I also want to be fair Cenk, because look, I wouldn't say every single, okay? There have been specific examples in which he actually went against

the Republican Party in his vote. So let me just give you a sense of what he did in regard to medical death. Before you do, before you do, I meant in this budget. So in this tax bill that they passed, but go ahead. Okay, so if you guys can remember, there was something wonderful that was done under Biden in specifically the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, right? So last week, unfortunately, this makes me so angry. A federal judge vacated a rule

that would have kept Americans unpaid medical debt off of their credit reports. Because we have a broken health care system, and you have no choice but to get the health care you need if you're sick, okay? And for that to hurt you

economically, financially, it's just unfair. So that was basically a way of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect Americans and their credit reports. Well, the federal judge again vacated that rule.

And it would have impacted the credit scores of 15 million Americans, okay? So those with medical debt on their credit reports could have received a 20 point boost on average in their credit score. The Bureau said when issuing

the rule back in January, also, the rule was expected to lead to the approval of about 22,000 additional mortgages every year. Now in fairness to Holly, the Senate tried to overturn that rule back in March, and Holly opposed that effort and

did vote against it. So that was a good vote for Holly. But unfortunately in the end, it made its way through the courts and federal judge struck the rule down. Yeah, so last two comments here. Again, back to our audience,

smartest audience in the country, police the White House writes in on TYT.com. Hawley's facing blowback in his own district. He's proposing this bill because he wants to whitewash his image, knowing full well that it has

no chance of passing. I think that right there is the whole story in a nutshell. I think you're exactly right. And finally, even if they add some stuff back, okay, so remember all they're talking about like, we're going to get the debt under control, these Democrats,

they run up the debt, right? So there's different estimates, Congressional Budget Office has one, other journalism organizations have one, but 3.4 is the lowest I've seen, I've seen as high as $4 trillion. So let's give them the conservative

one. So you added 3.4 trillion to the debt. Now, if this bill passes, I'm in favor of it, but it would add more to the debt. So where's the part where you control the debt?

I told you, we told you from day one, we've seen this movie 100 times, they don't care about the debt at all. Their only priority is tax cuts. And that's what they did again. That's what they did the first time with Donald Trump. That's what they did what they did again. That's what they did the first time with Donald Trump.

That's what they did with George W Bush. That's what they did with Ronald Reagan. All the Republican Party ever does is tax cuts for their donors. All right, buckle up, strap in. This one is quite a doozy. So, the Wall Street Journal has

just published a piece detailing a bit of President Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm going to give you the details as they're reported in just a moment. But prior to the Wall Street Journal publishing this piece,

according to Oliver Darcy on his substack, Donald Trump personally called the editor-in-chief of the Wall Street Journal to try to get the paper to spike the story. He didn't want them reporting on it.

I'm going to read you verbatim what Darcy wrote. According to people familiar with the matter, the journal is facing pressure from the White House over the story. In fact, Trump is said to have personally called Emma Tucker,

the journal's editor in chief, to voice his objections. The specifics of the call remain unclear, but it's hard to imagine Trump voiced anything but outrage. It's unclear whether Trump reached out to Rupert Murdoch, whose news corporation owns the Wall Street

Journal. So Darcy then, according to Mediaite, went on to say that the details of the story are unclear, but that it nonetheless is said to contain new material about the relationship between Trump and Epstein. Now I don't know if this is the big story that the Wall Street Journal just published, but we have learned some new details about Trump's relationship with Epstein, namely that Trump

basically wrote him a letter in celebration of Epstein's 50th birthday. Now I'm going to read from the Wall Street piece, Wall Street Journal piece where they write that the letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by

the journal is body, like others in the album. It contains several lines of type written text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman's breasts and

the future president's signature is a squiggly Donald below her waist mimicking pubic hair. The letter concludes, quote, President's signature is a squiggly Donald below her waist, mimicking pubic hair. The letter concludes, quote, happy birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret.

I was wondering how it was going to end because it just broke. So I'm hearing it with you guys. So look, Donald Trump trying to intimidate the press and calling them to get them to not run the story. That's Trump 101. By the way, the guy who ran on free speech, just note that for the record. So then in terms of the story itself, guys, look, we've known that Trump and Epstein were

friends for at least 15 years. How do we know that Trump said it? He said they were, quote, terrific friends. And he said that he has a reputation for liking women. He said on the younger side. And then now we see this where he

signed a birthday card saying, every day is a wonderful secret. Well, apparently not so wonderful today for Donald Trump as one of those secrets is revealed. So if you had any kind of illusion that Donald Trump and Epstein were not really close

friends, you're totally wrong. They partied together, that's why there's like dozens of pictures of them together. And also, Galeen Maxwell, and when she was arrested, Trump was president. And they asked Trump about her and

two different instances. He said, I wish her well. You wish the biggest groomer in American history well. And they're like, Mr. President, you said that you probably didn't mean it. Second time he's like, no,

no, I meant it. I wish her well. Well, she's the one who collected that letter from Trump to give to their mutual friend Epstein. So to Nancy Pelosi, who believes that the Epstein scandal and the broken promises on releasing

the Epstein files is nothing more than a distraction, does she still think that? Does she still think that? And former FBI director Andrew McCabe doesn't think that the release of the Epstein files is in the public's interest. she still think that? And former FBI Director Andrew McCabe doesn't think that the release of the Epstein files is in the public's interest. That we don't have the right to these FBI

documents. Unbelievable, by the way, the Wall Street Journal acknowledged that they had a conversation with Donald Trump. Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture, quote, 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. It's not my language.

It's not my words. And then he told the journal he was preparing to file a lawsuit if they publish the article, quote, I'm going to sue the Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else, he said. Wow. Yeah, so everyone's aware that if

you write any piece about Donald Trump, he's a whiny toddler and he's going to try to sue you. But what is with the politicians suing people for criticizing them? Is this still a free country? Is this still America? You criticize me,

I'm a politician. You shouldn't be allowed to criticize me in America, where we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press. I'm a politician. You shouldn't be allowed to criticize me in America, where we have freedom of speech, freedom of the press. I'm going to sue you and try to get money from you. But the Wall Street Journal is

owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch didn't make that decision without knowing that Trump is going to try to sue and fight back, etc. So that's Murdoch saying, have at it, Hoss. Let's see how it turns out for you. Now, this was apparently some sort

of album where his friends and associates were writing him happy birthday wishes. And according to the Wall Street Journal's reporting, among those who submitted letters were billionaire Leslie Wexner, his name comes up quite a bit,

by the way, and attorney Alan Dershowitz. The album also contained a letter from a now deceased Harvard economist, one of Epstein's report cards from Mark Twain Junior High School in Brooklyn. And a note from a former assistant that included this message, Jeffrey O. Jeffrey, everyone loves you, fun in the sun, fun just for fun. Remember, don't forget me soon, Epstein, you rock, you are the best. And Epstein was Wexner's money manager at the time, and he is the longtime leader of, God, so sad, Victoria's Secret.

And he wrote a short message saying, I wanted to get you what you want, so here it is. After the text was a line drawing of what appeared to be a woman's breasts. They all knew, they all knew, they all knew. Okay, Les Wexner, in case you're wondering,

this is something that a lot of people have reported on. Tara Palmieri was on the show, you should check out that interview on YouTube. And she reported on it for a lot of people have reported on Tara Palmieri was on the show, you should check out that interview on YouTube. And she reported on it for a lot of major publications. So he's very wealthy,

he runs a company that has not just Victor or Secret, but I think other well known brands. So that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is, so if you don't know Epstein didn't graduate college, has no background in finance,

was a high school math teacher and then got fired. Gee, I wonder why he got hired from a high school job. And then one person before Wexner gave him this amazing job of Bear Stearns. And so you can say, hey, look,

maybe he learned finance there. I don't know why in the world he would give this fired math teacher this amazing job of Bear Stearns. And so you can say, hey, look, maybe he learned finance there. I don't know why in the world he would give this fired math teacher this amazing job of Bear Stearns. Okay, fine. But Wexner does the really weird thing where he then comes in and says, why don't you manage all my

money for me? Enhances money to Epstein with complete trust to manage an enormous amount of money. That was super weird, right? So now Wexner, take this for what it's worth and this is, again, the reporting for

major publications, right? He's an enormous APAC donor. And so a lot of people are, right? That doesn't make them guilty, right? It's just people are saying, well, okay, that's a weird, interesting thing he did.

I wonder why he did that. And by the way, Epstein ripped off other people who are Jewish Americans, etc. So he's ripping everybody off. So that's why it's so complicated. We don't know, did he have something on Wexner or

did Wexner help him? Who knows? So we So what would be great if the people who knew inside the Justice Department, inside this administration, told us. Because they know, they definitely know. The only people who don't know are the American people, and no one ever got prosecuted. Okay, a few more details. This story is actually pretty explosive. So there's more on what Trump wrote in his letter to Epstein. So as I mentioned, it was

a hand drawn figure of a woman. And inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Donald Trump and Epstein written in third person. So I'm just going to give you

the imaginary back and forth, right? Voice over, there must be more to life than having everything, the note began. Donald says, yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is. Jeffrey responds, nor will I, since I also know what it is. Then Donald says, we have certain things in common, Jeffrey. Jeffrey says, yes, we do come to think of it. Donald says, enigmas never age. Have you noticed that? Jeffrey says, as a matter of fact,

it was clear to me the last time I saw you. And then it ends with Trump saying, a pal is a wonderful thing. Happy birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret. So that was the full context. And then I think what Dershowitz wrote is also relevant. But before I get to that, any comment on the full context of

what Trump allegedly wrote in this letter to Epstein? You'd have to be the blindest person in America not to see that there's something up, right? I mean, they're writing back in 2003 to one another snickering about their wonderful secrets and their enigmas and how great of pals they are. And you remember the secret thing

we did last time we were together? I mean, it doesn't take a Navajo code breaker to figure that out. Now Dershowitz's letter included a mock up of a vanity unfair magazine cover with mock headlines such as who was Jack the Ripper? Was it Jeffrey Epstein?

And then he joked in the letter that he had convinced the magazine to change the focus of an article from Epstein to Bill Clinton. Good job, good job. By the way, Bill Clinton obviously had ties to Jeffrey Epstein. I don't have a problem with having

conversations about Bill Clinton and his association with Epstein at all, but to brag about taking the heat off Epstein and instead transferring it on to other people. It's interesting considering what Epstein was instead transferring it on to other people. It's interesting considering what Epstein was up to, right? Now, obviously Dershowitz was Epstein's lawyer. He actually represented Epstein. But his whole argument is, well, that's what lawyers do. That's the whole point of our

justice system. Everyone deserves a chance at defending themselves. But clearly their relationship was much closer than this legal counsel and client relationship that Dershowitz tries to make it out to be in his public interviews. Yeah, no Dershowitz is an interesting cat in this regard. I mean, he has said on tape,

I know that there are clients and I know who they are. But because of confidentiality reasons, I can't tell you. So okay, so the Trump administration is clearly lying, but everybody knows that. What, there were no clients?

There were no clients? Come on, who's dumb enough to believe that? Seriously, if you're dumb enough to believe that if you're a Trump supporter or Pelosi supporter or Bill Clinton supporter, and you go, no, I think the girls

raped themselves. Okay, I mean, why don't you just hang a sign around your neck saying I'm a moron? But by the way, I mean, no, I think the girls raped themselves. Okay, I mean, why don't you just hang a sign around your neck saying I'm a moron. But by the way, I mean, look, Wall Street Journal, great job here, but all of mainstream media is still posing all this as

conspiracy theories. That he might have had clients and he might have been connected to this or that. All these are all conspiracy, no, no, he had clients. Yeah, there was a conspiracy, the one that he ran, right?

I mean, this is insanity, right? So for Dershowitz, he's both Epstein's lawyer at one point and Trump's lawyer at one point. There's another lawyer who was both Epstein's lawyer and Trump's lawyer at one point. So, but I think that overall,

Ana, this gives more weight to the people who say it's not an intelligence agency or anything like that. It's just Trump is connected to Epstein and Clinton was connected to Epstein and the powerful people are connected to Epstein.

So that's probably the explanation and that's why both sides have kept the secret. So it is evidence in that regard. No, I think both things can be true at the same time. Absolutely, right? Epstein could have been part of this blackmail operation or blackmail scheme. Why would Alex Acosta,

who was prosecuting Epstein and eventually decided to give him a sweetheart deal, say publicly and even till this day refused to deny that he was told Epstein is intelligence back off? Yeah, to be fair, he didn't say it publicly. But when asked publicly, he refused to deny it, right? Exactly. And the thing that I keep pointing out, I don't know why no one else

cares about it, but Acosta is a random prosecutor down in Florida, right, at the federal level, but still. And Trump makes him labor secretary. Why is he becoming labor secretary out of nowhere?

So there's so many amazing connections and some of them might mean nothing. My favorite one that's got to mean nothing, I can't imagine that there's a connection. But the person who hired Epstein to be the math teacher down in Florida

was Bill Barr's dad, Attorney General Bill Barr for Donald Trump. His dad hired Epstein, he was the very first guy to hire Epstein, at least as a math teacher. So sometimes the connections are just coincidence, right?

But in this case, there's a lot of coincidences. Yeah, definitely. Well, I have no doubt that Trump is going to attempt to retaliate against the Wall Street Journal. I would be shocked if the Wall Street Journal. I would be shocked if the Wall Street Journal didn't expect to be sued by Trump and they

published the story anyway. And I gotta give them a lot of credit for doing that because we've seen so many media organizations essentially fold under pressure from Donald Trump. And that's not the case with the Wall Street Journal, at least in this context. So we'll see what the aftermath of the story will be, but doesn't look good for Trump.