Ep. 2254 - The America LAST Left Cuts Loose, Plus New Epstein SUBPOENAS

Already, folks, a lot to get to on the show today.

The anti-American left is in full march, led, of course, by the squad that went abroad and then declared essentially that America is quite terrible.

Meanwhile, Jasmine Crockett, no relation to Davey Crockett, is apparently now calling President Trump Timu Hitler.

And a lot of focus on Jeffrey Epstein today will explain why.

First, there's a lot coming to Daily Wire Plus, and it's not inclusive, save for moderated by NPR.

You're going to love it.

On August 13th, the Pope and the Fuhrer unburies the lie they didn't want us to fact-check.

It exposes how Pope Pius XII did not stay silent during World War II.

And now the Vatican's receipts are wide open.

This fall, Isabel Brown's new show joins the lineup alongside the most trusted voices in conservative media, all ad-free, uncensored with live chat.

So you're not just watching, you're part of the conversation.

We built this because no one else would.

Now it's yours too.

Go to dailywire.com and become a member today.

So massive controversy has now broken out over a Democratic lawmaker in the House of Representatives who announced at a Pan-American Congress, which took place in Mexico City, all about how America was terrible.

Her name is Representative Delia Ramirez.

She is from Illinois.

She was born in the United States.

Her parents came here, and apparently, I think they came here illegally.

Her husband is in the country illegally.

She is the only congressional lawmaker in a mixed status marriage and fights for the rights of dreamers like her husband Boris and for comprehensive immigration reform, according to her website.

And she declared in Spanish that she is a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American, which is pretty amazing.

She then followed that up by suggesting the United States prioritizes imperialism, militarization, conquest control, competition in its attempt at domination.

Here's what she had to say.

Just to make sure that I wasn't mishearing what she said, I checked this out five different times in five different ways to ensure that I'm not mistranslating what she said, but this has now been widely reported.

The White House spokeswoman, Liz Huston, said, quote, these Democrats' comments are despicable and underscore their commitment to putting America last.

That, of course, is exactly, exactly right.

Nobody is suggesting that if you are an immigrant to this country or your parents are from another country, if you're Italian or your parents are Italian, that you can't have pride in your Italian heritage.

But to say that you're Italian more than you are American or prouder to be.

Italian than American while living in America is a wild statement.

It is a wild statement.

And again, goes to a deeper problem inside the Democratic Party, which suggests that they are, in fact, not America first.

They are in fact America last.

First of all, why would you be prouder to be a Guatemalan than an American?

Like, why?

Just on a raw level, the murder rate in Guatemala is 16.1 per 100,000 compared to the United States, where it's 6.8 per 100,000.

The GDP per capita in Guatemala is $6,100 per capita.

Since 2019, some 2 million people have left the Northern Triangle, many of those from Guatemala.

This conference, by the way, took place in Mexico City.

Mexico is, of course,

a disastrous hotbed of crime, corruption.

It is partially run by the drug cartels.

According to the 2023 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, Mexico ranks 126th in the world in terms of fighting corruption.

Mexico has a $14,000 GDP per capita, and their murder rate is 19.3 per 100,000, down from 24 per 100,000 in 2023.

All this is taking place again.

This entire conference is taking place in a country vastly inferior to the United States.

And of course, it wasn't just Delia Ramirez.

And the other people who showed up, as I mentioned, included Representative Ilhan Omar, who suggested that America is one of the worst countries in the world.

To be coming out of our country, I mean, I grew up

in a dictatorship, and I don't even remember ever witnessing anything like that.

To have a democracy, a peak of hope for the world

to now be turned into

one of the worst countries

where the military are in our streets without any regard for people's constitutional rights, while our president is spending millions of dollars propping himself up like a failed dictator with a military parade.

That was on Democracy Now, just a couple of months ago.

Somalia, of course, has a GDP per capita of $636.

It's one of the worst places on planet Earth.

And she says America is one of the worst places on planet Earth.

This, of course, is the same Representative Ilhan Omar from Minnesota, who said about 9-11, some people did something.

You remember this quote?

CARE was founded after 9-11

because they recognized that some people did something

and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.

I mean, the fact that she said this also at a conference for the Council on American-Islamic Relations says a lot considering the nefarious beginnings of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and their connections with the Muslim Brotherhood and all the rest.

But don't worry, it is not just the children of immigrants like Delia Ramirez or actual immigrants like Ilhan Omar.

It is also homegrown Americans like Ayana Presley, who believes that America is quite the terrible place.

She also spoke at this Pan-American conference.

Ayanna Presley, of course, is the ringo star of the squad.

You'll remember not all that long ago when she voted against the formation of a Tough on China committee because she said that that would further anti-Asian hate in the United States.

Can you explain why you voted no?

I voted no because, again, it's another

sham effort here.

It's really clear that this is just a committee that would further embolden anti-Asian rhetoric and hate.

And again, this is the way that these people feel about the United States of America.

Representative Rashida Taliba also went.

She, of course, is the Democratic Congresswoman from Michigan, a terror sympathizer, who literally just last year refused to condemn Chance of Death to America, walking away from questions about it.

People were chanting death to America.

Do you condemn?

Do not talk to Fox News.

But do you condemn Chance of Death to America?

I don't talk to people that use racist tropes.

Why can't you just say whether or not you condemn people chanting death to America?

Why are you afraid to talk to Fox?

Fox News is not.

Listen, using racist tropes towards my community is what Fox News is about, and I don't talk to Fox News.

Is Death to America racist?

Is chanting death to America racist?

I'm talking about your guys' racist tropes.

There's also Representative Summer Lee, Democrat from Pennsylvania, who has suggested in the past that requiring only American citizens be allowed to vote is actually xenophobic.

Republicans want to throw up barriers because when people vote, they lose.

Let me be clear.

They don't want you to vote.

They don't want to hear black voices, brown voices, LGBTQIA voices, young voices.

Our fundamental access to our democracy is being politicized.

And this xenophobic attack that we're debating today will make it harder for Americans to vote.

All these wonderful people showed up to a conference outside the United States to rip on America and talk about how terrible America was.

In a TV interview before the event, David Adler, the general coordinator for the Progressive International organization that was in charge of this event and one of the summit's main coordinators, said the intention of the summit was to confront authoritarian and fascist threats and shift authority from Washington, D.C.

to developing countries.

The DCNF reported in the global south, a term used to describe a loose division of nations across different continents that are generally poorer, have higher levels of inequity, and harsher living conditions.

Progressive International described the United States as, quote, the linchpin of that imperial violence, a position it has carefully built over two centuries.

And the website says, U.S.

militarism sustains profound political tensions around the world.

Its interventions have destroyed nation after nation, leaving a trail of violence and sorrow in their wake.

Ending U.S.

militarism means saving lives.

This is the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

This is where they are at.

And this is going to be the next governing wave of the Democratic Party as well.

Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, she hides it a little bit better, but she is a fellow traveler with this caucus.

Zora Montani is much louder.

He is not just a fellow traveler.

He is one of the main spirits at the tip of this caucus.

The new mayoral candidate in Minnesota for the Democrats is a person who agrees with this sort of stuff.

Bernie Sanders, of course, agrees with this take on America, this sort of Howard Zinn hatred for the United States.

And you can say that this is TDS, this is specifically about Donald Trump, but it clearly is not.

It goes deeper than that.

It goes to an oppressor-oppressed narrative whereby America is the great oppressor, America's allies are the great oppressors, and everybody in the world who is unsuccessful, every failed country around the world is simply oppressed by the first world.

And that's why they are in such dire circumstances right now.

Now, this is a recipe for more chaos around the world.

It just is.

Any sort of matrix that you use for the world in which no one has personal responsibility, particularly if they fail, that matrix on both a personal level and a national level is horribly dark.

It wrecks human beings, it wrecks nations, and it wrecks the planet overall.

And yet, this is the growing movement inside the Democratic Party that shirks responsibility, that presents the United States as the great aggressor in the world, despite the fact that the world is inestimably,

unfathomably more wealthy,

better off, healthier, living longer, more democratic because of the presence of the United States on planet Earth.

That bizarre hatred for the United States is a driving force behind everything from the open borders immigration platform of the Democratic Party to their redistributionist view of free market economics to their belief that the world is better off if the United States basically lays down its arms and allows all of its enemies to dominate the world situation.

If this is where the Democratic Party wants to go, I do not think this is where the American people want to go.

Alrighty, coming up, President Trump enjoying the Democrats falling apart plus new Epstein information, and we examine the state of the economy.

We'll get to that in a moment.

First, how many times have you told somebody, if it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Now, usually good advice, not so much for your cell phone.

Over time, the battery life fades, the processor can't keep up, it's fallen in the toilet, perhaps.

Well, fortunately, thanks to PeerTalk, your cell phone is something you can replace without feeling guilty.

When you switch to PeerTalk this month, they're going to give you a Samsung Galaxy 836 for free with a $35 qualifying plan.

Just $35 a month for talk, text, data, and a free Samsung phone with scratch-resistant Gorilla Glass and a battery that lasts all day long, all on America's most dependable 5G network.

Obviously, I am a fan of PeerTalk, and I use PureTalk for my calls.

And believe me, I take my calls pretty darn seriously.

If you take your calls seriously, Pure Talk is for you.

And also, supporting companies like PeerTalk is a good thing.

You're winning by cutting your cell phone bill in half.

They win by hiring more Americans and helping more veterans.

Make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.

Go to peartalk.com slash Shapiro.

Get your free phone today.

Again, that's puretalk.com/slash Shapiro to switch to my wireless company, America's wireless company, Pure Talk.

Go check them out right now, puretalk.com slash Shapiro.

Okay, folks, let's say you already like shooting.

Great.

What if I told you you're only getting half the experience?

Here's the reality.

Shooting suppressed isn't just quieter.

It is better, like much, much better.

Less recoil, tighter groups, no more ears ringing after you leave the range.

Silencer Shop helps take your shooting experience from ordinary to extraordinary.

Now, here's the good news: Silencer Shop is the easiest and fastest fastest way to get a suppressor, period.

They've helped more Americans get silencers than anyone else, and they make getting one faster than ever.

Their expert team helps handle the paperwork, connects you to a local dealer, gets you shooting suppressed with no hassle.

Silencer Shop isn't just making it easier to buy suppressors.

They're fighting to protect your freedoms as well.

Through the Silencer Shop Foundation, they filed a lawsuit against the federal government to challenge the outdated unconstitutional regulations that still restrict and require registration of suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and other firearms.

This lawsuit aims to strike down 91 years of federal overreach and restore your constitutional rights.

So visit silencershopfoundation.org to learn more and support the fight.

That's silencershopfoundation.org.

Silencer Shop, because your rights and your ears are worth protecting.

Check them out: silencershopfoundation.org.

Now, this manifests in the United States as a bizarre form of Trump derangement syndrome.

This is a point that President Trump himself made yesterday on CNBC.

He said the Democratic Party is self-destructing.

They have TDS so bad.

The Democrat Party is self-destructing.

I mean, when you have low-IQ people like Crockett, I wonder if she's any relationship to the late, great Davy Crockett, who is a great, great, a great gentleman.

I wonder if she's got any relationship to Davy Crockett, the great old Davy Crockett.

But you have this woman, Crockett.

She's a very low IQ person.

Somebody said the other day, she's one of the leaders of the party.

I said, you've got to be kidding.

The Democrats are lost.

They have Trump derangement syndrome so bad that they can't walk.

They can't talk.

They don't know where they're going.

Schumer is finished.

I watched him the other day.

He's lost all of his confidence.

I mean, he's not wrong about the Democratic Party.

I really, really doubt that Jasmine Crockett is related to Davey Crockett, unless President Trump knows something.

The free association in which President Trump engages is definitely one of my favorite things about President Trump.

And listen, he's living his best life, the President of the United States.

Yesterday, he was wandering around on the roof of the White House, and he was basically just kind of lobbing insults back and forth with the press from the roof of the White House.

Pretty funny.

Mr.

President, what do you want to build?

What are you trying to build?

Sir, you say you approve?

Are you building missiles?

What?

Come on now.

Did you say missiles?

Now he's taking over all of Gaza, sir.

In any case, the Democrats' Trump derangement syndrome is symptomatic of something broader.

It is not that their hatred for America is growing out of their derangement about President Trump.

It's that their derangement about President Trump is growing out of their hatred for America.

Because President Trump, of course, is pro-business.

President Trump is very strong in favor of our allies.

President Trump is a fan of the U.S.

military.

President Trump does not believe that the United States is a historically dark and horrible place.

That's the reason they hate him.

It's not they hate Trump, and therefore they're anti-American.

It's their anti-American and therefore they hate President Trump.

And this leads them to the most

bizarre performative nonsense with regard to Trump.

See, one of the things about the American political system is that if you love America, if you know anything about America, if you know anything about her constitution, the possibility of a true Hitlerian figure rising to the presidency of the United States and then actually enacting the policies of, say, Hitler.

That is a near impossibility in the American constitutional structure.

There are too many checks.

There are too many balances.

there are too many things hemming that in.

Now, again, I think that even leaves aside the good nature of the American people, which is the ultimate resource here.

But the reality is that if you know anything about American history, the idea that we are like this far from a Hitlerian takeover,

even that supposition is a manifestation of a broader distrust of America and a belief that America is susceptible to Hitlerianism.

And so, Jasmine Crockett, who you heard President Trump reference before, no relation to the late, great David Crockett.

She called President Trump Timu Hitler yesterday.

For everyone that's been asking where are the Democrats, well, here they are.

For everyone that's been asking, where is the fight?

Well, here it is.

But let me tell you something.

Don't leave them out on the ledge by themselves.

They need to know that you, the American people, stand with them because they are standing for you.

There are so many people that they will never meet, but they understand the importance of making sure that they have a voice when it comes to their government.

They understand the importance of standing for what democracy is and making sure that it does not fall by the wayside.

They understand that we have a Timu Hitler in the White House right now that thinks that he is going to become the dictator of the United States.

Well, I got another thing to tell you, sir.

Okay,

okay.

Meanwhile, Representative Jolana Jones, also of Texas, she's out there comparing the Texas redistricting fight to the Holocaust.

Again, this doesn't say much about the Texas redistricting fight.

It does say something about the bizarre mentality of Democrats these days who are perfectly willing to support Hamas's attempted Holocaust against Jews, but are somewhat less reticent when it comes to calling, you know, a redistricting fight in Texas the Holocaust.

And if you think it can't happen, it can.

And I will liken this to the Holocaust.

People are like, well, how did the Holocaust happen?

How is somebody in a position to kill all them people?

Well, good people remained silent, or

good people didn't realize that what happens to them can very very soon happen to me as somebody I love.

And so you, and so even if you made it, man, you have an obligation to help people who can't because God forbid they end up targeting you and your family.

Oh, yeah.

So, and why are the American people running headlong away from these folks?

Well, probably because they're kind of crazy.

Meanwhile, President Trump continues to be wildly successful.

in reshaping the politics of the country.

Harry Enton over at CNN just the other day did a whole analysis suggesting President Trump is, in fact, the most consequential president of the century.

More so than Barack Obama, for example.

Here he was.

We are potentially looking at negative net migration for the first time in at least 50 years.

And that is a big reason why I'm saying that Trump, at least in my mind, is the most influential president, certainly this century, and probably dating a good back chunk into the 20th century as well, Omar.

So when you say most influential, I mean, statistically, how much is Trump doing?

Yeah, okay, so let's talk about this.

How about executive orders?

Already, 180 executive orders signed by Donald Trump this year.

You have to go all the way back to the FDR administration once again to find a year in which there were as many executive orders signed as we have this year.

To give you an idea, Biden during his first year signed 77.

That's the entire year.

We're only a little bit more than halfway through this year, Omar.

Again, this is why I'm saying executive orders, immigration with net migration, and we're talking about tariffs and the effect of tariff rate.

Donald Trump is remaking the United States love it, like it, or lump it.

He has been tremendously influential to a historic degree.

Which is an amazing, amazing thing.

So what could presumably stop President Trump?

What could stop President Trump?

Well, it's not going to be yelling Team Hitler at him.

Theoretically, an economic downturn could stop President Trump.

Obviously, an economic downturn can stop any president.

We'll get to that possibility in a little bit.

But there is one other thing that could theoretically stop any president, and that, of course, is scandal.

And this is why I think you are starting to see the left hone in almost exclusively on the Jeffrey Epstein stuff.

Obviously, you have people who are interested in the Jeffrey Epstein case, who are still concerned about what they believe are outstanding questions about the Jeffrey Epstein case.

And many of those questions are legit.

Where did Jeffrey Epstein get his money?

How did he get that money?

Why'd he get a sweetheart deal from the former labor secretary back when he was a DA in Florida?

Those are all open questions and all understandable.

However, to understand why there is this sort of rabid desire on the part of some, not all, but some, like a very, very loud coterie of people about the Jeffrey Epstein case, there is something else going on.

And there is a reason that Hunter Biden, of all people, is now parroting this Epstein nonsense.

Here he was yesterday.

But do I think that

what they do have implicates him?

Yeah, I think so.

You know, I mean, Epstein introduced Melania to Trump.

The connections are like

so wide and deep.

Anyway, why do we think they don't want the files released?

I don't know.

I think John, you know, that

thing that John Hollman says is like a long time ago, I think is the most accurate kind of assessment of them, which is everything is projection or confession.

Everything.

By the way, Hunter Biden is doing his finger painting in the middle of this video with the conspiratorial music underneath.

All righty, coming up, Victor Davis Hanson stops by to discuss his view of the presidency of Donald Trump thus far.

First, Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose.

GCU equips you to serve others in ways that promote human flourishing and create a ripple effect of transformation for generations to come.

By honoring your career calling, you impact your family, your friends, and your community.

Change the world for good by putting others before yourself to glorify God.

Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals.

With over 340 academic programs as of September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams.

The pursuit to serve others is yours.

Let it flourish.

Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University.

Private, Christian, affordable.

Visit gcu.edu.

There are so many bad institutions of higher education out there.

And then there are a few good ones, like, for example, Grand Canyon University.

Go check them out right now.

GCU.edu.

Also, the business landscape has never been more volatile.

In this environment, real-time adaptability isn't just an advantage.

It's survival.

Companies that can't pivot quickly aren't just falling behind.

They're facing existential threats.

To navigate this chaos, you need complete visibility across every aspect of your operation, from global shipments and tariff impacts to real-time cash flow analysis.

NetSuite by Oracle delivers exactly that through its AI-powered business management suite, already trusted by over 42,000 companies worldwide.

As the leading cloud ERP platform, NetSuite consolidates accounting, financial management, inventory, and HR into a single unified system that serves as your one source of truth.

This comprehensive visibility enables lightning-fast decision-making backed by real-time forecasting and actionable data insights.

With AI automation handling routine tasks throughout the platform, your teams can focus on strategic initiatives while NetSuite identifies bottlenecks, calculates their true cost, and provides clear pathways for rapid pivots when market conditions demand immediate action.

It's one system, full control, tame the chaos with NetSuite.

If your revenues are at least in the seven figures, download the free e-book, Navigating Global Trade, three insights for leaders at netsuite.com slash Shapiro.

That's NetSuite.com slash Shapiro.

But there's a good piece by Lee Smith over at Tablet Magazine asking, what is the motivation behind some of the most vociferous resistance to President Trump and the Trump administration with regard to the Epstein case.

And as I've said before, if you want to claim that there's a cover-up, you have to claim that Cash Patel, Dan Bongino, Pam Bonnie, and President Trump are all implicated in that cover-up.

So is J.D.

Vance, so is everybody else who has knowledge of what is going on in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

So Lee writes this.

He says, CIA Director John Ratcliffe told the press that officials from the Barack Obama administration may be charged for their role in Russia Gate, the spy operation designed to topple the first Donald Trump administration.

With FBI Director Cash Patel reportedly overseeing a criminal conspiracy case involving Brennan, Comey, and others, there's reason for optimism that those who targeted the president, his aides, and supporters from 2016 to 2024 will finally be held accountable.

Naturally, those with the most to lose, such as former Obama officials implicated in the biggest political scandal in American history and the media that served as their willing accomplices, are playing to block.

And the instrument they've chosen to protect themselves is another anti-Trump conspiracy theory, this one holding that the administration is hiding information about Jeffrey Epstein to protect Donald Trump from being implicated in his crimes.

Call it Epstein Gate.

Perhaps the most senior former Obama official pushing Epstein Gate is Susan Rice, the one-time national security advisor, whose January 5th, 2017 email may implicate Obama in the anti-Trump conspiracy.

In an ex-post over a New York Times op-ed by Brennan and Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, she wrote that the Trump administration's Russia Gate disclosures are, quote, a shameless, dishonest, defamatory scheme to distract from Epstein, Epstein, Epstein.

The media, as Lee says, have a substantial corporate interest in obfuscating the Trump administration's efforts to bring RussiaGate to light, since it may also illuminate the role of of the press in publishing leaks of classified intelligence to advance known falsehoods undergirding a criminal conspiracy.

The president says Democrats started what he calls the Epstein hoax, but that's not entirely right.

They're using it to defend themselves from Russiagate.

But it was a MAGA-aligned cohort led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon who weaponized the Epstein narrative, and now parts of the right are as giddy with anti-Trump animus as first-term Never Trumpers are.

Douglas McGregor, a prominent figure on the MAGA podcast circuit who worked in the Pentagon during Trump's first term, said, quote, the Epstein thing is probably going to bring President Trump down.

The problem then isn't just that Russiagate revelations aren't breaking through to the rest of the electorate, but also that podcasters ostensibly aligned with Trump are employing the ghost of a dead sex offender to fracture his base and hobble him with help from Democrats after the 2026 midterms, just as Russiagate hobbled Trump's first terms.

And as Lee Smith points out, again,

there is a push by many of these people to try to hijack the MAGA movement.

away from President Trump.

The problem, says Smith, is that nothing the administration administration produces now will satisfy this faction of MAGA because Bannon and Carlson are not interested in transparency or accountability.

Rather, they've rigged the Epstein story to damage Trump.

In their telling, Epstein wasn't just a predator.

He was also a spy, an operative using American teenagers as baits who compromised powerful liberal elites on behalf of the Mossad.

They framed the affair so that only confirmation of their mad conspiracy theory will put Epstein's ghost to rest.

The logic is that if Trump doesn't release the evidence he's shielding Israel, it's evidence he's owned by Israel.

The setup is as crazy and destructive as RussiaGate because it's the Russiagate playbook, except in this reboot, Netanyahu plays Putin's part, and it's not Moscow that controls Trump's brain, but the Jews.

And again,

the kind of general idea here that President Trump is being hurt is not true, but could it theoretically be doing damage to him?

Sure.

And it's a purposeful damage.

It is an attempt, obviously, to undermine the president's agenda when you run out a bunch of nonsense about how Donald Trump is covering up the Epstein case.

And there's always, it's always done by implication.

Steve Bannon will always suggest that Donald Trump is being manipulated or somebody underneath him is doing the hiding.

He won't just say that it's Donald Trump doing the hiding in Epstein.

Tucker Carlson does the same routine.

But if you're going to make these allegations, you should just say the thing.

You should just say the thing, especially Bannon, who, by the way, was deeply ensconced in the Epstein circle.

He spent 15 hours interviewing Jeffrey Epstein.

He was also a source for Vicki Ward's 2019 book, Kushner Inc., which was a takedown of Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Vicki Ward also happens to be a source that's constantly being cited with regard to Epstein.

So again, you have to wonder about some of the motivations, again, not of everybody who's asking questions, there are still legit questions, but many of the people who are at least positing a theory.

Because in the middle of all this, there is an attempt to get to the bottom of it.

For example,

the House committee has now subpoenaed.

Jeffrey Epstein records from the Justice Department.

That's the House Oversight Committee, according to the Wall Street Journal.

They subpoenaed the DOJ for records related to its Jeffrey Epstein investigation and is seeking to question Bill and Hillary Clinton, along with a host of former officials, over the disgraced financier's crimes.

The subpoenas sent Tuesday by the Republican-controlled committee intensify pressure on the Trump administration to hand over other documents.

That committee is also seeking communications about Epstein between former President Joe Biden and his administration as well.

The House panel wants to question everybody from former FBI Director James Comey and Attorneys General William Barr, Merrick Garland, and Jeff Sessions to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

So it'll be interesting to see who responds to all of this.

Meanwhile, a senior White House official says the administration is making plans to release audio recordings and a transcript of an interview last month between Jeffrey Epstein's associate and now sex convict Ghelin Maxwell and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch.

The contents have already been briefed to officials in the West Wing.

Now, apparently, there are some concerns in Trump world about releasing the Maxwell transcripts, specifically because nothing she says has really been vetted yet.

So she can say whatever she wants.

She's obviously going to be saying things that benefit her.

That would be the entire purpose of her doing the interview in the first place.

One of the officials told CNN, quote, a final decision has not been made about the release.

The officials have been eager to take control of the narrative around the optics of the issue.

And apparently it's going to be released sooner rather than later.

But it is worth noting here that Ghelane Maxwell at the same time is trying to block the Trump DOJ's request to unseal grand jury transcripts.

Why?

Well, because presumably those grand jury transcripts show that Ghelaine Maxwell is going to contradict whatever she said in this interview.

That's the reason why she's attempting to block all of this.

Maxwell's attorney wrote on Tuesday, Jeffrey Epstein is dead.

Ghelaine Maxwell is not.

Whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy in a case where the defendant is alive.

Her legal options are viable and her due process rights remain.

I don't actually think what this is about.

I think what this is about, actually, is that Ghelaine Maxwell probably told the grand jury that she didn't know anything.

And now she's contradicting all of that in her interview with Todd Blanche in order to somehow get herself a pardon or to put out unverifiable and unverified information about third parties.

That would make the most sense.

And anybody treating Ghelane Maxwell as a source of truth, given the fact that she was, in fact, Jeffrey Epstein's paramour for years and years and years and a convict for helping traffic underage girls to Jeffrey Epstein and for her own pleasure.

Now, that typically is not the most reliable witness, shall we say?

Jeffrey Epstein's victims are also condemning the Trump administration for a plan to unseal some of the grand jury testimony.

Neither victim requested to keep the files under seal, according to Axios.

Both urged the court to make sure any identifying information was thoroughly scrubbed to protect them, which, of course, makes sense.

You don't want the victims having their information released.

So, again, the administration is attempting to move toward more information, more transparency, which is what they should have done in the first place.

But if there are people who are really, really retailing the most lurid version of Epstein Gate,

you do have to wonder, based on what evidence, and if they don't have that evidence, and if they purport to be allies of President Trump, the question would be why?

What is your goal here?

I have doubts about your intentions, shall we say?

Already coming up, President Trump is fighting back against debanking of the politically heterodox.

We'll get to that in a moment.

First, here's the reality.

Over 90% of Americans don't get enough dietary fiber, and most of us aren't hitting that recommended variety of fruits and veggies either.

I know that I typically didn't until I tried balance of nature supplements.

These aren't some artificial knockoff trying to mimic what nature provides.

They simply let nature do what nature is supposed to do.

We're talking about 47 real ingredients.

Mango, wild blueberries, spinach, kale, shiitake, mushrooms, broccoli, the whole works.

Plus, their fiber and spice blend is also unique.

It combines four whole fibers like psyllium, husk, and flaxseed with 12 aromatic spices, including turmeric and cinnamon.

You're not going to find another supplement that does all that.

I also appreciate there.

No artificial additives, no added sugars, just clean ingredients.

It's vegan, kosher certified by the OU, gluten-free.

It can even mix the powder into smoothies or sprinkle it over food.

No bags, no mess, no measuring.

When I'm traveling, it's easy to bring with me and get what I need.

After years of research and development, they've created something that makes getting proper nutrition actually convenient.

Go to balanceofnature.com, use promo code Shapiro for 35% off your first order as a preferred customer.

Plus, get a free bottle of fiber and spice.

That's balanceofnature.com, promo code Shapiro.

Also, can the Fed take the right action at the right time, or are we going to be looking at a potential economic slowdown?

What does that mean for your savings?

I know about you, but betting on Jerome Powell, I don't know.

I diversify with gold through Birch Gold Group to, you know, prevent against the inevitable.

I do it for peace of mind, knowing if the bottom should fall out, I have something tangible I can rely upon.

And Birch Gold makes it incredibly easy for you to diversify into gold as well.

If you have an IRA or old 401k, you can convert that into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical gold or just buy some gold to keep in your safe.

I recently re-upped because, you know, I'm kind of concerned about the volatility of the economy right now.

They made it super simple.

I called them up, I got their advice, and then when I was ready to buy, I did.

And now it's sitting in my safe.

First, get educated.

Birch Gold will send you a free info kit on gold.

Just text the word Ben to the number 98.98.98.

Again, text Ben to 98.98.98.

Consider diversifying a portion of your savings into gold.

That way, if the Fed can't stay ahead of the curve for the country, and they have kind of a bad record recently, at least you can stay ahead for yourself.

Go check them out right now by texting Ben to 98.98.98 to get started with my friends over at Birch Gold.

Meanwhile, Pam Bondi is now pursuing a grand jury probe into Obama officials over the Russiagate investigation.

According to CNN, a grand jury would be able to issue subpoenas as part of a criminal investigation into renewed allegations that Democratic officials tried to smear President Trump during his 2016 campaign by falsely alleging that his campaign was colluding with the Russian government.

It could also consider an indictment should the Justice Department decide to pursue a criminal case.

That, of course, follows a referral from DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who had said that she was going to refer all of this for the possibility of criminal prosecution over to the DOJ.

The Justice Department has so far declined to comment.

Again, it'll be interesting to see how this plays in court.

Here, for example, is a retired FBI agent named Christopher O'Leary on MSNBC saying that this isn't about anything except for the Trump administration weaponizing the DOJ.

Oh, the irony.

You guys were all fine with the weaponization of the DOJ during President Trump's first term and then during Joe Biden's term.

But now it's weaponization of the DOJ to try and open a grand jury investigation into members of the Obama administration who clearly were complicit or active in the Russian Gate scandal.

Trust the current DOJ officials to follow the facts here.

I do not.

And I think what's going to be telling is where they put the grand jury.

So a grand jury is typically 23 citizens that are brought together.

It's a prosecutorial tool, but if they convene it in DC District, they might not get the outcome that they want.

So it's likely they're going to put it in Florida, which means they're looking for a certain outcome, not where the facts actually drive you.

So again, this looks like weaponization.

And what it looks like is, you know, he's bringing together an old conspiracy to kind of fig leaf the Epstein conspiracy.

So we're bringing President Obama back in.

Hillary Clinton, George Soros is mentioned in this again.

So it's the old hits coming back, which might drag some of the MAGA base back to their side.

Okay, so again, this is the left-wing attempt to try and spin away from RussiaGate.

But as more evidence has emerged in the past of RussiaGate and its depth and the magnitude of that scandal, that is a very real scandal.

And simply talking it away is not going to work.

Meanwhile, speaking of weaponization of government, a fascinating piece by Charlie Gasperino over at the New York Post about J.P.

Morgan and Bank of America.

So President Trump yesterday announced that he would be pushing forward with a plan to stop the debanking of people on the basis of politics.

He did an interview with MSNBC, and there he talked about being personally debanked by both J.P.

Morgan Chase and Bank of America.

Here's what he had to say.

The banks discriminated against me very badly, and I was very good to the banks.

I had the greatest economy in the history of our country when I was president.

And by the way, our economy now will blow that away, and you see it happening.

But our economy now, because we're a rich country again, because of our trade deals, we've become a rich country again.

But no, they totally discriminate against, I think me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives.

You know, I told that story and sitting around tables with other people that were conservative or Trump supporters.

I think the word might be Trump supporters more than conservative.

And I believe what they did is they went to the regulators.

You know, banks are not afraid of anything but a regulator.

They're regulators and their wives.

They're more afraid of their wives than the regulators.

But

the group they're really afraid of is bank regulators.

And I believe that Biden or Kamala, and I don't think they're smart enough to do it, but the people that are surrounding the beautiful Resolute desk, you know, the high IQ people that are radical left,

I believe they told the banking commission, the bankers, that the banking regulators, do everything you can to destroy Trump.

And that's what they did.

And guess what?

I'm president.

How did that happen?

Well, according to Charlie Gasperino over at the New York Post, J.P.

Morgan and Bank of America debanked President Trump for his role in the January 6th Capitol Hill melee, following pressure from the Biden administration's banking regulators and the Federal Reserve.

People with direct knowledge of the matter tell the New York Post.

The exact reason for Trump and his tens of millions of dollars in holdings being kicked off the J.P.

Morgan banking platform and then denied access to Bank of America services has yet to be actually reported.

But sources at the banks confirmed the cause stemmed from the controversy surrounding January 6th and threats from Joe Biden's bank regulators that banking the former president's money put them in danger of falling afoul of a rule that prohibit financial institutions from doing business with individuals and companies that present a reputational risk.

Apparently, people at those banks told the New York Post that Biden's banking cops at the office of the comptroller of the currency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve, often use the nebulous nature of that edict to go beyond debanking money launderers and drug kingpins.

And instead, they're pressured pressured to include people who have heterodox political and business ties, often including conservatives and anyone who participated in the January 6th protests.

An executive at J.P.

Morgan said regulators, quote, put the fear of God in you if you did business with people like Donald Trump.

Another banking executive said, think back to what it was like being Trump back in 2021.

He was a hot potato after January 6th.

The regulators made it clear that we shouldn't do business with him.

So President Trump has now made a move to try and stop this sort of activity.

Bank executives and lobbying groups are pushing broadly back against the assertion that people are being debanked.

But President Trump says that there is going to be action by the administration to stop the debanking of people who are politically heterodox.

And of course, this makes a fair bit of sense.

I mean, the reality is that when you are talking about the possibility of people not being able to access their money or put their money in a bank because they have political opinions that others don't find to be within the purview of of the appropriate.

What's the limiting principle there?

Now, you make the free market argument that, okay, Bank of America, J.P.

Morgan, they don't want to take Donald Trump's money.

There'll be another bank that takes Donald Trump's money.

And I suppose that's a fair free market argument.

The problem is the collusion that we have seen in the tech sector, for example, between these major companies deplatforming people and the collusion that presumably follows in the banking sector could mean the unpersoning of wide swaths of people.

And we have seen that when there's no limiting principle, when there's no actual enforceable principle there, and it just becomes ad hoc, well, that means that the former and future president of the United States could find himself without a place to park his money, which is a major problem in the United States.

So, good for President Trump for taking a look at that.

Honestly, I'm not sure what the precise solution to it is, but the fact that it's becoming a bigger issue for the banks may, in and of itself, be enough of a shaming mechanism to get them to open their Overton window from where it was during the Biden administration.

Meanwhile, as I say, scandal is one danger to an administration.

The other danger to an administration is the collapse of the economy.

Right now, there are a bunch of factors militating in favor of a growing economy.

Those include the investments in AI, which continue to be stellar, the earnings of new companies like Palantir,

the One Big Beautiful Bill, which ensures the tax didn't skyrocket on major and minor American businesses.

the deregulatory nature of the Trump administration, which has been going through the books with a chainsaw, things like the EPA getting rid of using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions.

And there are all sorts of good things happening in the business sector.

And then there are some not-so-great things happening within the economic sector, namely

over-regulation and interference.

So President Trump announced yesterday that he would be levying gigantic tariffs on pharmaceutical products within the next week.

Here's what he had to say.

Look, I did something with Switzerland the other day.

I spoke to their prime minister.

The woman was nice, but she didn't want to listen.

And they paid essentially no tariffs.

And I said, we have a $41 billion deficit with you.

You want to pay 1% tariffs.

You wanted 1%.

I said, you're not going to pay 1%.

We lose because I view deficit as loss.

You know, you have some people, by the way, I think...

Pharmaceuticals are a big issue with Switzerland.

I think that's

pharmaceuticals.

They make a fortune with pharmaceuticals, and they make our pharmaceuticals in China and Ireland and everything else.

And within the next week or so, we're going to to be announcing tariffs on specifically.

This is a, you know, this is a separate class than the 15% tariffs on sort of everything.

Right.

We're going to be announcing on semiconductors and chips, which is a separate category, because we want them made in the United States.

Okay, so he says that he's going to levy tariffs on pharmaceuticals that could eventually reach up to 250%

the price of the product.

Hard to see how that's not going to increase the price of pharmaceuticals pharmaceuticals to the consumer.

I mean, if you're talking about drugs being too expensive, which is a major thing that President Trump is focusing on, then it seems like restricting supply of the pharmaceuticals into the United States is going to be a problem for people who are trying to get their pharmaceuticals at an affordable price.

The Trump administration in April initiated a so-called Section 232 investigation on pharmaceutical products that is a legal authority allowing the Secretary of Commerce to investigate the impact of imports on national security.

It says we want pharmaceuticals made in this country.

Now, again, there's a case to be made that we should make the most important pharmaceuticals in the country.

However, you do have to acknowledge there will be rising prices that result from all of that.

Well, now, President Trump seems to be engaging when it comes to pharmaceuticals in

both price controls and tariffs.

I mean, this is not conservative economic policy.

It's not free market economic policy by any stretch of the imagination.

Here is President Trump talking.

about his plans on the one hand to tariff the living hell out of pharmaceuticals.

And then on the other hand, he is saying that he also wants most favored nation status on drug pricing so here he was talking about drug pricing

as you know for 30 years europe has had drug prices that are in many cases one tenth the cost of drugs in here same same manufacturing plant same everything uh one tenth i've invoked favored nations now there is no favored nations laws i've just said there is okay because we're not going to pay 10 times more per mail than they pay in europe then that's going to have a tremendous impact on the price of medicine

So, you know, again, do I believe that this is good economic policy?

I do not.

I think that the president of the United States radically increasing the price of pharmaceuticals via tariffs and then going to the pharmaceutical companies and just yelling at them to lower their prices, that is not going to be possible.

You can't restrict the inputs that people use to make the pharmaceuticals.

And then at the same time, just tell them that they have to lower the prices.

That doesn't work.

Economics is not dictated to.

You can't just say you want the price of a product to be X with the same quality control.

That's not the way any of this works.

These sorts of bumps in the road are going to create additional friction for President Trump's economy.

That also happens to be true with regard to President Trump's continuing tariff wars.

Now, again, if the idea of the tariff wars is that you are trying to facilitate a reduction in Chinese global power, I'm very much in favor of that.

But it seems as though China is going to walk away from this thing in fairly solid shape.

President Trump says that we are very close to a deal with China.

Okay, but if that deal with China also involves them being able to buy NVIDIA chips for purposes of their AI development, if it means that China gets away with using TikTok as a weaponized PSYOP against the American people, if it means that China still gets to restrict its supply of rare earth minerals to the United States, I'm not sure how that is going to benefit the United States as a general rule.

But China was collapsing.

China is very reliant reliant on the United States.

My relationship with him is very good.

I think we'll make a good deal.

It's not imperative, but I think we're going to make a good deal.

But no, they had a thing that Donald Trump really wanted to go there.

No, I don't.

It's a 19-hour flight.

It's a long flight.

But at some point in the not-too-distant future, I will.

And just to end this conversation in China, I have a very good relationship with President Xi always had, other than the COVID moment where I was very angry with him and essentially didn't want to talk to him, frankly, because, you know, it did come out of Wuhan, in all fairness, which I was saying

from the day one, I was saying I knew exactly where it came from.

But that did interfere with the relationship.

But no, I've had a great relationship with President Xi.

We respect him a lot.

They respect us a lot.

They didn't respect Biden.

They thought he was

a numbskull.

They couldn't believe he was the President of the United States.

And neither can anyone else that that happened.

I mean, again, that's all fine and dandy.

The problem, of course, is that if we cut a so-called great deal with China, and meanwhile, we are actually alienating ourselves from potential bulwarks against China, like for example, India, like if you're going to formulate a foreign policy that boxes China in, what you want to do is draw India in toward you, alienate China, right?

Box China in.

That would be the, I mean, if you're punishing India because India is buying Russian oil, who do you think is buying the most Russian oil?

And the answer there is China by leaps and bounds.

China has been funding Russia's entire war against Ukraine, essentially.

But here's President Trump saying he's likely to raise tariffs on India.

With India, what people don't like to say about India, they're the highest tariff nation.

They have the highest tariff of anybody.

We do very, very little business with India because their tariffs are so high.

So India has not been a good trading partner because they do a lot of business with us, but we don't do business with them.

So we settled on 25%, but I think I'm going to raise that very substantially over the next 24 hours because they're buying Russian oil, they're fueling the war machine, and if they're going to do that, then I'm not going to be happy.

Now, again, there's no one on the right who's been more of an advocate for stopping Russia and the war in Ukraine than I have been.

But I'm just saying that if you are going to, as an extension of geopolitics, box in China, then drawing China close while alienating India, that doesn't seem like a particularly great policy and will have economic side effects as well.

If you want to see the Trump administration succeed, again, the two biggest dangers to any administration are scandal and economic downturn.

Those are the two biggest ones.

I'm not particularly worried about the scandal at this point in time.

I am concerned that the added friction in the economy that is being created by attempted tariffs and price controls and all the rest, that this is not going to benefit the American economy.

in the short to medium run.

Joining us on the line is Victor Davis Hansen.

He, of course, is the Martin Illeg Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he specializes in classics and military history.

He's written, of course, an amazing number of tremendous books, including Carnage and Culture, The Case for Trump, The End of Everything.

Professor Victor Davis-Hansen, thanks so much for joining the show.

Really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me, man.

So let's assess where the Trump administration is at this point in time.

Right now, it looks as though the economy is moving along, probably slowing a little bit.

We probably are going to get a reduction, I would assume, in the interest rates rates from the Federal Reserve at the next Federal Reserve meeting, but there's sort of mixed signals in the economy.

On the international level, it looks as though the war in Ukraine is going to continue for the foreseeable future.

And it seems as though Israel is about to make some major moves in Gaza.

What do you make of kind of the state of play for the Trump administration now that we are seven months in?

Well, it's waging the most ambitious counter-revolution I think I've ever seen in my life, much more fundamental and multifaceted than the Reagan Revolution.

And by that, I mean certain issues are now moot.

He's closed the border.

There is no more illegal entry.

It's just a question of how do you get the 12 million that came under Biden out.

We were told there would be 55,000 short military recruits because of systemic problems with gangs or drugs or competition with private infrastructure.

That proved to be fallacious.

He solved that problem.

I don't think I'd ever imagined as somebody who spent nearly a half century in

the university that he would have them pretty much asking for compromises.

And they are now culpable, and they admit they're culpable on anti-Semitism,

gouging the federal government on federal grants,

systemic racism on theme houses, graduation, safe spaces.

So he's really caused a DEI-academic revolution.

As far as these two wars go,

the instigators or the attackers, Hamas and Russia, apparently and their supporters feel that the war went against them and they have no rationale for the types of losses they incurred and the humiliation they incurred.

So they're not really going to give up

unless they can go back to their masters and say, this was worth it in the cost of benefit analysis.

So I don't know where the magic point is for Putin, how far west of the Donbass and Crimea he's got to explain to his base, the oligarchs and the military, that he lost a million Russian casualties basically to just start out with what he had.

He had Crimea, he had the Donbass, he had pretty much de facto certainty that Ukraine wouldn't be in NATO.

And I don't know what he's gained for all that losses, but he apparently feels he's got to show something more.

And I don't know where that magic line of a DMZ will be, but I think that's what the negotiations are.

The other problem with Israel's got is that they've got an existential enemy that tried to, you know, it would destroy the Jewish state if it ever had the capability.

And

its patron, Iran, has been defanged.

Hezbollah has been defanged.

So here we have this remnant, subterranean remnant.

And

you've got the international community trying to say that resurrect it.

You've got the people of Gaza from latest polls seem to want to resurrect it.

And Israel can't countenance it.

They can't resurrect it.

And so it's just a question of what are they going to do about it?

How are they going to,

they've been into Gaza once, and

I don't think it was in their interest to get anywhere near there again.

But they can't leave it be.

So they're in an existential dilemma, doom loop.

They can't let it be, and they don't want to go in there and run things.

And so we'll see what happens.

But it really hurt their efforts that the international community sort of

gave a life raft to this dying Hamas cause.

You know, one of the things about President Trump that I've said many times is that he is heterodox in many of his views, but he's also responsive to reality in a way that many other presidents are not.

He's non-ideological, which means that he's quite pragmatic.

So he might start off his administration taking an almost neutral position between Russia and Ukraine.

But if Ukraine comes to the table and Russia doesn't, then he will say Ukraine has come to the table, Russia has not, and he will up his support for Ukraine.

If he looks at the Middle East, he's not going to make an ideological commitment to neutrality between a terrorist group and a democratic ally of the United States.

Even when it comes to the economy, there's been a lot of talk about President Trump's tariffs, the most sort of extraordinary of those tariffs.

He has walked back to a certain extent.

He's still keeping

a large tariff regime, an almost unprecedented tariff regime in place.

But it seems to me that if the economy starts to slow too significantly, you might see him attempt to relieve some of that as well.

That pragmatism has backfooted a lot of his political opponents.

And so it seems as though the only real obstacle to the success of his continuation and his administration would come in the form of either an economic downturn or in the form of some unforeseen scandal.

Is that analysis fair?

Yeah, I think it is.

If we had this conversation in January of 2020 when things were booming, it was pretty pretty clear that he was going to be reelected until the COVID thing hit.

And I think that destroyed his re-election chances.

But

he's in unknown territory.

We've never had a president that has pledged his presidency on the assumption that these people who were running vast surpluses with us, China, Japan, South Korea, the EU, they had a profit margin of which we didn't know what it was, but he's saying that they can still make a profit without

marginal, you know, without in a great deal of raising prices and pricing them out of the U.S.

market and still pay the tariff.

And they don't want to admit it, but he suggests that's accurate.

He also feels that while the Wall Street Journal might say that trade deficits don't matter and tariffs are bad, then why does China and the EU and all these brilliant nations adopt the things that we're told are injurious to them?

But I guess in the larger picture, what he's trying to do is square the circle.

He said that he's not going to cut defense.

He's not going to cut Social Security and Medicare.

He's not going to raise taxes.

And he's going to do all these incentives that will kick in, he thinks, before the midterm.

And this is deregulation, investment incentives, lower taxes.

But he's got to show some progress

in addressing this $2 trillion budget deficit.

And the way that he's trying to do it is very interesting.

Scott DeSant said the other day that if the tariffs continue, they might get $300 billion in new revenue.

The Doge people think they can get $200 billion in cuts.

And Trump is going wild over

Jerome Powell.

But the subtext of that is we're paying $3 billion a day in interest.

And if you can get down maybe a half a point or three quarters of a point, you might save another $200 billion in annual interest.

And before you know it, you've cut $700 billion from the $2 trillion, which is 30 or 40%, is pretty good without raising taxes and without touching defense and entitlements.

I think that's what he's trying to do.

And that's why he's so inflamed and angry at Powell.

Because Powell, on the one hand, says, when the Wall Street Journal in March and April, we're saying the stock market's not going to come back.

We're going to be in a recession, stagflation, the tariffs are going to cause a trade war.

You would think that, as someone who agreed with that assessment, he would have lowered interest rates.

And then, when he didn't,

and

everybody said, well, things are getting better, then he didn't, you know, you could see why he kept them because he said he was afraid of inflation, but there was no evidence there was any inflation.

It was about 2.4, 2.5.

It's gone down.

January, I think the whole year, seven months, is 2.4 inflation.

So I don't, he's not consistent, but one thing is consistent.

He's sort of a Merrick Garland wounded fawn.

He's somebody that had been attacked by the opposition and wounded and never got over it.

And too late, pal, and all of that rhetoric, he can't, I don't think he can digest it and be empirical vis-a-vis Trump.

And it's tragic because he's a

I think the economy justifies a lowering of interest rates, and that would do a lot for the deficit.

and more importantly it would get a lot of people in homes they can't afford but i don't think he's going to do it in the same way that merrick garland just seemed to be obsessed with going after uh trump although in a candlestine candlestine way i mentioned that i mentioned there the the the situation with the economy and and then you know the the other possibility is the possibility of scandal and this brings us to a bizarre drumbeat on some parts of the right a tremendous focus on Jeffrey Epstein.

You understand why the Democrats would jump on the Jeffrey Epstein stuff, because for the Democrats,

if you need some club to wield against President Trump and the only handy club is the Jeffrey Epstein case, then you wield it against President Trump.

But it appears fairly clear from the evidence that we know about, and also the people who are actually in charge of looking at that evidence, that Pam Bondi basically got over her skis, the attorney general, that she suggested that she had access to materials that didn't exist or she exaggerated the content of those materials.

And then essentially the DOJ and FBI had to walk that back in their iterated ruling.

You'll get some release of some more documents, but probably the underlying judgment won't change.

What's fascinating to watch is some people on the right, not people who have, I think, open and legit questions about where Jeffrey Epstein got his money, which again is understandable, or people who are frustrated because they were promised more, but people who are fully confident that there is some sort of nefarious cover-up going on inside the Trump administration and seem bound and determined to elevate the Epstein case to the front page every single day.

What do you think is the motivation there?

Well, I think what happened was they were very, as you said, they got ahead of their skis.

They were very enthusiastic when they saw the initial evidence.

They thought this would be another sign that the Trump administration is far more transparent than their predecessors.

And then when they looked at the 170 names that appear in text messages, emails, court inquiries, interrogatories, there's a lot of people there.

I mean, there's Leonard DiCaprio, there's

Bruce Willis, there's all these names, and we have no idea why they're there.

On a one to 10, they could have just bumped into him, they could have said hello, they could have seen him in a party, they could have tried to raise money with him, they could have done a business deal, or at a 10, they could have been involved nefariously.

And I think once she said that, they must have been swarmed by calls from people who say, if you release this information, I'm innocent, but I'm going to be ruined for life.

I'm a donor.

I know you people.

Why are you doing this?

And I think they made a mistake at that point

and backed off.

And now I think they're trying to correct and say, you know what, whatever damage we do by letting the names out and letting people adjudicate for themselves the degree of culpability,

it's a lot more damaging to try to keep it under wraps.

If there had been incriminating information about Trump or major conservatives, it would have been leaked under the Biden administration.

We know that.

They leaked everything.

They leaked everything about the Doc Smith, the Fannie Willis.

It was just like Russian collusion under the first Trump.

They leaked, leaked, leaked.

So I don't think there's anything there that's particularly embarrassing to Trump.

Well, that's Professor Victor Davis Hanson.

Again, you can go check out all of his work at the Hoover Institution, among other places, and obviously check out his fantastic books.

Professor Victor Davis Hanson, thanks so much for the time.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you for having me.

All righty, folks, the show is continuing for our members right now.

President Trump winning big victories against the colleges and universities that have been engaging in illegal discrimination.

Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member.

If you're not a member, become a member, use Code Shapiro.

Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

Click that link in the description and join us.