How I'll Expose Erratic Trump's Decline: Rep | The Daily Beast Podcast

It is clear that the Department of Justice is covering up for Donald Trump. They made up some bogus explanation of attorney client privilege. It is not anything approximating attorney client privilege. I am almost certain right now. that there is a lot more material. that would implicate Donald Trump. in some aspect of Jeffrey Epstein's. sex trafficking conspiracy. And I don't mean necessarily that Donald Trump is guilty of.

of being a coconspirator, but he was involved in some way, and perhaps in more ways. than have than we even know about. And that is being covered up. There's no reason for them to cover up 2.5. million pages. I'm sure you'll wish in for Joanna Coles. This is the Daily Beast podcast. Our guest today is Congressman Dan Goldman, a Democratic congressman. representing large swaths of New York City.

He sits on the House Judiciary Committee and prosecuted. the first impeachment against President Donald Trump during his first term. Today, we discussed the Justice Department taking on the role as Trump's. personal attorneys. Will we ever see the unreleased Jeffrey Epstein Files. and the growing concerns about the president's health and decline? But before we jump right. in, please take a moment to share this podcast with your friends.

Invite them to subscribe to The Daily Beast YouTube channel. We've almost hit 700,000 followers. and with your help, or gunning for 1 million this year. So here is our conversation with Congressman Dan Goldman. Enjoy. Congressman, you are a lawyer. You're a former prosecutor. I wanted to ask you about some comments from President Trump. He praised his acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, on Monday, and he basically said he was happy with him for keeping him out of jail.

And he repeated that a few times. I wanted to ask you, what does this tell you about how the. president views the attorney general and the Justice Department? Well, it's no surprise that given how many of his former lawyers. he has, defense lawyers he's hired to be in the Department of Justice. or elsewhere, that. that is the litmus test for him.

He has only focused. this term on loyalty. as the single qualification for hiring pretty much anybody. And there's no question that he. views the Department of. Justice as his personal law firm. So it's not a surprise that he brought his personal attorney. first. Pam Bondi, who represented him in the first impeachment.

trial, and then Todd Blanche and Emil Beauvais, who represented him in his criminal cases. leading up to the election. The problem is that. Todd Blanche also seems to view it that way. And it's no surprise Donald Trump does. That doesn't mean it's okay. It's, you know, yet another reason why he needs to go. But Todd Blanche knows better.

And I know that because I worked alongside Todd Blanche for many years. at the US Attorney's Office of the Southern District of New York. This person I see as our acting attorney general. is a completely different person than the one I worked. with in the Southern District of New York, and it is incredibly disappointing to see that someone who knows. better is still operating as Donald.

Trump's personal retribution attorney. Do you think the way they have. handled this role and how they've changed the Justice Department? Is this something that can be reversed? I mean, how much damage is really done here in the long term, do you believe? I think there's a tremendous amount of damage. that is going to far out last, Donald Trump. First of all, there have been. there's been a purge of highly competent,

highly experienced, highly qualified prosecutors and agents. So you just don't have the sort of core. level of competency, quality and experience that you would want. You can't replace that in a day. So that is going to take a lot of time. But the politicization and the weaponization.

of this Department of Justice doesn't go away. On day one of the next administration, because they have undermined. the credibility of everything that they do. So it's not just the cases where Todd Blanche's charging. Southern Poverty Law Center or Jim Comey or. Letitia James or. his open and clear political adversaries.

That, by the way, is literally what happens in banana republics. That's the first thing the State Department goes around the world. telling emerging democracies that they must do. to stay on that path towards democracy, which is necessary for us to support them. And yet here we are doing that. But it's everything else, because you don't know whether. something is political or whether something is legitimate. And every person will claim that it is political.

And we just have no idea, because it may be. you may be the SEC may be investigating, you know, some investment firm, because the head of that investment firm is a Democratic donor. And so there are so many issues in terms of credibility. that are going to take many, many years to recover. And then also we're going to need serious legislation to codify.

so many of the norms that Trump. and his lackeys have destroyed. that have really existed since Richard Nixon. I want to. ask you about that because you are up on the hill. You're rubbing shoulders with a lot of Republican lawmakers. Some of them are also former prosecutors. Some of them are lawyers. I mean, is there an appetite in the future, you believe, to codify some of these.

things on a bipartisan basis? Where does that stand in Congress in the future? I can think of a couple people right off the top of my head. who who are alarmed and outraged by this. They have sort of convinced. themselves of the bogus TPS that, oh, you know, you've talked about all the weaponization of this Department of Justice,

and then they go back and they're like, well, Biden started it. And, you know, let's be real. Those allegations are just plainly false. But even to the extent that there was any politicization, the guy the guys Justice Department charged his own son. Now he pardoned him, but they charged him. I mean, how how are you politicizing and weaponizing the Department of Justice? If you're going to charge the president's son? It's kind of it's just absurd. But they buy into this whole,

you know, what goes around comes around BS. And so but they I know several former. or at least a couple former US AUSA. who are not happy with what's going on. and I think will be partners in revamping. the the legislation, overseeing the relationship. between the Department of Justice and the white House. and many of the other internal norms.

that have just been stomped all over. I want to go back to Todd Blanch for a moment, because he was posting today. what appeared to be direct threats to the press, he said. And I'm going to quote any witness, whether a reporter or otherwise, who has information about these criminals should not be surprised if they receive. a subpoena about the illegal leaking of classified material. He's talking about classified material, but do you see this.

as a direct threat on the First Amendment by the administration? How do we count the ways that this administration is attacking. the First Amendment, the lawsuits against media companies. for things that they haven't liked, that they said the threats. to take away their licenses by the FCC, the related most recently to Jimmy Kimmel. When The New York Times wrote an expansive story. about how the Swat unit with the FBI was providing.

personal security. to cash, Patel's girlfriend, he started investigating the reporter. And there are now allegations, or at least there's reports that he's investigating. Sarah Fitzpatrick of The Atlantic, who wrote what seems to be. a very deeply sourced and damaging story about Cash Patel.

being a drunk on the job. That's all violation of the of the First Amendment. You cannot use the power of your official office to get retribution. against people who say things you don't like. And you know, this is another veiled threat. What I worry about is. you know this. As you point out, the classified information, there's always been a wall.

where those subpoenas or search warrants. of journalists are. generally frowned upon. and only done as a last resort. And we have known many journalists who have been subpoenaed to testify. and who have chosen to go to jail rather than testify to preserve their. their integrity and their sources. But the the.

I've actually been surprised that since Todd Blanche has taken over, the degree of weaponization has ratcheted up. that Southern Poverty Law Center indictment, as just one. example, is one of the most absurd. things I've ever read out of the Department of Justice. It is actually internally, like on the face of the indictment, it undermines. the charge within the four corners of the indictment.

And it is such an absurd, stupid theory. But what they are clearly doing is they're just using their power. as a threat, as intimidation, as, you know, suppression of speech, suppression of dissent. And it is fundamentally un-American. There's a reason it's our First Amendment that we can speak up. against those who are in power and not be put in jail.

And that's what this administration is trying to do. Let me tell you about One Skin. There are skincare company focused on science, and their OS. one peptide is designed to target the root causes of skin. aging on the cellular level. I've been using the OS one face moisturizer for a month now. It's super easy to use. It's effortless to layer because it's lightweight, absorbs fast, has a nice nutty smell, and leaves a dewy feel on my face.

And, well, regular viewers can be the judge. How does my skin look to you? Has it improved at all? By the way, I like their sleek packaging. It's very easy to pack. Born from over a decade of longevity research, one skins OS one peptide. is proven to target the visible signs of aging, helping you unlock. your healthiest skin now and as you age. So for a limited time, you can try one skin with 15% off. using Code Beast at one skin.com/beast.

that's 15% off one skin forward beast. And be sure to use the code beast out after your purchase. They'll ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. You talked about how it feels like. the weaponization weaponization has increased under Blanch. I feel in some ways that the auditions for the role full time.

as attorney general, as confirmed by the Senate, is really going to end up. being who's willing to go the furthest for President Donald Trump in some ways. But let's not forget that we're not going. to hear the end of Pam Bondi, either. And so I do want to just talk about her for a minute, even though she's no longer. attorney general, and she skipped out on that role right before she would have had to testify. about the Epstein files or got fired, I should say, before. she had to testify about the files. I wanted to get your thoughts.

I know you're not on the House Oversight Committee, but she does still have a scheduled appearance. before that committee in the near future at the later this month. As a prosecutor, I mean, what would you really want. to know from Bondi in terms of the handling of those files? What is top of mind for you there? Well, I want to know what's in those 2.5. million files that have not been released. based on the.

way that they released and poorly and, you know, illegally redacted as well as what they covered up. Even within those documents, it is clear that the Department of Justice is covering up for Donald Trump. I went to the House floor and exposed one document in particular. that they claimed was privileged, and they redacted it from the public.

But then they allowed Congress to the members. of Congress who went to see the files to actually see it. And there was nothing in there that should have been redacted. They made up some bogus explanation of attorney client privilege. It is not anything approximating attorney client privilege. And instead it's using these privileges using. the various different mechanisms. that they are falsely using to cover up.

And so I want to know what's in those 2.5 million pages, because I am almost certain right now. that there is a lot more material that would implicate Donald Trump. in some aspect of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking. conspiracy. And I don't mean necessarily that Donald Trump is guilty of. of being a coconspirator, but he was involved in some way,

and perhaps in more ways. than have been we even know about. And that is being covered up. There's no reason for them to cover up 2.5 million pages. And if they are, one of the things they've said is they're duplicates. If they're duplicates, turn them over. There's no reason not to. But I don't believe they're duplicates because otherwise. they would just turn them over. There's nothing to no reason to hold back duplicates.

And so that's a lot of documents that they are withholding. without any explanation, which is a violation of the law. that was passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. and is a gross abuse of power. to misuse privileges. that could potentially give them some cover.

I want to ask you about that, because readers have specifically written to me and expressed frustration. They watched the whole process play through of members of Congress. literally passing the law to release the Epstein files last summer into the fall, and finally towards the end of the year, that being signed by President Trump. And it gave him some hope after a lot of frustrations last summer. Do you believe that anyone in this administration. is going to be held accountable for the fact that they have not released.

those files and violated the law, and if so, when? So one of the problems. I think that we've learned in the Trump era, especially in Trump 2.0, is our Constitution and our laws. presume that the president of the United States. follows his oath to faithfully execute the laws.

And I don't think our Founding fathers anticipated that we would have a president. who just doesn't care about the Constitution or the law. And so there are a lot of laws on the books. that are. being violated, but for which there are no consequences. And it's almost like a self-policing thing. So you raise an issue. And if a court were to say, oh, this is a Hatch.

Act violation. Okay, it's a Hatch Act violation, what's the consequence? There's really nothing. And so one of the things that we are going to have to do. is go back through many of these laws that are predicated on. the president believing in the Constitution and following the law, and put some teeth into them. The Epstein Files Transparency Act is potentially one of them.

I can guarantee you that I will be out front leading the investigations. when the Democrats take back the House in January. We, of course, cannot charge someone criminally, and we can't even really bring a lawsuit for damages. But I do think that there's the possibility. that survivors would be able to bring a lawsuit. against the Department of Justice, and we are going to make sure.

that they're serious accountability and transparency. What what the punishment is, I don't know. You talk about survivors potentially bringing lawsuits. I mean, that goes against the Justice Department that Trump and his allies and minions, if you will, will no longer be a part of at some point in time. Do the attorney general. do the other people who have propped him up?

Do you believe they will be held accountable? We have questions about the president himself, but who really do you think, in this administration currently. can be held accountable for the Epstein files specifically? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think the the two attorneys general, Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch. And yes, in. January 2029, when there's a Democratic president, all of this is still within statute.

I would certainly want to look at closely. at Pam Bond's testimony. when she appeared in front of us on the House. Judiciary Committee, as well as the Senate Judiciary Committee. We will, presuming they do not destroy the documents, which would be grossly illegal, we will be able to eventually get them. And that will that will uncover. a lot of information that may be evidence that we will pursue.

It's important for people to realize there's a critical difference. between a prosecution and a congressional investigation. Though I often wish that I still had grand jury criminal. subpoena power in Congress, a congressional investigation is. bears no punishment per se,

but sunlight is, in many cases the best disinfectant. And that's why the investigations are so important is to bring out the facts, bring out what actually happened, the evidence. And either the American people can decide or. it's significant enough that prosecutors can't. And it's not just the DOJ. Now, it's hard to imagine a state prosecution for the Epstein files, but there are other things that may give rise to state prosecutions.

And so what I perceive my role to be in the new Democratic majority. in January is going to be. to gather that evidence, gather those facts, make the conduct transparent and open to the American public. for people to use however they think it's fit. You seem very confident in Democrats. taking back the House in November, and should that happen,

there is another potential line of investigation that Democrats will open. I know you're on. The House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jamie Raskin has launched. his own investigation into President Donald Trump's health. And so there's a push to speak with the president's doctor. There's a push for more information and more information specifically. about some of the testing that has been done about his health. when it comes to what we've seen from him publicly, what we've heard.

that's happened behind closed doors. What are your biggest concerns when it comes to the 79 year old president. and his actions at this time concerning. his health, his mental health? I think that's the biggest concern. from about his. conduct as president. I think it's quite clear that his physical health. is declining to some degree. But I'm very concerned about his.

his mental health, and. he seems far more erratic. than he ever did before. He doesn't remember. basic things very often, like, I don't know, recent interview. where he was convinced that Thom. Tillis was no longer in the Senate. Obviously, he still is there until the end of the year.

and things like that, where that are, you know, obvious and clear to all of us that it's not even just. that he makes the mistake and then he's corrected and then he says, oh, yeah, it's that he doubles down. And part of it that is difficult to unpack is how much of it is mental. health issues, and how much of it is that, in large part. because Donald Trump has successfully.

convinced close to half the country. that what they saw. with their own eyes on January 6th actually did not happen? He now believes that he. literally can convince anyone of anything, regardless of its veracity or its truthfulness. And that's dangerous, because now. he literally thinks he's all powerful.

and he can change people's minds through repetition. And so it's hard to know. what is a mental health episode, what is actually intentional, that he's just trying to brainwash. the cult followers that he has? I anticipate with this line of inquiry with Democrats, though, I mean, you're going to get a ton of pushback. even if you take control of the House, have the subpoena power.

when it comes to getting answers from this administration. I mean, do you think you'll actually be able to speak with the president's physician, or where do you anticipate there being the most challenge there? So we. dealt with this in the first impeachment investigation in 2019, which I, I led we got no cooperation from the administration. We received no documents other than the whistleblower complaint.

And the transcript of the call was Zelensky. that the white House released after they refused to. And we sort of amplified pressure on them in order to force them to do that. But we were still able to prove the case. And this is something that is not. it's not going to be straightforward, and it's not going to be simple. because you're going to we're going to have to be creative. in terms of how we obtain information.

And there obviously are ways that we are able to do it. And we did it in 2019, and we're going to have to do that again, because there's no question there is going to be outraged. obstruction from this administration. And so. I don't know whether that doctor. will abide by a congressional subpoena.

I don't you know, one of the issues that we are going to face. is based on the Epstein Epstein files, where this administration is invoking. privileges all over the place that are completely, clearly inapplicable on their face. But the only way to resolve that. those that issue is to go to court. And the problem that we ran. into in in 2018, 2019 or 2019,

rather, is the courts just take a really, really long time? I helped draft a version with for for now, Senator Schiff. of the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which significantly expedited court. resolutions of disputes about executive privilege. or congressional subpoenas because it takes way, way too long. And so.

I don't think I'm. revealing any tips here, but I'm quite confident Donald. Trump will invoke executive privilege. about the medical care that he received. And that's going to have to be something. that even though on its face is wrong, you need a court to adjudicate that. And that's assuming, of course, he abides by court orders. We talk a little bit about Republican colleagues on the Hill.

when it comes to Trump's help. I want your thoughts on this. I mean, we saw just the president just yesterday talking about the white House. He referred to it as the shithouse. and then immediately said he's been told not to say these things, but it is a kind of a trend of him using more expletives, more foul language. It appears he's having trouble holding back. And I wanted your thoughts. I mean, are you Republicans on Capitol. Hill really comfortable with the way the president is speaking.

with the expletives he's using with the the language. when they are talking to you in the halls of Congress? I think there. there are private concerns about that, about many things. I mean, just the fact that the military command center. for the rescue mission of the downed plane. in Iran. Tried very hard to make sure.

that Donald Trump was not in the command center. because he was so erratic that he may have messed up the mission. That's pretty crazy to say that. No, the commander in chief cannot come into the command. center of a significant military operation. But that tells you a lot about what. Donald Trump's mental health is, what his. you know, what his.

mental acuity is, whether he's all there, whether his eroticism. is from desperation or from serious issues. And we need to know those answers. And I think that the physical issues that you see with his hands, with his swollen legs and, and other. his gait are getting worse and worse. And he keeps going to the doctor but doesn't reveal anything.

Now, traditionally, presidents have disclosed their medical condition. because of their importance and the importance of their medical health. Not surprisingly, Donald Trump has bucked that norm and is not doing that. But the American people deserve to know if this president. has any physical or mental health issues, and we will continue to press for that information.

with every lever of power that we have, a lot of this information will potentially only come out. with pressure from Democrats should they take back the House. And you've expressed the confidence that they will in November. But we're facing this unprecedented mid-decade redistricting battle. that's playing out. Obviously, we saw the Virginia Supreme Court strike down the Democrat. drawn maps in that state, which could have allowed Democrats to pick up as many as four seats.

Where do you see this gerrymandering fight going between now and November? As you say, you're still confident Democrats will take the majority. We are aggressively looking at seats that are R. plus eight, you know, in terms of potential flip opportunities. So I think this is shaping up to be a massive wave. that is going to be much greater than the 10 or 12 or whatever it is.

But I don't think the final word has been written on. what the districts are going to look like for November. You know, the the Calais opinion by Alito. preserves the Voting Rights Act, section two of the Voting Rights Act. And it says that in order to prove it, you must show effectively intentional race discrimination. Well, I can't think of much more intentional race discrimination.

than getting that opinion. immediately, stopping ongoing elections, and so that you can redraw districts. to remove black representatives. And that's seems like a very viable claim. So there are going to be lawsuits that remain against the sudden.

and urgent redistricting of some of these. southern states, that to just. to get rid of black representation. And so it's not clear at all to me that they these will end up. being the districts. It is unbelievably frustrating to see how. politicized the US Supreme Court in particular,

has become, and how inconsistently they rule on the same issue, depending on whether or not it's for Republicans or against Republicans. There's a sense of frustration from many of the people I've spoken with. about that and questioning, well, what's the point? And I wanted to get your thoughts and your response to Americans. who look at how this is playing out, this redistricting battle, and just throw up their hands and say, why even bother?

My vote doesn't count. What is your response to that? I my response is a lot of sympathy. because it is as anti-democratic. as anything you can find. Gerrymandering generally is a stain on democracy, and this naked Partizan mid-decade. unprecedented gerrymandering is also. it just exacerbates the the problem.

And this is part of the reason why Congress is so dysfunctional. and why Congress is approval rating is at last I saw 10%. And so people's frustration is completely warranted. I agree 100%. I want to get rid of gerrymandering. I want to get rid of Partizan gerrymandering, the vast majority, if not all of the Democrats do. But the only way that we will be able to do that.

is if we take the majority and we win, and then we can pass a law to do that. But if we are not fighting fire with fire. and people who oppose what's going on. Are not supporting us in this fight, then. we will never move past it and we will never be able to fix it. What we need is every single one of those people to show up and vote.

Because even if you're in a safe Republican or safe Democratic district, your vote matters. We pay attention to voter turnout. We pay attention to the margin of victory and how it compares to before. and after and much of the sort of, quote, mandate, unquote, that you will hear. isn't necessarily. how many Democratic seats.

or Republican seats, etc. it is often what the margin is. in even seats that where there's no question. And that makes a difference. You know, Donald Trump did much better in New York than he had done before. where I am, and. he cited that. as a reason for him to believe that. whatever he was preaching was was working.

He, of course, has betrayed just about every promise that he made. But even though Kamala Harris one New York, she won it by a lot less than the last election. And so that stuff matters. And so I guess I would say I fully understand. and sympathize with the apathy, with the frustration. But the only way to change it is. to do the opposite of hide. It is to lean in, to make your voice heard through your vote.

And if everybody does that, then we can affect change. Congressman, you. mentioned Trump doing better in New York but breaking his promises, something that has obviously been front and center for the past two. plus months has been the war in Iran. The president has not gone to Congress for approval for this war. He's arguing the cease fire is, in fact, a pause on that timeline.

What he would seek approval or his members of his administration. are saying that he is arguing he doesn't need it at all. In some cases, depending on which day you catch him. And I wanted to ask you, though, when it comes to Congress. and its way in on this war, what can Congress do at this point? Where does it even stand. with lawmakers on Capitol Hill? Well, I expect us to have a War powers resolution on the floor this week,

which, if it passes and it's getting closer and closer to passing, would would require the administration. to stop their military operations in Iran. And so we can voice our disapproval. And I have voted for those resolutions in the past, and I think it's essential that. because of the.

the dreadful way. that this has that this started, that this has been executed, that the the situation we're in now and the damage to our own. economy and gas prices going up, inflation going up, and the American people. suffering for the billions of dollars that are being spent over there. This can't just be one man's decision. That is not the way our Constitution works. And if he's not going to come to Congress for authorization,

then we are going to use our power. We can use our power, I should say, to make him stop. And I think we're getting to the point now. where his excuses are so absurd and his interpretation of the law. is so absurd that we have to rein him in. I do have to push back on that a little bit, though, Congressman, because we have seen the War Powers Resolution come up multiple times. They have failed so far.

Do you actually think that there is a chance of this passing in the near future? I think the 60 day period. was a significant. hurdle, but what I have found to be. so frustrating for this entire. presidency is the degree to which House Republicans. have completely abdicated their own independent constitutional duty.

to be a check and balance on the administration. And I wish that I could sit here and say to you, oh, I'm sure my Republican colleagues will realize. that it is absolutely farcical to claim. that a temporary cease fire. means that the clock restarts. It's it's ridiculous. But I don't have any confidence that there will be, you know,

three of them or three of them or four of them who will do that. And that is as disappointing to me as anything else. has been over the last year and a half, is the degree to which. these Republicans, who are in the majority, who have total control, who fly across the country every week to be in the majority. so that they can do, you know, move forward with their priorities, literally just roll over for whatever Donald Trump says.

And I can guarantee. you that that will not be the case when we take back the majority in January. I want to end. near there, because when we talk about the war, we also are talking about the rise in prices. And of course, we saw the consumer price index come out today. showing that inflation is continuing to soar. I mean, everyone seeing it as they go to fill their car at a gas station. And so I just want to ask you, you talk about Democrats taking the majority between now and November. What are you telling constituents about how prices are moving,

what members of Congress can do to address them? What is what is the message at this point for those who are hurting. and will be hurting for some time, based on what we're hearing from the administration? Well, Donald Trump promised to bring down prices day one, and here we are, a year and a half into his presidency, and everything is much worse than what he inherited. And that's across the board. It's not just the cost of groceries and goods and other things.

It's that he has led. the Republicans to completely yank away. tens of millions of Americans health care that he is, that he is taking away food. Nutrition benefits from hundreds of thousands, if not millions, hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers, millions of of Americans.

He is not only making things more expensive, he is taking away. basic, basic government support for the bare necessities. So the question is, are you better off today. than you were on January 20th, 2025? And the answer almost across the board, unless you are a billionaire. or a crypto. company or business.

The answer is almost entirely. No, I'm not. And we have to address that. And I will say that what I talk about is that. there are ways that we need to use the levers of Congress. I have introduced a bill that would target the billionaires. who pay almost no tax, like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, who pay less than 3% effective tax rate because all their money is in their stock.

They don't even sell their stock to take capital gains, which is about half of what of the income tax would be. And instead they take loans out and they don't pay any tax on that. So I introduced a bill that would tax those loans. It would generate $30 billion of revenue every single year, $300. billion over ten years. Conservatively, that could make a huge difference. in terms of the programs that we fund to help.

working Americans not just survive, but thrive. And we need to be presenting an affirmative agenda. along those lines to the American people. so that they understand that we're not just opposed to. what Donald Trump is doing, which we are, because it's disastrous, but that we have an affirmative agenda of our own. Well, Congressman Dan. Goldman, I'm going to leave our viewers with that thought on mind.

Are you better off today than you were in 2025. as we head into the very fierce, wild midterm season? Thank you so much for joining me. Thank you Sarah. That was my conversation. with New York Congressman Dan Goldman. Which stood out to me is his frustration with how Republicans. have handled Donald Trump in his second term. But he did seem to indicate that he believes.

that maybe some of the tide is turning with Republicans. and their willingness to potentially go up against the president in some ways. Let's be clear. Also, I found it very interesting what he had to say about whether or not. we will see some of those Jeffrey. Epstein files moving forward and where members of Congress will take. their investigations should Democrats win the House in November. I'm Sarah Willis again.

Please remember to subscribe on YouTube. We're looking for our 1 million followers this year, and we thank you. all for tuning in and clicking like and subscribing who already have. Thank you so much. So the good news is we have so many beast tier members now. There are too many names to read out and we really appreciate your support. Thanks to our production team Ryan Murray, Rachel Passer, Heather Pissarro, Neil Rosenhaus.