Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 16, 2025 - The Ben Shapiro Show

01:02:47

Chip and Joanna Gaines SELL OUT?

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Tons coming up on today's show.
	Chip and Joanna Gaines in serious trouble with their Christian audience, and for a pretty good reason, plus big wins for President Trump on the economy.
	And we'll talk about the latest in the ongoing Epstein saga.
	But first, already, folks, real quick, we are celebrating a decade of the Daily Wire, 10 years of fighting the culture war and building something real.
	And how are we celebrating?
	We are growing fast.
	More members, more shows, more voices like Isabel Brown, new documentaries like Journey to the UFC, the Joe Pfeiffer story premiering Friday, July 25th.
	Not just a fight doc, a blueprint for becoming unstoppable.
	From nothing to UFC stardom through trauma, pain, no excuses.
	It's the kind of story this culture needs, and we are proud to tell it.
	Our members get it all first.
	The announcements, the first looks, the full truth, no censorship or hidden agenda, just common sense and a community that actually has it.
	Don't sit this out.
	Celebrate a decade of the Daily Wire.
	Go to dailywireplus.com and join today.
	There's a basic rule of thumb when it comes to judicial appointees.
	And that basic rule of thumb for people who are originalists or conservatives is that if you don't have a track record as an originalist or a conservative, and then you enter the bench, there's a good shot that very, very soon you will swivel to the left.
	And that is also true in the world of the universities and it's true in the world of Hollywood.
	If you go to Hollywood and you don't have a very clear, long-standing track record as, for example, a religious conservative who stood stalwart in the face of left-wing aggression, there's a good shot that pretty quickly you are going to cave.
	At some point, you're going to cave because the pressure to be eaten up by the social values of the left in Hollywood is so extreme.
	And that apparently is what has happened with the Chip and Joanna Gaines show, Back to the Frontier.
	So according to Breitbart.com, there's a brand new show called Back to the Frontier on HGTV.
	Chip and Joanna Gaines, of course, present themselves as devout Christians, and a lot of their fans are Christian and faith-based.
	But the new series features a gay couple with adopted children.
	And a lot of people are upset with the Gaines because of this.
	They're saying, okay, hold up a second.
	You purport to be religious Christians.
	And this is a show that I would normally watch with my family.
	But now here you are normalizing what is, by any sort of traditional Christian theology, sinful behavior.
	Now, again, you don't have to believe any of this if you're a secular person.
	If you're not a Christian, maybe this doesn't matter to you.
	But the reality is that people who are traditionally faithful to scripture believe that man, woman, children is the basic standard for how families form and should be the basic standard for how families form.
	And so for Christians who have made their money on Christians being loyal to their show to actually now start infusing their shows with left-wing social values is a problem.
	Here is the preview.
	Coming up this season.
	It is beautiful.
	A journey into the past.
	You gotta get it out of control.
	But life on the frontier.
	What should we do to make this more fun for us?
	Quit.
	Quitting is not an option.
	It was never easy.
	It'll be okay.
	All right.
	On eat attitude.
	Only moping.
	Family tides are tested.
	I just made food for everyone and they just put their plates here.
	Like, go wash the dishes made.
	Community is challenged.
	You guys do your dining next.
	I will speak up for one set of my neighbors.
	The other ones, I plead the fifth.
	Can they make it as 1880s homesteaders?
	So, as you can see, again, this is a Max original, and the idea is that they're going to replicate the conditions of homesteading back on the range, back in the 1880s or something.
	The gay couple is named Joe Riggs and Jason Hanna, and they told the Dallas Morning News they felt the show was an opportunity to put ourselves out there and help normalize families like ours, which, of course, is the goal whenever Hollywood does something like this.
	The goal, of course, is to essentially say that all forms of family are morally the same, which is a very Hollywood value.
	And this goes all the way back to the early 1990s and Mrs. Doubtfire, when you had Robin Williams lecturing the American public that all forms of families were essentially morally equivalent.
	And they said, quote, when families like ours are visible, it opens doors for others to feel safe, loved, and validated.
	Visibility isn't just about being seen.
	It's about making sure no one feels alone.
	So Chip Gaines was inundated with complaints from his fan base because, of course, the Chip and Joanna Gaines fanbase is biblically loyal.
	And so what they're saying is, listen, obviously this phenomenon exists in life.
	Gay marriage is legal in the United States, but that doesn't mean that you, as a creator, a person that we trust with our time and maybe put our kids in front of the TV to watch your shows, ought to be mainlining left-wing social values into your shows.
	So Chip Gaines then basically called all those people intolerant, quote, talk, ask questions, listen, maybe even learn.
	Too much to ask of modern American Christian culture.
	Judge first, understand later or never.
	It's a sad Sunday when non-believers have never been confronted with hate or vitriol until they are introduced to a modern American Christian.
	Okay, Madude.
	Just going to put it out there that this is about the worst approach that you can take to your fan base.
	About the worst approach.
	I mean, put aside the morality of what he's saying, which is insipid.
	It turns out that traditional morality does draw lines between certain behavior and other behavior.
	It doesn't mean you have to treat people badly.
	It doesn't mean that you have to be insulting or awful to them.
	But obviously, if you are a traditional religious person and you believe that traditional marriage is the way that God intended for the world to work and nature designed the world to work, if that is what you believe, then you should stand by that even when it is politically unpopular.
	Again, that doesn't even mean that you can't have friends who are violating what you think of as faith standards.
	Because as pretty much all Judeo-Christian teaching teaches, everybody sins.
	Sin is a normal way of the world.
	That does not mean that the sin itself becomes normalized and is treated as okay or as totally normalized, which is exactly, of course, what the show is designed to do.
	And of course, many of the followers of Chip and Joanna Gaines are not only upset with the fact that the show is featuring this sort of stuff, they're upset with the fact that Chip is now sneering at them, that he's looking down his nose at them and suggesting that the real problem here is not that he has violated his own faith standards by promulgating a set of values that is un-Christian, but that he believes that Christians themselves, by objecting to that promulgation, are thus demonstrating that they're intolerant, avicious, and mean.
	Objecting to the normalization of what Christians or Jews or anyone else considers to be sinful, that is not mean or intolerant.
	That is just saying there is a standard, and the standard should be something that if you purport to be an upholder of that standard, you should abide by.
	John MacArthur passed away the other day.
	This is something that Reverend MacArthur was extremely big on.
	The idea that God's standard, again, this is within the context of Christianity, obviously.
	If Chip and Joanna Gaines were just a secular couple who had never purported to be Christian and they were making a show like this in Hollywood, no one would care.
	Nobody would bat an eye.
	Because the expectation is different when you say that you are an adherent to a particular philosophy or a particular ideology.
	And this is true politically as well, by the way.
	If you say that you are an adherent to a thing and then you are disloyal to that idea, you should be called out for that.
	You should be.
	If you never say that you're an adherent to that idea and then you're not adherent to that idea, well, how can we hold you responsible for that?
	But Chip and Joanna Gaines have made their money off American Christians who believe that Chip and Joanna Gaines are some of them.
	My friend Matt Walsh tweeted out, maybe you should endeavor to understand the basic moral teachings of your own alleged religion before you give lectures to other people about their lack of understanding, which seems like a pretty solid take.
	The response, which is to lecture Christians, that they are not being Christian enough by accepting and promulgating and normalizing behavior they consider to be sinful, that is a pretty insane perspective for the Gaines to take.
	Now, again, the Gaines have been under fire for a long time because the way that Hollywood works is that if you are a traditional Christian, they immediately call you a bigot homophobe.
	This is their thing.
	And if you can't stand up to that pressure, then you're likely to cave to that pressure and then become part of the sort of left-wing media Borg.
	That is the thing that happens.
	The Gaines, as Breitbart reports, were accused of being anti-LGBTQ in the past.
	And at that time, they insisted the accusations were far from the truth.
	Joanna Gaines told the Hollywood Reporter at the time, sometimes I'm like, can I just make a statement?
	The accusations that get thrown at you, like you're racist or you don't like people in the LGBTQ community, that's the stuff that really eats my lunch because it's so far from who we really are.
	That's the stuff that keeps me up.
	But let's be clear, the slide from you should be nice to people who, even people you believe are committing a sin, to promulgating the sin, normalizing the sin, changing the standard, that is the move that Christians object to.
	That is the move that religious people object to.
	Again, take it to a Judaic context so I can speak for my own religion.
	There are plenty of people, many, many people I know who violate what I think are the traditional standards of Shabbat, right?
	What we do on Sabbath, what you are supposed to do on Sabbath.
	For example, you're not supposed to drive on Sabbath according to traditional Judaism because you have to create fire in order to do that, right, with the internal combustion engine.
	And I know tons and tons of Jews with whom I'm incredibly friendly, some of my family members.
	I know a lot of people who do that sort of thing, drive on Sabbath.
	Do I love them?
	Of course.
	They're friends and family.
	Do I think it's okay for them to do that?
	No, I don't.
	Both those things can be held in your mind at the same time.
	And if we're to be honest with each other as a civilization and as human beings, we should be able to be honest about what we perceive to be the actual moral standards that are being violated.
	And just because you have friends who violate the moral standard doesn't mean that the moral standard ought to be obliterated because then there's no moral standard at all.
	And niceness is not a moral standard.
	Niceness, civility, it's a good thing, but it isn't a moral standard in the same way that a hard and fast rule about human behavior is because it's mushy.
	Niceness used as sort of the only moral standard does not bear scrutiny.
	It does not bear weight.
	It is not a weight-bearing moral concept.
	Niceness, it's too vague.
	Civility is a standard of behavior.
	It is not a gigantic moral standard upon which you can base a civilization.
	And so what Chip and Joanna Gaines are doing here, and I understand why Christians are so angry at them, and they should be very, very angry at them for this, frankly.
	Because again, if you are tasked with upholding a standard, you should uphold that standard.
	And if you betray the standard, you should be called out for that.
	That is true politically.
	It is true with regard to religion.
	It's true with regard to life more generally.
	So again, I think they owe their fans a major, major apology.
	And I talk about this cultural issue because I do think that it undergirds so much of politics and undergirds so much of our social life together.
	Because two things can be true at once, as always.
	One, you can hold a strong moral standard, a standard that matters.
	And two, you should be tolerant toward people in terms of how you treat them, treat them nicely, who don't abide by your moral standard so long as they are not actively hurting anybody else.
	That does not mean the moral standard itself should change because a change to the overall moral standard does affect the overall society.
	That is how normal people and religious people ought to interact with the world.
	Already coming up, some big wins for President Trump on the economy, plus everything Epstein related, all your updates.
	First, anywhere worth going is worth going in good boots.
	Find your perfect pair with Tacovas.
	The first time I put on my Takovas boots, it was like they were already broken in, which makes sense because each pair goes through over 200 meticulous steps of hand crafting.
	I used to think Western boots were just for cowboys, but since these folks started in Texas back in 2015, they've been changing that story.
	Whether you're a lifelong rancher or you're just looking for your first pair of Western boots, Tacovis makes it feel easy.
	You can wear them from sunup to sundown.
	They're built tough enough for long days, but stylish enough for a night out.
	I love wearing the boots.
	And look at me, do I look like a cowboy to you?
	So they're, Takovis makes boots for everybody.
	That's the bottom line.
	No matter your size or style, they've got the perfect boot waiting for you.
	Plus, the Tacovis is best in the West guarantee.
	You'll get free returns and exchanges for 30 days.
	Pretty tough to beat.
	Right now, get 10% off at tacovis.com slash Shapiro when you sign up for email and texts.
	That's 10% off at T-E-C-O-V-A-S.com slash Shapiro.
	Tacovis.com slash Shapiro.
	See site for details, Tacovis.
	Point your toes west.
	Go check them out right now, tocovis.com slash Shapiro to get started.
	Also, as you may have noticed, my work schedule has been insane and I'm traveling an awful lot, but I still need to make sure that I'm maintaining my health, you know, doing the gym, spending time with the family, even with all the craziness.
	I've learned pretty quickly that peak performance requires peak nutrition, not just more caffeine.
	That means you have to eat enough fruits and veggies throughout the course of the day.
	And I am bad with the fruits and the veggies.
	So I am very thankful to have Balance of Nature, which fits right into even the busiest of days.
	Imagine trying to eat 31 different fruits and veggies every day.
	It sounds miserable and time consuming.
	With Balance of Nature fruits and veggies, there's never been a more convenient dietary supplement to ensure you get a wide variety of fruits and veggies daily.
	Balance of Nature takes fruits and veggies, they freeze dry them, they turn them into a powder, and then they put them into a capsule.
	You take your fruit and veggie capsules every day, and then your body knows precisely what to do with them.
	It's kosher, so I pop it right into the protein shake.
	I'm good to go.
	Head on over 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.
	Go check them out right now.
	It's going to help you.
	It's going to make you feel better.
	Go check them out right now.
	Balanceofnature.com, use promo code Shapiro.
	Get 35% off that first order as a preferred customer and the free bottle of fiber and spice.
	Okay, meanwhile, President Trump is winning some pretty big economic victories.
	Yesterday, the president of the United States announced a bunch of economic wins.
	He announced that Indonesia had agreed to a tariff deal.
	According to Breitbart.com, Indonesia has now agreed to a 19% tariff on its imported goods into the United States.
	While the United States will not pay any tariffs in the Indonesian market and will have full access to it, according to the president, President Trump said, I spoke to the really great president, very popular, very strong, smart.
	This is how President Trump gauges the people with whom he negotiates.
	And we made the deal.
	We have full access to Indonesia, everything.
	As you know, Indonesia is very strong on copper, but we have full access to everything.
	Particularly, he's interested in apparently Indonesia's rare earth minerals.
	That is a way of directing away from reliance on Chinese rare earth minerals.
	He said, we will pay no tariffs.
	So they're giving us access into Indonesia, which we never had.
	That's probably the biggest part of the deal.
	The other part is they're going to pay 19% and we are going to pay nothing.
	Now, again, I had suggested that before August 1st, there were likely to be a spate of trade deals that were done.
	Because if we hit August 1st, that is his sort of drop-dead date when we get a snap back to the original Liberation Day tariff rates, which are extremely, extremely high.
	Meanwhile, negotiations continue with Canada.
	Prime Minister Mark Carney, according to Politico, has acknowledged publicly for the first time that the deal he is negotiating with the United States is almost certain to come with some tariffs.
	Before Carney's admission, Canadian officials had consistently held out hope for a nearly tariff-free relationship as part of a new trade and security agreement.
	The precise terms of Canada's negotiating position remain unclear, but President Trump acknowledged at the G7 leaders' summit in Alberta last month that Kearney's offer differed from the president's pro-tariff preference.
	And now Kearney is recognizing that he is going to have to do some tariffs because President Trump still likes tariffs.
	However, I do think that some sort of tariff deal will end up being negotiated with Canada as well.
	This is the reason, by the way, why, for example, the S ⁇ P 500, despite all of this sort of tariff talk, has been in pretty solid territory for the last several weeks.
	The markets are not being tremendously broiled by President Trump's tariff talks.
	The common understanding is that the worst excesses of any sort of tariff regime are likely to be avoided by the presidents of the United States in some sort of final tariff negotiation here.
	Meanwhile, President Trump did a big event yesterday in Pennsylvania where he announced massive new investments into AI and energy.
	Here he was yesterday.
	We're here today because we believe that America's destiny is to dominate every industry and be the first in every technology.
	And that includes being the world's number one superpower in artificial intelligence.
	And we are way ahead of China.
	I have to say, we're way ahead of China.
	And the plants are starting up, the construction's starting up.
	Okay.
	And again, I think this is the big question is can we stay ahead of China?
	As we'll talk about in a little while, there's some pretty interesting controversy over the kinds of microchips that should be available to the Chinese via NVIDIA.
	Jensen Huang, the CEO of NVIDIA, has suggested that China should be able to get a certain supply of microchips.
	They're sort of second-order microchips.
	His basic claim is that if we make China path-dependent on our microchips, that's better because then it's going to be easier to control their growth in the AI space.
	Plus, it's going to provide a profit boost to NVIDIA and other American microchip companies.
	President Trump also announced that we are making massive investments in energy yesterday.
	The investments being announced this afternoon include more than $56 billion in new energy infrastructure and more than $36 billion in new data center projects.
	And a lot more than that are going to be announced in the coming weeks, not even months, I think we could say weeks.
	President Trump was in Pittsburgh at the time, praising companies for investing more than $90 billion in data centers and other energy projects in Pennsylvania, aimed at accelerating the development of AI.
	And of course, Pittsburgh is an amazing story here because Pittsburgh used to be a town that made steel.
	And now Pittsburgh is largely healthcare and tech, which demonstrates the viability of a capitalist economy.
	In a capitalist economy, jobs shift from industries that are dying or being outproduced into new industries.
	And that allows the growth of those areas and, in fact, the revitalization of those areas.
	For all of those who are sort of attached to the idea that whatever a town did in the past is the thing the town must do in the future, that is not a proper way to approach economics.
	And President Trump is acknowledging that implicitly with this event organized by Senator David McCormick of Pennsylvania.
	So with all of that said, the event yesterday in Pennsylvania was in fact a big success.
	As I mentioned, Senator McCormick put it together.
	Senator McCormick is great.
	We campaigned with him in Pennsylvania before the last election happened.
	He brought together President Trump and executives from technology and fossil fuel companies, including Amazon Web Services, Anthropic, Google, ExxonMobil, and Westinghouse.
	And at the event, the private equity from Blackstone, according to the New York Times, announced that it would invest $25 billion in new data centers and energy infrastructure, including natural gas power plants.
	Google said it would invest another $25 billion in data centers and announced a separate $3 billion plan to upgrade two of Pennsylvania's existing hydroelectric dams to produce more electricity.
	A lot of this is being done in competition with China.
	You heard President Trump say that with regard to AI.
	Officials say winning the AI race with China is absolutely necessary because, number one, China is, in fact, a national security threat to the United States.
	And two, China's, maybe their only hope of out-competing the United States is to overtly win the AI race, which is living off the data of everybody in a centralized fashion.
	AI is bizarrely centralized in a way that no other economic tool ever has been.
	The internet is wildly decentralized.
	The same is true for laissez-faire economics in general, wildly decentralized.
	The basic idea of AI, of course, is that it's a centralization of all information, and then it spits out a sort of godlike answer to questions.
	If China were to win that race, not only could they propagandize to the rest of the world, they could Also, presumably live off of the decentralized informational environment and then produce answers for their own economy that might be wildly effective.
	AI could make centralized government significantly more effective, is sort of the idea here.
	So, that is why controversy, as I mentioned earlier, has broken out around NVIDIA and the United States lifting its restrictions on chip sales to China with regard to NVIDIA.
	But it is worth noting that the China-specific AI chip is known as the H20.
	That, in fact, is a significantly less powerful chip than the chip that's being used in the United States, known as the H100.
	Howard Luttnick, the commerce secretary, said that China was trying to copy our technology.
	And in the race for AI supremacy, they're behind us, but they're working with the central government out to get us.
	That, of course, is true.
	Junsen Huang had suggested that selling chips to China is vital to NVIDIA's future because the country is home to 50% of the world's AI developers.
	And China also spends more on chips than any other market in the world.
	So he's saying it's going to help NVIDIA.
	Okay, but that still means that there isn't national security threat.
	The idea here is make China dependent on the H-20, which is a less powerful chip, but more powerful than anything China has, but less powerful than anything the United States is currently using.
	I could certainly hear arguments both ways on this.
	Meanwhile, as we say, the economy is sort of holding steady at this point.
	President Trump should stop messing around with it.
	President Trump should stop sticking his fingers in the pie with regard to the economy at this point.
	That is why when the president is railing against Jerome Powell and saying that he should lower the rates, most people who are investors just want everything to be copacetic.
	They just want everything to be left alone.
	Some predictability in the markets would be great because if there is predictability, I know what the environment is next month, next year.
	That means it's easier for me to invest my money mid to long term.
	Here's the president going after Jerome Powell again.
	Exactly as anticipated.
	Very low inflation.
	So what you should do is lower the rate.
	The Fed should lower the rate immediately.
	Well, this is something that Jamie Diamond of J.P. Morgan is pointing out is actually a bad economic idea.
	He said, I think the independence of the Fed is absolutely critical.
	He said, playing around with the Fed can have adverse consequences, the absolute opposite of what you might actually be hoping for.
	And Diamond, of course, is somewhat allied with the President of the United States in terms of his deregulatory attitude.
	And as per Jamie Dimon, who correctly suggested the president should not fire Jerome Powell, President Trump has now come out and said he's not going to fire Jerome Powell.
	Again, Scott Besson being correct about this.
	Do you have plans or if you're back considering firing Jerome Powell?
	What's your justification if you're thinking about this to do this?
	He's always been too late.
	Hence his nickname too late.
	He should have cut interest rates a long time ago.
	Europe has cut him 10 times in the short period of time.
	We cut him none.
	The only time he cut him was just before the election to try to help Kamala or Biden, whoever the hell it was, because nobody really knew.
	Obviously, that didn't work, but he tried to cut him for the Democrats, Kamala.
	And how did that work out?
	You'll tell me.
	It didn't work out too well.
	But I think he does a terrible job.
	He's costing us a lot of money.
	And we fight through it.
	It's almost the country's become so successful that it doesn't have a big impact.
	But it does hurt people wanting to get a mortgage.
	People want to buy a house.
	He's a terrible Fed chief.
	I was surprised he was appointed.
	I was surprised, frankly, that Biden put him in and extended him.
	But they did.
	So, no, we're not planning on doing anything.
	Treasury Secretary Scott Besant reiterated that message in a television interview on Tuesday.
	Besent characterized Trump's recent criticism as working the refs.
	Again, Scott Besant is the guy who is holding the economy together at this point.
	I've been saying this for months.
	The Treasury Secretary, leave it in his hands.
	Everything will be okay.
	Because Scott Besant understands how the economy works.
	The president made an excellent pick in the Treasury Secretary and allowing him to sort of run this process.
	That is why the markets are essentially sanguine, despite all of the sort of variegated rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration.
	Alrighty, coming up, President Trump has now made some strong moves on Ukraine.
	They are, in fact, the right moves.
	And your Epstein updates first.
	Grand Canyon University, a private Christian university in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights.
	So 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 creates 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.
	Again, that's gcu.edu.
	Go check out Grand Canyon University right now.
	They have the right values and they have a great education.
	Check them out, gcu.edu.
	Also, facts do not care about your feelings.
	And here's one that should make everyone think twice.
	Nearly half of American adults would face financial hardship within six months if they lost their primary income.
	Now, another hard truth.
	We are all going to die.
	So when that happens, what happens with your family?
	This is why you need life insurance.
	Policy Genius makes finding life insurance simple, helping you secure real coverage so your loved ones have the financial safety net they need when it matters most.
	With Policy Genius, you can find life insurance policies starting at just $276 a year from million dollars in coverage.
	It's an easy way to protect the people you love and feel good about the future.
	Policy Genius is the country's leading online insurance marketplace and helps you compare quotes from America's top insurers in just a few clicks to find your lowest price.
	Their team of licensed agents walks you through the entire process step by step, handling paperwork, advocating for you while clearly laying out all your options.
	Coverage amounts, prices, terms with no guesswork.
	With thousands of five-star reviews on Google and TrustPilot, Policy Genius has earned customers' trust by helping them find the best policy fit for their needs.
	Don't wait for a crisis to realize you're unprotected.
	Head on over to policygenius.com slash Shapiro to compare top-rated life insurance policies.
	Get your lowest quote.
	Make a smart move in under 10 minutes.
	That's policygenius.com slash Shapiro.
	Joining me on the line is Professor Jason Furman.
	He's professor of economics at Harvard University, Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.
	Previously, he actually served as the chair of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.
	Professor Furman, thanks so much for taking the time.
	Really appreciate it.
	Great to be with you.
	So I want to start by asking about your sort of take on the broader economy right now.
	There's a lot of roiling undercurrents regarding inflation.
	It seems like job growth has slowed, but the investment community seems to still think that the trajectory is upward.
	Where do you think things are right now?
	Things are a bit weaker than they had been in terms of growth.
	It looks like it'll be one to one and a half percent in the first half of this year as opposed to the two and a half percent we had last year.
	And things are a bit higher in terms of inflation.
	The inflation rate is edging towards 3%.
	I think it's likely to go above 3% as more of the tariffs kick in.
	Prior to this, we were on track to 2%, which is what the Fed wants.
	So nothing dramatic, no dramatic recessions, no dramatic hyperinflations, but things moving in a meaningfully wrong direction.
	So when we talk about the tariffs and the impact of the tariffs, obviously you're starting to see that priced in now.
	There seems to be this sort of bipartisan addiction to the idea that the laws of economics don't apply.
	We saw it during the Biden administration with regard to massive spending and modern monetary theory and this sort of magical thinking that we could continue to endlessly spend and this would have no impact on inflation at any point.
	And then, of course, that was proved false.
	And now Americans seem to be broadly engaged in the magical thinking that we can endlessly spend, go into endless debt, and this will never have any sort of long-term impact on either growth or inflation or mandate massive increases on taxes.
	Now, obviously, you're part of President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors.
	There's been sort of a shift now in the tone of a lot of people on both the left and the right with regard to the danger of the national debt.
	What do you make of that?
	Yeah, I agree with your framing there.
	I was a critic of what President Biden did.
	He did too much in 2021, but, you know, you were coming out of COVID.
	Maybe you could understand it.
	I didn't, but maybe you could.
	But then he continued to give away, for example, hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan relief in 2022 when inflation was raging.
	And by the way, it wasn't even obviously legal to do something like that.
	So we entered this year with a deficit relative to the size of our economy larger than any time in our history, except World War II, the financial crisis, and COVID.
	And there's no excuse for it at all.
	Now the Republicans just passed a law and Donald Trump signed it that's going to take Joe Biden's deficit and either keep it the same or make it even a bit larger.
	And, you know, even less reason for that now.
	When we talk about that and the big beautiful bill, I think one of my objections is here, there's sort of the hypocrisy objection, which is many of the same people who are happy to spend two years ago are suddenly very upset about spending today.
	And that's sort of the usual in politics is that the parties flip positions with regard to spending when they're the ones who are in control of the wallet.
	At the same time, it seems to me that the reality is that it really isn't even, and I don't mean to put our politicians off the hook here because I think that many of them are terrible.
	The American people are not prepared for the kinds of things that are going to be necessary in order to actually bring our national debt under control.
	They're just not.
	The American people are not willing to make the sorts of changes to their long-term Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid programs that would be necessary in order to put us on a fiscally sustainable track.
	And unless you're willing to put in place high tax rates for everyone above the very lowest income earners in the United States, you're not going to tax your way out of this.
	And so it seems to me that we are cruising for a bruising long term and that the American people might just have to fly over the fiscal cliff like Thelma and Louise before we realize that austerity measures are necessary to restructure some of these entitlement programs.
	Yeah, look, I worry about that.
	It's not something as an economist, I would recommend.
	But one way that countries get their fiscal house in order is people stop lending to them at a reasonable interest rate.
	They have some sort of mini economic crisis and that forces them to act.
	And that's happened in countries around the world for centuries.
	The better way to deal with this, and I'm not predicting this, it'll happen, is both Social Security and Medicare run out of money less than a decade from now.
	The last time this happened was Social Security, the two parties got together, Ronald Reagan and then representing the Democrats in Congress, Tip O'Neill, they did a bipartisan Social Security reform.
	It added about 60 years to the life of Social Security.
	And to me, that's the model to do again.
	So I'd much rather it be an accounting event that forces action rather than an actual market event, which is genuinely costly, that forces action.
	And that Social Security trust fund running out, that's a good accounting event to force action.
	You know, one of the things that I think is so astonishing about the way our politics does work is that the minute anyone starts suggesting any of these solutions, they're immediately demagogued.
	I mean, truly demagogued in a very serious way.
	I'm old enough to remember when George W. Bush was proposing that our social security accounts essentially be turned into health savings accounts.
	And if we had actually done that at the time, it would have done an awful lot toward changing the structure of social security in a fiscally positive way, because of course, we would have tied what we were putting into social security to the markets, which have now risen multiple fold and would have probably risen more if we had had that much money flowing into the markets at the time via those sorts of accounts.
	He was demagogued as killing grandma, even though he was talking about changing the system mainly for people who were 40 years old at the time.
	This is why I fear that the possibility of a sort of bipartisan solution here, absent some real economic spur, is really, really low.
	The politics just don't match up with what the economics suggests need to be done.
	Yeah, look, I mean, we just saw the Republican Party unwilling to touch Social Security and Medicare.
	In one sense, I don't blame them.
	They would have been completely demagogued by the Democrats if they had.
	But in another sense, I do blame them.
	Those are the two biggest government spending programs.
	And if you claim to care about government spending or you claim to care about the debt, to take those off the table, you're taking Off the table, an awful lot of how to solve it.
	So, how do you square those two?
	Well, you know, one thing could be, you know, I'm in favor of the Republicans going on a death march and just, you know, being kamikazes and making whatever steps in those programs and losing the next election.
	Another choice would be to do things together.
	And by the way, that means you don't get everything.
	Ben, if you and I sat down to reform Social Security, I'd come in wanting to do more of it with tax increases than benefit cuts.
	You'd probably come in wanting more benefit cuts than tax increases.
	We'd have to find something in the middle there.
	So people do need to be willing to give up some of what they want.
	But it really is a hard thing to do all on your own unless you want to commit suicide.
	So meanwhile, it seems to be that both parties are relying on a bit of an economic moonshot in AI.
	The idea seems to be that our GDP growth is going to be somewhere between what the Obiden administration was suggesting actually was going to be somewhere between 1% and 2% for the next 10 years or so, which actually is relatively low growth.
	That was their projection and sort of their optimistic scenario.
	Right now, the Trump administration came in trying to say we're going to get 3%, 4% GDP growth.
	As you say, it is coming in lower partially as a result of the ballast that the tariffs are putting on the economy right now.
	But everybody seems to be putting an awful lot of faith in the productivity jumps that are going to occur because of AI.
	Billions and billions of dollars are being poured into AI right now.
	Beating the Chinese, obviously, is a huge factor in this.
	But part of it is also the idea that worker productivity is going to go up with AI.
	It's not going to eliminate large swaths of the jobs market.
	It seems to me that there are a few problems with this theory.
	One is that the disconnect between the use of AI on a wide scale and what AI can do is going to take a while to bleed into the market the same way that the internet had to bleed into the market.
	Back in 1999, 2000, when pets.com was valued at higher than the moon, the kind of problem was that, of course, pets.com was not worth all of that.
	And there had to be a winnowing in the internet market before the internet really could increase worker productivity in a very, very serious way.
	It seems to me there's going to be a delay effect here, even if AI does what people say it's going to do.
	And second, there's going to be some pretty major social transitions that take place around AI.
	And underestimating that, I think, would be a mistake, both politically and economically.
	Yeah, I broadly agree with you.
	I mean, first of all, on this topic, the future, the future of AI, one has to be pretty uncertain.
	So could we wake up and get an extra 1.5% a year on our growth rate because of it, get our growth rate up to 3%, 4%?
	I think that's possible.
	But to me, that feels like the very, very, very good case scenario.
	And you don't want to plan your entire country around the very, very good case scenario.
	You want to plan around the central, maybe even want to plan around actually the bad scenario and make sure that what you're doing works out in the bad scenario.
	And the reason why I think that central scenario and the bad scenario is so low is two of the reasons you just said.
	It'll take a while to figure this out, a while for it to disperse throughout the economy, that there'll be some social reactions.
	It also is the case that economically you would predict if AI is very successful, you'd probably end up with higher interest rates as a result because it would increase economic demand, increase productivity that tends to be associated with higher interest rates.
	And so our fiscal sustainability would be helped by the higher growth, but some of that, not all, but some of it would be potentially offset by the higher interest rates that would come with that higher growth.
	So back on the debt for a second, because obviously that is sort of the giant elephant in the room that both parties have an interest in ignoring until it stomps on everybody.
	But when we look at the debt, one of the arguments made is that the American dollar is still the best bet on the block, that in the end, the American government is still the best bet.
	The American economy is still the best bet.
	And so the possibility that people will stop buying our bonds, they don't really have an alternative, that we're still, comparatively speaking, the tallest short person, even if we start to really screw our economy with the amount of debt that we've created for it.
	What do you make of that argument?
	What is the biggest threat to America's debt in terms of investment?
	Is that investment going to shift to alternative forms of currency?
	Is that investment going to shift to other countries?
	What do you see as the biggest threat?
	Yeah, so I distinguish here between the known known about debt and then the unknown unknown.
	The known known is somewhat bad, but not horrible.
	So for each percentage point our debt goes up as a share of GDP, our interest rates probably go up like three basis points.
	So over the next decade, that might mean mortgage rates go up a percentage point because of our debt.
	That's not horrendous.
	That's not a crisis.
	That's not like everyone would notice.
	But I don't think everyone wants their mortgage rate going up by a percentage point.
	So it's not a good thing, but it's a known known and it's linear.
	Then there's the people lose faith in the United States.
	They dramatically move out of the dollar.
	The currency collapses.
	You have a crisis, etc.
	I don't know what the odds of that are.
	We're in an unprecedented place for our country.
	We haven't seen things like this before in history.
	So there's not really any basis for saying.
	We've seen countries with lower debt levels go into crises because people just lost faith in them.
	We've seen countries with higher debt levels avoid crises.
	So all I can tell you on that crisis risk is it's higher than it should be, and it is a possibility.
	But what I'm certain about is that we are going to have at least modestly higher interest rates in a way that's harmful for investment and harmful for homeowners.
	Well, that's Jason Furman, professor of economics at Harvard University.
	Professor Ruley, thank you so much for your time.
	Appreciate the insight.
	Oh, happy to join you anytime.
	Meanwhile, with regard to Ukraine, President Trump has authorized NATO to essentially buy on behalf of Ukraine a bunch of American weapons.
	And that makes perfect sense considering that Vladimir Putin is not stopping anytime soon.
	According to the New York Post, Russia launched further brutal drone attacks on Ukraine overnight on Monday, wounding a 14-year-old girl and deliberately targeting a university in a stunning act of rebellion against President Trump's threats of fresh sanctions and weapons deliveries to Ukraine.
	Five killed, at least 43 injured in attacks across Ukraine, according to the Kyiv Independent.
	Separate attacks struck.
	Donetsk, Kharkiv, Kherson, Zaporizhia, according to the Kyiv Independent.
	Putin is not stopping anytime soon.
	And President Trump did his credit.
	He said, Listen, I changed my mind.
	And the reason that I changed my mind is because Melania kept pointing out to me that every time I would say I had a great conversation with Vladimir Putin, she would say, cool, cool.
	Also, Kiev's on fire.
	My conversations with him are always very pleasant.
	I say, isn't that a very lovely conversation?
	And then the missiles go off that night.
	I go home, I tell the first lady, you know, I spoke to Vladimir today.
	We had a wonderful conversation.
	She said, oh, really?
	Another city was just hit.
	So it's like, look, he's, I don't want to say he's an assassin, but he's a tough guy.
	Okay, so again, President Trump coming around to the right conclusion here.
	And thanks to Melania for being a voice of reason in the room, honestly.
	Meanwhile, President Trump said that Ukraine should not be targeting Moscow.
	That came after a report that the president had actually asked Forzelensky to target Moscow.
	Now, again, I don't think it's a bad thing for the president to have that level of strategic ambiguity.
	I think it's actually quite good.
	I think that Putin should be afraid of President Trump and what President Trump is going to do.
	The White House insisted that the comments should not be taken out of context because he said that he's not on anybody's side.
	He just wants this to come to the end.
	Apparently, on a July 4th call with Zelensky said, Vladimir, this is to Zelensky, can you hit Moscow?
	Can you hit St. Petersburg too?
	Okay, it is good for Vladimir Putin to think that that's how President Trump is thinking.
	That is a good thing.
	Again, this goes back to a conversation that I've talked about before that I had with President Trump.
	He was in a room at a fundraiser over at Trump Durrell, his hotel in Durrell, Florida.
	And he was talking about the situation with Ukraine and Russia.
	And he said, you know, when I was president, Vladimir Putin did not attack Ukraine.
	You know why he didn't attack Ukraine?
	Because I said, Vlad, Vlad, if you do that, I'm going to bomb the bleep out of you.
	And President Trump said, and Vladimir Putin said, you know, Mr. President, you're not going to do that.
	And I said, well, I might.
	The point being, if the most powerful person on the planet is telling you with the most powerful military that things might go wildly wrong for you if you do this thing, you're not going to do it.
	I like President Trump's approach to this.
	I always have liked President Trump's approach to this.
	Here he was saying, no, no, no, I didn't tell Vladimir Zelensky to bomb Moscow or anything.
	No, he shouldn't target Moscow.
	Okay, so again, this is not a bad approach.
	I will say, again, the president is at odds with some of the people who thought that they were somehow the founders of MAGA, the creators of MAGA, the people who get to direct MAGA.
	They do not.
	That is not how this works.
	That is never how it has worked.
	As I've said on the program before, I've had many disagreements with President Trump and the things that he has done as presidents of the United States.
	I'm not shy when I disagree with President Trump.
	I criticize his tariffs on this program and his comments about the Fed moments ago, as you may have noticed.
	However, I have also never claimed that I'm the leader of the movement he built because that's absurd.
	He, of course, is the creator of MAGA.
	He is the one who gets to define what MAGA is.
	One of the people who can't seem to get this through her head is Marjorie Taylor Greene, the once obscure congresswoman from Georgia, who basically is famous because President Trump and others in his circle sort of plucked her out of obscurity and gave her a bunch more credit than she does.
	And also because the left decided that they were going to attack her.
	And we have an incredibly reactionary politics in which if the left attacks somebody, the right immediately rushes to make that person famous.
	A dynamic that I find actually stunningly useless.
	In any case, Marjorie Taylor Greene is now criticizing President Trump.
	She said, by now, the neocons and establishment Republicans have hijacked MAGA.
	President Trump should have some words for her, honestly.
	As a reminder, in September 2023, I forced a separate vote on the 300 million in the DOD appropries for Ukraine.
	Here's the vote record results.
	Republicans, yay, 101 for funding to Ukraine.
	Nay, 117 against funding to Ukraine.
	Democrats, the supposed anti-war party, yay, 210 for funding to Ukraine.
	Nay, zero against funding to Ukraine.
	Funding war and foreign countries is not what we voted for.
	And America still funds NATO.
	So if NATO is buying American weapons, we are still paying for it.
	Okay, first of all, we're not the only funders of NATO.
	This has been one of President Trump's big pushes is to get the NATO countries to spend more of their GDP on national defense.
	So they are, in fact, going to pay us for those weapons.
	But beyond that, who the hell does she think that establishment Republicans have hijacked?
	Do you mean the president has hijacked the movement that he built and of which you are an obscure member, Congresswoman?
	Is that what you mean there?
	I understand that your bizarre speculation about space lasers may make you think that you are the leader of the MAGA movement.
	I'm just wondering what evidence you have that that is the case, particularly given the fact that Republicans now widely support the president's decisions on this particular matter.
	Echelon Insights poll came out yesterday.
	A new opinion poll on whether President Trump should send U.S. weapons system to Ukraine.
	Support, 65%.
	This is among Trump voters.
	Oppose, 22%.
	You're in the 22%, Congresswoman.
	So I'm wondering just what you mean has hijacked MAGA.
	This sort of obnoxious attempt to rewrite what MAGA is in favor of your own political priors is really sort of amazing.
	It really, really is.
	The same has held true, of course, in the Middle East, where you have a bunch of people on the sort of pseudo-MAGA right.
	And I call them pseudo-MAGA, not because they're not supporters of the Trump administration or haven't been in the past, but because if you claim that you are the definer of MAGA and the president is not, you have made a category error.
	A lot of those people, very critical of the president for striking Iran's nuclear program in what, again, I will aver is the single most courageous and effective American foreign policy action of my lifetime.
	A single B-2 sordie that threw back the Iranian nuclear program by years at the very least, that cost zero American casualties in which Israel did all the heavy lifting for clearing the aerial pathways.
	And somehow that was going to lead to World War III involving China, Iran, somehow Brazil and India, among other countries, according to these foreign policy geniuses, the pseudo-maga crowd.
	Well, President Trump was right on that as well.
	Iran is about to face stiff new sanctions, not just from the United States, by the way, but also from Europe.
	According to Axios, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and the UK agreed in a phone call on Monday to set the end of August as the de facto deadline for reaching a nuclear deal with Iran.
	If no deal is reached by that deadline, the three European powers plan to trigger that snapback mechanism that automatically reimposes all UN Security Council sanctions that were lifted under the original Barack Obama terrible deal.
	The deal that, as President Trump said, was the worst deal in human history.
	That snapback provision will expire in October.
	The process of activating snapback takes 30 days.
	The Europeans want to conclude the process before Russia assumes the UN Security Council presidency in October, which, by the way, again, I really hope if we're going to talk about audacious moves by the Trump administration, completely defunding and destroying the United Nations would be an excellent move.
	If we're going to talk about audacious moves, I've said this for a long time.
	We should exit the UN, tell them to find new ground, use the eminent domain to take over that building, destroy it and build a Trump Tower.
	I frankly don't care what happens after we salt the earth beneath the UN.
	The UN is a garbage organization and it always has been.
	But beyond that, obviously the president is taking strong action against the Iranian regime.
	They see it as leverage in the talks with Iran to activate that snapback.
	And of course, President Trump is very frustrated that Iran isn't coming to the table because they're being idiots.
	And they certainly should if they hope not to be hit with further economic sanctions.
	By the way, once again, I will point out that for all of those who suggest that this was somehow a sort of wildly unpopular move, what President Trump did in Iran, that is not even remotely true.
	There is zero evidence that that is the case, particularly among Republicans, particularly among Republicans.
	So on the polling, 57% of Americans say that the bombing by the United States was justified.
	57 yes, 35 no.
	According to Republicans, justified the U.S. bond, this would be Operation Midnight Hammer, right?
	This is the president's authorization of the B2 bombing.
	Remember, pseudo-maga said it was going to start World War III and that Republicans were wildly opposed.
	Republicans justified 93%.
	93%.
	Definitely not justified.
	3%.
	So just to get this straight, the pseudo-MAGA crowd who think that they know better than the presidents of the United States what MAGA policy should be on Ukraine and Iran.
	Among MAGA voters, only 22% support them on the Ukraine thing and 3% support them on the Iran thing.
	And yet somehow they believe that they are the definers of the Trump coalition in some way, which is frankly delusional.
	I mean, like on every level, delusional.
	And by the way, the MAGA coalition is still winning.
	Harry Enton over at CNN is spelling out the fact that Democrats, despite the past track record of midterm elections going poorly for the party in power, actually Democrats have some really big problems in the upcoming 2026 elections.
	The bottom line is this.
	Democrats are behind their 2006 and 2018 paces when it comes to the generic congressional ballot.
	What are we talking about here?
	All right, the Democrats versus the Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, the margins.
	Look at where we are now.
	Democrats are ahead, but by just two points.
	Look at where Democrats were already ahead by in 2017.
	They were behind by seven points.
	How about 2005 on the generic congressional ballot?
	Behind, excuse me, ahead by seven points, ahead by seven points.
	And now they're only ahead by two points.
	Their lead is less than half, less than half of where it was in either 2017 or 2005 in July of those years, the year before the midterm election.
	Yes, Donald Trump may be unpopular, but Democrats have not come anywhere close to sealing the deal at this particular point.
	Okay, so again, that shows that Trump is actually more successful than his detractors are giving him credit for.
	Okay, all of this is now culminating in, of course, more controversy over the Jeffrey Epstein case.
	So President Trump came out today and he said, listen, Pam Botany should release whatever she thinks is credible.
	Like the DOJ and the FBI, they've come to a conclusion.
	She should be transparent and remove whatever she, and she should remove whatever is not credible and then release whatever is credible.
	Fine.
	She's given us just a very quick briefing.
	And in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen, and I would say that, you know, these files were made up by Comey.
	They were made up by Obama.
	They were made up by the Biden information.
	And we went through years of that with the Russia, Russia-Russia hoax, with all of the different things that we had to go through.
	We've gone through years of it.
	But she's handled it very well.
	And it's going to be up to her.
	Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release.
	Yeah, that last line is the one that matters.
	As far as the Comey and the Obama, I assume what he means here is that Jeffrey Epstein was prosecuted in 2019, and he went to jail in 2019, and then he ended up committing suicide in 2019 by the available medical reports and the conclusions of the FBI and the DOJ.
	That was under Trump number one.
	I assume he means here that Comey and Obama, that many of the files about Jeffrey Epstein were originally compiled under them.
	That's the only way I can make sense of that particular thing that he is saying.
	He doubled down on this today on Truth Social as well.
	He says the radical left Democrats have hit paydered again, just like with the fake and fully discredited Steele dossier, the lying 51 intelligence agents, the laptop from hell, which the Dems swore had come from Russia.
	No, it came from Hunter Biden's bathroom.
	And even the Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia scam itself, a totally fake and made-up story used in order to hide crooked Hillary Clinton's big laws in the 2016 presidential election.
	These scams and hoaxes are all the Democrats are good at.
	It's all they have.
	They are no good at governing, no good at policy, and no good at picking winning candidates.
	Also, unlike Republicans, they stick together like glue.
	Their new scam is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
	And my past supporters have bought into this hook, line, and sinker.
	That's what he says.
	They haven't learned their lesson and probably never will, even after being conned by the lunatic left for eight long years.
	And here, I assume, he is talking about the Democratic theory that Jeffrey Epstein had files on President Trump, and that is what is leading President Trump to do a cover-up or something like that.
	He says, I have had more success in six months than perhaps any president in our country's history.
	And all these people want to talk about with strong prodding by the fake news and the success starved is the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.
	Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats' work.
	Don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success because I don't want their support anymore.
	Thank you for your attention to this matter.
	Make America great again.
	And there he's basically saying, if you feel like you want to hang out in the fever swamps on this sort of stuff, you can.
	But just to recognize that you are not part of the movement that is actually achieving victories at this point.
	And you can understand President Trump's frustration.
	He's had a wildly successful month on pretty much every available score.
	And then the DOJ and the FBI come out with this joint statement, which lacked transparency.
	Presumably, the reason he is saying that Pamboni should release more files or whatever is unredacted or whatever, whatever is credible, is because he wants to quiet people who are suggesting that there is some sort of massive ongoing cover-up of all of this.
	But President Trump has been saying for actually a shockingly long time that there's a lot of phony stuff in the Epstein files, by which he means there's a bunch of non-credible accusation that was found by the intelligence agencies to be non-credible.
	Would you declassify the Epstein files?
	Yeah, yeah, I would.
	I guess I would.
	I think that less so because, you know, you don't know, you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.
	Again, that was President Trump saying that a while ago.
	I mean, that's nothing new here.
	Speaker Johnson agrees with President Trump.
	Of course, he says Pam Bondi should come out and she should explain the position she's taking.
	It's a very delicate subject, but we should put everything out there and let the people decide it.
	I mean, the White House and the White House team are privy to facts that I don't know.
	I mean, this isn't my lane.
	I haven't been involved in that.
	But I agree with the sentiment that we need to put it out there.
	And, you know, Pam Bondi, I don't know when she originally made the statement.
	I think she was talking about documents, as I understood it.
	They were on her desk.
	I don't know that she was specific about a list or whatever, but she needs to come forward and explain that to everybody.
	I would assume that Pam Bondi will do that.
	And as I've been saying since the beginning, I think that she should do that.
	Alan Dershowitz, who is a lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein, he has a piece of the Wall Street Journal trying to explain what he says is going on.
	And he was closer to that case than I think pretty much anybody.
	And again, here's the thing.
	All the people who put their names on that DOJ FBI memo are people who went in believing and promulgating the idea that there was some sort of deep Jeffrey Epstein scam involving third parties.
	Again, I think we ought to tease out the various theories here.
	And if you want to listen to last week's show about this, I did a full-scale episode teasing out the various theories, what happened with Jeffrey Epstein, who is involved, who is not, what evidence there is for all of that.
	We did like a full deep dive on this last week on the program.
	I urge you to go listen to that episode again if you're looking for clarity about what the various accusations really are.
	But Alan Dershowitz says, I was Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer.
	He writes this in the Wall Street Journal.
	I know the facts, some of which I can't disclose because it is privileged or subject to court-imposed sealing orders.
	But what I can disclose makes several important things clear.
	Epstein never created a client list.
	The FBI interviewed alleged victims who named several clients.
	These names have been redacted.
	They should be disclosed, but the courts have ordered them sealed.
	I know who they are.
	They don't include any current office holders.
	We don't know whether the accusations are true.
	Now, again, that line is pretty important.
	We don't know whether the accusations are true because the FBI and DOJ have a general policy that they don't air non-credible accusations or accusations they don't consider credible that have been unchecked by the media, for example, or unchecked by their intelligence agents.
	The courts have also sealed negative information about some of the accusers to protect them.
	Neither the Justice Department nor private defense lawyers are free to disregard court sealing orders.
	The media can and should petition the courts for the release of all names and information so the public can draw its own conclusions.
	There's also been speculation about incriminating videos taken by hidden cameras in Epstein's guest bedrooms, writes Dershowitz.
	There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of his Palm Beach, Florida home.
	Epstein reported the theft of money and a licensed firearm from a drawer in his living room, so the police installed the video camera.
	I'm not aware of video cameras in guest bedrooms.
	So again, the accusation has been that there are all sorts of tapes of Epstein clients, people he was associated with, and to whom he was trafficking, allegedly, young girls, and they were in bedrooms together, and he had tapes with that.
	That's what he was blackmailing them with.
	Epstein's lawyer, Dershowitz, is saying there's none of that.
	That's not what the tapes are.
	And in fact, by the way, that's what the FBI is saying also.
	The FBI is saying that the tapes that they have come in two forms.
	One is tape of the interior of the household that does not include the bedrooms.
	And two is just child that Jeffrey Epstein had in his house and on his computer.
	Open records, says Dershowitz, show an acquaintance between Epstein and Mr. Trump many years ago.
	That relationship ended when Mr. Trump reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago long before becoming president.
	I've seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by Mr. Trump.
	And again, this is one of Trump's big annoyances that people keep suggesting he's covering this up to protect himself.
	And Dershowitz is saying from what?
	It is clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide, says Dershowitz.
	What isn't clear is whether he was assisted by jail personnel.
	That seems likely to me based on the evidence of allegedly broken cameras, transfer of his cellmate, and the absence of guards during relevant time periods.
	Okay, now that is like a theory that is creditable, right?
	You could make the theory that Epstein killed himself, but that basically all the limitations that would have stopped him from killing himself were made available to him, right?
	All those limitations were blown out of the water.
	He was even extra blankets that day.
	His roommate was removed.
	And so maybe Epstein bribed guards in order to allow him to commit suicide.
	By the way, you can acknowledge why he committed suicide.
	He was about to spend the rest of his life in prison as in alleged child, which is not a good life, as it turns out.
	Dershowitz says, I have absolutely no doubt that Epstein never worked for any intelligence agency.
	If he had, he surely would have told me and his other lawyers who would have used that information to get him a better deal.
	So by the way, this now makes the third source to say he was not working for an intelligence agency.
	The FBI and DOJ say he was not working for an intelligence agency.
	Israel's Mossad, right?
	The former prime minister, Naftali Bennett, has said he was not working for an intelligence agency.
	And Dershowitz is saying he is not working for an intelligence agency.
	That's three.
	On the other side, people saying he was working for an intelligence agency include the highly non-credible source, Ari Bemenachem, who claims that he was working for Mossad during a period where he almost certainly was not working for Mossad and who has put forward a bunch of other specious theories before.
	And a secondhand comment supposedly made to Vicki Ward of The Daily Beast from Alex Acosta, the original prosecutor in the Epstein state-based case, who ended up denying that he ever made that comment.
	So here on this hand, you have a bunch of very credible sources saying a thing.
	And then on this hand, you have vague suspicion and a bunch of totally non-credible sources.
	And by a bunch of, I really mean kind of one.
	So that is the going theory.
	And you can wait between those and make your own decision about which you think is more plausible.
	Says Dershowitz, he wasn't satisfied with the so-called sweetheart deal he got, which required Him to spend one and a half years in a local jail and register as a sex offender.
	My sources in Israel have confirmed to me he had no connection to Israeli intelligence.
	That false story, recently peddled by Tucker Carlson, probably emanated from credible allegations that Robert Maxwell, father of Epstein's former girlfriend, Delaine Maxwell, worked with the Mossad.
	Conspiracy stories attract readers, viewers, and listeners.
	They are also fodder for political attacks.
	The Epstein case has generated more than its share of such theories.
	There's nothing more annoying to gossip mongers than when stubborn facts, or the absence of facts, get in the way of a juicy theory.
	Sorry to disappoint you, but there is really nothing much to see here beyond what has already been disclosed.
	And here is sort of the problem with the situation as it currently stands, is that nothing anyone says at this point is going to be able to disabuse people of the theory they have constructed in their own head.
	Evidence is of no consequence at this point in time.
	It really isn't.
	That doesn't mean the Trump administration should not be fully transparent to the full extent of the law.
	They, of course, should.
	I think is what Dan Bongino was saying, and he was correctly pissed off about it, especially given the retailing of the idea that there was much more evidence out there than by Pam Bondi than she actually was able to substantiate.
	However, once the transparency happens, once there is more released, once Pam Bondi goes out there and answers all the questions, once Dan Bongino is allowed to speak and all the rest, at that point, do you think any of the people who currently find themselves dissatisfied are going to suddenly be satisfied?
	If the answer is no, then we should examine why, why new evidence or credible people saying credible things is not as important as the speculative.
	And you will notice the very large crossover in this category between many of the people who are in the sort of the most passionate pseudo-maga category and the people who are claiming a cover-up here.
	There is a very large crossover, and we ought to ask ourselves why that is.
	Meanwhile, Democrats, of course, are being as absolutely cynical as possible about this.
	They who had no interest in the Epstein case until literally this week are suddenly claiming that it's a giant cover-up by the Trump administration.
	Representative Hank Johnson, last seen claiming that the island of Guam was going to tip over because it had too many people, actually created a song about the Epstein scandal.
	And it's not a good song, I will say that.
	Epstein died by suicide.
	Believe that man, it's the found.
	But where are they?
	We're going along with what's been told.
	We've had plenty of time, you're in control.
	But they say you will withhold the Epstein with fine dreams sickle on a summer night in a full chair.
	Yeah, what the Trump's hollering at the moon.
	Release the Epstein file soon.
	I would say stick to your day job, but I really would prefer he not stick to his day job because he's a congressperson.
	So I'd really much prefer actually that he be a full-time musician, even though he is quite terrible at the music, apparently.
	Senator Ed Markey also jumping on the bandwagon and claiming that now he wants all the ups.
	Again, the Biden DOJ and FBI had all the files.
	Not a single Democrat cared about it.
	Now all of a sudden, Ed Markey is like, we must release all.
	Okay, go for it, dude.
	I think we should be releasing the files right now.
	Donald Trump is reaping what he sowed, and we should have a debate in Congress on this issue and have these files released now.
	We don't need to wait any longer.
	We need to get the information right now.
	His MAGA base is demanding a release of all of this information, and Democrats agree with Donald Trump's MAGA base.
	So I'm just going to point out that if Ed Markey is agreeing with the MAGA base, then whenever people like Ed Markey or AOC or Elizabeth Warren find themselves in agreement with you, you might want to take a breath.
	Just take a backpedal for just a second.
	All righty, folks, the show is continuing for our members right now.
	We'll get into action in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, where things are getting quite complicated.
	Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member.
	If you're not a member, become a member.
	Use code Shapiro at checkout for two months free on all annual plans.

▲