The Translators – Interpreting Donald Trump: The Daily Show


President Trump is in France
celebrating Bastille Day with French President
Emmanuel Macron, who declared war on Trump by making him go to a museum
with him. And President Trump retaliated by hitting on
the French First Lady in full view of everyone. Something happened with
President Trump, comments he made
that have now been posted on the Facebook page, I’m told,
of President Macron. Let’s listen. Donald J. Trump
does not give a (bleep). (laughter) In front of his own wife. He’s like, “Damn, girl. You want some of this baguette?” Like, I spent
the whole afternoon, I spent the entire afternoon trying to figure out
how in that moment Macron didn’t punch Trump
right there. But, then, no, no, but then I
realized, I realized something. Whenever Trump is overseas,
the one advantage he has is that people aren’t hearing
him in his native tongue. Yeah. No, think about it.
Think about it, because everything he says has to be interpreted
by a translator, So maybe today when Trump said, (mimics Trump)’
“You’re in great shape,” (normal voice):
the translator said, (with French accent):
“He says you look well.” (normal voice):
Right? That could happen. Whereas if I were
the translator, I would have been like,
“Yo, my dude wants to smash.” Which is more accurate. It’s way more accurate. You see,
translating Donald Trump is a real challenge, as our very own
Desi Lydic reports. LYDIC: America hears Trump
in English. I know words,
I have the best words. LYDIC:
Well, sort of. But the rest of the world
doesn’t hear Trump. (translators speaking in
foreign language) LYDIC:
The rest of the world hears… The Translators. We assembled five translators
from all over the world to hear their experiences when
it comes to translating Trump. Of all the people
you’ve had to translate, where does President Trump fall? He’s probably the worst
that I’ve ever translated. Trump is incoherent. And he changes his mind
in the middle of a sentence. Sometimes his message
is not quite grammatical and seems a little bit
uneducated. I would say it’s not
particularly difficult to translate Trump. All right, get the (bleep)
out of here. Get this guy out of here. Russian Kramer aside,
how does one translate Trump with all these obstacles? Sometimes I lie. -You lie?
-I-I have to. No, no, no, no, no,
but you can’t do that, you can’t do that, because,
see, we are counting on you to translate
President Trump accurately to the rest of the world. Okay. I am accurate
97% of the time. -97%, you translate Trump
correctly. -Yeah. Yeah. But the three percent… Three percent
you have to fake it. -Three percent of the time you
have to fake it. -To make sense. Otherwise you’re gonna
look like an idiot yourself. It makes us sound stupid. Bing, bing, bong, bong,
bing, bing, bing. How would you translate that? Bing, bing, bong, bong. Interesting. Okay, maybe
that was a softball. But how about
this memorable quote? Total and complete shutdown of Muslims
entering the United States until our country’s
representatives -can figure out…
-(crowd cheering, applauding) -…what the hell is going on.
-What the hell’s going on. Uh, there’s no equivalent
to “what the hell’s going on” in Arabic. That’s unfortunate, ’cause it… that would be a widely-used
turn of phrase. That’s one of the main issues. Trump’s special vocabulary doesn’t always exist
in other languages. -TRUMP: You can do anything.
-BILLY BUSH: Whatever you want. TRUMP:
Grab ’em by the pussy. How would you translate
“grab ’em by the pussy”? I would say… (speaks Japanese) Meaning that “women can… let me do anything.” That’s very, very different,
’cause it could mean “women let me do anything. Like, treat them like a queen.” As opposed to “I can
grab ’em by the pussy.” -Mm.
-You know? Unfortunately, it does not
project the same way. Is there a Japanese word
for “pussy”? Not in the exact sense
of the word. Is there a Japanese word for… this? Sure, that’s…
(speaks Japanese) No, that’s no gonna work. That’s
too cute, that’s too cute. Okay, how about this? Tacos. We just say “tacos.” Okay, I’m getting a real sense
of a language barrier here. Is there a Japanese word
for this? Roast beef? Kind of. -Beef curtains.
-Beef curtains. Mm-hmm. (speaks Japanese) Try that. We will build the wall. And Mexico is going
to pay for the wall. (speaks Spanish) Okay, that is… No,
there is warmness in your eyes, you’re smiling–
that is not the way he said it. You have to do it
like he does it. People at home are gonna
think he’s joking. People have a… sensitivity, so you don’t want to offend them more than he already has,
you know? No, you got to give ’em
the Trump. Who’s gonna pay for the wall? No Mexico. Yeah, no, I know
Mexico’s not gonna pay… But Trump believes that Mexico’s
gonna pay for the wall, so if you’re gonna
translate him, you have to believe it, too. Who’s gonna pay for the wall? Nobody’s gonna pay
for that wall in Mexico. No, no, no. What is wrong
with these translators? No one is capturing
the true Trump. It’s not just his words.
There’s something more. The poor guy–
you got to see this guy. “Oh, I don’t know what I said, uh, I don’t remember!” He’s going like,
“I don’t remember! I don… Maybe that’s what I said!” Yeah, that’s pretty accurate. I think you
kind of got the gist of that. I’m Trump for the moment, while I am interpreting
his words. This beautiful mime was right. That’s what these translators
were missing. They needed to embody Trump–
his tone, his mannerisms, his sexism–
the whole package. And down with the dumb face. -Uh…
-Uh… Grab ’em by the pussy!
Grab ’em by the pussy! Sad. Sad. -(speaks Spanish)
-Sad. After a grueling
seven minutes of training, these translators were ready. With cojones. LYDIC: There you go.
Muy bien. LYDIC: Nailed it. LYDIC: Oh, my God.
Oh, my God. Okay, that’s… that’s good. Thank you. Thank you.
You can cut. -Thank you, Desi.
-(cheering, applause)

The Staggering Hypocrisy Of The Republican Party


STEVE WYNN, ONE OF THE TOP
DONORS TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND TO DONALD TRUMP, IN FACT HE
RECENTLY ORGANIZED A DINNER FOR DONALD TRUMP ATTENDED BY DONORS
TO THE TUNE OF $100,000 A PLATE — JEEZUM LORD MERCY — HE’S
GIVEN MILLIONS TO REPUBLICANS OVERALL IN JUST THIS LAST CYCLE,
BUT IT TURNED OUT THERE HAVE BEEN IN A NORMA’S AMOUNT OF
ALLEGATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ASSAULT AGAINST STEVE WYNN,
WHO OWNS HUGE CASINOS IN VEGAS AND CHINA. THAT STORY WAS BROKEN
AND SEEMS TO BE CREDIBLY REAL AND CREDIBLE, SO STEVE WYNN HAS
STEPPED DOWN AS THE RNC FINANCE CHAIR, THAT’S GIGANTIC ROLE, AND
EVEN AS CEO AS HIS OWN WYNN ORGANIZATION, SO I GUESS HE’S
NOT WYNN-ING ANYMORE. AY. BUT IF THERE’S ONE THING I KNOW ABOUT
REPUBLICANS, THEY CAN’T STAND SEXUAL HARASSERS, ESPECIALLY
WHEN THEY GIVE MONEY TO A POLITICAL PARTY. I KNOW THIS
BECAUSE EARLIER THE HEAD OF THE RNC TALKED ABOUT HARVEY
WEINSTEIN AND HOW HE GAVE MONEY TO THE DEMOCRATS — THAT’S A GREAT QUESTION. DEMOCRATS RETURNED ON THE WEINSTEIN MONEY — I WONDER IF
WE ARE GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION TO REPUBLICANS IN A
MINUTE? ANYWAY, LET KEEP GOING, RONNA MCDANIEL ALSO SAID — THAT WAS A COUPLE DAYS. NOW
WYNN HAS BEEN ACCUSED FOR WELL OVER A WEEK, THE REPUBLICANS,
THEY STILL HAVE HIS MONEY. BUT WE’LL GET TO THAT. ONE MORE FROM
RONNA, SHE SAID THIS IS SOMETHING DEMOCRATS AND
REPUBLICANS SHOULD AGREE ON, THAT IT’S DESPICABLE, THAT YOU
SHOULD HAVE DEMOCRATS RETURNING THOSE DONATIONS. SHE’S VERY CLEAR ON THAT. IN FACT HERE SHE IS ON TV
TALKING ABOUT IT IN OCTOBER. IRAN THE WRONG VIDEO, LET’S
GO TO VIDEO 6. RONNA, WILL THE RNC BE GIVING
BACK THOSE DONATIONS MADE BY STEVE WYNN? WE ARE TALKING
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS? SEAN SPICER LAST NIGHT SAID
ABSOLUTELY THE RNC SHOULD GIVE THOSE BACK. THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE WALL
STREET JOURNAL WERE DEEPLY TROUBLING, THEY WERE SO
TROUBLING THAT WITHIN 24 HOURS STEVE WAS NO LONGER OUR FINANCE
CHAIR. BUT STEVE HAS DENIED THESE ALLEGATIONS, UNLIKE HARVEY
WEINSTEIN AND AL FRANKEN AND OTHERS, STEVE HAS DENIED THEM. THERE IS AN INVESTIGATION THAT WILL TAKE PLACE, HE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED DUE PROCESS, AND IF HE IS FOUND OF ANY WRONGDOING WE
WILL ABSOLUTELY RETURN 100% OF THAT MONEY. BUT WE WILL LET DUE
PROCESS TAKE PLACE. SO FAIR TO SAY THERE’S NO
PLANS RIGHT NOW TO GIVE THOSE DONATIONS BACK? WE WILL LET THE INVESTIGATION
TAKE PLACE. IN OTHER WORDS, NO. THAT WAS
BACK ON JANUARY 30. HAVE THEY GIVEN THE MONEY BACK YET? NOPE. THAT WAS RECENTLY, NOW LET’S GO TO AN AD THE REPUBLICANS RAN
BACK IN OCTOBER, BECAUSE I KNOW THEY CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THIS
ISSUE. OUR SOCIETY STILL DOES NOT
SUFFICIENTLY VALUE WOMEN. WE STILL DON’T CONDEMN SEXUAL
ASSAULT AS LOUDLY AS WE SHOULD. WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN
RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ARE WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND I BELIEVE
THAT WITH ALL MY HEART. WE MAKE EXCUSES, WE LOOK THE
OTHER WAY. I WENT TO 112 COUNTRIES FOR ALL OF YOU, I
RAISED IT IN EVERY COUNTRY. THE MESSAGE THAT SENDS CAN
HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON OUR YOUNG WOMEN. I LOOKED ACROSS THE TABLE AT
DICTATORS AND AUTHORITARIANS AND CHAUVINISTS AND SEXISTS AND
MISOGYNISTS — YEAH. I WANT TO START BY THANKING
HARVEY WEINSTEIN, HE IS A WONDERFUL HUMAN BEING, A GOOD
FRIEND, AND A POWERHOUSE. RETURN ALL THE DIRTY MONEY
FROM HARVEY WEINSTEIN. SO, WILL ALL THE REPUBLICANS WHO HAVE
GOTTEN MONEY FROM STEVE WYNN RETURN THE MONEY? YOU HEARD FROM
RONNA MCDANIEL SAYING, MMM, WE’LL LET AN INVESTIGATION
HAPPEN, WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT CONCEPT IN A SECOND. NOW WE
WILL GO TO THE REPUBLICAN SENATORIAL COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
CORY GARDNER, LET’S HEAR FROM HIM. CHAIRMAN OF THE NRSC, WHAT
ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO WITH THAT MONEY LINKS TO STEVE WYNN? WE ARE CONSIDERING THE
APPROPRIATE ACTION. WE DONATE AWAY THE MONEY FROM
STEVE WYNN? WE WILL TAKE THE APPROPRIATE
ACTION — AND WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE
ACTION? THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT AT THE COMMITTEE. NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE YET? NO. AH, NO. ARE WE RETURNING THE
MONEY? AH, NOPE. THE SILENCE APPEARS TO BE DEAFENING. LATER
IN THAT INTERVIEW HE WAS LIKE, DID THE DEMOCRATS RETURN THE
WEINSTEIN MONEY? AND THE ANCHOR WAS LIKE, YES. WELL, WE DON’T
HAVE TO DO WHAT THE DEMOCRAT ARE DOING. NOW WE GO TO MEDIAITE — BY
THE WAY, 375,000 IS AMONG THE SMALLER DONATIONS WYNN MADE. WILL TRUMP GIVE BACK WYNN’S
DONATIONS AND THE MONEY RAISED THROUGH ALL THOSE EVENTS? [LAUGHTER] OF COURSE NOT, THEY AREN’T EVEN BOTHERING TO ASK
HIM. IT’S TRUMP, OF COURSE HE WON’T RETURN IT. HOW ABOUT THE
GOP OVERALL, THEY SAY DUE PROCESS, BUT AS WULFSOHN POINTS
OUT — SO WAIT, WHEN DO WE GET TO
PROVE HE’S GUILTY? THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL CHARGES RIGHT NOW. SO
BY THAT STANDARD, GOLLY GEE, I GUESS WE WILL HAVE TO KEEP THE
MONEY FOREVER. THEY HAD ONE OTHER STANDARD — HOW COULD A BOARD DO AN
INVESTIGATION IF HE’S ALREADY STEPPED DOWN? THEY’RE BASICALLY
RUBBING YOUR FACE IN IT. THEY’RE LIKE, IDIOT DEMOCRATS, WE GOT
YOU TO GIVE AWAY YOUR MONEY AND WE POUNDED YOU, WE RAN AD AFTER
AD ABOUT IT AND WE SAID YOU WERE THE WORST, ETC., WHEN IT COMES
TO US, VERY SIMILAR ALLEGATIONS, WE ARE JUST GOING TO KEEP THE
MONEY. WHAT ARE YOU GOOD TO DO ABOUT IT? IT’S NOT JUST BECAUSE
THEY WANT THE MONEY, THE RNC AT THIS POINT LITERALLY HAS TENS OF
MILLIONS MORE THAN THE DNC, THEY ARE IN GREAT FINANCIAL SHAPE
BECAUSE THE DONORS WERE THRILLED WITH THEIR TAX CUTS SO THEY ARE
POURING MONEY INTO THE RNC, SO IT’S NOT THAT THEY NEED THE
$375,000, IT’S TO SEND A MESSAGE. TWOFOLD, ONE IS WE
NEVER ADMIT TO ANYTHING, WE NEVER GIVE AN INCH, WE MAKE THE
DEMOCRATS GIVE UP EVERYTHING, WE MAKE THE DEMOCRATS KILL OFF
THEIR OWN SENATORS, EVERYTHING ELSE, AND THEN WE NEVER
RECIPROCATE, BECAUSE THAT’S HOW WE ROLL. SO IF YOU DON’T LIKE
IT, WHO CARES? AND OUR VOTERS DON’T MIND AT ALL. SO EVERY TIME
WE’VE TALKED ABOUT SEXUAL HARASSMENT OR SEXISM OR ANYTHING
RELATED TO THE DEMOCRATS, IT WAS ALL JUST POLITICS. WE DON’T CARE
ABOUT THE ISSUE AT ALL. THAT’S MESSAGE NUMBER ONE. MESSAGE
NUMBER TWO IS, AND THE MORE IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE IT’S MORE
PRACTICAL IN THEIR CASE, IF YOU ARE A RICH DONOR AND YOU DID A
LOT OF SCUMMY THINGS, WE DON’T CARE. WE’VE GOT YOUR BACK. WE
WILL TAKE YOUR MONEY AND KEEP IT AND KEEP ON DEFENDING YOU. THE
DEMOCRATS WILL SELL YOU OUT, THEY WILL CALL YOU A BAD GUY AND
HE’LL RETURN THE MONEY. US? NO. IF YOU’RE A SCUMBAG MILLIONAIRE
OR BILLIONAIRE, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS HOME FOR YOU, AND WE’VE
GOT YOUR BACK NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. THAT’S THE MESSAGE BEING
SENT HERE. THERE SENDING IT TO THE REST OF THEIR DONORS. DON’T
WORRY, YOU CAN TRUST US, WE’RE NEVER GOING TO THROW YOU UNDER
THE BUS TO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. WELL, THERE YOU GO. THAT’S
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Do Impeachment Talks Play Right Into Trump’s Hands? | Morning Joe | MSNBC


>>>WELCOME BACK TO “MORNING>>>WELCOME BACK TO “MORNING JOE.” JOE.” 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 2020 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PUSH AHEAD FOR THEIR CALLS FOR PUSH AHEAD FOR THEIR CALLS FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF SUPREME COURT THE IMPEACHMENT OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH. JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH. SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS HIT THE SENATOR KAMALA HARRIS HIT THE NOMINATION PROCESS AND DOUBLED NOMINATION PROCESS AND DOUBLED DOWN ON INVESTIGATING KAVANAUGH DOWN ON INVESTIGATING KAVANAUGH LAST NIGHT ON MSNBC. LAST NIGHT ON MSNBC.>>IT WAS A SHAM.>>IT WAS A SHAM. WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE PROCESS BY WHICH HE WAS PROCESS BY WHICH HE WAS CONFIRMED HAS CREATED A CRISIS CONFIRMED HAS CREATED A CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE IN THAT COURT. OF CONFIDENCE IN THAT COURT. ONE OF THE WORST THINGS THAT ONE OF THE WORST THINGS THAT HAPPENS IS THAT WHEN WE ARE NOT HAPPENS IS THAT WHEN WE ARE NOT WILLING TO BELIEVE THE VICTIM WILLING TO BELIEVE THE VICTIM AND TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. AND TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY, INVESTIGATE TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY, INVESTIGATE THE THE THE CASE. THE CASE.>>BETO O’ROURKE ECHOED A>>BETO O’ROURKE ECHOED A SIMILAR SENTIMENT ALLEGING SIMILAR SENTIMENT ALLEGING KAVANAUGH LIED UNDER OATH. KAVANAUGH LIED UNDER OATH.>>THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVED>>THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVED BETTER AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT BETTER AND GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS AS THOUGH BRETT IT APPEARS AS THOUGH BRETT KAVANAUGH LIED UNDER EETH E OATH KAVANAUGH LIED UNDER EETH E OATH IS A CRIME THINK THERE HE HAS IS A CRIME THINK THERE HE HAS DIS DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF FROM DIS DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF FROM SERVICE ON THE SUPREME COURT. SERVICE ON THE SUPREME COURT. HE SHOULD STEP DOWN OR BE HE SHOULD STEP DOWN OR BE IMPEACHED. IMPEACHED.>>BUT WHILE THE CALLS FROM 2020>>BUT WHILE THE CALLS FROM 2020 DEMOCRATIC HOPEFULS CONTINUE TO DEMOCRATIC HOPEFULS CONTINUE TO COME IN, KEY DEMOCRATS ARE COME IN, KEY DEMOCRATS ARE CAPITOL HILL ARE THROWING COLD CAPITOL HILL ARE THROWING COLD WATER ON THE IDEA. WATER ON THE IDEA. HERE’S JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN JERRY HERE’S JUDICIARY CHAIRMAN JERRY NADLER. NADLER.>>THE JURISDICTION THAT WE>>THE JURISDICTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE WITH RESPECT TO A WOULD HAVE WITH RESPECT TO A SITTING SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS SITTING SUPREME COURT NOMINEE IS DID HE LIE TO THE SENATE? DID HE LIE TO THE SENATE? FRANKLY WE ARE CONCENTRATING OUR FRANKLY WE ARE CONCENTRATING OUR RESOURCES ON DETERMINING WHETHER RESOURCES ON DETERMINING WHETHER TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT. WE HAVE OUR HANDS FULL WITH WE HAVE OUR HANDS FULL WITH IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT RIGHT IMPEACHING THE PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW. NOW.>>ON THE SENATE SIDE, MINORITY>>ON THE SENATE SIDE, MINORITY WHIP DICK DURBIN OF ILLINOIS WHIP DICK DURBIN OF ILLINOIS ANSWERED, QUOTE, GET REAL WHEN ANSWERED, QUOTE, GET REAL WHEN ASKED BY “POLITICO” ABOUT THE ASKED BY “POLITICO” ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF IMPEACHING POSSIBILITY OF IMPEACHING KAVANAUGH. KAVANAUGH. DURBIN CONTINUED, WE’VE GOT TO DURBIN CONTINUED, WE’VE GOT TO GET BEYOND THIS IMPEACHMENT IS GET BEYOND THIS IMPEACHMENT IS THE ANSWER TO BE EVERY PROBLEM. THE ANSWER TO BE EVERY PROBLEM. IT’S NOT REALISTIC. IT’S NOT REALISTIC. IF THAT’S HOW WE’RE IDENTIFIED IF THAT’S HOW WE’RE IDENTIFIED IN CONGRESS AS THE IMPEACHMENT IN CONGRESS AS THE IMPEACHMENT CONGRESS, WE RUN THE RISK THAT CONGRESS, WE RUN THE RISK THAT PEOPLE WILL FEEL WE’RE IGNORING PEOPLE WILL FEEL WE’RE IGNORING THE ISSUES THAT MEAN A LOT TO THE ISSUES THAT MEAN A LOT TO THEM AS FAMILIES. THEM AS FAMILIES. ONE OF THE ISSUES MAY BE THUS ONE OF THE ISSUES MAY BE THUS FAR THE INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED FAR THE INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED HAVE NOT REVEALED ANY HAVE NOT REVEALED ANY CORROBORATING WITNESSES IN ANY CORROBORATING WITNESSES IN ANY OF THE FOUR INSTANCE WHO’S OF THE FOUR INSTANCE WHO’S CONFIRM THE ALLEGATIONS TOOK CONFIRM THE ALLEGATIONS TOOK PLACE. PLACE. JOE, YOU HAVE THIS CONFLICT JOE, YOU HAVE THIS CONFLICT BETWEEN PEOPLE OUT ON THE BETWEEN PEOPLE OUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL CALLING FOR THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL CALLING FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE SITTING IMPEACHMENT OF THE SITTING SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AND THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE AND THE PEOPLE WHO SIT ON CAPITOL HILL PEOPLE WHO SIT ON CAPITOL HILL THAT WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT SAYING WE’RE NOT GOING THAT SAYING WE’RE NOT GOING THERE. THERE.>>IT’S ALMOST LIKE THEY’RE>>IT’S ALMOST LIKE THEY’RE BEING “POLITICO,” APPLYING FOR BEING “POLITICO,” APPLYING FOR THE CHEAP SEATS ON THE CAMPAIGN THE CHEAP SEATS ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. TRAIL. MIKE, I HEARD KAMALA HARRIS SAY MIKE, I HEARD KAMALA HARRIS SAY WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THE VICTIMS, WE HAVE TO BELIEVE THE VICTIMS, OF COURSE FIRST OF ALL, AS A OF COURSE FIRST OF ALL, AS A PROSECUTOR SHE REALLY SHOULD PUT PROSECUTOR SHE REALLY SHOULD PUT AN ALLEGED IN FRONT OF THE WORD AN ALLEGED IN FRONT OF THE WORD VICTIMS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE VICTIMS, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE IN THE “NEW YORK TIMES” ESSAY, IN THE “NEW YORK TIMES” ESSAY, THE BAFFLING ESSAY, THE BAFFLING THE BAFFLING ESSAY, THE BAFFLING EDITING PROCESS THAT THEY PUT EDITING PROCESS THAT THEY PUT FORWARD. FORWARD. BECAUSE IF YOU BELIEVED THE BECAUSE IF YOU BELIEVED THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THE ALLEGED ALLEGED VICTIM IN THE ALLEGED INCIDENT, THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN INCIDENT, THE ALLEGED VICTIM IN THE ALLEGED INCIDENT DOESN’T THE ALLEGED INCIDENT DOESN’T EVER REMEMBER THE ALLEGED EVER REMEMBER THE ALLEGED INCIDENT OCCURRING. INCIDENT OCCURRING. SO IF KAMALA HARRIS IS BELIEVING SO IF KAMALA HARRIS IS BELIEVING THE, QUOTE, VICTIM, THE ALLEGED THE, QUOTE, VICTIM, THE ALLEGED VICTIM, THE ALLEGED VICTIM SAYS, VICTIM, THE ALLEGED VICTIM SAYS, I DON’T EVER REMEMBER THAT I DON’T EVER REMEMBER THAT HAPPENING, ACCORDING TO FRIENDS. HAPPENING, ACCORDING TO FRIENDS. SO I’M JUST — AGAIN, FOR A SO I’M JUST — AGAIN, FOR A LAWYER, I’M CONFUSED. LAWYER, I’M CONFUSED. AND BETO SAID HE LIED UNDER AND BETO SAID HE LIED UNDER OATH, OKAY. OATH, OKAY. WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID HE LIE WHAT SPECIFICALLY DID HE LIE ABOUT? ABOUT? AGAIN THERE IS COMING AFTER A AGAIN THERE IS COMING AFTER A “NEW YORK TIMES” ESSAY OVER THIS “NEW YORK TIMES” ESSAY OVER THIS WEEKEND THAT, AGAIN, EVEN THE WEEKEND THAT, AGAIN, EVEN THE MOST LIBERAL OF LIBERALS ARE MOST LIBERAL OF LIBERALS ARE SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS AT HOW SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS AT HOW BADLY “THE NEW YORK TIMES” BADLY “THE NEW YORK TIMES” BOTCHED THAT. BOTCHED THAT.>>YOU KNOW, JOE, THERE ARE>>YOU KNOW, JOE, THERE ARE REALLY ONLY THREE THINGS THAT REALLY ONLY THREE THINGS THAT ARE QUITE CLEAR IN THIS STORY. ARE QUITE CLEAR IN THIS STORY. ONE AS YOU’VE JUST POINTED OUT, ONE AS YOU’VE JUST POINTED OUT, THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAS NO MEMORY THE ALLEGED VICTIM HAS NO MEMORY OF THE ALLEGED CHARGE AGAINST OF THE ALLEGED CHARGE AGAINST JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THEN AN JUDGE KAVANAUGH, THEN AN 18-YEAR-OLD AND 19-YEAR-OLD 18-YEAR-OLD AND 19-YEAR-OLD STUDENT. STUDENT. THE SECOND THING THAT’S PRETTY THE SECOND THING THAT’S PRETTY CLEAR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS CLEAR IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT OF CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT OF EVERYTHING IS A DRAIN ON THE EVERYTHING IS A DRAIN ON THE DEMOCRATS CAMPAIGNS. DEMOCRATS CAMPAIGNS. AND THIRDLY, ELISE, IT’S PRETTY AND THIRDLY, ELISE, IT’S PRETTY CLEAR, THE THIRD ELEMENT IS THAT CLEAR, THE THIRD ELEMENT IS THAT DICK DURBIN MIGHT BE THE ONLY DICK DURBIN MIGHT BE THE ONLY DEMOCRAT WHO GOES HOME AND DEMOCRAT WHO GOES HOME AND LISTENS TO PEOPLE DURING THE LISTENS TO PEOPLE DURING THE WEEKEND. WEEKEND.>>WOW.>>WOW. I MEAN, IF DEMOCRATS JUST WANT I MEAN, IF DEMOCRATS JUST WANT TO TAKE THAT SLIVER OF TO TAKE THAT SLIVER OF INDEPENDENCE THAT EVERYONE’S INDEPENDENCE THAT EVERYONE’S GOING TO BE FIGHTING OVER IN THE GOING TO BE FIGHTING OVER IN THE NEXT ELECTION, THIS IS THE NEXT ELECTION, THIS IS THE CULTURE WAR THAT THEY NEED TO CULTURE WAR THAT THEY NEED TO PURSUE, THE IMPEACHMENT OF PURSUE, THE IMPEACHMENT OF JUSTICE KAVANAUGH. JUSTICE KAVANAUGH. YOU LOOK AT “THE NEW YORK TIMES” YOU LOOK AT “THE NEW YORK TIMES” OPINION ESSAY THAT CAME OUT OVER OPINION ESSAY THAT CAME OUT OVER THE WEEKEND AND IT’S JUST THE WEEKEND AND IT’S JUST STAGGERING AND CONFUSING THAT IF STAGGERING AND CONFUSING THAT IF A WOMAN IS AN ALLEGED VICTIM AND A WOMAN IS AN ALLEGED VICTIM AND YET SHE SAYS SHE IS NOT A YET SHE SAYS SHE IS NOT A VICTIM, A MAN IS STILL ALLOWED VICTIM, A MAN IS STILL ALLOWED TO SPEAK ON HER BEHALF AS TO HER TO SPEAK ON HER BEHALF AS TO HER SO-CALLED VICTIMHOOD? SO-CALLED VICTIMHOOD? THIS IS ALL JUST MADNESS. THIS IS ALL JUST MADNESS. IT MAKES NO SENSE. IT MAKES NO SENSE. AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND WHAT ACTUALLY WAS IN THE AND WHAT ACTUALLY WAS IN THE BOOK THAT I FOUND INTERESTING BOOK THAT I FOUND INTERESTING WAS ANOTHER WITNESS WHO WAS WAS ANOTHER WITNESS WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WITH KRISTINE SUPPOSED TO BE WITH KRISTINE BLAZESY FORD DURING THE BLAZESY FORD DURING THE INCIDENT. INCIDENT. THAT WAS ACTUALLY FAR MORE OF A THAT WAS ACTUALLY FAR MORE OF A NEWS PEG IN THE BOOK THAN THIS NEWS PEG IN THE BOOK THAN THIS OTHER POORLY SOURCED — OTHER POORLY SOURCED — ANECDOTE. ANECDOTE.>>EXACTLY.>>EXACTLY. AND THE FBI CLEARLY IT DID NOT AND THE FBI CLEARLY IT DID NOT DO A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION. DO A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION.>>SO MORE DETAILS ON THE>>SO MORE DETAILS ON THE FALLOUT OVER THE ESSAY IN THE FALLOUT OVER THE ESSAY IN THE “NEW YORK TIMES” PUBLISHED THAT “NEW YORK TIMES” PUBLISHED THAT IGNITED THIS ENTIRE SITUATION. IGNITED THIS ENTIRE SITUATION. LAST NIGHT THE AUTHORS OF THE LAST NIGHT THE AUTHORS OF THE PIECE TOLD MSNBC’S LAWRENCE PIECE TOLD MSNBC’S LAWRENCE O’DONNELL THAT THE KEY ELEMENT O’DONNELL THAT THE KEY ELEMENT OF THE BOOK’S ACCOUNT THAT, OF THE BOOK’S ACCOUNT THAT, QUOTE, THE FEMALE STUDENT QUOTE, THE FEMALE STUDENT DECLINED TO BE INTERVIEWED AND DECLINED TO BE INTERVIEWED AND FRIENDS SAY SHE DOES NOT RECALL FRIENDS SAY SHE DOES NOT RECALL THE EPISODE WHICH WAS ADDED MORE THE EPISODE WHICH WAS ADDED MORE THAN A DAY LATER TO THE ORIGINAL THAN A DAY LATER TO THE ORIGINAL “NEW YORK TIMES” ARTICLE WAS “NEW YORK TIMES” ARTICLE WAS INCLUDED IN THEIR DRAFT OF THE INCLUDED IN THEIR DRAFT OF THE PIECE. PIECE.>>IN YOUR DRAFT OF THE ARTICLE,>>IN YOUR DRAFT OF THE ARTICLE, DID IT INCLUDE THOSE WORDS THAT DID IT INCLUDE THOSE WORDS THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN ADD TO THE HAVE SINCE BEEN ADD TO THE ARTICLE? ARTICLE?>>IT DID.>>IT DID.>>IT DID.>>IT DID. SO SOMEWHERE IN THE EDITING SO SOMEWHERE IN THE EDITING PROCESS THOSE WORDS WERE PROCESS THOSE WORDS WERE TRUMPED? TRUMPED?>>I THINK WHAT HAPPENED>>I THINK WHAT HAPPENED ACTUALLY WAS THAT WE HAD HER ACTUALLY WAS THAT WE HAD HER NAME AND, YOU KNOW, THE TIMES NAME AND, YOU KNOW, THE TIMES DOESN’T USUALLY INCLUDE THE NAME DOESN’T USUALLY INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE VICTIM. OF THE VICTIM. AND SO I THINK IN THIS CASE THE AND SO I THINK IN THIS CASE THE EDITORS FELT LIKE MAYBE IT WAS EDITORS FELT LIKE MAYBE IT WAS BETTER REMOVE IT. BETTER REMOVE IT. AND IN REMOVING HER NAME THEY AND IN REMOVING HER NAME THEY REMOVED OTHER REFERENCE TO THE REMOVED OTHER REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT SHE DIDN’T REMEMBER FACT THAT SHE DIDN’T REMEMBER IT. IT.>>OKAY.>>OKAY.>>MEANWHILE, VANITY FAIR>>MEANWHILE, VANITY FAIR REPORTS THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE REPORTS THAT THE AUTHORS OF THE ESSAY INITIALLY PITCHED THEIR ESSAY INITIALLY PITCHED THEIR SCOOP TO THE NEWS SIDE BUT TOP SCOOP TO THE NEWS SIDE BUT TOP EDITORS ULTIMATELY FELT THAT EDITORS ULTIMATELY FELT THAT THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH JUICE TO THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH JUICE TO WARRANT A STORY THERE, LET ALONE WARRANT A STORY THERE, LET ALONE A BIG PAGE ONE TREATMENT. A BIG PAGE ONE TREATMENT. INSTEAD THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY INSTEAD THEY WERE TOLD THAT THEY COULD PITCH THE PAPER SUNDAY COULD PITCH THE PAPER SUNDAY REVIEW SECTION WHICH IS ENTIRELY REVIEW SECTION WHICH IS ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF THE NEWS INDEPENDENT OF THE NEWS DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT. THE TIMES DECLINED TO COMMENT TO THE TIMES DECLINED TO COMMENT TO VANITY FAIR, BUT DID POINT OUT VANITY FAIR, BUT DID POINT OUT THAT IT’S NOT UNUSUAL FOR THAT IT’S NOT UNUSUAL FOR OPINION OR SUNDAY REVIEW PIECES OPINION OR SUNDAY REVIEW PIECES TO BREAK NEWS. TO BREAK NEWS. LOOK, THERE’S A LOT OF QUESTIONS LOOK, THERE’S A LOT OF QUESTIONS HERE, SOME OF THEM ARE REALLY HERE, SOME OF THEM ARE REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. AND THAT SHOULDN’T BE AND THAT SHOULDN’T BE INVALIDATED, BUT POLITICALLY, INVALIDATED, BUT POLITICALLY, JOE, IT MAY NOT BE FAIR. JOE, IT MAY NOT BE FAIR. THIS PLAYS RIGHT IN THE TRUMP’S THIS PLAYS RIGHT IN THE TRUMP’S RE-ELECTION IF 2020 DEMOCRATIC RE-ELECTION IF 2020 DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES WANT TO TAKE THIS ON CANDIDATES WANT TO TAKE THIS ON AS AN ISSUE. AS AN ISSUE. JUST IT WON’T WORK. JUST IT WON’T WORK. I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY IT. I DON’T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY IT. IT WON’T WORK. IT WON’T WORK.>>WELL, YOU KNOW –>>WELL, YOU KNOW –>>THIS IS A BAD TOPIC FOR THEM.>>THIS IS A BAD TOPIC FOR THEM.>>YOU ACTUALLY SAID THIS IN THE>>YOU ACTUALLY SAID THIS IN THE LEAD UP TO 2018 FOR THE SENATE LEAD UP TO 2018 FOR THE SENATE CANDIDATES REPEATEDLY. CANDIDATES REPEATEDLY.>>YEAH.>>YEAH.>>CLAIRE McCASKILL CAME ON>>CLAIRE McCASKILL CAME ON AFTER LOSING AND SAID THAT YOU AFTER LOSING AND SAID THAT YOU WERE EXACTLY RIGHT, THAT SENATE WERE EXACTLY RIGHT, THAT SENATE DEMOCRATS THAT WERE RUNNING FOR DEMOCRATS THAT WERE RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION GOT HURT BECAUSE OF RE-ELECTION GOT HURT BECAUSE OF THAT. THAT.>>PLEASE REMEMBER I SAID THERE>>PLEASE REMEMBER I SAID THERE ARE IMPORTANT MORAL QUESTIONS ARE IMPORTANT MORAL QUESTIONS HERE, THERE ARE IMPORTANT HERE, THERE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT ARE LEGAL, THERE QUESTIONS THAT ARE LEGAL, THERE ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS I’M NOT ARE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS I’M NOT INVALIDATING THAT. INVALIDATING THAT. IT’S NOT GOING TO WORK IT’S NOT GOING TO WORK POLITICALLY. POLITICALLY. IT’S A HORRIBLE CHOICE. IT’S A HORRIBLE CHOICE.>>YOU KEPT TALKING ABOUT DUE>>YOU KEPT TALKING ABOUT DUE PROCESS. PROCESS. THAT’S WHAT YOU KEPT TALKING THAT’S WHAT YOU KEPT TALKING ABOUT. ABOUT. AGAIN, DPEEN, WE AGAIN, DPEEN, WE AGAIN, GENE, WE GO BACK TO A AGAIN, GENE, WE GO BACK TO A CANDIDATE WHO WAS A PROSECUTOR CANDIDATE WHO WAS A PROSECUTOR FOR A LONG TIME TALKING ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME TALKING ABOUT THE VICTIM INSTEAD OF THE THE VICTIM INSTEAD OF THE ALLEGED VICTIM AND THE ALLEGED ALLEGED VICTIM AND THE ALLEGED VICTIM SAYS THIS NEVER HAPPENED. VICTIM SAYS THIS NEVER HAPPENED. IN THE “NEW YORK TIMES,” THAT IN THE “NEW YORK TIMES,” THAT INTERVIEW LAST NIGHT IS EVEN INTERVIEW LAST NIGHT IS EVEN MORE DAXINGMNING FOR SOMEBODY IN MORE DAXINGMNING FOR SOMEBODY IN “NEW YORK TIMES” FOR SOMEBODY “NEW YORK TIMES” FOR SOMEBODY WHO DECIDED TO TAKE OUT THE PART WHO DECIDED TO TAKE OUT THE PART THAT SAID OH, WAIT, A MAN SAID THAT SAID OH, WAIT, A MAN SAID IT HAPPENED BUT THE WOMAN WHO’S IT HAPPENED BUT THE WOMAN WHO’S THE ALLEGED VICTIM SAID, NO, THE ALLEGED VICTIM SAID, NO, I — TOLD HER FRIENDS I DON’T I — TOLD HER FRIENDS I DON’T REMEMBER THAT EVER HAPPENING. REMEMBER THAT EVER HAPPENING.>>WELL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I>>WELL, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I WON’T PILE ON “THE NEW YORK WON’T PILE ON “THE NEW YORK TIMES” EDITING PROCESS EXCEPT TO TIMES” EDITING PROCESS EXCEPT TO SAY THAT THEY NEED TO FIND OUT SAY THAT THEY NEED TO FIND OUT WHY THAT HAPPENED AND HOW THAT WHY THAT HAPPENED AND HOW THAT HAPPENED AND THAT ISSUE HAPPENED AND THAT ISSUE SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN MADE AND SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN MADE AND THEY TRIED TO CORRECT IT BUT TOO THEY TRIED TO CORRECT IT BUT TOO LATE. LATE. I MEAN, JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS. I MEAN, JUST A COUPLE OF POINTS. YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT THIS YOU KNOW, THE WAY THAT THIS STORY SHOULD HAVE BEEN STORY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PHRASED — I THINK IT IS A PHRASED — I THINK IT IS A STORY — IS THE SHODDINESS AND STORY — IS THE SHODDINESS AND INCOMPLETENESS OF THE FBI INCOMPLETENESS OF THE FBI INVESTIGATION OF KAVANAUGH. INVESTIGATION OF KAVANAUGH. AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT AND IT IS, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS BASICALLY TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS BASICALLY A SHAM, I THINK IT WAS. A SHAM, I THINK IT WAS. I THINK THEY DIDN’T — THEY I THINK THEY DIDN’T — THEY DIDN’T DO A THOROUGH JOB. DIDN’T DO A THOROUGH JOB. THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, THEY DIDN’T — THE FBI DIDN’T TALK TO DIDN’T — THE FBI DIDN’T TALK TO AND SHOULD HAVE TALKED TO BE. AND SHOULD HAVE TALKED TO BE. PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO TALK TO PEOPLE WERE WILLING TO TALK TO THE FBI. THE FBI. NOW, AND I’LL MAKE ONE OTHER NOW, AND I’LL MAKE ONE OTHER POINT, WHICH IS THAT IN CASES OF POINT, WHICH IS THAT IN CASES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT, IF THE WOMAN WHO SEXUAL ASSAULT, IF THE WOMAN WHO IS THE VICTIM, HYPOTHETICALLY, IS THE VICTIM, HYPOTHETICALLY, BUT IN A CASE WHERE THERE IS A BUT IN A CASE WHERE THERE IS A VICTIM, SOMETIMES THE VICTIM VICTIM, SOMETIMES THE VICTIM DOES NOT FULLY RECALL OR RECALL DOES NOT FULLY RECALL OR RECALL AT ALL WHAT HAPPENED. AT ALL WHAT HAPPENED. BUT, I DO BELIEVE THERE USUALLY BUT, I DO BELIEVE THERE USUALLY IS A RECOLLECTION THAT SOMETHING IS A RECOLLECTION THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED. HAPPENED. AND SO IT’S UNCLEAR TO ME FROM AND SO IT’S UNCLEAR TO ME FROM THE PIECE AND FROM THE REPORTING THE PIECE AND FROM THE REPORTING ABOUT THE PIECE WHETHER THIS IS ABOUT THE PIECE WHETHER THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, GEE, NOTHING JUST, YOU KNOW, GEE, NOTHING LIKE THAT EVER HAPPENED OR I’M LIKE THAT EVER HAPPENED OR I’M JUST, YOU KNOW, I’M JUST KIND OF JUST, YOU KNOW, I’M JUST KIND OF NOT SURE. NOT SURE. BUT IT’S NOT UNPRECEDENTED OR BUT IT’S NOT UNPRECEDENTED OR ALL THAT UNUSUAL THAT SOMEONE, ALL THAT UNUSUAL THAT SOMEONE, IF, INDEED, THE VICTIM IF, INDEED, THE VICTIM HYPOTHETICALLY WERE INTOXICATED HYPOTHETICALLY WERE INTOXICATED WOULD NOT NECESSARILY RECALL THE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY RECALL THE ATTACK. ATTACK.>>ALL RIGHT.>>ALL RIGHT. COMING UP, SOURCES TELL NBC NEWS COMING UP, SOURCES TELL NBC NEWS THAT THE ATTACK ON SAUDI OIL THAT THE ATTACK ON SAUDI OIL FACILITIES DID NOT IN FACT FACILITIES DID NOT IN FACT ORIGINATE FROM IRAN. ORIGINATE FROM IRAN. AND THE PRESIDENT IS — IT DID AND THE PRESIDENT IS — IT DID IN FACT, EXCUSE ME, IT DID IN IN FACT, EXCUSE ME, IT DID IN FACT ORIGINATE FROM IRAN. FACT ORIGINATE FROM IRAN. AND THE PRESIDENT IS SIGNALING AND THE PRESIDENT IS SIGNALING THAT HE’S OPENING TO RESPONDING THAT HE’S OPENING TO RESPONDING TO LETHAL FORCE. TO LETHAL FORCE. WE’LL DISCUSS THAT WITH ONE

New Case Against Jeffrey Epstein | All In | MSNBC


>>WHAT A STORY. AARON BASKERVILLE FROM NBC 10 ON AARON BASKERVILLE FROM NBC 10 ON THE PHONE WITH US FROM THE SCENE THE PHONE WITH US FROM THE SCENE IN PHILADELPHIA. IN PHILADELPHIA.>>>ALL RIGHT.>>>ALL RIGHT. TURNING NOW TO A NEW LAW THAT TURNING NOW TO A NEW LAW THAT JUST WENT INTO A EFFECT IN NEW JUST WENT INTO A EFFECT IN NEW YORK STATE. YORK STATE. STARTING TODAY, CHILDHOOD STARTING TODAY, CHILDHOOD VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE CAN SUE VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE CAN SUE THERAPY PERPETRATORS. THERAPY PERPETRATORS. THE LAW, THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT THE LAW, THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT APPLIES TO VICTIMS WHO WERE APPLIES TO VICTIMS WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY BARRED FROM SUING DUE PREVIOUSLY BARRED FROM SUING DUE TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. TO THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. THE LAW GIVES VICTIMS ONE YEAR THE LAW GIVES VICTIMS ONE YEAR TO FILE THOSE CASES STARTING TO FILE THOSE CASES STARTING TODAY. TODAY. AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS AS OF THE CLOSE OF BUSINESS TODAY, 427 CASES WERE FILED TODAY, 427 CASES WERE FILED PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS PURSUANT TO THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT. ACT. ACCORDING TO A TALLY BY NBC ACCORDING TO A TALLY BY NBC NEWS. NEWS. THE DEFENDANTS IN THOSE LAWSUITS THE DEFENDANTS IN THOSE LAWSUITS INCLUDE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC INCLUDE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE BOY SCOUTS, AND THE CHURCH, THE BOY SCOUTS, AND THE LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN. LATE JEFFREY EPSTEIN.>>I JUST DID WHAT HE TOLD ME TO>>I JUST DID WHAT HE TOLD ME TO DO. DO. I WAS REALLY SCARED. I WAS REALLY SCARED. I DIDN’T NECESSARILY THINK HE I DIDN’T NECESSARILY THINK HE WAS GOING TO RAPE ME. WAS GOING TO RAPE ME.>>DID HE HOLD YOU THERE?>>DID HE HOLD YOU THERE?>>YEAH.>>YEAH. UH-HUH. UH-HUH.>>DID JEFFREY EPSTEIN RAPE YOU?>>DID JEFFREY EPSTEIN RAPE YOU?>>YEAH, NO.>>YEAH, NO. HE RAPED ME. HE RAPED ME. FORCEFULLY RAPED ME. FORCEFULLY RAPED ME. KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING. KNEW EXACTLY WHAT HE WAS DOING.>>TODAY THAT INDIVIDUAL,>>TODAY THAT INDIVIDUAL, GENERAL ARAOZ FILED ONE OF THE GENERAL ARAOZ FILED ONE OF THE FIRST CIVIL LAWSUITS AGAINST THE FIRST CIVIL LAWSUITS AGAINST THE ESTATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN SAYING ESTATE OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN SAYING HE RAPED HER WHEN SHE WAS 15 HE RAPED HER WHEN SHE WAS 15 YEARS OLD AND ALLEGING HIS YEARS OLD AND ALLEGING HIS CO-CONSPIRATORS GROOMED HER FOR CO-CONSPIRATORS GROOMED HER FOR SEX WHEN SHE WAS 14 YEARS OLD AS SEX WHEN SHE WAS 14 YEARS OLD AS PART OF HIS SEX TRAFFICKING PART OF HIS SEX TRAFFICKING RING. RING. THE CO-CONSPIRATORS ALLEGED IN THE CO-CONSPIRATORS ALLEGED IN THE LAWSUIT INCLUDE GHISLAINE THE LAWSUIT INCLUDE GHISLAINE MAXWELL, MR. EPSTEIN’S LONG-TIME MAXWELL, MR. EPSTEIN’S LONG-TIME CONFIDENT AND JANE DOES ONE CONFIDENT AND JANE DOES ONE THROUGH THREE WHO ARE THREE THROUGH THREE WHO ARE THREE UNNAMED HOUSEHOLD STAFFERS UNNAMED HOUSEHOLD STAFFERS REFERRED TO IN THE LAWSUIT AS REFERRED TO IN THE LAWSUIT AS THE RECRUITER, THE SECRETARY, THE RECRUITER, THE SECRETARY, AND THE MAID. AND THE MAID. ADDITIONAL CIVIL SUITS AGAINST ADDITIONAL CIVIL SUITS AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S ESTATE ARE JEFFREY EPSTEIN’S ESTATE ARE LIKELY. LIKELY. DESPITE HIS DEATH, THE CRIMINAL DESPITE HIS DEATH, THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO HIS ALLEGED INVESTIGATION INTO HIS ALLEGED CO-CONSPIRATORS IS ONGOING. CO-CONSPIRATORS IS ONGOING. THAT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THAT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION BY THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IS OVERSEEN BY THE JUSTICE YORK IS OVERSEEN BY THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT AND ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR. WILLIAM BARR. OUR NEXT GUEST, FORMER U.S. OUR NEXT GUEST, FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY JOYCE VANCE HAS CALLED ATTORNEY JOYCE VANCE HAS CALLED ON BARR TO RECUSE HIMSELF WITH ON BARR TO RECUSE HIMSELF WITH REGARD TO THE EPSTEIN REGARD TO THE EPSTEIN INVESTIGATION. INVESTIGATION. JOYCE VANCE IS ALSO AN MSNBC JOYCE VANCE IS ALSO AN MSNBC LEGAL ANALYST. LEGAL ANALYST. SHE JOINS US NOW. SHE JOINS US NOW. JOYCE, WHAT’S THE BASIS ON WHICH JOYCE, WHAT’S THE BASIS ON WHICH YOU ARE CALLING FOR WILLIAM BARR YOU ARE CALLING FOR WILLIAM BARR TO RECUSE HIMSELF? TO RECUSE HIMSELF?>>SO I SHOULD BE CLEAR, ALI>>SO I SHOULD BE CLEAR, ALI THAT I DON’T MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT I DON’T MAKE THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT BARR IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT BARR IS ACTUALLY GOING TO RECUSE. ACTUALLY GOING TO RECUSE. I THINK THE SAD REALITY HERE IS I THINK THE SAD REALITY HERE IS THAT HE WON’T, BUT THE REASON HE THAT HE WON’T, BUT THE REASON HE SHOULD RECUSE IS BECAUSE HE HAS SHOULD RECUSE IS BECAUSE HE HAS BOTH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, BOTH CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, CONFLICTS THAT HE HAS APPARENTLY CONFLICTS THAT HE HAS APPARENTLY DECIDED DON’T WARRANT RECUSAL, DECIDED DON’T WARRANT RECUSAL, BUT ALSO THOSE CONFLICTS GIVE BUT ALSO THOSE CONFLICTS GIVE RISE TO AN APPEARANCE OF RISE TO AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. IMPROPRIETY. THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN THE THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC CAN’T HAVE CONFIDENCE PUBLIC CAN’T HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT HE’S A NEUTRAL THAT HE’S A NEUTRAL DECISION-MAKER. DECISION-MAKER. AND WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE AND WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THAT IN A POSITION OF CONTROL THAT IN A POSITION OF CONTROL OVER AN IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION OVER AN IMPORTANT INVESTIGATION LIKE THE ONE INTO EPSTEIN’S LIKE THE ONE INTO EPSTEIN’S DEATH AND THE ONGOING CRIMINAL DEATH AND THE ONGOING CRIMINAL CASES, IT CAUSES THE PUBLIC TO CASES, IT CAUSES THE PUBLIC TO LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE LOSE CONFIDENCE IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. DEPARTMENT. DOJ’S ALREADY STRETCHED TOO DOJ’S ALREADY STRETCHED TOO THIN. THIN. WE CAN’T AFFORD TO HAVE ANY MORE WE CAN’T AFFORD TO HAVE ANY MORE LOSS IN ITS REMGS AND INTEGRITY. LOSS IN ITS REMGS AND INTEGRITY.>>WHAT’S THE CONFLICT THAT YOU>>WHAT’S THE CONFLICT THAT YOU SEE THAT HE’S GOT? SEE THAT HE’S GOT?>>YOU KNOW, HE HAS A NUMBER OF>>YOU KNOW, HE HAS A NUMBER OF CONFLICTS STARTING WITH THE FACT CONFLICTS STARTING WITH THE FACT THAT AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING THAT AT HIS CONFIRMATION HEARING HE INDICATED THAT HIS FORMER LAW HE INDICATED THAT HIS FORMER LAW FIRM HAD DONE SOME WORK ON FIRM HAD DONE SOME WORK ON BEHALF OF EPSTEIN, AND HE WOULD BEHALF OF EPSTEIN, AND HE WOULD LOOK INTO WHETHER THAT WARRANTED LOOK INTO WHETHER THAT WARRANTED RECUSAL. RECUSAL. BUT ALSO, ALEX ACOSTA, HIS BUT ALSO, ALEX ACOSTA, HIS FORMER COLLEAGUE, THE FORMER FORMER COLLEAGUE, THE FORMER LABOR SECRETARY WAS INVOLVED IN LABOR SECRETARY WAS INVOLVED IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT DOWN IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT DOWN IN FLORIDA FOR ACOSTA, WHICH HAS FLORIDA FOR ACOSTA, WHICH HAS CAUSED SO MUCH CONCERN. CAUSED SO MUCH CONCERN. THEIR RELATIONSHIP CERTAINLY IS THEIR RELATIONSHIP CERTAINLY IS SOME FORM OF A CONFLICT. SOME FORM OF A CONFLICT. AND THEN WE HAVE THIS REALLY AND THEN WE HAVE THIS REALLY CURIOUS FAMILY DETAIL THAT THE CURIOUS FAMILY DETAIL THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FATHER HIRED ATTORNEY GENERAL’S FATHER HIRED A VERY YOUNG JEFFREY EPSTEIN A VERY YOUNG JEFFREY EPSTEIN WHEN HE WAS A COLLEGE DROP-OUT WHEN HE WAS A COLLEGE DROP-OUT TO TEACH CALCULUS AND PHYSICS AT TO TEACH CALCULUS AND PHYSICS AT THE PREP SCHOOL THAT HE WAS THE THE PREP SCHOOL THAT HE WAS THE HEAD MASTER OF IN NEW YORK CITY. HEAD MASTER OF IN NEW YORK CITY. EVEN IF THESE AREN’T A FORMAL EVEN IF THESE AREN’T A FORMAL RECUSAL CONFLICT ISSUE, IN RECUSAL CONFLICT ISSUE, IN COMBINATION, THEY CREATE SUCH AN COMBINATION, THEY CREATE SUCH AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD HAVE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD HAVE STEPPED AWAY AND LET THE DEPUTY STEPPED AWAY AND LET THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SOMEONE ELSE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR SOMEONE ELSE OVERSEE THIS MATTER. OVERSEE THIS MATTER.>>REPUBLICAN SENATOR BEN SASSE>>REPUBLICAN SENATOR BEN SASSE HAS CALLED UPON THE DEPARTMENT HAS CALLED UPON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO TAKE THAT DEAL OF JUSTICE TO TAKE THAT DEAL THAT WAS CUT IN FLORIDA, THE ONE THAT WAS CUT IN FLORIDA, THE ONE THAT LED UP THE INVESTIGATION THAT LED UP THE INVESTIGATION INTO THAT REPORTING FROM THE INTO THAT REPORTING FROM THE “MIAMI HERALD” AND RIP IT UP. “MIAMI HERALD” AND RIP IT UP. TELL ME ABOUT THAT. TELL ME ABOUT THAT. IS THAT EVEN DOABLE? IS THAT EVEN DOABLE?>>WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN>>WHAT REALLY NEEDS TO HAPPEN HERE IS A FULL-ON INVESTIGATION HERE IS A FULL-ON INVESTIGATION INTO WHAT HAPPENED, AND PERHAPS INTO WHAT HAPPENED, AND PERHAPS AN INVESTIGATION BY THE OFFICE AN INVESTIGATION BY THE OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. YOU CAN’T REALLY BE THE YOU CAN’T REALLY BE THE GOVERNMENT AND RIP UP A PLEA GOVERNMENT AND RIP UP A PLEA AGREEMENT DOWN THE ROAD IN THE AGREEMENT DOWN THE ROAD IN THE ABSENCE OF VERY UNUSUAL ABSENCE OF VERY UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. CIRCUMSTANCES.>>BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS YOUR>>BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS YOUR ABILITY TO MAKE OTHER DEALS? ABILITY TO MAKE OTHER DEALS?>>WELL, IT DOES.>>WELL, IT DOES. AND ALSO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL AND ALSO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE VERY STRONGLY FAVOR PROCEDURE VERY STRONGLY FAVOR THE FINALITY OF PLEA AGREEMENTS. THE FINALITY OF PLEA AGREEMENTS. SO YOU CAN’T WALK IN DOWN THE SO YOU CAN’T WALK IN DOWN THE ROAD A DECADE LATER AND SAY I ROAD A DECADE LATER AND SAY I TAKE IT BACK. TAKE IT BACK. BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IF BUT THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT IF YOU’RE SOMEONE WHO IS ENGAGED IN YOU’RE SOMEONE WHO IS ENGAGED IN CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT YOU CAN’T CRIMINAL CONDUCT THAT YOU CAN’T BE PROSECUTED. BE PROSECUTED. IN THIS CASE, OTHER FEDERAL IN THIS CASE, OTHER FEDERAL DISTRICTS OR EVEN BY STATE DISTRICTS OR EVEN BY STATE JURISDICTION. JURISDICTION. SO IT’S NOT LIKE THE GOVERNMENT SO IT’S NOT LIKE THE GOVERNMENT IS WITHOUT A WAY OF DEALING WITH IS WITHOUT A WAY OF DEALING WITH THE ERROR THAT WAS MADE IN THE THE ERROR THAT WAS MADE IN THE PLEA AGREEMENT OR WOULD HAVE PLEA AGREEMENT OR WOULD HAVE BEEN HAD EPSTEIN NOT DIED IN BEEN HAD EPSTEIN NOT DIED IN PRISON. PRISON.>>YOU KNOW, USUALLY PROSECUTORS>>YOU KNOW, USUALLY PROSECUTORS WHEN YOU’RE TRYING TO GET WHEN YOU’RE TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY THE HEAD OF SOMETHING SOMEBODY THE HEAD OF SOMETHING WORK YOUR WAY UP, YOU FIND WORK YOUR WAY UP, YOU FIND PEOPLE WHO ARE JUNIOR TO THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE JUNIOR TO THAT PERSON AND GET THEM TO TURN OR PERSON AND GET THEM TO TURN OR GET THEM TO SOMEHOW TESTIFY. GET THEM TO SOMEHOW TESTIFY. NOW IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE NOW IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS GONE, WE HAVE JEFFREY EPSTEIN IS GONE, WE HAVE BEEN HEARING SINCE DAY ONE THAT BEEN HEARING SINCE DAY ONE THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS THING. IN THIS THING. DOES THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS DOES THE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS UNDER WAY WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN, UNDER WAY WITH JEFFREY EPSTEIN, DOES THAT DIE AND DOES THAT HAVE DOES THAT DIE AND DOES THAT HAVE TO START AGAIN? TO START AGAIN? AND WHY HASN’T SOMETHING AND WHY HASN’T SOMETHING HAPPENED ALREADY GIVEN THAT WE HAPPENED ALREADY GIVEN THAT WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSISTENTLY PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSISTENTLY REFERRED TO BY THESE ALLEGED REFERRED TO BY THESE ALLEGED VICTIMS? VICTIMS?>>SO IN A FEDERAL CASE, WHEN A>>SO IN A FEDERAL CASE, WHEN A DEFENDANT DIES A CRIMINAL CASE, DEFENDANT DIES A CRIMINAL CASE, THE PROSECUTION COMES TO AN END. THE PROSECUTION COMES TO AN END. THAT’S TRUE EVEN IF EPSTEIN HAD THAT’S TRUE EVEN IF EPSTEIN HAD BEEN CONVICTED AT TRIAL AND THE BEEN CONVICTED AT TRIAL AND THE CASE HAD BEEN ON APPEAL AND HE CASE HAD BEEN ON APPEAL AND HE DIED ON APPEAL. DIED ON APPEAL. THE DEATH OF A DEFENDANT SIGNALS THE DEATH OF A DEFENDANT SIGNALS THE END OF THAT CASE. THE END OF THAT CASE. AS YOU POINT OUT, THOUGH, AS YOU POINT OUT, THOUGH, EPSTEIN WAS CHARGED AS A EPSTEIN WAS CHARGED AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN A SEX CO-CONSPIRATOR IN A SEX TRAFFICKING CONSPIRACY. TRAFFICKING CONSPIRACY. PRESUMABLY THAT MEANS THERE ARE PRESUMABLY THAT MEANS THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO ARE CRIMINALLY CULPABLE CRIMINALLY CULPABLE CONSPIRATORS. CONSPIRATORS. AND I EXPECT BASED ON THE AND I EXPECT BASED ON THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE U.S. STATEMENT MADE BY THE U.S. ATTORNEY AND SOUTHERN DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, THAT AT THE POINT OF NEW YORK, THAT AT THE POINT WHERE HE BELIEVES HE HAS WHERE HE BELIEVES HE HAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONVICT THOSE CO-CONSPIRATORS, HE THOSE CO-CONSPIRATORS, HE INTENDS TO MOVE FORWARD EVEN