Trump and the Epstein Files: The Men Who Will Never Be Prosecuted

Ready to launch your business? Get started with the commerce platform made for entrepreneurs. Shopify, especially designed to help you start, run, and grow your business with easy customizable themes that let you build your brand, marketing tools that get your products out there. Integrated shipping solutions that actually save you time, from startups to scale-ups, online, in-person, and on the go. Shopify is made for entrepreneurs like you. Sign up for your $1 a month trial at Shopify.com slash setup. I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court. Deep dawn lemon in your estimation break the law. No, he didn't. It's not even close and I don't do politics. I do just legal. He broke into an ongoing church service. They need him as a useful idiot. Took their push to open immigration at all costs. Do you think you're the devil himself? I know, but I do have a good mirror. What was really going on with Epstein? Because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. Follow the damn money. It always works. And it's the money. Why don't you just listen to the women? The picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women. What is your response to that picture? More than 3 million pages, 180,000 images and 2,000 videos were made public in the latest release of the Epstein files. We're a long way from the ways of high profile prosecutions we were promised. But at the very least, a series of high profile men are being publicly humbled by toe-curling details about the nature of their relationship with a convicted sex offender. Lord Mandelson already sacked his US ambassador over Epstein, is captured in his underpants and accused of taking cash from the pedophile. The former Prince Andrew is pictured on his knees and faces new claims that Epstein sent a woman to sleep with him on royal property, which is Branson, office-friendly PR advisor with a single man's right to enjoy women. Anytime you're in the area, we'd love to see you here rights as long as you bring your haram. Elon Musk, who unleashed political havoc by accusing Trump and others of being in the Epstein files, is himself in the Epstein files asking to be invited to the wildest party on Epstein Island. There's also chilling footage of Epstein himself, and a long interview with Steve Bannon. The devil himself said, I'm going to exchange some dollars because of your child's life. Do you think you're the devil himself? I know, but I do have a good mirror. It's a serious question. Do you think you're the devil himself? I don't know. Why would you say that? Because you have all the attributes. You're incredibly smart. You remember the devil is somebody else's? The devil's brain. You read Milton's Paradise Lost? No, the devil scares me. Well, there's a lot more to come as journalists around the world pour through the three million pages of documents. The Trump administration has made so many mistakes of the Epstein files that some people will never be satisfied. They have the full story. Promising total transparency and man-inventing endless reasons to be anything but transparent was at best a strategic error. They may well have been solid reasons for it, but as an exercise in media management, a public support, it was a huge mistake. Funny enough, that's exactly how I feel about a decision to charge Don Lemon. It seemed very plausible that he technically broke the law and he committed himself while embedded with the ICE protesters who interrupted a church service. But what are they actually trying to achieve? President Trump broke the law in a Stormy Daniels case, but convicting him on what most people considered frivolous grounds ended up backfiring massively. A few weeks ago, Don Lemon was a middling podcaster who was only ever seen in clips of other people calling him Amora. Now he's a free speech martyr showing up at the Grammys for a bigger standing ovation than Bad Bunny. If Don Lemon is convicted, you'll have to see a lot more of him, which nobody really asked for. And the moral of all these stories is a simple old adage, just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Well, it's here from my panel, Anacasperian, the host and executive producer at the Young Turks, Tara Pomerie, host of the Tara Pomerie show, Mark Eiglash, who's the criminal defense attorney, and Megan Kelly contributor, and host of the Edge Eric Bolling. Well, welcome to all of you. Mark Eiglash, let's come to you first of all about the purely galaxy of the Epstein files. I've seen Todd Blanche and other people represent the administration who've come out and said, look, it's all out there now. This is what we're going to release the three million documents, videos, images. We have determined from our analysis that there is nothing in them that constitutes a crime. Therefore, we can't prosecute anybody. Now, it strikes me that might be true. It might be in all these documents, there is no primer-face-see evidence of a crime. It doesn't mean crimes didn't take place. It just means there isn't the evidence they took place. What is your assessment? That is a distinction. We know crimes took place. We know there are people who harm children who are not being prosecuted. We know that. Anyone who's intellectually honest knows that occurred. But there's a whole nother level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. Prosecutors are saying, look, association with Epstein, not enough. Photos with him and around him, not enough. There's got to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt and it falls way short of that. I applaud them for that because you don't lower the bar just to get some people you think might have done something wrong. When you lower the bar to get these creeps, which I would love to see them get them, then they're lowering the bar for you and God forbid you're accused of something. But why not just to an investigation? Yeah, why not just do an investigation? If you have a lead, you have tips, you've got survivors, victims of Jeffrey Epstein who have lists of men that they've been trafficked to. Why wouldn't you follow up on it and actually investigate? Absolutely, sure. Yeah, they should. And I'm assuming they made that announcement after they looked into it and they don't have additional information that takes you to the highest burden under the law. If they fell short and they're just going knee jerk, we don't have a couple of photos of somebody actually doing something, then yeah, they should be condemned for that. But what I'm assuming that they did look into it and if they, if there's not enough proof, then they shouldn't just go because maybe or probably someone did something. Wait a second, though, you're assuming that they did these fall investigations. I'm assuming any of those fall investigations be inside of the Epstein files. Wouldn't you see? Yeah, I'm going to be more smart. Just so we're clear. Hold on, hold on, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't put me like that. I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you legal analysis to simply suggest if they haven't done a thorough investigation, shame on them, they should. If they're making that announcement, let's assume for a moment, not necessarily that it's truthful, that if they did do a thorough analysis and they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then that's it. You don't then lower the bar to go after someone you think might have done something absent the proof. That's all I'm saying. But let's just factor in that there is an Epstein Files Transparency Act, right? And we are supposed to be seeing all of the files related to that. Wouldn't you assume that a fall-up investigation would be involved, would be included in the Epstein Files Transparency Act? Because when I look through these files, I don't see an FBI that is actually doing any follow-up, calling the attorneys for the men that are accused. They don't appear to be doing anything to follow-up on the YouTube. You have no one to think. Listen, with that most respect, maybe we have the files. We have the files. We have the files. There's only been, where else would they be? There's only been an effort to cover everything up from the FBI. The FBI has literally told us that there are no Epstein Files. And then it turns out there are six million Epstein Files of which we've only had access to three million, which are, of course, heavily redacted. You know, Epstein responded to an email that was redacted. And his response to that email was, loved the torture videos. Why did they redact the name of the individual who sent Epstein torture videos? Why can't we know who that person is? And why hasn't that person been prosecuted? What are the torture videos? There's a lot to be encouraged in the Epstein Files that make it clear that wrong doing and criminality occurred. And there were no charges. And the FBI was part of the cover-up. Well, if they were, then shame on them. And they should be held accountable. What I do take exception to is that they committed the worst thing that you can do. And that is include victims' names in documentation. And it should not have been done. There are over 40 victims whose names were not redacted. And the best they can say is, oopsie, to me, that is offensive and outrageous. I want to make sure to redact the names of the perverts that were sending torture videos, though. They made sure to redact that. Has the news been getting you down? I'm Megan McCartle, and I'm here to help. I'm the host of a news show from Washington Post opinion called reasonably optimistic. And it's an antidote to the pessimism that's riddling America right now. I'm a colonist of the Post. And I've been writing about economics, technology, and public policy for decades now. So every Wednesday, I'm going to talk to people who see a path forward. I'm going to talk to inventors, entrepreneurs, politicians, and, okay, probably some wonky types like me if I'm being totally honest. Congress to me was a very entrepreneurial place. It's like Shark Tank, but a lot less glamorous. When nerds get rich and powerful, they can't help but get involved in politics. I want to talk about how we can get unstuck and live up to the country's many promises. It does seem to me that there is some awakening of a desire to act together to solve problems where they are. If we believe in this country, it's worth fighting for. Join me Wednesdays on YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. Well, I agree with Anna that we read some of this stuff and you're like, well, where's the rest of that threat? Who are they talking about? What are we getting here? I want to play a clip from Donald Trump. This is on, I think Air Force One as he flew to Florida on Saturday, responding to news that he's in these files. I didn't see it myself, but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the radical level. That tarot strikes me that with Donald Trump, having spoken multiple times to David Boyz, one of America's most reputed criminal lawyers for the last 50 years. He represented Virginia, Jufre and many other victims and survivors. He has always been adamant to me that from everything he'd seen, he did not believe that Donald Trump did anything criminal in relation to Epstein. However, he did say that he thought other men had and that they should be chased and prosecuted. So it could be, I mean, some of the more out, I think it's important for viewers, for example, to understand that in these files, there's a lot of truly outrageous shocking things, much of which was immediately looked at and dismissed as fantasy. And then there's other stuff which is clearly well documented is coming from the mouths of the people who have been reported on, which is a different kettle of fish when it comes to how you report these things. I do think it's important to clarify that because some of the stuff has been in there about Trump. Is literally people just ringing in? You probably hate him. We want to cause in trouble saying outlandish things which are not true. So that is also part of the mix here, isn't it? Yeah, I'm sure there are some tips in there that are just that are, you know, anyone can call into the FBI and say things, right? As for David Boyz, I've been talking to survivors and a lot of them are really upset to see how closely connected he was with Jeffrey Epstein. If you look through the emails, actually, David Boyz and Jeffrey Epstein exchanged a lot of emails. And David Boyz was for Jean-June Dufreyes attorney. So he knows for a fact that there were many other men that were involved in, in this case, as for President Trump, I mean, we know that there was one Jane Doe, Katie Johnson, who filed a complaint three times against him ahead of the 2016 election. I think any of these tips that have been sent in, they should have been investigated. I don't see any phone calls to the president or his attorney, Alan Garton. There's only one email that includes I think it's it's Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers for the victims trying to reach Alan Garton to speak to President Trump. I don't see any interaction between the FBI and President Trump's attorneys as they would be I would assume would be part of the investigative process when you're going through all the tips that are against him. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that they were friends for a period of over a decade during the height of Epstein's sex trafficking operation and many of the survivors remembered seeing him. It's you know, what does that mean? But let me be okay. But let me bring it let me bring an Eric here because I think it's interesting the timeline because I've taken a position from the early days of this. There are two types of deniability here. There's the plausible deniability which is people who cease contact with Epstein once he was convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor. And then there are the people that carried on consulting with him after that. And one of those is Elon Musk, who's gone on kind of tear on his own social media platform X, you know, vehemently denying he ever accepted any invitation to go on to the Epstein island or go to another party's any of these things. And yet we're seeing emails in this dump of documents where he clearly would like to is asking which night is the wildest, you know, he's planning to come. The fact that he didn't in the end seemingly go to any doesn't mean that he he wasn't keen to. And this was years after Epstein's conviction. So I think Elon Musk has some difficult questions to answer that he's apparently very keen not to answer as he tries to present himself as the night in shining armor that wanted to blow the little on all this, which is why did you actually continue to have this kind of relationship with Epstein knowing he's a convicted beautiful. So Pierce, I think there what we're we're looking at right now and I'm listening to Tera being outraged about Donald Trump very conveniently not mentioning a former president Bill Clinton who, you know, may or may not be claiming he didn't have any involvement with any under age girls. Yet there are pictures of him swimming in hot tubs with Julian Max Maxwell and some very young looking ladies not sure. I wasn't asked about. Well, I'm not allowed to finish. He's not the president. He's allowed me to finish. May I just please. So the fact that I wasn't not about to present a different film of former president is shocking. Here's my point. Not that you're being biased at all. My point is the media right now, the people who consume media on the last, you know, three or four tidbits of information and what's happened is these guys, some of these guys and and I'm been an advocate for getting all of the files out without redactions or if you, you know, hot as few possible redactions as for national security safety is possible. And I'm telling you what I'm feeling is Elon Musk is saying I wasn't there had nothing to see. I had Alan Dershowitz on my show Friday a couple of days ago and he now is claiming there was no sexual trafficking. There was no underage girls and I said, Alan, Bill Clinton's on the call logs. He we have pictures of him at the island. He said something like, yeah, but that doesn't make him guilty. No, it doesn't put an investigation might. My point is let's keep digging. Let's not let them change the narrative, including Donald Trump, including Donald Trump. Don't let him say I never did anything. I don't know. I would like to know what every one of these things say. Well, I agree. I think I'm not worried. Yeah. Yeah. No, I agree. I mean, Anna, it seems to me you've got to go with the evidence is the good thing about this latest dump is there's so much of it. Journalists around the world are pouring through it, obviously, it's taking a long time. But like I said, in relation to Elon Musk, for example, we can see a direct conflict between what he is saying publicly and what we are reading with our own eyes about what he intended in terms of these parties and so on. And my sense about people that do that is, well, if they're not being completely honest about that, then are they being honest about other things? I don't know the answer, but he certainly starts to raise a little on the answer. I know the answer is no, they're not being honest about other things. Come on, Pierce, I mean, you're a smart man. You're not naive. I mean, even if they weren't implicated in the Epstein files, anyone who takes what the rich and powerful have to say at face value are being I mean, unbearably naive. But look, I would just be wary of anyone who's attempting to make this very serious issue a partisan issue because make no mistake about it. People from both sides of the political aisle have been implicated in this. So I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, which is what was really going on with Epstein, because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. He was an incredibly powerful man who was, by the way, in multiple instances in the files that were just released, talking about his work for Mossad, talking about his work for the Rothschilds. I mean, it just goes on and on. And so can we discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place and which government, that's a special ally of the United States put him up to it? And do we really want to be allies with the country that kidnaps young girls for rape just so they can have dirt on American politicians and control our foreign policy? That's the bigger underlying issue here that no one's talking about. Yeah. Well, let me bring Eric back in. I mean, Eric, I would say, I would say, Eric, also just before you respond. I mean, the Bill Gates stuff is fascinating too, right? Because there you've got a situation where they found a draft of an email that Epstein appears to have constructed for one of Gates's senior aides who fears he's going to get fired. And it's basically a blackmail note. Now, we don't know if it ever got sent by the aid to Gates. We do know that they came to some settlement, some arrangement apparently. But in it, it makes all these scandalous allegations, which would have been from his chief aid who would have known to Bill Gates to presumably try and either leverage a payoff or to avoid being fired. It accuses them of getting an STD from a Russian prostitute, I think at one stage. And then getting medicine to try and stop his wife getting it and so on. It all pretty tall tree sleazy stuff. Now, again, we don't know partly this because we don't know if that ever got sent or how true that material is. But is there deeply embarrassing for Bill Gates. There's also, as Anna touched on there, there are much wider geopolitical dimensions to this. Not least Vladimir Putin, who has a relationship clearly with Epstein. What was going on here that the big question about Epstein's, where did all his huge amounts of money come from? Could it be, because we haven't really worked this out yet, could it be he was being paid by the Russians to compromise a lot of very high profile American people? It could well be. Right. I will add Larry Somersen that makes two very liberal darling on the left, former Harvard former Obama Treasury Department, former Harvard University professor, president, had the resign from AI based on what was in the AI board was in the Epstein files. I will add something, Anna said something very important. Where did all the money come from? How did he make all these connections? If you watch the ban in interview within the release Epstein files, it struck me and I never knew Jeffrey Epstein. I'm known bad and for a hundred years. I've never known Jeffrey Epstein. He's not a smart man. He wasn't a smart man. He wasn't an intellectual by any means. He was a useful idiot to a bunch of groups. And I don't know who, and I think therein lies some of the most important information that could come from an additional investigation FBI CIA, whoever, but digging into further where those those funds came from. Not a smart man. Listen to the, his answers. It's almost it's almost pedestrian in nature, yet he somehow amassed $60 billion of worth and had the strings to pull at some of the most influential people on the planet. And you know what's interesting? What's interesting to me is in the UK, we're seeing very high profile people dropping like dominoes as a consequence of these files. The law, Mandelson, is finished. There is, he's had the the whip from a Labour Party removed last night. He's likely to lose his place in the House of Lords and so he should. He might well face criminal prosecution for corruption in public office, given the stories about the money that was coming from Epstein. In what appears to have been a trade for top secret information about forthcoming policy business initiatives by the UK government when Mandelson was in the government. So there's a lot of stuff going on with him, but he's finished. You know, the former Prince Andrew, Andrew Mount Baton Windsor, he's finished. And it's a question really for him that the British Prime Minister now says he should put himself in front of the investigative authorities under oath and say what he actually knows. I think most British people agree with that. So you're seeing a lot of very famous people being dragged down by this in the UK. We're not seeing the same thing happen in the US. We're seeing a lot of names, but we're not seeing any consequence so far. Do you think we're going to? No, I don't, because I think at this point we haven't seen, we still haven't even seen three million of the files of the six million and they could be withholding them for national interest purposes, which means that may there will continue to be gaping holes in the various theories that everyone put forward about who was he working for. I've always believed that Jeffrey Epstein was doing was conducting some sort of compromise for who, you know, we still don't know. And I do think that the United States has a whole times. Right. And I do think the United States is still protecting Prince Andrew in these files. I think there's he's not mentioned his relationship with Saudi Arabia isn't mentioned very frequently. There's so many connections across the world that we all know about people who have studied the Epstein story that we still won't be getting in the files. And because we don't have the kind of leadership within our administration, there's no independent council leading this. We don't know what we don't know right now. And there are three million files being withheld. And I don't think that anyone will face consequences, because they haven't. Right. I suspect we will, but he's going to take more time in America. Mark, you want to jump in? Yeah. Okay. So anyone who had anything to do with his nefarious criminal conduct should be punished. I think that's all wonderful. That's what we all want. The problem also is, you know, when we say their name is in the Epstein file, that now has become associated with so they must have then been honest plain or been to his island and then maybe participate in having sex with children. That's a real problem too. We got the pitch forks up. Yeah. And there are people who were involved in construction projects who were simply met meeting people through him. They went on some traveling with him but had nothing to do with going to his island. I don't like this big net being thrown out there and catching it. Let me finish and catching anyone who had mere association with him but had nothing to do with his abhorrent behavior. Okay, Mark. Can I just tell you as someone who's covered this story and spoken to many, many, many survivors? It was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about. There were always young girls around. He was a convicted felon and all of these high net worth people continue to spend time with the sex about him. That's dangerous. Every single person who was ever done. That's being then new, new that he was having sex with children. Is that your position? Everybody post 2009 knows he's a convicted. 100%. We're talking before then. So they can't pretend they can't pretend they didn't know what he was. Well, of course, I'm not talking about that. That's indefensible. I'm talking about people before then who were merely in some letter or reference now as part of the Epstein file and then all of a sudden that means erroneously somehow that they were sleeping with children. Get those who did. I want those who did to be punished, but those who were merely associated with him because the guy was a big networker and a big business guy shouldn't be thrown to the walls. What is interesting? I mean, Richard Branson. Hang on Tara. Richard Branson, for example, came out with a statement. It was quite interesting. He said that after some initial interaction with Epstein, he then began to have some suspicions. God is team to look into Epstein, discovered the conviction, discovered some other stuff, didn't like it, and ended all contact. Now, assuming that is right, I've known Richard a long time, I'm sure that's probably correct if he's saying that publicly. Then that is what a lot of people should have done. But what is clear is a lot of people not only didn't do that, but a lot of made statements whether it's Andrew, whether it's Mandelson, whether it's others, where they categorically denied having anything to do with him after his conviction. Now, we know they were lying. Again, he got that answer earlier. They deserve that. They deserve. You're right. My point being if they're lying about the timeline, then what else are they lying about would be my obvious question. Let me just, I want to read what Elon Musk has said just to be fair to him. He says, nobody's fought hard of a full release of the Epstein files and prosecutions of those who abused children more than I did, knowing full world, the legacy media, file their propagandists, and those who are actually guilty would want to admit nothing to deny everything, three make counter accusations against me. I knew I would be smeared relentlessly, despite never having attended parties or being on his Lolita express plane, all set foot on his creepy island or done anything wrong at all. Nevertheless, extreme pain of being accused of being the opposite of who I am was worth it. The strong must protect those who cannot protect themselves, especially vulnerable children. I will gladly accept any amount of future pain to do more to protect kids and give them a chance to grow up and have happy lives. And, and again, what I would say back to Elon Musk is, okay, let's take you at face value. You know, only you know so far, but this flies completely in the face of the emails we're reading, which is that years after the conviction of Epstein, the Peter Filia, you are very, very keen to go to his island that you now scorn. And so the public statements are not consistent with the real time correspondence that we're all seeing with our own eyes. I mean, look, to Mark's point, so far, there's nothing in the Epstein files that would criminally implicate Elon Musk. Like, there isn't enough evidence to actually prosecute him for anything, but I agree with you in that in the court of public opinion, it's not a good look, as is the case with our Commerce Secretary Howard Ludnick, who said that he had cut off all communication with Epstein in the early 2000s. And then now we're learning that he was actually communicating with Epstein in 2012. Again, that in and of itself is not enough to prosecute him of any criminality, right? But at the same time, why are you lying to the American people? And more importantly, why were you so keen to your, you know, the word you like to use? Why are you so keen to reach out to and have communication with Epstein after he had already been convicted? And yes, got that sweetheart deal as a result of Alan Dershowitz, you know, negotiating it. Why are you still willing to talk to this guy? And by the way, one other thing I want to mention about Dershowitz in particular, because anyone who mentions Dershowitz's relationship with Epstein as I have done in the past gets threatened by Dershowitz with a lawsuit. And I never retract my statements because I would love nothing more than to go through that discovery process. But in the files that were just released, you know, there's an email that Norm Finkelstein sent out essentially condemning Dershowitz because Jane Doe number three said this in sworn testimony. Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein. So my question to everyone who has Dershowitz on as if he's some sort of expert who should be taken seriously. Who has an opinion that should be valued in any way. Will you please stop having that disgusting man on your show? No, no, no, I won't. And I know, hold on, hold on, hold on, I agree. I am. Okay, Derek. Yes, and I told him, point blank, you cannot rewrite history, Alan. We know way too much. You can claim your innocent, all you want, but you can't go and say, therefore now all of a sudden Bill Clinton never got involved in these things. No, no, he literally said to me on air. I can take a look at it that he said. He's the one who got that disgusting theory. There was a sweetheart deal and he lied about the Epstein file. He is a disgrace. He's a stepfather on your show. He went and refuted all, he refuted all minor sex trafficking on that. I was blown away. It's an Alan. Who are you? What are you doing? It's Pierce. I was done with you and Alan once before where he claimed to know everything. He's still trying to stay in the media this way. I think he's feeling a little bit more confident, but I'm not going to not have a mon and I want to continue to hold his feet to the fire, which which I did watch the interview. And if you think I wasn't hard enough on, I'll eat it, but I think I was. Can I just one final thought here? We're having a lot of speculation on what happened, what didn't happen. There's an easy, it's not easy. There's a very effective way to find out what really happened. Follow the damn money. It always works. Find out how it's made his money. And what about just listening to the women who have testified? What about the women who have testified? What about the survivors who have testified under oath? Why is there word not enough? Why do we have to follow the money to know what happened? No one said it's not in that. I think we need. I think we need. You know what? I think we listen to the women. We listen to the women. We follow the money trail and we get people under oath, right? With a penalty of perjury. That tends to concentrate at the mind, right? Okay, look, I want to pivot to the other big story of the weekend. This is the arrest of Don Lemon former CNN anchor, actually took over my office. Why not? They're CNNs. I've known Don a long time. You know, I thought about this quite long and hard. Let's take a look at first of all a bit of the scene that created the environment of his arrest. This is the original incident. This is a juxtaposition. This shows you just how divided America is. When you look at the protesters here and then you look at the people there are Ukraine. And you know what is interesting thing? If these two groups could just get together, they might figure out what to do. Instead, I don't know if the people here are interested in talking to the protesters, but perhaps they should come in, pray together and talk together. Last night, the DOJ sent a team of federal agents to arrest me in the middle of the night for something that I had been doing for the last 30 years. And that is covering the news. The first amendment of the Constitution protects that work for me and for countless of other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them and I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court. Thank you all. So let me start with Mark Eiglarge again from a legal perspective here. So you know, I thought about this long and hard. I heard all the different arguments. Everyone coming out, a lot of them from partisan traps to very quickly either exonerate or convict him. And I can't reach the conclusion. As I do with most situations involving journalists in this situation, which is you shouldn't be criminalizing journalists doing their job. You may not like Don Lemon. You may not like the way he behaved that day. You may not like the way he behaved since. But to go after a journalist who was clearly there reporting on what was happening, I think crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed whether you're on the left or the right. And it seemed to me a bit of tip for tap on what happened to some people who were kind of citizen journalists on January the 6th. You got put in prison. This is revenge. They're going after now people on the left for doing similar things and so on. I think it's a very slippery slope. But Mark, from a pure legal perspective, did Don Lemon in your estimation break the law? No, he didn't. It's not even close. And I don't do politics. I do just legal. And the first amendment gives wide latitude for journalists to do exactly what he did cover an event. So those who say that he did interfere with people's ability to worship. There's a difference between incidental interference and intentional interference. One needs intentional interference to be found guilty of a criminal act. He wasn't there. It appears from the facts to intentionally intentional. Well, hold on. I was just speaking. I wasn't through with my thoughts. He intentionally was there to gather facts, but his intention falls way short factually of intending to be there to interfere with people's ability to worship. So again, if there's just incidental interference, that's not enough. And clearly the chilling effect is there too. The message goes out that anyone who's merely present at an event can be arrested. And that's real problematic. Mark, he was there. He was there to gather facts. He broke into an ongoing church service. He busted in. That's not an accidental. Oh, I didn't mean to break up your show. What facts with Don Lemon looking for? Mark, what facts was he was looking to create a scene, to get the cameras rolling to get his own face on the evening news, which he did. And I said, when new minute happened, they just propped up Don Lemon, not because they like his journalism, because they need him as a useful idiot to their push to do open immigration at all costs. By the way, Mark, I would argue with you that I think protecting people's right to worship is right up there. If not superseding the first men with the right for journalists to cover a story. We don't disagree on that. The question is again, it may be, again, everything is fact-sensitive. Was he covering this as a journalist? Was he reporting this on live stream, which I was told? If he was, the question is, do they have proofed Beanna reasonable doubt that his purpose was to interfere with people's right to worship, or whether he was there covering it as a journalist that may have interfered incidentally with people's right to worship. And there he was. Well, isn't the crucial, brother? Well, I think, let me bring in Anna here, but I think the crucial distinction for me is you can certainly construct an argument that the protesters had a pre-planned intention to disrupt people in their place of worship, right? So the question for me was then, is Don Lemon part of the protest group, or is he tangentially a journalist who knows it's going to happen, goes in and reports on what happens, but he's not actually a member of the protest group doing the intervention. And that's where, for me, I felt from a legal perspective. I think it's hard to prove that he is not one removed from this. He's not actually doing the intervening. He's gone in and he's watching and he's observing and he's reporting. Yeah, I mean, look, first let me just say I really appreciate your analysis on this mark, especially from a legal perspective. And I agree with you overall, Pierce. I think that, you know, the evidence that we've seen so far indicates that Don Lemon got a tip that this protest was going to happen. He wanted to cover it. Now, of course, he does have his own biases. There's no question about that. But the real question is, was he there to participate in said demonstration, or was he there to document it? And obviously, this is going to play out in court. But the point that I agree with you most on is in regard to how counterproductive it was to arrest him in the first place. Let me first note though that there was a second independent journalist who was also arrested as a result of covering what happened during this protest. I think that sets a really, really bad precedent when it comes to journalism. Regardless of what you think about Don Lemon or the independent journalist, you should be able to have journalists there to document what's going on. That is their job. But in regard to you, you know, it's a story. It seems to me, it seems to me, Tara, that all this happened out of this is Don Lemon has got absolutely what he's been dreaming of ever since he got turned out to CNN. I started his own business. He's now a martyr. I watched you with the Clive Davis. We got a clip of thing. A film getting a standing ovation from the star study crowd at the pre-Grammy's party that Clive Davis has every year. Take a look. I mean, Don Lemon's had a long dream. He's had a dream to be out of the Grammys or Grammy parties and that happens. He's the martyloothic age of the Grammys. Listen, like, this is part of the job of being a journalist. Like, it's one of the first things you do. You cover movements. You cover protests. You go where things happen. If you had to go into a cave to interview the Taliban, should I be arrested because I'm in there with the Taliban? If I witness violence there, I'm not a co-conspirator. If you know anything about journalism, you would know that being present at an event does not mean you are as a journalist documenting it. They weren't protesting. Tara, they weren't protesting. They were trying to worship. By the way, and if you're going to hide behind that cloak of policy, a journalist can break into anywhere they want trespass because under the guise of I'm doing a story that's insanity. There has to be a lying drunk. They broke into an ongoing church service. Those parishioners weren't protesting anything. They weren't supporting ICE. Did the pastor happen to have some sort of connection? Who cares? That doesn't. So any under your theory, I as a journalist, I have a White House pastor, hard pastor. I'm a journalist to cover a trial. I can go anywhere I want with that, breaking into a mosque and find out how many Muslims are illegal just because I have that pass. Of course not. I mean, if you were following law enforcement or you were following in a news event, I don't know the exact legality, but I know on your first amendment are there are many, we are covered under the first amendment. In the second, you create these lines, what about these right wing influencer journalists, whatever you want to call them that follow break ins into plan parenthoods? Should they not be allowed to do that? They don't break in terror. They get arrested outside the plan. Let me, let me, let me, let me offer some guidance. Let me offer some guidance. So let's say, analogy real quick. Okay, just real quick, real quick. Eric, like, let's say you are covering some sort of protest where a group of people break into a mosque as people are worshiping. You're there documenting it as a reporter, right? I would be livid if let's say the Biden administration's DOJ decided to arrest you because at the end of the day you work in media, you're documenting what's happening. Now, the individuals who took part in the actual demonstration did break a law. They did violate the right to practice your faith, to worship, and they should face consequences for that. I mean, that's the last bit you signed up for. Let me, let me offer some guidance. That under Pierce's definition of what happened or, or question about what happened. Don Lemon wasn't there to cover it. Don Lemon was the leader of that whatever that breaking was. He was, let me jump in here. Let me jump in here. Let me jump in here. He was supporting them. Let me, let me, let me, let's change the facts. Let's say that lemon, while he was there, chanted. He directed the protesters. He blocked aisles. He starts doing that. Then he is participating. It's very different. Absent those facts. He's there covering, and I agree with Pierce on this one. Again, you, you don't want to have that chilling effect when you have journalists going in to cover something and you get the wrong politics and then people get arrested. That's a real slippery slope and a real dangerous scenario. I would say you, I don't know that. Thank you. I'm very dangerous can't, can't, worms allowing or, or, or covering for journalists and in terror points out that, yeah, there are right wing little influencers who are dying for the same opportunity that Don Lemon just presented himself with and become, you know, some sort of hero to, to your side. And if it entails joining protests or quote unquote covering protests, but you're right there with them and also getting cameras in the face of the people that they're protesting against. You know, you do that all the time. I mean, Tucker is always going to plan. And he's, you know, they do that all the time. They're just not being arrested, but they literally do it all the time. Who do you think's covering the plan? Parenthood protests. Again, there are differences inside the church that is a big difference. They go inside the plan, parenthood, which is a, like a private property and they do this and you don't get arrested. I don't see it with any difference. Well, as well. I think they're right. I mean, the, you know, the, the, the old key to goes inside a, you know, an abortion clinic in tapes. I, I have a problem with that too. Okay. Well, I think the one thing I would say, just to conclude this is people need to be intellectually consistent, right? In the way they view these things. And if you start getting tribal, where it's okay for your side, but not okay for the other side, to me, you become intellectually dishonest. We saw it all with the Jimmy Kennel, saga a few months ago. We're seeing it again now. We've seen it over the ICE agents. You've got to be consistent. It doesn't matter if it's your side or not. What is your view about people that do XYZ? And then you've got to be consistent each time it's done by anybody. Then I can respect you. The moment people chop and change because of their political persuasion, I lose a respect for them. But that was a great panel debate. Thank you all very much. Thanks, Pierce. That was another episode of the Terror, Paul Mary show. I'll keep continuing the story as it is developing. Please follow, subscribe, share it with your friends. Tell everyone about this show. It's how we keep going. If you go to terrorpallmary.com and become a subscriber to the red letter, if you become a paid subscriber, you get exclusive reporting straight to your inbox, how you can support my journalism. I want to thank my producer, Eric Oppenate, Abby Baker, doing my socials and research. Adam Stewart, doing thumbnails. Dan Rosen, my manager, everybody is working overtime today. It's a Friday afternoon. They always know to dump it then, right? Just to ruin our weekends. And that's why because they're hoping that we won't be as persistent and on it as we are. So, take a listen. Thank you for listening to the show. And I'll be back again soon. Hi, I'm Tamsen Fidel, journalist and author of How to Menopause and host of the Tamsen Show, a weekly podcast with your roadmap to midlife and beyond. We covered all from dating to divorce, aging to ADHD, sleep to sex, brain health to body fat, and even how Perry menopause can affect your relationships and trust me, it can. Each week I sit down with doctors, experts and leaders in longevity for unfiltered conversations, packed with advice on everything from hormones to happiness. And of course, how to stay sane during what can be, well, let's face it, a pretty chaotic chapter of life. Think of us as your midlife survival guide. New episodes released every Wednesday. Listen now on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.