Democrats Are Warming to Using Epstein as a Wedge Issue

Yesterday, we had a long item on the "Epstein Files," which are starting to take on a life of their own. It has become a hot media item during the summer news doldrums. Former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori, now a senior writer for Politico Magazine, can't figure out what the true story is either, but has three plausible scenarios, as follows:

1. The Double Exploit: Donald Trump and others knew all along there were no files and exploited the tragedy of Epstein exploiting underage girls for their own political and financial benefit. They knew there was nothing there and no coverup but feeding the base red meat made the base happy. The whole thing is corrupt to its core.
   
   
2. Trump Was a Client: A DoJ investigation showed that there are references to Trump somewhere in connection to Epstein. Josh Marshall at TPM wrote a piece saying that a somewhat-respectable journalist, Michael Wolff, claims to have taped interviews with Epstein years ago. Marshall is a legitimate journalist but he was skeptical about Wolff's claim. Still, maybe there is something out there and Trump, AG Pam Bondi and others are desperately trying to cover it all up.
   
   
3. They drank the Kool-Aid: Maybe Trump and others genuinely believed the rumors and really thought there was a "client list" and wanted to get a hold of it to hurt the Democrats. Then they investigated and are now dumbfounded that there is no such list and Epstein never blackmailed anyone. But they are now stuck and have to explain to the base that they were taken in initially and they—and the base—were wrong from the get-go.

Now the Democrats are starting to see they can make hay from this whole sordid tale and drive a wedge deep into the heart of MAGAworld. The theme would be "Powerful (Republican) politicians are covering up the misdeeds of other powerful (Republican) politicians, and this is why they are saying there is no 'there' there and we should move on." To your average garden-variety conspiracy theorist, this is a very simple explanation and one they can easily swallow whole.

As we noted on Tuesday, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced an amendment in committee to a bill to force the administration to publish the "Epstein files" within 30 days. Every Democrat was for it and all but one Republican was against it. This was the starting gun for "What are the Republicans trying to hide about Epstein?" campaign.

Now other Democrats caught on and are running with it. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) suggested that Trump's remark about stripping Rosie O'Donnell (who was born in New York) of her citizenship was a ploy to distract people from noticing that he is hiding the Epstein list:

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said: "The American people deserve to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth as it relates to this whole sordid Jeffrey Epstein matter." Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) told reporters on Tuesday: "Where is that client list? What is Attorney General Bondi hiding? This is the case of the powerful protecting the powerful. We need to have those files released." Harping on "the powerful protecting the powerful" really strikes a chord with the base. It might be one of the few things Democrats can talk about that actually gets through.

Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA), who has a tough race next year, also chimed in: "Did anyone really think the sexual predator president who used to party with Jeffrey Epstein was gonna release the Epstein files?" What Ossoff's and other Democrats' remarks do is make the implicit assumption that such a list exists. If Democrats can convince the Republican base that such a list really exists, then they are halfway home. Then Trump will be under constant pressure to produce a list. If he produces a fake list, there will be defamation lawsuits, discovery motions, subpoenas, depositions, and more. That will dominate the news and put Trump on the defensive.

The DNC is tweeting daily about how the administration is covering up for Trump. The House Majority PAC has rolled out a list of Republicans who are either helping the cover-up or at least tolerating it without speaking out. It's a long list.

Pat Dennis, president of American Bridge, a Democratic oppo team, said: "It's an interesting foot in the door to the overall case that he doesn't have your back on Medicare, on health care, on veterans. Maybe this guy doesn't have your back." It could work. It's a strange world when "dead sex offender" has more salience than "you're going to lose your health insurance to pay for tax cuts for millionaires," but that's the reality in which the blue team has to operate.

Oh, and there is this photo of Epstein and Trump together, with Trump's hand on Epstein's shoulder. This photo, like the one with Epstein, Trump, Melania, and Ghislaine Maxwell, doesn't exactly scream "Never met the man." The more circulation it gets, the harder it becomes for Trump to separate himself from Epstein:

Historically, Republicans have used "wedge issues" (like gay rights) to divide Democrats. This is a wedge issue Democrats can use to divide Republicans. It can put Trump and Bondi on one side and Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer on the other. Will this actually have legs? It could. Internal polling by a Democratic firm obtained by Politico shows that 61% of Trump voters think Trump is hiding information about Epstein. Maybe it isn't exactly 61%, but internal polls are generally not biased. The politicians paying for them actually want to know the truth; they may just decide to keep some polls under covers and publish others. A CNN poll puts the number at 40%. The discrepancy could be due to timing or question wording, but clearly this issue strikes a chord with many Republicans.

Democrats will milk this issue for all it is worth now and will try to keep it going for a few months (or more). The goal is to seed some doubt in Trump's supporters' minds. The idea is: "If he lied to us on this, maybe he lied to us on other things as well." The current plan is to make the midterms about the BBB, but if Trump makes an unforced error dealing with this, that could change everything.

Trump is clearly very worried about EpsteinSCAM. Yesterday, he posted a message to his boutique social media site containing this passage: "I have had more success in 6 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 Dems, 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!" The weaklings here are his own supporters who are demanding the Epstein files. Trump is worried and doesn't know what to do to put the fire out.

Not convinced that Trump is upset? How about this news tidbit. Yesterday, a federal prosecutor at the SDNY, Maurene Comey, was fired out of the blue. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and has been working at the SDNY for 9 years with no problems. In fact, she worked on the criminal cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell with success. Sounds good to us. Nevertheless, yesterday she received a letter firing her, citing only the powers of the president according to Art. II of the Constitution. Oh, and she is the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey. Any more questions? (V)

Cue the Spin

The BBB (technically now BBL, but the Urban Dictionary has distracting meanings for that) is not very popular. In fact, it is so unpopular that the Democrats are planning to make it their main issue in 2026. Now the Republicans have to sell the public on the bill. Who is better suited to telling people about the benefits of taking away medical care from 12 million people in order to give millionaires and billionaires tax cuts than Yale-educated lawyer and Silicon Valley venture capitalist J.D. Vance? So Vance has been sent out to the hustings to seal the deal. And what better venue could there be than a small town in the Rust Belt, where the bill will hit hardest?

So Vance went to West Pittston—12 miles from Joe Biden's home town of Scranton, in northeast Pennsylvania—yesterday to pitch the new law. He will be the first of many administration spokespersons in the coming months. West Pittston is in PA-08, an R+4 district currently represented by Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA), who narrowly defeated Democratic incumbent Matt Cartwright last November. Vance wants to shore up support for Bresnahan, but talking about everything except how to get jobs back to the area could backfire.

Vance spoke for 15 minutes. He is no Donald Trump. Only 250 people showed up to hear him. He talked about tax cuts (but not about who got the biggest ones). He emphasized that the new law exempts overtime pay from taxes. That will surely be well received by the unemployed workers throughout the Rust Belt. He also talked about the importance of the coal and gas industry which used to be important in northeast Pennsylvania. Nostalgia!

Reporters from a local newspaper interviewed some of the attendees of the micro-rally. Walter Volinksi, a 74-year-old retiree, said he hadn't read the 900-page law, but was sure the politicians hadn't either. But he trusted Donald Trump to make the country great again. Steven Taylor, a 52-year-old truck driver, liked the tax breaks on tips and overtime. But he was worried that the cuts to Medicaid could hurt his nephew, who has diabetes. If they do, he will probably say that he didn't expect Trump to do something to hurt his family, just other people's families.

On the other hand, Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) is aggressively attacking Pennsylvania Republican congressmen who voted for the bill, like Bresnahan. On a local radio station he said: "I mean, Rep. Bresnahan told you, your listeners, your newspapers, told me to my face, this was a red line in the sand for him, he wouldn't harm people on Medicaid, he wouldn't harm our rural hospitals... He caved and voted for this bill." Bresnahan replied that the bill strengthens Medicaid by cracking down on fraud. (V)

Republicans Are Trying to Claw Back Funding for Foreign Aid and Public Media

Donald Trump ordered his lackeys in the Senate to claw back $9 billion in unspent funding for foreign aid and for public media. He has until midnight tomorrow to get it done. Getting it done will also require the House to approve the Senate bill when it is done. Otherwise, Trump will be required to spend the money and will be sued if he doesn't.

Some Republican senators are skeptical. They want to know exactly what they are voting on and the administration has been fairly vague on that. On a procedural vote to bring the bill to the floor, Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME), Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) voted "no," forcing President of the Senate J.D. Vance to cast the tie-breaking vote. But even senators who voted "yes" on the procedural vote have doubts. Among them is Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC). When asked if the votes were there, he said: "I don't know. I think that there are members that are trying to get assurances on specific programs."

Tillis could be a real problem going forward. Since he is retiring after this session of Congress, he can vote what he thinks his state wants and not pay much attention to what Donald Trump wants because Trump can't threaten him with a primary challenge. Tillis also said that Trump has given him and other senators verbal assurances on issues they care about, but if Trump double-crosses them, this will be the only rescissions package he gets through the Senate.

Among other issues that some Republicans care about are foreign aid programs for maternal health, malaria, tuberculosis and nutrition. In particular, Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) doesn't want food aid to be clawed back. Another issue is funding for public radio in rural areas, some of which have a dearth of stations. Some Republicans know that cutting their constituents off from the outside world may not be popular with them.

After all the Sturm und Drang, in the wee hours of this morning, the bill passed. The vote was 51-48, with Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voting against it. Collins' "concern" simply has to do with her election next year. She has no principles. Murkowski is actually a decent human being and probably wishes she could become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Angus King (I-ME). But she can't because her state's only real industry is oil extraction and this forces her to oppose the Green New Deal and support the oil industry. She's stuck, but does her best.

Over at the House, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) doesn't like what the Senate is doing to the bill. He said: "If they're watering down too much, I'm not sure it moves." He's not fooling anyone. After he bashed the BBB endlessly and then voted for it, everyone knows RACO. (V)

Trump May or May Not Fire Jerome Powell

Yeah, it's a weird headline. We agree. So why is this even a news story in the first place? Well, because Donald Trump told members of Congress yesterday that he drafted a letter firing Fed Chairman Jerome Powell, then he told other members that he wouldn't do it. Here is the result of a Google search for "Will Trump fire Powell?" yesterday.

As usual, very little of what Trump does is based on thinking it out in advance. Some people think he plays 4-D chess. Actually he plays tic-tac-toe and loses half the time. The reason he wants to fire Powell is that he wants to replace Powell with someone who will slash interest rates so the interest on the new $3 trillion in debt the BBB created will be lower. What every economist and the market understand is that very low interest rates will spark inflation and Trump will get blamed. If inflation is spiking in 2026, the Republicans could lose 40 or more seats in the House and control of the Senate. But Trump doesn't think 17 months ahead.

It is also possible that Powell might fight a firing. The president is allowed to fire the Fed chair only for cause—that is, because the Fed chair has failed to do his job. Policy differences on interest rates is not cause for firing. Powell could go to court to keep his job. He probably wouldn't do it for the money. He could easily triple his $250,600 salary working in the private sector. But he might feel an obligation to prevent Trump from ruining the economy by nominating some ding-a-ling to replace him and having a compliant Senate rubber stamp the nomination. To be continued. (V)

Is Trump Readying His Next Supreme Court Pick?

In Trump v1.0, Donald Trump rubber-stamped Supreme Court justices selected by the Federalist Society. They were picks the conservative movement wanted. All of them were very conservative, but also had impressive résumés. Neil Gorsuch, a graduate of Harvard Law School, was an appellate judge for 12 years, among other things. Brett Kavanaugh went to Yale Law School and was also an appellate judge for 12 years. Amy Coney Barrett went to Notre Dame Law School and clerked for conservative hero Antonin Scalia. She was later a professor of constitutional law at Notre Dame and then put in 3 years as an appellate judge. All three of Trump's picks (actually, Leonard Leo's picks) were heavyweight intellectuals.

Although Trump has gotten most of what he wanted from the Supreme Court, this time he is doing it differently. He doesn't want judges or DoJ employees who are loyal to the conservative movement. He doesn't care much about their qualifications, he wants to appoint people who are loyal to him personally. AG Pam Bondi was his lawyer during his first impeachment. Deputy AG Todd Blanche represented him at his criminal trial for cooking the books in New York. His pick for solicitor general, D. John Sauer, was his lead lawyer before the Supreme Court when he challenged his prosecution in Trump v. United States.

Both chambers of Congress are completely loyal to him, even though most Republicans in the House and Senate know very well that much of what he wants is bad for the country and often especially bad for Republican voters. The one branch of government where he is having problems is the judiciary, and he is now working on that. In particular, he has nominated Emil Bove III (44) to be a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware). Bove got his J.D. from Georgetown University. He clerked for both a district court judge and an appeals court judge, then worked in private practice at Sullivan & Cromwell. He worked as an assistant U.S. attorney in the SDNY for 9 years but was denied a promotion there when a group of attorneys called him "a prosecutor version of a drunken driver." He went back to private practice and worked for Todd Blanche's law firm, where he helped defend Trump in several cases. In Trump v2.0, Bove is principal associate deputy AG. His defining characteristic is total loyalty to Trump above all else. He has demonstrated that over and over this year. For example, he was a key player in the scheme to blackmail Eric Adams into cooperating with Trump on the matter of rounding up immigrants for deportation.

What worries some people is that Trump seems likely to nominate Bove to the Supreme Court should either Justice Clarence Thomas or Justice Samuel Alito retire soon. The combination of being only 44 and being totally loyal to Trump probably outweighs his lack of legal gravitas. If the Senate confirms his appointment to the Third Circuit and the next Supreme Court vacancy comes in June 2026, Bove will have a year as an appeals judge. That might be just enough to get 50 senators to vote to confirm him, even though most of them know it would be a disastrous choice.

Bove's confirmation hearing for the Third Circuit was held on June 25. It was very contentious. Eight former federal prosecutors from D.C. urged the Judiciary Committee to reject Bove, saying he is "the worst conceivable nominee." Just yesterday, 75 state and federal judges wrote a letter saying "Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position." The Society for the Rule of Law Institute and other groups also opposed his nomination, while 20 Republican attorneys general have supported him. The Senate Judiciary Committee has yet to take a vote on his confirmation. (V)

Republicans Are Foolishly Making Susan Collins' Life Difficult

Susan Collins' dream job has always been chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. She got the job, but it is more like a nightmare than a dream now. Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) are forcing her to take positions that hurt people in Maine and she doesn't like it at all. The clawback bill (see above) is just one of many. She said: "I vote according to what I assess to be in the best interests of my constituents and my country—and I do that regardless of who's in control of the Senate and who is president." Except it is not always true. If her vote is not needed, yes, she is given permission to vote against the party line, but only if her vote is not needed. If her vote will kill a bill Trump wants, there is no such permission granted, and she most certainly does not seize the initiative.

One thing on everyone's mind in the Senate is whether she will run for reelection next year. She is 72 and the only Republican senator running in a state Kamala Harris won. Her approval rating is down and polls show her to be in deep trouble. One recent poll showed 51% of Mainers disapprove of her performance, and 71% said she does not deserve to be reelected. If term-limited Gov. Janet Mills (D-ME) jumps in to challenge her, she might start to think "What am I accomplishing staying in the Senate if I have to vote against the interests of my constituents all the time?" Now that Thom Tillis is out in 2026, she is by far the most vulnerable Republican and tens of millions of dollars will flood the state to try to take her down. Tillis said: "The one thing I am certain of is if Susan Collins is not running for re-election, then that state is even more at risk than North Carolina."

Democrats are hoping that Collins decides that being in the Senate for another 6 years simply isn't worth it for her. They know Tillis is right.

Another factor is Donald Trump. One Republican senator said that Trump is very irritated with Collins. So far he has been quiet, but that could change. On the one hand, if he simply barks at her, that actually helps her back home. On the other hand, if he endorses a primary challenger and gets his rich friends to fund that person, she could lose the primary and the challenger would certainly lose the general election in blue Maine.

So far, Trump has just ignored Collins. When she asked for changes to the BBB, he refused to give her what she wanted. It is practically unheard of for a president to order the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee around. After all, Congress has (or used to have) the power of the purse. But Trump figured that with a three-seat majority, he could ignore Collins and also Lisa Murkowski. The one thing that may not have been in his calculation is the possibility that she just doesn't see the point of being in the Senate any more and decides to retire on Jan. 3, 2027. (V)

Spanberger Increases Her Lead in Virginia Gubernatorial Race

The election for governor of Virginia always happens the year after a presidential election and often is a bellwether as to what will happen in the congressional midterms the next year. A new poll from Virginia Commonwealth University now has Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) at 49% and Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears (R-VA) at 37%. This is a bigger lead than Spanberger had in the VCU December poll. There she was ahead by 10 points. Now it is 12 points.

What is quite interesting is that Spanberger, a moderate, is doing very well with young voters. Usually they prefer Bernie and AOC types, not moderate former spooks. Still, with 18-24 year olds, she has a 31-point edge over Earle-Sears.

The top issue for Virginians is the cost of living (29% put it first), although reproductive rights and immigration also rank high (tied at 14% each). (V)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger