[MUSIC]

Brigid Bergin: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, filling in for Brian this week. Good morning, everybody. Coming up on today's show, why the NYPD is ramping up enforcement against cyclists who violate traffic laws and giving them criminal summonses. Compare that to drivers who often get a ticket mailed to them or go through traffic court when they commit a comparable offense. If you've gotten a ticket on your bike in the past few months, you're not alone. Between April and June of this year, police issued almost 6,000 criminal summonses.

We're going to talk about this crackdown and the various issues surrounding it. Plus, later on the show, why some naturalized US Citizens are worried the Trump administration may undermine or even revoke their citizenship. Remember that study that came out last year that suggested those black plastic spatulas a lot of us have in our kitchen could be harmful? Well, we're going to wrap today's show with a conversation about that and how to use less plastic when you're cooking.

We're going to start things off with the news out of Washington and specifically this seemingly endless news cycle about Jeffrey Epstein. The late financier died by suicide in a Manhattan jail in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Releasing the files related to his case was one of President Donald Trump's rallying cries on the campaign trail. When Trump's own Justice Department and FBI walked back the idea that there was a client list of elites who participated in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, the response from the MAGA base was swift and angry, and the news keeps coming.

Just this morning, there were reports that back in May, Attorney General Pam Bondi met with the president and told him his name appeared in the Epstein files. The controversy has tied Republicans in the Hill in knots. House Speaker Mike Johnson, on the heels of passing the president's domestic tax and spending bill, cut business short this week, sending members on summer recess to prevent Democrats from forcing any votes to release documents from those files.

With an eye towards next year's midterm elections, will this rift deepen between the House Republicans and Trump? For Democrats, will boosting this conspiracy theory scandal give them an opening to make a comeback? Well, joining me now to unpack this ongoing story is New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni. Hey, Annie. Welcome back to WNYC.

Annie Karni: Thank you for having me.

Brigid: Listeners, how are you processing this Epstein news cycle? Are you a Republican who wants to see more of this information released, or perhaps a Republican who's worried that this is distracting from President Trump's agenda, or from another perspective, what do you think about Democrats trying to seize this issue, infuse it with their attacks on the president's domestic tax and spending bill? Does it distract from the bigger cuts, or do you think this strategy is working? Call us at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692. You can call or text at that number. Wow,

Annie, this has been quite a month. President Trump signed that so-called big beautiful bill back on July 4th. It feels like a million years ago. That was a major win for him in the House, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and then the Epstein rumblings came. When do you sort of pinpoint this news cycle really shifting on the Hill back to this six-year-old news story?

Annie: I think it's been two weeks now, which is remarkable. Usually, it takes a really big news event to have more than a week as the spotlight story, but I think it was when it-- I mean it, it started when the Justice Department said that they found no reason to release more. I forget the exact words they used, but when the Justice Department made its announcement that they weren't going to release the files. As you said in your intro, the MAGA voters have been promised this. It's been like a definitional issue for them, that touches on this class warfare, this deep feeling that the elite class gets special protections that regular people do not.

They exerted that pressure on members of Congress. Every member of Congress I talked to for the past two weeks there, they said that the phones have been ringing nonstop. Social media is flooded. They can post about anything, and all the replies are about Epstein. They are feeling the heat. They are feeling that their voters are angry and want them to stand up and do something to get these files out. It's been a really rare moment. Like the story of this Congress since January is that they are just a subservient branch to the president, and happily so, and suddenly there's this wedge issue where they are under pressure from their voters with having to navigate that with Trump, who wants something different.

Brigid: Well, let's talk about some of those conversations you've had, particularly with House Republicans. We see the Justice Department put out this memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi, basically saying nothing to see here. Republicans are in a fury. You spoke with Georgia House Member Marjorie Taylor Greene shortly after that memo came out. What did she say about it?

Annie: I mean, she's really hardline. Marjorie Taylor Greene, for all of her faults and her racist language and her conspiracy theories, she's one of the rare members that doesn't just always cave. I think that she actually thinks of herself and her brand as stronger than the President's, so she's not really scared of challenging him.

Brigid: [crosstalk]

Annie: Yes, she's really, maybe it's an inflated thing, but she thinks she is number one, so she's hardline. She has said she supports this bipartisan effort to get a vote on the floor to release the files. She has not backed down. She's been really outspoken that this isn't good enough. We were promised a whole steak dinner. I think she tweeted like bites of meat aren't going to cut it anymore. I mean, she really channels the base in a way that a lot of members don't. That's her whole brand of politics that she's tapped into the it of the party.

She's been hardline, and a lot of these hard-right members, Freedom Caucus members, she's no longer in the Freedom Caucus, usually talk a big game and then eventually cave to Trump. She's not really a caver. She's been one of the most outspoken people that, "We definitely need to release all the files." She's been making this argument. Actually, it's so funny in moments like this, watching Democrats or anti-Trump Republicans seize on the words of Marjorie Taylor Greene to make their own case for them. That's something I've never seen before, but they're doing it in this case.

Brigid: We live in interesting times.

Annie: Yes.

Brigid: Also, the notion that she may imagine her brand being stronger than Trump. I feel like that's a whole conversation unto itself. It seems this debate has also given her space to also talk about other ways that she is breaking from the administration and the way other Republicans are breaking from the administration. We've seen members complain about a whole host of issues. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Annie: Yes. For these hard-right members, first of all, Greene also has said she's not going to vote for another government funding bill in the fall. She's against these short-term spending bills, and she's like, "Put me on the record now." No. That's like a thing that fiscal conservatives hate these short-term patches to avoid government shutdowns. She also is she's mad about Trump sending more resources to Ukraine. She's mad about the Big Beautiful Bill. They didn't get everything they wanted there. The hard right. They had to sort of cave to him. A lot of these issues are building up where they suddenly feel like they aren't getting what they were promised from this president that they've backed with loyalty.

Brigid: Sure.

Annie: The issues with the hard right are piling up that they're unhappy with.

Brigid: Beyond just Marjorie Taylor Greene, you also spoke with South Carolina Republican Representative Nancy Mace. It sounds like what she was telling you was similar to what you were saying before about just the flood of response from the base.

Annie: That's been, all these members that I spoke to all week, you can just feel when they're feeling it. Every one of them brought up to me that the phone lines aren't stopping, and it's all Epstein, all 24/7 Epstein. The last time I heard members talk about the phone lines just on fire, this was during the speaker's race two years ago, when Jim Jordan was having his supporters call, people who wouldn't back him, and harass them. The phone lines were just ringing at two-second intervals. That's the last time I heard lawmakers reference the incoming at this level.

It does make a difference. Well, if we want to get to what happened, they are so-- This is why they shut down the House because these Republicans-- I guess Marjorie Taylor Greene's a special case. She'll break with Trump on certain things. Some of these ones who are too scared to break with Trump also knew, given the incoming, that they couldn't afford to vote against some of these Democratic amendments pushing for the release, so they just didn't decided to cancel votes altogether because it was an impossible choice, a Sophie's Choice, I guess. The pressure was so great that they didn't want to be seen as opposing the release in any way-

Brigid: Sure.

Annie: -but they also didn't want to see vote with Democrats, so they just decided that the best way was to not vote at all and go home.

Brigid: Yes. Well, I want to get to Speaker Mike Johnson a little bit later in the conversation because there was still so much that led up to this point.

Annie: Yes.

Brigid: First, listeners, if you're just joining us, it's the Brian Lehrer Show in WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC and Gothamist newsroom, filling in for Brian today. My guest is New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni. She's been talking to Republicans in the House about the way this Epstein file story just keeps swirling. Also, we'll talk a little bit about how Democrats are trying to seize on this moment and how effectively or not they're doing that. Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky, again, another one of those traditional, often Trump supporters, but who's kind of showing an independent streak as of late. What did he try to do last week, and how much support was he getting and who is he teaming up with? I think, as you reported, there were Democrats that he was working with.

Annie: Oh, yes. Thomas Massie is probably the most interesting character in the entire House of Representatives. He's really a most unique character in a place that doesn't often have a lot of uniqueness. He's a Republican hard-right hardliner from Kentucky who actually has principles. A lot of the story of these Republicans is they just toss out their principles for survival. Thomas Massie has some beliefs that he just won't budge on. Anyway, and he's also Trump has been after him for years, just trying to find a primary challenger. His brand is pretty strong in his district, so he's been able to withstand that, which makes him a little more willing to do whatever he wants to do.

In this case, he has been agitating that the House should take a floor vote about whether or not to release the Epstein files. There is one mechanism by which rank and file members, so the speaker controls what legislation comes to the floor for a vote. That's his main power. There's one way that just a regular rank-and-file member can circumvent leadership and get a bill to the floor that leadership doesn't want a vote on, and that's through a discharge petition. It's really, really hard and usually doesn't work because you need to get two-thirds or, I think, a majority of the House to sign on to your petition.

Yes, I think it's-- I can't remember exactly. I think it's a majority. It's really hard to get that number of people to sign on to anything. In this case, it looks he has the votes because he's doing this bill with Ro Khanna, Democrat from California. All Democrats have been encouraged by Hakeem Jeffries to sign on that means he needs about six, himself and five more Republicans, to have the correct number of signatures to bring this thing in the floor. As of last week, he had more than a dozen.

Brigid: Wow.

Annie: Then again, everything in the House is all about process. It needs to "ripen", which means it takes seven legislative days to get to the floor. Legislative days are days when the House is in session. They're not here Mondays and Fridays, so this actually takes a long time. It won't happen until-- Now they're on August recess for six weeks, which aren't legislative days. This will come to the floor in September. Right now, it has the votes. Mike Johnson's challenge is going to be to somehow get those Republicans to change their minds and get off that bill. For now, it looks like he's going to force his hand and have a vote on this. We'll see how that plays out in September.

Brigid: Well, I can't wait to get into all the ways House Leader Mike Johnson, Speaker Mike Johnson has evolved on this, but I want to bring some of our listeners into the conversation. Let's start with Daniella from Maplewood, New Jersey. Daniella, you're on WNYC.

Daniella: Yes, hello. Can you hear me?

Brigid: Loud and clear.

Daniella: Good. I'm very upset about the Jeffrey Epstein thing. I do think it can bring down the Trump authoritarian regime. The Republican Party is all split up on this. I'm amazed Marjorie Taylor Greene is involved, but it's because she believes there are Democrats involved, and I believe there probably are. I say a pox on all their houses. I'm an independent and I think that we can only save our shredding democracy if we expose this. It's a wonderful instrument for exposing the hypocrisy and the fake Christianity of Speaker Johnson. We really need to use this to save our democracy.

I think that it will do it because I see such fractions now, such fractures in the Republican Party. It scares me that there are some Democrats on that client list if it ever becomes exposed, but even if the files are never released, we see pictures with Trump dancing and pointing at girls and having a good time with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, even at his wedding to Marla Maples, his second wife, we see only a very close friends were invited to that wedding. Jeffrey Epstein was even at that wedding. [sound cut]

Brigid: Danielle, I want to jump in there and thank you because I think the heart of what you told our screener was that you thought this was a story that could really bring the Trump administration down, which there have been many scandals, Annie, that President Trump has faced over his campaigns and his time in office. It's unclear how long a story will stick. What is clear about this particular story is it seems to be sticking around a bit longer than some of these other issues have. I want to get back to this idea of where Mike Johnson fits into all of this because at one point last week, as recently as last week, the speaker seemed to be among those calling for the release of these files. Can you talk a little about where he started on this issue and how his position has evolved?

Annie: Yes. Mike Johnson is a relatively inexperienced speaker whose entire way of wielding power in the House comes from, depending on Trump, and having no daylight with Trump and having Trump really act as, like, the whip. When he needs members to get in line, Trump calls them. We have no sense of his power over members without that, without Trump acting as the muscle, so to speak. It was really surprising to me when he said on that podcast we should release all the files at the same moment that Trump was tweeting agitatedly, begging people to look elsewhere and move on, and saying he didn't understand why anyone cared about this anymore. To hear Johnson say that was the first time ever that he did not just echo exactly what the President was saying.

I'm not surprised that that position didn't last that long. Johnson is now saying that, of course, we want transparency, but that's what the White House is giving us, which is not absolutely not the case. He's standing behind this. He said we need to let the Justice Department have time and space to do its thing. Trump did make kind of a small concession, saying he was going to have the Justice Department release some files. Johnson is saying that's transparency. That's good enough for him. Again, he's back to this pose of, "We just need to let Trump and the administration have space to do their work."

We'll see how long he can-- That bought him enough time to get to where they all went home, but we'll see if this sticks, if the voters, if that's going to be sufficient for them. It does seem in this case, they're not really being played for fools like that. They're not going to take that. Another thing that changed was there was some reporting from the Wall Street Journal and other places about connecting Trump and Epstein even further, like this birthday book. Then that gave the right a common enemy in the mainstream media to knock around. That kind of united them a little bit more, but we'll see. It bought Johnson a little time, but we'll see if the pressure stays on, we'll see if he has to do more.

Brigid: I want to play just a little clip of Speaker Johnson about why they were going into this recess, where he seems to suggest that, again, nothing really to see here, that this is the way the calendar works, which is something I think your reporting says is probably not quite accurate. Let's play that clip.

Mike Johnson: The published schedule of Congress was decided in December of 2024, and it's been published ever since. We are fulfilling the calendar. We're working. We'll be working tomorrow. There have been votes every day this week. We have 9 or 10 committees working through markups this week, many tomorrow. Congress is doing its work. No one is adjourning early. We have an August district work period that is very important to the function of Congress, that has been recognized for all of memory of this institution, and that is what everyone will be doing.

Brigid: Annie, what I'm hearing there is him saying nothing's ending early. This is just the schedule. Is that [crosstalk]

Annie: No, what I'm hearing there is intense defensiveness because a story about Mike Johnson sending home the House was a lead story in every newspaper yesterday. What happened-- Yes, Republicans were supposed to have a week of some substantive bills. They were going to vote on a measure targeting undocumented immigrants, a bill to ease some environmental rules, and Biden ERA regulations, a rollback of those. All those bills were put on hold because Democrats were forcing this House Rules Committee to take up these amendments, adding votes on releasing the files. Mike Johnson couldn't figure out a way out of it and canceled the day of votes. He did send them home early. I think what Mike Johnson's reacting to there is he doesn't like the idea that he's canceled votes till September.

Brigid: Right.

Annie: Yes, they were scheduled to go on recess starting Monday, so he sent them home a few days early. Nonetheless, it was-- He sent them home early. That's the bottom line. if this was a priority, yes, Congress has a recess. That's not new. Mike Johnson didn't make it up. If this was a priority, he could call members back to have a vote any old day he wanted to. Yes.

Brigid: Well, we're going to take a short break. We have much more to talk about with my guest Annie Karni from the New York Times, and more of your calls and texts in just a minute. Stick around.

[MUSIC - Solid: Soulive]

Brigid: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, filling in for Brian today. My guest is New York Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni. We're talking about how the Epstein story is still making waves on Capitol Hill. I want to bring some of our listeners into the conversation. Let's go to Pat in Bloomfield, New Jersey. Pat, you're on WNYC.

Pat: Good morning. Thank you for taking my call. I think there's one thing that we need to really keep in mind, that even if this Epstein issue has many, many legs and has a power to stay clearly as an important issue regarding the Trump administration, any idea that this is potentially either going to weaken or bring his administration down like Watergate did with Nixon is absolutely incorrect. If there's one thing that Donald Trump likes, is power. He's given ample evidence of that. Not only that, he has people in place clearly that will do his bidding. As Al Jolson once said, if you think Trump has not followed judges' orders, basically the rule of law for him is just words on the paper, I don't think you've seen anything yet.

Brigid: Pat, thank you for that call. I want to go to Bill in Brooklyn to offer another perspective. Bill, you're on WNYC.

Bill: Okay. To a degree, I echo the previous caller's comment. I think that Donald Trump is kind of infallible with respect to his base. However, when Trump is gone, there's going to need to be a successor movement. These Epstein files represent an opportunity to discredit all the Pizzagate nonsense, all the QAnon nonsense, and then the Epstein nonsense itself. If it's true, then we clean house, and that's good. If it's not true, then the MAGA people will have nothing to hold on to anymore once the Donald is gone. I'll take any comments you have off the air.

Brigid: Bill, thanks so much for your call. Annie, any reaction to those callers, some views from voters, constituents in this particular region?

Annie: We don't know. It would be remarkable if this was the lasting break that did Trump in. I'm not willing-- The trend of everything we've covered since 2016 is that he survives and his supporters fall in line. That's, to me, still the most likely end here, but again, this is different. It's breaking differently. It's resonating differently. I think we're a little in uncharted territory. I don't know.

Brigid: Let's talk a little bit more about, then, how Democrats are trying to seize on this. Again, rewind a bit. First, there were some calls for Attorney General Pam Bondi to resign, and it seemed there were Democrats who were coming to her defense.

Annie: Right. At first, yes, and I thought that was actually quick thinking. I saw Jamie Raskin was defending her, and that was an effort to not let Pam Bondi take the fall for this and have an easy scapegoat. He wanted it, he was saying, "No, she's just doing what Trump wants her to do. Let's keep the focus on Trump." That was what that was about. I think that over the past two weeks, Democrats have really-- Democrats in Congress have very little power. They're in the minority in the House and the Senate. They don't have a lot of tools with which to drive the narrative.

I think this is part of why Democrats in the country have been so frustrated, because, yes, it looks they're not doing anything, they're not doing enough, then I've tried to drill down on this, like, what exactly can Congressional Democrats do? There's not-- It's unsatisfying. Finally, here they found a way to paralyze the House floor by insisting on these votes that Republicans don't want to cast on releasing the files at every subcommittee level, at the Rules Committee level, they are managing to force these votes. As we've seen, they've paralyzed the House floor, but in doing so, it kind of fell into their lap. They are absolutely all on board. Jeffries has told members like, "Seize this issue, whatever we can do." Sign on to the Massie discharge petition. They're all for calling for the release now.

Brigid: Well, I want to play a couple of clips. This is from a press conference yesterday led by Hakeem Jeffries. To me, what is interesting about this is hearing the connection between one of the issues that Democrats have been up in arms about, which is this tax and spending bill, and how they are managing to link that to this ongoing news cycle about Epstein. I'm going to play two clips back to back, one is how House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, and the second, which is about a minute, is House Minority Whip Catherine Clark. Just very interesting to me, the sort of rhetorical dance they're engaging in here.

Annie: Yes.

Hakeem Jeffries: Democrats are fighting to make life more affordable for the American people, to improve the quality of life for working families, middle-class folks, all those who aspire to be part of the middle class, hardworking American families, older Americans, our veterans, our families, the men and women of organized labor. This is what drives Democrats, but Republicans are focused on their billionaire donors. That was the centerpiece of the One Big Ugly bill. It's what explains Republican refusal to release the Epstein files.

Catherine Clark: Republicans are running away, all to avoid the release of the Epstein client list. All to cover up for pedophiles in this hollowed-out running away, all to avoid the release of the Epstein client list, all to cover up for pedophiles. In this hollowed-out version of the Republican Party, they knock down people who work hard for a living. Their signature bill, the Big Ugly Bill, kicked 15 million Americans off their health insurance, takes food from 16 million kids, raises energy bills, shuts down hospitals, denies veterans their benefits. They run up the debt to give tax breaks to billionaires, and they run out of town to hide sex crimes for the rich and famous.

Brigid: Annie.

[laughter]

Annie: It's a stretch. It's a stretch. I just think-- I saw a Catherine Clark tweet yesterday that said, "The last six months will be defined by the GOP's crusade to eliminate healthcare access and protect Jeffrey Epstein." It's just a little-- It's a stretch to connect those two issues. The connective tissue is what Jeffries said at the end of that clip, like it's about protecting billionaires and valuing billionaires over working people. Still, eliminating healthcare access is about kitchen table issues in the economy, and all I've heard from Democrats for six months is that the next election has to be about economic issues, pocketbook issues. Jeffrey Epstein, when Catherine Clark said protecting pedophiles, it's like, what? It's a little [crosstalk]

Brigid: Yes. There is a moment, a real record scratch moment, in both of those clips. [chuckles]

Annie: Yes. [chuckles] Yes, it's like I get what they're trying to do, and I'm not sure that it's working to make this one-two thing. We've seen some, like Nancy Pelosi earlier this week, said to Reporters, "The Epstein stuff is just a distraction. We need to talk about the Big Beautiful Bill." Then by the end of the week, she was signing on to legislation to release the files and put out a long statement about how horrible and important it was to get the truth. Also, I hate this everything's a distraction, everything's a distraction from another thing that was a distraction from another thing. They're trying to do both. They should do both, but the connection is awkward, for sure.

Brigid: Speaking of distractions, we are talking so much about the politics of this. We've had many listeners text a version of what I'm about to read. This listener writes, "I think it's a good idea to remember at this time that, at its core, the Epstein scandal is rooted in the sexual assault of children. The protection of anyone on the client list is aiding, abetting, so criminal." I think as we're even having this conversation now, in some ways, we're separating out the Jeffrey Epstein of it all and what that whole case was about because it's really about this posturing and the way that people are trying to seize on the politics.

Annie: Right.

Brigid: I think we have a caller on this as well. Let's go to Nick in Brooklyn. Nick, you're on WNYC.

Nick: Hi. Yes, that's exactly what I was just talking to the line producer about. I feel this is a different issue for the right and the left in that it is born of reality television. Reality television is more important, unfortunately, than policy or government. It's more compelling for the base, for the MAGA base. That is what they voted for. They didn't vote for policy. They voted for entertainment, and this is it. This is the Epstein trial. Especially when things Jean-Luc Brunel dying in prison, as well as Epstein dying in prison, both of them under suspicious circumstances. When these kind of things come out, these are going to be big twists in the entertainment plot line. It could take MAGA down.

Brigid: Nick, thanks for your call. Go ahead, Annie.

Annie: I was just going to say Nick's comment made me think of something else about this split on the two issues Democrats want to talk about, which is the Epstein case has been an obsession of the MAGA base. This is not an issue that Democratic voters or independent voters, or that sliver in the middle that everyone wants to win, has really been animated by. This is a MAGA base issue, and the issue of healthcare costs and taking away your Medicaid. The bill issue, that was a play for the voters that Democrats want to think are winning back. The Epstein thing is about depressing MAGA turnout. It's actually even two issues that are speaking to two different groups of voters. One is depressing Trump's base and one is winning back voters that Democrats wrongly thought they didn't care about the issues they cared about. It's speaking to different audiences.

Brigid: Sure. Then getting back to speaking to likely more of a Trump base. There are now reports that the Trump administration is serving up a new allegation, announcing a new task force to investigate former President Obama over unsubstantiated claims that his administration was trying to damage Trump's 2016 campaign through its investigation of his ties to Russia. Earlier this week, your outlet, the New York Times, also reported that Trump shared a video on social media showing President Obama being arrested, an AI-generated thing. Does this fit into that category of distraction that you were talking about before?

Annie: Oh, yes. I definitely think that they want to change the channel on the news. Obama, it's his original birtherism and conspiracy theories about Obama's background or actions are a great play to the base. In fact, Obama re-entering the news cycle in this way made me slightly more understanding of the posture he's taken of really just sitting to the sidelines of politics because it was a reminder of how his mere presence can be a huge distraction and used against Democrats.

Brigid: Annie, bringing it back to Democrats, we have a listener who texted, "Interesting that Leader Jeffries views Democrats' path forward, allied with Massie and Taylor Greene, yet refuses to endorse Zohran Mamdani or back policies that make life more affordable for American people," to use Jeffries own words from the clip we played. That is something that, as bizarre as the sequence of stories consuming Washington is, here in the city, we are obsessed with our own upcoming mayoral election, and we haven't seen endorsements from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer or House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

What does that tell you about the Democrats' strategy that they are seizing on this moment to try and connect the Republicans' act on the tax and spending bill with the Epstein files. Yet, as you mentioned, affordability is supposed to be central to their platform, and a candidate who ran with affordability central to his platform is still waiting to get their support.

Annie: I find it very perplexing. It doesn't look very strong to me. I've seen the releases that the NRCC, the Republican campaign arm, have putting out about Jeffries and Mamdani already. They're desperate to call the entire party socialists. They're desperate to tie them together. That, I think, is part of what they don't want. Jeffries has to win seats where that's very-- Mamdani is very popular in New York City. That doesn't work in some more red districts or central-leaning districts. He doesn't want that to define the part this is like Zohran is a national figure overnight and that could overwhelm Jeffries.

At the same time I've seen some-- I think that Jeffries and Schumer are both concerned about Jewish voters, Jewish-- I don't know. There's a lot of contingencies. They have to worry about money donors, other districts. That being said, he is the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York City. He won overwhelmingly, I assume-- Oh, Jeffries has also said, "I'm not meeting with any other candidate. I'm only meeting with Jeffries." I'm assuming that eventually Schumer and Jeffries are going to have to endorse him, so I don't understand. I've been trying to understand. I've been trying to do a little reporting on this. I'm like, what are they gaining by waiting? To me, it only looks indecisive at this point, and eventually they're going to get there. I do think it's just sitting out there, and to me, it looks pretty awkward.

Brigid: I'll just end with a text from a listener about something happening today that we haven't talked about because it's not exactly a legislative issue. The listener writes, "Why are you not mentioning the interviewing of Ghislaine Maxwell? Not a legislative issue, but so outrageous. Can't the Dems make something of it?" That's, of course, the close associate of Jeffrey Epstein, just to bring it full circle, who is being interviewed today. Annie, is this something that you anticipate Democrats will try to seize on in some way?

Annie: Well, let's see what she says. Let's see what comes out of that. I've already heard even Republicans raising doubts about can we trust anything she says. Is she going to be motivated by trying to get a presidential pardon? Marjorie Taylor Greene and Speaker Johnson actually both said, "Let's slow down and think about her motives." Again, these things are stronger when they're said from Republicans than if Democrats say them. Let's see what she says and what they get out of that. Of course, I think that if she seems to be covering up for Trump in some way, I'm sure Democrats will make a huge stink out of that.

Brigid: Well, the story keeps on going. We'll leave it there for today. My guest has been Annie Karni, a congressional correspondent for the New York Times. I should mention that Annie and her colleague at the Times, Luke Broadwater, had a book come out earlier this year called Mad House: How Donald Trump, MAGA Mean Girls, a Former Used Car Salesman, A Florida Nepo Baby, and a Man With Rats In His Walls Broke Congress. That's a title that you need to spend some time reading the whole thing. Annie, thank you so much for coming on the show.

Annie: Thank you for having me.

 

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.