Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Trump: "Never Briefed" On Name Being In Epstein Files; What Hunter Biden Really Said; Hunter Blasts The Party Establishment. Trump: Haven't Thought About Pardoning Maxwell, But I Could. Aired 9- 10a ET

Aired July 26, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: Or someone that I should see, tell me. I'm on Instagram, TikTok, X, Bluesky. If you miss a conversation or story, you can check out our show's website and you can listen to the show as a podcast.

Remember to tune in tomorrow night, a new episode of "Live Aid, When Rock and Roll Took on the World" airs Sunday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific only on CNN.

Thank you so much for joining me today. I will see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:38]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Get ready, Mr. President, here comes some free advice. I'm Michael Smerconish. Today in New York City, the response of President Trump and those in his inner circle to the Epstein situation only invites further scrutiny. He's acting like he has something to hide, guaranteeing that the controversy stays alive creates division, not to mention angst within his base. Political wisdom has it that the cover-up is often worse than the crime.

Here there's no assertion of criminal conduct on the president's part, which is why his response is so baffling unless he does have something to hide. So let's assume a few things. Let's assume first that there's no underlying illicit conduct on the president's part. Let's further assume that the birthday book does contain a submission from Trump or one that was submitted in his name. And let's further stipulate that his name is in the Epstein files.

Here's what he should have said, Jeffrey Epstein was a past acquaintance of mine, one of many. I've been a public figure for decades, first in New York City, then worldwide, in that time I've met and associated with many people, had my picture taken with tens of thousands over the years. I don't recall making a submission to his birthday book, but it's entirely possible that I did. Ever since "Art of the Deal" made me a celebrity almost 40 years ago, responding to requests from friends and the public in general, that was a full time job back when communication was by mail that required a stamp, my staff received inquiries of all kinds for interviews, for books, for speaking engagements, T.V. and movie appearances, congratulatory greetings for birthdays, graduations and bar mitzvahs. A birthday card from me doesn't necessarily mean anything more than somebody requested it.

And given my past association with Epstein, I'd be surprised if my name were not in the mammoth investigation file that assessed his life right alongside of thousands of others. But here is what no file can document that I was involved in any bad behavior of the type for which Epstein was ultimately charged in federal court, charges that came years after I cut ties with him. Epstein was a bad guy, we all know that now. And when I had the first inclination that he was unsavory, I ghosted him. That happened over 20 years ago.

And since that time, I've been a leading voice calling for a full investigation that's why I sent Todd Blanche to Florida this week. It's crazy that a guy who's been dead for six years has become such an object of morbid fascination. And my only regret is that he didn't live long enough to allow justice for those that he victimized who have my sympathy. Any questions?

Now, that response would have been textbook crisis management from the person who literally wrote the book, Lanny Davis. Friend, law school classmate, associate of Bill and Hillary Clinton, former special counsel to President Clinton, he knows what he's talking about and wrote this bestseller, "Truth to Tell, Tell it Early, Tell it All, Tell it Yourself, Notes from My White House Education."

OK, Lanny, critique what you just heard.

LANNY DAVIS, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT CLINTON: I am about to resign my plank in Washington and ask Michael Smerconish to take over. You just deprived me of all my business. Thank you, Michael.

Not only would I agree with you and do I agree with you, but one other step I would have said if I were in the White House and advising President Trump. Go to the White House press room, make that announcement and call in Attorney General Bondi and have her hand out the notebook. That's a one day story with your opening statement, there's nothing to talk about. And of course the difficulty is he's not acting any differently than most people who are in trouble who try to will away two facts that can never be changed, especially in the Internet age. Fact one, you can't delete a fact.

In fact too in the age of the Internet, it's going to come out anyway. So your advice going to the press room would have been my dramatic technique for, here it is, everyone. Any questions? And we wouldn't be here today. I'd be missing doing your show.

SMERCONISH: Lanny, I can tell you, knowing the audience and the social media reaction, there will be a torrent of folks who will say Smerconish and maybe they'll throw you into the mix as well. And Lanny Davis, now they're plotting Trump's defense. I'm trying to be an analyst and say if he has nothing to hide, then he's not handling it well. Of course, I acknowledged it's entirely possible that he's acting like someone who does have something to hide. Your thought?

[09:05:18]

DAVIS: Yes. I would take it one step further. Assume he does have something to hide, that's all the more reason he should tell everybody about what he's worried about. And if he has to say, this is where I was, it was a mistake, which he never would say, but at least he's got to say that himself because it's coming out anyway. So if there's something to hide, Mr. Trump, put it out yourself.

SMERCONISH: You're not only a crisis manager, but you're an attorney, a graduate of the Yale Law School. As an attorney, talk to me about his decision to actually sue the Wall Street Journal as he did a week ago yesterday.

DAVIS: Well, the same advice I give to clients who come to me for defamation cases. And I've filed some and I've defended more. And that is, when you file a defamation case, you become the defendant the first time you file. Why is that? Because when you're suing someone for defamation, their defense is truth and you're going to be deposed first witness.

So why would Donald Trump want to continue this story in the media through a defamation case where his deposition testimony will be public? It makes no sense.

SMERCONISH: Lanny, he's already missed the opportunity for the first leg of that three leg stool of yours, tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself. Is it too late for President Trump to follow some of your wisdom?

DAVIS: Never too late. Because of my first rule that it's coming out anyway. I have lawyers that I'm in the middle of litigation with who say, are you crazy? You're going to volunteer a bad fact that hurts our client, that violates our duty of loyalty? My answer is it's coming anyway.

Let's do it ourselves. Let's have our client own up to it, or let's have our client explain it, but let's have our client do that rather than the media or the other side. So, Mr. Trump, this is all coming out sooner or later. Those files are going to be published. I don't know when, but it's inevitable.

Do it yourself.

SMERCONISH: President Trump is being dogged by the news pages of the Wall Street Journal. Meanwhile, on the editorial page, they've given him advice in line with what you and I are discussing. I'm going to put it on the screen and I'll read to aloud just one paragraph. Perhaps Mr -- pardon me. "Perhaps Ms. Bondi and Mr. Patel could call a news conference, provide context on the mentions of Mr. Trump and explain why releasing raw files could do more harm than good.

Bring FBI Director Dan Bongino. If he'll show up, then they and Mr. Trump could tell the public that the files didn't live up to the hype, including theirs, before they took office, the case is closed and that's it." Might that work?

DAVIS: No, because the words raw. You have to do 100 percent, you can't do 99 percent. You can redact if there's personal information, everybody understands that. But no, my -- unless they're saying this, my advice is walk into the White House press room and hand out those notebooks. Do the redactions for personal privacy, yes.

I would like to add one other thing, that if I were Mr. Trump and advising him, I would mention children, the young women who are victims, that every time this story is extended by one drip more, one day more, they relive the nightmare. He should be the one saying, you know who I'm worried about? I'm worried about the victims of Mr. Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell. Those victims are reliving the nightmare every day. Mr. Trump should say that's who we should be worried about. That's why I'm going to tell you the full truth and protect the children.

SMERCONISH: OK, I'm going to circle back just one more time on a premise that I asserted earlier, knowing of the criticism that some will misunderstand the conversation we're having. Hypothetically, if Lanny Davis had a client who was involved in some real bad stuff and tells you so, is your advice still go level with the public?

DAVIS: My book creates one exception to my rule, tell it early, tell it all, tell it yourself. I never advise a client to put himself or herself in jail. If there's a criminal offense, I get a criminal defense lawyer to talk to prosecutors, can we have a conversation where my client does what is an off the record proffer and let's work out a deal for sentencing. That's the only exception. No, I wouldn't ever recommend to a client to tell it all if it puts the client in jail.

But that's the time you talk to prosecutors.

SMERCONISH: Final question, does Lanny Davis' advice apply to everybody else or just high profile politicians who find themselves jammed up? In other words, in our day to day lives, do you offer the same counsel?

[09:10:00]

DAVIS: Well, my wonderful wife is here in the studio, great Smerconish fan, and I had to decide early on, do I tell it early, tell it all, tell it myself if I do something wrong? And of course, the answer was she's going to find out anyway. I tried to lie to my mother. I -- the perfect crime I planned for months. By the time I had left the house in 10 seconds, she had figured it out.

So early on in life, I decided that it's better to get it over with and that's how really I developed this thesis in the Clinton White House with the great help of Professor Mike McCurry, the press secretary, and the support of President Clinton, let's tell the bad news ourselves. Get it over with. So by the time the U.S. Senate Republican Fred Thompson hold nationally televised hearings about campaign finance violations, he was complaining, even Lanny Davis won't say this is old news, and everybody left.

SMERCONISH: Lanny, thank you for being here. Appreciate it.

DAVIS: Thank you.

SMERCONISH: We'll see if the president follows the advice. What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, he should have just explained that there is information that cannot be released because it would damage too many people against whom the government had no case.

Andrea, you're absolutely right. The idea that the files can be released is preposterous and just misunderstands the investigatory process because there would be so many names and we're talking about crimes committed against children, right? You're going to have some other individuals who are referenced. By definition, you just couldn't hand over the data. But, but because that was what was ginned up by a lot of the supporters of the president during the course of the campaign, like we're going to release those files.

Where are the files? Then they couldn't meet the expectation. I mean, really, it's a crisis of their own doing. And now he's making it worse in line with what I just discussed with Lanny.

OK, we've got a great poll question today on this general subject. Go to my website at smerconish.com. You heard me reference in the opening commentary Todd Blanche having gone to Florida to meet two days with Ghislaine Maxwell. Why? Why was Blanche with Maxwell?

I'm giving you four choices, to consider further charges against others, that was the stated purpose, to discuss clemency or a pardon, to see what she knows about President Trump or to create distraction. Can't wait to see how that turns out.

Up ahead, he's been a target, a headline, a punchline, but this week, Hunter Biden spoke at length and on his own terms. What he said about his father, the Democrats and himself and what it reveals, we'll do that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:45]

SMERCONISH: Hunter Biden was back in the news this week after sitting for a pair of interviews, one of which lasted three hours and was with a Gen Z influencer, Andrew Callaghan, on his Channel 5 program. Given Hunter's colorful language and willingness to address any subject, the interview was widely discussed. It was treated in the media like the release of a highly anticipated book, you know, with headlines like Newsweek's here are the five things you need to know about that Hunter Biden interview or over at Fox, here are the five most bizarre revelations from his, quote unquote, "meltdown." So I was intrigued. I watched.

It was not what I anticipated. My prior impression of Hunter was formed by New York Post images of him in a bathtub with a crack pipe pulling the hooker's hair. And by the way, I never agreed with the media cover up of that laptop. But that's not the Hunter that was revealed in the interview. At least not to me.

Yes, he was profane, but he was also sober. Six years plus. Congrats. He was articulate, he was intelligent, he was loaded with passion. He was a devoted son.

It was also a lot of Festivus, an airing of grievances. Hunter offered what I suspect was a rare insight into what the Bidens say among themselves, maybe gathered around the Martha's Vineyard Thanksgiving table. It was so raw, so seemingly honest, at least according to him. And no, I don't agree with everything that he had to say. I, for example, can't buy that Joe's debate performance was on account of Ambien, because by definition that means, well, it was just a bad night, it was a one off, and it wasn't. My own eyes tell me otherwise.

And I wish he'd also been forced to say more about Burisma and other business dealings. But here's my biggest takeaway from listening and watching Hunter Biden. And not just listening to that which is said about Hunter Biden. He confirmed what I had long suspected, that at its core, this is not a story of self-enrichment, although it has those elements that was secondary in the bigger picture of how Joe had a blind spot for Hunter to trading off the family name. Because at its root, this is a story primarily of addiction.

Addiction that ran in the first family like it does in so many others, one that we're all just a degree of separation removed from. Joe Biden lost a daughter and wife, you know this. And was sworn in at the bedside of the two boys who did survive that horrible automobile accident. One of the boys was two-year-old Hunter, who lost his birth mother and 13 year old sister. Later, Joe lost a son and Hunter a brother in beloved Beau.

I'm not excusing Hunter's poor decision making. I'm just explaining the background. Of course he should have paid his taxes and never bought that gun. But Hunter's addictive demons got triggered and Joe's paternal instinct took hold because of having lost a wife and mother, a daughter and sister, then a son and brother, and neither wanted to lose the mooring that they had left with each other. That's what I took away from that interview.

Joining me now is Tara Setmayer, resident scholar at the University of Virginia Center for Politics, cofounder of the Seneca Project.

Tara, what did you take away from the interviews?

[09:19:58]

TARA SETMAYER, SCHOLAR, UVA CENTER FOR POLITICS: You know, I appreciate you being fair in the assessment of the Hunter Biden interviews because there's been a lot of hysteria on the other side about this that I think is unfair. Hunter Biden is an incredibly self- deprecating and self-reflective individual. And the fact that he was so passionate and open about not only his own life, he wrote a whole book about it, but also about what this entire episode last year in the election did to his family. And it was relatable. It was relatable in a way that was refreshing for a lot of people.

I mean, his airing of the grievances, it came from a place, a visceral, honest place about the level of betrayal that not only he felt personally, but what he felt for his dad. And I think that comes from, as you mentioned, the addiction. I think that comes from the fact that his father, that Joe Biden has always been a loyal, loving father who never betrayed him, who never left his side despite all of the problems and issues that Hunter went through, Joe Biden was there as a loving father first, and he appreciated that. And there's a lot of families out there that can't say the same about their parents and the way they've responded to a child with addiction, especially high profile where it could have cost him everything, it didn't matter. So Hunter went out there with that same passion and that same devotion and was fighting for his father's legacy and for the feeling of betrayal that he felt and that -- he felt was -- toward his father.

I think it was -- it was a breath of fresh air for a lot of people. And he was honest and that's powerful. And people appreciate authenticity.

SMERCONISH: I watched and wondered, what if we had seen the unplugged Hunter more front and center while Joe was still in the race.

SETMAYER: Listen, as someone who was in political communications for 30 years, I said that they should have been more on offense when it came to Hunter. Get ahead of it from the very beginning, because that is relatable. What he went through was relatable. And the fact that Republicans tried to weaponize his addiction was really untoward and unseemly. When he was in the Jamie Harrison interview, and I suggest people watch that one as well. I mean, the Channel 5 interview was the more explosive one with all of profanity --

SMERCONISH: Right.

SETMAYER: -- which, listen, I'm from Jersey, I don't clutch pearls over that. Again, I find it a little refreshing because people actually talk that way. But the Jamie Harrison interview was a bit different. And you could just feel him. You could just feel how he felt about it and the way he spoke about issues, the way he was -- he pinpointed issues, how articulate and knowledgeable he was about political issues and his insight would have been an asset.

That was an asset for the Biden campaign, I think. But they were afraid to do that and get ahead of it. And I think that that cost them. People would have appreciated it.

SMERCONISH: So Helen Lewis wrote in the Atlantic something that I circled a particular paragraph. I'm going to put it on the screen, I hope, and read it aloud, "Since their crushing loss in November, Democrats have wondered how they can win the battle for attention and reach voters who find them weak, remote and passive. Their elected officials have been tiptoeing toward using the occasional cuss word in their public appearances like teenagers cautiously puffing a joint for the first time and hoping not to cough. Hunter Biden, by contrast, went straight for line after line of the hard stuff. Donald Trump is an effing dictator thug and Democrats should fight against his deportation agenda because we fought an effing revolution against a king based on two things in particular, habeas corpus and due process.

And we're so willing to give them up?

Question for Tara is whether there's a lesson in this for Dems who've been struggling for a way to try and combat Donald Trump.

SETMAYER: Yes, and thank you for that comment. She's 100 percent correct. This is what the people have been clamoring for. You may not agree with the timing or you may not agree with some of the things that he said about certain people, I mean, I think he dropped a lot of truth bombs among other F bombs, but he was spot on a lot of things. And people respect authenticity.

There is nothing inauthentic about Hunter Biden. And there's a problem with Democratic branding. There's a reason why the Democratic party has only 28 percent favorability and that the words that keep being repeated about how people describe it is weak, they're not fighting, we need someone to stand up, stop being so cautious. And that -- Hunter Biden through caution to the wind and just told it like it is. People respect that.

That is a lesson to be learned here. You can't continue to focus group every word and worry about what's going to happen over here. I mean, Donald Trump doesn't do that.

SMERCONISH: Yes, nothing was being focus group. There was -- there was no finger.

SETMAYER: Correct. Yes. No.

SMERCONISH: There was no finger to the wind. There was no finger to the wind on the part of Hunter.

SETMAYER: Exactly.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

SETMAYER: Exactly.

SMERCONISH: Tara, nice to see you.

SETMAYER: Listen, it's the Trump administrate-- just really quick, if Donald Trump can put Don Jr. and Eric out front, then the Biden family should have put Hunter Biden out front, because my money would be on Hunter Biden in that debate any day. There's lesson to be (inaudible).

[09:25:10]

SMERCONISH: OK. Well, that -- now that, that is a conversation. Put them all together. That is a conversation I'd love to see and host. Thank you, Tara.

SETMAYER: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Via social media from the world of X. I never say it enough, follow me on X, please. Who actually cares? I feel like I have to read that the way you probably wrote it. Who cares? The Dems need to move on from Biden and company onto the next generation, millennial.

Right. But Palderton, the question is whether there are lessons to be learned from the presentation. Yes, it was a presentation of sorts that was made by Hunter. Others -- here's what I see, I should have said this to Tara as well, I've seen others on the Democratic side of the aisle trying to act in a way that Hunter was doing naturally. Again, I'm not buying into everything I laid out for you, where I agreed, where I disagreed, but this was not the Hunter.

We have been led to believe that this was a guy who couldn't put sentences together, that he was a total F up. And that's not what I saw. That is not what I saw in the -- in the interview. I recommend that you watch it. And she's right, watch them both.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com. I have the answer to this, by the way. I texted Elie Honig, who's joining me in a couple of minutes, and I said, Elie, get ready, I know why Todd Blanche went to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell. I've got the answer. And I shall reveal.

I am offering you four choices, to consider further charges against others, to discuss clemency or a pardon, to see what she knows about President Trump or to create distraction.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary, plus, yes, we're going to talk about it, a convicted sex trafficker, the Justice Department, and a president who won't rule out a pardon, Ghislaine Maxwell back in the spotlight and so is the law. What's really going on in those closed door meetings?

Please sign up when you're voting on the poll question for my free and worthy daily newsletter at smerconish.com, you'll get the work of editorial cartoonists like Steve Breen and also Scott Stantis. I love editorial cartoons. Grew up loving them.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:42]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms and reach out and comment on the program as this individual did.

I trust Trump is doing what he thinks is right. It's well-known Epstein catered to the liberal elites. There's a reason the left wasn't interested until about five minutes ago. I trust Trump is doing what he thinks is right.

He's not -- for all the reasons that I articulated at the outset of the program, he's -- he's not handling it well. And I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt where he deserves it. But by implication, I'm saying, I don't accept what the president is saying. Like, you realize that, right?

I'm not accepting his explanation as to the birthday book, the flat- out denial. Although, he did file a lawsuit, you know, in saying that that was fake news. So, we're going to learn. And similarly, you've got A.G. Pam Bondi saying that he was advised -- or the news reports say that Pam Bondi told him back in May that his name shows up in the files and he denies it as recently as yesterday. So, it's not adding up. It's not adding up. And you're only conclusions to draw are that it's not adding up because he really does have something to hide, or he's just mismanaging this. The blanket, deny, deny, deny, make them prove it, that has served him well in the past is not working in this instance.

And I took the time to say, here's what he ought to be saying. You know, own that which should be owned and try and move forward from it. I know some of you are going to say, oh, that's a defense of Trump. No, it's just me trying to apply a little critical thinking to this controversy.

What else came in? We have this.

You're pathetic. You're pathetic. Making excuses and scripting more lies for the crook in chief. You're a moron.

OK, Parkavenue, I guess it went right over your head the way I was trying to break down the component parts of this. And if you really understand what I'm saying, I'm telling you, here's what Trump would be saying is this -- if this were the extent of the relationship and nothing more, and the fact that he's not saying it should similarly tell you. So, I guess, that went over your head. One more if we have time for it. I hope that we do.

Maybe the saddest aspect is that we as a society are no longer shocked by Hunter's antics. We have become desensitized to nonsensical interview.

Man, I'm catching it from all over. I'm defending Trump and I'm defending -- defending Hunter in the same program. I guess that's what people are saying.

Watch the interview, OK? That's -- that's -- that is not a worthless interview. It was very insightful about a guy whose name has been bandied about, you know, for the last several years.

And finally, he comes forward and speaks for three hours on a whole variety of subjects. Again, I didn't accept a lot of what I heard from him, but I saw an authenticity in him and an intelligence in him, and a self-deprecation in him, and even some humor in him that I never knew existed by simply looking at the post images of him with a crack pipe in the bathtub with the hooker. That's what I'm saying. Still to come, plus two days, two DOJ meetings, one convicted accomplice.

[09:35:02]

Why is Ghislaine -- I've got a theory. I'm going to hit Elie Honig with it in a minute. I think I know why Blanche is in Florida or has been with Ghislaine Maxwell. And Elie tells me he thinks he knows the answer too. So, stick around. This ought to be really interesting.

Please make sure that you're answering today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Why the Blanche meeting with Maxwell? I give you four choices to pick from, because he's considering further charges, he's discussing clemency or pardon, they want to know what -- what does she know about Trump, or to create a distraction.

While you're there voting, will you please sign up for the free daily newsletter? You'll get the work of editorial cartoonists like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Why did Todd Blanche go to Florida? Is Ghislaine Maxwell making a legal play or making a deal?

[09:40:01]

The woman convicted of sex trafficking girls for Jeffrey Epstein has now met twice with the deputy attorney general of the United States. It's an extraordinary move and one that comes with extraordinary questions like, could this end with a presidential pardon?

Before leaving for Scotland, President Trump said this to reporters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Would you consider a pardon or commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's something I haven't thought about. It's really something -- I'm allowed to do it. But it's something I have not thought about.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, says she's been honest, cooperative and has nothing to hide.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID OSCAR MARKUS, ATTORNEY FOR GHISLAINE MAXWELL: We just ask that folks look to what she has to say with an open mind and that's what Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has promised us. Everything she says can be corroborated. And she's telling the truth. She's got no reason to lie at this point, and she's going to keep telling the truth.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So, what's really going on behind closed doors? And legally, what should we be watching for?

Joining me now is CNN legal analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig. Elie, you know today's poll question. I'm going to put it up on the screen. I'm curious to know how would you answer.

Why did Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche meet with Ghislaine Maxwell? Your choices, consider further charges against others, to discuss clemency or pardon, to see what she knows about Trump, or to create distraction.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Michael, I always vote on this Smerconish daily poll. I'm often in the minority.

SMERCONISH: Me too.

HONIG: I'm on category D here, to create a distraction. Specifically, the distraction here is the appearance that DOJ is really digging into this case and really doing a meaningful investigation. I think they want to be able to come out of this and say, look, for the first time ever we sent a prosecutor down there, a big important prosecutor, to meet face to face with the person who would know the most.

I think they want to be able to say that. And let me sort of append a footnote to that. I also think Todd Blanche knew before he stepped foot in that room. I'm speculating

here. I don't think there's any way Todd Blanche steps foot in that room unless he knows in advance that Ghislaine Maxwell is not going to directly implicate Donald Trump in

some sort of horrific crime.

Of course, Ghislaine Maxwell knows that Donald Trump knew Jeffrey Epstein. But I don't think Todd Blanche takes the risk of going in there being told to his face, yes, Donald Trump committed some sort of horrible crime.

So, I think, A, it's to create this impression, yes, they're really investigating. And, B, to create a vehicle through which DOJ can eventually announce Maxwell has cleared Donald Trump.

SMERCONISH: OK. Are you ready for my theory?

HONIG: Yes.

SMERCONISH: He is there to collect scalps and not an orange one. He -- his mission is to come home with names that she's prepared to name publicly. The higher place they are in progressive Democratic circles, the better.

So, that if she's willing to say X, Y, and Z by name were involved with Epstein beyond just flying on the plane or visiting the island, then for Trump, it's the political win that he thinks he needs where he points in a different direction. And maybe in that circumstance, he cuts her some slack, offering clemency. Your thought?

HONIG: OK, good. So, we partially agree, we partially disagree. So first of all, I do think that whatever name she names in that session as having committed crimes will come out eventually and probably sooner than later.

I'm not sure where you are on this, but I don't think there's any way in the world DOJ actually prosecutes anyone based on that. Maybe there's some sort of release or announcement. But look, I spent tons of time as a prosecutor dealing with cooperating witnesses.

I don't see any way DOJ comes to the conclusion that Ghislaine Maxwell is fully credible, fully reliable, somebody we want to invest in, somebody we want to ask a judge to reduce her sentence, somebody we want to indict based on her testimony, and then call at trial as a witness.

So, it could well be that there is naming of names, but no way is DOJ going to actually bring other indictments. So, Michael, to your point, you know, we learned yesterday that Ghislaine Maxwell had been asked about 100 different names. That came from David Markus, Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer.

And I want to know, did she say any of those 100 committed crimes that she knows of? If she said none of them committed crimes, then I have serious questions about her credibility.

SMERCONISH: In any other DOJ I would agree with you that the idea of indictments flowing from this is preposterous. How reliable, how credible is she as a witness? You wrote on this just yesterday.

HONIG: Michael, as you know from my career as a prosecutor, I called some really bad guys as cooperators up to and including murderers. But there's ways to explain that to a jury. There's ways that you can establish their credibility through other evidence, through other witnesses.

Ghislaine Maxwell, to me, is a bridge too far. I cannot imagine -- and, again, I'm not sensitive about this. I cannot imagine calling a convicted child sex predator like Ghislaine Maxwell, who has done nothing but lie about this when asked in the past, including under oath, putting her in front of a jury and saying to a jury, she's ours now, you own a witness.

[09:45:12]

When you put a cooperator on the stand, for better or worse, you own that person. And I think to put Ghislaine Maxwell on a stand and to ask a jury to convict someone else and send someone else to prison based on her word, A, is a prosecutorial disaster, and B would be a public relations and political disaster for the Trump administration.

SMERCONISH: And you would think that when asked about whether you're going to cut some slack to a child predator, the immediate response from any elected official, including the president, would be a, hell no. And not a, I haven't really thought about it. Of course, I have the power to do so.

So, what do you read into the clip that we played in terms of how the president responded yesterday?

HONIG: Yes, it's the easiest question in human history that our colleague, Kevin Liptak, asked a great question. It's, are you kidding me? A pardon for the single worst, or number two after Jeffrey Epstein, worst child sex trafficker in modern history? Absolutely not, no.

Instead, we get the, haven't thought about it. I have the right. He's right, he has the right. And look, Michael, there's a history here. I mean, Donald Trump is a habitual pardon dangler.

You can go back and look at the clips of him saying, almost word for word the exact same thing about Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, right, I don't know, I haven't thought about it. And what did he do? He pardoned them all.

Now, it's still hard for me to believe that Donald Trump will actually pardon or commute Ghislaine Maxwell for similar reasons that we talk about. But other people who I know who are closer to Donald Trump and who have worked with him in the past say, it could well happen. So, I'm not going to bet either way on that. But boy, that's hard to imagine, isn't it?

SMERCONISH: I totally agree, and the leverage that he has now is because I'm sure she's so desperately wants to get out of the pokey that she's probably willing to tell Blanche, Trump's got nothing to do with anything.

And they want to cement that in the record while she still thinks there's the prospect that he provides clemency to her. And then once she's come on record as having offered that assertion, if he pulls that away, what's she going to do about it? Go back and tell a different story?

HONIG: Right. No rational person in Ghislaine Maxwell's position or her lawyer's position is going to have Todd Blanche come in there and have Ghislaine Maxwell say one word that is damaging to Donald Trump.

And another thing that I think people need to watch for, they are poking around looking for other ways to give Ghislaine Maxwell some sort of relief short of a presidential pardon. Again, there was an interesting moment yesterday when the defense lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell, who's very good, knows what he's doing put out there, if you think back to the '08, 2008 plea deal that was given to Jeffrey Epstein, this bizarre, ridiculous plea deal in Florida --

SMERCONISH: Yes, in Florida.

HONIG: -- that became the subject of scandal. Yes, it says in there and I've never -- literally never seen this in any other federal plea deal. It says, not only does Epstein get this deal, none of his co- conspirators will ever be prosecuted.

Now, federal judges have found that that wasn't binding on DOJ. But what David Markus, the lawyer for Maxwell, said yesterday is, hey, that's a deal, Mr. President. You know, deals. Deals are deals.

And that could enable maybe DOJ if they want an out, if they want to spare Donald Trump from having to make this pardon decision, could say, look, we don't like it. But these fools, 17 years ago, made this deal. And we believe we're legally bound by it.

So, Markus is putting that out there as an alternative avenue to get his client some relief without the drama of a pardon or commutation.

SMERCONISH: Elie, thank you as always, and thank you for taking a position, category D, when I flashed the poll question again in a moment. Thank you, Elie.

Social media reaction now from certain -- of the listeners. Here we go from the world of X.

Not a Trump fan, but for four years the Biden DOJ had all the same Epstein evidence and took no action against Trump. Do you really think they would sit on it that long?

No, I do not. I do not. If there was something in there that were actionable -- the part of that inquiry that I don't like is that now we all assume it's all so political. Well, they would have at least leaked it. No, they hopefully wouldn't leak unless there was something actionable in it. Just the fact that his name might appear in that file.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Elie has just voted. He's going with category D. Why did Todd Blanche meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, to consider further charges, to discuss clemency or pardon, to see what she knows about Trump, or to create a distraction?

Vote, subscribe to the newsletter. You'll get editorial cartoon work like this from Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:43]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the result so far with 40,270 having cast ballots. Why did Todd Blanche go down to Florida and meet with Ghislaine Maxwell? Fifty-five percent, a majority say, to see what she knows about Trump. Followed by, create a distraction, Elie's answer, 22 percent, discuss clemency or pardon, or consider further charges against others.

Interesting that five percent go with what is the stated purpose of the trip, right? This is all a part of a growing investigation. He's there for a two-fold purpose. I'm not even sure how my own answer would fit in my own poll, but it's a two-fold purpose.

One, get a clean bill of health for Trump. And two, collect Democratic scalps. Come home with some names so that we can throw other individuals under the bus if this continues. That's my answer.

More social media reaction. What do we have?

William the 18th. Why are you talking about Hunter? Trump is working overtime to distract from Epstein and you are out there playing point guard.

My head explodes. OK, this was -- we are concluding -- we are concluding a three-block show. Four if you count social media. And you say I should be talking about Epstein.

[09:55:00]

Two of my blocks were about Epstein, and the other block was about Hunter, because I found that interview fascinating. But don't act like I'm ignoring Epstein. I led with it today. More social media reaction. I think he's going to make a fool of everyone who is making a big deal about this. Joke will be on every single person who thinks Trump has any part in it. Also, it could be that he's trying to make deals right now --

So, you think it's a huge distraction. I don't think an association with a pedophile is just any other distraction. I think that this one is bigger and worse than all the others. I disagree with that. One more. I've got time, I think. Let's see.

Due to the current polarization in America, it's probably best that Hunter not be given a megaphone. With every swear word he surely comes off as a member of the loony left.

What people on the right don't drop the f-bomb? F that.

If not drug addled -- the left needs better spokespeople. Being impassioned isn't --

But you know what the thing about Hunter is? Hunter is not making it up. Like, I'm convinced that's the real Hunter. And when I see those on the left trying to act like what Hunter comes with naturally, it's like they're fakers. They try and act like tough guys but they're not, you know? I think what you see is what you get from him.

All right. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)