White House PANICS Over Epstein Coverup Tapes LEAK

Turning now to leaks, an extraordinary new concern from the White House.I'm gonna put F1 up here on the screen.Trump aides fear that Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan have obtained Situation Room tapes for their new book called Regime Change Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump.So we have actually shown you two of the excerpts from their book here on the show.One of them was how the U .S.

was taken to war with Iran.It famously included the exact Act.quotes out of the Situation Room, what the various leaders said about going to war with Iran, who and exactly said what.It even included Situation Room, basically exact quotes from Marco Rubio talking about Israeli intelligence being, quote, bullshit.It included, you know, J .D.

Vance saying that he opposed the war, but then said he would back Donald Trump.It included Trump, you know, in many of the reasoning for why he decided to push the U .S.forward.It included the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff very tepidly warning the president about what was going to happen if the U .S.

were to be taken to war with Iran.It was an extraordinary revelation.Now the assumption, Chris, I'm curious what you think.My assumption is this was a Bob Woodward style, like a reckoning, as in he interviews like 15 people who are all in the room, you reconstruct the dialogue, you put in a note to say, these are based on the recollections of those who were involved.However, what they note here is that in many cases, the words are so exact and so on point that they fear that it's impossible for it to be anything but a direct quote.recording, which I should note is an extraordinary breach.

The situation room is a skiff.You are not allowed to bring in your phone.Traditionally, they're all checked right before you even enter the secure area.I mean, this is longstanding policy going back 25 years or so.Same at the Pentagon.However, we do know that between Signal Gate and a lot of these other

things, the administration has played very fast and loose, I think, with classified information and others, and it's possible that somebody did bring in a phone and taped it.What makes it even more extraordinary is that somebody brought their phone in, taped it, and then leaked it to a New York Times reporter for these exact comments that are there in the Situation Room.What they point to is that not a single piece, not one piece of exact dialogue which has been quoted by the authors has been disputed yet by the White House out of fear that if they were to dispute it, they could say and point to direct tapes that they are in possession of from the Situation Room around the most sensitive things that are being discussed in the White House at the very, very highest level.

I mean, it's some extraordinary reporting.Either way, it's so accurate that the White House is afraid that they literally have the verbatim tapes.I mean, that's pretty incredible and I think provides a lot of credibility.to these accounts, which you always have to take with a grain of salt because it all depends on who is leaking to you and the way they want themselves to be portrayed.I still suspect that it wasn't recorded.I still suspect that it was that they just had good sources in the room who were able to provide them with quotes that they were able to cross check and get very close to how it actually unfolded is still my assumption.

But the very fact that the White House fears they have tapes sort of is a direct validation of what they reported out here.You know, the other thing that's really interesting, though, is I think most people assume it was J .D.Vance or somebody in the J .D.Vance world that has been leaking to them most extensively.

But it's not like an either the Epstein cover up piece or the Iran war piece makes him or literally anyone else look good.Normally, that's the way you have to look at these accounts is like, OK, well, who is this trying to paint in a favorable light?Who is leaking to them so that they can get their way?on the record and help to establish for the historical record like, oh, well, I was the one who knew what was going on.I was the one who had the right decisions.I was the one who was opposed to Iran.

I was the one who had the correct strategy with regard to Epstein.But it is a little bit hard to tell because everybody looks pretty bad based on how this went down.The other thing is just to point out, The fact that the Epstein coverup was being hatched in the Situation Room is really kind of crazy.I mean, it makes sense because it is genuinely like a massive national security issue, given all of the entanglements and, you know, Israeli connections and all of those sorts of things.But it still is incredibly crazy that that's where they were doing some of their most significant brainstorming about how do we keep the truth that Donald Trump is all over these files out of the view of the public or at the very least sort of like throw enough in their face so that they can't grab on to one, you know, one single allegation and then move on.

The whole thing is nuts.As I said, it's not uncommon for Woodward -style recreation books.I've read a lot of them.Obama's War, by the way, probably one of my favorite Woodward books literally ever written.I think it should be recommended reading for a lot of people about how exactly the war machine in the Pentagon can roll you, even whenever you are the most powerful person in the White House.This type of reporting was extremely common in the first Trump term.

I will say, you know, this one has been a lot less leak -prone than the original one, get, you know, live text from Steve Bannon and other people about Jared and Ivanka to these various types of reporters and exactly what was going on in terms of the drama.But this is very much akin to how the first term of the White House really went down.And I think that's really what's surprising and shocking a lot of people in the room.From what I've been told, a lot of them feel that they were battle -tested.They were very committed through the campaign and through theseadministration.

They were like, look, we went through this together.We survived this onslaught.We won the popular vote.We're a team.But it does appear that now that the political fortunes are going down, that a lot of people are trying to save their legacy.Now, as you said, I don't think it really makes anybody look particularly good in this.

There's a lot of missteps.There's a lot of problems.I mean, for example, Let's take the vice president.You have somebody who internally opposed the war.And as we just heard, just this morning, whenever we were playing the defense, he's like, oh, thank you to the president for – I mean obviously he's going to say that.But to say on the record and to have – or to basically say – to have a tape or a recollection of saying you opposed something and then you come out publicly and support it, that's not right.

That doesn't look good, right, whenever you're the vice president.But then let's take people like Dan Bongino.Dan Bongino, some people were like, oh, he must have leaked the Epstein coverage.Let's put F2 just so people know what we're referencing, where Bongino screamed at the White House chief of staff and all of that.Well, yeah, he might have screamed at that and said, oh, you guys are screwing all this stuff up.Well, he came out afterwards and he supported it, and he said he stood by all of the work he did while he was in the administration.

Same with Kash Patel, who publicly, or at least privately, had said, a few things and acquiesce to the infamous Epstein memo of nearly one year ago.I mean, I could go down the list.I can't think of a single really public official in any of these deliberations who actually comes out looking better.You can give some credit to some of those who said, hey, this is gonna be a big problem.But in basically every case, I'm like, this is a real problem.I would say F3 in particular, the one about how Trump took the US to war with Iran, there is not one person that comes out of that looking good.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs looks like shit because as I flagged to everyone earlier, they did not talk to Trump in the way that they're supposed to from their congressionally mandated role.They did not tell him the truth.That's I'm not absolving Trump at all.It also showed clearly how BB manipulated Trump and the Secretary of State.It shows how there was very little pushback inside of the NSC and others once Trump had made up his mind about how to take the U .S.

to war with Iran.I mean, really, it's a breakdown in the entire U .S.chain of command and the way that any of this type of decision making is supposed to work.So that's part of the reason why I'm kind of mystified.genuinely as to why anybody would have leaked any of these conversations in the first place.

It really doesn't make them look good, but I'm glad it did, if it did.Because look, the historical record matters.This is the first draft of history.It will be the Obama's war of its era.It really will.We will refer to it really extensively in the future.

And the good thing is, is that all of these public officials will have to be asked about it when the book comes out and say, did you say this?And if they don't say no, it tells you a little bit about what went down in that room.

Yeah.And J .D.Vance on the Iran war piece, he said something like, you know, I have my reservations, but if you do it, I'll support you was basically his decision.I mean, I guess if you had to say of anybody, he does kind.I mean, like you said, nobody comes out looking good.

But he's on the record of being like, oh, this isn't a great idea with the Iran war.He's one of the aides in the Epstein piece, who is at least in touch with the fact that this is a problem for Trump, whereas others who are who are quoted in that excerpt are just don't have any understanding of the way that this is a big issue for the base and why it's going to be a problem for him.But, you know, the other possibility is, Sagar, that you've got some people in the White House who just like to talk.I mean, there is like a human instinct to gossip.You're on the inside.You know some things.

You get to lead.talk to some New York Times reporter and feel like you're giving them this into power.Like that's a very intoxicating feeling.And again, there is this just sort of human instinct that when you have a piece of juicy information, you want to be able to share it.So you could just have someone like that.And we know, you know, I'm not saying that it is her, but we do know that Susie Wiles, like talk to reporters extensively for that piece on - Yeah, she sat down for her whole profile in Vanity Fair.

It was ridiculous.Right.And it was over months where she said all kinds of things that she should not have been saying.So you've got at least one who has that tendency to, you know, okay, well, whether it makes me look good or, you know, Marco look good or J .D.Vance look good or make everybody look bad.

I just want to be able to share what I know from the inside.So that is also a possibility here, too.

I know both of these reporters.They're excellent at their job.Part of your job is making them feel important.I used to do this.I mean, it's not fun, but yeah, you got to make them feel important.You know, buy them a few drinks.

You'd be amazed at what you can get out of people.

Yeah, no, that's absolutely right.And especially because you do have a I think one thing that's telling is obviously the wheels have come off of this administration.The approval rating is in the toilet.The midterms are going to be a total blowout for Republicans.The writing is on the wall with, I think, all of that.And so you do have people who are going to be rats on a sinking ship who are like, OK, how do I position myself?

for what comes after, because it's increasingly clear that there is going to be an after, and that after may be coming sooner rather than later.So I think we'll probably see more leaks, not less, as the regime days wear on.

Keep it coming, keep it coming.All right, thanks for everybody watching.We appreciate it.We'll see you all tomorrow.

And if you'd like to get the full show, ad free, and in your inbox every morning, you can sign up at BreakingPoints .

com.That's right, get the full show, help support the future of independent media at BreakingPoints .