The New York Times' star reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan reveal in their new book Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump something the White House spent months denying: while publicly dismissing the Epstein files as a hoax, Trump's inner circle was reportedly holding emergency meetings i…

Read more

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

In the past 48 hours, I’ve been accused of taking money from AIPAC, running a Swift Boat campaign, serving up propaganda, accepting money from foreign governments, and—my personal favorite—being compared to “a walking mortadella.” (Ironically, my dog’s name is Pancetta.)

I was also warned that I was about to lose my audience.

They don't understand who I am. I'm not for sale. I've spent my career asking uncomfortable questions. The party on the receiving end just changes from story to story.

Subscribe now

And it’s all because I dared to ask a fairly simple question: At what point does a political party decide winning matters more than the principles it claims to stand for?

That question has become unavoidable in Maine, where Democrats have rallied behind Senate candidate Graham Platner despite a growing list of controversies that, under different circumstances, they would argue are disqualifying.

Consider just a few of the issues that have surfaced during the campaign:

Allegations from former partners

Past Reddit comments about sexual assault victims

Platner likes to describe himself as “a random guy.”

He’s not.

He was discovered by Democratic operatives who loved the profile: tattooed veteran, oyster farmer, working-class aesthetic, outsider energy.

In other words, he was cast.

Democrats spent years watching President Trump understand something many of them missed: politics is increasingly about narrative and authenticity.

So they went searching for authenticity. They found a compelling story.

The problem is that authenticity isn’t a costume.

And once voters start looking closely, the carefully constructed story can begin to unravel. Platner attended the elite boarding school Hotchkiss that costs roughly $80,000 a year, received a substantial mortgage from his attorney father, and has defined "working class" so broadly that it includes anyone who works for a living.

What’s fascinating isn’t just Platner himself. It’s what the reaction to him reveals about the Democratic Party.

For years Democrats have argued that politics isn’t simply about winning elections. It’s about character. It’s about accountability. It’s about standards.

Now they’re confronting a candidate whose own history tests those claims—and many seem willing to look the other way.

Part of the reason is obvious: Democrats need this seat.

Republican Senator Susan Collins has never looked more vulnerable. Control of the Senate could hinge on races like this one. The urgency would be easier to understand if Platner were running away with it. He’s not. New polling shows him essentially tied with Collins, suggesting Democrats are accepting significant political risk without any guarantee of reward.

That raises another question: How did Democrats end up in a position where Platner became the best available option?

The answer, according to several Democratic operatives I’ve spoken with, is simple: they failed to build a bench.

One longtime Democratic strategist and donor adviser put it bluntly:

“How is my only choice a seventy-something candidate [Governor Janet Mills] or a crazy person to take on arguably the most vulnerable senator in the country? That’s a systemic Democratic problem.”

Maine Democrats head to the polls tonight, and barring a major surprise, Platner is expected to win the nomination—a reflection not just of his appeal, but of the alternatives voters were given.

Platner’s appeal is rooted in redemption and Americans are remarkably forgiving. Voters forgive addiction, infidelity, personal failures and public humiliation. What they struggle to forgive is a pattern that continues after the lesson is supposedly learned.

The challenge for Platner is that many of the controversies surrounding him aren’t decades old.

Some are recent, like last year. As noted last week, the question isn’t whether someone can be redeemed. It’s whether the behavior actually stopped.

And that’s where the stakes become larger than one Senate race.

It’s whether someone who openly acknowledges struggles with impulse control, fidelity, anger, PTSD and self-destructive behavior — and refuses to apologize for recent lapses — should be handed one of the most tempting environments in American politics.

As I’ve reported in detail, Washington is full of flattery, attention, power, alcohol, lobbyists and people looking to get close to elected officials. It tests even disciplined people. Democrats are asking voters to believe that a man who is still publicly wrestling with some of those demons is ready for one of the most powerful jobs in the country.

“If you can’t control yourself in rural Maine in your LL Bean town, it’s going to be hard in Washington,” John McCain’s former Campaign Manager Steve Schmidt said.

“Wait until you see the ladies in their evening gowns.”

His former political director, former Maine State Representative Genevieve McDonald, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed that concerns she raised internally were repeatedly dismissed until they became impossible to ignore.

McDonald said the campaign offered her $15,000 in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement when she wanted to leave. In any other context, Democrats would likely view that as a red flag. After years of arguing that secrecy agreements silence whistleblowers and protect powerful people, it’s fair to ask why they’re suddenly less troubled when the NDA is attached to a candidate they desperately need.

Three women have publicly described what they say was a pattern of psychologically abusive behavior.

Defenders note that one of the women, who accused him of physical abuse, is a Republican operative and argue that fact should affect how voters evaluate her claims.

Reasonable people can debate individual allegations.

What becomes harder to dismiss is the pattern.

And if Democrats think the scrutiny surrounding Platner will disappear after the primary, they’re fooling themselves.

Everything currently being debated in Maine will face far greater scrutiny in a general election. Republicans will spend millions defining him, and national media organizations will start asking questions. The allegations, the Nazi tattoo controversy, the Reddit posts, the sexting allegations, the NDA dispute—none of it is going away.

The real gamble Democrats are making isn’t simply that Platner can win. It’s that none of these issues become more damaging once the spotlight gets brighter.

What makes this moment so uncomfortable for Democrats isn’t that Republicans are being hypocritical.

Republicans have largely stopped pretending character is the central test for office.

Democrats haven’t.

That’s why the anger directed at anyone asking questions about Platner feels so revealing.

If character matters, then it has to matter when the candidate has a D next to his name.

If accountability matters, it can’t be reserved exclusively for political opponents.

The Democratic Party built much of its argument against Donald Trump around the idea that standards matter.

Now voters are watching to see whether those standards apply universally—or only when they’re convenient.

That’s the real story here.

It’s bigger than Graham Platner.

The question is whether Democrats still believe their own argument.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

Last night, I was laying on my couch exhausted, so I decided to turn on Season 2 of Palm Royale for some mind-numbing humor. Before I could really relax into the show, I got a call from Anderson Cooper’s booker, Eliza, asking if I wanted to come on the show to talk about Trump’s latest attack on Kaitlan Collins — again, for not smiling. He is clearly obsessed with her.

Eliza phoned at just the right time because while I was tired, I was also slightly worked up watching the Apple TV comedy set in 1960s Palm Beach. The costumes were gorgeous, but the women were comically aimless — obsessed with status and willing to contort themselves for the power their husbands possessed in the form of money.

The phone rang while I was watching Kristen Wiig wrapped in a straight jacket, plopped on a recliner by the pool in the “wives wing.” It was the upscale psychiatric institution her hapless husband checked her into against her will after she broke her perma-smile to express rage that he impregnated her friend and manicurist, played by the much younger and somehow even more waifish Kaia Gerber.

Every time her husband arrived and she remembered his indiscretion, she was promptly sedated. Her only escape from the looney bin was to smile.

In so many ways, even today, women are still expected to grin and bear it to hold onto their semblance of freedom.

When Anderson asked me why men are never asked to smile, I just blurted out:

“What you are seeing is just the day in the life of a woman.”

Trump could have easily made a cameo in Palm Royale. It’s filmed in his backyard. He wouldn’t have to wear a costume. He wouldn’t even be acting.

I could almost hear him delivering the same line Wiig's husband spits at her after having her committed:

“I’m sorry I make you so crazy.”

This is the era that Trump longs for when he says Make America Great Again. A world where women smiled, waited, and hoped to be chosen.

If you didn't marry into wealth, you were the chief-cook-and-bottle-washer, as my father likes to say. It's also an era I suspect he misses.

Unlike the characters in Palm Royale, where the comedy lies in how desperately these women scheme for financial security, Kaitlan would not be cast in the show.

Because she’s a woman of this era.

She has agency. She has power.

When she goes to work, she stands in the White House at the top of her profession, holding the President accountable on behalf of the American people — asking him whether his $1.8 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund is truly dead.

Trump could not bear to be challenged by a woman. That’s why she had “hatred in her eyes.”

She wasn’t being nice. And for that reason, she became the problem.

In this instance, Trump was not her boss, a beauty pageant owner, a modeling competition judge, or a celebrity who could “grab ‘em by the p*ssy.”

He was a civil servant being asked a question about how he uses taxpayer dollars.

And not by the many men in the room who were also not smiling.

What bothered him was that a woman wasn’t smiling in deference to him. That she was a woman who wasn’t waiting to be picked. A woman whose fate did not rest in his hands.

Although he tried to challenge that idea by suggesting her future at CNN might be up for grabs under new ownership.

To reclaim his power, Trump belittled her by commenting on her appearance. It was his way of reducing her to an object while pretending to compliment her.

This is a man who married two models and a beauty pageant queen. Women celebrated for a fleeting feature — their beauty.

Trump was also performing for the cameras in this kabuki-fight-of-a press conference.

In my personal experience covering him, he often tries charm first. He sees himself as a great seducer.

But Kaitlan didn’t move aside.

She stood there, unfazed, and kept going.

The women in Palm Royale survive by smiling.

Kaitlan Collins kept asking questions.

And that may be what bothered Trump most.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Congressman Jason Crow is launching an ambitious new End Corruption Caucus with AOC and Rep. Mike Levin at a moment when Donald Trump is testing the limits of presidential power and turning the presidency into a vehicle for personal enrichment.

The target is obvious: a White House where family businesses, foreign deals, crypto ventures, and executive authority increasingly blur together. But if Democrats want corruption to become a winning issue, they’ll have to answer a tougher question first: Are they willing to police their own side?

In my conversation with Crow, a Democrat from Colorado, we dig into his plan to tackle dark money, congressional stock trading, lobbying loopholes, and the revolving door between government and special interests. But I also press him on the uncomfortable realities inside his own party: members who trade stocks, take corporate PAC money, benefit from taxpayer-funded settlement funds for sexual harassment complaints (ahem, Eric Swalwell) and operate within the same political ecosystem voters increasingly distrust.

Crow argues that Democrats can’t credibly take on Trump’s corruption without cleaning their own house first — and says the caucus intends to do exactly that. The question is whether reform can survive contact with the political incentives of Washington itself. And whether they’re truly willing to call out their own.

I asked Crow point-blank: If he's serious about ending corruption, would he publish a list of Congress's most corrupt members?

Can Democrats make corruption a defining issue of the midterms? Or will voters see another partisan exercise that ignores the misconduct happening closer to home?

Watch my full conversation with Congressman Jason Crow.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Share

Leave a comment

Yesterday I streamed Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's congressional hearing live with my reporting, analysis and inside the room. The replay didn't get sent to subscribers last night, so I'm sharing it this morning in case you missed it.

A few things stood out to me from Blanche’s testimony:

• Blanche testified that the $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund was President Trump’s idea, even as the White House has increasingly distanced itself from the controversial program. He also announced that it was dead, although he wouldn’t put it in writing. It raises an interesting question: could Blanche find himself in the same position as ex-Secretaries Pam Bondi or Kristi Noem—taking heat for an unpopular policy while refusing to shift blame away from the president?

• He did not back away from the administration’s decision to grant Trump and his family immunity from IRS claims that could have exposed them to roughly $100 million in potential penalties, nor did he retreat from defending the IRS settlement over the leaking of Trump’s tax information.

• On Jeffrey Epstein, Blanche appeared visibly indignant when questioned by lawmakers. He claimed he has offered to meet with all Epstein survivors. Based on my reporting, that is not true.

• Blanche also continued to insist there is no evidence of third-party co-conspirators in the Epstein case, despite survivor testimony alleging the opposite.

• One of the most revealing moments came when Congresswoman Dean raised a document prepared for former U.S. Attorney Geoffrey Berman that outlined potential Epstein co-conspirators. The catch? The document remains heavily redacted, leaving many of those questions unanswered.

Watch above or below for my full analysis and the key moments from the hearing.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Share

Leave a comment

Tomorrow, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche faces what could be the most contentious hearing of his tenure yet.

Blanche, once President Donald Trump’s personal defense lawyer and now one of the administration’s most aggressive enforcers, will be forced to answer for the controversial $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” …

Read more

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

The timing couldn’t be worse.

Donald Trump’s approval ratings are underwater, below 40 percent in most polls. Voters remain frustrated by rising costs and exhausted by the daily chaos of Washington and the President is unapologetic. On paper, Democrats should be positioned to capitalize.

Instead, the party remains deeply unpopular itself with a 36 percent approval rating, accord to Pew.

Part of that is the reality of a polarized political system. Part of it is the absence of a compelling Democratic alternative. But part of it traces back to a wound Democrats still haven’t fully confronted: Joe Biden’s decision to seek reelection, the effort to shield him from scrutiny, and the spectacular collapse of that strategy on a debate stage in Atlanta.

The debate didn’t simply end Biden’s campaign. It shattered trust.

“The debate didn’t create concerns about Biden,” Jill Biden’s former White House press secretary Michael LaRosa told me on The Tara Palmeri Show. “The debate confirmed the concerns people had had for a year.”

Voters had been told not to believe what they were seeing. Concerns about Biden’s age were dismissed. Questions about his stamina were brushed aside. Reporters who raised them were accused of chasing right-wing narratives.

“They spent a year hiding him..They spent a year not engaging with the press, not doing press conferences, not taking questions,” LaRosa said.

Then tens of millions of Americans watched the debate and reached their own conclusions.

The result was more than a political setback. It became a credibility crisis.

That’s why Jill Biden’s new memoir matters. Not because Americans are eager to relitigate the debate. Most have already moved on. But because every new explanation forces voters to revisit a question that Democrats still seem reluctant to answer honestly: What exactly did the people closest to Joe Biden know, and when did they know it?

And before voters can trust what Democrats are promising about the future, they have to trust what Democrats are saying about the past.

That’s why LaRosa’s criticism isn’t really about her memoir. It’s about what happens when political leaders ask voters to ignore what they can plainly see.

“The problem is, when you decide to gaslight and you double down on this farce because everybody could see in front of their own eyes something was not right,” he said.

The campaign insisted Biden simply had a cold and ingested medicine that made him drowsy. Allies were dispatched to television studios. Surrogates assured voters that what they had witnessed was a one-off event.

Now, with Jill Biden describing a much more alarming reaction behind the scenes, fears that he was having a stroke on live T.V. LaRosa argues that the story has changed yet again.

“How do you improve your credibility if you’re now changing the way you paint the picture of that night?” he asked.

This comes just as the party is locked in a bitter debate over its own post-election autopsy. Critics argue it fails to honestly address Biden’s decision to run again, his delayed exit from the race, and the consequences that followed.

“The report is a joke, I mean, the DNC chair [Ken Martin], is a joke,” LaRosa said.

“It shows you this culture of fear, right? They are so scared to death to offend the Bidens or offend Kamala Harris. They’re unwilling to to go there. They’re unwilling to lay blame where it belongs.”

Whether voters agree with that characterization or not, it gets at a larger problem Democrats still haven’t solved. Trust is easier to lose than it is to regain.

The challenge facing Democrats today isn’t simply persuading voters that Trump is failing. It’s persuading voters that they themselves have learned from their own mistakes. And that’s where Jill Biden’s book becomes more than a personal memoir.

It becomes part of a larger argument over accountability.

If the debate was as shocking behind closed doors as she now says it was, voters naturally want to know why they were being told something different at the time.

If it wasn’t, then why tell the story this way now?

Either way, the questions linger.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Pam Bondi finally sat down with Congress to answer questions about Epstein.

But did it behind closed doors. No cameras. No oath. Just sitting next to a DOJ attorney, Harmeet Dhillon.

“Her lawyer, not under oath, it’s all a clown show,” Epstein survivor Marijke Chartouni texted me. “I’m under no illusion, this is politics as usual.”

But according to my interview with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) on The Tara Palmeri Show, one answer may have revealed more than Bondi intended to.

Lawmakers asked Bondi whether President Trump knew about Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes before they became public.

Walkinshaw says she had every opportunity to say no.

Instead, her answer was: “I don’t know.”

“She said ‘you know I don’t have uh enough information to know what what what he knew and that was a a strange strange response I suspect,” he said.

“That’s one that she’s probably already heard from the White House about.”

In this interview, the House Oversight member who was in the room walks me through what happened during Bondi’s closed-door interview, why she repeatedly referred difficult questions to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, and what Democrats believe is still being hidden from the public.

If Bondi’s goal was to put questions about Epstein to rest, she may have accomplished the opposite.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Share

Leave a comment

The E. Jean Carroll case is often framed as a fight between a president and an accuser.

But the larger question may be far more consequential.

As Donald Trump continues his legal battle over the Carroll verdicts, his lawyers have advanced arguments that would place the federal government—and by extension American taxpayers—between Trump and personal liability.

Critics argue that this reflects a broader pattern: using the machinery of government to settle personal scores, protect political allies, and wage vendettas against opponents. Supporters see it as a legitimate defense against politically motivated attacks.

I sat down with legal analyst Michael Popok to discuss where the line is, whether the Justice Department is being transformed into a president’s personal law firm, and what happens to public faith in the courts when Americans begin to believe that justice depends on who holds power.

Because once citizens lose confidence that the rules apply equally, the consequences reach far beyond Donald Trump—or E. Jean Carroll.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

It was the lack of Epstein Files that made it the summer of the Epstein Files. The suppression of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and his network transformed a matter of national interest into an obsessive frenzy by the time Washington began to boil last summer — and Donald Trump was breaking out in a sweat.

He had returned to the White House on a vow of transparency he never expected he would have to keep. His agreement to make the documents public about Epstein and his network of still-at-large associates was halfhearted by the standards of his past election-year promises about infrastructure projects and plans to imprison certain politicians that were the basis for slogans chanted at his rallies and scrawled across his official merchandise. “Yeah, I would,” he said when asked if he would disclose materials about his pedophile ex-friend who died in prison during his first presidency and whom he said he barely knew in the first place, “I guess I would.”

Six months into his second administration, Trump was slowly coming to realize that the Epstein Files were unlike any other issue — and that his failure to keep his promise risked pulling his presidency into a fast-rising swamp tide of crisis.

Ninety percent of Americans wanted to know what the government was holding back about Epstein, and Trump supporters increasingly wanted to know why he was siding with the government against which he was supposed to stand in defiance—even when he was literally in charge of it. Attempts to formalize Trump’s excuses through official Justice Department policy only deepened fractures inside his administration, pitting top law enforcement officials against each another and disillusioning some new believers along the way.

It was through those cracks that the Epstein files began to break through. Congress released a trove of documents from the dead financier’s estate. Isolated files leaked to the press from sources shrouded in mystery. Epstein refused to go away. The more people learned about the case, the more they wanted to know — and the more obvious it became that Trump himself knew more than he would ever admit publicly.

In response, he retaliated against news organizations with legal threats and public intimidation. He filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal for publishing a sleazy birthday card — complete with a doodled note from Trump — that underscored how much closer his relationship with Epstein was than he has long tried to publicly portray.

At the same time, one of Trump’s loudest critics was quietly helping him with the cover-up.

Writer Michael Wolff claims to possess 100 hours of audio recordings of conversations with Epstein. Days before the 2024 election, he said it was time to answer outstanding questions about what really went down between the president and the pedophile.

For half a century, Wolff has fixated on wealth, power, and the media business that decides what it looks like when someone matters. He has often been close to his subjects, and his subjects have often accused him of dishonesty or disinterest in facts that complicate the kind of narratives that make a book a bestseller. Wolff has long projected a fascination with the visible markers of wealth that adorn the lives of the powerful people he views as aspirational.

A failed media mogul himself, by 2024 Wolff had at least become rich—thanks in part to a Trump feud that earned him millions in immediate book sales and permanent credibility among members of the #Resistance who could be counted on to buy whatever he sold them as long as Trump remained relevant enough to resist.

Wolff positioned himself as an authority on the villains at the center of modern American power — and for a long time, it seemed like he might actually help explain how so many morally compromised people kept rising anyway. Wolff had heard extraordinary claims and valuable insight in his Epstein interviews—all of new and urgent importance on the eve of another Trump administration—and he had kept records of what he heard so that others might hear, too.

Wolff was effectively sitting on a private set of Epstein Files — and he became the only known custodian of such sensitive material to publicly announce plans to release it.

He never did.

In interviews with more than a dozen sources, I’ve confirmed that during the very period when documents from the Epstein case were being fought over, controlled, and ultimately mismanaged by the federal government — amid mounting journalistic, congressional and survivor-led pressure to release them to the public — Wolff was focused on protecting himself and maximizing his opportunity to profit.

My reporting reveals that the Epstein files in Wolff’s possession remained private while he pursued potential deals designed to guarantee both a central role for himself in any eventual production and final editorial control over how his recorded conversations with Epstein would be presented to the public.

Along the way, some of the most powerful figures in media became involved in efforts surrounding commercial usage for the tapes, including former CNN president Jeff Zucker, Daily Beast publisher and former ABC News president Ben Sherwood, and former ABC News president James Goldston.

It’s a new story about old sins—and just how much you can get away with when you’re as shameless as the devils who speak into your recorder.

“[The] Epstein industrial complex,” Marijke Chartouni, a survivor of Epstein’s crimes, said in a text when I asked for a reaction to the news that I could share with readers of The Red Letter. “Everyone is trying to monetize.”

I guess it’s no surprise that when I confronted Wolff, he lied to me.

Read more

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

Last night, I revealed that Sarah Kellen — Jeffrey Epstein’s longtime assistant, who has long portrayed herself publicly as more victim than co-conspirator — identified three influential men during a closed-door congressional hearing as participants in Epstein’s abusive and criminal sex trafficking operation.

The names, according to two sources familiar with Kellen’s closed-door testimony before the House Oversight Committee, were celebrity hairstylist Frederic Fekkai, former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, and the late fashion photographer Patrick Demarchelier. According to the House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, these names were new to investigators.

All three men occupied different corners of Epstein’s world — politics, fashion, celebrity, and elite social circles — but what connects them is not simply proximity to Epstein.

It’s how deeply embedded they were inside the overlapping power networks surrounding him.

Over the last 16 hours, I’ve uncovered additional details about the men’s longstanding relationships with Epstein through flight logs, conversations with sources, newly released Justice Department records, survivor testimony, emails, campaign ties, modeling industry connections, and social correspondence that continued years after Epstein became a convicted sex offender.

And those relationships extended far beyond Epstein himself — reaching figures including Bill and Hillary Clinton, Donald and Melania Trump, Prince Andrew and some of the most influential people in politics, media, fashion, and finance.

The newly surfaced records paint a fuller picture of the ecosystem Epstein cultivated around himself long after his crimes were publicly known.

Below the paywall:

• The newly uncovered documents linking a Philip Levine with Ghislaine Maxwell, and Epstein over more than a decade

• Maxwell’s testimony about how Levine helped introduce her to Bill Clinton

• Fekkai’s relationship with Epstein, survivor allegations, and his ties to Hillary Clinton

• Demarchelier’s appearances in Epstein flight logs and his connection to Donald and Melania Trump

• The overlapping business and social worlds that tie together Epstein’s elite network

Read more

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

Epstein’s former lieutenant Sarah Kellen — who has long portrayed herself as a victim rather than a co-conspirator in his crimes — identified three of Epstein’s confidantes as participants in his abusive and criminal sex trafficking operation.

She named celebrity hairstylist Frederic Fekkai, former Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, and the deceased fashion photographer Patrick Demarchelier, two sources with knowledge of her closed door testimony told me. All three men appear in the Epstein files and were known associates of the dead and disgraced financier.

Kellen’s explosive allegations surfaced today during a hearing with lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Committee Chairman James Comer said the names were new to investigators and called the witness “brave” for agreeing to appear.

For more in-depth reporting on how these men were connected to the highest levels of power like the Clintons and the Trumps, read here.

Levine was notably cited in the Epstein files in an October 4, 2001 e-mail with Ghislaine Maxwell, in which she’s mentioning to another person “that you were hung like a horse and she sd[sic] that she would like to see.”

Levine responded “tell her that the rumor is that I am like a horse…not a rumor!!!”

It’s unclear if Epstein trafficked other girls to government officials in Florida.

Epstein was known for sending aides and survivors to get their hair cut by Fekkai. He had an ongoing account at the salon for color, cuts and styling and Fekkai visited him for house calls.

In a November 2010 e-mail to Fekkai, Epstein asked former Prince Andrew at his “Monday boom boom,” referring to a party for Fekkai at the Standard Hotel’s exclusive club, The Boom Boom room. He responded “yes.”

Reached by phone, Fekkai’s ex-wife Elizabeth said: “There’s no fucking way. He’s a lot of things, but he’s not abusive. Why would a person who’s not that kind of personality — why would a person with that kind of personality take Epstein girls?”

Elizabeth said she was in contact with Fekkai about my request and would connect us if he wanted to comment.

According to victim Johanna Sjoberg’s 2024 testimony, she overheard Epstein saying to Fekkai, “can we find some girls for him?”

Fekkai has styled the hair of many prominent women including Hillary Clinton.

Demarchelier, a prominent figure in Epstein’s modeling orbit who frequently appeared on the Lolita Express flight logs, was accused of pervasive sexual harassment by multiple models and former assistants.

This is a developing story, and I’ll be on the phone for the next several hours reporting it out. Let me know what you think. Feel free to send me tips.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

Trump just secured what critics are calling the most sweeping tax immunity deal in modern American history.

A secretive agreement tied to his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS didn’t just kill a $100 million audit battle — it also created a $1.776 billion “anti-weaponization” slush fund that Trump claims will benefit his allies and permanently block future IRS examinations tied to previously filed returns.

Unsurprisingly, convicted January 6 defendants are openly demanding payouts. According to CNN, some are seeking as much as $30 million from the fund.

In this interview, Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times investigative reporter Russ Buettner, who was leaked Trump’s tax documents in 2020, breaks down:

— How Trump’s $72 million tax refund fight turned into a possible $100M+ IRS liability
— Why the DOJ suddenly dropped the audit
— The extraordinary clause barring future examinations
— How January 6 defendants could financially benefit
— Why legal experts are saying it’s nearly impossible to overturn it
— And how this could fundamentally reshape presidential power going forward

Watch above to understand one of the most corrupt payouts to a President in our lifetimes.

Share

Leave a comment

What if the Epstein scandal was never just about sex trafficking?

In my latest interview, royal biographer lays out explosive new allegations in the latest addition to his book Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York — finally available in paperback in the U.S. after his publisher Simon and Shuster dropped him fearing retribution from President Donald Trump for his explosive reporting on Melania — that the former Prince Andrew may have been drawn into an alleged intelligence-linked kompromat operation involving women, money, espionage, and foreign influence. Lownie cites FBI material, intelligence sources, and newly released Epstein files suggesting Andrew was surrounded for years by Russian and Chinese operatives, while Jeffrey Epstein himself may have functioned as something far more dangerous than a wealthy predator.

We also discuss the strange overlap between the worlds of Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, Diddy, and the Royal Family — including sensational new claims about Sarah Ferguson’s relationships, Epstein’s alleged ties to intelligence services, whether Trump and King Charles quietly agreed not to pursue Andrew, the Prince Harry angle and why Lownie does not believe Epstein’s so-called suicide note is authentic.

Watch the full interview above.

Share

Leave a comment

Welcome back to The Red Letter. I’ve been buried in a move, so I tapped to unpack what may be one of the most outrageous taxpayer-funded slush funds in modern political history. Thank you for your patience while I get settled.

$1.776 billion. That’s a very large figure, masked by its illusion of patriotism to evoke 1776, the year of the nation’s founding. But Americans can see it clearly for what it is, a very expensive middle finger to taxpayers in the form of a slush fund for President Donald Trump’s political allies.

This week, the Trump administration quietly unveiled what may become one of the most controversial instruments of presidential power in modern history: an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” housed within the Department of Justice.

The fund would draw from the federal government’s Judgment Fund — a taxpayer-backed pool traditionally used to settle lawsuits against the government — and make up to $1.776 billion available to alleged victims of “lawfare” and political persecution, categories that Trump and his allies have spent years aggressively redefining.

What began as Trump’s long-running $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over leaked tax returns has now evolved into something far broader: a government-administered restitution program for Trumpworld.

“This is unusual, that is true,” Acting AG Todd Blanche testified on Tuesday before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee. “But it is not unprecedented, and it was done to address… years of weaponization…It’s not limited to the Biden weaponization. It’s not limited…to January 6th, or to Jack Smith.”

He said the fund will act as a “lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress.”

Critics see something else entirely: a politically controlled slush fund operating with minimal oversight and broad discretion inside Trump’s DOJ.

The arrangement is extraordinary even by Trump-era standards.

Share

In exchange for dropping litigation connected not only to the IRS leak but also to the Mar-a-Lago search and aspects of the Russia investigation, the administration would establish a commission empowered to award payouts to people claiming political persecution.

But there’s little indication the program would operate neutrally.

Would Democratic figures currently under investigation qualify? Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Az.), who has faced Pentagon scrutiny after publicly advising troops to refuse unlawful orders? Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) who Republicans have accused of mortgage-related misconduct? Former FBI Director James Comey, who was investigated after posting an image of seashells arranged to read “86 47.”

Their eligibility appears doubtful.

The likely beneficiaries are far more obvious: Trump loyalists who became central characters in the movement’s grievance narrative.

Former White House strategist Steve Bannon and trade adviser Peter Navarro — both jailed for defying congressional subpoenas tied to the January 6 investigation — could potentially qualify. So could Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI before later attempting to withdraw the plea. Rudy Giuliani, indicted over efforts to overturn the 2020 election, also seems like an obvious candidate.

And then there are the January 6 defendants themselves — many convicted by juries or after guilty pleas — but recast inside Trump’s political mythology as victims rather than perpetrators.

According to ABC News, DOJ lawyers initially explored whether the government could compensate Trump directly while his own administration simultaneously controlled the agencies defending against his lawsuit.

That approach reportedly became difficult to sustain once a federal judge began scrutinizing whether the executive branch was effectively litigating against itself.

So the administration appears to have found a workaround: convert the settlement into a quasi-independent compensation system.

The proposed board would reportedly consist of five commissioners appointed by Blanche, who previously served as Trump’s personal defense attorney before joining the administration. Trump would reportedly retain authority to remove commissioners without cause.

Democrats erupted almost immediately.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called the proposal “outright corruption.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) described it as “pure theft of public funds.”

Even some Republicans appeared uneasy. Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) questioned whether the arrangement could survive judicial scrutiny. Senate Majority Leader John Thune brushed it off, saying he’s “not a big fan,” questioning the necessity of the fund, “I don’t see a purpose for that.”

“I don’t even know how that’s allowable to happen,” Fitzpatrick told ABC News.

Leave a comment

But the deeper significance here extends beyond the legal fight.

Trump has spent nearly a decade building a political movement centered not just on loyalty, but on grievance and retribution. His second administration increasingly appears designed not simply to dismantle institutions he distrusts, but to redirect federal power toward repairing the perceived injuries of his political movement.

The symbolism of “1776” matters because the administration wants it to matter. The fund is being framed as revolutionary restitution ahead of America’s 250th anniversary — an attempt to transform Trump’s legal and political battles into a founding-myth narrative and dismantle institutions he distrusts.

Washington has always rewarded loyalists. Presidents hand out ambassadorships, cabinet posts, senior administration official jobs that often become television contracts, consulting deals, corporate board seats, and lobbying access after officials leave government.

But this feels different.

Here, the federal treasury itself is being repositioned as an instrument of ideological compensation.

When asked about the arrangement, Trump feigned surprised, “I didn’t do this deal… it was told to me yesterday.”

But this is Trump’s Washington after all, and for now, he rarely loses.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment

What happens when the presidency becomes one giant profit machine?

In this conversation, I sit down with investigative journalism of Tangle to break down his sprawling investigation into all the ways Donald Trump and his family are profiting from political power — from crypto schemes and foreign deals to pardons, licensing agreements, private clubs, and government contracts tied to Trump-linked businesses.

We also get into why so few Republicans are willing to confront it, why Democrats struggle to message corruption effectively, and how the lines between public service and private enrichment have completely collapsed in modern American politics.

If you want to understand how money, influence, and power really operate in Washington right now, this is the conversation to watch.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Share

Leave a comment

We had a brief audio issue at the top, but and I quickly moved into a story that sounds like a spy thriller — and may be one of the biggest corruption scandals of our time.

Thank you , , , , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

Share

Leave a comment

Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

Since publishing my investigation into John Kerry’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) told me that Kerry “should be called in for questioning to [the House] Oversight [and Government Reform Committee].” Kerry’s spokesperson did not respond when asked whether the former secretary of state would voluntarily testify before the committee.

For years, Kerry’s ties to Epstein have faced little scrutiny.

Over months, I reviewed thousands of documents and conducted interviews with witnesses and survivors connected to Epstein’s world. The records paint a picture of a decades-long relationship between Epstein and one of the Democratic Party’s most enduring foreign policy figures — a man whose influence stretched across multiple Democratic administrations as a senator, presidential nominee, secretary of state, and climate envoy.

The documents show Epstein repeatedly attempting to broker or peddle access to Kerry to figures including Steve Bannon, tarred Dubai shipping executive Sultan bin Sulayem, and disgraced Norwegian diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen.

Read the full investigation here.

Share

Leave a comment

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

UPDATE: Since publication at 2:20 p.m., Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna told The Red Letter that John Kerry “should be called into the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee for questioning.”

United States Senator. Presidential nominee. Secretary of State. Chief negotiator of the Iran Deal. Climate envoy. National Security Councilmember. As John Kerry held each of these titles at the highest levels of U.S. government and intelligence apparatuses, he also held close his association with Jeffrey Epstein that spanned three decades — and has received little scrutiny until now.

Newly reviewed Justice Department files reveal Epstein’s apparent fixation with Kerry and his eagerness to cultivate connections to the secretary of state and senior officials in his inner circle, including his then-deputy secretary of state William J. Burns. The documents show Epstein offered introductions and dangled access to both men to a rogues’ gallery of people including Donald Trump’s advisor Steve Bannon, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, tech entrepreneurs Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman, disgraced Norwegian diplomat Terje Rød-Larsen and tarred Emirati shipping executive Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem.

Meanwhile, in private, he gamed out presidential shakeups and scenarios in which Kerry could re-emerge as a national political force and potential president as late as 2016. The messages read less like strategy than the musings of a man who imagined himself hovering just outside the realm of Kerry’s power.

I’ve been reporting on the Epstein story since 2019, when I first met Virginia Giuffre, with whom I would become close when we traveled the country in search of witnesses to Epstein’s crimes. Last year she died by suicide. Giuffre revealed to me that, while trafficked by Epstein, she had been sexually abused by Barak, Maine Senator George Mitchell, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and Governor Bill Richardson, among others. It was through her that I first learned about Kerry’s place in Epstein’s world. It’s something largely overlooked in the millions of pages of files. When she recalled that she encountered Kerry, I was in shock that he would be so closely associated with Epstein at the height of his sex trafficking operation, and just a few years before Kerry ran for President in 2004.

Since then, I’ve pored over thousands of documents and interviewed many knowledgeable witnesses—including victims, corroborating sources, and others with valuable information and insight.

What Epstein received from the Kerry relationship is obvious. What Kerry seized is not yet available publicly…

Below the fold, exclusively for paid subscribers of The Red Letter, the results of my 10-month investigation: the Epstein-Kerry connection, a story ignored by the media… until today:

The documents they don’t want connected — private emails, FBI interviews, depositions, FedEx receipts and text messages.

The names behind the introductions and the coded exchanges that Epstein used to broker access.

The questions Kerry still hasn’t answered. (I did leave word with his housekeeper…) And his spokesperson’s contortions, denials and tone-deaf response to my inquiries.

Read more

Welcome back to The Red Letter.

In New York’s 12th District—the richest, most establishment seat in the country—a long-shot candidate is trying to blow up the script.

In my latest conversation, Democratic candidate Laura Dunn takes direct aim at her rivals: a Kennedy heir, a high-profile defector Republican, and candidates backed by billionaire money and PACs.

She calls them “compromised.” She calls herself “unbought, unbiased, unafraid.”

And she doesn’t hold back:

• Slams Jack Schlossberg as an establishment product with name recognition but no real-world experience

• Dismisses George Conway as an outsider to New York running on anti-Trump credentials alone

• Takes on Democratic leadership and says she’s been told “other people have been chosen ahead of me, I need to wait my turn.”

• She’s accusing the Democratic party of being too White, straight and male.

She’s also staking out positions that put her at odds with the party—from calling for impeachment to making the Epstein files a central issue.

“The candidates in this race have some kind of compromising factor about them,” Dunn told me on The Tara Palmeri Show.

“I alone am a people powered campaign and that makes me unbought.”

It’s a crowded race, and in a district like this, the winner of the primary is effectively headed to Congress. The question is whether voters want pedigree and power—or something very different.

Schlossberg and Conway did not return a request for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

Leave a comment