Carl Gibson, AlterNet

Nearly all major cable news networks carried Wednesday's high-profile press conference in Washington D.C. in which victims of convicted child predator Jeffrey Epstein called for the Department of Justice to release all of its Epstein-related evidence.

Fox News, however, largely dismissed it.

Mediaite reported Wednesday that Fox aired the presser up until Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) took aim at the Trump administration for continuing to keep the Epstein files under wraps, specifically naming the FBI, the CIA and the DOJ. At that point, host Dana Perino cut away.

"So Marjorie Taylor Greene continues speaking at this press conference about the Epstein files, the Epstein victims, as well – a highlight on them today," Perino said, before segueing into a separate story attacking Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson as "the worst mayor in America."

Others also noticed Fox News suddenly cutting away from the press conference. Media Matters for America senior fellow Matthew Gertz wrote on X: "While CNN and MSNBC are airing the press conference featuring Jeffrey Epstein's victims, Fox News is providing counter-programming featuring a Trump appointee."

"MSNBC and CNN giving full coverage to Epstein victims testimony today, because Trump is president and wants it to go away," conservative freelance journalist Jack Hunter tweeted. "Fox News not covering it at all, because Trump is president and wants it to go away."

Deadline.com correspondent Ted Johnson also confirmed that Fox News diverted from the press conference by posting four screenshots with the text: "CNN, MSNBC and BBC on press conference with Epstein victims, Fox News so far is not."

"What an absolute disgrace on the part of @FoxNews -- the network cut away from the Epstein survivors press conference," one X user wrote. "Fox is clearly taking orders from the White House."

During a Tuesday news conference, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) took direct aim at President Donald Trump after he reiterated his plan to send the National Guard to his state.

Pritzker held his press conference directly after Trump concluded his own remarks to reporters in the Oval Office. In one exchange, Trump promised that he was going to send troops to Chicago, though he refrained from saying exactly when he would order the deployment. Pritzker — who is considered a contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination – particularly took issue with Trump requesting that he "beg" the administration for federal assistance.

"I also have experience asking the president for assistance, just to have the rug pulled out from underneath me," Pritzker said. "I refuse to play a reality game show with Donald Trump again. What I want are the federal dollars that have been promised to Illinois and Chicago for violence prevention programs that have proven to work."

"That is money that Illinois taxpayers send to the federal government," he continued. "And it's an insult to any and every citizen to suggest that any governor should have to beg the president of any political party for resources owed their people."

The two-term Illinois governor went on to say that Trump's plan to conduct immigration raids in Chicago will likely resemble the administration's efforts in Los Angeles, in which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents largely focused on detaining day laborers with no criminal record despite a promise to only target violent offenders. He added that White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller likely chose September as the month the administration would zero in on Chicago due to planned events celebrating Mexican Independence Day (which takes place on September 16). And he specifically identified the Trump administration official spearheading the effort in Chicago.

"None of this is about fighting crime or making Chicago safer. None of it," he said. "For Trump, it's about testing his power and producing a political drama to cover up for his corruption. If you need any proof of this — that it's all a big show — well, look at who they're putting in charge: Gregory Bovino, a guy who desperately wants to be a reality TV star."

"He led the cruel adventures of ICE in Los Angeles, and he's been sent here to do the very same thing," Pritzker said. "Go look at his social media. He terrorizes innocent people and then posts on TikTok edits of himself. Apparently, this is a Trump administration norm, because the last time we saw staged major ICE raids in Chicago, they sent Dr. Phil here to embed with the agents so he could get views and likes for his social media."

Watch the video of Pritzker's comments below, or by clicking this link.

Shortly after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the bulk of President Donald Trump's tariffs were unconstitutional, the president posted a lengthy rant on his social media platform slamming the decision and the judges. Some conservative and libertarian commentators responded to his statement with mockery.

On Friday, after the 7-4 decision was made public, Trump tore into the "highly partisan" judges who upheld a lower court ruling striking down most of his "Liberation Day" tariffs announced in April. He insisted that his unilaterally imposed import duties were both lawful and necessary for the safety of the country, and bemoaned the "enormous Trade Deficits" used to justify his tariffs.

"If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America," the president wrote.

"If Trump can’t impose illegal tariffs, he says, it will 'literally destroy the United States of America.' This is lunatic stuff," wrote Ramesh Ponnuru, who is the editor of the conservative National Review.

"Just can't stop laughing at this insane statement," tweeted investor Mayank Seksaria, of Liberty Mutual Investments.

Roger Hunt, who is a doctoral student at Bentley University, responded to Trump's statement by writing: "I'm MAGA, but this isn't how tariffs work." Reason magazine editor at large Nick Gillespie opined that Trump was "acting like a king — King George III" and celebrated the ruling by proclaiming: "No taxation without representation!" And Patrick Jaicomo, who is a civil rights litigator at the libertarian-leaning Institute for Justice, simply posted a screenshot of Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution (which states that the power to impose tariffs exclusively belongs to Congress).

"Y'know what, I'm sick and tired of this huge trade deficit I've got with my local game store," wrote Ethan Blevins, who is a legal scholar at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation. "I keep buying all their cards, and they never buy anything from me! Well, no longer. I'm going to go in there and tell them to pay me for legal advice they don't need!"

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker (D) took several veiled jabs at President Donald Trump, as their public feud continues to dominate headlines.

The Daily Beast reported Friday that Pritzker — who was visiting Wagoner Elementary School in Sauk Village (roughly 30 miles south of Chicago) — was simultaneously complimentary to young students while trolling the president. In a post to his official X account, the two-term Illinois governor didn't mention Trump directly but wrote: "Our leaders in Washington could learn a thing or two from some of the best elementary school students here in Illinois."

"I just got to meet a group of kindergarteners and second graders, and they are really smart kids, and it was great to spend time with them," Pritzker said. "They get to learn every day about these classroom rules, and they follow them. And I have to say, there are a few in here I think the leaders in Washington ought to learn like, for example, 'listen carefully,' maybe 'treat each other with respect' and of course, 'make good decisions.'"

"I wish more leaders in Washington would do that," he added.

Pritzker's office shared several photos from the governor's visit to the school, including one notable photo of a Venn Diagram students made in which two circles — with one representing a governor's duties and the other listing a president's responsibilities — overlapped. While the left-hand circle labeled "governor" included the text "leads the state" and had Pritzker's name, the other circle labeled "president" read "leads the nation." The overlapping circle read: "Leaders take care of people."

The Illinois governor, who is rumored to be a contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, has been trading blows with Trump as the White House has openly threatened to send federal troops to Chicago. Pritzker maintained that violent crime in his state's largest city has been declining, and that federal resources would be better spent in states with Republican governors that have much higher violent crime rates, like St. Louis, Missouri, Shreveport, Louisiana and Jackson, Mississippi.

Earlier this week, Trump threatened to withhold more than $1 billion in Congressionally appropriated funding for an infrastructure project in Illinois unless Pritzker called him and officially requested it. Should Trump follow through on his threat, it would not only be a violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, but could potentially mean Illinois taxpayers shoulder the cost.

Click here to read the Beast's report in full (subscription required).

A longtime Republican strategist is now warning that President Donald Trump may be contemplating deploying the U.S. military as a means of disrupting next year's pivotal midterm elections.

During a Thursday appearance on MSNBC, Rick Wilson, who is a co-founder of the anti-Trump Republican group The Lincoln Project, weighed in on California Gov. Gavin Newsom's (D) comments that Trump may attempt to stay in power beyond 2028 in defiance of the U.S. Constitution and whether Newsom's concerns were legitimate. He said that while Trump has a history of "trolling," the president is also a "gambler" who has a pattern of taking big political risks for large payoffs.

"If it had gone just slightly differently on January 6th, 2021, and Congress refused to certify the election, Donald Trump would have returned to the White House," he said. "He is a guy who will gamble and push and use that shamelessness and that transgression that's so that's so central to his character to try to get away with stuff ... If he could get away with it, he would make a shot at it."

After Wilson's comments, New York Times reporter Peter Baker piled on, and suggested that Trump could feasibly use the National Guard as a means of depressing voter turnout in certain states, given that he's already given orders to deploy them to various red states. Wilson affirmed Baker's point, and said that while it was too early to tell what the president would do next year, he had exhibited patterns that should concern voters.

"Trump enjoys the outrage it generates when he mobilizes federal forces onto the streets who are armed, in environments where they're not trained to be, for law enforcement purposes or immigration purposes," he said. "He enjoys that reaction."

"He is also, you know, [borrowing] from the dictator's playbook," Wilson continued. "He wants to desensitize people to the presence. of those folks out there all the time. ICE now has a bigger budget than the Marine Corps, and he loves this gigantic force that is answerable only to him. And he is certainly putting it to maximum effect. I would not be shocked if he did try to apply it as an intimidation tactic in the 2026 election season.

Watch the full segment below, or by clicking this link.

Despite his threats to deploy the military across the country, President Donald Trump has revealed the impotence of his administration in actually solving crime, according to a recent analysis.

In a Thursday essay for The Washington Post entitled "Trump's bravado is no match for crooks and rats," columnist Marc Fisher argued that Trump's anti-crime push in the nation's capital has proven that the administration has been largely ineffective in its various goals. He pointed out the various ways in which the D.C. occupation has fallen flat.

" Trump says things, but saying is not doing: Where is the city supposed to put all the arrested people? In its overcrowded jail? And after Trump’s troops arrest so many lawbreakers that crime vanishes from the city, who will prosecute the cases?" Fisher wrote.

READ MORE: 'Empty threat': Ex-prosecutor reveals why Trump has no power to follow through on new push

"Who will judge the bad guys? The city’s Superior Court is short 13 judges (out of 62 positions), and the court has a backlog of about 4,000 cases," he continued. "...Who will indict and convict all the wrongdoers? The same grand jurors who on Tuesday rejected charges against Sandwich Man, the guy who threw a salami sub at a federal officer? The same grand jurors who refused to indict a protester accused of assaulting an FBI agent (actually, for pushing the agent’s arm after officers shoved the protester against a wall)?"

Fisher also referenced Trump's goal of criminalizing the burning of the American flag, which he outlined in an executive order earlier this week. However, he reminded readers that "like many of his other executive pronouncements, this one has more gum than teeth: He has zero authority to do such a thing."

"The Supreme Court has made it clear that flag-burning, annoying and offensive as it is, is protected speech, a classic symbolic expression of dissent," Fisher wrote, referencing the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case. He also slammed Trump for offering "shiny but stunningly inappropriate" gifts to D.C. residents, and suggested the city would be better served by Trump simply allowing local law enforcement to have proper autonomy to do their jobs, rather than National Guard troops flown in from thousands of miles away.

"Trump boasts that he’s somehow going to find $2 billion to spiff up the city’s parks," he added. "...This purportedly Republican president also plans to take over Union Station. Apparently, the private sector is the problem, and government is the solution."

READ MORE: 'Who pays?' GOP rep exits through back door after constituents hound him over Trump policy

Click here to read Fisher's full column in its entirety.

When Congress comes back to Washington, D.C., after the Labor Day holiday, President Donald Trump is hoping they'll take up a "comprehensive" new bill focused on addressing crime. But some Republicans aren't sure what he's talking about.

That's according to a Wednesday article by Politico's Meredith Lee Hill and Jordain Carney, who reported that Trump has offered scant few details about what he wants included in the bill, and has only said that there will be "more to follow." So far, Trump has only indicated he wants $2 billion to "beautify" the capital city, and lawmakers are reportedly still "in the dark" about the details.

Politico reported that Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) he wanted to extend his 30-day occupation of D.C., with Johnson promising to put it to a vote. While the House has enough of a majority to pass it, an extension would be less certain in the U.S. Senate, where filibuster rules would require more than a half-dozen Democratic votes to pass.

Some of Trump's allies in the upper chamber of Congress — like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee – said they felt confident that Trump's lesser ask of additional funding for his D.C. effort could get across the finish line. However, Graham kept mum regarding the details of a purported crime bill, which would have to go through his committee.

"I’m going to try to find him the money to repave the roads, take the graffiti off the building, refurbish the parks and give homeless people some place to go other than a tent," he said.

Hill and Carney further reported that seven unnamed Republican lawmakers speaking anonymously were "puzzled" about the sudden push for a crime bill, particularly considering the limited amount of time Congress has to address other time-sensitive issues. Congressional Republicans are already scrambling to pass a government funding bill in order to avoid a shutdown ahead of the September 30 deadline. Lawmakers are also hoping to assemble next year's National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to fund the Pentagon through next year.

The push for a crime bill appears to be more politically motivated than policy-focused, according to Politico. Republicans are apparently eager to put Democrats on the defensive going into next year's midterm elections. Hill and Carney also observed that a major legislative push focused on crime could also distract the news cycle from the ongoing outrage over the Trump administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

Click here to read Politico's report in its entirety.

One journalist suggested to MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace that President Donald Trump wasn't totally in the wrong in sending the military to occupy Washington, D.C. Wallace didn't let the point stand without interjecting.

During the Wednesday broadcast of her show "Deadline: White House," Wallace played a clip from a town hall that Rep. Josh Brecheen (R-Okla.) hosted this week. Brecheen defended Trump's federal takeover of Washington D.C. law enforcement operations by telling assembled constituents that Trump was the "chief law enforcement officer" of the United States and that sending the military to U.S. cities was within his purview.

After the clip, Sam Stein — who is managing editor of anti-Trump conservative website The Bulwark — suggested to Wallace that it was important to apply "nuance" to what Trump was doing. He argued that crime was an important issue to Americans and that while Trump may be taking a political risk by using the military to address crime, there was a significant population of Americans who were in support of his methods.

"I think Trump has a little bit of ground here," Stein said. "If you look at the polling data, people are somewhat supportive of the idea that there's crime in the cities, that it's out of control and that a heavier presence - even from the federal government – would be useful to tamp it down."

Stein went on to say that while Trump's proposal to have troops to patrol streets in Chicago and New York City was unlawful, he had more breathing room in D.C. given its status as a stateless city. He added that while it may be "politically disadvantageous," he was still touching an important nerve for Americans and pleasing his GOP base by focusing on crime. At that point, Wallace interrupted him.

"Let me just stop you there. I worked for Republican presidents. I worked for a Republican governor, I worked for a Republican attorney general of the state of California who ran on 'three strikes, you're out.' No Republican is for military on the streets," she said. "What Republicans are for are more cops. What Republicans are for are more prosecutors. What Republicans are for are more restrictions on how you get out of jail after serving your time or being charged ... The sliding toward the normalization of, 'Trump's on solid ground' is absolute horse doo-doo, Sam!"

"Trump is in outer space!" She added. "I've worked for Republicans longer than you've probably been able to legally drive, and no Republican has ever been for active-duty troops on the streets of an American city. ever."

Watch the segment below, or by clicking this link.

One conservative journalist recently laid out his case for why he believes President Donald Trump will continue to entrench himself in the Oval Office in spite of the Constitution — and with the blessing of the other two branches of government.

In a Wednesday essay for anti-Trump conservative website The Bulwark, editor Jonathan V. Last laid out a bleak picture for readers about both the power and influence Trump is wielding in his second term and the complicity of both the government itself and the electorate. Last pointed to "the pace at which we are moving" and "how Trump employs a mix of the ridiculous and the dangerous" to illustrate his point that Trump has already assumed a significant level of control over both politics and even culture that previous presidents have never had.

"He is the living embodiment of the leviathan, the totalized state," Last wrote of Trump. "No sector of American life exists beyond the reach of this president. There is no private sphere or civil society he feels should be outside his influence or control. There is only the dear leader, whose views must be considered in all matters."

Last observed several key differences between Trump's first term and his current administration. Namely, that he has "learned to operate outside the world of legislation and purely through executive power," and that his White House is "staffed with button-men who are willing to do whatever he demands, regardless of legality."

He also lamented that the private sector has "accepted subservience" that the GOP-controlled Congress "has also completely submitted" to Trump's will, along with the American people. Last noted that polls today show Trump with a higher approval rating today (approximately 40 percent) than he enjoyed in August of 2017 (roughly 38 percent).

"The clear lesson is that a consistent share of about 44 percent of Americans want this," he wrote. "And [44 percent + dictatorial control of the government] should be enough to retain power for quite some time."

"I realize the last two weeks have seemed interminable. But you haven’t seen anything yet. We’ve got three and a half years left under the best-case scenario," he continued. "In the worst case our present condition will persist indefinitely. I keep saying this, but: Trump is not behaving like a man who intends to ever vacate the White House."

Click here to read Last's full essay in The Bulwark (subscription required).

President Donald Trump may be too mentally compromised to hold the nation's highest office, according to one national security expert.

In a Tuesday post to her X account, journalist Juliette Kayyem — who is a CNN analyst and professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government — quote-posted a video of Trump's comments in the Oval Office about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, Illinois. In the video, Trump was asked about the legality of such a move, prompting him to respond that he had ultimate legal authority given his position.

"I would have much more respect for [Illinois Governor JB] Pritzker if he called me up and said, 'I have a problem, can you help me fix it?' I would be so happy to do it," Trump said. "I have the right to do anything I want to do, I'm the president of the United States. If I think our country is in danger — and it is in danger in these cities — I can do it."

In her response to the video, Kayyem wrote that Trump was "incorrect" in his belief that he could do "anything" as president.

"He either believes it is true and is therefore unfit to be president or believes it is a lie and same," she tweeted. "The third option is that he is not of sound mind and body and all I can do is watch how he speaks and moves and it is a fair question to ask now."

As Pritzker mentioned in a speech this week, Trump following through on his threat to send U.S. military forces to Illinois' largest city would be "unprecedented." The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prevents the military from being used as domestic law enforcement personnel. And the president's Title 32 authority he's using to send National Guard troops to multiple states still gives governors and adjutant generals full control over those forces (which could be why he's only sending guardsmen to states with Republican governors).

Trump, who is currently 79 years old, is the oldest president to ever be inaugurated. At the time of his second swearing-in, Trump was 78 years and 220 days old, beating out former President Joe Biden's previous record of 78 years and 61 days old.

As President Donald Trump threatens to use his authority to deploy more National Guard units to various U.S. cities, one expert on authoritarian regimes is sounding the alarm that Trump could end up irreparably damaging the U.S. military's reputation as a result.

While speaking to MSNBC host Jason Johnson, New York University professor and author Ruth Ben-Ghiat said Trump's use of the military to perform domestic law enforcement duties was a page out of the playbook of some of the world's most notorious far-right dictators. She argued that Trump was attempting to condition the population to seeing the military on their streets on an everyday basis.

"Part of this is, of course, intimidation. And the optics of it are very important to this administration," she said. "They want Americans — starting with [Los Angeles, California], where you had actual Marines as well as National Guard there — they want Americans to become habituated to the idea of state security forces and military being used to police civilians."

According to Ben-Ghiat, other authoritarian regimes in the past that have used the military as a state security force have seen the military lose the trust and support of the U.S. population as it becomes more closely associated with the current regime. She pointed to Chile under far-right dictator Agosto Pinochet as one example, and said that the National Guard (which is typically made up of civilians on temporary duty as first responders following a natural disaster) could soon face the same fate.

"The state security forces and the military end up losing their integrity," she explained. "And instead of being used like the National Guard to help Americans, or like the military to guard us from foreign adversaries, they become the adversary to the people, and they lose all of their integrity and their soul and their honor, and people come to hate them and that is a bad outcome for these forces."

Fox News reported last week that Trump is using his Title 32 authority (which doesn't go against the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878) to deploy the National Guard to 19 different states by the end of September, as part of a mission to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He has also threatened to have the military occupy U.S. cities like Chicago and New York City similar to Washington D.C.

Former Army Major General Randy Manner (Ret.) told CNN earlier on Monday that Trump's use of the National Guard in this way, while technically legal, was nonetheless "abhorrent" in how he was selectively sending the military to Democratic-run cities in blue states. Manner compared the president's deployment of "specialized units" of guardsmen to "Germany in the 1930s."

Watch Ben-Ghiat's segment below, or by clicking this link.

As President Donald Trump's administration continues to call on the military to be deployed to American cities, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace is warning that the U.S. is on a slippery slope toward becoming a full-fledged dictatorship.

In her Monday episode of "Deadline: White House," Wallace likened the United States during Trump's second term to the "frog in boiling water metaphor," saying the U.S. population is now having to evaluate whether the country has indeed been overtaken by "authoritarian rule." She began by observing that "2,000 armed soldiers" are currently patrolling the streets of Washington D.C. with M9 pistols and M4 rifles, and that more cities could soon be next.

"Trump today — in the midst of signing executive orders ending cashless bail and criminalizing flag burning — again, suggested he'll send troops to Chicago and maybe also Baltimore, potentially putting nearly four million Americans under this dark new rule of law and order regime in America," Wallace said, before playing a clip of Trump in the Oval Office complaining about people accusing him of "trying to take over the Republic."

"Is the water hot enough for you yet?" Wallace asked. "...The Trump administration will publicly, in statements like that, say that these drastic, unprecedented measures are designed to fight crime. The reality is that, as far as we can tell so far, it is not about that. It's a show of force."

Wallace pointed to a New York Times report detailing how, since the occupation of Washington, D.C. began, high-level federal charges have been brought against people who allegedly committed low-level offenses. She noted that one man had been arrested over an open container of alcohol, while another person was charged with threatening the president following a "drunken outburst" while they were being arrested for vandalism.

"Many of the cases that have landed in court have raised concerns that the takeover seems intended to artificially inflate its effect, because government lawyers have been instructed to file the most serious federal charges, no matter how minor the incident," she said. "Which brings us back to where we started. When will we know? When will all of us know we've crossed into something new, into authoritarianism?"

Watch the segment below, or by clicking this link.

On Friday, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. government was now a part-owner of a major publicly traded tech company. The reaction among his base was less than enthusiastic.

Trump announced via his Truth Social platform that as of Friday the U.S. is a multibillion-dollar shareholder in Intel as part of an agreement with CEO Lip-Bu Tan — with the U.S. supposedly paying nothing for its new stake. The announcement notably came roughly two weeks after Trump's angry social media tirade against Tan, in which he demanded that Tan "resign immediately" from his role due to his investments in Chinese tech companies.

"It is my Great Honor to report that the United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future," Trump wrote in his signature style of oddly placed capital letters. "I negotiated this Deal with Lip-Bu Tan, the Highly Respected Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The United States paid nothing for these Shares, and the Shares are now valued at approximately $11 Billion Dollars. This is a great Deal for America and, also, a great Deal for INTEL. Building leading edge Semiconductors and Chips, which is what INTEL does, is fundamental to the future of our Nation. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! Thank you for your attention to this matter."

While some of the responses to the Trump administration's post on X announcing the news were complimentary, many replies were deeply critical of the government taking ownership of a private company. One user who described themselves in their bio as a "Constitutional Conservative" wrote: "Not what I voted for. I voted against this specifically." Conservative podcast host @amandatalks_ tweeted: "ngl [not gonna lie] don't love this guys."

"I'm a Republican but I do not agree with this," another user posted. "Government and privately owned businesses should not mix."

"Governments shouldn't own private business," tweeted retired Naval officer Mike Rodman.

Aerospace engineer Michael Heil also weighed in, responding to the White House's post by writing: "Not good. Even partial government ownership of private industry is socialism."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is releasing new materials from the 2019 investigation into convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein to the House Oversight Committee in response to a congressional subpoena. But one longtime Republican strategist is urging Americans to take it all with a grain of salt.

On Friday, Mark McKinnon — who was an advisor to former President George W. Bush and the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) — joined MSNBC host Katy Tur's show to weigh in on the newly released audio of Epstein accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell testifying to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche last month. McKinnon attempted to get cooler heads to prevail, opining that the DOJ was releasing these specific audio files in an attempt to influence public opinion.

"People should just pump the brakes here," McKinnon said. "Because all this ... out there right now publicly is what the Trump administration wants you to see and wants you to hear."

"Ghislaine Maxwell, she could hardly be a less credible witness," he continued. "She's already gotten more favorable treatment ... she has everything to gain by being [as] favorable as she can. And does anybody really think that she's interested in telling the truth? She's interested in reducing her sentence and getting out. And she does that by fawning over Donald Trump and by testifying that there was no relationship there."

As McKinnon noted, Maxwell and her attorneys have been openly angling for a presidential pardon. And after her two-day interview with Blanche, Maxwell was transferred from her Gainesville, Florida, prison to a minimum security federal prison camp in Bryan, Texas. The Bryan facility is known for housing high-profile, non-violent female offenders like former Theranos executive Elizabeth Holmes and former reality TV star Jen Shah.

McKinnon stressed that Maxwell's testimony should not be viewed as "credible" given her motivations, and observed that the person with the most to gain from the newly released audio clips was President Donald Trump himself.

"For a lot of people out there, the first blush is, you know, nothing to see here. There's no there there. Yeah. [Trump] knew [Epstein], but that was it. It was a casual acquaintance. No big deal," he said. "And I'm not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories, but I do think that the way that this has been handled and how difficult it's been to get out information just in the way that Ghislaine Maxwell has been treated. I mean, why else was she transferred to a minimum security facility unless she were offering up something favorable to the president?"

Watch McKinnon's segment below, or by clicking this link.