trail. One of the things that Benz recommends is that Trump allow the release of the transcripts and questions and answers from something called the OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility, where investigators talked to Alex Acosta. He was the prosecutor working on the original 2008 plea deal for Epstein. And I thought to myself, how does Mike Benz know all these things even exist?

Now, the fact that we have, and I say we, you know, the people who are pro-Trump, that we have a Mike Benz who seems to have this incredible understanding of how the government is organized in the real world, so he can do what none of us could do. And presumably the fake news couldn't do it either, which is to say there is a document that probably exists that's probably not part of the quote Epstein files that if we could see it would answer a lot of questions. Such as the question of whether Alex Acosta ever said that Epstein was part of some intelligence operation, because I don't believe that that is proven. I believe that people say that Alex Acosta said it, but I don't believe that we have a document to prove it or a video of him saying it. So that's a good idea. We should get access to that.

And then Charlie Kirk goes further and says that somebody should bring Acosta in for a full interview to find out what he says. If he said it once, maybe he'll say it again because, you know, Epstein's dead. So he could probably say things he couldn't say originally. So yeah, let's hear from Acosta. He's still alive.

And then Trump posted on Truth Social that he wants Bondi to produce, quote, any and all pertinent grand jury testimony subject to court approval. So apparently there are some documents that you would not call part of the Epstein files that would tell us maybe everything we want to know. Maybe. So that's possible.

And then Representative Anna Paulina Luna said this on X: Why hasn't a single media outlet asked me to discuss my investigation into the destruction of Epstein's evidence at the FBI under Biden's former deputy director? To which I say, wait, what? Are you telling me that Representative Luna has been doing an investigation into the destruction of Epstein evidence at the FBI and apparently she has evidence that that happened, otherwise she wouldn't be mentioning it, and that's not the top headline? And she's saying why does no media outlet want to talk to me about this? Yeah, good question. Why does no media outlet want to talk to her about what seems to be a really important question? So that's going on.

And then Insurrection Bar on X points out that apparently we know somehow we know this that Harvard gave Epstein an office, keycard access, and unrestricted visitation rights between 2003 and 2007. They also let him attend faculty meetings, meet students, and host visitors. And nobody is asking why they did that. Keep in mind, Epstein didn't even have a college education. And at one point he was a math teacher at an exclusive school that Bill Barr's father ran. And Harvard was giving him special access to the campus for reasons that we don't quite understand. Now, it might be because one of the things that Epstein did was raise money for Harvard. So there might be just a money reason for it, but we'd like to know that.

Even MSNBC is asking Democrats why they didn't do more about the Epstein files if it's so important now. So MSNBC said to Jamie Raskin, if it was a crisis then it's a crisis now. Why didn't Democrats call for Epstein's list to be released when Biden was in office? And Raskin says, I mean, I don't know, we had other cases, we were busy. What were the autocracy and the stealing of the democracy? No, he didn't say that, but he did not answer that question very well. Why didn't the Democrats do more?

And then Lawrence O'Donnell, who is going full batshit crazy, Western Lensman points this out with a video clip. So Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC, he's floating the idea that JD Vance is the one behind that birthday letter because he says JD Vance is trying to get a promotion. So he's trying to take Trump out so he can become president. And Lawrence O'Donnell thinks that the way he's doing it is that he's the person behind the birthday card that the Wall Street Journal was writing about.

Now, does that strike you as a really good point worthy of discussion, or does it strike you as Lawrence O'Donnell has a mental problem? To me, it's the latter. It looks like, oh my god, you're totally mental. What is wrong with you? You should immediately seek therapy or have somebody look at your cell phone to see what you've been doing with it lately. That's what I say.

Well, Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney has conceded, according to Breitbart News, Francis Martel is writing about this, that Canada might not be able to get Trump to drop all of his tariffs when they get a deal eventually. So in other words, Canada now believes that they will simply pay more even if they agree to a deal. So is that a case of Trump winning? Yes, it is. If they've already acknowledged that at the end of the negotiations they're going to be worse off and America will be better off because that's what they said. I mean, that's what the prime minister said. Yep. That looks like it.

And then according to a different Carney, John Carney who writes for Breitbart, that the import pricing that we can see suggests that the foreign producers are eating most of the cost of the tariffs by lowering their prices. So it would seem that Canada is essentially endorsing Trump's view of tariffs as making things a little more fair and that the economists were all wrong.

So the economists have been surveyed again and they've lowered their odds that we're going to go into some kind of recession. So it's down to 33% according to the Wall Street Journal. It was 45% in April when they were all worried about the tariffs. So you've got a whole bunch of economists who were wrong about tariffs. What good are the economists? And is it true that Trump is just smarter than the economists? Because it looks like it. Did Trump, who is not an economist, just beat every economist on this prediction? It looks like it. I mean, you're going to have to give him credit. He looks like he beat every expert in the field. It looks like it.

Well, Gavin Newsom says he's suing Fox because he claims that Jesse Watters on his show falsely asserted that Newsom had lied about when he talked to Trump about the disasters in the fire disaster in California. And he alleges that Jesse Watters aired a deceptively edited clip of Trump's remarks omitting Trump saying a day ago. So I guess Newsom said they just talked to Trump and Jesse Watters, I think, if I'm reading this right, is claiming that that didn't happen. But in order to bolster that claim, had to remove from the clip the part where Trump said it did happen.

And according to Newsom, he would settle for an apology, but if not, he has all day long to do this legal process and he's suing for hundreds of millions of dollars. And I'm wondering what the heck will Fox News do because if Newsom can produce the clip that shows that the important part of the clip was clipped off of the clip, it's going to be hard to say that they didn't know they were doing it. You know what I mean?

Now, Jesse himself is not the one who's preparing the clips. We assume that that would be some kind of producer function. So it could be that Jesse is just finding out that he did a story that didn't pass the fact-checking. So I don't know what you do if it might be just a producer thing, but if I were Jesse and I knew that the proof of the other side's point was simply a video clip that everybody has access to, I think I'd be apologizing.

Oh, somebody says that Jesse apologized last night on the air. Oh, okay. All right. Well, he doesn't have to take my advice. He already did it. That would be how I would have handled it. I would have apologized on air.

According to NewsNation, the person