Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / Epstein, the Midterms and the Politics of Accountability (Part 2) (10/20/26)

Transcript

Epstein, the Midterms and the Politics of Accountability (Part 2) (10/20/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to pick up
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: where we left off, talking about Jeffrey Epstein and the
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: midterm elections. The sheer spread of these attacks tells us
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: something more important than the partisan scorekeeping. Epstein has become
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: one of the rare political subjects capable of activating people
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: who otherwise agree on almost nothing. There are conservatives who
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: believe federal institutions protected elites, progressives who see a grotesque
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: example of wealth and patriarchy insulating abuse, libertarians who distrust
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: government secrecy, and independents who simply think the whole system stinks.
• 0:40
  Speaker 1: There's also survivors and advocates who are sick of watching
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: politicians discover the case only when there's a camera, a microphone,
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: and a ballot within reach. That coalition's messy, suspicious, and
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: impossible for either party to completely own. It's precisely the
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: kind of coalition that can make a secondary issue decisive
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: in a close race because its members do not all
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: need to vote for the same ideological reasons. A Republican
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: voter can punish a Republican candidate for perceived cowardice on
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: disclosure without becoming a Democrat. A Democrat can punish a
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: Democrat for accepting money from somebody with a troubling Epstein
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: connection without becoming a Republican. An Independent can look at
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: both sides, conclude that the rod is systemic, and choose
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: the candidate, who seems least afraid to tear into it.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: And that's why any campaign treating Epstein as a simple
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: partisan cudgel is playing with something more volatile than it understands.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: I think that the greatest political mistake would be assuming
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: that voters need to master millions of pages of records
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: before the issue can affect them. They do not. Most
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: people will never read the investigative files, parse every email,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: compare every flight record, or study every procedural vote. What
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: they understand instantly is the pattern of powerful people moving
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: through a world that seemed to offer endless access, endless money,
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: and endless benefit of the doubt. They understand that Epstein
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: received a non-prosecution agreement in Florida that protected potential co-conspirators
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: and allowed him extraordinary leniency before his later federal arrest.
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: They understand that he continued moving among prominent people after
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: becoming a registered sex offender. They understand that survivors spent
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: years fighting institutions that were far better funded, far better connected,
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: and better protected than they were. When a candidate invokes
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: that history, the candidate is invoking all of that disgust
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: at once, whether the advertisement explains it or not. And
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: that's why the name can cut through a 30-second spot
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: with more force than an entire policy white paper. It's
• 2:47
  Speaker 1: also why using the name irresponsibly is so contemptible. because
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: every cheap insinuation risks turning genuine institutional failure into just
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: another piece of disposable election season sludge. The campaigns, therefore,
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: have two obligations at the same time, and neither can
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: be ignored. They have an obligation to expose genuine conflicts,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: real relationships, consequential votes, and documented efforts to obstruct transparency.
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: They also have an obligation not to accuse people of
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: complicity merely because their names appear somewhere, and a gigantic archive.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: A contact book entry is not a conviction. An email
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: mention is not participation in a crime, and a campaign
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: contribution from somebody mentioned in the files does not automatically
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: prove corruption. The fact that several Epstein-themed ads have already
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: been rated misleading should be a warning to every campaign
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: that thinks Righteous Fury excuses lazy evidence. It does not.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: The survivors were felled for years, in part because institutions...
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: did not treat facts with the seriousness they deserved. And
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: exploiting them now with sloppy accusations simply repeats the disrespect
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: in a different costume. If a candidate has evidence, then
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: put it on the table and defend it. If a
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: candidate has only insinuation, then stop hiding behind the survivors
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: and pretending that innuendo is courage. The standard has to
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: be higher precisely because the underlying crimes and institutional failures
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: were so serious. Look, there's no clean partisan escape hatch
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: from the Epstein story, and anyone selling one is selling
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: snake oil. Epstein cultivated politicians, financiers, academics, lawyers, celebrities, royals,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: business leaders, and influence brokers across the social world that
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: can never be contained inside one party's voter registration file.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: Democratic donors and operatives have had questions to answer, and
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: Republican donors and operatives have had questions to answer. Democratic
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: administrations had institutions that failed, and Republican administrations had institutions
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: that failed. Prosecutors, police, federal agencies, financial institutions, universities, charities, foundations, lawyers,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: and social gatekeepers all appear somewhere in the long chronology
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: of how Epstein operated for so long. And that's why
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: the most honest campaign argument is not the one tribe
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: is pure and the other is damned. The honest argument
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: is that power protected power often enough to create a catastrophe,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: and anyone asking for authority now should be required to
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: prove that he or she will break that pattern instead
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: of inheriting it. Voters should be suspicious of the politician
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: who only wants documents implicating the other side. They should
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: be even more suspicious of the politician who suddenly becomes
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: a procedural scholar the moment scrutiny points towards an ally.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: That's the standard every candidate invoking Epstein should be forced
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: to live under after election day. And it's certainly not
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: a secret that the Senate race matters because control of
• 5:49
  Speaker 1: the chamber determines far more than who gets the better office.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: A new majority can shape committee leadership, hearing schedules, subpoena strategies, confirmations,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: investigative priorities, and the amount of pressure placed on the
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: executive branch. Candidates invoking Epstein are therefore asking voters to
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: hand them actual institutional weapons, not ceremonial microphones. If Brown, Peltola, Turek, Jackson, Osborne, Ossoff,
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: or any other candidate wins while campaigning on disclosure and accountability,
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: the public will be entitled to ask what they do
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: with those powers. If Husted, Sullivan, Hinson, Collins, Ricketts, or
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: their Republican colleagues survive while insisting that they support transparency,
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: the exact same question applies to them. Nobody gets to
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: say that oversight is suddenly too partisan after spending millions
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: of dollars accusing the other side of hiding the truth.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: Nobody gets to hide behind committee jurisdiction after campaigning as
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: though the fate of the republic depended on releasing the files.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: Nobody gets to discover patience after spending months demanding urgency.
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: And the first test of sincerity will come not in
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: another television ad, but in the first set of votes, letters, subpoenas, hearings,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: and document demands after the new Congress convenes. And that's
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: where the campaign theater either becomes government action or is
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: exposed as one more fraud committed against a public, that
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: has already been lied to enough. And the House races
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: may carry an even sharper edge because the majority can
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: determine whether oversight becomes aggressive, selective, or non-existent. A House
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: controlled by politicians who campaigned on Epstein will have the
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: authority to haul officials before committees and demand explanations under oath.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: Members can seek records, preserve evidence, examine compliance with disclosure laws,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: investigate redaction practices, and question why certain leads were or
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: were not pursued. They can call witnesses who were previously
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: treated as untouchable and force agencies to explain delays that
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: were waved away in press statements. They can also choose
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: to do absolutely none of those things once campaign season ends.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: That's the fork in the road. If Democrats take the
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: House after using Epstein in dozens of races, they will
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: own the obligation to prove that their interest was not
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: simply a weapon against Republicans. If Republicans keep the House
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: after defending their record on transparency, they will own the
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: obligation to prove that their promises were not simply a
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: shield against electoral damage. Either way, the excuses are running out,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: because both sides have now told voters that this issue
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: is important enough to help decide control of Congress. The
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: majority that wins will have no credible excuse for treating
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: those powers as decorative once the campaign microphones are packed away. Now,
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: the survivors must be the line that politicians are not
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: permitted to cross without consequence. For years, women who accused
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: Epstein and Maxwell had to fight not only the people
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: who abused them, but the machinery surrounding wealth, reputation, secrecy,
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: and legal intimidation. Some were dismissed, some were attacked, some
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: were forced to relive their trauma in courtrooms and depositions,
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: and some had to watch powerful institutions congratulate themselves for
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: reforms that arrive years too late. Now politicians want those
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: same stories in campaign advertisements because the moral force of
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: the survivors is stronger than anything a consultant can manufacture. Fine.
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: Then the politicians who use that force inherit the responsibility
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: that comes with it. You don't get to put Virginia's
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: family in an advertisement, invoke abused girls in a stump speech,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: or accuse your opponent of abandoning victims and then treat
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: those people like used campaign signs after November. You don't
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: get to borrow the pain for a political legitimacy and
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: return nothing but a press release. If you ran on
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: the backs of survivors, then you work for the accountability
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: you promised them when the cameras are gone. Anything less
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: turns survivor advocacy into campaign scenery, and that should be
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: politically unforgivable. Listen, action means something concrete. And Washington has
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: spent too many years pretending otherwise. It means enforcing disclosure
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: requirements rather than celebrating the existence of legislation while agencies
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: slow law compliance. It means demanding clear explanations for redactions
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: and withholding rather than accepting magic words like privacy, sensitivity,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: and or ongoing review without scrutiny. It means preserving records
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: so that documents do not vanish into bureaucratic memory holes
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: or become impossible to reconstruct years later. It means following
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: the money through shell companies, financial institutions, foundations, trusts, and
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: transactions where legitimate questions remain. It means examining whether people
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: who facilitated criminal conduct were fully investigated rather than assuming
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: Epstein and Maxwell exhausted every possible line of inquiry or
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: It means asking why institutional warnings were missed, ignored, buried,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: or negotiated away. It means giving survivors meaningful access to
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: the process rather than wheeling them out for hearings only
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: when the testimony produces good television. And it means being
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: willing to embarrass donors, allies, former officials, and prestigious institutions
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: on your own side if that's where the evidence leads.
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: Anything short of that is not accountability, but another managed
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: release valve for public anger. I think we all understand
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: that congressional oversight is not a magic wand, but it's
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: not nothing either. Committees can subpoena records and testimony, refer
• 11:26
  Speaker 1: potential misconduct, demand inspector general reviews, request unredacted material, and
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: create public records that agencies would rather keep buried in
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: filing cabinets. Members can use appropriations and confirmation hearings to
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: force answers from departments that have learned to survive news
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: cycles by waiting out public anger. They can ask whether
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: the government complied with the law, whether records were withheld improperly,
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: and whether investigative decisions were supported by evidence rather than
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: reputation management. They can compare sworn testimony with contemporaneous documents
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: and demand explanations when the two don't match. They can
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: insist what witnesses who previously received deferential treatment answer the
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: same questions ordinary citizens would face. They can stop pretending
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: that a strongly worded letter is the same thing as
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: sustained oversight. But most of all, they can maintain pressure
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: after the headlines move on, which is exactly what Washington
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: has historically failed to do in the Epstein saga. Any
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: candidate who spent 2026 promising to fight for the truth
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: should be judged by whether that pressure exists in March, June,
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: and October of 2027. If they refuse to use those tools,
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: then voters should assume the campaign language was theater until
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: proven otherwise. We must also keep up the pressure campaign
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: on the Justice Department and other federal institutions because Congress
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: cannot simply campaign against secrecy and then outsource accountability to
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: the same bureaucracy it spent months criticizing. Oversight should ask
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: what remains withheld, under what legal authority, and according to
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: what review process. It should examine whether disclosure decisions are
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: being applied consistently rather than strategically. It should demand timelines
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: and then enforce them instead of accepting deadline after deadline
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: as though time itself were an adequate explanation. It should
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: scrutinize claims that certain matters are closed when records suggest
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: unresolved factual questions still exist. It should investigate whether financial trails,
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: potential facilitators, and institutional enablers receive the depth of attention
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: that the underlying crimes warranted. None of that requires assuming
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: a conspiracy in advance. It requires doing what investigators and
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: legislators are supposed to do, which is follow the evidence,
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: test explanations, and refuse to confuse official confidence with proof.
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: If candidates cannot commit to that standard after using Epstein
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: as a campaign weapon, then their campaign rhetoric was never
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: about truth in the first place. Oversight that stops at
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: the courthouse door of the executive branch is not oversight
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: worthy of the name. By election day, voters will have
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: heard Epstein's name thousands upon thousands of times in paid media, interviews, debates, speeches, podcasts, mailers,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: and digital attacks. Some will tune it out. Some will
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: be furious. Some will vote on the economy and barely
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: consider it at all. But in a handful of races
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: decided by razor-thin margins, the people who do care may
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: be enough to change the result. And that's why Ohio, Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Nebraska, Georgia,
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: Colorado's 5th, and several Pennsylvania districts deserve to be watched
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: so closely. I think that their laboratories for weather disgust
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: with elite impunity can be translated into electoral power. Their
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: also laboratories for weather campaigns can invoke accountability without destroying
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: factual standards in the process. The winners will claim mandates
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: for all kinds of things on election night, but the
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: public should remember that for many of them, Epstein was
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: one of the issues they themselves chose to put on
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: the ballot. So once the confetti is swept off the floor,
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: the countdown should begin. Every candidate who promised disclosure should
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: be asked what specific records remain outstanding and what he
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: or she is doing to obtain them. Every candidate who
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: promised hearings should be asked when the hearings are scheduled
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: and which witnesses will be called. Every candidate who accused
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: an opponent for protecting powerful people should be asked whether
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: the same standard applies to donors and allies in the
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: winner's own party. Every candidate who stood beside a survivor
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: should be asked whether the survivor has been consulted now
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: that the campaign no longer needs a photograph. Every candidate
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: who talked about subpoenas should be asked whether any were issued.
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: Every candidate who talked about criminal accountability should be asked
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: whether referrals, preservation demands, or investigative requests were actually made.
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: Every candidate who promised to tear down secrecy should be
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: judged on whether the government becomes measurably more transparent. There's
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: no reason for voters, journalists, or survivors to accept another
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: cycle of rhetorical thunder, followed by institutional silence. Promises that
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: cannot survive the first month after victory, well, they were
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: never promises at all. And these politicians themselves should understand
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: the danger of failing the test, because Epstein became politically potent,
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: because millions of Americans already believe the system protects people
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: with money, access, and connections. Using that anger to win
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: an election and then abandoning the issue would not calm
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: those suspicions. It would validate them. It would tell voters
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: that even the language of accountability is simply another commodity
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: Washington buys during campaign season and throws away after the
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: polls close. And I think that betrayal would be especially
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: poisonous among voters who cross party lines because they believe
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: the candidate was serious about transparency. The next backlash would
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: not be neatly partisan because contempt for hypocrisy rarely stays
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: inside party boundaries. Candidates who think they can borrow the
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: Epstein scandal for three months and return it untouched are
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: badly misreading the electorate they are trying to manipulate. Once
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: you tell voters that the house is on fire, you
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: don't get to take office and complain that the fire
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: department is expensive. That's how cynicism hardens into rage, and
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: politicians who manufacture that rage for votes should not be
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: surprised when it eventually turns on them. And that's why
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: the 2026 midterms may become one of the most consequential
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: political chapters in the long Epstein saga. For years, the
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: public was asked to watch institutions fail, apologize, investigate themselves,
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: release fragments, seal records, negotiate settlements, and promise that lessons
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: had been learned. Now the scandal is moved directly into
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: the machinery that determines who controls congressional power. Candidates have
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: placed their own credibility on the line by saying that
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: Epstein represents something bigger than one criminal and one accomplice.
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: They have said explicitly, or implicitly, that the issue is
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: about corruption, secrecy, billionaire influence, institutional cowardice, and justice for survivors. Good!
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: Let them prove it. They can prove it when the
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: subpoena targets a friend, when the donor gets angry, when
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: leadership tells them to move on, and when the hearing
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: becomes inconvenient. and when evidence refuses to follow partisan expectation.
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: That's the moment when we find out who believed the
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: words coming out of their own mouths. The oath begins
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: where the advertisement ends. So look, the final verdict on
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: Epstein's impact on the midterms will not be written on
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: election night. Election night will tell us who successfully used
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: the issue, who survived it, and which party controls the
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: machinery of Congress. The real verdict will come afterward. When
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: voters can compare campaign promises with congressional conduct, if the
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: winners force meaningful disclosure, pursue credible oversight, protect survivor interests,
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: and follow evidence without fear or favor, then the rhetoric
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: will at least have produced something of value. If they
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: do not, then every advertisement, every solemn speech, every photograph
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: with a survivor, and every accusation about protecting predators will
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: curdle into evidence of political exploitation. That would be a
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: disgrace piled on top of a scandal already overflowing with disgrace.
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: The survivors have been asked to carry enough weight for
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: institutions that failed them. They should not also have to
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: carry politicians across the finish line only to watch those
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: politicians vanish behind committee doors. After November 3rd, the age
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: of promises should end, and the age of receipts should begin.
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: The politicians who lit this fire in order to get
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: elected will be expected to stand in that fire until
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: the job is done. All the information that goes with
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.