Thank you for watching! In the face of unrelenting disinformation and authoritarian actions, clear truth-telling and independent media are a necessity. If you value pro-democracy journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to my newsletter. Paid subscribers empower this work and gain access to exclusive benefits. Your support makes a difference.
I was happy to have another Substack Live conversation with my friend, the brilliant, Danielle Moodie. After conversations with her, I always feel ready to run through a wall and do so much more pro-democracy work than I’m already doing. After listening to this, you will too.
This one felt especially urgent because of the timing.
Early this morning, ahead of Trump’s State of the Union address, NPR reported that the Justice Department withheld Epstein files tied to an allegation that Trump sexually abused a minor. According to NPR, the woman said Trump assaulted her in 1983 when she was around 13 after Epstein introduced her to him.
The FBI interviewed her four times in 2019, but only one of those interviews is in the public database, and that interview does not mention Trump. NPR also reported that the DOJ withheld more than 50 pages of FBI interview material and removed some documents from the public database.
MS NOW has confirmed that the woman who made the accusation was interviewed by the FBI in 2019, and NPR reported that her biographical details align with a woman identified as “Jane Doe 4” in a 2019 lawsuit against Epstein’s estate.
That reporting set the stakes for our conversation immediately. We were not just reacting to a headline. We were grappling with what it means if credible allegations, FBI interviews, and key records were handled in ways that raise serious questions about a cover-up, flouted accountability, and eroded institutional integrity.
From there, Danielle widened the lens. We talked about how the Epstein story is not only about one predator or one scandal, but about a broader power network: elite protection, transactional relationships, and the normalization of impunity for people with wealth and influence. In that sense, this was not just a conversation about Epstein or Trump. It was a conversation about how power operates in America and who gets protected.
We also got practical about the larger political moment. We talked about the collapse of good-faith assumptions around institutions, the danger of media sane-washing, what real accountability should look like from courts, and how Democrats and independent media should respond in a moment designed to exhaust and numb the public.
So while this conversation began with explosive reporting, it became something bigger: a clear-eyed discussion about the true state of our union, and what it will take to confront lawlessness with courage, clarity, and strategy.
You can watch the full conversation above and read key takeaways below.
The Allegation & The Cover Up
The most important point in our conversation was simple: the story is not only the allegation itself. It is also how the allegation appears to have been covered up.
We emphasized a key credibility signal: the accuser was reportedly interviewed by the FBI multiple times. That matters. In a climate where Trump’s defenders instantly dismiss everything as fake, repeated interviews suggest investigators treated the allegation seriously.
From there, the bigger issue becomes the records. We discussed reporting about discrepancies and missing or obscured material tied to the allegation. That is where the accountability question gets sharper. If this was credible enough to investigate repeatedly, why does it appear to have been buried or handled differently?
That is why this cannot be brushed off as just another scandal cycle. The core issue is not only what was alleged. It is about how deep this cover-up goes.
Trump’s Protection Is Part Of The Scandal
Danielle asked the question underneath all of this: why does Trump keep getting protected?
This revelation does not land in a vacuum. It lands on top of years of public behavior, public associations, and public warning signs that should have produced far more scrutiny and accountability than they did. Instead, Trump has repeatedly benefited from a system that absorbs scandal and delays consequences.
We talked about how this works: partisan loyalty, media habits, elite status, and a political culture that mistakes shamelessness for strength. Over time, the protection itself becomes part of the evidence. The suppression, the spin, and the double standard are not side issues. They are central to understanding how impunity functions.
In other words, this is not just a story about what Trump may have done. It is also a story about what institutions keep refusing to do.
Survivors Should Not Have To Risk Everything For Accountability To Happen
One of Danielle’s strongest points was moral and necessary: the burden should not fall on survivors to publicly sacrifice themselves before institutions act.
We talked about how people casually say someone should “just come forward” as if that is a simple ask. It is not. When the accused is one of the most powerful people in the country, public accusation can mean harassment, retaliation, smears, and real personal danger.
Institutions are supposed to exist so the public does not have to carry impossible burdens alone. If credible evidence, investigative records, and established patterns are present, the system should be able to act without demanding maximal risk from the least protected people in the story.
That reversal, where the powerless are asked to prove everything while the powerful are protected by delay and narrative laundering, is one reason this moment feels so enraging.
The Epstein Story Is A Window Into Elite Power
We also widened the frame in an important way. We did not treat this as a story about one disgraced figure and one isolated criminal network. We treated it as a window into a broader culture of elite impunity.
The Epstein story is about power, access, transactional relationships, and protection. It is about the way predators can embed themselves in elite systems by being useful, connected, and protected by people who benefit from proximity.
That is why questions like “who knew what” cannot be treated narrowly. In elite environments shaped by leverage, favors, and mutual exposure, ignorance is often performative, and accountability is often selective.
We also connected this to a broader culture of lawlessness and grift, including financial opacity, deregulation, and systems where oversight is treated as an obstacle rather than a safeguard. We sought to outline the pattern: the same culture of impunity keeps showing up in different forms.
Media Normalization Is Making The Crisis Worse
A major theme of the conversation was media sane-washing.
Too much coverage still describes Trump-era lawlessness in neutral political language, as if this is all strategy, messaging, and campaign theater. But when media institutions describe corruption and authoritarian behavior as ordinary political maneuvering, they lower the perceived urgency of what is happening.
That is part of the problem.
The State of the Union backdrop made this painfully obvious. With serious reporting in the air, much of the coverage still drifted toward ritualized pre-speech framing. That kind of normalization trains people to process danger as content.
Danielle and I were clear about this: plain language matters. Call things what they are. If lawlessness is the story, say lawlessness. If corruption is the story, say corruption. Euphemism protects power.
This is also why independent media matters. It creates space for clarity, moral seriousness, and direct analysis without flattening everything into a familiar cable-news script.
Democrats Need Better Tactics Than Performative Disapproval
We ended by getting practical.
Danielle raised the strategic question directly: what should Democrats actually do in moments like this, especially during made-for-TV events that Trump uses to project strength and legitimacy?
We agreed that passive attendance and visible disapproval are not enough. In moments defined by lawlessness and institutional breakdown, simply showing up and frowning can reinforce the spectacle.
I argued that non-attendance or a boycott can be a stronger option than pundits usually admit. The goal is not symbolism for its own sake. The goal is to refuse to lend institutional dignity to propaganda.
Danielle then offered the strongest tactical idea of the conversation: coordinated walkout plus immediate counterprogramming. Not just a protest, but a competing moral narrative featuring people directly harmed by Trump’s policies and abuses.
That kind of response would do what Democrats too often fail to do: create contrast, create visuals, and shape the story instead of reacting to it.
And if they do it, they should build it for distribution from the start, with creators, independent media, clips, and rapid online reach. Do not wait for legacy media to explain your strategy correctly.
Bottom Line
My conversation with Danielle Moodie was robust and insightful.
It was about what this moment reveals: a cover-up, institutional failures, elite impunity, media normalization, and a Republican Party that still refused to confront lawlessness with basic moral clarity.
The main point is simple. This is a test of whether accountability still means anything in the United States.
And the final message was just as important: do not become numb. Exhaustion is real, but powerlessness is the lie authoritarians want people to believe.
If you watched the Live, thank you. If you missed it, you can watch the full conversation above. And if you like our independent journalism, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
