>> NBC looked into its archives and uncovered a video featuring Donald Trump and Jeffrey
Epstein in 1992 at Mar-a-Lago.
There was apparently a party of some sort and the two men were discussing women as they
were dancing on the dance floor.
Just wanna warn you everything about this video you're about to see is cringeworthy,
but I think it's important to take a look at it.
>> After a while, Trump goes to greet three new guests, among them, the financier Jeffrey
Epstein.
More than a decade before his guilty plead on state prostitution charges.
Later in the footage, Trump is seen talking to Epstein and another man as women are dancing
in front of them.
Trump alternates between dancing and pointing out women to Epstein and the other man, and
telling Epstein about the cameras.
>> Though exactly what they say is difficult to understand as they discuss the women and
their appearances.
Trump gestures to one and appears to say to Epstein, look at her back there, she's hot.
And then Trump says something else into Epstein's ear that makes him double over with laughter.
But as the president says now, he never liked Epstein.
>> I was not a fun of his, that I can tell you.
I was not a fun of his.
>> Look, the disturbing part about that video is how much I love that song that's playing
at that party.
>> The song is ruined for you now.
>> Yeah, it is, cuz rhythm is a dancer, but not anymore, not in my heart.
But okay, let's talk about the serious part of the story, I'm not trying to make light
of it.
>> Of course, not.
>> Trump was close with Epstein, I mean, they had a relationship.
And so, and I don't mean to be hyper focused on Trump.
It's just that this story has to do with an on earth video that NBC found.
Epstein had close friendly ties with many people in power, you have Alan Dershowitz,
you have Bill Clinton.
You have all these people who would party with him and really they had no idea that
this man had relations with girls with children?
I don't know, and I just think that, I just hope that there's really a full investigation,
not just into Epstein.
But what people surrounding Epstein knew, and whether they enabled this type of behavior.
>> Whether they participated in it, let alone enabled it.
And what's so frustrating for me when this video came out and watching this video is
that.
Once again, we are in a position of spending so much time proving that the President is
lying when we know he's lying, there was proof immediately after but he lies so much.
About so many things that I'm not even sure he has to lie about at least with the information
that we have right now.
And it's we have to because again, he's the President of the United States.
So you have to cover these things, you have to point out that the President lies over
and over when he lies over and over.
And it's just frustrating, because of course, this video exists.
He was lying when he said, initially it seemed like he sort of tried to imply the didn't
really know him that well.
And then he didn't like him and then it was like, okay, there was a falling out, nobody
knows what happened.
But he's just gonna ignore the fact that this was at least at some point his friend.
This was not a stranger, this was someone he knew.
How many times are we gonna see a picture or a video of Trump with somebody that he
says he doesn't know?
>> That's yeah, I totally agree with you.
>> It's so frustrating.
>> And what's also frustrating, I mean he has every incentive to pretend as if he didn't
have a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
The question is the media or lawmakers just gonna go along with it as they have in other
instances, right?
And I can help us think about the House rule again, the House rule indicating that you
are not allowed to refer to the President by certain names or characteristics.
Even if it's accurate, because it's considered insulting.
So he's the liar, members of the House cannot have any type of resolution vote calling him
a liar even though he's a clear liar.
>> Yeah.
>> Like that- >> Come on, every single rule that a slave
owner wrote needs to be looked at again.
>> Yeah.
>> And that should have happened a long time ago,.
But we're still not in a position where we're ready to acknowledge that the founders of
our country were monsters.
>> Yeah.
>> Right.
>> That these were very, very, very bad people that you cannot be both.
That you many do some things that benefited other people but you cannot be a good person.
When you can't have it all this history and raping children and having babies with your
slaves who are underage.
And no, yeah, you can't.
But we're not ready to do that, so we're way not at all ready.
We're not totally ready to say that the President who says something racist is racist.
We are definitely not ready to acknowledge that the people who started this country,
who created this country, not the ones who built it, but just the ones who were kinda
like the overseers were terrible.
>> Yeah, I think it's a lot easier Brooke for people to be in the weeds.
So over these tiny little House rules than to do a fundamental systemic change as opposed
to pointing to the great ideals of our founding fathers.
How much do ideals matter if you built centuries of enslavement, of raping, of laws that benefit
the 1%, the 0.01% and make them virtually immune?
I think this story is stunning, it's remarkable that it's getting traction.
Because a couple years ago the Miami Herald was doing its due diligence trying to uncover
so much and so was the Daily Beast.
And nobody was paying attention on the national level.
And I know, we talk about the Russia gate and Russia scandals and potential collusion.
But I always thought that this case carried so much more weight and incriminating him.
Because I think we are in a key moment in our history when we're talking about sexual
assault.
And that's, now we've held people accountable or attempted to, right, with the Weinsteins,
with the R Kellys.
Now do we wanna talk about shifting from predator to a predatory network and targeting a predatory
network?
And if so, that would include the Dershowitzs, that would include Bill Clinton.
That would include Trump, who clearly, we've seen so much evidence produced.
And in the summer of 2016, there were Jane Does during the election campaign, who testified
to a deposition to add lawsuits against Trump and Epstein together.
>> Yeah, I think that one of the reasons why Democrats have been so hyper-focused on Russia
as opposed to all the other scandals which carry more weight.
Is because Russia would be a convenient scapegoat for why they lost the 2016 election.
>> Yes.
>> If you can prove collusion, then that in their minds clears them of any wrongdoing
or missteps during that election, and there were missteps by the Democratic Party in that
election.
So they've put all their eggs in that basket.
When in reality there are numerous issues surrounding Trump that they should have focused
all their energy on.
Whether it's his ties to Epstein, whether it's the fact that he used his own charitable
foundation to enrich himself, the multiple allegations of rape.
I mean, come on, how much more do you need and they have all these leads.
It's like if you're a journalist and you get those leads, what do you do?
>> Right.
>> Right, you focus on them, cuz you're about to break a big story or potentially break
a big story.
With members of Congress, well, with Democratic leadership right now.
Unfortunately, they decided to put all of their energy behind one potential issue.
And they were let down when there wasn't enough evidence to prove conspiracy.
But there was enough evidence to show obstruction of justice, and he was not exonerated.
And even after all that effort, Pelosi decided I'm not gonna go after that, come on.
>> But how much do you think too that they might be complicit in a story like Epstein
or they have friends like that?
This is a potential unearthing, like I said of a predatory network.
So- >> That would impact both Democrats and Republicans.
You're right, yes.
>> Absolutely, and so I would love serious interrogation of this case, on a federal level,
not just the southern New York district.
>> And a federal level, I mean what Trump's DOJ is gonna do it.
The same DOJ that decided to not pursue charges against the cop who killed Eric Gardner.
>> Right.
>> It's just it's devastating.
This is why it's important to pay attention to the primaries, make sure you choose the
right candidate to represent you as president.
That way you're not left with voting for the lesser of two evils.
Which is what lead to a bunch of millennials and young voters staying home or voting for
a third party candidate whatever it is.
>> Which is terrible.
>> Yeah, I- >> There is no, evil is the raging racist.
If you couldn't wrap your mind around that, what privilege?
How nice of you to not be worried about what happens to people of color, to the LGBT community
to think?
I mean, how nice it must be to wake up and feel good about that and to even wake up and
just have that choice.
>> Yeah.
>> For you not to be the person on the other side, what a world?
>> That's the world I'd like to live and I'll tell you
that.
>> Yeah.