Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

DOJ Moves To Release Grand Jury Testimony In Epstein Case; Trump Filing Libel Lawsuit Over Wall Street Journal Report; PA Petition Could Determine If Independents Vote In Primaries. ICE Mask Debate Heats Up As Agent Assaults Surge. Aired 9-10a

Aired July 19, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:15]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: May every day be another wonderful secret. I'm Michael Smerconish. Today in New York City, as you already know, Thursday night The Wall Street Journal dropped that bombshell story about their relationship and between President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. That, for me, raises as many questions as it answered.

The story said that 22 years ago, Trump was among the friends of Epstein whose letters comprised a bawdy 50th birthday greeting to the now deceased pedophile. But curiously, the Journal did not print the letter. Let's think about that. The Journal said that it had reviewed unspecified documents and had relied on people who had reviewed the pages. The Journal also reported reviewing a letter bearing Trump's name, which was hand drawn with a heavy marker and depicted a naked woman, including a, quote, "Donald signature" meant to look like pubic hair.

The president denied that this was his work. He said that it was fake, that he never wrote a picture in his life, that he doesn't draw pictures of women. He also added that he would sue The Wall Street Journal if they published the story, and he has since made good on that threat, filing a libel case yesterday which seeks at least 20 billion against the Journal and the reporters involved.

Overall, classic Trump, deny, deny, deny, always be on the attack, as Roy Cohn counseled him years ago. Only in this case, we're talking about something that either exists or it doesn't. Unlike other Trump controversies that have pitted his word against an accuser or his word against an allegation. Common sense to me suggests that, A, birthday book exists. There's just too much detail in the story to think otherwise.

We're told that it's leather bound, that it was put together by a bookbinder who's identified Herbert Weitz, and that Weitz once listed Jeffrey Epstein as a client, that it contains poems and photos and greetings from business people and academics. Then there's this very specific detail about Alan Dershowitz's letter being a mockup of a Vanity Fair cover, complete with a headline asking whether Jeffrey Epstein was Jack the Ripper. There's even supposedly an Epstein report card from the Mark Twain Junior High School in Brooklyn.

It's hard to fathom that a two person byline story in a newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch, which was sure to infuriate the president, would all be made up out of whole cloth, or that it would have made it to press without a very thorough legal scrubbing. And yet here we are with the president in a lawsuit saying this is fake news. So what does he know? Let's game it out. I see two scenarios.

Either that even if a book exists, whatever purports to be from him isn't, that perhaps someone else wrote the submission on his behalf with or without his knowledge. Although with regard to his denial about not drawing pictures, there's already plenty of evidence that he has. But for all that, it's hard to believe that the president would have written the imaginary conversation between himself and Epstein 22 years ago.

I mean, listen to some of the back and forth. Jeffrey, "Yes, we do, come to think of it." Donald, "Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? Jeffrey, "As a matter of fact, it was clear to me last time I saw you." Donald, "A pall is a wonderful thing.

Happy Birthday, and may every day be another wonderful secret."

That doesn't sound like something Donald Trump would write. A second possibility, Trump knows that if The Wall Street Journal could have produced it, they would have done so when they published the story, and that such a letter, real or fabricated, will never see the light of day. Of course, now he's filed this lawsuit, which will presumably lead to a discovery process where his lawyers get access to the Journal's information. But Trump himself could likely sit for a sworn deposition.

Let's assume there is a body note from Trump to Epstein. He survived worse. There's no allegation of criminal conduct here, only potential bad taste. This really does amount to locker room talk. So why would this be something he would so vehemently deny if it exists?

Maybe because, unlike prior Trump controversies, this one has done something none of the others were able to do, it has jarred the base. Which might help explain why yesterday, Trump had the Department of Justice move to release pertinent grand jury testimony in the Epstein case. The story has not only shaken his base, it's also shaken his support among Republicans in Congress.

Writing in the Washington Post, Philip Bump offered as good an explanation as any that I have seen. He said, quote, "Probably for the first time since he announced his candidacy in 2015, Trump has found himself on the elite side of the divide against the people. Instead of leveraging the power of conspiratorial thinking, for at least a moment, he is seen as being used against him."

[09:05:19]

Think about it, the Republicans in the House were unwilling to push back against Trump when he proposed cuts to Medicaid that could threaten rural hospitals, things that could have real impact on their constituents. But when a story about files of a deceased sex offender now arise, suddenly, they're willing to defy the president in a way they would not previously, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. But Trump's litigious move seems to have turned that tide, The Wall Street Journal story and the president's response in the short term might have done for Trump what he's been struggling to do in recent days, and that is to get MAGA back on the same page, in this case, uniting against their old foe, the media. How long that remains the case will depend on the next birthday book revelation from The Wall Street Journal or some other media outlet.

Which brings me to this. I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Vote on today's poll question, which asks when will we see the alleged Trump birthday letter to Epstein? Within a week, within a month, longer than a month or never, because maybe it doesn't exist.

Joining me now is CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Elie Honig.

Elie, my first thought when I heard that he'd actually filed the lawsuit is, well, he just signed up to be deposed on the most personal aspects of his relationship with Epstein.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, 100 percent, Michael, that will happen. I know Donald Trump has a long history of getting involved in civil suits and even criminal cases and saying he's going to testify, but then avoiding testifying or refusing to testify. There is no escaping the fact that Donald Trump, the plaintiff, the person who brought this case, will be deposed by the lawyers for Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch under oath in this case. There's no executive privilege. And if you want to look back at history, it's the Paula Jones case involving Bill Clinton where the Supreme Court unanimously said it doesn't matter that you're the president, you still can be deposed in a civil case.

If anything, the rationale is even stronger here because Donald Trump is the plaintiff. And the subject matter, Michael, of that deposition will be entirely about the nature, extent and details of Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. It boggles my mind that Donald Trump and his legal team are walking him right into this scenario.

SMERCONISH: Well, and similarly, couldn't The Wall Street Journal now subpoena the DOJ file on Epstein?

HONIG: Well, that's interesting. It does happen sometimes that civil litigants, people who've been sued, will try to get their hands on DOJ materials. And actually, if you look at the rule that covers grand jury secrecy over on the criminal side, it actually says one of the exceptions, one of the reasons that documents can be made public or turned over to somebody is if they're necessary in a different, a separate, ongoing legal matter. So there could be a way that the lawyers for Wall Street Journal do manage to tap into and access some of those DOJ documents.

SMERCONISH: Elie, I have read this journal story probably 10 times line by line, and I -- the wording of it is so curious to me and so obviously lawyer. But let me just read a few things aloud, just documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, pages -- according to people who've reviewed the pages, the letter bearing Trump's name, which was reviewed by the Journal, like, they're very careful as to exactly how they phrase it, but in the end, they don't publish the letter. What do you make of it?

HONIG: So my lawyer radar was, I think, going off the same as yours. As I read that article, I kept thinking, this is The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch saying, bring it on, we're ready. I don't think it takes a crystal ball reader to predict that Donald Trump was going to sue, which he did very quickly.

Now that that has happened, what Donald Trump has to prove in order to win on his defamation case is, first of all, that the reporting is false, and second of all, that The Wall Street Journal knew it was false or acted recklessly. And so what the Wall Street Journal is communicating with, the language you just read is we've done our diligence. Now, whether they have the letter or not, I don't know. It does happen sometimes, journalistically, that an outlet will report on some document first, wait and see what the blowback is, and sometimes they have it, and then they later on release it. You've seen scenarios like that.

So I don't know whether they have it, but what they're signaling there is go ahead and bring this lawsuit, we are ready. We have our defense ready. We're buttoned up.

SMERCONISH: If I string together some of the claims that the Journal makes, what seems obvious to me is that a person who knows the answer as to the existence of the leather bound book and the Trump entry in it, if it exists, is Pam Bondi.

[09:10:02]

HONIG: Yes, she might. Well, I mean, look, it is possible that DOJ has this book or a copy of this book, somewhere in its files. We learned, Michael, last week from the FBI's internal memo that the Epstein files writ large are 300 gigabytes, that is roughly the equivalent of 100,000 audible books, 100,000, you know, written out books. So that's a massive amount of data. And so could it be in there?

Sure. Look, prosecutors come across wild, strange, unexpected things when we do our investigations. It could have come from a witness, it could have come during a search warrant, we don't know. So we don't know whether Pam Bondi has it, but it's certainly within the realm of possibility.

SMERCONISH: Well, OK, final thought. One thing I think I do know is that the album that we're discussing will not be contained, will not be contained in, quote, "pertinent grand jury." Information testimony.

HONIG: That is 100 percent accurate. And I want to make this point, I think it's really important, if we look at the request that DOJ made late yesterday, the request that Donald Trump had ordered them to make for pertinent grand jury testimony, you could not possibly engineer a request to more look like you're asking for a lot.

SMERCONISH: Right. Right.

HONIG: But actually be asking for a very little, right? Let's just pertinent, let's just put that aside. Impertinent is completely subjective. But grand jury testimony is such a narrow slice of any complete criminal investigative file. It would not include bank records, phone records, flight records, if there is such a book and letter, things you seized during a search warrant, wiretaps, videotapes, I can go on and on.

It would not even, Michael, include all witness testimony. It is far more common for a witness to give testimony to prosecutors outside of the realm of the grand jury. So even that would not be included.

SMERCONISH: OK, I'm going to cut you pass. You don't have to answer specifically today's poll question. I'll just ask it generally, are we going to see, we the public, going to see whatever it is the Journal was talking about?

HONIG: So I'm going to craft my own little mini exception to your poll question, Michael --

SMERCONISH: Pertinent.

HONIG: -- which is --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

HONIG: -- only if The Wall Street Journal actually has it and is holding it back and is planning to put it out as part of some second wave. But short of that scenario, put me down for never.

SMERCONISH: Wow. OK. Elie, thank you as always.

HONIG: Thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: So what are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. This comes from the world of YouTube. Trump said it wasn't from him not that it doesn't exist.

I made it very clear, Nancy, in the way that I worded this, I was as -- I'll tell you what. I was as careful in summarizing the situation as The Wall Street Journal was in writing exactly what they had to say.

I want to know what you think at home. Go to my website at smerconish.com when will we see the alleged Trump birthday letter to Epstein? Within a week, within a month, longer than a month, or as Elie said with a caveat, never.

Up ahead, 43 percent of Americans now identify as Independents. So why are millions still locked out of primary elections? The laws and my own petition against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania next. Don't forget to sign up for the newsletter at smerconish.com when you are voting. Jack Ohman, one of our illustrators, come on, check that out, very timely and amusing.

Here's another one. This is from Rob Rogers. You get those when you're a subscriber.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:17:44]

SMERCONISH: Let my people vote. I'm one of the 43 percent of Americans who, according to Gallup, self-identify not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Independent voters. In just my home state of Pennsylvania, the most critical battleground state in the 2024 presidential election, there are more than 1 million such registered voters, but we are one of nine closed primary states in the nation where nonparty affiliates are precluded from voting in primary elections. Even though our tax dollars are being used to stage such contests.

This week I became a plaintiff in a legal action that seeks to change that. With three other parties, including David Thornburgh, who's the chair of Ballot PA Action, we have asked the State Supreme Court to exercise their King's Bench jurisdiction and declare the applicable Pennsylvania law to be unconstitutional.

I've always taken voting seriously. I turned 18 in 1980 and never missed, have never missed a general election. Until I registered from Republican to Independent in 2010, I'd never missed a primary either. Having come of age in the party of Ronald Reagan and having even served in the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, eventually I determined that the party had changed and no longer reflected what I had joined.

Additionally, in a polarized media environment, I felt boxed in by a label that no longer fit. Audiences often judge you first by your party ID. I no longer wanted to be introduced on television with a Republican Chiron, and I don't think that I should have to decide between my job and my vote. So during a routine driver's license renewal in 2010 when I was asked if I wanted to change my party registration, I said yes and I became an Independent or a non-party affiliate as we call them at home.

In Pennsylvania, there are currently 1.4 million voters, or 16 percent of the total registered electorate, who are not registered as Republican or Democratic. Here's another way to think of that. According to one of my next guests, Jeremy Gruber, who's the senior vice president at open primaries, 14 states, including Nebraska and New Hampshire, have less voters in total than the number of those who are Independent voters in Pennsylvania. And Gruber notes that there are 30 million Independent voters nationwide who are precluded from voting due to closed primaries. That means we don't get a say in primary elections, which are often destiny effectively determining the outcome in a majority of my home state, state House races and state Senate races.

[09:20:13] By the time we get a say in the general election, the contest is often already over. I would also argue that our missing voice is often one of moderation, which is in short supply in these polarized times. I firmly believe that when Independent voters are excluded from the nomination process, we foster the rise of extremes at both ends of the political spectrum and better would be a system that forces candidates to have to appeal to a broader cross section of society, including those for whom compromise is not a dirty word. So I'm honored to have my name associated with this petition.

And as one of our lawyers, Shanin Specter, said, denying a citizen the right to vote is the harshest form of taxation without representation.

Joining me now is the aforementioned Jeremy Gruber, the senior vice president for Open Primaries, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for primary elections to be open and Independent voters to participate. His group is supportive of the petition I've referenced.

Seth Masket sees it differently. He's a political science professor and director for the center on American Politics at the University of Denver. Last month he testified against the idea of open primaries in New York City. He also wrote this piece, "A Case for Keeping Primary Voting to Party Members." I should also mention that we invited the Pennsylvania Secretary of State, Al Schmitt, to be on the program, but he declined.

Professor, thanks so much for being here. I don't want you to feel like you're being tag teamed. The floor is yours to make the initial response to what I just said.

SETH MASKET, POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER: Thank you for having me on. So clearly political parties are very important to our democracy and democracies all over the world. And you know, basically our Congress is run by political parties. Our state legislatures, nearly all of them are run by political parties. And so the choices that parties make are very important.

They're also membership organizations and we can join a party if we want to participate in its decision making processes. But I tend to believe that Republicans should not be picking Democratic nominees, Democrats should not be picking Republican nominees. Those decisions are made internally by a party. A primary election is very different from a general election. General elections are where we actually choose our elected officials.

A primary election is where a party decides who is going to be on that ballot, and that's a decision that should be made by party members.

SMERCONISH: You would go so far, and I base this on what I read in the essay that I referenced, you'd go so far as to say that if you're in the minority in a very lopsided district, well, you should join the majority and try and do something about it. Is that a fair paraphrasing of what you wrote?

MASKET: That's fair. And you know, lopsided districts are a significant concern for our democracy. And most of us live in very lopsided districts. That's simply a nature of where people live in this country. Democrats tend to live near other Democrats, Republicans tend to live near other Republicans.

That's something that can be addressed if we want through redistricting reform by changing the style of election system that we have. That's not really something to be changed through primaries. But yes, I would agree that like if you live in a district that is very much dominated by one party, you can have more influence by joining that majority party and, you know, simply for the purpose of participating in its primaries and choosing nominees who are more to your liking. If you want, you can also join the minority party and try to pick candidates who would have a better shot at making that district less lopsided. But it doesn't necessarily mean --

SMERCONISH: Jeremy Gruber --

MASKET: Sorry, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: Jeremy, you've heard what the professor says, should I just suck it up and either join the Ds or join the Rs?

JEREMY GRUBER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OF OPEN PRIMARIES: Look, I mean, primaries are really not that different from the general election. Despite what he says. Primaries are taxpayer funded, government administered elections. When you as a voter go into the primary to vote, your experience is exactly the same as the general election, you see the same poll workers, you vote on the same government owned machines, the whole thing is administered by the secretary of state. The only difference between a primary and a general election is who gets to participate.

And despite the fact that officially candidates are elected in the general election, in most cases candidates are actually elected in our primary elections where less than 10 percent are competitive and half are uncontested. Whoever wins the primary in most races wins the general election. These are the most meaningful elections in our country. But that's actually beside the point. This is a voting rights issue.

I'm an American citizen, I'm a registered voter, the highest good in our country is the right to vote, period. Nothing else comes close.

[09:25:10]

Every -- ever since women's suffrage through the civil rights arena, there have always been arguments claiming that there's a problem, there's a concern, there's an issue with a particular group having the right to vote. Those folks have always been on the wrong side of history because there is no reason why an American citizen shouldn't be able to vote in a public election. And that's it.

SMERCONISH: Professor, it's your turn. Go ahead.

MASKET: So just responding to a few of those things, just because it's taxpayer funded doesn't mean I get to participate in it. My tax dollars pay for the GI Bill, I'm not eligible for that. My tax dollars pay for public universities that I can't get into. And that's perfectly fine. We're better off that these things exist in our society, but that doesn't mean we get to participate in all of them if we don't want to join the party.

It's very easy to join a party, they don't require membership dues, they don't require loyalty oaths, we can also switch out if we decide we don't like it. I would also add that -- it kind of bothers me that we're talking about participating in a primary in terms of voter disenfranchisement. Voter disenfranchisement is obviously a very serious issue in this country today and in the past. You know, the ability to participate in a general election is something that is guaranteed by the Constitution for essentially all adults. And that has been -- we've seen situations even today where it's very -- t's harder for poorer people than wealthy people to actually vote.

It can be harder for, in some states, people of color to participate than white people. Those are very serious concerns. Access to a primary is not the same as that. Primary is a joining a party for the purpose of participating in deciding who gets to be on the ballot. That is not the same as a general election.

SMERCONISH: We -- Professor, will you respond to Jeremy's argument that the primaries are the whole ball of wax, that by a combination of Gerry -- this is now my contribution, but by virtue of gerrymandering or self-sorting, the reality is that most races are determined in the primary. You've got this outsized influence of a polarized media. And the bottom line, I would argue, and this what really draws me to this cause is we have a system now that rewards the extremes and that we're excluding the 43 percent of the country, a plurality who want to have a say and don't want to be identified with either extreme. Your response?

MASKET: No, I certainly understand that, you know, people don't necessarily want to identify with one of the parties. They don't necessarily want to join one of the parties, even though it's fairly easy to do that. On the issue of extremism, I was a co-author on a study a few years back looking at essentially all the state legislatures across the country and looking at the different primary election systems that we have to put people in there, and whether you're looking -- talking about closed primaries or semi closed or open primaries, none of that seems to make a difference for how extreme or how moderate the elected officials are who come out of those systems. That is -- this doesn't -- whether you make these elections closed or open, that doesn't seem to make a difference for the sort of people that we produce.

SMERCONISH: Jeremy, will you respond?

MASKET: And we also see in some places a --

SMERCONISH: Quick response from Jeremy --

MASKET: Sorry, go ahead.

SMERCONISH: -- because I'm limited on time. Go ahead, Jeremy. GRUBER: Yes, look, there's plenty of evidence that voter participation goes up that legislators become more accountable and more responsive and less extreme in more open systems. But that's beside the point. This is a voting rights issue. American voters should not be shut out of public elections by the state. That's what's happening around the country.

There are 30 million Independent voters in this country. Ten thousand Americans leave the Republican and Democratic parties every single day. They should have the right to vote no matter what their political affiliation is. The state right now around the country is telling voters that they should have to join a private political party if they want to vote in a publicly funded and administered election. That's not right.

That's not fair and it's damn right un-American to tell people --

SMERCONISH: Professor, you get the final -- you get the final word. Professor, go ahead, quickly. I'm going to give you the final word. Go ahead.

MASKET: I would disagree that that's un-American. These are -- as were discussing, these are private membership organizations. They get to make decisions and it's not right that people who are not members, who choose not to become members, get to participate in its decision making processes. It is very easy to join a party, it's very easy to leave a party and people who want to participate in those primaries are welcome to do that by joining that party.

SMERCONISH: I appreciate both of you and I wish we had more time. Thank you for being here.

Let's see what some of the social media reaction is. From the world of X there comes this, completely ignore the obvious argument, independence could help inferior candidate will lose in the general, says John Moore.

John, you're talking about party rating? You could already do that if you're willing to go through the laborious task of having to register in somebody else's party just to do it. I've heard the argument before. I think it's a nonstarter.

I thought that was a great conversation, by the way, and that both sides, Professor Masket and Jeremy Gruber, presented very, very well the competing arguments, and you know how I stand on this. I want to remind you, please go to my Web site at Smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. When will we see the alleged Trump birthday letter to Epstein, within a week, within a month, longer than a month? Maybe never, because maybe it doesn't even exist.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my opening commentary. The Department of Homeland Security says assaults against ICE agents have spiked 830 percent. The officers are masking up to protect themselves and their identity. But do those numbers check out?

And a new bill seeks to ban these federal agents from wearing facial coverings. We're going to discuss that with the congressman who has co-authored the No Secret Police Act. Make sure you're signing up for the Smerconish daily newsletter when you're voting on the poll question. Steve Breen is one of our illustrators. Check out what he drew.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:52]

SMERCONISH: You can find me in all the usual social media platforms. Why not follow me on X?

Smerconish helping Trump set up the fake story that somebody else wrote the card. What an asshole. The card sounds exactly like what that monster would write.

All right, hang on a second. I didn't -- I didn't know that was coming because I never know what's coming. Hang on.

What I said, it doesn't sound like Trump. Catherine, if you can find the full screen that I referenced in the commentary, put it up on the screen. Otherwise, I'll just read from it.

Voice-over: There must be more to life than having everything, the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

That is not Donald -- there it is. That's not Donald Trump. Yes, that I did say. I do -- I believe that is not Donald Trump. If that's contained in his birthday greeting, I don't think he wrote that part. I haven't seen it.

Here's what I think went on here. I'll just cut to the chase. I think somebody leaked this birthday book to the "Wall Street Journal" with conditions. And by the way, we should find out who that leaker was. If they're in the government -- whatever you may think of Trump, whoever may have leaked information that's in a DOJ file, we can't have that.

But my theory is they go to the "Journal" and they say, hey, I'm going to show you this. I'm not giving you a copy. You can't have it, but I'll show it to you. I'll authenticate it, and you can then run with it.

And then the "Journal" has a decision to make. Are we going to print something without being able to actually show it to the public? And they decided that they would. I don't know that that was the right call. In fact, I think that it wasn't.

To the extent Trump played a role in something that ended up in that book then he should have called Lanny Davis. And Lanny would have said to him, tell it early, tell it all, and tell it yourself. Because if it eventually comes out, some part of it was crafted by President Trump then it's -- then it's going to resurrect this entire issue when, in fact, it sounds like a heck of a lot of this time locker room talk.

No, that was not offered as a defense of Trump didn't write it. I said, that doesn't sound like Trump. And I can't wait if it surfaces and it turns out he really wrote that part, I'll come back here and eat this paper.

Don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. When are we going to see this alleged Trump birthday letter to Epstein, within a week, within a month, longer than a month, maybe never? Maybe never, because it doesn't exist. I don't know.

Still to come. They're wearing masks, but they're not protesters. Across the country, immigration agents are covering their faces during raids, and government claims it's all about safety. Critics like my next guest say it's about hiding accountability.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. LOU CORREA (D-CA), MEMBER, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY: We should, Mr. Chairman, today have Todd Lyons, acting director of ICE, come before this committee and explain what's going on.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:00]

SMERCONISH: You've seen the images, neck gaiter, sunglasses, hats pulled low, ICE officers detaining undocumented immigrants across the country without showing who they are. From Los Angeles to New York, masked immigration agents are conducting enforcement raids in workplaces, restaurants, even outside courthouses.

And from L.A. to New York, we've seen the pushback, massive protests sometimes turning violent with rocks even being thrown at federal agents, which you can see here after reported immigration raid in Ventura County, California, generated that reaction. And here in Omaha, a group of people came out to protest a raid at a meat production plant. And some of those protesters also threw rocks at officials' vehicles.

In a report from the "Associated Press," the agency defends the move for agents to cover up. ICE acting director Todd Lyons says it's about safety, quote, "I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, their family on the line, because people don't like what immigration enforcement is."

The Biden era policies that once prioritized transparencies, think body cams and visible badges, have given way to concealed faces, and the pushback has been fierce. Senate Democrats say the masking represents, quote, "a clear attempt to compound fear and chaos and to avoid accountability." And ethics experts warn the visual evokes authoritarian policing seen in her countries.

The Department of Homeland Security digging in. Just this week, it claimed an 830 percent rise in assaults on ICE agents compared to last year. They blame, quote, "crazed rhetoric from gutter politicians," pointing to incidents involving Democratic members of Congress. But what do those numbers really mean?

In the "Washington Post," columnist Philip Bump raises sharp questions. He notes that earlier this summer, DHS was claiming a 413 percent increase. Where's the updated math? He could find documented attacks in only a dozen officer cases this year.

And in several cases, including the arrest of New York City comptroller Brad Lander, the assault charge appeared to be little more than political theater.

[09:45:02]

So, is this masking really about protecting officers, or is it a way to avoid accountability or a combination thereof? Joining me now is Democratic Representative Lou Correa of California, a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security. He introduced an amendment to the reconciliation bill that would have banned facial coverings and required ICE agents to be exposed.

Congressman Correa, thank you so much. Do you dispute the physical threats that are out there and being faced by ICE agents?

CORREA: Congressman Correa, Orange County, California. Look, a public safety officer, federal, state, local, ICE, FBI, whoever it is their number one job, protect the public, protect the public. That's why we give them a badge. We give them a gun. We give them a lot of firepower in a big number of individuals when they go make those arrests.

If it was about public safety, that's why you want to have a mask, then why don't the local police officers have masks? Why don't the local sheriffs have masks? No, on the contrary what we want is the public trust. When an agent is out there, we want the public to know who they are so they can trust them.

Remember -- remember where we're going? Where did we start? A long time ago, President Trump said, I'm going after criminals. Today, 75 percent of everybody apprehended is a person with no criminal background. And there's a lot of American citizens right now being apprehended as well.

So, you have masked individuals. I don't know who they are. There's a possibility you now hear -- talk about copycat crimes, criminals putting on badges, stopping people, robbing them. This is not good public policy. We need to know who these individuals are.

SMERCONISH: Congressman, don't you worry -- don't you worry -- don't you worry about the safety -- CORREA: Yes, sir?

SMERCONISH: -- of those ICE agents in the same way that you would worry about the safety of a SWAT team member who covers his or her face, or somebody who infiltrates a gang --

CORREA: Absolutely. Absolutely.

SMERCONISH: -- or the mob? I mean, don't we owe them a duty of protecting them on the front line of doing their job?

CORREA: Absolutely. Correct, correct. And I've worked with police officers for 25 years, and I can tell you, none of them have ever said, I need a mask to be safe on the streets of your city. On the contrary, safety means you have the trust of the public. Safety means you don't have to cover yourself up when you're arresting somebody. But the problem here, sir --

SMERCONISH: But I just showed the footage -- but, sir, I just showed the footage of people throwing rocks at these individuals.

CORREA: There's cases of knuckleheads at these events, but for the most part, for example, here in Santa Ana Civic Center, ICE holding, we have National Guard here. We're going to have marines. A very boring place.

Why do we have such massive enforcements? We're still civilians. This is not a war zone. Do we have differences on public policy? Yes, but I'd rather work through them.

Those ICE agents, I worked with them for eight years, sir. I work with them. I hear them out. I'm always working to make sure that they're safe. But remember, the number one job, protect the public.

SMERCONISH: It sounds -- it sounds to me -- and you'll get the final word. But it sounds to me like because of the policy differences, those frontline ICE agents might bear the brunt of your criticism, when in fact, you know, change the policy at the top. But don't jeopardize their safety when they're trying to go about their job because you don't like the mission statement. Your reaction is what?

CORREA: Sir -- sir, I'm with the president eliminating, getting rid of criminals. But right now, 75 percent of the people being arrested are not criminals. U.S. citizens, United States citizens being apprehended. That is not good public policy.

I'd like to sit down with the president. I'd like to sit down with my Republican colleagues and say, let's come up with a policy that people can agree on, and people will cooperate on. Common sense --

SMERCONISH: Congressman --

CORREA: -- this is a democracy.

SMERCONISH: Congressman Correa, thank you for getting up early for us. We're appreciative. Thank you, sir. CORREA: Thank you for your interest.

SMERCONISH: OK. Social media reaction to this issue. Catherine, what do we have?

Who will take responsibility when an ICE -- I mean, I was going to raise it, and then I don't want to -- I don't want to amplify it. That's what I was thinking. That's exactly what I've been thinking about this issue.

Thank God we don't have an incident like that that I'm aware of so far. It would completely change this conversation. And what I -- what I tried to say respectfully to the congressman is, I get it. You've got a policy dispute with the administration.

[09:50:01]

I have some myself. I did a commentary here three weeks ago and said, now is the perfect opportunity to craft a path to citizenship. And half the viewers didn't want to hear that. So, I too have the policy disputes. But my chief concern are individuals who are wearing the uniform of the United States, who are already in a dangerous environment that's being made even more so by some of the forces of polarization.

Anyway, you still have time to vote on today's poll question. It's on a different subject. I cannot wait to see the -- I have no idea how this is going to turn out. When are we going to see the alleged Trump birthday letter to Epstein, within a month, within a week, longer than a month? Maybe never because maybe it's fake news.

Subscribe to the newsletter while you're voting. You will get the editorial cartoon work from the likes of Scott Stantis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:55:08]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's this -- there is the poll results so far. Wow. Whoa! When will the alleged Trump letter be released? Fifty-one percent -- a majority. Even though you had four choices, 51 percent say it will never see the light of day.

Social media reaction. We're limited on time. If you haven't voted yet, you can go to Smerconish.com and vote.

Hear me out. Release the Epstein files on the jumbotron at a Coldplay concert.

Hey, by the way, Kelly Ann, speaking of which, did you see what the Phillies did? Can we run that footage, the Phillies? Everybody has seen that. Check this out. Check this out.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What? Either they're having an affair or they're just very shy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The Phanatic, right? Just -- it just shows you how everybody has seen that video. Everybody has seen that video.

All right. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching. See you in a week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)