Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

House To Vote On Epstein Files Looms; Median Age Of All U.S. Homebuyers: 59-Years-Old. Anti-Trump Groups Urge Boycott of Amazon, Home Depot, Target. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired November 15, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:42]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Resistance fuels speculation. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs. There are several updates regarding the Jeffrey Epstein saga. First, the DOJ has acquiesced to President Trump's demand that it investigate a list of powerful me mentioned in the recently e-mails. One name missing from the list of those to be investigated, the president himself.

Second, a House vote to release the government's records on Epstein could come as soon as Tuesday. That vote would never happen without the four Republicans who signed the discharge petition, Thomas Massie, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Nancy Mace. If and when the final vote is taken, many Republicans, Republicans who would not sign the discharge petition are now expected to support the release.

A third development Trump has now broken from Marjorie Taylor Greene over, among other things, her advocacy for release of the Epstein materials. Trump called Greene wacky and said that he will support a primary opponent of hers. The one consistency to all of this, the continued resistance by the president and the White House to full disclosure, which begs the question, why obfuscate if you've nothing to hide, especially where the e-mails released to date, they might be cringe worthy, but they're certainly not incriminating of the president.

Mr. President, take advice from someone who answers the telephone for a living and heard from callers this week eager to offer their thoughts. The White House resistance to the full release of whatever the government is holding is only fueling additional speculation.

Let's start with what's uncontroverted. First, while the president has never been accused by law enforcement of any wrongdoing connected with this relationship, he was once friendly with a bad guy. Second, their relationship is memorialized in lots of pictures, some videos, and many e-mails like those which we saw this week, which were seized by subpoena from the Epstein estate by the House Oversight Committee. Third, the White House and Republicans have gone to great lengths to oppose the release of further information about Epstein and by extension, Trump.

As for what's in doubt or subject to more questions, there's that 2002 quote from New York Magazine when Trump said, "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It's even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

Younger, not necessarily minor, certainly cringeworthy, but not incriminating in terms of knowledge. If Trump knew that Epstein was a pedophile, I seriously doubt he'd have told New York Magazine anything about Epstein's proclivities.

Fast forward to 2011, an e-mail getting lots of attention this week from Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell. It's another Rorschach test. What's meant by the dog that hasn't barked is Trump. At that time, Trump was the star of the "Apprentice." He was talking about running for president.

Epstein had served less than 12 months of an 18 month sentence after striking a plea deal for solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of prostitution with a minority. It would be eight years before he would be indicted again.

That barking dog reference comes from a "Sherlock Holmes" story where the dog notably didn't bark because the intruder was familiar. So who's the intruder in this case? It sounds like Epstein is commenting upon Trump's silence at that moment.

And from the same e-mail, police chief, et cetera, I'm 75 percent there. I have no idea what's meant, but it occurs to me that Ghislaine Maxwell probably knows and nothing stops her from explaining the meaning of all e-mails from behind bars. As for Epstein saying that Trump spent hours at his house with one of the women, that's also in the e-mail, Democrats redacted the name, but Virginia Giuffre has been identified by the Republicans. Remember, she, under oath stated that she believed Trump didn't know of Epstein's wrongdoing, and in her posthumously released memoir, "Nobody's Girl," made no allegations about Trump. Writing in part "In the summer of 2000," she wrote in "Nobody's Girl," "my father, then a maintenance man at Trump's Mar-a- Lago in Palm Beach, got me a job as a $9 an hour locker room attendant.

Trump couldn't have been friendlier, telling me, it was fantastic that I was there. Do you like kids? He asked. Do you babysit at all? He explained that he owned several houses next to the resort that he lent to friends, many of whom had children who needed tending."

[09:05:07]

OK, leap now to 2019. Epstein is now e-mailing journalist Michael Wolff for context. Trump is in his third year in the White House and Epstein is now the subject of a Miami Herald investigation showing that he'd been afforded lenient treatment by former U.S. attorney Alexander Acosta, who now is serving in the Trump Cabinet as the Labor Secretary. Quote, "he asked Ghislaine to stop." There it is in the e- mail. Stop what exactly? Stop recruiting from Mar-a-Lago, presumably. And then February 1, 2019, Epstein interestingly sends an e-mail to himself five months from being arrested, "Trump knew of it and came to my house many times during that period. He never got a massage."

So Epstein is both claiming some level of awareness on the part of Trump and recording that Trump himself was not a participant. And of course, Ghislaine Maxwell has said that Trump never acted improperly and called him a gentleman. Still, the President and his allies have acted like he's got something to hide. On Wednesday, the day that Democrats released three cherry picked e-mails and Republicans released 20,000 more, the president was reportedly playing telephone tag with Nancy Mace, while Representative Lauren Boebert met in the White House Situation Room with AG Pam Bondi and FBI Director Cash Patel to get them to withdraw the support of the discharge petition. That was after the release of the documents that I've referenced.

Think about this. If the damage was now done, what point did it serve trying to get Boebert and or Mace to change their position on the discharge petition? Unless there's even more out there, which concerns the White House. Yesterday the President was still on the attack. "The Democrats are doing everything in their withering power to push

the Epstein hoax again," he wrote. "Despite the DOJ releasing 50,000 pages of documents. Don't waste your time with Trump. I have a country to run."

As I said, only four Republicans supported the discharge petition, which forced the upcoming vote in the House on the release of the government's Epstein materials. Far more than four will now vote for the public release because nobody wants to stand for reelection and have to answer for protecting a pedophile. Then it'll be up to the Senate. And should both Houses vote for release, a dramatic moment will come when President Trump must either sign or veto the move to release these materials. Which brings me today's poll question at smerconish.com, will the public ever see the government files on Jeffrey Epstein?

Joining me now is Barry Levine. He's the Author of "The Spider, Inside the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell."

OK. I want to drill down. Barry, I'm so glad that you're here. On that 2011 e-mail, we'll put it up on the screen, and I will ask you, the dog that hasn't barked is Trump. What do you think he's referring to?

BARRY LEVINE, AUTHOR, "THE SPIDER": Well, I think Jeffrey Epstein is referring to the fact that he believes that Donald Trump talked to Michael Reiter, who was the Palm Beach police chief in 2004 and began the first investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. I suspect that Jeffrey Epstein, in his conversation or e-mail with Maxwell, was saying he was 75 percent there, believing that Trump might have been the whistleblower at the time. Again, you have to remember that particular year, the two men had a falling out, not only over the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell was taking young women from his spot, Mar-a-Lago, for Jeffrey Epstein, but they also had a nasty real estate deal that both men were trying to get. So there was bad blood between the two of them. SMERCONISH: OK. So it's a combination then, of the Trump being the dog who didn't bark. And that additional line on that e-mail, we'll put it back on the screen, police chief, et cetera, I'm 75 percent there, meaning he's 75 percent there, to believing that Trump is an informant against him?

LEVINE: That is what I believe, based on my research of years of the Jeffrey Epstein story.

SMERCONISH: OK. But Barry --

LEVINE: Listen, we have to remember that --

SMERCONISH: -- Barry --

LEVINE: -- the House speaker at one point -- yes, yes,

SMERCONISH: Barry, if Donald Trump were an informant, if Donald Trump dropped the dime on Jeffrey Epstein, why wouldn't he today, in this climate, be shouting it from the mountaintops, I'm the one who put him away.

LEVINE: That's a question that only the president can answer. And again, the Palm Beach police have never said that Donald Trump was an informant. However, not too long ago, the House speaker said -- Mike Johnson said that Donald Trump was an informant on this particular case. So it is rather confusing.

[09:10:00]

SMERCONISH: OK. Let's go to the next e-mail. January 31, 2019, the e- mail to Michael Wolff, "Of course he knew about the girls. He asked Ghislaine to stop. What's this a reference to?

LEVINE: I believe, again, that's a reference to the fact that Ghislaine was taking young women from the Mar-a-Lago spa and taking them to Jeffrey Epstein's house. We know for a fact Virginia Giuffre, the primary accuser, discussed that when she was a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago, and Maxwell took her over to Epstein's house, which then began four years of what Ghislaine -- what Virginia said was sexual slavery.

SMERCONISH: February 1, 2019, the very next day, strangely, now it's Epstein e-mailing himself. First of all, why do you think he's sending an e-mail to himself? I do this from time to time to memorialize, to preserve my memory. What thoughts does Barry Levine have as to why Jeffrey Epstein would have written a memo to himself?

LEVINE: Well, I do think at the time, the Miami Herald series "Perversion of Justice," Epstein knew that the feds would be closing in on him. And I think he was memorializing his connection to Donald Trump at the time. And I think that he might have suspected that he was going to be arrested, which he was eventually.

SMERCONISH: In other words, Barry, are you saying Epstein wasn't writing it for himself? He was writing it perhaps for law enforcement in the future?

LEVINE: That's what I suspect, Michael. Yes.

SMERCONISH: OK. A contradiction, it seems, of sorts. Again, if we could put back on the screen this February 1 to himself, "Trump knew of it," he says, in part, "but he never got a massage." There it is. In fact -- there it is, "Trump knew of it and came to my house many times during that period. The testimony of the houseman confirmed it.

He never got a massage." What's going on in this recollection?

LEVINE: Well, I think that Epstein is discussing that Trump was aware of some of the activities that might have been going on there. The whole question really comes down to was not necessarily that Donald Trump did anything wrong. He's never been accused of any wrongdoing related to Jeffrey Epstein. But how much did Donald Trump really know of Jeffrey Epstein's conduct? The two men socialized together a great deal back in the -- in the 90s.

And you have to wonder, at some point, Donald Trump was a smart -- is a smart man. When did he figure out, when did the light bulb go off in his head that this was a bad guy? And if so, what did he do with that information? And the only way I think we're really going to find out about that is if we see the full, complete transparency of the Epstein files that the DOJ is holding on to.

SMERCONISH: Well, OK, that's fair. And this is a week where 20,000 documents have just been made public. And I think it needs to be reiterated. There's nothing in there that anybody's aware of that's incriminating toward the president. If there were, that would be leading all the newscasts today.

Much gets made of that New York mag quote, and you may have heard my opening thoughts on it, Trump is a smart guy. I can't imagine he would have made any comment about Epstein's proclivities if at the time he believed Epstein to be a pedophile. That just doesn't make sense.

LEVINE: No, it doesn't make sense. Also, as we continue to investigate this story for years and years, we're finding out that Donald Trump -- that that quote might have been manufactured and quoted directly to Donald Trump when in fact, it might have been written for him. So these are questions that New York magazine and the writer of that article possibly could answer.

SMERCONISH: OK, a final thought, because I'd love to hear Barry Levine weigh in on this. You heard me at the outset. I said that resistance only fuel speculation. I mean, people calling a radio show like mine on Sirius XM and I'm sure others, everybody wants to float their theory and so forth. If nothing's come out that's incriminating relative to the President, what thought do you have as to why it's still an air of a campaign of resistance that he's caught up in?

LEVINE: Well, we do know that Pam Bondi told him that in fact, he is in the FBI files. And for whatever reason, whether it's fear of embarrassment or something more sinister, he does not want those files released. He calls the whole thing a hoax. What we have to deal with are the facts. Representative Thomas Massie said last month that there's 20 men that the FBI is aware of that were suspects of Epstein's sex trafficking.

[09:15:06]

These are prominent individuals. We need to see from the files, you know, what the FBI did over the years to investigate those men. And can any individuals today still be brought to justice? That's what the victims want and that's what the victims need.

SMERCONISH: That sounds fair. Barry Levine's book, by the way, is terrific. There's my tabbed up copy which is dog eared and so forth. If you want to see the definitive account, "The Spider."

What are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on social media and I'll read some throughout the course of the program. From the world of X, follow me on X, I don't think if everything was released, people would believe there wasn't more out there.

Well, Joe, let's -- that's a great point to be made, which is to say nothing is going to satisfy everyone in this case, no matter what the record might ultimately show. I don't want to be repetitive. I've already said what I want to say. I get it. This is cringeworthy.

President's association with a guy who turns out to be a very bad guy is an embarrassment to him. But there's nothing in the record that's incriminating toward the president and where we've already seen so many documents. I just don't get the continued resistance. It'll be interesting to see if it gets through the House and the Senate what President Trump ultimately does, which is today's poll question. Go to smerconish.com and answer, will the public ever see the government files on Jeffrey Epstein?

Up ahead, the median age of all home buyers has hit an all-time high of 59. Yes, 59. The median. You didn't hear me wrong. Realtor magazine, they had to swap their cover from a young couple expecting to a more realistic pick of seniors buying. We'll discuss what's going on in the housing market next.

Be sure to sign up for the smerconish.com daily newsletter when you're voting for which Steve Breen drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:21:06]

SMERCONISH: They say there's no place like home. Assuming that you can afford one before retirement. Let me read you an alarming fact. The median age of a first time homeowner, 40. The median age of all home buyers in the United States, 59 years old.

Look at that graph. Check that out. It's 59 today. In 1980, it was like 30. As the crisis of affordability continues to take a heavy toll on Americans, housing or lack of affordable housing, continues to be a pressing issue across the political spectrum. One in four U.S. households living paycheck to paycheck. According to Money Talks News, 70 percent of U.S. households unable to afford a median priced home of around 400,000. President Trump just floated a 50 year mortgage idea. He's actively evaluating portable mortgages as well. And in the meantime, young people can't buy homes. They can't build equity, wealth gaps will widen.

Joining me now to discuss all of this is Codie Sanchez, author of "Main Street Millionaire" and the founder and CEO of Contrarian Thinking.

Codie, it's so nice to see you. Three data points from the NAR, the National Association of Realtors, 59 percent median age for all buyers, which is double what it was in '80. Median age for first time homebuyers is 40. If you go back to the late '80s, it was a person in their 20s and first time homebuyers at a historic low. Twenty percent of all homebuyers before the OH8 collapse, it was about 40 percent.

What the hell is going on?

CODIE SANCHEZ, AUTHOR, "MAIN STREET MILLIONAIRE": Well, I think this is why young people are so mad today. You know, I think there used to be starter homes, not these five, you know, bedrooms, five baths that exist in all, you know, communities around the U.S. we used to have homes that were one third to half the price of what a starter home is now in the U.S. with the average of -- the average price of a home being $400,000. And then, you know, simultaneously young people today, their wages haven't increased.

So you know, in the 1940s, 90 percent of young people, they earned more than their parents by age 30. Today, less than 40 percent of young people earn more than their parents did at the same age. And so I think young people aren't just quiet quitting, you know, they're not just logging off and doing TikToks, they are really looking at the numbers and saying, why don't we have starter homes? Why aren't we earning more money? And student loans, not only your homes more expensive, we've got this massive debt on top of us that we can never get rid of.

And oh, by the way, we were told that if went to school, we got good grades, we got good jobs, we would have the American dream. And that does not appear to be happening. You're right.

SMERCONISH: You know that some will say, well, the priorities have shifted, right? They're not as interested in home ownership as their parents or grandparents were. They're happy to put it off. Not as much marriage as there used to be, etcetera, etcetera, et cetera. But your information, your spidey sense tells you no, they'd like to be homeowners, they just can't.

SANCHEZ: Yes. Well, I mean 50 percent of 18 to 29 year olds are still living with their parents. I don't know about you, I love my parents dearly, but living with them at 29, not the funnest. And I think a lot of times we say, oh, that's because these kids were entitled and their parents enabled them. You know, we employ hundreds of young people.

And let me tell you, when they're 29, they don't want to be coming home to mommy and daddy's. And so I think it is easy for us to say these young people are super entitled. And for sure every generation maybe has it a little bit easier in some ways in the U.S. but 50 percent of them, that's an 80 year high for them living at home with their parents. That is not normal behavior in the U.S. in an environment where now young people work and are earning wages. And so, you know, I also think we don't even talk about these well-meaning regulations we have all around the U.S. where we try to protect probably neighborhoods like you and I live in from having other homes come in and, you know, that maybe would decrease our property value.

[09:25:02]

So we've got this NIMBYism happening around the U.S. So young people, I think the real -- I mean, you can't argue with this data today. And the fact that their wages haven't grown, how are they going to be able to afford a home that has doubled in price when wages have stagnated for them?

SMERCONISH: OK. Clearly we have a problem. The question now is what to do about it. The folks at Cato, the Libertarian Institute, they wrote on this. I'm going to put it on the screen and see what Codie Sanchez thinks. "Regardless," they say, "policymakers should not overreact to a possible increase in median first time homebuyer age. Americans are going to college increasing numbers and entering the workforce later as a result. They're having fewer children and doing so later in life, potentially reducing the demand for homeownership for young families."

Bottom line, they argue this is not a case for government intervention. What do you think?

SANCHEZ: Well, I think we should talk to the young people perhaps. And most surveys and polls show that they do in fact want to own a home. You know, I know for a fact, in these hundreds of people that we employ, one of the reasons why they come and are employed in a W2, even if they earn less than entrepreneurship, is because it's nearly impossible to get a loan if you are an entrepreneur, while it is easier to get a loan if you have a W2 paycheck. I think there's a regulation we could actually look at. Why is it so hard for entrepreneurs to get a mortgage when W2 is hyper, hyper incentivized?

At an age where most of these young people have two to three jobs, many freelance opportunities, and the W2 increase in this generation is actually going down for the first time ever, meaning they have more side hustles than any other generation has had. And so young people will tell you, no, no, we do want to own homes. And I think we should push a little on the Cato paper, which is to say, well, I don't have kids yet, but I'm pretty sure they're not cheap. And so if having kids is a reason why to buy a home because you just need more space, it's also a reason why homes are more expensive. So I don't think we can call that, you know, causation.

We might say that there's some, you know, correlation there. But no, young people today, they want to buy homes. I think we need to make changes and I think one of the main changes that most people of a higher income tax bracket don't want to do is to change housing regulation to allow for more building. We see it here in Austin, there's been a massive fight to allow for more increased zoning in urban areas and nobody wants a high rise in their backyard. But do you want your children to have a home and the American dream more?

And I think that's the question.

SMERCONISH: Codie, can we also close by saying and if you want to get your financial legs, you don't necessarily need to be a doctor or a lawyer or an author or a talk show host, look at the HVAC, this is straight out of your book, look at the HVAC contractor, look at the person who owns a business, I love your whole idea of take a look around you and what businesses there are that are entrepreneurial, go knock on the door and maybe it's for you. Go ahead and amplify the point that I'm making from your great book.

SANCHEZ: Well, thank you. Yes, you know, the data is fascinating. First of all, trade jobs for the first time in 50 years are making material so 30 percent more money than traditional out of college jobs. They also are 110 to 150th the cost in some cases of universities to get a certification or a trade job license as opposed to go to a four year college. And for the first time ever, we're seeing increase in college prices while we're seeing decrease in the value, meaning kids don't get better degree -- better jobs after getting a degree.

And so I think this resurgence of youth, we did a study and 95 percent of young people, that's Gen Z and below, want and are interested in blue collar jobs and trade jobs, here's the problem, guess how many of their parents want them to do it, 5 percent. And so the world is changing --

SMERCONISH: Right.

SANCHEZ: -- but I'm pretty sure the AI's going to take over marketing before it takes over my roofing companies.

SMERCONISH: Great to see you. Codie Sanchez, we appreciate you. The book is terrific.

Let's see what you're saying on social media, everybody. Follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel. I'll be reading your comment aloud.

Garth, America faces a serious potential economic crisis if the average age of homeownership -- and by the way, it's median, not average, but OK. It means people will be paying off their mortgages in their late 70s and even 80s when their income is much less. There is bound to be a record foreclosures.

I mean it used to be people who are buying their first home, you saw the data, were in their late 20s and now they're 40. And the median half above, half below of all home buyers. I don't know. Do we have that graph handy again? It's so stunning.

It's from the folks at Apollo. I should give them a shout out. Fifty -- Catherine (ph), if you could throw that up again. The Median age is 59. There it is. Look at this. Now look to the left. In 1980, the median age of all home buyers was 30. And people are staying in their houses now because the interest rates are so damn low. People have two percent or three percent interest rates, and what, you want to go buy another house now and pay six or six and a quarter? It's an issue.

Maybe the answer affordable mortgages. It's not 50-year mortgages. You'll be in like year 26 before you're even putting a dent in any principal.

I want to remind you, go to my Web site at Smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. I cannot wait to see the result on this. Are we ever going to see the government files on Jeffrey Epstein? That's what I'm asking.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary and opening thoughts, and Target launching 10-4 training. It encourages workers to smile and wave and engage with guests. But could there be another reason behind the sales slump they're facing? Is the bigger issue something other than customer service?

Sign up for the newsletter when you're voting at Smerconish.com. You'll see the work of Scott Stantis. Love that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:35:26]

SMERCONISH: Please follow me on X, subscribe to my YouTube channel, and maybe I'll be reading your comments aloud.

Christopher, by the way, did you not give a shit about Epstein during the Biden presidency, so I know you are just a liberal hack.

You did not give a shit about Epstein during the Biden -- what? What are you talking about? Hey, Christopher, listen to my radio show. It's hard -- it's hard for me in the span of, you know, an hour here once a week. I get 15 on SiriusXM. I talk about all these things and consistently. Next. Come on.

Of course, you as a -- now, I'm a MAGA worshiper. Wait a minute. Wasn't I a liberal piece of a shit moment ago? Now, I'm a MAGA worshiper trying to spin and protect Trump. You are one sick mofo.

Put that camera back on me. I am parsing all of these emails and Barry Levine knows this subject cold. Don't get sucked in by a headline of people who haven't invested the time. Are they cringe worthy? Yes. Can you pull things out where Epstein says, well, Trump knew, but read them deeply? There's no evidence of criminality on the part of the president.

I'm mystified as to why he just doesn't, you know, take the hits that have already happened because these documents are out and sign off on releasing everything that is still to come. And if there is something incriminating that comes to light, I'm going to talk about it. If I'd seen it, I'd be talking about it now. It doesn't make me MAGA. It just makes me an honest broker. One more please if we have time. I could do this all day. I enjoy doing this.

I don't think Trump is guilty of wrongdoing. I think he is protecting some high-profile colleagues.

He's not taking a bullet for anybody. There's no way. There's no way that it's like, oh, my God, he's going to endure while this goes on. No, I disregard that.

I do have time for one more. I promise I'll get to it quickly. Go. Oh, come on. No? All right. You do. OK. All right, all right.

The number of A-listers that have gone to events like the birthday bash for Prince Andrew at different Epstein properties and claim they didn't know the creepy side after all the arrest is substantial. Either it wasn't so obvious, or they're all hypocrites.

Yes, I agree with that, Michael Albert. They might be. You know, they might be. Yes. Enough said. OK.

Please make sure you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Will the public ever -- are we ever going to see all the stuff that's out there?

Coming up, still a Target, still a Target. The giant retailer is rolling out a new customer service initiative this holiday season. Associates -- I thought this was just a mingling story. I thought this was just a mingling story where Target is saying, if you're in 10 feet of a customer, we want you to do this. And if you're within four feet of a customer, we want you to do that.

But there's a lot more to the story, and it has something to do with DEI. We'll get to that in just a moment. Sign up for the newsletter at Smerconish.com. You'll get the work of illustrators like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:42:31]

SMERCONISH: Ten-four. I did not say 10-4, good buddy. This is not a piece about the return of CB radio. Ten-four is the new policy at your local Target. It requires staffers within 10 feet of customers to smile, make eye contact, wave, and use welcoming body language.

Within four feet. They'll personally greet the guests, smile, and initiate a warm, helpful interaction. It's being done in an attempt to turn around a decline in sales and a steady drop in their stock price over the last year.

Some say the decline is due to inflation and economic concerns, but many also point to the corporation's announcement late January that it would roll back its DEI policies. Target has long been a favorite of black customers. Now, some are feeling disrespected and boycotting the company. For its part, Target has put out a statement detailing the many ways that it has worked to create growth and opportunity in communities across America, including billions invested in black owned businesses.

Target is not the only store dealing with a backlash. Grassroots groups are pushing for a holiday season boycott of Home Depot and Amazon as well, hoping to pressure them to change their DEI policies.

Joining me now is the Reverend Jamal Bryant, a leader of the boycott and pastor of Georgia's New Birth Missionary Baptist church. Reverend, many are rolling back their DEI initiatives, but you seem to have Target -- well, in your target. Why them? Why have you singled them out in particular?

REV. JAMAL HARRISON BRYANT, LED TARGET BOYCOTT: Because we feel betrayed in a very intimate way. After the killing of George Floyd, Target made an announcement with no protest with no signatures with no demonstrations, saying that they were going to invest $2 billion into the black community.

They were supposed to turn over that report July 31st. And we have seen or heard nothing. So, they've given a lot of lip service but really are not standing on business.

SMERCONISH: Is it possible that your boycott will do more harm to the community than DEI was helping? And when I asked that I am relying on Target. They say that five percent of their pretax earnings are going to local charities, that a million volunteer hours are committed by their employees, that they offer tuition assistance that 10 million has gone to HBCU students and they have a plan, as you just made reference to, to invest 2 billion in black owned businesses.

By the way, if they're delivering on all of those things, and I heard you when you questioned the 2 billion, would you then acknowledge that the boycott should end?

[09:45:02]

BRYANT: They first have now acknowledged the impact of the boycott. Their stock at the end of January was $145 a share. Now, it's dropped down to $92 a share.

We asked them to partner with five HBCUs. They have not reported or shown where it is that they have done it. We want to find a resolve. They're just not meeting to get it done. We're hopeful that the new CEO will be more open to having these talks, but right now, their PR outweighs their production.

SMERCONISH: Are your efforts knocking off their shelves, entrepreneurs who are of color?

BRYANT: Absolutely not. All over the country, we're doing a campaign called We Ain't Buying It. Here at our church in Atlanta, we're developing our own minority mall with 100 black vendors called Bullseye Market, and we're replicating it all over the country. When people go to Targetfast.org, we send them a digital directory of 300,000 black businesses around the country. We have $2 trillion worth of spending power, black people do. And when we unify it, it makes an impact.

SMERCONISH: So, I'm sure that -- to use the old Michael Jordan line, Target wants to sell sneakers to Republicans too, right? Target probably just doesn't want to be caught up in any of the politics of the day. They just want to sell their product.

At this stage now, if they should roll back on DEI all of a sudden maybe the MAGA base is going to say, well, we don't want to go to Target. And I'm sure Target would just like to be above all of it and sell their goods. You would say what to that?

BRYANT: The reality is, black people were spending upwards of $12 million a day. And so, we're not looking for charity or handout. We're looking for partnership.

So, the betrayal of walking away and erasing diversity, equity and inclusion when we gave them seven months ago, an open canvas to say, write for us what does an opportunity or path forward for minorities look like? And they still have not responded.

SMERCONISH: But they've -- oddly, they've responded to us. I mean, I put up on the screen all the things --

BRYANT: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- that they say that they are doing. If they're doing those things, then would you back off the boycott?

BRYANT: They are not doing those things. We asked for five things back in February.

Number one, rewrite diversity, equity and inclusion. Number two, invest $250 million in the black banks. They have not done it. Number three, we asked them to adopt five HBCUs. They have not done it.

We asked them number four to honor the George Floyd commitment of $2 billion. They have not done it. And so, everything --

SMERCONISH: What I'm, Reverend --

BRYANT: -- that they're saying they are doing, they are not.

SMERCONISH: OK. And only because I'm limited in time and you're singling them out. You're singling them out as compared to other retailers who similarly, in this political climate, have rolled back their DEI initiatives but you're not applying the same level of scrutiny to others. Quickly, tell me why.

BRYANT: No, we've got three over this holiday season Amazon and Home Depot. All can be found using that hashtag We Ain't Buying It.

SMERCONISH: To be continued. Thank you, Reverend. Checking in on social media reaction. Follow me on X. You can also subscribe to my YouTube channel and maybe I'll read your comment.

Boycotts are stupid and only hurts the retail workers that may lose their paychecks and benefits if business declines.

I saw a vegan lipstick, a vegan lipstick where it's -- it's an African-American female entrepreneur getting shelf space at Target and now, you know, her business jeopardized because of the issue that I was just describing, which is why I asked the reverend, what's the net impact of all of this?

If Target delivers on the things that they say that they're doing, maybe it's of more benefit to the community than even the DEI initiatives were. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Cast your ballot on this. Are we ever going to see the Epstein files?

Subscribe to my newsletter while you're there. It's free and it is worthy. And you get exclusive work from illustrators like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:27]

SMERCONISH: OK. There's the poll results so far, 34,416. Will the -- wow, close. Will the public ever see the Epstein files? Fifty-one percent say yes. Forty-nine percent say no. I say it gets through the House. I say it gets through the Senate. I don't know what the president is going to do.

But I have free legal advice for the president of the United States. Here's social media reaction. Lanny Davis just sent me a text. Lanny, who wrote the book, you know, on crisis management, "Tell It Early, Tell It All, Tell It Yourself."

So, here's the advice that he would give President Trump. I would have said, hold a press conference with boxes of all the emails, everything from DOJ and the estate. Give the media 48 hours to read it all and say, I will be back when you've had the opportunity to read all of this, and I won't leave until I've answered all of your questions.

And then, if true, he ought to say -- one, if true, I knew Epstein from my New York days. I spent some time with him. Two, I never engaged in any conduct with any young women introduced to me by Epstein or Maxwell. Three, I denounce his abuses of younger women, meaning Epstein. And Maxwell ought to be sent back to a more maximum secure facility. Why won't he say that if it's all true, says Lanny.

More social media reaction. Go ahead. What else came in? X and YouTube.

Consider this, Michael. If it took 2025 before the government decided to never print pennies from the mint, I'm sure you can imagine how long it will take until those files are released. My guess --

Well, there is -- there is -- I mean, it's -- I don't want to fall into the trap of, hey, let's release everything because it is very sensitive information and there are people who could have had encounters with Epstein that were not nefarious, whose names show up, and they should not be besmirched in the process.

[09:55:11]

In other words, there's a serious redacting effort that needs to take place. And I don't mean of the typical government style where they redact everything, but yes, it can't be done haphazardly. More social media reaction. What do we have? This is also from X.

Target fell prey to the corporate ego plus changing market forces. The leadership actually thought that people gave a crap about their politics. Companies ought to have one goal to make money for the shareholders.

Right. Well, that's what I -- that's what I said to the reverend, because now Target is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they go back on the DEI and put it back on the books, then all of a sudden MAGA is going to be upset. So, I get -- you know, one last thing.

My naivete when I read the headline, I thought, what a great mingling story. If you're within 10 feet of a customer, you know, you give them a nice smile. If you're within four feet, you shake their hand and say hello. That's wonderful. And then I realized there's a lot more going on here.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)