Is DOJ Playing Games With the Epstein Investigation? (w/ Ryan Goodman)

Summary

Podcast Summary

Episode Overview

Podcast: Bulwark Takes
Episode: Is DOJ Playing Games With the Epstein Investigation? (w/ Ryan Goodman)
Host: Bill Kristol
Guest: Ryan Goodman (Professor of Law at NYU, co-editor of Just Security)
Date: December 28, 2025

In this episode, Bill Kristol and Ryan Goodman break down the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) release of documents tied to the Jeffrey Epstein case, examining the slow pace, incomplete compliance, questionable redactions, and possible “gamesmanship” by DOJ. The discussion covers what’s been learned and remains hidden, possible violations of the Epstein Transparency Act, and what legal and political avenues might force greater transparency. The episode is rich with both legal analysis and broader reflections on transparency, accountability, and political pressure.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Initial Findings and Ongoing Secrecy

• Lack of Major Revelations: Goodman notes that, despite nine days of rolling document releases, there have been “very few and far between” major revelations (02:41).
  • "What surprised me is how little we've learned over nine days that we were supposed to have had all the documents at once. That's what the law required." — Ryan Goodman (02:41)
• DOJ Identified 10 Co-conspirators: DOJ had a list of 10 potential co-conspirators as late as December 2019, post-Epstein’s death. This includes high-profile figures, but some “co-conspirators” may have initially been victims, raising complex issues (03:35).
• Trump’s Involvement: Newly released info showed Trump's presence on Epstein’s plane, including an instance with Epstein and an unnamed 20-year-old woman, surprising even FBI agents at the time (05:35).

2. Critical Withheld Documents

• Key Internal DOJ Documents: Huge prosecution memos, including an 86-page memo on co-conspirators from 2019, remain entirely withheld. DOJ claims “deliberative process” as the reason — a rationale clearly prohibited by the Epstein Transparency Act (06:27).
  • "To me, that's the one that should have all the sirens on it." — Ryan Goodman (07:13)
• Unreleased Florida Documents: Much-anticipated 2007-2008 Florida prosecution memos and indictment drafts, central to victims and key Congress members’ demands, also not released (08:22).
• Victim Statements Withheld: FBI 302s (statements/interviews from victims) have neither been publicly released nor provided to the victims themselves, a decision Goodman calls part of the DOJ’s "games" (09:15).

3. Improper or Suspicious Redactions

• Notable Redaction — Trump & Maxwell Photo: A photo found on Steve Bannon’s phone with Trump and Maxwell is redacted despite similar photos of other figures (e.g., Clinton) being released. No reasonable grounds under the law for this redaction exist (12:07).
  • "I can't imagine any grounds under the Epstein transparency law that would allow for the redaction of that photograph. It's in defiance of the law..." — Ryan Goodman (12:07)
• Legal Justifications Questioned: DOJ appears to be using the Privacy Act as a pretext to shield information that the Epstein Act intended to expose. This seems particularly convenient when shielding Trump (13:30).

4. DOJ’s Handling: Bureaucracy, Incompetence, or Cover-up?

• Million 'New' Documents — Systemic Issues: DOJ now claims to have discovered over a million additional documents at SDNY, raising red flags about incompetence or possible bad faith in the process (20:03–22:57).
  • "It's so puzzling ... how you could discover a million documents from the very U.S. attorney's office that prosecuted the cases." — Ryan Goodman (20:25)
• History of Stonewalling: The earlier "Stonewall Memo" claimed (falsely, in hindsight) there was nothing more to investigate or prosecute. Essential materials were apparently ignored or purposely withheld at that time (22:57–24:33).
• Lack of Organization: The files have been released in a format that is essentially useless—just numbered batches, with no labels or organization. This impedes public/victim access and understanding, contravening the spirit of transparency (29:47).
  • “It cannot be that they don’t have them computerized in such a way that they are at least identifiable from the face...” — Ryan Goodman (30:13)

5. Congressional and Legal Next Steps

• Tools Available to Congress: Congress may pursue censure, contempt, impeachment, criminal referrals, or even funding limitations. Civil or potentially criminal litigation is possible, but requires unified committee/chamber action (41:56–44:36).
  • “If they are truly deceptively not releasing information and it is ... a conspiracy not to comply with the law, that would be a crime.” — Ryan Goodman (42:30)
• Political Dynamics: Goodman and Kristol note bipartisan support in Congress for transparency—but political will weakens when releases may implicate Trump. The survivors themselves, seeking their own statements and full transparency, may be an underestimated pressure force (39:05).
  • “The moral force and political power really of the survivors … that could be very powerful over the next month or so.” — Bill Kristol (39:05)

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• On Withholding the Most Sensitive Memos:
  “Those documents are not being provided and I think it's something to underscore for people...it is, I think fair to say, indirect and flagrant violation of the Epstein Transparency act...”
  — Ryan Goodman (06:28)

• On Trump’s Possible Liability and DOJ Redactions:
  “...the Epstein law says specifically nothing can be withheld or redacted on the basis that it might be publicly embarrassing to an individual. ...Why Maxwell and Trump gets don’t get released ... It does make one wonder.”
  — Bill Kristol (15:14)

• On the DOJ's "Stonewall" Approach:
  “It’s obviously, to me, it suggests a strong cover up ... that they just wanted to deep six the whole thing. And like you say, it failed. Thank goodness it failed for the rule of law and accountability.”
  — Ryan Goodman (24:33)

• Broader Reflection on DOJ Tactics:
  “The incompetence is always possible and I'm sure true in some respects. But I do think people have slightly … underestimated how much from the beginning they have not wanted to release anything.”
  — Bill Kristol (25:41)

• On the (Deliberately?) Useless Document Dumps:
  “If you go to the Epstein Library on the DOJ website, it's exactly as you describe it. It's just batches ... It's incredibly frustrating for the victims themselves who are having to go through each one and … painful to think about.”
  — Ryan Goodman (29:47)

• On the Political Games Over Transparency and Victims:
  “I'll use one word, I guess, a disgusting political game over the lives of survivors and victims who … have been incredible in their historic success of getting this law passed seeking transparency, let alone accountability.”
  — Ryan Goodman (36:01)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Topic | Timestamp | |---------------------------------------------------------------|---------------| | Introductions & Context | 01:30 | | Initial takeaways & DOJ releasing fewer revelations than expected | 02:41 | | DOJ’s “10 co-conspirators” revelation | 03:34 | | Trump’s plane trips with Epstein | 05:35 | | Hidden prosecution memos and DOJ’s rationale | 06:28 | | Florida prosecution docs & victim statements missing | 08:22 | | Redacted Trump-Maxwell photo & legal basis questioned | 12:07 | | Analysis of Privacy Act as pretext for redactions | 13:30 | | Discovery of a million new documents & systemic dysfunction | 20:03 | | Discussion of SDNY’s role & prior "stonewall" memo | 22:57 | | Chaotic, unorganized batch releases on DOJ's website | 29:47 | | Future outlook: Possible outcomes and survivor/victim influence | 39:05 | | Congress’s options & legal ramifications | 41:56 | | Final reflections on transparency, gamesmanship, and story scope | 44:38 |

---

Summary and Takeaways

• The DOJ has not complied fully—either in spirit or letter—with the new Epstein Transparency Act, using legal technicalities to withhold critical evidence, including memos and victim statements.
• Not all redactions can be justified under the law; some, especially those potentially embarrassing to former President Trump, seem politically motivated.
• A major flaw in the DOJ’s release approach is the unorganized, opaque formatting, making it difficult for the media, public, and victims themselves to access or understand what’s there.
• Goodman and Kristol expect further pressure from Congress, the courts, and especially survivors could force more substantive disclosures, but anticipate DOJ resistance and possible games to drag out the process.
• The podcast frames this as a continued, politically charged battle with major implications for the rule of law and public accountability in high-profile sex trafficking cases.

---

Tone

The conversation maintains a tone of skeptical analysis, frustration at official stonewalling, deep legal insight, and a respect for the survivors’ quest for justice and truth. Goodman’s and Kristol’s dialogue is measured but frank, exposing the gap between what the law requires and what DOJ is currently providing.

---

For anyone who wants an in-depth understanding of both what has—and has not—come out of the Epstein document releases and what political and legal struggles remain, this episode provides an essential, richly detailed roadmap.

---

Transcript

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

The number one resolution for people last year was to save more money, but nearly half gave up by February. Don't let that be you. Download Rocket Money to reach your financial goals this year, track your spending, cut waste and automate savings in one simple app. Rocket Money shows you all your expenses and categorizes them so you know exactly where your money's going and where you're overspending. From there, the app cuts waste by canceling your unused subscriptions and lowering your bills. No customer service needed. With that money freed up, the app will automatically set some cash aside for your goals. Whether it's an emergency fund, paying off debt or saving for vacation, Rocket Money's got you covered. Users love the app, with over 186,000 five star ratings, and on average, users can save up to $740 a year when using all the app's premium features. Make saving money a priority this year. Go to RocketMoney.com Cancel to get started. That's RocketMoney.com Cancel RocketMoney.com Cancel Spinquest Social.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Casino the presents are open and you're over the in laws. It's a perfect time to grab your phone and play spinquest.com with live dealer blackjack, craps and a ton of slots. And here's a great deal for the holiday, a $30 coin pack for $10. And if you're hearing this ad, you can play right now on spinquest.com Spinquest.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

Is a free to play social casino. Visit spinquest.com for details.

[Bill Kristol]

Hi Bill Crystal, editor at large of the Bulwark here, joined again by Ryan Goodman, professor of law at nyu, co editor of the invaluable website Just Security. And we're going to discuss the Epstein case today, which we've both been following. Not exactly our natural I guess in your you not what you specialized in over the over the years and decades in terms of international human rights law and national security law. But, but but important so and you've given it quite a lot of attention and have some very good resources actually on your website for timeline and so forth on it. So anyway Ryan, thanks for thanks for joining me again here.

[Ryan Goodman]

My pleasure. Looking forward to the conversation.

[Bill Kristol]

And just to be clear, since things could change, this is midday on Sunday, December 28th. So I thought we could discuss what we've learned. It's amazing. It's only nine days since they began the release. Feels like it's been kind of a long time. A week ago Friday, what we've learned from the documents we've seen, what we, and then what we might learn, but also what we've learned about how DOJ is handling all this. So what have we learned? What surprised you?

[Ryan Goodman]

So I guess what surprised me is how little we've learned over nine days that we were supposed to have had all the documents at once. That's what the law required.

[Bill Kristol]

Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

And I guess, and we'll talk a little bit, I guess that my surprise is also the way in which DOJ is handling this in some respects and Congress in response to it. But in terms of major revelations, there are, I guess I think of them as very few and far between. And I think that goes to next part of our conversation about what the DOJ is doing. But to me the major revelations are that the DOJ thought that they had 10 co conspirators. @ least that's from some of the documents around the time of the case against Epstein in New York that we don't.

[Bill Kristol]

Know. So that's about.

[Ryan Goodman]

2019. Yeah, so it's like 2019 and we don't know what they exactly meant by co conspirators. Some of them are certainly like Ghislaine Maxwell and then wealthy businessmen in Ohio. And so they fit the profile of what I think people would immediately think. Others I'm just not sure what's behind those redactions because there are other documents that clearly indicate that the DOJ sometimes calls somebody a co or the FBI a co conspirator who also themselves might have been a victim at some point. And that's a difficult category with respect to the potential, the way in which this scheme worked, that Epstein and Maxwell would recruit young girls as victims and then have them recruit other girls. And that's part of the problem. So that we don't know what that 10 exactly includes. But the fact that they had 10, the fact that there are sitting in the DOJ and FBI files, prosecution memos and an 86 page memorandum on the coconspirators that was as fresh as December of 2019 after Epstein's death. The fact that that exists is new and potentially very important. One of maybe most important things. And then it was not new that Donald Trump had traveled on Epstein's plane eight times over a particular period which included the period that Maxwell was charged for. But what was new in that is that it was a bit of a, it was a surprise to the FBI agent at the time that on one of the planes it is just Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and a 20 year old young woman whose name is redacted. That's I think significant if you just imagine what that would be like to be on the plane with a monster of the nature of Jeffrey Epstein who is doing everything pretty openly on a plane with him and a 20 year old girl. So that's the second part and that also on one of those planes, it's two plane rides. It's Donald Trump with Epstein and then others, including witnesses for the potential witnesses for the Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution. That's kind of bad too in a sense for the President. So that was new and I thought that was revelatory, but that's just, that's pretty scant given what I think still.

[Bill Kristol]

Coming. Yeah, but as you say, one of the emails does point to this, these prosecution memos and material from the 20, let's call it 1819, really, I guess 2020 into the arrest of Maxwell and her prosecution. 2021 time frame and we've seen almost nothing there. We've seen the email referring to these documents, but we haven't seen these.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

Documents.

[Ryan Goodman]

Right. Those documents are not being provided and I think it's something to underscore for people. According to the letter that the Deputy Attorney General Todd Bland sent to Congress, it sounds like the DOJ's position is currently that they will not provide those documents because they are part of the deliberative process. And that is, I think fair to say, indirect and flagrant violation of the Epstein Transparency act because the act says give us all documents except for a very narrow exception and included in all are the very kinds of documents that are listed there that are deliberative process documents like prosecution memos and the like. So I think that to me is, that's the one that should have all the sirens on it. I agree that with those who think that there's also another serious concern that the DOJ has violated the deadline of the statute. But in terms of the fundamental information that needs to be provided, that's the clash that I think is coming.

[Bill Kristol]

Interesting. I mean I guess the other two sets of. So that's the sort of, let's call them the internal DOJ documents which seem to be very substantial, detailed and to list names of. We're not sure who the co conspirators are, but in some cases pretty obviously men who took advantage of the girls and were knowing collaborators with Epstein, others we don't, we don't know all of them. We don't know there are 10 mentioned, we don't know if there are others in other documents and so forth. So that's one set of documents I Guess other people have talked before, had expected to see the 2007, 2008 Florida prosecution memos. And I think it's a draft indictment which ends up getting booted by the cushy plea deal that Epstein negotiates with Acosta. We haven't seen those at all, I don't think. Right.

[Ryan Goodman]

Right. And those are on the top of the list of Representative Massey and Representative Khanna. They've mentioned that from the get go that they and the victims want those documents from Florida. And I think that if anything, I would just advise them in a certain sense to update their list because they emphasize that a lot. And I agree that those are very important documents from Florida in 2007, 2008, but update it with the ones that now we know of as of December.

[Bill Kristol]

2019. And then the third tranche, it seems to be maybe there are more than three. But the people mentioned from the beginning are the, the witness, the victim, statements to the FBI, none of which which they. This is sort of what the victims were focused on, I think, getting released. They obviously wanted certain things redacted. There was no controversy about that, but they wanted people to see what had happened and been done. Of those that I know of.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. And I think those are, you know, on the tippy top of the list as well of what needs to be revealed. And Julie K. Brown, the terrific Miami Herald reporter in this space, has pointed out that the release includes photographs of the taped recording, so of the audio tape of the recording with the victims and survivors giving their testimony to the FBI, but not the actual transcript. And on top of that, the victims themselves have asked the DOJ for their own 302s and as of Thursday night last time I've heard about it. But one of the survivors said we haven't heard from the FBI and we haven't gotten our 302. So it's not just the public, but they themselves haven't received them. And I think that kind of is one of the many indications of what games the DOJ is currently.

[Bill Kristol]

Playing. So 302 being the FBI account of the interview with the victims. That.

[Ryan Goodman]

Right? Yes.

[Bill Kristol]

Yes. No, those are. I mean there's been so much focus and understandably. And some of it's interesting actually with the particular redactions, these photos, these, you know, names and certain documents. But in a way that's a little bit forest and trees, right? I mean the big the forest is they're these massive documents that everyone understands to be central to the cases and also set the case or cases in regard to Epstein and Maxwell, the two Epstein cases, I guess, but also very much what was on everyone's mind in this debate over the last several months and years, for that matter. Those they're major documents and sets of documents that haven't been released. You think, well, so we'll get to just one more. Well, yeah, I mean, just one more. I want to get to what justice is up to, therefore. But, but even some of the redactions of the photos, I mean, there's the one that Julie Brown called attention to that others have noticed too, that apparently one of the emails, I guess from 2020 maybe mentions that when they arrested Bannon on other charges, his phone had a photograph of Trump and Maxwell together. Unclear whether it's a recent photo. I mean, Bannon wasn't really involved in all this in the early years. So I don't. We know of, I don't think so. Presumably it's in the kind of post 2015ish timeframe that Trump must may have seen Maxwell or it's a photo maybe of a photo that Epstein had. Who knows? Right. I mean it could be, could be, could be, I guess a lot of things. But, but that's redacted from the, there's an email that says here's a, I think it's from one FBI agent to another or maybe to a prosecutor saying, you know, here's, here's a photo we came across, might be interesting, you know, might be useful for you anyway, and then that's redacted. What are the possible grounds for that? I mean, it's a photo, so far as we know, of Trump and.

[Ryan Goodman]

Maxwell. I can't imagine any grounds under the Epstein transparency law that would allow for the redaction of that photograph. It's in defiance of the law and it is just exactly as you described. It's like the entire document is there but for the, you know, the name of the US official, low level official, which could be understandable. And then, yeah, there's just this bracket, there's this area of the email that's redacted out. It's just purely black. And it seems to be the photograph, the. Only way in which I can imagine it. And also because the Epstein law says specifically nothing can be withheld or redacted on the basis that it might be publicly embarrassing to an individual. And the place that I would go in my thinking about this is the following, that in Todd Blanche's letter to Congress about what was being redacted and withheld and I think it's great to keep those as two separate categories. Redacted is an existing document that has been released, but they excise some of it and withheld is. There's no. They're not even going to release the document or the information whatsoever. So I think it's very important that people think about both. But he does say that we will. That they're not going to release the information that is permitted by the Epstein Act. And then he says, and the Privacy Act. And that to me raises alarm bells because there's no need for the Privacy act for the very specific information that is allowed to be redacted, which is the victim and survivor name and identifying information. That's under the Epstein act itself. You don't need the Privacy Act. The way the Privacy act does often operate is for people who might be implicated in an investigation by being named as a potential subject or by being named as a potential potentially implicated or involved with the target of the investigation. And I've always worried from the very moment of reading that letter from Blanche to Congress that that was being used to hide information about other men implicated in Epstein's crimes. So what could be the possible explanation for redacting the image of Maxwell and Trump? Maybe it's a Privacy act or something. I don't know what went on with that. And what's also dysfunctional right now is you would think that that could cause enough outrage on the part of Congress to say release that because there's no justification under the act and force the DOJ to say something about why it's not there. Hope, you know, they might hide behind that. There's a whole lot of incompetence going on in their end in the ways in which this has been done and handled in the releases. But let's get to the bottom of that. And I think that why we don't see that from Congress is there is bipartisan pressure to release, release, release. But I think obviously the Republican side stays away when anything might directly implicate Trump. And then that image obviously directly implicates.

[Bill Kristol]

Trump. I mean, I tried to think about. Yeah, What I mean, there could be a third person in the image who should be redacted, but they could have redacted their many photos they've released or they redact individuals and not the whole group. Right. So again, it's very hard to see why Maxwell or Trump gets don't get released. And it does make one wonder.

[Ryan Goodman]

Right. And put a finer point on it, how is it possible that President Clinton and Maxwell in a pool can be released and Maxwell and Trump on Bannon's phone can't be. It's just, it's not not.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Defensible. The holidays are expensive. You're paying for gifts, travel, decorations, food, and before you know it, you've blown way past what you were planning to spend. Don't start the new year off with bad money vibes. Download Rocket Money to stay on top of your finances. The app pulls your income, expenses and upcoming charges into one place so you can get the clearest picture of your money. It shows how much to set aside for bills and how much is safe to spend for the month so you can spend with confidence, no guesswork needed. Get alerts before bills hit, track budgets and see every subscription you're paying for. Rocket Money also finds extra ways to save you money by canceling subscriptions you're not using and negotiating lower bills for you. On average, Rocket Money users can save up to $740 a year when using all the app's premium features. Start the year off right by taking control of your finances. Go to RocketMoney.com Cancel to get started. That's RocketMoney.com Cancel RocketMoney.com Cancel Spinquest.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Social Casino the presents are open and you're over the in laws. It's a perfect time to grab your phone and play spinquest.com with live dealer blackjack, crafts and a ton of slots. And here's a great deal for the holiday, a $30 coin pack for $10. And if you're hearing this ad, you can play right now on SpinQuest.com.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

SpinQuest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more.

[Bill Kristol]

Details. I mean I'm struck. There's the Privacy act and then there are these routine Doesn't Blanche say in a couple of the letters just sort doesn't he allude to other things that maybe in some cases would be legitimate grounds for not releasing stuff but clearly are not intended to be are intended to be overridden by the by the Epstein Transparency act kind of attorney to client privilege. I don't even know what he you know, delivered a process various terms of art. I suppose in the legal world.

[Ryan Goodman]

That. Yeah and it's interesting because even in that he does mention them in the letter and even in the letter there's in some ways an admission because he's citing to federal case law and the federal case law is suggesting that those things don't have to be given to Congress unless it's clear that Congress wants them. That's actually what the case law is.

[Bill Kristol]

Saying. I.

[Ryan Goodman]

See. There's even an admission that if Congress really wants it, they get it. But then you have to interpret the law not to necessarily do that unless Congress is explicit. I cannot imagine a court, any judge, coming up against that law and thinking that Congress did not want that information. That's exactly what Congress said that they wanted. So. And they made the exceptions to what they wanted very explicit. So that's what he's playing with there, that I think he must know they will lose if this were to be litigated. And Senator Schumer has a bill that would allow for the Senate to litigate, and that's how that one would go. It would be like civil litigation over the release of the documents for failure to comply with the law. So that might be one path that we see in the future. But that's what's happening, I think, in that space.

[Bill Kristol]

Now. There are still lots of documents to come, even by the Justice Department's own account. So maybe some of this stuff will get released or unredacted, as some other things have been or. But yeah, I guess we'll see. I mean, they have sort of it's a little misleading. I think the first nine, 10 days here because Congress has been out. I don't know that that was any great dark conspiracy. I think that really was perhaps an accident of when the bill got, you know, when the discharge petition got got done. They had 30 days written in, and 30 days turned out to be just the beginning of Christmas break or they accelerated a bit to make sure it was the beginning. But but they do come back on January 5th. And at that point, I don't think it'll be interesting to see sort of how much. Certainly Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie and others have been on TV complaining, but we'll see how much broader that that complaint is and. And whether it spills over from Democrats to Republicans. So that's one development to look for, I guess, Right. In early mid January. But we will get. Well, they're saying we'll get more releases. Right. So what do you make of that? I mean, what do you make of this 1 million pages or something that seemed to have allegedly showed up three or four days.

[Ryan Goodman]

Ago? Yeah. So in the date that the deadline hit, Todd Blanche said on a morning TV show that it would take a couple weeks until they released everything, and then that couple of weeks would basically run until, I think he was, he said, I think, until the end of the year. So that is. But that's Just rhetoric. I mean, he's not, it's not any kind of official commitment. So that was originally the baseline that he had set. And that's prior to, in the last 48 hours, this idea that the Southern District of New York, which prosecuted Epstein and Maxwell, has newly discovered, I guess much to their amazement, that they have a million more documents that are potentially responsive to Congress. It's, to me, it's just, it's so puzzling as to what to make of it because there is this background understanding that the way in which DOJ has handled this, there's so many ways in which it's being incompetent. And incompetence might also be a product of lack of staffing. So what to make of the discovery of a million. It's hard to understand how you could discover a million documents from the very U.S. attorney's office that prosecuted the cases. So you've got to imagine that all of that has been very well filed. So I don't understand that at all. And I do not know, you know, which way that could play out. It could be that it's part of the COVID up and then maybe Epstein and I didn't, didn't want to go with the COVID up. Or it could be that they'll use it to say, oh my, there's now a million documents. We are opening or potentially opening criminal investigations and the Epstein law allows us to withhold information if there's an ongoing criminal investigation. It's just so unusual to see that happen. And I should add one more layer to it, which is for those of us closely following, there's this letter from Pam Bondi several months ago to Kash Patel saying in a pretty angry tone, but I could imagine Attorney General being under normal conditions angry about this in a sense. I demanded all the information come to me at Main justice and it hasn't from the FBI fellow. So I need you to ensure that it all gets delivered. It was strange how they did it because it was all very public, but that's several months ago. And Josh Gerstein at the, at Politico pointed out, like just in terms of fraud, waste and abuse, what, an inspector general would even look into that. How could it possibly be that in late December 2025 they discover a million more documents that haven't been handed over to the Main Justice. It just, it smells of something rotten one way or another, something is bad within the.

[Bill Kristol]

System. Well, yeah, I mean, I think that Bondi letter to Patel is maybe late February when she's getting criticized for those ridiculous binders that she gave conservative podcasters and stuff. And she's pretending, oh, they didn't share everything. And I don't remember if SDNY is explicitly mentioned there, but everyone understood all along that there's presumably FBI Central, which would have a lot of stuff, and then there's DOJ Main justice, which would have stuff. But then there's sdny, which actually prosecuted both cases. I mean what the two late cases and of course Florida as well. The idea that no one knew that, gee, there'd be a lot of files at sdny. Gee, they, someone should be going through this. And then they kept saying we're going through everything. Then of course, then there's the July 6th. This is what I think of as the Stonewall memo. When they tried to go with the stonewall strategy, which ended up falling apart, but which is we've looked at everything and there's nothing, no one has done anything requires further prosecution. I mean you literally. I mean, I think people just need to understand. I'm not a lawyer, I've never worked any of these places. But I don't know, the centrality of sdny, the notion that we looked at everything but we happen to Ms. SDNY would be like looking, I don't know, that's like the most single most obvious place where the documents are. And they're professional, they know they're there. And Deaf Peace Name justice knows they're there. There's no mystery about this. I assume they have all kinds of protocols when they prosecute a case of how they file the stuff and how they keep it afterwards and whether they share it with justice, the injustice. They certainly don't in routine cases and just keep it in their own files. I don't know. I'm just, it's, it is really.

[Ryan Goodman]

Astounding. I, I think, yeah, it's. Yeah, absolutely. And I, I already make one friendly amendment to what you said, which is the Stonewall memo says they don't have any evidence not just to prosecute, but just to conduct investigations, which is such a low threshold. And you. And one would think at the time like you're sitting on all the SDNY materials. And now we know one could add to it. One could speculate this before but there were. There's an 86 page memorandum from 2019 on co conspirators who can be charged or unco conspirators and they're all that information. There's nothing to investigate and we know enough of the allegations from the victims and survivors against some of Them specifically named individuals like former Prince Andrew. You can't open an investigation on that. You know, it just something smacks of an unreality and it's obviously, to me it suggests a strong cover up of a sense that they just wanted to deep six the whole thing. And like you say, it failed. And thank goodness it failed for the rule of law and accountability, of.

[Bill Kristol]

Course, trying in different ways, you might say, to do mini stone walls or mini cover, I think cover ups, you know, now that the big one, so to speak, the, the giant stonewall has crumbled a bit. I mean, I guess I am struck by that. The incompetence is always possible and I'm sure true in some respects. But I do think people have slightly, the coverage is slightly not yours, but others slightly underestimates how much from the beginning they have not wanted to release anything. I mean, I mean that is once they thought of, I mean, they may have wanted to and when they were running in 2024, when he was running president, but once they got in there, certainly once they started to look at things or maybe even just think through things or even just talk to Trump once or twice about it, their mode has always been release as little as possible and maybe release it as unhelpfully as possible. And there are different, that takes different manifestations at different stages, so to speak. Right. But nothing to see here. Oh, well, there are some things to see, but we do have to release it with these constraints, you know. But I think, I just think that really from a just common sense point of view, I would say you could prove this in court, you know, but that's so obviously where, where they're coming from, I guess is what I struck.

[Ryan Goodman]

By. I'm. Yeah, I completely agree. I also think it is just common sense as long as one's just watching what's happening. And I'm also quite frustrated by some of the coverage because some of the coverage is very explicit about, from mainstream news media and the rest about, oh, here are the different explanations as to why it could take so long. And yeah, and the rest of it it's like really, I mean, there's a, there's a frontal assault by Todd Blanche and the DOJ to say we are not going to release certain of the most vital information. It's not just like there's a lot of incompetence and things like that. There's a lot of noise going on. But that is just a very straightforward part of it. And like you say common sense about, just look at the pattern of behavior over time from the start, including the inflection point of the Stonewall memo. And that's the true.

[Bill Kristol]

Story. Yeah, I think that's important. I mean I would say Blanche visiting Maxwell and then transferring her to the cushy prison facility is certainly another part of it which again is slightly receded in a way to people's minds. Okay, I guess that happened. Well, that's pretty astonishing. You know, and she's right. There's some. Why do. I don't know how we have this email. We have some email from her to someone about how nice it is there and it's really much better. And you know, and, and then Trump explicitly not ruling out a pardon. I just feel like people are being a little credulous about, you know, that there's any good faith honestly at this, at this point. But I mean one question I have on this, again I don't have an experience with this is I also feel like the document dumps. 2 I guess we've had. I don't, you know, they're called. I guess my simple minded way of thinking of it is they presumably called Epstein files for a reason because they're like files. I mean, and I assume that the FBI being a pretty well organized organization and SCNY and main justice and Florida's attorney's office, the U.S. attorney's office down there, they have like files and if they wanted to, I assume they could release a lot of it. Not everything. Maybe there's miscellaneous stuff as files. 2007, 2008, 2019, this person, that person. I don't know. All kinds of. These days, modern computers, you can cross index very easily and they certainly do adjust FBI. No, I mean and the idea that it's just dumping a bunch of photos and that we have no idea when they're from or where they're from and God forbid they could organize them. That can't be the way they are being held. I mean, I guess it could be some of them, right. They have extraneous stuff comes in. It wasn't important. Someone looked at it and tossed it in a box, literally. Or the modern digital equivalent of a box somewhere like you would somewhere on the computer. It's in downloads, but it's not, you know, it's not in some file. But a lot. But they, they do have files. I guess is we haven't and we, that's what strikes me we haven't seen any files is the way I think of it. You know, we've seen a lot of random documents.

[Ryan Goodman]

Right? Right. And for those, I guess there could be a number of viewers haven't done it themselves. But if you go to the Epstein Library on the DOJ website, it's exactly as you describe it. It's just batches. Like here's our first batch, here's our second batch, there are eight. And then under each one it's just like a bulleted file name but the file name is just a number. So it's 0001-3587. And it's incredibly frustrating for the victims themselves who are having to go through each one and things like that. There's stories of that which is just very painful to think about. But as you say, Bill, I mean it cannot be that they don't have them computerized in such a way that they are at least, you know, identifiable from the very face of the file name. Like what is this about? What kind of file is it? Is it a witness statement, is it a photo exhibit that was used at trial? All sorts of things. Plus date, you know, sortable by date, sortable by individual, sortable by the Maxwell trial. And that's deeply problematic. And the way in which it's done it makes it very hard for it to be transparent and for media and individuals to even understand what's happened here, let alone that, you know, when they first released it, it didn't even, it wasn't even really searchable and the law requires that it be searchable now. It is searchable in a sense, but yeah, it's avoiding giving Americans the information that is statutorily required by a Congress that voted for it almost.

[Bill Kristol]

Unanimously. Right. And it does get back to this massive stuff they just not released let us know, let alone the messiest way which they released some of a lot of this material. So what do you think? I mean, where. It's a very weird situation, honestly. You and I were talking before we got on air here for a minute about it's a little hard to. I felt that other issues, situations I've kind of, I'm not, God knows I haven't known what's going to happen, but I've sort of known what the two or three or four possible paths were that would happen in cover ups or in prosecutions. You sort of know, well this could, you know, this one, this could fail. This person, this cover up could fall apart here. I remember this in Iran Contra pretty well when I was new in Washington and you know, it was clear what testimony was going to be crucial and it was pretty obvious who was investigating and kind of knew different directions it could go. Watergate. There were key moments. I don't know. I feel like here it's, we've seen so little in a way. I don't know what's going to happen over the next month. Do you think is this sustainable? Could it possibly be that a month from now we'll be sitting around and Congress will be doing nothing or at least maybe filing some civil lawsuit that could take a long time to get the most obvious documents that everyone has agreed are necessary to understand what's happened. Or will they have to cough it up? Or will they cough it up anyway in the next couple of weeks? It's just they, they're off to a slow start. I mean, I don't know where do you think we are in.

[Ryan Goodman]

This? Yeah, it's difficult to know. I do think that we'll have some of the core documents, you would think within the next short while, days, weeks on things like the 302 interviews of victims and witnesses with the FBI like that. It's not something that the DOJ has said that they can withhold and traditionally those are the kinds of documents that would be publicly released, especially post an investigation. And so I do think that that's coming and it do, it does seem to me that that could be very powerful in the sense of naming names, getting to the bottom of who are the other co conspirators and men involved in this sexual trafficking and sexual abuse of minors. To me, I think that might be, that's on the horizon and I think that will shake the foundations because that's, I think a large part of the national interest is that accountability and that's what the victims and survivors want and they are demanding it very forthrightly. So I think that's a piece that will drop and it sounds like, you know, what is the basis for the COVID up? What are they trying to not disclose? I think it could be in there. So I do think that the, that's why, you know, over the last few days, last 24, 48 hours, President Trump again has now almost suggested that DOJ should not abide by the statute and release the information. It's like, why? What is he afraid of? Is a very key question. So I think that to me is going to shake loose. What's difficult to know is how it shakes loose on the other pieces, which is these prosecution memos, the 86 page memorandum from December 2019 of coconspirators. That one, I think that has to be forced and that requires Congress keeping their eye on the ball of the withholding of information, not just the redaction of information. So I think that to me is key. And then the other is just. So we maybe put this on the surface as well. The way in which the DOJ has handled the release of information to me is playing political games. I've spoken to some of the survivors, they think so too. So I think it's very morally abhorrent in that sense as well, let alone illegal. But you know, the idea that what is being released, you know, first day of release was like, it was just like design choreographed. It was about Bill Clinton with images of Bill Clinton and if Bill Clinton did things wrong, then he too should be held accountable. But that's the only real, you know, other man that's involved with the victims and survivors or with Epstein's affairs that's being released. It's that one. And then the next stage of releases are basically fraudulent documents. So to the point that I think in my mind I've wondered, you know, is DOJ specifically releasing documents that will try to discredit people that are scouring these things like the letter from Epstein to Larry Nassar that almost looks like a confession of a suicide and implicating Donald Trump and then it's proven to be pretty obviously fake. Why, why release that? And surely to goodness the DOJ knew at the time, or maybe release it, sorry, but identified as being fake, they surely knew that in December of 2025 that that was fake. There's an entire inspector general investigation on Epstein's death. Surely they knew that that letter was fake. And then there's another like FBI tip, I'm not even going to speak the allegations because I think they're just bogus. But it looks like it's implicating Donald Trump. But if you read deeper into it, it just looks like a person who's got baked up conspiracy theories and that's part of the second tranche that's being released. It just seems deeply suspicious to me in the way in which this has been orchestrated. And of course they, the DOJ makes disparaging comments about Bill Clinton because he's in an image with Epstein and a redacted young girl or a young woman or a minor. And DOJ says haha, that's suspicious when it's obviously not necessarily because they over redacted with anybody who could have been an Epstein victim. And then in sharp contrast they make a statement that sounds like they're the lawyers for Donald Trump personally saying how, oh, you know, this is non credible information about the president, et cetera. So I think that the way in which this is being carried out is a, I'll use one word, I guess, a disgusting political game over the lives of survivors and victims who are have been incredible in their historic success of getting this law passed seeking transparency, let alone.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

Accountability. Let's do the 60 Second Savings Challenge. Step one, download Rocket Money. Step two, link your accounts and see every subscription you're paying for. Tap one you don't use and cancel it. That's money back every month. Step three, create a financial goal, $50 every paycheck. Or let the app automatically move small amounts of cash. When you can afford it in a week, you'll forget you set it up. In a month, you'll see real dollars piling up. In a year, you'll be shocked at how much money you've saved. Bonus challenge. Upload an Internet or phone bill and let Rocket Money try to lower it. You only pay if they find you savings. On average, Rocket Money members can save up to $740 a year when using all of the app's premium features. Users love the app with over 186,000 five star ratings. Make saving money the resolution you actually keep. Start the 60 second savings [e-mail] cancel. That's rocketmoney.com cancel rocketmoney.com.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

Cancel. I'm here with Spinquest where you can play and win from the comfort of your own home with hundreds of slot games and all of the table games you you love with real cash prizes. Right now, $30 coin packs are on sale for $10 for new users. It's [e-mail] that's s p I.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

N q u s t.com Spin Quest is a free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more.

[Bill Kristol]

Details. Yeah, the survivors I think are the underestimated as a force by the kind of conventional people covering it. You know, they're used to covering congress and you know, lawyers and so forth and they interested in the back and forth, the moral force and political power really of the survivors saying wait a second, this is where's my 302? Wait a second, where's the prosecution memo? Wait a second. I want the names of the people who, you know, were involved in this. Not just Epstein's name or something that, that could be very powerful over the next month or so. I do think I my only again friendly amendment to use your term of what you were saying is I think it's unlikely but not impossible that they try to go at some point. Pretty explicit stonewall. That is, I don't really think. I'm not so sure. Maybe they'll just say at some point, I'm sorry. We look closely at this and we believe that the correct interpretation of the law is we can't release the prosecution memos, the 302s, this. That we can't unredact anything more. Here's a bunch of stuff that's unimportant and you know, like what we've seen so far and thank you, that's we're done. And then. And sue us now. I don't. I. That. I mean, that could happen. That's happened before. Watergate had a version of that. Right. They had to go to court, Supreme Court to get everything. The most damning stuff. I don't know how the legal system would work that. I don't know if they could be congressional majorities to sue. I don't know how quickly that could happen. I don't know if Congress could use authority, other authorities to compel justice to. To do certain things. You know, they obviously have a lot of. If they wish to do so, they can make executive agencies do a lot of things by withholding funding and other kinds of things, holding people in contempt. But anyway, I feel like. I don't think that's. I think the. The muddling. They seem to have adopted the strategy so far, pretending to sort of go along without. While being very reluctant to go along and putting a lot of obstacles in the way of going along. And that's probably the safer bet that that's kind of the path they're on. But I don't know. I. I don't rule anything out. The degree, I guess I haven't. The degree to which they do not want to release stuff is. I guess I always come back to that. You know, it's the simplest. It's the Occam's Razor explanation of a lot of what they're doing. And as you say, I think very importantly the degree which they seem affirmatively to be happy to muddy the.

[Ryan Goodman]

Waters.

[Bill Kristol]

Yeah. You know, it's not just kind of, oh gee, you know, they're being very, very tightly held. You know, they're throwing out the stuff to. That's not, you know, real To. To. To make it harder to.

[Ryan Goodman]

Tell. Yep. And according to the survivors, also not in communication with.

[Bill Kristol]

Them. Right. Isn't that amazing? If you want to release stuff, you know, you talk to the people. Right. I.

[Ryan Goodman]

Mean.

[Bill Kristol]

Yep. Yep.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. So I think I. Comes Razor is right. And Just to add. I.

[Bill Kristol]

Mean. Yeah, finish. Yeah, take. Yeah, close. Close this up here.

[Ryan Goodman]

Yeah. Well, I do think that Congress has a number of different tools, and the tools are censure, censure of the Attorney general, potentially the deputy deputy Attorney general, since he has become almost the point person for it. Censure resolution that says that they're in contempt, a impeachment resolution on from the House of the Attorney General, and potentially deputy Attorney General filing in court. Sorry, criminal referral. But that's obviously. But that would potentially be enforceable in the future. And there are those former federal prosecutors who have said that what they're currently doing, if they are truly deceptively not releasing information and it is, in fact, a conspiracy not to comply with the law, that would be a crime. Or. And Representative Massey has identified some of the criminal statutes that would apply. And then filing civil litigation in court under civil contempt. And I think that's, you know, that's basically the range. There's also this idea of inherent contempt, which is raised by Massey and Khanna originally. I think that one's just a minefield in a sense. So I think that one's a bit of a distraction. Maybe I'm wrong about that. But that would mean Congress imposes its own penalties, financial or otherwise, on the wrongdoers like the Attorney General. And there's good argument that Congress has that kind of authority, but just hasn't been used over a century. But I think that's. That's part of the range. And I think that it requires, and some of the litigation definitely requires, either a full committee or a chamber of Congress to act. Individual members of Congress do not have standing essentially to bring those suits. And it's important for people to understand that because that's part of the politics here. So I think that. And then, as you said, Bill, they could start to restrict the funds that go to the DOJ for different purposes. That's kind of what happens with the boat strike of the two survivors that the legislation does get passed that says that the Congress will limit the Secretary of Defense's travel budget if he does not provide to the Armed Services Committee the video. And lo and behold, as that legislation is about to be passed and was passed, he provides the video in full to the committees. So that kind of leverage can potentially work, especially because Congress holds the purse strings. And this is one in which there does seem to be a significant bipartisan pushback against stonewalling on the part of the.

[Bill Kristol]

Doj. Yeah, it's not.

[Ryan Goodman]

Good. This thing is.

[Bill Kristol]

Not. Maybe they'll release everything in two weeks and we'll, and we'll know a ton and that'll be sort of the combination of it. But it feels more like we're looking at a fairly drawn out process here. But there's a lot of pressure. I mean, if one believes in the transparency and they're in finding out what the truth here, the good news is there are a lot of people pushing for it and I think the momentum is on their side. Has been on their side for a while now. Obviously the original stonewall didn't work. That's pretty important, I think, you know, but history suggests that when that crumbles, it's a little hard to build these later intermediate stonewalls, so to speak. On the other hand, they have a lot of tools to continue obfuscating and stonewalling too. So, you know, and they control the executive branch in a way that Nixon didn't control the Justice Department, obviously in Watergate and Reagan didn't control thing head independent commissions and Iran Contra and so.

[Ryan Goodman]

Forth.

[Bill Kristol]

So, yeah, this will be a big story in 2026, not just 2025, I think.

[Ryan Goodman]

Right? Absolutely. I think it's going to be a really important moment. And just also note, public survey data seems to strongly suggest that Americans by large majorities want this information out there. So I think that it's a real clash and an important reflection of where we are as a democracy if it doesn't get.

[Bill Kristol]

Done. Interesting. Yeah, that's really true, Ryan. It's been terrific. I think it's been very helpful for me and I think clarifying for people who watching or listening. So thank you for taking the time on this Sunday and we'll be back to discuss things. Maybe. Well, we'll see when we have real new information. Maybe it could be as soon as a week or two from now, maybe a month from now. But Ryan Goodman, thanks for joining me.

[Ryan Goodman]

Today. Thank you so much. Really appreciate.

[SpinQuest Advertiser]

It. Forget everything you had planned for this weekend because you are still sitting on your couch and winning from the comfort of your own home. I'm here with Spin Quest where you can play hundreds of slot games, all the table games you love and you could even win real cash prizes. New users $30 coin packs are on sale for [e-mail] Spin Quest is.

[SpinQuest Legal Disclaimer]

A free to play social casino void where prohibited. Visit spinquest.com for more.

[Ryan Goodman]

Details. Honey, this is.

[Bill Kristol]

It. Shot clock winding down, trailing by two when you can't miss the shot and neither can he. Don't take slow for an answer.

[Ryan Goodman]

If Esprello shoots, switch Good to see it.

[Bill Kristol]

Carl. Switch to Optimum Internet reliable fiber powered Internet starting at just $40 a month. Call 8669 optimum or visit optimum.com today. What went through your head on the last shot? It all happened so fast. Optimum don't take slow for an answer. Turn to ply seeoptimum.com for details. Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is is actually getting a direct.

[Ryan Goodman]

Line to the big man up.

[Bill Kristol]

North. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment of $45 for three month plan.

[Rocket Money Advertiser]

Equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy, taxes and fees extra. See.