← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
"Be on the lookout for what's not included"
00:48:58
Nicolle Wallace anchors breaking news coverage on the release of documents from the Jeffrey Epstein files.
Loading summary
Transcript86 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Announcer
Deadline White House is brought to you by Progressive, where drivers who save by switching save nearly $750 on average. Plus auto customers qualify for an average of 7 discounts. Quote now@progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $744 by new customers surveyed who save with Progressive between June 2022 and May 2023. Potential savings will vary. Discounts not available in all states and situations.
- [00:31]
Julie K. Brown
Ever spend $200 on a fragrance only to realize you hate it? Micro Perfumes fixes that. Now you can try luxury scents without the luxury price. Pick from real designer fragrances like Gucci, Chanel and Versace. It's the real deal. Authentic scents starting at just a few bucks. They come in sleek travel sprays, ship fast, and there's no subscription required. Why gamble on a full bottle? Go to microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off. That's microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off.
- [01:08]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Hi there everyone. For real this time. It's 4:00'clock in New York, on a day an hour years in the making as we await the release of the so called Epstein files, at least a chunk of them. Some absolutely pivotal context to go over. Three things to know up front ahead of a midnight deadline imposed on the Trump administration. First, the sheer size and scope of what the general public is about to have in its hands is colossal. A mountain of documents, hundreds of gigabytes of information encompassing trip logs, financial records, interview summaries, paper and electronic documents, and on and on. It's going to take some time to work through all of it. Once we get it, a team of our colleagues are standing by to do just that, to go through each and every word on each and every page. The second thing to know about this afternoon's expected data dump is that, yes, we'll focus, of course, on what is actually in the release and what we're learning. But we'll also be on the lookout for what is not included. Remember, Trump's Justice Department is not voluntarily putting this information out. It was legally compelled to do so by a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers in Congress. The deadline this day, a tick before midnight, and yet this morning, the Trump administration made a rather startling admission. Here's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
- [02:25]
Senator Adam Schiff
I expect that we're going to release several hundred thousand documents today, and those documents will come in all different forms, photo, photographs and other materials associated with all of the investigations into Mr. Epstein. And so I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. So today, several hundred thousand, and then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more.
- [02:54]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Next couple weeks. What you heard that and said that's not what the law said, then you and that bipartisan coalition in Congress probably have something in common. But following those comments this morning, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a statement suggesting the Trump administration is in violation of the law for failing to produce everything before tonight's deadline. Quote, for months, Attorney General Pam Bondi has denied survivors the transparency and accountability they have demanded and deserve and has defied the Oversight Committee subpoena. The Department of Justice is now making clear it intends to defy Congress itself, even as it gives star treatment to Epstein's convicted co conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell. Courts around the country have repeatedly intervened when this administration has broken the law. We are now examining all legal options in the face of this violation of federal law. Finally, though, the third and most important thing to keep in mind ahead of time, what we're expected to learn today is real life and the stuff of real life. Nightmares, trauma for hundreds of innocent women, some of whom were girls at the time. People who never, ever, ever asked for anything more than the truth to come out, never wanted more than justice. And today, although it appears there is still some work to do on that front. Just as we came on the air, the Justice Department has released its first batch of the Epstein files. We are right now going through them. You can see the steam coming off Lisa Rubin's keyboard. I don't want to put you on the spot, but what strikes you in terms of what's just been released?
- [04:33]
Lisa Rubin
Well, let's start with the fact that when you went to the website, you saw that there was already a line of people, it looked like a Ticketmaster website trying to get Taylor Swift tickets. I'm just going to read to you from a screen grab. You are now in line. We are currently experiencing extremely high volume of search requests at this time. We have placed you in a waiting queue and we will process your search request as soon as we can. Thank you for your patience. I have already gotten through and it looks like there are four, four new data sets of information in the form of zip files. And then the Department of Justice has also provided, almost as if they are trying to provide optically, that there's more there than there might be. They also have provided declassified Epstein files, which appears to be things from the case, like an evidence list or a flight log. Those are things that were produced by the department in February. There's also video footage from the Bureau of Prisons that has previously been released, again, videos by hour. That was a subject of much debate earlier this year because there is apparently some missing footage from the night that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correction center or the detention center. And then there's information from Maxwell's. They call it a proffer. Some people would say it was less than that when Todd Blanche went to go visit her at a federal courthouse in Tallahassee. There are audio files here and interview transcripts, and then there's also some memoranda and correspondence. Again, things we've seen before, you and I have about the Office of Professional responsibilities investigation in 2020 of exactly how Jeffrey Epstein got that 20078 sweetheart deal. It seems that the report is there, along with its executive summary and some other things from the Office of Inspector General. But in terms of the actual files that are new, I don't have a sense yet, Nicole, of what's in there or its volume. As you noted, we have a full team of readers, and as we continue to talk about it, I I'm going.
- [06:27]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
To be furiously pressing, please pound away.
- [06:30]
Lisa Rubin
Reading it while we wait to see what information here is new. I will tell you one other thing. There is a place on this website where you can search, and I was very hopeful that it would be text searchable because the bill itself requires this to be presented in a publicly accessible text searchable format. The first word I ran, I ran a search for Trump. I found nothing. And I thought, oh, that's going to be illuminating. But then I ran searches for the words Maxwell and Jeffrey, and they also came up with nothing, which suggests to me not that there's not anything here about Donald Trump, but that the text searchability of what the Department of Justice has provided may not yet be up to snuff.
- [07:07]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Well, those are really important questions. I know you're going to keep testing them. Please stay here and do all that here. I want to bring into our coverage Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee. He's been pivotal in forcing this legislation through and forcing the Department of Justice to release these files. I apologize to Lisa for putting her on the spot. I'll do the same to you. But in terms of what has just dropped in the last seven minutes, do you have any assessment, has anyone been able to evaluate what has been released?
- [07:41]
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna
Nicole, first of all, your third point was the most important this is about the survivors and what this means to them. I will say that many of them have been contacting us saying at least we're getting some documents. They're anxiously waiting to see the central issue, which is are the rich and powerful men who raped or abused them or who were at these Epstein parties and watched rape and abuse, are their names in there? Are they going to finally face accountability? And as we search through these documents, we need to figure out what whether they have hid those or whether that is actually coming out. Now the law, as Lisa said, clearly required all unclassified information being released today. They obviously have not complied with that law. They claim that this is because it was only a few weeks. Well, they known about this for months. They should have been preparing that. So at the very least what we need is for the attorney general or the deputy attorney general to have a press conference and say here is what we have released. Here is the timeline of what we're going to release by when to be in full compliance of the law. Here is what we've redacted and here is why we've redacted this, which is required by the law. And so we'll see what they do.
- [08:58]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Have you, as DOJ had any contact with the committee to do any of that? To say, here's what we've uploaded today, here's how you search the document, here's what's coming in the next. I mean they obviously as a department made a plan because Todd Blanche went on TV this morning and announced it said, quote, in the, in the next couple weeks, did they communicate with the oversight committee?
- [09:23]
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna
They didn't communicate with the oversight committee. They refused to meet Thomas Massie or myself, the authors of the law, to communicate. But what is most disappointing to me is they have not communicated with the survivors lawyers. Now I was told that there was supposed to be a zoom with the Department of Justice and the survivors to give them a heads up. I don't know if that took place or not, but they should have been communicating at the very least with the survivors lawyers about the plan and they still have not communicated the plan to the American people. Look, they're obviously in violation of the law. If there is some reason, if they're saying, look, we, we rushed this, we didn't have enough time. We only got this started we three weeks ago. We want it to be sensitive to the survivor's identity. Here is the plan over the next 30 days for how we're going to release everything else. Then they build some credibility even though they have not complied with the letter of the law. The problem is blank just goes on tv, says there are hundreds of thousands of documents. We'll do the rest later. And there is no explanation for what they're doing.
- [10:29]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
So the survivors themselves have illuminated the problem in their view with that approach. So some of what is in the files are their 302s, their interviews with the FBI. Is it your understanding that these survivors themselves have not been contacted about their own 302s, if they've been released?
- [10:51]
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna
To my knowledge, some of the survivors have not been contacted. Survivors, lawyers. Now, I don't know if they have contacted some of the survivors. As you know, there were over a thousand survivors in this case. I certainly haven't talked to all of them. But at the very least, you would say in a typical process, the Justice Department would say, anyone who's a survivor or their lawyers, we want to consult with you before we're going to be releasing these files and we want to hear your interests. I'm less concerned that they haven't talked to Thomas Massey or me, the authors of the bill. I'm less concerned that they haven't talked to the Oversight Committee. I'm flabbergasted that they haven't talked to the survivors or the survivors lawyers. And if they have, they should be transparent about this. Look, the reason Pam Bondi has no credibility is 6 months ago she stood up there and said, there's nothing more to see. There are no more documents. We've released everything. And now six months later, her deputy is going on TV saying, we're saying we're releasing hundreds of thousands of more documents. And by the way, there are more documents we will be releasing. Well, what changed? Did she lie back then or what changed? How did they discover all these documents? She needs to answer if the answer is, well, now Congress has compelled us and we've gotten judges who've ordered the release of documents that previously we were protecting because of DOJ policy. Well, she needs to explain that. But what's mind boggling to me is she's not taking a press conference. She hasn't explained anything. And this is just eroding crust. And Massie and I have never made this against Trump or against the doj. We literally have spent hours with the survivors. We just want to see justice. We want to see transparency. I'm less hung up if everything's going to come out today. I just want it all to come out and I want them to be heard. That's really what I wanted to see happen. And it's disappointing to me that that's not the goal of everyone in this process.
- [12:40]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Based on what Todd Blanche has said publicly and what you're seeing populate the DOJ website since they've done this batch, what is your. If you had to do some expectation setting for the survivors themselves, what are those conversations like right now?
- [13:02]
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna
My sense is that we are going to get information that we haven't seen before. And the fact is, because of your voices, I said this to some of the survivors, that because of your voices, we are seeing something happen that has never happened before for decades. You should feel some sense of pride that you've actually gotten Donald Trump to try to comply with the law. I mean, for many things, he just ignores Congress. I mean, at least they're on the date trying to comply. And that's not because of what I did or Massey did or oversight did. That's because of you. That's because you stood in front of the Capitol twice and relived your trauma. And the country saw that. And what they want to know is, what are we going to see? Because it's not about documents and it's not about photos and it's not about sensationalism. If you talk to the survivors, they know that some of these people are still in very prominent positions and they either engaged in rape or they were at these parties and they saw young people, young girls there and didn't say anything. And they want those folks to be exposed to face the moral consequences and in some cases, justice. And what they want to know is, are those things going to come out there? Is the draft indictment, which has some of that information going to be out there? Are the interview memorandum going to be out there? Are the men who engaged in this heinous conduct finally going to face public shame and accountability? And we just have to see. But I'll tell you this, I'm not going to quit. Massey's not going to quit. Marjorie Taylor Greene is not going to quit until we get these documents. And, and we know what's in there because we've talked to the survivors and their lawyers, and the survivors lawyers have seen a lot of these documents.
- [14:41]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Congressman, I'll thank you and invite you to come back if you see anything that strikes you as being included or not included over the next couple hours. Thank you very much for starting us off today.
- [14:54]
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna
Thank you, Nicole.
- [14:56]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
I want to bring in Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown. Her reporting over so many years is a huge part of how we arrived at today and what brought the case and kept the case in the public arena. Also joining us, former top official of the Department of Justice, our legal analyst, Andrew Weissman. But I'm going to start with Lisa Rubin, who's been pouring through the files that have been released.
- [15:18]
Lisa Rubin
Yeah, I wanted to tell you, Nicole, I saw something that when I opened it, I gasped because I thought we were going to see something. And what I saw Instead was a 100 page document that says Grand Jury of New York at the top of it. And that's the only text that that you can see. And it goes on for 119 pages where every single page of it is completely and 100% blacked out. But for the Bates number, meaning how the Department of Justice has numbered these pages. It bears a stamp of EFTA standing for Epstein Files Transparency act, and the number of the document that corresponds to it. But over 119 pages, 100% completely redacted. And we will continue to go through these. I'm in the 5000s now and what I am seeing is a lot of pictures, many pictures of properties that we have seen before. But where it comes to anything that would change our understanding of the pictures so far, that's not something I have yet to come across. But as you know, we have lots of people here at our network reading these documents diligently so that we can bring to our viewers any new developments.
- [16:26]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Julie, let me pull you into this and you as well. Tell me how you are thinking about what is ostensibly newly available in response to this law.
- [16:40]
Julie K. Brown
Well, I'm glancing at it too, as it's coming in here. I don't see anything new yet. And the fact that some of, or I should say great portions of it are redacted is very disheartening, especially since the judge, we know the judges have ruled that they could release this material. So if this is how there it's all going to be handled, I think there's going to be a lot of people that are going to be angry and disappointed. It's just, you know, like I said, I see here there's press releases which of course have already been made public. There's, you know, the, as was mentioned, the DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility report, which was released in 2020. I mean, it looks to me so far anyway that it's a lot of dated material. Now, I just want to point out one other thing though. A lot of people are new, even many of the victims are new to this case. They don't know the whole history. So some of this material Even though it's not new to me and it's not new to a lot of people who have been covering and watching this case, a lot of this stuff will be new probably to, to victims and the public. I, I doubt very many people know about exactly what happened in the case in 2005. They haven't probably read the police report from back then and some of the investigation from back then. So those kinds, while they're not new to us, will still inform the public, I think.
- [18:05]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
I mean, Julie, I take your point on the public, but this is an issue, you know better than anyone that has its sort of heat and fury politically in the idea of the COVID up. And to the degree that the public has been pulled in so many years after the survivors themselves have been clamoring for transparency and accountability, it is around that idea of a cover up. So the idea that they've released things that were already available doesn't do anything to address the number of Americans, 81% in the polling over the summer, who believe that Donald Trump was covering something up. His own chief of staff Susie Wiles, in a series of 11 interviews, confirms that, yes, Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. He and Jeffrey Epstein were, quote, young playboys. I think they were both over 50 years old. But for calling that young, I'll roll with that. The survivors, the victims, weren't just young women. Some of them were girls. What is your sense of whether you've seen anything so far that deals with the reality and the political reality that people believe there's been a cover up?
- [19:15]
Julie K. Brown
Well, that was the whole point of my series that I wrote to begin with. It was clear with the way that this was handled. Look, there was this, by design, was kept secret. It was an agreement that they would not let the victims or really anyone know that they were making this deal with Epstein. So this secret part of it was from the start. In fact, a judge ruled that they violated the Crime Victim Rights act because they did not inform the victims and did not inform people that they were making this deal to begin with. So there was a cover up back then. And we don't know how expansive it was. We don't know who it involved. We don't know exactly all those details about, you know, what they knew, when they knew it, perhaps the information, it must have received more information in later years from victims as they came forward. So it will be interesting to see if the DOJ did any investigation on any of these other tips or witness statements that came out after the deal was made.
- [20:17]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Julie, Danielle, she lets us call her Danny. Danny Bansky said yesterday that it's not clear to the survivors themselves if there were 302s, if there were official statements taken by the FBI. Have you seen anything that answers that question, Jen?
- [20:33]
Julie K. Brown
I haven't seen anything, but I've been told by a couple of the victim's lawyers that there were such statements taken. How many? I don't know. I've only heard from a few of the lawyers that have told me that there, that there were statements taken. We also know that there were witnesses. For example, the accountant who worked for Epstein's modeling agency. We interviewed her quite a few years ago when we did that story, and she said she was trying to point the FBI toward evidence of sex trafficking, that she had the book, she was the accountant, and she knew the way that the agency operated. And she told us back then that she was trying to tell the FBI what to look for.
- [21:14]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Let me bring Andrew Weissman into our conversation. Andrew, we've been talking, theoretically, you've been reading. Anything strike you in terms of what the Department of Justice has made public?
- [21:27]
Andrew Weissman
I want to turn to something that you said at the outset, which is that we're going to look for what's in there, but we're going to also look for what's not in there. And I just want to talk for a moment what Todd Blanch said today, because it is outrageous. It is. To me, this is just a huge joke that is basically treating the MAGA base as a bunch of fools. So Todd Blanche said today that Donald Trump for years has wanted to make all of this public. Well, we know that's not true because if he wanted to do it, he could have done it on day one of his presidency. And he hasn't, too. He said, well, as you reported, that he's going to have produced hundreds of thousands, but three few hundred thousand documents today and a few hundred thousand he expects later. Well, the law, as you've said, required it to be produced today. So what he is saying right now is they're in violation of the law. That's point two. And then I did a little math, because in September of this year, the Department of Justice put out an official statement that said there's nothing to see here, and they've gone through the 300 gigabytes of information. Well, a few hundred thousand and a few hundred thousand does not equal 300 gigabytes. That is just not possible. It's not plausible. And so the question is, where are the what is not being produced? I mean, to Me, this is just going to scream cover up because you have them not complying with the law, lying, in my view, to the American people about the president's wishes. And then the ultimate doing the math doesn't equal the number. There's no way that you get to 300 gigabytes with a few hundred thousand. A few hundred thousand, no matter how big those documents are, to me, that is a huge part of this story and is what is not being produced. And to the congressman's point, a responsible DOJ would actually have had a press conference and they would have talked through the measures they took. They would say this is what we've done. Here's the procedures, here is what we did. Instead, you know that there is a problem with what they're doing when they do this through a sort of short form announcement on Fox News. That doesn't answer any of that to me. That's the story right now.
- [23:58]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Well, and on your point about volume, I mean, I think the person who first started talking in press interviews about 300 gigabytes of data was Kash Patel and Joe Rogan's podcast. And when Kash Patel, I think in his own confirmation hearing said no, he didn't traffic to anyone, no one else was involved and there's nothing to see here. I think it was Joe Rogan who said, what do they think, we're all babies? I mean, the lies that have been told about the volume and the substance will either be proven as lies or the truth will come out today. And it seems, Andrew, that what you're seeing so far in terms of the lack of volume that is being released is that the COVID up continues.
- [24:44]
Andrew Weissman
Yeah. I mean, look, there's only one reason Todd Blanche went on TV now is because somebody had to be the fall guy for like expl. Why they're not complying with the law and saying, you know, this is what we're doing. But it is, it is just unbelievable but that nobody at the Department of Justice felt like a, that they're public servants working for us and thus OWS answers. And two, we're just going to be, you know, give a sort of thorough recitation. Congressman said if there's delays, at least explaining that, but saying what exactly is being produced and what is not being produced. One of the things that I'm going to be looking for for is I've been very focused on the quality of the investigation that was even done in this case because Todd Blanch has said another thing, which is that the documents that we have so far that came from the estate are ones that the Department of Justice did not have that, that, I mean, Mary McCord and I talked about this because we're sort of career people I.e. investigation 101, that you would have the documents from the Epstein Estate. I mean, it's just unbelievable. They didn't have them. And so you're going to be thinking, what else did they not get and who did they not interview? For instance, is there an interview report of Donald Trump, among many others? You're not just him, but why wouldn't you interview him? And so that's one of the things that if it's not in there, you're going to be asking yourself either A, does it exist but not been turned over, or B, if he wasn't interviewed, why on God's green earth wasn't he?
- [26:25]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Yeah. I mean, and according to the New York Times reporting yesterday from Nick Compassori, Jeffrey Epstein described Donald Trump as his, quote, best friend. So there's that. All right. When we come back, Democratic members of Congress, including. Go ahead, Andrew. Staying with us. When we come back, we'll also be joined by Senator Adam Schiff, Democratic, saying they have reason to be very skeptical and are asking for more details about how these files were reviewed ahead of release. Talk to him about that. Plus the hundreds of voices in this story who have been calling for accountability for years, working to ensure that the kind of abuse they endured never happens again. We'll have a chance to talk to two of those brave survivors, Jess Michaels and Liz Stein. We have all that ahead as we continue to pour through these files on our own deadline. White HOUSE continues after a quick Please don't go anywhere today.
- [27:17]
Lisa Rubin
My parents made every Christmas magical.
- [27:19]
Julie K. Brown
And even though we're miles apart, I.
- [27:21]
Lisa Rubin
Still want them to feel loved and remembered during the holidays.
- [27:24]
Julie K. Brown
That's why I'm sending something beautiful from 1-800-Flowers.
- [27:28]
Lisa Rubin
Their Christmas bestsellers are timeless, heartfelt and just what they'll love.
- [27:32]
Julie K. Brown
For a limited time, you can get.
- [27:34]
Lisa Rubin
Up to 40% off Christmas bestsellers at 1-800-flowers.com sxm. That's 1-800-flowers. Com. Sxm to save up to 40% on Christmas bestseller Bestsellers. Shop now.
- [27:46]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Hey, I'm Steffi.
- [27:47]
Lisa Rubin
I go big for the holidays, so I'm going to Famous footwear.
- [27:51]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
With over 800 stores, you're never far.
- [27:53]
Lisa Rubin
From the perfect gift.
- [27:54]
Julie K. Brown
So make your list and make it famous.
- [27:56]
Lisa Rubin
Buy one pair.
- [27:57]
Julie K. Brown
Get one half off@famous footwear or famous.com Some exclusions apply.
- [28:01]
Commercial Announcer
This message is brought to you by Apple Card Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City branch terms and more@applecard.com.
- [28:31]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
We really, Lisa Rubin and our other colleagues are continuing to sift through the Epstein documents that have just been released by the Department of Justice. This is a pivotal moment in this story, one that took an act of Congress and certainly one that the Trump administration has had months to prepare for. Democrats warn today that anything short of a full release by midnight of all the required materials would mean that the Trump administration has broken the law. And if DOJ does not comply, Democrats say they are prepared across both chambers and several committees, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, working to, quote, assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Senator Dick Durbin, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, looking closely for, quote, appropriate redactions of victims, identifying information, faulty redactions, shielding those who caused harm from accountability, and any sense that the administration is covering up for the wealthy and powerful. I want to bring into our coverage Democratic Senator Adam Schiff of California. He's a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and has called for an audit of who at the Department of Justice has handled all the Epstein related records. I want to understand what you're looking for. Obviously, you sort of planted the flag on that audit, raising the question. We know they've been through all of the files at least once looking for Donald Trump's name. That was reported by multiple news organizations. Susie Wiles confirms in a series of 11 on the record interviews that Trump is in the files. But I wonder if you have evidence that things were tampered with or just concerns that they could be that led to that call for the audit.
- [30:15]
Senator Adam Schiff
Well, when I issued that letter, it was concerns that they wouldn't be forthcoming in what they were going to provide to the American people. And those fears have become all too realized today with this completely unlawful withholding of information from the Justice Department. It is a violation of the law. And I think, frankly, the remedies now have to be stronger than what I earlier proposed. I think we ought to bring Pam Bondi before the Senate Judiciary Committee, demand answers as to why the department has violated the law. It's not Just that they had 30 days to go through this to do the production. They've had the whole year to do it. They promised to release the files. They haven't done it. They could have been completely ready for this moment, and they're not. Or they're just simply willfully withholding the materials. I think the Judiciary Committee should do its real oversight and bring her in and demand answers. I also think we need an inspector general's investigation of what they've done and to ride shotgun on this to make sure that they're producing everything they're required to. We should consider other remedies, including litigation if necessary. But there needs to be accountability here.
- [31:28]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
What did you think they would do? I mean, are you at all surprised that they've been less than forthcoming?
- [31:36]
Senator Adam Schiff
I'm not surprised that they have withheld, but I am surprised that it is to this scale. What I imagine would happen is they would make a production today, and then we would have to fight to find out what was redacted and what wasn't. The statute requires them to make a report to Congress within 15 days about anything that withheld and what they produced. I think we should also demand that right now, because what Todd Blanche is saying is, we've given you some now, we'll give you some later. We may give you some after that. If they read the statute as saying that they can string this out indefinitely and await giving us that cataloging of what they produced and what they haven't, we may never find the answer to that question. So at a minimum, the Justice Department needs to produce that summary, that log right now. What have they produced now? What have they withheld and why have they withheld it? And those answers need to be provided asap.
- [32:35]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
If you put back sort of your investigator, prosecutor hat on. Pam Bondi went on Fox News and told the hosts of a program there that the list is sitting on her desk. She does an about face before releasing any list. Kash Patel went on Joe Rogan and talked about 300 gigabytes of data, videotapes and pictures and whatnot. He testified before Congress that there's nothing that basically, Epstein didn't traffic any women to anyone. And we know from the survivors that that is a lie. What do you think they are all butting up? What do you think they see that turns Bondi and Patel into liars on the specific issue of the Epstein files, something they've talked about for years?
- [33:18]
Senator Adam Schiff
Well, the only one they really serve is Donald Trump. So they must see something in those files that they don't want to share with the American people. Now, it may not be evidence of criminality on Trump's behalf, but it may be evidence that embarrasses the president, reflects poorly on the president. And of course, written into that legislation is very explicit prohibition on withholding anything for reasons of reputational harm to any elected official. So that is not a legal basis for them to withhold information. But I wouldn't be surprised if, as a practical matter, they have promised the president they won't release anything that makes him look bad, even if it comes at the cost of the victims getting the full information. And that's just not going to cut it if we're going to do serious oversight, frankly, unlike what we've done so far. You know, Bondi needs to come in and actually answer questions, not just use her time to try to insult or attack members of the committee. But we need this on a bipartisan basis. The legislation passed on a bipartisan basis. Both parties ought to insist on answers. And if not, I think the public needs to hold them accountable for this continuing coverup.
- [34:27]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Danielle Bensky, one of the survivors, talked about the manipulation from Epstein and his allies that continues now that heseven though he's dead. And I wonder, as the issue becomes more front of mind for a larger Swath of Americans, 81% of Americans think Donald Trump is covering something up in the Epstein files. His numbers, I'm sure, will swell as news reports cover what is and is not in today's release. Would you consider legislation to protect the survivors who have spoken out?
- [35:04]
Senator Adam Schiff
Oh, absolutely. I mean, they have endured enough as it is. And I know many survivors have reported that they've experienced threats and terrible communications that they've received. No one should go through that additional trauma. But I agree there. The manipulation continues. It seems to continue even beyond the grave. It continues in the form of this kind of slow walking of information and release of information. It was, I think, very much a feature of the Justice Department at Pambandi, announcing that they're going to investigate at the president's demand, Democrats who are in the Epstein files, that's another manipulation. It doesn't matter whether Democrats or Republicans or independents or nonpartisan people are implicated in these files. They should all, all that information should come out. It's, I think, hard to imagine the victims getting the kind of justice they deserve unless that happening happens. And I can only imagine how vexing it is for the victims to see this kind of manipulation continue.
- [36:12]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Julie K. Brown of the Miami Herald is also on our panel today. For our coverage has made the point that the victims are so used to being stonewalled and not receiving transparency or accountability that they may not be surprised, although I'm sure they'll be greatly disappointed that their trauma continues. Are you at all surprised by the lack of production today?
- [36:39]
Senator Adam Schiff
I'm surprised by the magnitude of it. I'm not surprised that they're withholding information. Part of this is a consequence, I think, frankly, of Chief Justice Roberts giving the President absolute immunity when it comes to his instructions to the Justice Department so he can pretty much order them to do what he wants and knows that he will never be held at least criminally liable. So I'm not surprised that they're withholding. I am surprised at the magnitude of it, the audacity of it, the plain statement by Blanche that they're withholding hundreds of thousands of documents. And indeed, that might be just the tip of the iceberg. So, yes, that does surprise me. It's a kind of in your face. We will ignore the law as we choose. We will go at our own pace. Whether we provide things at all will be up to us. It's a kind of arrogance, a kind of drunkenness with power that believes you can ignore the law without any peril.
- [37:38]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
When you're president, they let you do it. Senator Adam Schiff, thank you for joining our coverage. I want to bring into our coverage justice and Intelligence reporter, my colleague, Ken Delaney. And, Ken, what are you seeing in the document release? Or I guess as importantly, what aren't you seeing?
- [37:53]
Ken Delaney
Well, Nicole, what I wanted to tell you about was I've just obtained a letter that Todd Blanche sent to members of Congress explaining what's in this latest dump and what the process was leading up to it. He said, for example, that more than 200 Justice Department lawyers were going through this stuff. But here's the key paragraph. He explains what's here. Because to be honest, Nicole, I mean, there are thousands and thousands of documents. We're all going through them. We don't know what we're looking at. We didn't even know what exactly this was. This letter sheds some light on what this includes. He says the production includes portions of the FBI New York investigative file for the 2018 Epstein criminal case for child sex trafficking and the 2019 Maxwell criminal case. Also, the FBI Miami investigative file for the 2006 Epstein criminal case for child prostitution, the FBI Miami investigative file for the 2009 Alfredo Rodriguez criminal case for obstruction of justice, the FBI New York investigative file for the 2019 Epstein death investigation, the FBI New York investigative file for a threat made against one of Epstein's victims. And investigative materials underlying the Inspector General's report into Epstein's death. Bureau of Prison materials related to Epstein's custody at the Metropolitan Correction center of New York City, including visitor logbooks, commissary records and count slips. Grand jury materials from the SDNY Epstein criminal case, the Maxwell criminal case, and the Southern District of Florida criminal case. And court records from civil and criminal cases involving Epstein, Maxwell and the Epstein estate. Now, what this doesn't explain is what was redacted and what the basis were for those redactions. But the letter says that they understand they're obligated to do that under the law, and they will do that. It's clear that the Justice Department is just doing this at its own pace, regardless of what the law says, and they're just expecting that. Look, you know, this is a huge undertaking. You're just going to have to take what we give you, and then we'll give you some more later. And, you know, I mean, what's Congress going to do, really? People might try to sue, but there really just isn't much of an enforcement mechanism here. And again, the key question is, why are we seeing a hundred page document full of grand jury material from New York that is entirely blacked out when a judge has ruled that grand jury material in this case can be released? We don't know the answer to that yet, but that's one of the big questions.
- [40:13]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Nicole, let me ask you this question. We know it isn't that they haven't gone through them. Multiple news organizations reported that DOJ and FBI deployed hundreds of agents to read through them to look for Trump's name and that they found Trump's name. And this hasn't been largely disputed. Suzy Wells herself confirms that Trump is in the Epstein files. Why can't that process support this process?
- [40:40]
Ken Delaney
Yeah, well, I would say I think it's two different processes. Right, because it's one thing to go through them and look for Trump's name, it's another thing to go through. And. And there were lawyers from the National Security Division, of all places, who were doing this for weeks to go through and decide what has to be redacted in terms of victim information. Like, we're seeing photos and then we're seeing the faces redacted. And I assume that includes some kind of victim or a photo of a victim. And so that's not in there. That's the kind of thing that they had to do pursuant to this law. And that it was an incredibly time consuming process given, you know, how many documents there are here. So it's understandable why this is taking a long time. But, you know, the DOJ is not really giving a complete explanation of, you know, what's the next step and when can we see all of it and all that. They're sort of just saying, here's some documents and in a few weeks we'll give you some more.
- [41:35]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Andrew Weissman is still here. Andrew, it doesn't seem like a normal approach for the Department of Justice to knowingly, intentionally, ahead of time, break a law. Law. Why not? I mean, if this was in good faith, why wouldn't you go to Congress and ask for emergency legislation giving them 12 more weeks to finish a process if that's actually the holdup?
- [41:56]
Andrew Weissman
I'd like to remind people that this administration started with ignoring the TikTok ban that the Supreme Court had upheld, Congress had passed the ban, and then Donald Trump just said, well, we're not doing it. And Pam Bondi went along with that. And to my mind, you have judge after judge after judge saying in all sorts of contexts that the administration has been flouting their orders and their rules. And now you have another congressional statute that the administration has decided to ignore. And it is the sort of flippant response of Todd Blanche going on TV and saying, you know, we'll get to it it, but we're not doing it. Now, you know, technically, under the criminal law that is, that is contempt, it can be prosecuted. It can be prosecuted for five years from now. Do the math on that. Unless the president gives and you know, this, there's just a huge pattern of, of all parts of the government, it is the Department of Justice that is ignoring a congressional statute. That's the thing that I, you know, I'm going to seem very naive, but like, that's the part that still gets to me where the Department of Justice is supposed to obey the law, even if you disagree with it. Lots and lots of different ways to deal with that, but they're, they're not obviously they're not doing that. And so the real concern is that while we've learned that there's from Todd Blanche's letter that Ken just that, you know, gave a summary of you, we now know what the denominator is in terms of the sort of scope of the investigations that are that were looked at, but we don't know what the numerator is. We don't know the top number. So yes, there's a huge group and we know, we know from, again, the September Department of Justice statement and the cash Patel said it as well. There's 300 gigabytes and there all these different investigations, that's. That's the denominator. But we don't know how they got to the numerator. And that's just remarkable to me because in addition to flattening the law, they just are not seeing themselves as public servants where they owe that duty to us. We don't work for them. They work for us. And again, this is such a remarkable display. And it's one of the things that. That the Epstein scandal is a microcosm of that bigger problem.
- [44:45]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Yeah. I mean, Julie, I think more than working for us in this moment, they owed something to the survivors. And I wonder if you see anything that suggests the survivors have gained any new information today.
- [44:57]
Julie K. Brown
I haven't been able to really study it yet, but I think that just the fact that we're hearing that they have redacted, so such large swaths of information, such as the grand jury report, which we know the judges have said can be made public, I think, I'm sure that they're disappointed and. But I will say they'll continue to fight. They've come this far, and I think they'll continue to voice, you know, their displeasure and their objections to how this is being handled.
- [45:28]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
All right, no one is going anywhere. We need to squeeze in a break. Much more to come. Please stay with us.
- [45:33]
Commercial Announcer
The McDonald's Snack Wrap is back.
- [45:36]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
You brought it back. Ranch snack wrap.
- [45:39]
Commercial Announcer
Spicy snack wrap.
- [45:41]
Andrew Weissman
You broke the Internet for a snack? Snack wrap is back.
- [45:48]
Lisa Rubin
Why are there so many cat litters? Maybe the litter companies want you to have something to switch to every time.
- [45:54]
Julie K. Brown
You don't find the one.
- [45:55]
Lisa Rubin
Or you could find Boxy. Boxee Pro is the first probiotic powered litter. Yep. Probiotics are right in there where they stop the bacteria that cause odors. They keep your cat's paws cleaner, too. Something to think about as he stands on your face. Find out more@boxycat.com podcasts. That's B-O-X I-E C-A-T.com podcasts and enjoy 30% off your first boxycat.com Order with Code podcast.
- [46:24]
Commercial Announcer
This message is brought to you by Apple Cart. Apple Card members can earn unlimited daily cash back on everyday purchases wherever they shop. This means you could be earning daily cash on just about anything, like a slice of pizza from your local pizza place or a latte from the corner coffee shop. Apply for Apple Card in the Wallet app to see your credit limit offer in minutes subject to credit approval. Apple card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA Salt Lake City Branch terms and more at applecard.com.
- [46:54]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
We are back with Julie, Andrew, Lisa and Ken. Julie, I know you have reporting to go do, but let me just ask you one bigger picture question. This is not a political story like most of what happens in Washington. This is a story of abuse of the most vulnerable girls and young women with far less economic and social standing than the powerful, older, wealthy elite men that abused them, in some instances raped and trafficked them, including Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. But according to the survivors, many other men. Do you see any indication in what the Justice Department has done today or has said or not said that we'll learn about any of those other men?
- [47:44]
Julie K. Brown
I think, if anything, this is giving us more indication that they're going to protect those men, unfortunately. Let's hope that when we get through this whole, you know, information, all the information that they're going to release not only today, but hopefully in the days to come, that they do be more transparent. I know that's what the victims want, but I think that there's a good reason. You know, these are powerful men. They want their reputations intact. And I, I there was probably been a lot of pressure put upon the Justice Department to keep their names concealed.
- [48:22]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Julie, thank you so much for your time today. If you need to run and do reporting, please go. And we'll be lucky to consume your journalism as it comes out. Let me pull you back in. Lisa rubin, I mean, Prince is no longer a prince. Larry Summers has a different job at Harvard University and at the company in which he served. The Epstein estate has shared images that I know some of the survivors find traumatic just to see those images and mementos. What has the Department of Justice added to our understanding of what happened?
- [48:58]
Lisa Rubin
It's not entirely clear to me yet what they've added, but I will tell you that they've added to the trauma just in the way that they have produced materials today, whether purposefully or not. These documents were supposed to be searchable in the very plain language of the text of the bill. It says they had to be delivered in a searchable and publicly accessible format. And right now, as we sit Here today at 4:54, the full Epstein Library on the Department of Justice's website doesn't have search functionality. Now there is a note on their website that says due to technical limitations in the format of certain materials, for example, handwritten text Portions of these documents may not be electronically searchable and may produce unreliable search results, but they are entirely not functionally searchable right now. And so if you're a survivor sitting at home and you've been waiting for this day, that doesn't help you a whole lot. In fact, it has the potential to re traumatize you because what do you have to do to get at this information? You have to click through each and every image. And the images, I should tell you that the photos are placed in files indistinguishable from things like interview notes. So if you are a person who wants to see how does this relate to me? What did they know about me? Or can I see the notes of the interview that I gave with them? If you're looking for that easily, even based on what you recall that you told them, obviously knowing that your name's going to be blacked out, you don't have that Lux. It's not a luxury. Right. It was something that was supposed to be a given. You don't have that today. And so I'm thinking about all of the survivors that we've had network who have so generously shared of their time and their hearts and how this isn't what it was supposed to be for them, even just in a purely technical sense. The Department of Justice has fallen down on their promise of transparency.
- [50:52]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
I mean, Andrew Weissman, I think it's a real test for Thomas Massie and Senator Kennedy and some of the Republicans who don't deserve any credit for telling the truth on this issue. They're simply being led by their constituents and by the survivors who have not been partisan in any of their calls for transparency. But I wonder if it's as clear to you as it is to Lisa and Julie from what you've seen so far, that the Department of Justice didn't even pay any semblance of respect to the spirit of the law that was passed.
- [51:28]
Andrew Weissman
Well, I think the point that's worth sort of foot stomping is one of the Department of Justice rules that is that reflects a congressional determination is the is the rights of victims. That's not, that's not it was a matter of just courtesy. You actually have a, you have an obligation to run things by and to arm and get very to the victims. And that didn't happen by all accounts, at least here.
- [52:03]
Nicole (Host/Anchor)
Andrew Weissman, thank you for being part of our breaking news coverage. Lisa Rubin, Kendelian, you're going to keep reading. So we're going to keep calling on both of you consider yourselves warned. When we come back, we'll talk about what, if anything, we are learning what, if anything, we're seeing and not seeing with two survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse who have been calling for transparency and accountability for a very long time. We'll get to all that and much more after a short break.
- [52:30]
Commercial Announcer
This ad is brought to you by Vive Healthcare, the makers of Tobito, Dolutegravir lamivudine If you're living with hiv, look ahead. Do chase a dream. Do consider how you stay undetectable. Do learn about Devato Divato is a complete HIV treatment by prescription only for some people 12 and older. Your doctor will determine if Devato is right for you. Do find out how many medicines are in your HIV pack pill. Most HIV pills contain three or four. Devato is as effective with just two medicines. No other complete HIV pill contains fewer medicines than Dovato. Do dream about tomorrow.
- [53:07]
Lisa Rubin
It is unknown if Dovato is safe.
- [53:09]
Julie K. Brown
And effective if you have HIV and Hepatitis B. If you have Hep B. Don't stop Dovato without talking to your doctor as it may get worse or harder to treat. Don't take Dovato if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking Dofetilide due to.
- [53:21]
Lisa Rubin
Serious or life threatening side effects. If you have a rash or allergic.
- [53:24]
Julie K. Brown
Reaction symptoms, stop Dovato and get medical help right away. Other serious or life threatening side effects include severe liver problems and lactic acid buildup. If you're female or obese, you may be more at risk. Tell your doctor about your medicines or supplements, medical conditions, liver or kidney problems, pregnancy, breastfeeding or planned pregnancy.
- [53:43]
Commercial Announcer
Do ask your doctor about fewer medicines. Visit devato.com or call 1-877-844-8872 to learn more.