← Deadline: White House
Deadline: White House
“Bombshell after bombshell”
00:42:10
Alicia Menendez is in for Nicolle Wallace. As the DOJ continues to drop heavily redacted file after heavily redacted file, more questions arise about Donald Trump’s relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
Loading summary
Transcript75 lines
- [00:00]
A
The holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info in more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second.
- [00:12]
B
If your identity is stolen, our US.
- [00:14]
A
Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed your money back.
- [00:17]
C
Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less Holiday worry with LifeLock.
- [00:25]
A
Save up to 40% your first year.
- [00:26]
D
Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply.
- [00:30]
E
Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices you know and trust. Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world. Our name is new, but you'll find the same commitment to justice, progress and the truth that you've relied on for decades. We'll continue to cover the day's news, ask the tough questions and explain how it impacts you. Ms. Now. Same mission, new name. Learn more at Ms. Now.
- [01:07]
C
Hi everyone, it is 4 o' clock here in New York. I'm Alicia Menendez in for Nicole Wallace. There is bombshell after bombshell in the latest release of the Epstein files, each revelation adding more questions about the relationship Donald Trump had with the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Among the 30,000 or so pages released overnight, an email from an assistant U.S. attorney back in January of 2020 flagging flight records. It reads, quote, the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported or that we were aware. On one flight in 1993, Trump and Epstein are the only two listed passengers. On another, the only three passengers are Epstein, Trump and then 20 year old name redacted on two other flights. Two of the passengers respond respectively were women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case. That email offers no details on the identity of the 20 year old. The prosecutor's claim that Trump traveled on Epstein's jet directly contradicts what Trump said in a truth social post last year, that he, quote, was never on Epstein's plane. In a statement that sounds more like something Trump's lawyers would release than, you know, a government agency in charge of enforcing the rule of law. The Justice Department says that the files released overnight contain, quote, untrue and sensationalist claims about Donald Trump. But as the email from January 2020 points out, the Justice Department in Donald Trump's first term was finding things that directly contradict the person they are now publicly defending. New revelations and new questions about the Epstein case in the wake of the release of thousands of documents is where we Start today. I want to bring in New York Times Justice Department reporter Glenn Thrush. Plus legal analyst Christy Greenberg is here. She is a former criminal Division deputy chief at EST and a host of the YouTube show Courtside. Also with U.S. national Security and intelligence analyst Michael Feinberg. He is a former assistant special agent in charge at the FBI, also a fellow at Lawfare. Glenn, the files released today tell me, how do they advance our understanding of the Epstein case?
- [03:22]
D
Well, I think the first thing that we should note is Donald Trump is once again front and center in this issue. We had last week, the first tranche of these that were released. There was a focus on Bill Clinton. There was all this triumphal tweeting by White House staffers and MAGA adjacent influencers talking about how this was a Democratic scandal and how it had ensnared Bill Clinton. There was that infamous picture of Bill Clinton in the hot tub. Well, the documents today, again, whatever their import or lack of importance, thrust Trump right back in the center of this and really raise questions, questions that we've been raising all along about Trump's attempt to distance himself from Epstein. These two were enormously close. And if it is verified that this investigative briefing document is in fact, accurate and that Trump had been on Epstein's plane more times than he had previously disclosed, that's going to be a significant issue. But in general, what I would say is, however they tried to put this out, this is obviously the day before, the day before Christmas. I don't know what we're going to see tomorrow. This is a controversy that is not going to go away, and their attempts to divert it from the president, I think, are going to be manifestly unsuccessful.
- [04:44]
C
Michael, let's talk about one of the more substantive findings in these files, which is that email from 2020 about flights that Trump took with Epstein. It ends with, didn't want any of this to be a surprise down the road. Why do you think that is? What does that signify to you?
- [05:05]
B
It's pretty common for Justice Department personnel to flag things for superiors that might generate substantial press inquiries or critical coverage or just anything that could really impact the public narrative of the cases on which they're working. It's not necessarily indicative of anything nefarious. It's just that Justice Department spokespeople need to be able to speak to whatever is at the top of the news on any given day. Where this becomes problematic is that in the context of Trump continually saying that he had nothing to do with Epstein and he's not going to be in the files, and he has no idea what's going on with this matter. What could have been an ordinarily in ordinary flagging of potential news now looks like part of a cover up.
- [06:06]
D
Right.
- [06:06]
C
And Christy, I just want to stay on the flights for a minute. The FBI found that Trump flew on Epstein's plane eight times from the period 1993 to 1996. Why did it come as a surprise to prosecutors at the time?
- [06:22]
F
So there was some language in that email that I thought was interesting. They said they flagged it for situational awareness. So that suggests to me, at least, and again, we don't know, but that language suggests to me that prosecutors were not seriously investigating Donald Trump at this time. I think if they had been, they would be using very different language. So if they're not seriously investigating Donald Trump, then yeah, they're kind of flagging it to put it on people's radar. It's not surprising that they wouldn't know about it because if they weren't really looking at him and, you know, the fact that he's on at least eight flights suggests that certainly a very close friendship with the man that Trump's own Department of justice has called the most infamous pedophile of all time. The fact that they fled, the prosecutors flags the fact that two of those flights involved were with passengers for potential witnesses in the Maxwell case. The reason to flag that for supervisors is if down the road there is a trial. And you have to, in advance of that trial, turn over reports of what these individuals have said as well as these flight logs. Defense counsel could question these witnesses about the flights that they took with Donald Trump. Donald Trump was the president at this time. This email was sent in January of 2020. And so were there a trial during his presidency. This could become something that comes up at the trial that may shift focus away from Maxwell, who it was that they were trying to convict. And so this is something that the prosecutors are wanting to be aware of and think about how to deal with in advance of trial. So I think those are the kinds of things they're looking about because their target at that time was Ghislaine Maxwell. That's who they were looking at. That's who they, they were charging, and that's who they were anticipating taking to trial. So this idea of Trump, they, they would be surprised because they weren't, it appears, at least seriously investigating him. And again, like with somebody who's got that big a name is the President of the United States, that's an easy way for a trial to really get sidetracked.
- [08:28]
C
Glenn, there was another email that was released. It shows that the FBI was trying to get in touch with 10 co conspirators. Let me read you part of that email. Three have been located in Florida and served GJ subpoenas. One in Boston, one in New York City, and one in Connecticut were located and served. They were served subpoenas or do we know anything about what happened with these co conspirators?
- [08:51]
D
We do not. And I think that's going to be the subject of further scrutiny over the next days and weeks. It's very important to sort of note, and I just kind of want to put this umbrella caveat out about all this stuff. One of the reasons why these files were not just kind of dumped into the public domain years ago is because a lot of the material that you're looking at, and let me just say the last two documents that you surfaced are apparently credible federal law enforcement documents whose provenance is not under question, though the contents of them might be. But a lot of this material that we're seeing was never intended to be released into the public. For instance, we saw what appears to be a fraudulent document connecting Epstein to Larry Nassar that a lot of reporters spent much of the last 12 hours tracking down. That turned out not to be the case. So I think what we're seeing, seeing right now are investigative leads for reporters and things that are being surfaced in the public domain that are putting together a more fulsome picture of what these relationships were like than anything that we can really draw conclusions from. And I would just really caution people from drawing a lot of conclusions. The one thing I would say is we are talking about a relationship with Trump and Epstein that has been well chronicled, and these interactions took place essentially three decades ago. I think what we're going to want to know from the White House and as reporters over the next few days and weeks is what really was the nature of that relationship. Trump has always said, has said repeatedly, he said it last week, that he kicked Epstein out of Mar a Lago because of Epstein's behavior. We've also heard reporting over the years about business relationships gone sour. I think Trump is gonna have to, whether he likes it or not, whether he does it personally or through intermediaries, explain more significant details about his relationship with Epstein, how long it lasted, what the fracture was, and really what it was that they engaged in socially. So there's there, I think, for Trump and the White House, this is not a positive result. Yeah, yeah, sorry.
- [11:08]
C
I take your caveat about the sort of umbrella and the way in which we need to be thinking, to whom does he answer those questions?
- [11:17]
D
To his own people. I mean, we've already seen schism take place with Marjorie Taylor Greene, and a lot of the women who have been in the MAGA movement have been enormously focused on this. Trump himself has not been an enthusiastic pursuer of the Epstein files issue, but he did very little to dissuade it during the campaign. He promoted a lot of conspiracy theories. And I think insofar as this energy, this skepticism about government and federal law enforcement was a tailwind for him, that was working in his favor. He stoked it. And I think now he's going to have to answer to his own people. I think this is one of the very few issues and we've seen it take place over the last six, seven months, that really wedges Donald Trump from his base at a moment, by the way, when he is already seeing fractures and people are looking forward to a midterms that could be very, very deleterious to him. And that's another element here. If the Dems retake the house, I think we're gonna see Epstein. Epstein, Epstein.
- [12:22]
C
Christy, I am not done with my questions about these 10 coconspirators because one, it is a reminder that this is bigger than Donald Trump, always has been bigger than Donald Trump. It's also a reminder of the number of people who are potentially involved or implicated here. And it also, I want you to take a listen to that, or rather I'm gonna read to you that unsigned memo that do put out back in July that started this firestorm in the first place. It read, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. Help me square that with the fact that the FBI counted at least 10 potential co conspirators.
- [13:05]
F
So the fact that SDNY was looking at 10 potential coconspirators suggests to me that there was some investigation because what they are saying in those emails is talking about at the time that Epstein is being arrested after that arrest, sending out FBI agents to go talk to these individuals, try and get them on the record, try and get them to make statements to federal law enforcement. And that to me suggests that these were people of interest that were being investigated at that point. Otherwise, I'm not sure why you would be looking to talk to them. Maybe just to get information on Epstein. But the fact that they're identified as co conspirators suggests that, that they would also have criminal exposure here. So one thing I would be looking for in the files that I don't believe we've seen are the records of any of those communications with these 10 individuals. Now, out of the 10, seven of those names were redacted. It's unclear to me why under the act, seven of those names would be redacted. It's possible that at least some of those individuals are also victims, in which case a redaction of their names would be appropriate. But if they are not victims, and if they are not individuals who are currently under investigation, it's not clear to me why we don't know the names. In fact, I thought that was the whole point of the act, is that people wanted to know who else was involved with Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking. So. But I would expect to see in these files the contacts with those individuals from FBI. And if there were interviews that were done, the FBI 302s, which are reports of those interviews, I would expect to see that in the file, and I don't believe we've seen those yet.
- [14:45]
C
Again, more questions than answers, Michael. Here's what Cash Patel had to say under oath back in September to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Take a listen. Who, if anyone, did Epstein traffic these young women to besides himself?
- [15:00]
D
Himself? There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited.
- [15:11]
C
So the answer is no.
- [15:12]
D
1 for the information that we have in the files, in the case file.
- [15:19]
C
Okay, so just stick with me here, Michael, but if you grant the possibility that a co conspirator here was not someone Epstein trafficked to, what are the questions then we should all be asking to find out whether what Kash Patel said under oath and in a public testimony was in fact true.
- [15:37]
B
So there's actually quite a bit in that question. First of all, a co conspirator could be somebody who provided logistical support for what Epstein was doing. It could be somebody who helped launder money to obfuscate his activities. It could be somebody who introduced him to the victims in sort of a weird Lolita esque grooming scheme. So it's not necessarily the case that a co conspirator would be somebody who was actually, I unfortunately don't know a better word to use, but who was a direct recipient or beneficiary of Epstein's criminal human trafficking schemes as to whether Cash Patel was telling the truth in his testimony there or really in any of his testimony over time for us to believe him that Epstein never trafficked anybody. To anyone except for himself would really require us to disbelieve the statements of literally dozens of victims who have talked about extensively with government officials and with the media and with each other and in published books about how they were essentially treated as fungible commodities for sex by Epstein and passed around his oligarchic, rich clientele. At the end of the day, I believe those victims a lot more than I believe Cash Patel.
- [17:22]
C
Christy, in light of all of these documents, if you were a congressional investigator, what would you be focused on next?
- [17:29]
F
Well, just to follow up on, on. On that point, in these documents, there is a document from an individual referenced as a who was residing at the Royal residence. One can infer that it is Prince Andrew asking Ghislaine Maxwell to find him inappropriate friends. That, to me, is very damning evidence. It certainly suggests that. That. That he was in fact a person to whom these young girls were trafficked. Inappropriate friends is just. I don't know that that doesn't even seem a tough code for any investigator to crack. It seems like there's something there. And so, I mean, that's just one example that suggest that sort of suggests that what Kash Patel said is incorrect. And I would also note that it's very clearly contrary to what Ghislaine Maxwell said in her proffer with Todd Blanche. She said, I wasn't communicating with Andrew. I wasn't in touch with him. That is clearly untrue if you believe this document is authentic. She also said that categorically, she never at any time set up Andrew to have relations with any other human being. Again, this document strongly suggests otherwise. And I just want to point out Todd Blanche had access to this document. This is a document from the Epstein files, not a document from the Epstein estate that he can claim he's never seen. This is from DOJ's own files. So why would you not ask her about this? It certainly there are a lot of issues with Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony and reasons to believe she was lying at various points in her testimony. But this is a document that any prosecutor worth their salt would show her and ask her, what does this mean? Who is this? What is going on? So I think, you know, to your question, there are going to be a lot of those threads that come up through these files where there are congressional investigators will say, hey, this seems like something we would want to get more answers to. We can go through sdny. Investigators apparently tried to reach Prince Andrew. They tried to contact the UK to be able to interview him and were unsuccessful in doing so. Certainly congressional investigators can try to pick up on those threads that apparently, you know, were not, were not seen through for whatever reason. I think there's going to be a lot more of that as more files.
- [19:54]
C
Come to light, a real glimpse into the many institutional failures that occurred. Glenn Thrush, thank you so much for getting us started. The rest of you are sticking with me. When we come back, we're going to speak to a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse about what she next wants from the Department of Justice. Plus, House Democrats continue to call it a cover up and point to serious questions about the relationship between Epstein and Donald Trump. Congressman Jamie Raskin joins us ahead. And later in the show, we've got another crack in the Republican wall. This time defections from a conservative think tank. The staffers trying to run far, far away from Trumpism. All those stories and more when Deadline White House continues after this. Don't go anywhere. One of my favorite pieces of advice, think big to accomplish big things. Have no fear of failure.
- [20:41]
G
It really does come down to just trusting herself.
- [20:44]
C
Julia Boorstin hosts CNBC Changemakers and power players. Listen now, wherever you get your podcasts.
- [20:53]
G
These days are so hard on survivors because we just don't know what is gonna come out. And when you set yourself up to be able to wait and then when you see these bits and pieces and you're told maybe it won't happen or there are so many variables here that it's really hard to brace yourself for a thousand different outcomes A through Z. So I think survivors are really feeling that right now and tension is very high.
- [21:20]
C
That was Dani Bensky with Nicole on this program last week. She is among the Epstein survivors demanding full transparency and accountability from the Trump administration. Let's bring in Danny Bensky. Thanks so much for being here. So that was last week. This is now. You've had a little time to metabolize what is happening. How do you feel?
- [21:40]
F
Not great.
- [21:43]
G
You know, it hasn't been. We didn't anticipate that it would be an easy process, but we thought that we'd at least be able to access things. And it's taken me more time to look around files and find things. I just feel like nothing is where it needs to be. The redactions are off the wall. Like it doesn't make any sense. I saw a file where Virginia's name is out there for the world to see. And Andrew was red.
- [22:11]
C
Prince Andrew.
- [22:11]
G
Prince Andrew. Yeah, yeah. Andrew was rejected. And to me, why are we protecting perpetrators? I don't understand that. And it just feels so intentionally careless at every single turn. And I want to say, you know, for so many survivors or for myself, you know, we're not a monolith. So I do want to speak to my own story. Jeffrey often made us feel like we were the only ones in the room, that we were the only ones that mattered, and then would turn around and make us feel like we were disposable and that we were just one, you know, like, thrown away. And we would often feel like ghosts moving through wherever, whatever space we were in, and especially in the mansion. I remember often feeling like I didn't exist or I didn't matter because there were so many people who watched me walk in. There were maids, there were butlers. They watched me walk through the house. And I just really struggled with that for so many years. And now I feel like, in a way, that's exactly what this DOJ is doing to us all over again. Because we passed this law, right? And that felt. We felt seen. We felt like we did this together, and it was momentous. And now it's sort of like time to fade to the background again. And we're not going to. It just feels like a big slap in the face. And the DOJ owes us so many answers.
- [23:37]
C
I appreciate everything you just said. I also think the difference this time is that you have a miracle watching, and it makes it extraordinarily difficult for this story to fade away. When you talk about the fact that survivors aren't a monolith, this is the type of thing we can say, but what does it mean to you? And what, especially as these documents get released, where are you seeing those fault lines?
- [24:00]
G
It's a really good question. I think we were so united on that day of the Capitol because our fight was all the same. Now that the files. Some of the files have been released, and I don't know what the exact percentage is, but, you know, we demanded the files all come out at once for a reason. We did not want to see this slow trickle out where people are waiting for their turn, waiting for their information. But I think as people are investigating their own pieces, some parts of this feel really vindicating. They feel really validating. That 1996 report that we found of Maria. I can't. Like, I want to cry when I think about what that means for all of us. My abuse wouldn't have happened if anybody believed her, and I will scream that from the rooftops every time. But then again, you know, Virginia's name is not Redacted. She has a family. She has people out there who can now see that. The whole world can see that. And that's really disheartening and disappointing. On the flip side of that, I've been looking for my 302 for months, some for a year, like some people have been looking for years, and I don't have it. And so that is really disheartening. I've found small little breadcrumbs of things for my own story, but nothing substantial yet. And I know that there are a few that are in the same bucket as me.
- [25:19]
C
So can you give me a sense? When you were talking to Nicole last week, you said, I'm sort of bracing for all of these possible outcomes. What were the possibilities that you were and are bracing for?
- [25:31]
G
Yeah, I think one of the possibilities was that we just didn't think we'd see anything. The slow rollout is actually, like, worse, I think, in a lot of ways. And the pieces of this where it's just so. I find it so difficult to search. So for me, that feels really difficult because you're constantly living in this state of reliving the hardest memories. I mean, pictures that I sat there and stared at, all the pictures from the mansion and, you know, I remember being in most of those rooms, and I remember sitting in the office and I remember having really hard conversations, and I just so desperately wanted it to be like the Friday deadline was going to be met. I would sit down, I would look through it all, I would know it was there, and then I'd be able to have a clear path forward and move on from this part of it, because we knew that this would be the beginning of the path, but we can't even. We have so many questions. And so, like, we just more answer more questions that have gone unanswered than actual answers.
- [26:31]
C
Just to be clear. Do you think there are, to your knowledge, are there any survivors who do feel that way? Given the initial release of the files?
- [26:38]
G
I think everybody's pretty disappointed in it.
- [26:41]
C
There's obviously an ongoing conversation in Congress about how they're going to continue to push this forward. We're going to talk with Congressman Jamie Raskin in a little bit about sort of the possible legal remedies to hold DOJ accountable. Folks who are making the decisions to try to gain full transparency. What do you want to see Congress do at this point?
- [27:04]
G
I think they owe us a conversation first to talk about why the redactions have been what they are and where the rest of the files are. I think this the 10 co conspirators that came up today, it's a really good lead. So I would imagine somebody reported, right? So who reported? Why wasn't it followed through on? Why were they subpoenaed in the first place? Like all of these questions, right? And I feel like if we have DOJ in a room, we can actually ask them, you know, and we can say like, is there anything that we can help you with? And I think that's where there's a huge disconnect. Cover up, whatever you want to call it. We've been yelling about this from the beginning where it's like, if survivors could just work together with doj, I promise we can get you the information a lot faster. So can we please just find a way forward together?
- [27:55]
C
Which of course begs the question why they have not taken you up on that invitation. Dani Menske, thank you so much.
- [28:01]
G
Thank you.
- [28:02]
C
All right, after the break, what legal options, if any, there are to keep the Justice Department from violating the law and ignoring congressional oversight? We've got much more to come. We'll be right back.
- [28:16]
G
Not sure if you have the experience to start your dream job. Good news these days it's the skills that count. Udemy can help you get those in demand.
- [28:25]
E
Skills? Want to be an AI mastermind?
- [28:27]
G
Learn with us.
- [28:28]
C
Game developer.
- [28:29]
F
We've got you covered.
- [28:30]
G
AWS certified cloud practitioner.
- [28:33]
F
We can help you prep.
- [28:34]
E
You'll learn from real world experts who love what they do so that you can love what you do. Go to udemy.com for the skills to.
- [28:42]
G
Get you started and get set for your dream job.
- [28:46]
E
Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the briefing with Jen Psaki and more Voices you know and trust. Ms. Now is your source for news, opinion and the world. Learn more at Ms. Now.
- [29:03]
C
This latest drop of Epstein files by the Justice Department is leaving members of Congress who have been calling for transparency with even more suspicions of a cover up by the Trump administration. When it comes to the revelations of Trump's ties to Epstein and of the 10 potential co conspirators we've been discussing House oversight. Democrats said this today, quote, the new DOJ documents raise serious questions about the relationship between Epstein and Donald Trump. And why are Epstein's co conspirators being protected? What else is the DOJ hiding? This is a White House cover up and we are going to end it. And on whether Congress is considering legal action against the administration, here's what Congressman Robert Garcia said on this program just yesterday.
- [29:45]
A
The fact that they haven't Dropped all these files on the first day is the bigger issue. Look, we're looking at a variety of options, and I think the. But the public should also be clear that we've been anticipating this. And so we've known for the last few weeks that this was a possible scenario that they wouldn't release the files. So I've been working directly with Jamie Raskin, who is, you're aware, is one of the best constitutional attorneys in the United States. We have some legal remedies that we have been exploring for several weeks now that are moving forward.
- [30:15]
C
I want to bring in ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. Congressman, can you talk us through the legal remedies you're considering here?
- [30:23]
F
Here?
- [30:25]
A
Yeah. Well, let's see this. The statute itself, the one authored by Massie and Khanna, does not have enforcement provisions in it. So we're forced to look at what are the other enforcement vehicles that exist in federal law or in the Constitution. And one of them, of course, would be to refer the uncooperative people, the Department of Justice, for prosecution, but of course, were referring them essentially to themselves, to the Department of Justice. So that seems to have limited utility in this situation. Congress does have the inherent power to confer sanctions of its own. In other words, if the majority that passed this statute were to hang together, we could move forward to say that officials at the Department of Justice are in contempt of Congress and then to offer a whole panoply of civil or, indeed criminal sanctions if it came down to it. But I would say, you know, before going to that point, really what we need here is a special master to be appointed who's outside of the Department of Justice, who is a neutral magistrate or judge, who would get all of the material, who everybody would be able to trust to actually turn over the material with the appropriate redactions to protect the victims and survivors, but also not to be covering up in the interests of various political factors for other people involved. And I would think that that's something that we should try to get a bipartisan majority behind in Congress, the appointment of a special master. Because leaving it up to Pam Bondi and Kash Patel is obviously not working to break out of the political stalemate we're in.
- [32:15]
C
Okay, help me understand a few things here, Congressman, when you say that the special master would be able to actually put together all of the documents and files that are necessary to understand what is happening here, does that mean the entirety of the Epstein files or a different scope of documents?
- [32:32]
A
Well, you know, we could operate in different ways, but the key point is that we need someone who's an honest broker who Congress could actually trust to be delivering these things in a non political and non strategic way. The statute simply called for turning over the entire document with the appropriate redactions. And instead what we're getting is this staged disclosure of different parts of it with seemingly excessive and unnecessary redactions over large parts of the materials. So it would be best to have somebody like a neutral magistrate, a special master put in charge of doing this. And that's something that, you know, we can raise when we get back into Congress whether that will be a solution. But the Department of Justice needs to understand that we're not going to accept this sandbagging of congressional intent. Congress has wanted to see complete disclosure with appropriate redactions in the interest of vindicating the interests of the survivors in seeing the truth and accountability for everybody who was involved, who has not yet seen anything like accountability because of the various cover ups that have taken place over the decades in this case.
- [33:57]
C
Help me understand a few things, Congressman, about the files that were released, released in the past 24 hours. You have those 10 potential coconspirators. Why would the Justice Department redact their names?
- [34:10]
A
Well, it's anybody's guess. You know, it does seem like, it does seem like President Trump himself has left fingerprints all over this question. And so who knows? You know, this goes all the way back to Alex Acosta's original determination not to follow through on a federal indictment that included 60 separate charges of everything from criminal conspiracy to human trafficking to prostitution and so on, to throw all of that out in return for one state count of solicitation. And that's when the political double dealing began and the COVID up began of a lot of other co conspirators and accomplices in this massive, decades long, billion dollar international child sex trafficking conspiracy.
- [35:04]
C
My next question about what happens here specifically sort of your call potentially for a special master, is where Republicans would be on this question. Let me read you what one of your Republican colleagues told Ms. Now about how DOJ has handled the release of these files. This is what they said. We're all kind of pissed off about this. This isn't what was directed by Congress. So it's really a slap in the face face. And it's like, who are they protecting? Are they protecting the victims or are they protecting the predators? Which one is it? Pick a side. I mean, your sense, when you talk to your Republican colleagues about the extent to which they are losing faith in this doj, their level of frustration. Do you think you can get enough of them to sign onto something like a special master to actually put this in the hands of a neutral arbiter?
- [35:52]
A
Well, of course, we're losing one of the Republicans to Congress who was with us, Marjorie Taylor Greene. And you know, people's attention may be in other places, but we have got to try to maintain the focus on actually getting the information out. I mean, the person you're quoting framed it properly. Is the Department of Justice protecting the victims and survivors or is it protecting the perpetrators and the predators? And one clue as an answer to that question comes with respect to what Todd Blanche did after the subpoen, Ghislaine Maxwell. He immediately made a beeline over to Ghislaine Maxwell, who herself was a convicted predator in this case, to try to find out what exactly she might testify about. And when he considered himself satisfied with her prospective answers, she got all kinds of sweetheart deals to go to a minimum security prison with room service, et cetera, et cetera. Well, as far as we know, he has not tried to get in touch with any of the victims, any of the survivors that you can even see on TV now who have really raised the entire conscience of the country about this. They are coming forward to say they will remain silent no longer and they want a genuine reckoning with the reality of what happened and they want to see that the perpetrators are held accountable. Which side is the Department of Justice on? And so far all of the signals suggest that they are on the side of the perpetrators and covering up this decades long conspiracy which lasts right up to today.
- [37:33]
C
It is really wild that you have the Department of Justice putting out a statement inviting survivors to bring any potential information to them at the same time that survivors have been begging the DOJ to meet with them. The entire process is nothing short of Kafkaesque. Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you as always so much for joining us, talking us through through this after the break, the legal realities of what Congress says they want to do. Much more ahead. Do not go anywhere. I want to bring back Christy Greenberg and Michael Feinberg. Thank you both so much for continuing to be a part of this conversation. Can I just get your reaction, Christy, to what we heard from Congressman Raskin? The possibility of Congress appointing a special master, a, you know, a unbiased arbiter who would be able to work with DOJ to get the files. I mean, on some level it feels like that's what the initial legislation passed through Congress was about. It was about creating a legal mechanism that the DOJ would be held to. If they are not, if they do not feel beholden to legislation passed by Congress, why would they then feel as though they needed to operate within the parameters of the appointment of a special matter?
- [38:47]
F
Exactly. And I don't know that they would. And so for me at least, I think that the next step is really for Congress to hold hearings and in particular to have Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche come and testify before Congress. I think there are real questions here about, about what these reductions are and the basis for those reductions under the act. Fifteen days after the publication of, of records, there has to be a summary provided of categories, for example, that were redacted and summaries for reasons. But again, it's a summary. So I don't know that what they're going to give us is document by document. Here's what was, here's why there were redactions that were made. I don't know that they will be that specific because it's not clear from the language of the act that that's required. So I think that they need to answer more broadly here. If, as Todd Blanche said when he went and did his press tour this weekend, Donald Trump wants full transparency, if that is his goal, then why is it that both apparently Donald Trump and this Department of Justice, that they are asserting various privileges? This is not about protecting victims. I think everyone agrees that victims names and identifying information should be redacted. This is a about privileges that the Department of Justice is asserting actively as to things like their work product. These prosecution memos where you're seeing all black, there is one in particular that was dated November 5, 2020. And it is a memo to the department, to the Deputy Attorney General, who at that time would have been Jeffrey Rosen. Underneath it, it says Audrey Strauss. She was the SDNY US Attorney attorney. And the heading is anticipated charges. Now that data is significant because it is after Ghislaine Maxwell was already charged. So who else was SDNY proposing to the deputy Attorney General to charge? That is that is a key question. And they have redacted that. That is not about victim information protection. That is about work product deliberative process. They that is the Department of Justice claiming privileges. Is that as I understood the act, the act was designed to not have that kind of information withheld. There are various categories in the act where you can withhold information. Privileged information is not itemized as one of them. They've also pointed to attorney client privilege, which begs the question, who is the client, I would argue we are the client, the public, not Donald Trump. So if Donald Trump is asserting any privileges, he should go on the record and say what privileges he is asserting. Otherwise, don't go out and say that you're trying to be transparent if you're trying to hide information from the American people.
- [41:33]
C
That question you asked, you asked it. We were together on set. It has been ringing in my head ever since. Who in fact, is the client here? Michael Feinberg. I only have a few minutes left, but I do want to talk about the fact that the people most impacted by all of this are the survivors. If this DOJ were actually concerned with their well being, with their safety and with justice for them, them, what would this process look like instead?
- [41:59]
B
It would look incredibly different in a couple of different ways. First of all, DOJ and the FBI traditionally had very robust departments that dealt with nothing except for helping deal with the needs and questions of victims and of witnesses to heinous, horrendous crimes. But that is not a priority for this administration. So those departments have been massively cut down in terms of resources and personnel. Second, if they really wanted transparency and they really believed in the conspiracy theories that they themselves were pushing, it would not have taken an act of Congress. It would have taken a referral to the inspector general to simply look into this matter and figure out whether anything was covered up.
- [42:57]
C
Michael Feinberg, Christy Greenberg, thank you both so much for joining us today, sharing your expertise. When we come back, breaking news this afternoon, the United States Supreme Court issuing a ruling blocking the Trump administration. For now. We're going to tell you about it next. A massive blow to the Trump administration from the Supreme Court. They have just rejected the administration's bid to deploy National Guard in Illinois. In an unsigned order, the administration had told the court that troops were needed to protect federal agents involved in immigration enforcement in the Chicago area. The decision appears to be six, three, with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch noting their dissents. It is a rare defeat for Trump with this court. Meanwhile, a similar Deployment in Washington, D.C. a federal enclave with less local control, has also been challenged in crime court, but there has been no ruling yet. We're going to stay on both stories after a break. The case the FBI ignored for almost 30 years. We're going to talk with the lawyer representing Maria Farmer, a victim of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse who first went to authorities back in 1996. We're going to sneak in a quick break. We'll be right back.
- [44:11]
E
Home to the Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, the Briefing with Jen Psaki and more voices. You know, Andrew, Ms. NOW is your source for news, opinion and the world. Our name is new, but you'll find the same commitment to justice, progress and the truth that you've relied on for decades. We'll continue to cover the day's news, ask the tough questions, and explain how it impacts you. Ms. Now. Same mission, new name. Learn more at Ms. Now.