Jay-Z and the Epstein files

Summary

Fame Under Fire — "Jay-Z and the Epstein Files"

Host: Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty
Guest: Sha (Sean) Kent, trial attorney
Date: February 5, 2026

---

Overview

This episode of Fame Under Fire tackles the bombshell inclusion of Jay-Z’s name in the recently unredacted "Epstein files," and the resulting storm of accusations, rumors, and online discourse—including explosive tweets by Nicki Minaj. Host Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty, joined by resident trial attorney Sha Kent, unpacks what the Epstein files really are, what Jay-Z’s mention means (and doesn’t mean), how public accusations ripple through celebrity culture, and the legal and social fallout of high-profile Twitter feuds and misinformation. The episode serves to fact-check, contextualize, and offer sober analysis amid a swirl of outrage and speculation.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. What Are the Epstein Files?

[02:15–04:40]

• Kent explains the "Epstein files" as a vast investigative archive, not a list of confirmed criminals.
  • Quote [02:42, Sha]:
    "All the Epstein files are... just an investigative file... It's every bit of investigation that possibly could have happened against Jeffrey Epstein, whether it was about him or tangentially touched him."
• The files contain everything from confirmed evidence to unsubstantiated tips—even the most tenuous connection to Epstein could mean a name is included.
• Victims' privacy concerns: Many survivors' names were released unredacted, causing retraumatization (see [04:21–06:12]).

2. How Do Names (Like Jay-Z’s) Get In the Files?

[06:12–09:24]

• Host provides a step-by-step account of how to find Jay-Z's mention in the files.
• Tip lines: The FBI tip line means anyone can leave information, and many tips are unverified—“You could call the tip line and... your name in it involving Jay Z and they would have had that in there.”
• Quote [09:24, Sha]:
  "Just by being in the file means nothing... This happens every single day."

3. What Specifically Is Said About Jay-Z?

[08:14–10:40]

• The only reference to Jay-Z is from a tip filed in 2019 about an alleged incident in 1996, involving an unnamed victim claiming to have awoken in the presence of Harvey Weinstein and Jay-Z at what might have been Epstein's mansion. No direct allegation of criminality against Jay-Z is present.
• Host clarifies: Jay-Z’s inclusion is a procedural formality with no criminal charges or substantiated evidence against him.
• Context: In 1996, Jay-Z was just releasing his debut album, making the tip’s plausibility questionable (see [10:40]).

4. From Tip to Twitter: Nicki Minaj’s Accusations

[11:22–14:29]

• Nicki Minaj stokes controversy by tweeting a photo of Jay-Z with Aaliyah, captioned "childpredator," amidst a series of other inflammatory tweets.
  • Quote [12:52, Sha, on Nicki's tweets]:
    “She is the cult of inconsistency, hypocrisy on some of these tweets based upon who she is and her history.”
• The hosts fact-check Nicki’s other tweets (e.g., about Lizzo and Chrissy Teigen), debunking their factual basis.
• Discussion of "allegedly" as a protective word in defamation law and Nicki’s own history of suing over defamatory claims.

5. Legal Perspective on Defamation and Social Media

[14:29–19:59]

• Defamation law: Slapping “allegedly” onto a claim sometimes offers protection, but specifics matter.
• Nicki's lawsuit experience: she herself sued a podcaster for calling her a "cokehead," demonstrating she knows the seriousness of public criminal accusations ([15:00–16:25]).
• The presence of Jay-Z’s name in the files (even if meaningless) could help Nicki argue that her comments were made in good faith, not actual malice.
  • Quote [17:36, Sha]: "...his inclusion in the Epstein file, even though... doesn’t really mean anything, it gives Nicki a little more pause with the community."
• Jay-Z’s prior willingness to sue accusers for false allegations puts him in a complicated PR/legal position if he chooses not to respond here ([21:02]).

6. Backlash, Motives, and Public Perception

[19:16–21:38]

• Past lawsuits: Jay-Z once vocally and legally countersued when named in a serious lawsuit (later dismissed with prejudice). Now, his silence on Nicki’s tweets invites speculation.
• Damage control: Not fighting every claim could appear as implicit admission or cause further reputation loss.

7. Listener Q&As — Nicki Minaj’s Brother and Hypocrisy

[22:26–23:49]

• Fact check: Nicki Minaj’s brother, Jelani Maraj, was convicted of child sexual assault; Nicki supported him post-sentencing.
  • Quote [22:26, Sha]:
    "...after sentencing, after he was convicted, after we know he did these things. She said, support him. You are supporting a pedophile yourself. You are openly doing it."

8. Final Takeaways — Dangers of Misinformation

[24:13–25:28]

• Sha warns against conflating inclusion in large-scale investigatory files with guilt:
  • Quote [24:13, Sha]:
    "The danger of a lack of information, the danger of supposition, the danger of guessing because of the lives that can actually be destroyed."
• The fallout isn’t limited to billionaires—vulnerable or ordinary people can find their reputations wrecked by careless rumors and the insatiable public appetite for scandal.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “All the Epstein files are... just an investigative file... It’s every bit of investigation that possibly could have happened... whether it was about him or tangentially touched him.”
  — Sha Kent [02:42]

• “Just by being in the file means nothing... This happens every single day.”
  — Sha Kent [09:24]

• “She is the cult of inconsistency, hypocrisy on some of these tweets based upon who she is and her history.”
  — Sha Kent [12:52], on Nicki Minaj's social media behavior

• “The danger... is be careful of just simply saying they're in the list. They must be awful people, because it can destroy careers, it can destroy lives.” — Sha Kent [24:13]

• “If that can destroy the reputation of a Jay Z and a Beyonce, what could it do to just the random individual who is mentioned inside of there, who is just happy one day is like, hey, I saw your name mentioned in Epstein list.” — Sha Kent [25:28]

---

Important Timestamps

• [02:15] — What are the Epstein files?
• [06:12] — How Jay-Z’s name appears in the files
• [08:14] — Reading the specific reference (the tip) involving Jay-Z
• [09:24] — Legal perspective: why such inclusions are meaningless until substantiated
• [11:22] — Nicki Minaj’s viral tweets & context
• [12:52] — Body shaming and hypocrisy in Nicki’s online presence
• [14:29] — The “allegedly” loophole
• [17:36] — Defamation, damages, and public perception
• [19:16] — Motive and beef in defamation law
• [21:02] — Jay-Z’s past legal responses & current dilemma
• [22:26] — Fact-check: Nicki’s brother’s conviction
• [24:13] — The broader danger of misinformation

---

Tone & Language

The hosts maintain a candid, sometimes lighthearted but always clear-eyed tone—unafraid to call out hypocrisy, confusion, or the pitfalls of online rumor-mongering. Legal jargon is explained simply, and the conversational vibe underscores the urgency and complexity of sifting fact from fiction in a world obsessed with celebrity exposure.

---

Conclusion

Anoushka and Sha ultimately urge listeners to exercise caution, empathy, and critical thinking when reading headlines or social media outrage, especially regarding unverified allegations and massive data releases like the Epstein files. Celebrity culture magnifies these issues but also offers insight into how misinformation and public perception can upend any life—famous or not.

---

For further updates and reporting, listeners are encouraged to follow Anoushka on Instagram and TikTok, and to check the BBC Live reporting page for the latest on the Epstein files.

Transcript

[A]

Foreign. Hello and welcome back to Fame Under Fire with me, Anoushka Mutandadawati. Be prepared for some strong language from the outset and throughout. My God, do we have a lot to catch up on. You go away for two weeks. And Nicki Minaj is holding hands with Donald Trump. Kanye or Ye is taking out an ad in the Wall Street Journal to apologize to the black community and the Jewish community. Elon Musk's company's of X in Paris have been raided by the French authorities. And yeah, those unredacted exhibits in the Blake Lively Baldoni files. We have a whole Deep Dive episode coming on that shortly, so stay subscribed. But as soon as this came up, I knew we needed to cover it. Jay Z included in the Epstein files. I've had a lot of messages from you concerned fans, people who are just curious, what does it say? And separately, in a series of shocking tweets from Nicki Minaj, she's publicly called him a child predator. So what on earth is going on? Are they related? And there's reports that he's fled the country. We're going to get into all of that now. We should say right from the outset that of course Fame Under Fire has contacted Jay Z's lawyer. That's Alex Spiro, remember him? He's come up a few times. We asked for a response to these allegations, but we haven't heard back. We do know that in the recent past. Think back to those Diddy allegations that involved Jay Z. He has issued vehement denials about these sorts of allegations. But let's get into this today and break it down. Joining me of course, we are reunited is our resident trial attorney, Sha Kent from South Carolina, which apparently, apparently it's in the middle of a snowstorm or a blizzard of some sort.

[B]

It is Blizzard Pocalypse 2026. We got a good full half an inch of dusting of snow when the entire state shut down.

[A]

Oh, my goodness.

[B]

Welcome to the South. We're not used to seeing snow as like dandruff all over the world.

[A]

It hasn't stopped you from appearing in a two piece paisley suit with a striped lining. Oh, my God, he's back. He's back with a vengeance.

[B]

We've been apart so long, I decided to go very conservative together because I missed you.

[A]

Yeah, I'd say I miss you, but we talk all the time.

[B]

I think the world was on fire while you went on vacation. So let's make sure we don't go anywhere else anytime soon.

[A]

I'm never leaving again. You try cycling around the rice fields of Vietnam and you're like, they did what now? What's been released? But we need to talk about the Jay Z inclusion in the Epstein files. There's a lot for us to go over here, but before we get into that, I just want to cover some ground that might feel very familiar for some people, but maybe for our younger listeners. Sean, can you just explain what the Epstein files actually are?

[B]

And I'm glad you asked that, because there's been so much misinformation about the Epstein files, because people hear the Epstein file, they're almost like the X Files. And people think that it is the conclusion of an investigation of a bunch of people. All the Epstein files are. Are just an investigative file. And when I say investigative file, convicted financier Jeffrey Epstein, of course, was looked at for a bevy of charges. Chief among those charged were doing things with children. And so when the FBI was looking into him, they have a duty to follow up every tip possible and full information against Jeffrey Epstein. So what the Epstein files are is everything. And I hate to say it that way, but it's everything. It's every bit of investigation that possibly could have happened against Jeffrey Epstein, whether it was about him or tangentially touched him. They had a tip line. It involves tips. It involves unsubstantiated tips. If Jeffrey Epstein's name came up whatsoever throughout an investigation, it involves it. If he went to the grocery store on the 16th and bought some watermelons from your cousin, your cousin's name is in the Epstein files. But it also includes his flight logs, people he talked to, trips. So it is just a full investigative body. The best way to describe it is it is about three terabytes of information. So if you're sitting at home, it can fill up three fully charged iPhones with investigation pictures and so forth. So the Epstein files is just 600 million pages of an investigation.

[A]

And there's so much for us to get into there about layers of investigation and what is personal emails, pictures, and we're going to talk about that, but really at the center of all this are the victims, the survivors. And their names have cropped up in there, some of them unredacted. Can you just talk about the handling of this a little bit?

[B]

One of my biggest fears as a criminal defense lawyer is as a human being was the everybody said, release the Epstein files. The problem with just releasing the Epstein files is our interest to know stuff has to be balanced by an individual's privacy rights. And so when we released Epstein files, we have victims who don't want their names released, people who are subject to horrible things at the hands of him. People are still going through psychological terror. We released it with such a haphazard reaction. It was so bad to me that it hurt more people than it possibly helped. And sometimes we have to balance the public's need to know versus a person's individual privacy.

[A]

Well, yeah, it's been re traumatizing for a lot of the victims who are in there, some of them whose privacy has been violated. And it's already difficult enough having to go through what they've been through and then to have what many lawyers who've got clients who were victims and survivors of Jeffrey Epstein have said, just completely shoddy, just lack of care going through and not redacting people's names. I mean, some people's names have been in there hundreds of times. So I think we need to remember that those individuals are central to what's been released and have called for the release of the files. But for people who are interested, and there is a great interest in this because of the nature of the crimes and because we've heard so much about it, but also because he died before he went to trial. You can find the Epstein files yourself. Can you just talk me through where you can find them?

[B]

Oh, you. I mean, if you want to do the simplest part possible, you can find the Epstein files. If you got Google, you can find Epstein files.

[A]

Yeah, if you Google Jeffrey Epstein files, doj, it will bring you up to a page. You have to be over 18 years old to look through. I would say, you know, sensitive material in there, triggering material for a lot of people who may have been through similar things. So approach with caution. But what you get is a page where you can keyword search terms. Now, if you go in there and you keyword search Shawn Carter, you will find the inclusion, which is the real name for Jay Z, of Jay Z in the Epstein files. You've just covered how wide ranging they are, Sean. But I'm gonna read out what is in there when you search up Sean Carter. Okay, so it came through a tip line. Can you just explain what that is?

[B]

So what the FBI does, and most agencies do when they're looking at somebody who is this large in a crime, they set up an FBI tip line. And I'll tell you, having spoke to the FBI before on certain cases, as much as we think they love these tip lines, they hate them, but they are a necessary tool to try to get investigation and get information. Because what happens in these tip lines is they get thousands of calls. They get fame seekers, they get individuals. And when they get these tips in, they send it out. They send a 1, 800 number out and they're like, if you have any information that might be related to say, the Jeffrey Epstein case, please call our tip line. What ends up happening is those informations come in. There is a body of people who sit there just in a room. It could be 100 agents who are listening to all these calls. And, and then they have to sift through them. There is an agency, a part of something that's called a taint team. And the team then breaks down the information first to see. And I'm trying to keep it simple, but what they do is they break down the first level of this is completely impossible. They're talking about astronauts, they're talking about aliens, they're talking about things as nature. We immediately remove those. And then the second part of the tank team sends the next bit of information that could have any logical information to what they're looking for and they investigate it. And that's all a tip line is.

[A]

So I'm going to read out what is in there. And it says date, time. Received 7th of October 2019 at 8:20 in the morning. It says in approximately 1994 redacted revealed herself to redacted as a past victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. Redacted described the abuse occurred during parties. The next section is redacted Further identifies a few other redacted names. Now in relation to JZ, it says in approximately 1996, redacted resided with redacted in redacted an unknown man abducted her from her home. When she later awoke in the presence of Harvey Weinstein and Sean Carter, stage name Jay Z, while Weinstein had inserted his fingers into redacted redacted believed she was in Epstein's mansion in Florida. So that is the specific reference to Jay Z. And like you said, that's in. In the broadest sweep of the Epstein files. But Sean, that doesn't indicate criminality. It doesn't indicate that a criminal charge is coming against Jay Z. It doesn't actually specifically reference any abuse committed by Jay Z. So what should we take from this inclusion?

[B]

Nothing. And I hate to say it that way, and I'm not trying to be coy, but we should take nothing from it. But the world will. And here's why we should take nothing from it. If these are massive ifs, Anushka, if you wanted to be included in the Epstein file, you could have called the tip line and giving that information with your name in it involving Jay Z and they would have had that in there. Until that investigative file goes to the next level, meaning there are possibly a criminal charges, maybe a grand jury has been indicted, maybe he has been interviewed, maybe he's been investigated. There is nothing there. Just because this is the Epstein files, I want the world to understand this is nothing special. This happens every single day. Been doing this for 26 years. You would be shocked how many times we have clients, individuals. When I go and look at a criminal file where I see very random names mentioned in it and the cops are just like, yeah, that has nothing to do with the case. We got this tip, we just put it inside of there and no one ever knows. And so to answer your question, just by being in the file means nothing. Because out there, believe it or not, somebody watching this podcast right now, your name is in a criminal file because somebody has mentioned you and you don't even know it. So it means nothing.

[A]

At this point, the inclusion is a procedural formality and it's because of what Trump signed to be released. But there are levels to the evidence that is there because there are other people, famous names, where there's pictures of them on Epstein island, there's correspondence between Epstein and them. It's a couple of emails back and forth where they seem to be arranging to meet up. But that is all very different from what is in there pertaining to Jay Z. I also want to say that the claim is that this took place in 1996 on that tip line. That was the year Jay Z released his first studio album. And some people on social media have pointed out that perhaps he wouldn't be rubbing shoulders with Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein when he just released an album in 1996. But that, of course, is there for the FBI to investigate and there are no criminal charges, and if there were, we'd be telling you about them. So, Sean, you've just explained very clearly there Jay Z's inclusion and what we should take from it, which you've said is pretty much like nothing at all. But I want to say that this was taken then to another level by Nicki Minaj, who is you and I know one of the most successful female rappers of all time and a former fan and collaborator of Jay Z. So, yeah, Nicki Minaj has long looked up to Jay Z. She obviously has an album called the Prink Print, which is a direct reference to his album the Blueprint. Like you say There she's talking about if she hadn't signed with Lil Wayne to be on the YMCNB label, she'd have signed with Jay Z. She's done songs with Beyonce on and on and on. Which is why it's really quite confusing for people who are just casual observers of this that she posted a shot of Jay Z with Aaliyah, the R and B singer with the caption childpredator. Now, this did actually come amidst a flurry of other tweets, some of which where she was making fun of Lizzo's body. Sean, you've got that one, don't you?

[B]

I do. Quote, not getting canceled. This is like reading mean tweets, but reading the tweet out, going with the glasses here. That way it shows fat Lizzo lost 300 pounds just to sell 300 albums. So now she has loose skin and a flop album and a weird charge. Sheesh.

[A]

So she tweeted that about Lizzo. Interesting thing for Nicki Minaj to tweet, seen as she's always been sort of a mouthpiece for body positivity.

[B]

Body positivity. She is the cult of inconsistency, hypocrisy on some of these tweets based upon who she is and her history. But I'm sure we'll get into that as well.

[A]

I mean, I want to fact check that. First of all, Lizzo is not facing any criminal charges. You don't get charges with a civil trial, so it's an incorrect thing to say. I'm assuming she's referring to the civil lawsuit filed by three former backup dancers of Lizzo who allege they were subject to sexual harassment. Some of those claims are that Lizzo pressured them, one of her backup dancers, to touch the breast of a dancer in a nightclub in Amsterdam. Other incidents cited in the case include claims that dancers were asked to eat fruit from the naked bodies of club workers. Lizzo has denied multiple times all the allegations, saying, I am not settling. I'll be fighting every single claim until the truth is out. Now, Sean, if I'm going to be really, really petty, I can fact check the weight loss claim. Technically, Lizzo has publicly stated that at her heaviest, she was 325 pounds. So by Nikki's math, she'd be 25po. Currently weighing 25 pounds. I know she's being facetious, but, you know, just for the interest of taking it literally, in other tweets from Nikki that she's released, she's claimed that Chrissy Teigen has or had a Penis. Allegedly. Sean, give me that tweet.

[B]

Everyone knows Chrissy Teigen has had a dick. D I K. Period. Allegedly. Period.

[A]

And look, Nicki Minaj hasn't presented any evidence for this claim and Chrissy Teigen hasn't responded. But yet again, another crazy tweet from Nikki. But I just want to ask Sean, at what point does slapping the word allegedly on the end of an inflammatory or potentially defamatory statement just outright protect you against a defamation lawsuit?

[B]

In a weird way, yes. Because you remember you're trying to hold the statement out to say that it's true, and so you're not verifying its veracity. You're saying allegedly. So you're saying. I'm not saying that is true. I'm saying it's not. And let's not forget the statement in and of itself. Just this statement by itself to me isn't defamatory. I know you're like, what? It's an insult. We still have to use the whole sticks and stones may break our bones references when talking about these things. But yes, believe it or not, putting allegedly on there could save a lot of things. Because the defense, if she gets into trial, to be like, look, I didn't hold this out to be truthful. If I can give you an example. In 2022, there was a lawsuit in which a rapper sued a podcaster by the name of Nosy Ho, H E O H E A U X ho or something of that nature, in which Nosy Ho said, this rapper used cocaine. And I know it to be true. And so the rapper ended up suing Nosy Ho, her real name was Marley Green, and sued Nosy Ho and said, how dare you say this to be truth. This is defamatory because you have now accused me of a crime. It's defamatory per se. You can't do this. So they sued Nosy Ho, settled and said, you are right. And part of the settlement was, you have to apologize and you better never talk about my family again. And said, we'll never talk about your family again. And if you ever mention my family again, I'll give you $50,000. The reason I bring it up is that was Nicki Minaj. Nicki Minaj was the rapper who sued what? Mind Blown. Nicki Minaj in 2022 sued Marley Green because Marley Green said that she was a cokehead. Nicki Minaj says, you cannot say this stuff about me because it's insinuating that I have committed a crime. Why do we bring that up? Well, think about it mind blowing.

[A]

You've been digging around in the archives?

[B]

Yeah. Start looking.

[A]

That's. Well, maybe that's what taught Nikki to slap on the word allegedly to the end of her Twitter rampage. This isn't something new for Nikki. She's said inflammatory things on Twitter before. Remember when she claimed that the COVID 19 vaccine. Vaccine enlarged men's testicles? No proof of that, by the way, guys. And I mean, Boris Johnson responded to that. Nikki is known for saying some crazy things on Twitter, but the tweets about Jay Z are brim full of criminal allegations claiming he's a child sexual predator without the use of the word allegedly, but also that he's been, quote, sacrificing children as a way of gaining and maintaining power, close quote. She also said, quote, the guy was hugging and humping on teens in broad daylight, Close quote. Once again, we asked Alex Spiro, Jay Z's lawyer, for a response to Nikki's allegations, and we've heard nothing back. Now a listener question is coming from Sophie from London. Hi, Sophie. Thank you for the question on TikTok. It says, surely Jay Z should be filing a defamation lawsuit expeditiously in all caps. If this is false, the allegations are so bad. Shawn explained that, but also why his inclusion in the Epstein files kind of helps Nikki out in this case.

[B]

Given the fact that Nikki is in the rap game, she knows that you can take things to a different level if they are intended to be satirical, if they are intended to be entertainment value, that changes. However, if you are taking it to a level and you are saying that I am alleging that this stuff is true and I know it to be a fact. How do we know Nikki knows about this? I told you about the 2022 lawsuit. She knows if you call somebody a criminal, you can say something about if you're alleging criminal activity. Where the Epstein file makes it slightly different is because his inclusion in the Epstein file, even though, as we talked about, doesn't really mean anything, it gives Nikki a little more pause with the community. Say, you know, he's in the Epstein file and everybody else thought that there might have been something into it. It might give her a little more leeway to make this leap. Where she could be helped would be where we always talk about is the damages element. Where are the actual damages that he has occurred because his name is in the Epstein file and if you do a simple search, people are talking trash about him.

[A]

That is interesting. Then if he sued her for defamation, she could say, well, I didn't say something present Something as truth that I knew to be false because I saw this document, I had a genuine belief that this was the truth. So then it adds credence to that defense against the defamation lawsuit from Jay Z. Right.

[B]

And then there's one more level to that, too, actual malice. And you'll probably bring this up is Nikki has a predisposed beef with Jay Z. And there might be. She actually has actuality she might be trying to hurt him. And I don't want to jump the gun, but Nikki has a problem with him.

[A]

If you were Jay Z's counsel and say, well, you have clear motive to want to defame Jay Z. You have publicly stated multiple times that you think he owes you hundreds of millions of dollars. Does that when you're. You're fighting a defamation case to go. Well, actually, there is a narrative here. There is motive here. There's a reason she would have said that, to benefit herself.

[B]

Absolutely. All comes in together. And because of her history, you have filed your own defamation lawsuits. Multiple. You know that you cannot accuse somebody of committing a crime. You know that you have a personal beef with him. You used to be friends. This is clearly you going to the next level. We believe you understand, and this is defamation per se. Pay us money.

[A]

Now. I just want to quickly touch on the conversation me and you had before about whether Jay Z should sue. And typically you said your advice would be no, but because of what happened in the past. And I just want to cast everybody's minds back to when Jay Z was accused, along with Diddy, in a civil lawsuit, of raping a teenage girl at a VMA's afterparty in the 2000s. Jay Z's response to that was to file a lawsuit against the accuser, to file a lawsuit against the lawyer, Tony Busby. And he spoke a lot, which he doesn't usually do to the press. He said, those allegations are so heinous in nature that I implore you to file a criminal complaint, not a civil one. Whomever would commit such a crime against a minor should be locked away. Would you not agree? His own heartbreak, he says, is for his family, his wife and his children. So he spoke a lot, and then he followed through with legal action. Those lawsuits have all been dismissed. Now, the one accusing Jay Z and Diddy dismissed with prejudice, can never come back. The lawsuits Jay Z filed against the accuser and Tony Busby dismissed. But Sean, in your opinion, because he did that, it now weakens his position with the Nikki tweets.

[B]

Everyone knows Jay Z is notoriously silent and Keeps to himself in a bubble and does not address these types of things. And when he came out so vocal against it, everyone's like, wow, Jay Z never addresses these things and he just went all in on it. And the problem is psychologically. And you have two problems, public perception. When you have attacked one so big time and then start ignoring the rest, you have the people who say, well, why did he attack that one? And he doesn't attack this one. Maybe he thinks it's true. And if he doesn't attack every case with the same vitriol he attacked the first one, I think it could hurt his reputation.

[A]

Yeah, Jay Z's lost a lot of followers. So his Beyonce, his wife. I mean, social media users are quick to point out that the allegations that were in that lawsuit where he was accused with Diddy were so graphic and so awful. More so than what is said in this tip in the Epstein files and that he specifically said that was hurting his family. And he referenced there, of course, Blue Ivy, his daughter, who was the same age as the alleged victim in that case. So there's an argument there for why he responded to that one and not this one. And now I've got another question for you from a listener. This one from Canada, Shout out to Canada, shout out to Shane Hollander. It says, isn't Nikki's brother in jail for molesting a child? And didn't she defend him? Sha, Is this true? Maybe Jay Z should point that out. Sean, can you give us a quick fact check on that?

[B]

Convicted of sexual assault, child endangerment, I think in like 2017. And we don't have to say allegedly convicted for the rape of an 11 year old, like in jail, like right now. There's a difference from testifying for somebody during a trial. There's a difference from testifying for somebody and say, I don't believe this happened. After they are convicted. Something happened that is called sentencing. Which means the eyes of the law says he did it after sentencing. Then Nikki then presented a letter or a testimony to the court supporting her brother. So the world can say that after sentencing, after he was convicted, after we know he did these things. She said, support him. He's a good person, support him. You are supporting a pedophile yourself. You are openly doing it. You're writing letters, you're sending it to the court. You have to be careful with these type of things. Now, now, do I think Jay Z should bring this up? This goes back to what I said earlier. No. You know, the little phrase is if you lie with dogs, you get fleas. You've got to be careful going back and forth with these types of things. So, no, I would not do that. I appreciate the listener's question, but the background on what the listeners had is absolutely accurate.

[A]

And look, that's Jelani Mirage, Nicki Minaj's brother. I mean, his counsel said that the accusations were false. He's obviously been convicted and said it was a cash grab. Nikki has tweeted to that effect as well, saying it was a cash grab by the. The young girl's family. But there was a wealth of evidence, including his DNA.

[B]

DNA. We'll just leave it there.

[A]

Yeah. Sean, you have really expertly walked us through the unfolding landscape of everything that's happened since the Epstein files have been released. And then also what Nikki has tweeted and how people are reacting to Jay Z and also Beyonce online. I just wonder, what do you think our listeners should take from this? The release of the Epstein files, but also the unfolding backlash of what we've seen here.

[B]

What we should take from it, from my point of view, is the danger of a lack of information, the danger of supposition, the danger of guessing because of the lives that can actually be destroyed. If you look at a couple such as. And they're not the only names in the list, but if you look at a couple such as Jay Z and Beyonce, who have decades of years of capital to the world, Beyonce had the beehive, Jay Z and all these other situations, and one rumor included inside of a list can destroy all of that capital without more. And so that is the danger you have to worry about, is be careful of just simply saying they're in the list. They must be awful people, because it can destroy careers, it can destroy lives. And we're talking about very rich and very famous and very powerful people, billionaires. Imagine the victims, imagine the children. Imagine just the random John Q. Public name who is mentioned inside of there. Because if that can destroy the reputation of a Jay Z and a Beyonce, what could it do to just the random individual who is mentioned inside of there, who is just happy one day is like, hey, I saw your name mentioned in Epstein list. What are people automatically going to be thinking about that?

[A]

Yeah, exactly. And also to add onto that, Jay Z's name was mentioned, Beyonce's wasn't. There's no charge there to begin with. Sean, thank you so much for coming on and walking us through that today. Really appreciate it.

[B]

Thank you for having me. Per usual, I appreciate you.

[A]

That was our resident trial attorney Sean Kent joining us from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds. With me, Anoushka Matandadawati. Keep sending me your questions on Instagram and TikTok. It's Anoushka MD. And if you want to follow along for more reporting on the Epstein files and what's in them, please follow the BBC Live reporting page. How does someone invent a political theory that reshapes the map of the world? How do you get to a scientific breakthrough that saves thousands of lives? Or create works of art that stand the test of time? How have brilliant thinkers through history done their best thinking? And what can we learn from them? From BBC Radio 4, it's the second series of Human Intelligence. With me, Naomi Alderman. From Karl Marx to Marie Curie, from Emily Bronte to Leonardo da Vinci, how did those exceptional minds do their work? And are there ways of thinking we can emulate today? To find out, listen to Human Intelligence on BBC Sounds.