B (4:33)

So let's talk about a 302 for a second. Yeah, we have all of these victims who are hanging out, going to events. Some are going to be at the State of the Union tonight. We know that Schumer is bringing Danny Belsky who's one of the clearest communicators of the victims. And I met her before, she's really great. All of these victims have told Representative Garcia, have told me, have told others that they have sat for 302s and they do not want their testimony to be redacted and they don't understand why it would be redacted. Explain to us why a 302 what the rationale for these redactions are, if there is a rationale. And I also want you to talk about the way this law was written. It's written so that these, that, that Bondi was supposed to explain the redactions.

A (5:33)

Great questions. And look, you and I were together. We've been on deadline White House with a victim who's. And I want to add one thing which is my understanding, and this was from the Bondi hearing. A lot of them wanted to but never got the chance to talk to the FBI anyway. The FBI sits down and takes down everything, including the names of the people who were involved, especially the names of the people who were involved. And these missing documents, we have reason to think have Donald Trump all over them and maybe others. Who else could substantiate this? Et cetera, et cetera. Now, the Epstein Transparency act, this is also really important because there are normal rules that the DOJ could apply when asked to give documents. For example, don't give over grand jury documents. Epstein Transparency act voted on by every member of Congress but one signed into law by Trump. Trump saw that. It says, here are the narrow reasons you can redact and only these. So your other reasons are out the window. Redactions they're supposed to make. One of them is for victim confidentiality. So we're not supposed to find out victims names. Of course, as it turns out, we found out not only victims names, but also pictures and what was redacted. A lot of names, it sure appears, of big shot customers or people otherwise involved with Epstein. Witness again, your New York Times op ed, all kinds of people. He was a concierge to the rich, as you. As you put it. They get somehow get blacked out, even though there's no legal authority.

B (7:17)

And.

A (7:17)

But the final point that you raised about Bondi and there's a lot going on with redactions. Yes. They're required so you can evaluate them because anything they could redact could potentially yield. They have to give a real reason. Well, in this case, we're saying this, and here are the three reasons it qualifies. They've done that exactly zero times. They've made a few kind of general thoughts about why they did it. And they've given Congress or court nothing to work with. They say they will down the line. That's a really big deal for, you know, from the lawyer standpoint, knowing if they've done it right. Okay, hey, my turn. But I want to stick with Epstein because, you know, we find out in the last week this huge disconnect between, you know, clearly the center of Epstein's activity and as you put it again, his big concierge service doling out, you know, part jobs in Woody Allen movies or the like is the United States. And here the fallout has been relatively muted and basically zero in the government. I'm thinking of Howard Lutnick in particular, but in that we. But in Europe, it's been huge. There are investigations, not necessarily even about the sex stuff. Andrew gets is now under criminal arrest because of maybe having fed him private information. So what's the what is the kind of political underpinnings of the fact that until now the fallout is next to nothing here. The real fallout, you know, in terms of, like, careers and as you and like Asha Rangapa's point about shame, so much less here than Europe. What the hell?

B (9:10)

So I think that there are two things happening here. One is that. So there have been two arrests. One was Andrew, and we had the King of England saying, like, justice is don't, don't stop justice on my account. And then we had Peter Mandelson who had been brought in as the ambassador to the uk and remember, we had had a UK ambassador who was a woman. So it was just a very strange changeover. And again, Peter Mendelsohn may end up being the undoing of this government, of the UK government, because he was put in this job. So we not only have a UK government that is grappling with Epstein, we have accountability for even Starmer, Keir Starmer. So we really have a moment where the UK looks just wildly ahead of us. But what I would say is that we don't know how this will play ultimately. And I think it's worth pausing for that and just saying that for now it looks like Trump is covering for his government and he's keeping people like Howard Lutnick staunchly in place. And maybe that keeps on, but maybe it doesn't. I think that accountability is, you know, you can evade it for only so long. And so while Trump is making a case that he can keep Howard Lutnick in there, that he can keep, there are many, many people in the Trump cabinet who are in Epstein world. Right? You've got Lutnick, you've got different people have like flown, you know, John Phelan flew on the plane. You have just a lot.

A (11:09)

Donald Trump.

B (11:10)

Right, right. Donald Trump numerous times. But so, so I think, I think this will. I think we'll see more of this accountability. And I think that Trump's polling is through the floor and his whole thing has been like, he never fires anyone. But there's a reason that people fire people. They fire members of their cabinet. And there's an argument to be made that Trump would be better off if he would fire people.

A (11:41)

Yeah, I have a follow up, but your turn.

B (11:46)

I want to talk about the 302s for another minute.

A (11:49)

Okay.

B (11:50)

Because we're looking at these documents that are missing and News Channel 4 in the UK said that this is only like 4, somewhere between 2 and 4% of all of the tranches of data because they were looking at the numbers, the terabytes and the Trump administration. Bondi says that's it, this is all of it. Or that Maybe there's another 3 million documents missing. I wonder if you like. One of the things that I've been struck by is that supposedly there are members of the FBI who are quietly saying that there's more. That clearly if you're a member of the FBI, you've been doing this for a long time, you've dedicated your life to this. You did this instead of doing a perhaps more high paying job in the private sector. I wonder if you think there are clearly whistleblowers out there who may or may not come forward. I wonder what you think. I wonder if you think there's more, there's clearly more documents, more accountability and were you one of those whistleblowers? What would that look like?

A (13:08)

Yeah. So it's a great and important question. First, this 2 to 4% or any kind of quantitative assessment of the like is meaningless. It's always been clear one, that there are a relative small number and next if the denominator is 3 million of incendiary documents and two, that this administration really knows how to be selective. The very first day when it was supposed to give over everything magically 100 documents appeared that made the whole thing look like it had to do with Bill Clinton. That was not done randomly right there. So if there are 2% of 3 million that have to do with Trump and they've been withheld, that's a scandal. Second on again on the 302s you make a really look the FBI it's not that they've just devoted their career the rank and file of the FBI there's very good reason to think is just furious with the administration even though they are are tend to be politically conservative. They have been so mistreated and disabled and politicized. Patel and Bonjean, you know, are such jokers. It is this is a legal point to make it but it's true. It's really, really precarious to try to cover up a document because there are so many copies here and there. So I think it is likely that individual agents might well know. Third on the on how, how would it then work for them to bring it to light? First there's all the unofficial routes that you know as well as I better where you know, somebody gives you a call. But there is also whistleblower protection. Now this administration as part of its process of completely, you know, corrupting protections for employees of the executive branch and we can look at the whistleblower complaint against Kristi Noem has done things to bottle those up or kind of make them seem unimportant with their own handpicked inspectors general. But I tend to agree with you that while it's hard to really identify the mechanism. Man, oh man, if there's incendiary stuff there, at a minimum, they're playing with fire, trying to suppress it. Just too many different copies. Okay, I'll give it to you, but you. But then I get a fall off. Go ahead.

B (15:41)

If there's incendiary stuff. Yeah, they're playing with fire.

A (15:47)

Absolutely. You know that better than I. Right.

B (15:50)

Because why? Because of leaks.

A (15:52)

Oh, yeah. If it comes out, it's not just the content, it's the fact of the, of the COVID up. Right. That's the. That used to be the Washington adage. It's not the crime.

B (16:02)

Right. The COVID up.

A (16:02)

It's 18 and a half minutes for Nixon. For our older like me listeners. Okay, a general question. You know, we'll have the State of the Union tonight, the Democratic response. But we are at a point, and you've just averted to it, where his numbers are really plunging, you know, historic lows. And I do think it's sort of catching on this notion certainly in places like Minnesota, that man, oh man, this is. Whatever reason I voted for him, this is not the America I wanted and the price to democracy, it's really corrosive, et cetera. But you see a lot of Democrats saying that, don't get too cocky on this stuff. You really have to make it. It also so happens he's totally butchered the economy. The tariffs are going to be paid for by the American people. So I just wonder if you have views about The Dems need to not go too strong on the sorts of things I think about every day, the erosion of democracy and to stay on, you know, kitchen table issues.

B (17:12)

No, I think it's a huge mistake to just do everything and especially people hate. People are so mad about Epstein and you know, I think just make it Epstein. The files, the releases, the. Where are they? The COVID up. Pam Bondi. I mean, the idea that you should focus just on one thing, especially when it is so clear that the American people are not morons and that they can have all sorts, they can hold all sorts of opinions at once. So I think that the whole thinking that they can only talk about one thing is a mistake.

A (18:06)

I'm Michael Waldman, host of the Briefing Podcast. I'm a former White House speechwriter. A lawyer and a constitutional scholar, and I'm president of the Brennan center for Justice. We work to repair and strengthen American democracy, from gerrymandering to abuse of presidential power, from Supreme Court reform to congressional corruption and more. What fun. You're going to hear new ideas in this podcast, and you're going to hear about the strategies and the legal and political fights that will shape the next phase of American politics. If you care about our democracy, the briefing is a podcast for you.

B (18:40)

So let's talk. Speaking of not being able to talk and think about more than one thing at once, I want you to explain to us when we look at this, at the criminal complaints around Epstein, what So one of the things when I talked to Robert Garcia, he talked about how he won, that there are. He's hoping that other states will continue with criminal charges out of the Epstein files. Talk us through what it would look like if you were a New York attorney general or, you know, if you were trying to make criminal cases out of some of these documents, what it might look like.

A (19:28)

Yeah, man. Another great question. You should go to law school. And I do want to point out, by the way, your new substack, pure unadulterated Molly has really stormed out of the gate. Okay. In general, big, big issue, parallel jurisdiction between state and federal. In general, you have to have something happen in a state that's a crime. New York's a great example. They have a, what's called the Martin act that gives them all because New York is the seat of so much stock. The, you know, the, the New York Stock Exchange and the like that a lot of things that would be federal fraud are also fraud there. And then it's also the case a lot of these potential crimes are really kind of tawdry and, you know, sort of small in their fact pattern. And, and if they took place in an individual state, it's basically there are, it's more the case than not. Molly. I guess this is how I'd put it that a crime within a state's borders that has a federal statute will have a state statute. So, you know, it's both that the facts took place there, so there's jurisdiction. But then also at least certain states, New York preeminent among them, have ways like the feds have ways of getting at things broadly, even though the downstream impacts are kind of nationwide because of how they originated.

B (21:04)

So talk us to, I just want you to like you're looking through, say you're Tish James's office, you're working in that office you see a allegation, say you see a 302. That's redacted, but not that redacted. So that means you have a witness, you have a crime, say you have unredacted co conspirator, unindicted co conspirators list. Can you make a case from that?

A (21:34)

Well, that's the question. Exactly. We're seeing this in Minnesota where states normally would get the cooperation of the federal government for the shootings of Freddy and Good. And not only aren't they getting it, the, the feds are trying to actually impose obstacles and say, we're not going to give you this name. So the answer is, yeah, you got to start from scratch and develop it. You couldn't use the 302 anyway, but it's now been made publicly available. Lots of cases originate in public materials like what was in the paper yesterday, but you've got to start from scratch. So you got to find this. And by the way, here's a big thing. If we're thinking about Epstein, statutes of limitations for certain sex assault crimes or murder, there isn't one. But for a lot of the hijinks of the sort you document again in that New York Times op ed, the statute would already have run. So lots of procedural obstacles and the feds are going to make it harder. But theoretically, yes, you just got to start from scratch.

B (22:37)

But the statute of sex crimes is there has been extended in New York State, so.

A (22:44)

Well, okay, go ahead. No, two things. It had a window where you could bring claims that had to do with. Then that's why Trump was also charged with a crime in the E. Jean Carroll case. I think that was a narrow window. But in general, sexual assault statutes of limitation sometimes go forever because it's so often the case that women that the, the damage or even the knowledge of it doesn't fully develop until a victim is older. So for the sex crimes, yes, but the, but you, you know, your point is really important. I think how he was, he had such a network of different things. Andrew has been arrested not because of this. That's, that's also the same behavior that the general counsel of Goldman Sachs had to resign over. A lot of that stuff will be really hard to reach for statute of limitations reasons now, but still have political salience.

B (23:45)

Yeah, right. Exactly. All right, so do you have another question?

A (23:48)

Yeah. So here's my, here's my last. I want to switch to the refunds and the tariffs. There's, you know, we're finding out now they're trying to Put it on other grounds, et cetera. I don't want to ask you about any of the law stuff, but I think we can expect, even though the Department of Justice said last year, if this is struck down, we'll return it all and. Give me a break. They're going to impose all kinds of obstacles. It could be, you know, legal tangles for years and years, as Trump said. I just want to ask you, politically, you know, what's going to be the impact of people not seeing companies not seeing refunds? How volatile an issue is this if they just, you know, never, never give the money back?

B (24:32)

Yeah. So, I mean, FedEx just sued today for the refund. So it is certainly possible that we see real. That we see a real court case. And look, here's what's gonna happen. So the Supreme Court has said no go on the tariffs. Trump has tweeted a lot of angry stuff and said it's gonna be 10%, then it's gonna be 15%.

A (25:00)

15.

B (25:00)

Yeah.

A (25:00)

15.

B (25:01)

Yeah. I think there's a scenario where FedEx sues and Trump decides that he is. He's going to, like, push back in the court of public opinion and then the admin is going to quietly settle. Like, we've seen that before. The admin quietly loses in court. Trump loves the tariffs because they are a vehicle for kleptocracy, because he can negotiate in a way, way that is kleptocratic at best. I still think there's a scenario where they lose in court and it doesn't matter and he just keeps obfuscating.

A (25:46)

Or then maybe FedEx would lather, rinse, repeat with the other companies.

B (25:51)

I mean, look at. I think FedEx is a huge company and there'll be more if they sense that there's possible win. So it could go. This could be very bad for Trump world. And again, I don't think that FedEx is ideological. I think they're practical. So this is like a dumb. It's not dumb because it's what Trump wants. It does the thing that Trump wants it to do, but I still think it could unravel the whole thing.

A (26:31)

Molly, this is always fun. See you next month.

B (26:33)

Thank you. Great to see you.

A (26:38)

Thank you for tuning in to One on One, a weekly conversation series from Talking Feds. If you like what you've heard, please tell a friend to subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts or wherever they get their podcast. And please take a moment to rate and review the show. You can also subscribe to us on YouTube where we are posting full episodes and daily updates on top legal stories. Check us out on substack harrylitman.substack.com where we're posting two or three bulletins a week breaking down the various threats to constitutional norms and the rule of law. Law and Talking Fez has joined forces with the Contrarian I'm a founding contributor to this new media venture committed to reviving the diversity of opinion that feels increasingly rare in today's news landscape, where legacy media seems to be tacking toward Trump for business reasons rather than editorial ones. Rest assured, we're still the same scrappy independent podcast you've come to know and trust just now linked up with an ambitious and vital project designed for this pivotal moment in our nation's legal and political discourse. Find out more@contrarian.substack.com thanks for tuning in. And don't worry, as long as you need answers, the Feds will keep talking. Talking Feds is produced by Luke Cregan and Katie Upshaw, associate producer Becca Haveian, sound Engineering by Matt McArdle, Rosie Dawn Griffin, David Lieberman, Hansam Mahadranathan, Emma Maynard and Hallie Necker are our contributing writers and production assistants by Akshaj Turbailu. Our music, as ever, is by the amazing Philip Glass. Talking Feds is a production of Deledo llc. I'm Harry Littman. Talk to you later. It's tax season, and at LifeLock we know you're tired of numbers, but here's a big one you need to hear. Billions. That's the amount of money and refunds the IRS has flagged for possible identity fraud. Now here's another big number. 100 million. That's how many data points LifeLock monitors every second. If your identity is stolen, we'll fix it, guaranteed. One last big number. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit lifelock.com podcast for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.