Congressman Stephen Lynch (3:43)

So today, several hundred thousand.

Ari Melber (3:45)

And then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more. The law says what it says. President Trump signed it. And of all the agencies in government, the Justice Department knows a lot about complying with the law. Remember Mr. Blanche, Pam Bondi, and their deputies and prosecutors, they go after people all the time for not complying with the law. If you have an IRS deadline, you don't get to say, oh, I'm giving you some now and some later, maybe a couple hundred thousand later. This goes to the question of whether this Trump administration is honest, complies with the law, or is dishonest and has a different elite standard for itself than everyone else. Here's how Blanche put it to Congress. Because of the volume of the material and the requirements at every page of every doc be reviewed for potential redactions, final stages of review of some material continue. They talked about that ongoing review being completed over the next two weeks. And that's what I mean about the contrast as a letter. The reason that's written that way and that carefully, and we have it right here, is they are prepared to be taken to court and they want to be able to try to argue to judges that they are really doing this. So in writing and to Congress and in the legal documents, this DOJ is acting like the Epstein Transparency act is good law. They're not defying it. And they are, I think I'm telling you, are reporting, trying to set themselves up to be able to defend this if they are taken to court. At the same time on Fox and elsewhere, they have a little more bluster sounding, like they'll decide when and how material comes out. And I mentioned Congressman Ro Khanna, who led this fight on a bipartisan basis, a Democrat who recruited Republicans and then won that clash with the president himself. Here's how he's reacting. Some of the documents I've just been scanning them have very heavy redactions. This including documents which judges ordered released, like the grand jury testimony in New York. They owe the Congress and the American public an explanation for every redaction that I didn't see published at the on the DOJ page. But the law is very clear that any redaction has to be justified in writing. Fact check. True. Now, in all fairness to the government, the way the law was written, it expedited first the documents. It said release everything by tonight and then it gives them two more weeks to explain the redactions. So the congressman is correct, although technically under the law, they can the DOJ take two more weeks to explain these redactions. And as I told you, some of them require explanations. As for the reference to grand jury material, that's important because that is usually secret. If you remember, say, the Bob Muller grand jury notes, we never got them, even though they were of public interest here. The law requires them. And DOJ says, and I'm just sharing with you our notes as we go, that they are releasing the grand jury materials. I'll just make one more point on this. I'm reading from the letter here and it says they will release the materials from Epstein's criminal case in 18, the Maxwell case in 19, the Epstein death probe, and the grand jury materials from the Southern District of New York. So to tonight, in the days ahead, we are going to be combing through all of this. You can't instantly do hundreds of thousands of documents and the DOJ hasn't made it easily searchable. I'll get to that in a moment. So one big question here is are they complying with those judicial orders to release all the secret grand jury material? And if so, that will yield a lot of important information. And if not, well, there's court cases there and judges there to make them do it. Now I'm going to put back up the statement we started showing you. Chuck Schumer says releasing a mountain of blacked out pages violates the spirit of transparency. Dems will address and assess how the documents have been quote, released to determine what actions must be taken. So that is the state of play. The Democrats are not playing dead. They're not acting like, oh, thank you so much for a couple redacted pages. But there is a process aspect to this. Anyone trying to tell you tonight what's in all these documents? Well, you can't believe them because no one, not even a artificial intelligence, can scan all of this instantly. We're going to be going through this with you tonight. So get comfortable, buckle up. I've got great guests. I'm starting with John Flannery, a former federal prosecutor who's been a special counsel to congressional committees. John, welcome. Before we get into all of it, my first question for you tonight. Based on what we know, which is fluid, how would you grade the compliance? It's clearly not an F in that they haven't blown off the entire project. And as I showed viewers, it doesn't look like an A. But how do you view the compliance based on what we know?

John Flannery (8:27)

Well, let's start with the simply, they have already defied the order that said that this would happen no later than today. I'm waiting till midnight. Maybe there's more, but I would give them an F because it strikes me that that doesn't occur unless you are having a document dump to withhold, as litigators sometimes do, to withhold the information that is called for by the statute that set this whole thing in motion. The second thing, and you've referred to it already and so I want to underscore it that the documents be searchable. My undergraduate degrees are physics and engineering and I have a master's in information science. And I just sort of watch this stuff pass me by because I don't think I could code anything by any language they use today. But one thing I do know, and that is if you take a picture of a document, they call it a tiff T I F F. Then you can't read that docum document. And there's jokes about occasional character recognition, which is that you can change that picture into words and letters and then you can search them. And when you can search them, then you can do Boolean searches, for example, Trump and Epstein. I want all those References now they have in the DOJ dump produced a page that says type in what you want to search and we will give it to you. So I did what some people would do on their home computers, a control F. I took their little form and I typed in T R U M P and I hit the button and said, you search reveals nothing. So I thought, well, how about it?

Ari Melber (10:09)

I'm going to slow you down to keep everyone with us. You're talking about something that is legally required, correct? I just want to remind viewers the Congress didn't say, hey, send this over to us, we'll review it first. Sometimes they do that. They didn't say, have the inspector general review it and give us a summary. Because of this secrecy and the failure by parties, both parties, administrations, over the history as we know it of justice, the victims, the elites. This was a different approach. It was put all the information in a searchable downloadable format so the public can deal with an area where there's been so much skepticism and scrutiny. And so this is far as we've checked, it has some functionality. The New York Times reported that when it was first released it wasn't working. 5:30pm I want to show people to your point. You put in Trump, who we know has been in there many times, and it had two hits total. A search for Maxwell, which should generate many hundreds of hits. There's a whole case file for her, wasn't working well. It showed only 31. And to give viewers I'm showing this so people can see with their own eyes. The most egregious example is if you search Epstein, you get about 224 hits out of a production that the deputy attorney general described as hundreds of thousands. And I could tell viewers that would be like getting 1% accuracy. So John, the fact that they had the month to prepare and as of the release, it's not working.

John Flannery (11:43)

Tells you what it tells me. It's hard for me to believe it's an accident given the context in which anything is produced. The former counsel, criminal defense counsel to Mr. Trump, and he is directing this and he is the one who is already violating as he's direct. He's telling us, this is what you're going to get. We get some now and you'll get some later. And it's supposed to be searchable. And those words are exactly. It says searchable and downloadable format. And the other thing you'll notice is they put everything in stove pipes. So you have a collection. I went through them as best I could in the Time allowed. They have, like, series of pictures, and then they'll have a document in there that is an FBI document. And there's no way to find that because of what I've just been describing. Also, you suggest, rightly, that how could there be so few references to Trump? And the answer to that is I don't believe it's true. And so how do we check that? Well, number one, Trump is not under investigation. Number two, you cannot withhold information. And I'm holding the statute up. So I get it absolutely correct that no record shall be withheld, delayed or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, foreign dignitary. Trump has no defense against any of this, nor, I suggest, does Epstein, nor Maxwell. And I. I use those individual words. And when, when you posted, as you did rightly, a word search, you'll notice that they gave two trenches for that search. This is my way of saying.

Ari Melber (13:36)

When.

John Flannery (13:36)

Did we forget who was supplying this information to us and with what contempt? Not talking about court right now. What contempt? They view any request for this information. And one of the questions is, why is Trump doing these other things? I think to misdirect us like a poorly paid magician so that we don't pay as much attention to this. And this also admits his dad.

Ari Melber (14:00)

Your points are fair. I'm bringing in another lawyer, as sometimes us lawyers do. We gotta watch the time. Although I appreciate you, Nancy. Erica Smith is also here, renowned civil rights attorney who's represented victims of sexual assault and harassment. John stays with us. Nancy. There's so much to peel through here. I want to. I want to read a little more from the letter where. And this actually builds on the point that John made. The letter goes out of its way to say that they had, quote, 200 DOJ attorneys working on this. That's not just, you know, researchers and paralegals who also, as all lawyers know, do important work. But that's DOJ level credentialed attorneys, 200 of them. And it raises the question, Nancy, how many attorneys would it take to. To comply with this law fully and honestly, rather than, as John and others have said, the way it seems to be going.

Nancy Erica Smith (14:53)

Well, Harry, I had a case not long ago where the defendant served 5 million documents on us, as Mr. Flannery calls a document dump. And it's designed to make it difficult to find things. But it was served properly, so I could send it to my data company and it was searchable. I could find any name in 5 million documents I could search by date, by topic, by name. So this is possible. It's possible with 5 million documents. It's been done in my own experience. And this DOJ is just. I mean, but this isn't surprising. This should not be called the Department of Justice any longer. The Department of Justice pursues justice for Americans. That is not what this is anymore. Trump loves to name things. This should be the law firm of Trump because these people are not fair or honest or pursuing justice for the American people. Todd Blanche certainly is, and he's coddling Maxwell, a co conspirator, a convicted sex trafficker, for a pedophile, and Bondi. I'm gonna release the files. And we've heard reports that they had been redacting these files for months before.

Ari Melber (16:12)

The law was passed. There's no shortage of efforts inside the DOJ here, which is why people are skeptical. I want to play something from a survivor, Danielle Bensky, who was speaking to our colleague Anna today. Take a listen. I just read Todd Blanche's statement saying.

Gretchen Carlson (16:31)

That we're going to see more in the coming weeks. And that makes me really nervous. And. Well, because we. We're really prepared. We had hoped that we would see everything today.

Ari Melber (16:42)

So I do think that survivors definitely.

Gretchen Carlson (16:45)

Will be looking through everything and combing.

Ari Melber (16:48)

The files and trying to find what.

Gretchen Carlson (16:49)

We know to be true.

Ari Melber (16:50)

It re traumatizes, but we know that.

Gretchen Carlson (16:52)

It'S important so that it doesn't happen again.

Ari Melber (16:57)

That's a big part of this, having information, transparency and prevention. Even if you put for a moment the Commander in Chief aside, and I'm curious what you think of the categories we have, Nancy, for. For that substantive process. This is from the new website printout, and I've just noted they have court files, some of which are already obviously public. The DOJ files, that's most of the new stuff. Foia, which is largely already public, and then interactions with Congress, also already public. And so it has a little bit of an Alice in Wonderland quality. And again, it's supposed to be for the public to access where there's about 18 doors here and about, I'm guesstimating, but about 15 of them. You open them and you find a bunch of stuff that's already in public. There are, I want to be fair and clear some doors that lead to new material. And we're going through all that. We'll get into some of that in the hour. This is the first few hours of it. There's pictures of Epstein and others. There's pictures. We're not going to show that. Give more context to how women, and possibly underage women, hard to tell from the photos, partially redacted, were basically put in these piles of photos. There's other disturbing material. We have a standards department that goes through this. So some of it's new, but about 15 doors lead to old documents. What do you think of the way they're presenting this and the effort of survivors for accountability?

Nancy Erica Smith (18:22)

It's in contempt of the law. They should. I mean, I don't think this is going to happen because they keep going to the Supreme Court, which is basically Trump's court and corrupt. But the court, the lower courts have been holding this administration accountable. And those silos that they have put the information in do not comply with what the intent of the law is. The intent of the law is that Americans and the world can see what happened. How is it possible that for decades a pedophile sex trafficker was able to skirt the law? How is it possible that he got a sweetheart deal in Florida and then the lawyer who gave him that sweetheart deal was in the first Trump administration? And it also, on a broader, deeper level, it shows that women still don't matter because there are so many enablers here for so many decades and women don't matter to begin with. But when rich and powerful men are involved, women don't matter at all. Even young girls, even 14 year olds. And that's tragic.

Congressman Stephen Lynch (19:33)

Yeah.

Ari Melber (19:34)

I want to play from another survivor as we think about that aspect of this. John, this is Marina Lacerda.

John Flannery (19:40)

Sure.

Nancy Erica Smith (19:42)

Well, the redactions bills will still be to protect the, the wealthy and the rich, powerful men, or will it bring them to justice? On the emails that Jeffrey Epstein was going back and forth, he mentions Trump, Donald Trump. Correct. So that's another powerful person. I don't think that we need to hear more from the survivors. They are scared sometimes to mention other people, other, you know, powerful men that have been involved.

John Flannery (20:14)

John, twice we have had the misogynist in chief playing a part denying dignity and respect to women. And twice they've been denied equal justice before the law. This court overturned a 50 year law that protected women's right to take care of themselves and not to be affected by people like this backward individual who has no reason to be in the White House and shouldn't be tolerated. Why the Democrats are not already in court asking for contempt against these people and asking to have people assigned a master of the court? Because we already have a fixed game here and how many times can these guys do us and we miss the fact that they're trying to do us. It's time we said to them, enough is enough. You guys may try to destroy America with a phony war to conceal from the public what you did, what Trump did and all your supporters did against these women. And what man in the Republican Party can go home and say to his wife or daughter or sister or whatever that he is supporting this effort against women generally and against the truth, particularly in a nation that's the laughing stock of the world pretending to be a democracy and abusing women on a scale unprecedented in American history after slavery. There are several lawyers, supposedly, who refuse to participate in the redaction. Okay, I'm sorry.

Ari Melber (21:48)

Yeah, well, I'm not sorry for what? Don't be sorry. No, you're not sorry for what you said. I appreciate how forthright you are. That's what happens when John Flannery gets into it. Nancy and John, both experienced lawyers who care about this a lot on this big news night. I want to thank you both. I have a short break. 90 seconds. And we're back on what's in the Files with Gretchen Carlson. Bubba Wallace here with Tyler Reddick. You know what's more nerve wracking than waiting for qualifying results? Waiting for the green flag to drop? Instead of pacing, you rev up with Chumba Casino's weekly new releases. It's like a fresh set of tires for your brain. Play for free@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba. No purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by law. CTNC's 21+ sponsored by Jumba Casino. Looking for a new way to grow your business? With TikTok for business, anything is possible. If you've ever thought about advertising on TikTok, now's the time to do it. You can drive more customers to your website, sell products right in the app, and you can even use TikTok's creative tools to easily make content and find creators to help sell your products for you. Find new customers today. Just open your browser, type in getstarted.TikTok.com TikTok@ads and grow your business fast.

Michelle Goldberg (23:02)

Come to DSW for the shoes.

Ari Melber (23:04)

Stay for the fun. Because let's be honest, if shoe shopping.

Michelle Goldberg (23:08)

Isn'T fun, are you even doing it right?

Ari Melber (23:10)

So go ahead. Try something new. Try something different. Good different. Try something that feels like you. You know, the real you.

Michelle Goldberg (23:19)

And then definitely brag about it later. Because at dsw, you've got unlimited freedom to play.

Ari Melber (23:25)

Find the shoes that get you at.

Michelle Goldberg (23:26)

Prices that get your budget at DSW.

Ari Melber (23:28)

Stores or@dsw.com Let us surprise you. Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18? Though I'd like to answer that question at least today I'm going to have to assert my 5th, 6th and 14th amendment right, sir. We now have new Epstein files tonight. The Justice Department has described in its letter to Congress a process what it calls compliance, although it says also hundreds of thousands of documents could still come out and discusses how 1,200 names have now been identified as either victims or victims relatives of Epstein and thus all 1,200 such names have been redacted. I'm joined by Gretchen Carlson, the veteran journalist, co founder of Lift Our Voices. Your view on what we're seeing tonight?

Gretchen Carlson (24:30)

Well, I think it's a total whiff, to use Susie Wiles, the chief of staff's terminology, that she described how our Attorney general Pam Bondi was looking into this earlier this week in the Vanity Fair profile. That also applies to the way in which this administration is releasing these documents. I mean, they had 30 days and by law they are supposed to release all of the documents and they are not. And you know, it's not surprising to me as well that the president came out today in front of the press and for the very first time in a long time that I can remember refused to take any questions. This is not going to help quell any of the conspiracy theories or any of the other people wanting to get more information. This is only going to increase the, the desire and the questions that still remain out there to know more.

Ari Melber (25:23)

And when you look at some of what there is, the photos, Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, some stuff offered without context, do you glean any order or priority that the DoJ has in terms of what they have put out tonight versus what they are holding back?

Nancy Erica Smith (25:40)

Sure.

Gretchen Carlson (25:41)

You know, I think that, that it's obvious that President Clinton's photos are there because maga, I think, wants to see those photos. And again, it may be an attempt to try to stop the questions at least coming from the MAGA base. I mean, remember, as part of the conspiracy theory, they wanted these documents released because they thought it would be all high profile Democrats. It turns out that it's going to be probably a combination of both. But no, it's not surprising to me at all that they would release these photos because in this sort of warped way of dealing with this from a PR perspective, the administration has just whiffed it use that term. Again, in thinking that this will make it go away because they release photos of Bill Clinton.

Ari Melber (26:29)

What do you think about the shift we've seen within the administration? I mean, this is a scandal with real impact, but it is not what anyone might have predicted two or four years ago would be crippling Donald Trump's second term. And there are many different assorted issues one could pick, but this is the one that you and I have discussed mattered to people across the spectrum. You have the FBI's number two leaving, having failed at the transparency, he vowed. You have the FBI's number one embattled on this and other issues. Pam Bondi, you mentioned the fighting with the Trump chief of staff over her failures here. She's now stepped back. I mean, everyone can see tonight it is her deputy, right, who reports up to her, who now is sort of the face of this. He did the Fox interview. He's on this letter. I will remind viewers that, yeah, in the doj, sometimes deputies play an important role, but they don't usually upstage the boss on a big, you know, national televised setting. It was Bondi who was doing the Fox interviews a few months back when she said, you know, she had a client list on her desk. Gretchen?

Gretchen Carlson (27:40)

Yeah, there's no way they're putting her out there tonight after the Susie Wiles interview came out, that explosive interview where she basically put her under the bus, you know, and, and said that she had not done a good job with this. Listen, they sent Todd Blanche down to do the interview with Ghislaine Maxwell. So I think that he's going to be the face that's going to be on this. But back to your point about Dan Bongino leaving the number two at the FBI, I don't think that's coincidental that Dan Bongino is gone, you know, today on the day that the documents are being released. And I would remind everyone to stay tuned to when he goes back to his podcast as to what he may be saying, you know, about this entire episode now that he doesn't work for the FBI anymore. He was one of the final thing he wanted transparency.

Ari Melber (28:30)

That's what I want to ask you. I'm running over on time, but final question, Gretchen, is the administration's play here is put a few things out, take a hit. I mean, they're going to be criticized tonight and going into the weekend, but their play is politically okay. Christmas move on, new fresh start next year. Do you think that will work or will this trace them?

Gretchen Carlson (28:55)

No, this has been a colossal error from the beginning. From a PR point of view. They could have nipped this in the bud a long time ago. They have created this problem for themselves. Look, the survivors say that there are 20 names of perpetrators that they know are in these documents. And if those don't come out, then we will know as the American public that they have not released all of the information. So there's just that simple fact that you could go on. They're gonna have to keep releasing this information and I believe that there will be lawsuits from survivors and their lawyers because they have not released all the documents. I know that takes time, but this story is not going away and it will go down in the history books as one of the colossal errors from a PR front.

Ari Melber (29:42)

Well, Gretchen Carlson, thanks for joining us again. We're gonna now turn next to the top, a top Democrat on the House committee that's been dealing with EP gotten some of these wins. That's next. Every wireless service comes with a cost, right? Wrong. The TextNow app lets you do your thing for free. Get real talk, real text and 5G data for must have apps with no monthly bill. Need more data? Add it right from the app.

John Flannery (30:12)

Done.

Ari Melber (30:12)

Go back to free. No long term contracts, no pressure, no surprises. Just wireless that works around you. TextNow, we've got your back. Download TextNow in your app Store today. Wireless plans require the purchase of a sim card. Visit textnow.com for terms and conditions. Own a small business and need a reliable way to reach new customers? Try TikTok for business. We've generated over 100,000 leads which has converted into over 40,000 sales for our pet insurance policies. I am the CEO of Spot Pet Insurance, TikTok Smart Plus AI powered Automation T It takes the guesswork out of targeting, bidding and optimizing creative. If I can advertise on TikTok, you can too. Drive more leads and scale your business. Today with TikTok for business, head over to get started.TikTok.com TikTok ads Tyler Redick here from 2311 Racing. You think racing's tough? Try getting your friends to agree on dinner plans. I'm in. Wait maybe what time again? While they figure that out, I rev up Chumba Casino Play on your browser. No downloads necessary. No need to negotiate. Why wait on them when you can spin for yourself? Play now@chumbacasino.com let's chumba no purchase necessary. VGW Group Void we're prohibited by law. CTNC's 21/plus sponsored by Chumba Casino. The Trump DOJ is releasing some Epstein files that's the big headline as they hit this deadline today, and we're going to show you some of the headlines here, New photos and court records is how the Times reports it. Given the clash over not fully complying, Democrats already threatening to take them to court because the DOJ missed the deadline. That clearly states all documents. Interestingly, Fox News tonight has a headline up that says, Epstein files explode open as DOJ details discovery of powerful figures and more than 1,200 victims. That is true. We mentioned the victim count earlier. It's the kind of headline that suggests maybe the government is finally sharing more. And people, of course, are debating that. Washpo going with DOJ releases, quote, huge trove of Epstein documents, different ways to look at a developing story. Right now we go to Congressman Stephen lynch, who's been at the center of the action. He's a Democrat in the House Oversight Committee, which is one of the committees that has had the most active legislative progress this year. Welcome. I know it's a busy night. Thanks for being here.

Congressman Stephen Lynch (32:35)

No, thanks for having me, Ari.

Ari Melber (32:38)

Based on what? You know, how would you rate the Trump DOJ's compliance with this law tonight?

Congressman Stephen Lynch (32:46)

Maybe a C minus. You know, they obviously curated the documents that they wanted to give to the press. Pictures of Bill Clinton, things like that. But we know that there are troves of documents that they have withheld. There are also documents that they have redacted so heavily that we can't possibly provide context as to where they came from and what time period those pictures were taken. So there's a lot of work that.

Ari Melber (33:19)

Needs to be done. Yeah, let me jump in there on that. Let's dig into that point. You and your colleagues were, as I mentioned, more successful than most House committees this year. You got to vote on this. You got the President to sign it. And it very clearly says more transparency than usual. Usually, grand jury documents are secret. This law says they come out usually. Redactions can be quite broad here, as you know, you guys helped write it. They're very narrow. Does this type of redaction. This is over 90 pages, every page redacted. Does this, in your view, satisfy the law's requirements or violate them?

Congressman Stephen Lynch (33:55)

It essentially violates the order of the court and the spirit of the legislation that was sponsored by Ro Khanna and Tom Massey, as well as the subpoena that was put together by Robert Garcia and Summer Lee, who were the ranking members on the committee and the subcommittee that got this done. So we clearly said in the subpoena and in the bill, the Epstein Transparency act what we expected. And the judge reinforced that as well on the subpoena that. That the. He set a deadline and said all the documents have to be produced at that on that date. They. They used this excuse that it was taking so long because they were organizing everything for us and. And making sure that people were protected. But then they just dumped the. The information. And there's no context at all in terms of what we asked for. It's just a jumble. So we're going to have to take some time and try to figure this out and maybe work with some of the victims to find out what these. What these pictures actually portray and what these documents actually mean.

Ari Melber (35:05)

Given that the DOJ admits it's not fully complying with tonight's deadline, they're in violation of the law by their own confession. Will you sue them?

Congressman Stephen Lynch (35:16)

Yeah, we'll be back in court. Right. To either hold them in contempt or, you know, certainly sue them for their failure to produce all the documents as required. And so there's a.

Ari Melber (35:33)

So is that something you've discussed with your committee, with Kana? That's the plan tonight?

Congressman Stephen Lynch (35:38)

Well, we've done this before. We've actually had this happen before in the committee, and it's pretty standard for what we do. And so we would go back into court and try to have the judge enforce that order. And also, at some point, we're going to have to go back over these redactions. We want the Department of Justice to explain and justify every single redaction that they've made that conceals evidence and, you know, denies these victims their day in court and justice.

Ari Melber (36:19)

And under the law, they have 14 more days to do that. Right, Right.

Congressman Stephen Lynch (36:23)

Well, I think next week, based on the fact that we have not received all the documents as promised and as required, we can go into court, I believe, on Monday, back into D.C. district Court.

Ari Melber (36:38)

Understood. Congressman lynch, thank you. We will be right back. We're joined by Michelle Goldberg, a columnist of the New York Times, Mississippi. Now analyst, as we just got some news out of the Congress, a member of the key committee that has released the Epstein materials and helped get this law passed says they will go forward and sue to get full compliance. Michelle, your reaction to that news and what we've learned overall tonight? I don't know if Michelle can hear me.

Michelle Goldberg (37:11)

Well, I'm certainly not surprised that the. Oh, am I frozen?

Ari Melber (37:17)

No, you're good now. My apologies. I do believe you're good. Thank you. Go ahead.

Michelle Goldberg (37:22)

Okay. I said, you know, I think it's. It's not surprising at all that the Trump administration has not been forthcoming. Coming. I think what is surprising maybe is that they have, is that they've been so, I guess, sloppy and blatant about it. There's a way that they could have done this that would have at least feigned greater cooperation. They could, you know, they could have made the redactions a little bit more selective. They could have released all of the documents on time, which apparently they've been combing through, they've said for months. And so I think, you know, I guess on the one hand the, the blatancy of their defiance is, is par for the course, but it's also kind of self sabotaging.

Ari Melber (38:11)

Yeah. When you put it that way, because there are so many other issues where people are accustomed to them getting away with it. This is the burning hot vulnerability that they have not gotten away with it, which is why Republicans made them sign this. And so dragging this out in the next year, as you say, is, is not exactly something that disappoints the president's detractors. They would, they would think that it's a win. I'm happy to talk about this. Go ahead. Yeah, go ahead.

Michelle Goldberg (38:42)

I think that there, people are happy to talk about it. For another, I mean, look, I think there are also, there are a lot of people who genuinely and with good faith are really trying to get all of this information into the public. I mean, there's that grand jury report which is entirely redacted. Right. Like more than 100 pages of just, you know, black redactions. A court has already said that they can release that grand jury report, according to the New York Times. And so there is, you know, whether it's sloppiness or whether it's defiance is difficult to say. They could have done this, which might have at least quelled some of their critics. You know, they kind of release everything. They could have redacted what was most damning to them. They could have released, you know, kind of a few photos of a few more photos of Donald Trump that, you know, kind of don't particularly tell us anything we don't know. Instead, once again, they make it really look like they're hiding something.

Ari Melber (39:47)

Yeah. And the law, of course, is supposed to address that. They are more on the hook than they were before, but still hiding and admitting it. All important stuff. Michelle Goldberg, thank you. When we come back, we will look at where this story's going and some of the new photos that are coming out tonight. Stay with us. The DOJ released new Epstein files late today, while also acknowledging it is not able or willing to fully comply with the law. But there is new material. Former President Clinton, who was already tied to Epstein on the planes, and other material is in some newly released photos he's seen alongside Epstein in this image the DOJ has released. There is no further context. There's also this photograph where he has seen in a hot tub, the other individual completely redacted. So there's very little to be said other than what the photo shows. He's in a hot tub and there is apparently another person there. There's also a picture showing him with an unidentified woman there, again, her face completely redacted. They appear to be traveling. There is no additional information provided by the government regarding the context here. And this is part of why Democrats have already said they would sue to get full compliance, which means all the information, not what could be a kind of selective leaking. Bill Clinton is not implicated through the photos in any additional conduct. His spokesperson says this is not about Bill Clinton. Never has been, never will be, end quote. We'll be right back. Congress may have clawed back funding for public media, but public radio's mission to serve you and your community will not waver as the NPR network enters a new chapter. Your support is critical. Visit donate.NPR.org.