← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
DOJ risks criminal prosecution for defying Epstein documents release law: Weissmann
00:41:05
Former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, and Julie K. Brown, investigative reporter for the Miami Herald, talk with Jen Psaki about the Justice Department's failure to comply with a law requiring the full release of the Epstein documents. Brown points out that much of the new document release consists of material that was already in the public domain. Weissmann explains different ways the DOJ can be held to account for failing to meet the law's requirements, not the least of which is actual criminal prosecution, with a statute of limitations exceeding the longevity of Donald Trump's term and his protection.
Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Walgreens. Looking for a holiday gift?
- [00:04]
B
Sort of.
- [00:05]
C
My cousin Freddie showed up to surprise us.
- [00:07]
D
Oh, sounds like a real nice surprise.
- [00:10]
B
Exactly.
- [00:11]
C
So now I have to get him a gift, but I haven't gotten my bonus yet. So if we can make it something really nice, but also not break the bank, that'd be perfect.
- [00:18]
A
How about a keurig for 50% off.
- [00:21]
B
Bingo savings all season?
- [00:23]
A
The holiday road is long. We're with you all the way. Walgreens offer valid November 26 through December 27. Exclusions apply. Hey, guys.
- [00:31]
E
Finding the perfect gift for the food lover in your life is easy thanks to Gold Belly. Gold Belly ships America's most iconic foods.
- [00:38]
A
Straight from world famous restaurants right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stone Crab from Miami, Franklin BBQ from Texas, or desserts from famous foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart.
- [00:49]
E
Goldbelly has you covered.
- [00:51]
A
Just go to goldbelly.com and for a limited time, get 20% off your first.
- [00:55]
E
Order with promo code gift.
- [00:57]
A
That's promo code gift. I wanna start by telling you all that Donald Trump is about to give a speech in North Carolina. He's still at it, God bless him. He's still trying to sell his failed economic policies to voters. It went so well earlier this week, and I just mentioned that. Not because we're gonna play it for you. We are not gonna play it for you, but just because it's a little bit hilarious, given what's been happening back here in Washington today. And I just mentioned this a little bit with Chris, because today was, of course, the deadline for the Trump administration to release the Epstein files. Today was the deadline. They've had it for a while and they came very short of meeting that bar. I mean, today the Justice Department did release hundreds of thousands of pages, so lots of pages. But. And this is a big. But only a teeny tiny portion of it was new. And just to give you a sense, earlier tonight, Congressman Robert Garcia, I just mentioned this. He's the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, estimated that we may only be seeing about 10% of the documents, documents DOJ has in its possession. Just 10%. I just wanted to repeat that again for all of you. That definitely does not come remotely close to what they were required to do under the bill that passed Congress last month with the support of every single senator and representative. Every single one, save one guy, Clay Higgins. Still can't explain that one. But the bill, again, remember, it was also signed into law by President Trump himself the next day, because that bill required that all the Epstein files, with only narrowly defined exceptions like the identity of survivors or national security concerns, were required to be released by midnight tonight. And they would have to explain those, too, by the way. Now, by the Justice Department's own admission, the batch of materials they made public today are just a fraction of what they were supposed to release under the law. But nevertheless, this release of documents was about as full and transparent as we have come to expect from this administration. When I wasn't like, bowled over shocked, it wasn't fully complete, I'm sure you weren't either. Which is to say this is not very transparent at all. And there isn't really much of an excuse for that. I mean, we already know the Department of Justice has already pored over these documents at least once before, thanks to reporting from Bloomberg's Jason Leopold, who know we know that the Trump administration was making FBI agents pull all nighters to review what was in these documents as far back as March. And thanks to his relentless, and I mean relentless, Freedom of Information act request, Jason Leopold may be the one reporter in this country who actually has a sense of just how big the full universe of the Epstein files actually is and how much manpower has been dedicated to reviewing it and, of course, the scope of what they may be holding back. And he's going to join me here later this hour to help us understand what is and is not in this release, but right now, because right now we don't know just what the Trump administration has omitted from this release altogether. We have no idea. We don't know the whole scope of it. And many of the documents that were released today look like this. You can see on your screen pages and pages and pages of redactions, blacked out text and images. I mean, one of the files has more than 100 pages in a row that are fully redacted. But here is some of what we have been able to see. The documents include a handwritten note telling someone to send a bucket of roses to a high school as part of a list of errands. We don't know the context in which that note was written. There's also this photo of what appears to be an Amazon order of books that include titles like this quote, slavecraft, Roadmaps for Erotic Servitude and A Workbook for Erotic Slaves and Their owners. And the files include a handwritten note labeled An Important Message for JE that reads, I have a female for him. We don't know the context for that message either. None of it, all of it is gross and creepy sounding, to state the obvious. Now, the documents also include a previously unreleased FBI complaint from 1996 made by Epstein accuser Maria Farmer, alerting the FBI to Epstein's interest in child pornography. While Farmer has been vocal about having made that complaint, the actual document has never been made public before. And some people accuse Farmer of making it up. Can you imagine that living through that? But today, she has been vindicated. And later this hour, I'm going to get a reaction from the family of another one of Epstein's survivors, the late Virginia Roberts Duffre. To nobody's surprise, in an incredibly obvious attempt to move the focus to another president, this initial batch of files also included a number of photos of former President Bill Clinton, many in the company of Jeffrey Epstein. We don't know the context in which these photos were taken, and all the redactions were done by the Department of Justice and not msnow. Now, the release of those particular photos does seem to undermine the idea, though, that materials could be withheld from the public because of the investigation Trump ordered into several prominent Democrats with ties to Epstein, including, of course, Bill Clinton. And we'll have to wait and see if they're brazen enough to try and use any possible investigation as a shield to avoid further releases out after today, we will see they are capable of anything. Now, earlier tonight, a spokesperson for former President Clinton released a statement saying in part, the White House hasn't been hiding these files for months, only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton. This is about shielding themselves from what comes next or from what they'll try and hide forever. But frankly, none of the documents we've reviewed today sheds as much light on Jeffrey Epstein's creepy and predatory behavior and that of many people around him, as well as his relationship with the current occupant of the Oval Office, as the two blockbuster pieces of reporting on Epstein published by the New York Times this week. One of those stories explores how Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump forged a close friendship over their pursuit of women. And one of the reporters behind it will also join me here later this hour. Now, despite what we can all see with our own eyes, which it's very clear, we can go on the website and look at the documents ourselves, see all these redactions, see all these blacked out pages, this release does not even come close, of course, to meeting the requirements of the law. And it seems to include a selective set of photos. As I've noted, the Trump team's approach is remarkably to Keep patting themselves on the back. I mean, today, Ms. Now obtained a letter sent to members of Congress by the Deputy Attorney General. Todd Blanchett claims, without a hint of irony, I'd note that, quote, the Justice Department's commitment to transparency and compliance with the law has been historic. Okay, I don't know about that. Now, the administration seems to think that we should all feel satisfied with this teeny, tiny partial release of the Epstein files. That's if they tell us. If Todd Blanche tells Congress in a letter, they're all going to be sat. I suppose that everybody, all of us, will all be satisfied and move on. The survivors will be satisfied and move on. And that has sort of been their M.O. from the beginning. I mean, over and over again, we have watched this administration try to close the book on the Epstein saga to really some fractional part of the record and say, there you go, case closed, nothing more to see here. But time and time again, that strategy has failed. It's only heightened the resolve of the public. It's only heightened the resolve of the survivors and the resolve of members of Congress to keep pushing for more transparency. And there is no indication that strategy will work this time either. Already, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie is saying that the Justice Department's partial release, quote, grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law. So the fight for this information isn't over. That's important. It's just getting started. I have two great guests joining me here to kick off the show. Andrew Weissman is the former general counsel at the FBI. Julie K. Brown is an investigative reporter for the Miami Herald responsible for breaking the Epstein story wide open all the way back in 2018. There are no two people I'd rather be talking to at the start of the show tonight. I'm so grateful to both of you. Andrew, let me just start with you. I know you've been poring through these documents, the ones that have been released. They've only been searchable for a couple of hours now. Let me start by just asking you to give us your big picture take on kind of what happened today. What we know, if there's much new we do know.
- [09:01]
E
Well, I think that you hit the nail on the head with. The first thing that we know is that the law was violated. I mean, it's just black and white. The law said this is the deadline, as Chris Hayes spoke to you about, and they didn't comply with it. And one of their excuses is, well, you know, this is a complicated process and it takes a lot of time. And so we'll be complying with at least part of this going forward. At the same time, Todd Blanche, while he's, he's saying that, he also said, you know, Donald Trump for years, for years, he said, has wanted us to be completely transparent. Well, if that's true, that they've had years to do this, not just a few days. And so there's just this inherent discrepancy to sort of their, you know, death by a thousand cuts approach to the release of these documents. And then the other big picture point I had is, remember in September, the Department of justice issued a memo saying there's nothing to see here in the 300 gigabytes. 300 gigabytes of material that is in the Epstein files. Well, if there's 300 gigabytes of material, I think I would take issue with the, we've now been disclosed 10%. I don't think the hundreds of thousands. I never do math in public, but I would say that, you know, 300 gigabytes and, you know, hundreds of thousands of documents don't compute. We really do, by Department of Justice's own admission, just taking their own statements, have a tiny sliver of what they have.
- [10:45]
A
You don't have to be a mathematician, Andrew. You have a bazillion other strengths. So that's the good news. Julie, your incredible reporting and your willingness and ability to tell the stories of these survivors is a huge reason why we're here in the first place. You know this case better than anyone, almost anyone out there. What stood out to you about what was in there, what wasn't in there, and really how everything kind of went down today?
- [11:11]
F
Well, I think the Justice Department is apparently counting on the fact that the victims, you know, don't know what's in the files when in fact many of them do know exactly what they told the FBI and exactly what are in the files. Also, there's a lot of attorneys that have been affiliated with this case that know what the FBI knows and virtually none of that information was released today. You mentioned a couple of documents early on in, in the broadcast. You know, this letter about the roses and, and those materials were from the two search warrant that was issued on Epstein's Palm beach mansion. And so those materials were recovered way back then. They are part of the public record. So again, these are documents that they're throwing out there that sound interesting. They're not putting them in context when in fact they are. They could clearly note that these are part of that early investigation and they don't they just throw out these documents all jumbled up so that in the hope that people won't figure out that they're really kind of pulling a switch here with saying we're being transparent when in fact they're only digging up old material and kind of tossing it in a bowl and throwing it online.
- [12:26]
A
I mean, this is such a good point. I think they're making the assumption that most people, the overwhelming majority of people don't know as much as you know and have not followed as closely. And it's going to feel new or something. Is this new or isn't it new? And does that meet some kind of bar and we're about to go on the holidays? That's incredibly cynical, just to say the least. Let me ask you, Andrew. I mean, the date started with, of course, Trump's deputy attorney General Todd Blanche essentially telling Fox News even before we saw the release, he essentially told them they weren't going to comply with the law. Earlier this morning, he said that they will release more documents in the coming weeks, which of course, not what the law says to your point that you've already made. But members of Congress have said many of them, including Massie, Democrats and Republicans, have said they're kind of exploring every legal avenue, get them to comply. You are a lawyer extraordinaire. I mean, what would you advise them to do to compel them to comply?
- [13:21]
E
Well, there are a number of things they could do. They have obviously talked about having hearings, calling the attorney general in for hearing. You know, that's one thing. But there also is stuff they can do that has teeth. They can have impeachment proceedings with respect to statements made by certain people, like Todd Blanch's statement, which, you know, I find strikingly, let's just say, discordant with the facts or to quote a judge in another context, untethered to the facts. And the other is if you violate a congressional statute that says do something by X date, you are and you don't do it and it's intentional. And you have Todd Blanche saying that on air. That is potential criminal liability. And that does not go away. That doesn't even go away. If they were to actually later comply. There has been a violation of the law now, and that's something. Remember the statute of limitations, the amount of time that you have to bring that kind of case is 5 years. Not to do math again, but 5 years would take us to after the Trump presidency is over.
- [14:34]
A
Congressman Massie essentially warned of this. I mean, he said a future DOJ could convict the current attorney general and others because the Epstein Files Transparency act is not like a congressional subpoena which expires at the end of each Congress. To his credit, he very much spelled it out there. Julie, let me ask you, I mean, as you noted, there's really not much new in the documents today. Obviously there's a lot more that they have to release. They're supposed to release according to the law. The search function was not available until about 7pm ish time tonight. We were all looking through there and it made me kind of wonder for people like you who know this case so well as there are future releases, how do you look? What are you looking for? Like how are you using the search mechanisms? What kind of new information do you think there could be or do you hope to see in future releases?
- [15:24]
F
Well, first of all, the whole process is incredibly tedious for me even. And it's just These are individual PDFs that you have to almost call up each one individually. Sure you can search, but the search mechanism doesn't always work properly when you're doing photos. You can't really use a search mechanism for these photos. A majority of the files today seem to be photographs, so you can't search those because they're not labeled. You have to go through them one by one. So it's just not designed to be user friendly and maybe that is on purpose.
- [16:07]
A
I mean, I think you nailed it on the head there. If you have covered this story more closely than probably almost any other journalist out there find it tedious, which it is tedious. We had a whole team of people trying to go through stuff today. The survivors, they're just normal human beings. So we're just trying to get access to their information and it makes it almost impossible to do, which does feel unfortunately purposeful. Julie Brown, Kay Brown, thank you so much for your incredible reporting on this story, for being here with us tonight. We really appreciate it. Andrew, stay right where you are. We're going to be coming back to you in just a few minutes. First I'm going to talk to sky and Amanda Roberts. They're standing by. They are the brother and sister in law of Epstein, survivor of Virginia Giuffre. And they're going to join me with their first reaction to everything that happened today. When we come back, Bob evans Creamy Mac and cheese and buttery mashed potatoes are made for those holiday moments you just can't plan for. Like when the neighbors burnt their holiday meal and you invited them over or that time when everyone's flights home were.
- [17:06]
G
Canceled and they stayed an extra to two days.
- [17:09]
A
So when there is no plan, say hello to Plan B. O B When you bring out the Bob, you can take comfort this holiday season, knowing you'll always have something delicious on the table, no matter what the holidays bring. When you need comfort, bring out the Bob. Available now in your refrigerated section. AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes.
- [17:34]
C
Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice.
- [17:39]
B
Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform.
- [17:41]
A
That helps you monitor agents, set guardrails, and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI transformation at rubrik.com that's R U B R-I K.com ever spend $200 on a fragrance only to realize you hate it? Micro Perfumes fixes that. Now you can try luxury scents without the luxury price. Pick from real designer fragrances like Gucci, Chanel and Versace. It's the real deal. Authentic scents starting at just a few bucks. They come in sleek travel sprays, ship fast, and there's no subscription required. Why gamble on a full bottle? Go to microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off that's microperfumes.com podcast for up to 60% off. Tonight, as we continue to cover the Justice Department's limited release of the Eptine files, I think it's important to reflect on the fact that we, the public, would know absolutely nothing about the extent of Epstein's crimes and the crimes of his associates if it weren't for the sheer bravery of those who survived them. For years, scores of survivors have fought valiantly for justice and for accountability for years, for decades, including one of the first survivors to come forward, Virginia Roberts Dufres, who was rightfully credited back in September for her role in bringing all of this to light.
- [19:08]
C
Virginia Roberts Giuffre is an American hero.
- [19:11]
A
She is somebody.
- [19:12]
C
She is somebody without whom we would not be able to have this voice. She was the one who had courage to name names, speak out against people, and she was standing up against everybody at one time with an enormous amount of pressure.
- [19:27]
A
And most of these women are here because of Virginia Robertson. So as Trump's Justice Department refuses still to release the Phil Epstein files, the question remains, will the survivors ever get the justice they deserve? I think we all certainly hope so. Joining me now are sky and Amanda Roberts, the brother and sister in law of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who have been fighting tirelessly for justice in her memory. It's great to see you both. I wish it was under different circumstances. I remember talking to you right around when this passed, and there was a feeling of elation after so much hard work. And now here we are, and it's the deadline, and Congressman Garcia is estimating it's about 10%. There's massive redactions in these documents. I know you both have become kind of part of the glue that is holding a lot of the survivor community together. And I just wanted to start. Let me start with you, Sky. How are you feeling today about everything?
- [20:28]
C
Oh, God. I think Amanda's already crying over here because it's. It's a really. It's a mixed bag of emotions today. There's a lot of.
- [20:38]
A
There.
- [20:39]
C
There is a sense of, like, pride and joy and being proud because the survivors deserve that. I mean, you look at. You look at some of the survivors that, like, fought this initially, like Virginia and like Maria Farmer and so many other brave people that came. Survivors that came forward and just fought valiantly to get these files released. And it's taken decades. It's taken decades to do that. And you're reading them now, you know, with a naked eye and looking at them and saying, oh, my God, like, these women fought so hard for this. And so we're feeling really proud of our survivor sisters of our own, sister of Maria, and so many others that fought so hard, but we're also not feeling this, like, joy either. It's kind of disappointing to see that our own Department of Justice is trying to continue to gaslight us and to say, you know, I didn't even know Jen until you just said it now that it was 10%, I mean, that's disappointing. You know, if it's 10%, then, like, that's a far stretch to the 100% that we asked for with the bill. And so to feel like you're continuing to be gaslighted is kind of a disappointing feeling. And it's not shocking. Unfortunately, though, I think we hoped that they would do the right thing, but we expected for them to not, which is, you know, under. I guess. I guess it's kind of. I don't know. It's mixed feelings right now, let me put it that way.
- [22:01]
A
I hate that the two of you have been almost hardened to the expectations of what's possible sometimes under this administration and in Washington. And, yeah, that was an estimate by Congressman Robert Garcia, who was, of course, the ranking member on the Oversight Committee. So it felt like an interesting one, but it's certainly not the totality of what is supposed to be released under the law of what you fought so hard for. I heard. I was talking with Chris Hayes about this earlier, Amanda, how I heard one of your. One of the survivors was on with him earlier and said that she just felt exhausted. You know, and I know you both have said that before. There's so much fight in you. There's so much hope of what's possible. But today, on a day, felt exhausted. I know you've probably been in touch with members of the survivor community. What are you hearing from others today about how they're feeling with such a small, tiny percentage of what the law was supposed to prompt the release of?
- [22:58]
D
Yeah, mainly frustration. You know, the frustration that they're still trying to kind of pull the rug from underneath us and, you know, disappointment. Disappointment like this. This should have been the moment. You know, it's certainly exhausting. I think the last 30 days, we've been holding our breath, and we've given them the time and the grace to kind of like, do what the bill has asked for. I will say on the other end and what I've encouraged every single survivor that I have spoken to today is this is a law now, and now we get to hold them accountable. Now we know what should be in there, and we're going to comb over every single document and every single page. We're going to partner with every single lawyer that is privy to this information, and we are going to hold them accountable. And that is the truth. And so it almost gives us a little bit of empowerment as well. You know, we get to control this story moving forward. And I think that we've proven, as a collective group the strength that we carry and the influence. I think that they're gonna be put in a position once again to have no choice but to do the right thing.
- [24:18]
F
Yeah.
- [24:19]
A
That is an incredibly powerful and courageous response to today, and I think so encouraging for other survivors and their families to hear out there. You know, you mentioned sky. You mentioned Maria Farmer earlier, and I've had the honor of speaking with her and her sister Annie as well. And. And one thing that was in the files today was Maria Farmer's complaint to the FBI about Epstein all the way back in 1996. And she had been, as you well know, talking about this complaint for years, but the FBI never publicly acknowledged her original report. And in a statement tonight, she said, this is amazing. Thank you for believing me. I feel redeemed. This is one of the best days of my life. Of course, it's Mixed with the fact that I'm devastated about all of the other little girls, like Virginia, who were harmed because the FBI didn't do their job. She said she was crying for two reasons. It was a really incredibly powerful statement. I think a lot about the conversation I had with her. I don't know if you've seen that statement, but what is your reaction to that?
- [25:23]
D
Maria is. She's a gem. She's gold. And I just. We love her dearly. I think we found our sister in her and her strength and her resilience. Being the original survivor who came forward in 1996 who first reported her, I think we get this understanding of the. Not just the names. You know, people just are attached to the names. But the institutional failure that has been going on for decades across administrations, not just this. And so we really get to dissect and see that Maria Farmer is another hero. And she's just absolutely amazing. And I'm so glad that she got this day of vindication.
- [26:12]
A
It's just in a day that I think was very disappointing. It's felt like an element of justice for Maria Farmer, which is so powerful. One of the things, and I've learned so much from talking to you both over the last several months and many other survivors that has often struck me is that there is this kind of talking point or use of the we're going to protect the survivors answer that's often offered by people who are trying to prevent the release of these documents. And you saw, when we looked at the documents, we don't know all the redactions. There'll be lots of exploration of what was redacted in here. What struck me is that survivors know. And Julie K. Brown just made this point. What is in these. They know the experiences, right? They know what happened in these moments. Have you heard anything from the Department of Justice to help provide clarity on what would be acceptable to not redact? Have any survivors, you know, heard anything from them asking that question? Because that is a very easy way to clear that up.
- [27:15]
C
I mean, the reality with the Department of Justice right now is that. And it's very clear that they have a different motive behind them, and it's not to. In a lot of ways, we want to work with them, right? We want to work with them. We want to help in every way, shape and form possible. But, you know, I think it's another way of creating smoke and mirrors. It's another way to try to create this facade that they're actually doing something, when in reality, they're actually not doing anything at all. And you know what? I will give credit. You know, they are releasing documents right now, but it just, you know, there's this little birdie in the back of your head that kind of says, are you just releasing these because it's what you want us to see, or are you releasing what needs to be seen by not just the public, but even just for vindication for these survivors and to get real justice? I mean, justice can come in very many forms. The first part is acknowledgement. I feel like we've gotten to the point of acknowledgement. Everybody can know this happened, something happened, then it's in a form of social justice. These people should not be in places of power, Political power, educational power, judicial power. They should not be in these places of power. And then it comes in real form of justice, of the actual judicial system changing and redirecting their attention around what this looks like, because this is why the people are passionate about it. Jen, I'm telling you, they're passionate because they can feel it. They can feel that these people, the people of power, took precedent over young women and children, that they felt like they were bigger than everybody else, that our system still feels like they're bigger than everybody else, and it's not. And I'm here to tell you that Virginia, Virginia would continue to scream from out. And she did it because it was from a pure sense of just being a normal person, like me and you, like anybody out there. And we will keep fighting until we actually get justice for this. And the justice needs to come in a form of real change, judicial change, systematic change. Like, this is a global issue at this point. And we won't stop. We won't stop.
- [29:11]
A
I think people care a lot about it because of you guys, too, and Virginia and all the survivors out there. It makes people keep their eyes open and listen. Thank you for being out there, for being here with me, sky and Amanda Roberts. Thank you again.
- [29:27]
D
Thank you so much.
- [29:28]
A
Thank you. Thank you. Okay, coming up. When the government doesn't want to hand over information willingly, which they don't seem to in this moment, there are ways to get information out of them. No one is better at it than my next guest. And we'll be right back. Save over $200 when you book weekly. Stays with VRBO this winter. If you need to work, why not work from a chalet? If you haven't seen your college besties since, well, college, you need a week to fully catch up in a snowy cabin. And if you have to stay in a remote place, with your in laws you should save over $200 a week. That's the least we can do. So you might as well start digging out the long johns because saving over $200 on a week long snowcation rental is in the cards book now@vrbo.com looking.
- [30:16]
C
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 get get started.TikTok.com tiktokads and grow your business fast. Hey Riley herbst here with 2311 racing, waiting for the bus, staring at traffic crawl hard pass I rev up Jumba Casino instead. Fast spins, blazing winds, all fun. No downloads needed. Why let the clock drag when you can let the reels spin? Next stop chumbacasino.com let's Chumba no purchase necessary.
- [31:07]
A
VGW Group Void where Prohibited by law.
- [31:10]
C
CTC's 21+ Sponsored by Jumba Casino.
- [31:17]
A
While the Justice Department announced today that they will not meet tonight's deadline for releasing all of the Epstein files, the one you know required by law, it is important to remember the Justice Department can move very quickly when they want to. I mean, back in March, Bloomberg's Jason Leopold reported that under pressure from Trump's Attorney General Pam Bondi and Trump's FBI Director Kash Patel, FBI agents were pulling all nighters, reviewing the Epstein files around the clock, redacting them so they could be released. And over the course of just five days, from March 17th to the 22nd, 934 FBI employees clocked more than 14,000 overtime hours, costing the department more than $850,000 of what the department calls premium pay. As Leopold described the mad dash, he described it all in Bloomberg On March 17, FBI employees received a directive via text to their personal phones to begin working uninterrupted on the Epstein records immediately, according to two people familiar now, nearly 1,000 FBI employees, including special agents from multiple field offices, the agency's FOIA employees, personnel from the FBI's Counterintelligence and International operations, and a special team of FBI digital forensic experts were all told to drop their previous assignments and work around the clock to redact the Epstein files specifically. Again, according to Leopold's reporting, citing sources familiar One of their tasks was to redact the name Donald Trump. No wonder there was such a rush at the time. Now, part of the reason we know so much about that mad dash to redact these files back in March is because of the unique kind of journalism that Bloomberg's Jason Leopold does. Leopold is a FOIA specialist, meaning he uses the Freedom of Information act to make formal records requests to the US Government and forced the government to hand over documents, even if they don't want to. Now, in this case, Leopold had actually had to sue the US Government to force them to comply with the Freedom of Information act and hand over records relating to their March review of the Epstein files. The government did not want to give those documents to him. No wonder. Why. Look at. I just read through much of his reporting from it. He used the law and he got them anyway, clearly because he reported quite a story about it. Joining me now is Jason Leopold, senior investigative reporter at Bloomberg. Jason, it's great to see you. You have quite an expertise, quite an expertise that I think is a lot of people are gonna learn from. As you looked at these kind of files that were released today, a small percentage of what we suspect is out there. How did you kind of assess from your perch the overlap between the documents the FBI reviewed in March and the redacted files the DOJ released today? I'm asking this because it's, It's. It's a little bit like, why did it take so much time?
- [34:05]
B
It's a great question, and it's something that I tried to hit on a couple of weeks ago when I was writing about this. So we know, and we know now, based on these emails, that. That I obtained through the Freedom of Information act last month, that the FBI had reviewed all of these records. Right. They. They spent a couple of months going through all the records, redacting them. I was able to understand what they were actually looking at, and then it was sent over to doj. And then in the summer, Pam Bondi, or excuse me, the Justice Department and the FBI issued this joint statement saying nothing would be released. So those records had already been reviewed. What has been released today, my takeaway from that is that much of it comes from the various criminal cases that had been going on, had been ongoing. Excuse me, and the judge's recent decisions to unseal those records. So what we don't see are the records related to the government's own investigation. For example, interview summaries known as FBI 302s. You know, a few months ago, I had reported, based on the government's own documents that there was a money laundering investigation that was based on, also on some emails that my colleagues and I obtained. So, so I think that there is a serious overlap. But I also want to say that my expectations were really, really low in terms of what would be released today. I mean, this is my world, Jen. You know, when anyone says, like, hey, we're going to release all of these records, I'm skeptical.
- [36:04]
A
You're skeptical. That's why you have to become an expert to your point, because you've done so much extensive reporting of their process back in March. And it seems to be they're kind of leaning into when they said today we're not going to release it all. Like they need more time to go through and redact these documents. What do you make of that? Because haven't they already done a review and a redaction? I mean, what, how do you assess that?
- [36:29]
B
Yeah, no, that's exactly what they've already done. In fact, one of the emails that I obtained through this release of documents related to their review and redaction showed that Dan Bongino, the deputy FBI director, was forwarded an email under the subject line, you know, redaction, special redaction. So they had already been going back and forth on these records and, and reviewing them, redacting them. I mean, we also learned the kinds of material that was, the kind, the categories of records that were there, the type of material that they had been reviewing. There was even an FBI special forensics team, these digital forensics experts that went through and reviewed the electronic devices such as laptop computers, desktop computers, mobile phones, cameras. But we didn't see, you know, much of the trove from, you know, from that category. So it's, it's a little odd to me. I think that what's noteworthy is that there was not any disclosure today about what was redacted and for what reason. If you recall, when the Mueller report was released many years ago, there were redactions that were marked like harm to ongoing matter, for example. Right. That's the equivalent in, in foil land to an ongoing investigation. But here today, we don't really get to see what has been like, what, what are you redacting this under? We do know though, that Todd Blanche, he sent a letter to, to Congress, this release, and this is where my antenna went up because this is, this is a FOIA centric. He said that, you know, we can, we can withhold records if it's deliberative attorney work product, attorney client privilege, and, you know, the deliberative process aspect relates to all the discussions internally that are taking place, you know, certainly during the course of this investigation.
- [38:55]
A
I suspect I know what you may be issuing a FOIA request for soon. I would note they have 15 days from the completion of the release to give the explanations for the redactions, but that that's still going to be probably unsatisfying. Jason Leopold, I could talk to you for a long time. We got to run, but thank you so much. Keep at it.
- [39:12]
B
Thank you.
- [39:12]
A
We've got to sneak in a very quick break, but my next guest revealed more about Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein than the Justice Department did today. So there's that. We'll be right back. The files we've seen today don't tell us nearly as much about Jeffrey Epstein's longtime connection to Donald Trump as a very revealing story in the New York Times earlier this week. It details how Epstein and Trump pursued women in a game of ego and dominance, a game where female bodies were currency. And while it doesn't implicate Trump in Epstein's criminal behavior, it puts him in very close proximity. The Times reports that over the years, Mr. Epstein or his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell, introduced at least six women who have accused them of grooming or abuse to Mr. Trump. One was a minor at the time. None have accused Mr. Trump himself of inappropriate behavior. The story goes on to suggest that some incidents involving abuse happened while the future president was in the same house. According to the report, one of the women, who has never before spoken publicly about the experience, told the Times that Mr. Epstein had coerced her into attending four parties at Mr. Epstein's home. Mr. Trump attended all four. The woman said two of them. She said Mr. Epstein directed her to have sex with other male guests. Just continues to get more and more gross. Joining us now is Nicholas Confessori, political and investigative reporter for the New York Times and a co author of that piece on Trump's ties with Jeffrey Epstein. Okay, it's great to see you. I tried to do my best to summarize there, but it is a very long, in depth, extensive piece. So let me start by just asking you, the public is kind of digesting this again today. What should they know from your reporting about the relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein?
- [41:03]
G
Well, Jen, I think, you know, if you think about all the denials and obfuscation and evasions coming out of Mr. Trump and his representatives over the years about this friendship, the main takeaway is they were friends and they were close friends And Jeffrey Epstein, for a period, thought he was the best friend of Donald Trump. They spent a lot of time together. They would share time at the office together at their homes in Palm beach in New York, over in Atlantic City. And their hobby wasn't golf, it was.
- [41:32]
A
Chasing women, which is quite something given the power that they both had and the circles they operated in. There's a portion of your story where you mentioned that Epstein took kind of a dim view of Trump's skill as a businessman, I guess, is a way to describe it. What do you know? Tell us more about how Trump may have relied or kind of what your reporting tells you about how he may have relied on Epstein financially, or I guess, vice versa at times, too.
- [42:02]
G
It's not really clear, you know, Trump, you know, according to Brad Edwards, a lawyer for some of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein, there are survivors who said that Epstein would brag that he had rescued Trump from bankruptcy. I've not found, you know, facts about that, but it's revealing and interesting that he would say that to people.
- [42:25]
B
Right.
- [42:25]
G
It's not clear what the money trail would be, but what I have heard from people around Epstein was that both he thought that Trump was not that good at business, but he was also attracted to Trump's access to a higher realm of nightlife and celebrity.
- [42:41]
A
There's obviously, we've been kind of mulling through the lack of transparency today, the fact that there wasn't a huge release of documents out. Lots of, lots of spidey sense up there about the number of redactions. I mean, as an investigative reporter looking at what was released today, what big questions do you have? Where does your skeptical antenna go up?
- [43:02]
G
Listen, I have all the same questions that I had when the day started. We've been told to prepare for hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. We haven't seen that much. This is the first tranche. They're, of course, late in the release. I've seen some of the pictures in today's release before. I thought it was striking that, you know, there is a huge amount of redaction of photos in these files. And the one face that is not redacted often is Bill Clinton's, which I think goes to some effort to try to shift the focus away from the relationship between Trump and Epstein and try and get folks to pay more attention to the friendship with Bill Clinton in the past.
- [43:42]
A
There's no question that felt a bit strategic to me. What's the biggest question you have right now about their relationship that isn't answered that you're still exploring.
- [43:55]
G
Look, I talked to a lot of women for this story who are survivors of Epstein's abuse. And there is so much fear in that world about coming out and speaking. I think we have simply not heard the stories that are out there about Jeffrey Epstein and what he was up to. And I'm hopeful as a reporter that over time we'll see more transparency and get more victims to come forward with their stories.
- [44:21]
A
I have had the honor of getting to know or interviewing and spending a little time talking to a number of these survivors. And I hear the same thing over and over again. Just the fear of just the complete web of predators that is out there and the fear of naming these people and what could come to them, the threats, the lawsuits, it's just, it's horrible. Nick Confessori, thank you so much. Thanks for being here with me tonight. We've got to sneak in a very quick break, but the last word has Congressman Jamie Raskin standing by. I'm sure he has many thoughts. And we'll be right back. Okay, that does it for me.
- [45:00]
C
Tonight, the holidays mean more travel, more shopping, more time online and more personal info and more places that could expose you more to identity theft. But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US Based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone. Get more holiday fun and less Holiday worry with LifeLock. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com SpecialOffer terms apply.