← The Briefing with Jen Psaki
The Briefing with Jen Psaki
'Likely incriminated': Congressman names six men unredacted from Epstein files
00:42:29
Jen Psaki looks at how the Epstein scandal is an actual scandal in places still capable of shame and disgrace, while in the United States, association with notorious pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein has no real consequences. Rep. Ro Khanna, however, intends to change that, and today named six men who he says were being hidden by the Department of Justice behind unnecessary redactions.
Loading summary
Transcript71 lines
- [00:00]
Jen
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're.
- [00:03]
Preet Bharara
Not sure where to start.
- [00:04]
Jen
Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte.
- [00:08]
Preet Bharara
Paint, finish and satin or what that.
- [00:10]
Jen
Clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one.
- [00:15]
Preet Bharara
You can hire top rated pros, see.
- [00:17]
Jen
Price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.
- [00:20]
Chumba Casino Announcer
Looking for a little extra fun? Chumba Casino lets you play for free with daily login rewards and a cheeky little welcome bonus when when you sign up, explore hundreds of online social casino games and jump in whenever it works for you. No routines, no pressure, just entertainment on your terms. That's Chumba. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Void. We're prohibited by law. See Terms and conditions for details.
- [00:49]
Jen
21/ we are following a number of big breaking stories tonight. And let me just start with this because this is a piece of very good news. A person familiar with the proceedings tells msnow that a federal grand jury in Washington state declined to indict six Democratic members of Congress today, including Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Senator Alyssa Slatkin of Michigan, on charges of seditious conspiracy. Now, the Trump administration was pursuing criminal charges against those members for participating in a video. You all remember this. We played it here. We've talked to all these members as well, basically telling service members they have a duty not to obey illegal orders. Again, they tried to indict them on charges of seditious conspiracy and a grand jury said no. Former U.S. attorney Pre. Bharara is standing by for us. And let's just say I've got a lot of questions about that and what it all means moving forward, really. Also today, Congressman Ro Khanna took to the House floor and read the names of six men, powerful men whose dealings with Jeffrey Epstein Khanna says the Department of Justice had hidden and who Khanna says are likely incriminated by their inclusion in the files. And Congressman Khanna is going to join me to discuss that in just a moment. But before we talk about who those men are and what more Congressman Khanna wants to know. And there's a lot I want to talk about the incredible revelations and Chris just alluded to some of them there and probably you've all seen many of this, much of this too. But there have been a number of revelations that have been trickling out of the more than 3 million files the Justice Department made public late last month and the political consequences those revelations have brought about have been, well, quite interesting in some places. I mean, this was the scene in London on Friday as British police searched the home of the former UK Ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson. You can see they got a whole barrels of files there and information. Mandelson is under criminal investigation by the British police after the latest trove of Epstein files revealed that Epstein not only sent the British politician and his husband tens of thousands of British pounds over the years, but that Mandelson appeared to have leaked sensitive government information to Epstein while he was the UK's business secretary, which is basically the British equivalent of the American position of Commerce Secretary. And I'm going to get to that guy in just a moment. But among those alleged leaks is one huge, huge, huge one. Because back in 2009, debt had thrown the economy of Greece into a crisis. And because Greece is in the EU and uses euros, that put the value of euro itself at risk. So in May of 2010, the Finance Ministers of the governments of the EU agreed to try to avert the crisis from spreading with a 500 billion euro bailout. That's a big one. But the latest transfer of Epstein files appears to show is that Mandelson, who would have been a key figure, of course, in negotiating that deal, as their version of the Commerce Secretary, appears to have tipped Epstein off about not just that the deal was going to happen, but exactly when the deal was going to happen. Because the night before the deal, Epstein emailed Mandelson. Sources tell me 500 billion euro bailout almost complete. Then someone whose name is redacted but appears to be Mandelson replied, should be announced tonight. He said he was just leaving 10 Downing street which is of course the British equivalent of the White House. And as Mandelson said he was leaving Downing street, he said he would call Epstein. Now, obviously, advanced knowledge of a major government bailout, one that would create huge winners and huge losers in the stock market, is incredibly valuable information. It's the kind of insider trading info that could make someone a fortune. And allegedly revealing that information to Epstein is what Mandelson is now under criminal investigation for. It's why he's been effectively forced to leave the British government altogether. But the thing is, he isn't the only one in hot water over this. This was the COVID of the British tabloid the Daily Express today. Resign now. PM on brink as he calls to go mount. As calls go to go mount. There you go. Okay, you could read it yourself. The Prime Minister of England, Keir Starmer, is fighting to keep his job over this scandal. Now, to be clear, Starmer has no personal ties to Epstein that we know of at all. The scandal that has the British public so mad at him that they are trying to oust him from his job is simply that Starmer would not have appointed someone with known ties to Epstein to be the British Ambassador to the US in the first place. That he should not have. That's enough for the public in England to say the Prime Minister should go. That's how completely toxic Jeffrey Epstein is in a normal political environment. I mean, even the King of England is now supporting a police investigation into his own brother, the man formerly known as Prince Andrew, over the revelations of his ties to Epstein that have come out in the latest batch of files. Literally, the King of England is supporting a police investigation into his own brother because of how toxic it is to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein in England. Then there is, of course, what is happening here in the United States. I mean, the latest batch of Epstein files also detailed the social and business entanglements Epstein had with Trump Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Now, being associated with Jeffrey Epstein is not a crime. Epstein was a businessman and a creepy version of a socialite. He did business with and socialized with a lot of people, as we now know. But check out how Trump Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick described his relationship to Epstein late last year. I mean, this was Letnick telling the New York Post about an incident with Epstein, who happened to be Letnick's next door neighbor when he visited his house back in 2005.
- [06:36]
Howard Lutnick
I say to him, massage table in the middle of your house. How often do you have a massage? And he says, every day. And then he, like, gets like, weirdly close to me and he says, and the right kind of massage. Now, my wife is standing here, so she looks at me and I look at her and we say, I'm sorry, we have to go. And we left. And in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.
- [07:25]
Jen
Okay, that's. He was quite the storyteller there. I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. That's how Ludnick described his decisions to cut. His decision to cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein in 2005. I mean, Ludnick even went further, telling the New York Post, not only that he made the decision to never see Epstein after that, but that he, in fact, never did see Epstein after that.
- [07:51]
Howard Lutnick
I was never in the room with him socially, for business or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn't going. Cuz he's gross.
- [08:04]
Jen
Yeah, he is gross. But again, that was Lutnick just four months ago saying that he was never even in a room with Epstein. Not socially, not for business, not even philanthropy. Then in this latest batch of Epstein files. Well, we got this. This is an email from Howard Lutnick to Jeffrey Epstein from December 19, 2012. And yes, if you're doing the math, it is seven years after Lutnick claims to have cut Epstein out socially, to have been disgusted by him, to think he's gross. In which Lutnick arranged to have lunch with Epstein on Epstein's private island, saying, quote, hi Jeff, we are landing in St. Thomas early Saturday afternoon. Where are you located? What is the exact location for my captain? Does Sunday evening for dinner sound good? I have another couple with me on my boat. Each of us has four children. Two 16 year olds, two 14 year olds, a 13 year old, a 12 year old, an 11 year old and a 7 year old. Thanks. Howard Epstein then replied, quote, come Saturday or Sunday for lunch, question mark, and gave the exact location of his island. To which Lutnick replied, okay, lunch on Sunday, see you then. Now, I don't know if Howard Lutnick does not include an island as being in the same room as him, but that is quite a stretch. That all seems pretty social to me. Now, when the New York Times confronted Lutnick about the existence of those emails, Lutnick said he could not comment on the island visit because he had not seen the latest Epstein documents. Now that wasn't exactly the question, was it? I'm guessing anyone would remember taking their family to an island with a known predator, I would think. Lutnick told the Times, quote, I spent zero time with him. And then Lutnick hung up on the reporter. Now today, Senator Chris Van Hollen held Lutnick's feet a little closer to the fire, much closer, asking him about the island visit while Lutnick was testifying to the Senate. And this time, Secretary Lutnick seemed to remember a lot more about that trip.
- [09:58]
Mark Santilla
Did you in fact make the visit to Jeffrey Epstein's private island?
- [10:04]
Howard Lutnick
I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation. My wife was with me, as were my four children and nannies. I had another couple, they were there as well with their children. And we had lunch on the island.
- [10:25]
Jen
Again, there's a lot to unpack there. Taking your children to the island with Jeffrey Epstein and nannies. Lots. But we don't have time for that. But again, it's not a crime to have lunch with someone, no matter how terrible they are. It's not even a crime to lie to the press. But why was Howard Lutnick lying? Why was he so emphatically denying he had any relationship at all with Jeffrey Epstein when he clearly did have a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein in England? Jeffrey Epstein is so toxic that the literal king of England is telling the police he will help them investigate his own brother. The Prime Minister is fighting for his job because he appointed someone with Epstein ties to be his ambassador to the United States. And that guy, the former ambassador to the US who allegedly used his position as the British equivalent of a Commerce Secretary to tip off Jeffrey Epstein about major financial deals. That guy is under criminal investigation. That's how England is responding to revelations about their rich and powerful in these new files. Here's how Trump's White House spokesperson Caroline Levitt responded to a question about Howard Lutnick today. She was asked simply in if there has been any shift in how the White House is viewing Secretary Lutnick after the revelations of his ties to Epstein. Not a hard one. Here was the response. No. Secretary Lutnick remains a very important member of President Trump's team. And the President fully supports the secretary. He does. I mean, sometimes saying fully support is a death knell, but I don't think it sounded like that there. The Trump administration is trying to just sweep all of this under the rug. And I don't just mean the mystery of why Howard Lutnick was lying about his ties to Epstein. I mean all of it, the Epstein files altogether. Yesterday, members of Congress finally got to see what the Department of Justice was claiming were the complete unredacted files. Democrat Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie had been some of the members spearheading the fight to release the Epstein files for a while now. And they were some of the first to go down to the Department of Justice themselves to look at those supposedly unredacted files. And here's how Congressman Kano described that visit.
- [12:29]
Congressman Ro Khanna
We spent about two hours there and we learned that 70 to 80% of the files are still redacted. In fact, there were six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ hid for no apparent reason.
- [12:48]
Jen
Now, after uncovering those six names, Congressman Khanna then used his speech and debate privileges, which which protect him from being sued over anything he says on the House floor, to name some names.
- [13:01]
Congressman Ro Khanna
These men are Salvatore Navora Zorab Michaladez Lipig Leonor Nicola Kaputa Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayam, CEO of Dubai Ports World, and billionaire businessman Leslie Wexner, who was labeled as a co conspirator by the FBI. Now my question is, why did it take Thomas Massie and me going to the Justice Department to get these six men's identities to become public? And if we found six men that they were hiding in two hours, imagine how many men they are covering up for in those 3 million files.
- [13:44]
Jen
MSNow is trying to reach all six of the men Congressman Khanna named for a response. So far, only Les Wexner or his legal representative has replied, saying he was a, quote, source of information about Epstein and was not a target in any respect. Okay, there's still a lot of questions there. As for the other men, we have not heard back. And to be abundantly clear, we at msnow have no information to confirm any allegations of wrongdoing by any of them. But as Congressman Khanna pointed out, those were just the six names they found in a few hours, two hours of digging. And Khanna claims there's a lot more digging still to be done. And joining me now is Congressman Ro Khanna. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee, and he went through the Epstein documents on a Justice Department computer just yesterday. Congressman, I obviously want to ask you a lot about the list of names you read today on the House floor. That was quite a moment. But I just want to start with Howard Lutnick, who clearly, as everyone watching knows, lied about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and today was forced to admit that he literally visited Epstein island in 2012. What did you make of that and what other questions? Because we know he lied about that. But what other questions do you have for Howard Lutnick?
- [14:56]
Congressman Ro Khanna
He needs to resign. And it's not a political issue, a Republican or a Democratic issue. After Massie and my Epstein Transparency Act. You've seen the king of England say that his own brother needs to face investigation and prosecution. You've seen Norway, as public, say that their princess, who just had some social relationship with Epstein shouldn't become queen. You've had other governments say anyone who had contact with Epstein, we're going to investigate. And the United States of America is the only place where we're not going to have accountability. You have, literally our ambassador for business to the world who lied to the American people about his relationship with Epstein, who allegedly had a business venture with Epstein after Epstein was a convicted pedophile who lied about going to Epstein's Island. And this sends a message to young girls across this country that there's no accountability. I know Republicans who feel this way. It's honestly not politics. I'd call for him to resign if he was part of any Democratic administration.
- [16:02]
Jen
Hopefully more Republicans are more vocal about it. We will see. One of the things that you have been doing here is really trying to press and push names out there. I mean, you found that list of names and photos that had been improperly redacted after you basically called the Justice Department out on that. And they unredacted those names. And today, as I mentioned in my opening, you decided to read them aloud on the House floor. But help us understand people who are just catching up on all of this, why those people whose names you read out are significant.
- [16:33]
Congressman Ro Khanna
These people were in documents as co conspirators. And one of the things that I've been most angered by because I've gotten to know the survivors is people saying, oh, they're lying. It was just Epstein and Maxwell. When we have actual documents showing so many people who were co conspirators. And the Justice Department redacted the names of these individuals. Thomas Massie and I were just there for two hours and we found six names. There are probably dozens of other names. And the Justice Department admitted that they made a mistake in redaction and they have actually unredacted them. But I just thought it was time to go to the floor and call out these individuals who were co conspirators, not because of the particular individuals, but because people want to see some accountability. There's been none. We've passed a whole law. It passed the House, it passed the Senate. The President signed it. We've had millions of documents released. It's not about transparency. What the survivors want, what people want is accountability. And that for me was sort of a cry out saying, look, let's start to hold people accountable. And by the way, Jan, it's not the most famous piece. Some of the people who raped these young girls, they're not the biggest names, but they have also escaped prosecution. I don't care about the biggest names. I want the people who actually raped these girls held accountable. And some of them are out loose and in the files and nothing is happening.
- [17:54]
Jen
One of the things that has struck me, and I'm sure has struck you, is kind of the more we learn and the more they are pushed, the more the house of cards unravels and the more it seems very clear that there's a lot, a lot of lying going on and FBI Director Kash Patel said under oath back in September, I'm sure you remember this, that there was no credible information, none, that Epstein trafficked women to other individuals. I know you can't tell us everything you saw, but did the things you saw in those files contradict that claim?
- [18:22]
Congressman Ro Khanna
Absolutely, it contradicted it. And, you know, you can ask other members. They were sickened to their stomach by reading some of the things. It's not just trafficking, it's violence. It's grotesque types of incidents. And by the way, some of the redactions are the most sensational things, is because there were some women and some people may have been survivors and also engaged in, unfortunately become part of Epstein's conspiracy network. But there is no doubt that there was an entire network in the United States and overseas that was engaged in the rape of young girls. And there has been no accountability for that.
- [19:03]
Jen
That's something survivors have been telling me and you and so many people for so long. Now. You, based on the files you had, those six names that were out there, I know you've said you're going to go back. You just said there could be dozens more names. You were only there for two hours. Were you able to tell whether there has been what extent these six individuals you named have been investigated? What can you tell us about that?
- [19:29]
Congressman Ro Khanna
It's unclear from the survivors. They believe that many of these people who raped them have not been investigated. And there's been such a focus, like I said, on these big names that some of the people who raped them are not famous, but they still have not faced investigation. One of the people, you know, raped this person and then has left the country and left any country where the rape actually took place. And there's no prosecution, there's no investigation. And you know, what is the biggest problem which I made this point, is that the FBI scraped these files back in March at Donald Trump's direction. And those are the files that have most of the details. So even when members are seeing are already scraped files by the FBI. I never used to use the word cover up, but it's certainly a cover up that they did not un redact those FBI files and that they did that in blatant violation of the law that was passed.
- [20:24]
Jen
Why do you think they left them? I mean, they gave these redacted files from all the way back in March to the Department of Justice. They could have been unredacted at any point in the process. Right. Why didn't they unredact these names?
- [20:37]
Congressman Ro Khanna
I think they're protecting people. I mean, they're protecting, that's they're protecting playing games and they think we don't notice. So, you know, okay. And I felt bad actually for the Justice Department person there because we Messi and I would see these documents and then we'd say, okay, now show us the original. And I said, well, there are all these redactions. Why does the original have almost the same exact redactions? And the person says politely, sir, well, that's how we got the document that we just uploaded what we got. So they're assuming that no one would notice. But the reality is the FBI files is where the most damaging information is because that's where the survivors told the FBI agents who raped them, who committed these heinous acts. And that's what we've actually been pushing to release. And that's what's all redacted. So what was released was a lot. And it's a window into, unfortunately, how many of our elite have been caught up in this. And it's not a good for the American elite or the global elite. But in terms of the actual crimes committed, those are in the FBI files. And that's where the nuclear information really is. And they're protecting people, no question about it.
- [21:52]
Jen
A tremendous web that is hopefully going to continue to unravel. And the more we learn, the more questions there are. Congressman Ro Khanna, I know you're going to go back. I hope you will keep all of us updated, as I'm sure you will, about what you find. And I hope you will continue to read those names on the House floor as well. Thanks so much for joining me.
- [22:09]
Congressman Ro Khanna
Thank you, Jen.
- [22:11]
Jen
Coming up, we have some shocking breaking news out of the Trump Justice Department tonight. A grand jury has failed to indict six Democratic members of Congress, including Senators Alyssa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, on charges of seditious conspiracy. We also have breaking news out of that FBI raid on the election offices in Fulton County, Georgia, where a search warrant affidavit has just been unsealed. Preet Bharara is the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and he joins me here live when we come back. At vrbo, we understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support. So we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO Care guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between and after your trip, because a great trip starts with peace of mind and maybe a good playlist, but we've got the peace of mind part covered.
- [23:14]
Mark Santilla
Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster Nibbles in our yard for me? Because I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires, I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet Nibbles after his untimely end. Huh, Nibbles gone too soon. May he scurry in peace.
- [23:31]
Howard Lutnick
Hey, sorry about your pet, but I just wire stuff.
- [23:34]
Mark Santilla
Nibbles would have loved you like a brother.
- [23:36]
Howard Lutnick
Connecting homeowners with skilled pros for over 30 years. Angie the one you trust to find the ones you trust. Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.
- [23:44]
Chumba Casino Announcer
Tired of the same old game night? Switch things up with Chumba casino. Play over 200 free free online social casino games from classic slots in blackjack to exclusive in house favorites you won't find anywhere else. However long you got, you can play your way anytime, anywhere. Make your next chill night a little more fun with Chumba Casino. No purchase necessary VGW Group void where prohibited by log. See Terms and conditions for details. 21.
- [24:24]
Jen
Meet Kurt Olson. Six years ago he was a little known lawyer who primarily worked on product liability cases representing big companies who were being sued for issues like asbestos causing cancer and the impact of rupturing breast implants. So all good things he was defending there. But after the 2020 election, Kurt Olson became one of the many conspiracy theorist lawyers who got Trump's attention by repeatedly claiming the election was stolen. And Kurt Olson even joined Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's failed lawsuits to overturn the election results despite little to no experience in election related cases. Now when that lawsuit failed, Kurdelson kept at it. He started harassing then Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, even showing up at DOJ headquarters trying to convince him the election was rigged. In 2022 when Republican Arizona candidate for governor Carrie Lake decided to deny the results of her election loss, well, it was Kurt Olson who she chose to represent her in her lawsuit against the state. Olson not only failed to prove that Kerry Lake's election had been stolen, he actually got sanctioned by the Arizona Supreme Court for making arguments that were, quote, unequivocally false. Now none of that seemed to bother Donald Trump who made Olson one of his campaign lawyers in 2024. According to the New York Times, even among Trump allies, Olson was considered something of a fringe figure. And that is saying something. And today we have just learned that that fringe conspiracy theorist court sanctioned lawyer is the person who provided the basis for the FBI's raid of Fulton County's election offices. According to a newly unsealed affidavit, the FBI criminal investigation originated from a referral sent by Kurt Olson, presidentially appointed director of Election Security and integrity. Yes, that's his title now. And Kurt Olson is far from the only crank conspiracy theorist with his fingerprints all over this raid. The affidavit also refers to election denier Clay Parak, another discredited election denier who is affiliated with none other than Mike Lindell of My Pillow fame. And just yesterday, ProPublica reported that the FBI may have also relied on information from conservative researcher Kevin Monkla, yet another discredited election denier who once pleaded guilty to misdemeanor voyeurism charges for secretly filming guests in his home bathroom. Very creepy. And all of this would almost, almost be funny. It is not if it weren't for the fact that the Trump administration is now using these crank conspiracy theories to actually seize the ballots from a legitimate election. Joining us now is Preet Bharara, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and the host of the excellent podcast. Stay tuned with Preet. Okay, Preet, you were a lawyer, an excellent one, an experienced one I am not. But I just walked through because I think this is so eye popping where this information came from, the history of election denialism of the people behind it. And I think for most laypeople, it's like, how on earth did the judge issue a warrant to them for this information or not to them? But yeah, I mean, so how did they. Were you surprised by it at all, reading all the information?
- [27:34]
Preet Bharara
Yeah, no.
- [27:35]
Congressman Ro Khanna
A little bit.
- [27:35]
Preet Bharara
And by the way, you're half a lawyer, if not three quarters of a lawyer, so don't sell yourself short.
- [27:40]
Jen
I only play a quarter of one on tv. But you're a real one.
- [27:45]
Preet Bharara
Look, on the one hand, this was not a unilateral action taken by the Justice Department. There is a federal judge who had to weigh in and presumably read the affidavit and found probable cause. But on the other hand, as you laid out in the intro, there are lots of red flags here, including the credibility of the people who are the referrers, including the fact that some of the claims that are at issue in the affidavit and in connection with the search have been litigated again and again and again. Overall, not with respect to the affidavit, but the overall search. The fact that the DNI Tulsi Gabbard was present, even though she does not have Domestic law enforcement authority is another red flag. But if you read the affidavit, you know, it does not state, as many search warrant affidavits do, that there is absolutely overabundant evidence of a crime that has been committed and they're just searching for fruits of the crime or contraband in connection with the crime. You know, some of the language of the affidavit is fairly mild, asking the question, you know, was there intentionality here? There's no evidence in support of intentionality here. You know, a lot of the affidavit is spent talking about whether or not there was a crime of record keeping. I'm sorry, a violation of record keeping requirements, which is a far cry from overturning the election.
- [29:19]
Jen
So one of the things, obviously this itself is a concern, the fact that they have these ballots, the fact that Tulsi Gabbard was there, as you just referenced, it's also, it's kind of a win for the Trump administration that they were able to get this warrant, that they were able to get these ballots. And to me, it probably indicates they may try it again. What should election officials, what should states be doing to prepare for that possibility? Give us give them some free legal advice.
- [29:48]
Preet Bharara
Well, look, if there's a court authorized search warrant, I tell clients all the time, whether you think it's wise or not or justified or not, you have to comply. So my first being a law and order guy when I was in government and also in private practice, you got to comply. But then you have lawyers who can challenge things. Look, I think there is a real concern that he's going to try again and again. Look, in some ways, this is the umpteenth attempt at trying to cast dispersions on the 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere. And, you know, there was reporting that there was, you know, it's different, but parallel, a search for not through a court authorized search warrant, but through other means, you know, ballot information in Puerto Rico. And for whatever reason, as your viewers know very, very well, Donald Trump will not let the election of 2020 go. And so wherever there is a place where they think they can make the barest minimum showing to go in and seize ballots or do any other kind of investigative task, they're going to do it. So people should make sure they have their T's crossed and their I's dotted and then, you know, fight with whatever legal process they have. And the Congress should get involved as well as I think they will.
- [31:07]
Jen
We know why they're doing it, because they want to Lay the predicate to make election to voting harder and participating it. But while I have you. I just mentioned this and I just. We have new reporting tonight that a federal grand jury in D.C. has declined to indict Senators Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slatkin and four other members of Congress on seditious conspiracy charges after they participated in a video we've shared on this show reminding service members that they should not follow illegal orders, which they should not follow illegal orders. I know you represent Senator Slotkin, so you're going to be limited in what you can say, but this is now the latest in a long line of failures at the grand jury level for this administration. We've talked about this before, especially in D.C. tell us a little bit about how rare that is, what it could mean as they continue to try to go after their perceived political enemies.
- [31:58]
Preet Bharara
Yeah. So, number one, I'll say it's a great honor and privilege to represent Senator Slotkin in this case. Number two, never get ahead of your client. She will have plenty to say about the events that you're describing this evening and in the coming days. As to your broader general question, I was the United States Attorney for seven and a half years in the Southern District of New York. I don't remember any grand jury rejection. Maybe there were one or two that either I've forgotten or I guess that I've forgotten. This office in D.C. and other offices have had, you know, a higher rate of rejection of indictments being sought than anything I can remember. And when that happens, the people in charge of those prosecutions and decisions to go to the grand jury and decisions to indict need to take a really, really hard look at their standards, at their ethics, at their responsibilities, take a look in the mirror and decide if you're doing the right thing or not. This is not a common thing. It is an incredibly rare thing. And when you go through the process of investigating someone, sometimes publicly having them have to hire a lawyer, deal with the agenda, the stress and the expense of defending yourself, and then it turns out that you have, you know, a BS case that multiple grand juries have rejected, as was true in the case of the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. You're doing something wrong and you need to knock it off. That's all I'll say.
- [33:36]
Jen
Preet Bharara, thank you as always for joining me. Really appreciate it.
- [33:41]
Preet Bharara
Thanks for having me.
- [33:43]
Jen
We have some breaking news on the search for Nancy Guthrie. Coming up after new Ring camera video was released today. Law enforcement sources tell Ms. Now there is FBI activity near arizona's border with mexico. We've got a live report coming up next. El programa nacional de Vecas Hacer the McDonald's.
- [34:34]
Mark Santilla
Why have I asked my electrician I found on Angie.com to bury my pet hamster? I was so moved by how carefully he buried my electrical wires. I knew I could trust him to bury my sweet nibbles after his untimely end. This is very strange, Angie.
- [34:45]
Howard Lutnick
The one you trust to find the ones you trust.
- [34:46]
Mark Santilla
Find pros for all your home projects@angie.com.
- [34:49]
Chumba Casino Announcer
Looking for a little extra fun? Chumba casino lets you play for free with daily login rewards and a cheeky little welcome bonus when you sign up. Explore hundreds of online social casino games and jump in whenever, however it works for you. No routines, no pressure, just entertainment on your terms. That's chumba. No purchase necessary. VGW group void where prohibited by log. See terms and conditions for details. 21/.
- [35:26]
Jen
We have some breaking news in the disappearance of 84 year old Nancy Guthrie who has been missing for 10 days from her home near tucson. Law enforcement sources tell Ms. Now there is FBI activity about 15 miles from Arizona's border with mexico. We don't yet know details about that activity. Obviously this is all developing as we speak. But this afternoon the FBI released video and surveillance photos showing a masked person at nancy guthrie's home the night she disappeared. Doorbell camera images show a person walking up to her front door in a ski mask. You can see it right there on your screen. And apparently tampering with the camera. Joining me now is Ms. Now is mark santilla live on the ground in rio rico, arizona. Mark, this is obviously a story that's continuing to develop every moment, but what can you tell us about the latest on the investigation?
- [36:16]
Mark Santilla
So, Jen, right now, as you said, we're in rio rico, arizona, not far from the u. S. Mexico border. Two law enforcement sources tell us that there has been and there is FBI activity here on rio rico. Now, we don't know at this point if this activity has led to successful finds in the investigation, but it does speak to the radius. John, this is a growing investigation from tucson about an hour and a half or like an hour, hour and a half south of tucson. We also know that the FBI border patrol as well as the pima county sheriff's department, they were in annie guthrie's neighborhood. Annie is Nancy's daughter as well as savannah's sister. So they were in the the area of amy guthrie's neighborhood the block over. We were there a short Time ago, before the sun went down. And we saw these agents going house to house. They were talking to residents. They were also in the brush, looking through bushes. They were doing a search. There were multiple teams of about four agents and deputies working together. They would reconvene, go over what they found or didn't find, and then head out again. We saw them there for at least an hour in the neighborhood. And we know this is all part of, again, the growing radius of this investigation really picking up in the last 12 to 15 hours. After that, the new video and the new images were released. We really saw this investigation, Jen, start to really pick up again from the Tucson area to here near the border, Jen.
- [37:43]
Jen
So, as you said, Mark, it's exciting. Expanded geographically, it sounds like there was video footage that we saw. I just showed it a little bit earlier in the last hour. FBI director Keshe patel also said he's there looking at people who are, quote, persons of interest. You know the language very well of law enforcement officials. What should people take from that out there? Everybody out there is rooting for the Guthrie family.
- [38:09]
Preet Bharara
Yeah, absolutely.
- [38:09]
Mark Santilla
I think people of interest. And we've seen that with several different cases. Those are people that investigators are looking at. Sometimes they may question that person of interest. But at this point in the investigation is very important. The FBI director didn't say they had suspects. They said they had a person or people of interest they're looking at. So, again, and I think that what was important is the FBI director said they've really seen great gains in the last several hours. So when he's talking about that, we know after, especially after that new video and those new stills were released, that the call center, the command center, tips start flowing in. People start to pick up the phone. If you see something, say something. And especially when you saw that video, that somebody. And even Savannah said it earlier today in one of her posts that if you recognize this, someone out there will recognize this person. And, Jen, sometimes video and images, they're released for the public to have the public sort of pick up that phone, but they're also released for that suspect. It's a strategy to see if that suspect makes a move, maybe trying to cover their tracks, but in turn really exposes themselves, makes a mistake, makes a phone call, leaves something somewhere. So this was really put out there. It was a strategic move. And we really saw the investigation start to speed up again, going through. Through the neighborhood. I talked to one resident, Jen, who told me, look, police were here a few days ago. They've been in the neighborhood. But this was the first time she had an FBI agent at her house asking her, hey, do you have any surveillance video? Did you see anything suspicious? And the resident said, look, I didn't see anything suspicious. It's a, it's a very quiet neighborhood. People aren't sort of, you know, it's spread out, so you don't really look over and see your neighbor per se in that neighborhood. But this neighbor, the resident telling us it was very different to have an FBI agent at the door as this investigation again picks up.
- [40:03]
Jen
Jen, Mark Santia, thank you so much. This is obviously a developing story. We'll bring you any and all developments throughout the night here on MSNow. But up next, the family of Epstein survivor Virginia Giuffre took their fight back to Capitol Hill today. And they're going to join me here at the table in just a moment. Today, Democrats in Congress introduced a bill they're calling Virginia's law, named after Virginia Roberts Giuffre, a survivor and staunch advocate for the scores of women who were abused at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and many associates. In her pursuit of justice, Virginia fought for the ability to take abusers to court because many survivors don't come forward for years after their abuse, putting some outside the statute of limitations. And Virginia's law would change all of that by eliminating the statute of limitations for adult sex trafficking survivors to be able to file civil lawsuits against their abuser. It's incredibly powerful. I don't understand who would ever be against this. But joining me now are sky and Amanda Roberts, Virginia Duffrey's brother and sister in law. They flew in overnight last night. I should just note to be here to continue to advocate. Let me start with you, Amanda. I just kind of outlined lightly why this is so important. You have the attention of so many people, the hearts of so many people watching out there. Why is eliminating the statute of limitations something that Virginia cared so deeply about that you all are using your powerful platform to talk about? Yeah.
- [41:39]
Amanda Roberts
It was the deepest passion of hers. It was the beast that she wanted to tackle. Because when you think about just abuse in general and the trauma that it leaves behind, many survivors take years to be able to even get to a place where they can reconcile with what actually happened to them. And in some states, the statute of limitations could be as low as three years. And by that time, it's too late. It's like, oh, sorry, the government clock is up. And it's almost like telling survivors what happened to you doesn't matter. And so it was very important because when we think about even the Epstein case, you know, there's only maybe the opportunity of civil lawsuits. And so we really want to be able to see real justice and legal consequences for actions of child sexual abuse. I don't think that that's a hard thing to ask for.
- [42:36]
Jen
It shouldn't be allowing survivors the ability when they're at the point where they can speak of the trauma, which can take many years to get to that point. Sky, there's so much happening right now. I think some of it is good, and some of it, I assume it's very disappointing. As to everybody out there, the notion that the case is closed and that there are not is not more information that is going to be released. The redacting of names in these files, although seeing Ro Khanna read some of the names on the floor hopefully was a point of light. Talk to me about how you're feeling about where things start it right now and what for people watching out there you really need to see and want to see happen moving forward.
- [43:18]
Sky Roberts
Yeah. I mean, what a blatant lie from Todd. Right? I mean, do your job. Todd is the way I want to put it, but the reality is that he's blatantly lying to the American people.
- [43:28]
Jen
Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general. Yes.
- [43:30]
Congressman Ro Khanna
Correct.
- [43:30]
Sky Roberts
So sorry to refer to him by first name, but don't apologize.
- [43:33]
Jen
So people know who he is, but.
- [43:35]
Sky Roberts
That'S who he is. So. But I mean, what a blatant line. Right? It's. You're gaslighting that you continue to gaslight the American public out there. I think people can see through at this point, and it's clear, I mean, you can read through it clear as day that the names of the perpetrators are being redacted and the names of the survivors are being unredacted. And many of them are. Jane Does. They want to come forward. Right. And it's not their fault. This is the DOJ's fault, and they are breaking the law right now. But it's clear. And Thomas Massie and Ro, they are coming forward. They are reading names. The names are out there, and we need to start asking for accountability.
- [44:09]
Jen
No question about it. You've been. I've learned so much from both of you every time I talk to you. And one of the things that struck me that you've taught me is that this is a web of people. And I know you can't name names. And you don't want to name names, just as survivors don't because of concerns about threats and lawsuits. But they're still digging in these files and they're still looking to unredact these names, help people out to understand. How big are we talking about? There could be dozens more names people should keep fighting for. How big is the web of people that could be in these files?
- [44:40]
Amanda Roberts
I would say Virginia alone. In public depositions and sealed depositions, she's named over 40 potential co conspirators and perpetrators. And that is just one victim of a case that we are potentially talking about over a thousand victims. That is shocking. We're talking about a global sex trafficking ring that operated for almost 30 years. And so the web is deep and it's deep as far as like the trafficking ring, but also this was a criminal organization. We have to think about the institutions that enabled this, right? The financial institutions, the lawyers, the doctors, all of the people that allowed this to operate for over 30 years.
- [45:28]
Jen
I can't tell you how grateful I am for both of you stopping by. You've been up for a lot of hours and thank you for your tireless work. I've learned so much from you every time I talk to you. Sky and Amanda Roberts. Okay, we've got to sneak in a quick break, but Lawrence has Senator Adam Schiff standing by. He always has a lot to say. We're continuing to follow developments out of the search for Nancy Guthrie. Lots going on tonight. We'll be right back. That does it for me tonight. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern on Ms. Now. And don't forget to follow the show on BlueSky, Instagram and TikTok. 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 up. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock. Com Specialoffer for the threats you can't control. Terms apply.