Loading summary
Transcript24 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hi, everyone. I'm Kathryn Ramphel, the economics editor at the Bulwark. We are here today to talk about the latest developments in the Epstein case. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi spoke behind closed doors on Capitol Hill today. And we are joined by one of the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's crimes, Annie Farmer, who can talk with us today a little bit about what we did or did not learn that was new today from Bondi's testimony. So. So, Annie, thank you so much for joining me. Why don't you start by just telling our audience a little bit about your involvement in the broader advocacy issue here on behalf of sexual assault survivors.
- [00:43]
B
Yeah. Thank you so much, Katherine, for having me. So, you know, my involvement in this case started in 1996. I was 16 years old when I met Epstein and Maxwell. And what happened to me with them was actually reported that same year in 1996 to the FBI by my sister, Maria Farmer. And so, you know, she really has been the Epstein case whistleblower. And despite the fact that she shared everything she knew at that time, including, you know, people involved and what she had seen and what had happened to her as a victim and what she believed had happened to me, as we all know now, so little happened. So it was then, I guess, you know, 2006, that I was finally interviewed by the FBI. The sweetheart deal happens. There's really no follow up of any kind. And it wasn't until 2019 when he was arrested that I spoke out publicly. And, you know, basically just by attending a bail hearing for him without really much thought about, you know, what that would mean. I guess I just wanted to. To make sure that the survivors that were, you know, who the victims of the crimes that were being prosecuted had a sense of support. So I went to the hearing in New York and then unexpectedly had the chance to speak. And then from there it's been just more speaking out about this case. And I think because this case has gotten so much attention, it has connected me with other survivors and helped me understand more the systemic issues in our legal system and our justice system around these types of cases. I think there's some things about this that are unusual, but really there's also so many things about the Epstein case that are unfortunately common. And so, yeah, it's been an honor to do more advocacy work and speak about these things.
- [02:36]
A
Well, thank you. I know that all of the things that we're going to talk about today and that you talk about on a day to day basis are probably not easy to discuss in public. I mean, these are intimate, horrible things. And so I'm grateful for your willingness to speak on behalf of those. Those who understandably may be reluctant to do so. So, you know, with that sort of laying the groundwork, why don't we talk a little bit about what your hopes or expectations were today going into this much promoted vamped testimony, if you will, from the former AG Pam Bondi. What were you expecting to happen?
- [03:20]
B
Yeah, I think it's actually interesting because hopes and expectations are slightly different. Right. My hope was that perhaps we would finally hear Pam Bondi taking some ownership over mistakes that were made by her department under her leadership. And when we say mistakes, we're talking about things like huge errors in the redaction process. The law was actually really specific in how it spelled out what was allowed to be redacted, what was mandated to be redacted, and what should not be redacted. And so, you know, when we, when we work so hard to get that passed, you know, we really actually had a sense of confidence that that would be followed. Unfortunately, what we saw with initially with the first release and then with later releases was that there were errors on both sides. There was an over redaction of individuals that were being accused of crimes or being, you know, discussed by victims as potential perpetrators. And then there were just full lists of names of, like, underage victims, you know, one. One piece of paper that always stands out in my mind. You know, something like 30 something names just in a list of people who should have been redacted, who had. These were people, many of whom had never been public. And there they were, you know, their names for all the world to see. But then also things like, you know, in some cases, phone numbers or addresses or other personal identifying information. Again, these are really, really substantive issues. And there's never been any, like, explanation or even just acknowledgement really of these mistakes. And so we hope that Pam Bondi might address that, help us understand the process and get to the bottom of some of it. But my expectation was that it would be more of the same, more avoidance of, like, the real, you know, substantive answers. And. And it sounds like from what we're hearing from the folks that are there reporting back, is that is exactly what happened.
- [05:21]
A
Yeah, actually, we have at least the opening statement that she gave as prepared. We don't have a transcript yet of what she said during those four hours under which she was questioned by lawmakers. But in her opening statement she says, quote, there were redaction errors, but since day one of this process, this department has been committed to accountability and transparency. That's some pretty convenient passive voice there. I think. I would say there were redaction errors, not we committed redaction errors, or here's how they happened. So, you know, again, we don't know what lawmakers specifically asked her on that, or at least we can hear what they've recounted. But it would be great when we'll see the transcript itself. But, yeah, I mean, there was a. If you look at that statement, as I'm sure you have, Annie, there's a lot of boasting about their unprecedented transparency. I'll read you another comment from that that I'd love to get your reaction to. She says, at one point, we demonstrated an unprecedented commitment to transparency in the department search for collection and review of the Epstein files, producing nearly 3 million pages of material, including thousands of videos and hundreds of thousands of images. Later on. She concludes with, the bottom line is justice and transparency in this matter have been delivered at the direction of President Trump and his administration. What do you make of those kinds of comments?
- [06:54]
B
I guess the first thing that came to mind as you. As you were highlighting the passive voice is that, you know, I. I'm a therapist, and one of the things that I'd say often comes up in therapy is the importance of taking ownership for mistakes and, and actually apologizing when you make a mistake. Right. Whether there's an intention to harm or not. If harm is done, then we have to take ownership for it in order to move forward in any kind of relationship. Right. And it's just so clear here that that's. That's something that she is unwilling to do. Right. And so, you know, we. There was recently this shadow hearing that occurred in Florida where one of the women whose identity was revealed in these documents spoke out, like, really bravely for the first time publicly about how much harm that had done for her. And so that's what I'm, you know, thinking of when I think of just sort of the flippancy in which she talks about, yeah, that, you know, there were some mistakes made, but look at all that we accomplished. And then my second reaction is just that it sort of. It negates the resistance to this. This effort that the administration put up, you know, from the get go. I mean, this really started because of the amount of, I guess, interest on the campaign trail that that was generated by, you know, Trump's, you know, people talking quite a bit about the Epstein files.
- [08:28]
A
Right.
- [08:29]
B
Not necessarily Trump himself, but these people that were out there trying to like drum up support for him. And then he gets into office and people say, okay, we want to see now, we want the answers, we want the information. And there's this quick about face. And Pam Bondi herself goes from, oh, yeah, I have this information, I'm about to release it to. There's nothing to see here.
- [08:49]
A
Right.
- [08:50]
B
And that's just a conveniently left. Left out of this narrative. And then, in fact, as we started pushing for transparency, there was so much resistance. Right. Lawmakers who were willing to side with us were being called into the Oval Office and receiving a tremendous amount of pressure to not vote for the release of these files. So to act as if they have been for transparency and that it's somehow coming from Trump himself is just really an insult, I think, to anyone that has actually been involved in this process. We forced them to release information and some of that information has been released.
- [09:26]
A
Some of it has been released.
- [09:27]
B
Right.
- [09:28]
A
Some of it that was not supposed to be released was also released.
- [09:33]
B
Yeah.
- [09:33]
A
If you look at the kinds of things that Democratic lawmakers who were there today recount having happened, there's a lot
- [09:42]
B
of,
- [09:44]
A
of recounting that she refute that Pambani refused to answer questions about her interactions with Donald Trump, about, you know, what directives she was given perhaps to cloak his, his potential relationship with, with Mr. Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell. I think we actually have video of Representative Stansbury talking about some of that,
- [10:15]
C
that the United States Department of Justice is intervening on behalf of Pam Bondi to stop her from answering questions about what happened in the COVID up of this case and her conversations with Donald Trump and is asserting that she does not have to answer questions because she is not required to, because she is not being deposed under oath. This is a cover up. This will be remembered as the largest cover up likely in American history. And it is clear that this interview is a smokescreen to try to show the American people that they are complying while they are not.
- [10:53]
A
Do you think they were trying to move the ball forward on this case? Do you think that the DOJ or Republicans in Congress are actually trying to uncover more information here?
- [11:11]
B
You know, when we, we first met, I say we, there was a number of survivors that came in and gave testimony last summer in front of the House Oversight Committee. And the reaction at the end of that meeting was, you know, many members were moved emotionally. They expressed a great interest in supporting our efforts to get to the bottom of this and bringing more transparency to this case. And I really believed it at that time. There have been things that have happened within the House Oversight Committee investigation that I think have been really important in terms of, you know, people, both Democrats and Republicans voting for certain subpoenas of people that had never been questioned before who are key players and for the release of documents and then those documents been made public. And that really helped move things forward. So I think that there has at times been a real bipartisan effort to. Yeah. To get, to move this investigation along. But unfortunately what we've seen with this today, this should have been a taped under oath deposition or interview. This should not have been something that the American people will never be able to see and survivors will never be able to see. And that was a decision that was specifically made by the party that's in charge of the House Oversight Committee right now. That was Comer's decision. And I think many people have expressed frustration with that decision. I also thought, I was really surprised to learn that there were not other Republican members of the committee present for this interview today. Which to me, first of all it being scheduled during a recess. So it just makes it that much more challenging for people to get there more inconvenient. That is already going to of course mean less, less representation there. But still many members of the many Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee did show up. And the fact that no other Republican showed up, I think just leaves us feeling questioning whether there is a true desire to get to the bottom of this from, from some members of Congress.
- [13:31]
A
Yeah, I mean as you have pointed out, there have been other Republican lawmaker have bucked their party, have, have defied the President's wishes and have actually voted to voted for the Transparency act, for example, or otherwise tried to get to the bottom of this. But it, it feels a little, at least it looks a little bit like some of the motivation maybe waning some of the, some of the pressure campaign may be waiting.
- [14:05]
B
It really is unfortunate because it's clear that this is not a partisan issue. Of course. Sexual abuse of children, of sexual assault of women. These are not partisan issues. We know that there are plenty of people that have been involved in both parties that commit these types of crimes and need to be held accountable. So I think it's really amiss and I, I think it's too bad that that's the case because I think people are watching. We know that they're supported on all sides via the American public. That's really clear. And girls, young women survivors are watching to see what actually follow through there is in thinking about how they handle their own lives and things that have happened to them and whether they report and all of that. And so I just, I, I would hope for better.
- [15:00]
A
So I knew going into this that there wasn't going to be video of the, the conversation today. I didn't realize until this afternoon, actually, that it was not going to be administered under oath. Was that expected? Had I just missed it, or was, was this a last minute change?
- [15:17]
B
Do you know, I think that that is part of having it be a transcribed interview. When they made that decision, that was something that I was alerted to, that I heard Comer say, well, it's still a lie. I mean, it's still a crime to lie to Kwong.