B (4:27)

Around the world to come here, including hardened criminals and dangerous persons. And the result, we all know.

A (4:32)

So 24 of the Epstein survivors signed this letter and they said in their letter to Mike Johnson's caucus, quote, there is no middle ground here. There is no hiding behind party affiliation. The testimonies you heard are just a fraction of the unimaginable suffering endured by more than a thousand victims alike. Epstein and Maxwell's crimes expose a double standard of justice where rich and powerful men and women evade repercussions despite years of work to bring them to justice. Most of Epstein and Maxwell's co conspirators remain completely free, continuing to amass power and prestige, living without apparent shame. As you gather with your family this season, remember that your primary duty is to your constituents. Look into the eyes of your children, your sisters, your mothers and your aunts. Imagine if they had been preyed upon. Imagine if you yourself were a survivor. What would you want for them? What would you want for yourself? When you vote, we will remember your decision at the ballot box and the thousands of plus FBI and DOJ agents. I gave you some of their accounts about the files last week on the show. So we have the survivors, the FBI, DOJ employees and the Epstein estate. All a big problem for Donald Trump. Now, as for Ghislaine Maxwell, we've got conflicting stories about her seeking a commutation from Trump. But her lawyer is insisting she is not seeking a pardon because her appeal is still alive or it hasn't been exhausted. Her lawyer says, quote, maxwell has not requested a commutation or made a pardon application to the second Trump administration. Prior to any such application, a prisoner needs to demonstrate that all possible avenues of appeal to have been exhausted. First, an appeal not being exhausted has never stopped Trump from pardoning anyone. Ask the January 6th insurrectionists and the 2020 election conspirators that he pardoned this week for some reason even though there were never federal charges. And secondly, her appeal is exhausted. The Supreme Court said, said no. What other avenue of appeal does she have? What do you can't. It's like the Supreme Court's already en banc. You can't get a. There's nowhere else to go except to the president. So I'm not sure what her lawyer's talking about. And something else a whistleblower showed Congress emails, email proof emails from Maxwell, Ghislaine Maxwell to her attorneys sent using the Bureau of Prisons email system. And those emails are about her that she's going to file for a commutation through the warden. Now that release of those emails from a whistleblower pissed off Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyers. They say, hey, you can't release those emails. Those are attorney client privilege. But no, they're not. A source at the bureau confirmed with me that no emails on the Bureau of Prison system are privileged. And there's even a pop up warning. You have to click through. You have to click ok, I understand that says this doesn't cover attorney client privilege. You have no privacy here. Find another way to talk to your lawyer. By the way, the Bureau of Prisons fired multiple employees after that whistleblower disclosure. I hope they sue. So what do you do if you're Donald Trump and you need to plug these four potential sources for leaks? You open a criminal investigation. As you know, Department of Justice can't release information pertaining to an open and ongoing investigation. So Friday, Trump announced on Truth Social media like you do, in a very panicked rant, by the way, that he's going to launch a criminal investigation into Epstein and Maxwell's co conspirators. Not all of them. Just these couple. Not me, not Bannon, just these. Just these few. Why? Certainly not to get to the bottom of anything to be sure. Do you remember when he ordered Bill Barr to investigate the Stormy Daniels, Michael Cohen hush money thing. And he ordered the local, the state District Attorney, Alvin Bragg stand down. We're doing a federal criminal investigation stand down at the Southern District of New York. We're taking over at the doj. And then they sat on it for the rest of Trump's term in hopes that they would run out the statute of limitations. But they didn't because the governor in New York actually extended the statute of limitations for state crimes by 18 months because of the COVID shutdown, which was also Trump's fault. So that was kind of chef's kiss. But I imagine that's what he's doing here, opening an investigation to kill it or control it. Plus, if the DOJ is in the middle of an active and ongoing investigation, Congress can use that maybe as an excuse to not vote to release the files. But Trump's big problem here is that there was an active and ongoing criminal investigation in the Southern District of New York and Trump killed it. He killed it. This week, Jamie Raskin wrote, actually, I think it was November 4th. Wrote to attorney General Pam Bondi. Why would the Trump administration, the Department of Justice and the FBI kill an ongoing criminal investigation into a massive and decades long criminal sex trafficking ring that preyed on girls and young women? Who exactly are you intending to protect by this action? Until January 2025, the U.S. attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York was running an active investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's co conspirators. In January, Southern District and New York prosecutors were ordered to transfer the Epstein case files to the Department of justice headquarters in D.C. since that time, according to information provided to our committee by counsel for Epstein survivors who provided the key evidence enabling the successful prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, the investigation into co conspirators has inexplicably ceased and no further investigative steps appear to have been taken. DOJ and FBI formally closed the case in July 2025, abruptly issuing a memo that declared, without offering any supporting details, the Department of Justice and FBI, quote, did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. But you just opened an investigation against uncharged third parties. Thought you didn't have any evidence to. Hmm. Anyone who asks Trump about his new investigation into Epstein and Maxwell co conspirators needs to follow up with why he killed the investigation this past January that was already open. Why didn't they say from the jump that there was an open and ongoing investigation. Did they not want us to know? Did they want to shut down that investigation so that they could release cherry picked parts of the Epstein files after they went through them? But then after they went through them, they found out that they probably wouldn't be able to do that. Was the investigation still open and ongoing when they gave phase one binders to all those right wing influencers? But in July, when the Department of Justice released their memo shutting down the Epstein co conspirator investigation, we all thought they were just ending the review of the Epstein files. Oh, incidentally, was Maureen Comey part of that SDNY investigation under the Biden administration when they fired her? I mean, we've, this is so blatantly obviously obstruction of justice. This is a sham investigation. They had an investigation, he closed it, he killed it because he couldn't control it and then he fired the people that were in charge of it. And now he's opening a new one with his own handpicked person and Pam Bondi is just going along for the ride. This is, this is not unlike how Rod Rosenstein promised to land the plane for Trump when he took over the Mueller investigation from Jeff Sessions, who had to recuse himself and keep an eye out for congressional Republicans messaging on this. Are they going to pivot to, oh, I was going to vote to release the files, but I can't because there's an investigation now, or will they listen to the survivors and their constituents and continue to pressure Trump to release the files? Something else totally innocent people do, by the way, call Nancy Mace and Lauren Boebert repeatedly to try to get them to take their names off the discharge petition to release the Epstein files. I said this last week. I said, well, first of all that everyone was wondering if the Tennessee special election this December 2nd, if the Republican won, if they would cancel out her vote. But no, 218 is 218, it's half plus one. You can't cancel out her vote no matter what. And I said the only way to stop the petition is to get someone to unsign it. Was Trump watching the show when I said that? Because he started to pick up the phone and call Nancy Mace and Laura Boebert. I was even joking about what the phone calls to Nancy Mace must sound like. So he made multiple phone calls and I guess Nancy Mace, they were playing phone tags. She didn't answer the phone. But he got ahold of Boebert and then had Lauren Boebert meet with Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi And Kash Patel in the Situation Room. The Situation Room. Why the. I mean, I guess it is a situation, but I think it maybe has something more to do with the fact that you can't bring recording devices in there. And everybody who was at that theater watching the Beetlejuice musical or follows the criminal escapades of her ex husband and her son knows that Lauren Boebert is one of the more blackmailable members of Congress. But they didn't cave. And with the inevitable release of more of the Epstein files, given all of these potential sources, you know, Ghislaine Maxwell, the survivors, the Epstein estate, the thousand people at the FBI and doj, given all that, it was just a matter of time, it was just a matter of time before the right wing noise machine started trying to convince their base that Trump and Epstein's behavior is fine. It's fine. Teenage girls can give consent. It is a disgusting notion, but there is a long history of lowering the age of consent on the Republican side. All part of their weird Gilead eugenics woman hating agenda. Mr. Age is just a number. Matt Walsh says teen pregnancy is not a problem as long as the teens are married and stressed that it's totally normal for 16 year old girls to get pregnant because that's when they're quote, technically most fertile. Don't even get me started on Ted Nugent. That guy became a legal guardian of a minor so he could marry her. Don't listen to the song. Jail bait. U.S. senator James Lankford, before he was in Congress said in a 2010 deposition he believes 13 year olds can consent to sex. The age of consent in Oklahoma, by the way, is 16. And now none other than Megyn Kelly who has a 15 year old daughter tried to spin it this way.

C (16:55)

As for Epstein, I've said this before, but just as a reminder, I do know somebody very, very close to this case who is in a position to know virtually everything, not everything, but virtually everything. And this person has told me from the start, years and years ago that Jeffrey Epstein, in this person's view was not a pedophile. This is this person's view who was there for a lot of this but that he was into the barely legal type. Like he liked 15 year old girls. And I, I realize this is disgusting. I'm definitely not trying to make an excuse for this. I'm just giving you facts that he wasn't into like 8 year olds but he liked the very young teen types that could pass for even younger than they were but would look legal to a passerby and that is what I believed and that was what I reliably was told for many years. And it wasn't until we heard from Pam Bondi that they had tens of thousands of videos of alleged, forgive me, they used to call it kitty porn. Now they call it child sexual abuse material on his computer that for the first time I thought, oh no, he was an actual pedophile. I mean only a pedophile gets off on young children abuse videos. She's never clarified it. I don't know whether it's true. I have to be honest. I don't really trust Pam Bondi's word on the Epstein or anything else anymore. Yeah. So I don't know what's true about him. But we have yet to see anybody come forward and say I was a, like a. I was under 10, I was under 14 when I first came within his purview. I look, it's. You can say that's a distinction without a difference.

A (18:39)

No, it's not.

C (18:39)

I think there is a difference. There's, there's a difference between a 15 year old and a 5 year old. You know, it's just whatever.

A (18:45)

That reminds me of a recent statement from the FBI that Rachel Maddow pointed out. The FBI said we don't zip tie children. And then a reporter showed a photo of them having zip tied a 14 year old. So they changed their statement to say, we don't zip tie young children. Now Kelly is facing swift backlash online for her statements. But one man, one brave man is coming to her defense. Bill Donahue, president of the Catholic league since the 90s. Bill Donahue writes, megyn Kelly's being bashed for saying that Jeffrey Epstein was not a pedophile. Her critics are plainly ignorant and their gripe is not with her. It's with the American Academy of Pediatrics. It defines puberty as being at age 10 for whites and Hispanics and 9 for African Americans. A pedophile is a person who has sex with prepubescent male or females, meaning someone 10 or younger. In reference to Epstein, Kelly rightly noted, quote, we have yet to see anybody come forward and say I was under 10, I was under 14. She was also correct to say there's a difference between a 15 year old and a 5 year old. She wasn't justifying predators of any age. And indeed it's malicious to suggest she was. Really. The context of her remarks was whether Epstein's predatory behavior qualifies as pedophilia. Clearly it does not. Why does this matter to the Catholic League. I can't imagine why, Bill. Why does the age of consent matter to the Catholic League? Yeah, I had a whole response written out for Mr. Donahue here and for what Megyn Kelly said in her disgusting defense. But I think Eloise, a 14 year old freshman here, says it best.

D (20:41)

Hey, Megyn Kelly. I'm eloise and I'm 14 years old. I wasn't even gonna say anything because the topic is an adult one. My mom even made a video about it yesterday because we didn't feel it was an appropriate topic for a child to speak about. But after hearing you go on camera and explain that Epstein wasn't into 8 year olds, just the barely legal type, like 15, I realized you might need an actual reality check from a literal child. So let me help you out, Megan. People in my grade are turning 15 right now. Some of us still have baby faces. Some of us still have braces. Some of us still call our parents when we're scared at night. Some of us still look like middle schoolers because we basically are. And the fact that a grown woman needs a teenager to explain that is honestly terrifying. Here's the part you seem confused about. Under federal law, anyone under 18 is a child. No asterisk, no. But they hit puberty. No, older kids don't count. Anyone under 18 is a child. You said you were just giving facts, but here's the real fact. What you said wasn't factual. It was minimizing. It was making abuse sound like a technicality. And Megan, here's the part you really need to hear. If a 14 year old has to get on the Internet and explain to a grown adult with national platform that children are children and there's no age where abuse suddenly becomes less bad, then the problem isn't confusion, it's corruption. Because kids my age aren't supposed to be the ones correcting you. We're not supposed to be the moral compass in a room full of adults who should have known better, but here we are. If my voice makes you uncomfortable, good. It should. Because the minute adults start defending predators by debating the age of a child, you're not protecting the truth. You're protecting the predator. And you shouldn't need a freshman to tell you that.

A (22:21)

So all of this put together, the Biden Department of Justice at the Southern District of New York and their active investigation into Epstein's uncharged co conspirators. And then in January, Trump killed that Southern District of New York case, fired the people in charge of it, had all the files transferred to DOJ headquarters. Then they locked 1,000 people in a building and forced them to go through and remove Trump's name. They gave already public records in phase one to right wing influencers to keep them frosty. They realized there's no way we can release the files without incriminating Trump just by the number of redactions and not to mention our very rich donors. So they closed it all out quietly in July. But the drip drip of files leaked by Ghislaine Maxwell to get a pardon and the files from the Epstein estate through the oversight committee and the survivors telling their stories and informing Congress of the Biden investigation because they participated in it and the thousand plus FBI and DOJ employees whistleblowing to Congress or talking to me, all of that, it just became too much. So Trump ordered the DOJ to open an investigation after saying in July there was nothing to justify opening an investigation after he killed the other investigation. All so he can have an excuse not to release the files because he failed to convince members of Congress to unsign a discharge petition. And like I said, Pam Bondi happy to go along with it. She was the Florida Attorney General during the first Epstein sweetheart deal. Why not? She is ordering the Department of Justice to go along with this. This is blatant corruption. But that's not the only Department of Justice corruption slash incompetence this week. Apparently a huge chunk of the Lindsey Halligan presentment to the grand jury is missing. Politico reports Judge Curry seemed particularly concerned that a portion of the grand jury proceedings that led to Comey's indictment was missing, leaving certain aspects of Halligan's interactions with the grand jury unreviewable. Curry said that it appeared at about 4:28pm on the day the indictment was returned in September. There was no court reporter in the room to transcribe the proceedings, leaving no record of the final minutes of the grand jury's session. Final minutes. Put a, put a pin in final minutes. Because I got to tell you, I just happen to know how late the grand jury stayed because we go over these kinds of things in a lot of detail on the Unjustified podcast with Andy McCabe. And I recalled after seeing that 4:28pm Number, I recalled a court filing from Comey's lawyer Pat Fitzgerald in a motion about grand jury misconduct that said, quote, rather than leaving and reconvening on a later date, however, the grand jury remained well past normal court hours. At 6:47pm the grand jury returned a true bill on a new two count indictment by only a two vote margin, no transcription from 427. 428 to 647. That's 139 minutes that's missing. Now, usually, grand juries deliberate for only a few minutes. And keep in mind, this is the third time in this case that the Department of Justice has failed to fully hand over the grand jury transcripts. The first time, they just didn't turn anything over. Then the judge said, give me the grand jury transcripts, and they gave just the FBI agent testimony transcription. That FBI agent, by the way, is probably tainted by privileged information. Another problem with this case. But that's a story for another day. Then the third time, the judge is like, look, if I'm going to assess whether Halligan was appointed properly, I need the full transcripts and tapes because Pam Bondi, who's going back and she's using her flux capacitor, going back in time to magically appoint Lindsey Halligan, if she says that she did that based on her review of the grand jury transcripts, I need to see what she saw to assess whether or not. Y' all are full of shit, basically. So then the DOJ handed over the tapes, but it's still missing 139 minutes. Three times. They can't get the whole thing out. How many times do you have to refuse to hand it over before it's obstruction of justice or contempt? I don't know. I don't think this case is long for the world, but I would love to know all of the DOJ shenanigans before it's dismissed. I want to see Rule 11 sanctions. I want to see contempt. This is nuts. I don't even know if you can do contempt in criminal proceedings, but I don't think you can. But this is just you can do. Set Rule 11 sanctions, I think. I'm not a lawyer, sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is probably just going to be dismissed outright for Halligan's unlawful appointment, which, like I said, Pam Bondi tried to rectify by writing in a declaration that she's retroactively appointed Halligan as special attorney going back to September 22nd, based on three laws, by the way. And those three laws are the same laws that allowed for the appointment of Jack Smith, which this same lawyers, this, you know, the Todd Blanche argued that he wasn't appointed properly. He's now in the leadership of the Department of Justice. It's just the incompetence is stunning. Not surprising, mind you, but you're going to try to do this. You're going to try to go back in time and base it on the grand jury transcripts. An hour and 39 minutes of what you're missing. Good luck. Now, when the judge confronted the Department of Justice about this, Halligan submitted a new declaration on the docket saying the entire missing 139 minutes, that was just grand jury deliberations. And I'd finished presenting the case at 4:27 and I only presented the case once. That's what's weird about this. There were two signed by Lindsey Halligan indictments. The first was a no bill and the second was a true bill. The first had three counts, the second one had two counts. We were all operating under the presumption that she presented twice. It seems like the whole second part is missing. And that's why there's Nothing happening after 428 is that she didn't present it again. But she signed those two indictments. And it seems like it's confusing Judge Curry as well, she's not buying the explanation either and was looking for the second presentment and couldn't find it. What are they hiding? I know it is either or both malfeasance, misconduct or and just incompetence. By the way, Lindsey Halligan signed her unsworn declaration, Interim United Stated Attorney. Anyway, as always, I like to end the breakdown on an up note and I have a couple for you today. First, I just wanted to remind everyone, apropos of something that in 2022, President Biden signed into law the Eliminating Limits to Justice for Child Abuse Victims Act. That law eliminates the statute of limitations, eliminates the 10 year limit for filing civil action for federal human trafficking and sex offenses. That's very relevant given what we're seeing. Also this week, Catholic bishops, not Donahue, not Bill Donahue, but the Catholic bishops voted 216 to 5 to publicly condemn mass deportation in the United States. They say, quote, we oppose the indiscriminate mass deportation of people. We pray for an end to dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, whether directed at immigrants or at law enforcement. That's what the message from the U.S. conference of Catholic Bishops said after the vote. 216 to 5, the bishops stood and applauded. The last such special message like this was delivered 12 years ago. That's how rare. This is also something this week that just warmed the cockles of my heart, made me smile from ear to ear. My friend, Stephanie Miller on Hannity.

B (31:15)

All right, so I do have a question. I tried to get an answer out of you on Radio. Okay. The question is, when did you notice Joe Biden's cognitive decline? And don't. I don't. Don't change the subject and deflect. When did you really notice it?

A (31:30)

Well, I think it was through all of the times that Donald Trump has fallen asleep in public and talked about magnets getting wet in the last few. Oh, my gosh, my mom had dementia.

B (31:43)

So I recognize it.

A (31:45)

This is not.

B (31:45)

It's a very good deflection. You're a professional.

A (31:48)

You know what else is great about Biden's decline is that Trump is all over the Epstein files. And I'm wondering if they're gonna release those. Are you covering that tonight?

B (31:57)

Not really. Because the woman that apparently they're talking about is the one that said he was a gentleman and never did anything wrong. And the person that had a grudge was the guy that got thrown out of mar a Lago 25 years ago. And by the way, when you get thrown out of a club in Palm Beach, Florida, that's kind of a big deal. And it's humiliating and embarrassing. And he was a convicted pedophile, so I'm not exactly putting a lot of possible truth in what he said.

A (32:24)

Trump was mad that he was one of his girls. But. Yeah. What?

B (32:27)

I thought it was funny, but if it was anybody else, I probably wouldn't think it was as funny. So well done.

A (32:33)

Thank you for being the only one on the right that gets the joke. Sean. It was a joke. And then, you know, the funniest thing about this story is Trump's all over the Epstein files. And I wonder if they're gonna release that after the big bombshell. I didn't say anything about that on Fox News today. Yeah, let's release them. Let's release those files. Is this what passes for news? Is this what?

B (32:55)

I didn't bring you on to this. Why did you kiss her?

A (32:58)

Picture and contempt proceedings are back on. This is in the case of Judge Boasberg when he ordered the Justice Department to turn those planes around from El Salvador. You'll recall last March, ice loaded about 250 people, most of them not criminals. They put. He put them on planes in the middle of the night, sent them to El Salvador, so where they would end up in Seacoat Prison. And they cited the Alien Enemies act to do this. That is the law that we used to intern the Japanese during World War II. They used that as a justification to kidnap and disappear. These men on that plane were people like Kilmar, Abrego Garcia, Andre the Gay stylist that we talked about and profiled over on the Daily Beans podcast, the man with the autism tattoo, because his brother has autism. Tons of just innocent people kidnapped and removed on those planes. Now the plain just filed a lawsuit in the middle of the night saying, we think they're about to do this. And Judge Boseberg called an emergency hearing. He came in and he didn't even have his robes. He came in in his jeans and his T shirt. He had an emergency hearing and he ordered the planes turned around. But Stephen Miller was like, oh, you didn't put it in writing. You just said it with your mouth. And oral orders don't count in the court, which is wrong. And you'll remember Emil Bovey, who is now a judge on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, told Department of Justice lawyers to just basically tell the court to, quote, fuck off. So Boasberg issued a memo saying there's probable cause to find the government in criminal contempt for defying my court order. And he ordered discovery, contempt proceedings. But a three judge panel, of course, the government appealed to the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals and a three judge panel got it first. Two Trump judges and a Biden judge. And they ruled 2 to 1. The two Trump judges voted to vacate Boasberg's contempt memo. But the problem is, is that those two Trump judges had very different and not overlapping reasons for doing so. So that's not really a majority if you don't agree on the reasons. And the dissenting judge pointed that out. So when the plaintiffs filed for an en banc rehearing of the entire 11 judge panel on the D.C. circuit, that's seven Democratic appointees, four Republican appointees. They just ruled on Friday eight to three. We're not going to rehear this issue. And normally that would leave the three judge panel ruling in place, but not here. Because they also ruled 6 to 5 on the full panel that because those two judges disagreed on the reasons why they vacated Boseberg's order, it's got no practical effect. So this actually kicks it back down to Judge Boasberg, which is awesome, I think because Boasberg can restart contempt proceedings, essentially contempt proceedings are back on like Donkey Kong. I'm going to cabbage patch about it because I'm 51 now. Finally, everybody, the verdict is in on Sandwich Guy. On the Sandwich Guy jury, at least you recall last week on the Breakdown, I implored members of the jury who might be watching the show who acquitted Sandwich Guy, to please reach out to me, tell me if they acquitted using jury nullification, meaning we know he broke the law, but we're not going to convict him. Or if they actually acquitted on the merits. And last week, I bet the bourbon that the jury acquitted on the merits, that they felt like because Customs and Border Protection Officer Larrymore had a plushie sandwich in his cubicle and that felony footlong patch on his lunchbox, that there was no way he could have been offended or scared of the sandwich, which is an element of misdemeanor assault. Well, a juror reached out, not to me, but to Ashley Parker at the Atlantic. I'm super jealous, but Ashley Parker writes. Ultimately, the juror said the group decided the case on its merits, deliberating for seven hours over two days before declaring Dunn not guilty. Quote, we probably could have gotten this thing resolved on the first day, but there were two holdouts and we didn't want to steamroll them. We wanted them to come to conclusions on their own and see if they could be convinced to switch their position based on the facts and the evidence. Especially compelling, she added, was the defense's argument that Larrymore himself did not seem to have ever felt truly threatened, pointing to several gag gifts, a plush toy sandwich, a felony footlong insignia from his co workers that he displayed proudly. Her sense that Larimore didn't find the incident offensive, the juror said, was really a slam dunk, as MX Lucifer so eloquently put it on Blue Sky Ice got domed by a sub. Anyway, everybody, if you want Daily News without Ken Jennings and appropriate profanity, you can check out our audio podcast. It's out every morning. On weekdays, it's the Daily Beans. You can get it wherever you get your pods. And thanks for watching the Breakdown. Thanks to Midas Touch for having me. I'm Allison Gill. We'll see you next week on the Breakdown. Love this video. Support independent media and unlock exclusive content, ad free videos and custom emojis. By becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today, you can also gift memberships to others. Let's keep growing together.