← The Epstein Chronicles
The Epstein Chronicles
The South Carolina Witness: Expanding the Post and Courier Trump/Epstein Investigation (4/3/26)
00:19:47
A South Carolina woman told the FBI in multiple 2019 interviews that Jeffrey Epstein abused and trafficked her when she was a minor, beginning around age 13. She described being recruited into Epstein’s orbit and transported to various locations where...
Loading summary
Transcript2 lines
- [00:01]
A
Boss, what's the most dreaded question that you can get when you tell people you host a podcast called the Lapsed Fan? Ugh. It's what is it about? And why is that, do you think? Because to like pro wrestling is to lose the respect of others. Now what if we told you there's a podcast that explains exactly why that is and why it's kind of deserved? For over a decade we've taken fact finding missions through the thicket of half truths that is wrestling history. We watch old matches, call out carnies, laugh at our own jokes, and have so much fun doing it that some people actually can't handle it. Think wrestling is an escape from real life? Think again. Same power games, same office politics, same people lying to your face. Just with entrance music and absolutely no company health insurance under any circumstances. All I offer is opportunity, not benefits. As do we, Vince. The Lapsed Fan Podcast. Come for the wrestling history. Stay for the uncomfortable truth about why it used to be better and why you still care.
- [01:01]
B
What's up everyone? And welcome to another episode of the Epstein Chronicles. A couple of days ago we were talking about a report from the Post and Courier about the young lady, the Jane Doe from South Carolina who said that she was abused by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. Well, today they have a follow up to that report about FBI records and and how they detail potential witnesses to the event and how those details are being kept from the public. So today we're just going to dive right in and see what they have for us. Like I said, this article was published by the Post in Courier. The headline FBI Records Detail Potential Witnesses of SC Epstein Victim. They aren't public. This article was authored by Marilyn Thompson and Mitchell Black. FBI agents prepared handwritten interview notes that contain names of possible corroborating witnesses and other information detailing a woman's accusations that Jeffrey Epstein lured her to his deviant orbit when she was still a teen on Hilton Head island and sexually abused her. The Post and courier reviewed 30 pages of FBI agent notes which have not been publicly released. The notes made by agents in a series of 2019 interviews offer a few new details about her claim that she traveled with Epstein to New York area in the 1980s. She alleged that she encountered Donald Trump during a visit and was once forced into a sex act. The White House has a cell. Her claim describing it backed by no evidence. So if there is evidence of it, I would say that the public needs to see it, right? I mean that is the point of the law that was passed after all, for these Documents to be made public. And considering that 30 pages are still buried, it certainly makes people wonder and ask questions. The agent's unredacted notes were not disclosed in the millions of Epstein documents released so far by the US Department of Justice. They flesh out some aspects of her claims. That she crossed paths with Epstein in the Low country before he built a global sex trafficking operation. Why is that so hard for people to believe? Every place Epstein went, he was abusing people. I truly believe that 100%. When you're a guy like this, you can't turn that on and off. That's just who you are. You're just a completely broken degeneratebag. You know when they say that a lemon comes off the line? Same thing with humans. Some humans are just born up and Epstein one of those humans. And remember, there certainly are a bunch of women and girls that we have no idea about. The Post and Courier compared the notes with official summaries known as 302s that agents prepared after the interviews. Some details in the handwritten notes that never made it into the prepared summaries, which were heavily redacted by the Justice Department before their public release as required by law. Of course they were, because they didn't want it to embarrass Donald Trump. To embarrass. Insert elite here. Meanwhile, all these survivors had their names released. Nobody gives a. Where's Anna Paulina Luna? Oh, that's right. She's telling us about interdimensional demons. When I tell you that these people are wholly unserious, this is what I'm talking about. If people really cared, people like Comer, people like Anna Paulina Luna, any of them, they'd be demanding that all of this stuff was made public. During one interview, for instance, an agent scribbled that the woman provided the names of four young teen girls who, by her account, attended a pool party on Hilton Head when Epstein came by. This was during the time when she alleged the Epstein was sexually assaulting her and plying her with drugs and alcohol. Details about the four friends were not visible in the FBI's 302 reports and may have been redacted in an effort to protect victim privacy. Redact their names, not what they said. How are we going to find out what's what if we don't know what the witnesses say? And again, I'm not calling for them to be outed. You redact their names, right? That's the whole point of the law. But the government, they have other ideas, and they're going to redact Whatever they think is going to make it harder for us to figure out what's going on, because that's always been the goal. It's never been about transparency. It's never been about justice. It's always been about the men of always getting more while the children have never. That means me and you continue to get screwed. That's what it's all about. And they'll go to great lengths to protect the people that are part of their club. It's unclear whether the FBI ever pursued leads offered by the alleged victim. One of the women identified in the interview notes as a high school friend told the Post and Courier that she was never contacted by the FBI. Look, that all tracks. They didn't even contact Indyke and Khan. You think they're going to contact this girl? Zero chance. How much more evidence do you need that there was never a real investigation here? Just like I told you seven years ago, you don't have to be some great investigator to figure that out. Agents notes from a fourth interview with the alleged victim in 2019 were not available for the Post and Courier to review. The DOJ's handling of the notes and other materials continued to be a point of focus as President Trump ousted Attorney General PAM Bondi on April 2. Deputy Attorney General Todd Baby Billy Blanche replaced her on an interim basis. All that is is a swap, cuz Blanche is going to do whatever Trump wants him to do. He's Trump's personal lawyer. This dude has never prosecuted anything in his life, but sure, let's make him the aggressive. It's like when you were younger, you know, you sit around with your friends and you're like, if I became president, so and so would be Secretary of State. And it's like your stupidest friend or whatever. That's basically what's happening here. Who's the most loyal as opposed to who's the best for the job? Because when we're talking about the Trump administration, it's all about loyalty to Trump. It's not about loyalty to the country, it's not about loyalty to the Constitution. It's about loyalty to Trump. And if you don't have that loyalty, forget it. You're out. Responding to the Post and Courier's questions about its review of the FBI agent notes, a Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement saying there are no missing pages among the records released by the department. The DOJ has said that some records are considered duplicative with what is available elsewhere and for members of Congress to view in private. I don't care what Congress can view. Are you crazy right now? That's not what the law says. I don't trust Congress either. Have you not been paying attention? We want to see it. The American people. You know, the people that pay the bills. This production may include fake or falsely submitted images, documents or videos, as everything that was sent to the FBI by the public was included in in the production that is responsive to the act. The statement said that was done on purpose as well, to make everybody look crazy. Oh, yeah, let's add the most salacious emails that were sent by obvious crazy people to make the whole entire thing look like a bunch of bs. And the people that bought that hook, line and sinker. You know, the, oh, it's a hoax people. Boy, are you stupid. Imagine waking up every morning and being that dumb. Life must be hard as fuck. Most of the FBI notes are written in cursive handwriting with random jottings as conversations unfolded. The scribblings have the disorganized feel of a personal notebook with items that may only make sense to the writer. Well, look, I can't even complain about that because my note taking. Forget it. If, like, some archaeologist finds my notebook from College in, like, 300 years, they'll be like, what the fuck was this dude doing? What language is that? Because I was using more shorthand than you could possibly imagine. And that was in the pursuit of a political science degree. I can only imagine FBI agents doing reports. They have their own language. I'm guessing FBI interviews are intended to build narrative reconstructions of events and are not conducted under oath. Agents do not usually tape interviews all, although the agents asked for permission to audio record the victim. In the fourth interview, her attorney was not present. She advised she was not comfortable being taped. Agents wrote a summary of the interview. Well, you blame her. I wouldn't be comfortable either, dealing with this kind of power. You're some girl who says you were abused, and you're gonna go on record and say the president was involved. Probably not a comfortable situation to be in. And not everybody wants to rock the boat. And unfortunately, some people think it's hopeless. And that's because, well, look at what's happening. We always talk about precedent in the courtroom. Well, what about the precedent that this sets? How many people are out there saying, you know what? Fuck this. I'm never coming forward. I don't want to deal with this. I don't want to have Anna Paulina Luna call me a human trafficker because I fell into the clutches of Jeffrey Epstein. And unfortunately, I hate to say it, but in my opinion, it's all by design. The notes include a few clarifying details about the victim's alleged trips with Epstein to visit Trump in the 302s. Her account reflects uncertainty about her travel with Epstein off to the island, apparently referring to Hilton Head at least once when she was 13 to 15 years old, he drove her or flew her to either New York or New Jersey. The report said she was introduced to someone with money, money, money. It was Donald Trump. It said that she had two additional interactions with Trump. But when agents attempted to ask her questions, she asked that the interview move on to a different subject. For the time being, the handwritten notes come across as slightly less tentative about her travel with Epstein, which if true, could constitute underage sex trafficking. Well, it is true. Come on. At least as far as Epstein bringing girls across state lines, that's not even debatable. They suggest that Epstein both drove and flew her to New York and New Jersey and introduced her to Trump. She told agents that she overheard them talking about business matters, including a casino. Noting that Trump did not like her from the get go, she described the alleged assault that was later detailed in the 302 report. The note taker jotted down two more interactions with Trump. So I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I know if this is true or not. The big problem for me here is that the FBI didn't really investigate this the way they should. So how do we know what the truth is and what's not the truth? And then you bury these documents, you don't release them. What are we supposed to think? The redacted 302 report details the nighttime pool party with her friends, possibly at the Marriott Hotel. A large blacked out portion follows that statement. She said Epstein showed her up alone to the party and she left with them. She said her friends might have seen them together. Those identities appear to be redacted from the formal report. The handwritten notes clearly identify the Marriott and at Shipyard Plantation as a location and includes the handwritten names of her friends with a few notes about the relationships. One of the name women told the Post and Courier that the hotel pool was a hangout for her high school friends. Students would sneak in after school by pretending to be hotel guests. The woman said she had no memory of any creepiness. The Post and Courier attempted to contact other people listed in the FBI notes and as being at the alleged Marriott gathering, to decline to comment. So, look, nobody wants to comment. There's no corroboration here. So, okay, Again, why was it buried? Why wasn't it all presented as the law demands? That's a big problem. That's a cover up. And it's a cover up that's being directed, in my opinion, by the White House. Among those at the pool party described by the alleged victim was a high school friend to whom she confided details of her sexual encounters. At the time of the interview, the alleged victim said her friend had recently prodded her to recall repressed memories by sending her a much circulated photograph of Epstein standing close to Trump. The friend also called the FBI tip line and offered her account of what she said was the victim's involvement with Epstein and Trump. So corroboration right there. One person at least. It's not clear whether the FBI looked into the alleged victim's account after she told agents in October of 2019 that she planned to sue the Epstein estate. Well, why not? Why wouldn't they look into it? Why not kick off an investigation and see what this girl is talking about? Unless you're scared of what you're going to find. A federal lawsuit was filed in New York just before Christmas that year with someone referred to as Jane Doe for making similar allegations of sexual assaults by Epstein on Hilton head in the mid-1980s. A settlement was reached in December of 2021, according to her attorneys. Additional details in the notes raise new questions about Justice Department's withholding of documents. The Epstein Files Transparency act, bipartisan legislation signed by Trump late last year, required the DOJ to produce records related to Epstein by December 19, 2025. The department initially made public a fraction of the documents and waited until January to publish a massive trove. Missing from the tranche were the interview summaries from the former Hilton Head resident in which he made allegations against Trump and others. The Justice Department described their omission as a clerical error. Of course, it was always a clerical error that falls to the side of the government and the administration. You notice nobody's names ever leaked when they're accused of the abuse. It's only the girls who were abused who get their names leaked. I'm sure. Just another coincidence, right? They're not targeting people. Trump's former personal attorney said outrage about the unaccounted for records was overblown. Come on, man. It's not illegal to party with Epstein. Everybody was doing it. Head on down to the island, have yourself a blast, said Todd baby Billy Blanche. There was drama about missing files that were holding, covering things up, he said recently on a podcast. The evidence of the missing Files came from the Epstein files. So they're not missing files. We went back and adjusted that right away. Oh, well, all is forgiven, Mr. Todd B. Baby Billy Blanche. Some critics, like Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode island, have criticized the lack of transparency. Searches under the alleged victim's case code show that a law enforcement report and a license record are not in the database. A photograph originally believed to be missing was actually in the files. The Justice Department on February 14th wrote a six page letter to the House and and Senate Judiciary Committee explaining that it redacted material in the files after a legal evaluation and only when documents were judged to be duplicative or protected by legal privileges, such as confidential discussion between lawyers and clients and protection of state secrets. Now, what kind of state secrets are going to be in the Epstein files? I thought he was just a lone predator. I thought he was just a guy that liked to abuse kids. You bunch of jackasses. The agency's been accused of covering up documents that might implicate Trump, a longtime friend of Epstein who is referenced more than a thousand times in the publicly released documents. The Justice Department's letter called the president one of many politically exposed persons in the files. Ah, poor Trump, exposed in the files. Here's an idea. Don't hang out with people like Jeffrey Epstein and you don't have to worry about being exposed. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. Officials have acknowledged some mistakes in the hasty review of millions of documents, including not redacting victim names in released emails and photographs. When notified of the errors, they said the department corrected them. But issues remain. An FBI document with identifying details of the alleged victim's high school friend remains available for anyone to view because they don't care. You think Todd Blanche cares about the survivors? Has he sat down and talked to the survivors the way he did Maxwell? Remember what he said? Oh, we want to give Maxwell a chance to go on the record. She's a convicted child abuser. She's had her chance to go on the record. She declined. The Post and Courier is withholding the identity of the alleged victim and the woman identified as her friends, in keeping with the newspaper's general policy of not revealing the names of sexual assault survivors or alleged survivors. Bondi may soon need to answer for the DOJ's handling of the Epstein files. She's scheduled to testify April 14 before a congressional committee about her department's compliance with the law. It's not completely clear if Bondi will still testify, though Republican Nancy Mace said she still wants her to answer questions under Oath. My subpoena still stands. When the Oversight Committee moved to subpoena Bondi, I did it by name, not by or not as the sitting Attorney General of the United States. Mace posted on social media. Well, look, I hope that's the case, but I have my doubts. And I think that him firing her, Trump firing Pam Bondi, is just another move, another way to try and slow things down and gum things up. But as far as these documents go, they should have all been released. And the fact that they weren't is against the law. I mean, I don't know how else to put it. And if they're duplicative, fine, release them anyway. It shouldn't be a big deal, right? If they're duplicative, they're out there already. Point us in that direction. Notice he never does that. Notice he just says, oh, well, this is just B.S. it's overblown. Well, okay, but we don't believe you, Todd Blanche. Just like I didn't believe Merrick Garland. I didn't believe Bill Barr. I didn't believe, you know, Mark Philippe. I didn't believe Mukazi. The list goes on. And that's because, breaking news. None of these people are believable. Oh, they tell us one thing, but they do another. And unfortunately, with Todd Blanche taking the helm here, all we're gonna see is more of the same, because Blanche, like Bondi, is just an extension of Donald Trump. And we all know that Donald Trump has no desire for these files to be released. And it doesn't matter who's in the position of Attorney General, because it's always, meet the new boss, same as the old boss. All the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.