Dan Goldman (3:57)

Well, as the letter says and as you just recited, I think very well, there was a very aggressive move to release all of the Epstein files. And certainly you had right wing folks calling for it. You had Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna, who was all over this threat, making threats, you know, confronting the Department of Justice. And then after the first batch of the Epstein files were released and everyone realized this is just public information that's already been out there, the Attorney General made it very clear to blame it on the FBI and to say, oh, well, that's what I got from the FBI, so it's the FBI's fault. She then demanded to have the FBI turn over all of the materials within 24 hours. And she wanted a comprehensive report within 14 days to explain what has transpired. Now, we haven't heard anything since then other than that one undercover comment that prompted her to say something similar publicly. And so the 24 hours goes by, the 14 days goes by. Congresswoman Luna now is quiet. Everything is very, very quiet, except when there's reporting that a bunch of agents, and it sounds like it may have been dozens of special agents with the FBI in Here and the New York field office were pulled off of their regular duties of investigating terrorism and fentanyl and corruption and securities fraud and everything that that field office does in order to review around the clock the materials to for redaction. Now, again, that's two and a half months ago, and we have not heard anything. And so there was a mad dash and a big rush to release everything, and everyone was talking about it, and now there's radio silence. And the begs the question, why has the Attorney General gone dark on this? Why has Congresswoman Luna and others stopped calling for it? What is it that's in the Epstein files that they were so eager to have that now are just not being released according to the Attorney General's promises of transparency, but are still there, and there's no explanation? And the concern I have, of course, is we know Donald Trump had a friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. We know Jeffrey Epstein had numerous numbers for Donald Trump. And the question then is, was this some sort of directive from Donald Trump or someone on his staff or an agent of his to the Attorney General to kill this? And that would be yet another pretty egregious act of corruption, using his position as president for his own personal benefit.

Ben Meiselas (7:10)

Now, you're a former federal prosecutor before being a member of Congress, so you've seen in many cases, documents that have redactions in it, documents that need to be filed under seal, even documents that could potentially have classified markings on it, and how you go about handling it. And you've dealt with cases that have voluminous discovery of the type, or even more than what we're dealing here within the Epstein file. And as you gear up for trials and you have teams of people, you go through it, you're able to look through it, and you're able to, you know, produce the thing. So from a federal prosecutorial perspective, I think it's interesting also that you have the background in how you do big document reviews. And this, to you, strikes you as very unusual, because the initial deadlines that were set based on all of your experience should have been met fairly easily. And now you bring in this massive team, and they should have been met within days. Am I wrong about that? Or maybe speak to that?

Dan Goldman (8:16)

Well, there, there are a couple things that are important to remember. Child victims, minor victims, or victims in general need to be redacted. And if there are a lot of videos, that is a more cumbersome process than just redacting out the name and Social Security number of somebody. So I, I'm. I don't Mean, to minimize the, A, the importance of these redactions and B, the comprehensiveness of them. So it could, it's possible it could be days or even weeks. And it sounded like from reporting and rumors that there were dozens of agents working very long hours to do this. And so if that is the case, it should not take two months to, to do it. What should not be redacted is any thing related to Jeffrey Epstein or his co conspirators or any accomplices or anyone who is with him, any adults who may have wittingly or unwittingly been involved in whatever the conduct was, and that would include Donald Trump. So if they are trying to hide this, either by redacting Donald Trump's name or any videos in which he's in, or they're just trying to kill it and keep it secret, as they have done with volume two of Jack Smith's report on the classified document information, even though that investigation is completely over and there's no reason not to turn that over. This is, this is their M.O. in the department of justice is to act as Donald Trump's personal lawyer to protect him from politically and personally. And so I am, I am sensitive to the need for the redaction of victims and that that may take some time, but it certainly shouldn't take this much time. And if that were the case and they intended to release it, you would expect to have heard from the Attorney General what the new timeline is and why it is. And of course, we haven't heard anything.

Ben Meiselas (10:29)

Because here are some of the facts too. We know, based on prior document productions where Donald Trump's name has already appeared. It is on a call list with Trump's number, bodyguard number, and people affiliated with Donald Trump's numbers. We also know that Trump was identified as DOE 174 in one of the releases that happened a few years back. So you can pretty much go, if we were prosecutors or we were doing a document request release, all of the information relating to Doe 174, you know, and to see what's there. We know that Trump's name appears on the flight logs at least seven times because that had been released. But that was only a partial release of the flight logs. We know that Epstein had been on Trump's plane at least one time before. We know that Trump said that Epstein is a great guy who likes women on the younger side. There are videos of them hanging out together. We know Epstein's victims, like Virginia Giuffre, were actually found at Mar A Lago and she died by suicide recently. But Ghislaine Maxwell found her working at Mar A Lago and then brought her to Epstein. So there are all of these, like, it's not a minimal connection. There are all of these things here. And, you know, I think with this letter, you know, you're saying, look, this is not only fair game to be asking these questions about Trump's connection, this is actually very, very, very important stuff. Release it. Tell us why you think it's so important before we go.

Dan Goldman (12:05)

Yeah, that was a great recitation of all of what we would ordinarily call, I mean, circumstantial evidence. But some of it is direct evidence of Donald Trump's involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, including in ways that other co conspirators were also identified by flight logs, by phone numbers, by videos, by comments. Right. This is exactly the type of thing that, you know, as a, as a prosecutor, you would start looking for and then you would track down all of these different leads and speak to witnesses and try to get a fuller picture. And because there's so much smoke around here and around Trump and Epstein, and Trump is notorious for saying one thing and doing another, as you may remember, Ben, when he said, oh, I would love to speak with Special Counsel Robert Mueller, I'd be happy to do it, and then he blamed his lawyers. It depends on my lawyers. Well, what we saw in the Mueller report is a systematic effort to avoid testifying, to refuse testifying, to delay testifying. Completely, completely different than what he said publicly. And so he has a pattern of saying publicly that he wants one thing while doing something very different privately. And it certainly falls right within his standard MO to do that in this case, because if it is revealed that he is involved in these materials in a greater degree than just his name on a, on logs and, and phone numbers, that could be certainly embarrassing. But it also could give rise to questions about whether he was an accomplice or involved in Jeffrey Epstein's, you know, massive child trafficking scheme.

Ben Meiselas (14:09)

Congressman, one more question while I got you here. Unrelated, the news broke on Sunday about Trump getting a $400 million jet from Qatar that not only will he get it after he leaves the office, it's like bequeathed to him in perpetuity, they're saying, through his library. What do you, what's your immediate reaction to that?

Dan Goldman (14:29)

Well, it's a, it's breathtaking corruption, you know, that just continues a week after a two billion dollar deal that a, his crypto company that he has significant personal interest in is made with the UAE and Another company that had been involved in crypto, money laundering and other criminal activity. It is really unprecedented. This just continues. This corruption continues to escalate and escalate and you know it's bad, Ben, when Laura Loomer, the sort of wacky right wing conspiracy theorist who seems to have Donald Trump's ear, even calls it out. Even Laura Loomer has more of a spine than House Republicans in calling out this blatant corruption. As we were talking about Pam Bondi just a second ago, the thing that jumps out to me as well is that Pam Bondi ostensibly gave it her blessing to this deal, saying that it is not corruption because there's no associated official act with what is clearly a bribe. And it's not a foreign gift to Donald Trump because it's not. It doesn't go to him personally. This is such bogus. It is just garbage. And there is an Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice that is responsible for these types of legal memos that are binding on the executive branch. Pam Bondi has completely gutted that Office of Legal Counsel. And that Office of Legal Counsel is an independent sort of lawyer for the executive branch that calls balls and strikes and says, says, yes, we can do this. No, we can't. They issue memos. Those memos are cited over and over and over. Decades later, they create sort of binding precedent on the executive branch. They're just ignoring all that. They're pretending as if that is not how the Department of Justice works and that Pam Bondi gets to make decisions about what is legal and what is illegal. And by the way, the last thing on this, Ben, which I'm sure you know, is before she was Attorney General, Pam Bondi was a paid lobbyist for the cutter government.

Ben Meiselas (16:44)

Well, it's a lot there, a lot there to look into. And, you know, I'm sure when Democrats, you know, get that majority, it's going to be some important investigations to bring sunlight to all of this. But.

Dan Goldman (16:57)

Well, Ben, I, I just want to interrupt for a second there because we can't wait until January of 2027. And this corruption is beyond anything anyone has ever seen. It is so blatant, it is so brazen. There is no dispute that it is violating the Constitution. And is. It can't, you can't dispute that it's violating the law, except with this completely phony rationale. And so it's not just Democrats who are responsible for upholding the Constitution. It's Republicans too. It's Congressional Republicans who also take an oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump. And it is long past time that they stand up for, for their oath to the Constitution and call out Donald Trump's blatant corruption. It's not good enough to mumble in private that, oh, this is bad, it's time they come out publicly and that they call him out and they do oversight that Congress is responsible for doing. So let's not say Democrats will do this in 2027. That is far too long away, far too far away for us to wait. It is incumbent upon the Republicans currently in the majority to do their damn job, do their job and conduct oversight over the president of the United States. Stop sucking up to him so much.

Ben Meiselas (18:20)

I think it's a great point because, you know, you're almost programmed at this point to be like, well, the Republicans don't give a crap about anything. But it's like, you're right, you should be calling them out right now. Yes, they are in charge and they should not be complicit in this. You're absolutely right. Congressman. Thanks for being on and thanks for that letter. It's a powerful one indeed. And keep us posted on what you hear back.

Dan Goldman (18:42)

Yeah, not expecting a whole lot, but appreciate you you covering it. And let's keep on it because something is really fishy here.

Ben Meiselas (18:51)

Everybody hit subscribe. Let's get to 5 million subscribers. Love this video. Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram at Midas Touch and help us blow past the 1 million followers.