Transcript
A (0:01)
A Mochi moment from Mark, who writes, I just want to thank you for making GLP1s affordable. What would have been over $1,000 a month is just $99 a month with mochi. Money shouldn't be a barrier to healthy weight. Three months in and I have smaller jeans and a bigger wallet.
B (0:17)
You're the best.
A (0:19)
Thanks, Mark. I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com.
B (0:27)
Mark is a Mochi member compensated for his story.
C (0:32)
One of the most revealing things in the heavily redacted Epstein files that have been disclosed. There's still 3 million plus more that haven't is what the Department of Justice apparently does not want us to see, right? The Epstein Files Transparency act passed with only one dissenting vote in both houses of Congress, signed by Donald J. Trump, is very clear. Redaction should only be used to protect the identities of survivors and not the reputations of anyone involved. But now that members of Congress are starting to view the unredacted files, it's clear the Justice Department redacted a lot more than that. Like all the black ink on this file posted to social media by Congressman Ro Khanna today, Khanna says it redacts the name of a businessman and convicted sex offender who allegedly had ties to former Prince Andrew. Khanna also posted this email. He says the redactions black out the name of a political figure, someone bragging to Jeffrey Epstein he got more votes in Iowa than Jeb Bush did. He or she got more votes in Iowa than Jeb Bush did. Here's another. A redacted list of names, including the names of some people like Trump who have denied any knowledge of Epstein's sexual crimes before his conviction. Khanna says the redactions here obscure the first name of billionaire Les Wexner, of course, who had a long standing relationship with Epstein. There's this one posted by Congressman Dan Goldman yesterday. It references a phone conference that Trump's attorney arranged for Trump and another person instead of a depot. Okay. And then a whole bunch of stuff of what they discussed. Then right afterwards, falling was discussed. Huge black box. Now, again, of course, it's impossible for us to know what's behind those big black boxes. And being named in the Epstein files does not necessarily indicate criminal wrongdoing. There's literally thousands and thousands of people named. But there's a big question here, which is what exactly is going on? Like, why did the Justice Department make those redactions? Are we going to see what's under them. And are we going to see the rest of the files? Tara Palmeri is an investigative journalist who writes today in Vanity Fair. Epstein's ghosts apparently calling all the shots at Trump's White House. Lisa Rubin's an Ms. Now senior legal reporter. And they join me now first just on the sort of. On this kind of meta issue of the redactions and how it's playing out. Let me start with you, Tara, because there is something interestingly interesting to me karmically here, which is I am reminded of Donald Trump's first campaign in 2016, which, where he was incredibly aided by a hack of an inbox of John Podesta. And part of what aided him in that campaign was that there is a kind of thrilling sense of discovery that comes by going through an inbox. And it doesn't all come out at once when there's a ton of files. A few days go by, and then someone, oh, wait a second, this is kind of interesting and newsworthy. This is kind of interesting and newsworthy. And that entire news cycle just went and went and went. It was obviously, it was done by the Russians. We have criminal indictment of that. It enormously helped him. And part of what I took away from your piece is like they're kind of on the other side of that right now, because every day someone finds something new that's genuinely interesting and newsworthy.
