Loading summary
Transcript33 lines
- [00:00]
Tara Palmeri
This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today.
- [00:07]
Christy Greenberg
Smart choice. Make another smart choice with Auto Quote.
- [00:11]
Tara Palmeri
Explorer to compare rates from multiple car insurance companies all at once. Try it@progressive.com Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Not available in all states or situations.
- [00:25]
Christy Greenberg
Prices vary based on how you buy.
- [00:29]
Tara Palmeri
Welcome back to the Tara Palmieri Show. I hope you're getting some rest over the holidays. For me and all the other journalists who've been covering Jeffrey Epstein, we have not, because the Department of Justice is dropping files and they say now that there are a million more and they have to work through weeks to get through them. So, yeah, this isn't ending anytime soon. But something, something slipped through the cracks and it was really jarring. It is. It came from Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald reporter who reopened the case by breaking the story. The Perversion of Justice story on Jeffrey Epstein. It turns out the Department of Justice was tracking her flights in July 2019, right before they arrested Jeffrey Epstein. This is after the Perversion of Justice series came out. Now, the Department of Justice has a history of surveilling journalists, of trying to get information from them, of trying to plug leaks. It's a problem. Problem. It's been happening for decades. It's terrible. But this is really revelatory. And it gave me the chills because it reminded me of when Virginia Jufre and I were traveling around the country talking to witnesses of her abuse. And one of one time, when we got to Juana Lesi's house, he is the houseman that worked for Jeffrey Epene for decades in Palm beach and who ended up being a critical witness in the case against Glenn Maxwell. While we were sitting on his couch, he. The FBI called him at that moment for the first time in months, he had not heard from them. And then later that night, Virginia's phone turned black. I think it was from being pinged by cell towers. I mean, they were probably following us around. I know that sounds conspiratorial. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but it gave me the chills. And it has me thinking that if they were tracking Julie K. Brown, they may have been tracking Virginia, who had come over from Australia. And by the way, the podcast I did broken Jeffrey Epstein. Julie K. Brown was the executive producer on that podcast, so she was affiliated with it. Take a listen to Juan. And this interaction that we had with her, with him, it is crazy.
- [02:28]
Nicole Wallace
I think this is.
- [02:29]
Tara Palmeri
Yeah. The FBI called in the middle of our conversation.
- [02:34]
Andrew Weissmann
Don't say hello.
- [02:37]
Nicole Wallace
Hi, How Are you. How you doing?
- [02:40]
Tara Palmeri
Virginia and I are staring at Juan, hardly able to believe that of all the times the FBI would call, that would be at the exact moment we're talking to him. We were spooked. Were they following us? We're going to get into all of this and more. Epstein, News on the Nicole Wallace Show. Tune in for that. But before that, I want to talk about my latest sponsor, Noble Mobile. It is a mobile plan. It's a. A phone company that I just joined. It's a new company. $50 a month. That's it. Flat fee, no extras. You get all of the same benefits. Everything that I had with AT&T, I now have with Noble Mobile. But I'm probably paying about $40 less. And it's been great. The bars are the same. I can do my job. As you know, as a journalist, I need to use my phone all of the time, so it matters. And it's been a few months and I'm super happy with it. And I wanted to wait until I actually used it before I told you all about it. But Noble Mobile is a great, great service. I highly recommend you go. The setup was easy. Took. I think it took 10 minutes to switch from AT&T to Noble Mobile for me. So head there. N O B L E Like Noble Mobile. M O B I L e dot com. Sign up for Noble Mobile if you can. I mean, it's great. I'm telling you, I have felt zero difference since I made switch. And it's $50 a month. I'm saving almost half. Okay, now take a listen to the show.
- [04:14]
Nicole Wallace
Hi there, everyone. It's four o'clock in New York. Happy last week of the year. Our gift to you. We will monitor that live event for any news and tell you about it as it develops. But we start with a story that. That you might have missed. A story that takes a whole lot of time and energy and mental bandwidth to stay on top of every important twist in development. It's the Epstein story. But given that those things, time, mental energy, bandwidth, are not exactly an abundant supply this time of year for anyone. We'll bring you up to speed on what you might have missed. In fact, it appears to be the case that the timing of everything we've learned over the last few days is deliberate on purpose. In other words, some of the most damning revelations freshly in the hands of the American people and Epstein survivors, more importantly, are coming out now precisely because our attention is divided and in such short supply. For instance, the Department of Justice followed up on Its past due Christmas week release of some 30,000 Epstein documents with an infuriating news dump on Christmas Eve. Something that if they checked under the couch cushions and uncovered more than a million documents, new ones that are now going to take weeks to process. At this point, if you're asking yourself, wait a minute, didn't they pass a law? Weren't they legally compelled to have all of this material out 10 days ago? The answer is yes. Congressman Robert Garcia, the top Democrat in the House Oversight Committee, said this in a statement, quote, every day we see lies, incompetence, missed deadlines and illegal redactions. Pam Bondi needs to testify to Congress under oath to explain herself. Someone else who probably has a bit of explaining to do, Donald J. Trump. Because following that announcement of a million additional documents, Donald Trump did, but he always does took to social media to complain loudly. After bemoaning the fact that the Justice Department is spending so much time doing exactly what many of his most vocal supporters wanted it to do, what it is now legally required to do, analyze and release files related to the Epstein investigation, Donald Trump insisted the DOJ release the names of just Democrats associated with Jeffrey Epstein, writing this quote, embarrass them and get back to helping our country. He again called the Epstein crimes a hoax and the calls for transparency a quote, witch hunt. He did not say a word about the survivors of Epstein or Maxwell's abuse, nor about a pair of major developments in the story. The first courtesy of Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene in a conversation with New York Times Magazine. Marjorie Taylor Greene recounts the aftermath of a closed door House Oversight Committee hearing with Epstein survivors in September of this year. From that magazine piece, quote, after the hearing, Greene held a news conference at which she threatened to identify some of the men who had abused the women. Marjorie Taylor Greene says that she didn't know those names herself, but that she could have gotten them from the victims. Donald Trump called Greene to voice his displeasure with her. Greene was in her Capitol Hill office and according to a staff member, everyone in the suite of rooms could hear him yelling at her if she listened to him on speakerphone. Marjorie Taylor Greene says she expressed her perplexity over his intransigence. According to Greene, Trump replied, quote, my friends will get hurt, end quote. Times magazine piece goes on to say this, quote, when she, Marjorie Taylor Greene urged Trump to invite some of Epstein's female victims to the Oval Office, she says he angrily informed her that they had done nothing to merit the honor. It would be the last conversation. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Donald Trump would ever have. The second major development to tell you about has to do with a familiar face to all of you. A frequent guest on this show, journalist Julie K. Brown. Her groundbreaking reporting in the Miami Herald back in 2018 helped reignite questions about the Epstein investigation. Just yesterday, she posted this on her own social media account. Quote, does somebody at DOJ want to tell me why my American Airlines booking information and flights in July of 2019 are part of the Epstein files attached to a grand jury subpoena as the flight itinerary includes my maiden name and I did book this flight. Why was the DOJ monitoring me? So that you are aware, we have reached out to the Department of Justice and asked them that very question. If and when they respond, we'll let you know right away. In the meantime, though, that mystery, those unanswered questions dating back to Donald Trump's first term as president, is one of many that remain. This afternoon, as it appears we have just begun to scratch the surface and a broader quest for truth and accountability. That is where we start today with some of our most favorite experts and friends. Legal analyst Christy Greenberg is here. She's a former criminal division deputy chief at SDNY. She's the host of the YouTube show Courtside. Tara Palmeri is here. She writes the red letter on Substack. She has hosted two acclaimed podcast series on the Epstein case called Broken Jeffrey Epstein and Power the Maxwells, former top official at the Department of Justice and legal analyst Andrew Weissman is also here with us. Tara, I know you and Julie have worked together and let me just ask you your theory of why her flight itinerary was in the possession of the Department of Justice in 2019. Trump was president. I believe Bill Barr was the Attorney General at the time.
- [09:49]
Tara Palmeri
I mean, the DOJ has a history of tracking journalists. We know that even during the Obama administration, it's been a problem for the past 15 years. I am in shock, but I'm really not surprised. I mean, Julie was about to break open a major story and they were aware. For everyone who's ever listened to my podcast, Broken Jeffrey Epstein, you can. Which, which actually Julie was the executive producer on that, on that podcast, you can hear that the FBI actually called the house that Virginia and I were at of a witness. So they. And then that night her phone broke. And I think it was from being pinged by the feds that were following her around. They are very sensitive around this case. I mean, I don't think that was a coincidence. And I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I was with Virginia at the home of a major witness in the case, the houseman, Jeffrey Epstein's houseman, Juana Lessee. And the FBI just so happened to call for the first time in months, at that period of time when we were in the house with him, you.
- [10:53]
Nicole Wallace
And Virginia were interviewing the houseman and she. And I remember you sharing with us that Virginia was so relieved that he remembered her. He was someone that corroborating at least part of Virginia Jeffrey story. Is that correct?
- [11:06]
Tara Palmeri
Yes, that's correct. And he was a major witness in the case against Glenn Maxwell. And he hadn't heard, he hadn't really hadn't heard from the feds since. In months, I think it was six months, he had said. And it just so happened to be that day while we were with him, when he got a phone call and you can hear it in the podcast and he's saying, it's the FBI. They're on the phone. And then that night, Virginia's phone goes black from overheating, and we had to get her a new one. I mean, it was like, it was a little eerie. And to see that they were tracking Julie K. Brown's flights. I mean, I almost wonder if this is going to come out too, in their filings, that they were following Virginia around while she was in the United States trying to do her own reporting on her story. I mean, that was part of what we were doing, was finding cooperating witnesses who could back up the stories of abuse when so many men had said that she was a liar and did not listen to her. And we went to Juan, who was the man who paid these girls and who picked them up and drove them home. And he ended up being a very useful witness in the case against Belen. But at that point, he was unaware that he was going to be that witness. So it gives me the chills, really. It does.
- [12:14]
Nicole Wallace
Let me, Tara, let me just time capsule us. These are some of the headlines that Julie K. Brown was generating with her own reporting that correspond to the flight that DOJ was tracking and had in their own files. Andrew, let me pull you in and ask you. I mean, I feel like this is a stupid question, but what possible defensible explanation is there for having a journalist who has. These are her headlines. Headlines from around the week that DOJ was tracking her flight movements. She wrote a story in the Miami Herald In July of 2019, new victims come forward as Jeffrey Epstein asked to be released from jail to his Manhattan mansion. She wrote that story in October of 2019 for Jeffrey Epstein. One Island Hideaway wasn't enough. How he stealthily acquired a second huge cache of records detail how Jeffrey Epstein and madame lured girls into depraved world. She wrote that story in October or 2019. She was one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims. Now her name is on a crime bill in Congress. Those were the stories she was breaking the Miami Herald around the time that Donald Trump 1.0 and his attorney general was Bill Barr at the time was tracking a journalist flight itinerary. Why again, what possible defensible explanation is that at the Department of Justice?
- [13:34]
Andrew Weissmann
Well, I think something that people need to understand in answering your question, Nicole, is that the Department of Justice for many, many years and there there have.
- [13:45]
Christy Greenberg
Been.
- [13:47]
Andrew Weissmann
For many years, the Department of Justice has had very significant restrictions on when the Department of Justice can subpoena or go after or obtain records relating to journalists. Merrick Garland had the most stringent requirements in my view, almost too stringent because of his concern about the First Amendment implications and the importance of what you do and what Tara does, the so called fourth estate. So to answer that question, the normal sort of DOJ rules is that you can't just any line a USA federal prosecutor, any line special agent at the FBI can't just go normal procedures and obtain records for journalists. That of course, we've seen various violations of that and those rules have changed back and forth and different attorneys general have different rules. But there have been of late lots and lots of restrictions. So even if you can say something is relevant and you might be able to get it, you have to meet a much higher threshold normally in the department to get it because of the concerns about the First Amendment and the work of the fourth estate. Why would somebody do want these, you know, permissible reasons, ones unrelated to harassment or monitoring what she's doing potentially somebody could think, well, she has really good sources and maybe there's a way for the FBI to sort of find new leads. But that's not what you're supposed to do. You're supposed to do your own work. So to me, it's very hard to think of a defensible reason. And one of the questions I have is what are the current rules that the Department of Justice, if it still has any, in obtaining journalist records? Because that to me is sort of the law. It's both bad in and of itself, what we've learned. But it raises the issue of is this going on right now in many, many other contexts? And the only reason we know this is because Congress passed this statute.
- [16:11]
Nicole Wallace
Let me just make sure I understand what you're saying. Your point, Andrew, is that Julie K. Brown, a journalist breaking the kinds of stories I just read the headlines of at the time that her flight itinerary, a flight she confirmed she did book in her maiden name that align US Attorney or AUSA or couldn't just be tracking her and have pulled her flight records without going to summon at Maine doj. Is that what you're, what you're, one of your theories is.
- [16:41]
Andrew Weissmann
Yeah. That that is what the normal rules are. That that would be something that was required. Different attorneys general require much more showings and much more levels of approval and there are more restrictions. As I said, the high watermark of protections was under Merrick Garland. But there's no question that you have to get. You can't just do that. The line level. Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying that that was done here because it's hard for me to see a legitimate reason that in other words, if I was a supervisor I would have a million and one questions about why you are getting records, the travel records for a legitimate reputable journalist who was covering a story that to me, you know, there was, there was a huge contretemps during the Biden, the, the Biden administration, during the Obama administration about these kinds of activities. And so that this is going on is something that to me raises questions not just about what has happened, but what is happening now. Like what do we not know? Because it's only a fortuity that we know this. This so far.
- [17:59]
Nicole Wallace
Yeah. I mean, Christy, I guess I want to drill down on understanding why Donald Trump's first administration and his first Department of Justice, which is compared rather favorably to his current Department of Justice and FBI, because everything becomes relative isn't under more scrutiny as the documents get released. And I know you and I have had conversations about what Jeffrey Berman, who was The Trump appointed U.S. attorney at SDNY, what he writes in his own book about how he sought to protect the Epstein investigation while while he was U.S. attorney from Maine DOJ. There's now at least a legitimate question that Andrew Weissman is posing that it isn't normal or wouldn't have been normal even then to pull Julie K. Brown or any journalist travel itinerary at a line AUSA level that maybe someone at main DOJ was involved. It's at least a legitimate question to ask. I wonder what your thoughts are in seeing that among the documents that were dumped is the travel itinerary for one of the preeminent journalists on this story. Over the last 10 years.
- [19:06]
Christy Greenberg
So one thing I will say is that Jeff Berman, who is the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York at the time that this happened, speaks in his book about the fact that Julie K. Brown's reporting is what caused SDNY to initiate its investigation. He speaks about her reporting in laudatory terms in his book. That's 1.2. Andrew is exactly right. This kind of thing, any kind of legal process involving reporters, there are heightened levels of review. A line prosecutor can't just go and subpoena Julie K. Brown's records without having that cleared by higher ups. Usually that goes to the Department of Justice. I question in this case whether it did, because we also know from Jeff Gurman's book that prior to Epstein being arrested, they were keeping this on a close hold and they weren't letting Bill Barr and DOJ know that this investigation existed. They really were trying to make it so that the only it was on a need to know basis that people knew about this investigation and his interpretation of the rules were that this wasn't something that main justice needed to know about. Whether that's, you know, whether you agree with that. This is a case that would involve significant press attention. It is something you would typically tell dojo, but in an effort to protect the investigation. Berman's interpretation was not to involve doj. So I question whether this was something that they went to DOJ for approval about. They would then have to disclose the nature of the investigation. But certainly within SDNY, this is something supervisors up into, up to the U.S. attorney would typically look at. I was working as a supervisor. Well, actually I wasn't a supervisor at that point, but during this time frame I was at sdny and that is the kind of thing I knew as a line prosecutor, I would need to go to a supervisor to get. So again, I don't know why, and I do think it raises questions that DOJ really should be getting ahead of. If there is nothing nefarious behind this, and again, having worked with some of the prosecutors who worked on the Epstein case, I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt because I know that they're really good prosecutors with really good reputations, it would behoove the Department of Justice to communicate more, not less, to tell us about these kinds of things, get ahead of it so that if there is nothing nefarious about it, just tell the public why. And instead what you find from the communications out of the Department of Justice are really lacking and in some cases just not true. Just to give you an example, the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said the only redactions being applied to documents are those required by law, full stop. That is just not true. They are redacting information that they deem to be privileged. It is not required by law that they make those redactions. DOJ is claiming the information is privileged. They are asserting the privileges and then redacting them. Another example is they are saying that they are redacting the names of individuals or politicians. They're not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim. That is again, not true. They are redacting the names of law enforcement agents and prosecutors. Why? Prosecutors and law enforcement agents are identified in cases all the time. If there's a safety risk for them to be publicly identified, you know, one, they should say that who is the risk from? And how are victims supposed to be safe coming forward? If law enforcement can't protect themselves, how can they protect victims? So again, when there are just too many questions that they are not getting out in front of and answering, and then I get really concerned when you hear that the White House is taking over DOJ's ex account to respond to posts specifically mentioning Donald Trump. There's been reporting from Axios that that is happening. When this whole process gets weaponized that causes the public to trust the Department of Justice less and it allows for these kinds of questions and thinking that there are nefarious motives behind what DOJ is doing back then it allows those to fester and you have to shut those down or at least respond to them in real time. And the department is not doing that.
- [23:15]
Nicole Wallace
So if you wanted to hide information, you would release information on Christmas Eve. That is when we learned this from an email among the 30,000 released last week. This is from an assistant U.S. attorney written in January 2020. Flagging flight records. Quote, the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet many more times. Many more times than previously has been reported or that we were aware. On one flight in 1993, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein are the only two listed passengers. On another, the only three passengers are Epstein, Trump and then 20 year old redacted on two other flights. Two of the passengers respectively were women who would be poss.
- [24:02]
The holidays mean more travel, more shopping.
- [24:05]
Josh Whalen
More time online and more personal info.
- [24:08]
Nicole Wallace
In more places that could expose you.
- [24:10]
Josh Whalen
More to identity theft.
- [24:11]
Nicole Wallace
But LifeLock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, our US based restoration specialists will fix it, guaranteed your money Back. Don't face drained accounts, fraudulent loans or financial losses alone.
- [24:23]
Josh Whalen
Get more holiday fun and less holiday worry with LifeLock.
- [24:27]
Nicole Wallace
Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast terms apply witnesses in a Maxwell case the Judiciary Committee, every Republican, every Democrat voted to release these documents and to have them in our hands yesterday. Not today, not tomorrow. Yesterday they were supposed to be in our hands so that we could stand up for victims and to make sure that we know the names of the people who enabled Jeffrey Epstein. They have not done that yet. So here's what we can do. We can restrict funding to the Department of Justice, of course, we can bring officials in under inherent contempt. But also what we can do is we can bring them in for hearings. And I would recommend that's the best thing that we could do is to have a public account and to put them in the witness chair and ask just where the hell are these files and why are you keeping Donald Trump's name to the degree that you are out of them?
- [25:19]
I mean, Tara, just speak to. I mean, lies have been revealed, as you said, as Christy said, as everyone has said, one of the lies is that Donald Trump posted in a truth social post last year, quote, he was never on Epstein's plane. The documents released by his own Department of Justice with illegal or questionable redactions and limitations has that email I read from before the break, quote, the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Jeffrey Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported or that we were aware of. On one flight in 1993, Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein are the only two listed passengers. On another, the only three passengers are Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump and then 20 year old name redacted on two other flights. Two of the passengers respectively were women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case. End quote. From again, Donald Trump's own Justice Department. It's clear that one of the reasons Trump didn't release these documents is that his own lies told on his own social media platform would be debunked by his own Department of Justice releasing these emails. What else are you wondering about? I mean, what other theories are there for withholding so much?
- [26:34]
Tara Palmeri
Still, I appreciated Marjorie Taylor Greene's article, her interview with Robert Draper and how she said that she revealed what we all know, that President Trump was worried about how these files would expose his friends. And I think when he says his friends, he probably is also reflecting himself and his own concerns about protecting his own reputation and against the allegations that have already come out. I mean, a lot, some of them are untrue, obviously, but there's a lot in there. You're friends with someone for 10 years who is a convicted pedophile, and you're traveling with him back and forth from Palm beach to New York where they both hung out, they both swam in the same seas. I mean, it's inevitable that over 10 years that there is going to be information that even ties them even closer, including flight records, which you are not disputable. And, you know, these are the kind of details that are so easily debunked if you lie about. I mean, even like with the birthday card that he claims he didn't write or give to Jeffrey Epstein and that we would never see. And J.D. vance is saying it's not real, it's fake. And the next thing you know, you know, the journal is putting out an actual House oversight committee, got the picture from the estate and put it out there. It exists. It is real. The, the lies are going to catch up with them. It's just a matter of when they're, you know, based, when they're true believers, they're MAGA believers will finally say enough is enough. Like seeing is believing. And, and you can't lie. You can't deny these documents. That was another episode of the Tara Palmeri Show. Thanks so much for tuning in. If you like this show, please subscribe, rate it, share it with all of your friends. You like my reporting? Go to tarapaul mary.com Sign up for my newsletter, the Red Letter. By becoming a paid subscriber, you'll get my exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. I appreciate all of your support throughout the years. I'm so grateful for it. As we head into the new year and beyond, I want to thank my producer, Eric Oppenhate. I want to thank Abby Baker, who does my research and my social media, Adam Stewart on the graphics and Dan Rosen, my manager. See you again soon. We are heading into a new year. End of the year of the snake. Take all that off, you get ready for a new bright year in the year of the horse. Send me your New Year's resolutions.
- [28:52]
Josh Whalen
If you're paying more than $1 a month for any ED or hair medication, listen up at Joy and Blokes. When you start TRT or enclomiphene, you can add any ED or hair loss prescription for just $1 a month. $1 add ons with your hormone plan. And right now all labs are 50% off. I'm Josh Whalen, founder of Joy and blokes. I built this company because men are tired of paying for fragmented care without results. Every Joy and Blokes lab includes a visit with a licensed clinician who connects your symptoms to your biomarkers. You'll get a real plan that covers hormones, performance and confidence. If you're considering TRT or Enclomiphene, this is the most efficient way to do it. Get started@joyandblokes.com and use a promo code. Podcast new customers get 50% off their labs and for a limited time, you can take advantage of our $1 ed or hair loss add ons when you start TRT or Enclomiphene. Not available in all states. Compounded medications are not FDA approved. Learn more@joyandblo.com.