Trump and the Epstein Files: The Men Who Will Never Be Prosecuted

Summary

---

The Tara Palmeri Show

Episode: "Trump and the Epstein Files: The Men Who Will Never Be Prosecuted"

Date: February 2, 2026
Host: Tara Palmeri

---

Main Theme Overview

This episode takes a deep dive into the recently unsealed Jeffrey Epstein files, exploring their revelations and the glaring lack of prosecutions of high-profile men implicated in Epstein's orbit—including Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Elon Musk, and several others. Host Tara Palmeri leads a panel featuring renowned legal analysts, journalists, and commentators as they parse what the new evidence shows (and doesn't), the handling of the investigation by authorities, and the broader implications for accountability and transparency among the powerful. The latter part of the episode pivots to the arrest of journalist Don Lemon and the wider question of criminalizing press coverage of protests.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Epstein Files Dump: What’s New, Who’s Named, and Why So Few Prosecutions?

Scope and Scale of the Unseal

• Over 3 million pages, 180,000 images, and 2,000 videos were made public in the latest release.
• Dozens of high-profile men are named, facing public embarrassment but no criminal charges.
• UK figures like Lord Mandelson and former Prince Andrew face consequences, but US figures remain untouched.

Legal Barriers to Prosecution

• Mark Eiglash (Criminal Defense Attorney): "We know crimes took place... But there's a whole nother level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt... Association with Epstein, not enough; photos with him, not enough." (05:27)
• Prosecutors claim the files don't provide "prima facie" evidence of crimes, only of association and unseemly behavior.

Transparency and Investigations

• Tara Palmeri: Criticizes lack of follow-up by the FBI: "Why not just talk? Why not just do an investigation?" (06:15)
• She’s skeptical that authorities pursued leads fully, especially contact with accused parties’ legal teams.

Cover-ups and Redactions

• Megyn Kelly: Slams the FBI: "The FBI has like literally told us that there are no Epstein files. And then it turns out there are 6 million... of which we've only had access to 3 million, which are... heavily redacted.... Epstein responded to an email that was redacted and his response... was 'loved the torture videos.' Why did they redact the name?" (08:17)

Mishandling of Victim Protection

• Redactions prioritized shielding predators’ identities over survivors', whose names were left exposed in the files.
• Mark Eiglash: "Over 40 victims' names were not redacted and the best they can say is oopsie. To me, that is offensive and outrageous.” (08:57)

---

2. Trump, Clinton, Musk, Prince Andrew & the ‘Untouchables’: Who Gets the Spotlight?

Trump’s Place in the Files

• Pierce (Moderator): Notes that main lawyer for several survivors (David Boies) found no basis to criminally implicate Trump.
• Tara Palmeri: Points out, "There was one Jane Doe, Katie Johnson, who filed a complaint three times against him ahead of the 2016 election.... They should have been investigated. ...Many of the survivors remembered seeing him." (11:52)
• Discussion on lack of documented FBI engagement with Trump’s legal team.

Plausible Deniability vs Ongoing Association

• Panel distinguishes between those who cut ties post-Epstein's conviction and those—like Elon Musk—who continued engagement, often contradicting their public denials.
• Pierce: "There are two types of deniability here... people who ceased contact, and people that carried on consorting with him after that." (13:13)

Elon Musk Emails

• Emails show Musk actively seeking invitations to Epstein Island parties, despite denial of any involvement.
• Pierce: “Years after the conviction…you are very, very keen to go to his island that you now scorn. And so the public statements are not consistent with the real time correspondence that we're all seeing with our own eyes.” (27:23)
• Megyn Kelly: “So far, there's nothing in the Epstein files that would criminally implicate Elon Musk... But...in the court of public opinion, it's not a good look...” (28:27)

Clinton, Dershowitz, Bill Gates

• Eric Bolling: Chides the media’s selective outrage—"let's keep digging. Let's not let them change the narrative. Including Donald Trump. Including Donald Trump. Don't let him say I never did anything. I would like to know what every one of these people on that island weren’t right.” (16:23)
• Megyn Kelly: Raises the blackmail operation and possible government involvement: “Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. He was an incredibly powerful man who was, by the way, in multiple instances in the files...talking about his work for Mossad, talking about his work for the Rothschilds....Can we discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place and which government...put him up to it?” (17:03)

Double Standards: UK vs US

• UK high-profile men face public disgrace and possible prosecution (Mandelson, Prince Andrew), while their American counterparts remain shielded.
• Tara Palmeri: “At this point we haven’t seen...even 3 million of the files of the 6 million. And they could be withholding them for national interest purposes.... The United States is still protecting Prince Andrew in these files.” (23:01)

---

3. Public Perception, the Media, and the “Guilt by Association” Problem

Guilt by Association?

• Mark Eiglash: Cautions against blanket condemnation: "People who are merely associated with him... shouldn't be thrown to the wolves." (24:58)
• Tara Palmeri: Counters: "It was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about." (25:17)
• Richard Branson cited as an example of “doing the right thing” by cutting contact after learning of Epstein's conviction.

Who Is Left Unscathed, and Why?

• The US “permanent political class” appears insulated—files remain unreleased or heavily redacted, and prosecutions stall.

---

4. The Don Lemon Arrest: Criminalizing Journalism or Protecting Worship?

Facts and Legal Standpoint

• Don Lemon's Statement: "I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court." (33:31)
• Mark Eiglash: "No, [Don Lemon] didn't [break the law]. It's not even close... The First Amendment gives wide latitude for journalists to do exactly what he did, cover an event." (35:32)
• Distinction made between "incidental interference" and "intentional interference" with worship.

Panel Debate: Media Precedent

• Eric Bolling: Argues Lemon was a participant, not just a journalist—“What facts was Don Lemon looking for, Mark?... He broke into an ongoing church service.” (36:04)
• Tara Palmeri: Defends reporting on protests despite risks—"Being present at an event does not mean you are as a journalist documenting..." (40:53)
• Megyn Kelly: Warns of the chilling effect of such arrests—“I think that sets a really, really bad precedent when it comes to journalism. Regardless of what you think about Don Lemon... you should be able to have journalists there to document what's going on.” (38:51)

Intellectual Consistency

• Pierce: “People need to be intellectually consistent.... It doesn't matter if it's your side or not. What is your view about people that do xyz. And then you've got to be consistent each time it's done by anybody, then I can respect you....” (45:16)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Megyn Kelly: "They made sure to redact the names of the perverts that were sending torture videos though. They made sure to redact that." (09:23)
• Tara Palmeri: "It was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about." (25:17)
• Megyn Kelly: “Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. He was an incredibly powerful man...” (17:03)
• Mark Eiglash: "You don't lower the bar just to get some people you think might have done something wrong. When you lower the bar to get these creeps... then they're lowering the bar for you. And God forbid you're accused of something." (05:27)
• Pierce: "There are two types of deniability here. There's the plausible deniability... and then there are the people that carried on consorting with him after that." (13:13)
• Don Lemon (on arrest): "I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court." (33:31)

---

Key Segment Timestamps

• 05:27 – Mark Eiglash on legal standard required for prosecutions in Epstein case.
• 08:17 – Megyn Kelly slams FBI redactions and missing accountability.
• 11:52 – Tara Palmeri on Trump’s friendships with Epstein and lack of investigation.
• 13:13 – Pierce lays out "deniability" timeline for Epstein associates.
• 17:03 – Megyn Kelly raises blackmail and government connections.
• 23:01 – Tara Palmeri on US shielding of powerful men and missing files.
• 24:58 – Debate over “guilt by association.”
• 27:23 – Pierce contrasts Musk's public statements with emails.
• 33:31 – Don Lemon statement on his arrest.
• 35:32 – Mark Eiglash: Don Lemon did not break the law (analysis).
• 38:51 – Megyn Kelly warns about precedent of arresting journalists.
• 45:16 – Pierce’s closing remarks on consistency and intellectual honesty.

---

Tone & Style

The conversation is sharp, candid, and at times contentious—mirroring Tara Palmeri’s brand of unvarnished, deeply sourced journalism. The panelists are unafraid to challenge each other, calling out double standards and refusing partisan spin. Throughout, there’s a focus on transparency, legal rigor, and the moral obligations of both the media and those in power.

---

Episode Takeaways

• While a trove of new evidence is public, there's a deafening lack of criminal consequences for powerful men tied to Epstein—fueling suspicions of deliberate cover-ups.
• American elites appear far more insulated than their UK or European counterparts.
• There’s a schism between legal thresholds for prosecution and public expectations for justice.
• Journalism's essential role in exposing uncomfortable truths is itself under threat, as seen in the Don Lemon case—a warning for the future of the free press.
• The episode closes with an invitation to keep watching as the investigation, and public scrutiny, continue.

---

Transcript

[Tara Palmeri]

This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com helping people worldwide, getting work done faster and better. The same Monday.com designed for every team and every industry. The same Monday.com with built in AI scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com that your team will actually love using the samemonday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.

[Don Lemon]

Yes, the same Monday.com I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court.

[Pierce]

Did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law?

[Mark Eiglash]

No, he didn't. It's not even close. And I don't do politics. I do just legal.

[Eric Bolling]

He broke into an ongoing church service. They need him as a useful idiot. Took their push to open immigration at all costs.

[Pierce]

Do you think you're the devil himself? No, but I do have a good mirror.

[Megyn Kelly]

What was really going on with Epstein? Because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert.

[Eric Bolling]

Follow the damn money. It always works.

[Tara Palmeri]

What about just listening to the women?

[Pierce]

The picture came out of you with Jeffrey Epstein with two apparently young women in it. What is your response to that picture? More than 3 million pages, 180,000 images and 2,000 videos were made public in the latest release of the Epstein files. We're a long way from the waves of high profile prosecutions we were promised, but at the very least a series of high profile men are being publicly humbled by toe curling details about the nature of their relationship with a convicted sex offender. Lord Mandelson, already sacked as US Ambassador over Epstein, is captured in his underpants and accused of taking cash from the paedophile. The former Prince Andrew is pictured on his knees and faces new claims that Epstein sent a woman to sleep with him on royal property. Richard Branson offers friendly PR advisor at a single man's right to enjoy women. Anytime you're in the area, we'd love to see you, he writes. As long as you bring your harem. Elon Musk, who unleashed political havoc by accusing Trump and others of being in the Epstein files, is himself in the Epstein files, asking to be invited to the wildest party on Epstein Island. There's also chilling footage of Epstein himself. In a long interview with Steve Bannon.

[Mark Eiglash]

The devil himself said, I'm going to.

[Eric Bolling]

Exchange some dollars for your child's life.

[Pierce]

Do you think you're the devil himself? No, but I do have a good mirror.

[Mark Eiglash]

It's a serious question. Do you think you're the devil himself?

[Pierce]

I don't know. Why would you say that because you have all the attributes, you're incredibly smart.

[Eric Bolling]

You remember, the devil is somebody knows.

[Pierce]

The devil's what?

[Mark Eiglash]

The devil's brilliant. You read Milton's Paradise Lost?

[Pierce]

No.

[Eric Bolling]

The devil scares me.

[Pierce]

Well, there's a lot more to come. As journalists around the world pour through the 3 million pages of documents. The Trump administration has made so many mistakes over the Epstein files that some people will never be satisfied they have the full story. Promising total transparency and then inventing endless reasons to be anything but transparent was, at best a strategic error. There may well have been solid reasons for it, but as an exercise in media management and public support, it was a huge mistake. And funny enough, that's exactly how I feel about the decision to charge Don Lemon. It seems very plausible that he technically broke the law and incriminated himself while embedded with with the ICE protesters who interrupted a church service. But what are they actually trying to achieve? President Trump broke the law in the Stormy Daniels case, but convicting him on what most people considered frivolous grounds ended up backfiring massively. A few weeks ago, Don Lemon was a middling podcaster who was only ever seen in clips of other people calling him a moron. Now he's a free speech martyr, showing up at the Grammys for a bigger standing ovation than Bad Bunny. If Don Lemon's convicted, you'll have to see a lot more of him, which nobody really asked for. And the moral of all these stories is a simple old adage. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Well, let's hear from my panel. Anna Kasparian, the host and executive producer at the Young Turks. Tara Palmeri, host of the Tara Palmeri Show. Mark Iglash, who's the criminal defence attorney. Megyn Kelly, contributor and host of the Edge, Eric Bolling. Well, welcome to all of you. Mark Iglosh, just come to you first of all about the pure legality of the Epstein files. I've seen Todd Blanche and other people representing the administration who've come out and said, look, it's all out there. Now, this is what we're going to release. The 3 million documents, videos, images. We have determined from our analysis that there is nothing in them that constitutes a crime, therefore, we can't prosecute anybody. Now, it strikes me that might be true, you know, might be. In all these documents, there is no prima facie evidence of a crime. It doesn't mean crimes didn't take place. It just means there isn't the evidence they took place. What is your assessment?

[Mark Eiglash]

That is A distinction. We know crimes took place. We know there are people who harmed children who are not being prosecuted. We know that anyone who's intellectually honest knows that occurred. But there's a whole nother level of being able not only to prove it, but beyond and to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. And prosecutors are saying, look, association with Epstein, not enough photos with him and around him, not enough. There's got to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And it falls way short of that. And I applaud them for that. Because you don't lower the bar just to get some people you think might have done something wrong. When you lower the bar to get these creeps, which I would love to see them get them, then they're lowering the bar for you. And God forbid you're accused of something.

[Tara Palmeri]

But why not just talk? Yeah, why not just do an investigation? If you, if you have a lead, you have tips, you've got, you've got survivors, victims of Jeffrey Epstein who have lists of men that they've been trafficked to. Why wouldn't you follow up on it?

[Mark Eiglash]

And actually sure, yeah, they should. And I'm assuming they made that announcement after they looked into it and they don't have additional information that takes you to the highest burden under the law. If they fell short and they're just going knee jerk with we don't have a couple of photos of somebody actually doing something, then yeah, they should be condemned for that. But I'm assuming that they did look into it and if they, if there's not enough proof, then they shouldn't just go because maybe, or probably someone did something.

[Tara Palmeri]

Wait a second though. You're assuming that they did these follow up investigations. I'm not assuming any investigations be inside of the Epstein files. Wouldn't you?

[Mark Eiglash]

Just so we're clear. Hold on, hold on, hold on.

[Pierce]

Don't.

[Mark Eiglash]

Don't put me like that. I'm not assuming anything. I'm giving you legal analysis to simply suggest if they haven't done a thorough investigation, shame on them, they should if they're making that announcement. Let's assume for a moment, not necessarily that it's truthful, that if they did do a thorough analysis and they don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then that's it. You don't then lower the bar to go after someone you think might have done something absent the proof. That's all I'm saying.

[Tara Palmeri]

But let's just factor in that there is an Epstein files Transparency Act. Right. And we are supposed to be seeing all of the files related to that. Wouldn't you assume that a follow up investigation would be involved, would be included in the Epstein files transparency act? Because when I look through these files, I don't see an FBI that is actually doing any follow up calling. You know, the attorneys for the men that are accused, they don't appear to be doing anything to follow up on.

[Mark Eiglash]

You don't know, you have no listen. But that most we have, we have a. You go and then I'll go. You go and then I'll go.

[Tara Palmeri]

We have the files. Where else would they be?

[Megyn Kelly]

There's only been an effort to cover everything up from the FBI. The FBI has like literally told us that there are no Epstein files. And then it turns out there are 6 million Epstein files of which we've only had access to 3 million, which are of course heavily redacted. You know, Epstein responded to an email that was redacted and his response to that email was loved. The torture videos. Why did they redact the name of the individual who sent Epstein torture videos? Why can't we know who that person is and why hasn't that person been prosecuted? What are the torture videos?

[Mark Eiglash]

There's a lot that's being uncovered in.

[Megyn Kelly]

The Epstein files that make it clear that wrongdoing and criminality occurred and there were no charges and the FBI was part of the COVID up.

[Mark Eiglash]

Well, if they were, then shame on them and they should be held accountable. What I do take exception to is that they committed. The worst thing that you can do is, and that is include victims names in documentation and it should not have been done. There are over 40 victims whose names were not redacted and the best they can say is oopsie. To me, that is offensive and outrageous.

[Megyn Kelly]

They made sure to redact the names of the perverts that were sending torture videos though. They made sure to redact that.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

Take the exit, turn right into the drive thru.

[Pierce]

Nope, I'm making dinner tonight.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

You don't have time. Josh has practice.

[Eric Bolling]

Oh, that's right.

[Megyn Kelly]

I'll just get a salad and fries.

[Pierce]

No, just the salad.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

But salad cancels fries.

[Pierce]

Salad only.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

Fries.

[Pierce]

Salad, fries.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

Food noise isn't fair, but Mochi Health.

[Tara Palmeri]

Is the affordable glp.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

One source that puts you on the.

[Tara Palmeri]

Road to successful weight loss.

[Pierce]

Hey, can I get the fries? Salad. Sorry.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

Learn [e-mail] Mochi members have access to licensed physicians and nutritionists.

[Tara Palmeri]

Results may vary.

[Pierce]

Well, I agree with Anna that you read some of this stuff and you're like, well, where's the rest of that thread. Who are they talking about? What are we getting here? I want to play a clip from Donald Trump. This is on, I think, Air Force One, as he flew to Florida on Saturday, responding to news that he's in these files. I didn't see it myself, but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the radical left. Tara, it strikes me that with Donald Trump having spoken multiple times to David Boies, one of America's most reputed criminal lawyers for the last 50 years, he represented Virginia Giuffre and many other victims and survivors, he has always been adamant to me that from everything he'd seen, he did not believe that Donald Trump did anything criminal in relation to Epstein. However, he did say that he thought other men had and that they should be chased and prosecuted. So it could be. I mean, some of the. More out. I think it's important for viewers, for example, to understand that in these files, there's a lot of truly outrageous, shocking things, much of which was immediately looked at and dismissed as fantasy. And then there's other stuff which is clearly well documented, is coming from the mouths of the people who have been reported on, which is a different kettle of fish when it comes to how you report these things. I do think it's important to clarify that, because some of the stuff that's been in there about Trump is literally people just ringing in who probably hate him, who want to cause him trouble, saying outlandish things which are not true. So that is also part of the mix here, isn't it?

[Tara Palmeri]

Yeah. I'm sure there are some tips in there that are just that are. You know, anyone can call into the FBI and say things. Right. As for David Boies, I've been talking to survivors, and a lot of them are really upset to see how closely connected he was with Jeffrey Epstein. If you look through the emails, actually, David Boies and Jeffrey Epstein exchanged a lot of emails, and David Boies was Virginia Giuffre's attorney. So he knows for a fact that there were many other men that were involved in this case. As for President Trump, I mean, we know that there was one Jane Doe, Katie Johnson, who filed a complaint three times against him ahead of the 2016 election. I think any of these tips that have been sent in, they. They should have been investigated. I don't see any phone calls to the president or his attorney, Alan Garten. There's only one email that includes. I think it's. It's Brad Edwards, one of the lawyers for the victims, trying to reach Alan Garten to speak to President Trump. But I don't see any interaction between the FBI and President Trump's attorneys, as they would be, I would assume, would be part of the investigative process. When you're going through all the tips that are against him. I don't think anyone can deny the fact that they were friends for a period of over a decade during the height of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. And many of the survivors remembered seeing him. It's, you know, right. What does.

[Pierce]

But, but, but let me. Okay, but let me bring in, let me bring in Eric here because I think it's interesting, the timeline on all this because I've taken a position from the early days of this that there are two types of deniability here. There's the plausible deniability, which is people who cease contact with Epstein once he was convicted of a sexual crime involving a minor. And then there are the people that carried on consorting with him after that. And one of those is Elon Musk, who's gone on a kind of tear on his own social media platform, X, you know, vehemently denying he ever accepted any invitation to go onto the Epstein island or go to any of the parties, any of these things. And yet we're seeing emails in this dump of documents where he clearly would like to. He's asking which night is the wildest, you know, he's planning to come. The fact that he didn't, in the end seemingly go to any doesn't mean that he wasn't keen to. And this was years after Epstein's conviction. So I think Elon Musk has some difficult questions to answer that he's apparently very keen not to answer as he tries to present himself as the knight in shining armor that wanted to blow the lid on all this, which is why did you actually have this kind of relationship with Epstein, knowing he's a convicted pedophile?

[Eric Bolling]

So, Pierce, I think what we're, we're looking at right now, and I'm listening to Tara being outraged about Donald Trump, very conveniently not mentioning a former President Bill Clinton, who, you know, may or may not be claiming he didn't have any involvement with any underage girls. Yet there are pictures of him swimming in hot tubs with Ghislaine Maxwell and some very young looking ladies, not sure.

[Tara Palmeri]

If they were age or not.

[Eric Bolling]

Allow me.

[Tara Palmeri]

He's not the president.

[Eric Bolling]

Please, just allow me to finish. May I just please. So the fact that I wasn't asked about him and he's not. A different film of former president is shocking. Here's my point. Not that you're being biased at all. My point is the media right now, people who consume media, on the last, you know, three or four tidbits of information and what's happened is these guys, some of these guys. And I've been an advocate for getting all of the files out without redactions or a few, you know, as few possible redactions as for national security safety as possible. And I'm telling you, what I'm feeling is Elon Musk is saying, I wasn't there, had nothing to see. I had Alan Dershowitz on my show Friday a couple of days ago, and he now is claiming there was no sexual trafficking, there was no underage girls. And I said, allen, Bill Clinton's on the call logs. We have pictures of him at the island. He said something like, yeah, but that doesn't make him guilty. No, it doesn't, but an investigation might. My point is, let's keep digging. Let's not let them change the narrative. Including Donald Trump. Including Donald Trump. Don't let him say I never did anything. I don't know. I would like to know what every one of these people on that island weren't right.

[Pierce]

Look, I agree. I mean, Anna, it seems to me you gotta go where the evidence is. The good thing about this latest dump is there's so much of it. Journalists around the world are poring through it. Obviously, it's taking a long time. But like I said, in relation to Elon Musk, for example, we can see a direct conflict between what he is saying publicly and what we are reading with our own eyes about what he intended in terms of these parties and so on. And my sense about people that do that is, well, if they're not being completely honest about that, then are they being honest about other things? I don't know the answer, but it certainly starts to raise a lot of eyeballs.

[Megyn Kelly]

I know the answer. The answer is no, they're not being honest about other things. Come on, Pierce. I mean, you're a smart man. You're not naive. I mean, even if they weren't implicated in the Epstein files, anyone who takes what the rich and powerful have to say at face value are being, I mean, unbearably naive. But look, I would just be wary of anyone who's attempting to make this very serious issue a partisan issue. Because make no mistake about it, people from both sides of the political aisle have been implicated in this. So I think we need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture here, which is what was really going on with Epstein. Because Epstein was more than just a serial pedophile and a pervert. He was an incredibly powerful man who was, by the way, in multiple instances in the files that were just released, talking about his work for Mossad, talking about his work for the Rothschilds. I mean, it just goes on and on. And so can we discuss the blackmail operation that was taking place and which government that's a special ally of the United States put him up to it? And do we really want to be allies with a country that kidnaps young girls for rape just so they can have dirt on American politicians and control our foreign policy? That's the big underlying issue here that no one's talking about.

[Pierce]

Yeah, well, let me bring Eric back in. I mean, Eric, I would say Eric also just before you respond, I mean, the Bill Gates stuff is fascinating too, right? Because there you've got a situation where they found a draft of an email that Epstein appears to have constructed for one of Gates's senior aides who fears he's going to get fired. And it's basically a blackmail note. Now what we don't know if it ever got sent by the aide to Gates. We do know that they came to some settlement, some arrangement apparently. But in it, it makes all these scandalous allegations which would have been from his chief aide, who would have known to Bill Gates to presumably try and either leverage a payoff or to avoid being fired. He accuses him of getting an STD from a Russian prostitute, I think at one stage, and then getting medicine to try and, you know, stop his then wife getting it and so on. All pretty tawdry sleazy stuff. Now again, we only know partly this because we don't know if that ever got sent or how true that material is, but he's there. Deeply embarrassing for Bill Gates. There's also, as Anna touched on there, there are much wider geopolitical dimensions to this. You know, not least Vladimir Putin, who has a relationship clearly with Epstein. You know, what was going on here. The big question about Epstein is where did all his huge amounts of money come from? Could it be. Cause we haven't really worked this out yet. Could it be he was being paid by the Russians to compromise a lot of very high profile American people? It could well be right. Or British members of the Royal family or British politicians.

[Eric Bolling]

I will add Larry Summers in that mix too. Very liberal darling on the left, former Harvard, former Obama Treasury Department, former Harvard University professor President had to resign from AI Based on what was in the AI board was in. In the Epstein files. I will add something Anna said, something very important. Where did all the money come from? How did he get make all these connections? If you watched the Bannon interview within the released Epstein files, it struck me. And I never knew Jeffrey Epstein. I've known Bannon for 100 years. I've never known Jeffrey Epstein. He's not a smart man. He wasn't a smart man. He wasn't an intellectual by any means. He was a useful idiot to a bunch of groups and I don't know who. And I think therein lies some of the most important information that could come from an additional investigation. FBI, CIA, whoever. But dig into further where those funds came from. Not a smart man. Listen to his answers. It's almost. It's almost pedestrian in nature. Yet he somehow amassed $60 billion of worth and had the strings to pull at some of the most influential people on the planet.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Fiscally responsible financial geniuses, monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds of. Visit progressive.com to see if you could save Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states or situations.

[Pierce]

And you know what's interesting? Well, Tara, what's interesting to me is in the UK we're seeing very high profile people dropping like dominoes as a consequence of these files. Lord Mandelson is finished. He's had the whip from the Labour Party removed last night. He's likely to lose his place in the House of Lords and so he should. He might well face criminal prosecution for corruption in public office given the stories about the money that was coming from Epstein in what appears to have been a trade for top secret information about forthcoming policy business initiatives by the UK government which when Mandelson was in the government. So there's a lot of stuff going on with him, but he's finished. The former Prince Andrew, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, he's finished. And it's a question really for him that the British Prime Minister now says he should put himself in front of the investigative authorities under oath and say what he actually knows. I think most British people agree with that. So you're seeing a lot of very famous people being dragged down by this in the uk. We're not seeing the same thing happen in the us. We're seeing a lot of names, but we're not seeing any consequence so far. Do you think we're going to.

[Tara Palmeri]

No, I don't. Because I think at this point we haven't seen. We still haven't even seen 3 million of the files of the 6 million. And they could be withholding them for national interest purposes. Which means that may. There will continue to be gaping holes in the various theories that everyone put forward about who was he working for. I've always believed that Jeffrey Epstein was doing. Was conducting some sort of compromise for who? You know, we still don't know. And. And I do think that the United States.

[Megyn Kelly]

Multiple times.

[Pierce]

Right.

[Tara Palmeri]

And I do think the United States is still protecting Prince Andrew in these files. I think there's. He's not mentioned. His relationship with Saudi Arabia isn't mentioned very frequently. There's so many connections across the world that we all know about. People who have studied the Epstein story that we still won't be getting in the files. And because we don't have the kind of leadership within our administration. There's no independent counsel leading this. We don't know what we don't know right now. And there are 3 million files being withheld. And I don't think.

[Pierce]

Let me bring anyone.

[Tara Palmeri]

Will face consequences because they have it.

[Pierce]

Right. I suspect we will, but it's going to take more time in America. Mark, you wanted to jump in? Yeah. Okay.

[Mark Eiglash]

So anyone who had anything to do with his nefarious criminal conduct should be punished. I think that's all wonderful. That's what we all want. The problem also is when we say their name is in the Epstein file that now has become associated with. So they must have then been on his plane or been to his island and then maybe participated in having sex with children. That's a real problem too. We got the pitchforks up. And there are people who are involved in construction projects who are simply meeting people through him. They went on some traveling with him that had nothing to do with going to his island. I don't like this big net being thrown out there and catching it. Let me finish. And catching anyone who had mere association with him but had nothing to do with his abhorrent behavior.

[Tara Palmeri]

Okay. Mark, can I just tell you as someone who's covered this story and spoken to many, many, many survivors. It was impossible to be around Jeffrey Epstein and not know what he was about. There were always young girls around. He was a convicted felon. And all of these high net worth people continued to spend time with the sex offender.

[Pierce]

That's dangerous.

[Mark Eiglash]

Every single person who happened ever around Epstein then knew. Knew that he Was having sex with children. Is that your position?

[Pierce]

Because that's what happens. No, no, but Mark, hang on, hang on, hang on. But Mark, every. Everybody post 2009 knows he's a convicted people 100%.

[Mark Eiglash]

We're talking before then.

[Pierce]

So they can't pretend people who were.

[Mark Eiglash]

Just part of the file, they can't.

[Pierce]

Pretend they didn't know what he was.

[Mark Eiglash]

Well, of course, no, I'm not talking about that. That's indefensible. I'm talking about people before then who were merely in some letter or reference now as part of the Epstein file, and then all of a sudden that means erroneously somehow that they were sleeping with children. Get those who did, I want those who did to be punished. But those who are merely associated with him because the guy was a big networker and a big business guy shouldn't be thrown to the wolves.

[Pierce]

What is interesting, I mean, Richard Branson. Well, Richard Branson. Hang on, Tara. Richard Branson, for example, came out with a statement was quite interesting. He said that after some initial interaction with Epstein, he then began to have some suspicions, got his team to look into Epstein, discovered the conviction, discovered some other stuff, didn't like it, and ended all contact. Now, assuming that is right, and I've known Richard a long time, I'm sure that's probably correct. If he's saying that publicly, then that is what a lot of people should have done. But what is clear is a lot of people not only didn't do that, a lot of them made statements, whether it's Andrew, whether it's Mandelson, whether it's others, where they categorically denied having anything to do with him after his conviction. And now we know they were lying. And again, it comes earlier. You're right. But my point being, if they're lying about the timeline, then what else are they lying about? Would be my obvious question. Let me just. I want to read what Elon Musk has said just to be fair to him. He says nobody's fought harder for full release of the Epstein files and prosecutions of those who abuse children more than I did. Knowing full well the legacy media, far left propagandists and those who are actually guilty would one, admit nothing? Two, deny everything? Three, make counter accusations against me? I knew I'd be smeared relentlessly despite never having attended his parties or being on his Lolita express plane or set foot on his creepy island or done anything wrong at all. Nevertheless, the extreme pain of being accused of being the opposite of who I am was worth it. The strong must Protect those who cannot protect themselves, especially vulnerable children. I will gladly accept any amount of future pain to do more to protect kids and give them a chance to grow up and have happy lives. And again, what I would say back to Elon Musk is, okay, let's take you at face value. You know, only, you know so far. But this flies completely in the face of the emails we're reading, which is that years after the conviction of Epstein for pedophilia, you are very, very keen to go to his island that you now scorn. And so the public statements are not consistent with the real time correspondence that we're all seeing with our own eyes.

[Megyn Kelly]

I mean, look, to Mark's point, so far, there's nothing in the Epstein files that would criminally implicate Elon Musk. Like, there isn't enough evidence to actually prosecute him for anything. But I agree with you in that, in the court of public opinion, it's not a good look, as is the case with our Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, who said that he had cut off all communication with Epstein in the early 2000s, and then now we're learning that he was actually communicating with Epstein in 2012. Again, that in and of itself is not enough to prosecute him of any criminality. Right. But at the same time, why are you lying to the American people? And more importantly, why were you so keen to your, you know, the word you like to use. Why are you so keen to reach out to and have communication with Epstein after he had already been convicted?

[MIDI Health Ad Voice]

And.

[Megyn Kelly]

And yes, got that sweetheart deal as a result of Alan Dershowitz negotiating it. Why are you still willing to talk to this guy? And by the way, one other thing I want to mention about Dershowitz in particular, because anyone who mentions Dershowitz's relationship with Epstein, as I have done in the past, gets threatened by Dershowitz with a lawsuit. And I never retract my statements because I would love nothing more than to go through that discovery process. But in the files that were just released, you know, there's an email that Norm Finkelstein sent out essentially condemning Dershowitz because Jane Doe number three said this in sworn testimony. Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz was around Epstein frequently. Dershowitz was so comfortable with the sex that was going on that he would even come and chat with Epstein while I was giving oral sex to Epstein. So my question to everyone who has Dershowitz on, as if he's some sort of expert who should be taken seriously, who has an opinion that should Be valued in any way. Will you please stop having that disgusting man on your show?

[Eric Bolling]

No, no, I agree.

[Tara Palmeri]

I won't.

[Eric Bolling]

Hold on, guys. Hold on. And I told him, eric, point blank, you cannot rewrite history. Alan, we know way too much. You can claim you're innocent all you want, but you can't go and say therefore, now all of a sudden. Bill Clinton never got involved in these things. No, no. He literally said, take a look at it.

[Megyn Kelly]

That he's the one who got that disgusting serial rapist a sweetheart deal. And he lied about the Epstein files. He's a disgrace. I'll tell you what happened on your show.

[Eric Bolling]

He went and refuted all. He refuted all minor sex trafficking. On that, I was blown away. So, Alan, who are you? Why are you doing this? Pierce, I was done with you and Alan once before where he claimed to know everything. He's still trying to stay in the media this way. I think he's feeling a little bit more confident. But I'm not going to not have him on Anna. I want to continue to hold his feet to the fire, which. Which I did watch the interview. And if you think I wasn't hard enough on him, I'll eat it. But I think I was. Can I just. One final thought. We're having a lot of speculation on what happened, what didn't happen. There's an easy. It's not easy. There's a very effective way to find out what really happened. Follow the damn money. It always works. Find out how he made his money.

[Tara Palmeri]

And what about just listening to the women who have testified? What about the women who have testified? Why. What about the survivors who have testified under oath? Why is their word not enough? Why do we have to follow the money to know what happened?

[Eric Bolling]

No one said it's not enough.

[Pierce]

You know what? I think it's. I think we listen to the women. We listen to the women, we follow the money trail, and we get people under oath. Right. With a penalty of perjury. That tends to concentrate the mind. Right. Okay, look, I want to pivot to the other big story of the weekend, which is the arrest of Don Lemon, former CNN anchor. Actually took over my office when I left cnn. So I've known Don a long time. You know, I thought about this quite long and hard. Let's take a look at, first of all, a bit of the scene that created the environment for his arrest. This is the original incident.

[Producer/Ad Voice]

We all have those nightmare scenario moments that make your heart race when you're lying in bed and realize you didn't lock the front door or you've left for the day and remember the stove is still on. Or even worse, you get home to find that someone's broken a window. ADT understands how unsettling it is to feel unsafe at home or unprepared for an emergency. That's why they're here for the moments when every second counts. With customizable security systems that keep watch 247 with the most company operated monitoring centers in the industry. With technology that enables first responders to send help even faster. And because they understand how important your space is to you, their ADT plus app allows you to check in on your home from virtually anywhere. So you can rest easy knowing that everything's okay. ADT helps make sure your home is your haven. Not another thing to worry about. Visit ADT.com or call 1-800-ADTASAP when every second counts, count on ADT.

[Don Lemon]

This is a juxtaposition. This shows you just how divided America is when you look at the protesters here and then you look at the people there who are praying. And you know what is interesting thing? If these two groups could just get together, they might figure out what to do instead. I don't know if the people here are interested in talking to the protesters, but perhaps they should come in, pray together, and talk together. Last night, the DOJ sent a team of federal agents to arrest me in the middle of the night for something that I've been doing for the last 30 years and that is covering the news. The First Amendment of the Constitution protects the at work for me and for countless of other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them and I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court. Thank you all.

[Pierce]

So let me start with Mark Eiglash again from a legal perspective here. So, you know, I thought about this long and hard, heard all the different arguments, everyone coming out, a lot of them from partisan traps to very quickly either exonerate or convict him. And I kind of reached the conclusion, as I do with most situations involving journalists in this situation, which is you shouldn't be criminalizing journalists doing their job. You may not like Don Lemon, you may not like the way he behaved that day, you may not like the way he's behaved since. But to go after a journalist who was clearly there reporting on what was happening, I think crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed, whether you're on the left or the right. And it seemed to me a bit of tit for tat for what happened to Some people who were kind of Citizen journalists on January 6th who got put in prison. This is revenge. They're going after now, people on the left for doing similar things and so on. I think it's a very slippery slope. But, Mark, from a pure legal perspective, did Don Lemon, in your estimation, break the law?

[Mark Eiglash]

No, he didn't. It's not even close. And I don't do politics. I do just legal. And the First Amendment gives wide latitude for journalists to do exactly what he did, cover an event. So those who say that he did interfere with people's ability to worship. There's a difference between incidental interference and intentional interference. One needs intentional interference to be found guilty of a criminal act. He wasn't there. It appears from the facts.

[Eric Bolling]

Ongoing service.

[Mark Eiglash]

Hold on. I was just speaking. I wasn't through with my thoughts. He intentionally was there to gather facts, but his intention falls way short factually of intending to be there to interfere with people's ability to worship. So, again, if there's just incidental interference, that's not enough. And clearly the chilling effect is there, too. The message goes out that anyone who's merely present at an event can be arrested, and that's real problematic.

[Eric Bolling]

Mark, he was also there to gather facts. He broke into an ongoing church service. He busted in. That's not in an accidental. Oh, I didn't mean to break up your show. What. What facts was Don Lemon looking for, Mark? What facts was he. Look, he was looking to. To create a scene, to get the cameras rolling, to get his own face on the evening news, which he did. And I said, the minute happened. They just propped up Don Lemon not because they like his journalism, because they need him as a useful idiot to their. Their push to open immigration at all costs. And by the way, Mark, I would argue with you that I think protecting people's right to worship is right up there, if not superseding the First Amendment, the right for journalists to cover a story.

[Mark Eiglash]

We don't disagree on that. The question is, again, it may be, again, everything is fact sensitive. Was he covering this as a journalist? Was he reporting this on Livestream, which I was told, if he was. The question is, do they have proof beyond a reasonable doubt that his purpose was to interfere with people's right to worship or whether he was there covering it as a journalist that may have interfered incidentally with people's right to worship? And therein lies.

[Pierce]

Well, isn't the crucial. Well, I think. Well, let me bring in Anna here. But I think the crucial distinction for me is you can Certainly construct an argument that the protesters had a pre planned intention to disrupt people in their place of worship. Right. So the question for me was then, is Don Lemon part of the protest group or is he tangentially a journalist who knows it's going to happen, goes in and reports on what happens, but he's not actually a member of the protest group doing the intervention? And that's where for me, I felt that's it. From a legal perspective, I think it's hard to prove that he is not one removed from this. He's not actually doing, intervening. He's gone in and he's watching and he's observing and he's reporting.

[Megyn Kelly]

Yeah, I mean, look, first let me just say I really appreciate your analysis on this, Mark, especially from a legal perspective. And I agree with you overall, Pierce. I think that the evidence that we've seen so far indicates that Don Lemon got a tip that this protest was gonna happen. He wanted to cover it. Now of course, he does have his own biases, there's no question about that. But the real question is, was he there to participate in said demonstration or was he there to document it? And obviously this is gonna play out in court. But the point that I agree with you most on is in regard to how counterproductive it was to arrest him in the first place. Let me first note though that there was a second independent journalist who was also arrested as a result of covering what happened during this protest. I think that sets a really, really bad precedent when it comes to journalism. Regardless of what you think about Don Lemon or the independent journalist, you should be able to have journalists there to document what's going on. That is their job. But in regards to.

[Pierce]

And Tara, it seems to me, Tara, that all that's happened out of this is Don Lemon has got absolutely what he's been dreaming of ever since he got turfed out of CNN and started his own business is he's now, he's now a martyr. You know, I watched him at the Clive Davis. We got a clip, I think, of him getting a standing ovation from the star studded crowd at the pre Grammys party that Clive Davies has every year. Let's take a. I mean, Don Lemon's had a long dream, a long dream. He's had a dream to, to be at the Grammys or Grammy parties. And that happens. He's the Martin Luther King at the Grammys.

[Tara Palmeri]

Listen, like this is part of the job of being a journalist. Like, it's one of the first things you do. You cover movements, you Cover protests. You go where things happen. If you had to go into a cave to interview the Taliban, should I be arrested because I'm in there with the Taliban? If I witness violence there? I'm not a co conspirator. Eric, if you know anything about journalism, you would know that being present at an event does not mean you are as a journalist documenting.

[Eric Bolling]

It does not mean they weren't protesting. Tara. They weren't protesting. They were trying to worship, by the way. And if, if you're going to hide behind that cloak of. Are you saying that journalists, A journalist can break into anywhere they want. Trespass because under the guise of I'm doing a story. That's insanity. There has to be a line drawn. They broke into an ongoing church service. Those parishioners weren't protesting anything. They weren't supporting ice. Did the pastor happen to have some sort of connection? Who cares? That does so any, under your theory, I, as a journalist, I have a, I have a White House. What about hard pass? I'm a journalist to cover Trump. I can go anywhere I want with that. Break into any. I can break into a mosque and find out how many Muslims there are illegal just because I have that pass? Of course not.

[Tara Palmeri]

I mean if you were following law enforcement or you're following in a news event, I, I don't know the exact legality, but I know under the first amendment are. There are many. We are covered under the first Amendment. In the second, you create this, these lines like what about these right wing influencer journalists, whatever you want to call them, that follow break ins into Planned Parenthoods. Should they not be allowed to do that? They should.

[Eric Bolling]

They don't break in terror. They get arrested outside the Planned Parenthood.

[Mark Eiglash]

Let me, let me offer some guidance. Let me offer some guidance.

[Megyn Kelly]

So let's analogy real quick. Okay, Just real quick, real quick, Eric, like let's say you are covering some sort of protest where a group of people break into a mosque as people are worshiping. You're there documenting it. As a reporter. Right. I would be livid if, let's say the Biden administration's DOJ decided to arrest you because at the end of the day, you work in media, you're documenting what's happening. Now, the individuals who took part in the actual demonstration did break a law. They did violate the right to practice your faith to worship and they should face consequences for that. I mean, that's why you signed up.

[Mark Eiglash]

Let me offer some guidance that under.

[Eric Bolling]

Pierce's definition of what happened or question about what happened Don Lemon wasn't there to cover it. Don Lemon was the leader of that whatever that break in.

[Tara Palmeri]

Wasn't.

[Pierce]

He wasn't.

[Mark Eiglash]

Let me jump in here.

[Pierce]

Let me bring Mark in. He was supposed to again from. Let me bring Mark in. Let's change Mark.

[Mark Eiglash]

Let's change the facts. Let's say that Lemon, while he was there, chanted, he directed the protesters, he blocked aisles. He starts doing that, then he is participating. It's very different. Absent those facts. He's there covering. And I agree with Pierce on this one. Again, you don't want to have that chilling effect when you have journalists going in to cover something and you get the wrong politics and then people get arrested. That's a real slippery slope and a real dangerous scenario.

[Pierce]

Yeah, I would say you guys are.

[Eric Bolling]

Opening up a very dangerous can of worms, allowing or covering for journalists. And Tara points out that, yeah, there are right wing little influencers who are dying for the same opportunity that Don Lemon just presented himself with, to become some sort of hero to your side. And if it entails joining protests or quote unquote, covering protests, but you're right there with them and also getting cameras in the face of the people that they're protesting against.

[Tara Palmeri]

You know, I mean, Tucker is always going to Planned Parenthood journalism, and he's. Yeah, they do that all the time. They're just not being arrested, but they literally do it all the time. Who do you think's covering the Planned Parenthood protests?

[Eric Bolling]

Again, the differences inside the church, that is a.

[Tara Palmeri]

They go inside the Planned Parenthood, which is like a private property, and they do this and they don't get arrested. I don't see how it's any different as well.

[Eric Bolling]

I think they're right, you know, the o' Keefe who goes inside, you know, an abortion clinic and tapes. I have a problem with that, too.

[Pierce]

Okay, well, I think the one thing I would say just to conclude this is people need to be intellectually consistent. Right. In the way they view these things. And if you start getting tribal, where it's okay for your side but not okay for the other side, to me, you become intellectually dishonest. We saw it all with the Jimmy Kimmel saga a few months ago. We're seeing it again now. We've seen it over the ICE agents. You've got to be consistent. It doesn't matter if it's your side or not. What is your view about people that do xyz. And then you've got to be consistent each time it's done by anybody, then I can respect you. The moment people chop and change because of their political persuasion, I lose all respect for them. But that was a great panel debate. Thank you all very much.

[Mark Eiglash]

Thanks Pierce.

[Tara Palmeri]

That was another episode of the Tara Palmeri Show. I'll keep continuing the story as it is developing. Please follow subscribe, share it with your friends. Tell everyone about this show. It's how we keep going. Please go to tar palmary.com and become a subscriber to the Red Letter. If you become a paid subscriber, you get exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. How you can support my journalism I want to thank my producer Eric Rabinate, Abby Baker doing my socials and research, Adam Stewart doing thumbnails Dan Rosen, my manager. Everybody is working overtime today. It's a Friday afternoon. They always know to dump it then, right? Just to ruin our weekends. And that's why, because they're hoping that we won't be as persistent and on it as we are. So take a listen. Thank you for listening to the show and I'll be back again soon.

[MIDI Health Ad Voice]

This podcast is supported by MIDI Health. Are you in midlife? Feeling dismissed, unheard or just plain tired of the old healthcare system? You're not alone. In fact, even today 75% of women seeking care for menopause and perimenopause issues are are left entirely untreated. But it's time for a change. It's time for MITI. MITI's not just a health care provider, it's a women's telehealth clinic founded and supported by world class leaders in women's health. Their clinicians provide one on one face to face consultations where they truly listen to your unique needs. They offer a full range of holistic, data driven solutions that isn't one size fits all care. This is care uniquely tailored for you. At midi, you will find that their mission is to help all women thrive in midlife, giving them access to the health care they deserve because they believe midlife isn't the middle at all. It is the beginning of your second act. Ready to feel your best and write your second act script? Visit joinMiddy.com today to book your personalized insurance covered virtual visit. That's joinmidi.com midi the care women Deserve.