Trump’s Epstein Files Release Was Political Warfare — and the Victims Paid the Price

Summary

---

The Tara Palmeri Show

Episode: Trump’s Epstein Files Release Was Political Warfare — and the Victims Paid the Price
Host: Tara Palmeri
Date: December 22, 2025

---

Overview

In this episode, Tara Palmeri dissects the recent release—or lack thereof—of the Epstein files by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ). She argues that the release was more a tool of political warfare than a genuine pursuit of justice, highlighting the significant harm this caused to victims. Palmeri draws on expert panelists, survivor testimony, and her own reporting to show how the files’ selective release, redactions, and missed deadlines point to a deeply politicized process that continues to sideline survivors and obscure the truth.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The “Nothing Burger” Document Dump

[00:00–03:36] Tara Palmeri

• The DOJ missed its legal deadline for releasing the files and the first release was largely uninformative, with little new evidence about Epstein, his network, or DOJ protection.
• The bulk of the visual materials initially focused on Bill Clinton, painting a narrative implicating Democrats—while images of Trump were initially withheld and then readded after public criticism.
• Victims’ privacy was inconsistently handled: some were exposed, while others (and entire swathes of information) were excessively redacted without clear justification.

Quote:

• “We learned nothing more about Jeffrey Epstein and this grave injustice and all of the terrible people that were involved in all of this. Nothing. We just saw a lot of pictures and the pictures seemed very political… to create a narrative.” — Tara Palmeri [00:57]

2. Political Weaponization and Lack of Trust

[03:16–05:08] Tara Palmeri

• Palmeri notes a pattern of using the release as “a political cudgel” against Trump’s opponents while protecting him and his allies.
• The redactions and sequence suggest prioritizing appearances, not transparency or justice.
• Trust in DOJ’s intention is eroded by apparent manipulation of content to protect the sitting president.

Quote:

• “How can we trust the Justice Department on this at all? They merely see this case as a political cudgel. They don’t see it as a grave injustice against victims…” — Tara Palmeri [02:13]

3. Survivors’ Betrayal and Pushback

[08:28–09:29] Jess Michaels (Epstein Survivor), Arielle Resheff

• Jess Michaels, survivor and activist, expresses deep disillusionment: despite a law mandating release, survivors see nothing but broken promises and continued marginalization.
• 18 survivors sent a letter to Congress, stating: “there has been no communication with survivors or our representatives… its absence suggests an ongoing intent to keep survivors and the public in the dark as much as possible, as long as possible.” [09:29]
• Bipartisan outrage: Democrats and Republicans alike accuse the DOJ of flouting the law and covering for political interests.

Quote:

• “The U.S. Department of Justice has broken the law blatantly… I don’t care what comes out next because they’ve already broken the law.” — Jess Michaels [08:28]

4. The Problem of Settlements and Silencing Victims

[05:09–08:22] Tara Palmeri

• Victims often refrain from naming other abusers for fear of retaliation and lawsuits; many sign settlements pushed by lawyers, which can be damaging rather than healing.
• Courtney Wild, a prominent victim, described settlement money as further abuse: “She saw it as being paid again for her services, as if she was a prostitute.” [06:40]
• These dynamics enable dozens of alleged perpetrators to avoid exposure or consequences.

5. The Expert Panel: Political Motivations, Redactions, and Congressional Response

[11:44–24:24] Panel with Vicky Ward, Steve Eder, Barbara McQuade, Tara Palmeri, Arielle Resheff

a) Partisan Narrative and Redaction

• DOJ’s selective release spotlights Clinton and Democrats, while Trump’s material is obscured or minimized.
• No adequate explanation for excessive and, at times, seemingly arbitrary redactions—including for powerful individuals like Les Wexner.

b) Transparency Act Violations

[17:54–18:10]

• DOJ officials claim redactions were not for “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity” but victims and the public remain unconvinced.

c) Congressional Pressure

• Members of Congress (e.g., Jamie Raskin, Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna) signal investigations and possible contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi and the DOJ for failing to meet legal requirements.
• Discussion of congressional “inherent contempt”: rarely used, but signals vigorous oversight may be coming.

d) The Systemic Failure to Protect Victims

• DOJ’s lack of communication and broken promises reinforce decades of neglect.
• Early victim reports (e.g., Maria Farmer’s 1996 federal child pornography complaint) were ignored, resulting in ongoing victimization.

Quote:

• “They are collateral damage, frankly… This is about powerful people abusing children, the most powerless people in society, and getting away with it for three decades over multiple administrations.” — Tara Palmeri [13:21]

---

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |-----------|---------|-------| | 00:57 | Tara Palmeri | “We learned nothing more about Jeffrey Epstein… just a lot of pictures and the pictures seemed very political… to create a narrative.”| | 02:13 | Tara Palmeri | “How can we trust the Department of Justice on this at all? They merely see this case as a political cudgel…”| | 08:28 | Jess Michaels | “The U.S. Department of Justice has broken the law blatantly… I don’t care what comes out next because they’ve already broken the law.”| | 09:29 | Arielle Resheff (reading) | “…there has been no communication with survivors or our representatives as to what was withheld…”| | 13:21 | Tara Palmeri | “They are collateral damage, frankly… this is about powerful people abusing children.”| | 19:18 | Barbara McQuade | “The answer is no, they are not meeting the law. The statute said December 19 was the final deadline for producing the documents… Instead, they began to roll out documents on that date. They have not completed that rollout yet. So there's still more to come.”|

---

Important Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–03:36: Tara’s opening analysis of the document release and its failures
• 05:09–08:22: Palmeri explains the dynamics of victim silencing and settlements
• 08:28–09:29: Jess Michaels (Epstein survivor) discusses betrayal by the DOJ
• 11:44–13:21: Panel discussion — the political motivations behind file releases
• 14:53–17:03: Vicky Ward on missing financial evidence and inexplicable redactions
• 19:18–21:03: Barbara McQuade on the DOJ’s legal failures and political interference
• 22:33–24:24: Tara on Maria Farmer’s ignored early report, highlighting systemic failures in victim protection

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Palmeri and panelists argue the DOJ’s Epstein files release was a missed opportunity for transparency and accountability, instead serving as a partisan exercise at victims’ expense.
• Survivors continue to be sidelined—by broken promises, lack of communication, and a justice process that appears rigged to protect the powerful.
• With Congress gearing up for a fight over DOJ compliance, Palmeri underscores the ongoing risk that, unless political will changes, justice for Epstein’s victims—and a true reckoning with his enablers—will remain elusive.

---

Transcript

[A]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. You chose to hit play on this podcast today. Smart choice. Make another smart choice with Auto Quote Explorer to compare rates from multiple car insurance companies all at once. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Not available in all states or situations. Prices vary based on how you buy. Welcome to the Tara Palmeri Show. The Epstein files. Well, we hit the deadline on Friday and actually the DOJ missed it, unsurprisingly. It was a big nothing burger. We learned nothing new about the Epstein files, the Epstein case, why he got a sweetheart deal, how many men were involved, why the Department of Justice has been protecting him all these years, how he made his money. We never even learned, you know, whether he had connections to intelligence. We learned nothing more about Jeffrey Epstein and this grave injustice and all of the terrible people that were involved in all of this. Nothing. We just saw a lot of pictures and the pictures seemed very political. I mean, just the way they were dumped, they were dumb. To create a narrative. First of all, the first. Well, the second batch of pictures that came out, the first batch were all the crime scene from his home. The second batch were mostly of Bill Clinton. Him in a hot tub, him holding, you know, the. The side of a woman, having a woman sitting on his. On his lap. And it looks bad. It's terrible. And if those women are victims, like, I hope we get more information about this and we get to the truth. But, you know, if this is just the Trump, Trump Justice Department trying to make a political enemy look bad, which is exactly what it looks like. I mean, look at Caroline Levitt, the spokesperson, you know, retweeting it, saying, oh, my, like it's a joke. I mean, then. Then we just think that they are using whatever evidence they have to make Trump's political enemies look bad. Meanwhile, they removed a picture of President Trump with women from the Epstein files. Do you believe that? And then when they were called out on it, they put it back in there. But they can front load all these pictures of Bill Clinton, but they can't also include the President, which makes me realize you cannot trust the Department of Justice on this at all. They merely see this case as a political cudgel. They don't see it as a grave injustice against victims, against women who have been let down for decades and decades and who just want the truth. No, that's not what they see. They see this as an opportunity to protect the President and go after his political enemies, and they can't even make the deadline. And by the Way they actually failed to redact the name of a victim. Meanwhile, redacted faces and a lot of other information. We don't know what's underneath it. And really, the only exception for redaction should be national security according to the law. The victims, most importantly, according to the law, and ongoing investigations. We need to know why there are so many redactions in what has already been released. But I can just tell you, it has been a nothing murder. I have learned nothing new about this case from the Epstein files that have been released. Understandably, members of Congress are pissed. 427 of them voted for this. Only one voted against this law not coming out. And so, yeah, know, there's talk of holding Pam Bond, the attorney general, in contempt. There's talk of, you know, investigations into this release. And I think they should be. Apparently, we're gonna have to wait weeks to get the full load. But it is telling that the front load of investigations were. The front load of the files were of Bill Clinton. So, yeah, this has been unfortunate. It has hurt the victims. It shows that the justice department just doesn't take them seriously, that they. They are, again, being ignored by another administration. It's just. It's really disheartening. I want to clarify something I mentioned, though, last week that I may have not explained properly. And I'm. I really want to get into this because so many people, particularly men, ask me if it was just Epstein who abused these girls. A thousand victims, according to the FBI. And I tell them, yes, there were other men. It wasn't just Epstein. Just listen to Virginia Giuffre just. She has obviously brought down the prince. Prince Andrew. I mean, she has named a number of other men. And everyone says, well, why won't the Epstein victims name the men that abuse them? Well, a lot of them are terrified of these men because they are wealthy and powerful, and they can sue them for defamation. The kind of thing that. That Virginia dealt with. Frankly, when she came forward, she had her name dragged through the. The. The mud, really. But there's another reason. And it came forward in Len Maxwell's habius petition that she just po Put forward through last week. In it, she claims that one plaintiff signed settlements with 25 different men. That's right. One plaintiff signed settlements with 25 different men. I have mixed feelings about settlements. I feel like lawyers pressure their clients to send settlements to sign these settlements with men who abuse them. I think the lawyers make money off of it. It's easy, it's quick. They don't go to trial and there's the argument that it will be painful to go through the process, that you'll have to relive the pro, the trauma, and you might as well just take the money and move on with your life. But then I hear from people like Jane Doe 1, Courtney Wild, who said that when she received the money from Jeffrey Epstein, she used it to abuse herself. She saw it as another payment. She, she saw it as being paid again for her services, as if she was a prostitute. And this is a girl who showed up on Jeffrey Epstein's doorstep with braces on 14 years old. The money can be incredibly destructive for these women. And so I worry that a lot of them fear coming forward because of that, too. And that's another reason why we don't know the names of so many other perpetrators who are walking free right now who have abused women and gotten away with it and probably are sleeping okay based on the way that President Trump has been releasing these files. Unless, of course, they have a D next their name, then you can bet that they will not be sleeping well in the next few weeks. I went on Katie Tur today on Ms. Now, but it was hosted by Ariel Rushef, who is my former colleague at ABC News. We were both correspondents there and we talked about the file release, what to expect, what we were looking for, what we didn't get, what, what they did wrong at the Justice Department. How embarrassing this is. And, and will there be any truth? I mean, this is one of the biggest coverups of our time. And our Justice Department just thinks it's funny. They really just don't seem to be taking it seriously. Take a listen to this conversation. If you're anything like me, then you hate running around from store to store to store for holiday gifting. But you still want to get people that you love something beautiful, something timeless, something that they will wear for years. And that's why this year I'm going to Quince for. From Mongolian cashmere sweaters that only cost $50 to Italian wool coats, everything is premium quality at a price that actually makes sense. I personally wear a lot of their silk tops on this show because they're so reasonably priced and they're made with premium materials from ethical, trusted factories priced so far below luxury brands. I don't know how they do it. Their craftsmanship is shown in every single detail. The stitching, the fit, the drape. It's, it's elevated, it's timeless. It's, it's clothing you'll wear forever. So if you want to find gifts that you'll want to keep for yourself. Then head to quince.comtara for free shipping on your order and 365 days of returns. They're now available in Canada, too. That's Quince Q-U I N C E.com Tara T A R A to get free shipping and 365 days of returns. Quince.com Tara. So just in light of your experience and everything you've been through, how do.

[B]

You feel about this latest drop of files?

[C]

There was a law passed that required the Department of Justice to adhere to by 11:59pm on December 19. The U.S. department of justice has broken the law blatantly. So sometimes I hear from people or journalists. So how do you feel if they, you know, what comes out next? I actually don't care. I don't. Because they've already broken the law and they've proved the point of why we needed to get an act of Congress to actually listen to us and try to get justice. And that didn't even get us justice.

[A]

Do you feel betrayed by that?

[C]

Definitely. And it's not unexpected. I expected the exact same treatment that we have received across five administrations to happen, and they fulfilled that expectation.

[D]

It is good to be with you. I'm Arielle Resheff in for Katie Tur today. And that was Jess Michaels. She says she was raped by Jeffrey Epstein in 1991. 35 years later, she has pushed for the complete and transparent release of all of the Epstein files, the files related to Jeffrey Epstein. In her words, nothing like this happened, so nothing like this happens again and that we change something. Today, she and 17 other survivors wrote a letter to Congress accusing the Trump administration of breaking the law by only releasing a fractal of the files and covering the files with abnormal and extreme redactions. Their letter noted, quote, there has been no communication with survivors or our representatives as to what was withheld from release or why. While clearer communication would not change the fact that a law was broken, its absence suggests an ongoing intent to keep survivors and the public in the dark as much as possible, as long as possible. Those survivors asked Congress for accountability. Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, accused the Trump administration of covering up things the president doesn't want revealed. And Republican Thomas Massie said that the administration was flouting the spirit and letter of the law. According to the Atlantic, Attorney General Pam Bondi canceled a call with survivors of the Epstein crimes because of a medical appointment. The DOJ denied a call had ever been firmly scheduled. This has left a number of survivors feeling deeply disappointed and disillusioned. And the bipartisan drumbeat for transparency continues to grow louder and louder by the minute. Will today's anticipated release of more documents relieve or resolve any of those frustrations? We will talk about it. Joining us now, investigative reporter and author of the Vicki Ward Investigates newsletter and substack, Vicki Ward, New York Times investigative reporter Steve Eater and host of the Tara Paul Mary show and author of the Red Letter on substack, Tara Paul mary and former U.S. attorney and Ms. Now legal analyst Barbara McQuaid. Tara, great to see you again. My former colleague Katie spoke with you, I know, on Friday before the DOJ released the current trove of files. I want to get your reaction to what you've seen so far and what you haven't seen so far.

[A]

I think first of all, the release was entirely political. It was designed to, you know, highlight Democrats, namely Bill Clinton and his friendship and possibly inappropriate relationship with Epstein victims. And you can just tell from the narrative that was painted by how the dump came out. I mean, which pictures came forward first. It was in the second batch. We know that a picture was literally removed of President Trump and then put back in there. So they're very much aware of how this supposed non political adherence to the law is actually being used to be political and paint a narrative that, that attacks their enemies. And then they haven't released everything. We're seeing a ton of redactions. They haven't explained why these things are redacted. They are the only loopholes should be for national security, ongoing investigations and otherwise the victims. But they have not actually explained why there are redactions. And you know, that's the picture that they put back in. But it's just, it's, it's how can we trust them? I mean, how can we trust the Justice Department when they have been literally changing their policy as they release the files and they solve it, solve them. That was the deadline. They passed it.

[D]

I know you say we and I know you also have really tried to keep the victims central in your reporting on the Epstein files, on the Epstein saga over the years. Now that you've seen the material so far, I think I can anticipate what you're going to say here. But do you feel like the DOJ is prioritizing the victims in all of this?

[A]

No. They are collateral damage, frankly. And you know, even the way that Caroline Levitt just, you know, reposts the picture of Bill Clinton in a hot tub with a woman and is, is Sort of like, oh my God, making it a big joke. It's just like. Do you remember what this is about? This is about powerful people abusing children, the most powerless people in society and getting away with it for three decades over multiple administrations. And. And you think this is funny? You just think this is some sort of like cudgel you can use against your political enemies. They are completely missing the core of this story. It's about women. It's about victims who have been abused and never had justice. And I think this is going to play really poorly for them politically. The people that they're hoping would remain within their base, the people who care about this kind of injustice, I don't think they're going to take this lightly.

[D]

It doesn't seem so. Vicki, you said that you wanted to see the FBI interviews of witnesses. Why did you want to see that and did you get it?

[E]

DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse is the one stop shop for all your footwear needs with sneakers, boots and everything in between for every style, mood and occasion. You'll definitely find shoes that get you at prices that get your budget. DSW has what you need, but more importantly, they have what you didn't even know you wanted. You never know what you'll find at dsw. Find the shoes that get you at prices that get your budget at DSW stores or, or DSW.com.

[F]

We got some of them. Some I was already familiar with because I sat through Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal trial. And so I was familiar with some of the stuff we've learned about Interlochen, the academy for gifted artists up in Ohio near the home of Les Wexner, one of Jeffrey Epstein's patrons. And so I knew that some of the abuse had sort of started there. I think there was one 302 where I learned something I didn't know where Jeffrey Epstein referenced, apparently that he didn't want dark skinned women around him. He was apparently getting frustrated that there weren't enough girls for him. But I haven't, I haven't learned anything of substance. I certain certainly haven't yet seen anything that really sheds light onto why that plea deal happened that I didn't already know. I haven't seen anything to do with the money and I've sort of banged a drum about this for years. That the money is essential to understand because we have no evidence that until Jeffrey Epstein suddenly out of nowhere, had hundreds of millions of dollars at his disposal. The plane, the island, the palaces from which in which he retreated and perpetrated his sex crimes before the money. There's no evidence that he. He did any of these horrible things to underage children. So I was really hoping we would get a sense of. Of where that money came from, and so far, not. And, you know, I've noticed that in some of the photographs. You know, clearly some of the people I can work out whose faces have been redacted are people like Leslie Wexner and Leslie Wexner's wife. And it's not clear to me why. I mean, you know, I mean, again, as Tara said, these redactions and blacking out of people's faces don't seem to make any sense.

[D]

So to that point, Steve, after the initial release, the Associated Press reported that the DOJ had removed 16 files from inside Mr. Epstein's home, including a picture of Donald Trump. We understand that the Department of Justice has since restored the image of President Trump to this trove. What's the explanation they're giving for removing it and restoring it and what we're seeing now?

[G]

Yeah, I think the explanation that was given was that these were some photographs that had been marked or had been identified as potentially identifying victims. And so they. There was a second look that was taken, and then some photographs were restored in that case.

[D]

So these. But these removals have fueled a lot of theories that the Trump administration is trying to redact. Redact the president's name, trying to protect him in a way. Todd Blanch responded to that on Meet the Press. Let's listen to him, and I'll get your reaction.

[B]

Transparency act prohibits redactions, quote, on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.

[A]

Has anything been redacted on that basis? Absolutely, positively not.

[G]

And that's. And that's another trend that is just simply false.

[D]

So is the DOJ doing enough to assure the victims that there is no effort to cover something up, that the administration's not hiding something?

[G]

Well, clearly, based on the letter that you showed at the beginning, I mean, the victims aren't satisfied.

[F]

Right.

[G]

You know, and so I think, from their perspective, that that's not happening. You know, look, we can't see beneath the redactions, so you don't know exactly what's there, what is being not shown. And so that makes it difficult to assess. But clearly, there's lots of redactions, and there's also a lot more paper.

[D]

And give us a sense of what these files said about Ghislaine, Maxwell Epstein's associate?

[G]

Yeah, sure. I mean, what we see here is a grand jury transfer, a partial grand jury transcript in the, in the Maxwell case. And so that, you know, it mirrors a lot of things. Look, there was a trial, a public, very public trial in the Maxwell case already. So I think some of it will mirror and also shows you the kind of lead up to, to the trial itself.

[D]

Barb. The DOJ is now slamming critics that they say have not released all the files. Are, are they meeting the statutes of the law? It seems no.

[B]

The answer is no, they are not meeting the law. The Statute said that December 19 was the final deadline for producing all of the documents. Instead, what we got, according to Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch, is they began to roll out documents on that date. They have not completed that rollout yet. So there's still more to come. It wasn't a day to start the rollout. It was a day to complete it. It isn't best efforts a good try. It's the law. What they said is we assigned 200 DOJ personnel to review and redact these documents. Well, good for you. Maybe you needed to assign 300. It's the law. It wasn't a discretionary task. It's not like you're in school and you can ask your professor for an extension because you were sick that day. It was something they had to comply with. The other thing that I'll note here is the law does allow Attorney General Pam Bondi and her designees to redact material for certain reasons. Among them are ongoing criminal investigations. But I find that even a little bit suspect because. Are there any November? Well, in November, President Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to reopen the investigation and look at Democrats. And Pam Bondi said that's what she was going to do. Well, if she's redacting material relating to an ongoing investigation, then why is it all the documents we're seeing involve Bill Clinton, and why is it that they're clawing back a photo with President Trump? And so, because Pam Bondi, I think, in my opinion at least, has demonstrated that she is not independent of this president, but is here to serve his political interests. The presumption of regularity that the department ordinarily enjoys just is not flying here.

[D]

So, Barb, Congressman Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, as we've been discussing, say that they're going to launch this inherent contempt proceeding against the doj. And Pam Bondi, what does that actually mean? We discussed in the last hour? Would the DOJ then be prosecuting itself in this case?

[B]

You know, not really. Inherent contempt is an animal. We have not really seen Congress tried to use. There is criminal contempt, which requires DOJ to get involved and to prosecute. But Congress also has, theoretically, at least, this inherent contempt power where it itself is its own fact finder and decision maker. You may recall that there was some joke back in the first Trump administration that William Barr made to Nancy Pelosi. Did you bring your handcuffs? Because there was some suggestion that Congress was going to hold him in contempt at that time. It's a little difficult to imagine it actually happening. There's not any longer that I'm aware of a jail on the premises of the Capitol the way there used to be. But that's the threat, I suppose. Now, even if there is not contempt here, I do think Congress has a lot of power to call some of these officials, like Pam Bondi or Ty Blanch to Capitol Hill to testify under oath about what it is they redacted. They are required within 15 days of December 19th to produce a log showing the categories of documents that have been withheld. I imagine it might be wise to wait and see what that log says and then call them under oath to ask them to explain that to the American people.

[D]

Tara, before we go, I just want to ask you, one of the bigger revelations was that Maria Farmer, another one of Epstein's earliest victims, filed a federal child pornography complaint against him in 1996, and that investigators then ignored that until about a decade later. To you. You've been following this for a long time. Is that surprising?

[E]

A Mochi moment from Sadie, who writes, I'm not crying, you're crying. This is what I said during my first appointment with my physician at Mochi, because I didn't have to convince him I needed a GLP one. He understood, and I felt supported, not judged. I came for the weight loss and stayed for the empathy.

[A]

Thanks, Sadie.

[E]

I'm Mayra Amit, founder of Mochi Health. To find your mochi moment, visit joinmochi.com.

[A]

Sadie is a Mochi member, compensated for her story. It's not really surprising. Sadly, it was really hard for Maria Farmer after she made that complaint because Ghislaine Maxwell got wind of it and then threatened her life and she, you know, left the city. She was a thriving young artist and she fled out of fear because when you go to law enforcement and you expect them to take, protect you, protect the victims, and they don't, it leaves you vulnerable to the predators. And that's what happened to her. And she really suffered for it for the rest of her life. Not just her, but her sister. Annie, who was also molested by Glenn and by Epstein at Les Wexner at his ranch in New Mexico. And, you know, she was a pivotal witness in the Glenn Maxwell trial. So I feel like they're getting the honor and the due that they deserve for making that brave call. But to be a young person and to call the FBI, going up against very powerful people and not be heard is a. Is a horrible trauma that should never happen again.

[D]

Yeah, that takes tremendous fortitude. I know we will all be carefully watching to see what the DOJ possibly releases today. Vicky Ward, Steve Eater, Tara Palmeri, and Barbara McQuade, thank you all very much.

[A]

That was another episode of the Tara Palmary Show. Thanks so much for tuning in. If you like this show, please rate it, subscribe, follow, share it with all of your friends. If you want to support my independent journalism, go to tara palmari.com Sign up for my newsletter with a red letter. It's how you can support my independent journalism and get exclusive reporting straight to your inbox. Happy holidays to everyone. Thank you for tuning in. I know this is a dark subject that we're dealing with over the holidays. I'm really thinking a lot about the victims right now as they process what they are seeing, which is an administration that is not taking them seriously. Again, I want to thank my producer, Eric Abenate. I want to thank Abby Baker, who does my social media and research. I want to thank Dan Rosen, my manager, and Adam Stewart on the graphics. Thank you.