← UNBIASED Politics
UNBIASED Politics
February 5, 2026: Epstein Files Q&A Part II: Why Names Are Redacted, Other Names Mentioned, and More; PLUS Trump Suggests 'Nationalizing' Elections, Drawdown in Minneapolis, and More.
00:56:58
Loading summary
Transcript85 lines
- [00:00]
Host
You know, I've been thinking about what.
- [00:02]
Co-host
I want 2026 to look like and sure I have the usual goals like reading more, taking more me time, getting in the gym more, etc. But I have decided that I need 2026 to be the year of Comfy and fortunately I know just who to turn to for that. That is bombas.
- [00:19]
Host
They are going to help me bring.
- [00:20]
Co-host
Serious comfort to my everyday go tos and look. You know, comfier doesn't necessarily mean dressing down more or buying more loungewear. Comfy starts with the basics, the socks, the underwear, the T shirts. For instance, I want to get in the gym more in the new year, but good socks are key for a good gym session. You want cushion, you want durability, you.
- [00:41]
Host
Want something that'll wick the sweat away.
- [00:43]
Co-host
So a good base is key and you can count on Bombas for that. Even when it comes to footwear, BOMBAS has you covered. I don't know about you, but when I'm doing my spring cleaning around the house, I will be wearing my Sherpa Sunday slippers that feel like walking on clouds. They make cleaning just a little more enjoyable, you know, and I can't recommend them enough. Head over to bombus.comunbiased and use code UNBIASED for 20% off your first purchase. That's B O M b-s.comunbiased code UNBIASED at checkout.
- [01:15]
Host
Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics. Today is Thursday, February 5th. Let's talk about some news. First and foremost, the partial government shutdown is officially over. President Trump signed the $1.2 trillion spending package into law yesterday, which means that all departments of the federal government are now funded through September 30th, with the exception of the DHS. The DHS is currently being funded in temporarily through that continuing resolution that we've talked about.
- [01:52]
Co-host
So DHS funding is currently going for.
- [01:55]
Host
The next about two weeks, week and a half.
- [01:58]
Co-host
And in the meantime, Congress is going.
- [01:59]
Host
To have to agree to some sort of ICE reforms for Democratic lawmakers to get on board with funding the DHS for the remainder of the fiscal year.
- [02:09]
Co-host
And as we talked about in Monday's episode, Democratic lawmakers have mentioned a few.
- [02:14]
Host
Specific reforms that they're looking for. These include things like federal immigration agents.
- [02:19]
Co-host
Wearing body cameras, which we know in.
- [02:21]
Host
Minneapolis they will now do.
- [02:23]
Co-host
We'll talk about that more in a second.
- [02:25]
Host
Banning officers from wearing masks, ending roving patrols, mandating judicial warrants for arrests rather than simply administrative warrants, and then also.
- [02:35]
Co-host
Establishing a universal code of conduct that.
- [02:38]
Host
Governs federal law enforcement officers use of force. And so on Monday, shortly after the episode wrapped, DHS Secretary Noem actually announced that all DHS law enforcement officers deployed.
- [02:53]
Co-host
In Minneapolis would immediately start wearing body cameras.
- [02:57]
Host
So in a post on X, she wrote, quote, I just spoke with Tom.
- [03:01]
Co-host
Holman, ICE Director Todd Lyons, and CBP Commissioner.
- [03:05]
Host
Effective immediately, we are deploying body cameras.
- [03:08]
Co-host
To every officer in the field in Minneapolis. And as funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide.
- [03:16]
Host
We will rapidly acquire and deploy body cameras to DHS law enforcement across the country.
- [03:22]
Co-host
The most transparent administration in American history. Thank you, President Trump.
- [03:27]
Host
Make America safe again.
- [03:30]
Co-host
Then, in an interview with Fox News.
- [03:33]
Host
Digital, Noem said, quote, the Department of Homeland Security trains a lot of federal.
- [03:38]
Co-host
Agents already, and, and different agents have.
- [03:40]
Host
Body cameras that they wear already.
- [03:43]
Co-host
CBP has many officers that already have.
- [03:45]
Host
Body cameras on them. The problem was having the resources to get them on every agent and every.
- [03:51]
Co-host
Officer that's out there and then having.
- [03:53]
Host
The resources to do the analysts. I think she meant analysis and the storage of those videos and who can help us really utilize them. But our officers really want this, and the people want it. They want the relationship with their communities to know what all of the information that we need to have during these situations of conflict and violence. And we've seen that they can be very helpful in making sure that people know the truth of a situation and that we can get people help as soon as possible, end quote. When President Trump was asked about his thoughts on the decision to deploy body cameras, his response was, quote, well, it wasn't my decision. I leave it to her. They generally tend to be good for law enforcement because people can't lie about what's happening.
- [04:36]
Sponsor Voice
So.
- [04:37]
Host
So generally speaking, I think 80% good for law enforcement, but if she wants to do that, I'm okay with it. End quote. So as of now, we don't know if officers in Minneapolis are currently wearing the body cameras. Gnome did say that every officer on the ground in Minneapolis would be immediately issued body cameras. So it's. It's possible that they are wearing them as of today. We just don't have confirmation yet. The latest development, though, related to agents in Minneapolis came yesterday when Borders are Tom Homan announced the withdrawal of 700 federal Immigration Enforcement personnel from Minnesota. So in last Thursday's episode, I mentioned that Tom Holman had taken over in Minneapolis. Shortly after he arrived there, he held a press conference.
- [05:24]
Co-host
We talked about that press conference.
- [05:25]
Host
But at, at that press conference, he said that he had ordered officials from, from CBP and ICE to start working.
- [05:33]
Co-host
On a plan to reduce the number.
- [05:35]
Host
Of federal agents in Minneapolis. But he also said at that time that the execution of that plan is dependent on cooperation with local law enforcement. Cooperation meaning that local and county jails would work with ICE and notify ICE about detainees in custody that are eligible for removal. So Homan at the time said this type of cooperation would be a lot safer and it would reduce the need for agents on, on the street. So then at this follow up press conference that was just held on Tuesday, Homan said in part, quote, we currently.
- [06:07]
Co-host
Have an unprecedented number of counties communicating with us now and allowing ICE to.
- [06:12]
Host
Take custody of illegal aliens before they hit the streets.
- [06:15]
Co-host
More officers taking custody of criminal aliens.
- [06:18]
Host
Directly from the jails means less officers on the street doing criminal operations, end quote.
- [06:24]
Co-host
And I do.
- [06:25]
Host
I want to stop here just for a second. I want to say two things. Number one, the last time that I used the word alien to refer to immigrants, I got a few messages. So I just want to clarify. I am quoting Tom Homan here. Okay. Anytime I quote any official, I'm going to use their exact words. Some federal officials opt to use the word alien because it is a legal term under federal law. Under the Immigration and Nationality act, an alien is any person, not a citizen or national, of the United States. And I understand that some people prefer other less derogatory words. That's totally fine. I'm just telling you why some federal officials use the term alien. And just to give you a little bit more context there, George Washington was the first to use this term back in the 1700s with the alien Enemies Act. But in more recent years, it's become more controversial and politicized. In fact, in 2016, the Library of Congress said that it would no longer use the term illegal alien and and would instead replace it with terms like non citizens and unauthorized immigration. And then in 2021, President Biden went ahead and instructed immigration agencies to replace any use of the word alien or illegal alien with non citizen or undocumented immigrant. But that instruction from Biden didn't actually change the law. Right. So the Immigration and Nationality act still uses the word alien, which is technically the legal term. And the Immigration and Nationality act is the law that sets most of our immigration laws here in the United States. So just wanted to elaborate on that and provide some more context. Now, the second thing I want to make mention of is Tom Holman's approach to seeking, you know, cooperation from local jails. As we've talked about, Tom Homan was one of the top immigration officials under Obama. And this approach is something that he really focused on while working in the Obama administration, specifically this cooperation with local law enforcement because the Obama administration wasn't, it wasn't carrying out workplace raids or these on the street enforcement operations we're seeing today. Yet Obama deported more people than any other president in history. And this is the approach that the Obama administration really relied on, is taking, taking custody of people directly from jails. So Homan is taking the same approach here and today that he took while working under Obama. So just wanted to give you some context as far as that aspect of this story as well and why Homan is focused on this local cooperation from county jails and local officers. To get back to the Tuesday press conference, Homan said, quote, given this increase in unprecedented collaboration and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced, effective immediately, we will draw down 700 people effective today, 700 law enforcement personnel. During our efforts to identify and implement improvements of how operations are planned, conducted and managed, we identified a gap in regard to the use of body worn cameras. This was actually raised by the workforce when I started walking around talking to some people here. So some officers and agents had them, some didn't. That inconsistency was unacceptable. So we moved immediately to prioritize full body cam deployment in the city. I discussed this with Secretary Noem a couple of days ago, and she made the decision to deploy them. The plan is to deploy them nationwide, but it's a priority for this city right now. Again, this is smarter enforcement, not less enforcement for those who are not a national security threat or public safety risk. You, you are not exempt from immigration enforcement actions if you are in the country illegally. You are not off the table. Let me be clear.
- [10:19]
Co-host
President Trump fully intends to achieve mass.
- [10:21]
Host
Deportations during this administration and immigration enforcement actions will continue every day throughout this country. President Trump made a promise and we have not directed otherwise, end quote. So that was Homan's most recent press conference. Then a day after that, President Trump sat for an interview with NBC News. And the interviewer asked him about this decision to pull the 700 federal officers from Minneapolis and whether that was a decision that came from Trump himself. Trump responded in part, quote, yes, it did, but it didn't come for me because I just wanted to do it, end quote. Then Trump was asked, speaking in Minneapolis, what did you learn. And Trump replied in part, quote, I learned that maybe we could use a little bit of a softer touch, but you still have to be tough. We're dealing with really hard criminals. Criminals, end quote. So that is the latest out of Minneapolis. I should also mention that there will still be about 2,000 federal officers on the ground in Minneapolis, even after the drawdown of 700 personnel. Okay. On Monday, President Trump triggered questions when he seemed to suggest nationalizing elections. So he went on the Dan Bongino show, and he was talking about immigration, and he was alleging he dishonest and poorly run elections in some states. He said in part, quote, these people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally. And it's amazing that the Republicans aren't tougher on it. The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting in at least 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting, end quote. Now, Trump didn't say which specific states or jurisdictions he was referring to. He also did not elaborate on how voting could be nationalized or what that would look like. But after those initial comments, he was questioned about them again. During a press briefing in the Oval office on Tuesday, CNN's Kaitlan Collins asked him, quote, what exactly did you mean when you said that you should. That you should nationalize elections? And which 15 states are you talking about? Trump responded, quote, I want to see elections. Be honest. And if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it. Because, you know, if you think about it, a state is an agent for the federal government in elections. And I don't know why the federal government doesn't do them anyway. But when you see some of these states about how horribly they run their elections, what a disgrace it is. The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over, end quote. Collins then kind of pushed back. She said, you know, but the Constitution says it should be the states that administer elections. Mr. President, that's what the Constitution says. And then Trump replied, you know what? They can administer the elect elections, but they have to do it honestly. Okay, so let's talk about this. Under the Constitution, specifically the elections clause, elections are administered by the states. However, Congress does have some regulatory authority. So Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says the times, places, and manners of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. But Congress may at any Time, by law, make or alter such regulations. In other words, each state legislature gets to decide when elections happen, where people vote, and how elections are run for U.S. house and Senate races. But Congress can step in at any time and change or override those state rules by passing a law. And then when it comes to presidential elections, the Constitution says that even each state legislature decides how its presidential electors are chosen. So state laws determine how voting works.
- [14:14]
Co-host
For presidential elections just like they do for congressional elections.
- [14:18]
Host
But keep in mind, Congress does have some say in federal elections because of that clause that says Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations. Right. So while the Constitution leaves the actual running of elections to the states, the actual administering of elections to the states, it does give Congress the power to set national rules for federal elections. Now, that could mean that Congress, you know, maybe Congress gets more involved in elections by saying or by. By passing laws that require standardized ballot counting procedures, or passing a law that requires ballots to be handled and audited in a certain way, or maybe passes a law that imposes voter ID requirements for federal elections. This is something we saw with the SAVE Act. So Congress does have that authority. But the key distinction here is Congress can regulate the process, but states still carry it out and administer it. A full federal takeover of elections, where the federal government is running elections and administering elections, that would be unconstitutional. And in order for that to become constitutional, that would require a constitutional amendment. So, just to make it a little more clear, I'll give you a real world example. Congress could pass a law, let's say, in a hypothetical world, that says all states have to hand count all ballots for all federal elections and record them using X, Y and Z processes. The states would then have to hand count all ballots and record them using the specified processes. But in no world, under our current Constitution, could Congress step in and count the ballots, or have the federal government count the ballots, you know, or pass a law that says the federal government will count the ballots. That's part of the administration process of elections, you know, and. And the Constitution is clear that that role belongs to the states. So it's unclear what exactly Trump meant when he said we should nationalize federal elections. If he's hinting at replacing state authority entirely and, and having the federal government actually administer elections, that, of course, as we've said, would be unconstitutional. But if he's referring to Republican lawmakers enacting legislation to create more of a, you know, more of a federal federal regulatory baseline, like the SAVE act, for example, which would impose national proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration that would be more in line with the Constitution and something that, you know, an authority that Congress has rather than actually administering the elections. So hopefully that made things a little more clear. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the Supreme Court ruling allowing California to use its new congressional map. We'll also talk about the Clinton's agreement to testify before Congress. And then we'll get into the Epstein files and do part two of the Q and A.
- [17:18]
Co-host
Okay, guys, I've been waiting to share this ad with you because you know how much I love everything from Cozy Earth. And right now, now they are offering you guys one pair of pajamas for free with the purchase of another. And this is one of their best deals all year. So I need you guys to take advantage of it. So I specifically have their bamboo stretch knit pajama set and it is incredible. I have it in a few different colors. I can't get enough because they're just, they're lightweight, but they're so, so, so soft and cozy. And they're designed to keep your body temperature just right while you sleep. So obviously love it for that reason as well. And then right now they actually have some limited edition patterns for Valentine's Day that are so cute. But last time I checked, some of the sizes were already sold out. So just make sure you act quick if you want pajamas for the holiday.
- [18:06]
Host
Otherwise you really can't go wrong with.
- [18:08]
Co-host
Any of their pajamas. And they have so many options.
- [18:10]
Host
Short sets, pant sets, short sleeve sets.
- [18:13]
Co-host
Long sleeve sets, bra and boxer short sets like so many options. And for men there are also so many different options. In fact, this is actually a really good Valentine's Day gift for both men and women. And because they're buy one, get one, you can get one for you and one for your partner or one for you and one for your best friend or whoever. These viral PJs are so good they sold out during the holidays and now they're back with an exclusive deal only available January 25th through February 8th. Head to cozyearth.com and use my code UNBIASED BOGO to get these PJs for you and someone you love. That's cozyearth.com code UNBIASED BOGO. And if you get a post purchase survey, be sure to mention you heard about Cozy Earth right here. Celebrate everyday love with comfort that makes the little moments count.
- [19:02]
Sponsor Voice 2
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 dsw.com you know what nobody.
- [19:34]
Co-host
Tells you about weeknight dinner? It never goes away and it does not care that you have a million other things going on every single day around 6pm without fail, there it is again. You have a laundry list of things to do. But weeknight dinner? I'm sorry, it just doesn't care. It is always going to be there and that's why HelloFresh is so great.
- [19:52]
Host
Now I won't lie.
- [19:53]
Co-host
HelloFresh isn't going to make you a better cook, okay? But it will give you your nights back. And that's something I think most of us can appreciate. Because I'm not the world's best cook. I will never claim to be.
- [20:03]
Host
But when I get that box of.
- [20:04]
Co-host
Ingredients delivered straight to my door and inside that box is pre portioned ingredients and and the recipe cards for recipes that I personally picked out, I do feel like a 30% better cook. And I get my nights back. I made this homestyle chicken and Biscuit Pot Pie 1 one of the nights that it was just such a long.
- [20:24]
Host
Day of work and it was so.
- [20:27]
Co-host
Quick and easy to make and my husband loved it. Which in my eyes, like what more.
- [20:31]
Host
Could I ask for?
- [20:32]
Co-host
My husband loved it and it was a great meal. So, so all this to say I recommend using HelloFresh. Go to HelloFresh.comUnbiased10FM to get 10 free meals plus a free Zwilling knife, a $144.99 value on your third box. That's HelloFresh.comUnbiased10fm as in Unbiased10 free meals offer valid while supplies last free meals applied as discount on first box. New subscribers only. Varies by plan. HelloFresh.comUnbiased10FM welcome back.
- [21:08]
Host
The Supreme Court has allowed California to.
- [21:11]
Co-host
Use a new Congressional map that is.
- [21:12]
Host
Expected to give Democrats up to five additional seats in the House in the upcoming midterms. Keep in mind this was a one sentence order from the court. Okay? This was not a case where we had oral arguments and all of that, but I'll still give you the background. As we know states all across the country like Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Utah, Ohio and California have been redrawing their maps to try to win more congressional seats in the upcoming midterms. Every state has their own rules as to how they can do this. So in most states, congressional maps are drawn by the state legislature. The legislature draws the maps and then subsequently votes on the maps via the typical legislative process. And that's that. Naturally, what this means is that whatever party is in office can draw the district lines in a way that benefits their party. And that's generally legal. It's called partisan gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering is not legal. That's where the. That's where the map, the. The lines on the map are drawn based on race. But partisan gerrymandering, where the lines are drawn based on party affiliation, is generally permissible under current federal law. So some states use the typical legislative process to enact new maps. Other states, though, use independent commissions to draw their maps. And the independent commission is meant to basically take the political interference out of it, though it doesn't always work that way. California, though, is one of those states that has an independent commission, and it's been that way since 2010, when voters passed Prop 20 and took congressional redistricting, or the power to redistrict, away from lawmakers and gave it to this independent commission. Because California voters gave the power of drawing congressional maps to this independent commission and enshrined that in the state constitution. The legislature can't just simply take back the power when they want to. Right? To take back the power of drawing the maps, the legislature had to pass a constitutional amendment reclaiming that power. And that's what the legislature did. It was a ballot measure called Prop 50. It just passed in November. So after that ballot measure passed, the legislature was able to temporarily reclaim their power to redraw the state's congressional map until 2030. And that, of course, includes the map that will serve as the congressional map for the upcoming midterms later this year. But three days after that ballot measure passed, California Republicans tried to sue, or they did sue, to try to block the use of the new map. And they argued that the new map was unconstitutional because it relied too heavily on race in Drawing 16 of the Congressional districts that they said favored Latino voters. Now, the lower court turned down their request to block the new map. The lower court left the new map in place. The lower court found that, quote, the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming. End quote. So then from there, California Republicans went to the Supreme Court. They filed with the Supreme Court at the end of January, and they asked the justices to step in and block.
- [24:32]
Co-host
The new map while the case continued.
- [24:35]
Host
Through the appeals process. However, on Wednesday afternoon yesterday, the justices declined to get involved. It was a simple one sentence order. The court said, quote, the application for writ of injunction, pending appeal is denied, end quote. So to be clear about what happened here, the court did not rule on the constitutionality of the map. Right. Instead, what it said is, we're not going to step into this fight on an emergency basis. And by not stepping in, what that means is the lower court ruling stands and this new map can be used while the case moves forward in the lower courts. So what that means is California will use this new map in the upcoming midterms. The only thing that would change that is if this case proceeds through the appeals process and at some point before the midterms, either the appellate court or the Supreme Court rejects the map. But that appears to be unlikely. And I should also mention that this decision is not entirely surprising just because.
- [25:33]
Co-host
The Supreme Court has recently allowed both.
- [25:36]
Host
Democratic and Republican leaning maps in other states to remain in place while litigation continues. So it's just kind of looking like the court is, is a little bit reluctant to get involved in these disputes, these redistricting disputes on an emergency basis, unless there's, you know, a clear and obvious and immediate constitutional violation. Okay, switching gears a bit. On Tuesday, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into the federal government's handling of Jeffrey Epstein. So, as we talked about last week, the Clintons were subpoenaed back in August of last year, and those subpoenas requested sworn testimony. And the thing about subpoenas is that when you are subpoenaed, you have to comply. You don't really get a choice. I mean, you can choose to not comply, but then you. You risk going to jail. So there's that. Now, originally, Bill's deposition was scheduled for October 14th of last year, Hillary's for October 9th. Those dates ended up getting moved because the Clinton's legal team said that they had some travel and personal obligations. Bill was rescheduled for December 17th. Hillary was rescheduled for December 18th. However, the Clintons again were unable to appear, this time because of a funeral at that point, because their depositions had already been rescheduled once. The committee said that it would be willing to accommodate their request to postpone the deposition if the Clintons proposed alternative dates the following month in January. But the Clintons did not do that. So that is when the situation escalated and that is when we heard Chairman Comer say that if the Clintons failed to appear for their depositions in December or schedule a date for early January, the committee would start contempt of Congress proceedings. But the committee didn't end up doing that. Instead, the committee issued these follow up subpoenas. Bills was for January 13th, Hillary's was for January 14th. And then as we talked about last week, the Clintons refused to show up for those dates as well. They said the subpoenas were legally invalid. So after that refusal is when Chairman Comer initiated these criminal contempt of Congress proceedings against them. And last week the House Oversight Committee voted to advance the contempt resolutions against both Clintons passing the resolution against bill in a 34 to 8 vote and and against Hillary in a 28 to 15 vote. Now this vote, just to be clear, did not, did not find them in contempt. Right. What that vote did was advance the contempt resolution to the full House floor. So had the full House passed the resolutions, that's when they would have been found in contempt and the DOJ could have prosecuted them both. So once the resolution passed the committee with bipartisan support, the Clintons knew that both Republicans and Democrats were likely to be on board with the resolutions once it got to the House floor and they would likely be found in contempt. And that is when the Clinton's legal team reached out to the committee and offered to come to some sort of agreement regarding testimony. Initially, the Clinton's legal team proposed a four hour transcribed interview with Bill and a sworn statement from Hillary. But Comer refused that offer. Then later that same day, this was on Monday, it was reported that both Clintons were would appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates. The following day, on Tuesday, the agreement was finalized. And now we know that Hillary is scheduled to testify on February 26, bill on the 27th. Following that agreement, the House Republicans did go ahead and cancel the planned floor vote on contempt charges. So those charges are off the table for now. At this point, it's unclear whether the upcoming testimonies will be open to the public or held behind closed doors. The committee did not record request public testimony, but the Clinton's legal team has since proposed that. So we'll have to see what happens there. As far as what we can expect, the committee is bound to ask Bill about his personal relationship with Epstein. Hillary has not been directly tied to Epstein, so her questions will probably focus more so on what she knows about her husband's relationship with Epstein as well as what she knew, if anything, about the federal government's handling of its Epstein investigation. Because, remember, she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which was after Epstein was initially investigated. Now, that's not to say that she knows anything, because the Secretary of State doesn't really get involved with, you know, the DOJ or FBI that much, but it's just to say she might have some insight into potential failures or blind spots within the government. And we know from the committee's subpoena to Hillary that they are. Well, here's what I'll say. We have to remember that this, this specific investigation by the House Oversight Committee is investigating the federal government's handling of the investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. It's not so much about wrongdoing by the people that are appearing for testimony. It is about how the federal government handled its investigations. So that's why I said Hillary's questions will probably focus a bit on how the federal government conducts business when it comes to these things. Bill, his relationship with Epstein has been well documented through meeting records, flight logs, pictures, emails, etc. So his questions will probably go into his relationship with Epstein. If we had to, you know, put a bet on it. It is worth noting no Epstein victim or associate has ever publicly accused Bill of any wrongdoing. But of course, we do know they did have a relationship. So that is the deal with the Clintons agreeing to testify. And now we can get into part two of our Epstein Q and A. In Monday's episode, I covered the Epstein files release in significant detail. I included a background explanation of how we got here, why these files were being released. Now, all of that, I also did a listener Q and A. But I said then that we would do a more specific Q and A in today's episode. And by more specific, I just mean addressing some of the specific claims about specific people that are involved and, you know, kind of more so dispelling rumors. In fact, we're not doing rumor has it in today's episode. This is kind of serving almost like rumor has it as well. So let's get into it. First question, other than the President, what high profile individuals were named in the files and in what context was Zo Ron Momdani really in the files as a young child? Okay, so I know this person is asking about people other than the President, but if you are curious about what the files say about the President, I did cover that on Monday. So go listen to Monday's episode Once you're done with this episode, as far as other people go, we, of course saw pictures of Prince Andrew. Not surprising. We know that he and Epstein were close and Prince Andrew and has been very much so accused of sexual abuse. The one picture that's really making headlines from this new release is the one of him on all fours leaning over a girl who was laying on the ground. It's unclear what the context is there. I've seen some rumors about the girl being dead. We don't know that for sure. It's. It's just him laying on the ground or laying on all fours hovering over a girl that's laying on the ground and her face is redacted. We also saw emails exchanged between Elon Musk and Epstein. So in 2012, Epstein asked Musk how many people he would be bringing for the helicopter ride to the island. Musk responded it would probably just be him and his wife, and then asked which day or night would be the wildest party. That was in November 2012. In December 2012, Christmas Day, actually, Musk wrote to Epstein, quote, do you have any parties planned? I've been working to the edge of sanity this year, and so once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St. Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what I'm looking for, end quote. Then the following year, in a November 2013 exchange, Epstein asked Musk if he would come to the Caribbean for Christmas, saying Woody Allen would be there as well. And Musk responded, quote, unquote, yes. It has not been officially verified whether Musk went to the island, you know, after he responded, yes, but some are speculating that he did because in a later email from September 2014, Epstein asked Musk if he would join for Christmas again in St. Barts. Musk replied, quote, don't know, end quote. And then at the end of October 2014, Epstein's assistant sent a schedule reminder to Epstein that noted Musk is, quote, to go to the island on December 6, end quote. However, a subsequent email on December 5, 2014, had a schedule note saying, quote, reminder Elon Musk to Island December 6th. Is this still happening? Question mark end quote. Emails later in December 2013 show Musk and Epstein trying to plan some time together. Epstein ultimately says his schedule wouldn't allow him to make it to the island. Following the release of these files, Musk wrote, on X, no one pushed harder than me to have the Epstein files released, and I'm glad that has finally happened. I had very little correspondence with Epstein and declined repeated invitations to go to his island or fly on his Lolita Express, but was well aware that some email correspondence with him could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name. I don't care about that, but what I do care about is that we at least attempt to prosecute those who committed serious crimes with Epstein, especially regarding heinous exploitation of underage girls. End quote Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick spent time on Epstein's island with his wife and four kids back in 2012. Emails show that Lutnick's wife planned a visit for their family around the end of that year. She was communicating with Epstein's then assistant to coordinate travel. We also know Lutnick was invited for lunch with Epstein on his island that appears to have been on Christmas Eve in 2012. So it's possible that lunch took place while he was there with his family, but nothing's been confirmed. Lutnick had previously claimed in an interview last October that he and his wife cut ties with Epstein in 2005 as we know he was he was at Epstein's island in 2012. New York Giants Co owner Steve Tisch was found to be emailing with Epstein back and forth about various Girls and in one email from 2013 Tish said to Epstein, quote I just had lunch with your assistant's friend who I met at your house Wednesday morning. Very sweet girl. Do you know anything about her? End quote Epstein replied, quote no but I will ask. All confidential. I will get all info. Did you contact the great ass fake tit Redacted She's a character, short term, has an older boyfriend going to acting school, attend asks I am happy to have you as a new but obviously shared interest friend, end quote Tish then replied, quote thanks Jeffrey Curious to know about redacted I will contact redacted pro or civilian question mark Epstein replied, quote Send me a number to call. I don't like records of these conversations. End quote Epstein sent another email later on the same thread that says quote report report just in. You did very well. She wants to go to the play. She is a little freaked out by the age difference but go slow and wait. I will try to convince her not to return to Ukraine having her crying worked end quote Tish wrote back quote nice report, funny comment on crying end quote Tish also emailed about another woman in 2013 asking Epstein if she was quote unquote fun and Epstein replied that she is a quote civilian but Russian and rarely tells the full truth but fun. End quote. Other emails show Tish inviting Epstein to a Giants game Epstein inviting Tish to his island. In a statement since the release of the files, Tish said, quote, we had a brief association where we exchanged emails about adult women and in addition we discussed movies, philanthropy and investments. I did not take him up on any of his invitations and never went to his island. And as we all know now, he was a terrible person and someone I deeply regret associating with. End quote. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. When we come back, we'll talk about a few other people mentioned in the files and then we'll get to some more questions and answers before we finish with Quick Hitters.
- [38:38]
Sponsor Voice 2
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. 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.
- [39:03]
Co-host
When your company is growing fast, Order Fulfillment can make or break your success. Shipstation's intelligent driven platform brings order management, rate shopping, inventory and returns, warehouse systems and and comprehensive analytics all in one place. Shipstation has always had a special place in my heart ever since I used them for managing order fulfillment back when I had a cookie company. Because order fulfillment is no joke and I know a lot of you who work in e commerce know that. But with Shipstation, everything you need to manage you know, getting orders to customers is in one place. You can connect to over 200 sales channels and instead of five to seven disconnected tools, you can you have one. Ship station also compares rates across all major Global carriers like USPS, UPS and FedEx, including your own discounted rates if you have them to find you the best shipping option on every order. And you can get discounts up to 90% off. Ship station picks the carrier, finds you the best rate, prints labels in bulk and sends tracking updates.
- [40:03]
Host
It's.
- [40:03]
Co-host
It's a game changer. So try shipstation free for 60 days.
- [40:07]
Host
With free full access to all features.
- [40:09]
Co-host
No credit card needed. Go to shipstation.com and use code UNBIASED.
- [40:14]
Host
For 60 days for free.
- [40:15]
Co-host
60 days gives you plenty of time to see exactly how much time and money you're saving on every shipment. That's shipstation.com code unbiased. Shipstation.com code unbiased if you've never heard me talk about quints before, I'm sure you've heard someone talk about Quince because it is all the rage right now and for good reason. Quince is all about elevated essentials that feel feel effortless. And I love it because their pieces are designed for layering and mixing so each piece can be worn over and over again without looking like you're wearing the same exact outfit over and over again. The thing with Quint is that what they have is wardrobe staples, right? Things like 100% organic cotton T shirts and sweaters, premium denim that has a stretchiness to it, cotton cashmere blends everything you need for a wardrobe that'll actually stand the test of time. And the prices, you cannot beat the prices. Some of the pieces that I have been loving as we head into the spring months are the stretch cotton jersey fitted T shirt and the cotton cashmere ribbed tank. And then for men, I love the look of the organic cotton peak pillow and the 100% European linen drawstring beach shorts. Refresh your wardrobe with quince. Go to quince.comunbiased for free shipping on your order if you and 365 day returns now available in Canada too. That's Q-U I N C.comunbiased to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quint.comunbiased welcome back.
- [41:47]
Host
Before the break, we talked about a few of the high profile people mentioned in the new release of the files, but we do have some other people to discuss, starting with Dr. Oz. A transaction report shows that Epstein paid for the travel of Dr. Oz in two 2004. We don't know what that travel was for. The files also show that Dr. Oz sent Epstein an email in 2016, but that message is redacted so we do not know what it says. Katherine Rumler, who was White House counsel under President Obama and associate White House counsel to President Clinton, said in a December 2015 email that. Well, it was a 2015 email to a redacted recipient. We don't know who it went to, but she said that she adores Epstein and that he's like an older brother to her. She also received various gifts from Epstein over the years, including flowers, wine, an Hermes bag, $10,000 in Bergdorf Goodman gift cards, spa trips and an Apple watch. Ruemler has since said her relationship with Epstein was professional and that she regrets ever knowing him and has enormous sympathy for the victims of Epstein's crimes. Peter Attia, celebrity doctor and popular podcast host, was also in the files. According to a newly released statement from Atiya, his relationship with Epstein started in the summer of 2014 and ended in the spring of 2019. We know that, of course, Epstein died in the summer of 2019. Atiya says that in that time frame, he met with Epstein on seven or eight occasions at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse regarding research studies and to meet other people that Epstein introduced Atiya to. Atiya said he was not Epstein's doctor, but he did answer general medical questions for Epstein and recommended other providers to him. In one email in June 2015, Epstein sent Atiya a redacted picture to which Atiya responded, quote, please tell me you found that picture online, bastard. End quote. Epstein responded, afraid not. And Atiya replied, the biggest problem with becoming friends with you, question mark, the life you lead is so outrageous and yet I can't tell a soul. End quote. Now, Atiya has since said in that, in that statement that he released just, you know, within the last week that the redacted picture in that email was of an adult woman and that the subject line, which read fresh shipment was in reference to Metformin, which is a diabetes drug that Atia says Epstein was taking for anti Aging in 2016. Atiya wrote in an email to Epstein, quote, is indeed low carb, still awaiting results on gluten content though, end quote. The subject of that email reads confirmed in Atiya's recent statement. He said in part, quote, to be clear, number one, I was not involved in any criminal activity. Number two, my interactions with Epstein had nothing to do with his sexual abuse or exploitation of anyone. Three, I was never on his plane, never on his island, and never present at any sex parties. That said, I apologize and regret putting myself in a position where emails, some of them embarrassing, tasteless and indefensible, are now public. And that is on me. I accept the reality and the humiliation that comes with it, end quote. He then went on to explain that when he learned of the Miami Herald's investigative article in 2018, he was, quote, repulsed by what he had learned. He said, quote, at that point, I told him directly, meaning Epstein, he needed to accept responsibility for what he did. Hoping to provide the victims from the Herald piece with support, I contacted a residential trauma facility to understand what funding comprehensive care for many victims would require. Those communications were between me and the facility and were therefore not part of the document release. I spoke with Epstein and shared the information and insisted that he fund their care, beginning with residential treatment and followed by lifelong therapy. In hindsight, even attempting to facilitate accountability was a mistake and once again reflected just how naive I was at the Time. Once the full scope of his actions was clear, disengagement should have been the only appropriate response. My intent does not change that and I regret not drawing that boundary immediately. End quote. Richard Branson was also named in the files and pictured with Epstein on an island. Not Epstein's island, but some other island, possibly Branson's Island. In a 2013 email, Epstein thanked Branson for his hospitality and said, quote, I appreciate your public relations thoughts. Branson replied in part, quote, anytime you're in the area, would love to see you, as long as you bring your harem, you. And then, seemingly in response to the public relations remark, Branson wrote, quote, I think if Bill Gates was willing to say that you've been a brilliant advisor for him, that you slipped up many years ago by sleeping with a 17 and a half year old woman and were punished for it, that you've more than learned your lesson and have done nothing that's against the law since. And yes, as a single man, you seem to have a penchant for women, but there's nothing wrong with that. Anyway, something along those lines and end quote. Seemingly giving Epstein some advice on I don't know what to possibly say or what Bill Gates should say in relation to a falling out with Epstein. Not entirely sure there, but that's what it sounds like. A spokesperson for Virgin said Branson sent that email after hosting Epstein as part of a business meeting on Branson's private island and that Epstein had brought three adult women with him and that Epstein referred to those women as his harem, and that is why Branson used that term in the email. The spokesperson also noted that had Branson been aware of Epstein's illegal behavior, he wouldn't have used the word harem or been in contact with him. Now, another person we already knew had a relationship with Epstein is Bill Gates, but he is also in these new files. In an October 2009 email from Epstein or 2 to Epstein from publicist Peggy Siegel, Siegel said she had just left an after party at Ghislaine Maxwell's house for a movie that was actually directed by Zoran Mamdani's mom and that Bill Clinton, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates were all there then. As it relates to Gates specifically, there are of course, these two emails in the files that are raising questions, one of which suggests Bill caught an STD and and subsequently sought medication to give to his wife Melinda. And that actually kind of segues us into our next question. We'll revisit the people that are mentioned, but for now the next question is, did Bill Gates contract an STD and drug his wife Melinda without her knowing? So this is a claim that stems from an email that was written by Epstein himself. Okay, the subject line of the email is Bill, but it appears as if Epstein was writing the email on behalf of someone named Boris, but sending it to himself. So this is an email from Epstein to Epstein. Okay, but the email starts off with quote, dear Bill, I cannot believe you have chosen to disregard our friendship developed of over the last six years. I'm aware that accidents happen. It is how each of us has chosen to deal with this unfortunate event that has me dismayed beyond comprehension. You have decided to discharge me from my job, had Larry, your PR person, tell me that I engaged in morally inappropriate behavior, asked me to be the major actor in a cover up so you can maintain the reputation that you have worked so hard to achieve, asked me to recommit to a confidentiality agreement and have categorically told me that we cannot have any direct, ongoing business relationship, end quote. Then it says, quote, but you did agree to send a letter of recommendation should a future employer ask for one. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would have said, boris, this is not your fault, end quote. So again, it appears Epstein is writing this email on behalf of someone named Boris. And we know that a man named Boris was a former advisor to Bill Gates. But then towards the end of that same email, it says, quote, to add insult to injury, you implore me to please delete the emails regarding your std, your request that I provide you with antibiotics that you can surreptitiously give to Melinda, and the description of your penis. You also made it clear to me that I am not to refer to redacted as that is another topic that must remain between the two of us, end quote. So we don't know for sure whether Bill Gates contracted an STD and then tried to medicate Melinda, because, again, this is an email that Epstein wrote about this. You know, he wrote this claim in a draft email to himself, seemingly on behalf of someone else. So we don't really know the full context here, but in another draft email to himself with the same subject line, Bill Epstein wrote in part, quote, I have decided to resign my position effective immediately with BG3 and the bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I have been caught up in a severe marital dispute between Melinda and Bill. Pause real quick. Epstein didn't work for He. He didn't have a position with BG3 or the bill and Melinda Gayes Foundation. So this is not an email that he's writing on behalf of himself. This is, again, why we're saying it seems like he's writing on behalf of someone else. But the email continues. In my role as his right hand, Bill's right hand, I had been asked on multiple occasions and in hindsight, wrongly acquiesced into participating in things that have ranged from the morally inappropriate to the ethically unsound and had been repeatedly asked to do other things that get near and potentially over the line into illegal. And from helping Bill get drugs in order to deal with the consequences of sex with Russian girls to facilitating his illicit trysts with married women, to being asked, asked to provide Adderall for bridge tournaments. I feel I owe it to my friends and future colleagues to admit a moral failure to ask forgiveness and move on with my life, end quote. So that's where the claims are coming from. Now, a spokesperson for Gates called these claims, quote, quote, absolutely absurd and completely false and said, quote, the only thing these documents demonstrate is Epstein's frustration that he did not have an ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to, to entrap and defame. End quote. Now, keep in mind, there are thousands of other names in these files, okay, Including a ton of celebrities. Epstein was very, very well connected and knew a lot of people. So there are a lot of names. That doesn't mean that these people did anything wrong, did anything illegal. There are just a lot of names in these pages, okay, in these files. So people like Naomi Campbell, Bruce Willis, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Jackson, Cate Blanchett, Cameron Diaz, Kevin Spacey. All of these people are named in the files, but it's all. They were all named in passing in depositions sometimes, like, for instance, if a victim sat for a deposition and she. She said she met X person at X party X amount of years ago, like that person makes it into the files, right? But none of those people I just named, none of those celebrities I just named have been accused of any wrongdoing. And the last thing before we move on to the next question, I know there was a question about Zo Ron Momdani. A lot of you had this question, actually, and the question stemmed from this now viral picture showing Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Epstein Maxwell Momdani's mom and mom, Donnie himself as a young boy. That is a fake picture, okay? It came from a social media account that describes itself as a parody account. The profile says that it shares pictures created with AI to expose people who believe it. So it is a fake Picture. As I mentioned earlier, mom, Donnie's mom did have a party at Ghislaine Maxwell's house in 2009 for her movie Amelia. So, mom, Donnie's mom knew Ghislaine Maxwell, but the picture that Mamdani is in as a boy is fake. Zo, run. Momdani himself is not in these files. So I just want to be clear about that. Next question. Do we know what pizza is code for? Unfortunately, we don't. Unfortunately or fortunately? Who knows? I don't know, but we don't know what it means. There are several emails that reference pizza, which does seem to be a code word. We do not know what it stands for. So in one email, Harry Fish says to Epstein, what time do you want to get pizza and grape soda tomorrow? In an email from a redacted sender with the subject, the pizza monster, Epstein writes, she looks pregnant. The redacted sender responds, quote, you mean radiating with a soft glow with the look of bliss and excitement? Yeah, that's the pizza. End quote. In another email, someone named Daphne Wallace writes to Epstein, quote, may I bring in your slice of pizza to you? In another email, a redacted sender emails a redacted recipient writing, send pizza to Bobby. In another email from a redacted sender to a redacted recipient, the writer says, pizza party was great. We had a lot of fun, stayed late. We all slept in yesterday morning. Your night was good. Question mark. The subject of that email is spoof on Chandelier, the video I sent you with the amazing little girl dance. And there are hundreds more emails that reference pizza, but again, we don't know what pizza stands for. I'm pretty sure, though, as you can tell through those emails, it doesn't really sound like it stands for actual pizza, but we just.
- [55:32]
Sponsor Voice
We.
- [55:32]
Host
We don't have an answer there. And that actually brings us to the redactions. So we just talked a lot about redacted senders, redacted recipients, and many of you asked, why are their names redact, redacted, besides the victim's names? And that's a good question that I don't have the answer to. What I can tell you is that under the law, under the Epstein Files transparency Act, the DOJ was only allowed to redact records that contain personally identifiable information of victims, records that depict or contain child sex abuse materials, records that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, records that depict or contain images of death, physical abuse or injury to any person, or records that need to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are properly classified. The law specifically said that a record cannot be redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity. So assuming the DOJ followed the law, the only real exception that would warrant the redaction of names other than the victims would are if those individuals are part of an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, or if their names need to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are already properly classified. We don't know if either of those exceptions apply here, nor do we know with any degree of certainty that the DOJ followed the law. We do know that a DOJ official has said that any fully redacted names are of victims, saying, quote, in many instances, as it has been well documented publicly, those who were originally victims became participants and co conspirators. We did not redact any names of men, only female victims, end quote. The same DOJ official also said the FBI and law enforcement names were redacted as well. And a press release from the DOJ said some redactions were privilege based redactions, meaning the department withheld or redacted files covered by various privileges that exist under the law. So the deliberative process privilege, the work product doctrine, the attorney client privilege, things like that. Now the Epstein Files Transparency act also says that any and all redactions have to be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress. A summary of redactions made, including a legal basis, has to be submitted to Congress within 15 days of completion of the of the release. So if we're going Based off of January 30, the release date of these files, that means the DOJ has about another week or so to get that summary to Congress. And the DOJ acknowledged that it has to submit this report when it released the files on January 30. It said in its press release, quote, a formal report with a summary of redactions made and list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or named or referenced in the release materials will be submitted to the House and Senate committees on the judiciary within 15 days of today's release. If after that report is submitted, any member of Congress wishes to view personally all portions of the production in unredacted form, they are welcome to make arrangements with the Department to do so, end quote. So the DOJ has acknowledged that obligation. We don't know if we'll ever see the unredacted form. You know, as members of the public but yeah, that that report should be being submitted to Congress in the next week or so. Okay, Some quick hitters Ryan Ruth, the man found guilty of trying to assassinate President Trump on Trump's Palm beach golf course in 2024. He was sentenced to life in prison plus an additional seven years. Then Officials in Fulton County, Georgia, have asked a judge to order the FBI to return ballots and other documents from the 2020 election that the FBI seized last week. The motion that Fulton county filed is under seal, so we can't see what their legal basis is. The Washington Post said it would cut a third of its workforce. Executive editor Matt Murray called the move a strategic reset it needs to compete in the era of AI. Murray said the Post will close its sports desk, its Middle east desk, its book section, and suspend its podcast. The LA Times reported on Wednesday that LA's Mayor Bass was involved in altering the After Action report for the 2025 Palisades wildfire. Two sources who say they have knowledge of Bass's office told the LA Times that after receiving an early draft, she Mayor Bass told then interim fire chief that the report could expose the city to legal liabilities. Bass allegedly wanted key findings about the LAFD's actions removed or softened before that report was made public. It is worth noting the author of the report declined to endorse the final version. He had said at the time that there had been changes that altered his own findings and made the report, quote, highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards. End quote. And the mayor has denied these allegations. This last one. It's not really politics adjacent, but I know a lot of you are following the story as am I. So as of today at 1pm Eastern time, the Pima County Sheriff's Office has not identified a suspect or a person of interest in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. We did learn about a timeline though at today's press conference. So we know that you Nancy went to her daughter's house for dinner and got home around 9:48pm that's when her garage door opened. At 9:50pm her garage door closed. At 1:47am the doorbell camera disconnects at 2:12am Software detects a person on camera but there is no video. At 2:28am Nancy's pacemaker app shows who is disconnected from from her phone. At 11:56am the family checks on Nancy, discovers her missing and reports her missing at 12:03pm Sheriffs arrived on the scene about 12 minutes later and started the investigation. So that is what we know about the timeline again. No suspect, no person of interest. Okay, I know I promised critical thinking today since we didn't do it on Monday, but once again, I did not have time to get to it. So we will get back to it next week. I promise. Okay? I do mean it this time. Just with the Epstein stuff, things have just gotten. I mean, there's just too much to go over. So I just. I don't always have time at the end of the day to come up with questions and all of that. So that is what I have for you today. I hope you have a fantastic weekend and I will talk to you again on Monday.
- [62:26]
Sponsor 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 left entirely untreated. But it's time for a change. It's time for Mitty. Midi's not just a healthcare 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 clear to help all women thrive in midlife, giving them access to the healthcare 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 joinmidi.com today to book your personalized insurance covered virtual visit. That's joinmitty.com mitty the Care Women deserve.