[0:00]The US Department of Justice has told lawmakers it's released all the legally required files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. In a letter to Congress, the Justice Department
[0:10]described the redactions it made in the Epstein files. It also listed numerous high-profile people mentioned in the documents, even if some had no interactions with Epstein. Some
[0:22]lawmakers insist many significant files remain unpublished. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has accused the Trump administration of
[0:31]attempting to stall the full release. I spoke about this a short while ago with Scott Lucas, professor of American studies from the University College of
[0:41]Dublin. I asked him for his analysis of the Justice Department's claim that it has now released all Epstein files. it was required to >> uh the latest statement by the Justice
[0:53]Department and Attorney General Pam Bondi uh which was a legally required statement under the bill passed last November for the release of the Epstein
[1:03]files. It's an ongoing stonewall to try to protect um powerful individuals and that may include Donald Trump. The reason why I
[1:14]say this is that uh contrary to the notion that all the files have been released, of course, less than half have been released. 2.7 million pages were
[1:25]released about 2 weeks ago. More than 3 million pages were not released. Even in the 2.7 million pages that were released, there were many, many heavy
[1:34]redactions, including the names of those who might be potential co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. Uh the statement by bond day on Saturday follows her
[1:44]appearance last week at the House Judiciary Committee where she effectively refused to answer questions, refused even to look at the survivors of
[1:54]Epstein who were in that room and effectively insulted lawmakers if they tried to press her for further information. So no, this this should not be seen as some mistaken headlines have
[2:06]said that this is suddenly a complete revelation of everything around Epstein. Uh when you're talking about the Justice Department trying to highlight the name
[2:15]of Janice Jofflin, who died when Jeffrey Epstein was 17, uh this is a diversion which is actually trying to hide as it
[2:24]has been hidden for many months story. Well, Scott, I gather from what you're saying that you believe that something is being hidden. Uh, but do you feel that the release of files and memos to
[2:36]date is sufficient to maybe understand pretty much what went on in the Epstein case sufficiently? >> I I think I I think if you go to almost
[2:47]every survivor who has spoken out about this to their lawyers, they have said absolutely not. They have said that many of the testimonies of those uh survivors
[2:58]have not been released yet or have been heavily redacted. They have said that the names of men are being withheld in the files. Last week, finally, the Justice
[3:08]Department allowed uh some lawmakers to go in and see some of the files that had been released but had been heavily redacted. And even though those lawmakers could only see a small
[3:18]fraction of the files, they found the names of powerful men that had been hidden. And the ones that had been unredacted, for example, includes le Lexner, a retail magnet, 88 years old,
[3:29]who allegedly allegedly was involved uh in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. Uh there's the name of a shake uh that was also released. That shake has now
[3:40]resigned as the head of DP World, one of the largest container companies. I can also tell you that there is further information about Donald Trump uh which is probably withheld in the files by by
[3:50]chasing fragments that we have seen in the files that have been released so far. >> Well, I wanted to ask you specifically about Donald Trump because many people are talking about what is not known. And of course, it's very difficult to
[4:01]determine what is not known, but what is known? Let's talk about that. To what degree has President Trump himself been implicated in the Epstein files?
[4:12]the I I must stress at the outset there is no conclusive evidence yet that Donald Trump is implicated in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. However, there is
[4:21]one document that made it through and then was withdrawn for a while which was an 86page document with listing co-conspirators potential
[4:32]co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein. Another document that did make it through was a list of claims that were made to the FBI to be followed up about
[4:42]people who had been involved with Epstein in sexual abuse, even rape. And one of those claims, a serious claim, involves Donald Trump. That particular
[4:52]claim about Trump that he and Epstein were involved in the rape of a girl between 13 and 15, between 1983 and 1985
[5:01]was deemed so serious by the FBI that in 2019 they interviewed the alleged victim. They interviewed her a day before
[5:11]Epstein died in prison. The woman when according to the transcript is heavily redacted, but according to the portions of her interview with the FBI 2019, when she
[5:22]was shown a photo of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump, she became agitated and said, "Please crop the image of Donald Trump out of this photograph."
[5:32]So in that released document, she does not directly accuse Donald Trump of the sexual assault about which the FBI had had a tip, but she is agitated at the
[5:43]mention of Trump's name. At the end of that 302, the record of that investig uh interview, uh the witness asked to be excused, and the FBI is it will follow
[5:53]up soon with another interview with her. We do not know if that interview was conducted. >> Scott, thank you very much for talking to us again today. That was Scott Lucas, professor of American studies at the
[6:03]Clinton Institute University College Dublin. >> Thank you. >> Let's try and make sense of this with Jason Campodonia, who's a journalist
[6:13]with NBC News and iHeart Radio. He joins us from Los Angeles. Welcome, Jason. A lot of US lawmakers then disagreeing with the uh Justice Department's assertion that it's released all of
[6:24]these Epstein related documents. What's your reading? Well, this is turning into be a typical lawyer fight, right? So, one lawyer interprets the law this way, another
[6:36]lawyer interprets it this way, and a lot of the lawmakers in the United States are have some sort of law background. So, they're throwing everything that they can at it and hoping that that it
[6:46]it is interpreted the way they want it to be interpreted. Obviously, the the Department of Justice didn't interpret it interpret the uh transparency law uh
[6:56]the way that uh was intended when it was written. So now you have the typical okay this guy, you know, they're not doing what we're asking. But according
[7:06]to their interpretation of the law, they are doing what they're asking. So it really boils down to a bunch of lawyers in a room throwing mud at each other. One of the lawy the lawmakaker's biggest
[7:16]concerns are the missing internal uh justice department memos about why Epstein and his associates weren't charged earlier. How important are those documents to understand what really
[7:27]happened? >> Well, right now we don't know because they haven't been released, right? So, we don't really know how indepth and why they decided to prosecute some, not prosecute others. We're not exactly sure
[7:39]what those internal memos say at this point. What we what we do know and what we have learned over the past couple of months through the following this trial is that there are some massive names
[7:49]involved in this and they may have bigger implications than what uh what uh most people think. Uh presidents, lawmakers, CEOs, celebrities, all of
[7:59]these people are tied to Epstein somehow some way either through some sort of email, some sort of communication, they might have even been at a party. So you can't release some sort of internal memo
[8:10]if it just says, you know, celebrity A was at a party. That could have heavy implications in Hollywood for their livelihood, you know, and everybody that
[8:20]that money touches. And it really will boil down to where does the money lie and and and how how does it affect the
[8:30]US and basically the world? uh if this if these internal memos are released, there might be some heavy implications. So they they're trying to be very careful as far as I can tell.
[8:42]>> So we have these millions of files mixing political figures and people who had almost no real con connection to Epstein even as you say celebrities. So
[8:53]how then do we make sense of these names? you know, the head of the LA 28, the Olympics 28 coming here to Los Angeles, Casey Wasserman, high flutin, high
[9:04]talent, you know, talent agency manager. This guy has been drugged over the coals, but all we know is that he sent a couple of emails to uh Epstein's
[9:15]girlfriend, Gain Maxwell, and that's all we really know right now. That, like you said, there's millions of pages of documents that we have to comb through. So, if he was involved in some sort of
[9:26]illicit behavior, I'm sure the Department of Justice would have uh you know, uh brought charges against him, but right now it's it's nothing. But now he's selling off his talent agency under
[9:37]pressure, under public pressure. And the LA28 committee has said, "Hey, look, we've reviewed Wasserman's involvement, so it's okay." But guys like Chris Tucker, celebrity,
[9:49]he's a comedian. uh he was pictured next to Epstein at a couple of parties. It's rich guys doing rich things and that should be okay. If you're at a party and there's a bad guy at a party, well, you
[10:00]didn't know that guy was going to be at the party. So why why should you be held accountable? So I think that the general public really needs to just cool their jets and see see what comes out of all of these internal memos if they're ever
[10:11]released and exactly what sort of criminal behavior may or may not have taken place. >> Thanks Jason. journalist Jason Campidonia from NBC News and iHeart Radio.
[10:21]>> Thank you.