[0:03]and images related to the investigations and prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. I'm here today to talk about the department's compliance with its production obligations under the Act. Around, I think right now and
[0:19]continuing throughout the day to day as the indexing and uploading completes, we are producing responsive materials under the Act. We are also releasing today a letter. We are transmitting to Congress and various
[0:34]internal protocols associated with our review. I want to take a moment to thank the professionals of the Department of Justice who met twice daily, sometimes more, for the last 75 days to get to where we are today.
[0:49]The leadership teams from the Office of the Attorney General, from the Deputy Attorney General's Office, the Associate Attorney General's Office, the Criminal Division, the National Security Division, the FBI, the Southern District of Florida, the Southern
[1:04]District of New York, and the Northern District of New York all gave up many hours every single day on top of their other, of course, full-time obligations to fulfill the President Trump's promise of transparency to the American people.
[1:20]I also want to thank the more than 500 lawyers and professionals across all those divisions that I just mentioned and others who worked long days, nights, weekends, Christmas, New Year's Eve, New Year's Day, nights, weekends, and holidays to complete
[1:36]this production. These highly trained reviewers spend their careers putting bad guys in jail and effectuating the mission of the department. And to a person, they work tirelessly
[1:52]to protect victims and comply with the Act since its passage. So thank you to all of them. Today we are producing more than 3 million pages, including more than 2,000 videos and
[2:06]180,000 images. In total, that means that the department produced approximately 3.5 million pages in compliance with the Act. Just a quick note about the the videos and images. The 2,000 videos and 180,000 images are
[2:25]not all videos and images taken by Mr. Epstein or someone around him. They include large quantities of commercial pornography and images that were seized from Epstein's devices, but which he did not take or
[2:40]that someone around him did not take. Some of the videos though and some of the images do appear to be taken by Mr. Epstein or by others around him. Now I want to talk for a few minutes about the department's document identification
[2:55]and review protocols. It consisted of multiple layers of review and quality control designed to ensure compliance under the Act and protect victims. On top of the review protocols
[3:11]that the department had in place, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York employed an additional review protocol to ensure compliance with a court order requiring United States Attorney Jay Clayton to certify that
[3:26]with respect to certain materials, a large quantity of the materials, a rigorous process was undertaken to protect victims against any clearly unwarranted invasion of their personal privacy. The department's collection effort resulted in more
[3:43]than 6 million pages being identified as potentially responsive, including department and FBI emails, interview summaries, images, videos, and various other materials collected and generated during the various investigations and prosecutions that the Act
[3:59]covered. We erred on the side of overcollecting of materials from various sources to best ensure maximum transparency and compliance, which necessarily means that the number of responsive pages is significantly smaller than the total number of pages
[4:13]initially collected. That's why I mentioned a moment ago we're releasing more than 3 million pages today and not the the 6 million pages that we that we collected. I want to address what we didn't
[4:30]produce. The categories of documents withheld include those permitted under the Act to be withheld, files that contain personally identified information of victims or victims personal and medical files, and similar files, the disclosure of which
[4:45]would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Any depiction of CSAM or child pornography was obviously excluded. Anything that would jeopardize an active federal investigation. And finally, anything that depicts or contain images
[5:02]of death, physical abuse, or injury also not produced. Although the Act allows for withholding for items necessary to keep secret in the interest of national security or foreign policy, no files are being withheld
[5:16]or redacted on that basis. Further, as we previously stated in our December 19th letter of last year, the Department withheld or redacted files contained covered by various privileges as we always do, including deliberative
[5:31]process privilege, work product privilege, and attorney-client privilege. As you all know, under the Act, the Department must subsequently submit to the House and Senate committees on the judiciary a report listing all categories of records released and withheld, a summary of
[5:47]redactions made, including the legal basis for such redactions, and a list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the Act. We will do so in due course as required under the Act.
[6:01]I want to talk for just a moment about the redactions that will be obvious to anyone who reviews the materials that we just produced today. In addition to the documentary redactions, which includes personal identifying information, victim
[6:18]information, and other privileges, there is extensive redactions to images and videos. To protect victims, we redacted every woman depicted in any image or video with the exception
[6:31]of Ms. Maxwell. We did not redact images of any men, unless it was impossible to redact the woman without also redacting the man. To this end, though, and to
[6:46]ensure transparency, if any member of Congress wishes to review any portions of the responsive production in any unredacted form, they're welcome to make arrangements with the Department to do so, and we're happy to do that. I want to talk for a minute about something that
[7:01]is important. Every single day of the year, the Department of Justice investigates and prosecutes those who abuse and traffic young women and children. Just last year, the FBI located over
[7:19]2,700 victims of child exploitation. The Department of Justice found and terminated 3.8 million dark web pedophile accounts. In August, we charged 11 defendants for extensive sex
[7:35]trafficking in Los Angeles of illegal immigrants and underage women. Last month, we charged five men who were engaged in a sadistic extortion network of deranged young men abusing women. Over the past several months last summer, an
[7:51]end of the fall, we executed Operation Restore Justice, rescuing 205 child victims and arresting 293 offenders. I point this out because I take umbrage at the suggestion, which is totally false, that the
[8:06]Attorney General or this department does not take child exploitation or sex trafficking seriously or that we somehow do not want to protect victims. We do. There are some select members of Congress and some in the public eye, including those most
[8:23]critical of our efforts at full transparency under the act, who remain silent as to all the work that we have done and continue to do every day in this space. While quickly pointing a finger at the Attorney General or this department because we were
[8:40]careful in our review of millions of pages of documents over the past two months, the Attorney General, the director of the FBI and our partners throughout this administration work hard every single day to protect the most vulnerable among us.
[8:56]With the production of this magnitude, mistakes are inevitable. We, of course, want to immediately correct any redaction errors that our team may have made. And so the department has established an email in the inbox for victims to reach us directly to correct
[9:12]redactions and any concerns when appropriate. That's been in existence since December, and we've been doing that since then. Finally, a very small portion of the documents collected pursuant to the act include materials
[9:29]that a law firm produced to the SDNY in 2019 pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. This was during the criminal investigation of Ms. Maxwell. We determined it would be prudent to seek an order from the court in the southern district of New York, seeking production of these
[9:44]materials subject to the protective order in that civil lawsuit. To that end, the department has filed that motion with the appropriate judge in the SDNY, and if that motion is granted, we'll release those materials with appropriate redactions immediately.
[10:01]Today's release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act. The department has engaged in an unprecedented and extensive effort to do so.
[10:15]After submitting the final report to Congress as required under the act and publishing the written justifications for redactions in the federal register, the department's obligations under the under the act will be will be completed.
[10:31]Joining us now, Ms. Now is Fallon Gallagher, Peter Baker, Chief White House correspondent for the New York Times and an MS Now contributor and Dave Ehrenberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County. Fallon, let's start with you. What else did we hear from Blanche? And I know we're still combing
[10:46]through this trove of documents. Yeah, Ariel, we learned a significant amount of information during this press conference. But the biggest headline is that the Department of Justice believes that they have met their obligation and that their work is complete under the Epstein Transparency Act, that this new drop of
[11:03]three million documents is everything that they feel that they need to deliver. Now, there is one caveat. They said that there could be a small amount of documents that we could get. They're working with the Southern District of New York, asking a judge to unseal the grand jury material related to the 2019 investigation and eventual
[11:18]indictment against Galain Maxwell. But there are a number of headlines here. The biggest thing is that Todd Blanche is saying that there is no super secret tranche of additional documents, that this is everything. They said that any claims that the DOJ is
[11:35]working to protect the president is not true. We know that in this new trove of documents, which we are still reviewing, there are a number of them, is that they have decided to redact every single woman. This is a departure from something that we saw in the first trove of documents.
[11:50]There were women who were apparently not victims, who were not redacted. They then, you'll remember there were some mistakes. They had to go back and remove some documents because they needed to redact them because they were concerned that they were releasing identities of victims. This time, they have decided to just
[12:04]redact everybody. The one really notable thing there is that they are also redacting men if the men's presence in a photo or a video or anything otherwise makes it impossible to redact the identity of the woman.
[12:20]There is a possibility that we could see some men redacted in this new drop. But we also know that Todd Blanche is saying that there are probably not any new men who would be convicted of wrongdoing here and that if they do discover any, they would of course prosecute them.
[12:36]But again, we are still going through these documents. It is a very large volume of documents, three million. This will take our team some time, but as soon as we have anything reportable, we'll bring it right to you. Ariel? Thanks so much, Fallon. I know you'll stick around
[12:48]for that. Lisa, we now have our senior legal reporter, Lisa Rubin with us. Lisa, you know, Blanche was adamant, as Fallon mentioned, that the DOJ is not protecting President Trump. I don't know if we have the sound that we can play there of him talking about this.
[13:02]We have it. Okay, in the meantime, it was... Or not protect anybody. I mean, I think that there's a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not
[13:18]think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. So essentially alluding to the fact that no matter what's released at this point, it's not going to satiate those out there that just want to see names, they want to see photos, they want to see all of this. What do you make of Blanche's comments specifically
[13:33]when it comes to the president and what we may or may not see here? I don't think that's a fair comment. And I'm going to try and be measured in my words, Ariel, because as I was discussing during our last hour with Ana Cabrera, the very existence of the Epstein-Files Transparency Act is a
[13:48]product of a reversal by the Department of Justice. Trump came into office aligned with a whole movement of people that believed that there was a massive conspiracy around Jeffrey Epstein and the suppression of evidence and information about his sex trafficking ring.
[14:02]And they encouraged those voices. They told those voices that they would be listened to, and they promised that files related to Jeffrey Epstein would be released. And indeed, when they came into office, they initiated a process of reviewing these documents. They brought in people from the FBI and
[14:18]people from the National Security Division at the Department of Justice. We know this because multiple publications reported on this rampantly throughout the spring. And then sometime in or around May, Deputy Attorney General Blanche and others
[14:32]told the president about instances in which his name had come up and those of people close to him had come up. And somehow that resulted in a memo unsigned in July of last year where the FBI and the Department of Justice essentially told us there's nothing more to see here.
[14:47]We don't believe it's in the public interest for us to release anymore. Somehow in Mr Blanche's mind, that's from transmogrified into a we were legally not able to release anymore until the Epstein Files Transparency Act was put into place. That's also not true.
[15:02]They did need judicial permission to release some small modicum of what we're going to see things that were grand jury materials or otherwise produced in discovery in the two criminal cases. But other than that, this is a situation largely of this administration's own making and a
[15:19]miscalculation politically by them of the hunger that they themselves stoked for more information about Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and the sex I did find that relatively notable that Blanche seemed almost annoyed that this topic
[15:33]had come to the forefront during this press conference and when he was pressed on it and that it just like you're saying this came from members of the president's own orbit from podcasters and the like. Yeah, his peak was particularly upsetting to
[15:48]watch because it came out in response to a question about the survivors frustration. And Mr Blanche seemed to say, I am just as frustrated as they are almost justifying that he was more frustrated with more of a right to be frustrated.
[16:03]He is not equally situated here. I appreciate that professionally. This must have been quite an ordeal for him and others at the Department of Justice. And I also appreciate his point that there are some conflicting goals embedded in the Epstein Files Transparency Act, produce them immediately and also
[16:18]ensure that all victim identifying information is redacted. Those are two things that are hard to meet at the same time. And yet he is not similarly situated to the survivors. Their request for justice, their demand for information is one that he could
[16:32]have accommodated much earlier and without a congressional enactment. Okay, so Dave, speaking of the survivors, Blanche made it clear that there were redactions here is Fallon reported there were redactions of women who may have been survivors, victims of Jeffrey Epstein
[16:46]other than Ghislaine Maxwell. She will appear in some of these documents. No images of men will be shown that would otherwise compromise the survivors, but no images of men will also be redacted in the release here.
[16:59]What do you make of all of this and how the D. O. J. Is handling it? The big question for a lot of people is where are the co conspirators? Those names are the ones that everyone wants. And until we get those names, people are going to be dissatisfied. Remember that we were supposed to get an Epstein client list.
[17:13]There was never an Epstein client list, but there are names of co conspirators in the files. Will we see those? So far we have seen all those names redacted except for Jean-Luc Brunel, who died of suicide, Ghislaine Maxwell, who we all know, she's already been
[17:27]convicted, so you can release her name and Leslie Wexner. And we don't know why Leslie Wexner's name was unredacted while all the other alleged co conspirators were redacted. So there seems to be up to this point, no rhyme or reason why some names are there, others are not why
[17:42]some pages are entirely redacted all black all over the pages while some are just pinpoint redaction. So hopefully we can have a more consistent approach now. Are you surprised that there are six million documents that are just now coming into focus? The D. A. J. D. O.
[17:55]J. Is acted surprised that they're just now discovering this tranche of documents? Yes, I wonder about the organization of all this. You remember they discovered a million plus documents that came from the Southern District of New York that were supposed to be transferred over to main justice.
[18:10]So you know, these are all questions out there, and that's why we're right to ask Todd Blanch and others why the slow roll? Are they trying to cover something up? And now he's out there saying, absolutely not. We're not trying to protect the boss here. We're just gonna be releasing him as soon as
[18:25]we're practically able to because they had manpower issues. But you can see why people are not giving them the benefit of the doubt. Peter Blanch said any member of Congress who has issues with what they're gonna see today can take these unredacted files and go to, uh, to the
[18:42]Department of Justice and ask questions can get more information. What will you be watching for as far as how lawmakers approach what they see from the J. At this point? Well, we'll see if any of them actually take them up on that. You know, I've seen a number of occasions
[18:55]where members of Congress have been asked were offered the opportunity to look at documents and then they don't actually take it up. They'd rather just talk about it without doing the homework. But you know, what's fascinating here is David just talking about was this word of the, uh, the
[19:10]mistrust, I think of this Justice Department and this administration on this issue because, in fact, as Lisa said, they could have done this a lot earlier. You have these people, including the president United States, who have fomented the idea that there was something here, a conspiracy until they
[19:25]got into office and suddenly they were the ones responsible for it. Todd Lynch said that just now that they had originally, uh, identified six million documents, uh, for this release and then decided really, it's only three million that they paid
[19:42]you. Sorry that the six million was an example of over collecting and decide. And he decided that they've decided that really only three million are actually responsive to the law that Congress passed. Okay, that may be the case. We don't know because we're not in there.
[19:54]But let me ask you this. What would Donald Trump, who was not president, say about that? What he would say about that is, aha, there's something in secret in those three million pages that are not releasing. You know he would, because that's the kind of thing he often did. Uh, and now he's on the other side of that equation,
[20:11]asking people to trust him when he would not have trusted Justice Department had he not been the president. Peter, what do you make of the fact that Blanche is the face of this and Pam Bondi is nowhere to be seen at this moment? Yeah, fascinating, right? She was not the one they're taking questions
[20:26]today. Obviously, that indicates some sort of, you know, continuing friction with her from the White House. They have not been happy with the way she's handled this. The president does trust Todd Blanch. Todd Blanch, of course, had been his personal attorney. Uh, and that's why when Todd Blanch says, Oh, the White House has nothing to do
[20:42]with this, it's a little hard because, in fact, he is somebody who literally worked for Donald Trump as his personal lawyer and was installed as a deputy attorney general because the president wanted somebody who was loyal in there. And so whether or not the White House was
[20:56]directly involved in the specific redactions or the specific decision making about this president Trump knew he had somebody in Todd Blanch as the deputy attorney general that he trusted. And that's why I think a lot of people out there who are looking for, you know, a neutral
[21:12]handling of this are not satisfied. There's new Epstein files out the D. After blatantly breaking the law that Trump side has now released 40 days after the deadline, three million new pages and over 100,000 pictures.
[21:31]Today's release marks the end of a very comprehensive document document identification and review process. After submitting the final report to Congress as required under the act and publishing the written justifications for redactions in the federal
[21:46]register, the department's obligations under the act will be will be completed. This has been a saga and story where both things are true. There has been rampant delay and violations of the plain letter of the law.
[22:00]On the other hand, for the cynics who said, well, maybe they'll just run out the clock forever and nothing else will ever be released against the precedent of secret grand jury materials and J.'s general practice of secrecy. And that runs back through both
[22:15]parties. A lot of material, the millions of documents were released today. The deputy attorney general also spoke about whether he's covering up for his boss. I can assure that we complied with the statute. We comply with the act and there is no, um, we did
[22:32]not protect President Trump. My team has certain communications with the Let me just be clear. They had nothing to do with this review. They had no oversight over this review. That's the claim by a D.
[22:46]There. There were tips that involve accusations. That doesn't mean proof regarding whether Epstein and Trump participated in sexual abuse or crimes together. There's not clarity on whether that lead was followed. Other tips include things where news articles are
[23:02]simply forwarded by Epstein. I'm gonna show you more of that emails where Epstein discusses Trump, something we knew about. There is an important chart I want to show you from inside the federal government. This is new. We hadn't seen it before.
[23:15]Partially redacted. But as you see, this is the J. Looking at what they call the agents, accountants, authorized individuals, associates, redacted employees.
[23:29]Take it for what you will. But some of these people might have been charged. Only Maxwell was. Elon Musk also outed for the first time in detail in these files because he writes to Epstein about trying to come visit the island and
[23:47]specifically says, What will be the wildest party on your island? What does wild mean when you're talking to this pedophile? Well, that's open, I suppose, to interpretation. A year later, there was an effort to coordinate an island visit with Epstein telling Musk he'd send
[24:00]a helicopter. Again, these are the emails we have. We cannot say whether that visit transpired or certainly whether any crimes occurred. You might recall that Trump's Commerce Secretary said Epstein was a blackmailer and
[24:14]talked openly about him last year. Turns out there are more hidden contacts between the two. An individual defy reference there, I should say, is Mr Lutnick refers to an email about them getting together.
[24:28]This is after Lutnick claimed he severed ties. We should note that Lutnick publicly distanced himself. And in that planning, it appeared that Lutnick was on a trip with his wife. The DOJ says this is the last of the files they'll release.
[24:41]They'll release. We should note three million is a lot less than the six million that prosecutors at the DOJ had initially said they had. So is this a full release or not? That question looms large over what is a
[24:54]ton of new documents. We are joined by Tara Palmieri, a veteran journalist, author of The Red Letter and host of The Tara Palmieri Show podcast, where she's covered exactly this story for a long time. Let's start with what's new.
[25:10]We can't get through all the documents today. But what jumps out to you today in the new files? I think the fact that President Trump's inner circle is just so deeply entangled with Jeffrey Epstein, more so than they were ever willing to admit.
[25:26]The fact that Elon Musk would tweet, you know, President Trump is going to get blown up in the Epstein files. And yet here he is arranging to go on the island on a night that would be, you know, a party island. Howard Lutnick going out of his way to say he went into Epstein's house once with his wife and was horrified
[25:41]by it. Yet he was arranging to go to his island. So it's just like these people, they had such hubris, they had no problem lying about their extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
[25:56]And obviously, there's a lot of really concerning tips about Donald Trump in this in these documents that we don't know if the FBI actually followed up on or did any investigating. They have maintained their position since June that there were no other men involved in the sexual
[26:12]assault of a thousand women. And those young girls, now women, many of them have filed lawsuits, civil lawsuits because they couldn't do it criminally because the statute of limitations or they had, you know, various settlements. Ghislaine Maxwell said there were 25 men that signed
[26:28]settlements with one claim tip alone. And so we're supposed to believe that the Department of Justice actually did a real investigation on this. It's just and we're just seeing a bunch of tips, some very disturbing about the president, but we don't
[26:44]know if they ever even took them seriously. Mm hmm. Yeah, I mean, Donald Trump's the current president and he has known ties to Epstein. So a big part of these new files today, number one, is the heat that puts on him and as you say, his allies.
[26:58]I mean, Elon Musk is a was a recent Trump special employee, a kind of a super cabinet official. So those are big questions. Number two, the questions at the DOJ implicate the Trump administration, which was in charge when Epstein died, but also prior and later DOJs under
[27:14]Democratic administrations. We'll pull up the chart again from the lead. I mean, I have it. It's one of the things I immediately printed to really study because without disfavoring or biasing people, because there's there's much we don't know the fact that this many individuals were
[27:31]tied to Epstein in ways that the DOJ at the time viewed as authorized agent associate people with potential knowledge, people, as you know, redacted. And the only one charges Maxwell. Tara, how do you view that in terms of a report card
[27:46]for DOJs in both parties? Appearing to go softer on these now known associates than than many other targets for crimes that were, frankly, lesser crimes in America.
[28:03]It seems like they've just given up on it altogether. They they have I mean, before June, they said they were active leads when you spoke to the Justice Department. Pam Bondi said she's got the Epstein lead list on her desk. Then afterwards, there's no one else involved.
[28:18]And it's really disheartening for the victims because they were hoping that with the Epstein files coming out, they would have a sort of immunity in a sense where it would be public the names of the people that abuse them and the information that they submitted.
[28:32]They wanted to feel like it wasn't their burden. They wouldn't have to deal with defamation suits. Virginia Dufray obviously had to deal with a ton of defamation suits. It's a friend with a calendar for speaking out. I'm only jumping in with the minute we have left. Yeah. If we if we say that the evidence suggests
[28:49]maybe first term Trump DOJ fell down on the job. Then isn't it the job of the next DOJ under Merrick Garland to pick up the leads? And the one before that, I mean, he was 1996, the first call went in about Jeffrey Epstein from
[29:07]Maria Farmer about her and her sister being sexually molested. And every single time he uses high ranking officials, his contacts, the Obama's former White House counsel, Kathy Remmler, was giving him advice on how to deal with an accusation against Donald Trump.
[29:24]I mean, that is how high up Jeffrey Epstein was connected to all of these administrations. And that is why he got away with one of the most perverse crimes for three decades. And do I ask you about one individual who did show up in these documents? You might know him.
[29:38]His name is Elon Musk. Just reading a few Elon Musk emails to one, Jeffrey Epstein in 2013, by the way. So this is not this is after he was a convicted sex offender and after much had been made of the kind of individual this was
[29:53]and the sorts of things he done. He's saying that it's going to be him and to Lula, his then girlfriend. What day night will be the wildest party on your island? Asking Jeffrey Epstein, like, when is the wildest party on Epstein Island going to be?
[30:07]He also said we'll be in BVI St. Bart's area over the holidays. Is there a good time to visit? Jeffrey Epstein says any day, first through eighth. Play it by ear if you want. Always space for you. And also, Elon Musk gave him a tour, apparently, at Space X.
[30:26]When can Elon Musk meet J.E. at Space X? So it does seem like the two men had perhaps more contact than previously was realized. Listen, this is what I will say.
[30:41]We have and I will say that oversight Dems, we've maintained from the very beginning that no matter who it is, we want to ensure that there is accountability, whether that person is a Democrat or a Republican or a prince or a president.
[30:55]Right. My issue is, is that when, you know, Elon Musk or President Trump shows up in these in these files, you know, there's a deafening silence. But when it's, you know, other folks, you know, there is this rush to say, listen, we're telling you, it's
[31:07]a Democratic thing. This is what makes me think that they are not being honest, that they're not being that they're not just being serious about real accountability and about true transparency. There should be more of a push to make sure that
[31:20]we're bringing them in. The Republicans, when we got that subpoena back in July, they were intent on making sure that we also subpoenaed other people. They did not subpoena. They have not yet subpoenaed Elon Musk. They have not subpoenaed the president himself.
[31:36]And these are all people who we now know are in the files. I would like them to keep that same energy so that we can actually get to the bottom of this. And I want to be very clear here. There is no accusation of wrongdoing against Elon Musk. Appearing in the files does not imply wrongdoing,
[31:50]particularly certainly not at a criminal level. But it is also the case that people are allowed to form their reputational conclusions about public figures in the world who are, for instance, in one case, Larry Summers seeking
[32:06]dating advice about how to date a student. From Elon, from Jeffrey Epstein or procuring dates with women or asking which will be the wildest part of your island. Everyone's allowed to have reputational conclusions around that.
[32:22]And do in any in every instance, right? We call it guilt by association. Now, I'm not somebody who is actually proposing guilt by association. Right. No, right. That we release every single document that exists with the DOJ right now, that we carry on with our
[32:37]investigation through the Oversight Committee. We have work to do still. Right. We have subpoenas that are still out for Deutsche Bank, for JP Morgan. Right. We have a subpoena for Ghislaine Maxwell, because we actually are trying to do an honest fact finding mission.
[32:51]And, you know, the survivors, they told us to follow the money. Many names will pop up. I'll tell you what, though, when we have seen everything that there is to see, when we can assure that there are no more secrets, we'll be able to draw better conclusions until those files are released,
[33:06]until they stop this drip. Yeah. Many people are going to be guilty or at least they're going to they're going to suffer through insinuation and through guilt by association. This is now, you know, they're doing this to themselves at this point. All right, Congresswoman Summer Lee, thank you
[33:20]so much for your time. Thank you. Today, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch just unilaterally declared that the Justice Department had completed its review of the Epstein files. Case closed. And he was very clear about whose identity
[33:34]would and would not be protected in that release. The categories of documents withheld include those protected by the U.S. The U.S. Department of Justice has been in the process of reviewing the EPSTEIN files and is now reviewing them.
[33:51]The categories of documents withheld include those permitted under the Act to be withheld. Files that contain personal personally identified information of victims or victims, personal and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarded invasion
[34:07]We did not protect President Trump. We didn't protect or not protect anybody. So did they accomplish those goals Todd Blanch stated? Not exactly. I mean, Nemes now's initial review of these documents found
[34:21]that the names and identifying information of more than a dozen survivors appear unredacted. And as for Donald Trump, well, the initial release of documents did contain a spreadsheet containing multiple allegations of impropriety made against Trump, most of which appeared to be unsubstantiated tips at this point.
[34:38]But then that spreadsheet of Trump allegations suddenly just disappeared from the release, only to reappear about an hour later after many people pointed out publicly that it was gone. Now, several members of Trump's inner circle also appear in
[34:52]these emails, like an email exchange between Epstein and Elon Musk that appears to be about travel plans in which Musk asks Epstein, what day night will be the wildest party on your island? There's also a 2012 exchange between Trump Commerce
[35:07]Secretary Howard Lutnick, where Lutnick appears to make plans to visit Epstein's island with his wife and children seven years after Lutnick claims he, quote, vowed never to be in a room with that disgusting person again. So there is that. And we do not know the broader context of either
[35:21]of those emails either. And we don't know if there's knowing it would make it less creepy. But there is still a lot that the Trump administration is keeping back. The roughly three million documents released today are only about half of what the Justice
[35:36]Department has in its possession. So a lot more we don't have. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia, the ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. So, Congressman, we got three million documents today. It's a lot.
[35:48]I'm sure you're still going through it. We're still going through it, but still only half of what they have. I know you're very used to this administration violating this particular law. But have you and Chairman Comer, have you talked about what you can do next here?
[36:05]Look, I haven't talked to him today, but we certainly will be communicating in the next few days. Let's be really clear about what actually was released. They made it pretty clear, the DOJ, that they're done releasing files. It's only about 50 percent of what they
[36:19]have in their possession. So half of the files in their possession, they are choosing to not release. This continues to be a major White House cover up. And they went on today. Mr. Blanch went on to talk about what they wouldn't release,
[36:37]things that they basically are creating themselves. They're creating laws themselves that don't exist, by the way, in the subpoena that was passed during the summer for the files, talking about the removal of conversations between government officials or agencies, talking about removing
[36:52]information if there's ongoing government investigations. That may be the case in the law that was passed by Congress, but not the case in the subpoena. So all those files. Legally have to be released. And I want people to understand that they included multiple
[37:09]names of survivors in the release today. They're putting these women in danger. The carelessness, the lawlessness, PEM bonding needs to be held in contempt. Republicans refuse to do so. And Donald Trump needs to understand that our work and
[37:28]our investigation is ongoing and we're just getting started. There is I think it's so good for people to hear that out there because just Todd Blanch declaring the case closed here, the case is certainly not closed. Our team has been going through these documents. I mentioned some of the things in them.
[37:44]What's that got to you about the set that was released today and what was in there? Look, there's I mean, first, I think the idea and the clear, I think, deception that we're seeing to somehow include and remove mentions of the president of Donald Trump,
[38:03]regardless of whether they were allegations or not, that is highly irregular and suspicious. We also know that Trump's name appears hundreds of times in these files. And we have gone through a small batch of what is right now, millions of additional documents that we have received.
[38:18]But one couple that stood out, look, Trump's Commerce Secretary, the fact that Lutnick said clearly they didn't communicate, he stopped communicating with Epstein after 2005 and lied multiple times, where now that actually we know that was not true.
[38:35]Why is it that everyone in Donald Trump's circle continues to lie about their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that mentioned, of course, of Elon Musk? Stephen Bannon clearly was a lot more a lot closer to Jeffrey Epstein than many folks understood.
[38:50]But what's also important is we haven't found so far. It is not acceptable for us to not get the names of Epstein's co-conspirators and the men that raped and abused children and girls. If the Department of Justice thinks we're going to be
[39:07]satisfied with them leaking the names of survivors, with them putting survivors in harm's way, protecting the president and not giving us the names of the men that abuse the women, that's the fight for justice that we are in. And we're not going to stop till we expose those men and
[39:23]get justice for the survivors. I'm going to talk to Annie Farmer about that in a moment very quickly before I let you go. I mentioned the spreadsheet that appeared it appeared to be unsubstantiated claims. I mean, we don't they're from a tip line, but there were
[39:38]some it's not clear the FBI followed up on. Are you planning to look into your committee, I guess, any of those claims that were in those documents that were released today related to Donald Trump? We are. We've actually already started today. I mean, that look when we saw that document, of course, it
[39:54]was of high interest to us. The fact that it was removed immediately and then posted again, I think is also incredibly interesting. And I want to remind folks that we have to go back to the key question in this investigation is why has Donald
[40:13]Trump been so obsessed with hiding the Epstein files? Who is he protecting? Why is he protecting them? And why did Jeffrey Epstein say that Donald Trump was his best friend for over a decade? And why were people trafficked for Mar-a-Lago? Why does all of the center around New York and Palm Beach?
[40:31]These questions all need to be answered and the arrows continue to point back to the White House. So we will get justice for the survivors. Congressman Robert Garcia, thank you. You're tireless.
[40:44]I always appreciate talking to you. Thank you again for being here. OK, late today, survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse released a statement expressing their outrage, outrage about how these files were released today. And Congressman Garcia just references to Annie Farmer
[40:59]is one of those survivors. She has been tirelessly fighting for justice. And she joins me next. Some new names and some familiar ones are the subject of the
[41:15]latest trove of Epstein files released by the Justice Department. Friday's drop has over three million pages of documents, 2000 videos and one hundred and eighty thousand images included in the trover references to President Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Elon
[41:31]Musk and other prominent people. But at this time, there is no evidence of any criminal wrongdoing by any of those mentioned, just compromised timelines regarding if and when associated individuals actually distance themselves
[41:45]from the disgraced pedophile. The latest release is overdue as the DOJ failed to meet the legally required date to release all of the Epstein files on December 19th, 2025. The DOJ claims it didn't meet the deadline because it was
[42:00]making sure to protect victims and survivors outlined in the documents. However, they didn't do such a good job. Some of the latest documents actually reveal names and other identifying details of Epstein's known survivors. Meanwhile, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch signaled
[42:15]on Friday that this release will likely be the final batch of Epstein documents. Today's release marks the end of a very comprehensive document document identification and review process to ensure transparency to
[42:32]the American people and compliance with the act. Joining our conversations is Congressman Robert Garcia, who is the ranking member of the Oversight Committee. So, Congressman, in a statement, you note that there is still a lot more to be released,
[42:49]writing quote, Trump and the Department of Justice have now made it clear that they intend to withhold roughly 50% of the Epstein files while claiming to fully comply with the law. This is outrageous and incredibly concerning.
[43:04]But what can you do from your perch on oversight to force real accountability? Well, we're going to force real accountability, but so is the American public. I mean, no one here is buying what Donald Trump and Pam Bondi are trying to sell to the American public.
[43:20]So they're only going to release half of the Epstein files, highly redacted. They're going to put in files that has Donald Trump and then remove them and then put them back. They're going to somehow divert people's attention by causing all sorts of other
[43:33]chaos across the country. They're going to be putting the names of victims and survivors in jeopardy. And then they're going to try to withhold critical information around interagency discussions or information that might have anything to do with
[43:48]current investigation. I think we have to remind the Department of Justice that there are two legal efforts here. There's the transparency law that passed, which they may try to flout. There's a subpoena that's been in place since
[44:02]the summer that does not include any provisions about withholding any documents for investigations or for interagency conversations. The DOJ has to release all the files and we have right now a process in the courts that's moving forward,
[44:16]public pressure from the public. We have whistleblowers that we know are ready and some who've already reached out. The files are going to get released whether Donald Trump and Pambani want them to or not. Congressman, let me ask you about Galeen Maxwell.
[44:31]I believe she's supposed to be deposed by the Oversight Committee February 9th. Talk to us about what you plan on learning from her and how that is going to play out. What do you think she has to offer in terms of information that has not come to light yet?
[44:45]And do you think you'll get an honest answer from her, given the fact that there's been some speculation she's been given a sweetheart deal, being moved to a less secure prison, to speak favorably about any connections, potential connections between or allegations between the
[45:03]president and Jeffrey Epstein? Well, I think first, I think it's important to uplift something the survivors have been saying since Galeen Maxwell got moved. Disgusting, shameful, and corrupt. I mean, the survivors are out there
[45:15]and they've been pretty strong. Why would Galeen Maxwell, who also trafficked and abused women herself, move to a less secure facility? Why was she getting secret visits? Why was she talking to Todd Blanch on her own? I mean, it's so corrupt.
[45:29]And I think the American people can see that. Look, Galeen Maxwell is a known liar and there's no question about that. We want her to testify. We want her to answer questions. We've also got to be very thoughtful and careful about what she says. I think clearly that Donald Trump and Department
[45:44]of Justice has been providing Galeen Maxwell with an easier path, a less secure facility with no explanation, by the way, why she was moved. So we'll see if she actually meets the deadline for us and for her to come in, what she chooses to say or not say,
[45:58]whether she chooses or tries to plead the fifth. And the only reason why she's coming in is because we've been pressuring Republicans. We've been forcing them to do the right thing. So let's see what she says. We have a lot of questions, but most importantly, we need answers and what she knows
[46:15]about the men that raped and abused all these women and girls. Jelani, what did you make of Todd Blanch's posturing during that presser? I thought it was very interesting because while he was saying, you know, trying to say that the administration has had the backs or the DOJ
[46:29]has had the backs of the victims, he also was sort of positioning himself as a victim actually, like that it is unfair for people to have accused them of, you know, sort of coordinating too closely with the White House on all of this. He seemed incensed at points.
[46:43]What did you make of that? So I can tell you the thing that stood out to me, which actually was not that it was the definitive, this is likely the end of this because they weren't in charge. Let's remember they never intended to
[46:58]give up the amount of information they gave. That was because of pressure that came from their own ranks and people who they couldn't control on their side. And I was like the influencers, the podcasters, the various people who were in the Republican Party and
[47:14]who are susceptible to these pressures will determine whether or not you were done. Some led them like Marjorie Taylor Green for the Massacre. Right, right. Yeah, that whole array of things that I didn't see coming at all given how old this story is and how much of this information was available,
[47:29]you know, previously. And so maybe you might think that this is the last dispatch. I certainly really doubt that it will be. Well, Blanche also seemed to complain that people will never be satisfied. Congressman, I actually want to play
[47:44]you that clip and get your thoughts on it. I mean, I think that we, that there's a hunger or a thirst for information that I do not think will be
[47:59]satisfied by the review of these documents. Congressman, what's your response to that? That the appetite for these documents can just never be satisfied. And it sounds like that that's an unfair condition for this Department of Justice.
[48:16]I want to remind everyone watching that Todd Blanche was Donald Trump's former personal lawyer. So Todd Blanche is Donald Trump's former personal lawyer. So let's first put that out on the table. This idea that somehow Mr.
[48:30]Blanche hasn't been protecting Donald Trump or that the DOJ hasn't been literally from day one trying to hide the release of these files is laughable. And I, you know, what's important is that I think the American public, I mean, everyone knows this.
[48:45]I mean, even Republicans now and folks across this country, they understand that Donald Trump is leading a White House cover up on the Epstein file. So that's clear. And as far as when we'll be satisfied, we won't be satisfied until we get the names of Jeffrey
[49:01]Epstein's co-conspirators and the names of the men who were protected and raped and abused children and girls. And until that happens and until the survivors get justice, no, we will not be satisfied. We're going to continue to fight.
[49:14]We're going to get the Epstein files released and then we're going to make sure that all of those men are held accountable, including those that are right now involved in a cover up at the White House. Congressman, what do you expect is going to
[49:28]happen come Monday with this funding fight? We have learned Speaker Jeffries was just on. Leader Jeffries was just on with our colleague Al Sharpton and basically saying Democrats are not planning to help Speaker Johnson out here, certainly not on a fast
[49:43]track process. What do you expect to happen? Well, I mean, I support the leadership position there. I mean, look, I'm a hard no as it relates to the deal that the Senate has laid out.
[49:59]I mean, we shouldn't be giving DHAs a penny, not tomorrow, not the next day, not ever, without any type of concessions and without any type of actual negotiation about the terror that ICE and DHS right now is engaged with across the country.
[50:14]And so I think that Leader Jeffries is right. I don't think Mike Johnson should expect votes from us and from our caucus. And we've got to hold really strong on our demands here. This is a moment where we have we have something
[50:27]to actually negotiate. We have something and we have the ability to stand tough. And so I'm hopeful that's the position that we take. And that's surely what we should we should communicate to Leader Schumer in the next weeks ahead. As the Justice Department is trying to wash its hands of
[50:45]the Epstein-Files situation after releasing more than three million pages on Thursday, Democrats are calling foul, demanding the agency turn over the nearly three million additional pages the DOJ has said it is withholding. The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee,
[51:01]Congressman Jamie Raskin, wrote to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch yesterday to request the DOJ immediately arrange for members and staff of the committee to review the complete unredacted Epstein-Files this week, adding, quote, "In light
[51:15]of Attorney General Pam Bondi's appearance in a hearing before the committee on February 11th, it is vital that committee members and staff have an opportunity to review the unredacted files in order to evaluate the
[51:31]lawfulness and appropriateness of your redactions and to examine the Attorney General about them." Joining us now is Congressman Eric Swalwell, Democrat from California. He is a member of the House
[51:45]Judiciary Committee. Well, Congressman, thank you very much for coming to the weekend. So yeah, okay. Attorney General Pam Bondi is supposed to be coming to your committee on February 11th, the last time she was before her committee. She treated it like it was the Comedy
[52:02]Cellar with one-liners and put-downs of members of the committee. Oh, actually, we have that. Let's just play that. So who gave the order to flag records related to President Trump?
[52:19]To flag records for President Trump? To flag any records which included his name. I'm not going to discuss anything about that with you, Senator. Will you support requests so that the committee, or indeed
[52:34]I believe the American people, should be able to see that video or audio tape? Will you support that request? Will you apologize to Donald Trump for trying to impeach him? I guess the answer is you won't support that request. After you now know that Joe Biden tried to cover up Hunter Biden's involvement with Ukraine.
[52:52]Congressman, why bother have her come in if you know that that's her act? Well, what we do know though, and what she will be asked about, is that not only was Donald Trump best friends, most named in the Epstein files,
[53:09]he is now accused, and I use the word accused, of behavior that looks exactly like Jeffrey Epstein. And so whether we have the redacted files or not, what we've seen in the unredacted files is quite alarming. And if Republicans are not
[53:23]going to bring Donald Trump in, and they want to bring everyone else in, but not Donald Trump, then we'll have questions for the Attorney General about that. President Trump, of course, has said that he has not done any wrongdoing. We haven't seen any, you know, like actual information, vetted information about him doing any wrongdoing,
[53:39]or anybody else. But Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, former lawyer, personal lawyer for the President of the United States, was just on another network and said that he couldn't talk about investigations, but in July, the
[53:56]DOJ had reviewed the files, and there was nothing in there to prosecute anybody. This has been something they've said, even though Donald Trump has said the opposite. So when you hear those kinds of things that Blanche and the Attorney General at times
[54:09]has been like, there's nothing in here to prosecute anybody, essentially, we should all move on, Trump is ignoring that. Do you think they're going to follow the facts here and move on, or do you think they're going to do what Donald Trump wants them to do? I think this is a cleanup crew on behalf of Donald
[54:24]Trump. You know, they listed, I can't even, I don't even want to say on television, you know, the document that was highlighted that they released as it related to accusations against Donald Trump. They released it, then they deleted it, and then they released it again.
[54:39]And that's right, it has not been corroborated, but it should at least be investigated. And to just say we're closing this after a couple months, when these investigations oftentimes take years, makes people feel like this is just an
[54:54]effort to essentially make the president look good and do nothing to give justice to the victims. Well, it does seem like you guys have a lot of follow-up work to do, as well as journalists, but Congressman Wachentra was on the show yesterday, and he said that part of the next steps was getting in touch
[55:11]with the FBI agents who conducted those transcribed interviews that are referenced in those documents that you're talking about. But I want to redirect a little bit to the other fight that's taking place right now that you're going to have to deal with tomorrow. There were notably seven Democrats who decided
[55:29]to fund DHS a few weeks ago, two weeks ago now. At least one of them, Tom Swasey, has come out and said that he regretted that vote, that he failed to see it as a referendum on the behavior and treatment
[55:42]of ICE. Do you think that any of other of those Democrats have changed their minds, or is Mike Johnson going to be able to get this through and call it a day? I hope they have. I cannot support, I did not support,
[55:57]two weeks ago I will not support this week another penning for ICE. They already have enough funding anyway. We shouldn't give them any more funding. Wait, they have enough funding for how long, Congress? Tell the American people. How many years? Up to six.
[56:11]The big brutal bill funded them way out. I mean that's one of the... So you're basically saying this is a symbolic vote. Well, it's giving them additional funding that I don't want them to have, but we shouldn't do anything that co-signs on what they're doing. The more authorization that
[56:25]we give them or the more validation that we give them risks a mom-like good and a nurse-like pretty being shot in the face again. And so I hope my colleagues recognize we should be doing the opposite of giving them authorization. We should be supporting everything to
[56:40]have the mask come off, the identification come out, prosecutions launched against these folks. And also I have said that our executives across the country, governors, for example, you can take away their driver's licenses. You can say in my state you are unhireable if you
[56:54]have worked for ICE. We can't do enough to hold these folks accountable. You and Dan Goldman, congressman from New York, are offering a bill stripping ICE agents of qualified immunity in the time that we have left. What are Republicans saying when you
[57:10]talk... I assume you guys are talking to Republicans also on this bill. Yeah. Well, we know that there are Republicans who have privately said to me, said to Dan Goldman, they don't like what's going on, but they want us to be a part of delaying this so we can find fixes. And we're saying we don't want to delay this any
[57:26]further because there are public executions in the street. And so as I step back, I see a president who promised he would cut prices and instead he's killing people. Our job is to protect the people first. And that's what this legislation does.
[57:41]And that's what I think governors can do across the country. Congressman Eric Spalwau, have a busy week this week. Thank you for coming on to the weekend.