[0:00]And we turn out to the latest here in Washington with the calls for transparency surrounding the Epstein files continuing to grow both in the halls of Congress and by survivors even after the Justice Department's release
[0:11]of millions of Epstein related documents last month. It comes as lawmakers are getting their first opportunity today to review the unredacted versions of those files. Congressman Jamie Raskin, the top
[0:23]Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, spoke to reporters this afternoon after getting his first look at those unredacted files. There were to be no redactions in order
[0:34]to spare people embarrassment or political disgrace. We didn't want there to be a cover-up
[0:43]and yet what I saw today was that there were lots of examples of people's names being redacted when they were not
[0:54]victims. Um and so we still haven't gotten from the DOJ their privileged log explaining why certain redactions were made, but I can
[1:05]tell you that I saw a whole bunch of them that seemed very suspicious and baffling to me. Lawmakers say they're also expressing frustration with the lack of answers
[1:16]from Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell who invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination today during a deposition before the House Oversight Committee and refused to
[1:26]answer their questions. In a statement, Maxwell's lawyer saying quote, "If this committee and the American people truly want to hear the unfiltered truth about what happened, there is a straightforward path. Max Ms. Maxwell's
[1:38]prepared to speak fully and honestly if granted clemency by President Trump." Her lawyer going on to say that Maxwell could clear both President Trump and former President Clinton of wrongdoing.
[1:49]Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle reacting. As expected, Ghislaine Maxwell took the Fifth and refused to answer any questions. This is obviously is very
[2:00]disappointing. We had many questions to ask about the crimes she and Epstein committed, as well as questions about potential co-conspirators. We sincerely want to get to the truth
[2:11]the American people and justice for the survivors. That's what this investigation is about. >> The fact that this woman is continuing to invoke the Fifth Amendment tells us exactly what my colleagues have already stated. She is a monster. She does not
[2:23]care. She has no remorse. She is not seeking um to bring about some kind of closure for these women. Meanwhile, Epstein's survivors calling
[2:34]for even more transparency from the Justice Department, releasing this PSA on Super Bowl Sunday. Take a look. After years of being kept apart,
[2:45]we're standing [music] together. >> Standing. Standing together. Because this girl deserves the truth. Because she deserves the truth. Because we all deserve the truth. >> [music]
[3:02]>> Joining me now to talk more about this, Democrat Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury of New Mexi- New Mexico. Congresswoman, thank you so much. I know you're going to see the unredacted Epstein files
[3:12]tomorrow. What will you be looking for? Well, you know, there are a lot of unanswered questions, but I want to clarify that the Epstein Files Transparency Act was very clear that the
[3:23]Department of Justice was to release all files except was able to redact files that either would reveal the identities of the survivors or include child
[3:34]pornography or acts of violence. And the Department of Justice is breaking the law right now. Not only have they not complied with the subpoena that we issued at the end of the summer, they have only released about half of the
[3:45]files that they have in their jurisdiction, and they have over redacted files including unmasking survivors, which the law told them not to do, and actually redacting files that
[3:56]implicate co-conspirators and potential perpetrators. So, I have a list of files I'll be looking at. Department of Justice spent many years investigating these crimes. We know that there are at
[4:07]least a dozen potential co-conspirators who are named in various DOJ files and investigations. I'll be looking at specific emails where they redacted the names of individuals while discussing
[4:18]actual sex crimes with minors with Jeffrey Epstein. I'll be looking for the files that were completely blacked out, including the files in the Southern District of New
[4:29]York, as well as the memo that was internal work product of DOJ to understand why they didn't prosecute these crimes. So, we have a lot of materials that we plan to go over
[4:39]tomorrow at DOJ. And when you see this material, will you be able to come and tell the public what you found, or is there some prohibition about what the Department of Justice has hidden from the public?
[4:50]My understanding is that they are not allowing members of Congress to bring recording devices in to view the computers, but we can take written
[5:00]notes, and I certainly plan to fully provide a full accounting of what I see in the files. Okay, let's talk more about some of the things that you've talked about in terms of how other
[5:10]countries have responded and taken action against their leaders who were named in the Epstein files. To be clear, at this point, there's nothing that we know that specifically implicates President Trump, but are you suggesting
[5:22]that he should be removed from office over the contents of these files? Well, listen, nine or 10 countries have now opened investigations or and or pushed their leaders to step down, not
[5:34]just because of criminal activity, but for mere association with Jeffrey Epstein because of the stain that it brings on the leadership of those countries. But, let's be clear, there
[5:44]are literally over a thousand potential victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and we know that there are dozens of men who participated in crimes and sexual abuse
[5:53]of women and minors. And we know that Donald Trump was in fact investigated by Department of Justice. His name does appear in DOJ slides in the actual
[6:03]investigation of sex crimes. So, to say that he is not implicated is not true. It is actually in the files and DOJ was tracking this. So, part of what we're after looking in the unredacted files is
[6:14]what have they not released? And I think it's important to understand that going back to the Epstein files transparency act, they are still holding on to half of the materials that they have deemed
[6:24]too sensitive to even put out into the public domain. So, there are a lot of unanswered questions. I think that there are a number of officials, including Donald Trump,
[6:34]Howard Lutnick, Elon Musk, and others who've been named in the files that need to answer for their association with Jeffrey Epstein and certainly need to answer whether or not they were involved in potential crimes. And if Democrats
[6:46]win back the majority, do you believe that that should lead to a subpoena of some of these cabinet officials or even President Trump to answer some of those questions that you have? Well, it shouldn't have to wait until
[6:57]Democrats win back the majority because if my Republican colleagues would step up and do the right thing, then we could actually subpoena many of the individuals that need to answer to Congress right now. And so, you know,
[7:09]one of the things that I think is really important if you look, for example, at what what is happening in the UK, the parliament is demanding accountability for national leaders. We need other
[7:19]Congress people here in Congress to stand up and demand accountability from the president and his cabinet, and they can do that today. They don't need to wait till the midterms to do that. Okay, let's talk about today's deposition with
[7:31]Ghislaine Maxwell. Obviously not that very fruitful. They She invoked the Fifth Amendment during her deposition. Notably, she did not do that when she met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in July, but that was because
[7:41]she was granted limited immunity. Should that be on the table in this conversation? Should she be given the opportunity for some level of immunity or clemency so you could get these answers that you're looking for?
[7:53]Well, first of all, when she was sent this subpoena and called to appear before Congress for this deposition, she requested immunity because she claimed
[8:04]at the time her case was pending in front of the Supreme Court. She was granted an extension before she had to appear before her extension and now she's filed this last-minute habeas petition in the Southern District of New
[8:15]York and is claiming that her Fifth Amendment rights are being invoked for that reason. But I think it's very telling that she not only had her lawyer make a statement in the deposition, but
[8:26]then he put it out into the public domain and you read it that she would invoke her Fifth Amendment unless she was granting granted clemency. Let me be clear, that's not how this works, my
[8:37]friend. If you are subpoenaed to speak before Congress on a matter, you are allowed to invoke your Fifth Amendment rights to protect yourself from further incrimination, but you don't get it as a
[8:48]quid pro quo for a pardon from the President of the United States. And so that was a message to President Donald Trump saying that she would essentially absolve his sins if he would grant her a
[8:59]pardon. Okay. Congresswoman Scanlon, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Thank you. Joining me now to talk more about this, NBC News Senior Washington Correspondent
[9:10]Hallie Jackson, who's been closely following the Epstein survivors' reactions to all of this. And NBC News Correspondent Hala Gorani, who is in London where this is creating turmoil in their government, pretty shocking
[9:21]turmoil. Hallie, let's uh start with you here. I mean, how are the survivors uh and their families reacting to this Maxwell decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment during her deposition? >> I They didn't want Maxwell to speak to They didn't want Congress to speak to
[9:33]Maxwell in the first place, right? Like that was something and and survivors are not a monolith, but the survivors that we've been talking to were furious that Congress was even taking into account a woman who they have described as a predator. They say she is not
[9:45]trustworthy. They say she is not honest. It was interesting to hear your conversation uh with with the congressman there because um one of the things that came up, this clemency issue that her attorney has suggested she would be more willing to speak freely
[9:56]Maxwell would if she was granted clemency. That is one of the the the several things that have infuriated some Epstein abuse survivors about all of this here, that the idea that clemency would even potentially be on the table.
[10:07]The President Trump hasn't ruled it out. The other thing that I think is is really infuriated some survivors is the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell remains at that lower security prison camp that she was controversially transferred to last summer. And we're hearing today from the
[10:18]siblings, uh the brother and sister-in-law of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, the most one of the most prominent Epstein accusers, who died by suicide uh last year. They're they're saying that we ask Congress to support our continued efforts to ensure that
[10:30]Maxwell is held fully accountable for her actions and placed exactly where she belongs in a maximum security prison. They go on to say, "We ask you to continue this fight with us and every survivor to continue this pursuit of
[10:41]justice with the tenacity and strength of Virginia, not out of vengeance, but out of justice." And I think that gives you a sense of sort of where the survivors are as many of them are looking ahead now to this hearing, high-profile hearing, potentially
[10:52]explosive with the Attorney General later this week. >> And and let's talk more about that because we saw this PSA that many of the survivors released around the Super Bowl this weekend. They want more transparency. What are they going to
[11:03]What are they looking for from Pam Bondi in this hearing on? >> They want more commitments that more files will be released, that these this redaction issue that has been dogging these survivors really from the jump since December Ryan when as you know
[11:14]that Epstein document dropped first began to unfurl. They want to see that handled. Um and I think they want to hear that there will be the pursuit of justice or accountability or something
[11:24]else in this process. When the Deputy Attorney General, we've heard from him, Todd Blanche, when he came out and suggested, you know, referred back to that memo last July that suggested there was no evidence to be found that warranted further criminal
[11:35]investigation. That was extraordinarily upsetting to some of these survivors. So, they're going to want to hear more from the Attorney General Pam Bondi, and candidly, any kind of communication. Because while there have been some representatives, we understand that might have been in touch with the DOJ,
[11:47]some of these survivors have said to me, "Hey, I've asked for meetings. I I've I've want I want to talk to this administration, and they are not talking to me." So, I think that face-to-face potential, again, not not in the hearing setting, but perhaps in the room or
[11:59]outside in the halls, I think could be critical. I mean, I think we do lose sight of that sometimes, don't we? That it's not just about getting this information out there. It's about this information being out there and leading to some level of accountability.
[12:09]>> is a obviously a a prosecutorial bar that would need to be reached in order to pursue criminal investigations. These survivors, and many of them are saying, "Hey, let's at least explore that. Let's at least see." And I thought it was notable that you heard from Congressman
[12:20]Jamie Raskin today, "It is It is inconceivable that you would have these years and years and years of abuse being committed by Epstein, and only two people be criminally charged." >> Right. So, we're talking about accountability here in the United
[12:31]States. Let's talk about it on the other side of the pond, and that's in the United Kingdom. Hala, the fallout from the Epstein files there just hasn't been limited to the US. UK's Prime Minister
[12:41]Starmer's chief of staff resigned over the weekend over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the ambassador to the US, despite his ties to Epstein. What
[12:50]more can you tell us about this? Well, the latest batch of Epstein files has revealed closer communication between the former UK ambassador to the
[13:02]US, Peter Mandelson, and the convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. And as a result, you mentioned that there, Ryan, one of the top aids of the Prime Minister in this country, Keir Starmer,
[13:13]resigned, taking responsibility for having advised Prime Minister Starmer to appoint Peter Mandel- Mandelson to the post. Now, Peter Mandelson resigned from
[13:23]his ambassadorial post, Uh, the latest batch of Epstein files, as I mentioned, revealed closer ties and also potentially, and police are investigating this, uh, having shared
[13:34]secret documents with Jeffrey Epstein. So, this is something that's being investigated. Politically, it's having huge ramifications and obviously, this is something that has put putting
[13:44]tremendous pressure on the Prime Minister, Ryan. Yeah, and and let's expand on that because as far as I know, the Prime Minister is not mentioned at all in the Epstein files. Uh, despite the fact, uh, here in the United States,
[13:56]President Trump's mentioned repeatedly, but could there be enough pressure around the situation with the Prime Minister where we could actually see a change in leadership in the United
[14:06]Kingdom? It is absolutely possible. Now, his cabinet ministers today are standing by him, mainly some analysts say because
[14:17]there are no contenders that are in a very strong position to replace him. But, the pressure on him has grown to such an extent that the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland has called on
[14:28]him to resign and this is why Prime Minister Starmer called a meeting today to get the support of his cabinet ministers. But, there are by-elections and special elections in the next few months. If the Labour Party
[14:39]underperforms in those races, then it is possible that Keir Starmer's days are numbered as Prime Minister, Ryan. And it's not just the Prime Minister, the royal family, of course, taking quite a
[14:51]bit of heat. Uh, they've put a new focus on former Prince Andrew's connections to Jeffrey Epstein. What's the latest and how's the British royal family responding? Well, talk about pressure, political
[15:05]pressure. This is tremendous pressure on the King himself. He's breaking his silence on this Andrew, uh, Mountbatten-Windsor situation. This, of
[15:15]course, is the previously known as Prince Andrew. Uh, the, uh, royal family there releasing, or Buckingham Palace, I should say, releasing a statement and I'm going to read it here
[15:25]to you. The King has made clear in words and through unprecedented actions. Unprecedented actions referring, of course, to stripping Prince Andrew of his titles and his royal role. He's made
[15:36]clear his profound concern at allegations which continue to come to light in respect of Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor's conduct. While the specific claims in question are for Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor
[15:47]to address, if we are approached by Thames Valley we stand ready to support them. Their Majesties' thoughts and sympathies sympathies have been and
[15:56]remain with the victims of any and all forms of abuse. So, there you have it. It's pressure on Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, and also on the royal family
[16:08]here, Ryan. Mhm. Okay. Holly Gorani in London. Thank you for that report. We thank you for watching and remember stay updated on breaking news and top stories on the NBC News app or watch live on our
[16:19]YouTube channel.