[0:00]It's Monday, February 2nd. They denied ever wanting to be around Jeffrey Epstein. Some of their outboxes say otherwise. [music] We start here.
[0:11]The DOJ releases an avalanche of documents from their investigative files. >> They show him crouched over a woman, her face redacted. >> There were emails and there were names
[0:22]attached to those emails. We'll go through some of what we found. The most recent migrant released from detention is a 5-year-old boy. >> Liamas, >> it was the case that sparked outrage in
[0:33]Minneapolis, and our team was on the plane with him going back home. [music] And how much would it take to get the first family's attention? >> A 49% stake is worth $500 million. >> The US wasn't selling to certain
[0:45]countries. [music] Now, a new report raises questions about why it changed its mind. From ABC News, this [music] is Start
[0:53]Here. I'm Brad Milky. Back in November, under a ton of pressure, President Trump signed a bill
[1:05]called the Epstein Files Transparency Act. That bill mandated that the Justice Department publicly release files that had accumulated over the years as it investigated the late financeier and
[1:16]sexual predator. The deadline to release those files was December 19th. Let me state the obvious here. We are way past that [music] deadline. The DOJ originally said it could release some
[1:26]files, but not all, as it organized millions of pages of documents to protect victims identities and ongoing investigations. The DOJ finally released what it says is the bulk of the evidence
[1:37]it's going to release here. >> Today, we are producing more than 3 million pages, including more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images. And while
[1:48]dozens and dozens of this country's richest and most famous figures have spent years claiming they never spent any time with Jeffrey Epstein, some of these documents shed new light on just how chummy he was with some of them,
[2:00]even after he had become a convicted sex offender. A ton to go through here this morning. So, let's get straight to ABC's investigative reporter Olivia Rubin, who is on our team trying to sort through literally millions of pages this
[2:11]weekend. So, Olivia, overall, what are the big takeaways so far here? >> Well, you said it. You know, there's millions of documents here and more things sort of coming out every day, but certainly it's sort of the extent to
[2:22]which Epstein was communicating with some of the most powerful uh wealthy, influential figures across politics, sports, entertainment, tech, and you
[2:32]really hit the key. Some of these messages are already after Epstein's sort of infamous plea deal in 2008 where he plead guilty to sex crimes. Among
[2:43]those uh that he was communicating with were Giants co-owner Steve Tish. It seemed from the communications that Epstein was actually setting Tish up
[2:52]with women. In one email in 2013, Tish asks Epstein about a woman writing pro or civilian. Uh now, of course, Tish
[3:02]says he didn't end up taking Epstein up on any of his invitations. He never went to the island. and he says he regrets his association with Epstein, who everyone now knows is this horrible
[3:11]person. Uh, but there's also new images of former Prince Andrew. They show him crouched over a woman, her face redacted. Uh, it's it's striking images,
[3:23]especially because the former prince is a longtime known associate of Epstein. He was uh accused by one of Epstein's most infamous accusers, saying that she was trafficked to him when she was just
[3:34]17 years old. He denies those allegations, but there are now new calls for him to possibly testify before Congress. But also, as far as the president goes, because he was a
[3:46]longtime well-known friend of Epstein before they had a falling out, uh there were multiple newly uncovered unverified tips that agents had received involving
[3:56]allegations against the president and Epstein. Those are allegations that DOJ says are unfounded in these records. That's interesting, of course, that like if you're saying we're going to release everything, that means you're going to
[4:07]release stuff that you might not actually think adds up to anything, right? So, that is like a legitimate thing to say like we're putting this out, but these are actually unsubstantiated. And yet, there are people connected to President Trump like
[4:18]in his administration who would loudly decry Jeffrey Epstein and then show up, guess what, in these emails. >> Absolutely. Take Howard Lutnik, the president's current commerce secretary,
[4:29]uh, who the documents show planned a visit to Epstein's island in 2012, which again years after Epstein plead guilty in 2008 to sex crimes. According to the
[4:40]documents, uh, in 2012, Lutnik had emailed a redacted email address saying, "Does Sunday evening for dinner sound good?" And it's Epstein's longtime assistant who responds and says, "Blow
[4:51]from Jeffrey. Come Saturday or Sunday for lunch." And then there's plenty of sort of communications with Lutnik's wife talking uh about these plans. At one point uh saying, "We're heading
[5:02]towards you from St. Thomas. Where should we anchor exactly?" Now, uh Lutnik in a statement said that he had never been accused of wrongdoing and only had limited interactions with Mr.
[5:12]Epstein in the presence of his wife. But certainly, as you say, uh more and more individuals who are seen here uh planning vacations with Epstein,
[5:22]planning visits despite uh what he had already pled guilty to, >> right? And like Elon Musk had an exchange apparently where he wrote to Epstein in 2012 saying, "What day will
[5:32]be the wildest party on your island?" He now says he's never actually been to Epste's island, that he was never at any of these parties, that no one else has has fought for the release of these documents harder than he has. But I guess last question, Olivia, this isn't
[5:43]necessarily all the files and people keep wondering like are there others that are being withheld either for prosecution reasons or even for like political reasons to keep someone out of, you know, the public spotlight. What
[5:54]happens next for the rest of them? >> Well, we're hearing two sets of concerns. The first is about the documents that weren't released and the second is about possibly some issues
[6:04]with the redactions. On the first front, there are 3 million documents, pages of documents that the Department of Justice says they can't release. That's almost about half of the files.
[6:15]>> Files that contain personal personally identified information of victims or victim's personal and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted
[6:27]invasion of personal privacy. >> Things they say they just can't release under the law. Uh but there are lawmakers raising questions about that. And there are also some victims raising questions too. And that also relates to
[6:38]the redaction. Some of the survivors of Epstein have said that their names were left unredacted, Brad, in these pages. They were outraged about that. I have
[6:48]seen things that relate to me and people I know have not been redacted at all. Their full names are out there and especially Jane Doe's are fully out
[6:57]there and they asked especially that their names are redacted and they're just not. They also say that they feel they were left to hang out to dry while
[7:07]essentially the men who abused them were protected here. They are calling for more documents to be released. I spoke with one survivor, her name is Charlene. She said they're looking at what more
[7:18]they can do to get more documents released. Although the Department of Justice and the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, has said this is it. [music] there's a a hunger or a thirst for
[7:29]information that I do not think will be satisfied by the review of these documents. Um [music] and and there's it's not there's nothing I can do about that. >> But now those lawmakers, specifically
[7:40]the ones who spearheaded the release of this bill, bipartisan lawmakers I should add, are asking for an in-person briefing from the Department of Justice so they can take a look at the full
[7:50]files. It's not over and it will not be over until there is full and complete [music] transparency. >> The ones that weren't released. So they say they can make a determination on
[8:02]whether the Department of Justice complied here. Although there is no indication on if or when that might happen, >> right? Like not necessarily smoking guns here, but these emails are not going to quell people's suspicions about this
[8:13]entire thing. It's only made some people look worse in the public imagination. Blanch also says lawmakers can come in and review all that redacted evidence at the DOJ if they wish. But Olivia Rubin, a lot of threads here. Thank you so much.
[8:25]>> Thanks, Rod. >> Next up on Start here, he's not a highle criminal. He's got a Spider-Man backpack. ABC News accompanies a 5-year-old detainee on his way back to
[8:36]Minneapolis after the break. As of this morning, parts of the federal government are shut down. Now, if you're
[8:47]wondering why lawmakers are not sounding the alarm here, it's because no one really expects this to go on very long. Senators reached an agreement this [music] weekend to fund the government. Although, under this plan, the
[8:58]Department of Homeland Security would only get funding for 2 weeks as Democratic lawmakers demand reforms. >> Body cameras should be mandatory. Masks [music] should come off. Judicial
[9:09]warrants should absolutely be required consistent with the Constitution in our view. >> Plus, the House still has to pass this plan. So, the shutdown should go at least through tomorrow, if not longer.
[9:19]But when you ask Democrats what reforms they want to see at DHS [music] is not just about treatment of protesters. It's not just about conduct of immigration agents. It's also about
[9:29]scenes like this. The growing outrage in Minneapolis, the images of a 5-year-old boy returning home from preschool, detained by ICE. A little more than a week ago in
[9:39]Minneapolis, federal agents were seen with a 5-year-old boy in the freezing cold. This image went viral of this kid in a blue knit hat and a Spider-Man
[9:48]backpack, cold and afraid. Onlookers saw him knocking on his door, asking [music] to speak with his family. A local school superintendent said it looked as if the agents were using this child as bait to
[10:00]see if any undocumented family members were home. It turns out this boy, Liam Kjo Ramos, had come home from school with his father, Adrien Kuneo Arius, who
[10:09]was detained right outside their home. Eventually, rather than being placed with his family, this little boy was detained along with his father and flown down to a migrant detention camp in
[10:20]Texas. Well, in recent days, a judge ordered they be sent back and released. And in an ABC News exclusive, our own John Kenyonz was on the plane with father and son. He joins us now from
[10:32]Minneapolis. John, first off, how does this story begin? Cuz how did they end up in custody in the first place? >> Well, on January 20th, little IM and his father, uh, his father was bringing him
[10:43]home from school. >> What was that day like when Ice picked you up? >> I was coming back with my son from school. I was picking him up from school. When we got home, we parked the
[10:53]car and we were about to get out. And at that moment, several agents got out and they detained us there. >> He stepped away, he says, from his little boy. The little boy knocked on his his mom's front door and no one
[11:04]answered quickly and the agents then grabbed the little boy, too. >> You guys are scaring the kid. There's the kid. >> You're scaring the kid. Later, uh, ICE
[11:15]officials said that, uh, the father had abandoned the little boy and that that's why they took custody of him. >> Aas fled from law enforcement on foot, abandoning his child in the middle of
[11:26]winter in a vehicle. >> The government says you abandon your son. >> Well, I walked a few feet ahead and I shouted so that people would come out
[11:37]who could help us. But I had no other option since I was with my son. So the only thing I did was shout so that more people would come out and could help us. >> The dad told me that he would never abandon his son and he wasn't going to
[11:49]leave them there by himself. >> Well, and Adrien admits he's undocumented, but it's also not like he wasn't in touch with federal authorities about his status. He apparently applied for asylum, which means you're given a
[12:00]court date to make your case, and then he was allowed to stay here while he prepared for that. But now Liam and his father were picked up and taken to a detention center all the way down in Texas. What was that like there? the uh
[12:11]detention center in Dilly, Texas, which is an hour south of San Antonio. They were held for 11 days. Brad Liam's father, Adrien, told us that the little
[12:22]boy had stomach aches and he was throwing up. He was vomiting and that no one at that detention center was able to give him any medication. They said they couldn't for what was ailing him.
[12:33]>> He's depressed. He's not eating well. He's asking for his mom, asking for his backpack and his hat. the Spider-Man back. >> That's right. Yeah. They took it from him when he went to Dilly.
[12:43]>> We asked Congressman Hain Castro, who's been very involved in this case, >> whether there were any criminals in that detention center, 1100 people there. >> President Trump said that he wanted to
[12:55]get rid of what he called criminal illegal aliens. Were there any criminals at that Dilly center? >> There is not a single criminal at Dilly.
[13:05]And I know that because ICE told me that anybody who has a criminal conviction, a parent who's picked up with a child, if they've got a criminal conviction, they're separated from that child and
[13:16]sent to different facilities. In fact, uh Liam's dad told me that there were kids who were months old. There were pregnant women being held there. Uh but
[13:27]no, no criminals. The sad thing is that Liam is just one of probably hundreds of kids over at Gilly from the early the youngest child was two months old. >> Two months old.
[13:38]>> Two-month old baby who's been there several days. >> Well, and so then a federal judge steps in and basically demands that they be taken back to Minneapolis, right? What what was his reasoning? It
[13:49]>> it was pretty amazing what the what the judge wound up saying. It was blistering Fred Berry of the Federal District Court in the Western District of Texas. He
[14:00]said that uh this was cruel that the apprehension of father and son was the imposition of cruelty. He said that they shouldn't have been picked up. He
[14:10]chastised the governments for what he called the ignorance of an American historical document called the Declaration of Independence. So that takes [music] us then to the
[14:22]release of this father and son. They're flying back from Texas to Minneapolis and you you're based sort of near where they were. You ended up on this plane with them. Can you tell me what this journey was like for them? >> Well, we had been there because we were
[14:33]paying a visit to the detention center trying to to see if they would let us in. Of course, they would not allow us in the authorities. The judge had set a deadline for February 3rd. And indeed uh
[14:44]then our sources were telling us that they would be on a 6:30 a.m. flight. So my producer Jim Schultz and I decided that we would book ourselves on that flight just in case. And sure enough,
[14:56]father and son boarded the flight. >> Liam kumas. >> We asked the father for permission uh to
[15:05]talk to them and he agreed and we I sat by their side the entire 2 and 1/2 hours to Minneapolis and he was very open and
[15:16]uh very happy. Yesterday we got the news that we were going to go back home. So we became very happy. We had spent many days there locked up. And now that we are going back home, we are grateful to all the
[15:27]people who helped and supported us. >> The little boy, you know, when when I met him on the flight, he didn't sleep or wink. Man, he was looking out the window. He was so excited. >> Leesto.
[15:39]Kissesto. What is this? >> He was clutching a Pikachu, a little stuffed animal that he had been given. Pikachu. >> Pikachu. Yeah.
[15:49]>> The flight attendants were in tears. The pilots on this Delta flight invited him to the cockpit and they showed him around. >> Just like mine.
[16:01]>> What do you say, Liam? Gracias. >> He got off the plane and went straight to see his mom. Told me the first thing he wants is pizza. [laughter] In the meantime, this family is kind of
[16:12]in hiding. They're keeping a very low profile. little Liam who's 5 years old and wants to go back to his uh class. Um the father is afraid of all the media attention that'll be there and and
[16:23]afraid that indeed he might be picked up again. >> Trump your message to President Trump that he speak from his heart that he not
[16:34]be so harsh with our community that he think of the children that they are not to blame. >> Right. Uh John Kino is really incredible reporting and just sort of following through on on this family that's come to
[16:45]mean so much to so many people. Uh John, thank you so much for the time. >> Of course, Brad. Thank you. [music] >> Now, there was one other big story circulating this weekend about the Trump family. No, I'm not talking about the
[16:56]documentary on First Lady Melania Trump. I'm talking about the reports that Middle Eastern royalty has been pumping millions upon millions of dollars into the Trump family's business interests.
[17:06]ABC's Elizabeth Scholes covers business for us. Elizabeth, you've been studying up on this. Can you just walk us through the reporting here? >> So, this was a pretty bombshell report, Brad, from the Wall Street Journal. Basically, it says that a member of Abu
[17:17]Dhabi's royal family bought a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial. Remember, that is the crypto venture that is backed by President Trump's family. They
[17:27]bought that stake just days before the president's inauguration. A 49% stake is worth $500 million. That's half a billion dollars according to these internal documents that were reviewed by the Wall Street Journal. And the way
[17:39]that the journal really puts a point on this is to say that this was something unprecedented in American politics. It was a foreign government official taking a major ownership stake in an incoming US president's company. So something
[17:51]that we have really never seen before. And according to the journal, this deal was heavily brokered by a man named Shik Tanoon. So he is the brother of the
[18:01]United Arab Emirates's president. He is a major investor in the UAE. He is also the chairman of MGX which is a huge
[18:11]investment firm based in Abu Dhabi. And you'll remember we talked about this back in May that UAE backed investment firm MGX announced that it would
[18:22]basically use a digital token that's minted by World Liberty Financial, the Trump family business to finance a huge investment $2 billion in the crypto
[18:34]exchange Binance. So Binance you probably remember is one of the biggest crypto platforms in the world. This was a big deal for World Liberty Financial at the time. basically it legitimized
[18:44]them and giving their digital token a way to kind of be on you know in in the forefront of the crypto space where before World Liberty Financial just sort of been this idea this venture that was
[18:54]backed by the Trumps and you know the president Emoretus on the website of World Liberty Financial had been President Trump. One other note MGX that same UAE investment firm is also an
[19:06]investor now in the new US venture that owns Tik Tok. You know, another story I know you and I have gone back and forth, talked about a lot, too. >> Oh, so like this guy's becoming a worldwide player in crypto specifically
[19:16]by injecting millions upon millions into the Trump family business basically. But Elizabeth, I can also hear people thinking to themselves like, "Okay, why does this thing matter so much?" Cuz Trump's assets are in a trust, but it's not the first time we've heard about his
[19:28]family holdings getting huge investments from deep pocketed organizations. It's not the first time a Middle Eastern state has sent business or services his way. There's a Qatari plane that's going to be Air Force One reportedly by the
[19:39]summer. So why is this the thing? >> Yeah. The idea that there are conflicts of interest there is not really that surprising.
[19:47]>> Why is Donald Trump focused on enriching himself, his family, and his friends as opposed to focused on driving down the high cost of living? This is a different
[19:58]level because just months after that investment by this member of the royal family, there was a huge deal announced between the US and the United Arab
[20:08]Emirates and it involved the sale of advanced artificial intelligence computer chips. For years under the Biden administration, the US was very
[20:17]reluctant to sell these chips to the UAE because there was a concern that those chips could end up in the hands of China and that was seen as a national security risk. >> They're friendlier with each other than
[20:28]we are with China. Say >> there are close ties between the UEE and China and the idea that those chips could end up that technology could end up in China was a reason why a lot of those sales were blocked. Well, the
[20:39]Trump administration not long after that huge injection of cash went into World Liberty Financial basically allowed a sale of those chips to go forward. So, the suggestion from this Wall Street Journal story, which we
[20:51]have not independently confirmed, is that there was this big injection of cash into Trump's crypto family business and then just a few months later that where that cash was coming from
[21:02]benefited from a huge deal with the US government. Now, keep in mind a spokesperson for World Liberty Financial didn't deny that this deal was made, but insisted that neither President Trump
[21:12]nor his envoy. So, Steve Witco, who is specifically named in this article, they denied that there was any involvement in that transaction and any claim that the deal had anything to do with the action
[21:22]on chips, World Liberty says is 100% false. We also, Brad, got statements from the White House council that said President Trump has no involvement in the business deals that would implicate his
[21:33]constitutional responsibilities. >> There's nothing unprecedented about about a about the Trump Organization going out and and and trying to make investments that that basically all will come back to the American people and
[21:44]jobs in this country. >> And a White House spokesperson said that the president only acts in the best interests of the American public and said that the president's assets are managed in a trust by his children. And
[21:54]so there are no conflicts of interest, they [music] say. >> I see. But this is like the question that gets raised by by government ethics people is if the government has been saying we don't want the UAE's money for our chips, even if they're going to pay
[22:05]us handsomely. Does that calculus change when someone with the UAE has just vested hundreds of millions of dollars into the president's private family business? Elizabeth Schelsey, really
[22:17]helpful. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Brad. >> Okay, one more quick break. When we come back, maybe before you book your next trip, make sure your destination isn't fictional. [music] One last thing is
[22:28]next. And one last thing, remember when products like Chat GPT were first coming out? We were told one of its most basic
[22:38]use cases, Chat GPT can help you plan a trip. In fact, Chat GPT's new browser can even act like a travel agent for you. >> It help you book reservations or flights
[22:49]or even just edit a document that you're working on. Well, just because a computer program suggests places to go, doesn't necessarily mean they're real.
[22:59]Recently, the Australian broadcasting company Australian ABC, no relation, interviewed a pub owner in Tasmania, the huge island just south of Australia, who says she's been getting inquiries about
[23:11]the world famous Weldboro Hot Springs. We're actually receiving phone calls on the daily um asking about if they're close to the pub, if they book
[23:21]accommodation. The thing is, she says, these hot springs don't exist. For months, [music] it appears a Tasmanian tour company has been posting
[23:32]articles encouraging tourists to come visit. The eight photo spots you must come experience firsthand, the seven best hot springs of 2026. According to Aussie news outlets, the owners of this
[23:43]travel website have since admitted that they, like many other blogs, have assembled these listicles using AI. And while most of the attractions are real, the Weldboro hot springs are not. In
[23:54]fact, if you try to search for their exact location, you can't find anything. But that hasn't stopped hordes of tourists from showing up in town and asking local business owners, "Hey, which way to the hot springs?" I
[24:06]actually had a group of 24 drivers turn up there 2 days ago. >> The website owners now say they're reviewing every piece of AI generated content on the site. But this is not the
[24:18]only instance of travelers realizing way too late that they should have double-cheed a chatbot's instructions. And there are now several services beyond chat GBT that automatically generate itineraries. [music]
[24:30]Vacationers have described entirely unrealistic travel schedules that don't take common travel hiccups into account. A couple in Japan said they were stuck on a mountaintop when their AI generated
[24:41]itinerary got the operating times wrong for [music] a lift that helps you to send. And locals in Peru were concerned when they learned some tourists had shown up searching for a sacred canyon
[24:51]that didn't exist. Now, spending some extra time around Tasmania, that's one thing. getting lost on mountaintops in the elements. That's no joke. And this is why Open AI and other chatbot makers
[25:02]say you should use these tools [music] as inspiration rather than foolproof assistance. But critics say that's just it. The [music] more we ask these programs to pump out, the more difficult
[25:13]it is to tell where the information even came from, let alone on how to fact check it. Hurdling into the future is becoming a perilous journey in itself. I've never been to Tasmania before, but
[25:26]my favorite thing is when Australians call it Tazzy [music] Tazzy. Sounds fun. Like with no other information. Lots of headlines about the Grammys last night, including Bad Bunny getting political. We'll have lots more on ABC News Live
[25:38]throughout the day. Another headline from there, by the way, starting next year, Grammys on ABC. I'm Brad Milky. Happy Groundhog Day, and I'll see you tomorrow. [music] Happy Groundhog Day, and I'll see you
[25:48]tomorrow.