[0:00]We begin tonight, keeping them honest with the name that was not spoken in last night's state of the Union message, Jeffrey Epstein, that in the name that we learned today has turned up in FBI records missing from the Epstein files,
[0:12]Donald Trump. We know this because a numbered evidence log in the Ghislaine Maxwell case catalogs about 325 FBI witness interviews. But of that number, more than 90 do not appear to be present
[0:24]on the Justice Department's website. And three of those witness interviews are related to a woman who told agents that Jeffrey Epstein had repeatedly abused her, starting when she was approximately 13 years old. She also accused Trump
[0:36]of sexually assaulting her. Now, we should point out here the president has consistently denied any wrongdoing in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, and the white House is calling the allegations, quote, false and sensationalist. The documents related to her testimony with
[0:49]the FBI are not there. It's our question to the yet to the FBI. And the DOJ is why aren't the documents there? Why have they been removed? And Congress under the under the transparency and the subpoena, have a right to see them? So that's the House Oversight Committee is ranking
[1:02]Democrat today. The president, as you know, has been treating the files as the ultimate not guilty verdict. I have nothing to hide. I've been exonerated. I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. I've been totally exonerated, and I've been totally exonerated.
[1:15]I've been totally exonerated on Epstein. But, you know, I'm the expert in our way because I've been totally exonerated. But I'm the one that can talk about it because I've been totally exonerated. Keeping them honest, that might be easier to say if the public had access to everything
[1:27]the federal government has on Epstein, Maxwell, and the many powerful people they moved among then citizen Trump included, who again says he did nothing wrong. These latest allegations first arose in July of 2019, just days
[1:39]after Epstein's arrest on federal charges. A woman called an FBI tip line agents interviewed her two weeks later, during which she told them Epstein had repeatedly abused her at a home he was staying at in South Carolina. The abuse started,
[1:52]she said, when she was about 13 years old. Now, according to the FBI interview record a form known as the 302, when she showed agents a photo of Trump and Epstein that a friend had sent her. Her attorney said
[2:05]that she was, quote, concerned about implicating additional individuals and specifically any that were well known due to a fear of retaliation. The Maxwell Evidence log notes three additional 302 forms dated in August
[2:18]and October 2019, related to the same alleged victim, as well as three other sets of interview notes. Now, none of those appear to be present in the files released by the DOJ. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle
[2:30]have now said the released files, which took an act of Congress to get released, are not all there is, and it's been more than a year since the attorney general said this on Fox News tomorrow. Jesse, breaking news right now you're going to see
[2:43]some Epstein information being released by my office. It's sitting on my desk right now to review a truckload of evidence arrived. It's now in the possession of the FBI. It's a new day.
[2:55]It's a new administration, and everything's going to come out to the public. A few days later, a bunch of right wing influencers emerged in the white House. Binders labeled the Epstein Files Phase one. They soon found out
[3:07]there was nothing much new in them. That was February. By July, the Justice Department was trying to slam the door on it all, saying, quote, while we've labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and a short examination of any evidence
[3:20]in the government's possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. A bipartisan slate of lawmakers, including some of the president's
[3:32]otherwise diehard supporters, were not buying that and said about forcing through legislation mandating full disclosure, of course, over the president's resistance, we have nothing to do with Epstein, the Democrats do. I have nothing to do with
[3:44]Jeffrey Epstein. You just keep going on the Epstein files. And what the Epstein is is a Democrat hoax, even though he was trying to look way he finally did sign the bill.
[3:58]But when the deadline came, only a portion of the files came with it. And so what we're doing is we are looking at every single piece of paper that we are going to produce, making sure that every victim, their name, their identity,
[4:10]their story, to the extent it needs to be protected is completely protected. And so I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. Well, that part about protecting the victims with redactions that did not happen for some.
[4:23]And though more documents would come out and expose, for example, that Commerce Secretary Howard Ludwick had lied saying he'd cut ties with Epstein in 2005. They would bring embarrassing revelations about former Harvard president and Treasury Secretary Lawrence
[4:35]Summers, who announced his retirement from Harvard today and lead to the criminal investigations of a British lord and a disgraced former prince. That said, for the most part, the files we've seen have been notable for the absence of names
[4:47]hidden behind redactions, which both Republican Thomas Massie and Democrat Roxana both say conceal potential. Coconspirators. And to the files we've seen, you can now add the ones that are missing reading now from the Justice
[4:59]Department's statement of them. Several individuals and news outlets have recently flagged files related to documents produced to Ghislaine Maxwell in discovery of her criminal case that they claim appear to be missing. As with all documents
[5:11]that have been flagged by the public, the department is currently reviewing files within that category of the production. Should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the act, the Department will, of course,
[5:24]publish it consistent with the law. Newly released Justice Department docket documents show that as regulators investigated unauthorized construction on one of Epstein's two private islands, issuing stop work orders and weighing potential fines,
[5:37]Epstein appealed directly to the island's governor for help. Text messages uncovered by K files show Governor Albert Brian Jr telling Epstein he had asked one of the regulators to, quote, hold everything until speaking with him, and later sought the recusal
[5:50]of the commissioner overseeing the dispute. K files, Andrew Kozinski joins me now. And you know, Andrew, this is so important as we get to the heart of Jeffrey Epstein and how he had the power and money that he had
[6:02]and how he wielded it and this entire circle. So this gets to the influence and how he will today. What do these messages reveal? Yeah. And you hit it right there at these messages. They offer a rare, window into how Epstein operated
[6:15]in the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he leveraged his wealth, business footprint and promises of investment to try to influence local officials. Now, I want to give people a little background here. Epstein had deep roots in the Virgin Islands.
[6:27]He bought his private island, Little Saint James, in the 1990s. He later expanded. You can see them both there. He later expanded his footprint in 2016 and purchased neighboring Great Saint James. And the permits show that he had plans to build
[6:39]docks, roads, residences, and other development. And this is where these text with the governor come into play. Now, by December 2018, regulators were scrutiny and construction on Great Saint James, the Virginian Islands
[6:52]Department of Planning and Natural Resources had issued a stop work order and began reviewing potential violations. Epstein then reaches out directly to then the newly elected governor, Democrat Albert Bryant Jr.
[7:04]Look at this exchange between the two, Epstein complaints and about potential fines. And Brian said he spoke to John Pierre Earl that is the commissioner of the department who they're calling JP in these texts. And he asked him,
[7:17]he Brian said he had asked him to, quote, hold everything until he and the attorney spoke to meet later, Epstein complains at the same commissioner J.P. was, quote, going after me in the press, to which Brian responded
[7:29]that he had asked the commissioner to recuse himself. And then in another subsequent message, Brian wrote, I asked him to recuse himself and concede on all previous permit requests. Now, the documents don't show whether any enforcement
[7:43]decisions were ultimately changed. But what they do show is this there is an active regulatory dispute. Epstein was communicating directly with the governor of the territory, and the governor was telling him that he was intervening on his behalf.
[7:56]Later, when Brian was asked under oath in a 2023 deposition whether he had received, he, Epstein received any special favors, or treatment from him. He answered repeatedly and simply, no.
[8:08]All right, Andrew, obviously your reporting is very illuminating on that front and also shows this is not just a few text messages. Okay. So when again, we get to power and how he was wielding it, three months worth of text message,
[8:20]three months January and they end in June. Obviously. Epstein is then arrested in July. Okay. And as we point out, this is all happened. This all went down this whole back and forth, 11 years after he was and after the Miami Herald, Miami, Miami
[8:32]Herald's investigative series, which was in the November of 2018. Right. So all of this then is is known, there were meetings, there were attempts to meet as well that you've on unveiled here. What do the records show? Well, Aaron. That's right. The messages suggest
[8:45]this was not their first contact emails from September 2018, while Brian was campaigning for governor, show aides coordinating a meeting between Brian Epstein and Epstein at Epstein's financial firm in the Virgin Islands in April 2019. As this dispute was unfolding,
[8:59]Epstein texted Brian right there, he says, can you spare 15 minutes? To which Brian replied, for you, absolutely. Epstein and Brian then coordinated the meeting at what appeared to be the office of Epstein's longtime Virgin Islands tax attorney.
[9:11]There are also emails referencing additional phone, meetings and phone calls, including, again, outreach through his longtime Virgin Islands attorney. So the documents show an ongoing line of communication both during Brian's campaign and later as Epstein
[9:24]was dealing with the regulators. Now, we reached out to Brian and his spokespeople many, many times over the past five days and we did not hear back from any of them. I have just finished, testifying. I answered every one of their
[9:37]questions as, fully as I could, based on what I knew and what I knew is what I said in my statement, this morning, I never met,
[9:50]Jeffrey Epstein, never had any, connection or communication with him. I knew, Ghislaine Maxwell. Casually as an acquaintance. But whatever they asked me,
[10:03]I did my very best to respond. This is all part of the oversight committees probe into dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his child rape trafficking ring. Hillary Clinton, who has said she cannot recall
[10:15]even meeting Jeffrey Epstein, was asked about whether she had contact with Epstein's estate. And apparently she was also asked about Pizzagate. CNN's Andy Gray in Chappaqua in New York, where the hearing took place.
[10:27]Andy. Well, Jake, the hearing has wrapped after over six hours of questioning that Secretary Hillary Clinton faced by both Democrats and Republicans, and she just addressed
[10:39]the press where she said that that was a very repetitive deposition. She said, you know, how many times she could repeat the fact that she had never met Jeffrey Epstein? She us all as sort of a waste of time. She talked about how she only knew
[10:51]Epstein's coconspirator. Ghislaine Maxwell casually said that Maxwell attended her daughter Chelsea's wedding as a plus one didn't really interact with her. She said that she was confident that her husband
[11:04]had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. She said, quote, I am. And she said that her husband's relationship with Epstein ended several years before anything about Epstein's criminal activities came to light.
[11:16]Now, Comber House Oversight Chair James Comer, the top Republican on the committee, said that he is trying to get the the depositions, video and transcripts out as quickly as possible. We know that both Democrats and Republicans
[11:29]had a lot of questions here, but Democrats Democrats argued that this was largely a waste of time, given that Hillary Clinton never knew Jeffrey Epstein directly. Take listen to more of what Hillary Clinton had to say today.
[11:43]That's the best exchange that I had came at the very end when, contrary to every other deposition, they have, taken,
[11:58]no Republican member asked any questions about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell to anyone else they have deposed.
[12:11]And in fact, the Republican members didn't even show up for the deposition of less Wexner. Hillary Clinton did not mince words in her deposition to Democrats and Republicans today, and she argued that she was being unfairly
[12:25]singled out. That this, that she did not need to appear for this deposition in the first place. She said her and her team have been pushing back and forth with, along with her husband for months, trying to prevent this deposition from happening. And she argued
[12:37]that if she were to do this, it should have been in public. But she certainly said she doesn't want to go through this process again. Is the white House feeling the heat at all when it comes to the fallout over the release of the Epstein Files, and do they have any sense of
[12:52]vision beyond tomorrow in the sense that, okay, Republicans are going to subpoena Bill Clinton and force him to testify about Epstein, and that might mean that when Democrats reclaim the House,
[13:04]they're going to do that to current President Trump. Yeah. I mean, Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on House oversight, has said that already applies because by bringing in a former president, he is arguing that they should also be willing
[13:16]to bring in the current president to talk about Jeffrey Epstein, given obviously there are pictures of there are of them together. The birthday book, there are ties between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, despite the denials of wrongdoing
[13:29]by this white House. So Democrats say that president has already been broken and that it's already there. And you've kind of heard that echoed in President Trump himself when he was asked about, weeks ago about this fight over getting the Clintons to come and testify.
[13:42]The president said, that maybe he shouldn't feel that way, but that he felt badly for former President Bill Clinton for having to go in there and sit down and conduct this deposition. And so he's already kind of expressed that sympathy, even as he's also, you know, at
[13:55]times said it was only Democrats who were involved with Jeffrey Epstein. And that too, the focus should be on here. We've heard from people like Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie who say it's actually equal opportunity in that regardless of if you're a Republican
[14:08]or a Democrat, if you had ties to Jeffrey Epstein, they have questions about that. They should be brought in for questioning. And so obviously, with Hillary Clinton going in, someone who had never met Jeffrey Epstein but had met Ghislaine Maxwell,
[14:20]we have heard from sources say that they believe that sets the precedent for other family members to be brought in, whether that's in similar settings because of Jeffrey Epstein or other investigations. And so this could be precedent setting going forward
[14:33]come the midterms. And the white House has concerns over that. So we'll see what exactly that looks like going forward and what the questions are that they have for the former president when he goes in for his deposition tomorrow. So this photo,
[14:45]we found it was on the Justice Department's website on January 29th or January 31st, 2026. It was accessible there. Then it's taken down that we initially saw this, yesterday
[14:58]on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. And this link is not online. There it's noticed people online start saying that looks a lot like our members of Congress start saying Howard needs to answer questions about this.
[15:11]The link is then restored after only after people bring this up. Okay? Only after people bring this up. After I've reached out to the Justice Department, to the Commerce Department, to the white House. This link is then restored late.
[15:24]So it's almost as if someone thought they could just remove it before anyone noticed it. I'm not saying they did. We don't just fix it, but it's definitely possible that way. And, then it's put back online. I think the statement
[15:36]that they gave to us said, that, they were it was part of a batch of images that were pulled for review and is, that are being uploaded with necessary redactions
[15:49]on a rolling basis. No files are being deleted. They said it was part of the batch of files that were flagged for nudity. I mean, obviously there's no nudity in that photo. That is what they said. That is what they told it told us Nick has not addressed this,
[16:02]but obviously this you know, we have, the fact that he said he went to the island, we know because there's an email where he talks about going to the island. Now, we have this purported photo of him on the island.
[16:15]It does not what he said before the photo. What what he told the committee, those two things obviously can't, you know, the same former President Clinton's testimony, more than five hours of it before the House
[16:27]Oversight Committee, the first time ever a former president has been compelled to testify under oath to Congress. Unlike his wife, the former secretary of state, he did not talk afterwards about today's questioning, which, the same as yesterday,
[16:39]took place near the Clinton home outside New York. Also, by contrast with her, he actually knew Epstein in the early 2000, according to flight logs, he traveled more than two dozen times on Epstein's private jet, and photos of him
[16:52]are in the Epstein files, including this one of him swimming with Ghislaine Maxwell and an unidentified woman. We know. The committee asked him about this one specifically whether he knew the woman there next to him in the hot tub and whether he had
[17:04]sex with her, Mr. Clinton answered no to both questions, and we know from the opening statement he published this morning, he said, more quoting from it. Now I know what I saw and more importantly, what I didn't see.
[17:16]I know what I did and more importantly, what I didn't do. I saw nothing and I did nothing wrong, he continues. But even with 2020 hindsight, I saw nothing that ever gave me pause. We were only here because he hid it from everyone
[17:28]so well for so long, and by the time it came to light with his 2008 guilty plea, I had long associating with him afterwards, Committee chairman James Comber praised the former president for answering or attempting to answer every question
[17:41]put to him. And though he said that when Americans get a chance to see the video, they will, quote, have more questions about some of the answers given. He also referred to the history made today. I believe that in the history
[17:54]of Congress, the two highest ranking officials to ever be deposed by Congress would be president Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. We still have lots of questions about how Epstein accumulated so much wealth.
[18:08]And we will continue to bring some more people in and try to get answers. Chairman Coomer was also asked about this claim. President Trump has been repeating almost every chance he gets, including today. I don't know anything
[18:21]about the upcoming files. You know, I've been fully exonerated the president this afternoon. And here's Chairman Coomer tonight, with the help of a fellow Republican on the committee, you agree that he is exonerated of this man. From all the evidence
[18:33]I've seen, he's been exonerated for for a long time. And would that preclude your committee? Is that your position from your committee calling him? Well, we'll discuss that, as we move forward. Obviously, we've got more people to bring in and we'll see
[18:45]if any new evidence arises. But right now, I haven't seen anything. And if anybody can I just say this, the Epstein victims have exonerated President Trump. This is a trope that you guys are a rabbit hole. You guys are going down. But he has been exonerated
[18:58]over and over again by Epstein victims. When later pressed on how that could be, Chairman Cohen referred to a meeting the committee had with what he said were 5 or 6 survivors. He said they all said they never saw or heard anything that Donald Trump did wrong.
[19:11]We should add that 5 or 6 women are far from the hundreds who have been victimized. We should also say that both the president and former President Clinton deny any and all wrongdoing. And all of this, which raises the following question for the committee's ranking Democrat.
[19:23]If it's okay to depose Bill Clinton and question him about his encounters with Jeffrey Epstein, why not also question the current president? Republicans are now set a new precedent, which is to bring in presidents and former
[19:35]presidents to testify. So once again, going to make that call that we did yesterday, we are now asking and demanding that President Trump officially come in and testify
[19:48]in front of the oversight committee. He appears in the Epstein files next to next to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, almost more than anybody else. Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna. He's been in the forefront
[20:00]of demanding accountability on all of this. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee and took part in both former President Clinton and former Secretary Hillary Clinton's depositions. Congressman, thanks for being here. Thank you. Long day. What do you what can you say about what you talked about
[20:12]or what you heard today? Well, first of all, it's important that President Clinton showed up, that he answered every question. He didn't plead the Fifth Amendment. It was a civil exchange. And he said he's doing it
[20:25]because he believes in participating in democracy as a citizen. That should be a precedent for Donald Trump to do the same for Howard. Let me do the same. And frankly, for other men who are in these files
[20:38]with allegations of having gone to the island to do the same. The Republicans on the committee are saying Donald Trump has been exonerated. Do you believe that is true? What does that mean? I mean, there's certainly just yesterday
[20:51]news that there's three FBI interviews that the Justice Department has withheld from a woman who made allegations that she was sexually assaulted as a minor by President Trump. Now, I want to be very clear.
[21:04]Those are allegations. I haven't seen the the files, but what is troubling is the cover up. And my view is that the biggest problem with President Trump is that he has not followed the law. The Epstein Transparency
[21:17]Act requires all of these statements to be released. At least half of the statements have not been released. That's what I would want to ask you. Why aren't you releasing all the state? When you say half the statements, you're talking about millions of documents, millions of documents.
[21:29]And CNN did an analysis saying that there are at least 90 survivor statements, not just concerning President Trump, but concerning other men who may have abused or raped these young girls.
[21:41]Their statements to the FBI not in the files are law, Thomas Massey. And my law requires that release. And that is the the the biggest issue. But, you know, as a matter of common sense, most Americans will say, if President Clinton
[21:54]can answer these questions, shows so should Donald Trump. The person who shouldn't have been there is Hillary Clinton. I mean, I don't understand why she was called to to to testify. She never even met him. She never met him. She had nothing to do with them.
[22:06]The thousands of people who he could call other than Hillary Clinton. To President Clinton's credit, he said I should be called to testify. I had been on his private planes. And when when people see the transcripts of their own
[22:19]with their own eyes, we're not supposed to talk about it. I know the Republicans play fast and loose with the rules, but I want them to pay attention to, Representative Melanie Stansbury in New Mexico and the pointed questions
[22:31]she asked. President, Democrats, a Democrat, AG she spoke up for the survivors and their statements and asked some very challenging questions of President Clinton. So has Subramanian and other Democrat
[22:43]ask very pointed questions of, President Clinton? So the Democrats did not pull punches, in fact, some of the Republicans. So we asked tougher questions. Why? Because our North Star has always been justice for the survivors.
[22:56]So do you think I mean, there's no if I mean, come to the head of this committee, it is unlikely that the president of United States is going to come in and they're saying he's exonerated, that he's going to be asked to come in to answer questions.
[23:09]I think it's unlikely that he will. The, Nancy Mesa said that she's open to a subpoena for Howard. That would be a start. So I do think we can get some administration officials. And then, of course, the midterm elections. One of
[23:22]the questions is going to be, do you believe there should be accountability for Donald Trump and and further investigations that are nonpartisan? And I do think if we had Chairman Garcia, he would issue that that subpoena. Is Nancy
[23:34]Mace wanting to hear from Howard enough. If James Comey I mean, is Comber behind that? I don't know where comer is, but would it depend on him? I don't think so, actually, because if, we get every Democrat, which we would,
[23:47]and Nancy Mace can get a few Republicans, we would have the votes to, to do the subpoena. And Nancy Mace, of course, as you remember, was one of the people who signed the discharge petition with Lauren Boebert, and Marjorie Taylor Greene to force the release of the files
[23:59]in the first place. So I believe we will have the coalition to have. Howard, let me come. I mean, today, Donald Trump says he's very innocent. He's very innocent. No one has accused Howard. Me of impropriety sexually with young girls.
[24:12]What we have said is, why did you lie about your relationship with Epstein? And did you have alleged business ties and come clean? He said initially, I think that he had been to his house once with with his wife. It turned out
[24:24]he had actually been to the island. He had been to the island. He had been there and engaged, allegedly in contact with Epstein long after Donald Trump said that I it alerted the police saying that I'm really concerned about what Epstein's doing.
[24:37]And so it goes to his judgment. He's a representative of America around the world. You have the former prince and in Britain of being prosecuted, Lord Mendelssohn being prosecuted, the former Norwegian prime minister being prosecuted. And here in the United States,
[24:50]there's no accountability. And that's, I think, what's upsetting people like Nancy Mace. The how significant is that? Do you think that President Clinton testified, according to to the Republicans, that in early 2000, then citizen Donald Trump
[25:02]told him that he had a falling out with Epstein over a land deal and they were no longer friends? Well, again, they're not supposed to characterize it, but because they have what I would say is the, people should look
[25:14]at the transcript. What President Clinton said was that, it was correct that it's up to the committee to make a determination whether to call Donald Trump. And he was basically saying his knowledge he may not have
[25:27]personal knowledge about what Donald Trump did or did not do. That doesn't mean that Donald Trump is somehow exonerated. President Clinton was testifying for what his personal knowledge of the matter is. And when the transcript comes out,
[25:39]it will be perfectly clear. Yesterday, Secretary Clinton was saying that some of the questions she started to get toward the end were, you know, about UFOs and Pizzagate. Did that happen again today?
[25:51]Not when I was there. They they stayed, largely on topic. I will give the Republicans credit that for the portions I was there, it was more civil than I expected. In fact, you know, I've got to be candid. I think that
[26:03]there was some sexism in the way Secretary Clinton was treated. She was treated worse than President Clinton was treated. President Clinton was treated better, or what went into it in terms of the tone, in terms of the respect.
[26:16]And and I don't understand why Secretary Clinton was called. I really don't I don't I understand why President Clinton was called. He should have been called. That was appropriate. Secretary Clinton never met this person. And the questions that she was subject
[26:29]to, in my view, the tone, was much worse than President Clinton. And I thought inappropriate. I mean, do you think the Pizzagate questions were one of the reasons Secretary Clinton was called in?
[26:42]Because I it's been a while since I went down that rabbit. Q and on Rabbit Hole, but if my memory serves, it had something to do with the pizza parlor. And Secretary Clinton. It's so outrageous that I can't even remember the conspiracy.
[26:54]But it's sort of about Hillary Clinton being. Do you think that's part of the reason she was called? I think that they're trying to conflate it and say that she was part of some conspiracy theory, and the fact is that she never met
[27:06]or knew Epstein. I mean, there was one time in some historical society in the white House that he showed up as a donor that mean she may have shaken his hand, but there's no reason that she should have been called. And I saying this objectively, President Clinton
[27:19]should have been called and he should have been subject to tough questioning. But I think she was mistreated. And and I hope when people see the transcript and the video, that will become clear. Congressman, I appreciate your time. Thank you. If your.