[0:01]Four days before President Trump took office last year, an investment firm tied to the United Arab Emirates secretly signed a $500 million deal with the Trump family's crypto venture. According to the Wall Street Journal, which reviewed the company documents and spoke to
[0:18]people familiar with the matter, an Abu Dhabi royal known as the "Spy Sheik" backed the investment. Trump and his administration met personally with that sheik about the crypto deal multiple times. Then, back in May, a few months later, a new chip deal was
[0:37]announced with the UAE, ending a Biden-era embargo. Joining us, Head of King's College, Cambridge, and columnist for the Financial Times, Gillian Tett. Peter Baker, still with us. Gillian, does this raise any red flags for you?
[0:53]Well, it certainly raised a lot of red flags. It's very interesting that even after a year, when a lot of insider dealing and soft corruption has become almost normalized within the administration in ways we haven't seen before, this story
[1:09]still has the ability to shock quite a lot. I think it's partly because of the blatant nature of it. It's partly because it underscores a degree to which the American administration is increasingly acting like Gulf states, not the other way around.
[1:25]It's also striking because when I was in the World Economic Forum in Davos late last month, it was very clear from the American administration officials who were there that they actually prefer dealing with a number of the Gulf states these days, dealing with Europe, never mind
[1:40]the traditional American-European alliance. One of them actually said to me, "We find it much easier to talk to the Gulf states because they're more rational and they can make quick decisions and we can get business done quickly." There's a bigger pivot going on right now in the Trump
[1:56]administration towards the Gulf states and you're seeing that through things like the licensing of chips. Is it also because the Gulf states are happy to line your pockets, to pay for things that enrich you personally?
[2:14]The Gulf states have family-run administrative systems that look increasingly a bit like what we're seeing in the American system right now. Yes, they are willing to do whatever it takes to get the deals done. You can call that pragmatic and effective and centered around
[2:31]quick decision-making because power is concentrated in a few powerful families. Or you can say that is inimical to America's way of doing business traditionally and equates to potential self-corruption. Of course, the Trump administration would
[2:44]say it's the first. Peter, there might be a knee-jerk reaction to say Trump is getting away with this when he would call the Biden administration corrupt. It's complete hypocrisy. Whatever they accuse the Biden administration,
[2:59]they're doing 100 times over. Just look at all these deals and they think they can get away with this. Maybe, but when we're looking at the American public's reaction, I do want to go back to that pupil that I mentioned up
[3:16]top, which is that Americans don't think this is an ethical White House. They didn't in the beginning, but now even less so. The drop, the eight-point drop in whether this White House is ethical or not, down to 21%, is fueled by Republicans.
[3:33]I guess the question, Peter, is if this was known when Donald Trump took office that he wasn't ethical, but it's now down to an abysmally low number, electorally does this start to matter? Well, that's an
[3:47]interesting point, right? You're right about that poll. It was fascinating to me to see the number on Republicans specifically. The number of Republicans who said that they think Donald Trump is acting ethically is 42%. In other words, most Republicans aren't willing to say that
[4:02]the president of their party is an ethical president. That's stunning, right? I don't think we've seen that before, and I think that you're right. It is an area where it has begun to, I think, penetrate the electorate that this is an administration,
[4:17]this is a White House, this is a family around the president that is monetizing it like no other presidential family has ever before, as much as they complained about Hunter Biden, as you said, is peanuts compared to what we're talking about here in terms of the amounts of money at stake and
[4:31]money that goes directly into the president's own pocket as well as that of his family. I think that we just never see anything like it. What Trump has said is, "Well, I had all these guardrails in the first term and nobody ever gave me credit for it, so therefore I'm not going to bother with
[4:44]guardrails this time." He's challenging the system to say, "Okay, I'm going to do this, and it's up to you to decide whether or not you're going to do anything about it." That's going to be the question. Do voters react to this in a way that they say this
[4:57]is not acceptable or not? Yeah. I mean, I was recently in office, as you said, 55% of Republicans said that, then 42% now. So 55 in February last year, 42% now. The overall number again is 21%. So it wasn't now.
[5:12]It was 29% when he came into office, so it wasn't high to begin with. The family is getting much richer, much, much, much richer, at least on paper, Peter. Do you have an idea of how they're going to use that money going forward? Donald Trump might not be running for
[5:26]reelection, I guess not. Constitutionally speaking, he can't in '28. But do they plan on continuing to be a force in politics? Oh, I think so. Absolutely. This is just money we're talking about to their personal accounts.
[5:41]They have raised on top of this hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars for their political entities, much of which is also coming from people that have an interest in the government. Money that's gone to his political action organizations,
[5:57]to the construction of the new ballroom, all sorts of ways that he has tapped into moneyed interests in this country that are going toward him in one fashion or another. And he does plan to be a big part of politics when he's done it, if he's ever done.
[6:13]He wants to be able to dictate who comes next, I think. I think he wants to be able to keep the issues that he cares about on the table. And I think he wants to work to set his legacy and history, and that money will be a big tool in doing that.
[6:28]All right, Peter Baker, thank you very much. Julianne Tett, thank you. It's just incredibly disheartening that they didn't, they really failed all of the survivors on this. After so many months of saying, we're being so meticulous
[6:43]about this and we care so deeply about this. So I think that that's where the slap in the face really hurts. Hi again, everybody. It's now five o'clock in New York. According to Donald Trump's Justice Department, case closed,
[6:58]case is over in terms of their handling of the release of the Epstein files. But more importantly, according to Epstein and Maxwell survivors, the process has been a slap in the face. Over a month after the legally required deadline for DOJ to release the files in their entirety,
[7:14]the Department of Justice released a massive trove of three million documents. To call the release sloppy and haphazard is about the nicest thing we can say about it. According to my colleague Lisa Rubin, at least 40 known or suspected survivors' names were revealed in the files produced
[7:32]Friday, not just their names for lots of them, their addresses, their phone numbers. New York Times is reporting that the Justice Department published dozens of unredacted nude photos showing young women and possibly teenagers, underage girls.
[7:48]In a joint statement, 18 survivors slammed the government's handling of their abuse, writing this, quote, "This latest release of Jeffrey Epstein files is being sold as transparency, but what it actually does is expose survivors. Once again, survivors are having their names and identifying
[8:05]information exposed, while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected. The Justice Department cannot claim it has finished releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed. This is not over.
[8:20]We will not stop until the truth is fully revealed and every perpetrator is finally held accountable." This afternoon, the federal judge who presided over Epstein's criminal case scheduled a hearing on Wednesday to address the Justice Department's redaction failures.
[8:36]In terms of what is new in this release, our reporters are continuing to comb through the millions of files, along with journalists from NBC, CNBC, the Associated Press, and CBS. The New York Times reports this about Donald Trump's frequent appearance in the files, quote, "Using a proprietary
[8:54]search tool, the New York Times identified more than 5,300 files containing more than 38,000 references to Trump, his wife, his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, and other related words and phrases in the latest batch of emails, government files,
[9:08]videos, and other records released by the Justice Department. Previous installments of the Epstein files, which the department released late last year, included another 130 files with Trump-related references. None of those files include any direct communication
[9:24]between Trump and Epstein. Besides Trump, there are a number of other powerful men mentioned in these newly released documents. Elon Musk is one of them. He said in 2019 that he never took Epstein up on invitations to his island.
[9:39]It was revealed that he had exchanged multiple emails with the sex trafficker trying to coordinate a visit. Elon Musk writing in one of those emails, quote, "What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?"
[9:53]End quote. Former Prince Andrew is also seen in a brand new photo on all fours, along with an unidentified woman. Sorry to anyone seeing this.
[10:09]Co-owner of the New York Giants, Steve Tisch shows up hundreds of times, mostly in emails where Epstein proposes women for Tisch to meet. Tisch said in the statement that he did not take Jeffrey Epstein up on any of those invitations. Brett Ratner, the director of the newly released Melania--
[10:27]did we call it a documentary? This picture is alongside Jeffrey Epstein in one of the documents. There he is. Donald Trump's secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick, who
[10:43]said in a televised interview just a few months ago that he resolved long ago never to be in the same room as Epstein, said his dining room was weird, said they cut ties. It's revealed in the new documents that he had arranged
[10:59]a private lunch with Epstein and his family on Jeffrey Epstein's island. And by the fact that all those guys are in the files doesn't mean that they committed crimes or at least crimes that could be adjudicated or proven.
[11:15]Doesn't mean that they engaged in wrongdoing. It does speak to all the powerful and rich people and all the people that happen to be very, very close to Donald Trump, all of their presence in these files.
[11:29]When it comes to the idea that anyone would have had an incentive for them to stay quiet, some of what's been released answers some of those questions. Now, when it comes to any potential consequences for the new revelations in this big drop of
[11:44]files, here's what the country's deputy attorney general Todd Blanchard, who visited Colleen Maxwell in prison, had to say. There's a lot of correspondence. There's a lot of emails. There's a lot of photographs. There's a lot of horrible photographs that appear to be
[11:58]taken by Mr. Epstein or people around him. But that doesn't allow us necessarily to prosecute somebody. OK. So that's hardly comforting to the survivors of Epstein's
[12:13]abuse who've been steadfast in their calls for accountability and transparency for everyone involved in the heinous crimes carried out against them. That's where we start the hour with our senior legal reporter, Lisa Rubin. Danny Bensky is back with us.
[12:26]You saw her at the top of the hour. She is one of the Epstein survivors who's been talking about it, really sharing her story, advocating for herself and the other survivors and for transparency in the Trump administration. Also joining us, Tara
[12:42]Palmieri, she writes The Red Letter on Substack. She's hosted two acclaimed podcast series on the Epstein case. They are called Broken, Jeffrey Epstein and Power, the Maxwells. Let me start with you if you're ready. You ready? Yeah. How are you doing?
[12:56]I'm OK. I mean, you know, we talked a little bit before we started that on Saturday I just felt so broken. I felt like I couldn't get out of bed. I really had a moment where it's like, what is this fight for if we're just exposing people?
[13:13]And we worked so hard, so many of us worked so hard to speak to congressional leaders, to talk to senators, to talk to anybody we possibly knew had any power to say, we want this done the right way. We want to see it all. We need to see it all.
[13:28]But we want survivors to be protected. And we've just heard from the beginning, even when I was at the House Oversight Committee, Mike Johnson came in and shook our hand and looked us dead in the eye and said, we're all on the same side of transparency.
[13:43]We all just want justice and we want to protect the survivors. That is our first goal. Comerce said the same thing. And those are just to name a couple of people. But to then have this come out and I'm looking through the files and I'm seeing my name all over the place and
[14:00]the redactions don't even make any sense. I almost felt like if it was like a page where nothing was redacted, then it would make me feel maybe even a little bit better. But instead, it's literally like my full name there, my address, everything. And then Danny, which is my nickname, of
[14:14]course, is redacted. So there's just no rhyme or reason to any of the redactions. But my heart breaks for our Jane Doe sisters. I came across a blacked out picture of myself.
[14:31]When we as survivors look at these images, people are like, oh, it's redacted. It's not harmful. When you look at the border, you know exactly what that picture is. You know exactly where you are. And so for me, that was a redacted photo.
[14:47]However, there are others that the New York Times just came out with that article that said that there are all these nude photos. That is your government that is exposing victims to that degree. So it's so devastating and heartbreaking that
[15:03]the government, the people, the Department of Justice, right? Justice. Like, this is what they're willing to do to citizens. Abuse survivors make up quite a big population. And it is about survivors.
[15:19]We don't want this to become a chilling effect where survivors feel like they can't come forward and those in power will always be able to pull the strings. And it's hard right now to feel any other way. Have you been given any explanation for why your cell
[15:36]phone number, your address, your work? No, nothing. Nothing. And we had written letters to Todd Blanch. Well, one of the survivors that I know wrote a letter to Todd Blanch. I've been saying in every interview that we would love to talk to GOJ. We've been asking and requesting through all the nonprofit
[15:50]organizations we know. And we've never had interaction with them. And they think that that has been a big misstep here because even in the labeling of all of these files, they're labeled wrong. And a lot of-- nobody would know that unless
[16:05]they lived through it. And so we could have been a real asset here. And instead, it's just been like, survivors ask for this, here you are. And it's like, well, we didn't ask for this, right? This is not correct.
[16:24]So at this point, it's really hard to know where to go from here because we also-- the fight for transparency has to continue. And so to pull everything back now, of course, we want survivors to be redacted. But this is the way to get the people that we were trying--
[16:41]the perpetrators, right? And I think about Virginia so much. And I think about her fight. And I have said this from the beginning, where it feels like she clawed her way through to create a tunnel that we push the boulder through now. And it's like she named 40 people.
[16:57]She named them. And she was so brave to do that. And it just feels like in her memory, we need to make sure that people are held to account. And it just feels like at every turn, it's just a game. And it's not a game for us.
[17:11]It's our lives. What-- do you feel safe? Not at the moment. Yeah. I mean, it's a really hard question to answer. I think I'm so angry at this point that it doesn't matter.
[17:26]And that's my sadness. And I felt so-- all that shame that I felt from such a young age really came back while I was looking through this. And it's to be expected a little bit, right? Because I knew that there would be redacted things that I
[17:40]would see that would trigger emotions, but not to this degree with my name out there and Jane Doe's that I know exposed. It's just absolutely egregious and appalling. But moving through that, there's like-- I couldn't get out of bed for a day.
[17:55]And then after that, the rage, the anger is like-- and honestly, listening to Virginia's family, to Sky and Amanda, we were all on a Zoom call together, just a call just to check in with each other. And listening to Amanda speak, I was like,
[18:07]yeah, we have to fight. We have to-- this is right. We are in this together. Yes. And so I do think that's the difference is that we do have each other now. And that changed the world in September. And I think as we move through these files, we get really
[18:21]stuck in our own stories. But we have to remember that we are a collective and we are really strong together. Donald Trump's Epstein turmoil. The Department of Justice has released their final tranche of three million files related to Jeffrey Epstein, revealing
[18:40]more details about his cozy relationships with powerful people. The files include thousands of new text messages between Epstein and Trump ally Steve Bannon, suggesting that their known friendship was, quote, "deeper, chummier, and more expansive
[18:55]than previously known." In the text, the two frequently discussed foreign affairs and the Trump White House. Also included in the files are about two hours of never before seen interview footage of Epstein, all conducted
[19:09]by Steve Bannon. And we know that Bannon filmed Epstein for over 15 hours, sometime in the years leading up to Epstein's conviction and death in an attempt to rehab Epstein's reputation. Here's Epstein talking about his first time in jail back in
[19:28]2008 on charges of soliciting prostitution. I was in a place, it was called the special housing unit, which is for the roughest, toughest, meanest people. Did it strike you at the time of the mess you had made of
[19:44]your life and put you in a position? Did you ever find yourself in that position? No. You cannot tell me sometime during that day, you did not have that conversation with yourself of how the f*** did I do this to myself?
[19:58]Did I find it amazing that I was there? That's a better word. Not amazing, I don't want to say it was not funny. I wasn't funny. Right. Not amazing. It was incredible. Incredible in what way? Incredible like how do I do this to myself? No. It's as incredible as me
[20:13]sitting here in this house. It's all pretty incredible. Listen to this exchange in which Bannon asks Epstein if Epstein thinks that he is the devil himself. Do you think you're the devil himself?
[20:31]No, but I do have a good mirror. It's a serious question. I'm sorry. I don't know. Why would you say that? Because you have all the attributes. You're incredibly smart. You remember the devil is somebody knows what the devil's brand.
[20:46]You read Milton's you read Milton's Paradise Lost. No, the devil scares me. This is striking. It gives a rare look into Epstein's life at a time when there's almost no public footage of him speaking. Bannon reportedly intended for this footage to be made into
[21:04]a documentary, which never came to fruition. The files also include 5,300 documents that reference Donald Trump, including unverified claims against him, news articles, as well as emails in which he is name checked.
[21:20]To be very clear, Trump has not been accused of anything illegal and he denies any wrongdoing related to Jeffrey Epstein. Now Trump is threatening to sue multiple people over this. Joining me now to discuss all of this is Democratic
[21:33]Congresswoman Melanie Stansbury. She is a member of the House Oversight Committee. And also with this is Nancy Erica Smith, renowned civil rights attorney who has represented numerous victims of sexual harassment. Congresswoman, let's start with you.
[21:49]What was your reaction to this latest release from the DOJ? Do you believe that we have everything and this is truly the final tranche? Well, we know for a fact that we do not have everything. In fact, we know that Department of Justice found over six
[22:04]million documents that were considered responsive, not only to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but to the subpoena that they have not yet responded to in full. And so we know that DOJ is not compliant with the law. They are failing to comply with our subpoena.
[22:20]We know that they're intentionally withholding work product that implicates the individuals that were being investigated by Department of Justice, including potential co-conspirators. And we know that Todd Blanch went on national television on Friday morning and tried to tell the American people,
[22:35]don't believe your eyes. We're going to show you a bunch of documents, but there's nobody in them. Well, Donald Trump is not only in 5,300 documents, he is named tens of thousands of times in these documents. So this is not nearly over.
[22:50]And there are 37 individuals directly tied to Donald Trump referenced in these documents, including his wife, including Howard Lutnick, including Elon Musk. And we have a lot of investigating to do ahead of us. Nancy, Congress has lots of investigating to do.
[23:05]But one thing that we do know is that in addition to all of the things the Congresswoman referenced, DOJ was also pretty careless in their redactions, reportedly exposing the identities of many of the individuals who are victims of Jeffrey Epstein, about 43 women.
[23:21]And among those revelations include dozens of nude photographs. How do you respond to this given the concerns that the victims had about their identities being made public? Well, it's definitely re-traumatized the victims. It's disgusting.
[23:35]I don't believe it was careless. I believe it was deliberate. I believe that they're getting what they want. Some of the victims are saying, stop, stop releasing the files. They violated the law and didn't release these files on time claiming that they were protecting
[23:50]the victims. They have never been protecting the victims. They haven't been protecting the victims since the 32 count indictment in 2008. They've never protected the victims. This is not careless. This is deliberate, deliberate re-traumatizing victims to shut
[24:07]them up, to shut this down. The only people who they're concerned about protecting are Trump and his buddies. And it's truly so disgusting to treat the victims in this way. Congresswoman, attorneys for many of these Epstein survivors
[24:23]are making the same claims in courts. They are asking the DOJ to take down the files website in recent litigation. Have you heard from any of these survivors about their efforts to use litigation to stop the DOJ from having their
[24:38]identities placed online? Yes, absolutely. So since the files began to drop on Friday, I've heard from numerous survivors. I had a lengthy discussion with one of the survivors today. In addition to feeling like their own safety
[24:54]and their rights are being violated by these disclosures, they are also finding evidence of additional trafficking and other survivors are actually coming forward and contacting them now. So even though obviously the administration is
[25:10]trying to intimidate and silence survivors, because the dam is breaking loose, we are now seeing even more survivors, not only of Epstein's, but potentially of Trump's that are coming forward now as a result of all of this. Congresswoman, we also reported the texts that highlight
[25:27]what seemed to be a very deep and close relationship between Epstein and Steve Bannon. What's the reaction on Capitol Hill to these new revelations? Well, you know, we subpoenaed the estate and about three months ago, the estate produced thousands of pages of emails and
[25:46]texts and there was extensive communication with Steve Bannon at that time. And so I don't think these are new revelations. But what is new in these files are some of the accusations against the president himself, against Howard Lutnick, who went on national television and claimed that he had never been
[26:01]to the island and in fact had actually gone. Elon Musk, who's out there tweeting about Donald Trump being in the files and he's trying to find parties on Epstein's island. You know, it turns out that, as I said, there are over 30 individuals from Trump's orbit who are implicated.
[26:18]And I think a particular note is the fact that, you know, Melania Trump's documentary was aired this weekend and the producer and director of that documentary is actually in the files. There's a photograph of him with the primary sex trafficker
[26:34]that was working with Epstein to bring models into a sex trafficking network. So it's a very damning. Nancy, there are lots of things in these files, including images, some of which are obscured, but they seem to be images of the president.
[26:51]What do you make of the fact that there was so much done to obscure these images and so little done to redact the identities of some of the survivors here? I make of it that we don't have a Department of Justice anymore. Donald Trump has turned the Department of Justice, which
[27:09]represents us, the people of America, into his personal law firm. I mean, Todd Blanch was his personal lawyer. Todd Blanch made the incredible statement that they weren't going to investigate many of the claims in the files, particularly about Trump, because they were unfounded.
[27:26]How do you know they're unfounded if you don't investigate them? That's the most stupid statement. And I'd like to mention that the congresswoman talked about the safety of these women. These women should be provided protection now. We know what happens to people who come after
[27:41]Trump, particularly women who come after Trump. These poor women are out there now with the magma potentially coming after them, doxing them, or making them afraid. And we also know from the files that Epstein used to say,
[27:55]"Bad things will happen to you if you tell two 14-year-olds, 15-year-olds, 16-year-olds, 17-year-olds." This is so outrageous. And to be protecting Trump as if we need more evidence. He has been found guilty in a civil court of rape.
[28:13]25 plus women have accused him of abuse. His wife testified that he raped her. He owned a modeling agency. He owned a teen beauty pageant. He admitted grabbing women by the genitals. He paid off a porn star.
[28:27]And we're supposed to be surprised. We know that he was a best friend of just Epstein. Epstein had his picture in his house. And all these files just repeat what we know. And the DOJ, rather than picking up the 32-count
[28:43]indictment and finding out who the co-conspirators were, and that indictment talks about co-conspirators, rather than doing that, they're covering up for Donald Trump. It's not our DOJ anymore, which is really scary. All right.
[28:57]We will have more on this as the story develops. Congresswoman Melanie Stansberry and Nancy Erica Smith, thank you so much for getting us started tonight. As a law professor, I feel I have to note that as we report out this story, it must be said that being mentioned
[29:12]in these files does not necessarily mean that someone is implicated in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein. So just want to make that very clear. We have some breaking news. Bill and Hillary Clinton have both just agreed to testify in the House Oversight Committee's investigation into
[29:27]Jeffrey Epstein. Days before, the House was expected to vote to hold them in criminal contempt of Congress. Meanwhile, MSNOW has been pouring over the three million new Epstein documents the Justice Department released on Friday.
[29:41]An initial review found that more than 40 known or suspected survivors' identities were revealed in that release. Those files have since been removed, but survivors say that the damage has already been done. You get that rush, right?
[29:57]That feeling that's like, oh, that shame tingles feeling of like, I feel like I want to throw up because it's just all out there for the world to see. But for my survivor sisters who are not public and for those Jane Does, it's just, it's absolutely
[30:12]devastating and heartbreaking to see. Joining us now, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Democratic congressman Robert Garcia of California. Bill Clinton's spokesperson put out a statement on the Clintons agreeing to testify before the House Oversight Committee.
[30:26]This is new tonight. I want to read a portion of it to you. Quote, "They told you under oath what they know, but you don't care. But the former president and former secretary of state will be there. They look forward to setting a precedent that applies to everyone."
[30:41]I think that's very important. So one, your comments on the fact that the Clintons have now agreed to testify. And two, to the point that the President Clinton spokesperson makes, will there be others? Look, I think first I want to just be clear.
[30:56]We have said from day one, Oversight Democrats have said from the beginning that we want anyone that has any information about Jeffrey Epstein to testify. And that includes President Clinton. Obviously there was a relationship. I think President Clinton has been very clear in public statements about what his relationship
[31:10]was. I think there are important questions that should be answered. And at the same time we should recognize that James Comer is also obviously focused on anyone that Donald Trump views as an enemy to attack. And so look, President Clinton and Secretary Clinton made
[31:27]a reasonable offer just a few days ago to come and appear before the committee. And we want to hear from President Clinton. We've said that from day one. And James Comer has refused to make even modest accommodations for President Clinton. And so I think the President and the Secretary of State said
[31:42]very clearly, we're coming in. And so we're glad they're coming in. We'll have questions. And now I think to the spokesperson's part, look, James Comer is setting a very new precedent here where every demand that he wants has to be
[31:58]agreed to immediately. What we want is the truth for the survivors. And that's our focus. And so what does this look like? When do we expect them to appear, to talk? And what do your conversations look like with Chairman Comer
[32:11]about who's next and where this goes? So I think one is the dates are being worked on between Chairman Comer and the Clintons. So I imagine that we will have a date fairly soon. And it will be sometime in the coming weeks.
[32:24]They'll come in. There'll be a deposition by the Oversight Committee and members of the staff, which will be important. It'll be transcribed. And so that will be a full deposition and sit down with both the Clintons. Separate of that, and I think as important, is we have
[32:41]depositions coming up with the people that have known Jeffrey Epstein the most. That includes folks like Les Wexner, who, of course, was a longtime major associate, includes folks like Richard and Dan, who was the attorney, and the accountant for Epstein.
[32:58]And of course, Glene Maxwell, which is going to be happening here in the next week, week and a half. Those are going to be all key conversations and depositions the Oversight Committee is very interested in. So how do you, on one hand, pursue that path while also keeping pressure on DOJ to release
[33:13]the documents that they have not yet released? Well, I think, first, let's be clear. The White House cover-up of the Epstein files continues. You can't say you're only going to release 50 percent of the documents. Fifty percent of the documents and say, "Oh, it's over. We've released everything."
[33:27]It's an embarrassment. It's shameful. It's disrespectful to the survivors. The survivors have come out against that. And on top of that, they're not even protecting the survivors in what they've actually released. So it's been completely, completely botched. In addition, what's really important is Todd
[33:43]Blanch keeps saying, "Well, we have an ongoing investigation or there's interagency communication. We're going to hold that information." That is not actually allowed in the subpoena that's been in place since the summer. There may be language in the law that was passed by Congress that speaks to those issues.
[33:59]There's a parallel effort and legal binding here as it relates to the subpoena. They can't make those declarations. They certainly can't withhold that from the Oversight Committee. So they continue to break the law and the White House cover-up continues. I feel like I have learned a lot about a lot of people with
[34:16]these Epstein file releases. I understand Melinda Gates a whole lot better now, given how Bill Gates shows up. Apparently, the government released a whole just a tranche just dedicated to President Clinton, but I feel like I
[34:32]haven't learned enough about the sitting president of the United States and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein and how he shows up. The New York Times yesterday, they identified - and they put an article up about this - they identified more than 5,300 files containing more than 38,000 references to
[34:51]Mr. Trump, his wife, his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, and other related words and phrases in the latest batch of emails, government files, videos and other records released by Are we going to get some accountability from the president? What does the president know about Jeffrey Epstein
[35:05]that he has yet to tell us? Well, we've shared with everyone - and I made this message clear to Mr. Blanche - is they might think their investigation is now over, but our investigation is actually just getting started. And so the amount of information that we have as it relates
[35:20]to President Trump, why there was so much trafficking in Mar-a-Lago and in New York City, why Jeffrey Epstein called Donald Trump his closest friend for over 15 years, why the accusations that were actually made and that we're seeing in
[35:36]the Epstein files, which are some very serious allegations, were actually not followed up by the FBI, why is Trump's name being removed and then put back again and then a picture appears and it's redacted, why the games? And so the arrows point directly back to the White
[35:54]House and Donald Trump. Why the cover-up? Why say you're going to release the files and then basically try to stall the release? And now, why the heavy redactions? Why the games? And why were these allegations actually followed up on?
[36:09]So the president can be rest assured that even though he thinks the investigation is over, that we have a lot of work ahead of us in the months ahead. I think the entire public - I know you didn't even know what documents existed before the release by the Department of
[36:25]Justice, but they included in a statement, the DOJ did, when they released this initial trance saying, quote, "Some of the documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. To be clear, the claims are unfounded and false, and if they
[36:39]have a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already." Where is your level of faith that the Department of Justice, not just this DOJ, but also previous DOJs, did their due diligence to go and try to corroborate
[36:54]and substantiate any of these allegations that the American public are reading in these documents? I mean, two things. One is, it's crazy that the DOJ would write a statement like that. I mean, unprecedented. I mean, completely just - clearly, it's corruption.
[37:11]I mean, they're trying to cover for the president. They haven't made declarations like that for anybody else. So the fact that that's included should be dismissed as really pretty unprecedented and clearly part of a cover-up. Second, as far as past administrations, I think
[37:25]that's a good question. And in fact, I have oftentimes said - I mean, one of the folks I want to talk to is former Attorney General Merrick Garland. And why wasn't more released to the public? Look, there's a lot of powerful men of - and I could care less
[37:42]what political party they're in - who still right now have not been prosecuted, whose names have not been public, who are the co-conspirators, who are the men that rape and abuse women. Why don't we have those names? We should not be satisfied until the public learns the names
[37:58]from our own government who has the information about who actually caused the harm, the rape and the abuse and the trafficking. Until we get those names, we're not stopping until we get justice for the survivors. It was pretty wild to watch Todd Blanch come out last week,
[38:15]indignant about any pressure to move faster or to release all the documents, really emphasizing the level of care that he believed the DOJ had given these documents. And then to learn that it's the New York Times that's catching
[38:29]some of these unredacted images, some of these unredacted names. When you've spoken with survivors, what have they said to you about the cost of being re-traumatized at the hands of their own government? It's horrifying.
[38:45]I was talking to a survivor just yesterday. It's hard to actually explain the terror that they feel and the trauma that they're having to relive. And Todd Blanch and Pam Vondee have said time and time again that they want to protect the survivors.
[39:02]The Republicans have said they want to protect the survivors. It's complete bullshit. They've done nothing. They've done nothing to protect the survivors. They continue to put their names out there. They continue to cause them harm. They should be incredibly careful and center the violence
[39:16]that they've had to endure. And Todd Blanch continues to lie by saying that they're going to redact the names.