[0:00][Music] Hi everybody. I'm Britney Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me once again is Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me.
[0:11]>> Very happy to be back. >> I'm happy to have you. And we have a conversation on two issues that don't seem much alike here, but what they have in common is they transcend politics,
[0:21]right? And what it comes down to is they are about transparency and accountability in the government. And the first thing I want to talk today about is a hop on issue, the documents
[0:31]surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. The House Oversight Committee released over 33,000 documents related to disgraced financeier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. These include videos, flight
[0:43]logs, and others. So to start off the conversation, what did you learn here? >> Yeah, well, I'm still looking through those documents, and what I can tell you is there's some old, but there's also some new. um for the first time with
[0:54]this administration via Trump ad Trump's decision, we've actually been able to see um what all exists pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein and it does it's a lot
[1:04]bigger than I think people realize. Um as part of our task force in oversight, you know, we did and we were pushing for this back in early this year when we were the only ones doing it. Um and then
[1:15]you're seeing kind of how it snowballed. But what I would like to just specify to people is that, you know, based on the witness testimony, a lot of people have asked, you know, what did the witnesses say in that room? Um, they gave us
[1:25]names. They told us that we need to be following up with Deutsch Bank, of which Chairman Comr has already authorized or um issued a request from the Treasury Department for those SARS reports, meaning that we're going to get the
[1:36]financial records and transactions. Um, we are also told, and this is nothing new, a lot of people that have been investigating Jeffrey Epstein know that this was a definitely a big large-scale finance operation also to funding his
[1:48]entire organization. Um, but we're talking about shell corporations. We're talking about offshore accounts. We're talking about also other countries. We were also told that there was other intelligence agencies or other agencies
[1:59]involved, excuse me, countries involved with Jeffrey Epstein. And I say that as in more than one because there's been this um common conception that it was just one specific foreign country.
[2:09]That's not true. It was multiple. Um so it's a lot bigger than I think people realize and anticipate. And what I'm hoping to uncover in this investigation is a we want to ensure that the victims are given justice because they actually
[2:21]had told us that they had previously requested their information from previous administrations and were denied. And for the first time, we are actually going to be able to get them their information, documents pertaining
[2:32]to themselves about things unfortunately that they were exposed to or that they were subjected to. Um, that was wrong that the other administration denied that information. And so we are very grateful for President Trump to coming
[2:44]to come forward with that information. But what I don't like happening is I am seeing this effort to release the files of which we've have now released them uh being used also to at the same time
[2:55]smear the president and I do stand with the victims and obviously we are very much so supporting them and doing everything that we can to deliver justice and ensure that these people are investigated and brought to justice. Uh,
[3:06]but what is not okay is when people are taking it and making it partisan. And the victims, to their credit, actually last night, I believe on MSNBC, had actually stated that President Trump was
[3:17]never involved. And the fact that that was even a question from some media outlets and also to the fact that it seems to be some members of Congress that are alluding to that or pushing that narrative, that's wrong. And so, I
[3:28]think it's disrespectful to the victims and disrespectful to the investigation as well. And something that your Republican uh colleague said, Thomas Massie, he said that he doesn't think President Trump is
[3:38]implicated in these files, but he does think that his donors and his friends are. When you're looking at this and you're saying that it's bigger than we can anticipate, are you seeing names of
[3:49]donors? Are you seeing famous names people know? Will people get those names? >> I think that people deserve to get those names. What I can also tell you is some of those names are already publicly out
[4:00]there. Um, it's not President Trump's just associates. It's literally, you know, I think it's Bill Gates and former President Bill Clinton that are also, you know, known associates, but it
[4:12]doesn't necessarily mean, right, if someone is on a list per se, um, for, you know, knowing someone or in a black book address, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're guilty of a crime. And so, those are two facts that you have to
[4:23]differentiate. Now, we have subpoenaed Bill Clinton and we've also subpoenaed a number of other people, too, including Aosta. And that information I'm a huge advocate for. And I wish that they would have released these files at the very
[4:34]get-go in the beginning. And I think they should have put them onto the National Archives website. I also know that House Oversight is working at actually rescanning and uploading these documents into PDF format to make it um more easy for the American people to
[4:46]search through. But I do think that you'll find that there's information in there that we are also too coinciding with this investigation. And so the victims did ask that we not name people
[4:57]just yet because they're they're attorneys and they are fully cooperating with the committee as a whole to investigate these people. And the reason they don't want us to name these names yet and why you didn't see them name them yesterday and why you didn't see
[5:08]other members of Congress name naming them specifically is because they are afraid that these people will try to destroy evidence um in the event that they know that they're now under
[5:18]investigation and what I think will uh lead to a criminal investigation. And then on top of that, you also have this aspect of, you know, there's also apparently a class action lawsuit with
[5:27]some of these victims and these banks for not flagging this. And so there's an aspect of our job and that yes, we can conduct an investigation, but we also can't interfere with personal lawsuits,
[5:39]especially when there's money involved. And so we are doing our best to make sure that we are um a delivering on justice, delivering our word and promises to the American people, but then also at the same time that we're
[5:51]not interfering with a class action lawsuit. >> I have I mean a million questions, but first, are these shell companies that you're
[6:01]seeing in these documents, A, are they still operating? And B, when you say it's more than one country that was involved, what does that involvement look like? I mean, how deep is that? I
[6:11]haven't seen the SARS report yet because Treasury has not handed those over yet, but to our knowledge, those companies may still be active or at least in existence. There was many shell
[6:23]companies involved. And this is nothing new to House oversight, as you know, we uncovered a lot of this with the Hunter Biden um moneyaundering scandal. So, that's the first thing. Um but to your
[6:33]second question, the countries involved um some are our adversaries and you know the other listed country maybe not so much. And so it's been very interesting
[6:45]to hear that directly from the victim's attorneys and also to all members of Congress. And so I'm only interested in the facts. And so I want to make sure
[6:54]that everything is there on paper or at least evidence of before I speak to whether or not um there is there there to that. But I do believe that Jeffrey
[7:05]Epstein based on what we're seeing now was absolutely involved in some way or capacity as an intelligence asset. Um whether or not it's to a foreign government is something that we still
[7:15]have to look into and find out. And is that something that both parties agree on, do you think? Or is that more Republicans think that way versus Democrats? Or is there a broad consensus within Congress?
[7:27]>> Um, agree on that he was a >> an Yeah. an asset. >> Well, I mean, we were all told there was basically every member of oversight in that room and the speaker of the house. So, I would think that if you know you
[7:38]have a victim's attorney who has evidence and has seen a lot more than we have that, you know, they're they're providing the truthful statements to Congress. Um, but we have to see that.
[7:49]And what I can tell you is I just don't know how someone was able to operate in the capacity that he was and was financed the way that he was. It all smells of intelligence handling. So,
[7:58]we'll see. Congresswoman, I was I was surprised seeing the oversight committee the way that you all were releasing this with the Google Drive doc or the Dropbox doc. I almost thought it was a fishing
[8:10]scan or um fishing link at first because it was it was just so I was like, "Wait, I have access on this on my computer." I mean, it was crazy just the files that
[8:20]you were releasing. There's 33,000. I still haven't gone through all of them because, you know, they were just >> 3,000 pages. Yeah, I know it's a lot. Um I but I think you know again going back
[8:30]to kind of our MO and really the MO of this administration they did that with the JFK files, the MLK files and the RFK files. The CIA is uploading documents. I think that's the best way to do it. You shouldn't necessarily, you know,
[8:42]stonewall or silo that information. And so um I know that the format was kind of confusing for some people. So I have advised oversight that they need to re-upload in a PDF format to make it easier to for people to search.
[8:53]>> I wasn't saying it was confusing. I was just saying I was I couldn't believe all of a sudden there it was. But um getting back to the release, I know Democrats
[9:02]have said that 97% of all of this was already released. I want to read something that the um the ranking member of the oversight committee said. The 33,000 pages of Epstein documents James
[9:14]Comr had decided to release were already mostly public information. To the American public or people, don't let this fool you. After careful review, oversight Democrats have found that 97% of the documents received from the
[9:25]Department of Justice were already public. There is no mention of any client list or anything that improves transparency or justice for victims. And an attorney for the Epstein victims said
[9:35]that this was mostly released already to the public. What is your reaction to that angle? >> Well, I think that it's definitely an angle. And so you're seeing that he's not telling you what was released with
[9:47]the new information, but also too, where else ever in history were you ever able to find compiled documents pertaining to Jeffrey Epste and you couldn't. So unless you were an investigative journalist or reporter, that was very hard for the American people to see. And
[9:58]I think truth and transparency is very key. But also to what he's failing to acknowledge is that the victims themselves as asked us to have their information not be publicly released. So you will see redactions if it's
[10:10]pertaining to victims. and I will continue to support that because that's not just my viewpoint but also the viewpoint of the victims at their direct request. Um but also in addition to that this investigation is not over and
[10:20]unfortunately um I think as I stated earlier you know yesterday at the press conference the victims had things to say but there was people that were brought in. You could see they were actually being coached on how to protest and they
[10:31]were given signs and you didn't actually see the signs saying we need justice just for the victims. who actually saw signs that were specifically targeting President Trump and then those very same victims later on on MSNBC said no the president wasn't involved but there is
[10:43]an aspect of this that has become partisan and is being used as a smear campaign against the president and that's wrong because he's been exonerated now not just once but twice but multiple times by multiple attorneys
[10:53]by multiple former attorney generals and then now by the witnesses and yet the media is still using this as a smear campaign and that's wrong some media >> I want to talk about what was new
[11:04]because the missing minute of Their surveillance video outside of Epstein's cell was now publicized in the stump, but Attorney General Pam Bondi said this previously. What we learned from the B
[11:14]Bureau of Prisons was every night the video was reset and every night should have the same minute missing, but this shows that that missing minute isn't missing at all. It's it's there. What do
[11:24]you make of that discrepancy? Well, I think that we need to get better cameras, but also too, you know, there's a lot of information and the attorney general, as far as this is concerned,
[11:34]um, is dealing with a number of other things, although I think that this is obviously a very important case because of the the way that the American people feel and that there was not justice served. I I think that that's the same
[11:45]perspective and I have that same viewpoint because I've heard the victim's stories and also too, you know, when you're hearing some of the names of these people, I won't say it yet, um, but when you're hearing some of the names of these people and you're hearing that they were also paying off law
[11:56]enforcement, you know, why were these people that were accepting bribes not also charged? You know, you're complicit in that. That's illegal. You can't do that. I can't accept a bribe like that. Um, so there does need to be justice
[12:07]brought and served. And so it's going to be interesting once we get through our um investigation of which it's going to be very very extensive. We will be able to make criminal referrals and then the Department of Justice, which I'm sure
[12:18]will be following up on those criminal referrals. >> And how deep do you think or what we can expect will that go? Will that go to the people who were bribed, the people that were paid off? I mean, how big is this
[12:30]pie chart or this or this or chart? >> It's very it's it's a very big org chart. Again, I think it transcends countries. It's international. There's international banks involved. There's
[12:40]very wealthy and powerful people. Um but it's not a crime to have lunch with someone. It is a crime to traffic someone. And so those are also the differentiating factors um that need to be taken into account here. And then
[12:51]also too, it's also a crime to have sex with someone who is underage period. Um grooming, all of this stuff that happened to these young women. It's actually really heartbreaking to see. I also heard one instance of a woman who
[13:02]had an infant and when she came forward um she saw that there was a lawsuit against Epstein estate I guess um she actually had her infant child a little girl threatened they threatened to kill
[13:13]her. So I think that that in itself just shows the type of people that this is I think any parent or mom listening to this would understand that those type of people you know even if it was Jeffrey
[13:24]Epstein the fact that they felt that they could do that. I mean, you're looking at a very, very dark, sinister psychology here. But more importantly, we're going to uncover immigration fraud. We already have been told by the
[13:35]attorneys that it exists, and they're going to help us point to the documents, etc. So, in my opinion, anything that we find, no matter how big or small, we're going to be referring to the DOJ. >> And it sounds like there are layers and
[13:46]layers of crime here. But, as the oversight committee continues its investigation, I hope you can come back on and join me. But uh your colleagues uh Thomas Massie and Roana, they're leading an effort to get signatures for
[13:57]a discharge petition that would require the Trump administration to release all the documents on Epstein. All Democrats are expected to sign and a few Republicans are as well. Is that
[14:07]something that you support? I mean, I think anyone has the ability to make their voice heard. I've been a huge fan of discharge petitions in the past, but we're also too at the same time uh
[14:18]Massie is not on House oversight and so we're conducting an investigation here and so I'm going to yield to Chairman Comr on and I'm going to assist in conducting the investigation and put in my two cents on where we can make it
[14:29]better. But at the same time going back to why did these people decide to do this now and not back when I was asking for help in January. And so I want to make sure that a we're respecting the
[14:40]victims, but also that we're not engaging and using these victims for other means of what it seems to be like a smear campaign. And so what I will tell you is I'm going to continue to do
[14:50]right by the people that sent me here. Um I have a lot of people in Penllis County that want to fight government corruption. That's why I've been a huge advocate in banning insider trading. And you're even seeing now because I'm
[15:02]trying to do that that people are saying that I'm going to be the result of, you know, losing the midterm elections and people aren't going to be able to run for office or they can't support their families. These are all things I've been told. Um I'm also now seeing that other
[15:14]outlets are starting to try to write hit pieces on me for trying to force a vote, can you believe it, on banning insider trading for members of Congress. But just like there's bipartisan support for the ban, there's also bipartisan
[15:24]opposition. And so I have a lot on my plate, but we're just going to continue to, you know, keep our head down and do our jobs. >> I want to talk about that uh banning uh stock training for or trading for
[15:36]members of Congress because this seems like a rare moment that there's legislation that's a nonpartisan and b it seems almost like a no-brainer to ban
[15:45]stock trading for members of Congress as well as their families. and a bipartisan group, including yourself, introduced the Restore Trust in Congress Act, which would prohibit uh lawmakers from trading
[15:56]individual stocks. And if you saw the press conference yesterday, like I did, you were a part of it. I mean, it was quite quite a crew, right? I mean, it was everyone on the political spectrum. You had yourself, you had Congresswoman
[16:08]Alexandrio Kaziocortez, Chip Roy, Brian Fitzpatrick, amongst others. I mean, what did those conversations look like behind closed doors? Well, uh, we all talked right before the press conference
[16:19]and I can tell you that everyone has the same general consensus. It was interesting Fitzpatrick actually pointed out that when we all ran in some capacity, we all came because we we realized that the institution was corrupt and we wanted to bring that
[16:30]fundamental change. And I think that this is a rare opportunity that we have because it's such a slim majority, but also understand that, you know, there are people that are saying, well, you know, I shouldn't, you know, be limited this, that, and the other. And so my my
[16:42]response to them is if you want to trade stock, I completely like support that, but don't don't be in Congress and do it. And that's because we are given access to certain information. We have
[16:53]meetings with the heads of a lot of these companies, CEOs, all of our decisions are directly affecting the market and we know it's going to affect the market. So we are literally getting insider information before these big purchases. And that's why you have
[17:04]people that are making, you know, initially $175,000 a year come out worth over $200 million. I'm curious what the push back is because it was mentioned a few times in
[17:14]that conference yesterday that about 95% of Americans support this, but there's members of Congress who are quietly behind the scenes. Congressman Magaziner
[17:24]said, "Opponents are quietly uh being vocal about this behind closed doors." Congressman Burchetta told me this earlier this year. Quote, "I've been told to quit talking about stuff like this by some of our leadership." And I
[17:36]said, "Well, you know it's the truth though, right?" and they said, "Well, yeah, but some members of leadership aren't real happy about when I talk about things like this, so I don't think it'll go anywhere." It seems like it's gaining traction, though. Who are these
[17:48]people who are quietly behind the scenes, your opponents? >> Uh, it's mainly the ones that are the top insider traders in Congress. And so, you can find all of those names online. There's a lot of websites that are
[17:59]tracking some of the top members of insider trade. And unfortunately, it's some of our um own members that people of people in leadership that are some of the top stock traders in Congress. And so what I will tell you is it's not an
[18:10]easy task, but this is a pretty like cut and dry issue. The American people are with us and that all that's all that matters. I frankly don't care if I piss off some of my colleagues because it's
[18:21]so corrupt. And if you saw what I saw, I think the American people would be like, "How could you?" You know, you guys are up here literally worried about your checkbook making decisions that are supposed to impact the American people.
[18:32]You actually don't give a if it, excuse my language, but if you don't give a if it impacts the markets because you guys are like literally profiting whether it's good or bad. And that's wrong. >> I mean, what are those conversations then like behind closed doors? I mean,
[18:44]what is their argument? I can make money. I mean, >> I've heard I have been told, okay, that um me and Burchetta were both told this
[18:52]that we were going to cost the republic, that we were going to be responsible for losing the midterms, that we were trying to force our colleagues to just take bad votes. We were told that people will
[19:04]leave Congress, that other members are considering not seeking re-election if they can't trade stocks. And then we are also told that you know um on a number of occasions and in different ways that you know you're you're not being a team
[19:15]player or so it's it's not exactly easy to do what we're doing but also too then you have the aspect of you have planted articles and hit pieces oh well you know this isn't enough this already exists
[19:27]and so you actually are seeing those articles come out come out now trying to say that somehow laws are in place that are preventing this but that's not true because they're not being a enforced and b you can still trade individual stocks.
[19:38]So, if I'm sitting on on a committee, for example, um I'll use House Armed Services and I'm voting for big weapons contracts. Let's say I'm voting for, you know, defense contractor to receive
[19:48]something and then I'm purchasing stock prior to that purchase of that and their stock goes up and then I sell. Guess what? I have insider information prior to that and that's still happening. I think that if you're a viewer right
[19:59]now who might not believe in bipartisanship, I would implore you to watch the full press conference that was yesterday talking about this because I mean it couldn't have been more cordial.
[20:09]Everyone was fist bumping very complimentary of people aside across the aisle. It sounds like there's a lot of support and I think something that a lot of the lawmakers yesterday were echoing
[20:19]were we're going to get a vote on this one way or another. We're going to get this on the floor one way or another. So what's next? How are you getting a vote on it? >> Well, um, they have a month to put
[20:29]something on the floor. And I, again, I'll say this. I constantly feel like I'm an adjudicator in this job. If they don't do it after a month, we'll call up a discharge petition. And if they try to
[20:40]kill that, we'll shut it down. >> Shut shut down. What? What are you shutting down? >> We're going to shut down the efforts to kill it, even if that means shutting
[20:50]down the floor. And is is there widespread support for that within Congress? >> Well, we have a good cross-section of some of the most vocal people in the country and the American people on our
[21:01]side. So, I think it'll probably be a fight, but we'll win the fight. 100% we'll win the fight. >> And do you think this will be passed in this Congress? >> Yeah.
[21:12]>> Congresswoman, per usual, I appreciate the conversation. You're welcome back anytime. Thanks for joining me. >> Thank you.