[15:39]in invoking a century old and littleknown law known as the rule of five to compel the Department of Justice to release the full and complete Epstein
[15:51]files. Under federal law, when any five senators on the Homeland Security Committee call on the executive branch, the executive branch must comply. Our
[16:02]request covers all documents, files, evidence, and other materials in possession of the DOJ, the FBI, related to the case of the United States versus
[16:13]Jeff Jeffrey Epstein. While protecting the victim's identities can and must be of top importance, the public has a right to know who enabled, knew of, or
[16:23]participated in one of the most heinous sex trafficking operations in history. Let me remind everyone of what's happened in recent months. Donald Trump
[16:35]campaigned on releasing the Epstein files. He broke that promise. In February, FBI Director Cash Patel
[16:45]promised during sworn testimony in his confirmation hearing he would quote, "Make sure the American public knows the full weight of what happened." Well,
[16:54]that has yet to happen. Ag Bondi said in February that his supposed quote client list, she said, was sitting on her desk
[17:05]right now to review. And she said that's been a directive by President Trump. Five months later, we have zero answers,
[17:15]only more questions. What have we gotten since? Stonewall, evasion, lies. Trump was asked earlier this month if he
[17:26]had ever been informed whether or not he was mentioned in the Epstein files. And now we know he lied. He said no, but in fact he was told by the attorney general in May that he was mentioned. And when
[17:37]the House had an opportunity to take votes on the Epstein files, Speaker Johnson scuaddled out of town launching the Epstein recess.
[17:48]This is not complicated. After promising full transparency for years, every single time Trump, his administration, Republican leaders have had a chance to be transparent about the
[18:00]Epstein files, they've chosen to hide. The evasions, the delays, the excuses, they are not just odd, they're alarming. It begs the question,
[18:11]if there's nothing to hide, why all the evasiveness? Trump should stop hiding from the truth. He should stop hiding from the American people. So today, Senate Democrats took
[18:21]action. We're invoking federal law and using our authority as a check on the executive to compel transparency. That's why to today's letters matter.
[18:32]Today's letter matters. It's not a stunt. It's not symbolic. It's a formal exercise of congressional power under federal law. And we expect an answer
[18:42]from DOJ by August the 15th. That's what accountability looks like. This is what oversight looks like and this is what keeping your promises to the American
[18:53]people look like. I urge my Republican colleagues in the Senate, if you believe in transparency, if you believe Congress has a role to play in checking the
[19:04]executive, join us. Join us in calling for more transparency on the Epstein files. Because once there's transparency, the truth emerges.
[19:15]Because once we get the truth, we can have accountability. We can move forward, not just on this, but on many issues affecting the American people, protecting health care, growing the
[19:25]middle class, defending democracy. But none of that is possible if the public loses faith that justice only applies to some, not all. Senator Peters has taken
[19:36]a great lead on this issue as chair as ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, and I'm proud to call on him to speak. Thank you, Chuck. >> Well, thank you, uh, Chuck. You know,
[19:47]the American people want, uh, and deserve transparency from their elected officials. On the campaign trail, President Trump promised, he promised
[19:58]many times to deliver that transparency by making the records in the Jeffrey Epstein case public. And now he is going back on that promise. This kind of
[20:10]reversal is what leads to distrust of elected officials. It also, we all know, it breeds conspiracy theories and misinformation. But the solution is very
[20:19]clear. Americans deserve transparency from congressional Republicans and the Trump administration. Our Republican colleagues are failing to conduct independent oversight of the
[20:31]administration and call for this information to be made public. Some have even publicly said they want to provide, this is a member of the US Senate, Republican member who said that they
[20:42]wanted to provide quote cover, Republican senators said it. They want to provide cover to President Trump after his reversal. And that's why my
[20:53]Homeland Security Committee Democratic colleagues and I are pressing the Justice Department to produce files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. We are using very unique
[21:05]statutory authority that is granted only to our committee to homeland security and government affairs. The statute that we are invoking requires the
[21:14]administration to hand over documents asked by requested by any five members of the Senate committee. This letter demands that the Justice Department produce documents that Attorney General
[21:26]Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kosh Patel have publicly already confirmed they have in their possession. We all know, in fact, that the attorney general said,
[21:37]quote, she said, "They're sitting on her desk." It should be pretty easy to turn over documents that are sitting on the attorney general's desk. Uh it's certainly disappointing that we have to
[21:48]take this action to hold President Trump uh to his word, but we believe that providing this transparency is what is uh best for the American people. Uh joining me uh on that letter and also
[22:00]working in his own right as a ranking member of the permanent subcommittee of investigations as part of my committee is Richard Blumenthal. >> Thank you, Gary. Senator Blumenthal,
[22:10]>> thank you. Uh, I want to thank first of all Senator Schumer for his leadership and uh, Chairman Peters, ranking member Peters, uh, for taking the lead here as
[22:22]well. U, this letter has the force of law. This letter invokes a statute that has been
[22:32]little used because it has been unnecessary in the past to enforce transparency. It's necessary now because this
[22:42]administration is stonewalling and stalling and concealing and the American people are rightly asking what do they have to hide. What's at stake here is not just the
[22:54]president's promises. Although they are absolutely clear when he said, quote, "President Trump says he
[23:02]will dis declassify the 911 files, JFK files, and Epstein files." end quote. That's President Trump. What's at stake here is more than the
[23:14]president's promises. It's the credibility of our justice system and the question
[23:22]whether there was proper criminal prosecution, whether it was complete and full, whether it was accurate, and
[23:34]what additional facts the American people are entitled to know. What's at stake is also the victims.
[23:44]This crime by Jeffrey Epstein and Gelain Maxwell was not a victimless
[23:55]crime. It was not just about money laundering. It was not just about lying to the government. It was about exploiting
[24:07]women. In fact, girls. girls who were mercilessly and repeatedly subject to abuse and trafficking.
[24:18]And that is why the American people have a right to know who else was involved, whether the system really was rigged in
[24:29]favor of the rich and powerful, which is what the suspicion has been on the part of a lot of the president's supporters and why they so enthusiastically
[24:40]greeted his promises of full disclosure. He's broken those promises. We're going to enforce the law to make him fulfill his commitments to be transparent and
[24:50]full in disclosure. Thank you. >> Thank you, Richard. We'll take questions on this subject first. >> Yes. >> Would this law compel information that's
[25:02]under the court to be released to the committee? And are there other like things that could be redacted? law enforcement. >> Yeah, look, >> there can be redactions and uh we're not
[25:13]going to break uh Whoa. Are you okay? >> We're not going to um force any um agreements that have been broken, but we believe almost everything can come out
[25:25]barring barring any >> Well, we'll have to that'll have to be litigated. >> Yes. Would you accept the Justice Department limiting the reading of these
[25:34]files to leadership or members in >> I think they should be made public? I mean certainly to the Congress and to the public. Public has a right to know. >> Including the interviews that were done
[25:44]recently with Maxwell in the last couple of days. All the notes that were taken, any recordings should be made public as well. And you know, the redactions that
[25:56]Senator Schumer mentioned are standard operating procedure >> in the Department of Justice when it does a report based on an investigation. It's it's rare, but it's not unusual. >> Yeah.
[26:07]>> When the Justice Department >> Go ahead. You both can go. Do you want to go at once? We'll answer. >> Go ahead. He goes first. >> If they don't respond to your request,
[26:18]is there any enforcement mechanism? Is there any way for you guys? Well, our hope is that our Republican colleagues will join us in this. This is a this is a law. This has been made. It should be bipartisan and we're still, Gary, we're
[26:30]still talking to Republican colleagues about trying to join us and that may that may help get this public, but if not, there's recourse in the courts. This is the law. >> How can Democrats uh as the minority
[26:42]take this to the courts? >> Uh, we have talked to some of our lawyers and we will this can be challenged in the courts. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Um, after the horrific shooting in
[26:53]New York and a police officer was killed, do you think it's a bad look for Senator Booker to be objecting to police and law enforcement? >> Look, um, Senator Booker has strong beliefs on this issue. He's had them for
[27:04]a very long time. He believes in strong law enforcement. Yes. >> Um, your Democratic colleagues have talked about making an amendment to the
[27:14]mini bus related to the Epste files. You use that for the NS negotiations that are going on. >> Look uh we on the initial mini bus uh we
[27:25]are running a hotline right now. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Emily was confirmed last night even after a number of whistleblowers came forward including some at the 11th hour. What do you think this means going
[27:36]forward for future whistleblowers who are thinking about >> I think it was I think I said it was one of the low points not only in this Congress but in the history of Congress to put a man like this in such an
[27:47]important position as a circuit court judge. It's a disgrace. He doesn't belong there and our Republican he only had one qualification. He'd do whatever Trump wants. That's a horrible
[27:57]qualification for a judge. Yes. >> Thanks leader. What do you make of reporting that Republicans in the White House are lobbying against uh stock trading ban in Congress here. >> We in the we Senate Democrats are for a
[28:09]stock trading ban. >> Okay. Thank you everybody. Did you want to >> We just uh we just passed it out of the committee before this meeting here and on a bipartisan basis. >> And do you have any comment on Senator
[28:20]Holly and Scott kind of going back and forth arguing about it? >> Uh it was a spirited committee hearing, but the end result was that we passed it out and it now moves to the full Senate. >> Thank you every Go ahead, Dick. Go
[28:30]ahead. And thanks to Senator Holly for championing this cause. Y >> thanks everybody. I thank Senator Blumenthal and Senator
[28:41]Peters for chanting this >> looking for hands
[29:07]to No, you go out and we all >> get
[29:33]escape They're like, "Okay, can we have like why are you negotiating?" >> Great job, everybody. You guys crushed this
[29:44]many phone calls saying, "You guys have all been a great job." >> We know the 90 seconds, but then they see a microphone and they see lights,
[29:56]you know. How many speakers were there?
[30:14]>> Three. >> Three. Every time
[30:43]everybody's looking >> referring to something over here
[30:54]>> because it does I do by by just reaction. I just go like this, you know, when he goes >> like this is an