Youtube videos: Legal

[admin]

Van Hollen Brings Epstein Bill to Floor for Vote
Senator Chris Van Hollen
Aug 2, 2025



Transcript

SENATOR FROM RHODE ISLAND.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM MARYLAND IS
RECOGNIZED.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
THEY HAVE WELL DESCRIBED, I
THINK, ALL THE INAPPROPRIATE
ACTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY
THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING
RECENTLY WITH RESPECT TO THE
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO HAD
BEEN DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL
LAWYER CONDUCTING THE SECRET
INTERVIEW WITH THE EPSTEIN
ASSOCIATE MAXWELL.
AND THIS IS AN IMPORTANT
CONVERSATION TO CONTINUE HERE ON
THE SENATE FLOOR.
WE WERE HERE EARLIER THIS
MORNING WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE
VERY, VERY TROUBLING AND
DISTURBING CASE OF JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND THE HORRIFYING ABUSE
OF YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS.
THOSE WHO WERE SO TERRIBLY
ABUSED AND TREATED DESERVE TO
HAVE THE FULL TRUTH.
THEY DESERVE TO HAVE ALL THE
FACTS COME OUT, AS DO THEIR
LOVED ONES, AS DO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE, SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
CAN HAVE SOME KIND OF CONFIDENCE
THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
IS PRESENTING THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WITH THE TRUTH, BECAUSE
WE NEED TRANSPARENCY IN ORDER TO
ENSURE FULL ACCOUNTABILITY.
IT USED TO BE THE CASE THAT
DONALD TRUMP AND HIS ATTORNEY
GENERAL PAM BONDI AND OTHERS IN
THIS ADMINISTRATION SAID THEY
WANTED TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF
THIS.
IN FACT, THEY SAID THEY WANTED
TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES.
BUT AS WE GOT CLOSER TO ACTUALLY
DOING THAT, THEY SUDDENLY
DECIDED THAT THEY DID NOT WANT
THE PUBLIC TO KNOW AND THAT THEY
DIDN'T WANT EPSTEIN'S VICTIMS TO
KNOW.
AND SO NOW THEY'VE DECIDED NOT
TO BE FORTHCOMING.
THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS WHAT ARE
THEY HIDING.
AND THAT IS WHY WE TOOK TO THE
FLOOR EARLIER TODAY TO SAY
RELEASE THE DAMNED EPSTEIN
FILES.
WE'VE LEARNED JUST IN THE LAST
48 HOURS THAT AT SOME POINT
ALONG THE WAY THE FBI REDACTED
TRUMP'S NAME FROM THE EPSTEIN
FILES.
WE HAD LEARNED THAT HIS NAME WAS
VERY LIKELY IN THOSE FILES, AND
WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION ASKED THE FBI TO
DO A SEARCH OF HIS NAME IN THE
FILES.
WE NOW KNOW THAT HIS NAME WAS
REDACTED FROM THOSE FILES AT
SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY BY THE
FBI.
AS MY COLLEAGUES FROM RHODE
ISLAND AND CALIFORNIA WERE JUST
DISCUSSING, WE'VE ALSO WITNESSED
IN JUST THE LAST WEEK OR TWO THE
HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE ACTION OF
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD
BLANCHE TO CONDUCT A SECRET
INTERVIEW WITH GHISLAINE
MAXWELL, WHO WAS JEFFREY
EPSTEIN'S PARTNER IN THESE
CRIMES.
AND WHEN HE WAS ASKED AT HIS
CONFIRMATION HEARING BEFORE THE
SENATE ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD A
CONTINUING DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DONALD TRUMP,
HIS RESPONSE WAS YES, AS THE
FORMER PERSONAL ATTORNEY OF
DONALD TRUMP, HE HAD AN ONGOING
DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY.
CLEARLY THAT DUTY OF LOYALTY AND
CONFIDENTIALITY TO DONALD TRUMP
PUTS HIM IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH
THE INTERESTS OF THE TRUTH AND
THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
WHEN IT COMES TO PRESIDENT
TRUMP.
SO IT WAS HIGHLY INAPPROPRIATE
THAT HE HELD THAT INTERVIEW.
AS THE SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA
JUST POINTED OUT, HE EXCLUDED
FROM THAT INTERVIEW LAWYERS THAT
HAD BEEN WORKING ON THIS CASE
FOR A LONG TIME.
IT IS ALSO A FACT BY AT LEAST
MANY REPORTS THAT HE, TODD
BLANCHE, HAS A VERY CLOSE
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
LAWYER FOR MS. MAXWELL.
AND SO THIS THING STINKS TO HIGH
HEAVEN.
AND ONE THING THEY SHOULD DO IS
IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THE
TRANSCRIPTS OF THIS SECRET
INTERVIEW THAT WAS JUST
CONDUCTED.
RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS.
ACCORDING TO ALL REPORTS, THEY
GAVE GHISLAINE MAXWELL IMMUNITY,
PROPER IMMUNITY FOR THE PURPOSE
OF HER TESTIMONY.
NOTHING SHE SAID IN THAT
INTERVIEW COULD BE USED AGAINST
HER.
SO RELEASE THE INTERVIEW
TRANSCRIPT TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
BECAUSE DONALD TRUMP'S PERSONAL
ATTORNEY SHOULD NOT BE THE ONE
IN THE ROOM CONDUCTING AN
INTERVIEW WITH SOMEBODY WHO
MIGHT HAVE TESTIMONY THAT
DIRECTLY INCRIMINATES DONALD
TRUMP.
WE'VE ALSO SEEN JUST IN RECENT
DAYS THE QUESTION FLOATED ABOUT
WHETHER THE PRESIDENT OF THE
UNITED STATES WOULD PARDON
GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
WHEN PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS ASKED
ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY, HE
ACKNOWLEDGED HE HAD THAT POWER.
AS I SAID ON THIS FLOOR THIS
MORNING, PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD
IMMEDIATELY TODAY ANNOUNCE THAT
HE WILL NOT USE HIS PARDON POWER
TO PARDON GHISLAINE MAXWELL, WHO
IS SERVING A 20-YEAR SENTENCE
FOR BEING A COCONSPIRATOR IN THE
ABUSE OF YOUNG WOMEN AND GIRLS.
WHAT IS CLEARLY HAPPENING IN
PLAIN VIEW IS VERY DANGEROUS TO
OUR SYSTEM OF JUSTICE.
WHAT IS CLEARLY HAPPENING IS THE
POSSIBILITY THAT GHISLAINE
MAXWELL AND HER LAWYERS ARE
SEEKING A PARDON IN EXCHANGE FOR
HER GIVING THE KIND OF TESTIMONY
THAT WOULD PLEASE
PRESIDENT TRUMP.
ONE OF THE FAMILIES OF THE
VICTIM, ONE OF THE VICTIMS, A
FAMILY FROM VIRGINIA, WHO LOST
THEIR LOVED ONE TO SUICIDE IN
APRIL, HAS SAID,
PRESIDENT TRUMP, DO NOT PARDON
GHISLAINE MAXWELL.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IS
CLEARLY THE SENTIMENT OF THE
OTHER VICTIMS AND THEIR
FAMILIES.
AND SO THE PRESIDENT SHOULD
TODAY ANNOUNCE THAT HE WILL
NEVER DO THAT.
NOW, EARLIER THIS MORNING,
SENATOR MERKLEY OFFERED A
RESOLUTION AND ASKED UNANIMOUS
CONSENT ON IT TO RELEASE THE
EPSTEIN FILES.
AND WE SHOULD DO THAT
IMMEDIATELY.
THAT SHOULD BE DONE IMMEDIATELY.
SENATOR DURBIN AND I WROTE TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAST WEEK
URGING HER TO DO WHAT SHE SAID
SHE WAS GOING TO DO, WHICH WAS
RELEASE THE FILES.
BUT THAT WAS OBJECTED TO ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE.
AND I SEE SENATOR BARASSO ON THE
FLOOR, AND WHEN HE OBJECTED TO
SENATOR MERKLEY THIS MORNING,
THIS IS WHAT HE SAID.
HE SAID, SENATE REPUBLICANS
INCLUDED A PROVISION TO ADDRESS
THIS VERY ISSUE IN AN
APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT
DEMOCRATS BLOCKED EARLIER THIS
WEEK.
THIS ISSUE WOULD HAVE BEEN
ADDRESSED HERE ON THE UNITED
STATES SENATE FLOOR, YET SENATE
DEMOCRATS CAME TO THE FLOOR AND
OBJECTED TO WHAT WAS IN THIS
BILL.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, MR.
PRESIDENT, I SHOULD CLARIFY THE
FACT THAT IT WAS NOT SENATE
REPUBLICANS WHO INCLUDED THAT
PROVISION IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL TO REQUIRE THAT THE JUSTICE
DEPARTMENT RETAIN ALL THE
RECORDS WITH REGARD TO THE
EPSTEIN FILES AND THAT THEY
ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS
REGARDING THOSE FILES AND
PROVIDE THOSE RESPONSES TO
CONGRESS.
IT WASN'T SENATE REPUBLICANS.
IN FACT, IT WAS MY AMENDMENT IN
THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE ON THAT VERY ISSUE.
I'M GLAD IT DID PASS
UNANIMOUSLY, AND MOMENTARILY I
WILL ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON
THE EXACT SAME PROVISION THAT
WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE,
WORD FOR WORD.
NOW, IT IS TRUE THAT THAT BILL
DID NOT MOVE FORWARD HERE IN THE
SENATE, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO
ON FOR THE HOURS THAT WOULD BE
REQUIRED TO TALK ABOUT THE
PROVISIONS IN THE COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, JUSTICE BILL.
SUFFICE IT TO SAY THERE WAS
ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WE DISCUSSED
FOR AN HOUR THE OTHER NIGHT
REGARDING THE FACT THAT THE
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DECIDED
SEIZE, RESCIND, STEAL, WHATEVER
YOU WANT TO CALL IT,
$1.4 BILLION THAT HAD BEEN SET
ASIDE FOR A SECURE FBI
HEADQUARTERS, AND THEY DECIDED
TO SNATCH THAT MONEY AWAY FROM
THE SELECTED SITE AND PUT IT TO
ANOTHER SITE.
AND MY VIEW IS WHENEVER THE FBI
BUILDS THE NEW HEADQUARTERS, IT
SHOULD BE A SECURE SITE.
THAT WAS A DISAGREEMENT TO --
THAT LED TO THE FACT THAT THAT
BILL DID NOT PASS AT THAT TIME.
WE ALL KNOW, SENATOR BARASSO
KNOWS, THAT THE BILLS TAKE A
LONG TIME TO WIND THEIR WAY
THROUGH THE SENATE, THE HOUSE
AND CONFERENCE, SO THERE'S NO
REASON TO DELAY THE PROVISION IN
THAT BILL WAS WAS UNANIMOUSLY
ADOPTED BY THE SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, WHICH
SENATOR BARASSO SAID THIS
MORNING, REPUBLICANS INCLUDED.
WELL, IF IT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT
BILL, WE SHOULD DO IT RIGHT NOW.
WE SHOULD GET IT DONE RIGHT NOW.
AND I'M JUST GOING TO IN CLOSING
READ THIS RESOLUTION BECAUSE
IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, MR.
PRESIDENT.
IT SAYS, IN GENERAL, THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL RETAIN,
PRESERVE, COMPILE ANY RECORDS
ROW LATED TO ANY INVESTIGATION,
PROSECUTION OR INCARCERATION OF
JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ANY SERVICE
PROVIDED TO VICTIMS IDENTIFIED
IN SUCH INVESTIGATION.
PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
RETAIN THE RECORDS.
DON'T DESTROY ANY EVIDENCE.
IT ALSO CALLED FOR A REPORT NOT
LATER THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE
DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL
SUBMIT TO THE COMMITTEE OF
SCIENCE, JUSTICE, AND ROW LATED
AGENCIES A REPORT THAT CLUFDZ --
INCLUDEDS INFORMS ON THE JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE
NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, TWO,
INFORMATION OF VICTIMS,
INCLUDING NOTIFICATION OF
VICTIMS UNDER SECTION 3771 OF
TITLE 18 OF THE U.S. CODE, THE
CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT.
THREE, INFORMATION ON ANY
INVESTIGATION OF A COCON
COCONSPIRATOR, FOUR, INFORMATION
ON ANY INTERNAL VIEW OF
MISCONDUCT FINDINGS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE RELATED TO
ANY INVESTIGATIONS RELATED TO
JEFFREY EPSTEIN, ANY
INVESTIGATION INTO THE FINANCIAL
TRAFFICKING NETWORKS OF JEFFREY
EPSTEIN, SIX, THE FINANCIAL TIES
OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND ANY
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND THE UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT OR FOREIGN
GOVERNMENTS AND, SEVEN,
INFORMATION ON THE OVERSIGHT
FAILURES AT THE METROPOLITAN
CORRECTION CENTER IN NEW YORK,
NEW YORK.
FINALLY, SECTION C, PRIVACY
PROTECTIONS.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY REDACT
THE NAMES AND PERSONALLY
IDENTIFIED INFORMATION OF ANY
VICTIM IN THE REPORTED TO
CONGRESS UNDER SUBSECTION C.
I WANTED TO READ IT TO THE
MEMBERS OF THE SENATE SO
EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY
ARE VOTING FOR.
IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, ATTORNEY
GENERAL BONDI, DO NOT DESTROY
THE EVIDENCE OF THE EPSTEIN
FILES, AND WITHIN 60 DAYS
PRESENT THIS SENATE WITH ANSWERS
TO QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CASE.
THAT'S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES.
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE
AMENDMENT THAT PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY WITH REPUBLICAN AND
DEMOCRATIC SUPPORT OT OF THE --
OUT OF THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE, THE SAME PROVISION
THAT SENATOR BARASSO THIS
MORNING SAID WAS A REPUBLICAN
PROPOSAL, SO I HOPE ALL THE
REPUBLICANS WILL JOIN US IN
SUPPORTING THIS MEASURE.
AND WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, AS
IF IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND
NOTWITHSTANDING RULE 22, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
SENATE PROCEED TO THE IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION OF MY BILL AT THE
DESK, FURTHER, THAT THE BILL BE
CONSIDERED READ THREE TIMES AND
PASSED AND THE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER BE CONSIDERED MADE
AND LAID UPON THE TABLE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE
AN OBJECTION?
MR. BARRASSO: MR. PRESIDENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
MAJORITY WHIP.
MR. BARRASSO: I OBJECT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: OBJECTION
IS HEARD.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON HAS THE
FLOOR.
THE SENATOR FROM MARYLAND.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THANK YOU, MR.
PRESIDENT.
AS I MADE CLEAR THIS WAS THE
VERY PROVISION THAT SENATOR
BARASSO THIS MORNING SAID THAT
REPUBLICANS HAD SUPPORTED AND HE
INDICATED THAT THIS WAS
SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO
SEE MOVE FORWARD.
WELL, THAT WAS THIS MORNING AND
NOW IT'S 6 O'CLOCK THIS EVENING.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CHANGED.
BUT THE LANGUAGE IS THE SAME AS
WHAT SENATOR BARASSO TALKED
ABOUT THIS MORNING.
IT'S THE SAME AS WHAT SENATE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE PASSED
ON A BIPARTISAN BASIS.
ALL OF A SUDDEN WHEN IT COMES
TIME TO ACTUALLY GET IT DONE ON
THE SENATE FLOOR, NOT JUST PART
OF AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL THAT'S
GOING TO WIND ITS WAY THROUGH
THIS PLACE WEEKS OR MONTHS, WHEN
IT'S TIME TO ACTUALLY GET IT
DONE, REPUBLICANS ARE OPPOSING
THE IDEA OF TRANSPARENCY.
I FIND THAT QUITE SHAMEFUL.
I UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUE FROM
OREGON, SENATOR MERKLEY, IS
INTERESTED IN MAKING SOME POINTS
AND MAYBE ASKING SOME QUESTIONS.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
MR. MERKLEY: WOULD MY COLLEAGUE
FROM MARYLAND YIELD TO A
QUESTION?
SO IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR
PRESENTATION RIGHT, THIS IS WORD
FOR WORD EXACTLY THE SAME, THIS
BILL, AS THE AMENDMENT YOU
PROPOSED IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
MEETING.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES, THAT IS
EXACTLY RIGHT.
MR. MERKLEY: I CAN TELL YOU I
READ THROUGH IT AND IT LOOKS
LIKE MIMI EXACTLY -- TO ME
EXACTLY THE SAME AND WE HEARD
FROM OUR COLLEAGUE FROM WYOMING
THAT THIS WAS A REPUBLICAN
PROPOSAL, WHICH YOU CLARIFIED
THAT YOU INTRODUCED IT AND ALSO
OBSERVED THAT IT PASSED
UNANIMOUSLY.
SO I'M CONFUSED.
IF MY COLLEAGUE FROM WYOMING
LIKED IT SO MUCH THAT HE WANTED
TO CLAIM AUTHORSHIP AND HE
PROCEEDED TO SAY WE LIKED IT SO
MUCH WE PASSED IT UNANIMOUSLY,
WHY IS HE OBJECTING NOW TO
ACTUALLY GETTING IT PASSED?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: WELL, SENATOR
MERKLEY, I DIDN'T HEAR AN
EXPLANATION.
I HEARD THE OBJECTION.
I HAVE NOT HEARD THE EXPLANATION
FOR THE OBJECTION, AND I THINK
IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE
AN EXPLANATION GIVEN THE FACT
THAT THE SENATOR FROM WYOMING
WAS HERE ON THE SENATE OF THE --
ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE
EARLIER, AS YOU POINTED OUT,
EXTOLLING THE VIRTUES OF THIS
AMENDMENT AND IN FACT PARTIALLY
TAKING CREDIT FOR IT.
SAYING REPUBLICANS SUPPORTED
THIS AND WANTED IT.
BUT APPARENTLY THAT WAS THIS
MORNING AND NOW IS NOW AND I
SUSPECT IT'S BECAUSE WHEN IT WAS
INCLUDED IN THE APPROPRIATIONS
BILL, IT'S INCLUDED IN A VEHICLE
THAT, AS WE SAID, WIND ITS WAY
THROUGH A LONG ROAD THROUGH THE
PROCESS.
WHO KNOWS HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL
TRY TO TAKE IT OUT BEHIND CLOSED
DOORS IN CONFERENCE AND THAT'S
WHY WE HAD A CHANCE IN THE LIGHT
OF DAY HERE IN THE UNITED STATES
TO ACTUALLY PASS THIS AND SEND
IT OFF TO THE HOUSE IMMEDIATELY
AND IF THEY PASSED IT, IT COULD
GO TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK.
MR. MERKLEY: AND IF YOU'D YIELD
TO ANOTHER QUESTION.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES.
MR. MERKLEY: THIS SEEMS
EXTREMELY, WELL, MINIMAL THAT
WE'RE PRESERVING THE RECORDS.
EARLIER WE ASKED FOR A VOTE ON A
BILL THAT WOULD BE COMPLETE
DISCLOSURE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE
THAT DISCLOSURE IS MERITED GIVEN
A SET OF EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES, EXTRAORDINARY
CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
PRESIDENT TRUMP DANGLING A
POTENTIAL PARDON IN FRONT OF
MS. MAXWELL.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
THE FBI ITSELF REDACTING TRUMP'S
NAME FROM DOCUMENTS.
EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE
THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD
BLANCHE GOING AND PERSONALLY
INTERVIEWING MS. MAXWELL AND NOT
TAKING ALONG THE LAWYERS WHO ARE
EXPERTS IN THIS CASE AND THEN
JUST SHORTLY AFTER SHE'S
TRANSFERRED TO A MINIMUM
SECURITY PRISON IN TEXAS, IN
OTHER WORDS, REWARDED IN A
POWERFUL WAY, A BIG DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A REGULAR PRISON AND
THIS.
SO WE WANTED DISCLOSURE, AND I
THINK AMERICA WANTS DISCLOSURE
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SEE PEOPLE
HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHO PERPETRATED
CRIMES, RAPE AGAINST YOUNG
GIRLS.
AND, YET, ALL YOU'RE ASKING FOR
IS TO PRESERVE THE INFORMATION
THAT IT NOT BE DELETED OR PUT
INTO A SHREDDER OR PUT INTO A
WOOD CHIPPER.
IS THAT RIGHT?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THAT'S THE HEART
OF THE AMENDMENT AND I WILL READ
THE FIRST SENTENCE, THE
TOESHL -- ATTORNEY GENERAL SHALL
RETAIN, COMPILE TO -- TO
ANYTHING RELATED TO JEFFREY
EPSTEIN AND ANY SERVICE PROVIDED
TO VICTIMS PROVIDED IN SUCH AN
INVESTIGATION.
IT COULD NOT BE MORE CLEAR.
IT DOES ASK FOR A REPORT ON
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION
REGARDING THE EPSTEIN CASE, BUT
TO YOUR FUNDAMENTAL POINT HERE,
THIS IS SIMPLY A DIRECT ACTIVE
NOT TO -- DIRECTIVE NOT TO
DESTROY EVIDENCE THAT COULD BE
IN THE EPSTEIN FILES.
WE JUST LEARNED AT LEAST IN THE
LAST 48 HOURS THAT SOMEWHERE
ALONG THE ROAD, THE FBI HAD
REDACTED DONALD TRUMP'S NAME
FROM THE EPSTEIN FILES, SO WE
KNOW IT'S IN THERE AND WE KNOW
THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME IT
WAS REDACTED.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THESE
RECORDS ARE NOT DESTROYED.
MR. MERKLEY: ANOTHER QUESTION,
IF I MIGHT.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES.
MR. MERKLEY: IF I TURN THE CLOCK
BACK TO THAT APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE HEARING WHERE YOU
PRESENTED YOUR AMENDMENT AND I
WAS PRESENT, WAS THAT NOT VOTED
OUT OF COMMITTEE ON A VOICE
VOTE?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: YES, IT WAS.
IT WAS ADOPTED BY A VOICE VOTE.
MR. MERKLEY: SO THE REPUBLICANS
IN COMMITTEE SAID WE SUPPORT THE
IDEA, BUT LET'S DO IT BY VOICE
VOTE BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO
HAVE OUR NAMES RECORDED YEA OR
NAY, IS THAT SECRET?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: AGAIN, I CANNOT,
SENATOR, READ THE MIND OF ANY OF
OUR COLLEAGUES.
IT WAS A VOICE VOTE.
BUT OF COURSE, THE OBJECTION
WE'RE SEEING HERE ON THE FLOOR
OF THE SENATE TODAY INDICATES
THAT A REPUBLICAN -- OUR
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES DO NOT
WANT TO GO ON RECORD AND VOTE
WHEN IT COMES RIGHT DOWN TO IT
ON THIS PROPOSAL AND MAKING SURE
THAT THE RECORDS ARE NOT
DESTROYED.
MR. MERKLEY: HAD THE SENATOR
FROM WYOMING NOT OBJECTED, WE
COULD HAVE PASSED THIS BILL
TODAY BY VOICE VOTE, NOT
NECESSARILY HAVING A RECORDED
VOTE.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: IT WOULD HAVE
PASSED IMMEDIATELY IF HE HAD NOT
OBJECTED TO IT.
MR. MERKLEY: BECAUSE IT DOESN'T
EVEN GET TO --
MR. VAN HOLLEN: THAT'S RIGHT, IT
WOULD HAVE GONE DIRECTLY TO THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
CORRECT.
MR. MERKLEY: SO, EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE BY
VOICE VOTE AND YOU OFFERED A
PROPOSAL SIMPLY TO KEEP THE
RECORDS INTACT, WHICH I MUST SAY
SHOULD NEVER HAVE TO BE ASKED
ANYWAY, BUT WHY WOULD ANY MEMBER
OF THE SENATE OBJECT TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF PROTECTING THE
RECORDS?
I'M CONFUSED.
DON'T ALL OF US BELIEVE THAT
WHEN THERE IS EVIDENCE RELATED
TO A CRIME IT SHOULD NOT BE PUT
INTO A SHREDDER OR A WOOD
CHIPPER?
MR. VAN HOLLEN: IT'S A VERY FAIR
QUESTION, AND AS I INDICATED WE
DIDN'T GET AN EXPLANATION FOR
THE OBJECTION.
WE HAD THE OBJECTION MADE AND NO
FURTHER COMMENT FROM OUR
COLLEAGUES ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE.
AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT
THAT WE UNDERSCORE THE FACT FOR
OUR COLLEAGUES AND ANYBODY
LISTENING THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS
VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD, DON'T
DESTROY EVIDENCE.
IT DOES ALSO REQUIRE IN 60 DAYS
THAT A REPORT BE PROVIDED THAT
PROVIDES CERTAIN RELEVANT
INFORMATION REGARDING THE
EPSTEIN CASE.
AND I'M NOT SURE WHY ANYBODY
WOULD NOT WANT THAT INFORMATION
TO BE PRESENTED EITHER.
I MEAN, THIS IS LIKE OPPOSE AN
EFFORT TO SAVE THE RECORDS,
DON'T VOID THE EVIDENCE, AND
ALSO VOTING AGAINST THE IDEA OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROVIDING
THE UNITED STATES SENATE WITH
ANSWERS TO SOME FUNDAMENTAL
QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, AS WE DISCUSSED THIS
MORNING, THE FASTEST AND MOST
COMPLETE WAY OF DOING IT WOULD
HAVE BEEN TO SUPPORT THE SENATOR
FROM OREGON'S MOTION THIS
MORNING, JUST TO RELEASE ALL THE
FILES, RIGHT?
THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
WE SHOULD RELEASE THE FILES, AND
THEY SHOULD DO IT NOW.
YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO HAVE A
VOTE IN THE HOUSE TO DO THAT.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN DO WHAT
SHE SAID SHE WAS GOING TO DO,
RELEASE THEM.
THAT'S WHAT MANY OF US CALLED
FOR.
THAT'S WHAT THE SENATOR'S MOTION
THIS MORNING WAS ALL ABOUT.
BUT MY GOODNESS, YOU SHOULD BE
RELEASING THEM, BUT FOR GOODNESS
SAKES WHY NOT AT LEAST SEND A
DIRECTIVE SAYING DON'T DESTROY
THE EVIDENCE?
MR. MERKLEY: I APPRECIATE MY
COLLEAGUE FROM MARYLAND BRINGING
THIS FORWARD.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE ABSOLUTE
MINIMUM WE SHOULD DO NOW IS
PROTECT THE EVIDENCE FOR THE
FUTURE.
CERTAINLY, IT SHOULD BE
RELEASED, AS BOTH OF US HAVE
SPOKEN TO.
I REALLY APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE
FROM CALIFORNIA, WHO BROUGHT HIS
LEGAL EXPERTISE, ALONG WITH OUR
COLLEAGUE FROM RHODE ISLAND, WHO
PUT IT OUT HOW EXTRAORDINARY IT
IS THAT A DEPUTY ATTORNEY
GENERAL WOULD GO AND SIT IN A
PRISON SFWUFG A KEY --
INTERVIEWING A KEY WITNESS TO
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY, AND THAT
MAGICALLY WITHIN HOURS
THEREAFTER SHE'S TRANSFERRED TO
MINIMUM SECURITY, AND THE
PRESIDENT STARTS TALKING ABOUT
THE POSSIBILITY OF A PARDON.
AMERICANS, THIS IS JUST STINKING
TO HIGH HEAVEN.
AND I'LL REPEAT THE POINT I MADE
EARLIER TODAY IS NO ONE SHOULD
BE ABOVE THE LAW.
NO POWERFUL MAN SHOULD BE ABLE
TO RAPE YOUNG GIRLS AND BE
PROTECTED BY FRIENDS IN HIGH
PLACES OR BY LEGIONS OF LAWYERS
OR ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
LET THE RULE OF LAW COME FORWARD
IN FULL FORCE TO HOLD THOSE WHO
HAVE COMMITTED EGREGIOUS CRIMES
BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
MR. VAN HOLLEN: I COULD NOT
AGREE MORE, MR. PRESIDENT.
OUR MESSAGE IS SIMPLE --
RELEASE THE DAMN EPSTEIN FILES,
AND FOR GOD'S SAKES DON'T TRY TO
DESTROY THE FILES

[admin]

Judge Says DOJ/Pam Bondi Made "Demonstrably False" Arguments in Epstein/Maxwell Case
Glenn Kirschner
8/11/25

Opinion and Order

Aug 11, 2025 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
A New York federal court judge just rejected the motion filed by DOJ/Pam Bondi/Todd Blanche to release the grand jury transcripts in the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

According the ABC News, Judge Paul Engelmayer issued a lengthy opinion, criticizing the "Department of Justice for using 'demonstrably false' reasoning to justify the release of grand jury testimony." The judge also said release the transcripts would not reveal new information of any consequence, and that it looked like an effort by DOJ to give the illusion of transparency and full disclosure, adding that "there is no there, there."



[Glenn Kirschner] Friends, talk about the mother of all
distractions.
Today, a federal judge condemned Donald
Trump and Pam Bondi's Department of
Justice for their conduct in the Epstein
litigation, filing those motions to
unseal the Epstein and Ghislain Maxwell
grand jury transcripts with the judge
saying that DOJ was using quote
demonstrably false reasoning
and was creating a quote diversion
and adding that there's no there there.
So Donald Trump needs another diversion.
What does he do?
He sends soldiers into the streets of
Washington DC and seizes control of the
local city police department, the DC
city cops, MPD, the Metropolitan Police
Department. They were my partners in
local crime fighting for decades when I
was a prosecutor in Washington DC. But
guess what?
we will not be distracted.
So, let's talk about that federal
judge's condemnation of Donald Trump and
Pam Bondi's Department of Justice
because justice
matters.
[Music]
Hey all, Glen Kirschner here. So friends,
we're about to discuss some of the most
scathing remarks imaginable from a
federal judge. Remarks condemning the
unethical conduct of Pam Bondi and her
Department of Justice. conduct intended
to deceive the American people regarding
the true state of affairs in the Trump
Epstein Maxwell scandal. Conduct
designed to use the power of the
Department of Justice to cover up for
Donald Trump. So friends, I want to go
slowly and methodically through this new
reporting because I don't want it to get
lost amidst the latest Trump attempt to
distract.
So let's turn to today's reporting. This
from ABC News. Judge rejects Trump
administration's request to unseal grand
jury testimony in Ghislain Maxwell case.
And that article begins, "A federal
judge in New York has denied the Trump
administration's motion to unseal grand
jury testimony from the criminal case
against Jeffrey Epstein associate
Ghislain Maxwell. The Trump
administration has been seeking to
release materials related to the
investigation into Epstein, the wealthy
financier and convicted sex offender
who died in jail in 2019
following the blowback it received from
MAGA supporters after it announced last
month that no additional files would be
released. Maxwell, a longtime associate
of Epstein, is currently serving a
20-year prison sentence for sex
trafficking and other offenses in
connection with Epstein. In his 31-page
opinion, US District Judge Paul Engel,
Mayor of the Southern District of New
York, criticized the Department of
Justice for using demonstrably false
reasoning to justify the release of
grand jury testimony. The transcripts
would not reveal new information of any
consequence about Epstein and Maxwell's
crimes. According to Judge Angel Mayor,
who suggested that the Trump
administration's push to release
documents might be an intentional
diversion.
quote, "Its entire premise that the
Maxwell grand jury materials would bring
to light meaningful new information
about Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes or
the government's DOJ's investigation
into them is demonstrably false," the
judge wrote.
Engel wrote that the transcripts contain
material already in the public record
and lack any firsthand information about
Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes. The
records do not identify anyone other
than Epstein or Maxwell who had sexual
contact with a minor, mention any
clients, shed light on their methods, or
provide new information about Epstein's
death. Angel Mayer wrote, "Judge Engel
Mayer also suggested that the only
reason that might justify the release of
the records would be to expose as
disingenuous
the government's DOJ's public
explanations for moving to unseal." In
other words, the judge said, "There is
no there there."
this further quote from the judge. A
member of the public appreciating that
the Maxwell grand jury materials do not
contribute anything to public knowledge
might conclude that the government's
motion for their unsealing was aimed not
at transparency but at diversion, aimed
not at full disclosure but at the
illusion of such, the judge wrote. So
friends, you might ask, well, in this
Epstein Maxwell grand jury litigation,
who at the Department of Justice is
responsible for making those quote
demonstrably false arguments?
Pam Bondi, Todd Blanch, and Jay Clayton.
Three Donald Trump political appointees.
No career DOJ lawyers. no permanent
federal prosecutors. The men and women
who go into federal court, you know, all
across the country every day
representing the interests of the
American people, none of them were on
this court filing. No, just three Trump
appointees, two of whom were Donald
Trump's personal attorneys previously.
And frankly, I think it's fair to say
given the way they're conducting
themselves, they are still acting like
Donald Trump's personal lawyers, Pam
Bondi and Todd Blanch. So, if these were
just ordinary, run-of-the-mill DOJ
lawyers, what would happen to them once
a federal judge had said they're making
demonstrably false arguments? They are
using diversions and distractions.
Attorneys who are misusing DOJ's power
and the courts as a diversion,
misleading the public because there's no
there there. What would happen to those
attorneys? Those attorneys would be
referred to their state bar, the state
in which they are licensed to practice
law, referred for an ethics
investigation and possible sanctions up
to and including potentially being
disbarred.
That's what should happen to attorneys
who make demonstrably false arguments to
a court. You know why?
You know why?
Because justice
matters.
And friends, I also want to talk about
Donald Trump's latest attempt to
distract the American people from this
scathing rebuke, the ongoing cover up of
the Trump Epstein Maxwell scandal. And
I'll be talking about that in another
video either later today or early
tomorrow. But right now, I just want to
let this story sit because this is what
Donald Trump is trying to distract the
American people from by, you know,
deploying troops to the streets of our
nation's capital and claiming he's going
to seize control of the local police
department and goodness knows what else.
But let's remain focused on a scandal
that seems to have legs like no other
Trump scandal that is the ongoing cover
up of the Trump Epstein Maxwell scandal
which you know has got his MAGA
supporters up in arms which has
Republicans in Congress bucking Donald
Trump's desire to stop talking about it.
Let's just let this one sit for a
minute.
And as always friends, please stay safe,
please stay tuned, and I look forward to
talking with you all again tomorrow.
[Music]
[Applause]
[Music]

[admin]

What Epstein’s Bodyguard Said About CIA Ties
by Tara Palmeri
Aug 21, 2025 The Tara Palmeri Show

Could Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to the CIA explain why he evaded justice for so long?
On the Tara Palmeri Show, Tara, who has investigated Epstein for over two years and hosted two gripping podcast series—Broken: Jeffrey Epstein and Power: The Maxwells—recalls a chilling conversation from her Broken: Jeffrey Epstein podcast with victims’ lawyer Brad Edwards, who revealed a warning from Epstein’s bodyguard about his deep connections to the CIA. She also preludes an upcoming conversation with ex-CIA officer John Sipher, out this Sunday, shedding light on Epstein’s potential intelligence ties. From a mysterious trip to Langley to allegations of a KGB-style honeypot scheme, Tara explores how Epstein’s elite network may have shielded him, leaving survivors ignored.



Transcript

Welcome to the Tara Palmeri Show
My focus has always been on the survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. They're the constant. They're the
ones who suffered, the ones who were ignored. But to understand why, to understand that injustice,
you have to understand the shadowy way that Epstein operated, the way that he slipped in
and out of justice over and over again. Was it just his powerful connections and money, or was
there something more? Did he offer the government something that money can't buy? And that's what's
also brought me back to this haunting conversation that I had in 2020 for broken Jeffrey Epstein,
a podcast that I hosted and reported. It was with a lawyer for the victims, Brad Edwards.
He described a warning that he received from Epstein's bodyguard about how deeply Epstein
was protected. You don't know who you're messing with. and you need to be really careful. You are
Epstein's CIA protection
on Jeffrey's radar and somebody that Jeffrey pays a lot of attention to, which is not good. You
don't want to be on Jeffrey's radar. And I said, "Well, give me some examples. I mean, who am I
messing with?" And that's when he looked across the table and whispered three letters. C I A.
Brad was recalling a conversation with Zinoviev, a Russian-born UFC fighter who was the type of guy
who could be a bouncer at a really rough bar. He was hired by Epstein when he was worried that a
father for one of his countless victims might kill him. But what Brad described next from Zinoviev
about his trip to the CIA headquarters for Epstein may explain how Epstein was playing both sides of
the law all along and that's why he was treated as untouchable. He said, "Listen, when he was in
Why Epstein was 'untouchable'
jail, one of the first things that I had to do was go to Langley to the CIA and sit in these classes
for a week with CIA. I was the only private citizen there. At the end, the assistant director
or director, I don't remember which, gave me a book with a handwritten note in it that I was told
not to read and go deliver it to Jeffrey in jail. Everybody there knew who he was. He's an important
person. And I said, "Is he in the CIA?" He said, "I I don't know. I'm a reporter, so I've obviously
tried to reach Zenovia many times. I have a cell phone number. I've texted him. I've called him. No
luck." Brad Edwards also wrote about this shocking interaction in his own book, Relentless Pursuit:
My Fight for the Victims of Jeffrey Epstein. I also reached out to a former colleague from the
New York Post, ML Nel, who interviewed Zenov for New York Magazine. I wanted to know if Zenov was a
Igor Zinoviev
reliable source, and he said he was very reliable. In fact, like a true investigative reporter,
has been on the Epstein story since before his 2019 arrest. I also tried the CIA multiple times.
I first reached their press office on July 21st. We traded emails, phone calls, but they wouldn't
give me a definitive answer on whether Zenovia visited their headquarters in Langley in 2008
while Epstein was serving just 13 months in county jail with work release for two counts
of soliciting a minor for prostitution. I even emailed them again on Monday to let them know that
I was going to publication on my Substack. The Red Letter, which you can find at tarpalmary.com.
You can support my independent journalism there and get all of my exclusives like this straight
to your inbox.

[INTERVIEW WITH JOHN CIPHER DELETED, BECAUSE LIBRARIAN CONSIDERED HIM NOT RELIABLE]

[admin]

Former Epstein Prison Inmate EXPOSES Falsified Report
Breaking Points
Aug 6, 2025 Breaking Points

Ryan and Emily are joined by a former inmate at Epstein's prison to discuss the errors in the Epstein report.



Transcript

Intro

Joining us back on the program is Martin
Goddisfeld, activist uh journalist and a
former inmate at Metropolitan
Correctional Center, which is the prison
uh where Jeffrey Epstein infamously
famously uh met his end. Uh Marty,
thanks for coming back.
Oh, no problem. Thanks for having me.
And so we wanted to have you back on uh
because you were able to go through the
full IG report and some of the
subsequent media reporting about uh the
IG report that looked into the the
layout of MCC and the camera situation
which is quite crucial. Like if you talk
to anybody who kind of casually follows
this story, you know, they're familiar
with this the camera the famous camera
shot of the Epstein's door and then this
also this like little still footage of
the of the desk where the officers sit
and then this controversy around this,
you know, missing three minutes at
midnight or whenever they kind of reset
the camera. But what you seem to have
observed here is that in fact um based
on what you know about the layout of the
prison uh and comparing it to what they
have published here, there were
potentially two ways to get directly to
Epstein's cell that would not have been
covered by any recording cameras. And so
the threei donut thing is actually kind of
a distraction. Um, is that a fair
summary and then we can get into the
details?

I mean, I don't know that the three
minutes is necessarily a distraction. I
think it's potentially a red herring.

That's fair to say, but yeah.
All right. So, let's let's start
actually with one of the ones you found
here.

It's labeled 9th
floor south. We'll put
this up on the screen. What do you
see here in this layout?
Sp Epstein cell is at one point and the
9th floor south in yellow is
highlighted.

Okay. So this one, actually the IG was
just wrong, and CBS ran with this one as
if it were correct, published it as if
it were correct, and they just took
it out of the IG's report and put
it out there. That's not actually the
ninth floor layout in the lower right
portion of --

So how how do we know that?
Right?

Because I've been there. That's the 10th
floor layout. That's the 10th floor
Sam's unit, and you can see the little
curved desk there. That's where the
monitors for the cameras are. And I used
to get walked through here because
there's a medical evaluation room in
that unit. And I was on a hunger strike
in the N-South Shoe. And rather than
bring me down to like the
fourth floor, fifth floor, wherever
the normal medical exam rooms were, they
were lazy, and they just brought me up
the shoe to the 10th floor medical exam
room. So I used to walk by this desk,
and I saw the cameras working on this
desk. And then you see the four little
rooms there stacked in a
vertical row just to the left of the
yellow area. Those are the attorney
visiting rooms for the 10 South unit.
And the ninth floor layout does not look
like that. And that area in
yellow, that's not even elevators in real
life, right?

What is that? Do you remember?

It's some kind of staff
offices, or it might even be the medical
exam room, but I want to say the medical
exam room was further down the
hall, like it was a longer
walk. But the big thing is that if you
look at this diagram, and you assume
there actually is a camera recording
there, and that those are actually
elevators, then you're left with an
impression that an approach to the
Epstein cell through the elevators would
be covered by that camera. And the
Justice Department has said that it has
footage from this camera, but it has
not released the footage from this
camera. But because this is the
10th floor layout, and the ninth floor
layout is materially different,
that's a an incorrect impression.

Right. So let's move to
Ninth Floor Layout which
appears elsewhere in your piece
here. We put the image up that
has a yellow area that is
suggesting where the camera footage
would be, with Epstein's cell kind of
off to the side of it. What's
important to you about that
layout?

So the IG provided the
original for this diagram, but what they
did not do was block out the main
elevators versus the visitors elevators.
And it's not inherently obvious that
underneath, if you look above the main
elevators, there's that little red
non-recording camera, that's
covering a door symbol. That's
actually the main entrance to the
shoe, or one of the
two main entrances to the shoe.
Then you go in past the shoe laundry
office, and then there's another door
actually before you get to the main area
of the shoe. And that's where they have
written "America's Strongest Shoe." That's
where you see it. But you could follow
this path, right, and then up the stairs
to Epstein's tier. And the way they
rendered the staircases here is also
really misleading. You would think that
the staircase on the left, you see how
there's kind of two staircases leading
up to like M tier really is be leading
down to M tier --

And pause one second for this. Let's put
up the one that you labeled here
streaming, but not recording camera.
And where you've drawn these red
lines.

Yeah. So the way they've
drawn these staircases is really
misleading. I corrected it in one
of my diagrams, but it was a good amount
of work to figure out the angles
and everything. The lefthand
staircase there looks like it's the one
that leads up. It's actually leading
down. That goes to the lower tier, M
tier. And it's the right hand staircase
that actually leads up to L tier to
where they say Epstein was. And so the
camera has fairly good coverage of the
left staircase that does not lead to
Epstein, but it does not have good
coverage of the right-hand staircase,
which did.

So let's talk about this
No Showers discrepancy you point out, and these other
two discrepancies you point out that are
important. Number four in
your article, No showers on shower day.
Then number five is incorrect
plumbing, which may sound to people
like it's a small thing, like
they just got a a little minor detail of
the physical space incorrect. But you
say, "No, these are are hugely
significant discrepancies." Tell us why.

So, in terms of the no showers
thing, it ties into the so-called
orange shape that ascends the stairs, and
what we see the shoe workers doing.
August 9th, the date of the footage,
or the date the footage starts,
goes from the 9th into the 10th
of August. August 9th was a Friday, okay? If
you're in a federal shoe, you only get
three showers a week, okay? And in most
of those shoes, you get those showers on
Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
And on those shower days, you get a
change of clothes, right? That's the
only change of clothes you get. So
according to IG's report, there were 72
prisoners in the shoe on that day.
That's 72 sets of boxers, 72 sets of
pants, 72 towels, 72 t-shirts, right?
It's a full change of 72 things for 72
guys. So if you look back at
one of the other diagrams we were
just looking at where I show the shoe
laundry office, and you examine
the video like I did at a slightly accelerated
rate, a shoe worker goes off frame
near the beginning of that video.
and heads towards that shoe laundry
office. And because it was shower day,
they've got 72 sets of things
to wash and dry. And I don't
remember for sure if the
washing machines are actually gone this
far, if they send the laundry down, but
there's presumably also 72 sets of clean
laundry coming in that need to be folded
and sorted and put on the shelf, right?
And so this guy, he leaves the
frame early in the night, and it is
entirely plausible to me that he would
still be doing his job, that he would be
out of his cell working, that they would
just ghost him during the count. So they
would count him as if he was
in his cell, even though he's in this
laundry area. And that to me seems the
most likely explanation for the
orange blur.

So it would be an inmate doing the
laundry. The inmate doing the laundry goes back to
his cell at 10:42. The officer goes up
the stairs, which we kind of see, and locks
him into his cell at night, and then
comes back down the stairs, which we
also see. It makes more sense than the
IG's explanation that an officer was
carrying clothing. I agree with the
video expert CBS had. It wouldn't look
like that. That's most likely a
person walking up there. But there's a
very mundane reason for it. And this is
something CBS would have known had they
bothered to actually interview anyone
who's been in federal prison, been in a
shoe in federal prison, or you know,
better yet, interviewed someone who's
actually been in this particular shoe in
federal prison who knows where the
laundry area is,
something that the inspector general, if
they were truly interested in an
accurate report, would have done.
And that's not even in my
top five problems with the inspector
general.

So then the question becomes,
No Cameras. Let's get to the L
tier. Since you were on
here last, I spoke with a another inmate
who who actually served specifically on
the L tier, who said that yes,
that's the only one that didn't
have cameras in the cells.

Yeah, I didn't know that. I mean,
I was all over that shoe, but not on
L tier. But
it jives with the pictures we have of
Epstein's cell, because I went looking
through those pictures. I know where the
camera would be, and it's not there.

Right, right. So that means that they chose to put
their most high-profile inmate
in a cell without a camera, and
also in a cell that could be approached
in apparently multiple directions
by somebody who would not be
recorded, which itself is an
interesting question.

And then you also
put in your piece the notion
of the cameras not recording. They say
that they were streaming, but not
recording. And they didn't realize
that until right before this
situation happened. Lay out why that
sounds implausible to you
that they'd go for this long
without realizing the cameras were
recording.

Yeah. So, according to the IG, it
took NCC 10 days to discover that the
the cameras weren't recording.
This facility houses at capacity 400
something federal prisoners. And
every federal facility, including this
one, has a department called the
special investigative supervisors, SIS.
They're like prison
intelligence. It's like twice the
oxymoron of military intelligence. But
they take their jobs very seriously,
and their primary tasks are internal
investigations, handling snitches,
managing gangs, and interdicting
contraband, okay? And in a facility the
size of the MCC, they get a steady
stream of kites, they're called like
flying a kite. It's a term for when
an inmate drops a note ratting out
a staff member, or ratting out another
prisoner, okay? There's going to be a
steady stream of them in a facility this
size. No self-respecting SIS department
could possibly go 8 days, or 10 days,
without reviewing recent camera footage,
because when they get one of these
kites, right, it's going to include like
a date, and a time, and a place, for SIS to
go check out, so they
can build a case, or bust
somebody, or whatever it is. So, in a
facility that size, it's
very, very unlikely SIS would go that
long without reviewing footage. And then
when they do discover the cameras aren't
recording, which is two days I think
before the night in question, they did
something odd.

You know, I was in eight jails and
prisons across my seven and a
half years as a quote unquote "political
prisoner." It was one bed, right?
But I got transferred all over the place,
because no one likes a guy who has
media connections, and litigates, and
all that. So I got sent all over
the place. And every time I was in a
facility where they had a significant
camera issue, not just like one camera
out, like a systematic thing, even for
maintenance, right, they lock down the
whole facility because it's just too much of a
liability. They can't have people
walking around. We were locked down
for two or three days in Teroot,
Indiana, when it was like 100 degrees out
for camera work. That was planned, right? So,
they find out the cameras are down and
they don't lock down the prison. And we
know the prison's not locked down
because we see shoe
workers outside their cells
just going about their days, right?
And that wouldn't happen during a
camera lockdown, right?

Okay. Now, news today, this is A7,
just yesterday, House Republicans
James Comer, subpoenaed Bill Clinton,
Hillary Clinton, but also interestingly
Bill Barr, and even Alberto Gonzalez, who was
attorney general when the sweetheart
deal was struck with Epstein back
during the Bush administration, and
Attorney General Jeff Sessions. So,
Martin, do you have questions?

I think Barr would be the big one.
Obviously, he was attorney general when
everything we're discussing
happened and would
have been privy to all kinds of
information about what happened in the Shu.

So are there questions that you think
Bill Barr might have the answer to?

I'm trying to remember if Barr
was on record saying that he had
personally reviewed the video, and I think
that he was.
Okay. Um, and assuming that he was on
record saying he had personally reviewed
the video, um, you know, he went forward
with this same narrative that, you know,
there was no way anyone could have
gotten to Epstein's cell and there's
just no way reviewing that video for
someone to to stake that kind of a
claim. So, I would I would certainly ask
him about that. Uh, and then, um, you
know, I'm not sure how familiar you guys
are with the Dalton School and the
connection through Bar's family with the
Dalton School, but I think that, you
know, bears some scrutiny as well. And
just sticking on that point, your point
about the video, um, he described it as
like a perfect storm of screw-ups that
had happened. He said, "I can understand
people who immediately whose minds went
to the sort of worst case scenario
because it was a perfect storm of
screw-ups." Those were his uh, comments
to the Associated Press back in November
of 2019. So I guess you know on the if
he's saying that all of this was
basically just accidental um that led to
Epstein's death. This is all just happen
stance. It just was this perfect storm
of of screw-ups. Uh what's your
perspective as somebody who's been there
and sort of knows
all of these things would have had to
have been like if if that's true what
that means like the odds of all of these
these screw-ups happening quote unquote
screw-ups. the I I think the odds are
fairly low. The problem is, you know,
Bill Bar's personal knowledge. He can
claim that he doesn't have like intimate
understanding of the running of these
facilities, right? That when he was
attorney general that he had a director
of the Bureau of Prisons, you know, to
whom he entrusted, you know, these
matters and and that these things
generally don't rise didn't rise to to
his level. So, I don't know like what in
particular you could ask him except
again if you know if he's on the record
saying that he watched the video and and
you know putting forth that narrative
that this video is conclusive then I
think he's got a real problem.
Yeah.
All right. Well, Marty, uh thanks so
much. We'll continue to follow your your
reporting on this. Appreciate you
joining us here.
No problem, Ryan. Thanks again for
having me. and uh your Substack uh
marty.substack.comstack.com.
Yep.
Yeah. And if you want to study these
diagrams closer, go over to
martyg.substack.com
and we'll put your piece in the the show
notes.
Yeah.
Oh, thank you.
Hey, if you like that video, hit the
like button or leave a comment below. It
really helps get the show to more
people.
And if you'd like to get the full show,
ad free and in your inbox every morning,
you can sign up at breakingpoints.com.
That's right. Get the full show. Help
support the future of independent media
at breakingpoints.com.

[admin]

Journalist who EXPOSED Epstein TELLS ALL on Trump-Epstein CONNECTION
Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz and Julie K. Brown
Legal AF
Aug 1, 2025

The Court of History’s Sidney Blumenthal and Sean Wilentz are joined by investigative journalist Julie K. Brown, who broke the Epstein story and helped bring him to justice. She reveals what Harvey Weinstein may know about the Trump-Epstein connection and the broader pedophile coverup. Brown also exposes how Trump and Epstein exploited the modeling industry to prey on young women, and names Alan Dershowitz—not Ghislaine Maxwell—as the true puppet master behind the scandal. She details how Dershowitz used intimidation tactics to silence victims and even tried to sabotage her Pulitzer Prize.



Transcript

Welcome to the Court of History. I'm Sydney Blumenthal. The court is in session. I am here with Sean Wentz, my colleague, Princeton University. Sean, I have been watching a lot of TV shows about cold cases on Britbox and other sites, and I watched one called Department Q, and some other ones.

Oh, that was a great one. I love that one.

But it turns out that the greatest cold case of them all is Jeffrey Epstein.

Yeah. Well, it goes on and on and on, doesn't it?

I mean, you're getting to the point where the cover up is almost as interesting as anything else in the story. And the coverup's gotten to the point where I think Donald Trump said something for the first time in his entire life, which was to tell a bunch of reporters, "Don't talk about Donald Trump." This tells me that he's under grave distress if nothing else.

Well, the person who broke that cold case is with us today, and she probably knows as much about Jeffrey Epstein, what he did, and the people he did it to as anybody. And, we're eager to speak to her. She is, of course, Julie K. Brown. She's a member of the Miami Herald's investigative team. She's reopened the Jeffrey Epstein sexual abuse case with her reporting, and her probe into Epstein has won many journalism awards, including a George Pulk award, which was her second. She was also a member of the Herald's 2022 Pulitzer Prizewinning team for its coverage of the Surfside condo collapse, and she is the author of Perversion of Justice, the Jeffrey Epstein story. Welcome, Julie, to the Court of History.  

Thank you.

So, I'd like to start in the present, and then jump all the way back to the beginning. And in the present, what I'm really interested in, among other things, is you uncovered so many victims, and interviewed them, dozens and dozens and dozens. You must be in touch with them today. And what do they tell you about what's going on? Particularly with Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, running down to Tallahassee to the prison to interview Glenn Maxwell. Do you talk to the victims about this?

Yeah. I mean, there's a range of emotions. Sexual trauma victims, especially those that were victimized when they were children, often feel retraumatized. There's triggers, and this certainly is a trigger with all the chaos surrounding this case, particularly as it concerns one of their predators, Ghislaine Maxwell. In their minds, this is just another attempt at cover up, or attempt at somehow letting the people who were involved in their sexual assaults off the hook. In their eyes, this is a huge mistake. They they don't even care what information she's going to provide. They don't believe that she should ever leave jail. In fact, I've heard some of them say that she's a danger to society because of what she did, and how she did it.

Were any of them interviewed or approached by Mr. Blanche, or any other member of the Department of Justice, involving the interview with Glenn Maxwell?

I can't answer that question. I don't really know, because I've been interviewing them before recent events. I interviewed them a couple of days before Blanche went down to interview her. So as far as I know there were 200 victims, so it's hard to say whether any of them were contacted.  

Have they ever voiced to you how they would feel if she were pardoned?

As I said, they just feel betrayed again by the criminal justice system, that the DOJ would even consider doing something like this. And the oddity of sending the second in command of the DOJ in to broker some kind of a deal. In their minds, it seems as though they're trying to broker another deal like they did with Jeffrey Epstein in 2008, which led to his release, and also led to him being able to prey on additional victims. So, in their minds, this is a retraumatization of some of the same things that they felt back in 2008 when Jeffrey Epstein essentially was able to get a slap on the wrist.

Let's go back if we can of the beginning of the case that was opened against Epstein. That happened after a real estate deal between Trump and Epstein went bad over a Palm Beach property, and they broke up over it. And we spoke with Michael Wolff, who says that Epstein believed that Donald Trump was an informant to the authorities against Epstein to try and get even with him and cover up. I don't know if you've heard any of that.

I don't know. I haven't heard that. I haven't even heard that from the lawyers who have worked pretty closely with the victims on the cases. So, I don't really know if that's true or not.  

A spat over a $41 million mansion

But public sightings of the two together ended in 2004, when nursing home magnate Abe Gosman's Palm Beach mansion, named the Maison de l'Amitie (The House of Friendship), came on the market in a bankruptcy auction. Both Trump and Epstein wanted the six-acre oceanfront estate for themselves, the Post reported.

Joseph Luzinski, who was the property's trustee, told the paper that both men started lobbying him and would talk behind each other's back.

"It was something like, Donald saying, 'You don't want to do a deal with him, he doesn't have the money,' while Epstein was saying: 'Donald is all talk. He doesn't have the money,' " Luzinski told the Post. "They both really wanted it."


The Maison de l'Amitie estate in Palm Beach, Florida, on May 21, 2013. Sensation White Amsterdam/ Wikimedia Commons

When the home hit the auction block in November 2004, Trump came out victorious, paying $41.35 million for the property (he later sold it, more than doubling his investment).

Fewer than two weeks after the auction, Palm Beach police received a tip about young women seen coming and going from Epstein's home, according to a deposition the Post found from then-Police Chief Michael Reiter.

An investigation into Epstein was launched after police received a second complaint, from a woman who alleged her 15-year-old stepdaughter had been paid $300 by Epstein for a massage.

-- Trump and Epstein's friendship reportedly soured after they fought over a $41 million Palm Beach mansion. 2 weeks after the home's auction, cops received a tip about underage women at Epstein's house, by Ashley Collman, Business Insider, Aug 1, 2019, 10:53 AM MT

So tell us about how you got onto this cold case to begin with, because it was cold.

Well, it was cold, but it had been written about over the years. And I always felt that it was a mystery, because how does somebody get away with molesting all those girls, and be able to essentially get a deal where he isn't federally prosecuted, and he's able to just go about his jet setting life again, while these girls were devastated? So I knew about that, but I always thought, how did this happen? Who in Florida, in Washington, who were the people who were supposed to hold him accountable? And then Mr. Trump was running for president in 2016, and there was a civil lawsuit filed by a woman who claimed that when she was younger, she had been raped by both Epstein and Trump. And this was a ongoing civil lawsuit in 2016. And I happened to see a column that was written by a lawyer questioning why the media wasn't examining this. Look at this lawsuit. The media isn't looking at this.  

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 18 U.S.C ; 2241 by sexually and physically abusing Plaintiff Johnson by forcing her to engage in various perverted and depraved sex acts by threatening physical harm to Plaintiff Johnson and also her family.

6. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges that the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, also did willfully and with extreme malice violate her Civil Rights under 42 U.S.C.; 1985 by conspiring to deny Plaintiff Johnson her Civil Rights by making her their sex slave.

7. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was subject to extreme sexual and physical abuse by the Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, including forcible rape during a four month time span covering the months of June-September 1994 when Plaintiff Johnson was still only a minor of age 13.

8. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, alleges she was enticed by promises of money and a modeling career to attend a series of underage sex parties held at the New York City residence of Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein and attended by Defendant Donald J. Trump.

9. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to manually stimulate Defendant Trump with the use of her hand upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.

10. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing her mouth upon Defendant Trump's erect penis until he reached sexual orgasm.

11. On the third occasion involving the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was forced to engage in an unnatural lesbian sex act with her fellow minor and sex slave, Maria Doe age 12, for the sexual enjoyment of Defendant Trump. After this sex act, both minors were forced to orally copulate Defendant Trump by placing their mouths simultaneously on his erect penis until he achieved sexual orgasm. After zipping up his pants, Defendant Trump physically pushed both minors away while angrily berating them for the "poor" quality of their sexual performance.

12. On the fourth and final sexual encounter with the Defendant, Donald J. Trump, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was tied to a bed by Defendant Trump who then proceeded to forcibly rape Plaintiff Johnson. During the course of this savage sexual attack, Plaintiff Johnson loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to "please wear a condom". Defendant Trump responded by violently striking Plaintiff Johnson in the face with his open hand and screaming that "he would do whatever he wanted" as he refused to wear protection. After achieving sexual orgasm, the Defendant, Donald J. Trump put his suit back on and when the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, in tears asked Defendant Trump what would happen if he had impregnated her, Defendant Trump grabbed his wallet and threw some money at her and screamed that she should use the money "to get a fucking abortion".

13. On the first occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was forced to disrobe into her bra and panties and to give a full body massage to Defendant Epstein while he was completely naked. During the massage, Defendant Epstein physically forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis with her bare hands and to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.

14. On the second occasion involving the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson was again forced to disrobe into her bra and panties while giving Defendant Epstein a full body massage while he was completely naked. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was also present as he was getting his own massage from another minor, Jane Doe, age 13. Defendant Epstein forced Plaintiff Johnson to touch his erect penis by physically placing her bare hands upon his sex organ and again forced Plaintiff Johnson to clean up his ejaculated semen after he achieved sexual orgasm.

15. Shortly after this sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, Plaintiff Johnson was still present while the two Defendants were arguing over who would be the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity. The Defendant, Donald J. Trump, was clearly heard referring to Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, as a "Jew Bastard" as he yelled at Defendant Epstein, that clearly, he, Defendant Trump, should be the lucky one to "pop the cherry" of Plaintiff Johnson.

16. The third and final sexual assault by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, on the Plaintiff, Kati Johnson, took place after Plaintiff Johnson had been brutally and savagely raped by Defendant Trump. While receiving another full body massage from Plaintiff Johnson, while in the nude, Defendant Epstein became so enraged after finding out that Defendant Trump had been the one to take Plaintiff Johnson's virginity, that Defendant Epstein also violently raped Plaintiff Johnson. After forcing Plaintiff Johnson to disrobe into her bra and panties, while receiving a massage from the Plaintiff, Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's anal cavity with his erect penis while trying to restrain her. Plaintiff Johnson attempted to push Defendant Epstein away, at which time Defendant Epstein attempted to enter Plaintiff Johnson's vagina with his erect penis. This attempt to brutally sodomize and rape Plaintiff Johnson by Defendant Epstein was finally repelled by Plaintiff Johnson but not before Defendant Epstein was able to achieve sexual orgasm. After perversely sodomizing and raping the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, attempted to strike her about the head with his closed fists while he angrily screamed at Plaintiff Johnson that he, Defendant Epstein, should have been the one who "took her cherry, not Mr. Trump", before she finally managed to break away from Defendant Epstein.

17. The Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was fully warned on more than one occasion by both Defendants, Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, that were she ever to reveal any of the details of the sexual and physical abuse that she had suffered as a sex slave for Defendant Trump and Defendant Epstein, that Plaintiff Johnson and her family would be in mortal danger. Plaintiff Johnson was warned that this would mean certain death for herself and Plaintiff Johnson's family unless she remained silent forever on the exact details of the depraved and perverted sexual and physical abuse she had been forced to endure from the Defendants.

MATERIAL WITNESSES

18. Tiffany Doe, a former trusted employee of the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, has agreed to provide sworn testimony in this civil case and any other future civil or criminal proceedings, fully verifying the authenticity of the claims of the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Witness Tiffany Doe was employed by the Defendant, Jeffrey E. Epstein, for more than 10 years as a party planner for his underage sex parties. Despite being subject to constant terroristic threats by Defendants Epstein and Trump to never reveal the details of these underage sex parties at which scores of teenagers, and pre-teen girls were used as sex slaves by Defendant Epstein and Defendant Trump, witness Tiffany Doe refuses to be silent any longer. She has agreed to fully reveal the extent of the sexual perversion and physical cruelty that she personally witnessed at these parties by Defendants Epstein and Trump.

19. Material witness Tiffany Doe fully confirms all of Plaintiff Katie Johnson's allegations of physical and sexual abuse by Defendants Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein. Tiffany Doe was physically present at each of the four occasions of sexual abuse by Defendant Trump upon the person of Plaintiff Johnson, as it was her job to witness all of the sexual escapades of Defendant Epstein's guests at these underage sex parties and later reveal all of the sordid details directly to Defendant Epstein. Defendant Epstein also demanded that Tiffany Doe tell him personally everything she had overheard at these parties explaining to her that "knowledge was king" in the financial world. As a result of these underage sex parties, Defendant Epstein was able to accumulate inside business knowledge that he otherwise would never have been privy to in order to amass his huge personal fortune.

20. Material witness Tiffany Doe will testify that she was also present or had direct knowledge of each of the three instances on which Defendant Jeffrey E. Epstein physically and sexually abused the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson. Tiffany Doe will testify to the fact that the Plaintiff, Katie Johnson, was extremely fortunate to have survived all of the physical and sexual horrors inflicted upon her by Defendants Epstein and Trump.

-- KATIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff v. DONALD J. TRUMP and JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN, Defendant(s). COMPLAINT FOR CLAIM RELIEF DUE TO: 1. SEXUAL ABUSE UNDER THREAT OF HARM; 2. CONSPIRACY TO DEPRIVE CIVIL RIGHTS, Case Number: ED CV16-00797 DMG *(KSX), FILED: 2016 APR 26 AM 11:12

It was right around the time that Trump was being barraged with allegations from some other women who were claiming that he had committed some kind of sexual harassment or impropriety against them. So I thought, let me take a look at this. I was always curious anyway. So I started requesting the files while working on a million other stories, because as we do in local newspaper journalism, you don't have the luxury of just having one story and that's it. So anyway, I was picking away at it, and in the middle of when I was looking at it, Trump was elected president. And then he nominated Alexander Acosta to be his labor secretary. And that was "boom" for me, because I knew by that time that Alexander Acosta was the prosecutor in Miami who gave Epstein his sweetheart deal.

Yeah, tell us about the sweetheart deal, and the lawyers who made that deal, and how that worked involving Alex Acosta, who was then the US attorney, right?

After the allegations first came to light in 2005-2006, it was investigated by Palm Beach police. They took it to the state attorney in Palm Beach, Barry Krischer. Barry Krischer initially was gung-ho about going after Epstein, because he didn't know initially who Epstein was. So Epstein was trying to keep a lid on the whole thing. Epstein hired Alan Dershowitz, another local attorney, to pressure Krischer not to file charges. And he was on the verge of just letting the case drop, largely because Alan Dershowitz had convinced him that the young girls that Epstein had molested weren't credible, because they drank beer, and were having sex with their boyfriends. He kind of mined all their social media pages.

Yeah, I read in your book that you said that Dershowitz hired private investigators to look into the private lives of the victims, right?

And their families and their parents.

Their families, too. And what would the point of that be?

Intimidation. So, Dershowitz hired PIs to intimidate the victims. Intimidate the victim.

On behalf of his client?  

Yeah. And also it did intimidate them. They were scared. You know, when you're being followed like that, and you're young, and there was at least one instance that I know of where a big car was putting its headlights on one girl's house, and her lawyers had to grab her and take her to a hotel, put her in hiding, because she was being pursued so aggressively.

So, please continue.

So, Krischer got cold feet. But the Palm Beach police didn't want to let it go. So they kept trying to get him to do something. Eventually, he relented and opened a grand jury on the case. What we now know is that it was one of those kinds of grand jury sessions where you can indict someone on a ham sandwich. They didn't even call all the victims. They called one victim. And we subsequently have that grand jury testimony, and it's very painful to listen to, because they allowed the grand jurors to sort of ask her questions that were like, "Did you know what you were doing was wrong? Is that how your parents raised you" kind of thing. So they were prepared to give him an indictment on a lesser charge. And the Palm Beach police then took it to the FBI and said, "This is absurd. This is a serious crime. They're going to let this guy walk." And that's when the FBI took over around 2007, and started investigating.

Now, by this time, there were more victims coming forward. So initially there was only maybe five or six, and now there was almost two dozen, because one girl recruited another girl who recruited another girl. So if you interviewed the girl, she would say, "Well I recruited this one, this one, and this one." And then you go to those girls, and they say, "I recruited this one, this one, and this one." It was like a pyramid scheme he had going to get each girl to get more girls for him.

So, Ghislaine Maxwell's in the middle of this? And Ghislaine Maxwell is deeply involved in the recruiting process?

Well, initially she was the one that started this effort to recruit girls around Palm Beach. She would take Epstein's valet, and she would drive to spas in the area and find pretty girls at the spa, give them her business card, tell them, "I have a very wealthy man. He's looking for a personal masseuse. He's going to pay you very well. You'll be able to travel around the world," etc. So she started that, and as I said, once she got her foot in the door at some of these high schools, she was able to use the girls to bring her additional girls. So they were coming like three of them a day, at least, to his home in Palm Beach.

So the FBI took took over the case. But the prosecutor, Maria Villifana, was hitting a wall every step of the way. Epstein was very shrewd in how he handled his case in that each of his lawyers had a tie to one of the prosecutors on the case. Jay Lefkowitz for example, worked at Kirkland and Ellis um, and so did Alex Acosta. And Alex Acosta was very ambitious. He was a rising star in the Republican party at the time. So he was pressured by this lawyer who had enough influence to help appoint the new attorney general in 2007 or eight, Michael Mukasey. So he was ambitious. He didn't want to bend anybody out of shape. Epstein hired Kenneth Starr.

Ken Starr is also from Kirkland and Ellis, isn't he?

Absolutely.

And they're all federalist society people, aren't they?

Right. And Acosta wanted to be a Supreme Court justice. So imagine what would happen if he had prosecuted a client that they would have frowned upon, right? So they hired a woman, a defense attorney who had had a relationship with one of the attorneys, who had dated one of the attorneys. Epstein was shrewd. He hired people that had ties to big law firms and ties in Washington.

Yeah. My understanding is Acosta was a protege of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

Right. Right. He was very well connected.

So what I did that no one had really done before, was I was able to figure out a road map on how Epstein and his lawyers managed to pressure the prosecutors to give him a deal. I mean, he tried very hard to get off scot-free, but he wasn't able to do that. But ultimately, the one thing he was able to do was keep the deal secret. Because had the victims or their lawyers found out exactly what they were doing, they would have objected very publicly. So he was able to get the prosecutors to agree to seal the deal so that nobody knew what it was. And so when he appeared in court to plead guilty, nobody was doing this. It was Ken Starr, and he had a whole team of people. Lefkowitz was certainly involved. Dershowitz --

A very well-connected conservative attorney.

Right. So the deal came together and boom, it was done before anybody knew about it. He was serving time in the Palm Beach County Jail, which was not much of a a jail term because he was leaving every day to go to his office, and sometimes even his home in Palm Beach. Epstein completely manipulated the Palm Beach Sheriff's office to allow him to essentially leave all day long, and come back just to sleep there at night. In the meantime, he was at his office, and he hired all these Palm Beach sheriff's deputies, and paid them thousands and thousands of dollars to so-call "monitor him." They were calling him a client because he was paying them so well.

They were basically bribing them?

Yeah. And he was allowed visitors all day long, and some of them were women. And we now know that he was having sex with them in his office while he was supposed to be incarcerated. So he manipulated every aspect of his so-called punishment. By the time the victims filed a a motion with the judge to unseal the deal, by the time it was unsealed, Jeffrey Epstein was walking out of jail, and had already served his short jail term.  

Yeah. And then Alex Acosta, what happened to him? Didn't he go on to greater things later on?

He did become labor secretary, and then he had to resign. I think he's on Fox News sometimes now talking about the economy since he was labor secretary, but he had to resign because of the reopening due to my story.

What happened was my story came out in November of 2018, and it just really went viral. And some prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, the DOJ's office in New York, took the story that I wrote, showed it to the prosecutor and said, "We've got to do something about this. What can we do?" So he said, investigate. Find out if there's any victims here in New York, and look into it. So that's how it all started.

Yeah. The attorney general of Florida was Pam Bondi at the time. What was her --

She was not attorney general when the deal was struck, but there was a lot of information that came out subsequent to the deal. In other words, the victims filed a lawsuit claiming that the federal government violated their rights because you're supposed to, under the Crime Victim's Rights Act, inform victims when someone's reached a plea deal, or is appearing in court. And they didn't do any of that. They purposefully, deliberately concealed this from them. Now Bondi was a state official. The federal government concealed it from her. But Bondi certainly over the years knew that Epstein was a sexual predator. There was no arguing that. Even Epstein himself wouldn't call himself that. He didn't deny that he was doing this to young girls. So it wasn't like he was still saying he was innocent. He he always said he was involved with these girls. He just didn't know how young they were.

So as more victims over the years started suing him, there's all this discovery, and there were some stories written over the course of Bondi's tenure as attorney general. And this was a big case. It involved celebrities, former presidents. Bondi had to know about this information.

So as far as we know, she didn't do anything about it? She did nothing during this period?

No, I don't think so. Because the lawyers who represented the victims were begging authorities to look at what they had uncovered as part of the discovery in the civil lawsuits they had filed against Epstein.

One of the most interesting articles that I read of yours from this period was about your investigation of the model industry and Epstein, and overlap with Trump who had a major in interest in the model industry. And they had a mutual interest, right?

That came out as part of the discovery in one of the lawsuits. Brad Edwards, who represented a a number of victims, Epstein had a modeling company, and Brad Edwards deposed the accountant who worked for Epstein's modeling company. And in that deposition, she provided a lot of detail about what he was doing. And it's clear that he was using that modeling company as a cover, in part, for the sex trafficking that he was doing, because she was describing exactly what they would do. They would send the younger girls down to Epstein's place in Palm Beach. And she gave more detail than we had had before, including the fact that when Epstein formed his company, he said to her, I want it to be set up just like Donald Trump's modeling agency.

And that's in the record. She testified under oath that Epstein said that he wanted to model his modeling company that he would invest in on Trump's?

That's right. And so we don't know what that means. We can't say that means that Trump's modeling agency was trafficking, but we do know that in some respects Epstein's modeling company was used in part to recruit young girls from all over the world, and send them to events and parties where ostensibly they would be expected to have sex with some of the partygoers.

There are other parties that are described by other people who organized models with both Trump and Epstein present. There's one that was described where they're the only two guests for 25-some young models, Epstein and Trump. Jean luc brunel from Paris headed Epstein's company, and he was arrested for rape and for sexual assault, and hanged himself after Epstein's death. The two were business partners.

Yeah, they were business partners and close associates. Not only that, but Brunel was one of his top recruiters. And I'm not just talking models. I'm talking about girls and young women for sex. That's what he did. Because they would make these promises to these women when they met them, "we're going to get you into the modeling business. You're going to make lots and lots of money. I have a very wealthy person who has all these contacts, etc." And Epstein also had a lawyer working for him. The bookkeeper told us about this, or told Brad Edwards about this, he had lawyers that were helping the women from overseas get visas.

So it was very common at the time of HB1 visas, Trump's modeling agency depended upon those visas to bring over models mostly from Eastern Europe for --

It what was his specialty.  

So it's interesting, given Trump's current views on immigration, to say the least. But you're on the case here. You're exposing this as this is going on, bringing it up all again, reporting, right?

Yeah. Even after Epstein's death, I continue to report the trail of people that helped him, including members of the government of the US Virgin Islands. He employed the governor's wife there. He tossed around a lot of money to a lot of people. Remember, he was a convicted sex predator. So he was supposed to be monitored by the US Marshall Service. And he just wasn't monitored at all.

This is all around the island, Little St. James that he was doing this? Is that where they connected?

Right. And you know It's a remote island. You could only get there by boat or plane. So it was the perfect locale for him to have some of these sex parties, so to speak, or to entertain his clients, and offer them food, wine, and and a young girl if they wanted it.

So what's your view of Epstein's death? Was it a suicide or what? What's your view?  

I'm not convinced it was a suicide. I'm not saying it wasn't, but I am troubled by all the holes in the whole story. And quite frankly, the fact that the videotape that the Trump administration released to try to show that it was a suicide was not the video of his wing. It was of a another area of the jail. And unless they weren't told that, why would they use that? Unless it was a desperate move to try to quiet some of these loud voices who are questioning why Trump now is not releasing more information about the case.

You would think that they'd be careful given the atmosphere and the intense scrutiny, to make sure that whatever they put out would be accurate. And yet they put out this faulty, to say the least, false information. They did that before too when Bondi was saying, "Oh, I have this on my desk." She's telling the whole world on Fox News, "Oh, yeah, we have it. It's going to come out. We're going to release everything." And then she gives a binder of dated material to internet influencers. And in the victim's eyes, this was a stunt. They've been thinking that maybe Trump's going to get to the bottom of it. And here, with each step that they have taken, the victims feel that this is becoming another cover-up really.

Although it's one of those cover-ups in plain sight, as we see. They do this stuff that's so clumsy, handing out things that we've known already. The whole thing with Todd Blanche going down to see Maxwell. I mean, come on, we're not stupid here. and yet they do it. And I'm not sure in my own mind, is it about arrogance? Is it about incompetence? Is it just that they think they can get away with murder, and they're going to show that they can get away with murder? I don't know.

I don't know. I've asked that question both on the interviews that I've done on television, and on social media. I don't understand the endgame here. What's the end game? Is the endgame going to be that they're going to give her a pardon, and she's going to say Trump had nothing to do with this? I know that his supporters sometimes believe everything he says, but I just don't think they're going to believe this.

So Pam Bondi said there was no client list of people who were blackmailed, but you never came across such an object ever. It seems to me that it was made up, wasn't it?

Yeah, it's a red herring that got sort of morphed by conspiracy theories. There was a phone directory that Maxwell compiled for him on a regular basis. Every time he met somebody new, she would get all his or her contact information, and so we had this thing that was referred to as the Epstein black book, which was really like a rolodex.

I've seen it online. It's got everyone in it, from Barbara Walters, to all sorts of prominent names from New York social life, that have nothing to do with anything except that Ghislaine Maxwell knew them, right?

Right. And somehow this morphed into people on social media saying, "Where's his list of clients?" Then that kind of took on a life of its own.

Now I do think that Epstein kept files on people. I absolutely think he did business with a lot of the men that have already been named as suspects. So it it makes sense that as a superb businessman, he probably kept files on these people. Now, whether that file included material about their sex life, we just don't know. But Virginia Giuffre, who was one of the most outspoken victims on this, and who was with him for quite a number of years, said that he would quiz her about a certain client's sexual predilections, and to her mind it was a way to have something on someone.

Epstein was friends with all sorts of prominent people. And he seemed to collect them. And among them was somebody who also had an interest in the modeling industry, and overlapped in the entertainment industry, who was a friend of Epstein's. That was Harvey Weinstein.  

Right. And he was also on the message pads. The Palm Beach Police Department did a search warrant on his home at the time he was first arrested, and these were the old-fashioned pink message pads where when someone called you, you'd write their name and why they're calling on the top copy and there was a copy right underneath. So they got these books of message pads, and Harvey Weinstein was one of those people that called him. Trump called him. There were a lot of names of people who would call him. Now, of course, they didn't say what they wanted. They just said, you know, Trump called, or Harvey called.

Yeah. There was a report that Epstein broke up with Weinstein because Epstein raped a young woman that Epstein regarded as his own, and somehow it involves Jean Luc Brunel, the guy who ran Epstein's model agency.

This raises another question. Why don't they talk to Harvey? Harvey might know something too?  

That's a very interesting question. Do you think Harvey Weinstein should be called as a witness by, or be approached by, Todd Blanche and the Justice Department?

I mean, he's a sex predator himself. So again, it's the same quandary involving someone who you have to ask the question of, "are they talking because they're really being honest, or because they want some kind of a deal?" So I think you have the same credibility issue with him. Although I feel like he might be able to provide information from a different vantage point, because he might not have been part of this Epstein sex trafficking operation, but maybe saw things? Do you know what I'm saying? I mean, I don't really know.

He was, despite what Donald Trump says to the contrary, friendly with Trump, who attended a number of -- it's been publicly reported, with photographs, that he and Melania attended Miramax film openings with Weinstein, and took photos with Weinstein. So they were friendly despite what Trump says. And we don't know what Weinstein might have to offer. I've seen a photograph of Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and Guislaine Maxwell all dressed up at Prince Andrews, at Windsor Castle, at Prince Andrew's daughter's birthday party.

Yeah, I remember that. I just don't think that anyone wants those names to get out of the men who were very powerful and wealthy, who participated in sex with these girls and young women. They're very powerful people, and I don't think that even Trump wants those names to get out.

No, absolutely. I want to ask you about an incident that happened. I think your story is one of the great stories of modern American journalism.

Thank you. Thank you.

You deserve all the laurels, and you know, this story, which you've doggedly pursued on your own, has American politics in its grip right now, years later. And it goes to the heart of not only the crimes that were committed of sexual predation, but also of social power and political power. And yet, when you were nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, someone wrote a letter urging the Pulitzer Prize committee not to give this award to you.

Right. Right. Alan Dershowitz, very publicly. He's put it on Twitter, so I'm not telling stories here.

Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer?

Yeah. Alan Dershowitz.

Not to mention Ken Starr, but that's another story.

I know now that there were a couple of journalists on the jury who didn't feel like what I did was much. Remember, by the time that they reviewed it, Epstein hadn't been arrested at that point. It was just after my series ran, so there was some feeling like, what's the big deal? Yeah.

Well, for a defense attorney to intervene in a journalism prize seems pretty extraordinary to me, and beyond the call of duty.  

Yeah. I mean, it is what it is.

And he has attempted to insert himself again, and claims that Ghislaine Maxwell is the Rosetta Stone, and before she was questioned by Todd Blanche, he raised her name.

Yeah. Well, she does know a lot. Ghislaine was on the ground level of this sex trafficking operation. In fact, some of the girl victims, or I should say survivors, that's what they want to be called, "the survivors," believe that she was a bigger monster than Epstein, because she was the one that made them feel safe. She was the one that brought them in. She used fraud by saying, "He's going to hire you. You're going to travel. You're going to be a masseuse." She acted like a motherly, nurturing type, you know, English lady with her English accent. And they took it as, "Wow, she's a really smart and kind lady." And she's who snared them. So in their mind and under the testimony that convicted her, some of these women were sexually molested by her. It wasn't that she just brought them to Epstein. She was involved with some of the sex. She would groom them, and tell them, "This is what you do to pleasure him."

I think with men who engage [DELETE] and hebephilia, it's more of a sickness that arises from their own abuse. Like my grandfather, my alleged grandfather, Walt's son, who worked for the CIA, allegedly faked his death to remove himself from my mother, because he was so sickened by what he could not control doing to her. Contrast that with my stepmother, who delighted in abusing me, and laughed at me when I was incapacitated by the drug they had me on, and made fun of me drooling on myself, being unable to speak. I think with her, and with Ghislaine, I'm certain they were abused as children themselves, but there's a different kind of psychopathy that grows within them where they get off on the power of it, and abetting in these acts to please their partners.

Now, Kari Epstein [her stepmother] was more sexually attracted to me than she was to her husband, Steven. But she did also do these things in order to stay in good graces with him. And that was more out of survival. Kari was a very broke cellist in her early adulthood with no familial support, whereas Ghislaine also comes from the aristocracy. She had access to her own funds independent of Jeffrey. So I can't speculate too much on what she gained from it besides psychopathic pleasure and sadism. A schaudenfraude of sorts. But I'm not a doctor. She was not a large presence in my life. That speculation on her personality is primarily based on what I know about my stepmother.  

-- Epstein's Niece [Ana Beth Epstein / Anna Petrova / Anya Wick] Exposes ALL From Bill Clinton to Cult of Baal Exclusive with Anya Wick, by Shaun Attwood

It would start out as a massage, then take off all your clothes, and it would be a little further each time. So she was grooming them for sex, and she participated in that.

Yeah, so I wonder if you're in touch at all with Maria Farmer?

With who?

Maria Farmer.

I've never interviewed her, even though I tried a couple of times, but initially she was suffering from cancer, and going through chemotherapy, and she just wasn't healthy enough. Then I had an interview scheduled with her. I was going to fly to Arkansas, and the night before I was scheduled to fly to interview her, Epstein was arrested. So I had to go to New York, and we never really were able to connect after that. I've never interviewed her.

And the connection to the relationship?

Well, Maria Farmer worked for Epstein. She was one of those women that got recruited, and worked for him, but in New York. And she is an artist, and Epstein was connected to a lot of important museum people, and people in the art world, and was telling her that he would help her with her paintings, and get people to look at them so she could sell them.

-- Inside power lobbyist, philanthropist and contemporary art collector Tony Podesta’s Kalorama home, by Laura Wainman, Washington Magazine, June 5, 2015

In any event, she has accused Epstein and Maxwell of trying to have sex with her. She rejected them, but she was there during this period of time when they were recruiting other people. So she had information. She saw some of this, and she went to do an interview with Vicky Ward, from Vanity Fair. And she told Vicky her story. She also went to the New York Police Department to report what was going on. They referred her to the FBI. The FBI did talk to her way back in the early 2000s, but they never did anything about it.

The time that is most memorable to me is the time when he hit on me because I was in the office. It was one of the first times I started working for Jeffrey. Donald Trump's a sleazebag. Okay. Yes. Um, it was when I started working for Epstein, and it was 9:00 at night. And Jeffrey Epstein's office was totally empty. I told the New York Times this, but of course they don't tell the whole thing, right? Even though Mike Baker is amazing, but they they would not allow him to tell the truth. So basically, I go into this office, it's 9:00 at night, and I sit down, and a few minutes later, and I'm wearing running clothes, okay, so it was really weird. It's 9:00 at night, and I'm wearing running clothes because I didn't have money. So I had to jog up there, right? And so I've just struggled, you know, for so long. So I'm like up there in the office seated, and I've got my running clothes on, so my legs are showing. And in walks this man that when I reported him to the FBI, I said that game show host Donald Trump, because I thought he was a game show host. He's so cheesy, you know. You know he walks in and I just kind of acknowledged him, like a head nod or something, and immediately he's seated across from me, I mean standing across the room from me, and I'm seated, and he's like oh Maria. Sorry, I was just looking at something. He's standing across the room, and he's looking at me, and I'm like oh gross. You know this guy's so gross. Anyway, he's just looking, glaring at my legs, like yum. I told my sister I felt like I was his dinner. or his lunch, you know? The way he was looking at me. So Epstein comes in and by the way, I did not look good. I was like not a pretty I'm not exceptionally beautiful or anything like that. These are just gross people, you know what I mean? Yeah. Yeah. So I'm just like a normal person who went on a run and I'm seated there. So he assumed I was there for him. And Epstein, this is how I know. Epstein walks up to him and goes, "No, no, she's not here for you." And they were smirking and Epstein whispered something. He goes, "Go in there." And so Trump, at 9:00 at night, goes in the other room. There's someone in there for him. Right. Right. I don't know who. But Epstein said, "No, no, no. She's not here for you."

-- Trump has SHOCK ADMISSION on Victims on AIR FORCE ONE, by Ben Meiselas, MeidasTouch, Jul 29, 2025

So she encountered Trump, didn't she?

That's what she just said recently, yes. You know, Trump and Epstein were friends. I don't know how you can deny that. They were friends. Maybe they had a falling out later, but at one point they were very close. They were friends. So it wouldn't surprise me that she encountered him. She encountered other people, too. So you have to understand that she feels that if the FBI had listened to her back then, and had truly investigated what was going on, it's possible that all these hundreds of women wouldn't have been raped, or molested, or abused, you know, in her mind. Now as we know now, the portion about her talking about Epstein, it was a profile, by the way. Vicky Ward was doing a profile of Epstein, and the editor decided to take out the part about Maria.

I remember this years ago. It was Graydon Carter who took that out, I think.

Right. So she was around Maxwell, she was in that orbit where she could see what Epstein was doing. And by the way, both Maxwell and Epstein molested her sister who was younger than her, who was a teenager. And then tried to ingratiate themselves with her. What they would do is they would buy things for these victims. These victims were being dazzled by Epstein, because they had so much money. You would go into his home in New York, and there are pictures of him with Bill Clinton, and other world leaders. He had tons of money. He had a big staff that was doing everything for him. So they were sort of in awe of him. And Maria and Annie in particular, wanted to go to college, and they came from a family that didn't have means. And he was promising them that he would put them through college, at least put Annie through college.

She tells the story that when Trump came in, Epstein said, "This one's not for you."

This is the first time I heard her talk about that. But, you know, with victim trauma like that, you don't always remember everything right away. Sometimes it comes back to you years later. It's funny how your brain, especially if you're a child that has been abused, or a young person, it does affect you. I talked to experts about this, and it does affect the way your brain works.

Yeah, you're still on the case. You're still reporting on this.

I am. Yes. Yeah.

So as the Trump administration and its Department of Justice is meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell and so forth, you're still out there.

Yeah, I'm still here, and I'm following tips, and getting lots of them every day, by the way. I'm getting a lot of people, which by the way, when I was doing my story, my original investigation, I couldn't even get a lawyer to comment for me on that case. I had so many problems trying to get a lawyer to talk to me about this deal, and how it worked, and just to comment on how unusual this deal was. And it really was a struggle. In some ways, finding a lawyer that was willing to comment on that case was harder than getting the victims to talk to me.

You know, people do listen to this podcast, we hope. And if any sources are listening, what would you say to them about coming to you?

Well, I've done this for a very long time. So I keep my sources confidential. And I don't think I would have been able to do a story like this if I didn't know how to handle sources, because a lot of what I found out was through sources. They would point me in the right directions. That's what I'm looking for. someone who's going to point me at something that maybe nobody noticed before, or saw before, or just something that will lead me to uncover more about how this man and this woman really were able to sexually abuse so many young women and girls over two decades. So I'll listen and investigate I guess.  

Well thank you Julie K. Brown, the indispensable journalist of the Miami Herald, who has uncovered the Jeffrey Epstein case, and is still on it, as well as indispensable. The unsinkable Julie Brown . Thank you so much, and this session of the court of history, on behalf of Sean Wilentz and myself, is now adjourned.

[admin]

Trump Biographer REVEALS Trump DEADLY FEAR from Past
MeidasTouch
Aug 1, 2025

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas introduces this exclusive report from Trump and Epstein biographer Michael Wolff about the torment Trump is going through right as he tells his friends he had nothing to do with the suspicious death.



Transcript

This is a Meidas Touch exclusive. You've
never heard these details before. They
come from Michael Wolf. Michael Wolf is
Donald Trump's former biographer.
Michael Wolf was also going to be
Epstein's biographer. Michael Wolf met
with Jeffrey Epstein multiple times,
spent hours and hours with Epstein,
heard things from Epstein that nobody
has heard before. So, Michael Wolf is
going to share these things with you.
Michael Wolf also has connections deep
inside the White House right now and
connections very close to Donald Trump.
Why? Because Wolf is Donald Trump's
former biographer. He's developed this
information. Now, Wolf has exclusive
details. Over the past 24 to 48 hours,
Donald Trump has apparently been calling
up close confidants to tell them, you
know, I didn't kill Epstein, right? You
know, it wasn't me who did that, right?
Do Do you know that? I want you to hear
it in Michael Wolf's words. what Trump
is allegedly saying to people that he
knows. But I also want you to hear from
Michael Wolf about other things that
Epstein told him that led to August of
2019 when eventually Epstein died.
Allegedly died by suicide. So this is
never before exclusive con never before
seen or heard exclusive content. What is
Donald Trump saying about how Epstein
died? Okay. Um, what did Epstein say to
Michael Wolf before his death?
Stunning words. I want you to watch now.
Hey, Michael, tell us uh give us this
exclusive info.
I had a conversation yesterday with
someone who speaks to Trump often, and
this person had spoken to Trump in the
last 48 hours. Now, a really
a really good way to understand what's
on Trump's mind is to track the
conversations that he has with this set
of people who he he calls often. Um, I
mean, I think my feeling has always been
that he uh that that that Trump needs to
think out loud and and uh calling this
list of people who he who he appears
appears to trust even though they might
call me afterwards.
uh is is a way really to say to think to
follow exactly what is on Trump's mind.
In this conversation that he had um
within the last last several days, he
said to this person, "People say I had
Epstein killed.
I didn't have Epstein killed," Trump
said. And then this person said,"Well,
do you think that he was killed?"
And Trump replied,
"A lot of people wanted him dead."
I find this,
to be honestly, a chilling conversation,
which I've
which I've been thinking about. Um, the
idea that the president of the United
States would have to say, even go out of
his way to say that he hadn't had
someone killed
seems chillingly
to imply that he could have had someone
killed,
you know, and there's a way that Trump
has often often spoken
about his belief that that
assassinations, both domestic and
foreign, have been carried out freely
carried out by the United States
government.
And then the idea that there are a whole
population of people who wanted Epstein
dead.
Um and and Trump Trump seems to include
rather include himself in in this and
and again it's that it's that sense and
sense on the part of Trump that he
believed Epstein knew too much.
And certainly in the case of in the case
of Trump,
Epstein could fill in a whole part of
the of the Trump background.
the um those early days, Trump's early
days in the real estate business in the
real estate business in in New York and
the real estate business in in New York
is filled with I a matter of fact I I
don't know how you're you can be in the
real estate business without having
direct connections to organized crime.
Um certainly that was that was one of
the things that Epstein talked about. Um
there are years in which the two of
these guys were just were pursuing
models, models, models, models. Uh doing
what what whatever they they could to
get these women this period in Trump's
life when there have where when there
have been accusations after accusations
by a whole lineup of of women. And then
this was the period in Trump's life of
his bankruptcies.
And Epstein had an had an interesting
view on on on this because
Trump was forgiven
personal loans that he had guaranteed
personally of about a billion dollars.
Now, when you're forgiven personal
loans, that immediately becomes income.
and Epstein would talk about his
involvement with Trump in hiding this
money from from the IRS.
What did Epstein know about Trump?
That's a a foundational question here.
And I spent a a lot of time thinking
about the ways in which Epstein
Epstein was a clear threat to Trump and
especially after he became the president
of the United States.
But I think it's also important to think
about
what kind of threat Trump was to
Epstein.
I know at one point when Epstein had
these would show me these pictures of
Trump
again it was a and I I described these
before but a set of about a dozen
Polaroid pictures three of which I
specifically remember
two with girls different girls sitting
on Trump's lap topless
and then if a third with a telltale
stain on the Trump on the front of
Trump's pants with um with
four or five girls pointing at this
topless girls pointing at him and
laughing and I I urged Trump I urged
Epstein I said I said these you should
release these these pictures um um I I
mean if for no other reason I mean and
Epstein was already in trouble and
already a a figure of of um um which
which uh which people were he was
already demonized. I said, you know,
maybe this will even even even help you.
You can be on the side of on the side of
right here. And um and I remember
Epstein said
again chilling at the time. He said, he
said,
"I may be a pervert, but I'm not crazy."
And then he said,
"Trump
is a man without any scruples."
A chill went up my back then.
And
I think this
I think this brings us to August 10th,
2019 in that jail cell. And obviously
obviously
all of the questions about what happened
that morning
are involved with why this story keeps
going.
And
the question, I think that the largest
largest question hovers over that is is
what did what did Donald Trump know
about what happened that that night?
And I think in all of the Epstein files,
that is the singular and pivotal
question we need answered.