December 22, 2025 • 20 mins
The Epstein Transparency Act was supposed to end all of the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the investigation into Jeffery Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. However, the deadline for all the files to be released has come and gone and now some members of congress are even suggesting Attorney General Pam Bondi be held in contempt. Amy and T.J. go over what has been released so far, what's still missing, and where the hell we go from here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey there everybody, it is Monday, December twenty second, and
h there are so many questions following that.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Well, it was.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Supposed to be a Department of Justice dump on all
of the Epstein files, But now the questions are, what
is actually in the files? Why have some disappeared over
the weekend, and then some of them reappeared, and where
the hell are the rest of them? There are a
lot of questions not just from lawmakers, from victims, but
(00:33):
from just the general public who thought this was going
to be the moment where we found out everything. Yeah,
turns out that just wasn't the case. Were you surprised
that the Department of Justice didn't release all the Epstein
files by midnight on Friday?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Surprise? They admitted it. I'm surprised. I didn't think it
was the end. No matter what, they're going to still
be people out there who say something's missing, or people
are going to say that I expected that stuff, but
they fled out said yeah, we're not ready. We'll get
it to you when we damn well please. That surprised me.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
That is surprising.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
And then the headlines also that at least sixteen files
that appeared on Friday night suddenly were gone on Saturday.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
If the whole point.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Of this was transparency, I feel like the Department of
Justice accomplished the exact opposite.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
There won't be any transparency, I believe until someone that
the public at least believes is in no way connected
to it and has every incentive to get everything out.
And that might be years and years down the road.
But as long as this administration is there, no one's
ever going to believe that this Department of Justice is
(01:50):
going to put everything out to either because it's everybody,
because they believe is either going to hurt Trump or
hurt his allies. Nobody will ever be convinced. So here
we go, Here we go.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
But I feel like this made it worse. I don't
think it made it better. I feel like it made
it worse. What stood out to you? We saw the
headlines over the weekend and look a lot of pictures
of former President Bill Clinton came out that were embarrassing maybe,
but they weren't criminal. They didn't point to any illegal
activities or behavior and really bolstered what he's.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Been saying all along.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
However, probably didn't feel great to see those photos released,
and it seems like there were a lot of photos
of Bill Clinton and not so many of President Trump.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Shocker, And that was one of the biggest issues with
this release of documents over the weekend because there was
a photo of Trump that people were aware of that
disappeared and then came back, and then there was an
explanation for why that took place. So that makes you think, well,
what else have they done like that? There is nobody
who trusts this process. So this was a long exercise
(03:00):
in what because until robes something is released that shows
in some people's minds that Trump is a criminal, nobody's
ever going to be happy. Yeah, so just just deal
with it.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
So that image you were talking about, there was particularly
an image of Jeffrey Epstein's desk or credenza, whatever you
want to call it, and it had a bunch of
photos on top of the desk and then inside a
drawer that was pulled out and among the photos there
was a photo of Trump, Epstein, Milania, and Galine all
together and I feel like we've seen that photo before,
(03:35):
but it was there. And then there was another one
with Trump before he was president, alongside some bikini clad women.
So that photo just poof went away. On Saturday it
was gone, and so Democrats on the House Oversight Committee
went and took it to Twitter and or sorry x
and said what else is being covered up?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
We need transparency for the American people.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So then the Department of Justice put that picture back up.
I just think it's one of those things where it's
a problem, they'd take it down, and when people get
upset about it, they put it back up. And they
did say that it was the Southern District of New
York that flagged some of the photos because they were
concerned that maybe some victims might have been depicted in
(04:16):
these photos, so they had to pull it to make
sure that they weren't outing someone who shouldn't have been outed.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Oh, okay, do you buy that? I think that could
be legitimate.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
It could be legitimate.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
The comments below the official Department of Justice response were
things like, sorry, we got caught. I mean people weren't
buying it out of an abundance of caution, my ass
and know that kind of thing. They weren't buying it,
so and they.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Have legitimate reasons not to buy it.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Another example of what.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Took away from this idea of transparency, the DOJ released
a grandeury document that people were really looking forward to
in terms of what it could reveal. And the document
was completely and entirely redacted. It was literally the document
was there and everything was blacked out. So then, of course, yes,
people went to x and got upset, and then they
(05:12):
then re released the document with just a few redactions,
and that document was actually interesting. This was about an
FBI agent testifying about the interviews with several of those
women that went back to the nineteen nineties. So it
was showing that FBI agents and the Department of Justice
(05:32):
were aware of criminal activities by Jeffrey Epstein as reported
to them by girls as young as fourteen. And so
this was actually new information and new interviews, and the
fact that the first iteration of it was completely blacked
out just fueled all the conspiracy theories.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
I mean, just I don't know, I don't know what
to do with these files. I mean, what's the next step?
Are are are these members of Congress going to say,
now every single thing that's been redacted needs to be
released unredacted.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
There are some members who do say that.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Yes, okay, and then once that's done and it's still
not what you want what's going to be the next
thing and the next thing. There is nothing that's going
to satisfy the public or Democrats who feel that there's
blood in the water between Trump and Epstein. I just, Robes,
this is just it's exhausting, and we're getting nowhere and
(06:30):
we're revictimizing these victims. We're just doing this all over again.
Wait for it's like slap in the face and insult
to the victims. And that's all. What are we I
don't know, Robes, what you tell me? What's going to
satisfy the public? They go, Okay, it's all out and
now we can trust we have the information. Now let's
go through it.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And when you say it's all out, I don't know
how true this is, but this is crazy. So Todd
Blanche who's been a big part of this, he said
that federal prosecute have more than three point six million
records from sex trafficking investigations involving Gallaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
(07:11):
Three point six million records. Yeah, and okay, well that's
mind blowing.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
How do you release right? They say that.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
He said that several hundred thousand more files will become
available over the next couple weeks. That's the word we
got as to what we can expect in the coming
weeks from this massive release of DJ files.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Oh he hundreds of lawyers is how he put it. Yes, go,
I cannot imagine this process. What do you do? You
can't just throw everything out there? But also, did they
have enough time? Was thirty days reasonable? Is that being
talked about enough? Is it actually possible to do? And
others will argue they should have been They've been working
on this stuff for years, they shouldn't have taken it.
(07:57):
I don't know, ROMs what this everybody had this date circled,
this is the day it's all coming, and right now
they haven't gotten anything.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
It makes a mockery of not just the back and
forth that went into passing this act, what Trump did
to try and discourage and then later encourage Republicans to
pass it and then sign it, and then all that's done, right,
all that's being publicized. Trump ran on this transparency of
(08:28):
the Epstein investigation, and now the deadline comes and we
get like drips and dribbles, and then they put it out,
then they take it away. All that does is further
undermine the trust Americans have when it comes to our government.
So it did the opposite of what the intention.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Was Epstein Transparency Act redacted.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I actually feel like Epstein Transparency Act can be used
to like to describe anything that's full of ba.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Right now, yeah, oh this is great now?
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Yes, So because now the Justice Department saying it plans
to release the records on a rolling basis. I love
that's they're literally giving themselves no actual further deadline because
once they missed the Friday deadline. Now they're just kind
of saying, yeah, we're not even gonna make you any
sort of actual timeline. We're just gonna tell you we're
gonna release hundreds of thousands of new documents on a rolling.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Basis, and you're gonna forget about this after Christmas.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
That's what they're hoping, right.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
But who's gonna what are you gonna yell about? Now?
We were yelling to get the bill passed, right, that
was a fight. We got the bill passed. They were yelling,
we got it, we got Okay, you got it. What's
the next thing you want to what's the next step
they can take?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
The next it The only thing they can do is
release all the documents period.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Well, totally unredacted, because if there are, if there are
five words redacted out of those three million documents, people
will say those are the five the most important words,
and that the administration is hiding something.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
And if names are redacted, which I can understand about victims,
they'll claim that names of potential millionaire businessmen, their names
were also blacked out to like, we just won't ever know.
You have to actually not redact anything for people to
actually buy. The problem is, how do you know what
they didn't give you?
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Like, if it's true that there are three.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Point six million records, how will we know if they
don't give us three of the ones that actually everybody
wants to see.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So the point being that this is point less, that
no one is ever going to believe.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
It's a circus.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Even if they put every single thing out, nobody's ever
going to believe that it's everything.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Oh my god, that you are correct in that, And
this never ends. There'll never be a there'll never be
an ending that's satisfactory to everyone, and maybe even to anyone.
I don't know anyone who feels satisfied right now when
it comes to what's been done and what's been released,
(11:03):
and I don't think I mean, who trusts our government
these days? Like who trusts our government?
Speaker 3 (11:08):
I'm sure there's polling on that. All right.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
When we come back, we're going to talk about what
the next steps are, because we're already hearing from two lawmakers,
one a Republican won a Democrat, and they had a
lot to do with this Transparency Act to begin with,
and what they want to do to Pam Bondi. And
also we're going to hear from the victims and their
reaction to what's been released so far. Welcome back everyone,
(11:42):
as we continue to talk about what. Yeah, everyone's been
talking about.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
I wants to stop talking about at some point, please.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
You've asked, You're like, do we have to keep talking
about this? Yes?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Apparently we do because the government, it's this is shocking,
didn't do what it said it was going to do.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
The Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Were all supposed to be really on Friday by midnight.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
They didn't do it.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
They released some, took back some of the stuff they released,
tried to explain why, and now they're saying we're gonna
get to it when we get to it.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Yeah, just a typical week in Washington.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Really, why are we surprised? This is how our government operated.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
What you say, do what they said they were going
to do. This is still, folks, what they're required by
law to do. They were supposed to do.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
And who's going to hold them accountable?
Speaker 3 (12:28):
How's the dj going to hold the DOJ accountable?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
No, they're not going to.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
But Representative who is a Republican and then Rocanna, who's
a Democrat from California. They're the ones who actually co
sponsored the bill in the House to order the Department
of Justice to release the Epstein files. Well, now those
two have made the rounds and all the Sunday talk
shows saying that they are now going to hold Justice
Department officials accountable because this is some bs right, Okay,
(12:58):
So they're claiming that they may bring inherent contempt charges
against Pam Bondyo.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Do you like that? So?
Speaker 2 (13:10):
But I so?
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Do you know what inherent contempt charges are? It is
a process that involves telling the House or Senate Sergeant
at arms to detain or imprison the person in contempt
that would be Pam Bondy Attorney General Pambondy until he
or she honors congressional demands that isn't never going to happen.
(13:37):
But don't dangle that this has never happened in modern times.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Why why come on? Man?
Speaker 1 (13:44):
So now they're making threats that we are now publicly
saying we highly doubt they will ever follow through with.
As a parent, you know, do not tell your child
if you do this, I'm gonna do this. You have
to follow through. If you're gonna threat something or you're
gonna trace it, I'm gonna hold you accountable.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
You have to be willing to follow through.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
You don't what I'm saying, Robes. They escalated an already
heated environment by now saying we are going we're threatening
to imprison you. This is what we're doing now. I
just okay, fine. If anybody has a problem with Pam
BONDI the DJ, okay fine, I'm saying there's plenty if
(14:25):
you want to criticize, knock yourself out. But we have
got to criticize this type of thing. And if you're
listening and you're whatever side you're leaning, and you're actually thinking, well, no,
this is what should happen, but just check yourself. You
don't want this. I don't want to see this.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
We're gonna take Pam Bondi away from her family at
Christmas and put her in prison.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Okay, stop, this is not gonna happen. Obviously, we don't
have to take it. You remember the last time she
was up there, she spanked them pretty good during her hearing.
So hell, we don't need to defend her. Should be fine.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
So that came, Actually, that came from the Republican Massy
Conna actually was a little more tempered. He said, our
goal is not to take down Bondie. Our goal is
to get the documents out for the survivors. Our goal
is to take down the rich and powerful men who
went to rape Island and covered up the abuse.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Who are these men that he's right? This is what
he's doing. He's guessing, isn't he?
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Yes, no men's names in any of the documents that
have been released so far.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
In fact, a lot of headlines said, like it's a dud.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
There's all the things we're looking for aren't in the
documents they release. So of course then people have to
assume where are the documents that they haven't released, because
that's where those men's names are.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
Yes, because a US congressman that we trust, who's in
that position just told us that there are rich and
powerful men walking around this country who participated in sexually
assaulting young women. Do I have that right?
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Correct?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Okay? Then how am I now? Okay? Where is that good?
Because he told me it exists, So I'm.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Waiting and don't forget.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
We heard from the Epstein survivors who say they're going
to make a list, but they're going to keep it
to themselves. This whole thing is frustrating, I guess for
people who are truth seekers, for people who want answers,
this has been an incredibly frustrating exercise that has gone
on for decades, and it's frustrating. I can't think of
another way to describe this.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Now.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
We heard from one of the lawyers who represents a
bunch of Epstein victims and survivors, and she said that
her clients feel vindicated after the document release, and I
would say it's mostly because of that FBI one of
those the grandjury testimony where they did actually show and
prove through this testimony that the government was aware that
(16:46):
they heard from multiple young women as young as fourteen
who all described the exact same behavior by Jeffrey Epstein,
and the government chose to do nothing about it. So
I do think in that particular time transcript, there is
some feeling of validation and vindication. They said that they
thought for years to get that document and documents that
(17:08):
support that type of testimony, so that people could see
that the government did know and chose to do nothing.
She said, it's a triumph and a tragedy. It looks
like the government did absolutely nothing. Horrible things have happened,
and if they investigated in even the smallest way, they
could have stopped him. And that is what this is
(17:28):
all about. There does need to be some sort of
accountability if the government was aware this was going on,
gave him a sweetheart deal in two thousand and seven
and let him continue to do what he was doing.
We do need to have some answers, and there does
need to be some sort of repercussion.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Okay, so tell me what the percentage of the headlines
that you saw that were focusing on that instead of
what wasn't there? What was redacted? A picture of Bill Clinton? Right?
I read that too, but I had to deep dive,
so this was not in.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
That's such a good point, babe, That is such a
good point.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
So that's being missed something that does indicate the vic
it does get missed, and the relevant things that need
to be followed up and who was there and actually
holding maybe somebody accountable that was with the FBI or
part of the investigator whatever at the time. Look into
that cool, But it has it turned into a circus,
a headline circus, a tabloid circus to a certain degree,
(18:24):
looking for the most salacious things possible. I don't know
if it's about holding anybody accountable anymore other than just
political back and forth.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
And that's what's so sad.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
That point is the saddest part about all of this,
that it has become a political hot potato. It's become
a way to drum up support for your individual campaign
because you look like the person who stood up to
the big guy or the people who were deceiving you.
And it's about making your voters think that the other
side is the side that's hiding stuff, and so both
(18:58):
sides are saying it's your fault, it's your fault, and
it really has just become a game of reelection, a
game of power. It has nothing to do with actually
finding the truth. And that's where we.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Are digging those three million pages all you want documents.
Maybe there's some truth in there, but Robes, no, this
is not going away, but it might for the holidays,
right the documents go out on a Friday, the last
weekend before Christmas, right shopping weekend before Christmas. And now
(19:29):
maybe this gets a little quiet or starts to fade
a little bit.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Really, that might happen, and people get fatigued, They get
I think we're in Epstein fatigue right now. And yes,
Party of One raising his hand right there, because you
get to a point where it's almost as if I
feel like the government's hoping to confuse you, frustrate you.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Check enough that you just say.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
I don't even care anymore, almost to check on that
one as well. But man, what a shame we in
all this, you know, and all the coverage as well,
and not a lot of headlines say victims in them.
Not a lot of headlines we ain't. Headlines are about
who's on the Sunday shows, right, people who put out
(20:15):
you know, I'm not gonna go with.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
The people who were saying they want Pam BONDI imprisoned.
That's who went on the Sunday shows. But we will
keep our eye on this look and we will continue
to look at the deeper headlines and to read through
some of the BS political headlines that are out there
for everyone to click on, and really try to continue
to follow this case as it warrants. But with that everyone,
(20:37):
thank you for listening to us. We appreciate you. I
made me Robock alongside TJ. Holmes, and we will talk
to you soon
Hey there everybody, it is Monday, December twenty second, and
h there are so many questions following that.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Well, it was.
Speaker 1 (00:12):
Supposed to be a Department of Justice dump on all
of the Epstein files, But now the questions are, what
is actually in the files? Why have some disappeared over
the weekend, and then some of them reappeared, and where
the hell are the rest of them? There are a
lot of questions not just from lawmakers, from victims, but
(00:33):
from just the general public who thought this was going
to be the moment where we found out everything. Yeah,
turns out that just wasn't the case. Were you surprised
that the Department of Justice didn't release all the Epstein
files by midnight on Friday?
Speaker 3 (00:53):
Surprise? They admitted it. I'm surprised. I didn't think it
was the end. No matter what, they're going to still
be people out there who say something's missing, or people
are going to say that I expected that stuff, but
they fled out said yeah, we're not ready. We'll get
it to you when we damn well please. That surprised me.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
That is surprising.
Speaker 1 (01:12):
And then the headlines also that at least sixteen files
that appeared on Friday night suddenly were gone on Saturday.
Speaker 2 (01:21):
If the whole point.
Speaker 1 (01:22):
Of this was transparency, I feel like the Department of
Justice accomplished the exact opposite.
Speaker 3 (01:29):
There won't be any transparency, I believe until someone that
the public at least believes is in no way connected
to it and has every incentive to get everything out.
And that might be years and years down the road.
But as long as this administration is there, no one's
ever going to believe that this Department of Justice is
(01:50):
going to put everything out to either because it's everybody,
because they believe is either going to hurt Trump or
hurt his allies. Nobody will ever be convinced. So here
we go, Here we go.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
But I feel like this made it worse. I don't
think it made it better. I feel like it made
it worse. What stood out to you? We saw the
headlines over the weekend and look a lot of pictures
of former President Bill Clinton came out that were embarrassing maybe,
but they weren't criminal. They didn't point to any illegal
activities or behavior and really bolstered what he's.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Been saying all along.
Speaker 1 (02:26):
However, probably didn't feel great to see those photos released,
and it seems like there were a lot of photos
of Bill Clinton and not so many of President Trump.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Shocker, And that was one of the biggest issues with
this release of documents over the weekend because there was
a photo of Trump that people were aware of that
disappeared and then came back, and then there was an
explanation for why that took place. So that makes you think, well,
what else have they done like that? There is nobody
who trusts this process. So this was a long exercise
(03:00):
in what because until robes something is released that shows
in some people's minds that Trump is a criminal, nobody's
ever going to be happy. Yeah, so just just deal
with it.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
So that image you were talking about, there was particularly
an image of Jeffrey Epstein's desk or credenza, whatever you
want to call it, and it had a bunch of
photos on top of the desk and then inside a
drawer that was pulled out and among the photos there
was a photo of Trump, Epstein, Milania, and Galine all
together and I feel like we've seen that photo before,
(03:35):
but it was there. And then there was another one
with Trump before he was president, alongside some bikini clad women.
So that photo just poof went away. On Saturday it
was gone, and so Democrats on the House Oversight Committee
went and took it to Twitter and or sorry x
and said what else is being covered up?
Speaker 2 (03:53):
We need transparency for the American people.
Speaker 1 (03:56):
So then the Department of Justice put that picture back up.
I just think it's one of those things where it's
a problem, they'd take it down, and when people get
upset about it, they put it back up. And they
did say that it was the Southern District of New
York that flagged some of the photos because they were
concerned that maybe some victims might have been depicted in
(04:16):
these photos, so they had to pull it to make
sure that they weren't outing someone who shouldn't have been outed.
Speaker 3 (04:23):
Oh, okay, do you buy that? I think that could
be legitimate.
Speaker 2 (04:26):
It could be legitimate.
Speaker 1 (04:27):
The comments below the official Department of Justice response were
things like, sorry, we got caught. I mean people weren't
buying it out of an abundance of caution, my ass
and know that kind of thing. They weren't buying it,
so and they.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Have legitimate reasons not to buy it.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Correct.
Speaker 3 (04:43):
Correct.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Another example of what.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
Took away from this idea of transparency, the DOJ released
a grandeury document that people were really looking forward to
in terms of what it could reveal. And the document
was completely and entirely redacted. It was literally the document
was there and everything was blacked out. So then, of course, yes,
people went to x and got upset, and then they
(05:12):
then re released the document with just a few redactions,
and that document was actually interesting. This was about an
FBI agent testifying about the interviews with several of those
women that went back to the nineteen nineties. So it
was showing that FBI agents and the Department of Justice
(05:32):
were aware of criminal activities by Jeffrey Epstein as reported
to them by girls as young as fourteen. And so
this was actually new information and new interviews, and the
fact that the first iteration of it was completely blacked
out just fueled all the conspiracy theories.
Speaker 3 (05:51):
I mean, just I don't know, I don't know what
to do with these files. I mean, what's the next step?
Are are are these members of Congress going to say,
now every single thing that's been redacted needs to be
released unredacted.
Speaker 2 (06:07):
There are some members who do say that.
Speaker 3 (06:09):
Yes, okay, and then once that's done and it's still
not what you want what's going to be the next
thing and the next thing. There is nothing that's going
to satisfy the public or Democrats who feel that there's
blood in the water between Trump and Epstein. I just, Robes,
this is just it's exhausting, and we're getting nowhere and
(06:30):
we're revictimizing these victims. We're just doing this all over again.
Wait for it's like slap in the face and insult
to the victims. And that's all. What are we I
don't know, Robes, what you tell me? What's going to
satisfy the public? They go, Okay, it's all out and
now we can trust we have the information. Now let's
go through it.
Speaker 1 (06:49):
And when you say it's all out, I don't know
how true this is, but this is crazy. So Todd
Blanche who's been a big part of this, he said
that federal prosecute have more than three point six million
records from sex trafficking investigations involving Gallaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein.
(07:11):
Three point six million records. Yeah, and okay, well that's
mind blowing.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
How do you release right? They say that.
Speaker 1 (07:22):
He said that several hundred thousand more files will become
available over the next couple weeks. That's the word we
got as to what we can expect in the coming
weeks from this massive release of DJ files.
Speaker 3 (07:37):
Oh he hundreds of lawyers is how he put it. Yes, go,
I cannot imagine this process. What do you do? You
can't just throw everything out there? But also, did they
have enough time? Was thirty days reasonable? Is that being
talked about enough? Is it actually possible to do? And
others will argue they should have been They've been working
on this stuff for years, they shouldn't have taken it.
(07:57):
I don't know, ROMs what this everybody had this date circled,
this is the day it's all coming, and right now
they haven't gotten anything.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
It makes a mockery of not just the back and
forth that went into passing this act, what Trump did
to try and discourage and then later encourage Republicans to
pass it and then sign it, and then all that's done, right,
all that's being publicized. Trump ran on this transparency of
(08:28):
the Epstein investigation, and now the deadline comes and we
get like drips and dribbles, and then they put it out,
then they take it away. All that does is further
undermine the trust Americans have when it comes to our government.
So it did the opposite of what the intention.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
Was Epstein Transparency Act redacted.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I actually feel like Epstein Transparency Act can be used
to like to describe anything that's full of ba.
Speaker 3 (08:56):
Right now, yeah, oh this is great now?
Speaker 1 (09:00):
Yes, So because now the Justice Department saying it plans
to release the records on a rolling basis. I love
that's they're literally giving themselves no actual further deadline because
once they missed the Friday deadline. Now they're just kind
of saying, yeah, we're not even gonna make you any
sort of actual timeline. We're just gonna tell you we're
gonna release hundreds of thousands of new documents on a rolling.
Speaker 3 (09:24):
Basis, and you're gonna forget about this after Christmas.
Speaker 2 (09:28):
That's what they're hoping, right.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
But who's gonna what are you gonna yell about? Now?
We were yelling to get the bill passed, right, that
was a fight. We got the bill passed. They were yelling,
we got it, we got Okay, you got it. What's
the next thing you want to what's the next step
they can take?
Speaker 1 (09:44):
The next it The only thing they can do is
release all the documents period.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
Well, totally unredacted, because if there are, if there are
five words redacted out of those three million documents, people
will say those are the five the most important words,
and that the administration is hiding something.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
And if names are redacted, which I can understand about victims,
they'll claim that names of potential millionaire businessmen, their names
were also blacked out to like, we just won't ever know.
You have to actually not redact anything for people to
actually buy. The problem is, how do you know what
they didn't give you?
Speaker 2 (10:21):
Like, if it's true that there are three.
Speaker 1 (10:23):
Point six million records, how will we know if they
don't give us three of the ones that actually everybody
wants to see.
Speaker 3 (10:32):
So the point being that this is point less, that
no one is ever going to believe.
Speaker 2 (10:36):
It's a circus.
Speaker 3 (10:38):
Even if they put every single thing out, nobody's ever
going to believe that it's everything.
Speaker 1 (10:43):
Oh my god, that you are correct in that, And
this never ends. There'll never be a there'll never be
an ending that's satisfactory to everyone, and maybe even to anyone.
I don't know anyone who feels satisfied right now when
it comes to what's been done and what's been released,
(11:03):
and I don't think I mean, who trusts our government
these days? Like who trusts our government?
Speaker 3 (11:08):
I'm sure there's polling on that. All right.
Speaker 1 (11:12):
When we come back, we're going to talk about what
the next steps are, because we're already hearing from two lawmakers,
one a Republican won a Democrat, and they had a
lot to do with this Transparency Act to begin with,
and what they want to do to Pam Bondi. And
also we're going to hear from the victims and their
reaction to what's been released so far. Welcome back everyone,
(11:42):
as we continue to talk about what. Yeah, everyone's been
talking about.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
I wants to stop talking about at some point, please.
Speaker 2 (11:49):
You've asked, You're like, do we have to keep talking
about this? Yes?
Speaker 1 (11:51):
Apparently we do because the government, it's this is shocking,
didn't do what it said it was going to do.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
The Epstein files.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Were all supposed to be really on Friday by midnight.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
They didn't do it.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
They released some, took back some of the stuff they released,
tried to explain why, and now they're saying we're gonna
get to it when we get to it.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
Yeah, just a typical week in Washington.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Really, why are we surprised? This is how our government operated.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
What you say, do what they said they were going
to do. This is still, folks, what they're required by
law to do. They were supposed to do.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
And who's going to hold them accountable?
Speaker 3 (12:28):
How's the dj going to hold the DOJ accountable?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
No, they're not going to.
Speaker 1 (12:32):
But Representative who is a Republican and then Rocanna, who's
a Democrat from California. They're the ones who actually co
sponsored the bill in the House to order the Department
of Justice to release the Epstein files. Well, now those
two have made the rounds and all the Sunday talk
shows saying that they are now going to hold Justice
Department officials accountable because this is some bs right, Okay,
(12:58):
So they're claiming that they may bring inherent contempt charges
against Pam Bondyo.
Speaker 3 (13:07):
Do you like that? So?
Speaker 2 (13:10):
But I so?
Speaker 1 (13:11):
Do you know what inherent contempt charges are? It is
a process that involves telling the House or Senate Sergeant
at arms to detain or imprison the person in contempt
that would be Pam Bondy Attorney General Pambondy until he
or she honors congressional demands that isn't never going to happen.
(13:37):
But don't dangle that this has never happened in modern times.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
Why why come on? Man?
Speaker 1 (13:44):
So now they're making threats that we are now publicly
saying we highly doubt they will ever follow through with.
As a parent, you know, do not tell your child
if you do this, I'm gonna do this. You have
to follow through. If you're gonna threat something or you're
gonna trace it, I'm gonna hold you accountable.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
You have to be willing to follow through.
Speaker 3 (14:05):
You don't what I'm saying, Robes. They escalated an already
heated environment by now saying we are going we're threatening
to imprison you. This is what we're doing now. I
just okay, fine. If anybody has a problem with Pam
BONDI the DJ, okay fine, I'm saying there's plenty if
(14:25):
you want to criticize, knock yourself out. But we have
got to criticize this type of thing. And if you're
listening and you're whatever side you're leaning, and you're actually thinking, well, no,
this is what should happen, but just check yourself. You
don't want this. I don't want to see this.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
We're gonna take Pam Bondi away from her family at
Christmas and put her in prison.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
Okay, stop, this is not gonna happen. Obviously, we don't
have to take it. You remember the last time she
was up there, she spanked them pretty good during her hearing.
So hell, we don't need to defend her. Should be fine.
Speaker 1 (14:56):
So that came, Actually, that came from the Republican Massy
Conna actually was a little more tempered. He said, our
goal is not to take down Bondie. Our goal is
to get the documents out for the survivors. Our goal
is to take down the rich and powerful men who
went to rape Island and covered up the abuse.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
Who are these men that he's right? This is what
he's doing. He's guessing, isn't he?
Speaker 1 (15:20):
Yes, no men's names in any of the documents that
have been released so far.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
In fact, a lot of headlines said, like it's a dud.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
There's all the things we're looking for aren't in the
documents they release. So of course then people have to
assume where are the documents that they haven't released, because
that's where those men's names are.
Speaker 3 (15:39):
Yes, because a US congressman that we trust, who's in
that position just told us that there are rich and
powerful men walking around this country who participated in sexually
assaulting young women. Do I have that right?
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Correct?
Speaker 3 (15:55):
Okay? Then how am I now? Okay? Where is that good?
Because he told me it exists, So I'm.
Speaker 2 (16:01):
Waiting and don't forget.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
We heard from the Epstein survivors who say they're going
to make a list, but they're going to keep it
to themselves. This whole thing is frustrating, I guess for
people who are truth seekers, for people who want answers,
this has been an incredibly frustrating exercise that has gone
on for decades, and it's frustrating. I can't think of
another way to describe this.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
Now.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
We heard from one of the lawyers who represents a
bunch of Epstein victims and survivors, and she said that
her clients feel vindicated after the document release, and I
would say it's mostly because of that FBI one of
those the grandjury testimony where they did actually show and
prove through this testimony that the government was aware that
(16:46):
they heard from multiple young women as young as fourteen
who all described the exact same behavior by Jeffrey Epstein,
and the government chose to do nothing about it. So
I do think in that particular time transcript, there is
some feeling of validation and vindication. They said that they
thought for years to get that document and documents that
(17:08):
support that type of testimony, so that people could see
that the government did know and chose to do nothing.
She said, it's a triumph and a tragedy. It looks
like the government did absolutely nothing. Horrible things have happened,
and if they investigated in even the smallest way, they
could have stopped him. And that is what this is
(17:28):
all about. There does need to be some sort of
accountability if the government was aware this was going on,
gave him a sweetheart deal in two thousand and seven
and let him continue to do what he was doing.
We do need to have some answers, and there does
need to be some sort of repercussion.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
Okay, so tell me what the percentage of the headlines
that you saw that were focusing on that instead of
what wasn't there? What was redacted? A picture of Bill Clinton? Right?
I read that too, but I had to deep dive,
so this was not in.
Speaker 2 (18:01):
That's such a good point, babe, That is such a
good point.
Speaker 3 (18:04):
So that's being missed something that does indicate the vic
it does get missed, and the relevant things that need
to be followed up and who was there and actually
holding maybe somebody accountable that was with the FBI or
part of the investigator whatever at the time. Look into
that cool, But it has it turned into a circus,
a headline circus, a tabloid circus to a certain degree,
(18:24):
looking for the most salacious things possible. I don't know
if it's about holding anybody accountable anymore other than just
political back and forth.
Speaker 2 (18:34):
And that's what's so sad.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
That point is the saddest part about all of this,
that it has become a political hot potato. It's become
a way to drum up support for your individual campaign
because you look like the person who stood up to
the big guy or the people who were deceiving you.
And it's about making your voters think that the other
side is the side that's hiding stuff, and so both
(18:58):
sides are saying it's your fault, it's your fault, and
it really has just become a game of reelection, a
game of power. It has nothing to do with actually
finding the truth. And that's where we.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Are digging those three million pages all you want documents.
Maybe there's some truth in there, but Robes, no, this
is not going away, but it might for the holidays,
right the documents go out on a Friday, the last
weekend before Christmas, right shopping weekend before Christmas. And now
(19:29):
maybe this gets a little quiet or starts to fade
a little bit.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Really, that might happen, and people get fatigued, They get
I think we're in Epstein fatigue right now. And yes,
Party of One raising his hand right there, because you
get to a point where it's almost as if I
feel like the government's hoping to confuse you, frustrate you.
Speaker 2 (19:52):
Check enough that you just say.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
I don't even care anymore, almost to check on that
one as well. But man, what a shame we in
all this, you know, and all the coverage as well,
and not a lot of headlines say victims in them.
Not a lot of headlines we ain't. Headlines are about
who's on the Sunday shows, right, people who put out
(20:15):
you know, I'm not gonna go with.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
The people who were saying they want Pam BONDI imprisoned.
That's who went on the Sunday shows. But we will
keep our eye on this look and we will continue
to look at the deeper headlines and to read through
some of the BS political headlines that are out there
for everyone to click on, and really try to continue
to follow this case as it warrants. But with that everyone,
(20:37):
thank you for listening to us. We appreciate you. I
made me Robock alongside TJ. Holmes, and we will talk
to you soon
Hosts And Creators
Amy Robach
T.J. Holmes
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.