August 5, 2025 • 18 mins
There are some major headlines in the Jeffrey Epstein saga today! Amy and T.J. go over the latest on whether the White House will release transcripts from the 9 hour session Ghislaine Maxwell had with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Meantime, the House Committee investigating the Epstein case subpoenaed former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton along with several former top DOJ officials. Is this all for political show and finger pointing, or can Americans expect some real answers in the coming weeks?
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):
Welcome everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ Presents.
It's Tuesday, August fifth, and it seems as if every
single day there are more headlines about Jeffrey Epstein, and
these headlines are coming out nearly daily now, and most
of the headlines have surrounded his former girlfriend, his co conspirator,
(00:25):
Gallaine Maxwell. And today was no exception. There was a
number of headlines, and the first one was a bit
of information that we did not have before today that
apparently that session, that two day session, that nine hour
session that Gallaine Maxwell had with Deputy Attorney General Todd
Blanche was actually recorded. There is reportedly audio tay of
(00:51):
Gallaine Maxwell TJ.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
I mean, I can't imagine hearing her voice on these
audio tapes. But yeah, of course there was some going
to be some kind of We knew they had to
record it was going to do this all to memory,
so we knew it had to be out there. And
some in Congress have been calling for the transcripts for
a couple of weeks now to be released. That the
news now coming from CNNABC and other outlets is that
the White House is actually possibly considering it.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yes, they are considering releasing a portion of the transcript.
They say that there would have to be some sort
of redactions taken based on any sort of information they
wouldn't want out to the public, if it involved victims'
names or anything specific like that. But the fact that
they are even considering releasing a transcript of what Glaine
Maxwell told Blanche for nine hours we heard from her
(01:38):
attorney right after the meeting took place, that she talked
about around or at least answered questions about around one
hundred different people. That would be remarkable if this transcript
was released. Do you think it will be released.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Heavily redacted if it is? And plus the point of
saying you're possibly considering it putting it out there, why
even wet people's appetite, whose appetite already they can't be
satiated with no matter what you put out, So why
even dangle this in front of them if you aren't
serious about doing so. That's speculative, and that is speculative,
(02:16):
so so solely on my part, So everybody ignore that
for the most part. But what we're saying here is
there's a there's now another there's now another major development,
and they've given someone else and their critics something else
to salivate over. So, now, if you don't release this,
then you're trying to hide something. If you do release
(02:38):
it and don't relieve release it fully, you're trying to
hide something. If it's heavily redacted, you're hiding something. It's
just I this is not going to settle anything. So
we hear what she talked about. Okay, then what.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
It's puzzling to me that this would all be out
there as possible or something that's possible. If it's not
going to happen, you're just going to upset more people
about not being transparent. So that was certainly an interesting
report that came out today. And of course this all
comes on the heels of her being mysteriously moved to
a cushier club fed prison camp in Texas with no
(03:13):
official explanation as to why she was moved to a
lower security facility, just within a few days after having
this conversation or answering these questions by Attorney general or
a deputy Attorney General Blanche. So this is all very
puzzling and very much keeping that story alive in the
headlines in a way I wouldn't think the Trump administration
(03:33):
would want. This isn't making it go away. This is
creating more fervor and more speculation. So that's an interesting development.
But today the other big headline the House Committee who
is investigating that is investigating the Epstein case. Oversight in
Government Reform issued subpoenas related to the Epstein case, and
(03:54):
a lot of them, but notably specifically issuing a subpoena
for former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, and several other top former Department
of Justice officials, and the committee chair James Comer, Republican
from Kentucky, wrote some of the cover letters and specifically
(04:18):
to Bill Clinton. They were released today and they were exceptional.
Did you not think.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I think exceptional is the word you use. I would
just say uncomfortable. There were a lot of them that
they sent out to a lot of former Obama administration officials.
A lot of them had the same repetitive language on
a couple of things, but they were specific to each person,
and the specificity to Bill Clinton was uncomfortable talking about
(04:49):
we want you to come here and talk to us
because we think you have information about Epstein. And the
reason we think you have information is because you admitted
you were on a plane. There's a picture of you
getting a massage that's uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Very uncomfortable. And they want former President Bill Clinton to
sit for a deposition on October fourteenth. They've given him
a date. It's interesting because no former president has ever
testified before Congress under the compulsion of a subpoena. It's
literally never happened in the history of our country. So
(05:20):
it is remarkable in that sense. But this is in
part what this cover letter to Bill Clinton said from
a Republican James Comer. By your own admission, you flew
on Jeffrey Epstein's private plane four separate times in two
thousand and two and two thousand and three. The letter
goes on to say you were also allegedly close to
(05:41):
Miss Glaine Maxwell, an Epstein co conspirator, and attended an
intimate dinner with her in twenty fourteen, three years after
public reports about her involvement in mister Epstein's abuse of minors.
And he also went on to say there are conflicting
reports about whether you ever visited mister Epstein's island. Now
(06:02):
President former President Clinton has categorically denied and has said
repeatedly that he never visited the island. We've heard President
Trump say that Clinton has been to the island. I
think he said twenty eight times with zero proof and
just said it the way Oftentimes he says things without
any actual proof or without even adding any further explanation.
(06:22):
But certainly that is a significant letter to former President
Bill Clinton means nothing.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
And I say that in regards no former president has
ever Really you think this is the thing that's going
to get finally a former testify compelled to come talk
to Congress.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
No.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yes, there obviously is a separation of powers, and that's
why this is not allowed. That usually often is referred
to or referenced when it's talking about a sitting president.
But still former presidents enjoy a particular privilege in that
White House. Some of the time covered here doesn't necessarily
include the time that Bill Clinton was president. But still
(06:58):
they'll they'll find a way, some legal way to say
he's not going to come, he's not going to sit
in a public and answer questions about Epstein. Obviously not.
I mean I feel very confident saying that thing. But
you have several other members of his administration who might
not be able to get away with that, who might
not have the same privilege, who might not have the
(07:20):
same to be able to get out of it. So again,
they're a number, I mean a dozen plus people they
have called to possibly testify. The Clintons are the biggest names,
but there are a lot of big names on there.
I'm curious to see if some of those folks will
be compelled to show up.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
That's right. So yes, they have asked or subpoena president
or former President Clinton to come out October fourteenth. They've
subpoened his wife, Hillary Clinton to testify even sooner on
October ninth. And the cover letter to her was similar,
just in terms of just any involvement or any knowledge
about Epstein or Glene Maxwell. But certainly I'm not sure
(07:58):
what the legal issues are at the legalities are for
someone of is she's a former first lady, Does she
have that same window basically legal window of getting out
of testifying before Congress because of who she was at
the time and who she's been in political office.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
That I don't know. I thought her letter wrote literally
wrote to her was worse. Just some of the language
you're talking to this, is you talking about her husband?
And some of the language and the letter to her,
the subpoena to her was essentially saying, hey, yes, we
think your husband might have some information and your family's dealings.
And I think even mentioned the plane, your husband's admission.
(08:36):
He was on this plane with Epstein. Your husband's admission,
and he's getting this massage. It's just I mean, this
is just what it is. But it could get incredibly uncomfortable.
And part of this is to embarrass. Part of this
is to make a show of it. In a lot
of ways. They don't have any hope of getting former
President Clinton in open testimony or even a deposition. Behind
(08:58):
the scenes, they are not really thinking they have that option.
But they can get more press attention. They can get
their names out there. They can they can keep this
story and their constituents at least feeling as if they
are the ones who are trying to get answers by
doing this type of thing. So, I mean, I hate
(09:18):
to be that cynical. It's just politics, But other people
will be listening to me and say, of course, idiot,
it's politics.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Right, I mean, this is political theater one dred percent.
And look, it is still remarkable to me that six
years after the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Now this has
reached it feels like a fever pitch at this point.
And President Trump has done everything he can to try
and deflect or change the national conversation away from Jeffrey
Epstein or Gelayne Maxwell, and that has not been effective.
(09:48):
And so it is an interesting tactic now for Republicans
to act as though they're the ones who are now
pushing for the transparency. And so if former President Clinton
and if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, if they
don't and they don't honor these subpoenas, then they look
like the people who are hiding something. So it really
is about making it look like the other person or
(10:08):
the other side, they're the ones who have something to hide.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
There's nothing, I mean, is there a single person then
can fire up the conservative base more than Bill Clinton.
If you're saying you're going after Bill Clinton, the conservative
base is listening, like, all right, Clinton, we can get him,
(10:32):
and so to throw his name to include him in
this look if in all fairness they have a job
to do, and if they think there was criminal wrongdoing
and a cover up of some kind going on at
the highest levels of government, then yes, but there's no
evidence of that. There's not even half ass evidence of that.
There's speculation in those politics, there's accusations, there's baseless ones,
(10:56):
there's fights on with tweets. Is where we are. But
it's hard to at this point to really see this
as anything other than the show and not something that's
meant to be substantive in terms of getting answers about
Jeffrey Epstein. And we should have mentioned as well, they
did subpoena the documents from the DJ They subpoena and
(11:17):
said they want all the Epstein files, so they're going
to get that. Don't know about that one either.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
This is the really interesting part about all of this. Yes,
in an effort to show that they are trying to
find the truth and that they are looking for transparency
to give to the American people. Yes, they are subpoena
ing the grand jury testimony the documents from which is
normally a private it's a it's not for public consumption
(11:53):
for a lot of reasons. But these are I don't
even want to use the word secret, but they're they're private,
private hearings that in court that aren't expected to be
released to the public.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Speaker is right, No, no, no grand jury secrecy. That's legit.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Literally, I didn't want it to seem anything.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
But there's a reason these things don't get out, and
they're not supposed to get out, and Glainne Maxwell doesn't
want it even to get out. There's a reason for that,
and so that is not Look, their subpoena is for
the Epstein files that the DOJ has. The DOJ is
doing their due diligence in trying to get the court
to release the grand jury testimony. Courts, at least one
(12:33):
in Florida said nope, I'm not going to release the
grand jury testimony related to Epstein and Glainne Maxwell. Other
courts in New York are saying, okay, we'll listen for
a second. Come back to us with another argument, and
the government came back and said, actually, upon further review
and looking into this stuff, most of this stuff is
public knowledge anyway.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
So there in lies the rub here. You have the
DOJ trying to get this transcript release, or these transcripts released,
to try and show the public. Hey, look, we're not
trying to hide anything. We're going to show you what
we got. We're going to show you what was presented
to this grand jury when they were looking to indict
Gallaine Maxwell. And yet in the same breath they have said,
(13:14):
so basically all of the testimony that we're looking to unseal,
so you all and see for yourselves. Actually, most of
if not all, of that information is already known, and
the Attorney General Van Bondi is not seeking to unseal
anything else. This was all according to filings today. So
that was a huge letdown. And yet in the same breath,
(13:36):
why does Glayne Maxwell not want any of this testimony released?
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Well that from a legal standpoint, her argument is, I
don't want anything to mess up my appeal the Supreme Court.
I suppose you decide on her appeal in September, So
she is waiting. She only I mean, really, she's got
a month and a half. Just don't release anything right now.
They could possibly impact my case. I mean, just get
(14:03):
through this appeal situation and then kind of knock yourselves out.
I don't know what's in there that could have an
impact on I don't know. Public opinion could have an
impact on courts, could have an impact on her case.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
I get that Glene Maxwell and her attorney have said
that they haven't even seen all of the transcripts from
the grand jury, from the testimony, so they haven't even
had a chance to review it. And so we've heard
from them and they categorically do not want this released
ahead of time, ahead of the Supreme Court whether or
not they're going to take it up or not, that
will be at the end of September. But also all
(14:38):
of the Epstein victims and their families they don't want
it out there either. Now. Of course, we're hearing from
the dj that they're going to redact names and redact
details that would have any impact on the victims themselves.
But they have even said that they weren't even told
that any of this was going on. There's been almost
zero communication between the Department of Justice and Epstein's victims.
(15:00):
And this is a group of people, and it is large.
These are women who were children at the time, who
are certainly miners at the time, who have been given
almost no respect or consideration through all of this process.
We talk about politics, we talk about people trying to
deflect and defend and switch the conversation so as to
(15:21):
not be implicated, but really truly at the heart of
all of this are these young women who were used
and abused and have not been heard and have not
been listened to it, and have not been regarded in
all of this. And that continues even now as it
seems the Trump administration, the Trump DOJ is looking to
change the conversation or at least make it seem something
(15:43):
other than what it is.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I don't know. It just said, won't go away. I
don't know at what point this can bring the temperature
down a little bit. The President has tried and tried
in recent weeks to find ways to distract from the story,
but there continues to be some new headline every day.
And look comer the representative Comber who was made these subpoenas.
That's a big move. They voted what a couple of
(16:06):
weeks ago, a week ago for subpoenas along party lines
for the most part. But they've gone through with it
and this has now happened. So something has to happen now,
either he's going to show up or not. But the
idea of a former president and this one in particular,
being subpoenaed and now we have to wait to see
(16:27):
what happens, that means this story is going to stay
alive because his date for testifying is down.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
The road October fourteenth.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
He's the last one, maybe even of the whole list
that they've subpoened. So that's a long time from now
for this story to continue, for us to get some
answer of he's not going to testify, but this is
going to keep going and going and going.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
It was also pointed out, this is interesting that Glene Maxwell,
who we're waiting to see whether or not the Supreme
Court is even going to hear this case or even
take it up. Say it does. Say the Supreme Court
decides to take up this case, they might not even
decide if they did, until April or until next spring.
So this story, this Galaine Maxwell, and what happens, whether
(17:14):
or not she'll testify, whether or not we'll actually hear
from her directly, whether or not she talks to Congress,
whether or not we hear any of the conversation she
had with the Deputy Attorney General. That all remains to
be seen. And this is likely going to drag out,
not just for weeks, for months and perhaps even into
next year. And that certainly is not something that the
Trump administration wants to see happen. But there really is
(17:35):
truly no other way around this, because at the end
of the day, now that Trump has pushed for transparency
and Congress has followed suit saying okay, let's do this,
the American public now is going to demand some sort
of information that they didn't have before. But it remains
to be seen what that actually is. If it doesn't
(17:55):
come from Glaine Maxwell, if it doesn't come from the
court transcripts, it would have to come from any of
these folks who would be testifying before Congress.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Well, it's the President has set the bar even higher
than it already was. July seventh is why we're here
the DOJ. After all of that, they came out and said,
there are no more Epstein files we're going to release,
there is no Epstein client list, and yes, Epstein killed
himself in prison. That's it. That's the end of it.
That was July seventh, folks, and that is why we're
(18:26):
here right now, because that caused an absolute uproar that
set all of these things now in motion.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
We will continue to follow this story as it develops,
and again it seems like we get daily headlines. We
will stay on top of this, but we want to
thank you all for listening to us, and we appreciate it,
so we hope you have a wonderful day today. I'm
Amy robock On, behalf of my partner t J. Holmes.
We'll see you next time.
Welcome everyone to this edition of Amy and TJ Presents.
It's Tuesday, August fifth, and it seems as if every
single day there are more headlines about Jeffrey Epstein, and
these headlines are coming out nearly daily now, and most
of the headlines have surrounded his former girlfriend, his co conspirator,
(00:25):
Gallaine Maxwell. And today was no exception. There was a
number of headlines, and the first one was a bit
of information that we did not have before today that
apparently that session, that two day session, that nine hour
session that Gallaine Maxwell had with Deputy Attorney General Todd
Blanche was actually recorded. There is reportedly audio tay of
(00:51):
Gallaine Maxwell TJ.
Speaker 2 (00:52):
I mean, I can't imagine hearing her voice on these
audio tapes. But yeah, of course there was some going
to be some kind of We knew they had to
record it was going to do this all to memory,
so we knew it had to be out there. And
some in Congress have been calling for the transcripts for
a couple of weeks now to be released. That the
news now coming from CNNABC and other outlets is that
the White House is actually possibly considering it.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
Yes, they are considering releasing a portion of the transcript.
They say that there would have to be some sort
of redactions taken based on any sort of information they
wouldn't want out to the public, if it involved victims'
names or anything specific like that. But the fact that
they are even considering releasing a transcript of what Glaine
Maxwell told Blanche for nine hours we heard from her
(01:38):
attorney right after the meeting took place, that she talked
about around or at least answered questions about around one
hundred different people. That would be remarkable if this transcript
was released. Do you think it will be released.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Heavily redacted if it is? And plus the point of
saying you're possibly considering it putting it out there, why
even wet people's appetite, whose appetite already they can't be
satiated with no matter what you put out, So why
even dangle this in front of them if you aren't
serious about doing so. That's speculative, and that is speculative,
(02:16):
so so solely on my part, So everybody ignore that
for the most part. But what we're saying here is
there's a there's now another there's now another major development,
and they've given someone else and their critics something else
to salivate over. So, now, if you don't release this,
then you're trying to hide something. If you do release
(02:38):
it and don't relieve release it fully, you're trying to
hide something. If it's heavily redacted, you're hiding something. It's
just I this is not going to settle anything. So
we hear what she talked about. Okay, then what.
Speaker 1 (02:50):
It's puzzling to me that this would all be out
there as possible or something that's possible. If it's not
going to happen, you're just going to upset more people
about not being transparent. So that was certainly an interesting
report that came out today. And of course this all
comes on the heels of her being mysteriously moved to
a cushier club fed prison camp in Texas with no
(03:13):
official explanation as to why she was moved to a
lower security facility, just within a few days after having
this conversation or answering these questions by Attorney general or
a deputy Attorney General Blanche. So this is all very
puzzling and very much keeping that story alive in the
headlines in a way I wouldn't think the Trump administration
(03:33):
would want. This isn't making it go away. This is
creating more fervor and more speculation. So that's an interesting development.
But today the other big headline the House Committee who
is investigating that is investigating the Epstein case. Oversight in
Government Reform issued subpoenas related to the Epstein case, and
(03:54):
a lot of them, but notably specifically issuing a subpoena
for former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, and several other top former Department
of Justice officials, and the committee chair James Comer, Republican
from Kentucky, wrote some of the cover letters and specifically
(04:18):
to Bill Clinton. They were released today and they were exceptional.
Did you not think.
Speaker 2 (04:25):
I think exceptional is the word you use. I would
just say uncomfortable. There were a lot of them that
they sent out to a lot of former Obama administration officials.
A lot of them had the same repetitive language on
a couple of things, but they were specific to each person,
and the specificity to Bill Clinton was uncomfortable talking about
(04:49):
we want you to come here and talk to us
because we think you have information about Epstein. And the
reason we think you have information is because you admitted
you were on a plane. There's a picture of you
getting a massage that's uncomfortable.
Speaker 1 (05:00):
Very uncomfortable. And they want former President Bill Clinton to
sit for a deposition on October fourteenth. They've given him
a date. It's interesting because no former president has ever
testified before Congress under the compulsion of a subpoena. It's
literally never happened in the history of our country. So
(05:20):
it is remarkable in that sense. But this is in
part what this cover letter to Bill Clinton said from
a Republican James Comer. By your own admission, you flew
on Jeffrey Epstein's private plane four separate times in two
thousand and two and two thousand and three. The letter
goes on to say you were also allegedly close to
(05:41):
Miss Glaine Maxwell, an Epstein co conspirator, and attended an
intimate dinner with her in twenty fourteen, three years after
public reports about her involvement in mister Epstein's abuse of minors.
And he also went on to say there are conflicting
reports about whether you ever visited mister Epstein's island. Now
(06:02):
President former President Clinton has categorically denied and has said
repeatedly that he never visited the island. We've heard President
Trump say that Clinton has been to the island. I
think he said twenty eight times with zero proof and
just said it the way Oftentimes he says things without
any actual proof or without even adding any further explanation.
(06:22):
But certainly that is a significant letter to former President
Bill Clinton means nothing.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
And I say that in regards no former president has
ever Really you think this is the thing that's going
to get finally a former testify compelled to come talk
to Congress.
Speaker 1 (06:37):
No.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
Yes, there obviously is a separation of powers, and that's
why this is not allowed. That usually often is referred
to or referenced when it's talking about a sitting president.
But still former presidents enjoy a particular privilege in that
White House. Some of the time covered here doesn't necessarily
include the time that Bill Clinton was president. But still
(06:58):
they'll they'll find a way, some legal way to say
he's not going to come, he's not going to sit
in a public and answer questions about Epstein. Obviously not.
I mean I feel very confident saying that thing. But
you have several other members of his administration who might
not be able to get away with that, who might
not have the same privilege, who might not have the
(07:20):
same to be able to get out of it. So again,
they're a number, I mean a dozen plus people they
have called to possibly testify. The Clintons are the biggest names,
but there are a lot of big names on there.
I'm curious to see if some of those folks will
be compelled to show up.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
That's right. So yes, they have asked or subpoena president
or former President Clinton to come out October fourteenth. They've
subpoened his wife, Hillary Clinton to testify even sooner on
October ninth. And the cover letter to her was similar,
just in terms of just any involvement or any knowledge
about Epstein or Glene Maxwell. But certainly I'm not sure
(07:58):
what the legal issues are at the legalities are for
someone of is she's a former first lady, Does she
have that same window basically legal window of getting out
of testifying before Congress because of who she was at
the time and who she's been in political office.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
That I don't know. I thought her letter wrote literally
wrote to her was worse. Just some of the language
you're talking to this, is you talking about her husband?
And some of the language and the letter to her,
the subpoena to her was essentially saying, hey, yes, we
think your husband might have some information and your family's dealings.
And I think even mentioned the plane, your husband's admission.
(08:36):
He was on this plane with Epstein. Your husband's admission,
and he's getting this massage. It's just I mean, this
is just what it is. But it could get incredibly uncomfortable.
And part of this is to embarrass. Part of this
is to make a show of it. In a lot
of ways. They don't have any hope of getting former
President Clinton in open testimony or even a deposition. Behind
(08:58):
the scenes, they are not really thinking they have that option.
But they can get more press attention. They can get
their names out there. They can they can keep this
story and their constituents at least feeling as if they
are the ones who are trying to get answers by
doing this type of thing. So, I mean, I hate
(09:18):
to be that cynical. It's just politics, But other people
will be listening to me and say, of course, idiot,
it's politics.
Speaker 1 (09:25):
Right, I mean, this is political theater one dred percent.
And look, it is still remarkable to me that six
years after the death of Jeffrey Epstein. Now this has
reached it feels like a fever pitch at this point.
And President Trump has done everything he can to try
and deflect or change the national conversation away from Jeffrey
Epstein or Gelayne Maxwell, and that has not been effective.
(09:48):
And so it is an interesting tactic now for Republicans
to act as though they're the ones who are now
pushing for the transparency. And so if former President Clinton
and if former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, if they
don't and they don't honor these subpoenas, then they look
like the people who are hiding something. So it really
is about making it look like the other person or
(10:08):
the other side, they're the ones who have something to hide.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
There's nothing, I mean, is there a single person then
can fire up the conservative base more than Bill Clinton.
If you're saying you're going after Bill Clinton, the conservative
base is listening, like, all right, Clinton, we can get him,
(10:32):
and so to throw his name to include him in
this look if in all fairness they have a job
to do, and if they think there was criminal wrongdoing
and a cover up of some kind going on at
the highest levels of government, then yes, but there's no
evidence of that. There's not even half ass evidence of that.
There's speculation in those politics, there's accusations, there's baseless ones,
(10:56):
there's fights on with tweets. Is where we are. But
it's hard to at this point to really see this
as anything other than the show and not something that's
meant to be substantive in terms of getting answers about
Jeffrey Epstein. And we should have mentioned as well, they
did subpoena the documents from the DJ They subpoena and
(11:17):
said they want all the Epstein files, so they're going
to get that. Don't know about that one either.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
This is the really interesting part about all of this. Yes,
in an effort to show that they are trying to
find the truth and that they are looking for transparency
to give to the American people. Yes, they are subpoena
ing the grand jury testimony the documents from which is
normally a private it's a it's not for public consumption
(11:53):
for a lot of reasons. But these are I don't
even want to use the word secret, but they're they're private,
private hearings that in court that aren't expected to be
released to the public.
Speaker 2 (12:03):
Speaker is right, No, no, no grand jury secrecy. That's legit.
Speaker 1 (12:06):
Literally, I didn't want it to seem anything.
Speaker 2 (12:09):
But there's a reason these things don't get out, and
they're not supposed to get out, and Glainne Maxwell doesn't
want it even to get out. There's a reason for that,
and so that is not Look, their subpoena is for
the Epstein files that the DOJ has. The DOJ is
doing their due diligence in trying to get the court
to release the grand jury testimony. Courts, at least one
(12:33):
in Florida said nope, I'm not going to release the
grand jury testimony related to Epstein and Glainne Maxwell. Other
courts in New York are saying, okay, we'll listen for
a second. Come back to us with another argument, and
the government came back and said, actually, upon further review
and looking into this stuff, most of this stuff is
public knowledge anyway.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
So there in lies the rub here. You have the
DOJ trying to get this transcript release, or these transcripts released,
to try and show the public. Hey, look, we're not
trying to hide anything. We're going to show you what
we got. We're going to show you what was presented
to this grand jury when they were looking to indict
Gallaine Maxwell. And yet in the same breath they have said,
(13:14):
so basically all of the testimony that we're looking to unseal,
so you all and see for yourselves. Actually, most of
if not all, of that information is already known, and
the Attorney General Van Bondi is not seeking to unseal
anything else. This was all according to filings today. So
that was a huge letdown. And yet in the same breath,
(13:36):
why does Glayne Maxwell not want any of this testimony released?
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Well that from a legal standpoint, her argument is, I
don't want anything to mess up my appeal the Supreme Court.
I suppose you decide on her appeal in September, So
she is waiting. She only I mean, really, she's got
a month and a half. Just don't release anything right now.
They could possibly impact my case. I mean, just get
(14:03):
through this appeal situation and then kind of knock yourselves out.
I don't know what's in there that could have an
impact on I don't know. Public opinion could have an
impact on courts, could have an impact on her case.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
I get that Glene Maxwell and her attorney have said
that they haven't even seen all of the transcripts from
the grand jury, from the testimony, so they haven't even
had a chance to review it. And so we've heard
from them and they categorically do not want this released
ahead of time, ahead of the Supreme Court whether or
not they're going to take it up or not, that
will be at the end of September. But also all
(14:38):
of the Epstein victims and their families they don't want
it out there either. Now. Of course, we're hearing from
the dj that they're going to redact names and redact
details that would have any impact on the victims themselves.
But they have even said that they weren't even told
that any of this was going on. There's been almost
zero communication between the Department of Justice and Epstein's victims.
(15:00):
And this is a group of people, and it is large.
These are women who were children at the time, who
are certainly miners at the time, who have been given
almost no respect or consideration through all of this process.
We talk about politics, we talk about people trying to
deflect and defend and switch the conversation so as to
(15:21):
not be implicated, but really truly at the heart of
all of this are these young women who were used
and abused and have not been heard and have not
been listened to it, and have not been regarded in
all of this. And that continues even now as it
seems the Trump administration, the Trump DOJ is looking to
change the conversation or at least make it seem something
(15:43):
other than what it is.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
I don't know. It just said, won't go away. I
don't know at what point this can bring the temperature
down a little bit. The President has tried and tried
in recent weeks to find ways to distract from the story,
but there continues to be some new headline every day.
And look comer the representative Comber who was made these subpoenas.
That's a big move. They voted what a couple of
(16:06):
weeks ago, a week ago for subpoenas along party lines
for the most part. But they've gone through with it
and this has now happened. So something has to happen now,
either he's going to show up or not. But the
idea of a former president and this one in particular,
being subpoenaed and now we have to wait to see
(16:27):
what happens, that means this story is going to stay
alive because his date for testifying is down.
Speaker 1 (16:36):
The road October fourteenth.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
He's the last one, maybe even of the whole list
that they've subpoened. So that's a long time from now
for this story to continue, for us to get some
answer of he's not going to testify, but this is
going to keep going and going and going.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
It was also pointed out, this is interesting that Glene Maxwell,
who we're waiting to see whether or not the Supreme
Court is even going to hear this case or even
take it up. Say it does. Say the Supreme Court
decides to take up this case, they might not even
decide if they did, until April or until next spring.
So this story, this Galaine Maxwell, and what happens, whether
(17:14):
or not she'll testify, whether or not we'll actually hear
from her directly, whether or not she talks to Congress,
whether or not we hear any of the conversation she
had with the Deputy Attorney General. That all remains to
be seen. And this is likely going to drag out,
not just for weeks, for months and perhaps even into
next year. And that certainly is not something that the
Trump administration wants to see happen. But there really is
(17:35):
truly no other way around this, because at the end
of the day, now that Trump has pushed for transparency
and Congress has followed suit saying okay, let's do this,
the American public now is going to demand some sort
of information that they didn't have before. But it remains
to be seen what that actually is. If it doesn't
(17:55):
come from Glaine Maxwell, if it doesn't come from the
court transcripts, it would have to come from any of
these folks who would be testifying before Congress.
Speaker 2 (18:04):
Well, it's the President has set the bar even higher
than it already was. July seventh is why we're here
the DOJ. After all of that, they came out and said,
there are no more Epstein files we're going to release,
there is no Epstein client list, and yes, Epstein killed
himself in prison. That's it. That's the end of it.
That was July seventh, folks, and that is why we're
(18:26):
here right now, because that caused an absolute uproar that
set all of these things now in motion.
Speaker 1 (18:34):
We will continue to follow this story as it develops,
and again it seems like we get daily headlines. We
will stay on top of this, but we want to
thank you all for listening to us, and we appreciate it,
so we hope you have a wonderful day today. I'm
Amy robock On, behalf of my partner t J. Holmes.
We'll see you next time.
Hosts And Creators
Amy Robach
T.J. Holmes
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.