November 17, 2025 • 21 mins
Donald Trump has long sworn that his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein was no big deal, that he didn’t know about his abuse of girls and women, and there was nothing of consequence in the so-called Epstein files.
Then came last week, when a group of Democrats, and later Republicans, released thousands and thousands of pages of emails and correspondence from Epstein, which could suggest that Trump knows more about Epstein’s conduct than he’s been letting on.
Today, North America correspondent Michael Koziol, on whether Republicans will vote for the full release of the files this week – and whether this could bring down the president.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:01):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Tuesday,
November 18th. Donald Trump has long sworn that his relationship
with Jeffrey Epstein was no big deal, that he didn't
(00:21):
know about his abuse of girls and women, and that,
as the Department of Justice argued in July, there was
nothing of consequence in the so-called Epstein files. Then came
last week, when a group of Democrats and later Republicans
released cumulatively, thousands and thousands of pages of emails and
correspondence from Epstein, which could suggest that Trump knows more
(00:45):
about Epstein's conduct than he's been letting on. Today, North
America correspondent Michael Koziol on whether Republicans will vote for
the full release of the files this week and whether
this could bring down the American president. So, Michael, there
(01:05):
has been renewed pressure on Donald Trump over the Epstein
files because of the release of a series of emails
last week. So can you just break that down for us?
What happened?
S2 (01:15):
So this started last week. It was Wednesday here in
the US, the day that the very long, record long
government shutdown was poised to end. Uh, so a big
enough event as it is over the top of that,
the Democrats, who are on what's called the House of
Representatives Oversight Committee, uh, decided to do something. Now, that
(01:39):
committee has basically been they have subpoenaed a bunch of
records from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. Uh, so these are not
the full what you would call Epstein files, but they
are a lot of documents. And what the Democrats have
been doing is they've been selectively releasing, uh, drip feeding
out little bits of these files, uh, that obviously incriminate or,
(02:03):
you know, purport to incriminate, uh, the president, Donald Trump.
And on Wednesday, as the government shutdown is about to end,
which is, you know, theoretically a good news story for
the president, the Democrats release three emails, uh, from an
eight year period. And, you know, they, at first blush
at least, would seem to suggest that Donald Trump has
(02:24):
more questions to answer about his association with Jeffrey Epstein
and what he knew about Jeffrey Epstein's activities, um, back
at the time. Essentially, that's how this started.
S1 (02:35):
Definitely. Let's walk through the emails one by one. So
tell us about the first of those emails. And can
you give us a bit of context, I guess, about
what was happening at the time that it was sent?
S2 (02:44):
Yeah. So the first email is from April 2011. Uh,
and it's an exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,
his long time associate. Uh, at one point, his girlfriend, uh,
and of course, the woman who in only a few
years ago was sent to jail for aiding and abetting
and participating in this sex trafficking ring. She was the
(03:06):
only person convicted in the Epstein sex trafficking ring because,
of course, Jeffrey Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. So
it's 2011, obviously, long before Donald Trump even runs for
the presidency at this point. He's a businessman. He's a
reality TV star on The Apprentice. And Epstein says to
(03:26):
Maxwell in this email, I want you to realize that
that dog that hasn't barked is Trump. And then it
says redacted name spent hours at my house with him.
He has never once been mentioned. Then it goes on
to say police chief, etc. I'm 75% there. And to
that email, Ghislaine Maxwell responds, I have been thinking about
(03:50):
that quote unquote. So, look, it's, um, tough to know
exactly what to make of this email. So this is
after Jeffrey Epstein has been convicted and served his sentence
for soliciting a minor for prostitution. This is, you know,
if you know your Epstein saga, you know that he
(04:10):
did a plea deal in 2008, in Florida that basically
saw him serve. Well, I think it was, you know,
sort of a jail sentence, but he was mostly out
on work release. It was generally seen as quite a
favorable plea deal. So this is after this has all happened.
And I think the key part of that email is
where he's saying that Trump is the dog that hasn't barked. Now,
(04:32):
I'm not going to say that I know what that means,
but I suppose he could be suggesting that Trump had
not gone to the authorities, had not ratted on him
in some way. Um, I would only be guessing, but
it's certainly seems to indicate that, you know, Jeffrey Epstein
(04:53):
thought that Donald Trump had a level of knowledge about something.
S1 (04:57):
And with regards to that email, the name that had
been redacted was actually the name of a victim of
Epstein's that we now know was Virginia Giuffre.
S2 (05:04):
Yes. So the Republicans have identified this person as Virginia Giuffre.
They came out straight away and said that. And I
guess the implication of that is, I mean, obviously when
you first read this email, you think, oh dear. Like
someone has spent hours at Jeffrey Epstein's house with Donald Trump. Uh,
and it's purported to be a victim of Jeffrey Epstein.
(05:27):
So that looks very bad for Donald Trump. The saving
grace of that for the president is that Virginia Giuffre
has been on record and under oath, in fact, saying
that Donald Trump never acted untoward toward her. And, uh,
you know, I think that she never had intercourse with
Donald Trump. So whatever Jeffrey Epstein is alluding to there
about spending hours together at his house, it seems like that,
(05:50):
you know, is unlikely to be anything untoward because Virginia
Giuffre has been quite clear about that. And she has,
you know, have not been shy about making accusations against
other people. She has, of course, you know, one of
the first and most prominent Epstein accusers was the accuser
of Prince Andrew. So, you know, for her to have
said on the record that Donald Trump did nothing, I
think we have to consider that pretty strongly.
S1 (06:12):
Absolutely. And so tell us about the next email I'm
talking here about the one that appears to have been
sent in December 2015.
S2 (06:18):
So this is an email that Jeffrey Epstein, uh, an
email exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and the high profile journalist
Michael Wolff. And Michael Wolff is someone that has been,
I guess you might say, courting Jeffrey Epstein for a
long time. It's sort of what he does. He chronicles
and he writes about these sort of high society, elite people.
(06:42):
So in this case, uh, it's December 2015. Donald Trump
is running for president. Uh, it's just ahead of one
of the Republican primary debates where Donald Trump will be
facing off on CNN against other contenders for the Republican nomination.
And Michael Wolff says to Jeffrey Epstein that he hears is.
(07:02):
CNN is going to ask Trump about his ties to
Jeffrey Epstein during this debate. And Jeffrey Epstein says, you know, well,
if we were to craft an answer for him, what
do you think it should be? That's a direct quote.
And Wolf then goes on to say, you know, I
think you should let Trump hang himself. Um, you know,
(07:24):
if he says that he hasn't been on your plane
or to your house quote, that gives you a valuable
PR and political currency. Wolf goes on to say, you
can hang him in a way that potentially generates a
positive benefit for you. Or if it really looks like
he could win, you could save him generating a debt. So, look,
I mean, there's many things you could say about this.
(07:46):
What it clearly shows is, you know, how close Epstein
and Michael Wolf were, to the point where, you know,
Michael Wolf is kind of, um, giving him the heads
up about this possible question. And then, you know, Jeffrey Epstein,
in a seemingly sympathetic way, says, you know, if you
if we could craft an answer for him, what would
it be? And Wolff goes on to give him some
(08:07):
media advice. And it's not the only email of that
nature where Michael Wolff seems to be giving media, um,
or public relations advice to Jeffrey Epstein. Um, I guess,
you know, the other element, obviously, is where, um, Michael Wolff, uh,
seems to suggest that Donald Trump would be would not
be telling the truth if he said that he hadn't
(08:29):
been to Jeffrey Epstein's house or hadn't been on the plane. And,
of course, you know, we've seen logs, um, that do
suggest that Donald Trump has been on, um, uh, the
plane multiple times. Um, but again, you know, he's always
denied any wrongdoing. He's always denied any knowledge of Jeffrey
Epstein's crimes. So we should make that clear.
S1 (08:47):
Okay. And then the third and final email, this one
was written in early 2019, and this was from Jeffrey
Epstein to Michael Wolff again that season. Journalist. Several months
before Epstein was arrested for the final time. So tell
us about this one.
S2 (09:02):
So this email from Jeffrey Epstein to Michael Wolf, uh,
makes reference to the Mar a Lago, uh, which is
Donald Trump's private club in Florida, where, of course, Jeffrey Epstein, um,
and Donald Trump used to hang out a lot. Um,
there's some conjecture as to whether Jeffrey Epstein, um, was
(09:23):
ever an actual member, but he certainly spent a lot
of time there. And, um, uh, in this email, Jeffrey
Epstein says, quote, Trump said he asked me to resign.
Never a member ever. Of course, he knew about the
girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop, um, unquote. So, look,
this is another interesting email. Um, obviously the the key
(09:44):
words in there he knew about the girls is the
one that generated a lot of headlines because, again, it
seems to be Jeffrey Epstein suggesting that, uh, Donald Trump had,
you know, a lot of contemporaneous knowledge about what was happening, um,
with these, uh, underage girls. Um, but look, I mean.
(10:05):
the way that you probably would read that, um, or
perhaps the preferred reading of that. Certainly the way that
Donald Trump would, um, explain it is that Donald Trump
says that he became aware that Jeffrey Epstein was stealing, um,
to use Donald Trump's words, or taking, um, to use
(10:27):
Donald Trump's words, uh, staff members from the Mar-A-Lago for
his own sort of purposes, basically poaching staff from Donald
Trump's business to Jeffrey Epstein's business. Um, and Trump says,
you know, he didn't know what business that was, but
he didn't like that Jeffrey Epstein was coming down to
Mar a Lago and taking young women staff members, whether
(10:50):
it be from the spa at Mar-A-Lago or from somewhere else.
So Donald Trump would probably say to that email, well, yeah,
I've already said publicly that, uh, I knew he was
stealing stuff. And that's what that phrase he knew about
the girls refers to. But of course, other people are saying, well,
you know, we need a more fulsome we need we
need a proper explanation of what Jeffrey Epstein was getting
(11:14):
out there and what exactly Trump did know.
S1 (11:16):
And so I guess collectively, what's your read about these exchanges?
We've been talking about Jeffrey Epstein saying that Donald Trump
is the dog that hasn't barked. And then his comment,
of course he knew about the girls. What is Epstein
saying really here?
S2 (11:30):
Look, I think it adds to the sense that already
existed that Donald Trump has more that he needs to
say and more questions to answer about his association with
Jeffrey Epstein. But look, it's certainly not a smoking gun,
and it's certainly not something that, you know, you can
(11:52):
look at and say, aha, like, you know, prosecutors, investigators
need to be put on to Donald Trump because, you know,
it looks like he's engaged in some sort of illegal activity.
We don't have that now. I don't know. What else
is it? We've seen 20,000 pages of emails now, thanks
to the Republicans.
S3 (12:12):
So here they are. 20,000 documents from Jeffrey Epstein's estate
have been released for all to see, and we've been
through them. They feature Donald Trump, the former Prince Andrew,
Peter Mandelson and of course, Epstein's girlfriend and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell,
along with many other people.
S2 (12:31):
And again, there still doesn't seem to be anything in those, uh,
many reams of documents that would suggest Donald Trump has
done anything illegal. But, you know, as we knew before, um,
he was close to this man. A lot of people were.
And we know what Donald Trump, uh, has said about
(12:51):
women in the past. We know his you know, he
was a man who enjoyed the company of beautiful women. Um,
and as he would say. And, um, so, look, I
think it's uneasy. It's uncomfortable reading. It's, you know, these
are private emails that no one ever thought, um, would
see the light of day. Uh, and so, uh, again,
(13:14):
in that sense, it's salacious, but I don't know if
there's a smoking gun here. What it does do is
give more ammunition to the people who are saying, well,
you know, we need to release the full Epstein files.
We need to make them public. Everyone needs to see
who knew what. Um, and if there's then any cause
for further prosecutions or investigations, then that can take place.
(13:37):
But I think, you know, it may not be a
hammer blow, but it does add to the case for
more transparency and the release of the files.
S1 (13:49):
We'll be right back. Well, this is what I wanted
to ask you, which is how Donald Trump has responded.
So can you tell us what other than that has
he said?
S2 (14:00):
So look, it was interesting because he, um, he was
quiet for a couple of days while he did public events,
but he didn't take any questions, which was unusual. But look,
he has since taken questions, uh, from journalists. He spent
the weekend in, um, in Florida and took questions on
the plane on the way down. Um, basically, you know,
(14:21):
repeating his old line that, you know, this is a
Democratic hoax. And, um, uh, I guess when he says that,
he's implying that, um, the the bits targeting him are
the hoax, not the entire Epstein story, because he's now
decided that they're after many months of saying there's nothing
to this Epstein business, and we should all forget about it.
(14:42):
He's now saying, actually, uh, we're going to get the
Justice Department to investigate, uh, this. So, uh, he's directed
his attorney general to, uh, open an investigation, a Department
of Justice and FBI investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's links to
Bill Clinton, uh, to Larry Summers, uh, to other high
profile Democratic people who are appear in those emails. Niles
(15:06):
that has already begun, it seems. Pam Bondi, the attorney general,
has said that she's appointed, uh, Jay Clayton, the US
attorney in New York, to take the lead on this case.
So it seems like that is now underway. Um, and
there will be a probe into specifically Jeffrey Epstein's links
to Democrats, which, you know, is, uh, I mean, there
(15:28):
are many unusual, uh, and alarming things about that. Firstly, that,
you know, a president would direct the attorney general to
open an investigation of this nature. Traditionally, the president takes
a hands off approach to the Justice Department. Now, you know,
we know this president doesn't do that. In fact, he's
already leant on Pam Bondi to, uh, uh, hurry up
(15:52):
with prosecutions of his political enemies. So it's not new
in that sense, but it is, again, you know, just
kind of remarkable, um, in a sense. And then secondly,
that we would have an investigation specifically into Someone's links
with people from a particular political party. Um, but that's
(16:12):
that's the time that, uh, we live in. If, if,
if the Justice Department wasn't hadn't been politicized before. It
certainly has been now.
S1 (16:19):
And so, Michael, what are the next steps here? Like
what happens from now?
S2 (16:24):
Well, look, probably the next big step is to see
what happens in the House of Representatives as soon as
this week, when there will be a vote on a
bill to compel the release of the full Epstein files.
So the Republicans, basically, because the government was shut down,
a new Democratic member of Congress, um, was not sort
(16:46):
of admitted into the House for quite some time. She
was admitted as soon as the government opened up again.
She was the, um, crucial addition to a petition, um,
that essentially will now allow this bill to come to
a vote. And it's, I think, expected that that vote
will pass the House of Representatives.
S4 (17:07):
We have some breaking news. Trump is now urging House
Republicans to vote for a bill that would force the
Justice Department to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, according
to Associated Press. This is a very sharp reversal. After
months of opposing this measure and criticizing it as a
Democratic host, Trump wrote on Truth Social that we have
(17:29):
nothing to hide, and said releasing the files would help
the country move on from what he calls a political attack.
S2 (17:36):
It's possible that enough Republicans will get on board. We
know that there are a lot of Republicans out there
who want these files to be released, so we'll have
to see then what happens in the Senate. Um, if
it passes, it would then have to go to the
desk of the president, who would have to agree to
releasing the Epstein files. Now, look, that would be fascinating.
And I think you've seen how intent the white House
(17:58):
is on not letting this get that far, because they
tried very hard to not let this bill come on
in the House of Representatives. They have been having Republicans
to take their name off this petition. People like Lauren Boebert,
who was summoned into the white House, into the Situation Room,
no less. Usually, you know, for national security emergencies. But, uh,
(18:23):
she was there. And basically they tried to convince her
to take her name off this petition. It didn't work.
Nancy Mace, uh, another Republican congresswoman who was urged by
the administration to take her name off this. She hasn't
done that either. So they don't want it to come
to a vote. That is very evident. And we'll see
what happens. But it's an interesting time for Trump's relationship
(18:44):
with the broader Republican Party in the Congress.
S1 (18:47):
I mean, it sure is. And do you think there's
any chance that this actually could do some damage to Trump?
And can we actually have any faith that the contents
of the Epstein files will actually be investigated properly? Because,
of course, Trump has managed to wield power, or at
least great sway over various branches of government that are
meant to be independent from the president, like the Supreme Court.
(19:10):
And of course, the Department of Justice, which has agreed
under his demand, as we've said, to, to prosecute some
of his political foes and critics. So what do you think, Michael?
S2 (19:21):
Yeah. I mean, I don't think you could have any
confidence that there would be a proper investigation under this
FBI and this Justice Department, although, I mean, look, it's
it's it's it's hard to predict because, again, there could
be something in the files that is, you know, a
smoking gun that, that that blows it wide open. And
if that was to somehow be released, then that would
(19:43):
probably change the whole nature. At the moment, we're kind of,
you know, guessing and we think, you know, it looks bad.
He has questions to answer. There might be something in there,
but if something like that was to become public, then
that would probably change the dynamics. But yeah, I mean,
under this Department of Justice where people who aren't on
board with the president are purged and sacked, you couldn't
(20:05):
really be confident that it would be subject to a
proper investigation, I don't think.
S1 (20:09):
Wow. Incredible times. Michael, we're so lucky to have you
there in Washington reporting on it. So thank you so
much for your time.
S2 (20:17):
No problem.
S1 (20:22):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by myself
and Josh towers, with technical assistance by Kai Wang. Our
executive producer is Tammy Mills. Tom Mackendrick is our head
of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon as
they drop, follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify, or
wherever you listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered by subscriptions,
(20:44):
so to support independent journalism, visit the page or smh.com.au. Subscribe.
And to stay up to date, sign up to our
Morning Edition newsletter to receive a summary of the day's
most important news in your inbox every morning. Links are
in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris, thanks for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Salinger Morris. It's Tuesday,
November 18th. Donald Trump has long sworn that his relationship
with Jeffrey Epstein was no big deal, that he didn't
(00:21):
know about his abuse of girls and women, and that,
as the Department of Justice argued in July, there was
nothing of consequence in the so-called Epstein files. Then came
last week, when a group of Democrats and later Republicans
released cumulatively, thousands and thousands of pages of emails and
correspondence from Epstein, which could suggest that Trump knows more
(00:45):
about Epstein's conduct than he's been letting on. Today, North
America correspondent Michael Koziol on whether Republicans will vote for
the full release of the files this week and whether
this could bring down the American president. So, Michael, there
(01:05):
has been renewed pressure on Donald Trump over the Epstein
files because of the release of a series of emails
last week. So can you just break that down for us?
What happened?
S2 (01:15):
So this started last week. It was Wednesday here in
the US, the day that the very long, record long
government shutdown was poised to end. Uh, so a big
enough event as it is over the top of that,
the Democrats, who are on what's called the House of
Representatives Oversight Committee, uh, decided to do something. Now, that
(01:39):
committee has basically been they have subpoenaed a bunch of
records from Jeffrey Epstein's estate. Uh, so these are not
the full what you would call Epstein files, but they
are a lot of documents. And what the Democrats have
been doing is they've been selectively releasing, uh, drip feeding
out little bits of these files, uh, that obviously incriminate or,
(02:03):
you know, purport to incriminate, uh, the president, Donald Trump.
And on Wednesday, as the government shutdown is about to end,
which is, you know, theoretically a good news story for
the president, the Democrats release three emails, uh, from an
eight year period. And, you know, they, at first blush
at least, would seem to suggest that Donald Trump has
(02:24):
more questions to answer about his association with Jeffrey Epstein
and what he knew about Jeffrey Epstein's activities, um, back
at the time. Essentially, that's how this started.
S1 (02:35):
Definitely. Let's walk through the emails one by one. So
tell us about the first of those emails. And can
you give us a bit of context, I guess, about
what was happening at the time that it was sent?
S2 (02:44):
Yeah. So the first email is from April 2011. Uh,
and it's an exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell,
his long time associate. Uh, at one point, his girlfriend, uh,
and of course, the woman who in only a few
years ago was sent to jail for aiding and abetting
and participating in this sex trafficking ring. She was the
(03:06):
only person convicted in the Epstein sex trafficking ring because,
of course, Jeffrey Epstein died in jail awaiting trial. So
it's 2011, obviously, long before Donald Trump even runs for
the presidency at this point. He's a businessman. He's a
reality TV star on The Apprentice. And Epstein says to
(03:26):
Maxwell in this email, I want you to realize that
that dog that hasn't barked is Trump. And then it
says redacted name spent hours at my house with him.
He has never once been mentioned. Then it goes on
to say police chief, etc. I'm 75% there. And to
that email, Ghislaine Maxwell responds, I have been thinking about
(03:50):
that quote unquote. So, look, it's, um, tough to know
exactly what to make of this email. So this is
after Jeffrey Epstein has been convicted and served his sentence
for soliciting a minor for prostitution. This is, you know,
if you know your Epstein saga, you know that he
(04:10):
did a plea deal in 2008, in Florida that basically
saw him serve. Well, I think it was, you know,
sort of a jail sentence, but he was mostly out
on work release. It was generally seen as quite a
favorable plea deal. So this is after this has all happened.
And I think the key part of that email is
where he's saying that Trump is the dog that hasn't barked. Now,
(04:32):
I'm not going to say that I know what that means,
but I suppose he could be suggesting that Trump had
not gone to the authorities, had not ratted on him
in some way. Um, I would only be guessing, but
it's certainly seems to indicate that, you know, Jeffrey Epstein
(04:53):
thought that Donald Trump had a level of knowledge about something.
S1 (04:57):
And with regards to that email, the name that had
been redacted was actually the name of a victim of
Epstein's that we now know was Virginia Giuffre.
S2 (05:04):
Yes. So the Republicans have identified this person as Virginia Giuffre.
They came out straight away and said that. And I
guess the implication of that is, I mean, obviously when
you first read this email, you think, oh dear. Like
someone has spent hours at Jeffrey Epstein's house with Donald Trump. Uh,
and it's purported to be a victim of Jeffrey Epstein.
(05:27):
So that looks very bad for Donald Trump. The saving
grace of that for the president is that Virginia Giuffre
has been on record and under oath, in fact, saying
that Donald Trump never acted untoward toward her. And, uh,
you know, I think that she never had intercourse with
Donald Trump. So whatever Jeffrey Epstein is alluding to there
about spending hours together at his house, it seems like that,
(05:50):
you know, is unlikely to be anything untoward because Virginia
Giuffre has been quite clear about that. And she has,
you know, have not been shy about making accusations against
other people. She has, of course, you know, one of
the first and most prominent Epstein accusers was the accuser
of Prince Andrew. So, you know, for her to have
said on the record that Donald Trump did nothing, I
think we have to consider that pretty strongly.
S1 (06:12):
Absolutely. And so tell us about the next email I'm
talking here about the one that appears to have been
sent in December 2015.
S2 (06:18):
So this is an email that Jeffrey Epstein, uh, an
email exchange between Jeffrey Epstein and the high profile journalist
Michael Wolff. And Michael Wolff is someone that has been,
I guess you might say, courting Jeffrey Epstein for a
long time. It's sort of what he does. He chronicles
and he writes about these sort of high society, elite people.
(06:42):
So in this case, uh, it's December 2015. Donald Trump
is running for president. Uh, it's just ahead of one
of the Republican primary debates where Donald Trump will be
facing off on CNN against other contenders for the Republican nomination.
And Michael Wolff says to Jeffrey Epstein that he hears is.
(07:02):
CNN is going to ask Trump about his ties to
Jeffrey Epstein during this debate. And Jeffrey Epstein says, you know, well,
if we were to craft an answer for him, what
do you think it should be? That's a direct quote.
And Wolf then goes on to say, you know, I
think you should let Trump hang himself. Um, you know,
(07:24):
if he says that he hasn't been on your plane
or to your house quote, that gives you a valuable
PR and political currency. Wolf goes on to say, you
can hang him in a way that potentially generates a
positive benefit for you. Or if it really looks like
he could win, you could save him generating a debt. So, look,
I mean, there's many things you could say about this.
(07:46):
What it clearly shows is, you know, how close Epstein
and Michael Wolf were, to the point where, you know,
Michael Wolf is kind of, um, giving him the heads
up about this possible question. And then, you know, Jeffrey Epstein,
in a seemingly sympathetic way, says, you know, if you
if we could craft an answer for him, what would
it be? And Wolff goes on to give him some
(08:07):
media advice. And it's not the only email of that
nature where Michael Wolff seems to be giving media, um,
or public relations advice to Jeffrey Epstein. Um, I guess,
you know, the other element, obviously, is where, um, Michael Wolff, uh,
seems to suggest that Donald Trump would be would not
be telling the truth if he said that he hadn't
(08:29):
been to Jeffrey Epstein's house or hadn't been on the plane. And,
of course, you know, we've seen logs, um, that do
suggest that Donald Trump has been on, um, uh, the
plane multiple times. Um, but again, you know, he's always
denied any wrongdoing. He's always denied any knowledge of Jeffrey
Epstein's crimes. So we should make that clear.
S1 (08:47):
Okay. And then the third and final email, this one
was written in early 2019, and this was from Jeffrey
Epstein to Michael Wolff again that season. Journalist. Several months
before Epstein was arrested for the final time. So tell
us about this one.
S2 (09:02):
So this email from Jeffrey Epstein to Michael Wolf, uh,
makes reference to the Mar a Lago, uh, which is
Donald Trump's private club in Florida, where, of course, Jeffrey Epstein, um,
and Donald Trump used to hang out a lot. Um,
there's some conjecture as to whether Jeffrey Epstein, um, was
(09:23):
ever an actual member, but he certainly spent a lot
of time there. And, um, uh, in this email, Jeffrey
Epstein says, quote, Trump said he asked me to resign.
Never a member ever. Of course, he knew about the
girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop, um, unquote. So, look,
this is another interesting email. Um, obviously the the key
(09:44):
words in there he knew about the girls is the
one that generated a lot of headlines because, again, it
seems to be Jeffrey Epstein suggesting that, uh, Donald Trump had,
you know, a lot of contemporaneous knowledge about what was happening, um,
with these, uh, underage girls. Um, but look, I mean.
(10:05):
the way that you probably would read that, um, or
perhaps the preferred reading of that. Certainly the way that
Donald Trump would, um, explain it is that Donald Trump
says that he became aware that Jeffrey Epstein was stealing, um,
to use Donald Trump's words, or taking, um, to use
(10:27):
Donald Trump's words, uh, staff members from the Mar-A-Lago for
his own sort of purposes, basically poaching staff from Donald
Trump's business to Jeffrey Epstein's business. Um, and Trump says,
you know, he didn't know what business that was, but
he didn't like that Jeffrey Epstein was coming down to
Mar a Lago and taking young women staff members, whether
(10:50):
it be from the spa at Mar-A-Lago or from somewhere else.
So Donald Trump would probably say to that email, well, yeah,
I've already said publicly that, uh, I knew he was
stealing stuff. And that's what that phrase he knew about
the girls refers to. But of course, other people are saying, well,
you know, we need a more fulsome we need we
need a proper explanation of what Jeffrey Epstein was getting
(11:14):
out there and what exactly Trump did know.
S1 (11:16):
And so I guess collectively, what's your read about these exchanges?
We've been talking about Jeffrey Epstein saying that Donald Trump
is the dog that hasn't barked. And then his comment,
of course he knew about the girls. What is Epstein
saying really here?
S2 (11:30):
Look, I think it adds to the sense that already
existed that Donald Trump has more that he needs to
say and more questions to answer about his association with
Jeffrey Epstein. But look, it's certainly not a smoking gun,
and it's certainly not something that, you know, you can
(11:52):
look at and say, aha, like, you know, prosecutors, investigators
need to be put on to Donald Trump because, you know,
it looks like he's engaged in some sort of illegal activity.
We don't have that now. I don't know. What else
is it? We've seen 20,000 pages of emails now, thanks
to the Republicans.
S3 (12:12):
So here they are. 20,000 documents from Jeffrey Epstein's estate
have been released for all to see, and we've been
through them. They feature Donald Trump, the former Prince Andrew,
Peter Mandelson and of course, Epstein's girlfriend and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell,
along with many other people.
S2 (12:31):
And again, there still doesn't seem to be anything in those, uh,
many reams of documents that would suggest Donald Trump has
done anything illegal. But, you know, as we knew before, um,
he was close to this man. A lot of people were.
And we know what Donald Trump, uh, has said about
(12:51):
women in the past. We know his you know, he
was a man who enjoyed the company of beautiful women. Um,
and as he would say. And, um, so, look, I
think it's uneasy. It's uncomfortable reading. It's, you know, these
are private emails that no one ever thought, um, would
see the light of day. Uh, and so, uh, again,
(13:14):
in that sense, it's salacious, but I don't know if
there's a smoking gun here. What it does do is
give more ammunition to the people who are saying, well,
you know, we need to release the full Epstein files.
We need to make them public. Everyone needs to see
who knew what. Um, and if there's then any cause
for further prosecutions or investigations, then that can take place.
(13:37):
But I think, you know, it may not be a
hammer blow, but it does add to the case for
more transparency and the release of the files.
S1 (13:49):
We'll be right back. Well, this is what I wanted
to ask you, which is how Donald Trump has responded.
So can you tell us what other than that has
he said?
S2 (14:00):
So look, it was interesting because he, um, he was
quiet for a couple of days while he did public events,
but he didn't take any questions, which was unusual. But look,
he has since taken questions, uh, from journalists. He spent
the weekend in, um, in Florida and took questions on
the plane on the way down. Um, basically, you know,
(14:21):
repeating his old line that, you know, this is a
Democratic hoax. And, um, uh, I guess when he says that,
he's implying that, um, the the bits targeting him are
the hoax, not the entire Epstein story, because he's now
decided that they're after many months of saying there's nothing
to this Epstein business, and we should all forget about it.
(14:42):
He's now saying, actually, uh, we're going to get the
Justice Department to investigate, uh, this. So, uh, he's directed
his attorney general to, uh, open an investigation, a Department
of Justice and FBI investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's links to
Bill Clinton, uh, to Larry Summers, uh, to other high
profile Democratic people who are appear in those emails. Niles
(15:06):
that has already begun, it seems. Pam Bondi, the attorney general,
has said that she's appointed, uh, Jay Clayton, the US
attorney in New York, to take the lead on this case.
So it seems like that is now underway. Um, and
there will be a probe into specifically Jeffrey Epstein's links
to Democrats, which, you know, is, uh, I mean, there
(15:28):
are many unusual, uh, and alarming things about that. Firstly, that,
you know, a president would direct the attorney general to
open an investigation of this nature. Traditionally, the president takes
a hands off approach to the Justice Department. Now, you know,
we know this president doesn't do that. In fact, he's
already leant on Pam Bondi to, uh, uh, hurry up
(15:52):
with prosecutions of his political enemies. So it's not new
in that sense, but it is, again, you know, just
kind of remarkable, um, in a sense. And then secondly,
that we would have an investigation specifically into Someone's links
with people from a particular political party. Um, but that's
(16:12):
that's the time that, uh, we live in. If, if,
if the Justice Department wasn't hadn't been politicized before. It
certainly has been now.
S1 (16:19):
And so, Michael, what are the next steps here? Like
what happens from now?
S2 (16:24):
Well, look, probably the next big step is to see
what happens in the House of Representatives as soon as
this week, when there will be a vote on a
bill to compel the release of the full Epstein files.
So the Republicans, basically, because the government was shut down,
a new Democratic member of Congress, um, was not sort
(16:46):
of admitted into the House for quite some time. She
was admitted as soon as the government opened up again.
She was the, um, crucial addition to a petition, um,
that essentially will now allow this bill to come to
a vote. And it's, I think, expected that that vote
will pass the House of Representatives.
S4 (17:07):
We have some breaking news. Trump is now urging House
Republicans to vote for a bill that would force the
Justice Department to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, according
to Associated Press. This is a very sharp reversal. After
months of opposing this measure and criticizing it as a
Democratic host, Trump wrote on Truth Social that we have
(17:29):
nothing to hide, and said releasing the files would help
the country move on from what he calls a political attack.
S2 (17:36):
It's possible that enough Republicans will get on board. We
know that there are a lot of Republicans out there
who want these files to be released, so we'll have
to see then what happens in the Senate. Um, if
it passes, it would then have to go to the
desk of the president, who would have to agree to
releasing the Epstein files. Now, look, that would be fascinating.
And I think you've seen how intent the white House
(17:58):
is on not letting this get that far, because they
tried very hard to not let this bill come on
in the House of Representatives. They have been having Republicans
to take their name off this petition. People like Lauren Boebert,
who was summoned into the white House, into the Situation Room,
no less. Usually, you know, for national security emergencies. But, uh,
(18:23):
she was there. And basically they tried to convince her
to take her name off this petition. It didn't work.
Nancy Mace, uh, another Republican congresswoman who was urged by
the administration to take her name off this. She hasn't
done that either. So they don't want it to come
to a vote. That is very evident. And we'll see
what happens. But it's an interesting time for Trump's relationship
(18:44):
with the broader Republican Party in the Congress.
S1 (18:47):
I mean, it sure is. And do you think there's
any chance that this actually could do some damage to Trump?
And can we actually have any faith that the contents
of the Epstein files will actually be investigated properly? Because,
of course, Trump has managed to wield power, or at
least great sway over various branches of government that are
meant to be independent from the president, like the Supreme Court.
(19:10):
And of course, the Department of Justice, which has agreed
under his demand, as we've said, to, to prosecute some
of his political foes and critics. So what do you think, Michael?
S2 (19:21):
Yeah. I mean, I don't think you could have any
confidence that there would be a proper investigation under this
FBI and this Justice Department, although, I mean, look, it's
it's it's it's hard to predict because, again, there could
be something in the files that is, you know, a
smoking gun that, that that blows it wide open. And
if that was to somehow be released, then that would
(19:43):
probably change the whole nature. At the moment, we're kind of,
you know, guessing and we think, you know, it looks bad.
He has questions to answer. There might be something in there,
but if something like that was to become public, then
that would probably change the dynamics. But yeah, I mean,
under this Department of Justice where people who aren't on
board with the president are purged and sacked, you couldn't
(20:05):
really be confident that it would be subject to a
proper investigation, I don't think.
S1 (20:09):
Wow. Incredible times. Michael, we're so lucky to have you
there in Washington reporting on it. So thank you so
much for your time.
S2 (20:17):
No problem.
S1 (20:22):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by myself
and Josh towers, with technical assistance by Kai Wang. Our
executive producer is Tammy Mills. Tom Mackendrick is our head
of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon as
they drop, follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify, or
wherever you listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered by subscriptions,
(20:44):
so to support independent journalism, visit the page or smh.com.au. Subscribe.
And to stay up to date, sign up to our
Morning Edition newsletter to receive a summary of the day's
most important news in your inbox every morning. Links are
in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris, thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.