WEBVTT - Deadline Up: DOJ Defends Epstein File Redactions,  Refuses To Release More Documents 

0:00:02.160 --> 0:00:02.800
<v Speaker 1>Hey, that folks.

0:00:02.800 --> 0:00:06.560
<v Speaker 2>It is Friday, July third, and the Department of Justice

0:00:06.640 --> 0:00:14.360
<v Speaker 2>had a Thursday, July second deadline to produce Epstein files

0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:18.680
<v Speaker 2>unredacted or if you don't at least explain to the

0:00:18.880 --> 0:00:22.119
<v Speaker 2>judge why you haven't released him, what option do you

0:00:22.160 --> 0:00:22.880
<v Speaker 2>think they went with?

0:00:23.239 --> 0:00:25.520
<v Speaker 1>And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and

0:00:25.680 --> 0:00:30.760
<v Speaker 1>tj Epstein files. We're told they were all released, and

0:00:30.760 --> 0:00:33.160
<v Speaker 1>they we're told there are tons more now. People want

0:00:33.159 --> 0:00:35.560
<v Speaker 1>to see them, they want to see them unredacted, and

0:00:36.120 --> 0:00:39.880
<v Speaker 1>they're not going to see them yet at least at least.

0:00:40.000 --> 0:00:43.040
<v Speaker 3>Yes, we haven't gotten a response from the judge as

0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.199
<v Speaker 3>of yet. But did you actually think there would be

0:00:46.280 --> 0:00:50.159
<v Speaker 3>any other outcome other than this when that deadline was

0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:53.680
<v Speaker 3>made by that judge last week? Did anyone actually believe

0:00:53.800 --> 0:00:56.240
<v Speaker 3>the dj is going to say, okay, let me go

0:00:56.280 --> 0:00:59.120
<v Speaker 3>ahead and just unredact these files.

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:06.440
<v Speaker 1>No, No, I don't think anybody was anticipating that. Todd

0:01:06.440 --> 0:01:09.000
<v Speaker 1>Blanche did exactly what everybody expected him to do, which

0:01:09.040 --> 0:01:11.200
<v Speaker 1>was to be, in their minds, a good soldier for

0:01:11.240 --> 0:01:14.520
<v Speaker 1>President Trump and keep certain things hidden from the public.

0:01:14.560 --> 0:01:16.640
<v Speaker 1>So that's always going to be the line that goes

0:01:16.680 --> 0:01:18.760
<v Speaker 1>along it doesn't matter what he does. He could let

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:21.560
<v Speaker 1>the entire public into the Department of Justice say knock

0:01:21.560 --> 0:01:23.880
<v Speaker 1>yourself out, go through any computer you want, here's some logins.

0:01:24.319 --> 0:01:26.560
<v Speaker 1>Nobody's gonna believe it. You can do whatever you want

0:01:26.600 --> 0:01:27.280
<v Speaker 1>with the up thing fire.

0:01:27.319 --> 0:01:28.200
<v Speaker 4>That would be a start.

0:01:29.080 --> 0:01:31.640
<v Speaker 1>No, it won't. It's just going to lead to more controversy.

0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:34.640
<v Speaker 1>This is just what this is. There's no real transparency,

0:01:34.680 --> 0:01:36.960
<v Speaker 1>there never will be, and no one will ever believe

0:01:36.959 --> 0:01:37.280
<v Speaker 1>it on.

0:01:37.240 --> 0:01:40.600
<v Speaker 3>This well, and it's there's nothing to believe right now

0:01:40.640 --> 0:01:43.560
<v Speaker 3>because we can't see what we can't see. And it

0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:47.480
<v Speaker 3>was just a few hours before that deadline occurred that

0:01:47.720 --> 0:01:50.880
<v Speaker 3>Todd Blanche the Department of Justice actually asked the judge

0:01:50.920 --> 0:01:55.440
<v Speaker 3>to delay the deadline for sixty days or accept their

0:01:55.440 --> 0:01:58.440
<v Speaker 3>reasons for withholding. Those were the two options the dj

0:01:58.800 --> 0:01:59.960
<v Speaker 3>gave back to the judge.

0:02:00.720 --> 0:02:03.720
<v Speaker 4>So they offered to share. This was the other caveat.

0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:08.560
<v Speaker 3>They offered to share some additional materials in camera, which

0:02:08.600 --> 0:02:12.760
<v Speaker 3>is a legal term for a behind closed door meeting

0:02:12.960 --> 0:02:13.880
<v Speaker 3>with the judge.

0:02:13.960 --> 0:02:16.919
<v Speaker 4>So again, not transparent.

0:02:17.400 --> 0:02:21.760
<v Speaker 3>We'll do some more explaining, but behind closed doors that's

0:02:21.800 --> 0:02:23.840
<v Speaker 3>probably not going to go a long way for folks

0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:27.880
<v Speaker 3>to feel like we've gotten the full truth, and so yes,

0:02:28.120 --> 0:02:31.520
<v Speaker 3>that is where we stand right now. I find I

0:02:31.720 --> 0:02:35.799
<v Speaker 3>believe at least, Look, they went through and gave reasons

0:02:36.320 --> 0:02:39.919
<v Speaker 3>for several of these specific documents that were asked by

0:02:40.280 --> 0:02:45.200
<v Speaker 3>from an independent journalist, and some of the explanations, what

0:02:45.240 --> 0:02:46.480
<v Speaker 3>did you make of them?

0:02:47.440 --> 0:02:50.880
<v Speaker 1>I buy them? Legally, Yes, I would listen to anybody

0:02:50.919 --> 0:02:53.360
<v Speaker 1>except this Department of Justice about it, just because of

0:02:53.360 --> 0:02:56.799
<v Speaker 1>the track record. Now, not insulting anybody, I'm just saying

0:02:56.840 --> 0:02:59.360
<v Speaker 1>the track record, nobody's ever going to believe anything this

0:02:59.440 --> 0:03:03.480
<v Speaker 1>department is about the Epstein file. So it doesn't matter

0:03:03.600 --> 0:03:06.400
<v Speaker 1>what reason they could have given. The dog ate my

0:03:06.520 --> 0:03:09.320
<v Speaker 1>homework is just as good of an excuse as there's

0:03:09.360 --> 0:03:10.160
<v Speaker 1>a legal reason.

0:03:10.480 --> 0:03:12.760
<v Speaker 3>It doesn't matter, And one of what you just said

0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:14.880
<v Speaker 3>is kind of what one of the excuses was. Look,

0:03:14.919 --> 0:03:18.640
<v Speaker 3>I think I feel like this is a fair assessment

0:03:18.680 --> 0:03:24.280
<v Speaker 3>to make. Most Americans, if not all Americans, understand why victims'

0:03:24.360 --> 0:03:27.799
<v Speaker 3>names need to be redacted. So that isn't really Yes,

0:03:27.880 --> 0:03:32.600
<v Speaker 3>we understand no one wants to out a victim of

0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:35.720
<v Speaker 3>sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein if they don't want to

0:03:35.720 --> 0:03:38.240
<v Speaker 3>be known. Don't you feel like that's something that that

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:40.440
<v Speaker 3>doesn't even need to be defended at this point.

0:03:40.520 --> 0:03:44.240
<v Speaker 1>The problem is the messenger. We don't trust who is

0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:47.000
<v Speaker 1>in charge, the gatekeeper. That's the problem. Yes, we all

0:03:47.000 --> 0:03:50.200
<v Speaker 1>get on board with, but that we don't trust the gatekeepers,

0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:52.720
<v Speaker 1>and the gatekeepers have earned that reputation.

0:03:53.480 --> 0:03:54.520
<v Speaker 4>That's a fair way to put it.

0:03:54.600 --> 0:03:57.080
<v Speaker 3>Yes, so, Yes, One of their excuses is some of

0:03:57.120 --> 0:04:00.600
<v Speaker 3>the emails redacted are to protect the names of victim. Okay,

0:04:00.680 --> 0:04:03.800
<v Speaker 3>I think that's we all accept that. Here is where

0:04:03.840 --> 0:04:07.880
<v Speaker 3>it gets tricky. So the DOJ said the one email

0:04:09.120 --> 0:04:13.880
<v Speaker 3>that had information withheld because they claim many communications written

0:04:13.880 --> 0:04:19.080
<v Speaker 3>by victims without context can appear disturbing on their face.

0:04:20.600 --> 0:04:22.840
<v Speaker 4>Huh.

0:04:22.960 --> 0:04:27.120
<v Speaker 1>Again, it doesn't matter what reason they give. Yes, disturbing, Yes,

0:04:27.200 --> 0:04:30.960
<v Speaker 1>that's I believe that if you just release something with

0:04:31.040 --> 0:04:35.120
<v Speaker 1>somebody's name attached to it without the understanding or full background, Yes,

0:04:35.240 --> 0:04:39.200
<v Speaker 1>it puts out whatever. Now the judge, it's up to him.

0:04:39.240 --> 0:04:41.120
<v Speaker 1>I'll listen to him. Or whether or not he says

0:04:41.160 --> 0:04:45.280
<v Speaker 1>that is a substantial or legitimate legal argument to make,

0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:47.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't know. But again, we're just reading one line

0:04:47.640 --> 0:04:49.920
<v Speaker 1>and one excerpt from what their reasoning was.

0:04:50.080 --> 0:04:53.360
<v Speaker 3>Yes, so look, so That is one of their justifications

0:04:53.360 --> 0:04:57.840
<v Speaker 3>for redactions that they don't want to put out victims

0:04:57.960 --> 0:05:02.480
<v Speaker 3>accusations against I'm assuming other people other than Jeffrey Epstein

0:05:02.880 --> 0:05:05.360
<v Speaker 3>without context. But that is kind of the whole point

0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:08.680
<v Speaker 3>of folks wanting answers. They want names, they want to

0:05:08.720 --> 0:05:11.960
<v Speaker 3>know who else has been implicated. Here's the one for

0:05:12.160 --> 0:05:15.279
<v Speaker 3>me that really raised eyebrows.

0:05:16.520 --> 0:05:17.440
<v Speaker 4>This is the big one.

0:05:17.480 --> 0:05:20.880
<v Speaker 3>There is a draft indictment back in two thousand and seven.

0:05:20.920 --> 0:05:23.560
<v Speaker 3>This is when Epstein was initially well. He got a

0:05:23.600 --> 0:05:29.680
<v Speaker 3>slap on the wrist for having sex with underage with minors,

0:05:29.760 --> 0:05:33.400
<v Speaker 3>and he just had home confinement. He could go about

0:05:33.400 --> 0:05:36.480
<v Speaker 3>his business. This has been a huge point of contention.

0:05:36.560 --> 0:05:38.440
<v Speaker 1>Wait, this is the one. He spent thirteen months in jail.

0:05:38.440 --> 0:05:39.200
<v Speaker 1>Did he know he did?

0:05:39.240 --> 0:05:41.120
<v Speaker 3>But then he got to Then he got to but

0:05:41.160 --> 0:05:43.760
<v Speaker 3>it was like jail in quotes, he had a lot

0:05:43.800 --> 0:05:45.960
<v Speaker 3>of leeway to come and go. He had like the

0:05:46.000 --> 0:05:50.000
<v Speaker 3>ability to leave. Folks have said this was a ridiculous

0:05:50.000 --> 0:05:54.000
<v Speaker 3>punishment for some serious crimes. So there was a draft

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:59.479
<v Speaker 3>indictment that had names, other names of potential co conspirators

0:05:59.600 --> 0:06:03.600
<v Speaker 3>or who could become co defendants. This draft has been

0:06:03.680 --> 0:06:08.360
<v Speaker 3>of supreme interest because there are names on this draft

0:06:08.880 --> 0:06:12.080
<v Speaker 3>and they're all redacted, they're all blacked out. So this

0:06:12.279 --> 0:06:15.320
<v Speaker 3>was one of these specific files that this independent journalist

0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:21.680
<v Speaker 3>was asking for. The DOJ's explanation for not or for

0:06:21.960 --> 0:06:27.920
<v Speaker 3>unredacting those names. They can't find the unredacted versions. They

0:06:28.000 --> 0:06:33.880
<v Speaker 3>literally said, they are unable to locate an unredacted version of.

0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:37.039
<v Speaker 4>This specific photocopy. That was their response.

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:40.440
<v Speaker 1>That's a better answer than I usually expect. So they

0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:43.880
<v Speaker 1>can't find it. I believe I O the dog ate

0:06:43.920 --> 0:06:44.520
<v Speaker 1>my homework.

0:06:45.320 --> 0:06:49.120
<v Speaker 3>Literally, the document that most people, I think a lot

0:06:49.200 --> 0:06:52.160
<v Speaker 3>of folks have been focused on, that's the one document

0:06:52.520 --> 0:06:55.920
<v Speaker 3>they can't find with the names unredacted.

0:06:56.120 --> 0:06:58.200
<v Speaker 4>You, I mean, what are you going to say.

0:06:58.320 --> 0:07:01.240
<v Speaker 3>We can say bs, we can say we don't believe it,

0:07:01.680 --> 0:07:03.800
<v Speaker 3>But how do you prove that they can't find it?

0:07:04.440 --> 0:07:06.400
<v Speaker 1>You can't. It doesn't matter what they say. It just

0:07:06.440 --> 0:07:08.719
<v Speaker 1>doesn't matter. They can produce the document right now and

0:07:08.760 --> 0:07:10.520
<v Speaker 1>somebody's gonna look at it and say, oops, it looks

0:07:10.520 --> 0:07:12.480
<v Speaker 1>like a name was erased. Who was the other one

0:07:12.480 --> 0:07:14.800
<v Speaker 1>that was supposed to be on here? It will never.

0:07:14.840 --> 0:07:17.280
<v Speaker 3>End, but with some names, at least there would be

0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:20.920
<v Speaker 3>some some accountability or at least some transparency.

0:07:20.960 --> 0:07:23.480
<v Speaker 1>But there's not because you see a name on this thing.

0:07:23.520 --> 0:07:25.600
<v Speaker 1>But somebody who gets thrown into this and gets accused

0:07:25.640 --> 0:07:27.280
<v Speaker 1>of something who had nothing to do with nothing, or

0:07:27.400 --> 0:07:30.840
<v Speaker 1>maybe never was accused, never was a part of that part.

0:07:30.880 --> 0:07:35.400
<v Speaker 1>I understand, everybody understands. But this is just the story.

0:07:35.480 --> 0:07:42.000
<v Speaker 1>It's just it's just ballooned into this non stop trickle

0:07:42.240 --> 0:07:48.240
<v Speaker 1>and circus that will never be satisfied. So yes, this document, Yes,

0:07:48.360 --> 0:07:50.360
<v Speaker 1>hand it over, and what's going to happen. It will

0:07:50.440 --> 0:07:52.840
<v Speaker 1>need to the next thing that we didn't get in

0:07:52.880 --> 0:07:54.040
<v Speaker 1>the next thing. I just.

0:07:56.080 --> 0:07:58.880
<v Speaker 3>Going on millions of documents that haven't been released. That

0:07:59.000 --> 0:08:01.280
<v Speaker 3>is what is going to happen. But now, the other

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:05.280
<v Speaker 3>big document that folks wanted to look at were the

0:08:05.320 --> 0:08:09.240
<v Speaker 3>redactions to the interview notes of this Trump accuser. These

0:08:09.280 --> 0:08:12.840
<v Speaker 3>were the unsubstantiated sexual assault claims by a woman who

0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:16.720
<v Speaker 3>claims that and again unsubstantiated claims that President Trump, not

0:08:16.760 --> 0:08:20.480
<v Speaker 3>president at the time, assaulted her when she was thirteen

0:08:20.600 --> 0:08:24.320
<v Speaker 3>years old. So the reasons why they won't provide the

0:08:24.360 --> 0:08:28.360
<v Speaker 3>interview notes by the FBI is they say the materials

0:08:28.400 --> 0:08:34.920
<v Speaker 3>were deemed duplicative of the type written reports memorializing the interviews.

0:08:34.920 --> 0:08:37.560
<v Speaker 3>So here is the specific language they used. They said

0:08:37.640 --> 0:08:44.400
<v Speaker 3>their handwritten nature further complicates the redaction process and increases

0:08:44.480 --> 0:08:49.840
<v Speaker 3>the risk of inadvertent disclosure of victim because of technical

0:08:49.880 --> 0:08:54.320
<v Speaker 3>limitations on the department's ability to run meaningful quality control

0:08:54.440 --> 0:08:58.760
<v Speaker 3>checks for the victim across handwritten materials. So they're saying

0:08:58.840 --> 0:09:01.880
<v Speaker 3>it's hard for them to redacts because it's in handwriting

0:09:02.440 --> 0:09:06.280
<v Speaker 3>versus maybe using what a computer or AI to redact names.

0:09:06.760 --> 0:09:10.480
<v Speaker 3>That is their excuse for or their reasoning for not

0:09:10.720 --> 0:09:14.679
<v Speaker 3>releasing the notes of that interview of that Trumpet user.

0:09:16.280 --> 0:09:18.440
<v Speaker 4>And so that is what they had to say.

0:09:18.480 --> 0:09:24.080
<v Speaker 3>Now, they also fired back a bit in this in

0:09:24.120 --> 0:09:27.360
<v Speaker 3>this filing that they gave to the judge, they were

0:09:27.440 --> 0:09:30.000
<v Speaker 3>upset that the judge concluded because last week this was

0:09:30.040 --> 0:09:33.360
<v Speaker 3>a big headline. The judge said the DOJ has violated

0:09:33.720 --> 0:09:37.240
<v Speaker 3>the Epstein Files Transparency Act, And so they came back

0:09:37.280 --> 0:09:41.360
<v Speaker 3>swinging and said the Department has not knowingly violated, nor

0:09:41.400 --> 0:09:44.520
<v Speaker 3>has it ever acknowledged violating the Act as it continues

0:09:44.600 --> 0:09:49.920
<v Speaker 3>working to comply with statutory requirements. So look they're saying,

0:09:50.080 --> 0:09:52.720
<v Speaker 3>we did not and we have an acknowledge that we

0:09:52.760 --> 0:09:55.200
<v Speaker 3>have and basically they didn't appreciate that the judge said

0:09:55.200 --> 0:09:58.840
<v Speaker 3>they did. So that is where they are, and we

0:09:58.960 --> 0:10:00.760
<v Speaker 3>have to see how this is go work because it's

0:10:00.760 --> 0:10:03.240
<v Speaker 3>back and forth between the judge and the DOJ. And

0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:05.160
<v Speaker 3>in the middle of all of this is independent journalists.

0:10:05.200 --> 0:10:06.880
<v Speaker 3>I didn't say her name, Katie Fang. She used to

0:10:06.880 --> 0:10:10.960
<v Speaker 3>work for ms NOW. But the judge did agree that

0:10:11.160 --> 0:10:14.680
<v Speaker 3>by not having access to these materials, by only having

0:10:14.720 --> 0:10:18.920
<v Speaker 3>redacted versions of them, that she was harmed in doing

0:10:18.920 --> 0:10:22.360
<v Speaker 3>her job. So this is where things stand at this point.

0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:25.480
<v Speaker 1>I'm sure she'll still pursue it, and it's a worthy pursuit.

0:10:25.520 --> 0:10:27.760
<v Speaker 1>I mean, just release all this stuff. I mean I do.

0:10:27.800 --> 0:10:29.760
<v Speaker 1>There's some protections that need to be in there to

0:10:29.760 --> 0:10:32.640
<v Speaker 1>some degree, but it just the folks who are telling

0:10:32.679 --> 0:10:36.880
<v Speaker 1>me just be trust us. These redactions are necessary. Never

0:10:36.920 --> 0:10:38.320
<v Speaker 1>going to take care word for it.

0:10:38.840 --> 0:10:39.200
<v Speaker 4>They're not.

0:10:39.360 --> 0:10:41.160
<v Speaker 3>So when we come back, we're going to go over

0:10:41.280 --> 0:10:43.960
<v Speaker 3>just a little bit about what is missing. But I

0:10:44.080 --> 0:10:48.360
<v Speaker 3>also wanted to go over some pretty hilarious reaction from

0:10:48.440 --> 0:11:03.360
<v Speaker 3>folks in response to the Department of Justices response. Welcome

0:11:03.360 --> 0:11:05.960
<v Speaker 3>back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We're

0:11:06.000 --> 0:11:09.800
<v Speaker 3>talking about the Department of Justice. Their response to that

0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:12.640
<v Speaker 3>deadline that a judge set last week that they had

0:11:12.720 --> 0:11:19.000
<v Speaker 3>to basically produce all of these unredacted Epstein files based

0:11:19.040 --> 0:11:22.680
<v Speaker 3>on a lawsuit file by an independent journalist, Katie Fang,

0:11:22.960 --> 0:11:26.040
<v Speaker 3>And the DOJ said, Hey, give us sixty more days

0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:30.400
<v Speaker 3>or accept our excuses or our reasons I shouldn't say excuses,

0:11:30.440 --> 0:11:35.400
<v Speaker 3>our reasoning behind these necessary redactions. And look just for

0:11:35.520 --> 0:11:38.040
<v Speaker 3>the perspective of this all, the Department of Justice released

0:11:38.320 --> 0:11:42.679
<v Speaker 3>three and a half million pages of documents. Much of

0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:47.320
<v Speaker 3>those pages are heavily redacted, the DOJ says, primarily to

0:11:47.400 --> 0:11:51.120
<v Speaker 3>protect victims, but they will withheld another two and a

0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:55.360
<v Speaker 3>half million pages. And so the outcry is the DOJ

0:11:55.679 --> 0:11:59.160
<v Speaker 3>must be predecting, protecting the rich and the powerful people

0:11:59.559 --> 0:12:04.000
<v Speaker 3>who are mentioned but redacted in files. Do you buy

0:12:04.000 --> 0:12:06.360
<v Speaker 3>any of that? How many people do you think actually

0:12:06.360 --> 0:12:08.800
<v Speaker 3>believe that. I think quite a large amount of people

0:12:08.880 --> 0:12:09.680
<v Speaker 3>believe that.

0:12:10.760 --> 0:12:14.240
<v Speaker 1>There are very legitimate reasons to redact this stuff. You

0:12:14.240 --> 0:12:18.439
<v Speaker 1>have a credibility problem, that's all. That's all. And there

0:12:18.480 --> 0:12:23.280
<v Speaker 1>is no victim who trusts the Department of Justice to

0:12:23.320 --> 0:12:28.880
<v Speaker 1>be good stewards of their identities, of their stories, of

0:12:28.920 --> 0:12:34.360
<v Speaker 1>their information of anything. So the very group that the

0:12:34.440 --> 0:12:37.920
<v Speaker 1>victims are going after for not protecting them, that group

0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:41.120
<v Speaker 1>just can't raise their hand now legally and for the

0:12:41.120 --> 0:12:43.240
<v Speaker 1>purpose of a core proceeding to say we are here

0:12:43.280 --> 0:12:45.440
<v Speaker 1>to protect victims. It's doesn't work.

0:12:45.559 --> 0:12:46.360
<v Speaker 4>It's so true.

0:12:46.400 --> 0:12:50.040
<v Speaker 3>I like how you said they're not basically trustworthy stewards

0:12:50.240 --> 0:12:54.560
<v Speaker 3>of that information and at issue some of these redacted

0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:59.679
<v Speaker 3>names that this particular journalist, Katie Fang wants, and I

0:13:00.040 --> 0:13:03.120
<v Speaker 3>this is where I don't understand how the DOJ can

0:13:03.400 --> 0:13:08.320
<v Speaker 3>say this is protecting victims because they want the names

0:13:08.320 --> 0:13:12.960
<v Speaker 3>of the senders and recipients. In email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein.

0:13:13.040 --> 0:13:16.320
<v Speaker 3>Those senders and recipients have been blacked out, including a

0:13:16.320 --> 0:13:19.400
<v Speaker 3>specific email about a torture video and sexual activity with

0:13:19.480 --> 0:13:23.320
<v Speaker 3>young women and miners. So look, they blacked out who

0:13:23.360 --> 0:13:25.360
<v Speaker 3>sent them, who received them. But these were back and

0:13:25.400 --> 0:13:29.520
<v Speaker 3>forth emails between Jeffrey Epstein and we don't know, but

0:13:29.720 --> 0:13:32.280
<v Speaker 3>certainly describing criminal activities.

0:13:32.360 --> 0:13:34.280
<v Speaker 4>So that is why folks.

0:13:33.960 --> 0:13:38.280
<v Speaker 3>Want the names of folks who were corresponding with Epstein

0:13:38.400 --> 0:13:43.160
<v Speaker 3>about illegal horrific acts. So look, we'll see how the

0:13:43.240 --> 0:13:45.480
<v Speaker 3>judge reacts to this, but there certainly has been a

0:13:45.480 --> 0:13:51.080
<v Speaker 3>reaction from people upon Todd Blanche's response, this is one

0:13:51.080 --> 0:13:54.560
<v Speaker 3>of my favorites. Maybe send it over covered in a tarp.

0:13:57.240 --> 0:14:01.200
<v Speaker 3>Else someone else said, just say it's in connection to

0:14:01.240 --> 0:14:03.280
<v Speaker 3>the reflective pool sabotage.

0:14:04.200 --> 0:14:04.920
<v Speaker 1>See that one coming.

0:14:05.440 --> 0:14:09.280
<v Speaker 3>And then someone said this, the only appropriate reactions are

0:14:09.400 --> 0:14:13.560
<v Speaker 3>victim names, period. So look, you know people, as you

0:14:13.640 --> 0:14:17.040
<v Speaker 3>pointed out, it's the stewards, it's the folks who are

0:14:17.400 --> 0:14:21.040
<v Speaker 3>saying they're protecting the victims, who are protecting some of

0:14:21.080 --> 0:14:24.560
<v Speaker 3>these files. And look, when you have other stories out

0:14:24.560 --> 0:14:27.120
<v Speaker 3>there like the tarp and the reflecting, well people made

0:14:27.200 --> 0:14:29.560
<v Speaker 3>jokes about the Kennedy Center and take the name down,

0:14:29.720 --> 0:14:31.600
<v Speaker 3>like maybe put it up on the Kennedy Center like

0:14:32.040 --> 0:14:36.640
<v Speaker 3>it's just they have a credibility problem with the American people, period.

0:14:37.400 --> 0:14:40.280
<v Speaker 3>And that is where we stand right now. And we'll

0:14:40.320 --> 0:14:43.880
<v Speaker 3>see how a judge decides to pursue this based on

0:14:44.760 --> 0:14:48.960
<v Speaker 3>Todd Blanche's response. It continues, and as you point out,

0:14:49.280 --> 0:14:54.160
<v Speaker 3>it likely will until the end of time. All right,

0:14:54.200 --> 0:14:56.840
<v Speaker 3>And with that everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us.

0:14:56.840 --> 0:14:58.800
<v Speaker 3>I'm Amy Robot alongside TJ.

0:14:58.880 --> 0:14:59.960
<v Speaker 4>Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.

0:15:01.440 --> 0:15:03.120
<v Speaker 1>The catcher pas