Speaker 1: Hey, that folks.
Speaker 2: It is Friday, July third, and the Department of Justice
Speaker 2: had a Thursday, July second deadline to produce Epstein files
Speaker 2: unredacted or if you don't at least explain to the
Speaker 2: judge why you haven't released him, what option do you
Speaker 2: think they went with?
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and
Speaker 1: tj Epstein files. We're told they were all released, and
Speaker 1: they we're told there are tons more now. People want
Speaker 1: to see them, they want to see them unredacted, and
Speaker 1: they're not going to see them yet at least at least.
Speaker 3: Yes, we haven't gotten a response from the judge as
Speaker 3: of yet. But did you actually think there would be
Speaker 3: any other outcome other than this when that deadline was
Speaker 3: made by that judge last week? Did anyone actually believe
Speaker 3: the dj is going to say, okay, let me go
Speaker 3: ahead and just unredact these files.
Speaker 1: No, No, I don't think anybody was anticipating that. Todd
Speaker 1: Blanche did exactly what everybody expected him to do, which
Speaker 1: was to be, in their minds, a good soldier for
Speaker 1: President Trump and keep certain things hidden from the public.
Speaker 1: So that's always going to be the line that goes
Speaker 1: along it doesn't matter what he does. He could let
Speaker 1: the entire public into the Department of Justice say knock
Speaker 1: yourself out, go through any computer you want, here's some logins.
Speaker 1: Nobody's gonna believe it. You can do whatever you want
Speaker 1: with the up thing fire.
Speaker 4: That would be a start.
Speaker 1: No, it won't. It's just going to lead to more controversy.
Speaker 1: This is just what this is. There's no real transparency,
Speaker 1: there never will be, and no one will ever believe
Speaker 1: it on.
Speaker 3: This well, and it's there's nothing to believe right now
Speaker 3: because we can't see what we can't see. And it
Speaker 3: was just a few hours before that deadline occurred that
Speaker 3: Todd Blanche the Department of Justice actually asked the judge
Speaker 3: to delay the deadline for sixty days or accept their
Speaker 3: reasons for withholding. Those were the two options the dj
Speaker 3: gave back to the judge.
Speaker 4: So they offered to share. This was the other caveat.
Speaker 3: They offered to share some additional materials in camera, which
Speaker 3: is a legal term for a behind closed door meeting
Speaker 3: with the judge.
Speaker 4: So again, not transparent.
Speaker 3: We'll do some more explaining, but behind closed doors that's
Speaker 3: probably not going to go a long way for folks
Speaker 3: to feel like we've gotten the full truth, and so yes,
Speaker 3: that is where we stand right now. I find I
Speaker 3: believe at least, Look, they went through and gave reasons
Speaker 3: for several of these specific documents that were asked by
Speaker 3: from an independent journalist, and some of the explanations, what
Speaker 3: did you make of them?
Speaker 1: I buy them? Legally, Yes, I would listen to anybody
Speaker 1: except this Department of Justice about it, just because of
Speaker 1: the track record. Now, not insulting anybody, I'm just saying
Speaker 1: the track record, nobody's ever going to believe anything this
Speaker 1: department is about the Epstein file. So it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what reason they could have given. The dog ate my
Speaker 1: homework is just as good of an excuse as there's
Speaker 1: a legal reason.
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter, And one of what you just said
Speaker 3: is kind of what one of the excuses was. Look,
Speaker 3: I think I feel like this is a fair assessment
Speaker 3: to make. Most Americans, if not all Americans, understand why victims'
Speaker 3: names need to be redacted. So that isn't really Yes,
Speaker 3: we understand no one wants to out a victim of
Speaker 3: sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein if they don't want to
Speaker 3: be known. Don't you feel like that's something that that
Speaker 3: doesn't even need to be defended at this point.
Speaker 1: The problem is the messenger. We don't trust who is
Speaker 1: in charge, the gatekeeper. That's the problem. Yes, we all
Speaker 1: get on board with, but that we don't trust the gatekeepers,
Speaker 1: and the gatekeepers have earned that reputation.
Speaker 4: That's a fair way to put it.
Speaker 3: Yes, so, Yes, One of their excuses is some of
Speaker 3: the emails redacted are to protect the names of victim. Okay,
Speaker 3: I think that's we all accept that. Here is where
Speaker 3: it gets tricky. So the DOJ said the one email
Speaker 3: that had information withheld because they claim many communications written
Speaker 3: by victims without context can appear disturbing on their face.
Speaker 4: Huh.
Speaker 1: Again, it doesn't matter what reason they give. Yes, disturbing, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's I believe that if you just release something with
Speaker 1: somebody's name attached to it without the understanding or full background, Yes,
Speaker 1: it puts out whatever. Now the judge, it's up to him.
Speaker 1: I'll listen to him. Or whether or not he says
Speaker 1: that is a substantial or legitimate legal argument to make,
Speaker 1: I don't know. But again, we're just reading one line
Speaker 1: and one excerpt from what their reasoning was.
Speaker 3: Yes, so look, so That is one of their justifications
Speaker 3: for redactions that they don't want to put out victims
Speaker 3: accusations against I'm assuming other people other than Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 3: without context. But that is kind of the whole point
Speaker 3: of folks wanting answers. They want names, they want to
Speaker 3: know who else has been implicated. Here's the one for
Speaker 3: me that really raised eyebrows.
Speaker 4: This is the big one.
Speaker 3: There is a draft indictment back in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 3: This is when Epstein was initially well. He got a
Speaker 3: slap on the wrist for having sex with underage with minors,
Speaker 3: and he just had home confinement. He could go about
Speaker 3: his business. This has been a huge point of contention.
Speaker 1: Wait, this is the one. He spent thirteen months in jail.
Speaker 1: Did he know he did?
Speaker 3: But then he got to Then he got to but
Speaker 3: it was like jail in quotes, he had a lot
Speaker 3: of leeway to come and go. He had like the
Speaker 3: ability to leave. Folks have said this was a ridiculous
Speaker 3: punishment for some serious crimes. So there was a draft
Speaker 3: indictment that had names, other names of potential co conspirators
Speaker 3: or who could become co defendants. This draft has been
Speaker 3: of supreme interest because there are names on this draft
Speaker 3: and they're all redacted, they're all blacked out. So this
Speaker 3: was one of these specific files that this independent journalist
Speaker 3: was asking for. The DOJ's explanation for not or for
Speaker 3: unredacting those names. They can't find the unredacted versions. They
Speaker 3: literally said, they are unable to locate an unredacted version of.
Speaker 4: This specific photocopy. That was their response.
Speaker 1: That's a better answer than I usually expect. So they
Speaker 1: can't find it. I believe I O the dog ate
Speaker 1: my homework.
Speaker 3: Literally, the document that most people, I think a lot
Speaker 3: of folks have been focused on, that's the one document
Speaker 3: they can't find with the names unredacted.
Speaker 4: You, I mean, what are you going to say.
Speaker 3: We can say bs, we can say we don't believe it,
Speaker 3: But how do you prove that they can't find it?
Speaker 1: You can't. It doesn't matter what they say. It just
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. They can produce the document right now and
Speaker 1: somebody's gonna look at it and say, oops, it looks
Speaker 1: like a name was erased. Who was the other one
Speaker 1: that was supposed to be on here? It will never.
Speaker 3: End, but with some names, at least there would be
Speaker 3: some some accountability or at least some transparency.
Speaker 1: But there's not because you see a name on this thing.
Speaker 1: But somebody who gets thrown into this and gets accused
Speaker 1: of something who had nothing to do with nothing, or
Speaker 1: maybe never was accused, never was a part of that part.
Speaker 1: I understand, everybody understands. But this is just the story.
Speaker 1: It's just it's just ballooned into this non stop trickle
Speaker 1: and circus that will never be satisfied. So yes, this document, Yes,
Speaker 1: hand it over, and what's going to happen. It will
Speaker 1: need to the next thing that we didn't get in
Speaker 1: the next thing. I just.
Speaker 3: Going on millions of documents that haven't been released. That
Speaker 3: is what is going to happen. But now, the other
Speaker 3: big document that folks wanted to look at were the
Speaker 3: redactions to the interview notes of this Trump accuser. These
Speaker 3: were the unsubstantiated sexual assault claims by a woman who
Speaker 3: claims that and again unsubstantiated claims that President Trump, not
Speaker 3: president at the time, assaulted her when she was thirteen
Speaker 3: years old. So the reasons why they won't provide the
Speaker 3: interview notes by the FBI is they say the materials
Speaker 3: were deemed duplicative of the type written reports memorializing the interviews.
Speaker 3: So here is the specific language they used. They said
Speaker 3: their handwritten nature further complicates the redaction process and increases
Speaker 3: the risk of inadvertent disclosure of victim because of technical
Speaker 3: limitations on the department's ability to run meaningful quality control
Speaker 3: checks for the victim across handwritten materials. So they're saying
Speaker 3: it's hard for them to redacts because it's in handwriting
Speaker 3: versus maybe using what a computer or AI to redact names.
Speaker 3: That is their excuse for or their reasoning for not
Speaker 3: releasing the notes of that interview of that Trumpet user.
Speaker 4: And so that is what they had to say.
Speaker 3: Now, they also fired back a bit in this in
Speaker 3: this filing that they gave to the judge, they were
Speaker 3: upset that the judge concluded because last week this was
Speaker 3: a big headline. The judge said the DOJ has violated
Speaker 3: the Epstein Files Transparency Act, And so they came back
Speaker 3: swinging and said the Department has not knowingly violated, nor
Speaker 3: has it ever acknowledged violating the Act as it continues
Speaker 3: working to comply with statutory requirements. So look they're saying,
Speaker 3: we did not and we have an acknowledge that we
Speaker 3: have and basically they didn't appreciate that the judge said
Speaker 3: they did. So that is where they are, and we
Speaker 3: have to see how this is go work because it's
Speaker 3: back and forth between the judge and the DOJ. And
Speaker 3: in the middle of all of this is independent journalists.
Speaker 3: I didn't say her name, Katie Fang. She used to
Speaker 3: work for ms NOW. But the judge did agree that
Speaker 3: by not having access to these materials, by only having
Speaker 3: redacted versions of them, that she was harmed in doing
Speaker 3: her job. So this is where things stand at this point.
Speaker 1: I'm sure she'll still pursue it, and it's a worthy pursuit.
Speaker 1: I mean, just release all this stuff. I mean I do.
Speaker 1: There's some protections that need to be in there to
Speaker 1: some degree, but it just the folks who are telling
Speaker 1: me just be trust us. These redactions are necessary. Never
Speaker 1: going to take care word for it.
Speaker 4: They're not.
Speaker 3: So when we come back, we're going to go over
Speaker 3: just a little bit about what is missing. But I
Speaker 3: also wanted to go over some pretty hilarious reaction from
Speaker 3: folks in response to the Department of Justices response. Welcome
Speaker 3: back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We're
Speaker 3: talking about the Department of Justice. Their response to that
Speaker 3: deadline that a judge set last week that they had
Speaker 3: to basically produce all of these unredacted Epstein files based
Speaker 3: on a lawsuit file by an independent journalist, Katie Fang,
Speaker 3: And the DOJ said, Hey, give us sixty more days
Speaker 3: or accept our excuses or our reasons I shouldn't say excuses,
Speaker 3: our reasoning behind these necessary redactions. And look just for
Speaker 3: the perspective of this all, the Department of Justice released
Speaker 3: three and a half million pages of documents. Much of
Speaker 3: those pages are heavily redacted, the DOJ says, primarily to
Speaker 3: protect victims, but they will withheld another two and a
Speaker 3: half million pages. And so the outcry is the DOJ
Speaker 3: must be predecting, protecting the rich and the powerful people
Speaker 3: who are mentioned but redacted in files. Do you buy
Speaker 3: any of that? How many people do you think actually
Speaker 3: believe that. I think quite a large amount of people
Speaker 3: believe that.
Speaker 1: There are very legitimate reasons to redact this stuff. You
Speaker 1: have a credibility problem, that's all. That's all. And there
Speaker 1: is no victim who trusts the Department of Justice to
Speaker 1: be good stewards of their identities, of their stories, of
Speaker 1: their information of anything. So the very group that the
Speaker 1: victims are going after for not protecting them, that group
Speaker 1: just can't raise their hand now legally and for the
Speaker 1: purpose of a core proceeding to say we are here
Speaker 1: to protect victims. It's doesn't work.
Speaker 4: It's so true.
Speaker 3: I like how you said they're not basically trustworthy stewards
Speaker 3: of that information and at issue some of these redacted
Speaker 3: names that this particular journalist, Katie Fang wants, and I
Speaker 3: this is where I don't understand how the DOJ can
Speaker 3: say this is protecting victims because they want the names
Speaker 3: of the senders and recipients. In email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 3: Those senders and recipients have been blacked out, including a
Speaker 3: specific email about a torture video and sexual activity with
Speaker 3: young women and miners. So look, they blacked out who
Speaker 3: sent them, who received them. But these were back and
Speaker 3: forth emails between Jeffrey Epstein and we don't know, but
Speaker 3: certainly describing criminal activities.
Speaker 4: So that is why folks.
Speaker 3: Want the names of folks who were corresponding with Epstein
Speaker 3: about illegal horrific acts. So look, we'll see how the
Speaker 3: judge reacts to this, but there certainly has been a
Speaker 3: reaction from people upon Todd Blanche's response, this is one
Speaker 3: of my favorites. Maybe send it over covered in a tarp.
Speaker 3: Else someone else said, just say it's in connection to
Speaker 3: the reflective pool sabotage.
Speaker 1: See that one coming.
Speaker 3: And then someone said this, the only appropriate reactions are
Speaker 3: victim names, period. So look, you know people, as you
Speaker 3: pointed out, it's the stewards, it's the folks who are
Speaker 3: saying they're protecting the victims, who are protecting some of
Speaker 3: these files. And look, when you have other stories out
Speaker 3: there like the tarp and the reflecting, well people made
Speaker 3: jokes about the Kennedy Center and take the name down,
Speaker 3: like maybe put it up on the Kennedy Center like
Speaker 3: it's just they have a credibility problem with the American people, period.
Speaker 3: And that is where we stand right now. And we'll
Speaker 3: see how a judge decides to pursue this based on
Speaker 3: Todd Blanche's response. It continues, and as you point out,
Speaker 3: it likely will until the end of time. All right,
Speaker 3: And with that everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us.
Speaker 3: I'm Amy Robot alongside TJ.
Speaker 4: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: The catcher pas