Speaker 1: I want to say in the record here that the
Speaker 1: subject line of the calendar invite for this recording session
Speaker 1: is feya callen Epstein slash Santa. It makes me wonder like,
Speaker 1: wouldn't that just be the ultimate kick in the face
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty five that Santa Claus is on the
Speaker 1: Epstein list.
Speaker 2: Well, for the record, we're not talking about Santa right
Speaker 2: this second. That's a different episode. I want to talk
Speaker 2: about how the FBI turned over dozens of emails to
Speaker 2: me that revealed details about how hundreds of the Bureau's
Speaker 2: special agents and personnel from the Freedom of Information Act
Speaker 2: Office reviewed and processed the Epstein files earlier this year.
Speaker 2: Plus the best chance forgetting the Epstein files released. Let's go.
Speaker 2: I'm investigative journalist Jason Leopold. I spend most of my
Speaker 2: days getting documents from the government.
Speaker 1: I'm attorney Matt Tapik, and I fight them in court
Speaker 1: to open their files when they don't want to.
Speaker 2: From Bloomberg and no smiling, this is Disclosure, a podcast
Speaker 2: about buying loose government secrets, the Freedom of Information Act,
Speaker 2: and the the unexpected places that takes us. Now, before
Speaker 2: we get into the documents, I recently pried loose and
Speaker 2: the rest of it. Let's just recap what happened in
Speaker 2: Epstein Land these last few weeks, so, Matt. Congress has
Speaker 2: now passed a bill which is called the Epstein Files
Speaker 2: Transparency Act, that compels the Department of Justice to release
Speaker 2: their files on Jeffrey Epstein within thirty days, and President
Speaker 2: Trump has already signed that into law.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I thought that the speculation about would Trump sign
Speaker 1: it or out. What's kind of funny is like he
Speaker 1: has the power himself to order get doj to release this.
Speaker 1: He doesn't need Congress in order to do that. It
Speaker 1: seems like it's taking an act of Congress to make
Speaker 1: them do it. But it always felt a little weird
Speaker 1: to me, like he's signing a bill that's saying do
Speaker 1: what you ought to be doing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he could have released this at any time by
Speaker 2: just calling for the Justice Department to release it, which
Speaker 2: is exactly what he has done on other high profile
Speaker 2: political matters earlier this year.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has just said that he is going to
Speaker 1: release the files around the death of President JFK tomorrow.
Speaker 2: The Trump administration has gone public with more than two
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty thousand pages of records related to doctor
Speaker 2: Martin Luther King Junior's assassination. But what's interesting about this
Speaker 2: the Cepstein Transparency Act is what it allows the Justice
Speaker 2: Department to do, and it allows them to withhold certain information,
Speaker 2: particularly information within these files that could interfere with an
Speaker 2: ongoing law enforcement investigation, which in foyle Land Matt we
Speaker 2: like to refer to as the B seven A, well.
Speaker 1: B seven A, but the investigations that would be the
Speaker 1: predicate for that or what like. The President had requested
Speaker 1: that Attorney General Pambindi opened some investigations into Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: and some other Democrats or democratsretically inclined people, people that
Speaker 1: I believe the truth Social Post or whatever it was
Speaker 1: he posted it in like specifically referred to Democrats. So
Speaker 1: just openly saying I want you to investigate some Democrats
Speaker 1: about this, and.
Speaker 2: Not surprisingly they they're going to do that, it seemed.
Speaker 2: But that directive by Trump came one week prior to
Speaker 2: the passage of this bill, and what we don't know
Speaker 2: is what does an investigation like that look like? What
Speaker 2: are they going to investigate? So Trump delivering this directive
Speaker 2: via truth Social to Pambondi, so that means that you know,
Speaker 2: whatever Epstein files they may have that relate to these
Speaker 2: folks could arguably be withheld.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I think that if they pull that,
Speaker 1: like I mean, there's a lot of angry people already
Speaker 1: about all this. If they now are pull the rug
Speaker 1: out again and say, oh, you know, hardly release anything
Speaker 1: because of these ongoing investigations, I don't know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen. I think there's going to be a lot
Speaker 1: of people that are going to be very upset about that.
Speaker 2: So, Matt, this kind of gets at a fundamental question
Speaker 2: when we talk about the release of the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: When we say Epstein files, what are we actually talking about.
Speaker 2: This is a guy who is investigated by federal authorities
Speaker 2: starting around the mid two thousands. He signed a controversial
Speaker 2: plea deal and did some light prison time, and then
Speaker 2: he was arrested again in twenty nineteen and accused of
Speaker 2: sex trafficking miners. And the idea is that those investigations
Speaker 2: threw up a lot of paperwork, presumably about interviews with victims, evidence,
Speaker 2: names of associates and co conspirators. So now with the
Speaker 2: Epstein Files Transparency Act, there's going to be a lot
Speaker 2: of discussion of what gets released and what may get withheld.
Speaker 2: So the point of this, Matt, is that over the
Speaker 2: past year, I've been doing some document requests and following
Speaker 2: some other FOYA actions related to Epstein, and it all
Speaker 2: helps us get a handle on what's in the Epstein
Speaker 2: files and how the government has been handling them. And
Speaker 2: as you know, Matt, this has been building since Trump
Speaker 2: took office again in January. A lot of Trump's supporters
Speaker 2: want this information out in the public, and Trump seemed
Speaker 2: to say during the campaign that he'd do that, but
Speaker 2: by the summer that was looking less likely. So in July,
Speaker 2: the Justice Department and FBI released a joint statement that said,
Speaker 2: it is the determination of the Department of Justice and
Speaker 2: the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would
Speaker 2: be appropriate or warranted. Q. The outrage, Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right, I mean, there are a lot of people for
Speaker 1: whom this is the most important issue in American politics
Speaker 1: right now. Well, and you're just telling them, yeah, we
Speaker 1: changed our mind, there's nothing to see here, move on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And this is the biggest political story of the year.
Speaker 2: So earlier this year I found a wide ranging Foyer
Speaker 2: request for everything related to the processing of the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: I was really interested in how the records were processed,
Speaker 2: and I was even more interested did within the context
Speaker 2: of how everything went down with the rollout of the
Speaker 2: Epstein files earlier this year. What I was hoping was
Speaker 2: to get a look at what was going on behind
Speaker 2: closed doors with the Epstein records going back to the
Speaker 2: beginning of the new administration. And remember, Matt just a
Speaker 2: few weeks after Trump was inaugurated back in February, his
Speaker 2: brand new Attorney General, Pam Bondi, calls a group of
Speaker 2: right wing influencers to the White House for an event
Speaker 2: because she has something to give them. They walked out
Speaker 2: of the White House holding binders and hands them binders.
Speaker 2: Look at what we got today, Let's say Epstein Files
Speaker 2: Phase one. See that right there, that's the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: Bondy has this kind of grand rollout, and so shortly thereafter,
Speaker 2: I mean, I want to say more like I'm almost
Speaker 2: immediately thereafter, the MAGA crowd goes nuts. We frankly assumed
Speaker 2: this had at least some smoking guns. And now it's
Speaker 2: a backlash. That's not what's in this binder at all.
Speaker 2: It's a backlash against Bondi. It's a backlash against the FBI.
Speaker 1: It is the biggest disappointment I think that you'll.
Speaker 2: Find, because it turns out that these documents that were
Speaker 2: in the binder had been previously released in court cases
Speaker 2: and previously released by the FBI. So it ignited a firestorm.
Speaker 1: This is kind of their own folks, right, they invite
Speaker 1: all these people that are kind of from the MAGA world,
Speaker 1: and they do they think they're so stupid that they're
Speaker 1: not going to realize that these documents have already be
Speaker 1: outed and out there. I mean, of course folks are
Speaker 1: going to pick over every document. And like, I was
Speaker 1: this just incompetence or was it? Did they were they
Speaker 1: trying to pull a fast one? Or well I don't
Speaker 1: think they actually pulled a fast one.
Speaker 2: I don't. I just don't think they actually even looked
Speaker 2: at any of the files they were going to release.
Speaker 2: And so what happened after that is Bondi, who had
Speaker 2: been really embarrassed by this, fires off a letter a
Speaker 2: letter to FBI Director Cash Paatel the AG demanding the
Speaker 2: release of the bureau's full and complete Epstein files.
Speaker 1: So she's throwing Cash Patel kind of under the bus here, like, hey,
Speaker 1: what are you guys doing.
Speaker 2: This stuff has already been released exactly, and she kind
Speaker 2: of blamed him for this. She says, I repeatedly questioned
Speaker 2: whether this was the full set of documents responsive to
Speaker 2: my request, and as she later explains on Fox.
Speaker 3: News, you're looking at these documents, going, these aren't all
Speaker 3: the Epstein files.
Speaker 2: Bondi's letter to Patel goes on to say that she
Speaker 2: knows there are more Epstein documents. She writes she has
Speaker 2: a source in the FBI field office in New York
Speaker 2: who told her so, and.
Speaker 3: So a source said, ohoh, all this evidence is sitting
Speaker 3: in the Southern District of New York's shock.
Speaker 2: So she then tells Cash Ptel that he has until
Speaker 2: February twenty eighth to have the FBI deliver the full
Speaker 2: and complete Epstein files to her office.
Speaker 3: And we got hopefully all of them Friday at eight am,
Speaker 3: thousands of pages of documents.
Speaker 2: And she goes on to say that she wants a
Speaker 2: full investigation as to why her order to the FBI
Speaker 2: originally wasn't followed.
Speaker 3: Cash is going to get me and himself really a
Speaker 3: detailed report as to why all these documents and evidence
Speaker 3: had been withheld, and you know, we're going to go
Speaker 3: through it, go through it as fast as we can.
Speaker 2: So, Matt, as you know, I actually asked for that
Speaker 2: detailed report, but they withheld it under a FOYA exemption.
Speaker 2: But as I reported earlier this year for Bloomberg, after
Speaker 2: all this happens, cash Ptel directs FBI agents from the
Speaker 2: New York Field Office, the Washington d C. Field Office,
Speaker 2: and personnel from the Records Information Dissemination Section or RIZ.
Speaker 2: Those are the folks that process FOYER requests. And they
Speaker 2: were all holed up in a facility in Virginia which
Speaker 2: is called the Central Records Complex. So what do I
Speaker 2: mean by processing. Well, when reviewing doc documents for a
Speaker 2: ventral release, FOYA officers have to determine what can be
Speaker 2: released and what needs to be withheld using nine exemptions
Speaker 2: under the FOYA. For example, they would withhold information based
Speaker 2: on someone's personal privacy or an ongoing investigation. And they
Speaker 2: begin processing these EPSTEIN files right they're they're they're pulling
Speaker 2: all nighters, they're you know, working twenty hour shifts just
Speaker 2: to process the Epstein files. So I was really interested
Speaker 2: in what was taking place. Behind the scenes, you know,
Speaker 2: how these requests were processed, how much money they spent
Speaker 2: on FBI personnel.
Speaker 1: So this is like a this is like a meta request,
Speaker 1: right like you're you're trying to get it's a foya
Speaker 1: about a foya. Yes, So most agencies, as they're processing requests,
Speaker 1: they have some kind of a database that they keep
Speaker 1: track of all the steps received, request forwarded to analyst,
Speaker 1: analyst rans search forty two thousand, search results narrowed with
Speaker 1: search terms sent, extension, letter to request, or like all
Speaker 1: those little details from a lot of agencies get tracked
Speaker 1: in some kind of a centralized database, and we usually
Speaker 1: refer to those as processing.
Speaker 2: Those And that's informative because you sort of learn how
Speaker 2: these requests are processed and maybe even you know, learn
Speaker 2: about a record keeping system. So I find that to
Speaker 2: be good information to get insight into how the agency
Speaker 2: is handling a foyer request.
Speaker 1: It kind of reminds me of like the updates or
Speaker 1: texts I get from United Airlines about what's going on
Speaker 1: with my checked bag. Like it'll say like it's like
Speaker 1: through the screening, you've been loaded onto the plane. It's
Speaker 1: like it's on the cart, you know. Yeah, but about
Speaker 1: way more detail than that.
Speaker 2: So I filed multiple Foyer requests over the summer, and
Speaker 2: then Bloomberg sued to compel the really piece of these records,
Speaker 2: and recently the FBI released about sixty pages of emails
Speaker 2: and other documents I asked for related to the processing
Speaker 2: in the Epstein files. So what do you get. We
Speaker 2: have a bunch of emails and they're kind of heavily redacted,
Speaker 2: but there is still a lot of info in here,
Speaker 2: and there's some real interesting takeaways here.
Speaker 1: So let's go through the timeline here. So where does
Speaker 1: the story of the emails begin.
Speaker 2: It begins in March, early March twenty twenty five this year.
Speaker 2: There's an email here from the assistant director of the
Speaker 2: Information Management Division stated March tenth, and it says that
Speaker 2: we are prepared to receive boxes tomorrow as New York
Speaker 2: agents are traveling to the Washington Field office in the
Speaker 2: morning and will arrive to Winchester, that's the location of
Speaker 2: the Central Records Complex, where they will start photographing and
Speaker 2: we will start scanning and processing the physical files. Why
Speaker 2: do you think that they were photographing the files?
Speaker 1: Well, that's interesting because like regular paper documents, you would
Speaker 1: think they would just scan them, you wouldn't need to
Speaker 1: photograph them. It suggests that potentially there's some things that
Speaker 1: aren't like documents, Like there could be physical evidence, right,
Speaker 1: there could be a.
Speaker 2: Right, it could be anything. It could be a beer bottle,
Speaker 2: it could be a hair brush, you know whatever.
Speaker 1: Yeah, they might be taking photos of those physical items
Speaker 1: that you can't scan, but we're just kind of guessing
Speaker 1: at that at least for now.
Speaker 2: Yeah. The email goes on to say, once I see
Speaker 2: the volume, I'll have a better estimate of processing times.
Speaker 2: Although I suggest we do a rolling delivery to further
Speaker 2: demonstrate the FBI's commitment to delivery and transparency. Yeah. Interesting,
Speaker 2: I mean, I think that's just funny because the FBI
Speaker 2: wants to demonstrate to the DOJ that its commitment to transparency.
Speaker 2: It also says, by the way, in this email, and
Speaker 2: again this very early is March tenth, so it says
Speaker 2: that you know, in a meeting with the Criminal Division
Speaker 2: in New York and Washington Field offices, there were questions
Speaker 2: on the types of reactions the FBI should apply to
Speaker 2: these files, and then there's like just a really long
Speaker 2: redaction box.
Speaker 1: So do we know anything from these emails about like
Speaker 1: what kinds of records the FBI was reviewing.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, yeah, I mean we do. And it's kind
Speaker 2: of fascinating. So on one page, they're discussing FBI search
Speaker 2: warrant execution photos, FBI interview videos, Julaine Maxwell's prison security footage,
Speaker 2: time lapsed video footage from an office, and in parentheses
Speaker 2: it says no persons identified and no crimes observed, street
Speaker 2: surveillance footage, aerial footage from FBI search warrant execution, police
Speaker 2: interview videos.
Speaker 1: And you're just salivating. See you're like, oh man, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta get this stuff.
Speaker 2: And marketing videos, marketing videos, marketing videos. I mean, this
Speaker 2: is what's this is what's identifying? Do we not know?
Speaker 2: I don't know marketing videos, Yeah, it's it's that like,
Speaker 2: is that.
Speaker 1: Mister Epstein's like, come visit my island kind of marketing videos?
Speaker 2: I don't know. I mean, I'm trying to figure out
Speaker 2: what marketing videos. Yeah. Oh. Actually, the other thing that's
Speaker 2: here is they're discussing the prison video of Epstein before
Speaker 2: he was found dead and after he was found dead,
Speaker 2: and they discussed this video and eight terabytes of data
Speaker 2: related to Epstein, so that is some thing that they
Speaker 2: were looking at as well.
Speaker 1: So do these documents tell us anything about sort of
Speaker 1: the interactions between FBI and DJ, because, like you know,
Speaker 1: this is a little bit of a tense This is
Speaker 1: after the binders that really weren't anything new, right, So
Speaker 1: like you got a little bit of an awkward relationship
Speaker 1: between the FBI and the DJ. Are they communicating with
Speaker 1: each other at all? Here?
Speaker 2: Great question? I mean, in these records, it does not
Speaker 2: appear that they're communicating. And in fact, there's one email
Speaker 2: that asked the question of did you happen to send
Speaker 2: the results of the below review to DJ at any point?
Speaker 2: And the response is we definitely did not provide anything
Speaker 2: to DJ, just to HQ headquarters. So it doesn't appear.
Speaker 2: And this just may be the fact that it's early
Speaker 2: at least in these documents that the FBI released, that
Speaker 2: there's no communication with DJ. But I also want to
Speaker 2: know that the FBI did withhold one hundred and sixty
Speaker 2: pages in its entirety.
Speaker 1: Okay, so not a ton about the DOJ FBI relationship.
Speaker 1: So do we learn anything about like did they do
Speaker 1: this in phases? Like, how did they structure the processing? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I see reference to like phase one in phase two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so another document here. You know, again this
Speaker 2: is all in March, and I think what's noteworthy is
Speaker 2: the bulk of the work was taking place in March.
Speaker 2: You know, almost one thousand FBI agents in personnel working
Speaker 2: during the month of March. Just plowing through these records.
Speaker 2: You know, there's an email on Sunday, March twenty third,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, six forty three pm, so you can
Speaker 2: already see that they're working on the weekends. Right stand by,
Speaker 2: we have identified more files requiring phase one review. Please
Speaker 2: continue to refresh as files will be populated momentarily.
Speaker 1: So do we know anything about what those phases mean?
Speaker 2: Now? Unfortunately the documents don't describe what those phases refer
Speaker 2: to what it actually means.
Speaker 1: And it looks like so then upon completion of Phase two,
Speaker 1: the FBI is going to provide what they call see
Speaker 1: through redaction files for DOJ review, which to me reads
Speaker 1: like FBI is doing the work of identifying what to redect,
Speaker 1: but they're giving it to DOJ so DJ can see
Speaker 1: what the plan.
Speaker 2: Is is that how you read that? That's how exactly
Speaker 2: how I read that?
Speaker 1: So Jason, in March, they're doing all this processing, So
Speaker 1: what's the next kind of big thing that happens.
Speaker 2: Well, the next big thing, at least according to these emails,
Speaker 2: is April fifteenth, the tax day. An email goes out
Speaker 2: to FBI personnel that says cash Patel quote asked for
Speaker 2: status of all remaining Epstein related reviews. Makes sense, Yeah,
Speaker 2: it makes sense. But there's no response to that email.
Speaker 2: But Ptel is weighing in, right, The director of the
Speaker 2: FBI wants an update. Where are we at, you know,
Speaker 2: with the Epstein files? So when do they finish the review?
Speaker 2: So it appears around May second is when they kind
Speaker 2: of wrap things up. An FBI employee from the New
Speaker 2: York Field office sends an email and attached a document
Speaker 2: titled Epstein Overview Final that summarize their work. Well do
Speaker 2: we what does? What does it say? Unfortunately, you know,
Speaker 2: the FBI withheld the attachment. No, so they withheld those
Speaker 2: attachments citing a number of different FOYA exemptions such as
Speaker 2: attorney client privilege, the deliberative process, and others.
Speaker 1: So they're taunting you. They're taunting you by telling you
Speaker 1: what's there, but that you can't have it?
Speaker 2: Can I tell you that? As I'm reading these files
Speaker 2: and the subject lines refer to a PowerPoint or a document,
Speaker 2: I'm like clicking. I'm clicking to see if there's any
Speaker 2: chance that like it will magically open up. Did not.
Speaker 2: It did not, Bummer, But importantly to me, like this
Speaker 2: is the biggest standout on these records. So I asked
Speaker 2: how much money they spent on overtime, for example, for
Speaker 2: agents who are tasked with processing these records. So go
Speaker 2: to page fourteen of the release.
Speaker 1: Okay, so I'm looking at it. It's a chart and
Speaker 1: then the division name column says Business Strategy and Analytics Section,
Speaker 1: Counterintelligence Division, counter Terrorism Division, Criminal Investigative Division, Cyberdivision, Directorate
Speaker 1: of Intelligence EAD, Information and Technology Branch, Finance and Facilities Division,
Speaker 1: Human Resources Division, and then everything else is withheld for
Speaker 1: secret investigative techniques that if released would harm some future investigations.
Speaker 2: So these are all the divisions that were involved in
Speaker 2: the review of the STEAM files. And how do we
Speaker 2: know that because the government released an index of what
Speaker 2: I requested and the FBI document types is how they
Speaker 2: refer to it. And this is a resource planning office.
Speaker 2: That's an office within the FBI report that documents the
Speaker 2: premium pay hours and premium pay is overtime, nighttime, differential hours,
Speaker 2: but more or less, you could think of it as overtime,
Speaker 2: and it's the number of hours they recorded on this project, right,
Speaker 2: That's how they refer to it. The Epstein files. They
Speaker 2: refer to as as a special redaction project. And it's
Speaker 2: during the period of March seventeen through March twenty second,
Speaker 2: so five or six days, right.
Speaker 1: So they're withholding from you the total amount of pay
Speaker 1: across each of those, but they are giving you the
Speaker 1: grand total of employees worked premium pay hours total in
Speaker 1: premium expenses. So they just did not want to give
Speaker 1: you the breakdown. I guess on the theory that somehow
Speaker 1: you could interfere with an investigation if they knew the
Speaker 1: specifics of how they staffed.
Speaker 2: This up, but you at least know the totals. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and those totals are kind of stunning. There were nine
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty four employees that were involved in the
Speaker 2: processing and review of the Epstein files, fourteen thousand and
Speaker 2: two hundred and seventy eight premium pay hours worked for
Speaker 2: a total of eight hundred and fifty one thousand, three
Speaker 2: hundred and forty four dollars that the FBI spent on
Speaker 2: premium pay during the March seventeenth and March twenty second
Speaker 2: review of these files. I mean, that's a lot of money.
Speaker 2: That seems like a ton of money to me for
Speaker 2: the FBI to spend all this. I mean it wasn't
Speaker 2: a national emergency. Well, it depends who you ask, Yeah, true.
Speaker 1: I mean I think there's a sizeable number of people,
Speaker 1: and I think they probably are skewing towards Trump supporters,
Speaker 1: for whom like this is like right, So I'm looking
Speaker 1: at these numbers. I'm seeing eight hundred and fifty thousand,
Speaker 1: and that's just the overtime. So you know, it's possible
Speaker 1: that the overtime might only be like maybe half of
Speaker 1: the total cost, So you could easily be looking at
Speaker 1: like a couple million dollars total. The people are just working,
Speaker 1: which means they're not in the field investigating crimes. They're
Speaker 1: not in the office processing Jason's other Foyer requests. Like
Speaker 1: it's sort of they drop everything. This is what they're doing,
Speaker 1: and all this work gets done and then Pam Bondi
Speaker 1: says there's nothing to see here, so nothing more is
Speaker 1: going to get released, right, So it sounds like by
Speaker 1: May second they've pretty much wrapped up. And then in
Speaker 1: May DOJ tells Trump that his name appears in the documents.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's the timing of it. And shortly thereafter, you know,
Speaker 2: we have this unsigned memo saying that they collected three
Speaker 2: hundred gigabytes of data, which is video, photographs, actual documents,
Speaker 2: and none of that, not a single document from that
Speaker 2: trove can be released.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, the clock is ticking on the thirty
Speaker 1: day Epstein Transparency Act deadline. So I guess that work
Speaker 1: wasn't a waste because it's gonna probably come in pretty handy,
Speaker 1: pretty quickly. It's a good thing that they already did
Speaker 1: all this back in the summer. Hopefully we're gonna start
Speaker 1: seeing some more stuff.
Speaker 2: I want to segue into what may be in the
Speaker 2: Epstein files. So earlier this year, I wrote about the
Speaker 2: under the Radar Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that was
Speaker 2: filed back in I think it was twenty seventeen. It's
Speaker 2: nearly nine year old lawsuit that an attorney named Dan
Speaker 2: Novak filed on behalf of a reporter for what was
Speaker 2: Radar magazine at the time this foil lawsuit that he filed.
Speaker 2: They were trying to get at that time all of
Speaker 2: the FBI's Epstein files. And in this lawsuit that had
Speaker 2: been going on now for nearly nine years, the FBI
Speaker 2: released about twelve hundred pages of documents. And these are
Speaker 2: the twelve hundred pages more or less that have been
Speaker 2: screenshotted and shared on social media. And is this the
Speaker 2: same stuff that was in the famous binders? Yeah, exactly
Speaker 2: where people who've been following this are like, what is
Speaker 2: this trash? We've already seen this, right, that's exactly right.
Speaker 2: So here's what happened. I dig into this case and
Speaker 2: the FBI and the Justice Department essentially withheld the vast
Speaker 2: majority of records, at least ten thousand plus pages, because
Speaker 2: of an ongoing investigation. I should go back and say
Speaker 2: they denied the request before they moved to a lawsuit.
Speaker 2: They said to the reporter that you need to have
Speaker 2: a privacy waiver. You need to get Epstein to sign
Speaker 2: a privacy waiver before returning over right, And he's.
Speaker 1: Still alive then in twenty seven, Yeah.
Speaker 2: He's still alive. So they're going down the road of
Speaker 2: privacy waiver and a privacy excemption. They sue, right, and
Speaker 2: so you know how it is. I mean, we both
Speaker 2: know how it is. This is dragging out for a while,
Speaker 2: but this is really long. This is really it's really long.
Speaker 2: The next thing, you know, what happens is fast forwarding here.
Speaker 2: But Epstein gets arrested and so now everything is being
Speaker 2: withheld under B seven eight and ongoing law enforced. Right,
Speaker 2: So they're not getting anything. They're still arguing, going back
Speaker 2: and forth. So these folks just continuously hit roadblocks and
Speaker 2: roadblocks and roadblocks and they're just unable to pry anything loose.
Speaker 2: But they're fighting. They're continuing to fight, right. I respect that.
Speaker 1: It's nice to hear you not be med at other
Speaker 1: PEO people making Foyer requests and filing lawsuits.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I like when other people file Foy
Speaker 2: requests and lawsuits, as long as it's not for the
Speaker 2: same records. I want fair. So I go into the
Speaker 2: docket of this Foyle lawsuit that Radar filed trying to
Speaker 2: make these Epstein documents public, and on the docket is
Speaker 2: what's called a Vaughn index. This specific document is very
Speaker 2: important as far as the Epstein files are concerned. But
Speaker 2: before we get into that, Matt, can you explain what
Speaker 2: a Vaughn index is and the old Foyle lawsuit that
Speaker 2: gave rise to it.
Speaker 1: Yes, Jason, it comes from a case called Vaughn versus Rosen,
Speaker 1: and I think kind of like the nineteen seventies, and
Speaker 1: what used to happen is agencies would withhold a bunch
Speaker 1: of stuff and then they would just dump all the
Speaker 1: documents on the court in the lawsuit and be like,
Speaker 1: here you go, court, you tell us it's called in
Speaker 1: camera review, like where the court in chambers, not in
Speaker 1: public reviews these documents. So agencies were just kind of
Speaker 1: like dumping all this stuff, and eventually the courts you're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're not cool with that. You've got to make an
Speaker 1: index of what all these documents are, just describe them,
Speaker 1: at least in some level of generality, and identify the
Speaker 1: specific exemptions that you're claiming for each one of those.
Speaker 1: So that has become known as a Vaughn index. So
Speaker 1: it's what it sounds like. It's a listing of all
Speaker 1: the documents. And sometimes the Vaughn index can have a
Speaker 1: whole lot of interesting information even if you can't get
Speaker 1: the documents right.
Speaker 2: And we've received many Vaughan indices in our l lawsuits. Yeah, routinely. Yeah,
Speaker 2: and they're extremely to me, it's extremely valuable just to
Speaker 2: even have a general overview of what the documents are
Speaker 2: that they're worth holding.
Speaker 1: So I was talking to who and when they're talking, like,
Speaker 1: even if you don't know what they're saying, it can
Speaker 1: be really interesting like oh, this person was involved or huh,
Speaker 1: that timing is really interesting as to when things were happening.
Speaker 1: And you can usually get those kinds of details.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I feel like their news were then you
Speaker 2: could write a story out of it. You have written
Speaker 2: stories out of it. Oh yeah, I thought this one
Speaker 2: was really important. And it doesn't seem like anyone you know,
Speaker 2: even knew it was out there. It had some pretty
Speaker 2: i'm good detail of what the documents are that the
Speaker 2: FBI had as it relates to Jeffrey Epstein, And obviously
Speaker 2: it's a sliver, but what would be in the Epstein
Speaker 2: files that are now supposed to be released. And the
Speaker 2: index says that the FBI processed but withheld information it
Speaker 2: obtained from confidential sources, letters addressed to then US Attorney
Speaker 2: for the Southern District to Florida, alex Acosta. He was
Speaker 2: the one that ultimately authorized that non prosecution agreement with
Speaker 2: Jeffrey Epstein. Subpoenas to MySpace, remember my space? Oh yeah,
Speaker 2: that's specifically in this Vaughn index. The handwritten notes of
Speaker 2: FBI agents, photographs, grand jury subpoenas is all listed out
Speaker 2: in the index. Yeah, and bank records communications with foreign
Speaker 2: government agencies. I thought that was really really interesting. Of course,
Speaker 2: there are three O two's tell everyone of FBI three
Speaker 2: O two.
Speaker 1: Is FBI three H two is a summary of an
Speaker 1: FBI interview with someone.
Speaker 2: So in this Vaughn index, so I counted, right, because
Speaker 2: it describes the three H twos here. And mind you,
Speaker 2: this index relates to the investigation that the Justice Department
Speaker 2: and FBI took on between two thousand and six, and
Speaker 2: you know when fsc and pleaded guilty in two thousand
Speaker 2: and eight. So I counted, and it reveals that the
Speaker 2: FBI conducted at lease according to this Vond index, fifty
Speaker 2: five interviews with witnesses, victims, potential investigative targets, and importantly,
Speaker 2: bank records so you know, I'm hoping we get a
Speaker 2: chance to see those. But here's what I like really
Speaker 2: zeroed in on is that it shows that some of
Speaker 2: the documents that were processed and withheld from Radar Magazine
Speaker 2: are from twenty eleven and include dozens of photographs and agents,
Speaker 2: interview summaries of third parties, and documents provided to the
Speaker 2: FBI by confidential sources.
Speaker 1: That's twenty eleven, twenty eleven, you get charged in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 2: No, so we're only talking about the first investigation right
Speaker 2: two thousand and six through two thousand and eight. But
Speaker 2: it looks like the FBI never really closed it is
Speaker 2: that it remained active because there's documents from twenty eleven.
Speaker 2: So I just wanted to get your take on this,
Speaker 2: because we've dealt with the FBI a lot. Do you
Speaker 2: think that people may have just been coming in and
Speaker 2: just collecting evidence and submitting it to the investigative file
Speaker 2: or could this be kind of evidence that the FBI
Speaker 2: still had an active investigation in twenty eleven, three years
Speaker 2: after Epstein had pled guilty and at that point was
Speaker 2: already out of jail.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's pretty hard to tell. I mean wouldn't
Speaker 1: surprise me if victims and others continued to come to
Speaker 1: the FBI for good reason dissatisfied with the minimal punishment
Speaker 1: that he had gotten to that point. In whether the
Speaker 1: FBI did anything with that, we really don't know unless
Speaker 1: the Vaughan Index shows like more activity at the time.
Speaker 1: But if all you have is like a listing of
Speaker 1: a bunch of three h twos of witness interviews, that
Speaker 1: it's hard to really say if they were actively investigating
Speaker 1: or just sort of passively receiving information.
Speaker 2: Right. Yeah, And based on my reporting, the FBI doesn't
Speaker 2: typically close investigations. They're sort of keeping it open. That's
Speaker 2: just my experience, right.
Speaker 1: For in these circumstances, that would make perfect sense.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I didn't see anything in the Vaughn Index
Speaker 2: that indicated there was like a case closing memorandum, an
Speaker 2: actual document there. So I dug into this over the summer.
Speaker 2: This was during that time where everyone was just kind
Speaker 2: of clamoring these Epstein files because this was immediately after
Speaker 2: the Justice Department FBI said we're not going to release anything.
Speaker 2: So now Radar Magazine is eight years into its lawsuit
Speaker 2: to get the Epstein records. At this point, they know
Speaker 2: the FBI has reviewed the records, and the FBI and
Speaker 2: the DOJ say they're not going to release more records.
Speaker 2: So the Radar lawsuit has some new urgency. It looks
Speaker 2: like they have a pretty clear path to say you
Speaker 2: have to release the records. But then Julaine Maxwell appeals
Speaker 2: her case Dlayne Maxwell. We now see that her attorney
Speaker 2: renewing his requests for the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.
Speaker 2: So there's Radar Magazine again with like ah Man. This
Speaker 2: is still an ongoing law enforcement proceeding, so they still
Speaker 2: can't get anything. And now that the Supreme Court has
Speaker 2: rejected Maxwell's petition, Dan Novak and Radar Magazine has now
Speaker 2: appealed to the Second Circuit and so there's an oral
Speaker 2: argument set for January twenty eighth. So I still think, Matt,
Speaker 2: I just want to see what you think this Foyer
Speaker 2: case is the best actually the best chance of getting
Speaker 2: anything from the Epstein Files versus Congress's Epstein Files Transparency Act. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think for a couple reasons.
Speaker 1: I mean, first, I think that the Vaughn Index is
Speaker 1: going to be a check on whatever gets released, like
Speaker 1: if you see that there's things on the Vaughn Index
Speaker 1: that don't get released, then there's some splaining to do. Right,
Speaker 1: but the lawsuit also has teeth. The Epstein Act has
Speaker 1: no teeth. If DOJ decides to violate it, there's no
Speaker 1: private cause of action. You and I can't file a
Speaker 1: lawsuit over that. You need to have a Foyer case.
Speaker 1: And so so that case could end up being the
Speaker 1: legal vehicle by which the Epstein Act release actually gets challenged.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so many twists and turns to this,
Speaker 1: and like people get charged, and people die, and it
Speaker 1: impacts what can be with helld or not, and it's
Speaker 1: up and down on appeal and all this stuff going on.
Speaker 1: And so that's got to be frustrating to go after
Speaker 1: that long. But now it's it's it almost turns out
Speaker 1: it does turn out that, like it's great, rightly there
Speaker 1: is a live, active Foya case right now that can
Speaker 1: be the vehicle by which if the DOJ is trying
Speaker 1: to get away with withholding things.
Speaker 2: That's how they can be held accountable for that.
Speaker 1: In how we can courts can guarantee in the public
Speaker 1: can guarantee that they're actually releasing everything that they're supposed
Speaker 1: to release because the track record ain't that great so far.
Speaker 2: That's kind of how I felt as well. It's like,
Speaker 2: this is really the best course of action for the
Speaker 2: public to kind of see what's going on. It will
Speaker 2: be interesting if the government argues that, well, Donald Trump
Speaker 2: is now called for an investigation into Democrats, so we're
Speaker 2: going to keep withholding is because of an ongoing investigation.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and that's you know, I mean, it depends on
Speaker 1: how bold they are on trying to make those with holding.
Speaker 1: And I think they're given the memo from July. I
Speaker 1: was representing you right now in a case on this,
Speaker 1: and they said, oh, well, there's these investigations, I think
Speaker 1: you can make dogument that's a sham. They already said
Speaker 1: that there isn't any predicate to investigate anybody else.
Speaker 2: That's right, and doj and FBI, I said in their
Speaker 2: joint statement from July quote, there was also no credible
Speaker 2: evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of
Speaker 2: his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate
Speaker 2: an investigation against uncharged third party.
Speaker 1: So the fact that they're now claiming they're going to
Speaker 1: do investigation it's not a real investigation, so it doesn't
Speaker 1: count for foya purposes. That's how I would argue that,
Speaker 1: I don't know some you know, I think there's a fair.
Speaker 2: Chance of succeeding on that, but no guarantees. I mean,
Speaker 2: the timing couldn't be better for Radar magazine, right, they
Speaker 2: file this back in twenty seventeen, so they're coming up
Speaker 2: on nine years. That's a really long time. But man,
Speaker 2: the fact that they're still fighting at this very moment,
Speaker 2: where the Epstein files have become the biggest political story
Speaker 2: of the year, that's wild. So, as I mentioned, there's
Speaker 2: a hearing in the Second Circuit, an oral argument that's
Speaker 2: scheduled for January twenty eighth. And let me just let me,
Speaker 2: let me just explain.
Speaker 1: So that's the Court of Appeals that covers the trial
Speaker 1: courts that are in New York and some other adjacent states.
Speaker 1: The country is divided into a series of different regional
Speaker 1: courts of appeals, so it's above the trial court and
Speaker 1: it's before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: An oral argument.
Speaker 1: Explain it, man, oral argument is the parties have filed
Speaker 1: their briefs and then they come in and they answer
Speaker 1: the judges questions and they make their arguments and those
Speaker 1: are open to the public. I got a feeling that
Speaker 1: it's going to be a packed court room with overflow rooms.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and it's interesting because it's coming, you know, it's
Speaker 2: happening right after kind of the deadline for when the
Speaker 2: Justice Department is supposed to turn over everything in the
Speaker 2: Epstein files. So I just want to ask you this question, Matt.
Speaker 2: So let's say the Justice Department does turn over everything
Speaker 2: in the Epstein files to Congress, as they are required
Speaker 2: to do under the law. Would those same records be
Speaker 2: responsive to this FOIL lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Well, the scope of that request was, like all records
Speaker 1: from the FBI's investigation, right, all documents relating to the
Speaker 1: FBI's investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein. Now they made
Speaker 1: their request in twenty seventeen. Yeah, there could be a
Speaker 1: dispute about whether documents after that date get included or not.
Speaker 1: I mean, it certainly would be cut off. At whatever
Speaker 1: point the FBI searched then that would typically be the cutoff.
Speaker 1: Sometimes it's the date of the request. Sometimes it's whenever
Speaker 1: they do the search. So there could be some later stuff,
Speaker 1: like you know, because he When did he When did
Speaker 1: he die? Twenty nineteen, twenty nineteen. Yeah, so there's a
Speaker 1: couple of years there, two thousand nine, a.
Speaker 2: Little bit of there, maybe a little bit of indulgent. Well,
Speaker 2: I guess we'll see what happens whether or not the
Speaker 2: Justice Department releases the Epstein files to Congress, And I
Speaker 2: guess we'll see what happens in late January in the
Speaker 2: Radar Foil lawsuit for the FBI files. An upstick from
Speaker 2: Bloomberg and No Smiling. This is Disclosure. The show is
Speaker 2: hosted by Matt Topic and me Jason Leopold. It's produced
Speaker 2: by Heather Schroing and Sean Cannon for No Smiling. Our
Speaker 2: editor for Bloomberg is Jeff Grocott. Our executive producers for
Speaker 2: Bloomberg are Sage Bauman and me Jason Leopold, and our
Speaker 2: executive producers for No Smiling are Sean Cannon, Heather Schrowing,
Speaker 2: and Matt Topic. The Disclosure theme song is by Nick,
Speaker 2: with additional music by Nick An Epidemic Sound. Sound design
Speaker 2: and mixing is by Sean Cannon. For more transparency news
Speaker 2: and important document thumps, you can subscribe to my WEEKLYFOYA
Speaker 2: Files newsletter at bloomberg dot com slash Foya files that's
Speaker 2: Foia files. To get every episode early on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 2: become a Bloomberg dot com subscriber today. Check out our
Speaker 2: special intro offer right now now at bloomberg dot com
Speaker 2: Slash podcast offer, or click the link in the show notes.
Speaker 2: You'll also unlock deep reporting data and analysis from reporters
Speaker 2: around the world. We'll see you again next Tuesday. Okay,
Speaker 2: opening the link. Do do Do Do Do Do Do
Speaker 2: Do