Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / FBI Whistleblower Warned of Epstein File Risks Before Victims Were Named (10/21/26)

Transcript

FBI Whistleblower Warned of Epstein File Risks Before Victims Were Named (10/21/26) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to talk about
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: a whistleblower who came forward all the way back in
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: March of 2025. And this whistleblower was ringing the alarm
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: about the rushed nature of everything and about how it
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: was putting the identities of the survivors in jeopardy. So today,
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: we have an article from Raw Story and the headline...
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Trump's DOJ unmasked Epstein victims after ignoring FBI whistleblowers' urgent alarm.
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: This article was authored by Jordan Green. The warning came
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: from one of the hundreds of FBI employees tasked with
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: round-the-clock scramble to process more than 100,000 pages of investigative
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: files related to the convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. And
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: we knew that there would be some issues, right? There'd
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: be some problems with identities being revealed. There would be some...
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: redacted information that shouldn't be redacted. And then you expect
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: the DOJ to handle that stuff correctly, but they haven't
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: done that. They just keep doubling down on their bullshit
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: and acting like they've done everything by the book, when
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: the truth is, hardly anything they've done is by the book.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: The Department of Justice was at risk of breaking the
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: law by disclosing victims' identities, they said. DOJ leadership is
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: pushing for the release of records that, if released in
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: their current format, would violate multiple statutes. The FBI whistleblower
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: wrote a complaint filed with the agency's Office of Integrity
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: and Compliance while expressing concern that the project's rush deadline
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: would lead to mistakes that would destroy people's lives. Well, look,
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: people's lives were destroyed long before this ever happened. Now,
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: the administration should have done a much better job in
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: safeguarding people's identities. And instead of redacting the names of
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: the people that were behind the decisions that were made,
• 2:01
  Speaker 1: they should have redacted the names of the survivors instead.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Because remember, the people that were involved in the decision-making
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: were supposed to know about that. That was part of
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: the Epstein-Files Transparency Act. I mean, how are we going
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: to have accountability if we don't know who to hold accountable?
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: The whistleblower's identity remains unknown, and their name was redacted
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: in FBI documents released by the Bureau in recent weeks
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: by the pro-democracy group American Oversight. The whistleblower complaint is
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: being reported, for the first time here, by Raw Story.
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: And look, there's going to be a lot of whistleblowers
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: that come forward, and it doesn't mean that all of
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: them are telling the truth, but I think that all
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: of them should be listened to. And I also believe
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: that whistleblowers... deserve more protection. Now, I know that we have,
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: you know, safe harbor laws, stuff like that, but it
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: doesn't go far enough. Especially when you're dealing with something
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: like this. There's going to be serious blowback for somebody
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: that comes forward and outs the FBI or outs the DOJ.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: You know that there's going to be consequences for those people.
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: So there has to be safeguards for people that are
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: willing to come forward and spill the tea whenever they
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: see some corruption. And people need to be encouraged to
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: do that, instead of intimidated. The concerns outlined in the
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: March 2025 complaint about the risk of exposing Epstein's victims
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: would prove prophetic. The initial review, overseen by then-Deputy Attorney
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: General Todd Blanch, would culminate in a memo jointly released
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: that July by the FBI and Department of Justice with
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: the conclusion, no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Can you imagine having all this information knowing everything that
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: we know, and saying that nothing is warranted or appropriate,
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: there's no more disclosure to be had, imagine trying to
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: pitch that shit with a straight face. The passage of
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: the Epstein Files Transparency Act in defiance of the Trump
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: administration's effort to smother the growing scandal would lead to
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: another round of document reviews by the Department of Justice.
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: The 100,000-some pages processed by the FBI in March 2025
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: where only a fraction of the 3.5 million plus pages
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: ultimately released to the public in late 2025 and early 2026,
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: but the haphazard manner in which victims' information was handled
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: during the early push appears to have set the mold
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: for the Department of Justice later redaction efforts. All by design, probably.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: So they can go back later retroactively and say, look,
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: this wasn't done correctly, we have to slow the whole
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: process down now, And we have to make sure that
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: we're following the act, right? We have to make sure
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: we're protecting everyone's name. And then that's the cover they
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: use for not releasing anything else. Oh, look, we have
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: to make sure we keep everybody's ID private. We have
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: to make sure that nobody's outed. Meanwhile, everybody gets outed anyway.
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: A federal lawsuit brought by Epstein's survivors accuses the Department
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: of Justice of negligent infliction of emotional distress and violation
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: of their privacy when it outed about 100 survivors through
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: the document dump. Remember they told us they had all
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: these different agents, all these lawyers, everybody taking a look
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: at what's going on, everybody redacting, everybody going through names.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: So how did they miss so many of them? That's
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: really the question we should be asking. And isn't it funny?
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: There was no redactions missed when it comes to people
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: that work for the FBI or the DOJ that were
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: involved in making these decisions. They didn't miss those redactions,
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: did they? Only Survivors. So do with that as you will.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Survivor Danny Bensky confronted Blanche about the disclosures during his
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: Senate confirmation hearing in July. It's been absolutely devastating, she testified.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Outing survivors causes real and irrevocable harm. While coping with
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: our emotional distress and psychological trauma, we also have lost
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: our privacy and confidentiality, suffered reputational harm, lost jobs, and
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: now fear for our personal safety. And imagine all this
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: publicity on your case and you still fear for your
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: public safety. I'm sure that has nothing to do with
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: the dirtbags we're dealing with, right? And I find it
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: wild that after all these years, after all this attention,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: these people still have any power whatsoever. The FBI employees
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: allegedly received instructions from FBI and DOJ leadership to only
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: redact victims' names if they were on a designated victim list,
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: according to the complaint. The complaint describes the decision to
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: limit victim information redactions as highly alarming, considering that it
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: exposed personally identifiable information, grand jury materials, and information about
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: child victims and witnesses. The Wall Street Journal has previously
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: reported that employees were directed to disclose geographical information about victims,
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: including city and state. So the idea was to protect
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: some people and not others. For whatever reason. That's a
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: question you'd have to ask Todd Blanche. Unfortunately, I doubt
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: we'd get any answers. I'm concerned that people who were
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: determined to find the victims will be able to piece
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: together the information that we were instructed to not redact,
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: and it'll lead to harassment, or worse, for the victims,
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: the whistleblower wrote in an email to a supervisor four
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: days before filing the complaint. And of course, you know
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: the FBI doesn't give a shit. All they care about
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: is dancing to the tune that's being played by Todd
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: Blanch and Donald Trump. Because all of this comes directly
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: from the top, and none of these dudes has a spine,
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: none of them are going to question their boss. FBI
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: employees questioned an FBI lawyer from the New York field
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: office about the legality of the DOJ's handling of the
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: redaction project about a week into the effort, according to
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: a whistleblower, who added they were not heartened to hear
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: responses that included the words probably, we think, and maybe.
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: Not exactly the kind of language you're looking for when
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: you're dealing with something like this. You need to be
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: damn sure about what's going on. You need to make
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: sure that all the people who need their names redacted
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: have their names redacted. Oh, and by the way, the
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: names that shouldn't be redacted, they should be unredacted. The
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: New York field office did not respond to questions from
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: Raw Story seeking confirmation of the FBI lawyer's consultation on
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: the redaction project. On March 10th, 2025, Email from Shannon Perry,
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: then the assistant director of the FBI's Information Management Division,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: that was reviewed by Raw Story, shows that she told
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: FBI General Counsel Sam Raymer that FBI leadership at the
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: New York and Washington field offices had asked her what
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: types of redactions the FBI should apply to these files. Well,
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: that's easy. Just the names of the survivors. Nothing else.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: A former white-collar criminal defense attorney and member of the
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: conservative Federalist Society, who previously served in the first Trump administration,
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Ramer had been appointed to the FBI post only a
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: month earlier. Department of Justice officials who visited the FBI's
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: Information Management Division central processing site in Winchester, Virginia, in
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: March 2025, received a briefing on the legal implications of
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: the release, according to the whistleblower, and then issued orders
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: to initiate a fourth round of redactions as the chaotic
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: process lurched forward. Here's an idea. Get your shit together.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: You are the United States government. You have more money,
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: more employees than anybody else on earth. I don't want
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: to hear shit that you couldn't get these files redacted correctly, okay?
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: They could have done a better job, but the willpower
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: wasn't there. While risking the disclosure of information about victims,
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: the whistleblower alleged that staff were instructed to flag any
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: records in which the current president's mentioned. As previously reported
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: by Raw Story, the material the FBI turned over to
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: the Department of Justice on March 25, 2025, included flagged
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: items that listed public figures referenced in the 2006 criminal
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: investigation of Epstein in South Florida and the 2019 investigation
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: in the Southern District of New York. The allegations in
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: the whistleblower complaint are consistent with a description of the
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: FBI's redaction effort in a letter from Dick Durbin, the
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: ranking Democrat on the House-Senate Judiciary Committee, to Bondi in
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: July of 2025. Emily Hampsten, a spokesperson for Durbin, told
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: Raw Story the substance of the complaint is almost 100%
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: identical to the information the senator received from an FBI
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: whistleblower in 2025. So look, this is a legitimate problem.
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: And it's something that should have been addressed. But once again,
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: Todd Blanch and the Trump Justice Department swept it aside.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: The complaint also aligns with previous reporting by independent journalist
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: Allison Gill based on a former FBI analyst and others
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: involved in the redaction effort At the time of the complaint,
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: the whistleblower wrote that the FBI's Information Management Division and
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: many of its partner divisions have been on a mandatory
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: 24-hour posture for over a week to process these records
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: for seemingly political reasons, with many staff members being called
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: to work extended shifts, sometimes well beyond 12 hours. Well, look,
• 11:39
  Speaker 1: I get that, right? Nobody wants to do that, but
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: sometimes you have to. I didn't want to work 17-hour days.
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: when I worked in entertainment, but somebody has to set
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: that concert up. Staff is at physical and emotional breaking
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: points with many suffering health problems from lack of sleep
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: and undue stress, the whistleblower wrote. Oh, give me a break.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: How many of you have worked insane hours during a
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: busy period at work where you literally got no sleep?
• 12:09
  Speaker 1: And for the vast majority of us, we aren't making
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: anywhere near what these people are making. So please save it.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: The demand on staff to commute to the office with
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: little or no sleep for days was significant that the
• 12:22
  Speaker 1: whistleblower argued it posed a substantial and specific danger to
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: public health or safety. Emails reviewed by Raw Story show
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: that the whistleblower conveyed their concerns to a lawyer in
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: the FBI's Office of Integrity and Compliance, who told them
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: that their concerns would be more appropriately addressed to the
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General. The email
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: indicates that the day after the whistleblower complaint was filed,
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: the FBI's Office of Integrity and Compliance made the determination
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: that the matter was considered closed. Well, of course, they
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: don't want to deal with it. Again, it's about the
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: blast radius, folks. These people know. And they know that
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: if you knew the true scope of this, forget it.
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: The email containing the whistleblower complaint indicates it was copied.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: and the Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Chuck Grassley.
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: A separate email chain outlining the whistleblower's concerns also made
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: its way to Catherine Bruno, the FBI's Chief Ethics and
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: Compliance Officer. Bruno said in an email reviewed by Raw
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: Story that she intended to refer the matter to the
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: DOJ Office of the Inspector General. Bruno told Raw Story
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: she was forced to retire from the FBI in May
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: of 2025. John S. Levinsky, a spokesperson for the DOJ
• 13:43
  Speaker 1: office of the Inspector General, told Raw Story the office
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: doesn't confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. The
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: office of the Inspector General is currently conducting an audit
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: of the Department of Justice compliance with the Epstein Files
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: Transparency Act, including redactions that could widen in scope. And look,
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: there's no doubt that it's going to widen in scope.
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: And I think that what we should see is a
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: special counsel appointed Because there's so much there that needs
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: to be looked at. And I don't think we can
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: get a fair shake from either side of the aisle
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: at this point. So I think we need to bring
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: in an independent special counsel and give them complete power
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: to do what they gotta do. And I think that
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: at the end of the Inspector General's investigation, there will
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: be no doubt that a special counsel should be brought in.
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: So we'll follow along with this one as well, and
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: we'll see where it all ends up. And when we
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: have some more information one way or the other, we'll
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: get that added to the catalog. All the information that
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.