Latest / Beyond The Horizon / CBS News Investigation Reveals Significant Gaps in Epstein Files Release (10/29/26)

Transcript

CBS News Investigation Reveals Significant Gaps in Epstein Files Release (10/29/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. According to the DOJ, Todd Blanche, and Donald
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: Trump himself, there's nothing left to see when it comes
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: to the Epstein files. And there's certainly nobody left to investigate.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: And anybody that's still interested in the topic is obviously
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: just a traitor or somebody that has some kind of
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: animosity towards Donald Trump. Oh, and by the way, they
• 0:27
  Speaker 1: also want you to know that Donald Trump has done
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: more for the Epstein survivors than anybody else. I mean,
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: when it comes to justice and transparency in Jeffrey Epstein,
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: nobody has been more transparent than Donald Trump. Just ask him. Meanwhile,
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: those same survivors that he says that he's done more
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: for than anybody else, they're telling a different story. And
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: almost to a woman, none of them trust Trump or
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: this Justice Department. And why should they? Especially considering, every
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: time we turn around, we hear about new documents that
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: should have been released, that were not released. And then
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: you start looking into the nature of those documents, and
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: it's very concerning. And when people are going to the
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: lengths that we see here, to avoid any kind of
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: investigation even, that has to set off all the alarm bells.
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: If you're not somebody who's playing politics, and you're somebody
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: that just follows the truth, that kind of shit's alarming.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: If they had nothing to hide, if there was nothing damning,
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: they would just release all of it and be done
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: with it. Would there be a bigger thumb in the
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: eye of the Democrats than just releasing all the information
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: that exonerates Donald Trump like he says it does? And
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: we all know that if he had some information or
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: some evidence that backed up his bullshit, we would have
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: already seen it. But they don't have that kind of information.
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: What they have is damning information against them and their
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: own buddies. So that's why it's not been released. And now,
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: on the back of all of that, CBS has a
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: new report out talking about how classified material from the
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: Epstein files is missing. So in this episode, we're going
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: to dive into that article from CBS and see what
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: they have for us. Headline, Classified Material Missing from Epstein
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Files Documents Suggest. This article was authored by Daniel Rutnick.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: Attorney General Todd Blanche has long maintained that the so-called
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Epstein files, even those kept from the public, contain no
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: secret information related to national security. Oh, I'm sure. I'm
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: sure that Jeffrey Epstein had nothing to do with anybody
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: in the CIA. And listen, I'm not talking about the
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: director of the CIA sitting in an office getting reports
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: on Epstein. I'm talking about a black operation. An operation
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: that's being run off the books. And anybody who knows
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: about the CIA and their history knows that's how they operate.
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: There's always a beard, right? They always have somebody who
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: is the face of what they have going on. That
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: way it gives them plausible deniability if the operation gets
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: blown up. And that's exactly what Epstein was. A middleman
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: who was being run by an off-the-books operation. And don't
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: think for a minute that they don't already have another
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: operation just like Epstein's up and running. We just don't
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: know about it yet. When the document release began last winter,
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Blanche noted that the Epstein Files Transparency Act authorized withholding
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: information in the interest of national security or foreign policy,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: but said no files are being withheld or redacted on
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: that basis. Oh, I'm sure. Todd Blanche. What a truthful fella.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: Everything that Todd Blanche tells me, I just believe. We
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: don't need to check that. But the contents of at
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: least three documents in the massive tranche of files indicate
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: classified information was included in files collected by the DOJ. Well,
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: of course, they can't leave information in there about the
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: CIA or insert intelligence agency here. And that's part of
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: the reason why they don't want to release this stuff.
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: They understand how damning it would be if the American
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: people had hard evidence that the United States government was
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: in bed. No pun intended. With Jeffrey Epstein, it's one
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: thing for people like me to tell you that. It's
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: a whole ass other thing to see it in documentation. Now,
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: my guess is, anything that would tie Jeffrey Epstein to
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: intelligence has already been burned. When they burn an asset,
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: they burn all ties to that asset. And when Jeffrey
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: Epstein met his demise, that was the end of the road.
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: Like I always tell you, the DOJ, they have the crumbs,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: but Langley... They have the Epstein cake, and we're never
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: going to get it. One of the documents shows Blanche's
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: office of the Deputy Attorney General itself received classified material
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: related to Epstein in March 2025. By law, material can
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: only be classified for national security purposes. What exactly was
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: classified and why remains a mystery. And a mystery that
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: we're never going to solve because Todd Baby Billy Blanche,
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: the DOJ, and Donald Trump They don't give a fuck.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: They want this to go away. That's it. They don't
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: want justice. They don't want transparency. They don't want truth.
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: They want you to move on. The Department of Justice
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: says it collected 6 million pages of material and ultimately
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: released over 3 million of those pages after reviewing for duplication,
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: attorney-client privilege, and relevance to Epstein. Yeah, and to protect
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: their friends, let's not forget that part. And let's not
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: forget the part where they have to protect all the
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: bureaucrats either. Congressional challenges and a lawsuit are casting doubts
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: on the DOJ's claims and demanding the release of more
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: documents that were held back. Well, yeah, look, anything that
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: was held back needs to be released. At this point,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: nobody's going to take them for their word. And unless
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: it's something that is going to release the information of
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: somebody that's not involved, or a survivor, or a victim,
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: then it should be released. That's what the law calls for.
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: So hopefully the second portion of this Epstein-Files Act passes,
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: and we're able to get some teeth when it comes
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: to enforcement. Because that's one thing that the Epstein-Files Transparency
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: Act is lacking. There's no enforcement mechanism. So of course,
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: the DOJ and the government, they're going to play games.
• 6:46
  Speaker 1: Included among the Epstein files is an eight-page timeline of
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: the FBI's New York office initial efforts last year to
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: track down and deliver its voluminous files to the Justice
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: Department's Washington headquarters. On March 25, 2025, one document shows
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: delivery of 16 Epstein items to ODAG, referring to the
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: Office of the Deputy Attorney General. Among them, items No.
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: 2 and No. 6 are described as Epstein Transparency Project,
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: classified material and CDs with classified material times two. So
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: why don't we have that? Why is it classified? Is
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: it national security? If it's not, then we should have
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: access to it. And if it is, what was Jeffrey
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: Epstein doing involved in anything that involves national security? You see, folks,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: they've backed themselves into a corner here because it can't
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: be everything. It has to be something. So if you're
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: classifying it, we need to know why. The Epstein Transparency
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: Project refers to the Justice Department's effort to review the
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: files and redact, withhold, or clear them for release. It's
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: not clear what exactly was identified as classified. Each CD
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: was likely capable of holding hundreds of megabytes of material.
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: And they'll come up with some excuse, some lame-brain-ass nonsense
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: as to why they can't release that or why we
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: shouldn't have access to it. But the truth is, we should.
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: And until they do the right thing, We need to
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: hold them accountable. Well, as much as we can. Right?
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: It only goes so far. I'm not going to sit
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: here and tell you that they care about what we
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: say or think. They don't. Especially after the election rolls around.
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: Then it's business as usual. They don't want to listen
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: to the plebs, the unwashed masses, me and you. They're
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: going to do whatever their donors tell them to do.
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: Except for a document listing 16 Epstein items delivered to
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: the office of the Deputy Attorney General, including to that
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: reference classified material. Also in the files is an email
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: sent that same day from the unit chief of the
• 8:55
  Speaker 1: National Security Classification Operations Unit, an office whose role is
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: to review FBI documents for classification or declassification. The email
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: includes an attachment labeled Epstein classified document memo dot docx.
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: So what is that about? And why is it classified again?
• 9:16
  Speaker 1: We shouldn't be talking about classified documents with Epstein. According
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: to Todd Blanch and Company, there's nothing that has to
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: do with national security whatsoever. So if that's the case,
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: unredacted and show the American people your work. The body
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: of the email says that there were three documents identified
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: that remain classified. One was described as an FBI document,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: which is classified when see-through. A redaction obscures the unit
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: chief's description of the other two documents. The identity of
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: the email's recipient is also redacted. Of course it is.
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: They want to tell us that the system's broke, but
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: they don't want to let us know the people that
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: were behind the system, making it move. the way it did.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: So all of those people, all those bureaucrats that made
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: these decisions, that chose not to go after Epstein, that
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: chose to protect him, they're still being protected. And that's
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: not part of the deal. A CBS News analysis of
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: a numerical coding system used by the DOJ to organize
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: the Epstein files offers clues about some of the documents
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: the department has withheld. The codes don't reveal what's missing,
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: but they do show where gaps exist, raising questions about
• 10:32
  Speaker 1: the DOJ's explanation for why documents were withheld. Among the
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: missing documents are pages from Epstein's own financial records collected
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: as evidence in a federal prosecution. Here's how it works.
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: Documents from the Epstein files are labeled with a string
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: of numbers beginning with the letters EFTA. Stamped on the
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: bottom right-hand corner, EFTA stands for Epstein Files Transparency Act.
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: Those are called Bates numbers, a common way of organizing
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: massive document batches in legal cases. Every page receives its
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: own number. In the Epstein files, the sequence goes from
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: 1 to 2,858,498 which is the tally of approximately how
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: many pages of documents were released. That's about 700,000 less
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: than we've heard about. According to the DOJ, other documents,
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: including court records and investigative files they've previously released, bring
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: the total to over 3 million. Alongside the Epstein files,
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: Bates numbers, or other older coding numbers that appear on
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: many documents, this indicates that those documents had previously been
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: used in federal legal cases. potentially collected as part of
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: an earlier subpoena. And there's a ton of documents. Look,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: there's no doubt, right? We're talking about decades of documents.
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: But that's no excuse. They have the full weight of
• 11:57
  Speaker 1: the American government behind them, and all that comes with that.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: So I don't want to hear it's a manpower issue,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: or we couldn't get it done in time. That's a
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: bunch of bullshit. For instance, Bates' coding on some documents
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: is from the Glenn Maxwell criminal case, and was used
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: to organize files given to Maxwell's legal team ahead of
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: her 2021 trial as part of the discovery process. Other
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: Bates numbers indicate documents were collected from Epstein's banks, including
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank, during the FBI's investigation into
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: his trafficking activities. So there is a whole bunch of
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: documents to go through. And that's why we go through
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: so many court documents here on the podcast. Because you're
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: getting it directly from what the document says, right? You
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: don't need a journalist to tell you. Here it is
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: in black and white. And I think when we're talking
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: about Epstein and all the noise and all the muck,
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: that's the best way to do it. Now, does that
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: mean everything in the court documents is canon? Of course not.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: But it's the closest thing we can get to the truth,
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: in my opinion. Similar gap analysis have been done in
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: the past by independent researchers. Finding gaps in these documents
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: is a simple process of counting. In tens of thousands
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: of instances, the main EFTA number will advance by one,
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: but the other Bates numbers advance by two or more.
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: Those gaps indicate pages that had been there before were
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: likely removed at some point after the DOJ obtained them.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: And that certainly happened with the transcripts from Glenn Maxwell's trial.
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: They had them posted, they took them down, and now,
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: when you go to them, They're still not there. Unfortunately
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: for them, the docket's available through Court Listener, but here
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: we are. I mean, why would they take those down?
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: What are they worried about from those transcripts? Or was
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: that part of the Glenn Maxwell benefit package that old
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: baby Billy Blanche dropped in her lap after their little sit-down?
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: Take the images below. The EFTA number advances by one,
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: but the JPM, SDNY, and SDNY-GM numbers advance by two,
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: as do the page numbers from the original document. In
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: another example, a series of around 4,500 images of checks
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: from Epstein's accounts has gaps where 66 of those check
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: images should be. Oftentimes, the missing image is only the
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: front or the back of the check, although in several cases,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: both are missing. And according to the law, These gaps
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: shouldn't exist. All of this should be released to the public,
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: and if it's not released, we need to know why.
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: Comparing all the numbers against the final EFTA page numbers,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: it's possible to calculate that there are tens of thousands
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: of pages of documents that are missing from these sections,
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: with no clear reason why. Financial records were not permissible
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: category for removal, Barbara McQuaid, the former U.S. Attorney for
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: the Eastern District of Michigan, told CBS News. Well, that's
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: because they don't care. Nobody's going to do shit about it.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: The court's not going to do anything. Congress isn't going
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: to do anything. And we can't do anything. So they're
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: just going to do whatever they want. And we're just
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: going to have to suck it up. At least that's
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: their theory. That's how they're thinking. The question is, are
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: we going to let them? Like every federal prosecutor, she
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: says she is very familiar with Bates numbers. It's the
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: reason why that you have Bates numbers, so you notice
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: something like that, she said. The DOJ hasn't responded to
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: CBS News' recent inquiries about the Epstein files, but it
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: has previously said that every document required to be released
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: by the Epstein Files Transparency Act has been released, and
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: the remaining files were unrelated, privileged, or were duplicative. You
• 15:54
  Speaker 1: know what's really duplicative? Their commentary. Always the same bullshit,
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: over and over. How about we get some real answers
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: from the DOJ? Just one time. Wouldn't that be fantastic?
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: Another sequence of Bates numbers that provides a map to
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: where documents were removed appears to be from a prelim
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: processing of the files. One larger sequence of those R1
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: in between EFTA and the page number. The R1 numbering
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: is found across approximately 995,000 released pages between page 61
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: and page 2,000,000 214,171 in the files. Each page is
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: also labeled with the EFTA page number. While the EFTAs
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: are sequential, the R1s have gaps which range from one
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: page to hundreds of pages. Each time a gap appears,
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: for example, if the EFTA advances by one, but the
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: R1 advances by two, it's evidence that pages were removed.
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: So where are the pages? Like that's really the only
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: question that matters. Where are the pages, and why were
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: they removed? And they won't even give us those basic answers.
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: You want to talk about a fucking cover-up? Here it is.
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: Shining like the sun. By comparing these sequences, it's possible
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: to identify gaps where documents, mostly emails, were removed between
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: that earlier review and the final release. No partial emails
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: turned up in the thousands of documents we examined, so
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: the removals appear to be Entire email exchanges. Well, that's
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: because they're damning. And they don't want you to know
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: that there's other people that could have been investigated and
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: possibly charged. That's never been the goal. The emails are
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: not sequential in date and jump by days, months, and years.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: So knowing what was removed from context is simply not possible.
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: But the results of calculating the differences between the first
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: and last of the numbers in the earlier sequence versus
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: the later sequence is 1.2 million pages, which is the
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: total number of identified gaps from just this one section. Yo,
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: how damning is that? And you know that the White
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: House is going to say this is all just BS.
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: It's all part of the hoax. But this is a
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: lot deeper. And I think that as the days go by...
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: we get more and more evidence that this is a cover-up.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: Most of the documents in the section are emails to
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: or from Jeffrey Epstein, including communication with young women, who
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: would later accuse him of abuse, email exchanges with business associates,
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: messages to or from his assistant, Leslie Groff, or emails
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: sent or received by Glenn Maxwell. So, the most damning stuff.
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: I mean, emails between him and Maxwell? Probably the kind
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: of emails that would help people understand what Epstein and
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: Maxwell were up to, right? So of course, you're not
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: going to get those. There's one possible explanation for so
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: many of the email gaps. Instructions given to DOJ attorneys
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: working on processing the redaction state. If the document is
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: an email chain and the most inclusive email, i.e., containing
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: all the back and forth has already been reviewed and
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: redacted as appropriate for production, The back and forth can
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: be marked as duplicates. No, we don't believe that. We
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: want the duplicates too. Release it all. In other words,
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: all emails exchanged prior to the last email in a
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: chain can be considered a duplicate because the last one
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: should include all of the messages and eliminating the duplicates
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: will speed up the redaction process. Once a document is
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: marked as a duplicate, it would likely be excluded from
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: the files. If that was the case, This was only
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: partially accomplished because duplicate emails still exist throughout the file.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: There's also the possibility that errors in the process could
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: have resulted in crucial emails mistakenly being deleted. Well, there's
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: always the human factor. And I won't discount that. I'm
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: sure there were mistakes that were made. But there's something
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: nefarious going on when it comes to this cover-up. And
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: it's right there out in the open. And I think
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: that's what makes me so upset about it. Like they're
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: not even trying to cover this shit up in a
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: proper manner. Instead, they're just gaslighting and force-feeding the masses bullshit.
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: The review and redaction process was conducted by hundreds of
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: DOJ attorneys working under a compressed timeline. Given the scale
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: of the task, it's possible that pages were withheld as
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: a result of honest mistakes. But without a roadmap to
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: the redactions and removals, It's impossible to make that determination. Look,
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: we have to be able to check the work. I'm
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: more than willing to accept that there's nothing there if
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: they really do an investigation, a robust investigation, look at everybody,
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: no bullshitting around, and give it the same kind of
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: passion you would a drug case. I want you to
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: go after them the same way you went after El Chapo.
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: And until you do that, shut the fuck up about, oh,
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: how complete our investigation is. No, it's not. You're not
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: bullshitting me. Independent journalist Katie Fang is suing the Justice
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: Department seeking the release of more files as well as
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: an explanation of redactions and removals. A federal judge has
• 21:22
  Speaker 1: made several rulings in her favor and the DOJ is
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: appealing those rulings. Oh, they most certainly are. I don't
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: think it's going to work, but they are. If it
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: wasn't intentional, then was it gross negligence? Were you just lazy?
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: If it was intentional, Then I think there's shit there
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: that they don't want people to see, Fang told CBS News.
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: My speculation runs an entire spectrum of reaction. But at
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: the end of the day, it just makes the DOJ
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: look bad. And that's a big fact. You would think
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: that somebody or an organization that has a problem already
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: when it comes to trust would want to be more trustworthy.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: But I guess not. I guess it just doesn't matter.
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: the DOJ has acknowledged making several mistakes. It admitted to
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: removing and then restoring a photo of now Commerce Secretary
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: Howard Lutnick on a 2012 visit to Epstein's Island, contradicting
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: claims Lutnick had previously made about his contacts with Epstein.
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: Wait a minute, Howard Lutnick's a liar? No way. Who
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: believes that shit? Wait, everybody? Oh, okay, cool. Last year,
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: the DOJ officials claimed a minute was missing from prison
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: security video from the night Epstein died, which turned out
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: not to be true. This was a case where the
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: process has inhibited public trust in what's ultimately released, and
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: there's a long tradition of this, whether it's the Pentagon
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: Papers or the Epstein files, said attorney Stanley Brand, a
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: veteran litigator and distinguished fellow in law and government at
• 22:58
  Speaker 1: Penn State Dickinson Law. This is just another piece where
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: the government process, where making this stuff available just fuels suspicion,
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: that there's something we're not seeing. And I don't know
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: that that ever gets resolved. Well, if you're not truthful,
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: and you don't release everything, you're going to leave yourself
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: open to speculation. And boy, have they left themselves open.
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: We're talking about 24 hours. Fucking casino here. And they
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: have no one to blame but themselves. If they would
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: have just done what they said they were going to do,
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: been transparent, released the files, and stopped with the bullshit,
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: this would be a whole ass different conversation. But unfortunately...
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: That is not the world we live in. So instead
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: of truth, transparency, and justice, what we get is more
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: gaslighting and more bullshit. And I think at some point
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: the American people are going to say enough is enough.
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: The question is, are we at that point? All the
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: the description box.