Transcription
You're watching the Legal Breakdown. Glenn, it looks like Donald Trump's DOJ is now interfering in an effort to get some exposure, some clarity as it relates to Epstein. Can you explain what just happened?
Yeah, Brian, the cover up continues. And you know, the leader of the cover up effort is the Department of Justice, obviously acting on behalf of Donald Trump. Here's what happened. Um, an NBC News reporter filed a request with the a court in New York regarding the Epstein case. When Epstein was arrested in 2019 before he turned up dead in his jail cell, the prosecutors had filed um a document in court and it said these two people are potential witnesses in the case and they redacted the names of the witnesses. Why? Because ordinarily when witnesses are about to testify in a trial, you don't want their names becoming public before they testify.
It turns out these two people were individuals that Epstein paid $100,000 to in one case and $250,000 to in another case right after the Miami Herald newspaper down in Florida began publishing a series about Epstein sex crimes and this horrific sweetheart deal that the US attorney down in Florida gave to Epstein. More about that in a minute.
Moreover, Brian, these two people, the recipients of these significant um wire transfers, these cash payments by Epstein, um they were um they were listed as Epstein's co-conspirators, people that Epstein negotiated immunity agreements for so that they wouldn't get in trouble. And then when this all began to hit the um the public square again in that Miami Herald series in 2018, you know, within days, Epstein is now paying them big sums of money inferentially, it would seem, to have them keep quiet or potentially curry favor with potential witnesses who could incriminate them.
But the the point right now is these people are no longer going to be testifying witnesses against Jeffrey Epstein, which is precisely why the prosecutors requested that the court seal their names, not reveal them to the public back in 2019. And so NBC News, exercising its First Amendment freedom of the press, asked the judge, "Okay, unseal them now. These are potential Epstein co-conspirators."
So, what does Donald Trump's DOJ do? The US attorney up in New York, a guy named Jay Clayton, a Donald Trump flunky, files an opposition saying, "No, no, no, no, no. Judge, don't disclose these names of these two potential Epstein co-conspirators that Epstein paid massive amounts of money inferentially to probably keep them in the Epstein fold. Don't don't disclose them."
Well, why not? They're no longer going to be testifying witnesses. And here is what the US attorney put in this um response to the court saying, "Please don't disclose them." It talks about how there are legitimate reasons to keep things sealed. One, if they're about to be testifying witnesses. Well, guess what? Ain't nobody testifying about Jeffrey Epstein anymore. Or two, if there's a danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency. um those two things don't apply or then Brian there's this catchall if it might impact somebody's privacy interest and that's what they seize on.
They contacted these two people, they being the prosec the US attorney in New York and solicited their opinion and guess what? Both of those people through their lawyers said, "We don't want our names disclosed. Please keep them sealed." Even though there doesn't really seem to be a legitimate reason to continue to keep them sealed.
So, this again is Donald Trump's Department of Justice engaged in the opposite of transparency. They continue to try to cover up any shred of information that could inform the public about what Ebstein really did, to whom, and with whom.
And and before I finish this answer, let me read Brian something from the Miami Herald reporting about this sweetheart deal that Epstein got, this nonprosecution agreement that he got from US attorney Alex Acasta, who would go on to become Donald Trump's labor secretary in his first term. Because this is really despicable. It reads, "In 2007 and 2008, US Attorney Acasta's team, his prosecutors, had prepared a 53-page indictment against Ebstein, citing nearly three dozen underage girls, mostly ages 13 to 16 who were molested by the wealthy money manager. US Attorney Acasta, however, agreed to shelve the indictment, not let his prosecutors bring that indictment against Epstein, and instead he allowed Epstein to plead to two prostitution charges in Florida State Court."
And Brian Epstein's lawyers at the time who negotiated this insane nonprosecution agreement, you know, declining to indict 53 felony counts for sexually abusing nearly three dozen underage girls 13 to 16 years old. His attorneys were uh uh Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Kenneth Star, Guy Lewis, Jay Lefowitz. Sounds like a cast of thousands that um Jeffrey Epstein had employed as his defense team. And those attorneys, Brian, demanded that the deal, the nonprosecution agreement be sealed, be kept secret from the public. And worst of all, that the nonprosecution agreement be kept secret from Epstein's victims. And you know, even though notification of the victims was required under federal law, Alex Aosta agreed to keep it hidden from the very victims that frankly he was duty bound to protect.
This whole thing stinks. It is a twisted and contorted tale. But what we know is that DOJ just weighed in and said, "No, no, no, no transparency. Don't release the names of the these two people who Epstein paid money to when things got hot and who are identified in substance as two of Epstein's co-conspirators." So, look, the cover up continues in full force.
Glenn, what kind of an impact is the DOJ's request not to release this information going to have? Because normally we've seen judges defer to the DOJ because of this uh this phenomenon called the presumption of regularity. And you've had Department of Justices in the past that have acted in good faith. And so, and so as a result of that, a lot of these judges are going to be differential to the DOJ. Now, of course, we're in a a scenario where this DOJ is kind of burning all of the goodwill that has built up over the past decades and centuries. But, but the reality is they are still a major entity here and them weighing in by saying, "No, this shouldn't be released," I presume is going to have something of an impact.
But what would you imagine uh given this case that the judge is going to do with regard to with regard to deferring to you know a news organization exercising their first amendment right or uh the DOJ trying to block this?
You know the judge will probably balance the competing concerns. They will take into account the position of the news organization as supported by first amendment right of the of a free press against what the DOJ says and that the fact that these two witnesses slashcoconspirators who received big payments from Jeffrey Ebstein have objected to their names being provided to the public to the unsealing of that document. The judge will take it all into account.
But Brian, I have to believe that the good will and the good faith that judges normally extend to federal prosecutors believing they take their o oath of loyalty to the constitution and their ethical responsibilities very seriously. I think that is eroding generally and also in the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Why do I say that? Well, remember it wasn't long ago that DOJ attorneys, really all political appointees, no actual DOJ line attorneys who appear in court regularly in cases. It was Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch and the US attorney in um the in New York filed this big splash emotion to do what? Unseal the grand jury transcripts in the Maxwell and Epstein cases only to have the judges say, "You all are putting on a show because, you know, there's nothing new that the public will learn."
But I mean, isn't that isn't that the ultimate irony that they put on a bogus show to release some transcripts that, by the way, they already had uh in their possession, but now they try to release new information, and you have the DOJ inserting itself to prevent that actual substantive information from being released. It's one inconsistent, I guess two hypocritical and three a transparent effing game they are playing. Pretend that they want transparency by asking courts to unseal things like grand jury jury transcripts which have absolutely no information. All the while covering up when there is actual information that could be unsealed and provided to the public about Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators and potential attempt to obstruct justice by making big fat payments once the story broke in 2018 in the Miami Herald.
And and let me just add this as a a personal pet peeve that I have with the way this is playing out. When we talk about how the DOJ wanted to unseal these grand jury transcripts that had absolutely nothing new in them, our viewers may recall, we did videos about this at the time, Brian, that the prosecutors had failed to notify the victims of Epstein and Maxwell's crimes that they were even seeking to unseal grand jury transcripts, which might have some of the names of the victims in there. And they even in substance defied a court order to notify them and weren't willing to answer questions directly honestly and candidly with the court about that. Right?
But whereas they couldn't notify the victims when they were going through this bogus exercise of pretend transparency. What do we see in today's court filing? They said, "Well, you know, judge, we instantly notified the two people whose names are sealed, and they say, 'No, no, no, don't unseal them.'" Can you look at the inconsistency, the disparity in the way they refuse to protect or honor the rights of victims, but boy were they quick to honor the rights of EP Epstein's co-conspirators and make clear to the court, these people do not want their name names disclosed. and we're here to protect them. This is the legal upside down.
Last question here on this, Glenn. I understand that the DOJ is concerning itself. I understand that judges will often be differential to the DOJ. I understand that there does exist the presumption of regularity. That means that inherently judges are going to be more differential to the DOJ. But is there any reason here why uh a a judge would not defer to NBC News in their effort to get this information released because this is just a matter of of first amendment.
Yeah. The the only reason I can come up with is a privacy interest. But let me read something else that the government the DOJ's letter to the court that was filed today cites to. It says that the second circuit court of appeals which sits a top the New York uh US attorney's office. So they hand down precedent that the US attorney's office must follow. The second circuit court of appeals has also held that the privacy interests of innocent third parties may be harmed by disclosure. So to that I would say if Jeffrey Ebstein negotiated immunity for these two people whose names, you know, may be unsealed soon because they were his co-conspirators and then he paid them money when the heat got turned up on him. Um it doesn't sound to me like they are innocent third parties whose privacy interests might be impacted by this disclosure.
But there is a general catchall for anybody's privacy interest. And you know that will uh that will weigh uh against disclosure in the mind of the judge. But I don't think that's enough to keep these things sealed that were sealed back in 2019 for the express reason that they might testify as witnesses at trial against Jeffrey Epstein.
Well, we will of course stay on top of this. As soon as we have any legal update, as soon as we have any ruling from the judge, we'll bring it to you. For those who are watching, if you'd like to follow along and support our work, completely free, the best way to do that is to subscribe to our channels. I'll put the link right here on the screen and also in the post description of this video. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen. And I'm Glenn Kersner. You're watching the Legal Breakdown. [Music]