Transcription
Hi everybody. I'm Britney Lewis, a breaking news reporter here at Forbes. Joining me once again is Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me.
>> Thanks for having me as always, Britney.
>> This is the second time in a few weeks that you visited the Department of Justice to view the unredacted Epstein files. So to start off the conversation, what was the goal this time around?
>> So, um, I filed the No Escaping Justice Act, uh, just recently, which is legislation designed to focus on making sure that we can hold accountable foreign nationals who engaged in Jeffrey Epstein's international sex crime ring. Uh, if the Department of Justice won't prosecute anyone else and Congress is not able to make them, we certainly should be able to hold accountable foreign nationals who engaged in those kinds of horrific crimes. And the legislation would freeze their assets in the United States, would restrict their travel, and would also require the Department of Justice to produce lists of foreign nationals that were engaged in the kind of trafficking and criminal activity that, uh, that are what we are supposed to be able to see transparently from the legislation that we passed requiring the fully unredacted Epstein files to be visible. My goal, um, in this last review from this morning was to really scan through files that seemed evident where there were foreign nationals involved in, you know, engaging in the criminal activity or aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein in his criminal activity, particularly his sexual criminal activity. And those files were essential to be able to see. And, you know, it just continues to shock me and outrage me that there are tens of thousands of files, probably hundreds of thousands given how many files there are, that have redactions in them that block our ability to see who it is that was engaged in criminal activity with Jeffrey Epstein. The only thing the law allows, Britney, is to have the names redacted that were of the victims. Um, everything else is supposed to be unredacted.
>> I know last time when you and I talked about you visiting and looking through the unredacted files, you said you believed that the DOJ was engaged in a cover-up with all of these redactions. Did you notice, because this time you went with a focus on, uh, foreign nationals, were the names of foreign nationals redacted in that way too?
>> There were names of people who appeared to be foreign nationals. Uh, when I was able to unredact those names from particular files that I reviewed, um, it was very clear that, uh, that a number of the individuals whose names were redacted and who there were serious questions about what their activities were based on the document I was reviewing, um, should not have been hidden from view. And the only reason that that could have been possible, um, at this point, especially given the volume of redactions, is because the Department of Justice is trying to cover up what, uh, the crimes that that were committed and also to cover up the ability for the public and for members of Congress, you representing the public, from being able to get to the bottom of what really happened. Um, and I can tell you the files that I reviewed today again, if you remember the last time we spoke, there were files that I could not unredact, that I could not reveal the redaction when I went through the multiple keystroke process that is complicated unnecessarily. And there was one 55-page document that not only were names redacted, everything in the 55-page document was completely blackened and unable to be unredacted. So, I've asked for, you know, it to be revealed so that I could see and others had previously asked for that same document. Apparently, um, no one has been able to see the unredacted version of it. I also, um, had a do, I had documents that were from the agency that goes after human and sexual trafficking, um, criminal drug activity, and that was a list, there was a list of targets that of each of the investigation, and every single one of the targets' names were redacted except for Jeffrey Epstein's. I was able to unredact those, but why were all the targets except Jeffrey Epstein, um, of those of that criminal activity, uh, why were they all redacted? There was another document where Jeffrey Epstein's, um, trust paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to individuals. In some cases, that his trust paid lawyers to represent them, and in others, presumably, uh, which, you know, we need to get to the bottom of, th, those hundreds of thousands of dollars were were paid to keep, paid to keep them quiet so that they would, um, not reveal, um, his conduct or their engagement in it. And there was another entire set of documents that I was unable to redact that was also related to sexual crimes that were committed, and the names associated with those documents I was unable to unredact.
>> Going back to that 555-page document where nothing was unredacted, I'm assuming on those 55 pages, it wasn't just a list of victim's names covering the 55 pages. What exactly was supposed to be on that document that you were supposed to see?
>> I don't know. Uh, I mean, picture 55 completely blank pages. So if you look at an, let's say, 8 and a half by 11 piece of paper, and >> yeah, like where >> for reference. So just >> every single imagine every single item on that page for 55 pages would be completely blackened. So not, not cross-outs, not just some information redacted, all of it. And, and that's just that, that's a violation of the law, and there, there's, we're not even being given any excuse. I mean, when I asked about that and the other document that was also unable to be unredacted today, um, you know, there were vague references to, well, that could have come from the court. The last time I was able to unredact a, a document in my first review, we were told eventually by DOJ that the FB, the document came from the FBI, and now we have to reach out to the FBI to get access to that document. But, and the law is the law. I mean, the, the, uh, the law that we passed requires the files to be released fully unredacted except for the victim's names, and the only reason why that has not happened. Now, look, Britney, if there are, you know, accidentally, you know, some names throughout that didn't get, uh, unredacted, I understand that there's millions of pages, but this is obvious, systematic, comprehensive cover-up where they are intentionally leaving names. The last time when I reviewed the files, there were co-conspirators whose names had been redacted throughout the documents I reviewed. And I found that to be the case with the documents I reviewed today. Uh, the other disturbing thing I can share with you is that I reviewed documents today that had multiple emails or references to sexual activity with very young children. One reference to a young child who, a photograph, I couldn't see the photograph, but a photograph was sent to Jeffrey Epstein of a 10-year-old. It was specifically referenced that the person in the picture was 10 years old. And another document referred to very young children and an indiv, an email from an individual who said, who referenced himself as being a horrific sexual pervert, and that he hoped that he, you know, was not going to get prosecuted and, you know, like destroy this email if, uh, you know, if you are, are uncomfortable, but I had to put it down to just the depravity, Britney, and the vile, disgusting conduct, illegal, immoral conduct that this Department of Justice is covering up is breathtaking and disgusting.
>> I mean, there's no other word to describe that besides just sick. Jeffrey Epstein is a child sex offender, depraved. I mean, just horrific to hear, I'm sure. Horrific to look at, horrific to know that these things were happening.
>> Yes.
>> Can you give us any information on who those potential co-conspirators were? Who was the person sending Jeffrey Epstein a picture of a 10-year-old?
>> I mean, we're being advised not to reveal names in the press because, you know, obviously there are potential prosecutions and there are, I guess, legal reasons why. I think there's a preference that we refer these names that we find that we find when we're reviewing the files to the Judiciary Committee, and then the Judiciary Committee can kind of make a determination about how it's best to reveal the names. But, you know, we're, we're funneling this information to our Judiciary Committee staff and and members so they can synthesize and process this information, um, and try to get to, you know, further to the bottom because obviously, I mean, this is millions of pages, and so it requires a lot of assistance by colleagues like me for us to be able to give them some, give them some help. But this is, this is depraved, vile criminal activity. I, I mean, this is the first time, Britney, I have to tell you, this is the first time that in reviewing the files, I actually saw the evidence of sexual assault of minors that there was clear intent and trafficking, and not just trafficking in pictures, but Jeffrey Epstein was obviously, and many others, were engaged in trafficking and sexually assaulting and providing young children for sexual, uh, pleasure of, of others. And there were enablers. How could Donald Trump and his Department of Justice be be doing anything other than trying to make sure that we get to the bottom of this and prosecute everyone and anyone who is associated with this?
>> It's just, it's really disturbing to hear, like I said, but, and I'm sorry that my language next is going to be so surreal, especially because we're talking about children, we're talking about young women, we're talking about an international sex trafficking ring. But what exactly were these potential co-conspirators slash foreign nationals that you were looking at? How exactly were they involved in this? Were they simply turning a blind eye to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes? Were they providing him money? Were they procuring these women and children for him? Were they customers in this sex trafficking ring? What were the roles here that you saw?
>> What, what it appears is all of the above. There were different documents where it was clear to me that there were foreign nationals who had been engaged as, you know, customers or as participants in that sexual activity. Um, it, it was clear that in some cases there were foreign nationals who were aiding and abetting Jeffrey Epstein in procuring young children, um, young women, uh, for that sexual activity, for the sexual abuse. Um, there were, there were foreign nationals that were involved in the financial transactions that that were connected to all of this international sex crime activity. Um, it, it is a, a very deep menu of foreign nationals who should not escape prosecution, and who should, in their home countries, and, and in many cases, these foreign countries are actually holding their own nationals more accountable than than Donald Trump's administration is holding Americans accountable involved in this disgusting depravity.
>> What's the next step here, both for the No Escaping Justice Act as well as looking at all of these documents? Because I know that we know a lot of the names in the documents, right? You can search it. It's pretty easy to search things that aren't redacted. But I can imagine it's going to take a lot more time putting all of the puzzle pieces together, right? Just based on the millions and millions of documents there are.
>> Right, between the Oversight Committee and the Judiciary Committees, you know, our, our staffs and our members are really being, um, assertive and leaning in because, look, remember, this all goes back, and my involvement in this goes back to Courtney Wild and the Courtney Wild legislation that I, um, have filed that would ensure that the sweetheart deal that Epstein got in the first damn place never happens again. I mean, so this is a guy who got nothing more than a slap on the wrist. And, you know, now, just this past week, you see that the, uh, Miami Herald, uh, Julie K. Brown, um, you know, from South Florida, uh, South Florida's paper revealed that there were bags and bags of shredded documents that were shredded after, you know, it was revealed that he'd committed suicide. The question mark over whether he did commit, commit suicide. Payoffs that were referenced that she discovered where money, you know, thousands of dollars went into, uh, prison guards' accounts, um, you know, seeming like nothing more, seeming very evidently like they were paid off to be s, to keep silent. The, the depth of this cover-up and how it goes really all the way to the top of this administration to to aid and abet the cover-up is, is, is, is nauseating. Um, we're supposed to, when we run for office, be protecting the most vulnerable. And this administration, Pam Bondi, the President of the United States, Donald Trump himself, they are enabling, aiding, and embedding the cover-up that would, that is preventing us from being able to hold everyone involved in this accountable. And, and that means it could happen again. And, and that's, I mean, as a mom who raised three incredible young children who are now young adults, I have two daughters. I represent, you know, hundreds of thousands of people. Um, I know they want me swinging here in the fight to make sure that this kind of depravity and illegal and immoral international crime can never happen again.
>> It's horrifying to know that this happened once. It's just unimaginable to think it can happen again. And as we get updates, you and I always have conversations on them, and I want to talk about them as they come in. But just, I have two quick questions for you. Completely changing topics. DHS has had a partial government shutdown now for almost 40 days. It's dragged on for over a month. As a result, many of the agency's employees have gone without a paycheck for over a month. We've seen those hours-long lines at airports across the country. Doesn't seem like there's a deal in sight. Republicans seemed optimistic about a deal. A proposal they sent to Democrats. Democrats rejected that. Said that they have to reign in ICE. And we can go through what that proposal said. But what do you make of the state of things right now as it relates to the shutdown?
>> So, the, the most recent development is that there are talks in the, in the U.S. Senate, um, bipartisan talk, talks that would, um, advance, let the notion that we should fund TSA and the Coast Guard and other ICE agencies, excuse me, other DHS agencies, and allow us to continue to further negotiate on reforms related to to ICE. Uh, I think it would also fund ICE investigations. ICE actually, beyond, um, immigrant, undocumented immigrant detention, um, does investigate, um, sex, sexual, ironically, human and sexual trafficking, and the, the kind of digital crimes that, uh, you want, that, that to continue. Um, but the bottom line is that the, the Republicans totally control whether or not they want to continue to allow masked ICE officers who are insufficiently trained and who have run roughshod over the people's human and civil rights, and who are, um, not arresting the worst of the worst, but in, instead rounding up just folks who are trying to make a better way of life for themselves and their families. I think I've shared with you, we, we, we still have, uh, ICE stopping lawn trucks who w, with people who are, you know, cutting lawns in suburban neighborhoods in South Florida. Those are not the worst of the worst criminals. Those are people who, ate sheriffs and police, Republican sheriffs and police chiefs in my state, you know, publicly came together and said to Ronda Santis and Donald Trump, enough is enough. We should not be wasting resources. And I agree with them. We should not be wasting resources rounding up people who contribute to our economy, who have been good and upstanding residents, and the only infraction they committed was coming to this country as an undocumented immigrant, and that we should be investing resources and time on going after the worst of the worst criminals. And I have said to you many times, we should deport those. But now we have Republican law enforcement leaders who are saying, "This is crazy," and it has to stop. So, you know how we open the Department of Homeland Security? We fund TSA. We fund nonprofit security grants to ensure that you have attacks like the one in Temple Israel, uh, are, are much less likely. We, we have to make sure the Coast Guard is funded and, uh, as well as FEMA. And we should continue to negotiate on the reforms that it's very simple. The Republicans should just say, "Yeah, the masks should come off, the name tags go on. You have body cameras that they have to wear like law enforcement across the country does. And we're going to make sure that we are having using judicial warrants." The new Homeland Security Secretary, um, I, I guess now Secretary Mullen, has agreed to that. Well, let's codify it because I'm a show-me person, not a tell-me person. And you're not going to just reassure me that you're going to conduct business that way. We have to make them do it in the law.
>> Do you think that this is having an issue getting passed because President Trump wants the Save America Act included in all of this?
>> Yes, it's preposterous. Yes, he's, he's insisting on disenfranchising voters and making it less likely that people, uh, have the ability to have an ID that that is satisfactory to be able to cast a ballot when this is a, this is absolutely an, a solution in search of a problem. There is, you know, barely a blip on the radar of the kind of, um, ballot fraud that he, that this bill he says is designed to solve. He doesn't like that he lost the 2020 election fair and square. So, he has invented this, this solution, uh, to a problem that doesn't exist. And it's so transparent. They just want to stop people or make it less likely that people that are unlikely to go and vote for Republicans, uh, that can get to the ballot and be able to cast a vote.
>> Congresswoman, I always appreciate our conversations. Thank you so much. Until next time.
>> Look forward to it. Thank you so much as always.