Transcription
So, uh, I'd first like to ask you about this missing photo that my colleague Fallon was just talking about from the DOJ release and the post on X by the oversight Democrats. Put this all together.
Well, um, nobody knows what happened, but uh, I suspect somebody uh, saw the photo there and demanded it that it be removed immediately. So there would only be a handful of people who would have that kind of power to override what had been um you know disclosed before and there wouldn't be that many people who would be uh I would say irrational enough to think that that wouldn't be noticed but beyond that it's hard to know who's behind it.
All right. Well, let's talk about the law which was signed by the president on November 19th requiring the DOJ to release all unclassified Epstein materials within 30 days. And yet DOJ admits it's only a partial disclosure. There's more to come. And many of these documents were heavily redacted. I had my colleague print out some of them here. I mean, for those of you who haven't seen this, okay, this is grand jury New York. Oh, that's good. Yeah, another one from Grand Jury New York. Let's just do one more. Grand jury. They're all like that. 119 pages worth from the New York grand jury file, completely blacked out. Is this release a violation of the law? Could it be obstruction? And how do you interpret these redactions and whether they cross the line into unlawful concealment?
It's absolutely a violation of the law because they were supposed to have turned over 100% of all the materials. Uh, and we know that they'd been through them before because they told us back in July that they had thoroughly scrutinized all of the materials in the file and could not find any basis to think that there would be evidence upon which a prosecutor could make any other criminal cases. So, we know they'd been through it. They'd also uh summon something like around a thousand FBI agents to pour over all those materials to look for Donald Trump's name uh and to redact his name and to bring to his attention whatever pictures, images, mentions, emails, texts there were. So, they'd already been through it. Uh it should not have been difficult for them to produce it uh according to the federal law which was passed uh overwhelmingly by Congress and which Donald Trump purported to support. Um, so they're in violation in that way, but also, uh, these redactions are obviously way, uh, sweeping and overly broad. Uh, the law calls for redactions of identifying information relating to specific victims, but they also have to elucidate exactly why a particular redaction is taking place rather than just blacking out an entire document like that. And you know, a lot of the file looks like that, like, you know, ransom notes, uh, kind of pieced together and just blacked out all over the place.
Do do members of the oversight committee have even an inkling of what was redacted in the what 500 plus pages that were blacked out? Can Congress compel the DOJ to at least explain?
Well, Congress could if uh the speaker of the house who controls the office of the house council, our lawyers uh would be willing to go to court. I think you know someone was asking the question why the the members weren't ready to go to court. Uh individual members of the house don't have standing to go. The minority doesn't have standing to get in there. If anybody's got standing, it is the majority and the speaker speaking for the entire house. Now, this was something that was voted on by the entire house. So, you think we should be able to push forward, but it just looks like a game of cat and mouse and hideand go seek with the Republicans. They're doing everything in their power to sandbag the investigation that they're pretending to support.
So, in a September uh FBI hearing, Congressman Thomas Massie said the FBI was holding back 20 names of suspected Epstein clients, including figures in the music industry, finance, politics, banking. Cash Patel denied the FBI was holding anything back. But did we learn anything from that front from this first release of files? And if not, do you expect we will?
Well, we should be able to. That 20 of course um is a very conservative estimate of the names that are in there. You don't run a decadesl long multi-billion dollar uh sex trafficking ring around the world with just 20 clients or 20 people involved. I mean this is a major financial business managerial operation and criminal operation. So it's going to be a lot more than that. Uh and look these names will come out. Remember that a lot of the victims know exactly who is in there, but they don't want to cross these, you know, billionaires or government officials or people who occupy real positions of power and influence and control because uh I'm certain that they've threatened to make their lives miserable or at least made implicit threats to that effect. Um, but it's just building up like a pressure cooker right now. These names are going to come out one way or another. And Congressman Roana has proposed an array of options if there is evidence. The administration either redacted or withheld information to protect anyone associated with Epstein's crimes. Same if further batches withhold key information. So Kana floated subpoenas, contempt proceedings, um, even impeachment of Attorney General Pam Bondie and other DOJ officials. Will Democrats follow through if the DOJ does not comply with the law?
Oh, and we're going to use the every means uh within the paniply of powers that may be at our disposal, but just remember that it depends on pulling over enough enough Republicans to create a majority. Uh Marjorie Taylor Green is leaving the House uh on January 5th. Um, and you know, Nancy Mace is running for governor. Uh, and you know, so it I mean it's not going to be easy to do that. You saw the extraordinary political mobilization that it took on the part of oversight Democrats to get the original subpoena uh imposed and then uh the Department of Justice and Attorney General Bondi have completely been obstructing that subpoena and not complying with it. So it's like pulling teeth. Uh but uh there remains a massive pressure in the country to get this done. And you know, one of the reasons I think for this, Alex, is that there have been so many child sex abuse scandals. And uh the sex abuse scandals even of young adults all over the country, whether we're talking about sports teams, colleges, universities, Boy Scouts, churches, you name it. And so there's a huge reservoir of interest in seeing that these materials come out and we figure out how these sex rings actually continue. And remember that QAnon has been promoting this idea for a long time that there is a ring of very powerful pedophiles who've been procuring underage uh girls for the uh amusement of older men. Well, there seems to be a lot of truth in that. It's just that uh that ring and that circle revolves a lot around uh Donald Trump's friends or his best friend for over a decade, Jeffrey Epstein. And now they're doing whatever they can to plate Gain Maxwell, who as you know has been moved to a very sweetheart deal uh prison camp where she's getting all kinds of five-star Trump hotel like treatment in terms of room service and the ability to work out whenever she wants and all those kinds of things. So we're in the middle of this story right now.
Yeah, we are. Uh well, we will have more to come and talk with you about that. But let's move on, sir, to the judiciary hearing where former special counsel Jack Smith defended his criminal investigations into President Trump. That was in of course a closed door deposition on Wednesday. Political reports Smith is pressing the committee for an open hearing, which you support. Based on Smith's testimony, why are Republicans trying to keep him from speaking publicly? What would Americans learn from Smith?
Well, uh, Smith, of course, was involved in two major projects. One was examining, uh, and indicting on crimes that were committed as part of the conspiracy to overthrow the, uh, 2020 presidential election, uh, culminating in the extraordinary mob violence that took place and the storming of the capital. And the other was uh the uh pilfering and retention of hundreds of classified documents that were kept in the bathrooms and the ballrooms uh down at Mara Lago and then continuing obstruction of efforts of the FBI to get those documents back. Well, the first report on that was published. Uh the second uh has not been released by Attorney General Bondi and by the administration and we're demanding that it be released the way all the other special counsel uh reports have been released like Robert Muellers and Robert Hers and you know you name it. Those people also came and appeared in public hearings before the judiciary committee and they want to deny Jack Smith the opportunity to appear in a public hearing precisely because he's such a compelling uh witness and such a class act as a prosecutor. You know, I sat there for seven hours and he just schooled the judiciary committee on what a prosecutor is and what a prosecutor does. a prosecutor follows the facts and applies the law and does that all within the constraints of the ethics guidelines and the Republicans just did not lay a glove on him.
Extraordinary. I wish I had more time to talk with you in detail about that. Uh we'll hope to another time, but let me ask you about what happened this week when the president unveiled that White House presidential walk of fame, mocking some of Trump's Democratic predecessors. And you responded by introducing legislation subjecting White House renovations like this and Trump's Eastwing Ballroom project to the same reviews as other federal projects with Republicans controlling Congress and your bill facing some long odds. What are you hoping to accomplish here?
Well, I at least want to start a dialogue with the Republicans as to whether they really think that the White House should be treated like private property. uh it doesn't belong to the person who happens to occupy it for a four-year period. It belongs to the American people just like the United States Capital, just like the Supreme Court building, just like the Department of Treasury, you name it. And all of those have to go through uh a federal review process in terms of uh exterior changes, architectural changes, and so on. And that's got to go to the National Capital Planning Commission, the Fine Arts Review Commission, and the White House should be exactly the same. He doesn't own the White House. He lives in the White House at the sufference of the American people for as long as he's been elected and as long as he's not otherwise, you know, impeached, tried, convicted, and removed from office. But the point is, all of us who aspire and attain to public office are nothing but the servants of the people. And we don't become owners of the government and owners of public property which we can somehow use according to our own tastes.