Transcription
There is new bipartisan frustration in Congress after the Justice Department sent a list of "politically exposed persons" in the millions of files related to its probes of Jeffrey Epstein. That list includes many prominent figures who appear in the files without any context, like Janice Joplin and Pope John Paul II. No one named besides Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, has ever been charged in connection with Epstein's crimes.
Several lawmakers argue the Justice Department is intentionally muddying the waters on who was a predator versus someone simply mentioned in an email or perhaps an article. Billionaire Tom Pritzker is stepping down as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, saying he regrets his association with Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department sent a weekend letter to Congress listing hundreds of prominent people listed in the Epstein files. But there's a butt, and it's a big one. Being mentioned doesn't necessarily mean anything. Elvis Presley is in there, and he died almost 50 years ago, which raises questions about why DOJ sent this six-page letter that you saw with scores of prominent names. Yes, there are some presidents, business leaders, government officials who have been well-documented in their ties to the convicted sex offender, but there are many others who are simply talked about in the Epstein emails and texts.
You are on the oversight committee. Uh, that's one of the jobs and the committees that you sit on in Washington. One of your colleagues, Democrat Ro Khanna, said that this is DOJ's attempt to muddy the waters. Republican Congresswoman Nancy Mace pointed out that the list is "missing names." What's your reaction?
Yeah, it's selective release. We've seen this consistently. Um, there is an agenda that this DOJ has, and that is why the American people simply do not trust the leadership in Washington right now under this administration because it feels as if it's more about protecting pedophiles than it is in actually seeking truth and justice, which is the job of the Department of Justice. Um, so sadly enough, uh, just like when we saw the initial release of the Epstein files, we saw that there were victims' names that were released as well, and it was clear that that was intentional. Um, sadly enough, I feel like that was an attempt to intimidate these amazing survivors. And frankly, we saw when, um, Pam Bondi appeared before Judiciary, the other committee that I serve on, that they absolutely were the courageous ones. And our pathetic attorney general, um, sadly enough, is not doing the job that she swore an oath to do.
There's so much that was redacted from these files. I know you are one of the lawmakers who went in and looked at some of the unredacted documents. What were your takeaways?
No, that's actually not the case. I went in to see unredacted files, and of the files that my staff had listed that they wanted me to go ahead and try to review, um, all of those files were still redacted. And so I was asking the staff that was there, why is it that I am here? And basically, it was just a waste of my time. Um, this is another thing that concerns everyone, whether you're talking about a Khanna or a Thomas Massie. There's a lack of transparency, um, and seemingly an attempt to cover up. It is really sad that the United States has historically, has historically led this world, and right now we're seeing the United States fall for so many reasons. We see leaders all around the world that are resigning.
Go ahead. I just want to make sure I understand, uh, what happened. So, you went in, as did many of your colleagues, to see unredacted files, but was it the specific files that you wanted to see that they would not unredact? And, and correct. Why do you think that is? Do you know the context around those?
I, I don't know exactly what all I was supposed to see if it had been redacted. My staff gave me a list of specific files that they were like, "We think you should try to go and look at these." They have four computers set up for all 435 members of the House. I sat down at one of those computers. They showed us how to go through the process of actually seeing the unredacted version. I then had to have the person that taught us how to do that to say, "Wait a minute, am I doing something wrong?" Because I, as I continue to search specific documents, they are coming up, and they are redacted. Um, and so the explanation that I was given is that that must have been how they were sent over. And there are a lot of documents that they've been getting the same issue. Um, they've been trying to resolve, I will say, um, because a lot of members have had that problem. So they were taking note of everything that I was trying to unredact and denoting that they were not available in an unredacted form.
Joining us now is Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell of California. He serves on the House Judiciary Committee. Hi Congressman. So, what was your immediate reaction when you read this list of names, uh, which includes people like Marilyn Monroe, who died when Epstein was just 9 years old?
"Get real" is my reaction. It's nonsense. These monsters were forwarding news articles about me. And if you check these billionaires' emails today, I bet they're still talking about me because they're worried. They're worried about many that they've listed in that email, and they should be, because I, and many others that they're trying to muddy us up with, uh, are not going to rest until every single one of them has been brought to justice. So, this is just a distraction. The American people want to see justice on these files. The Congress has asked for this. It's not going away, Pamela. And as I said, I'm not going away. Notably, the victims aren't going away. More importantly.
Well, well, certainly, and we continue, we will continue to talk to them. Um, noticeably, notably missing, uh, from that letter, I noticed, were names like longevity doctor Peter Attia and Steve Tisch, co-owner of the Giants, both of whom communicated with Epstein in the emails in the most recent dump of files. They haven't been accused of any wrongdoing. But what do you make of that? This, this big list of names including Marilyn Monroe and, and Elvis Presley, and then those names not actually being on the list? And, and, and also, by the way, the name that is listed the most in these files and talked about the most is Donald Trump. And of all the people that Jeffrey Epstein talked to in the world, and it looks like this guy got around, and there are millions of files, and Donald Trump's name is mentioned many, many times, up to a million. Some are speculating through the searches. There's only one person that Jeffrey Epstein described as his best friend, and that's Donald Trump. But the effort since this summer, and I want to just walk you through the timeline, has been to avoid this at all costs on the Republican side. They refused to swear in Adelita Grajeda when she would have been the person that got the Epstein discharge over the goal line. Uh, during the summer, they were willing to shut down the government because they didn't want these files, uh, to be released. And again, the Department of Justice won't release all of the files now, and many of them, you know, are redacted, and only about 50% have come forward. It's a cover-up job at the Department of Justice, but we're not going away. And certainly Trump's name has been in there, um, quite a lot, and he still, he has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Um, but certainly, it raises questions the way that this release has happened, as you noted, from the survivors themselves who have been on this show and have asked why it's being handled this way and why some names are redacted, others aren't. And this letter lists reasons why the Justice Department redacted information that goes beyond the requirements of the law passed by Congress compelling the Epstein files release. Many members of Congress say that's unacceptable. But what recourse do you actually have at this point?
Well, to keep taking the Department of Justice to court. I'd recommend that in the next round of funding for the Department of Justice, we withhold funding, uh, until they get this right. And I was a former, you know, sexual assault prosecutor in California. And you don't have to have had done that job to understand why this is important. But when I talk to Californians, uh, this is one of the most important issues to them. The Epstein files are not just about documents. Many people see this as a final exam for democracy. Either the most powerful people in Washington are going to hold to account these monsters, or they're going to protect them. And right now, I, I think you're better off if you're on the side of the victims and transparency rather than to, to do anything to protect the people who may have been at fault.
Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of Britain's royal family have been thrust into the spotlight after being named hundreds of times in the latest tranche of Epstein files. The saga involving the late sex offender had already engulfed both their parents, the former Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson. Now, new details have emerged about Epstein's friendship with the princesses' mother, who seems to have brought her daughters into his orbit, even after he was convicted for sex offenses.
A series of emails released by the Department of Justice indicate that Ferguson, Eugenie, and Beatrice all visited Epstein in Miami in 2009, just five days after he was released from jail. He served 13 months for soliciting prostitution from a minor. "Do you need a ride?" Epstein asks before they lunch. "No, thank you," the former duchess replies, adding, "It'll be myself, Beatrice, and Eugenie." At a time when they were 20 and 19 years old. In a subsequent email, Ferguson tells Epstein, "Cannot wait to see you." A separate thread between Epstein and his personal assistant days earlier also appears to indicate that he paid about $14,000 for the trio's flights to the US.
And here's another email chain nearly two years later in 2011 between Epstein, Ferguson, and her then-spokesperson. In it, the former duchess says that Beatrice advised her on how to handle a British journalist to whom she had given a statement about Epstein. Just last year, Ferguson's spokesperson said she had cut off relations with Epstein, "as soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations." But all these DOJ files suggest otherwise.
As for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, Beatrice and Eugenie's father, he remains under pressure from his ties to Epstein. The disgraced former prince has previously denied any wrongdoing, including after he reached an out-of-court settlement with a woman who said she was trafficked to him as a teen. Beatrice and Eugenie have kept a low profile through all of this, and there's no suggestion of wrongdoing simply because they've been named in the Epstein files.