Facts haunt Trump as new Epstein files release shows lots to investigate

The Trump administration has been very clear. They are not interested in following up on any of the new revelations from the latest batch of Epstein files. Really, not at all.

Trump's Deputy Attorney General and former defense attorney Todd Blanche said as much last night.

Is there any chance that any of these individuals who partied with Epstein and engaged in um uh, you know, relations with minors will be prosecuted? Any chance?

We we I'll never say no, and we will always investigate any evidence of misconduct. But as you know, it is not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.

So not a crime to party with Mr. Epstein, I guess not technically, though he is a massive sexual predator, so I'm not sure it's something you brag about either. The point is that's quite the line from an administration that spent years, years whipping up the base.

That telling them, they would be the ones who would do everything possible to get the truth out about Epstein and any co-conspirators.

It's also quite a line considering the fact that the documents do appear to contain new information that, well,

might be worth another look if one were so inclined.

Like communications between Epstein and Trump's Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, or between Epstein and Trump's top donor, Elon Musk.

I mean, Lutnick claims he spent zero time with Epstein, and Musk says he never partied with Epstein or went to his island.

Of course, simply having your name appear in the Epstein file does not make a person guilty of any crimes.

But apparently we are supposed to just take Trump's word for it that there's nothing to see here.

Elon Musk was also in there and so was your commerce secretary Howard Lutnick in correspondence that he had with him.

Did you read those new files that were published by the Department of Justice?

I didn't. I have a lot of things I'm doing.

A lot of things I'm doing. I don't know.

Uh, you mentioned two names.

I'm sure they're fine.

I'm sure they're fine. Otherwise it would have been major headlines.

A lot of women who were or survivors of Epstein are unhappy with those redactions that came out.

Some of them entire witness interviews are totally blacked out.

Do you think that they should be more transparent?

No, I heard back that they thought they released too much.

You know, I heard that.

And you tell me something else.

No.

Uh,

I think it's really time for the country to get on to something else.

Really, you know, now that uh nothing came out about me.

I mean,

Just let's everybody move on, shall we?

Well, we're not going to move on, obviously.

But joining me now is New York Democratic Congressman and member of the House Judiciary Committee, Dan Goldman.

Okay.

I we've all been waiting through.

I mean, news organizations, committees and members of Congress, all of these documents that have come out.

And there are certainly many in there, there were there was information in there that came from tip lines that is unsubstantiated and things like that.

But there are some pieces of information in there that feels like they could warrant follow-up.

But let me ask you this from more of a

you're a former prosecutor.

Is there stuff in there that you've seen that that you think warrants more questioning, more investigation, more follow-up?

And if so, what? What stuck out to you?

Well,

I think there definitely is.

Even just the tip line.

I mean, the tip line has allegations that Donald Trump sexually assaulted a 13-year-old.

And it's unclear whether and to what extent they chased that uh tip down.

And whether there was a true investigation into it.

Uh, that would obviously be something that you would want to investigate.

The interesting thing uh that really jumps out to me about the release right now is, yes,

we're coming through a lot of these communications.

Um, and certainly I I don't think anybody should be so glib as Mr. Blanche was about saying it's not a crime to party.

With a notorious sex trafficker, sexual predator who raped young kids at those parties.

But the survivors that I have um been communicating with

are really upset.

And they're upset for multiple reasons.

They're upset because notwithstanding all the time we heard about these redactions and why they were a month and a half late.

And last March they were spending hours and hours, thousands of hours redacting, redacting.

The redactions were incomplete.

And the whole point of the redactions under the law is to protect uh victim identification information.

They published nude photos of potential victims.

They published, I saw one document that was literally the subject of an email was Epstein victim list.

And there were about 30 plus, you're sure you saw this, 30 plus names on it.

One name was redacted.

So it's not like they just missed the page.

They chose not to redact those.

And then when you hear the Department of Justice say, oh, there's nothing to investigate here.

Um, we would need, I think Blanche said in that interview with Laura Ingram,

oh, well, you know, the emails aren't enough, we would need pictures aren't enough, we would need witnesses.

The survivors have been asking to meet with the Department of Justice.

And they have not been given that opportunity.

So how can you sit there saying you need witnesses when you are not allowing the witnesses to come in?

And so this is just part of a continued and massive cover-up that has been going on for a year now.

Where clearly they are trying to protect either Donald Trump, and there's a lot that needs to be investigated about Donald Trump in there.

Or others that is within their orbit because there's still millions of pages that haven't been turned over.

Yeah, okay.

I have about 12 follow-up questions from everything you just said.

First of all,

on the tip line.

I asked that because I think so many people out there, you're you're seeing all this information flow.

You don't know what to overvalue, undervalue.

Obviously, those things are unsubstantiated.

But what you're saying, it sounds like is, those things should be looked into.

They should have been followed up on, or they would have been followed up on perhaps.

By a normal Department of Justice.

Absolutely.

And ask questions about them.

Absolutely.

And look, this case was with the Southern District for a long time.

I'm sure that they did a lot of this investigation.

And some of this investigative work, whether it's the tip lines or not.

But what we don't see in those files is any conclusion to those investigations.

I think there appear to be many, many reports that are not in there.

And there are a lot of reports that redact people who may be co-conspirators.

Which is exactly what they were not supposed to redact.

So we have asked on the Judiciary Committee for time, they've offered us to go to the Department of Justice and review the unredacted materials.

Uh, and we're looking to do that as soon as we possibly can.

And you don't have a date yet, though.

We I have not yet heard back.