June 26, 2026
Judge Orders Release of Unredacted Epstein Files; Wants Blacked Out Names Revealed
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed The Department of Justice has until next week to produce several emails and documents with the names of potential Epstein co-conspirators revealed. An independent journalist sued the DOJ to have access to the blacked out names, saying the government is still trying to protect “the very powerful and the very rich.” The ruling states the DOJ has to either produce the unredacted document by July 2nd or explain why the redactions should not be removed. Among the group of documents ordered released, the FBI notes from the unverified allegations of assault by one woman against Trump.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, they're folks. It is Friday, June twenty sixth, and I was under the impression that all of the Epstein files were out. Well, apparently it ain't even close, and a judge has given a deadline for a whole new heap of Epstein documents to be released. With that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. This will never end. We still talk about Epstein.
00:00:26
Speaker 2: Files, Yes we are.
00:00:28
Speaker 3: And you know what, it's pretty remarkable to hear just how many have not been released, and to hear that some of the files that have been.
00:00:37
Speaker 2: Released have notably.
00:00:41
Speaker 3: Blacked out the names of the people that we've been trying to find out and are part of the reason why we had this Transparency Act, this Epstein Files Transparency Act, so that we could find out if anyone was being protected, if anyone powerful, anyone rich, anyone who had been protected now has to be revealed. That was the whole point of this right to see if anyone else, any co conspirators with Epstein should be held accountable. So if you black out, if you redact all of the names and a lot of these incendiary or potentially incendiary files, what's the whole damn point of it.
00:01:16
Speaker 1: Well, you have to protect the innocent robes, and there are real there. The arguments have forever been, no matter how flimsy, and no matter how much people push back on there are some instances that are legit that names victims, addresses personal information stuff does like, we are reasonable enough to understand some things need to be protected. Well, we're talking about here, and what's been complained about for a long time. They're just handing out sheets of paper with nothing but black marks on it. They're saying it's been overdone. Some of the redactions are ridiculous, ridiculous to the point they'd make no other sense than you're trying to hide something.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: Yes, the suggestion is that they're intentional. And I laughed.
00:01:59
Speaker 3: I chuckled when you first began, because yes, I understand that certainly people's identities and certainly victims' identities need to be protected, and yet they didn't do that. So I chuckle because in the notion that they're redacting names to protect victims is laughable. When you talk to the victims who say, yeah, our names were all over the place. You didn't protect us. You're protecting powerful men. Potentially, you ain't been protecting us victims, and you've outed us in a lot of these files.
00:02:32
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what they say. The process has been so jacked. Nobody's going to believe a single thing about these files. If the judge tells them they got to release these, there's no way we're gonna believe that's all of them. It's just if this is a mess of a story that will never go away.
00:02:49
Speaker 3: But this particular ruling is significant because the judge, we'll see what happens, gave the Department of Justice a deadline next Thursday, July second. This judge ordered the DOJ to release unredacted versions of Epstein files or they have to explain why those particular redactions should not be removed. This judge sided with a reporter. She's now an independent reporter who filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in April. Her name is Katie Fang. She used to work at MSNBC. Now she publishes on substack. But this independent journalist is causing all sorts.
00:03:30
Speaker 2: Of heat for the DOJ.
00:03:31
Speaker 1: You what, what's the deadline?
00:03:34
Speaker 2: What day is it? July second? Next Thursday?
00:03:37
Speaker 1: Next Thursday. We wait, we've seen this, We've seen actually We've seen the administration absolutely laugh in the face of some judges orders at times. What they're going to do here, I don't know. I bet they will come up with a good reason for not releasing those files. It'd be something about national security, protection of something to the other, I would assume. But the number or as they're talking about, this isn't a few pages.
00:04:02
Speaker 3: No, they say there are a total of six million Epstein related files, and we've seen half of them. And of the half that we've seen, many of them are heavily and as you pointed out, in some cases ridiculously redacted. And in this case, though, the judge so he gave that deadline for next Sursday. He also had given the DOJ a deadline of one pm yesterday to respond to this reporter Katie Fang's Freedom of Information Act requests.
00:04:31
Speaker 2: Guess what the DOJ did.
00:04:32
Speaker 3: Nothing, just missed the deadline, and so the judge ordered those particular documents released. Two Fang and thanks, attorney said this. I thought this was interesting. The government thought that it could ignore its own law and blow off a judge's order, all for the sake of protecting the very powerful and the very rich. It didn't work, and now the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network that still remains to be seen the judge, and the judge went pretty strong in his language against the Trump administration. They said, or this judge said that this reporter was suffering from the type of harm lack of transparency that Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure of the information that Miss Fang seeks would help her.
00:05:17
Speaker 2: In her work.
00:05:18
Speaker 3: The Attorney General does not respond substantively to any of these arguments. And then the judge concluded, the Attorney General has conceded that he is in violation of the Act. So he's saying, hey, DOJ you are violating a law.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: That's cute, isn't that funny? Well, I a Department of Justice.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: I just say that because I mean, how many times I have this administration been accused of violating the law. I'm just that part. Yes, that's par for the course here, Yes, I get it, we get it. What's going to happen now? They're going to give us two million documents and they're going to tell us another eight million. We just found it. Just no matter what happens, this man will never go away. Well, you just won't. And even when Trump leaves the White House, is that going to help the story go away?
00:06:05
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:06:06
Speaker 3: It depends like there's so much we don't know.
00:06:08
Speaker 2: Still, that's the problem.
00:06:09
Speaker 3: And in this request or in this ruling, this demand that these documents be released, you want to hear exactly what documents.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: This is really fascinating.
00:06:18
Speaker 3: It includes eight emails, okay, and these are pretty awful emails in sexual content. There's a torture video apparently attached to one of these, and either the sender or the recipient is blacked out, so you can see the contents of the emails, but you don't know necessarily who sent it or who received it, but it either Epstein sent it or Epstein received it. In one of them, they say there is a draft indictment with names of potential co conspirators, all of the names redacted. There's a twenty nineteen email that mentions several co conspirators, all of those names blacked out. There's also interview notes that were behind some of those FBI documents where they interviewed a woman who said, at the time of thirteen, she claims these are unsubstantiated claims that Trump assaulted her. They want the notes that the FBI agents took during those interviews. Those were all redacted, So that is a part of this group that's supposed to be released. And I thought this was also interesting. The judge ordered that the DOJ released a log that listed every single redaction it's made to these files.
00:07:32
Speaker 2: All by next Thursday.
00:07:33
Speaker 3: You're shaking your head like, uh huh uh huh. I'll believe it when I see it.
00:07:37
Speaker 1: No, and what I just this, I don't even know if we pursued justice anymore. I don't know what we're going after with this NonStop Epstein story. I just I don't nobody can step up. I don't know when we have returned some corner robes to where we feel like justice is actually being served.
00:07:58
Speaker 2: When names aren't redacted.
00:08:00
Speaker 1: That's the thing. Serve up any name, keep going, keep going, keep going, name anybody, unredact every damn thing. And you know it's not gonna be enough. Then something else is missing because we thought, we have an idea that it has to be this person, this person or this person the like we're so sure I am certain robes. I think as everybody is WASH's story that there are guys walking around out there who absolutely violated these women and got away with it.
00:08:28
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:08:28
Speaker 1: That is, period, point blank, the way we're handling this and once again revictimizing and revictimizing and revictimizing by these dribs and drabs and games we're playing in court, and it seems like robes, we're getting farther away than closer to justice for these women, it feels, and maybe this is just what we have to go through it and you have to and it's a slow, slow process. It is my god, just once again here we go that all this does is to make more credibility away from a process that had damn near none.
00:09:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, none at all.
00:09:04
Speaker 3: And when you start to they've they've released a couple of the excerpts from some of these emails. Wouldn't you want to know who sent this? This was sent to Jeffrey Epstein, but we don't know who sent it. The key are the fourteen to fifteen year old girls. I'm a sexual pervert because I say they are now of reproductive age. My heart goes out to you, brother. Being called a sexual pervert is no fun. Who sent that email to him?
00:09:27
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm curious. It's salacious, but a suggestion of what I'm saying, how do we get somebody in jail based on seeing their email? I guess it then leads to the next question if somebody gets interviewed or have they not these women and maybe they didn't know who the guys were.
00:09:40
Speaker 2: I'm just that was most like that one of.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: These things in these details, so we get his name. I'm just saying ropes. It never is going to be enough. It never was, that's true.
00:09:52
Speaker 3: But I still think the pursuit of trying to get as much accurate information as possible is still worthy.
00:09:59
Speaker 1: It's a worthy pursuit, sure.
00:10:03
Speaker 3: And so we will see this deadline come on Thursday. And yes, to your point, it may be that the Department of Justice comes up with the reason that every single one of these documents must remain redacted, But this judge does seem as though he is going to hold them to a very high standard. So when we come back, we're going to talk about again all of those files, how many of them have not been released, and what the Department of Justice has said so far as it's reasoning for all of the necessary reactions, and the reason why we're not going to see three million of the six million Jeffrey Epstein files. And welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about a deadline now for the Department of Justice, imposed by a judge yesterday.
00:11:03
Speaker 2: It was a big win for an independent journalist.
00:11:06
Speaker 3: Her name is Katie Fang, she used to work for MSNBC, who has sued the Department of Justice saying I want to see several of these emails, several of these documents that we have asked for by filing a Freedom of Information Act, and these documents are so redacted we can't actually glean any information from them, and so the judge is given a deadline to the DOJ. You don't think we're going to see any new information? You're skeptical.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't if they release documents. If they don't, I don't think we're going to see new information. I just it just rose a bunch of files. They can't what what happened?
00:11:42
Speaker 3: What was it?
00:11:43
Speaker 1: Larry Summers. I'm trying to think of the big name, big time people who ended up stepping down from positions because of their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that came from the fire.
00:11:53
Speaker 3: Yeah, Larry Summers, there was a there was a JP Morgan Chase executive. I believe there was a few foreign those words.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: Yes, yes.
00:12:02
Speaker 1: Now my question is what justice came from the first batch, like genuine things we can point to and say it's important to get these out, because once we saw them, it led to this, this, this, this and this and yes, people have stepped down, got exposed and you could argued people should know about that.
00:12:22
Speaker 3: Prince Andrew being among them one of the big ones. What did we former Prince Andrew.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he was busted for sharing documents having to do with national security. It's not even having to do with justice for the women. So I'm saying, we keep getting this stuff out, we have got to get to a point where we get something out of these documents and do something actionable, actionable, because all we're doing is arguing about what's in it, what's not's in it, how much you gave us, how much you hadn't and what are these women are still waiting, still waiting.
00:12:56
Speaker 3: And so look, I will still remain skeptical yet hopeful that there will be some actionable information that possibly will be revealed when these reductions are lifted, if they're lifted, and look, the Department of Justice so far has said, okay, yes, there might be six million pages of documents, but they claim a lot of them are duplicates. Okay, but then just produce them, show us that they're duplicates, I guess would be interesting. They said some of them are unrelated to Epstein, yet somehow they're in the Epstein file document cash. I'm not sure how that works or and here's the big ambiguous gray area. They say many of these files are protected by quote unquote legal privilege, and that to me is this area where how do you define that? How do you say this belongs in a privileged pile and this one can go ahead and be released. And yes, they always have claimed that some of these reductions are necessary to protect personal information or victim's identities, personal information of whom, I guess would be the question. I mean, you could just say that about anybody.
00:14:07
Speaker 2: So yes, they have.
00:14:08
Speaker 3: Enough seemingly legal blankets to throw over piles of documents to say YEP protected, YEP protected, YEP protected.
00:14:17
Speaker 2: But I don't know.
00:14:17
Speaker 3: It seems like this judge is going to pursue as much transparency as possible.
00:14:24
Speaker 1: Oh, that's transparency. Is just it wasn't that the name of the act that Epstein transparency.
00:14:29
Speaker 3: It's called the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And yes, this judge has said that the Department of Justice has violated the terms.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: From the beginning. They even missed the deadline, didn't they when.
00:14:42
Speaker 2: They've continually missed deadline.
00:14:44
Speaker 1: So the transparency it, you know, it almost makes you like it's a stronger case for them hiding something. The transparency actually highlighted the fact of just how little transparency there is, so we could keep going and keep pushing. It's just I can't imagine what these women are continuing to feel with every new Epstein headlined, and we just talk about Glen Max. We're still trying to get out prison.
00:15:11
Speaker 2: She's still trying to get out of prison. But I would imagine.
00:15:13
Speaker 3: Look, I cannot speak for what it would be like to be an Epstein victim, but I do think that they're holding on to hope after all these years, some of them, it's been decades that at least, yes it does matter. They're still trying to get to the truth, whether they believe it will actually happen or not. The idea that someone's at least trying to get to the truth is better than everyone just forgetting about it and moving on.
00:15:38
Speaker 2: So it might be a.
00:15:39
Speaker 3: Frustrating, long and possibly even unfruitful venture, at least it's being taken. I do think that there is some sort of validation in the fact that people do care and they are some people are trying to get to the truth.
00:15:55
Speaker 2: Whether we get to it or not remains to be seen. And yes, I'm.
00:15:58
Speaker 3: Sure they are mostly skeptical, but to see it still being pushed and pursued has to at least give or leave a moment of hope.
00:16:09
Speaker 2: Still it's still there, It's still possible.
00:16:13
Speaker 3: No one's closed the book on it and said we're done, this is over, and it continues. And I know it's hard to see the trickle of not very exciting information coming out, but hey, look that House Oversight Committee. They just keep hauling people in, haven't really gleaned anything that seems to be actionable, but they're at least putting people up there and asking them questions, asking them hard questions.
00:16:38
Speaker 1: And everybody will tell you they're asking the wrong people, and a lot of that is.
00:16:42
Speaker 2: For show hard that is true.
00:16:44
Speaker 1: The pursuit is worthy. How we're going about it, it feels like a waste of time. How we're doing it by hauling in Hillary Clinton, who met the dude once? That type of stuff. That is just it. It's they turn this whole thing that it's that mess. Yes, release all the damn files. We love for that to happen, but that's not happening. And now you were just explaining rogues just to hear that, Well, you're just explaining certain reasons that certain things. What the protection would you just say.
00:17:21
Speaker 3: The legal protection that they claim legal privilege? It was actually I'll get you the exact words because I want to make sure that I get this correct. They said, oh yeah, legal privilege, protected by legal privilege.
00:17:33
Speaker 1: So now here are your files. You can't see these because of redactions. You can't see these because it falls under legal privilege. Okay, we're going to go to court and try to get it lifted on the legal privileged ones. And well that didn't work, so let's go. I'm saying, we can't even like they're different legal cases almost for the same files. For they're fine, Like you said, a blanket, they're like different blankets.
00:18:02
Speaker 2: Right, Oh, it's different.
00:18:03
Speaker 1: Types of blankets, so it just becomes this big, convoluted, confusing mess to where what do I remember from the files? Robes, I remember what's his name? Microsoft guy? I remember those Bill Gates.
00:18:15
Speaker 4: Yeah, but if you have an actual list of possible co conspirators and they're all blacked out, that is laughable to me.
00:18:25
Speaker 2: Isn't that the whole point of.
00:18:27
Speaker 1: This list of co conspirators? Who who is that? Like? Who who is saying these are co conspirators?
00:18:33
Speaker 3: It's a draft indictment of Epstein with the names of his potential co conspirators that were deduced by investigators at the time, and that draft indictment has been redacted completely. I don't know what year it's from, but it was earlier on. So the fact that those names have all been blacked out, I thought that list And look, it's also been confusing because the victims will stand up there and say, we have a list, we have our own lik where is the list? I think the list is what everybody wants. So to me, to have a list that's in this files, in these lists of and they've blacked out all the names, what's the point?
00:19:12
Speaker 1: And you know, there's an argument to be made that there never was a list. That's how we talk about it gone. It's gotten going now there's nobody's ever going to believe that that's not an actual physical list of exact name.
00:19:25
Speaker 3: There reportedly is a twenty nineteen email that mentions what investigators who they believe maybe several co conspirators. Those names are all blacked out. So there are a couple documents. And maybe it's because it's unfounded, maybe it's because it would do too much reputational harm without any proof, But I I do think it's one of those questions where don't release a document that's completely blocked out with the information that people have been trying to get.
00:19:53
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens on Thursday, July second.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: That is when a judge says the DOJ has to release these documents unreducted or give a good damn reason why. So I guess we'll get answers either way come Thursday. And without everyone, We appreciate you listening to us as always. I made me roboch alongside TJ.
00:20:12
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Hey, they're folks. It is Friday, June twenty sixth, and I was under the impression that all of the Epstein files were out. Well, apparently it ain't even close, and a judge has given a deadline for a whole new heap of Epstein documents to be released. With that, Welcome to this episode of Amy and TJ. This will never end. We still talk about Epstein.
00:00:26
Speaker 2: Files, Yes we are.
00:00:28
Speaker 3: And you know what, it's pretty remarkable to hear just how many have not been released, and to hear that some of the files that have been.
00:00:37
Speaker 2: Released have notably.
00:00:41
Speaker 3: Blacked out the names of the people that we've been trying to find out and are part of the reason why we had this Transparency Act, this Epstein Files Transparency Act, so that we could find out if anyone was being protected, if anyone powerful, anyone rich, anyone who had been protected now has to be revealed. That was the whole point of this right to see if anyone else, any co conspirators with Epstein should be held accountable. So if you black out, if you redact all of the names and a lot of these incendiary or potentially incendiary files, what's the whole damn point of it.
00:01:16
Speaker 1: Well, you have to protect the innocent robes, and there are real there. The arguments have forever been, no matter how flimsy, and no matter how much people push back on there are some instances that are legit that names victims, addresses personal information stuff does like, we are reasonable enough to understand some things need to be protected. Well, we're talking about here, and what's been complained about for a long time. They're just handing out sheets of paper with nothing but black marks on it. They're saying it's been overdone. Some of the redactions are ridiculous, ridiculous to the point they'd make no other sense than you're trying to hide something.
00:01:56
Speaker 2: Yes, the suggestion is that they're intentional. And I laughed.
00:01:59
Speaker 3: I chuckled when you first began, because yes, I understand that certainly people's identities and certainly victims' identities need to be protected, and yet they didn't do that. So I chuckle because in the notion that they're redacting names to protect victims is laughable. When you talk to the victims who say, yeah, our names were all over the place. You didn't protect us. You're protecting powerful men. Potentially, you ain't been protecting us victims, and you've outed us in a lot of these files.
00:02:32
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what they say. The process has been so jacked. Nobody's going to believe a single thing about these files. If the judge tells them they got to release these, there's no way we're gonna believe that's all of them. It's just if this is a mess of a story that will never go away.
00:02:49
Speaker 3: But this particular ruling is significant because the judge, we'll see what happens, gave the Department of Justice a deadline next Thursday, July second. This judge ordered the DOJ to release unredacted versions of Epstein files or they have to explain why those particular redactions should not be removed. This judge sided with a reporter. She's now an independent reporter who filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice in April. Her name is Katie Fang. She used to work at MSNBC. Now she publishes on substack. But this independent journalist is causing all sorts.
00:03:30
Speaker 2: Of heat for the DOJ.
00:03:31
Speaker 1: You what, what's the deadline?
00:03:34
Speaker 2: What day is it? July second? Next Thursday?
00:03:37
Speaker 1: Next Thursday. We wait, we've seen this, We've seen actually We've seen the administration absolutely laugh in the face of some judges orders at times. What they're going to do here, I don't know. I bet they will come up with a good reason for not releasing those files. It'd be something about national security, protection of something to the other, I would assume. But the number or as they're talking about, this isn't a few pages.
00:04:02
Speaker 3: No, they say there are a total of six million Epstein related files, and we've seen half of them. And of the half that we've seen, many of them are heavily and as you pointed out, in some cases ridiculously redacted. And in this case, though, the judge so he gave that deadline for next Sursday. He also had given the DOJ a deadline of one pm yesterday to respond to this reporter Katie Fang's Freedom of Information Act requests.
00:04:31
Speaker 2: Guess what the DOJ did.
00:04:32
Speaker 3: Nothing, just missed the deadline, and so the judge ordered those particular documents released. Two Fang and thanks, attorney said this. I thought this was interesting. The government thought that it could ignore its own law and blow off a judge's order, all for the sake of protecting the very powerful and the very rich. It didn't work, and now the public will finally get transparency around Jeffrey Epstein and his network that still remains to be seen the judge, and the judge went pretty strong in his language against the Trump administration. They said, or this judge said that this reporter was suffering from the type of harm lack of transparency that Congress sought to prevent by requiring disclosure of the information that Miss Fang seeks would help her.
00:05:17
Speaker 2: In her work.
00:05:18
Speaker 3: The Attorney General does not respond substantively to any of these arguments. And then the judge concluded, the Attorney General has conceded that he is in violation of the Act. So he's saying, hey, DOJ you are violating a law.
00:05:36
Speaker 2: That's cute, isn't that funny? Well, I a Department of Justice.
00:05:39
Speaker 1: I just say that because I mean, how many times I have this administration been accused of violating the law. I'm just that part. Yes, that's par for the course here, Yes, I get it, we get it. What's going to happen now? They're going to give us two million documents and they're going to tell us another eight million. We just found it. Just no matter what happens, this man will never go away. Well, you just won't. And even when Trump leaves the White House, is that going to help the story go away?
00:06:05
Speaker 2: I don't know.
00:06:06
Speaker 3: It depends like there's so much we don't know.
00:06:08
Speaker 2: Still, that's the problem.
00:06:09
Speaker 3: And in this request or in this ruling, this demand that these documents be released, you want to hear exactly what documents.
00:06:16
Speaker 2: This is really fascinating.
00:06:18
Speaker 3: It includes eight emails, okay, and these are pretty awful emails in sexual content. There's a torture video apparently attached to one of these, and either the sender or the recipient is blacked out, so you can see the contents of the emails, but you don't know necessarily who sent it or who received it, but it either Epstein sent it or Epstein received it. In one of them, they say there is a draft indictment with names of potential co conspirators, all of the names redacted. There's a twenty nineteen email that mentions several co conspirators, all of those names blacked out. There's also interview notes that were behind some of those FBI documents where they interviewed a woman who said, at the time of thirteen, she claims these are unsubstantiated claims that Trump assaulted her. They want the notes that the FBI agents took during those interviews. Those were all redacted, So that is a part of this group that's supposed to be released. And I thought this was also interesting. The judge ordered that the DOJ released a log that listed every single redaction it's made to these files.
00:07:32
Speaker 2: All by next Thursday.
00:07:33
Speaker 3: You're shaking your head like, uh huh uh huh. I'll believe it when I see it.
00:07:37
Speaker 1: No, and what I just this, I don't even know if we pursued justice anymore. I don't know what we're going after with this NonStop Epstein story. I just I don't nobody can step up. I don't know when we have returned some corner robes to where we feel like justice is actually being served.
00:07:58
Speaker 2: When names aren't redacted.
00:08:00
Speaker 1: That's the thing. Serve up any name, keep going, keep going, keep going, name anybody, unredact every damn thing. And you know it's not gonna be enough. Then something else is missing because we thought, we have an idea that it has to be this person, this person or this person the like we're so sure I am certain robes. I think as everybody is WASH's story that there are guys walking around out there who absolutely violated these women and got away with it.
00:08:28
Speaker 2: Correct.
00:08:28
Speaker 1: That is, period, point blank, the way we're handling this and once again revictimizing and revictimizing and revictimizing by these dribs and drabs and games we're playing in court, and it seems like robes, we're getting farther away than closer to justice for these women, it feels, and maybe this is just what we have to go through it and you have to and it's a slow, slow process. It is my god, just once again here we go that all this does is to make more credibility away from a process that had damn near none.
00:09:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, none at all.
00:09:04
Speaker 3: And when you start to they've they've released a couple of the excerpts from some of these emails. Wouldn't you want to know who sent this? This was sent to Jeffrey Epstein, but we don't know who sent it. The key are the fourteen to fifteen year old girls. I'm a sexual pervert because I say they are now of reproductive age. My heart goes out to you, brother. Being called a sexual pervert is no fun. Who sent that email to him?
00:09:27
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm curious. It's salacious, but a suggestion of what I'm saying, how do we get somebody in jail based on seeing their email? I guess it then leads to the next question if somebody gets interviewed or have they not these women and maybe they didn't know who the guys were.
00:09:40
Speaker 2: I'm just that was most like that one of.
00:09:44
Speaker 1: These things in these details, so we get his name. I'm just saying ropes. It never is going to be enough. It never was, that's true.
00:09:52
Speaker 3: But I still think the pursuit of trying to get as much accurate information as possible is still worthy.
00:09:59
Speaker 1: It's a worthy pursuit, sure.
00:10:03
Speaker 3: And so we will see this deadline come on Thursday. And yes, to your point, it may be that the Department of Justice comes up with the reason that every single one of these documents must remain redacted, But this judge does seem as though he is going to hold them to a very high standard. So when we come back, we're going to talk about again all of those files, how many of them have not been released, and what the Department of Justice has said so far as it's reasoning for all of the necessary reactions, and the reason why we're not going to see three million of the six million Jeffrey Epstein files. And welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We are talking about a deadline now for the Department of Justice, imposed by a judge yesterday.
00:11:03
Speaker 2: It was a big win for an independent journalist.
00:11:06
Speaker 3: Her name is Katie Fang, she used to work for MSNBC, who has sued the Department of Justice saying I want to see several of these emails, several of these documents that we have asked for by filing a Freedom of Information Act, and these documents are so redacted we can't actually glean any information from them, and so the judge is given a deadline to the DOJ. You don't think we're going to see any new information? You're skeptical.
00:11:33
Speaker 1: Oh, I don't if they release documents. If they don't, I don't think we're going to see new information. I just it just rose a bunch of files. They can't what what happened?
00:11:42
Speaker 3: What was it?
00:11:43
Speaker 1: Larry Summers. I'm trying to think of the big name, big time people who ended up stepping down from positions because of their relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that came from the fire.
00:11:53
Speaker 3: Yeah, Larry Summers, there was a there was a JP Morgan Chase executive. I believe there was a few foreign those words.
00:12:01
Speaker 2: Yes, yes.
00:12:02
Speaker 1: Now my question is what justice came from the first batch, like genuine things we can point to and say it's important to get these out, because once we saw them, it led to this, this, this, this and this and yes, people have stepped down, got exposed and you could argued people should know about that.
00:12:22
Speaker 3: Prince Andrew being among them one of the big ones. What did we former Prince Andrew.
00:12:26
Speaker 1: Yeah, and he was busted for sharing documents having to do with national security. It's not even having to do with justice for the women. So I'm saying, we keep getting this stuff out, we have got to get to a point where we get something out of these documents and do something actionable, actionable, because all we're doing is arguing about what's in it, what's not's in it, how much you gave us, how much you hadn't and what are these women are still waiting, still waiting.
00:12:56
Speaker 3: And so look, I will still remain skeptical yet hopeful that there will be some actionable information that possibly will be revealed when these reductions are lifted, if they're lifted, and look, the Department of Justice so far has said, okay, yes, there might be six million pages of documents, but they claim a lot of them are duplicates. Okay, but then just produce them, show us that they're duplicates, I guess would be interesting. They said some of them are unrelated to Epstein, yet somehow they're in the Epstein file document cash. I'm not sure how that works or and here's the big ambiguous gray area. They say many of these files are protected by quote unquote legal privilege, and that to me is this area where how do you define that? How do you say this belongs in a privileged pile and this one can go ahead and be released. And yes, they always have claimed that some of these reductions are necessary to protect personal information or victim's identities, personal information of whom, I guess would be the question. I mean, you could just say that about anybody.
00:14:07
Speaker 2: So yes, they have.
00:14:08
Speaker 3: Enough seemingly legal blankets to throw over piles of documents to say YEP protected, YEP protected, YEP protected.
00:14:17
Speaker 2: But I don't know.
00:14:17
Speaker 3: It seems like this judge is going to pursue as much transparency as possible.
00:14:24
Speaker 1: Oh, that's transparency. Is just it wasn't that the name of the act that Epstein transparency.
00:14:29
Speaker 3: It's called the Epstein Files Transparency Act. And yes, this judge has said that the Department of Justice has violated the terms.
00:14:39
Speaker 1: From the beginning. They even missed the deadline, didn't they when.
00:14:42
Speaker 2: They've continually missed deadline.
00:14:44
Speaker 1: So the transparency it, you know, it almost makes you like it's a stronger case for them hiding something. The transparency actually highlighted the fact of just how little transparency there is, so we could keep going and keep pushing. It's just I can't imagine what these women are continuing to feel with every new Epstein headlined, and we just talk about Glen Max. We're still trying to get out prison.
00:15:11
Speaker 2: She's still trying to get out of prison. But I would imagine.
00:15:13
Speaker 3: Look, I cannot speak for what it would be like to be an Epstein victim, but I do think that they're holding on to hope after all these years, some of them, it's been decades that at least, yes it does matter. They're still trying to get to the truth, whether they believe it will actually happen or not. The idea that someone's at least trying to get to the truth is better than everyone just forgetting about it and moving on.
00:15:38
Speaker 2: So it might be a.
00:15:39
Speaker 3: Frustrating, long and possibly even unfruitful venture, at least it's being taken. I do think that there is some sort of validation in the fact that people do care and they are some people are trying to get to the truth.
00:15:55
Speaker 2: Whether we get to it or not remains to be seen. And yes, I'm.
00:15:58
Speaker 3: Sure they are mostly skeptical, but to see it still being pushed and pursued has to at least give or leave a moment of hope.
00:16:09
Speaker 2: Still it's still there, It's still possible.
00:16:13
Speaker 3: No one's closed the book on it and said we're done, this is over, and it continues. And I know it's hard to see the trickle of not very exciting information coming out, but hey, look that House Oversight Committee. They just keep hauling people in, haven't really gleaned anything that seems to be actionable, but they're at least putting people up there and asking them questions, asking them hard questions.
00:16:38
Speaker 1: And everybody will tell you they're asking the wrong people, and a lot of that is.
00:16:42
Speaker 2: For show hard that is true.
00:16:44
Speaker 1: The pursuit is worthy. How we're going about it, it feels like a waste of time. How we're doing it by hauling in Hillary Clinton, who met the dude once? That type of stuff. That is just it. It's they turn this whole thing that it's that mess. Yes, release all the damn files. We love for that to happen, but that's not happening. And now you were just explaining rogues just to hear that, Well, you're just explaining certain reasons that certain things. What the protection would you just say.
00:17:21
Speaker 3: The legal protection that they claim legal privilege? It was actually I'll get you the exact words because I want to make sure that I get this correct. They said, oh yeah, legal privilege, protected by legal privilege.
00:17:33
Speaker 1: So now here are your files. You can't see these because of redactions. You can't see these because it falls under legal privilege. Okay, we're going to go to court and try to get it lifted on the legal privileged ones. And well that didn't work, so let's go. I'm saying, we can't even like they're different legal cases almost for the same files. For they're fine, Like you said, a blanket, they're like different blankets.
00:18:02
Speaker 2: Right, Oh, it's different.
00:18:03
Speaker 1: Types of blankets, so it just becomes this big, convoluted, confusing mess to where what do I remember from the files? Robes, I remember what's his name? Microsoft guy? I remember those Bill Gates.
00:18:15
Speaker 4: Yeah, but if you have an actual list of possible co conspirators and they're all blacked out, that is laughable to me.
00:18:25
Speaker 2: Isn't that the whole point of.
00:18:27
Speaker 1: This list of co conspirators? Who who is that? Like? Who who is saying these are co conspirators?
00:18:33
Speaker 3: It's a draft indictment of Epstein with the names of his potential co conspirators that were deduced by investigators at the time, and that draft indictment has been redacted completely. I don't know what year it's from, but it was earlier on. So the fact that those names have all been blacked out, I thought that list And look, it's also been confusing because the victims will stand up there and say, we have a list, we have our own lik where is the list? I think the list is what everybody wants. So to me, to have a list that's in this files, in these lists of and they've blacked out all the names, what's the point?
00:19:12
Speaker 1: And you know, there's an argument to be made that there never was a list. That's how we talk about it gone. It's gotten going now there's nobody's ever going to believe that that's not an actual physical list of exact name.
00:19:25
Speaker 3: There reportedly is a twenty nineteen email that mentions what investigators who they believe maybe several co conspirators. Those names are all blacked out. So there are a couple documents. And maybe it's because it's unfounded, maybe it's because it would do too much reputational harm without any proof, But I I do think it's one of those questions where don't release a document that's completely blocked out with the information that people have been trying to get.
00:19:53
Speaker 2: We'll see what happens on Thursday, July second.
00:19:56
Speaker 3: That is when a judge says the DOJ has to release these documents unreducted or give a good damn reason why. So I guess we'll get answers either way come Thursday. And without everyone, We appreciate you listening to us as always. I made me roboch alongside TJ.
00:20:12
Speaker 2: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.