Epstein File Dump Fuels Scrutiny, Few New Charges (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Welcome to the Global News Podcast on YouTube, where we go behind the headlines to focus on one story and why it matters. Today, we are looking at the continuing fallout of the release of more than three million Epstein files from the US Department of Justice and what could happen next. Well, today I'm joined by our North America correspondent, Normia Iqbal. Normia, great to have you with us. You've covered this from the beginning. The latest release was huge, millions of files. It was massive, Julia.

[00:00:29] Speaker 2: Yes, three million files. There were thousands of images, 2,000 videos, and it's so vast and it takes real time to go through them. So when you go on the Department of Justice website, it's really clunky. The search function isn't great. You'll put in a name and nothing sometimes appears. So you have to go into the different areas. There's all these data sets you go through bit by bit. And so much is redacted. There are so many images and videos without any captions, any context. So you have to sort of work out what it all means. And we do have BBC teams, as you know, verifying everything, trying to, you know, analyse what it is to understand what these files mean. And so that's obviously taking a lot of time.

[00:01:13] Speaker 1: So all these files are out for the whole world to see. And yet, despite the fact that there is so much information out there, it's not resulted in any further arrests.

[00:01:23] Speaker 2: And that has really upset victims and lawmakers because they want accountability. I mean, they've been pressuring the Trump administration to release these files, which relate to all the criminal investigations into Jeffrey Epstein. I mean, the only person to ever be held to account was Glenn Maxwell. As we know, he's co-conspirator. She's serving a 20-year sentence. She's actually trying to appeal a sentence at the moment and saying that she was just a scapegoat for his crimes. He died by suicide in 2019 in a jail cell. She was convicted of basically being his sidekick and luring the victims into his world. And actually, I should mention that the accuser's accounts were included in this document tranche. And so they appear to track the court testimony from the accusers at her trial. But yeah, there's just not been any arrest or criminal investigation. I just want to quote you what the Deputy Attorney General Todd Planch said when he was asked about this. He said new charges for anyone are unlikely. So much of this is because of the statute of limitations. And he said the whole point of us releasing all this stuff is that the entire world can look at it now and see if we got anything wrong.

[00:02:33] Speaker 1: That sounds like they are outsourcing a lot of this investigation. So who is actively on a governmental level actually investigating Epstein?

[00:02:42] Speaker 2: So we know that the police can't do it because of statute of limitations. So you've got the Congressional Committee. And the Congressional Committee is made up of this particular committee, Democrats and Republicans. It's led by a Republican. And so they are investigating Jeffrey Epstein, but they don't have the power to charge anyone. All they can do is summon people to give evidence. And but here's the thing, if you're not a US citizen, you don't have to do it. Nothing compels you to do it. So take the former Prince Andrew or Lord Mandelson. They are British, but they could issue a summon or subpoena, as they call it in America. And they would only be arrested if they then step on US soil. But that's just the likelihood of that, you know, is so small. So I guess in the end, what's happening is that you're sort of relying on publicly naming people as a way of holding individuals to account. And that's a really poor substitution for criminal justice system. And so, yeah, that's that's what's upset survivors and lawmakers who are saying, well, we want to not just transparency, but we want actual accountability.

[00:03:51] Speaker 1: Normia, we've seen a number of revelations here on this side of the pond as a result of this massive dump of files. I mean, as revelations continue, could there be another method for holding people accountable? Could new charges be brought despite the statute of limitations?

[00:04:11] Speaker 2: I think if there was brand new evidence that was relevant, there could be an argument to open up these cases again. I mean, interestingly, Julia, in the files, there's evidence of potential indictments that had been made, and then they didn't go anywhere. And so there are all these questions around what were these indictments? Why didn't they go anywhere? What was stopped? And this is the whole thing, going through the files still, we're still trying to understand, you know, what happened and what this means and what that means. And the Congressional Committee alongside the Department of Justice is also doing its own work. And there might be a situation in which that could happen, where there is this actual holding people to account. But so far, none of that's happening. I mean, it's worth remembering as well that Congress only passed this law that has now allowed us to have access to these files after President Trump was under huge political pressure to sign it. I mean, he's done a massive U-turn. He promised to release the files day one. And bear in mind, he could have done. As soon as he entered the White House, he could have just had the files released. But it took some time for that to happen. And so, yeah, survivors, lawmakers are all just, it's not satisfying the people that are demanding transparency.

[00:05:30] Speaker 1: Nomia, let's talk about the Clintons, because this latest disclosure from the DOJ happened on a Friday. By Monday night, something happened, which was that the Clintons said that they would appear before Congress after previously insisting that they would not comply. Talk to us about that.

[00:05:47] Speaker 2: It's a staggering U-turn. I mean, it was only earlier this month, they sent a four-page letter to the committee, which suggested they were in for a protracted fight with them. They said they wouldn't respond to the subpoena. They felt that there was some partisan politics going on. And I think that's true. There is some of that. I mean, even though the committee is made up of Republicans and Democrats, which shows you there is this Epstein is a common, is an issue that unites both sides. There is some of that going on. The Clintons feel that there's too much focus on them. Yes, Bill Clinton did have a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein that goes back to the 1990s, early 2000s. We saw in December those pictures of him in the swimming pool with Glenn Maxwell. They've been pictured together, but he's always denied any wrongdoing. And it's worth mentioning, just because you're in the files doesn't mean there's any wrongdoing. And he said that he wasn't aware of any of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes, that they feel that there's been too much of a focus on them. They want others held to account in terms of answering questions by the congressional committee. But this U-turn means that they will now attend a hearing potentially. We don't know what it will look like, but they were really, President Clinton was in danger of becoming the first president to be held in contempt by Congress because they're due to vote on it. I mean, that might still go ahead. They might feel that they need to look at exactly how the Clintons plan to give evidence. But I think the fact that they've done this, like I say, is a staggering U-turn. But I suspect it's also the way, it's a way that the Clintons are sort of saying to others, including the president, President Trump, who's been named in the documents multiple times, although again, no evidence of any wrongdoing, that if we're going to give evidence, then everyone should give evidence.