Epstein Files Dump Sparks Scrutiny Over Redactions (Full Transcript)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Well, the files also show that Epstein repeatedly took the fifth during a 2016 deposition when asked more than a dozen questions about former President Clinton, among them several about whether Mr. Clinton visited Epstein's private island and flew in his private plane. The former president has denied ever having visited the island. So has Elon Musk, yet the files contain at least two emails discussing just that. In one from the 24th of November 2012, Epstein writes, how many people will you be for the heli to island? Musk responded the next day that it would probably just be him and his then-wife, adding, quote, what day slash night will be the wildest party on our island. A year later, Musk wrote Epstein, saying, quote, we'll be in the BVI St. Barts area over the holidays, BVI's British Virgin Islands. Is there a good time to visit? To which Epstein replied, always space for you. It's unclear if that or the other visit took place. Representatives for Musk did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the new emails. Musk, in 2019, told Vanity Fair, quote, he tried repeatedly to get me to visit his island. I declined. Now, Musk, you'll recall, famously posted this during his beef with the president this year, quote, time to drop the really big bomb. Trump is in the Epstein files. Minutes later, he followed up with, quote, mark this post for the future. The truth will come out. Now, keeping him honest, that's kind of hard to do. He seems to have taken the post down along with the first one. Also in the files, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, who famously said he'd broken ties with Epstein in 2005, vowing to, quote, never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. The files, though, reveal Lutnick or his wife, Alison, were in touch with Epstein as recently as 2012. In an email from Alison Lutnick in November of that year, she writes, quote, we are looking forward to visiting you, adding, we are traveling on a yacht called Excellence and I am seizing the captain. A spokesperson for the Commerce Department did not immediately respond to her request for comment. So, a lot to talk about tonight. Starting us off, CNN Chief of Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid, she's been going through the documents all day. So what stands out to you from the documents you've reviewed so far?

[00:02:07] Speaker 2: So the document that really stands out at this point is this list of accusations against President Trump because the FBI compiled this list last summer and this is a lot of the kind of information that investigators gather when they're looking at whether charges should potentially be pursued. For example, they're looking at unverified tips. Some include secondhand information that came through a tip line. It appears the FBI followed up on some tips. At least one was found to be unverified, but this is the kind of information they collect but do not usually make public if there are no charges brought in a case. Now, of course, President Trump has always denied any wrongdoing connected to Epstein, but there are a lot of questions that are raised here. First of all, why did the FBI make this list of accusations specifically relevant to President Trump, though President Bill Clinton was also mentioned in there? The document was also taken down at least twice today. Last time I checked, Henderson, it was back up. But this list of allegations will likely prompt more questions for the Justice Department and the White House, even though this release is, of course, part of an effort to try to tamp all this down.

[00:03:17] Speaker 3: Trump in the Epstein files, the Justice Department releasing millions of new pages of documents from the Epstein files, and among them is a list that Trump's own Justice Department compiled, his own Justice Department. This list details a list of sexual assault allegations related to the president. Now, this list was released this morning as part of this document dump. But then suddenly disappeared from the Justice Department's website. That was noticed, called out, that got posted again. The administration claims that that snafu was because the site got overloaded. Now, many of the allegations appear to have come from unverified tips. Some are incredibly graphic and disgusting and upsetting. Frankly, the files also today released included a complaint from a woman who accused Trump of raping her in 1994 when she was 13 years old. According to the complaint, the woman identified as Jane Doe claims, quote, Epstein was angry that Trump was the one to take Doe's virginity and then went on to rape Doe. That's just disgusting and depraved. It goes on in graphic detail. These descriptions do mirror the allegations that Jane Doe made in her 2016 lawsuit against Trump, a lawsuit that was eventually dropped. Now, at the time, Trump denied the allegations, his attorney telling Politico, it is categorically untrue. It is completely frivolous. It is baseless. It is irresponsible. I won't even discuss the merits because it gives it credibility it doesn't deserve. And Trump's DOJ again stressing, quote, this production may include fake or falsely submitted images, documents or videos, as everything that was sent to the FBI by the public was included in the production that is responsive to the act, referring to the act of Congress forcing them to release these files, of which this chunk they're releasing, of course, is a month after the deadline. And while Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing in relation to Epstein at this time, he has fought vehemently and obsessively against the release of the files, lashing out at reporters who have pressed him for a long, long time on why his Justice Department has been so slow to release anything.

[00:05:25] Speaker 4: I have nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. You just keep going on the Epstein files. And what the Epstein is, is a Democrat hoax. We have nothing to do with Epstein. The Democrats do. All of his friends were Democrats. Is there something incriminating in the files, Mr. Whalen? Quiet, quiet. When you talk about the Epstein hoax, it's just a hoax. The whole Epstein thing is a Democrat hoax.

[00:05:47] Speaker 1: Joining us now is Virginia Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw, who sits on the House Oversight Committee. So, Congressman, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia, released this blistering statement after the files were released, saying, quote, in part, We are demanding the names of Epstein's co-conspirators and the men and pedophiles who abused women and girls. Do you accept the government's explanation for the redactions they've made?

[00:06:12] Speaker 5: No, I don't. I mean, look, the Trump administration and the Department of Justice has slow rolled this release at every turn. Today, they released three million of the six million documents we know they have. We know they have six million because they said it. They released 50 percent of the documents, and the 50 percent we have today are heavily, heavily redacted. So, they continue to cover up the full truth that's in the files. So, we're going to continue to push the Oversight Committee's investigation will continue throughout this Congress and into the next Congress, I suspect. We're not going to stop until we get the transparency that the survivors are demanding.

[00:06:52] Speaker 1: I mean, some of the claims in some of these files are, I mean, pretty bizarre and don't sound very credible. In your view, should the general public and what should the general public take away from these files? How are people supposed to know what's credible and what isn't?

[00:07:08] Speaker 5: Yeah, I think that's absolutely fair. And, you know, there are a number of uncorroborated or perhaps unverified allegations against President Trump there. And I think what I would say is all of that deserves additional scrutiny. Some of them have been revealed publicly in the past and perhaps have limited credibility, but all of them should be explored. You know, the Oversight Committee in the coming weeks, we're going to be deposing Jeffrey Epstein's accountant, his attorneys, the attorneys for his estate. So, we're going to continue to ask questions. And I think this release, although limited, not what the law requires, this release will provide information to guide our questioning as we move forward.

[00:07:51] Speaker 1: Among the materials that the Deputy Attorney General Blanche said were withheld from this release were files that would jeopardize an active federal investigation. Is it clear to you what investigative avenues remain at this point or if there are any active federal investigations ongoing into this?

[00:08:08] Speaker 5: I have no insight into the active investigations that the Department of Justice might be engaged in. I know that President Trump has done what he has done repeatedly and directed the Department of Justice to investigate his political opponents or Democrats with respect to Epstein. I hope that's not the path they're doing. If there are real, legitimate investigations based on what they've learned in the files, those should proceed without any interference or involvement from President Trump.

[00:08:40] Speaker 1: And as we mentioned, the Deputy Attorney General Blanche said that unredacted files would be made available to lawmakers who coordinate with the Department of Justice. Is there a plan to do that? I mean, obviously it's a lot of files. Is that even possible?

[00:08:56] Speaker 5: I know that Congressman Khanna and Massey have written a letter asking to review those unredacted files. I think the Democrats on the Oversight Committee and hopefully Republicans as well will be talking about how we can coordinate to review those unredacted files. I certainly want to understand what's been redacted and more importantly, why.

[00:09:19] Speaker 1: Congressman James Walkinshaw, I appreciate your time. Thank you.

[00:09:21] Speaker 5: Thanks for having me.