Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
Speaker 1: Epstein Chronicles. I don't think it's any surprise to anybody
Speaker 1: who's been following along when I say that I believe
Speaker 1: that the DOJ is engaging in a cover up. And
Speaker 1: I also think that the Epstein Files Transparency Act wasn't
Speaker 1: robust enough. It had no teeth and no enforcement mechanism,
Speaker 1: and it should have had that because without it, well
Speaker 1: you see the result. Does anyone really think that someone
Speaker 1: like Todd blanche is going to follow the rules, is
Speaker 1: going to do what's right because it's the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. People like that have to be compelled. And
Speaker 1: that's why I think that the Transparency Act, while a
Speaker 1: good thing, obviously didn't go far enough. Well now we
Speaker 1: have some lawmakers pushing for a stronger and more stringent
Speaker 1: virgin of the Transparency Act, But the question is would
Speaker 1: Donald Trump play ball? Today we have an article from
Speaker 1: The Guardian and the headline lawmakers push for more robust
Speaker 1: Epstein Files Transparency Act, but would Trump sign it? This
Speaker 1: article was authored by Victoria B. Kempis. As Jeffrey Epstein's
Speaker 1: survivors and their supporters continue searching for justice and transparency
Speaker 1: in the US, A bipartisan group of politicians is trying
Speaker 1: to rework legislation that herald did the release of long
Speaker 1: hidden investigative files on the scandal. While the Epstein Files
Speaker 1: Transparency Act, signed into law by Donald Trump on November nineteenth,
Speaker 1: mandated that the Justice Department released all investigative files within
Speaker 1: thirty days with limited exceptions. Survivors and their supporters have
Speaker 1: repeatedly grappled with miss deadlines and what they say are
Speaker 1: in complete disclosures. Well, that's because it's true. Everything's been
Speaker 1: arbitrary to them. They just do whatever they want and
Speaker 1: there's no mechanism to hold them accountable. Now, obviously oversight
Speaker 1: is Congress's job, But when has Congress ever done their job?
Speaker 1: Certainly not recently, and certainly not when it comes to Epstein.
Speaker 1: So if we're waiting for Congress to do something about this,
Speaker 1: we're going to be waiting a long time. And that's
Speaker 1: why I think a more robust, a beefed up bill
Speaker 1: is a good idea. They have also accused the Justice
Speaker 1: Department of disclosing survivor's personal information while withholding names of
Speaker 1: men involved in Epstein's sexual abuse of teen girls. And
Speaker 1: young women. So now, politicians from both the Senate and House,
Speaker 1: and both main political parties announced on July fifteenth the
Speaker 1: introduction of the Epstein Files Transparency Act two the FTA two.
Speaker 1: The plan law addresses what legal observers and public records
Speaker 1: advocates have described as shortfalls in the original EFTA, namely
Speaker 1: a lack of a hearty enforcement men mechanism, And if
Speaker 1: you go back to the beginning, that's what I was
Speaker 1: yelling and screaming about. Look, it's great to have a
Speaker 1: law in the books, but how do you enforce that law?
Speaker 1: What's the mechanism behind it, and what are the penalties?
Speaker 1: All of it has to be written in black and
Speaker 1: white or else these guys are going to find loopholes
Speaker 1: and technicalities in a way to avoid the law, because remember,
Speaker 1: the law is for me and you, not for Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein's buddies, and certainly not for the DOJ. If the
Speaker 1: proposed legislation becomes law, survivors would also have the right
Speaker 1: to full, unredacted records concerning themselves or the harm that
Speaker 1: they suffered, including transcripts of FBI interviews. The Justice Department
Speaker 1: would also have to provide state and local prosecutors with
Speaker 1: unredacted records needed for investigations, prosecutions, and judicial proceedings, including
Speaker 1: secure access to classified material. Why would anyone be against
Speaker 1: this unless, of course you have some shit the high
Speaker 1: But besides that, I don't see how anyone could be
Speaker 1: against this. The EFTA two would also enforce compliance with
Speaker 1: the existing law by subjecting Justice Department and FBI officials
Speaker 1: to existing federal criminal penalties for knowingly concealing, destroying, falsifying, withholding,
Speaker 1: or misrepresenting files. Supporters said, and there has to be teeth.
Speaker 1: And the people that are making the decisions that lead
Speaker 1: to this systemic breakdown, well, they need to be held accountable.
Speaker 1: Isn't that what this is all about? Accountability and finding
Speaker 1: out what went wrong and who was in control. That's
Speaker 1: what we should be doing. But how can we do
Speaker 1: that if we never have any names? How can we
Speaker 1: do that if we don't know what officials at the
Speaker 1: DOJ were involved? And I thought that's what the Epstein
Speaker 1: Files Transparency Act was looking to fix. But of course
Speaker 1: we can't even get basic information from the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: Remember that's all by design. They want you to be
Speaker 1: confused and They hope that there's enough slop in there
Speaker 1: that people actually ignore the criminal activity that was occurring,
Speaker 1: and that was always the goal. Flood the zone, baby,
Speaker 1: flood the zone. Legal veterans say the proposed law does
Speaker 1: have the potential de foster transparency, but noted that practical
Speaker 1: issues remain. Not only does this bill face political hurdles
Speaker 1: to actually pass into law, but if it does, record
Speaker 1: seekers would also have to deal with the same Justice
Speaker 1: Department necessitating it in the first place, And round and
Speaker 1: round we go. Right, let's have the Justice Department investigate
Speaker 1: themselves and let's have them hold themselves accountable, because that
Speaker 1: works out great for everybody involved. Once again, I'm calling
Speaker 1: for a special council. You want to get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this, That's how we get there. Sure, the
Speaker 1: EFTA two would be great, but a special council with
Speaker 1: four power, that's how we get to the bottom of
Speaker 1: this Oleague Nakretin, an attorney with the law offices of
Speaker 1: Robert J. Degrut, said that the EFTA was a pretty
Speaker 1: robust bill, enabling state attorneys generals to get the records
Speaker 1: they demand. Under the first Epstein Files Transparency Act, people
Speaker 1: were permitted to search for various records, but people criticized
Speaker 1: those specific records because a lot of them were redacted,
Speaker 1: they were difficult to read, and critics said they didn't
Speaker 1: even disclose individuals who may have been involved in various
Speaker 1: criminal acts. The Cretin said, this Billncreton explained grand state
Speaker 1: attorneys general access to unredacted records. If they aren't provided
Speaker 1: access by the US Attorney's office, they're permitted to file actions.
Speaker 1: The Cretan noted that many state attorneys general think that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration has acted unlawfully in a variety of areas.
Speaker 1: With Epstein, they may believe that the United States government
Speaker 1: is in taking sufficients debts to investigate or prosecute obscene crimes,
Speaker 1: and they're not. And we all know why. There's way
Speaker 1: too much to lose for the people that pay the
Speaker 1: bills and for the institutions themselves, so they're gonna do
Speaker 1: everything they possibly can, all the way down to the
Speaker 1: final hour to not give us the transparency that we demand.
Speaker 1: But I think this time they bid off more than
Speaker 1: they can chew, because this is going to outlast this administration.
Speaker 1: It's gonna keep going unless we get to some resolution.
Speaker 1: People aren't just gonna wake up one day and be like,
Speaker 1: oh well it's over and done with now, let's all
Speaker 1: just move on. That toothpaste is already out of the tube,
Speaker 1: and not just out of the tube, somebody stomped on it,
Speaker 1: so it's never going back in. And the best course
Speaker 1: of action and the best thing for the DOJ is
Speaker 1: to just take their lumps and be honest with us.
Speaker 1: So if state attorney generals can get all the records,
Speaker 1: they may do their own investigation, follow leeds, etc. He
Speaker 1: also noted that's her vivors will have access to the
Speaker 1: records that involve them, and they should imagine you had
Speaker 1: this whole file built on you and on the allegations
Speaker 1: you made against Epstein, and then you can't even access
Speaker 1: that information. How was that confidential? I'm the one who
Speaker 1: made the report. How come I can't see it? How
Speaker 1: come I can't access it? That never made sense to me,
Speaker 1: And I know if it was me, i'd want those records.
Speaker 1: So what you don't think these girls, these women want
Speaker 1: these records. They most certainly do. If passed, it'll be
Speaker 1: a game changer for individuals who want to investigate further
Speaker 1: or learn more about Epstein or individuals associated with them.
Speaker 1: Carl Tobias, William's chair in law, said, is his first
Speaker 1: thought is can it pass? Can they move it in
Speaker 1: the House or maybe even more difficult, in the Senate.
Speaker 1: The Bias said that of House members can't convince their
Speaker 1: colleagues to greenlight the bill, there would still need to
Speaker 1: be sixty cented votes. Then the question remains, would Trump
Speaker 1: sign it. Well, if it comes in in unanimous, he
Speaker 1: has no choice. But would it come in unanimous? I
Speaker 1: doubt it. There are way too many Trump loyalists at
Speaker 1: this point who are willing to go down with the
Speaker 1: ship for whatever reason. And it really escapes me. These
Speaker 1: people are willing to go down with this ship. I
Speaker 1: would think that their legacy would be important. I would
Speaker 1: think that, you know, the rule of law would be important,
Speaker 1: But appeasing Trump seems to be the most important thing
Speaker 1: to a lot of these people. And I'll never understand it.
Speaker 1: Tobias noted many of the lawmakers publicly behind the bill
Speaker 1: have long been committed to transparency and describe its intent
Speaker 1: as a good idea. They include Kentucky Republican Thomas Massey,
Speaker 1: California Democrat Rocana, New Mexico Democrat Teresa Leger of Fernandez,
Speaker 1: Oregon Democrat Jeff and New Mexico Democrat Ben Ray Lujon.
Speaker 1: They're very dissatisfied with what's happened at the Justice Department,
Speaker 1: and so I think they want to provide avenues for
Speaker 1: victims and for state attorneys general to bring the Justice
Speaker 1: Department into court and try to bring more transparency. Well,
Speaker 1: the first DFTA was a monumental battle and I was
Speaker 1: very surprised when it ended up passing. So will this
Speaker 1: one have the same success. I don't know. We'll have
Speaker 1: to wait and see for it to advance a little
Speaker 1: bit and see who comes out in support. But it's
Speaker 1: going to need some Republican support, right, So are there
Speaker 1: any Republicans willing to step up and support this kind
Speaker 1: of bill? I don't know. With Marjorie Taylor, green Gun
Speaker 1: and Massey about to leave, the Pickenser slim, So we'll
Speaker 1: keep an eye on it and when we have some
Speaker 1: more information one way or the other, we'll get it
Speaker 1: added to the catalog. All the information that goes with
Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the discrete option box.