1
00:00:00,160 --> 00:00:04,639
Speaker 1: Imagine a mountain of paper five million pages high, I

2
00:00:04,639 --> 00:00:07,320
mean just trying to digitalize that, a stack of documents

3
00:00:07,360 --> 00:00:10,679
so huge it blocks out the sun. And now imagine

4
00:00:10,679 --> 00:00:12,560
you've been told that at the top of that mountain

5
00:00:12,599 --> 00:00:14,640
is some kind of truth, some kind of justice you've

6
00:00:14,640 --> 00:00:16,879
been waiting for, Yeah, only to find out that we've

7
00:00:16,879 --> 00:00:20,160
only seen the first few feet of it, just one

8
00:00:20,239 --> 00:00:24,120
percent of that entire five million page mountain. What secrets,

9
00:00:24,160 --> 00:00:27,679
what critical insights are still buried in there? Exactly Today

10
00:00:27,719 --> 00:00:31,000
on Thrilling Threads, we're diving into two massive stacks of

11
00:00:31,039 --> 00:00:34,799
documents that are really shaping public life. And both stories

12
00:00:34,799 --> 00:00:38,600
are all about information, what's being released and maybe more importantly,

13
00:00:38,600 --> 00:00:39,520
what's being held back.

14
00:00:40,759 --> 00:00:44,880
Speaker 2: Welcome to Thrilling Threads. Our mission today is to really

15
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:48,240
unpack the details from a recent CBS News report. It

16
00:00:48,280 --> 00:00:50,880
gives us two kind of perfect case studies in this

17
00:00:51,039 --> 00:00:53,920
modern information battle. First, we're going to get into the

18
00:00:54,000 --> 00:00:57,719
huge logistical, political, and the human challenges run the release

19
00:00:57,759 --> 00:01:01,200
of the Jeffrey Epstein case file, five million page mountain.

20
00:01:01,520 --> 00:01:04,719
That's the one, and then we're going to pivot completely.

21
00:01:05,079 --> 00:01:08,439
We're going to dissect the key takeaways from this recently

22
00:01:08,519 --> 00:01:12,120
released two hundred and fifty page deposition transcript from former

23
00:01:12,120 --> 00:01:15,599
Special Counsel Jack Smith. Our goal, as always is to

24
00:01:15,599 --> 00:01:17,599
give you the most important pieces of this so you

25
00:01:17,640 --> 00:01:20,920
can really understand the scale and the implications of what's

26
00:01:20,920 --> 00:01:22,519
happening behind the headlines.

27
00:01:22,599 --> 00:01:25,159
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this first one, because the numbers here

28
00:01:25,239 --> 00:01:28,319
are just they're almost hard to believe. We're talking about

29
00:01:28,319 --> 00:01:31,040
the Department of Justice, the DJ and their struggle to

30
00:01:31,120 --> 00:01:34,799
release the files from the Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking case.

31
00:01:35,280 --> 00:01:37,120
And this isn't them doing it out of the kindness

32
00:01:37,120 --> 00:01:37,519
of their.

33
00:01:37,359 --> 00:01:40,519
Speaker 2: Heart, No, not at all. This is legally mandated exactly.

34
00:01:40,959 --> 00:01:43,640
Speaker 1: And the core detail coming from the lawyers for the

35
00:01:43,640 --> 00:01:46,319
survivors is that the number of files we still haven't

36
00:01:46,319 --> 00:01:49,840
seen is far larger than previously known, which is already

37
00:01:49,879 --> 00:01:50,879
an alarming statement.

38
00:01:50,959 --> 00:01:52,879
Speaker 2: It is because we already thought it was huge, but

39
00:01:53,000 --> 00:01:58,000
the actual estimate they give it just reframes the entire situation.

40
00:01:58,400 --> 00:02:00,719
It comes from the attorneys for a group of survivors,

41
00:02:00,719 --> 00:02:04,280
and they estimate that as little as one percent of

42
00:02:04,319 --> 00:02:07,519
Epstein's case files have been released so far, one percent,

43
00:02:08,199 --> 00:02:11,960
after all this time, all the public pressure, the media focus,

44
00:02:12,319 --> 00:02:16,280
the court actions, we are, according to the people closest

45
00:02:16,280 --> 00:02:20,039
to the victims, just seeing the very very tip of

46
00:02:20,080 --> 00:02:21,439
this colossal iceberg.

47
00:02:21,599 --> 00:02:23,280
Speaker 1: I think we need to stay on that one percent

48
00:02:23,360 --> 00:02:26,599
figure for a second, because it's a meaningless number without

49
00:02:26,639 --> 00:02:29,319
the total volume. And the source material backs this up, right.

50
00:02:29,400 --> 00:02:31,400
It cites a New York Times report, it.

51
00:02:31,360 --> 00:02:34,840
Speaker 2: Does, and that report estimates that there are five million

52
00:02:34,919 --> 00:02:37,800
pages of files currently under review by the DOJ.

53
00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:42,080
Speaker 1: Five million pages. So let's do the math on that.

54
00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:43,960
If that one percent estimate is right, that means we've

55
00:02:44,000 --> 00:02:46,680
seen what about fifty thousand pages roughly.

56
00:02:46,560 --> 00:02:50,879
Speaker 2: Yes, And in any normal legal case, fifty thousand pages

57
00:02:50,919 --> 00:02:53,919
would be considered a massive document dump. People would be

58
00:02:53,960 --> 00:02:55,159
combing through that for months.

59
00:02:55,280 --> 00:02:57,719
Speaker 1: Right. But here, if that's only one percent, it means

60
00:02:57,719 --> 00:03:00,000
there are four million, nine hundred and fifty thousand pages

61
00:03:00,080 --> 00:03:03,479
still locked away somewhere inside the DOJ, waiting for review

62
00:03:03,639 --> 00:03:04,199
for redaction.

63
00:03:04,400 --> 00:03:09,000
Speaker 2: For something that combination one percent and five million pages,

64
00:03:09,560 --> 00:03:13,280
that's the single most important data point here. It explains everything.

65
00:03:13,479 --> 00:03:16,840
It explains the logistical nightmare, It explains the waiting period,

66
00:03:17,000 --> 00:03:18,280
It explains the frustration.

67
00:03:18,680 --> 00:03:21,479
Speaker 1: So what is that logistical nightmare? Exactly? I mean, why

68
00:03:21,479 --> 00:03:23,520
can't they just hit a button and release it all.

69
00:03:24,000 --> 00:03:27,599
What are the actual steps that are causing this agonizing delay.

70
00:03:27,960 --> 00:03:30,919
Speaker 2: Well, it really boils down to this tension between two

71
00:03:31,000 --> 00:03:34,080
different legal requirements. On the one hand, you have this

72
00:03:34,159 --> 00:03:38,840
new law that says release everything, that's the transparency mandate, okay.

73
00:03:39,080 --> 00:03:40,960
But on the other hand, you have all these other

74
00:03:41,039 --> 00:03:43,800
legal protections. So even if they have, as they say,

75
00:03:44,000 --> 00:03:46,960
all hands on deck, they have to manually review every

76
00:03:47,000 --> 00:03:49,800
single one of those millions of pages to make sure

77
00:03:49,840 --> 00:03:51,560
they're not releasing sensitive information.

78
00:03:51,680 --> 00:03:53,479
Speaker 1: And what kind of information are we talking about?

79
00:03:53,560 --> 00:03:55,599
Speaker 2: First and foremost the privacy and the safety of the

80
00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:59,120
victims and the witnesses. That is a huge legal protection.

81
00:03:59,240 --> 00:04:03,319
You have to redact names, locations, any personal details that

82
00:04:03,360 --> 00:04:06,240
could identify them. That alone is an enormous task.

83
00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:09,800
Speaker 1: And I'm guessing it's not just about the survivors, given

84
00:04:09,919 --> 00:04:12,319
who Epstein was connected to. There have to be other

85
00:04:12,400 --> 00:04:13,439
legal layers here.

86
00:04:13,560 --> 00:04:17,360
Speaker 2: Oh. Absolutely, you're potentially dealing with national security information. I mean,

87
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:20,639
if any government officials or intelligence figures are in those files,

88
00:04:20,959 --> 00:04:23,920
that's a whole other level of review. Then you have

89
00:04:24,079 --> 00:04:27,279
things like attorney client privilege, right, and you even have

90
00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:30,639
you know, third party business communications that could be covered

91
00:04:30,639 --> 00:04:34,480
by trade secrets or NDAs. If the DOJ releases that improperly,

92
00:04:34,519 --> 00:04:38,000
they could get sued. So every single page is a

93
00:04:38,040 --> 00:04:39,480
potential legal landmine.

94
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:42,120
Speaker 1: So even with all the modern tech we have, you

95
00:04:42,160 --> 00:04:45,319
know AI that can scan for keywords, it still comes

96
00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:48,040
down to a person, a human being, having to make

97
00:04:48,079 --> 00:04:50,000
a final call on what to black out.

98
00:04:50,160 --> 00:04:52,040
Speaker 2: That's the crux of it. An AI can flag a

99
00:04:52,120 --> 00:04:54,240
name for you, sure, but a person has to look

100
00:04:54,240 --> 00:04:56,879
at the context and decide is this a protected witness,

101
00:04:57,279 --> 00:05:00,079
is this a powerful person who should be exposed, or

102
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:02,279
is this just some random person who got swept up

103
00:05:02,279 --> 00:05:04,920
in all this? This shear volume becomes its own kind

104
00:05:04,920 --> 00:05:08,040
of shield for the information. The complexity is the delay.

105
00:05:08,040 --> 00:05:12,000
Speaker 1: And that slowness, that complexity, it leads us right to

106
00:05:12,079 --> 00:05:15,560
the next critical point here. This wasn't just a vague

107
00:05:15,600 --> 00:05:21,199
promise of transparency. The DOJ missed a specific, legally binding deadline.

108
00:05:21,319 --> 00:05:24,040
Speaker 2: That's such a critical piece of context. Earlier this year,

109
00:05:24,319 --> 00:05:27,480
President Trump signed a bill into law. It wasn't a suggestion.

110
00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:31,040
It was a requirement for the DOJ to release all

111
00:05:31,079 --> 00:05:34,079
of its files related to the case. This came from

112
00:05:34,160 --> 00:05:38,120
intense congressional pressure because of all the allegations that this

113
00:05:38,240 --> 00:05:39,560
case was mishandled from the start.

114
00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:41,959
Speaker 1: And the source material gives us the exact date, right,

115
00:05:42,040 --> 00:05:45,480
The statutory deadline for that full release was December nineteenth.

116
00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:47,839
Speaker 2: December nineteenth, that was the date that was the promise

117
00:05:47,879 --> 00:05:50,560
the system made, and as the source points out, that

118
00:05:50,639 --> 00:05:53,639
deadline has come and gone. We're not talking about an

119
00:05:53,680 --> 00:05:56,959
internal DOJ goal that they missed. This is a failure

120
00:05:57,000 --> 00:06:00,319
to follow a direct mandate from Congress signed into law

121
00:06:00,360 --> 00:06:02,680
by the president. Is that elevates this from just a

122
00:06:02,759 --> 00:06:07,279
logistical problem to really a political accountability crisis, which.

123
00:06:07,040 --> 00:06:10,480
Speaker 1: Of course immediately led to political fallout as you'd expect.

124
00:06:11,120 --> 00:06:14,120
The source tells us Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee

125
00:06:14,160 --> 00:06:17,680
are now asking for an internal investigation. They want to

126
00:06:17,720 --> 00:06:20,759
know why these millions of pages weren't released on time,

127
00:06:21,040 --> 00:06:21,879
and that call.

128
00:06:21,720 --> 00:06:25,040
Speaker 2: For an internal investigation is very telling. It suggests that

129
00:06:25,079 --> 00:06:27,839
at least some people in Congress don't fully buy the

130
00:06:28,399 --> 00:06:30,199
it's just a resource issue explanation.

131
00:06:30,319 --> 00:06:30,439
Speaker 1: Right.

132
00:06:30,720 --> 00:06:33,800
Speaker 2: They're asking a pretty tough question. Was this deadline just

133
00:06:33,959 --> 00:06:37,040
totally unrealistic from the start because of the five million pages,

134
00:06:37,160 --> 00:06:40,199
or was there a failure somewhere inside the DOJ, a

135
00:06:40,240 --> 00:06:44,879
failure of prioritization of resource allocation, or worst case scenario,

136
00:06:45,360 --> 00:06:48,680
a lack of political will to actually meet the mandate

137
00:06:48,720 --> 00:06:49,240
they were given.

138
00:06:49,399 --> 00:06:51,040
Speaker 1: Let me just pose a question here at to play

139
00:06:51,040 --> 00:06:53,240
devil's advocate. This one percent estimate, it comes from the

140
00:06:53,240 --> 00:06:57,800
survivor's attorneys. Is it possible that number, while maybe technically true,

141
00:06:57,959 --> 00:07:01,680
is also being used strategically to maximize pressure on the DOJ.

142
00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:04,959
Speaker 2: That's an essential angle to consider, and the answer is

143
00:07:05,560 --> 00:07:08,079
almost certainly yes. I mean, in any kind of high

144
00:07:08,120 --> 00:07:11,560
stakes litigation like this, information that gets released to the

145
00:07:11,600 --> 00:07:14,920
media is part of a legal strategy. Sure by hammering

146
00:07:15,279 --> 00:07:19,160
that only one percent is out figure, the attorneys create

147
00:07:19,199 --> 00:07:24,199
this powerful perception of obstruction or you know, bureaucratic failure,

148
00:07:24,839 --> 00:07:29,519
and that perception generates political pressure. It forces Congress, in

149
00:07:29,560 --> 00:07:32,560
this case, the Senate Democrats to step in and demand answers.

150
00:07:32,879 --> 00:07:35,160
The scale itself becomes a political weapon.

151
00:07:35,360 --> 00:07:37,399
Speaker 1: That makes sense. If they had said, you know, twenty

152
00:07:37,399 --> 00:07:39,279
five percent is out, the story wouldn't have nearly the

153
00:07:39,279 --> 00:07:39,920
same impact.

154
00:07:40,000 --> 00:07:43,480
Speaker 2: Exactly, the one percent figure, whether it's perfectly precise or not,

155
00:07:44,040 --> 00:07:46,279
is incredibly effective at getting political traction.

156
00:07:46,480 --> 00:07:49,079
Speaker 1: But no matter how that number is being used, the

157
00:07:49,079 --> 00:07:52,399
most important and really the most tragic consequence of this

158
00:07:52,480 --> 00:07:56,600
delay falls on the survivors themselves. The source highlights this

159
00:07:56,639 --> 00:07:59,040
saying the delay is seen not just as a flouting

160
00:07:59,079 --> 00:08:02,680
of the law, but as a profound retraumatization of the survivors.

161
00:08:02,920 --> 00:08:05,040
Speaker 2: And this is where we have to shift from the

162
00:08:05,120 --> 00:08:08,800
legal logistics to the human psychology of it all. It's

163
00:08:08,800 --> 00:08:11,279
probably the most critical part of this story. What does

164
00:08:11,319 --> 00:08:15,360
retraumatization actually mean here? For survivors of crimes like this,

165
00:08:15,439 --> 00:08:19,120
the legal process is always incredibly difficult, but it's supposed

166
00:08:19,120 --> 00:08:22,759
to come with the promise of eventually some kind of closure.

167
00:08:23,000 --> 00:08:24,560
Speaker 1: They're given a light at the end of the tunnel.

168
00:08:24,600 --> 00:08:28,240
They're told, just wait for December nineteenth. That's the day.

169
00:08:28,360 --> 00:08:30,040
That's when the full truth comes out. That's when you'll

170
00:08:30,040 --> 00:08:31,079
see the scope of all this.

171
00:08:31,199 --> 00:08:36,600
Speaker 2: Precisely, that specific date becomes this huge psychological marker. It's

172
00:08:36,600 --> 00:08:39,759
an endpoint, it's the final hurdle. It's the moment this

173
00:08:39,840 --> 00:08:42,919
system is supposed to finally acknowledge everything. So when that

174
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:45,559
day just passes and you're told, oh, we're only at

175
00:08:45,559 --> 00:08:48,679
one percent, you're instantly thrown back into this state of

176
00:08:48,879 --> 00:08:50,759
indefinite diagonizing waiting.

177
00:08:51,080 --> 00:08:53,559
Speaker 1: It's like a form of secondary victimization, isn't it. The

178
00:08:53,600 --> 00:08:57,159
original crime was by the perpetrators, but this ongoing trauma

179
00:08:57,240 --> 00:08:59,720
is being inflicted by the very system that's supposed to

180
00:08:59,720 --> 00:09:01,080
be delivering justice.

181
00:09:01,159 --> 00:09:05,480
Speaker 2: It is absolutely a form of secondary victimization. The process

182
00:09:05,519 --> 00:09:08,120
that's meant to help them move forward is now the

183
00:09:08,120 --> 00:09:11,080
thing holding them back. It feels like the system is

184
00:09:11,200 --> 00:09:14,039
actively stalling their recovery. They're just left hanging with no

185
00:09:14,159 --> 00:09:18,240
answers and no timeline. The expectation was closure and the

186
00:09:18,320 --> 00:09:21,759
reality they got was just an indefinite stall.

187
00:09:22,159 --> 00:09:24,559
Speaker 1: And the source mentions a very specific complaint on this

188
00:09:24,639 --> 00:09:28,200
front that the survivors are not getting an open line

189
00:09:28,200 --> 00:09:31,200
of communication about what's happening or when they can expect.

190
00:09:30,840 --> 00:09:33,879
Speaker 2: Anything, and that lack of communication just makes the trauma

191
00:09:34,000 --> 00:09:37,519
so much worse. Transparency isn't just about handing over documents.

192
00:09:37,519 --> 00:09:41,679
It's about clear communication. It's about managing expectations, especially when

193
00:09:41,720 --> 00:09:44,480
you're dealing with victims. Right, If the DOJ really is

194
00:09:44,519 --> 00:09:47,559
working all hands on deck, then part of that job

195
00:09:47,600 --> 00:09:50,320
has to be communicating with the survivors' legal teams giving

196
00:09:50,320 --> 00:09:54,360
them realistic updates. The silence, combined with the mis deadline,

197
00:09:54,639 --> 00:09:57,440
just leaves the people most affected by this feeling powerless

198
00:09:57,480 --> 00:09:59,919
and frankly disrespected by the process.

199
00:10:00,320 --> 00:10:04,759
Speaker 1: So, after all this, the miss deadline, the political anger,

200
00:10:05,039 --> 00:10:09,000
the human cost, how does the Department of Justice respond

201
00:10:09,159 --> 00:10:11,519
when CBS News asks them for an update.

202
00:10:12,080 --> 00:10:15,279
Speaker 2: Well, they gave a pretty standard crisis communications statement. They

203
00:10:15,519 --> 00:10:18,399
emphasize how hard they're working. They said they have all

204
00:10:18,399 --> 00:10:21,200
hands on deck, that they were working through the holiday weekend,

205
00:10:21,559 --> 00:10:23,519
and that they're trying to get more files out as

206
00:10:23,559 --> 00:10:24,399
quickly as possible.

207
00:10:24,440 --> 00:10:27,879
Speaker 1: It's the classic we're working on it response, trying to

208
00:10:27,879 --> 00:10:30,639
show the failure is about the size of the task.

209
00:10:30,440 --> 00:10:33,759
Speaker 2: Not a lack of effort precisely. But the crucial piece

210
00:10:33,799 --> 00:10:35,960
that was missing, and the source makes a point of this,

211
00:10:36,399 --> 00:10:39,919
is that the statement gave no date certain, no definitive

212
00:10:39,960 --> 00:10:43,399
timeline for when this will actually be done. The promising effort,

213
00:10:43,639 --> 00:10:46,240
but they're refusing to promise a result by a.

214
00:10:46,159 --> 00:10:49,399
Speaker 1: Specific time, and that lack of a date really confirms it,

215
00:10:49,440 --> 00:10:51,320
doesn't it. As the source says, there's no sense it

216
00:10:51,360 --> 00:10:54,039
happens anytime soon. If there are still millions of pages

217
00:10:54,120 --> 00:10:57,360
left for the survivors. An open ended promise is almost

218
00:10:57,399 --> 00:10:59,240
worse than being told it will be another year.

219
00:10:59,559 --> 00:11:03,240
Speaker 2: It is because it removes that psychological marker again, the

220
00:11:03,320 --> 00:11:06,159
scale is the enemy of certainty. Here, with ninety nine

221
00:11:06,200 --> 00:11:09,240
percent of five million pages left, the dog is basically

222
00:11:09,240 --> 00:11:12,759
saying it a very cautious and politically damaging way, that

223
00:11:13,000 --> 00:11:15,639
they simply cannot predict when this will be over. It

224
00:11:15,720 --> 00:11:18,720
confirms the magnitude of the problem, but it has absolutely

225
00:11:18,759 --> 00:11:21,000
nothing to address the human cost of that delay.

226
00:11:21,519 --> 00:11:24,840
Speaker 1: You know, that very concept, that lack of certainty, the

227
00:11:24,840 --> 00:11:28,320
inability to commit, the total lack of declarative confidence in

228
00:11:28,399 --> 00:11:31,600
meeting a goal. It provides a really sharp transition to

229
00:11:31,639 --> 00:11:34,799
our second story. We're going from a situation defined by

230
00:11:34,840 --> 00:11:37,799
a failure to release information to a situation defined by

231
00:11:37,799 --> 00:11:40,440
the absolute confidence in the information that's been gathered.

232
00:11:40,600 --> 00:11:43,399
Speaker 2: It's a remarkable contrast, isn't it. On one hand, you

233
00:11:43,399 --> 00:11:46,440
have a government agency completely swamped by the logistics of

234
00:11:46,480 --> 00:11:50,000
millions of pages, unable to offer any certainty at all, right,

235
00:11:50,080 --> 00:11:52,120
And on the other you have the release of former

236
00:11:52,240 --> 00:11:56,720
Special Council Jacksmith's deposition, a document that is defined from

237
00:11:56,720 --> 00:12:00,320
top to bottom by unequivocal certainty in his findings, and

238
00:12:00,360 --> 00:12:02,639
that confidence is really the core of this next part

239
00:12:02,639 --> 00:12:03,320
of our deep dive.

240
00:12:03,519 --> 00:12:07,279
Speaker 1: Okay, let's jump into that Jacksmith transcript. So this is

241
00:12:07,279 --> 00:12:10,039
a two hundred and fifty page document and it was

242
00:12:10,080 --> 00:12:14,600
released by the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee. We should

243
00:12:14,639 --> 00:12:17,519
probably start with the politics of that, because who releases

244
00:12:17,559 --> 00:12:19,399
a document like this really matters.

245
00:12:19,639 --> 00:12:23,559
Speaker 2: That is rule number one in Washington information warfare. The

246
00:12:23,600 --> 00:12:26,759
Republican controlled committee made this public after a closed door

247
00:12:26,759 --> 00:12:30,360
deposition last month, and the act of releasing it themselves

248
00:12:30,519 --> 00:12:33,120
is a way to control the narrative from the very beginning.

249
00:12:33,200 --> 00:12:34,200
Speaker 1: They get to frame it first.

250
00:12:34,240 --> 00:12:36,320
Speaker 2: They get to frame it. They can present themselves as

251
00:12:36,360 --> 00:12:40,200
the champions of transparency, even if the document itself contains

252
00:12:40,240 --> 00:12:43,799
things that are damaging to their political side. They're looking

253
00:12:43,840 --> 00:12:46,960
for things to discredit the investigation, but they're also setting

254
00:12:47,000 --> 00:12:47,960
the terms of the debate.

255
00:12:48,279 --> 00:12:50,320
Speaker 1: And what was the setup for this interview. It was

256
00:12:50,360 --> 00:12:53,360
an eight hour closed door session. That's a marathon.

257
00:12:53,559 --> 00:12:56,240
Speaker 2: It was an eight hour marathon. And the structure is

258
00:12:56,279 --> 00:13:01,240
really important for understanding the transcript. The questioning very formal.

259
00:13:01,320 --> 00:13:04,600
It went back and forth between Republicans and Democrats, one

260
00:13:04,679 --> 00:13:05,519
hour for each.

261
00:13:05,360 --> 00:13:08,039
Speaker 1: Side at a time, So he was essentially being cross

262
00:13:08,039 --> 00:13:11,639
examined by two opposing legal teams for eight hours straight.

263
00:13:11,919 --> 00:13:13,960
Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it. One side is

264
00:13:14,000 --> 00:13:17,080
trying to defend the investigations process and get him to

265
00:13:17,080 --> 00:13:20,000
state his conclusions clearly. The other side is trying to

266
00:13:20,120 --> 00:13:24,200
challenge the very basis of the investigation, looking for inconsistencies

267
00:13:24,279 --> 00:13:29,519
or signs of bias. That adversarial setup just underlines the

268
00:13:29,519 --> 00:13:30,679
political intensity here.

269
00:13:30,879 --> 00:13:33,039
Speaker 1: And when you actually read the transcript or the summary

270
00:13:33,039 --> 00:13:37,679
of it, what comes through isn't careful legal language. Its forcefulness.

271
00:13:38,120 --> 00:13:40,320
The main takeaway from the source is that Jack Smith

272
00:13:40,440 --> 00:13:43,960
was declaratively confident in his investigation of President Trump.

273
00:13:44,240 --> 00:13:48,480
Speaker 2: That phrase, declaratively confident is so telling. That's not how

274
00:13:48,519 --> 00:13:51,120
prosecutors usually talk. It's not you know, we believe the

275
00:13:51,159 --> 00:13:56,120
evidence suggests. It implies a firm, assertive, almost aggressive declaration

276
00:13:56,159 --> 00:13:58,960
of his final conclusions. It's like he's daring them to

277
00:13:59,039 --> 00:13:59,840
challenge the evidence he.

278
00:14:00,360 --> 00:14:02,559
Speaker 1: And that confidence went all the way to the potential

279
00:14:02,559 --> 00:14:03,480
outcome of a trial.

280
00:14:03,799 --> 00:14:07,120
Speaker 2: It did. The source says that Smith stated in so

281
00:14:07,279 --> 00:14:09,399
many words he was confident, he was going to get

282
00:14:09,399 --> 00:14:13,080
a conviction. That a huge statement for a prosecutor to make.

283
00:14:13,440 --> 00:14:15,879
It shows an incredible belief in the strength and the

284
00:14:15,919 --> 00:14:18,679
depth of the evidence his team put together. He clearly

285
00:14:18,720 --> 00:14:22,399
believes it crosses that very high bar of beyond a

286
00:14:22,399 --> 00:14:23,200
reasonable doubt.

287
00:14:23,440 --> 00:14:25,320
Speaker 1: And he was just as clear about why the focus

288
00:14:25,320 --> 00:14:27,840
of the prosecution was squarely on the former president.

289
00:14:27,559 --> 00:14:30,759
Speaker 2: R oh Absolutely, he left no room for ambiguity there.

290
00:14:31,240 --> 00:14:33,919
Smith asserted that Trump was the one to prosecute because,

291
00:14:34,240 --> 00:14:37,679
in Smith's view, he was the one who drove efforts

292
00:14:37,720 --> 00:14:41,519
to overturn the twenty twenty election. That word drove is

293
00:14:41,559 --> 00:14:44,440
so important. It assigns the role of initiator, of the

294
00:14:44,559 --> 00:14:46,559
driving force behind the entire scheme.

295
00:14:46,759 --> 00:14:49,720
Speaker 1: And he didn't stop there. He connected those efforts directly

296
00:14:49,759 --> 00:14:51,399
to the violence on January sixth.

297
00:14:51,600 --> 00:14:55,559
Speaker 2: Unequivocally. The testimony, as reported, says that the January sixth

298
00:14:55,639 --> 00:14:57,919
attack on the Capitol would not have happened if not

299
00:14:58,000 --> 00:15:01,840
for President Trump. That is a powerful assertion of direct causation.

300
00:15:02,279 --> 00:15:05,480
He's legally linking the alleged scheme to overturn the election

301
00:15:05,639 --> 00:15:07,320
directly to the violence that followed.

302
00:15:07,600 --> 00:15:09,919
Speaker 1: Can we just talk for a second about the significance

303
00:15:09,919 --> 00:15:12,600
of him using language like this in a formal deposition,

304
00:15:13,399 --> 00:15:17,399
phrases like drove efforts or being confident of conviction.

305
00:15:17,919 --> 00:15:22,000
Speaker 2: It's a critical point. Usually prosecutors, especially in such high

306
00:15:22,000 --> 00:15:27,039
profile politically charged cases, they hedge, they use cautious language.

307
00:15:27,120 --> 00:15:31,200
They'll say things like the evidence appears to support this charge.

308
00:15:31,399 --> 00:15:35,799
Smith's decision to use such absolute, definitive terms suggests a

309
00:15:35,799 --> 00:15:38,639
couple of things. Okay, First, that his office truly believes

310
00:15:38,679 --> 00:15:42,240
the evidence is overwhelming and doesn't require any hedging. And second,

311
00:15:42,559 --> 00:15:45,919
he was likely using this formal under oath setting to

312
00:15:46,080 --> 00:15:49,279
solidify his own narrative to counter all the political attacks

313
00:15:49,279 --> 00:15:52,120
by just being incredibly blunt and aggressive about his findings.

314
00:15:52,200 --> 00:15:54,960
Speaker 1: It's a high stakes declaration of facts, not a cautious

315
00:15:55,039 --> 00:15:58,159
legal argument. And the fact that the opposition party is

316
00:15:58,159 --> 00:16:01,159
the one who released the transcript contained these statements, it

317
00:16:01,240 --> 00:16:03,960
kind of underscores how unshakable he must have been during

318
00:16:03,960 --> 00:16:04,720
those eight hours.

319
00:16:04,960 --> 00:16:08,440
Speaker 2: It speaks volumes, doesn't it. They released it presumably hoping

320
00:16:08,440 --> 00:16:12,240
to find flaws, but in doing so they also broadcast

321
00:16:12,320 --> 00:16:17,120
Smith's own incredibly confident rationale for the prosecutions, and that

322
00:16:17,240 --> 00:16:21,279
of course just set the stage perfectly for the Democratic response.

323
00:16:21,080 --> 00:16:24,559
Speaker 1: Which brings us right to Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland.

324
00:16:24,759 --> 00:16:28,279
He's the top Democrat on that committee, and his statement

325
00:16:28,360 --> 00:16:31,919
provides the perfect counter narrative. He interprets this transcript not

326
00:16:31,960 --> 00:16:34,480
just as an explanation, but as an indictment of the

327
00:16:34,480 --> 00:16:35,679
politics surrounding it.

328
00:16:35,679 --> 00:16:38,000
Speaker 2: Exactly, and Raskin has a long history with this right.

329
00:16:38,200 --> 00:16:41,600
He was on the January sixth Select Committee, so for him,

330
00:16:41,919 --> 00:16:45,480
protecting the integrity of these findings is paramount. He claimed

331
00:16:45,480 --> 00:16:48,879
that releasing the full deposition makes crystal clear what he

332
00:16:48,960 --> 00:16:52,440
says the administration and his allies in Congress have tried

333
00:16:52,480 --> 00:16:53,840
so desperately to hide.

334
00:16:54,039 --> 00:16:57,519
Speaker 1: That language desperately to hide is very pointed. He's basically

335
00:16:57,519 --> 00:17:01,039
saying that the Republicans inadvertently amplified the strength of Smith's

336
00:17:01,080 --> 00:17:02,600
case by releasing the transcript.

337
00:17:03,000 --> 00:17:05,440
Speaker 2: That is exactly the political spin he's putting on it.

338
00:17:06,160 --> 00:17:11,039
And from there he makes this really explosive central claim

339
00:17:11,519 --> 00:17:14,839
that changes the whole debate. Raskin asserts that these criminal

340
00:17:14,839 --> 00:17:17,720
prosecutions were not failed, they were blocked.

341
00:17:18,079 --> 00:17:20,759
Speaker 1: And that's a powerful distinction, because if a case fails,

342
00:17:20,839 --> 00:17:24,079
it suggests the evidence wasn't there, but if it was blocked,

343
00:17:24,279 --> 00:17:27,720
that implies that political interference stopped a legitimate case from

344
00:17:27,759 --> 00:17:28,519
moving forward.

345
00:17:28,839 --> 00:17:32,839
Speaker 2: The word blocked is a political weapon. It immediately recasts

346
00:17:32,880 --> 00:17:36,000
all the Republican scrutiny of the Special Council's office not

347
00:17:36,119 --> 00:17:39,759
as legitimate oversight, but as another form of obstruction, the

348
00:17:39,799 --> 00:17:42,200
same kind of obstruction. He would argue that was at

349
00:17:42,200 --> 00:17:45,160
the heart of the January sixth investigation itself, and Raskin

350
00:17:45,200 --> 00:17:48,279
then uses Smith's own confident words to back this up.

351
00:17:48,680 --> 00:17:52,400
Speaker 1: He says Smith testified compellingly and unequivocally that his office

352
00:17:52,440 --> 00:17:56,079
had found proof beyond any reasonable doubt for two different

353
00:17:56,119 --> 00:17:58,200
criminal schemes, right, and.

354
00:17:58,200 --> 00:18:03,079
Speaker 2: Those two schemes cover both the Smith's major investigations. The first,

355
00:18:03,160 --> 00:18:05,680
as we've been discussing, was that Trump engaged in a

356
00:18:05,720 --> 00:18:09,640
criminal scheme to overturn the election. Raskin is saying Smith

357
00:18:09,720 --> 00:18:13,240
testified under oath that they met the highest possible burden

358
00:18:13,279 --> 00:18:13,880
of proof on.

359
00:18:13,839 --> 00:18:16,680
Speaker 1: That, and the second scheme was about the document's case.

360
00:18:16,799 --> 00:18:20,440
Speaker 2: Yes, Raskin said, Smith's office also developed proof beyond a

361
00:18:20,440 --> 00:18:24,319
reasonable doubt that Trump willfully retain highly classified documents after

362
00:18:24,440 --> 00:18:28,759
leaving office. So, according to Raskin's reading, Smith's confidence wasn't

363
00:18:28,799 --> 00:18:31,119
just about one case, it was across the board.

364
00:18:31,359 --> 00:18:34,279
Speaker 1: You know what's so striking is the contrast in the language.

365
00:18:34,440 --> 00:18:38,079
You have Smith the investigator, using this definitive but formal

366
00:18:38,200 --> 00:18:42,319
legal language confident, unequivocal, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and

367
00:18:42,359 --> 00:18:45,319
then you have Raskin, the politician, translating that into political

368
00:18:45,359 --> 00:18:46,640
language blocked hidden.

369
00:18:46,960 --> 00:18:49,480
Speaker 2: It's a perfect example of how facts are instantly turned

370
00:18:49,480 --> 00:18:54,599
into ammunition in Washington. Smith's testimony was intended from his perspective,

371
00:18:54,880 --> 00:18:59,119
to defend his legal process, but it's immediately repurposed by

372
00:18:59,160 --> 00:19:02,920
Democrats as evidence of obstruction, and at the same time

373
00:19:02,920 --> 00:19:05,519
it's used by Republicans who released it to try and

374
00:19:05,559 --> 00:19:09,359
frame the conversation around their own points about bias or procedure.

375
00:19:09,880 --> 00:19:12,920
The legal details are just fuel for this deep ongoing

376
00:19:12,960 --> 00:19:14,319
political division.

377
00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:17,039
Speaker 1: And the timing of this release isn't random either. The

378
00:19:17,079 --> 00:19:19,359
source notes that this is all happening around a very

379
00:19:19,400 --> 00:19:20,720
significant anniversary.

380
00:19:21,079 --> 00:19:23,640
Speaker 2: Yes, we're reaching the five year mark of the January

381
00:19:23,680 --> 00:19:27,000
sixth attack, and that just raises the political temperature on

382
00:19:27,039 --> 00:19:30,240
all of this. The timing forces this conversation right back

383
00:19:30,279 --> 00:19:32,519
to the events of that day. But now we're seeing

384
00:19:32,519 --> 00:19:35,559
it through the fresh lens of this very declarative, very

385
00:19:35,599 --> 00:19:38,519
confident legal testimony for the man who investigated it.

386
00:19:38,720 --> 00:19:41,720
Speaker 1: So the source concludes by saying, this is still a visceral,

387
00:19:41,799 --> 00:19:45,359
divisive issue here in Washington, and that's really the key context.

388
00:19:45,400 --> 00:19:48,039
These legal arguments are not being debated like facts in

389
00:19:48,079 --> 00:19:51,279
a courtroom by the public or by politicians. They're being

390
00:19:51,319 --> 00:19:54,400
treated as declarations of war in this ongoing fight over

391
00:19:54,440 --> 00:19:56,559
the legitimacy of the twenty twenty election.

392
00:19:56,880 --> 00:19:59,400
Speaker 2: And that's why this matters to you, the listener. These

393
00:19:59,400 --> 00:20:02,599
specifically this level of certainty from Smith. It's not some

394
00:20:02,720 --> 00:20:06,279
academic legal exercise. These are the core arguments that are

395
00:20:06,319 --> 00:20:09,799
fueling the political division that is shaping everything right now.

396
00:20:10,039 --> 00:20:14,160
Understanding Smith's confidence and how Raskin is strategically using it

397
00:20:14,160 --> 00:20:16,640
gives you the tools to decipher the rhetoric you're hearing

398
00:20:16,680 --> 00:20:17,440
from all signs.

399
00:20:17,839 --> 00:20:19,920
Speaker 1: Okay, So to bring this all together, we've looked at

400
00:20:19,920 --> 00:20:23,440
these two huge ongoing legal battles, both centered on the

401
00:20:23,440 --> 00:20:26,559
control of information. On one side, we have the statutory

402
00:20:26,599 --> 00:20:28,920
deadline that was just blown past by the DOJ for

403
00:20:29,000 --> 00:20:33,319
the Epstein files, five million pages with only one percent released,

404
00:20:33,599 --> 00:20:37,599
it's a logistical failure causing political anger and most importantly,

405
00:20:38,000 --> 00:20:39,680
retraumatizing survivors.

406
00:20:39,960 --> 00:20:42,480
Speaker 2: And then on the complete opposite end of the spectrum,

407
00:20:42,799 --> 00:20:46,559
you have the confident, declarative assertions of Jack Smith laid

408
00:20:46,559 --> 00:20:48,839
out in a two hundred and fifty page transcript. He's

409
00:20:48,880 --> 00:20:52,240
claiming unequivocally that he had proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

410
00:20:52,559 --> 00:20:55,920
The contrast is really the story here, a logistical failure

411
00:20:56,000 --> 00:21:00,880
causing indefinite delay versus a clear confident legalists being used

412
00:21:00,920 --> 00:21:02,240
as a political flashpoint.

413
00:21:02,400 --> 00:21:05,359
Speaker 1: Right, the DOJ is so overwhelmed by the sheer scale

414
00:21:05,400 --> 00:21:08,119
of those five million pages that the volume itself becomes

415
00:21:08,119 --> 00:21:11,680
a kind of shield, a bureaucratic burial to the truth. Meanwhile,

416
00:21:11,759 --> 00:21:14,000
the Special Council's testimony, even though it's only two hundred

417
00:21:14,039 --> 00:21:17,079
to fifty pages, carries so much declarative weight that it

418
00:21:17,119 --> 00:21:20,400
becomes this very precise focal point for intense political debate.

419
00:21:20,640 --> 00:21:23,640
Speaker 2: That's the essential takeaway. The journey from an investigation to

420
00:21:23,680 --> 00:21:26,400
what the public gets to know is never ever a

421
00:21:26,440 --> 00:21:29,920
straight line. It's always filtered, whether it's one percent of

422
00:21:29,960 --> 00:21:32,799
five million files or two hundred and fifty pages of testimony.

423
00:21:33,079 --> 00:21:36,200
The information you receive has been filtered by legal deadlines,

424
00:21:36,240 --> 00:21:40,079
by political strategy, and by just immense bureaucratic effort or

425
00:21:40,400 --> 00:21:42,960
the lack of it. You have to consider not just

426
00:21:43,079 --> 00:21:46,000
what's released, but how the scale of what still unreleased

427
00:21:46,039 --> 00:21:47,640
continues to impact justice.

428
00:21:47,720 --> 00:21:50,839
Speaker 1: The sheer volume of the Epstein files, it's a stark

429
00:21:50,920 --> 00:21:54,240
reminder that you don't need to burn documents to hide

430
00:21:54,279 --> 00:21:57,240
the truth. Sometimes you just need to drown everyone in

431
00:21:57,279 --> 00:21:58,480
the paperwork and in.

432
00:21:58,440 --> 00:22:01,319
Speaker 2: The political arena. The release of key details is always

433
00:22:01,359 --> 00:22:03,920
managed strategically. It can be used as a weapon to

434
00:22:03,920 --> 00:22:06,920
assert authority like Smith did, or as a shield to

435
00:22:06,960 --> 00:22:10,359
claim you're being obstructed like Raskin did. The information gets

436
00:22:10,400 --> 00:22:14,680
filtered twice, once by the investigation and then again through

437
00:22:14,680 --> 00:22:16,119
the partisan lens of politics.

438
00:22:16,480 --> 00:22:18,839
Speaker 1: So with all that in mind, here's our final thought

439
00:22:18,880 --> 00:22:21,759
for you. Given how the release of information is so

440
00:22:21,839 --> 00:22:25,000
strategically managed, and how sheer volume can act as its

441
00:22:25,000 --> 00:22:28,640
own barrier to truth, what responsibility do we, as informed

442
00:22:28,680 --> 00:22:31,920
listeners have to track the information that's still unseen, those

443
00:22:31,920 --> 00:22:36,200
millions of pages, versus the very precise, politically charged details

444
00:22:36,200 --> 00:22:38,200
we are allowed to focus on, like a two hundred

445
00:22:38,200 --> 00:22:41,200
and fifty page deposition. How do we keep the scale

446
00:22:41,279 --> 00:22:44,160
of the unseen in mind while we're processing the confidence

447
00:22:44,160 --> 00:22:44,960
of what's been seen.

448
00:22:45,440 --> 00:22:46,960
Speaker 2: Let's know what stands out to you. Thank you for

449
00:22:47,039 --> 00:22:48,480
joining us in this thrilling threads