This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: The Justice Department is under fire over its initial release of files related to the serial convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after it failed to publish thousands of documents by Friday’s congressionally imposed deadline. The delay drew criticism from Epstein’s survivors and members of Congress. Of the Epstein files turned over so far, more than 500 pages were entirely redacted, including all 119 pages of a document labeled “Grand Jury-NY.”
One notable document released Friday was a 1996 FBI complaint filed by Maria Farmer, who, along with her sister Annie, was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, who’s serving a 20-year sentence. In the report, Maria Farmer told the FBI of Epstein’s interest in child pornography. For more than 30 years, the FBI never publicly acknowledged her report, never investigated her claims. On Friday, Maria’s sister Annie spoke to CNN.
ANNIE FARMER: My sister, Maria Farmer, reported Epstein and his crimes in 1996. We’ve been saying that over and over again. And part of what was released today was an official FBI form, and I think it was an FD-71, dated September 3rd, 1996, with my sister’s — some of my sister’s report. It was labeled under child pornography, and it described Epstein stealing photos of myself at the age of 16, of my younger sister, who was 12 at the time. And just to see it in writing and to know that they had this document this entire time, and how many people were harmed after that date, it just — you know, we’ve been saying it over and over, but to see it in black and white that way has been very emotional. I’m with — I’m with Maria today. I know she felt a tremendous amount of relief and redemption, but also sorrow in thinking about people like Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who are not here to see this and be a part of really forcing the government to be transparent, finally, about this case.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Annie Farmer speaking to CNN.
At least 16 files related to Jeffrey Epstein disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage over the weekend, before reappearing amidst public outcry. The files included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a photograph of Trump alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate and co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell.
We’re joined right now, in studio for the first time, by Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna of California. Along with Republican Congressmember Thomas Massie, Ro Khanna co-wrote the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which led to Friday’s release.
So, the deadline, Congressmember Khanna, was December 19th. So, talk about what was released and what wasn’t released.
REP. RO KHANNA: Not much new was released. Unfortunately, what they released was heavily redacted. They didn’t release some of the key documents, the 60-count draft indictment that was prepared for Jeffrey Epstein. Ultimately, he was charged only on two counts. We had asked for that 60-count draft indictment. The eighty —
AMY GOODMAN: This was the original one, the nonprosecution agreement.
REP. RO KHANNA: The non — the original indictment on what he should have been charged for.
AMY GOODMAN: In Florida.
REP. RO KHANNA: In Florida. And then the 82-page memorandum trying to justify that, they didn’t release that. So, Massie and I, yesterday morning, said we were going to hold Pam Bondi in contempt. Since then, for 24 hours, they’ve been backpedaling. They actually now have released an unredacted version of the New York grand jury testimony, the 119-page document that you referred. They’re saying they’re going to release more documents. They realize the public backlash. So, let’s see what we get this week.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’ve talked about possibly holding the Attorney General Pam Bondi in contempt. It’s also been floated that you might want to impeach her. What does each of these mean? And what’s the deadline on each of these?
REP. RO KHANNA: So, the House can act unilaterally on contempt, and this will be introduced by Thomas Massie. What the resolution will say is that for every day that Pam Bondi does not release the documents in question, she will be subject to a personal $5,000 fine. And there will be a committee of the Congress, Republican and Democrat, that need to see the documents to determine whether that redaction qualifies as legitimate with the statute or not. We will be giving her a 30-day grace period to release the documents. But the interesting thing is that Massie has Republicans lined up, as well, to support this contempt. It’s a privilege resolution. That means the speaker would have to give it a vote. And we’re likely to introduce it early in January.
But the point is not just to pass it. Just the announcement of doing so, and Pam Bondi’s awareness that Republicans are upset, has had them backpedaling. And all day yesterday, they’ve been tweeting out unredacted versions of previously redacted documents, explanations for why documents have been missing, and a commitment to be releasing more documents.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re talking about contempt, and you’re saying only the House would have to approve that, not the Senate. And what about impeachment?
REP. RO KHANNA: Impeachment is — of course, requires the Senate to convict. It would require a majority in the House. It’s an option on the table. I think what she’s doing is impeachable. But we would want to first do the contempt, and we would want to make sure that we have the votes to be able to impeach. But what is on the table is the contempt, impeachment and, frankly, criminal referral in terms of obstruction of justice for violating the law, which would apply not just to her or Deputy Attorney General Blanche, but career prosecutors or Justice Department officials who have not complied with the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you mentioned Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. He appeared on Meet the Press on Sunday and was asked by Kristen Welker about files relating to President Trump.
KRISTEN WELKER: Let’s delve more deeply into the redactions. Is any information about President Trump redacted in any of the files that have or will be released?
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE: No, not unless it’s supposed to be redacted under the law, which means victim information or any sort of privilege, like attorney-client privilege. But I have no reason to believe that the lawyers that were working on this case were talking about President Trump, because he had nothing to do with the Epstein files. He had nothing to do with the horrific crimes that Mr. Epstein committed. And so, I don’t expect there will be anything redacted. But the short answer is we are not redacting information around President Trump, around any other individual involved with — with Mr. Epstein.
AMY GOODMAN: So, that’s the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, yes, the former personal attorney of — the criminal attorney for President Trump. If you can talk about, for example, this photograph that was on the website, disappeared from the website and then came back on, and Blanche talking about, well, they want to just protect survivors? It was a picture of Trump. Explain the significance of this. It wasn’t even particularly incriminating, and yet they removed it.
REP. RO KHANNA: Well, it was not incriminating, because that picture had actually been out in the public domain before. What I can just think is that there were overzealous attorneys who were told or decided that they didn’t want anything with Trump out there, and so they were vetting the material to protect Trump. And then the outrage made them re-release it.
But the biggest issues is that, in one case, they released information about a survivor — maybe they did that accidentally — but they didn’t release the survivor’s FBI file, which she has been asking for decades. And the truth is: What do the American people want to know? They want to know: Who are the rich and powerful men who went to Epstein’s rape island? Who are the people who either abused these young girls or watched at parties as young girls, 14, 15, were paraded around naked, and didn’t say anything? And that information is in the FBI files. That information is in those indictments and in the prosecution memorandum. And the question people are asking is: Why are you not releasing this? Because it goes beyond Trump. It goes to a group of rich and powerful people who were engaged in heinous conduct or covering it up.
AMY GOODMAN: So, the Democrats have also been in charge of the House when they didn’t release the Epstein files. Why the change?
REP. RO KHANNA: Well, I think it was a miss for this whole country. I don’t defend the idea that these survivors have been denied justice for over a decade. Now, Elijah Cummings had talked about this in 2019. I was on the committee. We had talked about having an investigation. But all of us should have acted with far greater urgency. And as I have gotten to know now personally the survivors, I have become much more emotionally invested in this case, meeting people like Annie Farmer. And what happened to these young girls — because they were girls — from working-class families, who came, were often immigrants or didn’t have a father, they were abused, and this country abandoned them. And that’s a shame and an indictment on the country.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Amanda Roberts, the sister-in-law of the late Virginia Giuffre, who was the first survivor to come out publicly against Epstein.
AMANDA ROBERTS: I think the law being passed, it’s exactly why we wanted it to be passed, because now we can hold them accountable, because this is a law now. And we can hold them in contempt if they do decide to, you know, redact perpetrators, if they don’t release the items that we know they need to release. And so, we’re going to do our due diligence. You know, between us, the survivors, the lawyers, we know what should be in there, and we’re going to comb through every single page, and we’re going to hold them accountable. And so, while we’re extremely disappointed, while we’re frustrated, there is also this sense of empowerment. And every single survivor that I told them today, I said the ball is in our court.
AMY GOODMAN: See, that’s Amanda Roberts, the sister-in-law of the late Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who was a victim of Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and, of course, Andrew — we don’t say “Prince Andrew” anymore, because after all of this, and she sued him, he’s been stripped of his royal title. So many survivors have said it shouldn’t be on them, though they have united. They’re not giving up. They’ve talked about putting out a list of the men whose names they knew.
REP. RO KHANNA: They have. They came to the Capitol twice. They relived their trauma twice. That’s the only reason Massie and my bill passed the House and the Senate. And they have said that they are many men who either abused them, raped them, trafficked them or covered it up. I mean, Amy, think about it. There are 1,200 victims. It’s not conceivable mathematically that one person abused or raped 1,200 people. There were more folks. They have described them in generalities to Massie and me. They fear, obviously, defamation suits and rich and powerful people coming after them. It shouldn’t be their obligation to release this. What they and their lawyers have said is, if you release the FBI files, if you release the draft indictments and the prosecution memo, the American people will know who these folks are.
AMY GOODMAN: Susan Wiles, in this famous now Vanity Fair article, in talking about this, I think she used the term — she said — Chris Whipple wrote the article. I think she — Wiley said, “I think she completely” — referring to Pam Bondi — “whiffed on appreciating that that was the very targeted group that cared about this,” Wiley said of Bondi.
REP. RO KHANNA: Well, she whiffed, and she’s continuing to whiff. I mean, I imagine the White House was livid on Friday, because what Pam Bondi did on Friday was basically a extension of what she did five months ago: put out documents in a document dump that really didn’t tell us anything new.
And I think they thought that we’re headed to Christmas, Congress is out of session, Massie and I would just sort of say, “OK, they complied with the law, and let’s move on,” and declare a win. Instead, they were surprised that Massie and I actually care about these survivors. We don’t just care about some kind of pro forma win. We want the actual documents out. And within hours, we said this is a betrayal, a gross betrayal, of the spirit and letter of the law.
AMY GOODMAN: I have a question. Ghislaine Maxwell, in the days leading up to December 19th, the convicted associate of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, has asked a federal court to vacate or amend her 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. Now, this isn’t the same as a pardon. I was wondering if, by doing this — I’m not saying she’s working in cahoots with the administration, but by doing this, does this open up the possibility that they’ll say, “Well, since she’s asked the federal court to vacate or amend her sentence, they’re reopening the case,” and this would lead to many documents not being released?
REP. RO KHANNA: It could be one of the reasons that they don’t release some of the documents. But to put it in context, there are 300 gigabytes of documents. They’ve released 2.5 gigabytes. So, when people say, “Ongoing investigations, could it prevent some documents from being released? Maxwell, could it prevent some documents from being released?” maybe, but we’re talking about 5%. Where are the other 95% of the documents? Where are the documents the three federal judges have ordered released without significant redaction. So, the concern here is: What are they hiding, and who are they protecting?
