BREAKING: Court RULES in Epstein files lawsuit

You're watching the legal breakdown. Glenn, we have a major update as far as. the Epstein files are concerned. As. we've spoken about previously, Roana and. Thomas Massie joined together to try and. convince a court that the judge should. appoint a special master to oversee the. files since clearly the DOJ is not. interested in complying with the law and. releasing them. We now have a decision. from the judge. Can you explain what. just happened? Yeah, a New York federal. court judge, Judge Angel Mayor, just. issued an order saying that while he. understands the concerns both of the two.

members of Congress, Roana and Thomas. Massie, who brought this motion and the. victims of, you know, Epstein and. Maxwell's crimes. He says he just. doesn't have the authority. And I have. to say, Brian, I agree with Judge Angel. Meer's legal reasoning, and we can talk. about that in a minute. But I want to be. clear, Judge Angeler was not discarding. these serious concerns of both members. of Congress and the victims of Epstein's.

crimes out of hand. He said, for. example, the court has since received. letters and emails from victims of. Ebstein supporting the representatives. request for appointment of a neutral. monitor to oversee DOJ's compliance. These express concern that DOJ otherwise. will not comply with the act. They note. that DOJ's track record preceding. passage of the Epstein Act has been. marked by paying lip service to the. victims and failing to treat us with the.

solicitude we deserve. The questions. raised by the representatives and the. victims are undeniably important and. timely. They raise legitimate concerns. about whether DOJ is faithfully. complying with federal law. Spoiler. alert, they are not faithfully complying. with federal law. But then I think. appropriately and in accordance with. controlling precedent. Judge Angeler. says, "Look, there is no lawsuit that.

has been filed by anybody challenging. DOJ's violation of the Epstein Files. Transparency Act. It's failure. It's. obvious failure to comply." So because. there is no lawsuit, there are no. parties involved in current litigation. on that issue. So therefore, Judge Angel. Mayor concludes and you can almost feel. in the tone of his order. He concludes. somewhat reluctantly that he just.

doesn't have the authority. And I think. the judge is right in that regard. >> All right, Glenn. Well, that raises the. obvious question here. But first, before. we get to that, just a quick reminder. for those who are watching if you want. to stay on top of everything as it. relates to Epstein or legal news. The. best way to do that is to subscribe to. both of our channels. The links are in. the post description of this video. 100%. free, great way to support our work. Okay, so Glenn, getting back to the. obvious question here. If Roana and. Thomas Massie don't have standing to. bring this case, who does? And how easy.

would it be to see that process play. itself out um when the appropriate. parties who do have standing come. forward? Yeah, that's exactly the right. question, Brian, because where do we go. from here? And we just touched on kind. of the darkness involved in this ruling. that it seems like nobody at this moment. can compel DOJ to, you know, just abide. by the federal law and do right by the. victims. They're not inclined to do. either of those two things. But whereas. Judge Angelmeer spent six pages.

basically laying out what I just. summarized for our viewers, the last two. sentences on the very last page in the. conclusion paragraph says the following. Here comes the point of light. this. decision denying the representative's. request to appoint a special master or a. monitor and try to wrestle these. documents out of the hands of the. Department of Justice as the law. requires. This decision is without.

prejudice for the representatives right. to initiate a separate lawsuit. The. representatives are also, of course, at. liberty to pursue oversight of DOJ via. the tools available to Congress. Now, the judge in a footnote says, "Listen, I'm not off I'm not rendering an. opinion. I'm not offering any advice. about whether it would be a successful. lawsuit, but I found it interesting that. he chose the word right, the.

representatives right to file a lawsuit. because the Department of Justice is. violating the federal law. Indeed, the. federal law that these two. representatives co-sponsored and that. the victims of Epstein and Maxwell's. crimes are demanding the Department of. Justice comply with. >> which, by the way, the the DOJ's own. leader, the president of the United. States, signed into law himself. >> Go figure. You would think his attorney. general would therefore have an interest.

in carrying out the law that Donald. Trump signed, but you know, I think that. whole thing was for show. And it's clear. Pam Bondi intends to cover up, to. conceal, to secrete everything, particularly if it might, you know, come. home to roost and somehow paint Donald. Trump in a bad light. But but here is, I. think, the really good news coming out. of this ruling. I have a feeling the. next thing you're going to see because. Brian, as we just heard, Judge Angel.

Meer said this does nothing to prevent. the representatives right to file a. lawsuit to accomplish what procedurally. they can't quite accomplish in the. current posture. So, I have a feeling. the next thing we're going to see are uh. lawyers for Congress, for these. representatives filing a lawsuit and. taking advantage of that, if not. suggestion by Judge Engel Mayor, that. opportunity to actually create standing.

And I have a feeling, Brian, you may see. some of Epstein and Maxwell's victims. join as plaintiffs in that lawsuit. Why? because now you have belt and suspenders. when it comes to standing because if the. members of Congress don't have it, well, the victims of Epstein and Maxwell's. crimes will surely have standing. So, Brian, I think the forces of good I. think the the forces that actually care. about the rule of law and the rights of. victims may have lost this battle, but I. think there's another battle to be.

fought very soon. And I think the the. forces of good may end up winning this. war. I'm glad that you brought up a belt. and suspenders approach because I think. that two-pronged approach is especially. important. My first question to you was. going to be would it be smart of Roana. and Thomas Massie to bring this lawsuit. because do they have standing? You and I. spoke about this the fact that that you. know ju just because a member of. Congress or members of Congress were. involved in legislation doesn't give. them standing to challenge any law. that's been broken anywhere because it's.

always Congress that's responsible for. passing laws. So, it's not like they. specifically have standing. Otherwise, they would have standing for anything. and members of Congress would always be. able to sue for everything. It's got to. be somebody who is actually impacted by. virtue of the law that was passed. But. in this case, it would be both. You. would have Roana and Thomas Massie who, you know, if they do have standing, great. But if they don't and you have. survivors who are also named plaintiffs. on this case, then that would make sure. that every, you know, te is crossed, every eye is dotted, and whoever does.

have standing is taken care of uh by. virtue of, you know, who's included in. that plaintiff block uh on on the, you. know, the first half of the V. Yeah, that it's a great point because Congress. has some powers. they have some. opportunity to compel compliance by the. executive branch. But I I felt like if. Judge Angel mayor said, you know what, uh members of Congress can basically. request even though there is no active. case, they can basically request that.

federal judges appoint special masters. and monitors to enforce any shortfall by. the executive branch when it comes to. enforcing the thousands and thousands. and thousands of laws that are on the. books, all of which originated in. Congress. that would be unwieldy. That's kind of a. floodgates problem. So, I'm not at all. surprised that, you know, this is the. way Judge Angel Mayor ruled. Um, but I. have and I actually smiled to myself.

when I read the the last sentence that I. shared with our viewers where Judge. Angel Mayor not so helpfully said, "Well, of course, the other tools. available to Congress like oversight of. the Department of Justice are always. available." And I was saying to myself, yeah, no, they're actually not be. because you have the party that's in. control of Congress laying down and. letting Donald Trump and the executive. branch and the Department of Justice. walk all over them. So that was.

accurate, but it's a less helpful. suggestion. But listen, Brian, I would. expect in the coming days to see a new. lawsuit filed to give the the the people. and the parties and the victims standing. to move forward on this issue. Glenn, is. there any recourse here for the fact. that you have a Justice Department, Pam. Bondi, Donald Trump, who are flagrantly. violating the law? Like, I know that. we're going to see these lawsuits, but. but it's not like they can, you know, sue for damages or something like that. All that we would be able to see here is.

is to is to, you know, see this lawsuit. where they sue for compliance. But but. what is to deter this administration. from continuing to break the law, if the. worst that happens to them is that after. this whole process plays itself out, all. they have to do is comply. Like there's. no there's no deterrent effect moving. forward into the future if if really the. onus is on the plaintiffs here to get. the DOJ to do what it was what the law. is to do anyway. >> Yeah. You know, it's it's a troubling.

observation, but it's an accurate. observation. the executive branch, the. president and the the department of. justice generally um has a. constitutional obligation to take care. that the laws of the nation be. faithfully executed. So what in the hell. do we do when those who are obliged to. comply with that constitutional. requirement basically say we ain't gonna. do it and nobody can make us do it. Well, yes, Congress, if it were a.

legitimate governing body these days, hopefully it will again become one after. the midterms, they could make the they. could at least pressure the executive. branch. They could defund the Department. of Justice and put them out of business. until they complied and actually. enforced the laws of the nation without. fear or favor. Um, that's not going to. happen at the moment. But let me give. our viewers a very faint point of light. This is not a beacon of light, but you. know, I'm going to suggest that this is.

something that we need to pursue in the. future. I fully expect that Pam Bondi. knows every single incriminating. reference about Donald Trump, assuming. they're in there in the Epstein files. She knows them chapter and verse. inferentially. That's probably why she. is slow walking and in fact just. declining to turn over anything more. than the 12,000 documents of the. millions of documents that make up the. Epstein files. So what is she doing by.

violating her constitutional obligation. to take care that the laws including the. Epstein Files Transparency Act be. faithfully executed and comply with? Well, what she's doing is she's covering. up the crimes of anybody who may be. criminally involved as might be borne. out by the Epstein files themselves. She's covering up their crimes and she's. doing it by violating her constitutional.

obligation. You know, that is the. makings of a criminal conspiracy to. obstruct justice. That is something. that, you know, when the rule of law. comes back into the light of day and we. once again have an honest attorney. general who is beholden to the American. people rather than dear leader in the. Oval Office, these things have to be. undertaken as legitimate, impartial, full, fair criminal investigations.

because it looks to me like there is a. potential criminal cover up going on. And no, you can't charge somebody with a. criminal violation of the Epstein Files. Transparency Act because there is no. punishment attendant to that offense. It. just says, you know, DOJ, you have to. release them. But if you don't, there's. no penalty that was written into the. law. I would question why that is, but. maybe they didn't think they could push. it through Congress and get the. president to sign it. Um, he'd be.

signing his own arrest warrant in. essence. So, um, but but there is still. a criminal angle here that could lead to. accountability for Pam Bondi covering up. the crimes of the people who are. culpably involved and who could be. pursued um, if these Epstein files were. ever acted on with an investigation or. released publicly. >> All right. Well, obviously more to come. on this issue and Glenn and I will. continue to cover every piece of. breaking news as it continues to break. So, for those who are watching, if you'd.

like to follow along and support our. work, the best way to do that is to. subscribe to our channels. It is 100%. free, but again, a great way to support. us and independent media. I'll put those. links right here on the screen and also. in the post description of this video. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen, >> and I'm Glenn Kersner. >> You're watching the Legal Breakdown.