Epstein Files: 9 Questions the DOJ Won't Answer

How many have you. >> Excuse me. I'm going to answer the. question. >> I answer my question. >> No, I'm going to answer the question the. way I want to answer the question. Your. theatrics are ridiculous. The way I ask. it, >> Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in. the gutter with these people. >> Congressional chaos with Attorney. General Pam Bondi testifying on Capitol. Hill about the Jeffrey Epstein saga. And. with the redactions and the unredactions. from these past few days, we got to ask, is the DOJ, the Department of Justice, hiding something regarding Epstein? Let's discuss. Welcome to Sidebar,

presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. Is the DOJ hiding something about. Jeffrey Epste? It's a fair question. It's a fair question I can ask. I can't. tell you definitively, but it's a fair. question to ask because what did we see. the past few days? what was on display. the past few days, particularly. yesterday optics-wise, it doesn't look right. See, here's the. thing, and I did a whole sidebar on. this. According to the newly released.

Epstein files pursuant to the Epstein. Files Transparency Act, where the DOJ. had to release all of the Epstein files. in their possession, there are internal. memos and case summaries with the feds. where they suggest there isn't evidence. that Epstein ran a sex trafficking. network of girls to high-profile. powerful men. I'll give you an example. There was an email to then deputy. director of the FBI Dan Vanino March. 20th, 2025. The case agents and a USA's, you know, assistant United States. attorneys, these are the prosecutors,

ensured that all videos and images from. the case file and from Epstein's. residences and devices were reviewed for. evidence of a crime. Those reviews. revealed no evidence from any of the. searches we conducted or any of the. files we reviewed that any videos or. other images exist of any victims in. this case being sexually abused. Nor did. those reviews reveal any evidence that. anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell. participated in the sexual abuse of. victims in this case. This is referring. to Glenn Maxwell, who was convicted of. her own sex trafficking charges and.

sentenced to 20 years in prison. We are. aware of the theory circulated in the. media and online that Epstein video. recorded the abuse of his victims, including by other men, but we have. found no evidence to support that. theory. Indeed, had we found such. videos, we certainly would have used. them as evidence in the criminal cases. we investigated and prosecuted and would. have pursued any leads they generated. We did not, however, locate any such. videos. And then you have this other. message that says the FBI's violent. crime section, so the crimes against.

children and human trafficking unit, the. CACTU, spoke to the case agent and confirmed no. client list existed. meaning that. Jeffrey Epstein had this list of all the. people that he trafficked these girls. to, right? This incriminating maybe. blackmail list of celebrities and. politicians and high-profile people. Now, why am I saying that? It may be. hard for people to believe this. Totally. fair that Epstein didn't traffic girls. to other people. I mean, it just came. out that Epstein ordered one of his aids. to get secret cameras at his Palm Beach,

Florida home in a 2014 email, writing, "Let's get three motion detected hidden. cameras that record." So, people might. not accept this. totally fair. But just. putting that to the side, maybe this is. the case. Maybe there isn't a client. list. Maybe there isn't definitive proof. of other men abusing girls. Look, I'm an. attorney. I get that one statement, one. narrative is not enough. Suggestion is. not enough. You need more evidence to. make a criminal case to prove beyond a. reasonable doubt that someone committed. a crime. Maybe a mere association with.

Epstein. Maybe just weird emails or. communications. Maybe it's not enough to. prosecute. Okay, I get it and I can. understand that. The problem is to me. there is an argument that what the. Department of Justice has been doing and. how they have been redacting unredacting. materials is just adding fuel to the. fire that there is a cover up. And yes, I'm going to get into what Pam Bondi. testified to yesterday in what was just. an absolute throwown on Capitol Hill. But first, as I mentioned, lawmakers are. now able to review unredacted Epstein.

files at the DOJ during the week, Monday. through Friday. And what does. Representative Ro Connor do? He goes to. the House floor the other day and. reveals the names of six men that had. been blacked out. In fact, there were. six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ. hid for no apparent reason. When. Congressman Massie and I pointed this. out to the Department of Justice, they. acknowledged their mistake and now they.

have revealed the identity of these six. powerful men. These men are Salvatore. Nav'ora, Zorab Mikolads, Leapig Leonor, Nicola Capuda, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulliam, CEO of Dubai Ports World, and. billionaire businessman Lesie Wexner, who was labeled as a co-conspirator by. the FBI. Now, my question is, why did it.

take Thomas Massie and my me going to. the Justice Department to get these six. men's identities to become public? Why. were they redacted? I don't know. It's. unclear, especially since Les Wexner, the guy behind Victoria's Secret, was. already a known Epstein associate. Epstein had allegedly been, you know, managing his finances. And even though. he has denied allegations of wrongdoing, why was his name redacted with these. other people? All right, before we go. any further, I got to give a shout out. to our partner, Cyber Ghost VPN. And. look, have you ever kind of hesitated to.

connect to public Wi-Fi like in a. restaurant, airport, school, because. you're afraid someone might be stealing. your information? Totally valid. The. truth is eyes are watching you every. time you go online. The good news is. there's a solution. Cyber GhostVPN. You. select one of their hundreds of. locations before you browse and they'll. encrypt everything through their secure. server. So this way, no one can track. your online activity. It works on up to. seven devices at once, so you can share. with family and friends. And with just a. couple clicks, Cyber Ghost unlocks. exclusive geor-restricted content from. over 40 major streamers like Netflix and.

Prime. And with over 38 million users. worldwide, and a nearly perfect rating. on Trustpilot, Cyber Ghost is one of the. most recommended VPNs out there. And. look, if you're still not sure, there's. a 45day money back guarantee, 84%. discount, plus four months free with the. link in my description. So that's just. $2.3 a month to protect your privacy and. enjoy unlimited content. Don't wait. Click the link in the description. Start. browsing safely with Cyber GhostVPN. Stay private. Stay secure. Unlock global. content. Get Cyber GhostVPN now with 84%.

off plus 4 months free risk-free with a. 45day money back guarantee. Just click. the link in the description and start. protecting your digital life today. Here's the thing. The DOJ was only. supposed to redact and withhold. information on a very limited basis. under the Epstein Files Transparency. Act. law. It says the attorney general. may withhold or redact the segable. portions of records that contain. personally identifiable information of. victims, depict or contain child sexual. abuse materials, would jeopardize an. active federal investigation or ongoing.

prosecution, provided that such. withholding is narrowly tailored and. temporary, depict or contain images of. death, physical abuse, or injury of any. person, or contain information. specifically authorized under criteria. established by an executive order to be. kept in secret in the interest of. national defense. or foreign policy. Mere embarrassment of somebody, it's not. enough. That's not enough to redact. somebody's name. So why were certain. individuals names redacted? Why was. certain information withheld like these. men's names? How thorough was the DOJ,

the FBI in preparing this material. before it was released? Right? These are. fair questions. Optically, there's a. separate question between, hey, look, we. went through everything. There was no. one else to look at. There was no one. else to prosecute. Okay? Why does it. look like a cover up when, as I said, maybe that's not even the case and there. are legitimate reasons to redact. information or not charge someone? Okay, here's the problem. Attorney General Pam. Bondi testified yesterday in front of. the House Judiciary Committee. And by. the way, this has been an overall.

bipartisan effort. You got both sides. here who want to get more information on. the Epstein saga and understand why no. one else was prosecuted. So, here's a. good example, okay? Because I'm going to. play you clips of this. In the spirit of. what I just said, listen to Republican. Thomas Massie call out Pam Bondi over. the redactions. >> The title of this one is child sex. trafficking. co-conspirators. fully redacted. And by the way, I'm going to unredact.

them here. Less Wexner is in this now. your. assistant deputy. attorney general said, "Oh, well, he. appears hundreds of times in the files, but he doesn't appear in this file until. I forced you to release it." Where he's. listed as a co-conspirator, not to tax evasion, but to child sex. trafficking, not to prostitution, not to money laundering, child sex. trafficking.

And then finally, what we have here is. the third exhibit that I have is. emblematic of the FD302 release. These. are the documents that we need that. you're holding on to and overredacting. because they have the names of the men. who are implicated. How do we know? Because the the survivors gave testimony. to the FBI. Are you able to track who it.

was that obscured Les Wexner's name as a. co-conspirator in an FBI document? Do. you have that kind of accountability? >> I believe Wexner's name was listed more. than 4,000 times about I had. >> Yeah, I already told you that. This is. where he's listed as a. >> token. Let me finish my answer. Come on, let me finish my answer. We corrected. that within 40 minutes. Within 40. minutes, you asked me a question. Within.

40 minutes, Wexner's name was added. back. >> Within 40 minutes of me catching you. redhanded. >> Red hand. There was one redaction where. he's listed as a coke and we invited you. in. We This guy has Trump derangement. syndrome. >> I mean, yeah. Look, at the very least, the feds could have work product showing. they were considering charges or that. they were investigating someone, chose. not to move forward for whatever reason. That's understandable, although it can.

be debated about why they didn't move. forward. But prosecutors always have a. number of reasons, for example, to not. pursue a case against someone given the. weight of the evidence. And yes, it's. unusual that we're even seeing these. internal memos and case summaries, the. internal workings like this. But come. on, this is an unusual case. But to. redact it, why was it initially. redacted? To redact all this, does it. fit into one of those categories I. mentioned before? I don't know. Especially when I get to what they.

didn't react, that is going to get you. angry. That is going to get your blood. boiling. I'll get to that in a minute. But Bondi going up there and making it. political and making statements that I. will say I have never heard an attorney. general say during a hearing on Capitol. Hill before. It makes it look. suspicious. The argument is people will. look at this and say she's diverting. attention, right? She's being defensive. She's being overly aggressive. Take a. look. >> Claiming my time. The time.

>> I think it's verying my time. >> I think it's very interesting time. talks about they indicted. The president. said they indicted him twice. Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock and stop. the clock and restore his time. Here we. go. The time gentleman from New York. We. will give you a few more seconds. We. will do that. But when you ask a. question, the witness gets you may not. like the answer, but she gets to answer. >> The question was how many of. >> They don't like the answer chairman. >> because it's honest.

>> So he asked a four minute question. Restore 45 seconds, Mr. Nav, please, Mr. Chairman. You can let her filibuster all. day long, but not on our watch. >> Not on our time. No way. And I told you. about that, Attorney General, before you. started. >> You don't tell me. >> Oh, I did tell you because we saw what. you did in the Senate. >> Lawyer. Not even a lawyer. >> And the question is, why is she doing. this? I mean, she called Representative. Jamie Raskin a washed up lawyer. So, why. is she doing this? Why not just say, "Hey, listen. We looked at everything. I.

understand your concerns. There's. nothing else here." She did it a little. bit, but by diverting attention, bringing up other subjects, being. defensive, this is what's going to just. raise people's suspicions. Let me get. back to this part. Okay, this is. Representative Jerry Nadler. He has just. one question. >> So, I really have just one question for. you. How many of Epste's co-conspirators. have you indicted? How many perpetrators. are you even investigating?

First, you showed it. You I I find it. >> How many have you. >> Excuse me. I'm gonna answer the. question. >> I answer my question. >> No, I'm gonna answer the question the. way I want to answer the question. Your. theatrics are ridiculous. Chairman. Jordan, I'm not going to get in the. gutter with these people. You all should. be apologizing. You sit here and you. attack the president and I am not going. to have it. I'm not going to put up with. it. You know, all they want to do, all. the the American people need to know. this. They are talking about Epstein.

today. This has been around since the. Obama administration. This. administration released over three. million pages of documents. Over three. million. And Donald Trump signed that. law to release all of those documents. He is the most transparent president in. the nation's history. And none of them. none of them asked Merrick Garland over. the last four years one word about.

Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You. know why? Because Donald Trump the Dow. the Dow right now is over the Dow is. over $50,000. I don't know why you're. laughing. You're a great stock trader as. I hear Raskin. The Dow is over 50,000. right now. The S&P at almost 7,000. And the NASDAQ smashing records.

Americans 401ks and retirement savings. are booming. That's what we should be. talking about. We should be talking. about making Americans safe. We should. be talking about what does a Dow have to. do with anything? That's what they just. asked. Are you kidding? >> Mr. Jordan, am I Mr. Jordan committee. will be in order. >> Yes. Look, all important things for the. economy, but she's the attorney general. Why is the attorney general talking. about that during the Epstein. conversation, right? And arguably not.

directly answering the question. What. about this? Okay, you had Representative. Tedloo on Prince Andrew, big figure in. this case. Things go off the rails. because it's about whether Prince. Andrew, maybe I should say former Prince. Andrew, should have been prosecuted. I'm. going to show you two photos of former. Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew attended. various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. Under the law Congress passed, you were. allowed to redact photos to protect the.

victims of Epstein's sex trafficking. operation. You redacted the photos of. this victim's face because you were. following the congressional law. Is that. correct? I'm sorry that we redacted the victim's. >> because you following the congressional. law, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. You have now established that we Please. put the photos back up. That we are.

looking at a sex trafficking victim. under the Federal Victims Trafficking. Protection Act. Not only is Jeffrey. Epstein guilty, but anyone who. patronizes Epstein's sex operation is. also guilty of a crime. That's why I. find it absolutely despicable that you. sought to protect Epstein's clients like. former Prince Andrew. Last July, you. closed the case on Epstein's abusers.

The July 2025 memo from your Department. of Justice stated, quote, "We did not. uncover evidence that could predicate an. investigation against uncharged third. parties.". These two photos, please put the photos. back up. These two photos staring you in. the face are evidence of a crime and. more than enough evidence to predicate. an investigation against former Prince. Andrew. So, I ask you, Attorney General. Pam Bondi, why did you shut down this.

investigation last July? And why have. you not prosecuted former Prince Andrew? >> I don't believe you asked Merrick. Garland these questions when he was um. attorney general and set before. >> I agree with you. I reclaim my time. I. agree with you. I agree with you. During. the during the Biden administration, I. called for people looking at Epstein. files. Merrick Garland dropped the ball. as did Attorney General Bill Barr, as. did Alex Acasta. A whole string of.

failures, but you are in charge. You. have the power to change things, to hold. these men accountable, and you're doing. the opposite. You're protecting them. So, I want to move on to another man. >> Can I answer Donald Trump? I want to. move on. Another question. >> Answer your question about protecting. >> You answered the question. >> You're saying no. I love this. >> I want to discuss another man, Donald. Trump, who is all over the Epstein files. like former Prince Here's the video.

Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump. attended various parties with Jeffrey. Epstein. I want to know, were there any. underage girls at that party or at any. party that Trump attended with Jeffrey. Epstein? This is so ridiculous and that they are.

trying to deflect. from all the great things Donald Trump. has done. There is no evidence that. Donald Trump has committed a crime. Everyone knows that. This has been the. most transparent presidency. He's the. one that those files I reclaim my time. I got your answer. You said there's no. evidence. Please stop the clock. The. legislation. This This is my time. This. time belongs to the gentleman from. California. >> Okay. >> I'm going to put up another document.

from a witness who called the FBI's. National Threat Operation Center because. I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein. phone. >> Don't you ever accuse me of a crime. >> I believe you just lied under oath and. this is all on videotape. You said. there's no evidence of a crime. I'm. showing you here is. >> a witness statement who called into the. FBI's threat operation center. He drove. Donald Trump around in a limo. He. overheard what Donald Trump said to.

Jeffrey on his cell phone. He was so. angry he was going to stop a limo and. hurt Donald Trump. and he met a girl who. said she was raped by Donald Trump and. Jeffrey Epstein. She later had her head. blown off and officers at the scene said. that could not have been suicide. No one no one at the Department of. Justice interviewed this witness. You. need to interview this witness. immediately. Epstein should rot in hell. So should.

the men who patronize his operation. And as we say here today, there are over. 1,000 sex trafficking victims and you. have not held a single man accountable. Shame on you. If you had any decency, you would resign right after this. hearing. >> concludes. Gentleman has expired. Uh. >> May I respond? >> Yeah. I don't know how you respond. No. one can. I did not ask a question. You're allowed to ask a crime in. California. He does not want to talk. about. >> I did not ask a question in his state.

I did not ask a question. >> Committee will be in order. The. gentleman has yielded back his time. I. think our next witness will be more than. happy to uh let the attorney general. >> Adam attorney general. Would you like to. >> gentleman from Alabama is recognized for. 5 minutes. >> Now look, we did a whole episode on. sidebar about the royals connection to. Epstein, including what's happened. recently. It's up on Long Crimes YouTube. page if you want to check it out. But. it's not clear why he wasn't prosecuted. And you heard the deflection a bit on. the president, right? It's interesting.

thing about the idea of the Trump cover. up because one of the documents that was. released at one point in this files. release and which we all saw was a list. compiled by the FBI of unverified tips. that came in from the FBI's National. Threat Operations Center and apparently. this was sent over the child. exploitation and human trafficking task. force. So we all saw this. Now again the. these were tips that apparently couldn't. be corroborated. So, you're even talking. about secondhand information, but there. were allegations that we all saw that.

Trump allegedly engaged in child abuse. Again, not substantiated, but it was in. there. It was released. And to give you. a better idea about that, we had. Representative Henry Johnson from. Georgia, who wanted clarification on how. many employees were allegedly charged. with scrubbing President Trump's name. from the files. General Bondi, it's been. reported that uh there were at one point. 1,000 U. personnel assigned to the task. of identifying and scrubbing Donald.

Trump's name from the Epstein files. Were those reports uh accurate? >> I believe his name has appeared. countless times in the documents. How. many people were released? If if I if I. could if I could finish, I'm going to. read you the stats. >> I just simply asked whether or not it. was true that it was 1,000 folks who. were assigned that task. Were those reports accurate?

>> There are more than 500 attorneys and. reviewers. I cannot give you an exact. number. >> And I wanted to ask you I wanted to ask. you about that also because this is a. different question that you're getting. now. >> There were 500. uh DOJ lawyers and um and others. assigned the task of redacting the uh. appropriate information including uh. identities of the Epstein victim.

survivors from the Epstein files prior. to their release. 500. Is that correct? If I could have finished my answer, there were more than 500 attorneys and. reviewers who assisted with the answers. and they don't want an answer. >> That answers my question, ma'am. And I'm. going to move on. >> I'm going to move on from you in order. time belongs to the time belongs to the. to the gentleman from Georgia. >> By the way, Representative Jasmine.

Crockett just dove into this more. Now, I don't know what the president might. have done with Jeffrey Epste, but unlike. this administration, I believe that. facts matter. So, let's talk about the. facts. Fact number one, Donald Trump is. one of the most named people in the. Epstein files. At least 5,000 files. contains more than 38,000 references to. Trump, his wife, or Mara Lago. Fact. number two, Jeffrey Epstein and. Galileain Maxwell made young girls. available to Trump on multiple. occasions. For example, according to.

this file, Gain Maxwell presented a. young girl to President Trump who spent. more than 20 minutes apparently flirting. with her. Here's another example. This. shows notes from FBI investigators that. describe Jeffrey Epstein transporting a. victim to Mara Lago to meet with. President Trump where he bragged to. Trump that quote, "This is a good one.". Now, I'm not saying that the president. is a pedophile, but there is a lot of. evidence in these files that suggests. that he's very close friends with a lot. of men who are pedophiles. What's crazy. about all of this is just that this is a.

big cover up. >> One thing I got to mention is the idea. of how thorough this investigation was. at the federal level, why the redactions. were made and not made, and whether the. DOJ made an attempt to hear from the. survivors. Because first, as to. protecting the victims, the survivors, going back to Massie, listen to this. >> To my right is an email that was sent by. the victim's lawyers to the DOJ. It was. a list of names not to redact. Sorry, a list of names not to release.

What did the DOJ do with this email? They released this email in the document. production. Literally, the worst thing. you could do to the survivors, you did. >> Yeah. That's not good. That's not good. And then you had Representative Pamila. Gaipal of Washington who questioned Ag. Bombi about not only the names being. released but something else coming out. too. And at one point she asks the. survivors who were in that room to stand.

up and for Bondi to address them. And. this is when things get pretty tense. >> Along with numerous files that disclose. not only the names, the emails, and the. addresses of survivors, but also nude. photographs and even the identities of. Jane Does who had been protected for. decades until your department released. their names. Survivors are now telling. us that their families are finding out. for the first time that they were. trafficked by Epstein. In their words,

quote, "This release does not provide. closure. It feels like a deliberate. attempt to intimidate survivors, punish. those who came forward, and reinforce. the same culture of secrecy that allowed. Epstein's crimes to continue for. decades. To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise.

your hands if you have still not been. able to meet with this Department of. Justice. Please know for the record that every. single survivor has raised their hand. Attorney General Bondi, you apologize to the survivors in your. opening statement for what they went. through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein. Will you turn to them now and apologize.

for what your Department of Justice has. put them through with the un. absolutely unacceptable release. of the Epstein files and their. information? Congresswoman, you sat before. Mer Merritt Garland sat in this chair. twice. Attorney General Bond.

answer. No, I'm going to reclaim my time. because I asked you attorney specific. question. Attorney General. to answer which is will you turn to the. survivors? This is not about anybody. that came before you. It is about you. taking responsibility for your. Department of Justice and the harm that. it has done to the survivors who are. standing right behind you and are. waiting for you to turn to them and. apologize for what your Department of.

Justice is. >> Members members get to ask the. questions. The witness gets to answer in. the way they want to answer that. attorney general. >> That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman. >> Because she doesn't like the answer. So, um, >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have asked and she. asked Meritt Garland this time. >> I am reclaiming my time in my chair and. when I. chairman, the gentle lady, >> I'm not going to get in the gutter for. her theatrics. >> Now, Ag Bondi did try to address that a. bit when she was questioned by. Representative Lou Korea.

>> And as I said before to any victims, we. ask them to come forward to our office. and we want to work with them. I have. never not worked with a victim and I. believe I've actually spoken to several. of you. >> Madam, if I can reclaim my time, >> remind me if I can reclaim my time. I. just think we start out by making sure. those redactions are unredacted, those Epstein files to make sure that. the public, according to the law, following the law, that those names in.

those files are made public. We have to. make sure we tell those predators there. is no place for them to hide. And if. they commit the crime, they're going to. fry for it. It starts with showing us. the names of the perpetrators in the. Epstein files. >> May I respond to that? >> Sure. >> Okay. So, if any man's name was redacted. that should not have been, we will of. course unredact it. If a victim's name.

was unredacted, please bring it to us. and we will redact it. We were given 30. days to review and redact and unredact. millions of pages of documents. Our. error rate is very low. >> The victims are right behind you. We've. got to convince them that we're doing a. good job everything we can victims. We. will do everything we can. >> And look, giving her the benefit of the.

doubt. Yeah, maybe that's the case. Maybe mistakes were made given the time. frame to produce all this. Sure. But you. can see why people would look at this. and say, "What? Really?" And when it. comes to people possibly being indicted, she had made the claim that there are. pending investigations at the Department. of Justice. And like I said before, that. could be one of the criteria to not. produce material or redact material. You. don't want to jeopardize an ongoing. investigation. She didn't really provide. a lot more details on that. It's unclear. if she is referring to the work that's.

being done at the Southern District of. New York because Bondi uh was selected. to oversee an investigation there. Jay. Clayton may be being a part of that. I. also have to mention this. You know. what's complicating all this is that. Congress didn't get the privilege log. from the DOJ. They were required to turn. over a log explaining all the. redactions. That was part of the Epstein. transparency act. It was in the law. They actually were supposed to provide. this log 15 days after the January 30th.

release of the documents. And by all. accounts, at least at the time of this. recording, I don't think that's been. provided yet. So it complicates the. explanation of why certain things were. redacted. And in terms of when we're. going to get more answers, maybe from. members of Congress. Here's the problem. You had a California representative say. that she went to the DOJ to look at the. unredacted files. It's almost. impossible. There are not enough. computers. This is going to take some. time. This is Representative Zoe. Lofrren. >> I did go over to the Department of.

Justice yesterday. I would note that 400. and all our 35 members are in the house. and there's four computers. So, um it. would take many months to actually have. the time. I, you know, I only had a few. hours. I think the transparency argument. is really kind of a sham because it's. not really. >> possible. to to really go in. >> Yeah, problem. I don't know if something. will change there, but this could take.

quite some time. So, I don't have an. answer as to whether or not certain. things are being hidden. I don't know if. it's a mistake. I don't know if there's. ongoing investigations. I don't know if. this was a situation where they were. kind of rushing things out or there's. something nefarious going on or it's. just a case of look, we looked at. everything and there's not much more. there. I don't know, but we will see. I. think these hearings are important. I. think these Congress people going in and. looking at the unredacted files is. important. We're all looking for. transparency here and I know a lot of. the survivors are looking for justice.

And just to be clear, I'll say it one. more time. Just because someone's name. is mentioned in the Epstein files in. some capacity doesn't mean that they. committed a crime, that they were. implicated in a crime, or even had. knowledge of a crime. But obviously, you. can see why there are a lot of questions. about this. It's all we have for you. right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so. much for taking the time. As always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your. podcasts. Also, we're up on NBC's. Peacock as well. If you want to follow. me x Instagram, I got my NewsNation.

show, Jesse Weber live, Monday through. Friday at 11:00 p.m. Eastern. See you. next time, everybody.