Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
A mid twenty twenty five's blur of news, one story keeps coming back. There are new developments in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.
Related to the case of convicted sex offended financier Jeffrey Epstein.
There's been a drumbeat of new details about the late convicted sex trafficker, about his connections to political and financial elite, about his emails, all seeming to raise more questions than they answer. How did Epstein exploit so many underage girls for so long with little consequence while maintaining a circle of powerful friends. But answers have appeared close at hand.
Here's then presidential candidate Trump on Fox and Friends in the summer of twenty twenty four, would you declassify the Epstein files? Yeah, Yeah, I would. Now, after months of stops and starts and pressure from the left and right, the release of the Epstein files may be near. In November, the House and Senate past to bill mandating that the Department of Justice released the documents within thirty days were by December nineteenth.
It's become the biggest political story of twenty twenty five.
That's Bloomberg investigative reporter Jason Leopold. Jason has been tracking the Epstein story closely in his weekly Foy of Files newsletter and on his new podcast for Bloomberg called Disclosure.
That kind of pressure and that kind of coverage around it is kind of forced the hand of the Department of Justice, the FBI, who clearly sought to keep this under wraps.
Jason's specialty is obtaining documents using the Freedom of Information Act, so he's just the guy to walk us through what to expect when the government is on the clock to turn over a trove of material. I'm David Gura, and this is the big tape from Bloomberg News today on the show, What we can expect from the Epstein Files? What more is there to learn from these documents? What
the government might release, and what it might hold back. Jason, it's hard to believe, but it's been more than six years since Jeffrey Epstein was found dead in a jail cell in Manhattan, and we do know a good deal about him. We've learned a lot more here in recent months and years. He was the subject of two federal investigations. We've heard about the billions of dollars that flowed through
the accounts that he had at major financial institutions. Then of course through the emails the correspondence that we've seen a lot of them show his connections to the rich and powerful. So at this stage, what is there that we do not know about Jeffrey Epstein.
There's actually a lot we don't know.
What we don't know relates to, certainly the source of his wealth, very very important. We don't have a real understanding as to how Jeffrey Epstein made all of this money. And it's not to say that the federal government necessarily has the answer to that question in these documents, but it's one of the unanswered questions that has persisted for many, many years. And in addition to that, we also don't really know how the government conducted its investigation, how that
investigation unfolded by the FBI. We have some sense as to how the sweetheart deal, very controversial plea deal that he entered into with prosecutors in Florida in Florida came about, but what led up to it, What was happening behind the scenes, What did the FBI find, Who did they interview, what sorts of documents did they collect bank records other types of records That would shed even more light as to how that sort of actored into the deal that
he signed that kind of spared him from federal charges.
A few weeks ago, Preston Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. This is a law that requires the Justice supermit to release those investigative files. When we say the Epstein files, what does that mean? It's a term we kind of throw around, but what exactly is in that corpus of documents?
What that is is the government's records, everything that they amassed during the course of their investigation. And it's FBI records, it's Justice Department records. It actually would arguably consist of records from other agencies as well, Treasury Department, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, Securities and Exchange Commission. So it was unknown what these files actually contained, and I dug into that. I was really interested in learning what could these files
actually be. So I dug into a case that had been under the radar for nearly nine years, and that's a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that was filed by a reporter who worked for Radar Online Radars of publication
that by the way. Jeffrey Epstein was an investor in way way back, and during the course of my reporting and research into this case, I came across an index, and basically that index described it is sort of broad general descriptions what kinds of records that the FBI had as it related to Jeffrey Epstein and the investigation that took place between two thousand and five and two thousand and eight and the reporter they got about a thousand pages of these records, but the vast majority, more than
ten thousand pages had been withheld. So in this index it actually showed that there were photographs, perhaps that's not a surprise, communications with foreign governments, communications related to his financial records, many interviews with witnesses or people that were important to question during that investigation. Obviously you know, interviews with victims. But it really showed that the investigation was not just at least the way I read it, not
just completely centered in the US. There was also it was a little bit global. The FBI was looking outside of the US as well as they were probing Jeffrey Epstein. So that index really kind of laid bare what would arguably be in the files.
So you've reported Jason that this index alone is one hundred and seventy pages, So that suggests that Justice Superman has a lot of.
Documentsnumber of records that were withheld from the request in that case. At the time, they pegged it at around ten thousand pages. But that's just actually a sliver. That's just a sliver of everything the Justice Department and FBI collected, because we now know based on the fact that over the summer the Justice Department and the FBI issued a joint statement that said we are actually not going to
release anything. They disclosed that they actually amassed three hundred gigabytes of data and records and all of that, but they didn't describe really what those records were. So the index is showing that there are many different categories of records that the FBI has.
You mentioned what was happening over the course of the summer, the Justice s Perman's reluctance unwillingness to release this information, and suffice to say, a lot has changed since then. I mentioned that law. There was all of this resistance among Republicans to pass that law. In fact, it was passed to assigned by the President pretty quickly thereafter. What is the Justice Department supposed to release in the next few days.
By law, they are supposed to release within thirty days everything everything, which is kind of unreal, right because we're talking about three hundred gigabytes of data and they are supposed to just turn that over to the househover Site and Government Reform Committee, and they are permitted to withhold temporarily some records if it relates to an ongoing investigation. They are permitted to withhold the names of some victims, and if they redact anyone else's name, the committee needs
to know about it. So there has kind of been a wait and see as to will they turn everything over to the committee, because they really would be remarkable. You're talking about it, you know, a transfer of a massive, massive trove of records.
How much of that can we expect to be made public? Since Trump took office, his administration has shown hesitation about releasing everything. So what could the DOJ hold back and could there be other ways to crack open the Epstein files.
That's after the break.
I'm speaking with Bloomberg investigative reporter Jason Leopold about what we can expect from the Epstein files and how the government has approached releasing them. I think what a lot of people want to know, including a very vocal camp of Trump supporters, is the full extent of Jeffrey Epstein's activities and how a lot of prominent people fit into those. And President Trump, of course, on the campaign trails, said
he would release these files to the Attorney General. Pimbondi immediately released a trans of documents to a lot of fanfare and then came under fire because a lot of those documents were already out there in the public domain. After that, she basically ordered the FBI director ordered Cash Pattel to bring the DOJ Moore documents. You have reported on how the FBI handled those documents, handled that request.
What did you learn?
I was very interested after the botched rollout of what Pam Bondi called phase one of the release of the Epstein files, after that happened, and the director of what's given to Cash Pattel, is very interested in what was going on behind the scenes because now at the time this was, you know, around March, there are about one thousand FBI agents and other FBI person at people, yeah, who were tasked with reviewing the Epstein files redacting it
and making it available for you know, for public release. And I wanted to get an idea of what was going on behind the scenes, so I filed a FOY request. We ultimately, we being Bloomberg and and myself ultimately sued the FBI to obtain those records. And a couple of weeks ago got the first batch of records and it
was about sixty pages of emails. But what was fascinating about these emails It kind of put you behind the scenes at the FBI to see how they were working really really quickly to review and redact the record.
So redact is very important.
They actually called it Special Reaction Project, but at the same time they called it Epstein Transparency Project. That was a little weird seeing that Epstein Transparency Project and.
Special Reaction Project.
I think one of the key takeaways from those records is that it showed that Dan Bongino, the deputy director, he was in the loop as discussions were taking place over reactions cash Ptel was seeking updates. There were actually nine hundred and thirty four agents and other personnel who worked on it, and that the FBI ultimately paid for six days of work a million dollars in overtime to agents and others who clocked in, you know, extra hours working on the Epstein files.
What could you tell us that you gleaned from those documents about what was at the center of those deliberations, how they were deciding what to redact.
You know, I wish I could tell you that that's what the document showed, but the FBI withheld that information.
I was able to just see is that they.
Had PowerPoint trainings on what to redact, how to process and redact, and what should be redacted. That there was also you know, a paper that was presented to the Justice Department on the final overview of the Epstein files, but again they withheld that. But it allows us to chip away a bit at kind of finding out what was happening behind the scenes and how this this process worked. And what we can tell is that it really was
isolated to maybe just two and a half months. They were working so much during that two and a half month timeframe to get this ready, and ultimately what happened is nothing was released.
You've been doing this for a long time, so you know the kind of grounds for redaction. Generally speaking, here, I imagine there's the potential for maybe an inclination to redact something because of the potential political embarrassment, any sense of the greed, which that's weighing on the agents who are going through all of us. If that's part of the mandate that they've gotten here to keep an eye out for who might be surfaced in these documents.
They're not supposed to not supposed to redact anything because it would cause embarrassment or embarrass any one particular person or many individuals. They are supposed to apply reactions in kind of accordance with the FOYA, the nine exemptions under FOYA. Now this is they're not releasing records as a result of a Foyer request, but that's the guidelines that they're using.
So that means that they are withholding information for personal privacy, could be national security, could be an ongoing investigation, could be you know, attorney client privilege, and that's what they're supposed to do. I learned during the course of my reporting that you know, Trump's name appears in these records and that his name was redacted. There's no evidence that there was any wrongdoing by Trump for appearing in the records.
The argument was they were redacting it for privacy reasons because at the time Trump was a private city s he wasn't the president of the United States.
So there is suffice to say a lot of anti disipation. You know, what's the Justice Department going to release by this deadline of on or around December nineteenth, if my math is right, for the thirty day period after this legislation was signed into law. If the Justice Department decides to hold back some or all of these documents, have we in effect hit a wall? What recourse do people have if the release in mid December isn't as comprehensive
as lawmakers and others are expecting. It's a really good question. And you know, I want to bring us back to that.
Radar lawsuit right that lawsuit is still active, that is still winding its way through the courts. In fact, that attorney has appealed the decision by the judge that that found in favor of the Justice Department that they would withhold the vast majority of the records due to ongoing you know, investigations, and so there's a hearing coming up in the Second Circuit here in New York in January.
I truly do believe that the best chance the public has at actually seeing those records, is through this Freedom of Information Act lawsuit or through a Freedom of Information Act request.
I want to get your sense of this moment and all that we're learning in this moment. So we've been talking about these government documents, the work of the House Committee on Oversight. It's been releasing emails and photos and banking details. Over the course of this year. You've filled in a lot of details about Epstein. The've emerged in
his personal emails. You know, as we're speaking, news is breaking that a judge in Florida is going to allow the release of grand jury documents from case in Florida. Talk a bit about sort of the way this dam that has been in place for many years is starting to break down, that that information is starting to come out in a way that it hasn't in years past.
The fact that we are starting to see a break in the dam is due to that kind of pressure that has been placed upon those who hold the keys to the safe where these documents and other types of records are being held, and demands by certainly by victims, victims, attorneys and lawmakers who are also realizing how did this happen? You know whether it's the controversial Plea agreement or how
was Epstein able to fund sex trafficking operations. So lots of questions that have been asked the role of financial institutions,
what the role is they played in facilitating all of that. So, all of these questions, as well as the promises that have been made to release the files, has really changed the moment that you know we're in now because it changed the story from Jeffrey Epstein being convicted of a sex crime in Florida, being arrested for X trafficking, you know, dying in his jail cell, to a big political story.
My last question has to do with this expected release when we talk about three or gigabytes to the late person, what is that?
Oh?
Man, I don't heart defiled them it. I mean, it's just voluminous. It will keep us busy for a really, really long time if.
We do get a release of that size. Where do you, Jason Leopold, go first? What are the biggest questions that you have and where are you most hopeful that you're going to find yeah, new information.
I'll also speak from my team as well, the you know, the areas that we're most interested in our money. We want to continue following the money. As I mentioned, one of the big stories from the series that we've reported has to do with a previously unknown money laundering investigation that took place alongside the sex crimes investigation in two
thousand and seven. In two thousand and we were able to reveal a lot of details around that investigation, but we really didn't get a good reason as to what ultimately.
Happened as to why it was shut down.
You know, was it simply a result of you know, Epstein accepting the plea deal and pleading guilty and stakehourt or was there something else?
Jason, Thank you very much. Thank you.
This is the Big Take from Bloomberg News.
I'm David Germ.
If you want to hear more from Jason about prying loose government documents, check out his new show Disclosure wherever you get your podcasts, and subscribe to his Foil Files newsletter at the link in our episode description. To get more from The Big Take and unlimited access to all of Bloomberg dot Com, subscribe today at Bloomberg dot com slash podcast offer. If you liked this episode, make sure to follow and review The Big Take Wherever you listen
to podcasts, it helps people find the show. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.