There is one danger for the Justice Department if they are not candid and open. And that is the lawyers for the 26 or so young women who are suing. They've seen the evidence. And if there's an assertion that this is the complete evidence, they'll be in a position to impeach that claim. >> >> Hi, I'm Eddie Heil, and welcome to the Trump Report. Today, I've got Professor David Cay Johnston on the show. He's of course a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, a professor at Rochester Institute of Technology, and an author of an array of books on Donald Trump. So, just a reminder that you can watch us every day, Monday through Friday, on Times Radio's YouTube, or you can stream us as a podcast wherever you get your podcast. David, thank you for joining the Trump Report today. Hi, glad to be with you. Sorry about the background sound. >> >> That's okay. David, uh President Trump, he has officially signed this bill ordering the Department of Justice to release all the files related to Jeffrey Epstein. Now, this has been months in the making. It's uh had bipartisan support after stalling and stalling. So, what was your reaction to that news late on Wednesday? Well, the vote changed when two things happened. Um uh the number one change was that some of the House Republicans, fearing that they might lose in 2026, recognized that standing uh to keep hidden the files of a convicted pedophile just was not a smart strategy anymore. And as soon as uh Representative Thomas Massie, who is a MAGA Republican but not aligned entirely with Donald Trump, said that there were at least 100 House Republicans who would vote for this measure, uh a second thing happened, which is that Senator John Thune, the Senate minority leader, uh indicated to Trump that uh he was not going to prevent a vote on releasing the Epstein files. And as soon as that dam broke, of course, Donald then said, "Oh, well, I want these files released. I'm entirely in favor of releasing them. I've always been in favor fired in favor of releasing them." However, the law, which was passed almost unanimously uh in the House and by um unanimous consent in the Senate, it has a big loophole in it, and the existing law has a loophole. So, we may not see everything in the Epstein files and collect We may not may not even come close. Well, let's get into that, David, because there has been con- concerns already before this vote, before this announcement from Donald Trump that he'd signed it, that the FBI and the DOJ may have already redacted names uh and will do so before they release these files. So, this, you know, could be down to national security, this could be down to ongoing investigations, it could be grand jury matters, but this is also in conjunction with the fact that in July, Senator Richard Durbin, he claimed the FBI had instructed its agents to flag any mention of Donald Trump's name when reviewing these files. So, these concerns over transparency and what will be released and what will be redacted, are they warranted? Oh, they're they are very warranted here. In addition, uh Trump has directed that there be more investigations made, including a Bill Clinton, who left the White House in January of 2001, a quarter century ago. Under American law, you can withhold these documents uh provided there is an investigation going on because it would compromise them. And the expectation of a lot of us is that's exactly what will happen. There's a second provision as well that I've written about. Uh under uh US criminal code, to merely look at an image of an adult and a child engaged in sexual activity is a felony. And it's possible they may withhold uh videos and photos. And a number of the young women have testified under oath that they were filmed or uh photographed having sex with adult men. Uh they could withhold them on that grounds as well. So, they've got two avenues to not fully release the files, and I'll be completely surprised if we get a complete release of these files. Do you think what we will get uh made public, David, will be it be enough uh to be a bombshell? Do you think that things that you and I are looking for, you know, public names of people in power, whether that be Donald Trump, whether that be anyone in a in a public matter, do you think they'll be it's likely that we won't see those? I I think there'll be a great deal of effort to protect Trump, not anybody else, but Trump. And we've already seen that uh Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard University and former US Treasury Secretary, has stepped back from public life uh because he appeared in emails uh with Jeffrey Epstein. We don't know that he did anything improper, but he he says he's ashamed, and he's withdrawn from public life as a result. Um There is one danger for the Justice Department if they are not candid and open. And that is the lawyers for the 26 or so young women who are suing. They've seen the evidence. And if there's an assertion that this is the complete evidence, they'll be in a position to impeach that claim. But of course, that gets us into a he said, she said again. Why do they have the Why have they seen the evidence, David? Just for our audience to really understand, is because they were present for these victim testimonies? Well, under American law, if you sue someone, you obtain something called a right of discovery. And the other party has to show you the evidence you're seeking. You can go to a judge, get a subpoena for the documents, whether they're photographs or emails or anything else. And so, uh the lawyers uh representing the young women who are suing have been through much of the evidence. We don't know if they've been through everything, but they've seen a lot of it. So, claiming something doesn't exist would be a high-risk strategy for the Justice Department. And then in conjunction with that, uh David, Thomas Massie, uh he's claimed that through speaking with these victims, through speaking with these lawyers, he has 20 names associated with Jeffrey Epstein and crimes committed. So, he has never publicly named those people, but he's described them as millionaires, businessmen, politician, movie producers. Uh he even said this in the Oversight Committee's, I think, hearing with the FBI uh Director Kash Patel. So, all potentially very rich, powerful men, some of which Trump might be wanting to protect, some of which he might not know. But regardless, do you think we should expect these files to produce names and testimonies that could potentially lead to investigations, potential jail time? Well, the statute of limitations, the period in which the government can bring a charge, has run in all of these cases. Jeffrey Epstein's been dead more than the 5-year statute of limitations. So, there's no criminal cases to be brought that I can see, and I teach law, not a lawyer, but I'm a professor of law. Um There there is for sure going to be uh uh important fights over, you know, whose name is released and whose isn't. Uh given Donald Trump's nature, and I've covered him for almost 40 years, uh people he doesn't like and Democrats are going to see their names released. People he likes, they're going to try to find some excuse or reason to withhold their names. And you have to remember the way Epstein operated his extortion racket, there are two groups of people here. There are people he wanted to be identified with. He wanted photographs of because they suggest he's powerful, he's invincible, he's connected. Not all of those people are going to turn out to have raped young women, or credibly be accused of that. Uh some of them, for sure, based on the testimony in the public record we have, but many know they were just used as an effort to show, "Look how important, powerful, and connected I am." To insulate himself, a standard practice for people who engage in extortion of public figures. Well, David, on that note, there's also been so much concern that these files might use these names of people that haven't actually done anything criminal. So, how important is the is transparency, but also protecting people from potentially very damaging storylines? Well, the tradition in America in federal government prosecutions has been that you if you don't bring a case, you don't release any files, you don't release any names. Now, we had two cases brought here, um Jeffrey Epstein, actually twice, and Ghislaine Maxwell. Um so, then the question becomes, what duty does the government have to protect the names of people who didn't commit a crime or never going to be charged with a crime even if they did? And you may see some people bring lawsuits under the name John Doe, saying, um "Please withhold my name. Uh your honor, don't let the government release my name. Um I didn't commit any crimes." Uh and under American law, you can do that anonymously. Part of Donald Trump's signing off on this bill, David, will see the the DOJ having to release these files within a 30-day period. Do you see them playing along with that? Well, I won't be the least bit surprised if we get part of the files and they say, "We don't We just don't have enough time. We haven't had enough time to go through all of this." Um this is not going to be an active cooperation by the Trump administration to say, "Oh, we're going to do exactly the right thing. Just count us." Donald Trump has the power right now to release all of these files. All he has to do is pick up the phone, call Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and say, "Release the files." And he's not doing so. So, that tells you that they are going to do everything they can to withhold files and particularly photographic and video evidence. Now, Mark Epstein, Jeffrey Epstein's brother, has been doing quite a few interviews in the last few days. He told NewsNation that Republicans' names have been scrubbed out. He said he's a pretty good source told him that the reason they're going to be releasing the files and the reason for the flip is that they're sabotaging these files. Trump administration officials are scrubbing the files to take Republicans' names out. Can they do that? And And is it likely that could be happening? Oh, I think it's highly likely it's happening. Um Uh I don't have any clear proof of that, but it's a very logical thing knowing what we know about how Donald operates and my knowing him as well as I do. Uh it's absolutely what I would expect that they will find people even if they're the most minor parties. I mean, for example, uh the Trump folks put out that Hakeem Jeffries, the Speaker of the House, was connected to Epstein. Well, it turns out there was a mass marketing email sent to a whole bunch of big donors on a list of big political donors that said, "Hi, will you support my campaign for Congress?" Uh Hakeem Jeffries says, "I've never met the man, had nothing to do with him. We didn't get any money out of him." Uh and it was a mass marketing email. So, there's a clear animus here against people Trump perceives to be enemies and that includes Democrats. Remember his Deputy Chief of Staff is calling anybody who is a Democrat an extremist and a threat to the country. Uh so, I would expect we will see more of this behavior. Well, on that note, you know, we've seen Bill Clinton, we've seen Larry Summers, Democrat Democrats who have been tied to Jeffrey Epstein. We've seen Republicans, as you mentioned, try to tie Hakeem Jeffries to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump is also publicly coming out saying he's adamant that the Democrats will go down when these files are released. So, do you agree with that, David, in the sense that this is not an isolated situation where only Republicans might be named and shamed, but you know, Democrats could be in the hot seat as well. Oh, I think there're going to be a number of people, but primarily Democrats or Republicans Donald doesn't like who are going to see their reputations ruined when this comes out, assuming they comply with the spirit of the law as well as the letter of it. Um and you know, they should be. I mean, if Bill Clinton, we know had some relationship with Epstein. He may have simply been used as insulation. Look, I'm next to Bill Clinton as a way to secure his position. But if Bill Clinton did anything inappropriate, if if he was involved with underage girls, let it come out. It all ought to come out. And we should also keep in mind that this is not a unique or anomalous event. We know from some other cases in the United States. We know from incidents that have occurred in France and in Belgium that there are wealthy men who take advantage of underage girls. And society has not been paying attention to this. They haven't been listening to the young women, some of whom are now in the Epstein case middle-aged. Uh the Justice Department has not been speaking to these young women. In fact, they cut them out of the process during the 2008 sweetheart deal that Epstein got. Uh so, hopefully this will lead to a a cultural change where we start looking out for the welfare of underage girls who are exploited, groomed, and then exploited. Well, David, on that note, how big of a day was Wednesday? And And I guess the last few days for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein who have come out bravely sharing their stories, knowing the scrutiny, knowing the backlash that they could get. Right. Well, and a number of them have already received a lot of backlash. One of the reasons that Virginia Giuffre, and I hope I pronounce that right, uh committed suicide was the unrelenting attacks on her just when she would be on the sidewalk. Uh so, there was a very brave action. Some of the women who are claiming that they were raped at Epstein properties were in the gallery at the House when they voted. That must have been a very rewarding moment emotionally for them after having gone all through this. And there are, according to some of the women who have brought claims, roughly a thousand underage girls who were trafficked. A thousand. That is an enormous number of people. Uh we're not talking about a couple of young women that they they groomed and and separated from the rest of society. So, it's also entirely possible that now some of the other women will come forward and they may have evidence beyond just their sworn testimony. David, how do you think Andrew, formerly Prince Andrew, would be feeling at this time? Well, I find it absolutely astonishing that uh King Charles separated his brother from the royal family. He felt there was more than enough evidence to say, "Sorry, this is not tolerable. You're out." And yet Donald Trump keeps trying to avoid any kind of accountability for this. And there are a number of Republicans in Congress who, even if they voted to release the records cuz Donald said, "Vote to release the records." still want to protect him. I mean, I think Charles has been a stand-up guy in this event, unlike a lot of American politicians. Jeffrey Epstein's former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, he a few days ago said that Epstein had told him personally that he had no dirt on Donald Trump. But then we see Epstein's brother, of course, Mark saying the complete opposite. He also then told CNN that Steve Bannon was doing interviews with Jeffrey and taping them. Jeffrey then sent me a Dropbox links to one of those interview sessions. And on that tape, Jeffrey clearly stated that he had stopped hanging out with Trump when he realized that Trump was a crook. And that is a direct quote. But while that may be true and and that he thinks that Trump thought that Trump was a crook. You know, being a crook doesn't necessarily mean he's a criminal. So, I think David, I want your thoughts on this. What Americans want to know is whether Donald Trump, along with other high-profile people, knew what was going on, regardless of if they were physically involved in it or not committing crimes or not, knew what was happening. Well, Maddie, we have emails and other documents from Jeffrey Epstein himself making it clear that Donald knew what was going on. We don't have any proof of Donald personally doing something that is illegal. That's the question to ask is, "Well, if you didn't do anything illegal, why are you working so hard to hide the records?" Um that's the obvious question to ask. But we have external evidence of this. Um so, I I don't think it's credible for Donald to make the claim that I didn't know what was going on. Um because of all the We have photographs, we have emails, we have sworn testimony, we have documents like the famous birthday letter in the birthday book. All of which point to Donald Trump knew exactly what was going on. And it would be consistent with his other behavior. For example, I broke the story years ago about Donald plying children who were 12, 13, and 14 to gamble in his casinos where you had to be 21 years old. They were given liquor and limousines and hotel suites. And I named them in my first book, Temples of Chance, 32 years ago because there was a public record that had been hearings where the children were named. And when I asked Donald about it back then, you know, I said, you know, come on, 12-year-old kids. And And he goes, "Yeah, I paid a fine." I mean, that's his level of conscience. Oh, I had to pay a fine. Not, "Oh, that's terrible. I fired all the people involved in that. I'm It's shocking. I'm I'm embarrassed." No, it's just, "Yeah, I paid a fine." These These emails you referenced, David, these are the ones that dropped late last week. These initial three emails that Democrat Oversight Democrats released. And then of course, we saw the 20,000 released the next day. But these three ones were probably the most damning ones. The ones that, as you mentioned, say that Donald knew about it, that he spent hours at his house, at Epstein's house, with the victim, which later was reported to be Virginia Giuffre. But while I personally found those damning and any any guest on the Trump report has said the exact same thing. One of the other things that was really insane from all the emails was just how much Epstein clearly hated Trump. And you know, kept tabs on him, followed his presidential campaign, followed his presidency when he was elected, you know, tracked his flights, tracked what lawyer he was hiring. And I wonder if Donald Trump can use that to his advantage, will use that to his advantage to say, "Look, this guy was clearly out to get me." Oh, the Donald has already effectively said that. And And Maddie, you got it exactly right. It's not unusual in Donald's sphere, where loyalty is a one-way street, to go from best friend, as Epstein said he and Trump were for 10 years, and Trump spoke of him in the past very warmly on video and in interviews about being his very good friend, to a complete breakdown in the relationship. Uh that's not unusual. But absolutely, Donald will say, "Hey, this guy is biased against me. You know, you can't trust anything he says or said. And furthermore, the Democrats probably made this stuff up." And by the way, the 20-some thousand emails that have been released and which are now been put up online in searchable databases by a couple of organizations, those came from the Epstein estate. And if the Trump administration plays games with this new law to release the documents, watch, I think you will see an effort to have the estate seek documents that it has a legal right to that were taken by the FBI in their searches. That's another danger for the Justice Department if it plays games here about what exists and what it will release. Well, all this blame game from Trump, you know, he's now blaming the Democrats saying that they'll face the repercussions of these files being exposed. Uh this attempt to shift the narrative onto other news headlines, of course, the stalling that's been taking place since April. Do you think Trump is scared? Oh, I think Donald is very afraid, and I think the tone of his posts, uh the nature of the outward attacks, Donald knows this is something he is very vulnerable on. We're seeing it's the only thing that has split the MAGA movement. There are a lot of people who will back Donald till the ends of the earth on many issues, especially immigration and trying to deny the right to vote to people of color and even women, but the accusations involving underage girls are a step too far for a lot of people, and he knows that, and he's seeing that. The polls show that his support continues to decline. Uh one the most recent um Marist National Public Radio poll showed that uh Trump's down below 40% overall. Uh among Republicans, however, his support is close to 90% except on this issue, where it's much, much lower. Well, I want to read out some stats on that, David, because the Marquette University Law School uh surveyed over a thousand people nationwide in the last few days when it comes to this. Only 26% of Americans approve of the way that Trump has handled the Epstein scandal, while 74% disapprove. disapprove, and that includes a majority of Republicans who are unhappy. Yeah. And and that that's the reason Donald is in fact and should be scared about the potential what will happen here, and it's why you can reasonably assume that the Justice Department's going to assign people they consider loyalists to Donald to work on these documents and to try to find reasons to withhold any document that might be damaging to Donald. Of course, there's a lot of documents we're talking about, I believe, terabytes of data. So, it's also possible they'll just make a mistake somewhere along the line. And it's also possible that somebody inside the Justice Department over the course of the last 6 years has made a copy of some things and has them outside the system. Wouldn't be proper to do that, but that's what whistleblowers do. So, uh I I I'm fairly confident that we will get a much broader picture of this, and I think you'll continue to see that no more than about a quarter of the public is going to say, "Yeah, so what?" I mean, I actually had in my social media feed today some people defending this, saying, you know, "Well, we used to marry girls off at the age of 12." Um and which is true, but irrelevant to the point. David Cay Johnston, thank you for joining the Trump Report today. Glad to be with you again.