Judge orders release of unredacted Epstein files as new subpoenas issued

[0:00] A federal judge yesterday ordered the Justice Department to unredact additional pages of the Epstein files, concluding that, quote, [0:07] the attorney general has violated the Epstein Act by redacting the names of senders and recipients in at least eight email exchanges with Mr. Epstein [0:13] regarding a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors. [0:19] Joining our conversation right now is former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballew, who represents Katie Fang. [0:25] And Katie Fang is the independent journalist who filed the suit and good for her for doing so. [0:30] So, Brendan, the Justice Department now has until July 2nd to either turn over these documents or explain why the redactions should not be unredacted. [0:39] Are you expecting to see the files or are you gearing up for a bigger battle? [0:43] Well, Stanley Woodward, the number three Justice Department official, just entered a notice of appearance in our case. [0:48] So we expect that they are really freaked out right now because it's more than just the redactions. [0:53] You know, there are the specific emails where you're talking about, as you said, torture videos, potentially sex with minor women, [0:59] where the names of the senders and recipients have been redacted. [1:03] But there's also the fact that there are documents related to Donald Trump that were never produced in the first place. [1:08] There are issues with the fact that this is a case, an investigation that spanned multiple countries internationally. [1:14] The Department of Justice categorically did not review documents that weren't in the English language. [1:20] They just said that they didn't do it. [1:21] And then on top of that, the redactions that they did make, they didn't explain, which they were required to do by law. [1:27] So, you know, Judge Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction granting everything that we and Katie Fang requested [1:33] and rejecting every single argument that the Department of Justice made here. [1:38] Why does your client, why does Katie Fang want to see the unredacted versions of these particular files? [1:43] Not faulting her at all. Good for her. Great journalism. Good for her for subpoenaing it. [1:48] But there's like three million files still missing. [1:51] Yeah, yeah, yeah. [1:52] So like there's so many things. What's about what is it about these files? [1:55] These are, you know, as you said, there are millions of documents at issue here. [1:58] When you're going for a preliminary injunction, it's really important to focus on the things where it is just obvious. [2:03] It's indisputable that the government is violating the law here. [2:07] And the important thing is, in their defense, the government didn't even try to argue that it was following the law. [2:12] They just argued on standing here. [2:13] And so, you know, these are cases where it's so clear that there is potential wrongdoing here, [2:19] that these are not the names of victims or minors. [2:21] These are the names of potential co-conspirators, potential perpetrators that need to get re-reacted. [2:25] Right. But as you note, in their previous release of about half of the documents that they are under law, [2:32] supposed to have released by a long time ago, they redacted the names of possible perpetrators [2:37] and did not redact the names of victims and survivors. [2:42] Again, contrary to the law, are you worried at all about that happening with these files? [2:46] Only if the Department of Justice is actively malicious and tries to punish victims here by releasing names. [2:52] You know, it is obvious here that the names that are at issue are the names of perpetrators [2:57] or people in Jeffrey Epstein's orbits, not victims. [3:00] And if in the incredibly unusual case that they are victims, [3:05] Judge Sullivan has given them a chance to say as much and explain why they can't produce that. [3:09] So they have the chance to do that. [3:11] A billionaire investor with ties to Jeffrey Epstein is being deposed amid the ongoing [3:15] House Oversight Committee investigation into the dead pedophile and his evil web. [3:21] Leon Black, the former head of private equity firm Apollo Global Management, [3:27] sat today for a closed-door interview on Capitol Hill about his relationship with Epstein. [3:30] Lawmakers say Black declined to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements, or NDAs. [3:36] And that's when the chairman of the committee, James Comer, made this move. [3:40] I have just issued two subpoenas to Mr. Black. [3:46] The NDAs are between him and other women. [3:49] We want to know, was Jeffrey Epstein involved in the NDAs? [3:55] Was he involved in writing? [3:57] Was he involved in awarding funds to the women for the NDAs? [4:05] What was the reason for the NDAs? [4:10] We want to know everything about the NDAs. [4:12] It's hard to overstate just how significant it is that a Republican chairman of this committee [4:17] made that announcement to issue two subpoenas. [4:19] That is a big deal. [4:21] Leon Black apparently expressed regret about his dealings with the late sex offender in [4:25] a letter to investors in 2020 after a New York Times report alleged, quote, [4:29] the two men often socialized and dined together. [4:31] And Mr. Black was a lucrative client for Mr. Epstein over the final decade of his life, unquote. [4:37] Black then stepped away from Apollo in 2021. [4:39] An internal investigation by the company found no wrongdoing. [4:42] That probe ultimately concluded Black's payments to Epstein totaled $158 million [4:48] between 2012 and 2017. [4:51] Black is one of the rare witnesses that the House panel has talked to [4:54] who have faced allegations of abusing women in connection with Epstein. [4:58] One woman told the FBI that Black became sexual in a massage Epstein had directed her to give him. [5:03] A separate woman alleged that Black had raped her in 2014 [5:06] and described going to Epstein's Florida house with Black, [5:09] where she says she was told she would have sex with Epstein. [5:13] An attorney for Leon Black tells CNN he has never, quote, abused, assaulted, or raped, unquote, [5:18] any girl or woman and calls the allegations, quote, completely false. [5:23] Black has categorically denied any wrongdoing and knowledge of Epstein's crimes. [5:27] In his opening statement to the Oversight Committee, he said, quote, [5:29] I have never abused a woman. [5:31] I have never been with an underage woman. [5:33] I have never engaged in sex trafficking. [5:35] I have never paid Epstein for access to women. [5:37] I was never blackmailed by Epstein. [5:39] I was not involved with and had no knowledge of any of Epstein's heinous conduct, unquote. [5:43] What do you make of Chairman Comer's announcement that the committee is going to issue two subpoenas [5:47] for Leon Black? [5:48] And did he earn those subpoenas by not really testifying and cooperating? [5:51] I agree 100% with Chairman Comer. [5:54] You know, we were in the first hour of what we expected to be a multi-hour interview with Mr. Black [5:59] as soon as questions came up about the NDAs. [6:03] And it's important to note, the NDAs are a result, in at least one case, [6:09] of women making allegations of sexual abuse against Mr. Black. [6:13] He then paid them to sign NDAs. [6:15] We want to understand more about that, whether Jeffrey Epstein was involved, [6:19] what were the circumstances, was there any coercion? [6:21] In the signing of those NDAs, Black refused to answer any questions related to the NDAs. [6:27] The subpoena will require him not only to answer questions, but the turnover details of the NDAs. [6:32] And were you able to learn anything new from his testimony at all? [6:36] I don't know that we learned anything new in the hour. [6:38] He described his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. [6:41] He expressed some admiration for Epstein's intellect and lifestyle. [6:49] He seemed to enjoy their friendship and relationship and professed to have no knowledge of Epstein's crimes. [6:57] That's why we want to understand the NDAs and any relationship to Epstein. [7:01] Under subpoena, will you be able to ask him questions about the two women that have alleged sexual misconduct or rape by Leon Black, [7:10] both of whom have ties to Epstein? [7:12] Again, I should remind people that an attorney for Mr. Black tells CNN he has never assaulted, abused, or raped any girl or woman. [7:18] But will you be able to ask about it under a subpoena? [7:21] Yes, we will. [7:22] The NDAs don't bar Congress from asking questions and don't prevent him from being responsive to the subpoena. [7:28] But he'll be able to plead the fifth, right? Is that the only way he doesn't— [7:31] He could plead the fifth. [7:32] Or he could say, I don't remember. [7:33] He could. That would be at odds with his multiple professions of innocence, but he could. [7:40] Black's payments to Epstein totaled $158 million between 2012 and 2017. [7:46] We know that from an internal investigation about Black's ties to Epstein by Apollo, [7:50] that probe found no wrongdoing after reviewing more than 60,000 documents and interviewing 20 people. [7:58] Is Apollo cooperative at all? [8:01] Well, we have questions about that investigation, and there was a line of questions in the first hour [8:06] pointing out the fact that some at that law firm involved with the investigation had relationships with Jeffrey Epstein. [8:13] And I think if we had more time with Mr. Black today, we would have asked more detailed questions about that. [8:18] I think that's a topic that will come up in the deposition on July 16th. [8:22] But at the end of the day, Congress is not going to rely on an investigation hired by a law firm that Apollo Group hired. [8:30] We're conducting our own investigation.