Hey, it's the creator of the Epstein files.
Before we get into today's episode,
“I need to tell you about my brand new podcast, "War Desk".”
If you value how we fact-check the narrative and follow the raw data on this show, "War Desk" is built for you. It's a massive ongoing investigation into the rapidly escalating developments
happening in the Middle East right now. It is completely postpartisan and follows the facts. Instead of cable news talking points, we go straight to the source to explain the reality of global conflict.
Search for "War Desk" on Apple podcasts or Spotify right now, or check this episode's description for the links and hit follow. All right, let's get into the episode. (upbeat music)
Three million pages of evidence, thousands of unsealed flight logs, millions of data points, names, themes, and timelines connected. You are listening to the Epstein files.
The world's first AI native investigation into the case that traditional journalism simply could not handle. - Welcome to the Epstein files.
“Last time we traced how Thor Bjorn Jaglan,”
Norway's former Prime Minister and Nobel Committee chair attempted to arrange a meeting between Epstein and Putin and why Norway just charged him. Today, we are looking at 50 pages of FBI interview transcripts about Trump and Epstein that the DOJ is actively withholding
what we know about them, what legal exemptions are being cited, and what the redaction patterns reveal. As part of our ongoing investigation,
as always, every document and source we reference
is available at EpsteinFiles.fm. So let us start with the FOI responses. The DOJ documents that confirm the 50 pages exist and were specifically removed from the release. - Right, and to really understand those responses,
we need to establish the sheer scale of the information architecture here. I mean, when we look at the files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, we're looking at a massive data dump.
We were talking about over 3 million pages. - Three million pages of federal investigative files just pushed into the public domain. And the stated purpose of that Eftay mandate was total transparency, right?
- Yeah. - Unvarnished transparency regarding the federal probes into Jeffrey Epstein. - Exactly, but transparency is entirely dependent on the integrity of the release mechanics.
And when you look closely at the structural foundation
of this database, a massive discrepancy emerges. - Yeah, I have the database pulled up right here. And to understand how researchers identify this discrepancy,
“you have to understand how the government”
physically organizes a release of this magnitude. Every single page processed by the Department of Justice gets a unique identifier. - Right, in the legal world, they call it a baits number. It is a sequential stamp,
placed permanently on the bottom corner of every page during legal discovery. - And in the context of this specific mandate, the stamps begin with a prefix. They start with Eftay, standing for the Epstein
Files Transparency Act, and that is followed by a consecutive number. - Think of baits numbers like the page numbers in a published book. It is the absolute unbroken chain of custody
for the public record. If page 1 is stamped Eftay 001, page legally must be stamped. Eftay 002. So put yourself in the shoes of the independent investigators analyzing this release.
You are scrolling through this massive database provided by the Department of Justice. You hit page Eftay 0000. And the very next click takes you directly to Eft 01A01.
- The sequence just vanish. - It vanishes. It skips 50 whole numbers. - Which tells you, with absolute mathematical certainty, that 50 pages were manually extracted
before they hit the published button. I mean, it is not a server error, it is not a glitch. It is a deliberate physical removal of sequential evidence. The official story doesn't match the data. - And that anomaly, that exact gap is what caught the eye
of independent journalists like Roger Solenberger and the investigative teams at MPR and MSNW. But they didn't just guess what was missing. - No, they took that numerical gap, and they cross-reference it with a completely different pre-existing
official map the evidence index from the criminal trial of Guillain Maxwell. - For context, during the federal prosecution of Guillain Maxwell for conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors, the government
was legally obligated to provide her defense team with an index of all the evidence they had gathered. - That index is effectively the master blueprint of the entire FBI investigation. It catalogs every single witness interview,
every piece of physical evidence, and the exact dates those investigative actions took place. - I'm looking at the document here, and it specifically says that the FBI conducted four interviews in 2019 with a specific female witness.
The precise dates listed in the trial index are July 24, August 7, August 20, and October 16. - We should pause and analyze what four interviews mean in standard FBI protocol. Federal agents do not repeatedly bring a witness back
Into a field office over a four-month period
for casual conversation. - Right, if a tip is deemed baseless,
“the file is closed after the initial intake.”
- Exactly. - Four separate interviews indicate a profound level of investigative interest. It means the federal agents believe the information she was providing was credible, actionable, and vital to their act of case.
They were actively building a timeline. - Yet when you take those four specific dates from the Maxwell trial index and search for them
within the three million pages released
under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, you only find one. Only the summary report for the initial July 24 interview was published in the database. The comprehensive summaries for the subsequent interviews conducted on August 7, August 20,
and October 16 are entirely absent. - Furthermore, the handwritten agent notes that normally a company these formal summaries are also missing. - By analyzing this specific, consecutive Eftay Bates numbers
surrounding the solitary Polish to light 24 interview and comparing them directly to the missing files listed in the Maxwell trial index, the journalists calculated the exact size of the omission. - It amounts to over 50 pages of official FBI records.
Look at what they are leaving out.
“The data proved the pages were systematically removed.”
The next logical question in any investigation is what exactly was in those pages to warrant their extraction.
- The missing files revolve around a woman
from South Carolina who came forward to federal law enforcement shortly after Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in July 2019. - The one interview that we do have access to the July 24 intake interview
contains a lengthy and disturbing description of her history with Epstein. She detailed how he assaulted her on Hilton Head Island around 1984 when she was approximately 13 years old. - That establishes the baseline in the public record.
A victim comes forward, provides a highly detailed account of abuse dating back to the 1980s and the FBI initiates a formal intake of her allegations. - But that initial July interview is only the prologue. The timeline of her interactions
with the FBI extends deep into the fall of 2019. - And the records of those interactions are exactly what the government extracted. - This is where the contents of the withheld documents begin to come into sharp focus.
While the official FBI interview summaries from August and October are missing from the public database, we have access to other internal federal documents that reference this exact same witness. - Specifically, we have an internal 2025 FBI PowerPoint
presentation summarizing the overarching Epstein case and an August 2025 spreadsheet generated by the FBI's National Threat Operations Center. - We should define the function of the National Threat Operations Center or NTOC.
It is the central nervous system where the FBI processes incoming tips, allegations, and threat data. - The spreadsheet from August 2025 catalogs, numerous claims reported to the Bureau
regarding the Epstein network. According to the investigative reporting on this document, many of the tips logged in that spreadsheet were quickly dismissed by investigators. - They were marked as not credible
or they lacked basic contact information to pursue. But this particular lead from the South Carolina woman was not dismissed. - He was explicitly marked by FBI agents for follow-up and routed to a field office in Washington
to conduct an in-person interview. - And both the 2025 FBI PowerPoint and the NTOC spreadsheet
“confirm a crucial detail this exact same woman”
made specific allegations against all Trump. - That internal confirmation entirely shifts the context of the missing 50 pages. The FBI found her initial claims regarding Epstein credible enough to conduct three exhaustive follow-up interviews
throughout the summer and fall of 2019.
- The first interview on July 24,
which the government allowed the public to see, omits the Trump allegation. - The subsequent interviews, the ones conducted after the FBI formally flying her claims for further investigation,
are the exact pages the DOJ extracted from the public release under the Epstein files transparency act. - The details of her allegation are documented in those internal files. I'm looking at the document here
and it specifically says she alleged that around 1983, when she was around 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis, which she subsequently bit.
In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. - She stated this violent encounter occurred in New Jersey. We must carefully examine how the FBI handled the mechanics of this information. - In the one publicly available interview
from July 24, there is a very specific, highly unusual detail regarding how she identified her abuser to the federal agents. - During that July intake interview, the federal agents asked her how she knew for certain
that Epstein was the person who committed the abuse in the 1980s. - In response, she showed the FBI agents a cropped photograph that had been sent to her by a friend. According to the interview memo,
she was extremely reluctant to share the image with the federal agents. - Her attorney stated on the record that this photo was cropped, because she was deeply concerned
about implicating additional individuals who were well-known strictly out of fear of retaliation.
- A victim presenting a deliberately cropped photograph
to federal agents out of fear of retaliation
“is a massive red flag in any criminal investigation.”
- It immediately signals to the investigators that the scope of the abuse involves individuals wielding significant power, wealth, or influence. No federal agent looks at a deliberately cropped photo in a trafficking case and moves on.
They would immediately seek to identify the missing portion of the image. - And they did. The federal agents recognize the image, even in its altered cropped state.
I'm looking at the document here, and it specifically says the uncropped original was a widely distributed photograph of Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump together. - Observe the timeline here.
A victim comes forward. She provides a cropped photo of Epstein and a former president, because she is terrified of retaliation. - She makes a specific violent allegation
or sexual assault against that former president. - The FBI flags the lead as credible enough to conduct three extensive follow-up interviews, generating over 50 pages of official documentation.
“- And years later, when Congress legally mandates”
the total release of the Epstein files, those exact 50 pages are surgically removed from the sequential bait stamped database. - What are they hiding? The extraction of this specific sequence of interviews
is not an isolated anomaly. The records point to another highly documented intersection between Epstein, Aminer, and the former president. - The files released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act also contained extensive
undenected documentation regarding a second woman. In the discovery files for the Guillain Maxwell criminal trial, she is formally identified in the government records as testifying witness 3500.
- That specific legal designation is critical to understand.
In federal criminal proceedings, 3500 material refers directly to the Jank's Act. The Jank's Act requires the government to produce any statements made by a prosecution witness that relate to the subject matter of their testimony.
- This means this second woman was not just a tipster calling a hotline. She was a verified testifying witness. She was deemed highly credible by federal prosecutors credible enough to put on the stand
in a major international trafficking trial. - Testifying witness 3500 detailed her extensive abuse by Epstein and Guillain Maxwell. Beginning when she was around 13 years old, while she was attending the Interlock and Center for the Arts.
- Between 2019 and 2021, the FBI conducted six separate ruling interviews with her to map out the network. - In one of those specific interviews, she described an incident
where Epstein took her to Trump's Mara Logo Club to meet him. - The physical location of that meeting is significant. Mara Logo was a frequent documented intersection point for Epstein's social network in the 1990s and early 2000s. - We are examining the exact sworn statements provided
to federal agents by a fully vetted prosecution witness regarding her physical presence at that club as an underage girl. - Exactly, this is not a secondary source. - I'm looking at the document here,
and it's specifically says Epstein told Trump, this is a good one, her. The formal interview report notes that the men chuckled. - In a subsequent 2020 civil lawsuit against Epstein's estate and Guillain Maxwell,
she elaborated on that specific moment. Stating, she felt incredibly uncomfortable, but at the time, was too young to fully understand why the two men were laughing at her. - The handling of the specific interview file
by the Department of Justice is highly irregular and demands extreme scrutiny. - When the massive tranche of files was initially published on January 30, this specific interview containing the Mara Logo Interaction
was included in the database. - But shortly after publication, it was mysteriously removed from the public server. It vanished, creating yet another gap in the public record
before finally being republished weeks later
on February 19. - We must present the official explanation for this irregularity exactly as the government provided it. - The DOJ's official stance on the temporary removal
of any files is that they are only taken down to fix improper reductions of personally identifiable information. - They stated that if a victim or their legal counsel flags a document, because sensitive personal information
like a phone number or an address was inadvertently left visible by the redaction software, the file is temporarily pulled, re-redacted by the team, and then restored online.
- The official story doesn't match the data. Out of millions of pages, thousands of documents and countless witness interviews, why were the specific files containing highly uncomfortable interactions
involving a former president,
“the ones flagged for immediate removal and re-review?”
- While protecting victim identities is an absolute priority in any document release, the timing and the specific selection of these files for post-publicational alteration demands intense cross-examination. - Especially when viewed alongside the permanently
withheld 50 pages from the first accuser.
We are looking at a pattern of behavior regarding specific types of evidence. - The intersection of these individuals is further corroborated by the flight logs released under the Epstein File Transparency Act.
The physical records show the detailed travel history
of Epstein's private jet.
“- The logs confirm Donald Trump flew on that jet”
at least eight times between 1993 and 1996. Gulean Maxwell was physically present on at least four of those documented flights. - Analyzing the passenger manifests provides a clear undeniable picture
of their logistical proximity during that specific era. - On one specific flight manifest from 1993, Trump and Epstein were the only two listed passengers on the entire aircraft. - Another flight manifest from the records lists three passengers.
Epstein, Trump, and a completely redacted individual who was explicitly noted in the log to be 20 years old at the time of the flight. - The sheer volume of these flights actually caught federal prosecutors off guard
as they were building the criminal case. - They were documenting the network and the flight frequency stood out. - I'm looking at the document here and it specifically says in an internal email
from an assistant United States attorney in the Southern District of New York, dated January 2020, that Trump was on the jet
“many more times than previously has been reported”
or that we were aware. - The federal prosecutor flagged this information internally because they did not want any of this data to become a surprise liability down the road during the Maxwell trial.
- That internal email from the Southern District of New York
is a crucial piece of evidence.
It proves that the federal prosecutors actively managing the sex trafficking case viewed the frequency of these flights as a potential complication to their narrative. - They were mapping the network
and the hard data showed a much deeper logistical connection than what was publicly understood or acknowledged. - Contrast the explosive nature of these vetted witness accounts, the flight logs and the internal prosecutor alarms with the official explanations provided
by the government agencies managing the document release. - The Department of Justice has been forced to respond to the mounting public and journalistic questions regarding the missing 50 pages. - We must present their official defense impartially,
relying strictly on the record.
“- The DOJ claims that all responsive documents have been produced”
with strict legal exceptions. - So when you press the DOJ on this,
they point to their official FOI out responses.
- I'm looking at the document here and it specifically says, all responsive documents have been produced unless a document falls within one of the following categories. Duplicates, privileged, or part of an ongoing federal investigation.
- We need to cross examine that legal justification carefully because this is where the legal architecture of a potential coverup would live. - The EFTA is a federal law. It outlines exactly what the DOJ can and cannot do regarding these specific records.
- If the 50 pages of FBI interviews containing allegations against the former president are not duplicates and the sequential baits numbering gap, mathematically proves their unique sequential pages. - And if they are not legally privileged
to turn into client communications, then the DOJ is formally invoking the final category. In legal terms, this is often referred to as the B7A exemption. It is an exemption used exclusively to protect active law enforcement proceedings.
They are claiming the pages belong to an ongoing federal investigation. - The DOJ also attached a specific highly unusual disclaimer to the release of the EFTA files. They essentially warned the public about the contents of their own database.
- A highly irregular move for transparency release. - I'm looking at the document here and it specifically says the release contains untrue and sensationalist claims against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election.
- The DOJ labeled these specific claims unfounded and false, adding that if they had a shred of credibility, they would have been weaponized against him already. - That disclaimer is an extraordinary deviation from standard department of justice protocol.
- The DOJ's mandate under a transparency act is to release the raw investigative files to the public, not to issue definitive public verdicts on the credibility of specific allegations contained within those files,
especially allegations involving a major political figure. - By officially declaring the claims unfounded and false, while simultaneously withholding the 50 pages of detailed FBI interviews regarding those exact claims, the DOJ is sending entirely conflicting signals
about the status of the evidence. - That contradicts the evidence. They are telling the public the claims are baseless, yet treating the files as if they contain sensitive, active investigative material.
- We also have the official response from the White House regarding the missing files and the allegations. Again, we are reporting the political back and forth entirely impartially, relying strictly on the official statements entered into the record.
- The White House stated that the president is totally exonerated on anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. - The official statement from the White House spokeswoman pivoted entirely away from the missing 50 pages of FBI interviews and focused instead
on legislative actions and political opponents. - It's a deliberate redirection of the narrative. - I'm looking at the document here, and it's specifically says, and by releasing thousands of pages of documents
cooperating with the House Oversight Committee
Sapena Request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act
and calling for more investigations
into Epstein's Democrat friends.
“President Trump has done more for Epstein's victims”
than anyone before him. - The statement then demands investigations into Democratic figures, explicitly naming Hakim Jeffries, Stacey Plaskett and Bill Clinton,
questioning why they solicited money and meetings from Epstein. - We are reporting the official record exactly as it stands without taking aside. Both the accusations and the counter accusations are part of the unfolding public narrative.
- But we must apply the cover up check to the legal framework of this entire situation. The Epstein Files Transparency Act contains a very specific, legally binding clause regarding redactions and withheld documents.
- The law strictly prohibits the Department of Justice from withholding documents on the basis
of embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity,
including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary. - That means the DOJ cannot legally hide the 50 pages just because they contain damaging or embarrassing allegations against a former or current president.
- The law explicitly forbids using reputational harm as a shield. - Precisely.
“The EFTA stripped away the standard bureaucratic shield”
of political sensitivity that agencies often rely on. Therefore, the DOJ's legal defense for extracting those 50 pages rests entirely on the assertion that releasing them would jeopardize an active ongoing federal investigation.
- The implication of the DOJ's legal defense naturally leads to the immediate reaction from lawmakers who have direct oversight authority over these federal agencies. - The revelation of the missing 50 pages
triggered an immediate explosion on Capitol Hill.
The House Oversight Committee, which has direct subpoena power and jurisdiction over the Department of Justice intervened. - Representative Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the committee took physical action.
He went to the Justice Department to personally review the unredacted evidence logs. - Members of the Oversight Committee have the requisite legal clearance to view the raw unredacted framework
of the EFTA release. They can see the master manifest that the public cannot access.
“They could look at the complete map of the evidence.”
- Following his physical review of those unredacted logs at the DOJ, Representative Garcia released a definitive statement confirming the reporting by the independent journalists. - He confirmed that the documents absolutely exist,
that the survivor's name is clearly listed in the master manifest, and that the corresponding FBI interviews from 2019 were actively and deliberately withheld from the public database.
- A sitting member of the House Oversight Committee physically verifying the extraction of evidence from a mandated transparency release elevates this entire situation from a journalistic inquiry to a massive constitutional clash.
- Look at the exact phrasing Garcia used. - I'm looking at the document here, and it specifically says in Representative Garcia's statement. The DOJ appears to have illegally withheld FBI interviews with the survivor,
who accused President Trump of heinous crimes. - If further announced that Oversight Democrats are opening a parallel investigation into the DOJ's handling of these specific files, declaring the entire situation of White House coverup.
The term illegal is the operative word in Garcia's statement. - He is arguing on the record. That the Department of Justice is in direct violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which, again, strictly prohibits withholding information
to prevent political embarrassment or reputational harm to any public figure. - But the scrutiny is not entirely partisan. The Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee represented of James Comer also addressed the missing files
during a press conference. - When asked about the MPR reporting regarding the withheld pages, Comer confirmed that Oversight Republicans are also actively looking into the matter. - He stated they want to get a definitive answer
regarding the administration's handling of the files. - By partisan scrutiny over the mechanical execution of a document release is extremely rare. It indicates that the structural integrity of the EFTA mandate is being questioned
by the very committee that oversees its execution. - Sherman Comer's public demand for a definitive answer puts immense pressure on Attorney General Pam Bondi to explain the exact legal mechanism used to extract the 50 pages.
- The Justice Department has reacted to this escalating congressional pressure. In a defensive post on the X platform, a DOJ rapid response account directly address the allegations of the missing files.
- I'm looking at the document here, and it specifically says that they are working around the clock and that nothing has been deleted. Notice the specific phrasing use by the rapid response account. Deleted means destroyed.
No one is accusing the Department of Justice of tossing the 50 pages into an incinerator. - The accusation backed by the Bates numbers is that the pages are being actively withheld from the public view.
- The DOJ post continued stating that they are formally reviewing files related to the Guillain Maxwell discovery documents that the public flagged is missing.
- They stated that if any document is found to have been
improperly tagged in the review process
“and is responsive to the act, they will publish it.”
- Improperly tagged is classic bureaucratic terminology for a categorization error. But if we zero in on the ultimate question raised by representative Garcia's formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi,
this stakes are far higher than a simple tagging error. - The DOJ has publicly stated that files are only withheld if they are duplicates, privileged, or part of an ongoing investigation.
- We know the 50 pages of sequential FBI interviews are not duplicates.
- We know they are not privileged communications.
- So if the Department of Justice is utilizing the ongoing federal investigation exemption, the B-78 exemption. To legally justify withholding 50 pages of detailed FBI interviews,
“regarding a survivor's allegations of sexual assault”
against the president. - Does that mean there is a secret active federal investigation into the allegations against the president? - The DOJ cannot have it both ways.
They cannot claim the allegations are unfounded and false in a public disclaimer. While simultaneously utilizing an exemption, designed exclusively to protect active, ongoing criminal probes to hide the evidence.
- The unprecedented nature of the House Oversight Committee clashing with the Department of Justice over the redaction mechanics of the Epstein files transparency act
hinges entirely on this exact paradox. - If files were buried solely to protect a political figure, it is a direct undeniable violation of the ATA. - If the files are hidden to protect an active probe,
the DOJ must explain the nature of that investigation to the Congressional Committee holding the subpoena power. - The timeline of the evidence creates a continuous loop of missing information. 50 pages of sequential FBI interviews
mysteriously vanish from a legally mandated public database, leaving a glaring gap in the B-8's numbers. - Credible. Vetted accusers from the 1980s and '90s detail, violent intersections between Jeffrey Epstein,
underage victims, and a future president at locations like Hilton Head and Moralago. - Flight logs confirm a much deeper logistical connection than previously acknowledged by federal prosecutors managing the sex trafficking case.
- And now the Department of Justice is forced to answer to a bipartisan congressional committee regarding the precise legal exemptions used to extract that specific evidence from the public eye. - The official story doesn't match the data.
The gap in the base numbers remains. The 50 pages are still missing.
“Remember, this is an ongoing investigation,”
and everything we cited is sourced at EpsteinFiles.fm. Next time on the EpsteinFiles. File 105, the AI Epstein lists is wrong.
Here's what's actually in the files.
(upbeat music) - You have just heard an analysis of the official record. Every claim, name, and date mentioned in this episode is backed by primary source documents. You can view the original files for yourself
at EpsteinFiles.fm. If you value this data first approach to journalism, please leave a five-star review wherever you're listening right now. It helps keep this investigation visible.
We'll see you in the next file. (upbeat music)
