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 mapped the 1,200% spike
“in Google searches after the document releases”
and what the public's questions reveal about what is still being hidden. - Today, we are looking at the DOJ's own Epstein document library. 50 million visitors, 3 million pages,
and it designed so deliberately difficult to navigate that citizens had to build their own tools just to read it as part of our ongoing investigation.
- As always, every document and source
we reference is available at Epsteinfiles.fm. - So let us start with a document. The NPR investigation, confirming that the DOJ withheld and removed Epstein files related to accusations about Trump,
because that removal tells us the library was never meant to show everything. - You are sitting at the table with us as the third investigator in the room. And your mission, as you listen to the evidence,
is pretty straightforward. - Right. - We need to map the exact anatomy of the missing 53 pages from this federal database. And we also need to track the global fallout of the files
“that actually did make it through the filters.”
- Yeah, we really have to start with the official narrative presented by the Justice Department. Because on paper at least, it sounds like this massive triumph of governmental accountability. - Sure, the victory lap.
Exactly, Congress passed the Epsteinfiles Transparency Act or EFTA. And this was legislation specifically mandating the public release of these investigative records. The governance claims that they fully complied.
They built a public database and uploaded
over 3 million pages of investigative files.
- 3 million pages. I mean, that is a staggering amount of data to dump onto a public server. - It is, it's an ocean of paper. And the DOJ provided a very clear, very specific assurance
to the public when they did this. They stated that all responsive documents were produced, unless they fell into three highly specific categories. - Right, the exemptions. - Yeah.
- Those exemption categories were duplicates, privileged materials or documents tied to an ongoing federal investigation. That was the official promise. Complete transparency with only narrow, necessary redactions.
- Well, the official story does not match the data. - No, it doesn't. - If the primary directive of the DOJ's careful filtering process was protecting privacy and strictly adhering to those three narrow exemptions,
we really have to look at the catastrophic redaction failures that occurred the absolute second that database went live. - Right. - The government claims they're protecting privacy. So why are the actual victims
the ones being exposed to the public? - I'm looking at the document here, and it specifically says in a letter to the court from attorney Brittany Henderson, that the Justice Department failed to protect
the very people who suffered. - We need to look closely at who Brittany Henderson is in this context too. - Yeah, go ahead. - She is an attorney who represents multiple survivors
of the Epstein trafficking network. These are women who fought for years under protective orders. They were utilizing the legal system exactly as it was designed to maintain their anonymity while seeking justice.
- And those protective orders are foundational to how federal investigations operate. I mean, if witnesses believe their identities will be compromised, they simply won't come forward. - They vanish.
That is the fundamental social contract between a victim and the FBI. - Precisely, and Henderson's letter to the court is absolutely blistering. She states that the government left these survivors
publicly exposed. She realized that they were named and personally identified on the government's own website. - Yeah. - Now, Henderson points out that the DOJ
agreed to correct these wrongful disclosures immediately upon being notified. But they failed to do so for days, or read her exact quote. Every additional hour that these records remain online
compounds the danger to women who never chose publicity
Who are entitled to protection under the law.
- We have to examine the human cost of that administrative failure.
“It goes way beyond abstract legal arguments”
about server management. Take the case of Daniel Benzky. - Right. - She was a teenage ballerina two decades ago when the abuse by Jeffrey Epstein occurred.
- Decades later, Benzky made the incredibly difficult decision to participate in confidential conversations with FBI investigators. - And she did that under the explicit belief that federal law enforcement would protect her identity.
- But that contract was broken. Instead of securing her testimony, those confidential conversations were dumped onto the public internet without the proper reductions. - Just raw files online.
- Exactly. And the DOJ defended this massive breach as a simple issue of volume.
They cited the three million pages they had to process,
essentially claiming administrative incompetence due to the massive scale of the EF2 mandate. They argued that when you are processing that much paper, mistakes happen. - Benzky's reaction to that defense is extremely telling.
She stated that initially she thought it was just carelessness.
“Then, as she saw the scope of it, she assumed gross incompetence.”
But she concluded by saying, it feels like a deliberate attack on survivors. - When you look at the sheer volume of errors, her skepticism is completely warranted. It wasn't just a few slip names in a text document.
- No, the visual evidence is even worse. A CNN investigation decided to test the DOJ's digital redaction methods. They deployed an artificial intelligence tool specifically to analyze 100,000 photos
posted to the Justice Department's Epstein website. - For anyone who hasn't worked with federal document releases, we should probably explain how a digital redaction is supposed to work. - Yeah, that's crucial.
- When the government redacts a digital file,
like a PDF for a JPEG, they are supposed to flatten the image. That means they completely destroy the metadata and the visual layer underneath the black box. - But if they just draw a digital black rectangle over a high-resolution scan without flattening the file,
an AI tool can essentially peel that digital sticker right off. - Yeah, it's just the top layer. - And that is exactly what happened. The CNN AI found more than 100 examples of problematic photos containing severe redaction errors.
Lawyers for the accuser stole the New York judge that the lives of nearly 100 victims had been turned upside down by this database. - The exposed materials included nude photos showing the faces of potential victims.
These were uploaded alongside names and email addresses that were either completely unredacted or so poorly obscured you could read the text right through the digital marker. - The Justice Department's defense against all this
is that they have personnel working around the clock to fix these redaction errors. They are framing it as a frantic ketchup job. - That defense completely contradicts the evidence of how the database actually functions
when it comes to the powerful.
Look at what they are leaving out. The DOJ managed to scrub the names of specific, highly powerful political and financial figures perfectly. - Right. - They executed those elite redactions
with absolute surgical precision, not a single slip of the digital pen. Yet they simultaneously and repeatedly failed to blackout the names, faces, and contact information of vulnerable victims.
You cannot claim sheer administrative and competence when the errors disproportionately impact the victims while seamlessly protecting the elite. - That surgical precision brings us directly to the core of the missing files.
When the public started noticing these discrepancies, the Justice Department went on the defensive. The issue to formal statement directly addressing the mounting accusations of cover up. They had to.
- Yeah, in a letter to members of Congress, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch made an unequivocal official claim. I have the letter right here. The insisted that no records were withheld or redacted
on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm or political sensitivity, including to any government official public figure or foreign dignitary. - We need to cross-examine that claim
using the DOJ's own internal indexing. The problem for the Justice Department is that they left a digital paper trail of their own redactions. - The numbers don't lie.
- Exactly. Independent journalists, Roger Solenberger, working alongside investigators at MPR, discovered a mathematical impossibility hidden directly in the government's evidence logs.
- This all comes down to bait stamps. For those who haven't sat through a massive federal trial, explain how bait stamping actually works in practice
“because it is the key to unraveling this entire cover up.”
- A bait stamp is a sequential numbering system used by federal investigators and lawyers to track documents. Every single page of evidence in a federal case gets a unique sequential serial number
stamped on the bottom corner. - It's a physical proof of order. - Right. Think about how a printed book works. You pick up a novel, you turn the page from 90,
and the next physical page is number 91. You do not assume the printing press had a minor software glitch if it jumps to 144. You know, with absolute certainty that someone physically ripped a chunk of that chapter
out of the binding.
- And we have the books.
We have the bait stamped logs from the FBI files. And we have the discovery logs that the southern district of New York prosecutors handed over to Gislane Maxwell's defense team during her criminal trial.
- When you compare those two sets of logs, the DOJ's claim of total transparency completely collapses. - I'm looking at the document here. And the FBI's list of three-and-two witness interview forms
reveals a massive undeniable discrepancy. - We should define what a 302 form is because this jargon gets thrown around Washington constantly. - I'll break that down. - When an FBI agent interviews a witness of victim or a suspect,
they take raw handwritten notes. Those notes go into what the bureau calls a one-a envelope. Then the agent sits down at a computer and types up a formal official narrative summary of that exact interview.
That typed finalized document is the FD302. It is the cornerstone of federal evidence gathering. - According to the Maxwell discovery materials, the logs of evidence the government admitted existed in court. There were 325 FBI-302 forms.
But when you look at the public EF2 site, exactly 90 of those forms are completely missing.
“- And you have to follow the math on the tracking numbers”
to see the deliberate human intervention. It wasn't just a random assortment of missing files. NPR reviewed three different sets of serial numbers stamped onto these specific missing files. As you move from the end of one available interview document
to the next logical sequence in the public database, the numbers simply do not line up. - The bottom tracking number increased by exactly one. However, the top tracking numbers skip to head by six.
Furthermore, a third set of serial numbers
stamped on the associated supplementary files jumped by exactly 53 pages. - Documents do not vanish from a sequential federal evidence log by accident. When a bait stamp skips 53 pages in the middle
of a continuous numbered witness file, it means those physical pages were intentionally extracted from the deck before the stack was ever scanned and uploaded to the public server. - That requires manual intentional removal.
It cannot be attributed to a glitch in the uploading software or an AI error. Someone inside the Justice Department had to look at those specific 53 pages, isolate them from the sequential stack
and manually pull them out of the public release.
“- Which demands the most obvious investigative question?”
Who is the subject of those missing 53 pages? Why were those specific pages so dangerous that someone risked manipulating a sequential federal evidence log to hide them? - The evidence points to a highly specific set of interviews.
Those missing 53 pages correspond to three out of four FBI interviews conducted in 2019 with a woman accusing Donald Trump of sexual abuse. According to the internal documents that did surface, this abuse allegedly occurred
when the accuser was a minor in 1983. - We know for a fact these interviews took place because they are listed on the Maxwell Discovery logs. The FBI interviewed this specific accuser four times. They dedicated federal resources
to sit down with her on four separate occasions.
Yet, only the first interview conducted on July 24th, 2019
is available in the public EF2 database. - And that's single published interview, only focuses on Epstein's abuse. It does not mention Trump at all. The subsequent three interviews
and the handwritten one A notes accompanying them are the files that encompass those missing 53 pages. - We do have a partial view of what was being investigated despite the DOJ's extraction efforts. That view comes from an internal DOJ PowerPoint slide deck
that was circulated within the bureau. - I'm looking at the document here and it specifically says it is a presentation detailing prominent names in the Epstein and Maxwell investigations. These slide decks are standard practice
in massive federal probes. They're used to brief supervisors and track high value leads. The lead regarding this specific accuser was sent to the FBI's Washington Field Office to set up the subsequent interviews.
- The internal summary of her claim captured on that PowerPoint states that around 1983, when she was approximately 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump. - I'm gonna read the exact summary
from the internal bureau document. It reads that Trump subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which he subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. - The investigation also uncovered files
pertaining to a second accuser.
This woman wasn't just a peripheral figure.
“She was a key witness for the prosecution”
in the criminal trial of Gislane Maxwell. - According to the testifying witness 3,500 material list, she participated in six FBI interviews between September 2019 and September 2021. For context, 3,500 material refers to the Jankse Act.
It's a federal law that requires prosecutors to hand over any prior statements made by a government witness to the defense team so they can prepare for cross examination. It's a mandatory disclosure.
- She detailed to the FBI how the abuse by Epstein and Maxwell began while she was attending the Inner Law Concentration Center
For the Arts.
Her interviews describe a specific occasion where Epstein took her to Trump's Mar-Lago club in Florida. - I'm looking at the FBI interview report, regarding that meeting at Mar-Lago, and I'll read the exact quote she provided to investigators.
Epstein told Trump, this is a good one, huh? - In a subsequent 2020 civil lawsuit filed against Epstein's estate and Maxwell, the second woman elaborated on that specific interaction, she stated under oath that both men chuckled after that comment
was made. She added that she felt uncomfortable but at the time was too young to understand why. - There was also an FBI interview with the second accuser's mother
that provides another layer to this. This interview was actually initially published in the EF2 database and then rapidly taken offline by the Justice Department. In that conversation, the mother recalled her daughter's proximity
to incredibly powerful men.
She stated she heard that a prince and Donald Trump visited Epstein's house.
“- The psychological impact of that proximity is crucial.”
The mother told the FBI that knowing such high profile, globally recognized figures were present at the residence, made her think that if they are there, then how could Epstein be a criminal? It provided a flow of legitimacy to the entire operation.
- We must present the official responses to these allegations impartially, but White House firmly and completely denies all allegations of misconduct. I am reading the exact White House statement,
provided by spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. Just as President Trump has said, he's been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein. And by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House over-site committee
subpoena 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. Furthermore, we must state clearly for the record
that there is no public evidence linking Trump to Epstein's sex trafficking ring.
He has never been criminally charged in connection
with this network, and the Justice Department explicitly warned that the Files contain untrue and sensationalist claims about the president that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election. - But the cover-up check here isn't about the politics.
It is about the process. The Justice Department categorizes these specific claims as unfounded and false, and points out that many tips received by the National Threat Operations Center
were deemed unverifiable. - If these claims were entirely demonstrably baseless on their face, why did the FBI dedicate the immense resources
“required to interview the first accuser for separate times?”
They don't dispatch field agents repeatedly for tips they've entirely discredited. - Furthermore, the DOJ left thousands of pages of salacious, unverified and highly damaging claims about other public figures completely online and unredacted
in the exact same database. What is the administrative justification for manually extracting those specific 53 pages of 302 forms from the EF2 library, while allowing unverified sensationalist claims
about other individuals to remain entirely in the public domain? - That contradiction, the blatant double standard in how the documents were handled is exactly what triggered the absolute collision
in the halls of Congress. - The official narrative in Washington,
when the Epstein Files Transparency Act was first passed,
was that it was a triumph of bipartisan cooperation. Politicians from both sides of the aisle stood in front of cameras and declared it a victory for the American public. It was designed, they claimed, to restore public faith
by bringing the complete investigative record out of the shadows and into the light. - The actual release of the documents completely shattered that bipartisan facade. The moment the data dump occurred,
it triggered immediate panic, rapid back pedaling, and intense infighting across both the Republican and Democratic parties.
“You have to look at who benefits from the narrative”
to understand the visceral reactions on Capitol Hill. - Within the Democratic Party, the documents exposed a severe, highly visible generational divide. Older establishment Democrats actively attempted
to suppress the release of the files long before the EF2 legislation was even finalized. According to Deep Reporting by the Atlantic, figures like Nancy Pelosi had managed younger Democrats behind closed doors
for pushing the transparency issue so aggressively. The older generation of party leadership was deeply concerned about protecting legacy donors. They were looking at the massive web of financial connections and mitigating damage to foundational figures,
like Bill and Hillary Clinton, who feature prominently in the flight logs and the correspondence found in the files. - Conversely, younger Democrats, led by Representative Rokana,
pushed aggressively for the complete release. Kana's argument was foundational. He stated that restoring trust in government required full, unflinching transparency, regardless of whose legacy was implicated,
or who lost donor funding. - That internal Democratic conflict ultimately culminated in a highly publicized showdown. The House Oversight Committee forced Bill and Hillary Clinton to sit for closed door testimony
regarding their presence in the files.
- To understand how chaotic this was,
you have to picture the environment.
“A closed door congressional deposition involving sensitive”
material usually takes place in a highly controlled environment, often the secure hearing room where strict rules regarding electronics and recording devices are enforced to prevent unauthorized leaks. - But the seriousness of that entire deposition
was completely undermined by partisan theater. Representative Lauren Bobert, a Republican, broke protocol and took a photograph inside the secure room during Hillary Clinton's testimony. She then leaked that unauthorized photo directly
to a conservative provocateur online. - The breach of protocol was so severe that the deposition had to be immediately halted. The pursuit of facts was derailed for a social media stunt.
- But the Republican side of the aisle experienced an equally dramatic and arguably more damaging pivot regarding the documents. - Prior to the database release,
Republican figures utilized the imminent publication
of the Epstein files, as a primary talking point to energize their base. Figures like Attorney General Pam Bondi, conservative commentator Dan Bondino,
“and Steve Bannon heavily agitated for the EF2 mandate.”
They were operating under the public assumption that the unredacted files would primarily, if not exclusively, the image-high ranking Democrats in Hollywood elites. - That strategy completely backfired
when the initial phase of documents was actually uploaded. The White House was so confident in the narrative that they even held a briefing, physically handing out thick white binders, labeled Epstein files phase one,
to prominent right-wing influencers. - But those influencers quickly realized the files they were holding implicated members of their own political ecosystem. - Yeah.
- The enthusiasm for total transparency vanished overnight,
when the unredacted emails began exposing sitting cabinet members. - A prime example of this fallout is Commerce Secretary Howard Letnic. Letnic is a massive figure in global finance.
He had publicly stated on the record that he entirely cut ties with Epstein immediately upon learning of Epstein's initial legal troubles in Florida over a decade ago. - However, the EF2 document release
“contained communication logs that absolutely proved”
Letnic maintained a relationship with Epstein many years after he publicly claimed to have severed it. When that undeniable documentary evidence surfaced on the DOJ website, Letnic was forced into a highly embarrassing public
backtrack on his previous timeline. - The political weaponization of these documents reached an absolute boiling point with the discovery of the missing 53 pages we discussed earlier.
Representative Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, recognized the procedural failure. He announced a parallel investigation specifically into the Justice Department's handling
of the library. - Garcia stated that after reviewing the unredacted evidence logs and comparing them to the public database, he confirmed the DOJ appeared to have illegally withheld FBI interviews.
- And in a rare moment of unified outrage representative James Comer, the Republican Chair of the Oversight Committee, actually joined forces with Garcia. Comer publicly demanded answers from the DOJ
regarding the missing pages, stating his committee was actively looking into the accusations of intentional extraction. - Adding another massive layer of complexity to this congressional chaos,
Republican representative Anna Paulina Luna, claimed a whistleblower came forward to her office. She stated this whistleblower provided intelligence that vital evidence regarding the broader Epstein network was intentionally destroyed under previous administrations,
further muddying the waters of accountability, and expanding the timeline of the alleged coverup. - Washington's reaction proves a deeply cynical reality. The political apparatus is far less concerned with achieving justice for the hundreds of victims
than they are with weaponizing the DOJ library against their partisan rivals. The moment the documents stop being politically useful and start becoming a liability to their own donors or allies,
the righteous demands for transparency immediately cease. While the Justice Department's redaction failures and the partisan warfare dominate the domestic news cycle, we have to look at the tangible results of the release. Because the files that did successfully release to the public,
the documents that slipped past the filters are systematically dismantling the global elite. - The raw data contained in those unredacted emails, the flight logs, the financial transfers, and the personal calendars is triggering
tangible, devastating consequences around the world. We have to trace the timeline of those consequences to understand the true destructive power of the EF2 release. The international fallout is striking
when compared to the domestic political gridlock. - Let us start with the royal and diplomatic sectors where the revoverations had been historical. Friends Andrew Mount Baton Windsor was already a pariah. He had been stripped of his royal titles
and patronages due to his association with Epstein. However, the new EF2 document release escalated his situation from a severe reputational crisis into an active criminal investigation. He was arrested by the Tems Valley Police
on suspicion of misconduct while in public office.
The context here is critical.
Andrew served for a decade
“as the United Kingdom Special Representative”
for International Trade and Investment. It was a role that gave him access to the highest levels of global commerce and state secrets. - The newly released emails show the former UK trade-on voice, forwarding highly confidential, state-level visit reports
for Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong and Shenzhen, directly to Epstein. He was feeding classified geopolitical intelligence to a convicted sex offender. The severity of the breach forced King Charles
the third to issue a public statement
vowing to fully cooperate with the police investigation, stating the law must take its course. - The diplomatic purge continued across the UK government. Look at former British ambassador to the US, Peter Mendelssohn.
Mendelssohn wasn't just an ambassador. He was one of the central architects of the new labor movement in the UK. He was a political titan. After the documents dropped,
he was fired from his ambassador's ship. He stepped down to the labor party entirely, and he was arrested in London. The EF-2 documents revealed a shocking level of political coordination with Epstein.
“Mendelssohn actually alerted Epstein in advance”
that Prime Minister Gordon Brown was going to resign. Mendelssohn wrote in a leaked email to Epstein, finally got him to go today. He was updating a financier on the internal collapse of the British government
before the public even knew. - In Norway, the consequences reached the absolute highest levels of government and international diplomacy. Thorb Juren Jagland, a former Prime Minister of Norway who went on to head the prestigious Nobel Committee,
was formally charged with aggravated corruption. - The email showed Jagland taking repeated trips to Epstein's private island, with Epstein paying for Jagland in his family's extensive travel.
After the files were published, his properties were searched by Norwegian police, and he was officially stripped of his diplomatic community. - Additionally, the Norwegian diplomatic corps took another hit.
Monogil resigned from her highly sensitive post as Norway's ambassador to Jordan and Iraq. The files revealed that she and her husband, the prominent politician, Tara J. Redlarson, had extensive, undisclosed financial and social ties
to the financier. The Norwegian Foreign Minister was forced to state publicly that Jules Kontek revealed a serious lapse in judgment. - The fallout in the financial sector demonstrates how deeply integrated Epstein was
with the plumbing of global capital. We already know about the immense pressure that forced just daily out as CEO of Barclays, and the investigation that pushed Leon Black out of Apollo Global Management.
The new documents added further. Devastating casualties to Wall Street. - Kathy Rimmel is trajectory is a perfect example of this. Rimmel is served as White House Council under the Obama administration
before transitioning to the corporate sector.
She ultimately resigned from her position
as chief legal officer at Goldman Sachs after the EF2 database went live. The files contain scores of email exchanges showing Epstein buying her lavish gifts, including a highly expensive Fendi bag.
I'm looking to the document here, and Rimmel wrote an email to Epstein's assistant regarding the financier's dating. I adore him. It's like having another older brother.
- Billionaire Thomas Pritzker, a titan of industry, stepped down as executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels after email surfaced, showing him socializing with Epstein for years after Epstein's initial 2008 conviction in Florida.
The documents prove the relationship didn't end when Epstein was registered as the sex offender. - Brad Carp stepped down as chairman of the highly prestigious white shoe law firm Paul Vice. In a 2015 email found in the database again,
years after Epstein's conviction,
“Carp thanked Epstein for an evening I'll never forget,”
calling him an extraordinary host. - The academic and cultural institutions, which rely heavily on reputation and donor funding, were not immune to the raw data dump either. Richard Axel, a Nobel laureate,
stepped down as co-director of Columbia University's Zuckerman Institute. His name appeared hundreds of times in the unredacted files, linking him to numerous private lunches and dinners at Epstein's townhouse.
- Larry Summers, a former Treasury Secretary and president of Harvard, stepped away from his teaching duties at Harvard University and resigned from the board of directors at Open AI. The files revealed a 2019 exchange
where Summers asked Epstein about a woman to which Epstein replied she was making you pay for past errors. - And then you have the cultural sector. David A. Ross resigned as chair of the MFA Art Practice
Program at New York School of Visual Arts. In the EF2 release, Ross was found enthusiastically replying to a horrifying email from Epstein. - I'm looking at the document here. Epstein wrote to Ross that he wanted to fund
a controversial art exhibition entitled "Statutory." Epstein's concept was to feature Photoshopped mug shots of young girls and boys to see if people could tell their true age. Ross's email reply to Epstein's proposal was,
"You are incredible." - Look at the undeniable pattern
in how these powerful figures respond
when they're caught in the data. Almost every single one of them released a meticulously crafted, legally vetted public statement expressing deep regret.
They universally denied any knowledge of criminal wrongdoing
and they all claim they were manipulated taken in
by Epstein's guys as a brilliant philanthropist and science funder.
“But you have to cross examine those public apologies”
against the documentary evidence. - The sheer volume of emails discussing incredibly dark non philanthropic matters completely shatters the illusion that these were strictly professional relationships.
Take assault on Ahmed Bin Seliam and incredibly influential emeraldy businessman. He was replaced his chair of DP World after the files showed him exchanging emails with Epstein directly referencing porn and escorts.
In one specific email Epstein wrote to the sultan, "I loved the torture video."
“- When a billionaire financier sends you an email”
casually mentioning a torture video and you receive that email and continue the relationship, you can no longer claim you were merely consulting on a state planning or science funding. The documents prove beyond any shadow of a doubt
that the elite network knew exactly who they were dealing with. - We have to bring all of this evidence together to see the full picture. The DOJ Epstein Library mandated by the EF2 legislation
drew 50 million visitors who logged on
and witnessed a fundamentally broken system. They saw a federal database that inexplicably and tragically exposed the identities of innocent victims through careless, easily avoidable reduction errors. Simultaneously, that exact same database successfully
masked the actions of highly powerful political figures by manually extracting 53 sequential pages of FBI 300 to interview forms. - Yet even in its highly compromised incomplete state, the library contained enough raw undeniable data
to trigger international arrest, launched systemic corruption probes, and forced the resignations of global CEOs, high-ranking diplomats and cultural leaders. - You know, you have tracked the bait stamps with us.
You have heard the exact wording of the emails. If the heavily sanitized, manually altered politically filtered version of this database was potent enough to take down European princes and Wall Street billionaires,
what exactly is waiting in the files that justice department chose to hide?
“- Remember, this is an ongoing investigation,”
and everything we cited is sourced at EpsteinFiles.fm. - Next time on the EpsteinFiles, file 110 the construction workers who built Epstein's island temple tried to talk. Nobody listened.
(gentle 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. (gentle music)
