Did Epstein Record Powerful People?

We got set up, I think, in less than a day. With very little effort, we could just focus on the supply chain to the product development. Shopify gives us the ability to customize without the complexity. We can change something without introducing fragility or having to pay a developer. We're thirsty total and we leveled up our business with Shopify.

Start your free trial at Shopify.com/ayou.

“The only way that a single person can have 19 terabytes of data is through images and video.”

It's text alone, does not take up that much data. It could be videos of his many friends to compliment them. I had one journalist say might just be pornography that he downloaded from the internet. I've had other people say that it's illegal pornography that he downloaded. Welcome to the Terrapal Mary Show.

That's how many terabytes were seized from Jeffrey Epstein's property. And the records suggest it may be even more. One FBI investigator wrote in an internal email that authorities expected, quote, somewhere around 20 to 40 terabytes of data, noting that the total storage capacity of devices seized from Epstein's homes was 40 to 50 terabytes.

Yet, what the public has mostly received so far in just 300 gigabytes are PDFs. Email change, flight logs, cortex, photos. So where's the rest? Today on the show, I'm joined by Melissa Du and Luke Igle. 220 somethings living in San Francisco who decided they weren't going to wait for the government to

organize the Epstein files. They were going to build their own search engine. I'm talking about J-mail. If you're an Epstein obsessive like me, you're spending a lot of time on that site.

And now host more than three million documents.

It's processed hundreds of gigabytes of DOJ releases. And has been visited by over 150 million users. Sounds like there are a lot of Epstein obsessives out there. But in our conversation, we go beyond the search tool. Why they felt they needed it in the first place?

And what they're doing to keep it running? But the question that really hangs over all of this is how much data are we really looking at when so much of it is redacted. And we know the government may be holding on to terabytes. So what's being well-held and why?

If Epstein had cameras in every room and even little pin cameras in clean xboxes. And so many of the survivors said, "A fault! Like they were being recorded." And again, we've got FBI investigators saying they may have 20 to 40 terabytes. Are we really looking at transparency?

Just to curate its slice a bit. Take a listen here. Lucas Agle and Melissa do welcome to the Terrapal Mary show. Thanks so much for coming on. I guess just what I say, I'm impressed with your work.

I feel like it is now in my favorite or on my browser bar, J-mail. And I'm sure it's in the browser bar of many other people. And you just find yourself searching just random names that come to mind through J-mail to see if they are in the Epstein files. Well, appreciate that a lot.

I have definitely found myself doing that every time someone comes up in the news. Open up J-mail. Look 'em all. Just like someone I know.

“I'm like, wait, could they be in the Epstein files?”

And you know, it's funny, my cousin mentioned to me. She's like, do you know that you're in the Epstein files? And I was like, "I am." And she was like, "Yeah."

And so, of course, the first thing I did was I went to J-mail.

And I put my name in, I was in J-mail, but I was in the Justice Department. They had referenced some of my reporting. Yeah, I think whenever they have reporters and they're especially like saying bad things about Julie Brown and others, but I'm very proud of Julie Brown and the other reporters who, you know, they showed up in those files in the right way, right?

She seems complaining about them. Hey, they're paying attention. So I want to go over your background. You guys are both in your 20s. You're living in San Francisco and this Epstein story explodes over the summer.

I doubt you ever thought that you were going to be needy in this kind of muck.

“How did this turn into building an infrastructure project?”

Well, to introduce myself a little bit, I'm one of the co-creators of J-mail. And I worked a lot alongside Melissa who joined us as we work to expand the project.

I first, you know, became aware of this whole thing in my first summer.

Right after my freshman year over at MIT, it went from weird finance years and prison is put in the jail to tons of professors who I looked up to, turns out we're spending a whole lot of time with them way after 2008 conviction that happened. And I had friends upon coming back in the fall of 2019 to campus being like grab by reporters because they made the mistake of walking outside of the MIT Media Lab, just being like asked

And then over the next five, plus years, I just became more and more engrossed by specifically the MIT side of it and then like everyone else, it expanding beyond that. I made a movie with a friend while I was in college and of course this whole saga was something that we covered extensively. And it wasn't until the Department of Justice or specifically the house

over-site committee put out that first batch of about 20,000 emails back in November that I came

up with the original idea of J. Mel told my girlfriend Riley, he says no, then after 12 hours, he says yes. And we had then each month built it out more and more and more and more and more files to

“move. Now, about three million pages, I think. It's great to hear that you've had a long history”

with the Epstein story. You know, a lot of people have become fascinated with it in recent years, mainly because they see it as a way to take down President Trump and political enemies. But you have obviously been really invested in it because you saw how the Epstein raw infected academia in your world in particular and you stayed on it, which I admire. Well, I appreciate that.

I've also been covering it for a really long time and I always felt like it was like, hey guys,

look, this is a really big deal. And it would get picked up here and there, but for the most part, it was only seen as useful or advantageous when it could take one party down or the other. Yeah, I think, and the useful advantageous thing to do is to take out MIT and Harvard, I would say. And it felt like the conversation back in 2019 was almost too small in scope. It was, look at this really bad guy that these two institutions shouldn't have allowed into the door,

“right? Which I think is true. And I find myself really disappointed by the media”

lab specifically. But it feels like it has taken about five years for the scope of this kind of national conversation to expand to what it should have been the whole time, which is there's this global element to it. There are well over thousands of victims and Korean favor with really important professors and embracing pop science and embracing the TED talk as the form by which elites gather. It's all very embarrassing. It's all very kind of, it's very humiliating to a lot of people who

write a lot of airport books, right? But I appreciate what you're saying, too. It's important the full scope of it I think is what's kind of shocking everyone. Melissa, how did you fall into this? Was it a side hobby at first, a passion project? When did you realize it was something bigger? I mean, I saw Luke and Riley's first drop of Jangle, which was just the email component back in November, and I'm really clicking into it. As you know, they have the contact sidebar.

“And you see names like, show you know, I know I'm Tromsky. And I think I have like a little bit of”

a know I'm Tromsky face and call it Jazz, like most of my tickets to I'm sure. You know, like you read manufacturing manufacturing discontents and the reason of his logistics work. And I'm really like clicking through like know, I'm Tromsky's emails with F.D. and then just like marbling at how deeply kind of F.D. was in the academia circles, he would just like email at Tromsky and Joey about like random questions on consciousness and in science. And the way they interacted

was like very friendly almost. And I think seeing F.D. and Nelson such a familiar interface really brought the element out of like, here was F.D. and just in a native element talking to extremely well connected and and F.D. and people. And I think since that initial kind of introduction, I got like more and more engrossed into his world. And because he was just so widely connected, I think F.D. is network gives you kind of the very lucid representation of how a lot of

the world behind the world's work. Like all of the most powerful people, they are just like deeply

connected and these very in these are very interconnected circles. And that kind of shows a lot of how power is transferred and how they can kind of orchestrate different things in the world. Like he did orchestrates and Harvard through Larry Summers, he had deep connections with MIT Media Lab and was doing funding there. And I was really fascinated by that. I started the story. So when the second round of the files dropped in December, I kind of asked them how they were

planning to handle the court documents. And Luke mentioned that he was creating J drives, value of expanding into J photos, and then a bunch of other people joined on and did J flights, and Jemos on and other kind of additions to the streets. So that's kind of how I got involved.

How do you even manage something like that?

“Well, I think it's a story of Melissa taking it on, I would say. So there are a few things.”

Only because of technology that's been around for a year or two is why we've been able to build all of this software so quickly. And for 10 people with completely different ideas to build

into one code base and have a product that can sustain what is now 150 million visitors.

Specifically, the document processing was the hardest part of this most recent drop. Conversatively, very tiny drop of just a couple gigabytes of documents on the deadline of December 19th happened for the Epstein files transparency act. We hear whispers that million more are going to come out in January. I kind of believed it. And then of course, completely interrupting everyone's Friday. We all gather at my house once again over 10 people again. And that's where we started

dealing with the hundreds of gigabytes that got released. And that's where all the craziness began. We were relying on so many different journalists to get all the zip files, because downloading from the government website just kept on canceling and sailing over and over again.

We worked with our partners over at Reductor, our very good friends who run a document processing

startup that uses AI to perform basic classical optical character recognition on those millions of pages. And then figure out the really cool part, which is this portion of the dock is definitely the subject. This is definitely the body. This is the sender. And you can do that for anything

“so that's what we use to do flights. This is the destination airport. This is the origin airport.”

And of course, all the data cleaning that we have had to go through and all the identification of mistakes. Identifying which emails are between FBI agents, which ones are from clay Maxwell, and not actually part of Epstein's inbox. So much of this was a story of being very close to this very new technology that has allowed us to deal with all this new data. And because of all the previous

those two previous build out some Gmail, we had our partners over at Dropsite. We had the many journalists

that they know constantly just giving us down the links. But that was a really tough effort. Was January 30th. Roll shooting a documentary with a good filmmaker friend about Gmail. So the whole crew had to already gather at my house. Now we're also gathered to do this build out is crazy. Yeah, you know, I was thinking about it the other day. And this couldn't have happened that a better time as much as there's been so much frustration around the files and not having

access to them. I do think that if they had come earlier before AI had been at the place to be able to handle it. And before we really had a full army of independent journalists out there, I don't know that we would have been ready for this for the number of documents that we have

“right now and for the launch and been able to really organize it. And I think in a lot of ways,”

the justice department would have gotten away with it away with, you know, perhaps more reductions that they should remember actions or more oversight of the true scandals in the story. It was just been such an overwhelming diluge, but with AI and with all these independent journalists and with the great work that you're doing, we see a real narrative and the micro stories when they're in this because there are so many stories within these files.

Full agree. You know, there are a lot of, I would say AI skeptical journalists who I've looked up to for a long time now in New York, kind of in the eat more in the East Coast, who have been sub-tweeting and just talking about J-mail in a positive way, which has met a lot to me, where all of this technology that has been coming out the past few years, it's particularly good at processing large amounts of text. And the, I think a lot of this was demonstrating,

instead of us spending 1,000 hours to pick out every single flight from this massive document dump, here is 10,000 flights we were able to extract in 10 hours, right? You know, I think Nobjowski himself wrote in manufacturing consent about how modern governments really like to give too much information and too much content to their own citizens, in order to, I would say, do what past governments may have had to do through direct censorship, right?

I think this is a great bulwark against that. That's like what the Russians do. They just overwhelm with content, right? Oh, overwhelm with information, make the people feel power less through the disjointed information, some disinformation, some truth, and just an inability to really be able to process it and digest it. Yeah, I think there is a really interesting guy who used to work under Putin who would do exactly that. He would fund left-wing youth groups and Nazi youth groups

all at the same time. He spent a lot of the 2000s and the 2010s during exactly that. I think the

website. You've raised about 32,000 dollars. I mean, is that covering this? It must cost a lot in surface. I mean, how many users have you? Do you have a J-mail at this point? I have to check on the exact number. Yeah. I think we're cousins. It's more like 150. We have not done a good job making sure that that counter is correct. And how many users do you have on J-mail? We have 150

million visitors. And we zoomed in. That was about 50 million people who have very

substantively used us for more than just a few minutes. And we have served billions of requests and about half a billion pages have been viewed. Wow. The most number of users using us all at the same time was in the tens of thousands. So that means at any given time tens of thousands of people are there, which then translates to about over a million people. At the peak, we had five to 10 million

“people in one day visiting this. So that's how it's been spread out. Do you have enough money for the”

servers and the power and the energy that you need for something like those? Well, you know, it's the, there are a lot of tech communities that have been very closely watching the J-mail story on like the tech side of things. We, this is completely my bad. I set us up on the most expensive way to serve this very static, normal, simple website. And as a result, it was me, personally, who then had to make sure that we could cover the initial fees of hosting this. Our first bill

was about $50,000. The person who, the CEO of the company, we chose to host at the very beginning, offered to personally cover that bill. And we have now discovered a much more sustainable way where it's not going to be in the hundreds of dollars. It's not going to be per month. It's not going to be, let's say $50,000 per month every single month going forward. Unbelievable number of people have reached out to actually help us with optimizing this, making sure that it's good. There was a

huge fixed initial cost processing those documents. Another fee that is well over six figures

of just processing three million PDFs running at large language models over each PDF to make

sure that every single detail is captured. It has been unbelievable working with reducto specifically, the best PDF AI company out there to cover that fee. And so there are all these different pieces of software that from hosting to PDF extraction to translating into other languages that by living in San Francisco, we have gotten to know the people who can help us there. Another company that I want to shout out is called general translation. They have translated

some of our UI to like 10 different languages. And now we're going to start working with them on translating tons of those documents to Japanese Spanish Portuguese whatever. Now the whole world

“can now has a site of a crash? Oh yeah. I think Melissa and I were in the trenches making sure”

that the database didn't get overloaded and you know Melissa did a lot of that heroic work on spreading out the work to what was it like 10 different replicas, five different databases, and then one giant node that has all this load bearing infrastructure with that everyone is relying upon lots of crashes. If you look us up on Reddit, you'll see as J-mail down, J-mails down, so a lot of lessons. When you have two different cloud services that are trying to cache things,

there are all sorts of ways that it can crash, but we're pretty stable. Wow, how much energy there are server power, this is concerned. Do you have a good sense of that Melissa? Yeah, so I mean our main database right now is using like 50 plus CPUs at a time, right? And that's kind of running all the time. We have like 50 times like root side replicas that are also running with like like tens of CPUs each. I don't know exactly kind of had to give a number

“for amount of energy for server power there, but I think like you can use like the bills like kind of”

a proxy of like we were standing tens of thousands initially on the on the platform that we're using. We've got that down to hundreds of dollars, but I think that's kind of the upper limit. So the electricity bill equivalent of hundreds of dollars per month is what we're

stabilizing it. Oh, that's amazing. Okay, here I was thinking would be insane.

So you've said before that the DOJ has been messy and sloppy with these drops. What specifically are you talking about when you say that? I think there's a few things here. That's to say in the initial and some of the later drops that we were saying, so kind of volumes like nine through 12. We had the strength of promoting as name is Diego and he went through the effort of kind of essentially building out, get for the DOJ website. What that means is he was tracking the

hashes of every single file on the DOJ and when they changed over time. So obviously the DOJ

gigabyte file drop over the next like two or so weeks. And DOJ was tracking a lot of these changes. So the hashes and files were changing. You can see that there were changing in her actions of each of these files. And they made it extremely difficult as you all know to even access the initial drop. Like it was very difficult for any single public entity to download the files at once. And we realized that part of that was likely just because they hadn't really

finished their work. They had stuff online that wasn't properly redacted. Or that maybe had like certain pages that they needed to remove and add. And so do you go surface to all the credentials of like you could just pull the files from like one day and then compare to the next day and see that many more names in the file were redacted. And so we've done a lot of the work to ensure that all of our actions are fully update with what the DOJ has redacted.

“And we have also been trying to be adding more redactions. Are you taking away redactions?”

Yeah, we want to be really, really careful about this one. Um, yeah. You know, Thomas Massey screamed at Palm Bandie or Pam Baudie the other week about how they were acted a bunch of male perpetrators names and they specifically had an email called list of victims. Yeah, I thought that. So that's an example of what we have the responsibility to redact, which is names of victims. Um, when it comes to achieving parity with those redactions,

unlike the DOJ, we can very clearly in our website be like, by the way, you hover over a black bar, you hover over and you can trust the adj mail. This is the name of the victim. Please trust us in our choice to redact this. Uh, and like Melissa said, I think the sloppiest part of this was just the total failure to redact the people, you know, the one group of people that the bill says you are allowed to redact. I have a call to you and been like, hey, this is me, please redact. Have

you ever wondered if the person that was called truly a victim or not? There's some really amazing

lawyer groups that have done a very good job saying here is every single, I file that has it.

“It's our responsibility to double check. There was at least one case. I think Melissa, you”

understand the case by the way, where it kind of seemed like they wanted us to redact the name of a man of a male finance, your guy, but it also kind of seemed like they wanted to redact the name of a victim who appeared in that same email. So we left the, we left the finance, your guy's name completely open. We redacted the name of who's clearly a young woman. Uh, there are a few kind of tricky, I would say sneaky attempts that I think I saw from them that we've been, you know,

I'd like to think that we've, I think we've done a pretty good job being not letting any of those tricks happen. There is just so many emails, particularly from Galane Maxwell, that the new email drop says was sent in like the year 4500, and then another person replies in the year 1900, where the software they use is just so back, where they take a scan of a email, and then someone at the FBI or DOJ clearly took a scan of that scan, possibly with like a physical printer, and then that's

“what we receive, and that's what appears in J-mail. Uh, in comparison, when Riley and I made that first”

tiny version of J-mail back in November, very small number of emails, just 20,000 threads, it was so beautifully scanned. It was presented very carefully by the House of Representatives.

It's like that it's a pristine archive compared to the three million sloppy

on ethical borderline on ethical at times pages that were released by the DOJ. Are you still going back and can sure that whatever was maybe redacted and maybe is no longer redacted because the DOJ is realizing they're not in compliance with the law. Are you going back and making sure that if they make any adjustments that it's matching your records? There are a few things. Uh, one is relying upon lawyers who tell us things. We quadruple check

whether they're lying or not. Almost all the time, they are telling the truth. These are real names of young women that must not be in here. Then there's the secondary task of keeping track of the kind of, uh, you know, insanity that the DOJ is doing, where they're constantly updating files.

We have an amazing member of our team, like Melissa said named Diego, built that system that

constantly crawls with the DOJ is doing. And we have not yet published like a death viewer, a difference viewer, where you can scroll through the difference between the DOJ and us. However, we would love to make that available as soon as possible. And that's where you do the other version of this, which is there are lawyers that clearly reach up the DOJ and not us. We need to mirror the good redactions that the DOJ is doing. Those are the two different ones.

It's our, we've, you know, we took on the responsibility of making this website. This is kind of like another, this is a burden we have to take on. Yeah. And I want to shout out Clay Higgins. You know, I think he's a senator now. Yeah. He's the, uh, the Republican senator with a very funny, uh, kind of, uh, very, I've seen some people do some very, very funny impressions of him. He voted no

but he did say something kind of funny because it turned out to be true, which is I don't think the government's going to protect going to do a good job, or adapting these victims names. And, uh, he was right. But I'm still glad that the files are, were released and given the broader story here. Yeah. Is anyone offered you guys money and exchange for a moving or adapting a name? I don't think any of us have gotten emails like that. We've received tons of

invitations to make a crypto coin. You're going to make millions of dollars if you just give us your wallet, Luke, you know, that kind of stuff. But, uh, it holds a crypto scammers, but that's it.

“Has anyone from the DOJ or anyone else asked you to take the site down?”

No, no, not that I've seen. And Google has just been so kind in that. There, there were some litigious check companies that don't like parodies and, um, don't have a sense of humor. And we've heard nothing from Google. I don't know if anyone important tech Google knows about us.

We'd like to keep it that way. If the answer is no, I would like to keep it that way. But

I do appreciate that they respect that we're doing. We're engaging in fair use, right now. So I do appreciate that. Have you ever asked Congress to unredact certain documents? We're pretty excited about that. We're allowing people to vote in J-mail, uh, for the things that they really think ought to be unredacted. And we're using, we're taking advantage of these relationships. We now have with staffers, sometimes in Congress people, to do that. Uh, we've already seen

a lot of people supporting it for them. I mean, that's the thing. These members don't really know the case that well. They're not deep in their meeting through emails all day long. It's obvious you can tell that even when they're giving their presentations, that you're the one who's really, you're, you're supplying the information from them. Yeah, and you don't even need, we don't need to have a direct link with any Congress person.

Anyone can go on J-mail and look at the top most redacted, the top requests to redact. So if you're a Congress person, then watching us right now, just go to J-mail right now, click on like most, you know, emails voted just, uh, most to be unredacted and you'll see for yourself.

“Okay, so what email do people want to be unredacted the most?”

It's a contents of it, or what's the nature of it. Yeah, what do you think, Melissa? Yeah, the top email is this email with the subject line asked dot dads from 2019, uh, June 1st. And it's essentially an email between, uh, F-steen and someone who's unnamed, so the one who's are acted, um, discussing Trump coming to London.

Um, and there's a mention of meeting with a girl, um, or there's a few mentions of the, of different girls in there, but a mention of Trump meeting with the girl, um, and descriptions of the girl. So, well, uh, what did I do? month before they, the arrest of F-steen.

But the second one, this one looks like a chain between F-steen and read, um, often, read,

Wayne Durnton, not the Hoffman name, uh, um, Wanger and yes, um, and it's just F-steen talking of a media book, and so talking about what, without I'm sorry, Melissa. Meeting up with Dan and, um, meeting up with Dan and okay.

“So I think there are some that are better leads and some that are worse leads, um,”

but kind of we've found some nuggets of the reductions that have an interesting, um, a lot of them are kind of, it'll be obscene, discussing, like, uh, victims are discussing, bringing girls to, uh, has been happening to state, um, and there'll be, like, weird parts of the email that are directed, like, maybe like the fourth message subject or the fourth message content that we're directed, um, so those, those are interesting cases of looking,

what can do? What's your gut feeling? How much do you think a DOJ is actually holding back? I think for me personally, and this is like largely also through talking to some journalists through, I think, the case. It feels like there are a lot of holes to kind of the contents that we have. So, uh, one example here is, um, we were talking to somebody who was looking into the contents of our own Epstein's death, and obviously we have the recording around his death,

and there's, you know, the suspicious footage that's missing, but there are also some details, like, um, one of the chief medical officers who was investigating Epstein's autopsy, um, she is known to have had kind of a trial, um, but the transcript of a trial is not, um, any of the draws. Um, and so that's the case where, uh, seems like we, we see kind of transcripts of them discussing with other people that investigated his death and, like, kind of the,

the New York Police Department who investigated his death, uh, but not of this particular medical examiner. Um, another example, I think that's interesting by me, even more speculative is,

uh, we found Epstein's 2017 tax returns, um, and he's finally, like, I think, on the order of

tens of thousands of dollars, in a case that he's maybe in the upper six digits, or, like, lower millions, uh, in account, at least for South of Ported. Um, but we don't see any of his tax returns

actually took, took down all his documents, we would, we would maybe expect to see a more financial documents. Um, we also see a lot of discussion, uh, between Epstein, um, and his client. So, largely, this is Leon Black, um, in Los, Los Le Luxener, um, but he also did a lot of financial engagements, uh, with China, their David Stern, and so on. Um, and we don't see very, very many,

“kind of financial transaction documents in the drops either. Um, I think the,”

largest son that's reported is a transaction between Leon Black and Epstein, of, like,

$185 million. Um, and so there's a question of, like, how much of his financial history

are he still missing, uh, from these drops? Um, and I'm sure, like, he has a journal, as I'm sure you have other examples in mind of just strange missing parts of the story, um, that we still have questions around. I'm more questions than answers oftentimes. It's interesting that you mentioned Leon Black, because the head of the S. D. N. Y, the lead prosecutor over there, I'm, I'm, I don't know why I'm blanking on his name. It's J, I don't know if it's Carney.

Oh, Jay Clay, and excuse me. Yeah. Yeah, he was chosen by Leon Black to replace him. That's kind of interesting. And he's the one who's in charge of the transparency vials, essentially, and complying. And so, and so we don't know. We don't know about the transactions with Leon Black. Interesting. I did not know about that connection. I think the one that's spooky is to me, uh, kind of double on Tondra is that, uh, the CIA didn't really, there's, if the CIA

ever responded to Jeffrey Opsie's FOIA request, we have not been able to see what the answer is.

Oh, Jeffrey Opsie, where they're asking if there's an affiliation with the NSA or the CIA. Yeah, I think, Rokana said, how about we turn upon it? They said, we can neither confirm nor deny, because it would compromise sources. That's the gloom our response. Right, exactly. Which I think is a good way to say no to a lot of requests for transparency that happened here. I think Rokana said that Congress doesn't actually have the power to open up those portions

of the Epstein files, which is what the many, many intelligence agencies and members of the intelligence community have written about him that is currently classified. Obviously, I think it's like the most important thing is what the CIA actually thinks about him and what internal records they have of him. We do have great records now of what a lot of FBI agents were saying about Jeffrey Opsie. And through this release, I am much more interested in what CIA agents were saying about this guy

“on the other side. Yeah, I mean, that's what I was wondering. Do you feel like a lot of the”

documents that are being with held aren't for national security purposes were intelligence ties,

but it's 2.5 million documents seems like a lot. I would say so.

There's also a huge missing portion of just Epstein's personal files. It was very well reported that about 19 terabytes of data was seized from Epstein's property. If we could assume that 10 maybe 100 gigabytes of that is text, which is an unimaginable amount of text, I think we all know that the remaining 98% of that data is video. Like the only video can allow any single person to accumulate 19 terabytes of data like that, unless it's like video game data.

I'm sure a lot of people's imaginations have run wild. Melissa and I reached out to some journalist to talk about it. They say it might just be that he had downloaded an incredible amount of pornography. And that's all it is. He had cameras all over his house. They had a room. Exactly. All of cameras. The only way that a single person can have 19 terabytes of data is through images and video. It's text alone does not take up that much data. It appears that if we've received a

couple hundred gigabytes so far from the Epstein estate and from the DOJ, that leaves about 98% of the known data from Epstein's estate just not being in our hands. There might be a very good reason for that because it might be illegal video of, and I will let everyone put together the dots perhaps through his own kind of network that some people assume he has. But the DOJ hasn't really said what that video is. And I'll had some journalists tell me that it might just be legal and illegal

“pornography that he had nothing to do with. That's what I think it is. Or it could be videos of his”

many friends to compromise them to have them videos of them in compromising situations. I mean, you know that according to his pilot, Larry Vasoski, they were putting pin-size cameras in clean-up boxes. The place was entirely wired for video and you saw they had video rooms for security and you looked inside of the house. There were cameras in every corner. I don't know. Seems to me like the video footage would tell a pretty interesting story, but it could obviously

reveal victims. I would agree. And I think we ran to do a similar ethical country, which is like

was black it out, but then write a great description of what it is. It's all all that we ended up getting

from like the Yahoo emails that we were able to exclusively publish. It was these headshots that Epstein's executive assistant would send over in this very gross way and he would sometimes reply. And instead of just blocking it out in a very non-transparent way, we just have text descriptions.

“Like this is a headshot of a young woman, right? That's what Leslie sent to Jeffrey on steam.”

And I think that builds up trust. And at the same time, it allows you to protect the victims. And I think the DOJ really wants to kind of play this hyper-redaction game that they're playing right now at the very least describe what it is that you're redacted. And I think a lot of trust from the public way. Be recovered slightly. And it's interesting because like Antoine Vergloss, he's this photographer that was taking photographs for Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction in 2008. And he sent him a

file files that said white and black news. But I would like, and then I asked Antoine about them and said who are these news? Because they were also apparently doing a new tune. He claims it wasn't even though in the emails that said won't need styling because it's nude. He said, oh, they're famous news. Like the ones you would find in my studio. If their famous news wouldn't they just be, couldn't we just see them? Why they blocked out? Unless the DOJ is just being slow. Like,

just like, oh, it's a girl, black, black, black, black, black, black, you know, woman woman just blocking out. But it's like a nude model. That is a famous nude model. Why would if we blocked out, right? It's to just as I was just saying kind of things about Clay Higgins for correctly identifying that the DOJ would do at bad job. I do think that after one portion of the story that we didn't get to talk about as much. After we were given access to Jeffrey Epstein's Yahoo account with the DOJ

and the House of Representatives did not put out. This was through drop site news, who reached out to us and gave us this very, like, carefully stewarded data set. We ran into like this oddly similar situation that I think the DOJ ran into, which is how do you find out if a woman who is mentioned in an email is a victim, an accomplice, or just a random person, right? Right. And it was tricky.

“And the only way we were able to do it, we did it on a scale, one 1000th, but the size of the DOJ”

has had to do with an entire, we volunteer team of people who's reconnected in single group chats with journalists. We just built a tool in J-mail and the other end that allowed journalists to find that out from themselves. Once they press the button, once we have a team of people who say that this is a safe group of people, then they said, I don't envy anyone who has to go through that reduction process, but I think we all know this has been economically bad. I've come the exact

thing that I would say, the people who are critical of the White House thought and claimed what

happened, does it does seem to have happened? Yeah. You know, I've thought about that, the fact that she doesn't really email before he gets out of prison in 2008, right? Are there any emails from Jeffrey Episim before that? Yeah. There are tons, especially in his Yahoo, the early he found was 2000 or 2002, where he's sending a draft to himself about how he's going to yell at Vicki Ward to kill a story and then he's saying, your boss, great in Carter, would never let this happen.

“This is bad journalism. I think Galey Maxwell was an early adopter of technology, her sister,”

and I think multiple siblings achieved a great exit for a startup that they built in the Bay Area in the 1990s. There are emails from Galey Maxwell before the year 2000. There are probably also emails from Jeffrey Episim before the year 2000. These are very tech-forward people. They were constantly sending emails. There is significantly more that. Do you think they're on their own private servers? Yeah. I mean Yahoo and Gmail are hosted services. I thought they had their own

cool, expensive cutting-edge email servers back then. We'll never have access to those.

I don't expect the DOJ to come out with it, but I'm not sure. I don't have any insider information there. You haven't gone any tips about that. The best tips I got is the fact that there are around 18 to a half plus more cherry by sub-data that exists for a state, and I have also seen just like everyone else's seen comments from Rokata, really. The congressman who's done a great job with all of this claim that there are many classified documents that he, as a congressman,

does not have the authority to release. Tips about other emails, a bit less frequent. I do know that amongst the Yahoo data set, that only Gmail has been publicizing. There aren't a ton.

it does seem like Jeffrey Epstein or someone else deleted a lot of things, but still left a lot of

“incredible things. And to shut out a right-and-groom of DrapSight originally reached out to Riley.”

It was through this very interesting set of emails that he allowed us to add to J-mail that the authoritative link between Jeffrey Epstein and Iran contract was revealed. And it was also through those emails that we received that we saw this very gambling email from Leswester on his Yahoo that he managed to not delete or Leswester says, "I warned you,

there you go. You broke your number one rule, which is always be careful." This is something that

Leswester emails. That was Jamil. No one knew about that. Jamil is the one who

“publicized that email. And I think a big, what felt like a big moment for us is the other week”

where they finally deposed Leswester, a congresswoman, I wasn't able to tell who asked him live on camera about this email. And he's just squirming in his chair trying to figure out how to answer this. The curious explanation he came up with is he said, "Oh, I said be careful about your finances." Congresswoman says, "Well, it seems like you were referring to being careful about getting caught for soliciting a monitor for prostitution, right?" And he has an okay answer

after them. The Centaur saga specifically of this very very small data set, which is the Yahoo stuff that Jamil hosts is what gave me a lot of perspective on how bad of a job at the OJ did on their own data set. And also it's what allowed it to feel like we are doing some original work here and that we're helping contribute to this whole corpus. Well, thank you for your work. We appreciate it. About you. I would be spending a lot more time doing reporting and I really appreciate

“it. It really do. And I believe that everything in life is supposed to line up exactly when it's”

supposed to. And we couldn't have done it without you, without the AI structures, and without the legions of independent journalists and online sleuths. So I want to thank all of you to sometimes justice has to wait. Unfortunately, this has been a long-sad story, but I am glad

that we finally have the structures to be able to pour through all of this. Thank you so much, Luke,

and Melissa, for your time. That was another episode of the Tarra Palmeri Show. Thank you so much for tuning in. If you like my reporting, just hit that subscribe button or follow, like, share, tell your friends about it. Leave me a comment. I love hearing from you. I want to thank my producer, Dan Chifmacher. I want to thank Abby Baker, doing my social media booking research. She's a all star. I want to thank Adam Stewart on the graphics and Dan Rosen, my manager. See you again soon.

But what I wanted to do today is not to give you a lot of studies. The Master by Tag Lab Torpücher Soft Behind the Internet. And so, Master, it's really great to say that you can do it. Yeah, you have a story behind it, right? But you don't believe it. Egal, Zauberwood, Verlustvortrag, make the whole thing like this. And when you then go,

"Haises, catchings." - That's right. - Save. Like this.