Bulwark Takes - Ro Khanna on Trump’s Endless Epstein Stonewalling

Episode Date: December 21, 2025

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) joins Bill Kristol to discuss the Trump administration’s attempts to slow the release of the Epstein files.

Hey Ontario, come on down to BetMGM Casino and check out our newest exclusive. The Price is Right Fortune Pick. Don't miss out. Play exciting casino games based on the iconic game show. Only at BetMGM. Access to the Price is right fortune pick is only available at BetMGM Casino. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you,

please contact Connix Ontario at 1866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to an operating agreement with Eye Gaming Ontario. Hi, Bill Crystal, editor at large of the bulwark here. Very pleased to be joined today by Congressman Roe Kana, who's had a very busy weekend and is taking another half hour out of it here late in the afternoon Sunday, away from his family on the weekend before Christmas. I feel bad, actually, doing this. I don't feel that bad.

I feel a little bit bad, you know. Always enjoy chatting. It's good to talk to you. Thank you for taking the time because, sorry, I have a cough, because it's so important, and I really appreciate it. 48 hours ago, the Justice Department started to release the documents that it was mandated to do by the legislation that you and Tom Massey spearheaded and the discharge petition and then the legislation.

What have you learned? I mean, both about, I guess, the Epstein case, but also about the Trump administration's attitude towards it. Well, the problem is that we haven't learned enough. I mean, they basically did not provide the documents that are most relevant. that is the 60 count indictment that was drafted and shelved. Epstein was only charged on two counts. There's a draft indictment of 60 counts. They didn't provide that. They didn't provide the prosecution memo. In fact, the law was explicitly drafted saying we want decisions of communication

about whether to charge or not. We want internal communications precisely to cover those documents that they have not provided. They had excessive redactions. They have not provided the FBI files. case, they leaked accidentally the name of a survivor, but did not release the FBI files, which she has been trying to see for years. And so then this morning, Massey and I went on Face the Nation and said, we're going to hold Pam Bondi an inherent contempt, and we've got Republicans ready to do that as well, and find her every day after a 30-day grace period if she doesn't release the documents. And suddenly you started to see, you know, that Justice Department's was scrambling all day. Now they put out the 119-page documents.

without redactions or with minimal redactions. They're saying there are more documents that are coming. So they're obviously scrambling. And the reason they're scrambling is they know that this is not just Rokana or Akeem Jeffries. This is a lot of people in their own base who are calling for Pan Bondi's head politically. And they are scrambling at this point. Well, that's good to hear.

And let's see how much more you guys get. You've been surprised. I mean, I'm a little shocked, I've got to say. It was so explicit that these things you mentioned, and the witness statements, which the witnesses wanted to make public. I mean, we're not talking about violating anyone's privacy. They spoke to the FBI. They know that that's the best account of what they said, right?

They could be redacted in terms of some of the names and details. And then, as you say, the 60 account charging document, which was, just to be clear, it's 2008, I guess, right, or 2007. What Acosta rejected that. They did the two-count plea deal. I mean, how do they think they could get away? Well, let's see if they do it. We don't get away.

but what does it say that they thought they could get away with not releasing those? Why even would they not want to release them honestly? Well, this is where Susie Walsh has said that Pambandhi is with to just politically. I mean, I think the Trump administration is frustrated with what they're doing, and that is that they keep thinking, okay, I'll just do this kind of mythical document dump, and people will move on. And they've tried this a number of times, and it just increases the anger. It just increases the sense that someone is being protected.

Rich and powerful people who are on the Epstein rape island that were not disclosing who they were and that they're not being prosecuted. And they make the matter worse and worse and worse. What's surprising to me is I didn't think they were going to release anything that embarrassed Trump. What's mind-boggling to me is that they're protecting not just Trump. They're protecting more than Trump. They're protecting some group of people, which they don't want out there. And I really don't understand it.

it's politically damaging, and I think they're seeing this. I mean, they're seeing now the backlash. I mean, this is the first time you've got the Trump administration backtracking, right? I mean, usually they just thumb their nose at Congress. They don't care, and they just keep doing what they want to do. Here, they made an effort to comply, a pro forma effort on Friday. They released these documents. I think they were surprised at the anger from their own base, and I don't think they expected Massey and I to say, okay, we're going to hold now Pam Bondi in contempt and we've got Republicans ready to do that. And so all day today, they've been tweeting out, putting out new statements, oh, we're not done the release. We're going to release more. We're going to prosecute people who committed these crimes.

How can you, we believe you that you're going to prosecute these people when you're not even putting out the documents or who's involved? So they are clearly scrambling and they know that the damage they've done to the MAGA base. Yeah, I thought Bondi's things the afternoon, which is, well, If people come forward, we're open to prosecuting, you know, those who exploited them. It's like, they've all come forward. I mean, literally, right? I mean, this is what so, if I were a victim or a victim's family member or friend, I would be so infuriated by that statement, you know?

I mean, they have not, they're not the ones who haven't. Baji's statement makes it sound like, I don't know, these people just don't want to talk to us, I guess, right? I mean, it's really astonishing, I thought, as kind of both a tin ear, but also sort of revealing how they think about it. They think that they're in opposition to the victims, to the survivors, right? I mean, I was very struck by this, and maybe you could explain this. Why didn't they try to work with that? I mean, normally, if you're trying to come to the truth about something, and there are a whole bunch of people who have testified to the truth

and who've testified to the FBI, you want to talk to them, right? You say, well, is there anything you might have gotten wrong? How can we put this out in a way that accommodates your privacy concerns? They seem to have been in almost no contact. Am I right about that with the victims? You're right. Initially, that was the whole scandal that the survivors complained to the FBI, nothing was done. They raised alarms about being raped or abused, and Epstein, because of his contacts, was able to shut down law enforcement.

And then Epstein gets this sweetheart deal because of his connection. So these survivors have felt abandoned for decades. And they felt abandoned because they often come from working class families. They come from often families where they didn't have a file. or they had a split parents, and they were preyed upon, and they lacked the connections to be able to have law enforcement. And that's why there's such anger. But you would think now, the president's campaign says, I'm going to release these files, you would think the first people that Pondi talks to is the survivors. They ignored them. Okay, now you have the Epstein Transparency Act.

Massey and I are asking to meet with the Justice Department. They don't owe us that, but it's usually pretty customary that you meet with the authors of the law to try to find the intent, fine, you don't meet with us. But you're not meeting the survivors, lawyers. In fact, Pam Bondi was supposed to meet with the survivors on the day of the release, and she cancels that because she had some kind of medical appointment. Now, I don't know what the appointment was, but you would think you would just give the courtesy of meeting the survivors before you release any of this. And then she puts out this tweet saying, I want to hear from survivors. Well, we know what the survivors want. They want the FBI files released. They want the witness memorandum

and the draft indictment and the prosecution memo. And they want action taken based on that. I mean, this is not a document case. It's a simple case. So people want to know who were the other rich and powerful men who abused underage girls. They're covered up for it. And so they have totally mishandled this. And they've totally mishandled the politics because every time they think, okay, we're just going to put this behind us and go away, they just make the story bigger. and bigger, and unfortunately, they erode more and more trust in our government. Yeah, it is striking. I mean, I wrote something a few months in July, which some of our readers didn't like so much. I said, you know, they honestly, from a political point of view, once they

had that July 6th statement, we've looked at it all, we find no reason to believe that any further charges are appropriate. They should have, from a political point of view, they should have stuck to it. It's easier to maintain a stone wall than to do one of these rolling cover-ups, because once you start putting out, I mean, I think politically, that's what history suggests. This is a order to get less it and so forth you know once you start putting out some stuff people say like we're just saying here well okay well that's very interesting that you put out some of these photos but we know that you have videotapes we know you have you have as you say the victim statements you have the draft indictment where is that where are those and you get in this it's it's hard to manage

these things not that they may be done as well as luckily as they might have done doing it but i don't know it is right like if you're really going to stick to the point that 119 pages are all redacted, then okay, redact them. But then today they release them after Massey and I go on television threatening that would contempt. So it looks like, obviously, they're responsive to Massey and my contempt and they put out a 19-page document without redactions. And it turns out they didn't need those redactions. And that's the worst of all worlds. It's sort of they look weak. They look duplicitous. They look like they're concealing things. And they look incompetent. And it's horrible for for the administration, which Susie Wilde and others recognize,

I'm just sadden because it's horrible for government. I mean, the biggest issue in this country is a lack of trust in government. People just don't trust us. They don't trust us to do the things we say. They don't trust us to make a difference in their lives. And this is the kind of thing that erodes that trust. And just to be clear, so the 119-page document is what document? So there was this 119-page document for the grand jury in New York of the Epstein case.

federal judge ordered it to be released. So the federal judge said there's nothing really there that's confidential or sensitive. They put out a document. It's one of the first documents the journalist see, and it's literally 190 blank pages. And so then today they say, okay, here's a more minimally redacted version. And it's mostly text. Now, I haven't had a chance to carefully review it. I'm told that there's nothing there actually that's deeply new. And so this is not one of these things, which that document was hidden to protect someone, it just seems such incompetence that they would excessively redact and then not redact, and that the reason they're not redacting now is because they're afraid of Massey and my contempt resolution. And so there are other

documents that are concealment, where we do know that other rich and powerful men are implicated. How do we know that? Because the survivors' lawyers have seen these documents. they are the ones who are saying those are the documents you need to get out. And that's the big concern. And I guess if I met with Pan Bondi, I would ask her two questions. Who are you trying to protect and why? You know, and that's the frustrating part. I don't understand their motive.

I mean, I understand why they'd want to protect Trump, but why are they trying to protect all these other people around them? Well, yeah. So, okay, I just want to be clear that 19-page document. Yeah, I remember it's the one that we saw that was all blacked out. So this is not the victim statements, and it's not the- No. It's not the counts, the 60 counts from 2008.

It's not the obvious ones that you, as you say, almost specified in the legislation or the kinds of things you wanted to be able to see, and that everyone agrees would be the most revealing. I mean, why is she covering it up? I don't know. She's worried that if some of these other people get exposed, they might talk about other people, including Donald Trump, right? Once they're under the guy, I mean, don't you think? I feel like they're not, I mean, they aren't the most brilliant people in the world,

but they're not totally foolish when it comes to their self-interest. And I've got to think they're worried it gets too close to them. I mean, one thing I'm curious about, we were talking about Bondi. People criticize Todd Blanche, I think, correctly for his performance on TV this morning. But, I mean, it ultimately goes to Trump. It's not an administration that respects the distinction between the Justice Department and the White House, as we know. And Bondi said, she discussed this with Trump.

She told Trump what was in the files, right? I mean, there's no big mystery about him. That was a while ago, right? And, I mean, I don't know. Do you have even a sense or who's making these decisions? Is she checking in with Trump before doing these things? In this case, I don't think she is. I mean, I think she was.

I think that Trump probably said, look, you just handle this. And I don't want to hear about this again. I think Trump is genuinely very frustrated because the reality is usually he just lies about something or it says move on and his base moves on. And, you know, he wants to bomb people in the Caribbean. He'll bomb people in the Caribbean. He wants to have ICE agents, rip people away from their families. They have the ICE agents do that.

He wants to threaten universities. He'll threaten universities. He wants to gut. USAID, he'll get USAID. And usually the Congress, the Republicans in Congress, don't say anything. And here's this one issue, which he probably thinks is not with the same stakes as some of the other things he's gotten away with, in his opinion. I mean, I've gotten to know the survivors. So I think what's happened to them is just horrendous. But in his opinion, he just doesn't understand it. Why is it that he's losing his MAGA base over this issue? And so he probably, in my guess, and this is speculation,

Just make it go away. Do whatever you need to do to make it go away. Pam Bondi does this stuff, and it blows up even more. And I'm sure he is livid. I'm sure Susie Wells is livid. That they're bringing more and more life to the story because it shows that Donald Trump has become part of the swamp that he said he would drain. But, I mean, it might also be that Trump does know, of course, what's in there to some things that are in there.

And he's not quite his hand. I mean, he may be hands off in practice, but he also doesn't. want some things to come out. And so he's, but he can be angry at Bondi on the one hand and still not want everything to come out on the other, right? I guess. Yeah, well, I think, you know, he's not a reasonable person. He probably expects her to be able to keep the stuff that keeps him out of trouble confidential and release everything in a way that makes the story go away. And if that was their intent, they did it in one of the most clumsily ham-handed ways. I mean, it's not like this was some elegant attempt to shield Donald Trump and have others exposed. My thought was that

they would give a few names and have that the story be about these, you know, a few other politicians, few other billionaires who were involved. And so it looks like they were being transparent. And I thought they would take steps to keep some of the most potentially incriminating things about Donald Trump or things they got closer to Donald Trump that they would redact that. What I didn't expect is to just think that they could get a. way with doing nothing and that just being a pro forma response that was going to be enough. They made the matter a lot worse. I mean, I have had more people searching about the Epstein transparency eye for my digital team now because of the incompetent release than when we passed

the bill. And so, you know, like you've covered a lot of American politics. The cover up is usually worse than the actual crime. And this is what they're doing. They're just digging themselves in a deeper and deeper hole. Do you think we will see the victim statements? Do you think we'll see the original, the 60-count indictment? We will see it. Now, the question is, are we going to see it in this term, in this presidential term? I do think we will see far more, even in this term, because I, because the response of the MAGA base has been just flabbergasted at Pambandi.

I mean, one MAGA supporter said, I usually don't retweet Indians, but I'm going to make an exception and retweet Kana now. And, you've got to have a sense of humor in this. this business. But I mean, you know, you've got people who would never give me the time a day who are taking my side and Massey's side because they're so flabbergasted at the corruption and they don't understand why these documents are being with health. And so I do think they're going to, they're showing today that they're bending and they're going to release more. But whether it'll be a full transparent release, I don't know. But the metric that Massey and I have

was said is, are they going to expose the other people who are really involved in this? And if they think this is just a much ado about nothing and a hoax, then release the stuff and people can say, okay, there's nothing there to be seen. But if you release the indictment, if you release the prosecution memos, and if you release the witness at memorandum, and there's still not much new evidence, then you would have some like to stand on. But it's not like we're being vague. It's not like we're sending people in a fishing expedition. We're specifying exactly what documents we're asking for them to release. Say a word about the victims of the survivors who you've gotten to know.

I mean, and I'm just, what strikes you about them? I mean, it must be very moving talking to them, I mean. They're really heroes. What struck me about them is how vulnerable they were. None of them came really from rich families. Very few came even from upper middle class families. A lot of them came from working class families. Some of them were daughters of immigrants.

Many of them didn't have a father figure. And the way they were targeted based on class and vulnerability to be exploited. The guilt they still live with, I mean, some of them talk about having to recruit other junior high girls to be raped or abused because they didn't want to face that themselves. and then they're facing the accusation that, oh, they were the ones trafficking these girls when they were just trying to escape that abuse and they're still living with that trauma. I was really moved by Annie Farmer who spoke about her sister in the 1990s bringing up this complaint to the FBI and the FBI didn't believe her and didn't do anything.

You could have had thousands of victims' lives protected if someone had acted on it. And even on the day she was on the steps of the Capitol and he was saying that her sister still was not being believed, still being called a liar. And the one thing that did come out with this release is that her sister was telling the truth. The FBI had a documentation of her complaint and didn't do anything. So it's not just that these women have been abused and abandoned. It's that to this day, they aren't being believed. And this is another slap in their face because there's still people saying, oh, this is this is not, this is just. just about Jeffrey Epstein and Maxwell, there are no other people involved. This is all an exaggeration. And they're saying there are people involved. We know who those people are. And until those files come out, they are not going to feel a sense of fully being seen and heard and respected. You know, I want to get to a couple of other things quickly in the 10 minutes we have left. But there's a justice part of fact that got put out an hour or two ago. And in the one part, they just, it's uninteresting and uncommunicative, I would say.

defending themselves. And at one point, the fact sheet says something like, look, if there were places where we did redact, we thought we had redacted things, maybe we didn't, and we heard from, I think, the alleged victims or their lawyers, and if so, if they're right, we'll, you know, we'll fix it or something like that. The alleged victims, really? I mean, are there people in these photos who aren't victim? I mean, I guess I just struck that that seems to be to say something about their. This isn't a legal document. They don't have to say alleged every time they say the right. No, I mean, these are 1,200 survivors. I've met dozens of them. There's not a single person who I met who I don't believe went through

extraordinary abuse and trauma. No one stands up in front of the capital in front of the country and talks about being raped at the age of 13 or 14 and having to recruit other people to do that for any sense of their own advancement. I mean, they're not making any money of this. They're not getting any benefit of this. They're in tears after they do it. They're reliving their trauma. They're sharing a very deeply traumatizing experience with the country.

Many of them have their own kids. They have family. I mean, it's awful. And they have been not respected, not just by this administration, by our country for over decades. And so their courage is really the story here. And the fact is that they have moved a nation to actually get Donald Trump to try to comply. I mean, at least he's there responding to Congress. For a year, no one could get them to answer Congress.

I mean, sort of like Massey and I have been able to get them to respond to Congress, not because they're afraid of Massey or me, because they understand that these survivors have more credibility than they do. No, that's very well said. Say word about how you and Massey came to do this. I mean, an unlikely combo, as you said, but I don't know, just curious. What's the backstory here? Well, Massey and I have teamed up before on issues of war and peace.

I mean, we've been trying to reassert Congress's role and saying, look, if you want to go bomb Iran, if you want to go bomb other countries, we can debate the merits of it, but at the very least, you've got to come to Congress. That's where the system was designed. And we did that. When Biden was president, we did that when Trump was president. And so we developed a trust and a relationship of respect. And so it was a natural when I introduced this bill to get a release of the Epstein

files. Massey saw that we flipped one Republican, Norman, and he had ingenious idea. He said if you could flip one Republican on the Rules Committee in a committee of about 12, my guess is statistically, he's an MIT guy, will be able to flip enough Republicans. and his thesis turned out to be right. And, you know, for nine years, we've been on the losing side of all these war powers resolutions. It turns out this one succeeded. But, you know, we don't have an ego about it.

And I was happy to let people think it was the Massey bill for the longest time, even though it was my underlying bill, because I wanted it to be seen as a Republican bill. And we showcased Republicans. And Massey is very, very happy to amplify my content. And he doesn't think, oh, there's a progress. Democrat that I'm aligning with. And I think it shows, in my view, I mean, in an age where Donald Trump has made it all about himself, you know, he makes it about himself, even when Rob Reiner dies, he makes it about himself in terms of getting a jet. He makes it about himself

in every single moment. What the American people, I think, respond to with Massey and me is we're actually trying to make it about the survivors, and we're not trying to make it just about ourselves. And maybe in our politics, we need a little bit more humility. Maybe we don't need the charismatic showman. Maybe we need actually people who are going to make the American people at the front and listen and be humble and work in coalitions. And that's what I hope our coalition, our partnership can pave the way forward. Does Massey think he can get other Republicans? Let's assume they don't come forward with these bills in the next two, three weeks you guys reconvene on January 5th or whatever that is. Does Massey think he can get other Republicans

to get serious about holding the administration accountable in various ways? We do. That's why we went with inherent contempt, which is saying we're going to likely give a 30-day grace period to get more documents. And then after that, pay a bond even fine every day. We're working out what that fine would be. And you need the House of Representatives to do that. And the Sergeant of Farms can enforce it. We can talk about the difficulty of the enforcement. But the point is that Massey believes that there are three or four Republicans who are ready to sign on to that. And that would be an enormous signal that it's not. just a Democrat and Massey. The Republicans are upset about it. And when you look at the influencers online, there's very few MAGA influencers who are defending Pam Bondi. In fact, we were joking that he says that the problem, the MAGA folks are upset with what we're doing or upset that we're talking about holding Pam Bondi into, in contempt or impeaching her, and we're not just letting Trump fire her. So even, you know, they're quibling over who should get rid of Pam Bondi, but there's not much organic sympathy for Pam Bondi in the MAGA base.

And say a word about the Epstein class, a phrase that someone used to you, I think, in a conversation that you've used yourself, and I think very interesting one. And it seems to have real resonance. Well, I think it goes to the sense that there are rich and powerful people in this country who play by a different set of rules and have a different set of values than what I grew up with in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. And, you know, you or I, we run a red light or have a speed and you're going to get a ticket and you better pay it.

Or if you don't pay a parking ticket, your car is going to get done. booted. But here are these people where raping folks on an island or watching them be raped, and there were no consequences. And more broadly, it suggests elite impunity, that there are powerful and rich people who don't think that the rules apply to them and that they were not concerned enough about the rest of America, not concerned enough as they outsource jobs, not concerned enough as they saw income and equality rise, not concerned about the fact that 70% of Americans don't believe in the American dream. They're just kind of self-absorbed. And so this to me is what needs to go in American politics. And it needs to be replaced with a politics that actually

has the American people first and foremost. Interesting. And you've got a good response. What do you say? Epstein class? People say, oh, you shouldn't say that. Not even at least a lot of people are perfectly decent billionaires. They're not doing what Epstein did and so forth. I don't know. The billionaires certainly say the latter. I say, look, but I'd say 70-30. I think that some people say, oh, I'm saying everyone's a pedophile.

I'm saying, no, I'm not saying everyone's a pedophile. I'm saying that, you know, one of my favorite novels is Great Gatsby, and there's this line about Tom and Daisy Buchanan, and they accidentally kill someone, and then they don't suffer the consequences. And Fitzgerald says, you know, they retreated into their vast money and indulged in their carelessness. And I think that's really the indictment of the governing elite. When I'm in my provocative feisty moods, I say, look, this is not the greatest generation.

This is a failed generation. This is a generation of governance that really let down the American people. And you want to, I'm not saying they're not decent people. They didn't get fancy educations. But the proof point is we got Donald Trump twice. You can't argue that we've had good governance if this is the outcome. And so we need to acknowledge the anger at the system. to acknowledge that there's a class of folks who really have not paid enough attention to

the abandoned Americans who built this country, who climbed the scale to cliffs in Normandy, who were beaten on Edmund Pettus Bridge, who built the steel, the call. That was the resonance of Donald Trump, that he was saying that there are people who were left out. And we've got to say, look, we're going to hold these folks accountable in a way trumped in, and we're actually going to build something positive, affirmative with people. And we've got to re-earned that trust to be able to do that. Yeah, so interesting. It would be kind of amazing,

but history is full of these kind of ironies and unexpected turns, right? This scandal, which has gone on for so long, I mean, as you say, it's a 30-year cover-up, not just a Trump cover-up, becomes the moment for a real reconsideration of some of the Trump administration, but of many other things as well.

I mean, it wasn't what people, there are many other issues we could have predicted that people would have used as the reason to reconsider things, right? You know, income inequality and immigrant, a million stories. right? But I mean... Really, I would not have guessed it. And, you know, that, and I think that's partly

one makes it have residence, because no one is sitting there thinking, Thomas Massey and Rokana were thinking about how are they going to take down Donald Trump? I mean, in fact, in the beginning we thought maybe Trump would actually support our legislation. We were calling for transparency. It campaigned on it. And it's the fact that we've done this with survivors at the forefront, that we've done it, saying it doesn't matter if they're Democrats implicated, and that we just want to follow release is something about the non-politics of it, I think, is also what has resonated with folks. And, you know, it's just the, there's one thing we agree with in this country, which is, like,

you can't rape or abuse young girls. You can't do that to young American girls. Like, there's something still sacred about that. You know, we've had womanizers as presidents and billionaires. And, you know, the country is very forgiving for a lot of things. But there's a line. line is young girls. You don't do things. And when you have people who are doing that and getting away with it, it just is a symbol for everything wrong, not just of elite impunity, but also the sense of people feeling that we've lost American values. We've lost the sense of people who went to church or synagogue and we're in the community. And yeah, there were people who had affairs, but there was a sense of shame about it and there was a sense of accountability. And now you just have this

globe-trotting elite free from shame, free from the values that they, they, that they, they that people grew up with. And that's why I think this really strikes at the heart of what so many people in the MAGA movement were upset about. Yeah, that's so interesting. Well, I will thank you for taking the time. You can maybe see your family a little bit here at the end of this weekend. And then we'll all be back and will anything happen?

I guess they can put out stuff in the next two weeks while you guys are gone. I mean, but do you think we sort of? I think they're going to continue to put out stuff in night. What I would say to your listeners and viewers is please continue to be active on social media and calling out the inconsistencies. I mean, a lot of people are the ones who've pointed out that they put out a picture and then took it down. They had excessive redactions.

All of that things is making them scramble and respond, and they're obviously scrambling and responding. So Massey and I will continue to lead the charge, but to the extent the American people continue to hold them accountable, there's more chances that we're going to get more information. But, you know, Massey and I are not going to drop this. I mean, this is something we, But it started out as something more intellectual for me, and it became very personal, given the time I've spent with the survivors and given their reaction.

So this is something I'm deeply committed to. No, that's great. I can imagine it has become very personal, as it should be for many and for all of us, really, at some level, right? I mean, as you say, it's an indictment of the country we've all lived in now for quite a long time and government and administrations of both parties. And so maybe really could be a turning point. Well, have a great holiday to the degree you get one if you can avoid. I'm sure you won't be entirely disconnected from work, but have a nice break. And thank you for coming on today.

And thank you for what you've done, honestly. Thank you, Bill. Happy holidays. Happy holidays to you.