Law&Crime Sidebar - Epstein Files: 9 Questions the DOJ Won't Answer

Episode Date: February 13, 2026

Congressional chaos erupts as AG Pam Bondi testifies on Capitol Hill about the newly released, and heavily redacted, Jeffrey Epstein files. With names being unredacted by lawmakers, and internal DOJ memos suggesting a lack of evidence for a sex-trafficking network, the question remains: Is the Department of Justice hiding something in the Epstein investigation? Law&Crime's Jesse Weber breaks down the explosive testimony.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Check out CyberGhost VPN at https://cyberghostvpn.com/Sidebar   and you will get 84% off CyberGhost VPN. That's $2.03/month and 4 months free! It's risk-free with their 45-day money-back guarantee.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

How many have you indicted? Excuse me, I'm going to answer the question. I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. You're the a theatrics are ridiculous. Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people. Congressional chaos with Attorney General Pam Bondi testifying on Capitol Hill about the Jeffrey Epstein saga and with the redactions and the unredactions from these past few days. We got to ask, is the DOJ, the Department of Justice, hiding something regarding Epstein?

discuss. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Is the DOJ hiding something about Jeffrey Epstein? It's a fair question. It's a fair question I can ask. I can't tell you definitively, but it's a fair question to ask because why did we see the past few days? What was on display the past few days, particularly yesterday? Optics-wise, it doesn't look right. See, here's the thing. And I did a whole sidebar on this. According to the newly released Epstein files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act, where the DOJ had to release all of the Epstein files in their possession. There are internal memos and case summaries with the feds where they suggest there is an evidence that Epstein ran a sex trafficking network of girls to high

profile powerful men. I'll give you an example. There was an email to then deputy director of the FBI, Dan Bongino, March 20th, 2025, the case agents and AUSAs, you know, assistant United States attorneys, These are the prosecutors, ensure that all videos and images from the case file and from Epstein's residences and devices were reviewed for evidence of a crime. Those reviews revealed no evidence from any of the searches we conducted or any of the files we reviewed that any videos or other images exist of any victims in this case being sexually abused. Nor did those reviews reveal any evidence that anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell participated

in the sexual abuse of victims in this case. This is referring to Galane Maxwell, who was convicted of her own. sex trafficking charges and sentenced to 20 years in prison. We are aware of the theory circulated in the media and online that Epstein video recorded the abuse of his victims, including by other men, but we have found no evidence to support that theory. Indeed, had we found such videos, we certainly would have used them as evidence in the criminal cases we investigated and prosecuted and would have pursued any leads they generated.

We did not, however, locate any such videos. And then you have this other message that says the FBI's violent crime section, So the Crimes Against Children and Human Trafficking Unit, the C-A-C-H-T-U, spoke to the case agent and confirmed no client list existed, meaning that Jeffrey Epstein had this list of all the people that he trafficked these girls to, right? This incriminating maybe blackmail list of celebrities and politicians and high-profile people. Now, why am I saying that? It may be hard for people to believe this. Totally fair that Epstein didn't traffic girls to other people. I mean, it just came out that Epstein ordered one of his aides to get secret cameras.

at his Palm Beach, Florida home in a 2014 email writing, let's get three motion detected hidden cameras that record. So people might not accept this. Totally fair. But just putting that to the side, maybe this is the case. Maybe there isn't a client list. Maybe there isn't definitive proof of other men abusing girls. Look, I'm an attorney.

I get that one statement, one narrative is not enough. Suggestion is not enough. You need more evidence to make a criminal case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime. Maybe a mere association with Epstein, maybe just weird emails or communications. Maybe it's not enough to prosecute. Okay, I get it. And I can understand that. The problem is, to me, there is an argument that what the Department of Justice has been doing and how they have been redacting, unredacting materials, is just adding fuel to the fire that there

is a cover-up. And yes, I'm going to get into what Pam Bondi testified to yesterday in what was just an absolute throwdown on Capitol Hill. But first, as I mentioned, law-making, are now able to review unredacted Epstein files at the DOJ during the week, Monday through Friday. And what is Representative Roe Kna do? He goes to the House floor the other day and reveals the names of six men that had been blacked out. In fact, there were six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ hid for no apparent reason. When Congressman Massey and I pointed this out to the Department of Justice, they had, acknowledged their mistake, and now they have revealed the identity of these six powerful men. These men are Salvatore Navora, Zorab Mikhailads, Leipig Leonor, Nicola Kaputa, Sultan

Ahamed bin Suleam, CEO of Dubai Port's World, and billionaire businessman Leslie Wexner, who was labeled as a co-conspirator by the FBI. Now, my question is, why did it take Thomas Massey and me going to the Justice Department to get these six men's identities to become public? Why were they redacted? I don't know. It's unclear, especially since Les Wexner, the guy behind Victoria's Secret, was already a known Epstein associate.

Epstein had allegedly been, you know, managing his finances. And even though he has denied allegations of wrongdoing, why was his name redacted with these other people? All right, before we go any further, I got to give a shout out to our partner, CyberGhost VPN. Look, have you ever kind of hesitated to connect to public Wi-Fi like in a restaurant, airport, school because you're afraid someone might be stealing your information? Totally valid. The truth is, eyes are watching you every time you go online. The good news is there's a solution. CyberGhost VPN. You select one of their hundreds of locations before you browse and they'll

encrypt everything through their secure servers. So this way, no one can track your online activity. It works on up to seven devices at once so you can share with family and friends. And with just a couple clicks, CyberGhost unlocks exclusive geo-restricted. content from over 40 major streamers like Netflix and Prime. And with over 38 million users worldwide and a nearly perfect rating on Trust Pilot, CyberGhost is one of the most recommended VPNs out there. And look, if you're still not sure, there's a 45-day money-back guarantee, 84% discount plus four months free with the link in my description. So that's just $2.3 a month to protect your privacy and enjoy unlimited content. Don't wait. Click the link in the description. Start browsing

safely with CyberGhost VPN. Stay private. Stay secure. block global content, get CyberGhost VPN now with 84% off plus four months free, risk free with a 45-day money-back guarantee. Just click the link in the description and start protecting your digital life today. Here's the thing. The DOJ was only supposed to redact and withhold information on a very limited basis under the Epstein Files Transparency Act law. It says the attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that contain personally identifiable information of victims, depict or contain child sexual abuse materials would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary

to depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person, or contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an executive order to be kept in secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. Mere embarrassment of somebody, it's not enough. That's not enough to redact somebody's name. So why were certain individual name's names redacted? Why was certain information withheld like these men's names? How thorough was the DOJ, the FBI, in preparing this material before it was released? Right? These are fair questions. Optically, there's a separate question between, hey, look, we went through everything. There was no one else to look at. There was no one else to prosecute. Okay. Why does it look like a

cover up? When, as I said, maybe that's not even the case. And there are legitimate reasons to redact information or not charge someone. Okay, here's the problem. Attorney General Pam Bondi testified yesterday in front of the House Judiciary Committee. And by the way, this has been an overall bipartisan effort. You got both sides here who want to get more information on the Epstein saga and understand why no one else was prosecuted. So here's a good example, okay, because I'm going to play you clips of this. In the spirit of what I just said, listen to Republican Thomas Massey call out Pam Bondi over the redactions. The title of this one is child sex trafficking, co-conspirators, fully redacted.

And by the way, I'm going to unredact them here. Les Wexner is in this. Now, your assistant, your deputy attorney general said, oh, well, he appears hundreds of times in the files, but he doesn't appear in this file until I forced you to release it, where he's listed as a co-conspirator not to tax. evasion, but to child sex trafficking, not to prostitution, not to money laundering, child sex trafficking. And then finally, what we have here is the third exhibit that I have is emblematic of the FD302

release. These are the documents that we need that you're holding on to and over-redacting because they have the names of the men who are implicated. How do we know? Because the survivors gave testimony to the FBI. Are you able to track who it was that obscured Les Wexner's name as a co-conspirator in an FBI document? Do you have that kind of accountability? I believe Wexner's name was listed more than 4,000 times.

Yeah, I already told you that. This is where he's listed as a co-conspirator. Answer, come on, let me finish my answer. We corrected that within 40 minutes. Within 40 minutes, you asked me a question. Within 40 minutes, Wexner's name was added back. Within 40 minutes of me catching you red-handed. Red-hand, there was one redaction out of over 4,700.

And we invited you in. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome. I mean, yeah, look, at the very least, the Fed's could have work products showing they were considering charges or that they were investigating someone, chose not to move forward for whatever reason. That's understandable, although it can be debated about why they didn't move forward, but prosecutors always have a number of reasons, for example, to not pursue a case against someone given the weight of the evidence. And yes, it's unusual that we're even seeing these internal memos and case summaries, the internal workings

like this. But come on, this is an unusual case. But to redact it, why was it an initial redacted. To redact all this, does it fit into one of those categories I mentioned before? I don't know. Especially when I get to what they didn't react. That is going to get you angry. That is going to get your blood boiling. I'll get to that in a minute. But Bondi, going up there and making it political and making statements that I will say, I have never heard an attorney general say during a hearing on Capitol Hill before, it makes it look suspicious. The argument is people will look at this and say she's diverting attention, right? She's being defensive.

She's being overly aggressive. Take a look. Reclaiming my time. The time belongs to me. I think it's very interesting. I think it's very interesting that he talks about they indicted. The president said they indicted him to tie. Mr. Chairman, please, we stop the clock and stop the clock and restore his time.

Okay, here we go with these theatrics. The time belongs to the gentleman from New York. We will give you a few more seconds. We will do that. But when you ask a question, the witness gets the answer. You may not like the answer, but she gets to answer. The question was how many of EFSI? They don't like the answer, Chairman, because it's honest.

Reclaiming my time. So he asked a four-minute question. Restore 45 seconds to Mr. Navajo, please, Mr. Chairman. You can let her filibuster all day long, but not on our watch. Not on our time. No way. And I told you about that, Attorney General, before you started. You don't tell me anything.

No, I did tell you because we saw what you did in the sense. And the question is, why is she doing this? I mean, she called Representative Jamie Raskin a washed up lawyer. So why is she doing this? Why not just say, hey, listen, we looked at everything. I understand your concerns. There's nothing else here. She did it a little bit. But by diverting attention, bringing up other subjects, being defensive, this is what's going to just raise people's suspicions. Let me get back to this part, okay? This is Representative Jerry Nadler. He has just one question. So I really have just one question for you. How many of Epstein's co-conspirators have you indicted?

How many perpetrators are you even investigating? First, you showed it. How many have you indicted? Excuse me. I'm going to answer the question. I answer my question. No, I'm going to answer the question the way I want to answer the question. You're going to answer the question the way I asked it. Chairman Jordan, I'm not going to get in the gutter with these people.

You all should be apologizing. You sit here and you attack the president, and I am not going to have a question. I'm not going to put up with it. You know, all they want to do, all the American people need to know this. They are talking about Epstein today. This has been around since the Obama administration. This administration released over 3 million pages of documents, over 3 million, and Donald Trump signed that law to release all of those documents.

He is the most transparent president in the nation. history. And none of them, none of them, ask Merrick Garland over the last four years one word about Jeffrey Epstein. How ironic is that? You know why? Because Donald Trump, the Dow, the Dow right now, is over, the Dow is over $50,000. I don't know why you're laughing. You're a great stock trader, as I hear Raskin. The Dow is over $50,000. right now. The S&P at almost 7,000 and the NASDAQ smashing records. Americans 401Ks and retirement savings are booming. That's what we should be talking about.

We should be talking about making Americans safe. We should be talking about, what does a Dow have to do with anything? That's what they just asked. Are you kidding? Mr. Jordan. Are you? The committee will be in order. Yes, look, all important things.

for the economy. But she's the attorney general. Why is the attorney general talking about that during the Epstein conversation, right? And arguably not directly answering the question. What about this? Okay? You had Representative Ted Lou on Prince Andrew. Big figure in this case. Things go off the rails because it's about whether Prince Andrew, maybe I should say former Prince Andrew, should have been prosecuted. I'm going to show you two photos of former Prince Andrew. Prince Andrew attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. Under the law Congress passed, you were allowed to redact photos to protect the victims of Epstein's sex trafficking operation. You redacted the photos of this victim's face because you were following the congressional law.

Is that correct? I'm sorry that we redacted the victims. Because you were following the congressional law, correct? Yes. Okay. You have now established that we, please put the photos back up, that we are looking at a sex trafficking victim. Under the Federal Victims' Trafficking Protection Act, not only is Jeffrey Epstein guilty, but anyone who patronizes Epstein's sex operation is also guilty of a crime.

That's why I find it absolutely despicable that you sought to protect Epstein's clients, like former Prince Andrew. Last July, you closed the case on Epstein's abusers. The July 2025 memo from your Department of Justice stated, quote, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. These two photos, please put the photos back up.

These two photos steering you in the face are evidence of a crime and more than enough evidence to predicate an investigation against former Prince Andrew. So I ask you, Attorney General Pam Bondi, why did you shut down this investigation last July, and why have you not prosecuted former Prince Andrew? I don't believe you asked Merrick Garland these questions when he was Attorney General and set before. I agree with you. You twice.

I agree with you. I agree with you. During the Biden administration, I called for president. people looking at Epstein files. Merrick Garland dropped the ball, as did Attorney General Bill Barr, as did Alex Acosta, a whole string of failures, but you are in charge. You have the power to change things to hold these men accountable, and you're doing the opposite.

You're protecting them. So I want to move on to another man. Can I answer about that? I want to move on another question. Can I answer your question about protecting your answer? You answered the question. You're saying no. I love this.

I want to discuss another man, Donald Trump, who is all over the Epstein files, like Like former Prince Andrew, Donald Trump attended various parties with Jeffrey Epstein. I want to know whether any underage girls at that party or at any party that Trump attended with Jeffrey Epstein. This is so ridiculous and that they are trying to deflect from all the great things Donald Trump has done. There is no evidence that Donald Trump has committed. crime. Everyone knows that. This has been the most transparent presidency. He's the one that

those files, he claimed my time. I got your answer. You said there's no evidence. Mr. Chairman, please stop the clock in my time. This is this is, this is time belongs to the gentleman from California. Okay. I'm going to put up another document from a witness who called the FBI's National Threat Operation Center because I believe you just lied under oath. There is ample evidence in the Epstein file. Don't you ever accuse me of a crime. I believe you just lie under oath, and this is all on videotape. You said there's no evidence of crime.

I'm showing you here is a witness statement who called into the FUI's threat operation center. He drove Donald Trump around in a limo. He overheard what Donald Trump said to Jeffrey on his cell phone. He was so angry he was going to stop a limo and hurt Donald Trump. And he met a girl who said she was raped by Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. She later had her head blown off, and officers at the scene said that could not have been suicide. No one, no one at the Department of Justice interviewed this witness.

You need to interview this witness immediately. Epstein should rot in hell, so should the men who patronizes operation. And as we say here today, there are over 1,000 sex trafficking victims, and you have not held a single man accountable. Shame on you. If you had any decency, you would resign right after this hearing concludes. The gentleman has expired.

May I respond? Yeah, I don't know how you respond. No one can. I did not ask a question, Mr. He doesn't want to talk about a crime in California. He does not want to talk about crime in his stay. I did not ask a question.

Many will be in order. The gentleman is yielded back his time. I think our next witness We'll be more than happy to let the Attorney General. Madam Attorney General would you like that? Gentleman from Alabama is recognized for five minutes. Hmm. Now look, we did a whole episode on Sidebar about the Royals connection to Epstein,

including what's happened recently. It's up on a Long Crime's YouTube page if you want to check it out. But it's not clear why he wasn't prosecuted. And you heard the deflection a bit on the president, right? It's an interesting thing about the idea of the Trump cover up because one of the documents that was released at one point in this files release and which we all saw, was a list compiled by the FBI of unverified tips that came in from the FBI's National Threat Operation Center. And apparently this was sent over the child exploitation and

human trafficking task force. So we all saw this. Now again, these were tips that apparently couldn't be corroborated. So you're even talking about secondhand information. But there were allegations that we all saw that Trump allegedly engaged in child abuse. Again, not substantiated, but it was in there, it was released. And to give you a better idea about that, we had Representative Henry Johnson from Georgia who wanted clarification on how many employees were allegedly charged with scrubbing President Trump's name from the files.

General Bondi, it's been reported that there were at one point, 1,000 personnel assigned to the task of identifying and scrubbing Donald Trump's name from the Epstein files, Were those reports accurate? I believe his name has appeared countless times in the document. How many people were assigned? If I could finish, I'm going to read you the stats. I just simply asked whether or not it was true that it was 1,000 folks who were assigned that task.

Were those reports accurate? There are more than 500 attorneys and reviewers. I'll give you an exact number. Okay, and I wanted to ask you about that also, because this is a different question that you're getting to now. There were 500 DOJ lawyers and others assigned the task of redacting the appropriate information, including identities of the Epstein victim survivors from the Epstein filed. prior to their release, 500.

Is that correct? If I could have finished my answer, there were more than 500 attorneys and reviewers who assisted with the... They asked a question and they don't want an answer... That answers my question, ma'am, and I'm going to move on. I'm going to move on. From multiple districts.

Would you agree? This is ridiculous. The time belongs to the gentleman from George. By the way, Representative Jasmine Crockett just dove into this more. Now, I don't know what the president might have done with Jeffrey Epstein, but unlike this administration, I believe that facts matter, so let's talk about the facts.

Fact number one, Donald Trump is one of the most named people in the Epstein files. At least 5,000 files contains more than 38,000 references to Trump, his wife, or Marlago. Fact number two, Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell made young girls available to Trump on multiple occasions. For example, according to this file, Galane Maxwell presented a young girl to President Trump who spent more than 20 minutes apparently flirting with her. Here's another example. This shows notes from FBI investigators that describe Jeffrey Epstein transporting a victim

to Mara Lago to meet with President Trump, where he bragged to Trump that, quote, this is a good one. Now, I'm not saying that the president is a pedophile, but there is a lot of evidence in these files that suggests that he's very close friends with a lot of men who are pedophiles. What's crazy about all of this is just that this is a big cover-up. One thing I got to mention is the idea of how thorough this investigation was at the federal level, why the redactions were made and not made, and whether the DOJ made an attempt to hear from the survivors. Because first, as to protecting the victims, the survivors, going back to Massey, listen to this.

To my right is an email that was sent by the victim's lawyers to the DOJ. It was a list of names not to redact. Sorry, a list of names not to release. what did the DOJ do with this email? They released this email in the document production. Literally the worst thing you could do to the survivors you did. Yeah, that's not good. That's not good. And then you had Representative Primaloghyaipal of Washington who questioned A.G. Bondi

about not only the names being released, but something else coming out too. And at one point, she asks the survivors who were in that room to stand up and, and for Bondi to address them. And this is when things get pretty tense. Along with numerous files that disclose not only the names, the emails, and the addresses of survivors, but also nude photographs and even the identities of Jane Doe's, who had been protected for decades until your department released their names. Survivors are now telling us that their families are finding out for the first time that

they were trafficked by Epstein. In their words, quote, this release does not provide closure. It feels like a deliberate attempt to intimidate survivors, punish those who came forward, and reinforce the same culture of secrecy that allowed Epstein's crimes to continue for decades. To the survivors in the room, if you are willing, please stand. And if you are willing, please raise your hands if you have still not been able to meet with this Department of Justice. Please know for the record that every single survivor has raised their hand. Attorney General Bondi, you apologize to the survivors in your opening statement for what they went through at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein.

Will you turn to them now and apologize for what your Department of Justice has put them through with the absolutely unacceptable release of the Epstein files and their information. Congresswoman, you set before Merritt Garland set in this chair twice. Attorney General Bonding. Can I finish my answer? No, I'm going to reclaim my time because I asked you a specific question that I would like you to answer, which is, will you turn to the survivors? This is not about anybody that came before you.

It is about you taking responsibility for your Department of Justice and the harm that it has done to the survivors who are standing right behind you and are waiting for you to turn to them and apologize for what your Department of Justice system. Members get to ask the questions, the witness get to answer,

and the way they want to answer. The Attorney General can respond. That's not accurate, Mr. Chairman. Because she doesn't like the answer. So, Mr. Chairman, why didn't she ask Merrick Garland this? I'm reclaiming my time and when I will continue to answer. I'm not going to get in the gutter for her theatrics. A.G. Bondi did try to address that a bit when she was questioned by Representative Lou Correa.

And as I said before, to any victims, we ask them to come forward to our office and we want to work. with them. I have never not worked with a victim and I believe I've actually spoken to several of them. Madam, if I can reclaim my time, I only have a minute. I can reclaim my time. I just think we start out by making sure those redactions are unredacted, those Epstein files to make sure that the public, according to the law, following the law, that those names in those files are made public. We have to make sure we tell those pedators there is no place for them to hide, And if they commit the crime, they're going to fry for it. It starts with showing us the names of the perpetrators in the Epstein files.

May I respond to that? Sure. Okay. So if any man's name was redacted that should not have been, we will, of course, unredacted. If a victim's name was unredacted, please bring it to us and we will redact it. We were given 30 days to review and redact and unredact millions of pages of documents. Our error rate is very low. The victims are always being errors on the same size.

We're doing a good job of protecting them. We will do everything we can. And look, giving her the benefit of the doubt, yeah, maybe that's the case. Maybe mistakes were made given the time frame to produce all this, sure. But you can see why. people would look at this and say, what? Really? And what comes to people possibly being indicted, she had made the claim that there are pending investigations at the Department of Justice. And like I said before, that could be one of the criteria to not produce material or redact material. You don't

want to jeopardize an ongoing investigation. She didn't really provide a lot more details on that. It's unclear if she is referring to the work that's being done at the Southern District of New York because Bondi was selected to oversee an investigation there. Jay Clayton maybe being a part of that. I also have to mention this. You know what's complicating all this? Is that Congress didn't get the privilege log from the DOJ. They were required to turn over a log explaining all the redactions.

That was part of the Epstein Transparency Act. It was in the law. They actually were supposed to provide this log 15 days after the January 30th release of the documents. And by all accounts, at least at the time of this recording, I don't think that's been provided yet. So it complicates the explanation of why certain things were redacted. And in terms of when we're going to get more answers, maybe from members of Congress, here's the problem.

You had a California representative say that you went to the DOJ to look at the unredacted files. It's almost impossible. There are not enough computers. This is going to take some time. This is Representative Zoe Lofgren. I did go over to the Department of Justice yesterday. I would know that 400 and all our 35 members are in the house and there's four computers. So it would take many months to actually have the time.

I, you know, I only had a few hours. I think the transparency argument is really kind of a sham because it's not really possible. It is not possible to really go in. Yeah, problem. I don't know if something will change there, but this could take quite some time. So I don't have an answer as to whether or not certain things are being hidden. I don't know if it's a mistake. I don't know if there's ongoing investigations.

I don't know if this was a situation where they were kind of rushing things out or there's something nefarious going on or it's just a case of, look, we looked at everything and there's not much more there. I don't know. But we will see. I think these hearings are important. I think these Congress people going in and looking at the unredacted files is important. We're all looking for transparency here.

and I know a lot of the survivors are looking for justice. And just to be clear, I'll say it one more time, just because someone's name is mentioned in the Epstein files in some capacity doesn't mean that they committed a crime, that they were implicated in crime, or even had knowledge of a crime. But obviously you can see why there are a lot of questions about this. It's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar.

Thank you so much for taking the time. As always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts. Also, we're up on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, X Instagram, I got my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday at 11 p.m. Eastern. See you next time, everybody.