Law&Crime Sidebar - What Can We Really Expect in the Epstein Files?

Episode Date: November 21, 2025

We're on the brink of the Department of Justice's release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, as mandated by the new Epstein Files Transparency Act. But how much new information can we realistically expect to see? Law&Crime's Jesse Weber sits down with CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig to analyze some of the biggest questions.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Grow your own audience today – go to https://www.opus.pro/sidebar and get 65% off an annual Opus Pro plan for the month of November. 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/lawandcrime/Twitter: 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.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. We are now on the brink of the Epstein Files release, and yet do we really have any idea what's going to be in them? What realistically can we expect here? That's what I want to get into? And also, what are the potential exceptions in this release? What's the apparent mixed messaging from the DOJ? We're going to try to get everything sorted for you right now.

Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Real quick, if you're in the content creation game, if you're putting a lot out there on social media, have you ever wondered how we are able to put so many clips out there so quickly? I'll give you a secret. It's something we use called Opus Clip, okay? This is an all-in-one AI editor that makes it so easy to cut, create, and upload videos across any platform.

Through AI, Opus Clip generates B-roll, it reframes footage, and it even cleans up audio. It is so simple to use. You just visit opus.com pro slash sidebar. You sign up, you upload, and in minutes, you have perfectly edited clips ready to go. For TikTok, shorts, reels, opus clip is your one-stop shop. And having a tool like Opusclip means that our producers can get you viral courtroom updates instantly. This is the most powerful tool there is to help you share ideas and edit like a pro. So go to opus.com slash sidebar to create your videos today.

And also, for November only, you can get 65% off of an annual plan. Here's a simple question with a complicated answer. What should we expect from the Epstein files release? In other words, what documents, what materials will we see? Is anything going to be new? There's so much talk about transparency and justice and files. Do we actually know what we're going to see? What can we expect?

That's what I want to get into because where do we currently stand right now? Well, both the House and the Senate, they passed a bill that would require the Department of Justice to release essentially whatever is in their position. possession regarding Jeffrey Epstein, the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So what does that mean? The law requires the DOJ within 30 days of the president signing this, quote, to make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorney's offices that relate

to Jeffrey Epstein, including all investigative. prosecutions, or custodial matters. Now, there are some carve-outs there, some exceptions. I want to get into what those are. But we go back to the central question. What can we realistically expect? Because here's the thing. So much has already been released. What happened last week? The House Oversight Committee released a plethora of emails and texts from and to Epstein, and the big headlines were about any possible connection to President Trump. We covered this in a previous sidebar. Messages like one from 2011 from Epstein to Galane Maxwell, his convicted sex trafficker associates, saying, I want you to realize that the dog that

hasn't barked is Trump. Victims spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Galane actually writes back, I have been thinking about that. There's another where Epstein tells author Michael Wolfe in 2019, redacted, Maralago, redacted. And by the way, this is an email that was sent several months before Epstein's death. It continues, Trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever. Of course he knew about the girls.

as he asked Galane to stop. And even beyond what was released last week, you may recall this because we did a number of sidebars on this, but a judge had ordered the release of Epstein-related documents from this settled civil lawsuit between Epstein accuser, Virginia Roberts-Drewfrey, against Galane Maxwell. That's when the record showed Epstein's address book, his connection to high-profile people in further detail like David Copperfield

and former President Bill Clinton, to be clear, though, just because there were these associations, just because they were named, this is not the Epstein list, right? This is not saying that any of these people were involved in criminal activity. This is a guy who had connections, but to be clear, just because they were named doesn't mean that they knew about or participated in any criminal activity. Just want to make that clear. But then you had all this travel information that was released too. This was through a public records request by ABC News to the U.S. Department of State.

Records about Epstein's travels, passport files. Last year, a judge released the 2006 grand jury testimony related to the investigation into Epstein abusing underage girls in Florida. Little side note on that. Remember, that's what led to this infamous sweetheart deal where he was allowed to plead guilty in Florida to state charges of solicitation of prostitution and with a minor in exchange for no federal charges being brought against him. And he was sentenced to 18 months in prison, but he was permitted to leave for 12 hours a day for work. And then back in February, you remember when the DOJ released the Epstein-Festeen, files to a group of conservative influencers turned out there was nothing really new in there based on everything that I just said was already released. September was interesting. September of this past year, there was a birthday book for Jeffrey Epstein that was released from his estate. The big notable thing

from there was this alleged birthday card from Donald Trump that includes an apparent drawing of a nude woman to be clear the president has denied authoring this, denied drawing that, denied making this. So I say all that to ask again, how is this Epstein? files release going to be different. What will be in there? What can the DOJ hold back? What can we expect from them? Okay. So I want to bring in, I love having them on. We're so lucky that we get him. Special guests, CNN senior legal analyst Ellie Honig, former federal and state prosecutor and author of great book. Oh, there we go. Got it centered there. When you come at the King, encourage everybody to pick it up. It is great read. Look at that. We didn't even plan

that. We haven't at the same time. Ellie, thank you so much for coming on. I'm made of questions. we get into what we can expect the DOJ will do, you know, talk about this 30-day window, this is the main question I had. I laid out basically what has been released over the last several years. What do you, Ellie Honig, think that is going to be released? What do you think anything new that's going to be released? We talk about these Epstein files. What new is going to be released in your opinion? Well, Jesse, first of all, thank you for having me. I'm thrilled to come on with you anytime. I love Long Crime Network. I'm a fan, a fan of yours and the network as a whole.

Second of all, everyone should set their expectations modestly as for what will come out here. Because you've been told by members of Congress and others, people in the White House, that here it is, folks. Full disclosure, transparency. You're going to see the Epstein files. Two important qualifications there. One, there is not really such thing.

It's not so neat and tidy as the Epstein files. There's not some file cabinet, a DOJ, that has it all in there. There's a combination of video and surveillance and audio and documents. You know, all we know is it's 300 gigabytes, which I try, you know, you and I aren't really tech guys, Jesse, I tried to figure out. I mean, that's like the equivalent of several thousand audio books or e-books, basically. So it's a massive quantity. But it's not like there's some neat thing where it's like, just hit send and boop, there you go.

We have it all. But the other thing is, the law that was passed the other day, that Donald Trump signed into law, that Congress passed almost unanimously. Again, they're all congratulating themselves, Republicans and Democrats alike for, look at us, paragon's of transparency. The problem with that law is it has two massive exceptions, loopholes, whatever you want to call them, which I'll lay out for you here. The first one is ongoing criminal investigation. Now, Jesse, you know your listeners and your viewers probably know. Ordinarily, DOJ would never just crack open their criminal files. Okay, everyone, come on in.

here you go, take a look. The only reason this is being done here, there's so much public interest that it resulted in a law being passed. But the law itself says if there's ongoing criminal investigations, DOJ does not have to turn those over. Now, that means it's up to Pam Bondi. So your level of faith

that this is going to be a full and transparent disclosure is equal to your level of faith in Pam Bondi because I know from being inside DOJ, you can open an investigation on anything you want. You can claim that almost anything relates to an investigation somehow. That's number one. Number two, even broader, there's an exception for any materials in the Epstein files that might impact national security.

DOJ can withhold those. Now, you're probably thinking, what could this have to do with, you know, United States dealing with Venezuela or Israel or whatever? How about this, though? Couldn't an attorney general say, well, that's material in there. That's embarrassing or might reflect poorly on the president, the commander-in-chief, the chief diplomat of the nation. And if it's something that makes him look bad or could be used to embarrass him or could be used to extort him, I'm not a conspiracy theories, but, you know, it could be made to look like he's in a bad position. That could undermine our national security. Hence, I will withhold that. So those are the two massive loopholes.

And the last thing, Jesse, is we're not going to know. It's not as if Pam Bondi has to do what lawyers do. Sometimes we do like a privilege log saying, okay, other side, here's a description of some documents that I've withheld because they're privileged. We're not going to have that. We're not going to know what we don't know. We're not going to know what Pam Bondi has chosen to withhold. So again, we are sort of at the mercy and whim of Pam Bondi here. So in other words, we won't know if everything is really turned over unless there's some evidence to suggest something was withheld.

And I want to get into that because she may be asked. Look, someone may ask, did you withhold anything? And she may say, yes, consistent with the law as passed. I've withheld national security and investigative files. But we're not going to see that. And we're not going to know how many and which ones. Yeah. Yeah.

And I want to get into that a little bit further. another aspect of it, too, because it says under this law, they can withhold or redact the identities in personal and medical files of Epstein's victims. They can also withhold material that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy or depicts or contains child sexual abuse, which they should. But I guess one of the big questions I've been asked is, so whatever they release, whatever it is they're going to release, is it going to be pages of blacked out redactions? I would expect that. I think there's going to be two categories of things we don't see. There's going to be entire files, entire documents that we don't know exist that we're not

going to see. But yes, get ready to see. Also, you know, it could be, let's give an example. Let's say you have an FBI 302, which, Jesse, as you know, is a formal typed up summary of a witness interview that prosecutors have done. It could be there's a 33 page 302 where half of it is blacked out, where names are blacked out, where individual paragraphs are blacked out. That's going to take a while for DOJ to figure out, although we'll talk about timing in a moment. Yeah, I mean, I would expect to see quite a bit of redaction ink in what we do see. And just to send her back, so we believe, right, when we talk about what this could be, this is all connected to the Florida and New York investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, right?

Generally speaking, I mean, I guess that's what it is and we'll get a little more granular, but generally that's a great question because like it's not necessarily everything that's known to the world about Jeffrey Epstein. It's not even, I mean, we've already seen that Epstein's a state. seems to have some documents that DOJ does not have. There's really, there was two major investigations of Epstein. There was the one down in the Southern District of Florida, which was federal run by Alexander Acosta back in 0607-08,

which resulted in his sweetheart deal where he did 13 months in state and he was in and out, you know, of custody. That was the original sin in this case. That was when Alexander Acosta let him off very, very easily. Acosta to this day has never provided a satisfactory explanation of why. But so that will be one set of documents. How far did they range? We don't know, right?

Did they just focus narrowly? Did they, how many victims did they have? I mean, we know that there were many victims presented to that office. So that's number one. And by the way, that might be a duplicative of what was released the 2006 grand jury transcript and all that. Absolutely. Absolutely.

The second category, the second bucket of documents is, if you remember, when this all re-bubbled to the surface in 2019 was because Donald Trump made Alexander Acosta, I think it was Labor Secretary. and all of a sudden people started saying, wait, hang on a second. Isn't this the guy who back in 0708 gave Jeffrey Epstein a pass? The Epstein thing came, honestly, Jesse, I hadn't even heard of it until 2019. I don't think I was aware of who Jeffrey Epstein was, just not living in Florida. But in 2019, Alexander Acosta becomes Trump's cabinet secretary.

This comes roaring back to life. And now we're into the second bucket, the SD&Y, my old office in New York, picks up this investigation, charges Jeffrey Epstein for a broader range of conduct. He then dies in prison. And then the next year charges Gilane Max. well, she ends up going to trial. So it's going to be those files. But again, the question will be how broadly did they range? Did they talk to 50 victims or three victims? How far back in time did they go? But those are going to be the two buckets of information that DOJ has.

And real quick, this is what's in their possession. In other words, there will be people who look at this and say, wait a minute. This doesn't mean everything that's ever related to Epstein because there have been reports in the past, there have been accusations in the past that there might have been material that wasn't obtained by authority, that wasn't obtained by the federal government. Absolutely. I mean, look, the feds, you can't get everything. And, you know, I guess there is an open question how one of the criticisms may well be that comes out of this. Well, why do they look so narrowly? I don't know. I guess we'll see. But yes, there are documents that the estate has that DOJ doesn't have. There are potentially documents that victims have that

they don't have. There have been a whole bunch of civil suits. So yes, it's only contained to what DOJ has and DOJ has no obligation. And I'm sure. sure has not gone out and built up more files, although they are now allegedly investigating new stuff, but that won't come out because it's current, you know, relates to a pending investigation. I want to get to that in a minute. So something to consider here as we talk about what we can expect, right? What happened in July? So the FBI, the DOJ, they released this joint memo saying, quote, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted an exhaustive review of investigative holdings related to Jeffrey Epstein. This systematic review

revealed no incriminating client list. There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. Now, we'll talk about what Pam Bondi just said in a press conference regarding this investigation in the Southern District of New York in a minute. But Ellie, now we're talking about the release of these files in light of what was said by the government in July.

Does that mean, okay, we're really not going to see anything bombshell tying people? people to criminal activity. Does that mean do we know that, hey, did they really 100% look at everything? Or can we really believe that statement in July? It depends on which version of Pam Bondi and Cash Patel you choose to believe, right? Because they've both had three completely different iterations when they were about to take office and in the years leading up to them taking office. And even after they took office as AG and FBI director, it was all. Can't wait to turn this over. Cash Patel says, put your big boy pants on, whatever that means.

Pam Bondi, the stuff's on my desk. Remember, Pam Bondi had her big release party where she handed out binders at the White House, phase one. So that's phase one. Disclose, disclose, disclose. We're the party of transparency. Then phase two is what you just said, Jesse. Over the summer in July, this memo saying, actually no, nothing to see here, nothing further

to do. I'm going to speculate that they were hoping that would be the end of it. But in fact, it had the opposite effect of causing people to say, what are you kidding me? after years of promising. Now you're saying there's nothing. And now we're into phase three, which is back to phase one, which is, oh, no, no, we have now, yes, sir, we're opening up all these new investigations of Bill Clinton and Reid Hoffman. And this is a, and yes, we're all in favor of full disclosure and transparency and all that.

Now, as for what we're going to see, my best guess is, look, the bottom line question I think everyone's interested. I think the victims are most interested in is who did wrong here beyond Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell? We know they're criminals. We know they were the ringleaders. but they can't have been the only ones. And let's be a little more specific.

People want to know what men, what powerful men, had sex with girls, with underage girls. And I think what we are likely to see is a little different from that, is along the lines that we've seen with Larry Summers, right? Which is embarrassing, disgusting, ridiculous correspondence with him and Jeffrey Epstein, but not necessarily anything I've seen that suggests Larry Summers commits a crime, in those emails at least, Stacey Plaskett, right that the representative in the u.s house from virgin islands you know embarrassing interactions with

jeffrey epstein he's feeding her questions during congressional testimony which she's then asking michael cohen michael wolfe the writer right i mean ridiculous exchanges with geoffrey epstein they're planning PR responses and all that i think we're going to see a lot more of that i think we're going to see powerful people embarrassed and and potentially deservedly so but i don't believe we're going to get documents where you're going to say oh my goodness this proves or strongly suggest that that person committed a federal crime? I would imagine that kind of stuff would be subject to the ongoing criminal investigation exception. And in terms of video proof or photographic proof, it goes into that exception of if it's depicting minors being abused, that will not be

released to the public. But I do wonder, would there be some sort of summary document saying what those videos or photos depict? But I mean, I wouldn't hold my breath on me. that. Yeah, I mean, again, they don't have to, DOJ does not have to net. Let's say they have a video that let's, God forbid, they have some video that shows a child being abused. I think they just withhold that video. I don't think they have to type up a memo saying, be advised. Again, this is what we would call like a privilege log. Like in some forms of litigation, if one party withholds documents from the other, you have to at least say, be advised, we are withholding a document from around this day because it depicts something, you know, whatever. I don't think DOJ is going to have to do that. I don't

think we're going to, I mean, they can choose to, but why would they? So no, I don't think we're ever going to know exactly what they've withheld. And who or whom not? Maybe. Yeah, and by the way, you are right. I mean, the third category of exceptions, which is uncontroversial is they need to withhold information that would reveal victim identities, compromise, victim privacy, and also materials that would show that would be criminal in and of themselves. If there's child sex acts or abuse depicted, that should be withheld. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Well, there are people who are like, okay, just tell us who the adults are in these materials. But, okay, put that to the side for a second. And I'll get into the timing of this and what we can expect

from the DOJ. I do want your opinion on something, okay? Because, yes, you mentioned it 100% accurately that they're not going to disclose things if it would hurt or impede an ongoing criminal investigation. It has to be narrowly tailored and things of that. But the president ordered Pam Bondi to open up an investigation, wrote on truth social in part. I'll be asking A.G. Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice together, with our great patriots at the FBI to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationship with Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, J.P. Morgan Chase, and many other people and institutions to determine what was going on with them and him. And then Bondi replied on

social media. Thank you, Mr. President. SDNY, U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton is one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country. And I've asked him to take the lead. As with all matters, the department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people. Now, this is what Pam Bondi said we should expect. So we have released 33,000, over 33,000 Epstein documents to the Hill, and we'll continue to follow the law and to have maximum transparency. Also, we will always encourage all victims to come forward. And she was asked, okay, how do you reconcile that July statement that I mentioned before, so nothing more to see, with now opening a Southern District investigation.

The DOJ statement earlier this year saying that the files would not release mentioned the fact that the review of the documents and the evidence did not suggest that any additional investigation of third parties was warranted. What changed since then that you launched this investigation? Information that has come for information. There's information that new information, additional information, and again, we will continue to follow the law, to investigate any leads. If there are any victims, we encourage all victims to come forward, and we will continue

to provide maximum transparency under the law. The issue with the new information that you just indicated is the department seeking information, perhaps from the Epstein estate because Mr. Blanche did not have that information when he interviewed Elaine Maxwell, what new information? And would you limit the new investigation to just those named persons that the president talked about, or is this a broad, open-ended investigation? I would refer to the Deputy Attorney General's post that he put out on X, and we're not going to say anything else on that because now it is a pending investigation in the Southern District of New York. But you're on point. So Ellie, I mean, she responds, there's new information. There's

there's additional information, new information. Again, thoughts on that statement, as we're trying to talk about what we can expect, you have this new investigation after the July statement. She was very vague. On one hand, I would say, look, if there is a really investigation, you're dealing with sensitive matter, of course, a prosecutor, of course, an attorney general, would it want to reveal more information, would be kind of subtle in that? But strange? I am very dubious of Pam Bondi's explanation there. I mean, to believe her, you would have to believe that sometime after July of this year, so sometime in the last four months, after she declared nothing to see here,

nothing further to be done, some new victim previously unknown or some new documents previously unknown with no ongoing investigation fell out of the sky to justify, let's now open an investigation of these four people or whoever, you know, Clinton and Reid Hoffman and all that. The new information is that Donald Trump said to do it. The new information, I believe, is there is a different political wind blowing now. And that's why, look, Pam Bondi is not very good at when she gets caught. It's like, we used to make fun of one of my brothers because he was sort of the worst liar.

Like, he couldn't keep a poker face and I mean, she's like that too. That was an embarrassing clip. Like, if she was confident, if something really new had surfaced since July, if new victims had come forward, she would have said, because the world has changed since July. When I made that announcement in July, that was absolutely true. Case closed, but I'm telling you, we have substantial new information. We have new witnesses. We have new facts.

And we have an obligation to follow up on that. And that's what we're doing now. That's not what she said and said you saw her like backpedaling, stammering, offering nothing of subs. And so I don't think anything's changed other than the politics of it all. But it does give them, like you said, maybe a window, maybe an opportunity, a weapon to not disclose more information. Here's the paradox of it, though. If this is being done faithfully, if they're applying the exception that says you can withhold documents relating to ongoing investigations, that would mean they're going to be withholding documents relating to Bill Clinton and read off the people that Donald Trump wants to see hurt publicly, harmed in their reputation publicly. But the exceptions would say those are the very documents that now need to be kept away from us.

So I'm not sure they've thought this all the way through. any doubt the DOJ will release this within 30 days if we're talking about a timeline if we're talking about what to expect will they release it within 30 days and when i have no doubt they will release some documents and probably a lot probably as much as they can within that 30 day period it would be it would just cause uproar if they did not meet their deadlines look you know this is one of the big questions jesse they could do it on a rolling basis they could start today and say here's 10,000 docs. Here's another 50,000. Here's 100. Or they could just do a huge document dump on day 30th, December 19th. That's up to them. The law does not require them to do it one way or the other.

The other thing, though, to know is, again, whatever we get on December 19th or between now and December 19th, Pam Bondi needs to be questioned at every opportunity. How much of the total Epstein files have you produced and how much of the total Epstein files have you withheld? What percent or at least give us a rough estimate? And we'll see if she's willing and able to answer that. I doubt it. I think she'll probably just say, we've made productions that we've made withholdings based on the law. And that'll be it. But that'll be a burning question. You know, if they release 150,000 pages on December 19th, you and I in the world, well, Jesse, will have no way of knowing, is this 98% of the file? Is this 53% of the file? And that's a question that I believe she

will be posed consistently until we get an answer. And if a majority of it is duplicative of what we've already seen, the response from the public is going to be quite loud, to say the least. I think the fundamental thing that the public is having trouble accepting, which I'm this is where I am also, is that only Epstein and Maxwell, they're the only wrongdoers are the only people who worthy of criminal prosecution here. And I don't know, I wish I could say otherwise, but I don't know that we're ever going to get a satisfying answer in prosecution.

as to who else might be involved. I should note, the statute of limitations on child interstate sex trafficking crimes federally, essentially there is no statute of limitations. So it is theoretically possible if they can show that some other person was involved in the interstate movement of a person for purposes of child sex abuse,

there could theoretically be prosecutions. I mean, I'll give you just a quick example. Galane Maxwell's indictment, which came down in 2020, charged her with conduct that was primarily 1994 to 1997. one of her arguments, which she lost both at the trial court and on appeal in the Second Circuit was that's too late. The statute of limitations should have been five or ten years. And both the district court and the court of appeal said, no, the law has changed and you can be charged in

2020 for something you did in the 1990s if it's interstate federal sex trafficking of a minor. So I don't want to get expectations up, but I do want to note that that's theoretically still possible. Ellie, first of all, great analysis on this. I have definitely a better picture of what we can expect. I think we all do. I feel for you, I feel for you because you know when this is going to be released. You're going to be chained to the CNN desk with either a computer or printouts. Ellie, every five minutes, what did you learn? What's new? What's new? So I can give you all a little BTS, as the kids call it, a little behind the scenes. You know, there's a constant call now, starting now at CNN for like, can you be ready in case the Epstein files drop? Can you be

ready? Can you be on standby Epstein files? So we don't know, like the rest of you. Like, it could come at any moment. It could be an all one shot. But it will be close to Christmas. I think, you know, the bulk of it, I think. So, you know, listen, last, I'm going to give you a trivia question, Jesse. Do you remember what case was consuming you and me and media all through last year's Christmas? This will make it seem like forever ago. Was it? Not did he, right? No, it wasn't no, no. Well, did he had happened, but it wasn't. There was a brand new story that the actual event happened in early December. And then the arrest and all the court stuff was right through Christmas. Tells you something about my job that I don't remember.

You'll kick yourself. It's too easy. Luigi Mangione. Oh, my gosh. Yeah, of course. I got to forget that. The shooting was I believe early December, but I just, I remember where I was for Christmas break.

I don't, you know, I'm Jewish. I don't celebrate Christmas, but we went away. I just remember doing hits from a little makeshift thing on Luigi court appearances and Luigi being flown in in the helicopter and all that. So that's still going to. All right. Well, until everybody can read whatever files are released, I'm at the King when you come the came everybody there you go ellie holing thank you so much really really appreciate it you

were fantastic thanks jess appreciate it talk to you soon and that's all we have for you right now here on sidebar everybody thank you so much for joining us and as always please subscribe on youtube apple podcast spotify wherever you should get your podcast you can follow me on x or instagram i'm jesse weber i'll speak to you next time You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.