Law&Crime Sidebar - Where Are the Missing Jeffrey Epstein Files?

Episode Date: March 24, 2025

Sources claim up to one thousand FBI agents are focused on locating and redacting files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Attorney general Pam Bondi has vowed to fulfill President Donald Trump's promise to release any and all records. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber got the scoop on what could be happening behind the scenes with former FBI and CIA agent Tracy Walder.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & 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. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. The FBI's New York field office is reportedly in a frenzy trying to get documents related to Jeffrey Epstein ready for public release, but critics are crying foul, saying the agents are neglecting their critical everyday work protecting the country to instead go on what could be a wild goose chase. We are getting behind the scenes inside from a former FBI agent about what might be happening inside the Manhattan offices

and whether or not one of the delays could be because of a potential investigation and criminal charges. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. What happened to the Jeffrey Epstein files? It's a fair question, right? I mean, we did an emergency sidebar when there was a release a few weeks ago, and then what? Radio silence?

Now, Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender accused of being one of the most prolific and infamous sex traffickers of all time, died in a New York City jail in August of 2019. And now, more than six years later, the FBI is rushing to fulfill a promise from President Donald Trump to release seemingly all the files related to the investigation into his apparent trafficking scheme. Multiple media outlets, including CNN, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal. They have heard from sources that hundreds of FBI employees at New York's field office have been reportedly working all hours to examine documents from the Epstein investigation for potential release. As many as, and it's being reported, 1,000 agents could have been pulled

away from other duties, maybe potentially very important duties, in order to work on this. Now, typically, the office is the epicenter for counterintelligence, counterterrorism, public corruption, international drug trafficking, financial crime investigations. But right now, one of their major points of focus reportedly upon directive from the Department of Justice, the DOJ, is on a case that they investigated years ago or that was investigated years ago. Now, this comes weeks after Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly accused the FBI of hiding some of the key documents connected to this case.

And as a quick refresher here, we go back to the end of February when Bondi announced that the Department of Justice would be releasing files connected to Jeffrey Epstein. And President Donald Trump had promised during his campaign that he would make that release a top priority. And since Epstein's death, there have been conspiracy theories that have swirled that suggests Epstein didn't take his own life, that he was instead killed while awaiting trial to keep his connections to high-powered people quiet. There were also questions about who else may possibly be connected to this purported international. sex ring. And so a treasure trove of information seemed imminent when several right-wing influencers were seen leaving the White House, holding white binders that said the Epstein Files Phase 1. But when the documents were released to the public, it turned out a lot of it was information

that we already had from court records related to cases against, for example, Galane Maxwell, Epstein's alleged right-hand woman, like flight logs, as well as a fully redacted list of people who allegedly worked as masseuses for Epstein. There was also a contact. list with a lot of high profile names, but just to reiterate once more, just because they were a contact of Jeffrey Epstein doesn't mean they were involved or had knowledge of any of his apparent illicit activity. But based on interviews that investigators did with underage girls hired to give Epstein massages, those sessions purportedly typically involve some sort of sexual contact. But here's the thing. Just before the release, Pam Bondi released a letter that she sent

to Cash Patel, the new director of the FBI, which said, I repeatedly question, whether this was the full set of documents responsive to my request and was repeatedly assured by the FBI that we had received the full set of documents. Late yesterday, I learned from a source that the FBI field office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein. Despite my repeated requests, the FBI never disclosed the existence of these files. When you and I spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was to learn this new information. By 8 a.m. tomorrow, February 28th, the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my file. office, including all records, documents, audio, and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained.

There will be no withholdings or limitations to my or your access. The Department of Justice will ensure that any public disclosure of these files will be done in a manner to protect the privacy of victims and in accordance with law, as I have done my entire career as a prosecutor. I am also directing you to conduct an immediate investigation into why my order to the FBI was not followed. You will deliver to me a comprehensive report of your findings and proposed personnel action within 14 days. Now, not entirely clear if the FBI met either of those deadlines, but according to the intelligents here,

the head of the New York field office, the FBI field office, James Denahey, ended up resigning. And it also seems that the DOJ did receive some new records. Because last week, Bondi apparently told Fox Business, we've received a truckload of documents of evidence and cash is going to give me a deadline. I want he can go through that to protect, of course, the victims of sex trafficking who are wrapped into this. Hey, by the way, so as you may know, we have been actively following the Epstein story as there are constantly new developments. And for that, I got to thank our sponsor and partner Morgan and Morgan because it's with their support that helps us to keep on doing this. Now, this is a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why they have so many?

Because they went a lot in the past few months. Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, $5.6 million for another car. accident victim in Atlanta, and not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar or click the link in the description and pinned in the comments. Now, the Wall Street Journal reports that FBI employees have been

instructed to redact only a list of victims' names and their identifiable information, but their city and state, that has to be disclosed. This is according to sources. The journal also reports that reviewers were told to not blacken out or redact entire swathes of text and to keep any third-party names unredacted. So that means people like potential witnesses and victims' relatives could potentially be identified in the release. Now, reviewers were also told, according to reporting from the journal that if they find nude photos of victims, they can redact the entire body, but if the victim is clothed, then only their face should be blacked out or blurred out. And when it comes to video evidence, ABC News reports that sources within the

DOJ say, decision hasn't been reached yet on what to release that or how they'll release it, but advocates have reportedly warned the DOJ that a release like this could have far-reaching and unattended consequences. Lawyers for many of Epstein's victims wrote a letter to Bondi, apparently offering to help. The Wall Street Journal reports that the letter said in part, if the redaction process is done by people without full knowledge of the details of the case, it is likely that victims' names and identifying information will mistakenly be made public. Such unintended releases could have devastating effects on the victims. And Christina Rose, a former director of the Justice Department's Office of Victims of Crime,

also released a statement saying, revealing personally identifiable information from the Epstein files without the victim's permission or consultation, is a shocking betrayal of trust and an appalling violation of the Justice Department's own policies. And as for when the public might see more of the Epstein evidence, that remains unclear. But clearly, I will tell you this, there's a lot to break down. So let me bring on friend of the show, somebody I'm always happy to talk to former CIA and FBI agent Tracy Walder. Tracy's so good to have you here on Sidebar. Before we even begin, you got a new show on YouTube that I want you to quickly tell everybody about because I think.

they need to hear that. If they're interested in hearing the insights about intelligence and the intelligence operations, talk to us about your new show. Thank you so much for having me, Jesse. I appreciate it. It is with my former colleague, Brittany Butler, who was a CIA targeting officer, and she and I have created, for now, a YouTube channel. We hope to obviously expand it more, but it's called Spy Girls, and we release a new episode every Wednesday morning. So our very first episode was how we got in. That's the question we always get. Our next episode is going to be scariest moments that we had at the CIA. Yeah, we're also going to dive into obviously crime a little bit because of my FBI background and then obviously into national security

issues. Now, by the way, Tracy didn't say, hey, I want to come on. I want to promote this. I actually urged her to promote this because it's a great, great show. I don't think there's anything like that at all. So I'm hoping everybody can check it out. Okay, now I want to get into what's happening here. First of all, what does a record search like this really look like? But what Are the agents digging through filing cabinets? Is everything on a server? Is it almost like as lawyers, we do doc review and there's a platform that we use?

How does it work? So actually, therein lies the problem, Jesse, is a document search is obviously tedious. I think there's no question around that. Most people assume that. But the problem with the FBI is, and again, obviously I'm a former special agent. So I have some allegiance,

but I've also come down pretty hard on them as well. One of the things in my opinion, the FBI is not good at is having updated computer systems. I know that might shock a lot of viewers, but they're actually very archaic and they are trying to upgrade that. The problem is, is you are looking at files probably on multiple servers across multiple field offices that might not be all connected, as well as hard copy files, I suspect in different Florida field offices and different New York field offices. So while I'm not absolving them of their behavior in terms of not turning over all of the

materials. The reality is, is they may not have actually known. How does it work in terms of who makes the decision about whether something should be redacted? Is there a supervisor who goes through it as well? Because the worst thing that would happen is it's a lot of material potentially, go through it. Maybe someone inadvertently makes a mistake. Is there a second set of eyes? I mean, how does that usually work? So that is the biggest issue, right? In my opinion, the victims matter the most. Above all, above anything, you know, all of this. The victims and their privacy matter the most. So So the issue is, is you may not have a lot of agents that actually worked this Epstein case and may not be very familiar with some of these victims.

So yes, you are going to have agents that are going to go through and obviously at a cursory level, redact information that may easily identify some of these victims. However, it's actually Bondi who needs to tell them exactly what needs to be unredacted or what needs to stay redacted because she needs to set out really clear. constraints in terms of what they need to be looking for. Because right now, I'm not sure that they have that. Then after that, a supervisor really isn't going to take a second look. They're only going to be there if an agent maybe has a question about whether or not something actually should be redacted. So obviously that's a bit concerning here because you heard the idea of what the redactions would be. Don't redact large swaths of text, blur out somebody's face if they're clothed, obviously blur out of body, but you know, the state and the state and

cities names will not be redacted, but the other personal identifying, personally other identifiable information will be redacted. Does any of that concern you? It very much concerns me, particularly the part that you mentioned earlier regarding witnesses, because the reality is, is if those are not redacted, you will be able, but probably by process of elimination as well as having that geographical, locational information to perhaps identify who some of these victims are. Now, look, at CIA and at FBI, I did regularly have to classify things. Obviously, I was dealing with national security. And one thing I will say is we do tend to over classify instead of underclassify. So I do understand the frustration with sort of that

large swath of information. I do understand that. But the reality is, is we have to think bigger than just the immediate victim themselves. And that's what I'm concerned about that they're not doing. They're not kind of creating this larger radius out. But it would be against protocol, I would imagine, to have these alleged victims come in, work with the FBI on what to release.

That wouldn't happen, right? I have never had that happen in my career, obviously. I don't want to never say never, but that would most likely go very much against protocol simply because there's other investigatory information that they couldn't just hand over to victims. So ABC is reporting that they may be reviewing video evidence, materials from a document that was released called evidence lists,

so like a CD labeled Girl Picks, New Book 4, a folder titled LSJ Logbook, seemingly Little St. James Island, bundles of photos and CDs from Women Old Photos, Photos Box, sex toys. So that means, you know, a lot of different material, talk to me about what you actually think is going to come out of this when it's released, whenever the full, I guess all the evidence is released and everything they have is released. I'm going to be very honest and very blunt if I can for a minute. I cannot think of a reason why we need to give to the public basically sex tapes and nude photos.

There's really under no circumstance where in my opinion that is appropriate behavior. So I just kind of want to say that. I will just, I'll just, I'll give you the counter argument. If there is a tape of a high powered celebrity, a high powered notable person engaging in alleged sex acts with underage girls, then that's why. That's video proof, documentary proof of it. That's the counter argument. I can understand that. And so if I can, I would like to give actually some evidence in terms of things that I have worked. So a lot of times when I was at CIA or FBI, unfortunately, I did have to look through digital evidence that was very upsetting. I'm just going to be honest about

that and what would happen was is if we could identify the person who was victimizing these individuals we did open cases on that individual we did not release the contents of the video however descriptions of the videos were absolutely in indictment documents or information documents so i think that is actually in my opinion a better way to go in terms of this simply because i'm really just thinking about the victims i understand the public wanting to know this heck i want to know it too i i completely in that. But again, I'm really trying to think about these victims and releasing that raw footage. And I understand that they would be blurred out is still not completely keeping them confidential. And that's what concerns me. I have zero issues with releasing the identities,

excuse me, of the victimizers or the perpetrators in these videos. I completely understand that. The way it would look is there's been, this case has been so controversial. And there's been accusations that everything has been kept in the shadows. And, you know, the idea is full transparency, full transparency, give the American people, give the world and I, a view into what was really going on. We're not covering anything up. You make of it, what you make of it. And I think that would be the argument. But having said that, you make an equally compelling argument that in a normal case, in a normal case, mere descriptions of the videos would be sufficient. But we live in a very interesting time where maybe those descriptions wouldn't be enough for everybody. But, you know,

then you could say, too bad. This is what it is. Now, I do want to ask you this, are we in a position where if this material is released, is this going to be further investigation into anybody? Is this going to be further charges against anybody? You know, people look at the Galane Maxwell case and they say, how is it that she was convicted of these sex trafficking charges alone, right? You know, that she was sex trafficking minors or engaging in these kinds of behavior? And who are the people that she was supplying these women too. And that becomes a big question. So do you think criminal liability or investigations will result as a result of this release? In short, yes. So I've been covering the JFK document release a lot for News Nation. Obviously, I work for them. I think this

will be different. So in the JFK documents, obviously, there really wasn't a lot new, right? We didn't see these bombshells or anything like that. Nothing criminal that would really hold anyone else accountable, quite frankly, for the assassination. I believe in this case, and I always have, ever since it was prosecuted, quite frankly, in Florida, when he basically got off, let's be honest, he was convicted, but it was a slap on the wrist. I have always felt that there was a far deeper criminal investigation that needed to take place, and especially because I do believe that people at very high levels of government, Hollywood, all of those things were involved in this. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but you are absolutely right. When Maxwell was convicted, I had a

very hard time believing that she was acting alone. And so I do think, I really do think, that further criminal charges could come out of this release. Doesn't that affect how it's released? If you're going to put a bombshell out there that names a lot of people, and by the way, I'm not sure it will, but if you're going to do that, how do you expect a further release or series of releases would work? Because I would imagine the DOJ is considering that. That is such a great point, Jesse, and no one I've talked to has really raised that. And you're absolutely right. From obviously an FBI agent perspective, we don't release everything all at once when it comes to an ongoing investigation because we need that information in order to obviously convict someone.

That's why we do it. That is part of how we investigate and convict someone. So, yes, I do have concerns that just kind of this, you know, releasing it all, this huge data dump, I guess, if you will, will compromise further investigations. And for these victims, I want them to have a criminal investigation for their own sakes. That is a good investigation and that's not compromised. And so that's problematic as well. Okay. So do you think it's twofold where they're saying we are actually conducting an investigation

right now and maybe they'll release a statement. Maybe Pambandi would release a statement saying, listen, we were planning on releasing everything. At this time after a review, we realize there's now an ongoing investigation. We can't release everything. something we should expect? Because like you said, if it's, if it's something like JFK, where, listen, nobody's going to face any charges. We're just going to, you know, release everything out. Everybody make of it what you will. Whereas this, you know, there might be something there. Do you expect a statement from either Cash Patel, Pam Bondi, where they say, listen,

you know, we were going to release everything. But there's a current investigation right now that's happening simultaneously as we're trying to work on the release of the information. I personally hope so. That is what I hope ultimately happens. And that's why I do think some of these documents need to be gone through, quite frankly. So I don't have a problem with going through the documents. And again, I understand the public's need and want to have this information. Look, I was fully supportive of releasing the JFK documents.

But in this case, I do think you may, again, it's all alleged, but you may have criminal investigations that may come out of it. And just for the victim's sake, because that's honestly all I really think about are the victims. I want them to have proper investigations. And so my hope is, is if they stumble across that information, either Patel or Bondi or both, say, look, we're going to release these documents because there's no necessarily criminal information in them. But some of this we're going to keep kind of closer to our best because we have decided to open up ongoing investigations. What do you make of Attorney General Pam Bondi claiming the FBI or seemingly claiming the FBI was hiding documents or evidence that, you know,

there was all this, we were planning on releasing everything, and then she basically said there were materials that were being kept from us. What did, I mean, you know, that first release was a bit strange. I mean, to be very honest, again, I can be critical of my former workplace. I don't think the FBI is that organized in terms of how they keep their documents to actively withhold them. And I am saying that as someone who worked there. I'm sorry to say that. It is not organized. I know it's something that they're working on in terms of, you know, streamlining all of the cases. I truly think that they stumbled on more documents and said, oh, shoot, here they are. I don't think it was intentional.

And I'm not giving them a pass. I've been very critical about the FBI before. I really don't think it was that contrived just based on how files are kept. And you believe that even though James Denehy, the head of the New York field office, resigned. And by the way, let me just add this. He was also apparently somebody who had angered the Trump administration over seemingly refusing to hand over names of agents that worked on January 6. So he wasn't their favorite person to begin with, it seemed.

But resigning after this controversy with Epstein, what do you think? I believe, just I've met Donahey before, especially when I was in training. What I think, I think really around his resignation was one, you know, refusing to give the names of agents who worked the 1-6 investigations. And then obviously knowing how protective he is of agents, which I think can be good or bad. I believe that he resigned not because of releasing the files, but because it was taking away agents from ongoing CI or counterintelligence investigations and CT investigations. And I think that really upset him. And I think he felt that that was putting, I guess, handcuffing his office a

little bit in terms of what they could do. I think that's why he resigned in my opinion. And I want to ask you about that. Are you concerned by the reports that you have these agents who are working around the clock to try to review these materials, work on releasing them, reportedly being pulled away from their usual duties. Is that a big concern? What could the repercussions be? Or is this potentially being overblown? I think I'm moderately concerned. You know, I think there's a couple issues. First of all, look, I do think that these documents need to be going over. I do think we need to identify any additional criminal charges that need to be out there, again, for the victims. But at the same time, we can't just be completely taking

agents off of these investigations. New York and L.A. are really the two, aside from San Francisco, largest offices that are investigating counterintelligence and counterterrorism. And so I am concerned about the information that may sort of fly under the radar now because they don't have the manpower to investigate it. So I think we need to not be taking all of those agents away and maybe taking 10 to 15 percent of them to start looking at these documents. And I think that's where the issue issue is. In a statement, a DOJ spokesperson told ABC News under Attorney General Bondi's leadership, the Department of Justice is working relentlessly to deliver unprecedented transparency for the American people. And I'll tell you this, some of Epstein's most personal items

are evidently going up for auction. Yes. So Alexander historical auctions announced last week that it is going to be selling Epstein's personal address book, as well as, and this one was bizarre, a blazer that he's seen wearing in one of his most famous photos of him with Galane Maxwell. And the address book sometimes referred to as Epstein's Little Black Book contains, you know, contact information for hundreds of people, including high-profile politicians, celebrities. But again, it's not the list of clients or alleged accomplices that many believe it is. Epstein was an influential figure in the 90s and early 2000s, a wealthy financier who had connections with people all over the world. And being included in the book doesn't necessarily mean that any

person has done anything wrong. By the way, the wool double-breasted blazer that Epstein is wearing in that photo with Galane Maxwell. It has Epstein's name written on a tag inside of it, according to photos from the site. It's a little creepy to be thinking about. It's unclear, though, how the auction house was able to get their hands on the items, but the auction is scheduled for April 2nd includes thousands of other items, too, like historical documents, old campaign posters, newspapers, rare coins, police badges, even some rather controversial items like full KKK robes. And the starting bid for the blazer is $2,000, while the starting bid for the address book is $20,000. According to a press release from Alexander Historical Auctions, the book was earlier offered at auction,

with offers up to $100,000, but the owner of the book rejected the bids. He now wants to sell it, according to the auction house, to someone who will use the book for research purposes. Tracy, I just wanted your thoughts on this. Isn't this evidence? Isn't it premature to try to sell this stuff? Yes and no. It may have obviously been taken into evidence. I'm sure it was, quite frankly, when all of this initially occurred.

And it probably, they have gone through it, which is why we have seen in a lot of the documents, people's names appearing, right? Who obviously, like you mentioned before, just because your name appeared, does not mean you're connected to illicit activity. I think a lot of that probably came from his address book, the FBI and other individuals interviewing that. I think they have probably gone through the address book exhaustively and probably released it out of evidence. That's my best guess in terms of how something like that went out there, especially the jacket. They probably didn't need it, to be honest with you.

It was probably never taken into evidence. But definitely the address book was, in my opinion. Personally, I think that this is just morally reprehensible. That obviously it's being up for auction. I don't know what research purposes you're going to use that. for as well as whomever's profiting on that. But again, that's just my personal opinion. What are you going to do with the blazer? Wear it. What are you going to do with it? Put it in a glass case as a shrine? I mean, this is what are we talking about here? That's what I don't

understand that the blazer. What is it that you want from that? This is not a figure that in my opinion should be remembered, right? Through all of history and should be preserved, right? Through all of history. This isn't, you know, George Washington's military jacket, right? That you would want to preserve and have history lessons about that this is someone i'll just be very honest who i think i want to say forget because of the victims but at the same time should not have kind of a star status um in history history shouldn't remember him that way you know what it is i think a lot of it's mystery there's so much we don't know about him and and his alleged operations of what he was up to and there's not much you know video out of him i don't know it's just a very interesting update

to say the least but listen tracy walder thank you so much for coming on it was great seeing you. I hope everybody can check out your show on YouTube. And, you know, thank you so much for your great insight. Thanks for having me, Jesse. Actually, before we wrap things up, we have another update that we want to talk to you about real quick on this legal action involving Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crime. So back in 2023, you had six Jane Does who sued the government of the U.S. Virgin Islands and others. And Epstein, remember, owned the private island, Little St. James, and the Virgin Islands. And the women alleged victims of Epstein's sex trafficking operation claim that Epstein wouldn't have been able to harbor so many underage girls at his compound

if it weren't for the help of officials within the U.S. Virgin Islands government. Their complaint states, the U.S. VI negligently and or intentionally provided special treatment to Jeffrey Epstein and the sex trafficking venture through their territories, laws, employees, staff, airports, and government staff and officials, thereby ensuring Epstein's sex trafficking venture continued operation and sexual abuse and sex trafficking of young women and girls. And the lawsuit claims that leaders within the government accepted money from Epstein. And in exchange, he was given special privileges like immunity from investigation and facilitation of things like visas. Now, the Jane Doe sued for four causes of action,

participating in a sex trafficking venture in violation of the Trafficking Victim Protection Act, aiding abetting and inducing a sex trafficking venture, conspiracy to commit violations of the trafficking victim protection act and negligence. And the lawsuit was actually filed in the Southern District of New York. You know who the judge is presiding over this case? Judge Arun Subramanian, the same judge overseeing Sean Diddy Combs' upcoming sex trafficking trial. Now, in a just released opinion, this is what we wanted to talk about, Judge Suburmanian agreed with the defense attorneys that New York lacks personal jurisdiction against almost all the defendants, except for Stacey Plaskett, the Virgin Islands delegate to Congress, according to the judge's opinion,

she's the only one based on the complaint that's ever traveled to New York or actively sought funds from Epstein in New York. So the attorneys for the plaintiffs now have two weeks to file to move to transfer to another district in light of the court's decision. So it'll be really interesting to see what happens there. But that's the update that we have for you in the Jeffrey Epstein files and Jeffrey Epstein case saga. It'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 Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.