UNBIASED - February 5, 2026: Epstein Files Q&A Part II: Why Names Are Redacted, Other Names Mentioned, and More; PLUS Trump Suggests 'Nationalizing' Elections, Drawdown in Minneapolis, and More.

Episode Date: February 5, 2026

SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠SUBSTACK⁠. Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: Government Shutdown Ends; Minneapolis Officers to Wear Body Cameras; 700 Federal Agents to Leave (0:07) Trump Suggests 'Nationalizing' Elections; Here's What You Should Know About It (10:13) Supreme Court Allows California to Use New Congressional Map (~19:04) Clintons Agree to Testify Before Congress After Almost Facing Contempt Vote (~23:53) Epstein Q&A Part II: Who's Named In the Files and In What Context? Why Are Names Redacted? Is the Claim About Bill Gates True? (~29:26) Quick Hitters: Ryan Routh Sentenced, Fulton County Wants Ballots Back, Washington Post Layoffs, Mayor Bass Accused of Altering Palisades Fire Report, Updates on Nancy Guthrie (~56:53) SUBSCRIBE TO JORDAN'S ⁠FREE NEWSLETTER⁠. ⁠Watch⁠ this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on ⁠Instagram⁠ and ⁠TikTok⁠. All sources for this episode can be found ⁠here.⁠  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A tins donut and coffee is the original collab. And now, any classic donut is a dollar when you buy any size original or dark roast coffee. Get a deal on the iconic duo with a tins dollar donut plus tax at participating restaurants for limited time. Terms apply. See app for details. It's time for Tims. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased Politics.

Today is Thursday, February 5th. Let's talk about some news. First and foremost, the partial guise. government shutdown is officially over. President Trump signed the $1.2 trillion spending package into law yesterday, which means that all departments of the federal government are now funded through September 30th. With the exception of the DHS, the DHS is currently being funded temporarily through that continuing resolution that we've talked about. So DHS funding is currently going for the next about two weeks, week and a half. And in the meantime, Congress is going to have

to agree to some sort of ICE reforms for Democratic lawmakers to get on board with funding the DHS for the remainder of the fiscal year. And as we talked about in Monday's episode, Democratic lawmakers have mentioned a few specific reforms that they're looking for. These include things like federal immigration agents wearing body cameras, which we know in Minneapolis. They will now do. We'll talk about that more in a second. Banning officers from wearing masks, ending roving patrols, judicial warrants for arrest rather than simply administrative warrants, and then also establishing a universal code of conduct that governs federal law enforcement officer's use of force. And so on Monday, shortly after the episode wrapped, DHS Secretary Nome actually announced

that all DHS law enforcement officers deployed in Minneapolis would immediately start wearing body cameras. So in a post on X, she wrote, quote, I just spoke with Tom Holman, ICE director Todd Lyons, and CBP Commissioner. Effective immediately, we are deploying body cameras to every officer in the field in Minneapolis. As funding is available, the body camera program will be expanded nationwide. We will rapidly acquire and deploy body cameras to DHS law enforcement across the country. The most transparent administration in American history, thank you, President Trump, America safe again."

Then in an interview with Fox News Digital, Gnome said, quote, the Department of Homeland Security trains a lot of federal agents already, and different agents have body cameras that they wear already. CBP has many officers that already have body cameras on them. The problem was having the resources to get them on every agent and every officer that's out there, and then having the resources to do the analysts, I think she meant analysis, and the storage of those videos and who can help us really utilize them.

But our officers really want this and the people want it. They want the relationship with their communities to know all of the information that we need to have during these situations of conflict and violence. And we've seen that they can be very helpful in making sure that people know the truth of a situation and that we can get people help as soon as possible. end quote. When President Trump was asked about his thoughts on the decision to deploy body cameras, his response was, quote, well, it wasn't my decision. I leave it to her. They generally tend to be good for law enforcement because people can't lie about what's happening. So generally speaking, I think 80% good for law enforcement, but if she wants to do that, I'm okay with it. And quote. So as of now, we don't know if officers in Minneapolis are currently wearing the body cameras. Nome did say that

every officer on the ground in Minneapolis would be immediately issued body cameras. So it's, it's possible that they are wearing them as of today. We just don't have confirmation yet. The latest development, though, related to agents in Minneapolis, came yesterday when Borders our Tom Homan announced the withdrawal of 700 federal immigration enforcement personnel from Minnesota. So in last Thursday's episode, I mentioned that Tom Homan had taken over, in Minneapolis shortly after he arrived there. He held a press conference. We talked about that press conference, but at at that press conference, he said that he had ordered officials from CBP and ICE to start working on a plan to reduce the number of federal agents in Minneapolis. But he also said

at that time that the execution of that plan is dependent on cooperation with local law enforcement. Cooperation meaning that local and county jails would work with ICE and notify us. And ICE about detainees and custody that are eligible for removal. So Holman at the time said this type of cooperation would be a lot safer and it would reduce the need for agents on the street. So then at this follow-up press conference that was just held on Tuesday, Homan said in part, quote, we currently have an unprecedented number of counties communicating with us now and allowing ICE to take custody of illegal aliens before they hit the streets. More officers taking custody of criminal aliens directly from the jails means less officers on the street doing criminal operations, end

quote. And I do, I want to stop here just for a second. I want to say two things. Number one, the last time that I use the word alien to refer to immigrants, I got a few messages. So I just want to clarify, I'm quoting Tom Homan here. Okay. Anytime I quote any official, I'm going to use their exact words. Some federal officials opt to use the word alien because it is a legal term under federal law. under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an alien is any person, not a citizen or national of the United States. And I understand that some people prefer other less derogatory words. That's totally fine. I'm just telling you why some federal officials use the term alien. And just to give you a little bit more context there, George Washington was the first to use this term back in the 1700s with the Alien Enemies Act.

but in more recent years, it's become more controversial and politicized. In fact, in 2016, the Library of Congress said that it would no longer use the term illegal alien and would instead replace it with terms like non-citizens and unauthorized immigration. And then in 2021, President Biden went ahead and instructed immigration agencies to replace any use of the word alien or illegal alien with non-citizen or undocumented immigrant. But that instruction from Biden didn't actually change the law, right? So the Immigration and Nationality Act still uses the word alien, which is technically the legal term. And the Immigration and Nationality Act is the law that sets most of our immigration laws here in the United States. So just wanted to elaborate on that and

provide some more context. Now, the second thing I want to make mention of is Tom Homan's approach to seeking, you know, cooperation from local jails. As we've talked about, Tom Homan was one of the top immigration officials under Obama. And this approach is something that he really focused on while working in the Obama administration, specifically this cooperation with local law enforcement. Because the Obama administration wasn't, it wasn't carrying out workplace raids or these on-the-street enforcement operations we're seeing today. Yet, Obama deported more people than any other president in history. And this is the approach. that the Obama administration really relied on is taking custody of people directly from

jails. So Homan is taking the same approach here and today that he took while working under Obama. So just wanted to give you some context as far as that aspect of this story as well and why Hohman is focused on this local cooperation from county jails and local officers. To get back to the Tuesday press conference, Holman said, quote, given this increase in unprecedented collaboration, and as a result of the need for less law enforcement officers to do this work in a safer environment, I have announced effective immediately. We will draw down 700 people effective today, 700 law enforcement personnel.

During our efforts to identify and implement improvements of how operations are planned, conducted, and managed, we identified a gap. in regard to the use of body-worn cameras. This was actually raised by the workforce when I started walking around talking to some people here. Some officers and agents had them, some didn't. That inconsistency was unacceptable, so we moved immediately to prioritize full body cam deployment in the city.

I discussed this with Secretary Nome a couple of days ago, and she made the decision to deploy them. The plan is to deploy them nationwide, but it's a priority for this city right now. Again, this is smarter enforcement, not less enforcement. For those who are not a national security threat or public safety risk, you are not exempt from immigration enforcement actions. If you are in the country illegally, you are not off the table. Let me be clear, President Trump fully intends to achieve mass deportations during this administration, and immigration enforcement actions will continue every day throughout this country.

President Trump made a promise, and we have not directed otherwise. End quote. So that was Holman's most recent press conference. then a day after that, President Trump sat for an interview with NBC News. And the interviewer asked him about this decision to poll the 700 federal officers from Minneapolis and whether that was a decision that came from Trump himself. Trump responded in part, quote, yes it did, but it didn't come from me because I just wanted to do it. And quote, then Trump was asked, speaking of Minneapolis, what did you learn? And Trump replied in part, quote, I learned that maybe we could use a

little bit of a softer touch, but you still have to be tough. We're dealing with really hard criminals. End quote. So that is the latest out of Minneapolis. I should also mention that there will still be about 2,000 federal officers on the ground in Minneapolis, even after the drawdown of 700 personnel. Okay. On Monday, President Trump triggered questions when he seemed to suggest nationalizing elections. So he went on the Dan Bongino show and he was talking about immigration and he was alleging dishonest and poorly run elections in some states. He said in part, quote, these people were brought to our country to vote and they vote illegally. And it's amazing that the Republicans aren't tougher on it. The Republicans should say we want to take over. We should take over the voting in at

least 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting. And quote. Now, Trump didn't say which specific states or jurisdictions he was referring to. He also did not elaborate on how voting could be nationalized or what that would look like. But after those initial comments, he was questioned about them again during a press briefing in the Oval Office on Tuesday. CNN's Caitlin Collins asked him, quote, what exactly did you mean when you said that you should that you should nationalize elections and which 15 states are you talking about? Trump responded, quote, I want to see elections be honest. and if a state can't run an election, I think the people behind me should do something about it. Because, you know, if you think about it, a state is an agent for the federal government in elections.

I don't know why the federal government doesn't do them anyway. But when you see some of these states about how horribly they run their elections, what a disgrace it is. The federal government should get involved. These are agents of the federal government to count the votes. If they can't count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over. End quote. Collins then kind of pushed back. she said, you know, but the Constitution says it should be the states that administer elections,

Mr. President, that's what the Constitution says. And then Trump replied, you know what, they can administer the elections, but they have to do it honestly. Okay. So let's talk about this. Under the Constitution, specifically the elections clause, elections are administered by the states. However, Congress does have some regulatory authority. So Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution says the times, places, and manners of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof. But Congress may at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations. In other words, each state legislature gets to decide when elections happen, where people vote, and how elections are run for U.S. House and Senate races.

But Congress can step in at any time and change or override those state rules by passing a law. And then when it comes to presidential elections, the Constitution says that each state legislature decides how its presidential electors are chosen. So state laws determine how voting works for presidential elections, just like they do for congressional elections. But keep in mind, Congress does have some say in federal elections because of that clause that says Congress may at any time by law, or alter such regulations, right? So while the Constitution leaves the actual running of elections to the states, the actual administering of elections to the states, it does give Congress the power to set national rules for federal elections. Now, that could mean that Congress, you know, maybe Congress gets more involved in elections by saying, or by passing laws that require standardized ballot counting

procedures or passing a law that requires ballots to be handled and audited in a certain way, or maybe passes a law that imposes voter ID requirements for federal elections. This is something we saw with the SAVE Act. So Congress does have that authority. But the key distinction here is Congress can regulate the process, but states still carry it out and administer it. A full federal takeover of elections where the federal government is running elections and administering elections, that would be unconstitutional. And in order for that to become

constitutional, that would require a constitutional amendment. So just to make it a little more clear, I'll give you a real world example. Congress could pass a law, let's say in a hypothetical world that says all states have to hand count all ballots for all federal elections and record them using X, Y, and Z processes. The states would then have to hand count all ballots and record them using the specified processes. But in no world, under our current Constitution, could Congress step in and count the ballots or have the federal government count the ballots, you know, or pass a law that says

the federal government will count the ballots? That's part of the administration process of elections, you know, and the Constitution is clear that that role belongs to the states. So it's unclear what exactly Trump meant when he said we should nationalize federal elections. If he's hinting at replacing state authority entirely and having the federal government actually administer elections, that of course, as we've said, would be unconstitutional. But if he's referring to Republican lawmakers enacting legislation to create more of a, you know, more of a federal regulatory baseline like the SAVE Act, for example, which would impose national proof of citizenship requirements for voter registration,

that would be more in line with the Constitution and something that, you know, an authority that Congress has rather than actually administering the elections. So hopefully that made things a little more clear. Let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about the Supreme Court ruling allowing California to use its new congressional map. We'll also talk about the Clinton's agreement to testify before Congress. and then we'll get into the Epstein files and do part two of the Q&A. Boarding for Flight 246 to Toronto is delayed 50 minutes. Ugh, what? Sounds like Ojo time.

Play Ojo? Great idea. Feel the fun with all the latest slots in live casino games and with no wagering requirements. What you win is yours to keep groovy. Hey, I won! Boating will begin when passenger Fisher is done celebrating. 19 plus Ontario only. Please play responsibly. Concerned by your gambling or that if someone close to you, call 18665-3-1-2-6-0 or visit comex-onterio.com.

The scorebed app here with trusted stats and real-time sports news. Yeah, hey, who should I take in the Boston game? Well, statistically speaking. Nah, no more statistically speaking. I want hot takes. I want knee-jerk reactions. That's not really what I do. Is that because you don't have any knees? Or... The scoreback.

Trusted sports content, seamless sports betting. Download today. 19 plus Ontario only. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or the gambling of someone close to you, please go to conicsonterio.ca. Everyone needs help with something. If investing is your something, we get it. Cooperators' financial representatives are here to help with genuine advice that puts your needs first.

We got you. For all your holistic investment in life insurance advice needs, talk to us today. Cooperators, investing in your future together. Mutual funds are offered. through Cooperators Financial Investment Services Inc. to Canadian residents except those in Quebec in the territories. Segregated funds are administered by cooperators life insurance company. Life insurance is underwritten by cooperators life insurance company. Welcome back. The Supreme Court has allowed California to use a new congressional map that is expected to give Democrats up to five additional seats in the House in the upcoming

midterms. Keep in mind, this was a one-sentence order from the court. Okay, this was not a case where we had oral arguments and all of that, but I'll still give you the background. As we know, states all across the country like Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, Utah, Ohio, and California have been redrawing their maps to try to win more congressional seats in the upcoming midterms. Every state has their own rules as to how they can do this. So in most states, congressional maps are drawn by the state legislature. The legislature draws the maps and then subsequently votes on the maps via the typical legislative process. And that's that. Naturally, what this means is that whatever party is in office can draw the district lines in a way that benefits their party.

And that's generally legal. It's called partisan gerrymandering. Racial gerrymandering is not legal. That's where the lines on the map are drawn based on race. But partisan gerrymandering where the lines are drawn based on party affiliation is generally permissible under current federal law. So some states use the typical legislative process to enact new maps. other states, though, use independent commissions to draw their maps. And the independent commission is meant to basically take the political interference out of it, though it doesn't always work that way.

California, though, is one of those states that has an independent commission. And it's been that way since 2010 when voters passed Prop 20 and took congressional redistricting or the power to redistrict away from lawmakers and gave it to this independent commission. Because California voters gave the power, of drawing congressional maps to this independent commission and enshrined that in the state constitution, the legislature can't just simply take back the power when they want to, right? To take back the power of drawing the maps, the legislature had to pass a constitutional amendment reclaiming that power. And that's what the legislature did. It was a ballot measure called Prop 50. It just passed in November. So after that ballot measure passed, the legislature was able to

temporarily reclaim their power to redraw the state's congressional map until 2030. And that, of course, includes the map that will serve as the congressional map for the upcoming midterms later this year. But three days after that ballot measure passed, California Republicans tried to sue, or they did sue, to try to block the use of the new map. And they argued that the new map was unconstitutional because it relied too heavily on race. in drawing 16 of the congressional districts that they said favored Latino voters. Now, the lower court turned down their request to block the new map. The lower court left the new map in place.

The lower court found that, quote, the evidence of any racial motivation driving redistricting is exceptionally weak, while the evidence of partisan motivations is overwhelming, end quote. So then from there, California Republicans went to the Supreme. court. They filed with the Supreme Court at the end of January, and they asked the justices to step in and block the new map while the case continued through the appeals process. However, on Wednesday afternoon, yesterday, the justices declined to get involved. It was a simple one sentence order. The court said, quote, the application for writ of injunction pending appeal is denied, end quote.

So to be clear about what happened here, the court did not rule on the court. the constitutionality of the map, right? Instead, what it said is we're not going to step into this fight on an emergency basis. And by not stepping in, what that means is the lower court ruling stands, and this new map can be used while the case moves forward in the lower courts. So what that means is California will use this new map in the upcoming midterms. The only thing that would change that is if this case proceeds through the appeals process and at some point before the midterms, either the appellate court or the Supreme Court rejects the map, but that appears to be unlikely. And I should also mention that this decision is not entirely surprising just because the Supreme

Court has recently allowed both Democratic and Republican-leaning maps in other states to remain in place while litigation continues. So it's just kind of looking like the court is a little bit reluctant to get involved in these disputes, these redistricting disputes, on an emergency basis unless there's, you know, a clear and obvious and immediate constitutional violation. Okay, switching gears a bit on Tuesday, former president Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton agreed to testify before the House Oversight Committee as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into the federal government's handling of Jeffrey Epstein. So as we talked about last week, the Clintons were subpoenaed back in August of last year. And those subpoenaed,

subpoenas requested sworn testimony. And the thing about subpoenas is that when you are subpoenaed, you have to comply. You don't really get a choice. I mean, you can choose to not comply, but then you risk going to jail. So there's that. Now, originally, Bill's deposition was scheduled for October 14th of last year, Hillary's for October 9th. Those dates ended up getting moved because the Clinton's legal team said that they had some travel and personal obligations. Bill was rescheduled for December 17th, Hillary was rescheduled for December 18th. However, the Clintons again were unable to appear this time because of a funeral. At that point, because their depositions had already been rescheduled once, the committee said

that it would be willing to accommodate their request to postpone the deposition if the Clinton's proposed alternative dates the following month in January. But the Clintons did not do that. So that is when the situation escalated, and that is when we heard Chairman Comer say that if the Clintons failed to appear for their depositions in December or schedule a date for early January, the committee would start contempt of Congress proceedings. The committee didn't end up doing that and said the committee issued these follow-up subpoenas. Bills was for January 13th. Hillary's was for January 14th. And then, as we talked about last week, the Clintons refused to show up for those dates as well.

they said the subpoenas were legally invalid. So after that refusal is when Chairman Comer initiated these criminal contempt of Congress proceedings against them. And last week, the House Oversight Committee voted to advance the contempt resolutions against both Clintons, passing the resolution against Bill in a 34 to 8 vote and against Hillary in a 28 to 15 vote. Now, this vote, just to be clear did not did not find them in contempt, right? What that vote did was advance the contempt resolution to the full House floor. So had the full House passed the resolutions, that's when they would have been found in contempt and the DOJ could have prosecuted them both. So once the resolution passed the committee with bipartisan support, the Clintons knew that both Republicans and Democrats were likely

to be on board with the resolutions once it got to the House floor and they would likely be found in contempt. And that is when the Clinton's legal team reached out to the committee and offered to come to some sort of agreement regarding testimony. Initially, the Clinton's legal team proposed a four-hour transcribed interview with Bill and a sworn statement from Hillary, but Comer refused that offer. Then, later that same day, this was on Monday, it was reported that both Clintons would appear for depositions on mutually agreeable dates. The following day, on Tuesday, the agreement was finalized. And now we know that Hillary is scheduled to testify on February 26th, bill on the 27th. Following that agreement, the House Republicans did go ahead and

cancel the planned floor vote on contempt charges. So those charges are off the table for now. At this point, it's unclear whether the upcoming testimonies will be open to the public or held behind closed doors. The committee did not request public testimony, but the Clinton's legal team has since proposed that. So we'll have to see what happens there. As far as what we can expect, the committee is bound to ask Bill about his personal relationship with Epstein. Hillary has not been directly tied to Epstein. So her questions will probably focus more so on what she knows about her husband's relationship with Epstein, as well as what she knew, if anything, about the federal government's handling of its Epstein investigation. Because remember, she served as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.

which was after Epstein was initially investigated. Now, that's not to say that she knows anything because the Secretary of State doesn't really get involved with, you know, the DOJ or FBI that much. But it's just to say she might have some insight into potential failures or blind spots within the government. And we know from the committee's subpoena to Hillary that they are, well, here's what I'll say. We have to remember that this specific investigation by the House oversight. committee is investigating the federal government's handling of the investigations into Jeffrey

Epstein. It's not so much about wrongdoing by the people that are appearing for testimony. It is about how the federal government handled its investigations. So that's why I said, Hillary's questions will probably focus a bit on how the federal government conducts business when it comes to these things. Bill, his relationship with Epstein has been well documented through meeting records, flight logs, pictures, emails, etc. So his questions will probably go into his relationship with Epstein if we had to, you know, put a bet on it. It is worth noting no Epstein victim or associate has ever publicly accused bill of any

wrongdoing. But of course, we do know they did have a relationship. So that is the deal with the Clintons agreeing to testify. And now we can get into part two. two of our Epstein Q&A. In Monday's episode, I covered the Epstein files release in significant detail. I included a background explanation of how we got here, why these files were being released now, all of that. I also did a listener Q&A, but I said then that we would do a more specific Q&A in today's episode. And by more specific, I just mean addressing some of the

specific claims about specific people that are involved and, you know, more so dispelling rumors. In fact, we're not doing rumor has it in today's episode. This is kind of serving almost like rumor has it as well. So let's get into it. First question. Other than the president, what high profile individuals were named in the files and in what context? Was Zohran Mamdani really in the files as a young child?

Okay. So I know this person is asking about people other than the president, but if you are curious about what the files say about the president, I did cover that. on Monday. So go listen to Monday's episode once you're done with this episode. As far as other people go, we, of course, saw pictures of Prince Andrew. Not surprising. We know that he and Epstein were close, and Prince Andrew has been very much so accused of sexual abuse. The one picture that's really making headlines from this new release is the one of him on all fours leaning over a girl who was laying on the ground. It's unclear what the context is there. I've seen some

rumors about the girl being dead. We don't know that for sure. It's just him laying on the ground or laying on all fours hovering over a girl that's laying on the ground and her face is redacted. We also saw emails exchanged between Elon Musk and Epstein. So in 2012, Epstein asked Musk how many people he would be bringing for the helicopter ride to the island. Musk responded, it would probably just be him and his wife and then asked which day or night would be the wildest. party. That was in November 2012. In December 2012, Christmas Day, actually.

Musk wrote to Epstein, quote, do you have any parties planned? I've been working to the edge of sanity this year. And so once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St. Barts or elsewhere and let loose. The invitation is much appreciated, but a peaceful island experience is the opposite of what

I'm looking for. End quote. Then the following year, in a November 2013 exchange, Epstein asked Musk if he would come to the Caribbean for Christmas, saying Woody Allen would be there as well. And Musk responded, quote, unquote, yes. It has not been officially verified whether Musk went to the island, you know, after he responded, yes, but some are speculating that he did because in a later email from September 2014, Epstein asked Musk if he would join for Christmas again in St. Bart's.

Musk replied, quote, don't know, end quote. And then, at the end of October 2014, Epstein's assistant sent a schedule reminder to Epstein that noted Musk is, quote, to go to the island on December 6th, end quote. However, a subsequent email on December 5th, 2014 had a schedule note saying, quote, reminder Elon Musk to island December 6th, is this still happening? Question mark. End quote. Emails later in December 2013 show Musk and Epstein trying to plan some time together. Epstein ultimately says his schedule wouldn't allow him to make it to the island. Following the release of these files, must wrote on X, quote,

no one pushed harder than me to have the Epstein files released, and I'm glad that has finally happened. I had very little correspondence with Epstein and declined repeated invitations to go to his island or fly on his Lolita Express, but was well aware that some email correspondence with him could be misinterpreted and used by detractors to smear my name. I don't care about that, but what I do care about is that we at least attempt to prosecute those who committed serious crimes with Epstein, especially regarding heinous exploitation of underage girls.

And quote, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnik spent time on Epstein's Island with his wife and four kids back in 2012. Emails show that Lutnik's wife planned a visit for their family around the end of that year. She was communicating with Epstein's then assistant to coordinate travel. We also know Lutnik was invited for lunch with Epstein on his island. that appears to have been on Christmas Eve in 2012. So it's possible that lunch took place while he was there with his family, but nothing's been

confirmed. Lutnik had previously claimed in an interview last October that he and his wife cut ties with Epstein in 2005. As we know, he was at Epstein's Island in 2012. New York Giants co-owner, Steve Tisch, was found to be emailing with Epstein back and forth about various girls. In one email from 2013, Tish said to Epsons, I just had lunch with your assistant's friend who I met at your house Wednesday morning.

Very sweet girl. Do you know anything about her? End quote. Epstein replied, quote, no, but I will ask. All confidential. I will get all info. Did you contact the great ass fake tit redacted? She's a character, short term, has an older boyfriend going to acting school, a 10 ass. I am happy to have you as a new but obviously shared interest friend. end quote. Tish then replied, quote, thanks Jeffrey, curious to know about redacted. I will contact, redacted, pro or civilian, question mark. Epstein replied, quote, send me a number to call. I don't like records of these conversations. End quote. Epstein sent another email later on the same thread that says,

quote, report just in, you did very well. She wants to go to the play. She is a little freaked out by the age difference, but go slow and wait. I will try to continue. I will try to confess. convince her not return to Ukraine, having her crying worked, end quote. Tish wrote back, quote, nice report, funny comment on crying, end quote. Tish also emailed about another woman in 2013 asking Epstein if she was quote unquote fun. And Epstein replied that she is a quote, civilian, but Russian, and rarely tells the full truth but fun. And quote. Other emails show Tish inviting Epstein to a Giants game, Epstein inviting Tish to his island. In a statement since the release of the files, Tish said, quote, we had a brief association where we exchanged emails about adult women.

And in addition, we discussed movies, philanthropy, and investments. I did not take him up on any of his invitations and never went to his island. As we all know now, he was a terrible person and someone I deeply regret associating with. End quote. Okay, let's take our second and final break here. when we come back, we'll talk about a few other people mentioned in the files, and then we'll get to some more questions and answers before we finish with quick hitters. Welcome back. Before the break, we talked about a few of the high profile people mentioned in the new release of the files, but we do have some other people to discuss, starting with Dr. Oz. A transaction report shows that Epstein paid for the travel of Dr. Oz in 2004. We don't know what that travel was for.

The files also show that Dr. Oz sent Epstein an email in 2016, but that message is redacted, so we do not know what it says. Catherine Ruhmler, who was White House counsel under President Obama, an associate White House counsel to President Clinton, said in a December 2015 email that, well, it was a 2015 email to a redacted recipient. We don't know who it went to. But she said that she adores Epstein and that he's like an older brother to her. She also received various gifts from Epstein over the years, including flowers, wine in Hermesbag, $10,000 in Bergdorf-Goodman gift cards, spa trips, and an Apple Watch. Ruhnler has since said her relationship with Epstein was professional and that she regrets ever knowing him and has enormous sympathy for the victims of Epstein's crimes. Peter Attia, celebrity doctor and popular podcast host, was also in the files, according to a new. released statement from Atia, his relationship with Epstein started in the summer of 2014 and ended

in the spring of 2019. We know that, of course, Epstein died in the summer of 2019. Atia says that in that time frame, he met with Epstein on seven or eight occasions at Epstein's Manhattan townhouse regarding research studies and to meet other people that Epstein introduced Atia too. Atia said he was not Epstein's doctor, but he did answer general medical questions for Epstein and recommended other providers to him. In one email in June 2015, Epstein sent Atia a redacted picture, to which Atia responded, quote, please tell me you found that picture online. Dot-da-dot, bastard. Bastard. End quote. Epstein responded, afraid not. And Atia replied, the biggest problem with becoming friends with you, question mark. The life you lead is so outrageous and yet I can't tell a soul.

end quote. Now, Attia has since said in that in that statement that he released just, you know, within the last week, that the redacted picture in that email was of an adult woman and that the subject line, which read fresh shipment, was in reference to metformin, which is a diabetes drug that Atia says Epstein was taking for anti-aging. In 2016, Atia wrote in an email to Epstein, quote, Pussy is indeed. low carb, still awaiting results on gluten content, though, end quote. The subject of that email reads, confirmed. In Atia's recent statement, he said in part, quote, to be clear, number one, I was not involved in any criminal activity. Number two, my interactions with Epstein had nothing to do with his sexual abuse or exploitation of anyone. Three, I was never on his plane, never on his island, and never present at any sex parties. That said, I apologize and regret putting myself in a position were emails, some of them embarrassing, tasteless, and indefensible are now public, and that is on me.

I accept the reality and the humiliation that comes with it. End quote. He then went on to explain that when he learned of the Miami Herald's investigative article in 2018, he was, quote, repulsed by what he had learned. He said, quote, at that point, I told him directly, meaning Epstein, he needed to accept responsibility for what he did, hoping to provide the victims from the Herald piece with support I contacted a residential trauma facility to understand what funding comprehensive care for many victims would require. Those communications were between me and the facility and were therefore not part of the document release.

I spoke with Epstein and shared the information and insisted that he fund their care, beginning with residential treatment and followed by lifelong therapy. In hindsight, even attempting to facilitate accountability was a mistake and once again reflected just how naive I was at the time. Once the full scope of his actions was clear, disengagement should have been the only appropriate response. My intent does not change that, and I regret not drawing that boundary immediately. And quote. Richard Branson was also named in the files and pictured with Epstein on an island, not Epstein's island, but some other island, possibly Branson's island. In a 2013 email, Epstein thanked Branson for his hospitality and said, quote, I appreciate your public relations. thoughts. Branson replied in part, quote, anytime you're in the area would love to see you,

as long as you bring your harem. And then seemingly in response to the public relations remark, Branson wrote, quote, I think if Bill Gates was willing to say that you've been a brilliant advisor for him, that you slipped up many years ago by sleeping with a 17 and a half year old woman and were punished for it, that you've more than learned your lesson and have done nothing that's against the loss since. And yes, as a single man, you seem to have a pension for women, but there's nothing wrong with that. Anyway, something along those lines, end quote. Seemingly giving Epstein some advice on, I don't know, what to possibly say or what Bill Gates should say in relation to a falling out with Epstein. Not entirely sure there, but that's what

it sounds like. A spokesperson for Virgin said Branson sent that email after hosting Epstein as part of a business meeting on Branson's private island and that Epstein had brought three adult women with him and that Epstein referred to those women as his harem. And that is why Branson used that term in the email. The spokesperson also noted that had Branson been aware of Epstein's illegal behavior, he wouldn't have used the word harem or been in contact with him. Now, another person we already knew had a relationship with Epstein is Bill Gates, but he is also in these new files.

in an October 2009 email from Epstein or to Epstein from publicist Peggy Siegel. Siegel said she had just left an afterparty at Jislane Maxwell's house for a movie that was actually directed by Zohran Mamdani's mom and that Bill Clinton, Jeff Bezos, and Bill Gates were all there. Then as it relates to Gates specifically, there are, of course, these two emails in the files that are raising questions, one of which suggests Bill caught an STD and subsequent. sought medication to give to his wife, Melinda. And that actually kind of segues us into our next question. We'll revisit the people that are mentioned. But for now, the next question is, did Bill Gates

contract an STD and drug his wife, Melinda, without her knowing? So this is a claim that stems from an email that was written by Epstein himself. Okay. The subject line of the email is Bill, but it appears as if Epstein was writing the email on behalf of someone named Boris, but sending it to himself. So this is an email from Epstein to Epstein, okay? But the email starts off with, quote, Dear Bill, I cannot believe you have chosen to disregard our friendship developed of over the last six years. I'm aware that accidents happen. It is how each of us has chosen to deal with this unfortunate event that has me dismayed beyond comprehension. You have decided to discharge me from my job.

Had Larry, your PR person, tell me that I engaged in morally inappropriate behavior, asked me to be the major actor in a cover-up so you can maintain the reputation that you have worked so hard to achieve, asked me to recommit to a confidentiality agreement and have categorically told me that we cannot have any direct ongoing business relationship. Then it says, quote, But you did agree to send a letter of recommendation should a future employer ask for, one. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would have said, Boris, this is not your fault. And quote. So again, it appears Epstein is writing this email on behalf of someone named Boris, and we know that a man named Boris was a former advisor to Bill Gates. But then towards the end of

that same email, it says, quote, to add insult to injury, you implore me to please delete the emails regarding your STD, your request that I provide you with antibiotics, that you can, can surreptitiously give to Melinda and the description of your penis. You also made it clear to me that I am not to refer to redacted as that is another topic that must remain between the two of us. And quote. So we don't know for sure whether Bill Gates contracted an STD and then tried to medicate Melinda because, again, this is an email that Epstein wrote about this, you know, he wrote this claim in a draft email to himself seemingly on behalf of someone else. So we don't really know the full context here. But in another draft email to himself with the same subject line, Bill,

Epstein wrote in part, quote, I have decided to resign my position effective immediately with BG3 and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I have been caught up in a severe marital dispute between Melinda and Bill. Pause real quick. Epstein didn't work for, he, he, he, he, he, didn't have a position with BG3 or the Bill Melinda Gay's Foundation. So this is not an email that he's writing on behalf of himself. This is, again, why we're saying it seems like he's writing on behalf of someone else. But the email continues, in my role as his right hand, Bill's right hand, I had been asked on multiple occasions and in hindsight wrongly acquiesced into participating in things that have ranged from the morally inappropriate to the ethically unsound and had been

repeatedly asked to do other things that get near and potentially over the line into illegal. from helping Bill get drugs in order to deal with the consequences of sex with Russian girls, to facilitating his illicit trists with married women, to being asked to provide Adderall for bridge tournaments. I feel I owe it to my friends and future colleagues to admit a moral failure to ask forgiveness and move on with my life. End quote. So that's where the claims are coming from. Now, a spokesperson for Gates called these claims, quote, absolutely absurd and completely false, and said, quote, the only thing these documents demonstrate is Epstein's frustration that he did not have an ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to to entrap and defame. And quote. Now, keep in mind, there are thousands of

other names in these files, okay, including a ton of celebrities. Epstein was very, very well connected and knew a lot of people. So there are a lot of names. That doesn't mean that these people did anything wrong, did anything illegal, there are just a lot of names in these pages, okay, in these files. So people like Naomi Campbell, Bruce Willis, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael Jackson, Kate Blanchett, Cameron Diaz, Kevin Spacey, all of these people are named in the files, but it's all, they were all named in passing, in depositions sometimes. Like, for instance, if a victim sat for a deposition and she said she met X person at X party X amount of years ago, like that person makes it into the files, right? But none of those people I just named, none of those celebrities I just named,

have been accused of any wrongdoing. And the last thing, before we move on to the next question, I know there was a question about Zoran, Mom Donnie. A lot of you had this question actually. And the question stemmed from this now viral picture showing Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Epstein, Maxwell, Mom Donnie's mom. And Mom. Domani himself as a young boy. That is a fake picture. It came from a social media account that describes itself as a parody account. The profile says that it shares pictures created with AI to expose people who believe it. So it is a fake picture. As I mentioned earlier, Mom Donny's mom did have a party at Jiselaide Maxwell's house in 2009 for her movie Amelia. So Mom Donnie's mom

knew Jisleine Maxwell. But the picture that Mom Donnie is in as a boy is fake. Zoran Mamdani himself is not in these files. So I just want to be clear about that. Next question. Do we know what pizza is code for? Unfortunately, we don't. Unfortunately or fortunately, who knows, I don't know, but we don't know what it means. There are several emails that reference pizza, which does seem to be a code word. We do not know what it stands for. So in one email, Harry Fish says to Epstein, what time do you want to get pizza and grape soda tomorrow? In an email from a redacted sender with a subject, the pizza monster, Epstein writes, She looks pregnant.

The redacted sender responds, quote, you mean radiating with a soft glow with the look of bliss and excitement. Yeah, that's the pizza. End quote. In another email, someone named Daphne Wallace writes to Epstein, quote, may I bring in your slice of pizza to you? In another email, a redacted sender, emails a redacted recipient, writing, send pizza to Bobby. In another email from a redacted sender to a redacted recipient, the writer says, Pizza Party was great. We had a lot of fun.

Stayed late. We all slept in yesterday morning. Your night was good, question mark. The subject of that email is spoof on chandelier, the video I sent you with the amazing little girl dance. And there are hundreds more emails that reference pizza, but again, we don't know what pizza stands for. I'm pretty sure, though, as you can tell through those emails, it doesn't really sound. like it stands for actual pizza, but we just, we don't have an answer there. And that actually brings us to the redactions. So we just talked a lot about redacted senders, redacted recipients, and many of you

asked, why are their names redacted besides the victim's names? And that's a good question that I don't have the answer to. What I can tell you is that under the law, under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the DOJ was only allowed to redact records that contain personally identifiable information of records that depict or contain child sex abuse materials, records that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, records that depict or contain images of death, physical abuse or injury to any person, or records that need to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are properly classified. The law specifically said that a record cannot be redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm,

or political sensitivity. So, assuming the DOJ followed the law, the only real exception that would warrant the redaction of names other than the victims are if those individuals are part of an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution or if their names need to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are already properly classified. We don't know if either of those exceptions apply here, nor do we know with any degree of certainty that the DOJ followed the law. We do know that a DOJ official has said that any fully redacted names are of victims, saying, quote, in many instances, as it has been well documented publicly, those who were originally victims became participants and co-conspirators.

We did not redact any names of men, only female victims, end quote. The same DOJ official also said the FBI and law enforcement names were redacted as well. and a press release from the DOJ said some redactions were privilege-based redactions, meaning the department withheld or redacted files covered by various privileges that exist under the law. So the deliberative process privilege, the work product doctrine, the attorney-client client privilege, things like that. Now, the Epstein-Biles Transparency Act also says that any and all redactions have to be accompanied by a written justification published in the federal register and submitted to Congress. A summary of redactions made, including a legal basis, has to be submitted to Congress within 15 days of completion of the release. So if we're going based off of January 30th, the release date of these files, that means the DOJ has about another week or so to get that summary to Congress. And the DOJ acknowledged that it has to submit this report when it released the files on January 30th. It said in its press release, quote, a formal report with a summary of redactions made and list of a list of, all government officials and politically exposed persons named or, named or referenced in the release

materials will be submitted to the House and Senate committees on the judiciary within 15 days of today's release. If after that report is submitted, any member of Congress wishes to view personally all portions of the production in unredacted form, they are welcome to make arrangements with the department to do so. End quote. So the DOJ has acknowledged that obligation. We don't know if will ever see the unredacted form, you know, as members of the public. But, yeah, that that report should be being submitted to Congress in the next week or so. Okay, some quick hitters. Ryan Ruth, the man found guilty of trying to assassinate President Trump on Trump's Palm Beach Golf Course in 2024. He was sentenced to life in prison plus an additional seven years.

Then officials in Fulton County, Georgia have asked a judge to order the FBI to return ballots and other documents from the 2020 election that the FBI seized last week. The motion that Fulton County filed is under seal, so we can't see what their legal basis is. The Washington Post said it would cut a third of its workforce. Executive editor Matt Murray called the move a strategic reset it needs to compete in the era of AI. Marie said the post will close its sports desk, its Middle East desk, its book section, and suspend its podcast. The LA Times reported on Wednesday that LA's mayor Bass was involved in altering the after-action report for the 2025 Palisade's Wildfire. Two sources who say they have knowledge of Bass's office told the LA Times that after receiving an early draft,

she, Mayor Bass, told then interim fire chief that the report could expose the city to legal liabilities. Bass allegedly wanted key findings about the LAFD's actions removed or softened before that report was made. made public. It is worth noting the author of the report declined to endorse the final version. He had said at the time that there had been changes that altered his own findings and made the report, quote, highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards, end quote, and the mayor has denied these allegations. This last one, it's not really politics adjacent, but I know a lot of you are following the story, as am I. So as of today, at 1 p.m. Eastern time, the Pima County Sheriff's Office has not identified a suspect or a person of interest in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie.

We did learn about a timeline, though, at today's press conference. So we know that Nancy went to her daughter's house for dinner and got home around 9.48 p.m. That's when her garage door opened. At 9.50 p.m., her garage door closed. At 1.47 a.m., the doorbell camera disconnects. At 2.12 a.m., software detects a person on camera, but there is no video. At 228 a.m., Nancy's pacemaker app shows who is disconnected from her phone. At 1156 a.m., the family checks on Nancy, discovers her missing, and reports her missing at 12.03 p.m. Sheriff's arrived on the scene about 12 minutes later and started the investigation. So that is what we know about the timeline. Again, no suspect, no person. of interest. Okay, I know I promised critical thinking today since we didn't do it on Monday, but once again, I did not have time to get to it. So we will get back to it next week. I promise. Okay, I do mean it this time.

Just with the Epstein stuff, things have just gotten. I mean, there's just too much to go over. So I don't always have time at the end of the day to come up with questions and all of that. So that is what I have for you today. I hope you have a fantastic weekend. And I will talk to you again on Monday.