Trump PANICS as SMOKING GUN Epstein Email FINALLY LOCATED

What this episode is about

The discussion centers around sensitive documents within the Epstein files that raise concerns for Donald Trump, particularly an email revealing a conversation between Trump and Epstein's lawyers during a 2009 investigation. This email reportedly contradicts Trump's claims about distancing himself from Epstein, highlighting issues with redactions in the documents and the lack of clarity from the Department of Justice regarding the reasons for these redactions.

Key takeaways

• The ever-expanding mystery of unredacted documents suggests Trump's relationship with Epstein is more complicated than he claims.
• Epstein's email to Maxwell could reveal Trump's true stance, proving consistent narratives are not his strong suit.
• Why redact what seems non-privileged? The cover-up is thicker than a New York steak at Mar-a-Lago.
• Raskin's unearthing of contradictions hints at a web of deception extending far beyond just Trump and Epstein.
• In a legal maze, the absence of attorney-client privilege begs: what secrets are being kept from the public?

Who speaks in this episode?

• Ben Meiselas (Host) · 15 min speaking
• Jamie Raskin (Guest) · 7 min speaking
• Pam Bondi (Guest) · 2 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 5:00: Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Jamie Raskin, Attorney General Pam Bondi
2. 5:00 – 10:00: Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein Transparency Act, Attorney General Pam Bondi
3. 10:00 – 15:00: Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein Transparency Act
4. 15:00 – 20:00: Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein Transparency Act, Attorney General Pam Bondi, House Judiciary Committee
5. 20:00 – 24:16: Donald Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, House Judiciary Committee, Jamie Raskin

Notable quotes from "Trump PANICS as SMOKING GUN Epstein Email FINALLY LOCATED"

• Be certain redactions that have been made. I saw one document which was an email that was sent by Jeffrey Epstein to Galain Maxwell which was the forward of an email that he…

  about Ghislain Maxwell · at 0:54

• Will you commit to publicly providing the unredacted version of this so that the American people can understand the extent of Donald Trump's lies about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?

  about Jeffrey Epstein · at 3:11

• Time in litigation. That's just part of what you do if you're withholding documents. The Epstein Transparency Act requires a report to be prepared precisely on these…

  about Epstein Transparency Act · at 8:12

• Attorney General Bondi's just dumbfounding obstructionist appearance before the judiciary committee, she has no interest in doing anything to move the ball forward in terms of our understanding of the crimes and she's demonstrating.

  about Attorney General Pam Bondi · at 15:16

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Jeffrey Epstein — Person · Core referenced subject (Epstein files) · 13 mentions · first at 0:04
  Central to the discussion as the subject of the ‘Epstein files’ and the sender of an email to Maxwell forwarding lawyers’ notes about alleged conversations involving Trump’s lawyers.
• Donald Trump — Person · Central referenced figure · 8 mentions · first at 0:02
  Discussed as the political figure whose statements about Epstein/Mar-a-Lago are allegedly contradicted by a DOJ-held email described by members of Congress.
  Will you commit to publicly providing the unredacted version of this so that the American people can understand the extent of Donald Trump's lies about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?
• Jamie Raskin — Person · Main guest / referenced lawmaker · 5 mentions · first at 0:09
  Portrayed as a Democratic House member (ranking member, House Judiciary) who accessed DOJ’s viewing facility and describes a key email involving Epstein/Maxwell and alleged Trump statements.
  Own. It's it's ridiculous stuff, but it's deeply serious as well. I want to call in Congress member Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, who you all…
• Attorney General Pam Bondi — Person · Referenced official / hearing witness · 7 mentions · first at 2:22
  Discussed as the official questioned in a congressional hearing about releasing an unredacted Epstein-to-Maxwell email; portrayed as obstructing with ‘privileged’ objections and ad hominem attacks.
• Ghislain Maxwell — Person · Core referenced subject (Epstein associate) · 2 mentions · first at 1:08
  Appears as the recipient of the referenced Epstein email; the episode argues there is no privilege basis to redact an Epstein-to-Maxwell email.
• Dan Goldman — Person · Referenced lawmaker / questioner · 1 mention · first at 2:29
  Identified as the member who cross-examined Bondi and pressed for public release of the unredacted Epstein-to-Maxwell email referencing Trump statements.
  Child sex trafficking ring. Dan Goldman, Congress member from New York, cross-examined Bondi about that exact document and watch her response. I also found an email that I have…

Companies & orgs

• House Judiciary Committee — Company · Business focus · 4 mentions · first at 3:52
  The committee is central to the discussion as it is involved in the oversight of the Epstein files and the legal proceedings surrounding them.
  Committee, who you all saw at that committee hearing, that Pam Bondi train wreck. Congressman, I want to talk about that hearing, but let's talk about this document because…

Concepts & topics

• Epstein Transparency Act — Concept · Key argument · 5 mentions · first at 8:16
  Central to the discussion about the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein and the legal battles surrounding their transparency.

Places & events

• Mara Lago — Place · Setting · 1 mention · first at 1:41
  Mentioned in the context of Donald Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, specifically regarding Epstein's status as a guest at the club.
  Epstein's lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mara Lago, but he was a guest at Mara Lago and he had never been…

Full transcript with timestamps

0:00 I want to talk about the types of documents that Donald Trump fears the most in the Epstein files. And uh it's documents like these where Democratic Congress member Jamie Rascin who got access to that special DOJ facility where they're showing the unredacted files, but as I'll talk about in a little bit, those are the unredacted files from the redacted files that were produced, but the unredacted are still redacted. And then there's another group of files that just millions of documents which either have been destroyed or are being hidden. So I want you all to follow that. But in any event, when Jamie Rascin and other Congress members were able to go to this DOJ facility, they found documents like this. Here's how Congress member Rascin describes it.

0:46 The Department of Justice has not sent forth its so-called privilege log. So, it's not explained yet why there might be certain redactions that have been made. Um, I saw one document which was um an email that was sent by Jeffrey Epstein to Galain Maxwell which was the forward of an email that he had received from some of his lawyers giving an account of a conversation between Epstein lawyers uh and Trump lawyers and others about um what had taken place um during that 2009 period. It was during the period of the 2009 investigation and Epstein's lawyers uh synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that um that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mara Lago, but he was a guest at Mara Lago and he had never been asked to leave. And that was redacted for some indeterminate, inscrable reason. I know it seems to be at odds with some things that President Trump has been saying recently about how he had kicked uh

2:03 Jeffrey Epstein out of his club or asked him to leave. And this was um at least one report that appears to contradict it.

2:09 Contradicts it also in a huge way. Why would that document be redacted? What's the privilege between Gilain Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein emailing each other? There's there's no privilege there. But let's ask Pam Bondi what her thoughts are. Not about the stock market going over 50,000, but about the cover up of a child sex trafficking ring. Dan Goldman, Congress member from New York, cross-examined Bondi about that exact document and watch her response. I also found an email that I have right here from Jeffrey Epstein to Gain Maxwell that was unredacted and it included notes of statements that Donald Trump made about his prior relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. Now, there is no reason for this to be hidden from the American people. There is no privilege. There is no attorney client privilege. And I see you're checking with your staff. And I can assure you staff, this is not under attorney client privilege because it was

3:07 sent from Jeffrey Epstein to Gileain Maxwell. Will you commit to publicly providing the unredacted version of this so that the American people can understand the extent of Donald Trump's lies about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein?

3:24 You're about as good of a lawyer today as you were when you tried to impeach President Trump in 2016. Have you apologized for that in 2019?

3:32 So, are will you will you unredact this? Will you counsel on that? Privileged. I'm asking you, will you unredact this?

3:38 Privileged. privileged. Of course, I look forward to discussing this more. Privileged objections sustained on my own. It's it's ridiculous stuff, but it's deeply serious as well. I want to call in Congress member Jamie Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, who you all saw at that committee hearing, that Pam Bondi train wreck. Congressman, I want to talk about that hearing, but let's talk about this document because I've been laser focused on this specific document because it seems to contradict surprise surprise everything that Donald Trump's been saying and it it's and it was redacted from the public, but you were able to see it. Can you talk to us about that document? Well, I think it was the first substantive document that I got to and I think I was the first member to show up uh for the the big opportunity to go after the unredacted materials. Um and uh you know there are

4:35 thousands and thousands of such documents in there. Uh, and it struck me immediately that it was at odds with what Donald Trump has been saying because he's been saying, you know, the minute I learned something went wrong or the minute he stole one of my employees, you know, the story changes, of course, but I sent him off, you know, I cut him off and so on. And this would seem to contradict that. At least what he said in that telephone interview was quite the reverse, which is he was not a member of his club, but he was a guest at the club and he was never sent away.

5:05 It sounds like he was always welcome there. And remember, they were best friends for more than a decade. So, uh, this whole process, Ben, has been set up as a massive cover up. It's not designed to get at the truth. It's designed with just multiple layers of obfiscation and trap doors so that it's going to be very difficult for us uh to arrive at any coherent sense of what actually took place. um even in terms of the crimes being committed against girls and women, much less uh the big picture money relationships and power relationships that structured uh this conspiracy or these overlapping conspiracies.

5:44 As a former litigator, first off, the idea that there would be any type of attorney client privilege when no attorneys are even copied on there or deliberative process privilege when Epstein sending an email to Gil Lane. What? Who's the is is does they work at the FBI? I mean, what are they each other's attorneys? Like, what the hell are we even talking about there? But then you go, you know, another step, you know, as as a litigator, I look at this message as it being forwarded between Gain and and Epstein to basically imply and the fact that there's really nothing else written in it just the message seems to be Trump's playing ball. He said in 20 minutes he said what we wanted him to say and nothing else had to even be said other than look what look what our lawyers are saying that Trump did to avoid having his deposition taken because he's not given the them what they want. And I read it that way.

6:42 How did you read it? I read it exactly the same way. Um on the privilege question though I would just take your point which is right one step further which is that federal law trumps any state privilege in any event. So, the whole idea that somebody says, "Oh, well, there was an attorney client privilege, even though the attorneys weren't involved, even though this was being uh released to a third party who was not part of any potential privilege, thereby destroying the whole thing." Um, leaving all of that aside, there's a federal law that compels them to turn everything over and the only thing that must be redacted is the names of the victims. And of course in more than a 100 cases that we know of on tens of thousands of uh uh pages um there were uh releases of the names, the addresses, the phone numbers, in some cases even uh the nude images of people who should have been uh redacted and who were

7:41 covered by what Congress passed. Yeah. When we talk about a privilege log for our audience out there that you know may not know what that word means, it's basically like a spreadsheet that includes the document number and then it gives a description why it was that this document's not being produced. And because if it is a privilege document, you're not going to specifically write out all the specifics about what's said in the document, but you give a little description. This is privilege because of attorney client privilege between this person and that person. And you give a description. We do that all the time in litigation. That's just part of what you do if you're withholding documents. The Epstein Transparency Act requires a report to be prepared precisely on these redactions. And part of the cover up here is that that report hasn't been produced. And they don't even care that it hasn't been produced.

8:29 Like it's literally built into the law. Give us a report why you're withholding. And they're like, "Yeah, we're just not going to do that."

8:36 Yeah. So, look, um, it it came out at the end of the hearing, uh, because of a photographers's, uh, capture of some of the papers in, um, Attorney General Bunny's burn book that they basically had been, um, tracking our use of their four computers to uh, look into the unredacted version of the 3 million out of 6 million documents that were released. Okay. And this was in the case of Primila Gyipol where they um had given to Attorney General Bondi a document that said Primila Gipal's search history and presumably they had the same thing on each one of us. In other words, they were looking at what we were looking at before she came in to testify so they'd be prepared to answer anything that we posed uh to the attorney general. Well, that's obviously a massive attack on the separation of powers, on our ability uh to conduct oversight within our legislative responsibilities and and insult to the speech and debate clause

9:46 and the whole thing. So, we would like to use this as an opportunity for a reset where we go back to basics and say, "Look, this isn't working the way this is happening right now. This is not a game of hideand go seek. You've got to turn all these materials over and we're going to need a completely new methodology for working this so we can uh get our staffs involved. We're not allowed to have our staff involved. And there are all kinds of Supreme Court cases that say that members of Congress depend on their staffs. Some describe them as our alter egos because we have so many competing responsibilities. We need staff to help on stuff like this.

10:22 Um and um we need staff to be involved and we need much greater access than we have now. Uh but fundamentally, as you were saying, we need an explanation for why um something like 200,000 pages have been redacted of the 3 million they turned over. And then what the hell happened to the other 3 million documents? You know, there the DOJ is saying, "Well, it's duplicative." Well, if it's duplicative, just turn it over. But we know that there's stuff in there that's not duplicative, including the memos relating to victim interviews. You know, people would call up and say, "I've been the victim of human trafficking. I've been the victim of rape." And there's a memo made about it.

11:04 A lot of those are in there. And the reason we know those are in the 3 million withheld documents is because there are women who are survivors who are saying they cannot find them in the 3 million documents that have been turned over. There's also in there uh various prosecutor memoranda that were created for the original 60count federal indictment that was traded away unbelievably for one sweetheart plea of a state count of solicitation to prostitution. So they had a huge um gigantic federal prosecution ready to go blowing the cover on the whole thing and somehow it all got swept under the rug back with uh Alex Acasta and Alan Dersowitz and that team um working with you know people in the DOJ and I mean we really need to try to reconstruct what happened there

11:57 right I mean normally in a litigation we would take the deposition of a PMK or a PMQ a person most qualified or post person most knowledgeable to get the universe of documents and then direct our document requests once we know the full universe and then we would issue subpoenas to various other sources see if things are being you know and there's a whole process there so we're trying to now reconstruct a universe of documents where the DOJ is also serving as their own discovery referee and making these wild privilege claims that aren't real but here's what I think we gather And and let's let the audience know 3 million documents have been produced thus far and those can be referred to as the redacted 3 million partially redacted. These 3 million that we've seen. You have access to technically those three million now in this silo which is very difficult to search which we refer to as now the unredacted. But

12:59 there are still redactions within that because the FBI back in March made redactions. So they took away one layer of it, but the FBI layer of redactions, there's still stuff that you can't see there. But that's those 3 million corresponding. However, there still may be 3 to 5 million more additional documents that you don't even have access to that the DOJ is just saying, "We're not turning these over because we either don't think they're relevant or nonresponsive or they've made the determination that these don't qualify for the Epstein Transparency Act." And those aren't even stuff that you've reviewed in the silo. Those are somewhere else. And who knows if documents are being destroyed if there's a literal burn book where they're being burned but that ex and that could be 25 50 million pages because a document can be multiple pages. Do I kind of accurately describe the universe there?

13:55 That is the accurate universe of all the different levels of deletion and redaction in uh this the most transparent uh presidency in American history as it relates to the Epstein files.

14:07 So what do we do? I mean, I saw when Massie and Kana went to federal judges and said, "Can you appoint a discovery referee?" Which I think is a great idea, but the judges said, "You know what? We can't do it in the criminal case, but you know, we're not taking any position about if a lawsuit is filed." The DOJ claims you can't file any because the Epstein Transparency Act doesn't have a private cause of action built in. They say there's no enforcement mechanism. No judges can touch this. No one yet, as I've seen, has tried to kind of bring that lawsuit. And then you have foyer requests that are out there in foyer law. So, what what do we actually do?

14:47 Well, uh you're correct that the original language of the statute does not include a private right of action. So, it also doesn't necessarily give Congress standing to go to court to vindicate our rights or the public's rights under uh the Epstein Transparency Act. So, um either we're going to have to legislate again or we're going to have to give it a try and see how a court uh responds because we saw from Attorney General Bondi's just dumbfounding uh obstructionist appearance before the judiciary committee, she has no interest in doing anything to move the ball forward in terms of our understanding of the crimes and she's demonstrating absolutely no sympathy or interest in the plight of the victims and survivors at So, what we could be seeing potentially is another discharge petition that would probably have to be instituted that basically says we're making an amendment to the Epstein

15:46 Transparency Act. We've now created a cause of action. Members of Congress can bring the Something like that is possible.

15:53 Something like that is possible. I mean, and we'll see at that point. Of course, the Republicans were dragging and screaming to uh vote for the Epstein Files Transparency Act. uh they did everything they could to kill it. And then when we brought over uh enough Republicans including Marjorie Taylor Green and Nancy Mason, Lauren Boowbert, uh as well as Tom Massie, um at that point they could see they could read the writing on the wall. They could see where it was going and then they all decided they would vote for it so that they would not, you know, get challenged back home over it. And then Trump ran out in front of the parade and said, "Oh yes, I've been leading this all along."

16:31 Um well, that's a joke. and then you you know every the whole world could see that Bondi is actively sabotaging and sandbagging our ability to get any uh information out. So I think we're going to need to keep all the pressure we can on this at the same time understanding that there are other ways that information can come out and will come out. Um and that is because of this growing and growingly fierce survivors community. Final question. When I during the during whatever I even want to call that, I was called testimony of Pam Bondi, but I I truly don't even know what I was observing. You know, a lot of ad homminin attacks directed at you. She goes she goes, "You know what, Rascin, you're not you're not a real lawyer, Rasin, you're not a real lawyer." You know, at first I'm thinking to myself, if there's anybody who's a real lawyer up there, it's Raskin. I mean, Harvard Law, constitutional law scholar. Then

17:24 I'm thinking to myself, you you don't have to say whatever you want to say. But the guy next to you never passed the bar exam who leads the House Judiciary Committee in Jim Jordan. I'm like, so literally the non-real licensed lawyer is the person the Republicans have chairing that committee, which is a whole which is a whole other thing. But how do you deal with that? I mean, how do you respond to that in that moment not to take the bait to stay focused on the mission also knowing that you're speaking to someone who's becling herself? Uh,

17:53 oh man. Well, that's going to take another hour to get through all that. Um, just to be fair to Jim Jordan, he certainly never passed the bar. I'm not certain he ever took the bar. It's not clear to me whether or not he did. And I say that because my dad um who uh was a dazzlingly brilliant man and a concert pianist, decided he wanted to go to law school and he went to the University of Chicago Law School. Uh he went for a very specific purpose. He wanted to figure out whether law could end war. Um, and this was in the wake of the Holocaust and uh Nazism and fascism. But anyway, and he skipped every class that wasn't related to that to the point where the professors would call on him first and everybody would laugh and then they would start the business of the day. Anyway, my dad uh graduated uh from law school um and he never took the bar um because you know he wasn't interested in being a practicing lawyer. So I don't

18:47 hold that against anybody. I don't have P. Bondi's snob reaction about people who are not lawyers, whether or not they went to law school um in the first place. And um you know, a lot of people have risen to my defense by citing where I went to law school and where she went to law school. Look um I've been very proud of Harvard these days for standing up against Trump. That's great. I was ashamed of Harvard for their complicity with apartheid South Africa. And when we were students there, we were fighting to get Harvard to divest. And there are lots of professors there uh whom I loved and whom I love like Larry Tribe who was my constitutional uh law professor, like Randy Kennedy, like Duncan Kennedy, like Martha Mina. There are people uh who I look up very highly to but then there are people like Alan Dersowitz who are there. Um and uh Duruititz I think um is just uh a walking scandal in the legal

19:44 profession in terms of the things that he's done and the things uh that he said and I think that the the whole Epste debacle shows that only further. So look all of which is to say when she says you're not a real lawyer or you know you're a washedup lawyer or whatever. I mean again all that stuff we have to try to disregard the ad hominemum attacks which we understand are a logical and rhetorical fallacy um and instead look at the underlying meaning and what makes somebody a real lawyer. What makes somebody a good lawyer or a great lawyer? Well, I tried to gesture at that in my opening remarks in my opening statement where I said you have to identify with the people who are the victims of injustice and criminal violence and not with their perpetrators. And if all you do is serve the people in power, which is what Pam Bondi does, then you are not a good lawyer, much less a great lawyer, you're

20:37 just, you know, a hired gun and you're willing to do anything for people uh who will implicate you in shameful actions. And unfortunately, that's where she is with Donald Trump and uh with Christine Gnome and the things she's defending, you know, American citizens being uh you know, gunned down by their own government and this massive cover up that goes back now uh a couple of decades in terms of a a global international human trafficking ring. And so I would say to her, if you're gonna stand with the victimizers and not the victims, then you're not a real lawyer.

21:17 Well, I'll just say this one thing, too. I don't hold it against anybody for not taking the bar exam or even not passing the bar exam. So, I don't want to be this bar ex, but I will say this, that doesn't mean you have to serve, Congress member Rascin, as the chair of the House Judiciary Committee. And the example of your father, I don't recall him being the number one person on the judiciary. I'm just I give you my preference. The person who has the most important job in the judiciary committee, like dealing with like laws, I I want I want that person to pass the bar exam. That's where

21:52 Yeah. Well, sometime I'll come back and I'll talk to you about my dad's career because he was also indicted uh during the Vietnam War period. My dad worked for President Kennedy and he left President Kennedy and he uh he founded a think tank called the Institute for Policy Studies, but he was indicted with Dr. Spock and William Sloan Coffin and some other people for conspiracy to aid in about draft evasion. Um and you know, my dad's position was that it was an illegal war in Vietnam and had never been declared and there were war crimes taking place. and he was the one who really upheld the banner of legality and international law in that trial and uh ultimately all of them um had their convict their convictions dissolved. But my dad was the one defendant who was acquitted by the jury because he essentially put he and you know one of his lawyers, Telford Taylor, uh who was the the war crimes tribunal uh lawyer of

22:48 course, but they put the government on trial for being uh at odds against the rule of law. So, um I think it's important to stand up for the rule of law. Obviously, you don't have to be a lawyer to do it. And as we've seen from all the lawyers swirling around Donald Trump, uh whether it is, you know, Ed Martin or it's Pam Bondi or it's Rudy Giuliani, there are a lot of lawyers who can do some very discreditable and uh outrageous and unethical things. And then there are a lot of people who can stand up for the law and the constitution uh who decided never to go to law school or never had the opportunity to.

23:25 Well, two great lawyers who are going to be very jealous after this interview. Harry Litman and Michael Popac because the new legal AF with Ben Meelis and Congress member Jamie Rasin is coming soon. My new co-host, Congress member Jamie Raskin. I I I appreciate all the work you do. In all seriousness, as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, thanks for fighting back, pushing back, and uh we're grateful for all the work you do.

23:49 Thank you, Ben. And thanks for what you do every day. The press is not the enemy to the people. You're the people's best friend, and you're a great example of that.

23:56 Thank you so much, everybody. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 million. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber to our Substack at midasplus.com. You'll get daily recaps from Ron Philipki, ad free episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content only available at midasplus.com.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Trump PANICS as SMOKING GUN Epstein Email FINALLY LOCATED"?

Ben Meiselas (Host), Jamie Raskin (Guest), Pam Bondi (Guest).

What is "Trump PANICS as SMOKING GUN Epstein Email FINALLY LOCATED" about?

The discussion centers around sensitive documents within the Epstein files that raise concerns for Donald Trump, particularly an email revealing a conversation between Trump and Epstein's lawyers during a 2009 investigation. This email reportedly contradicts Trump's claims about distancing himself from Epstein, highlighting issues with redactions in the documents and the lack of clarity from the…

What is mentioned in this MeidasTouch episode?

9 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, Jamie Raskin, Epstein Transparency Act, Attorney General Pam Bondi, House Judiciary Committee. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Trump PANICS as SMOKING GUN Epstein Email FINALLY LOCATED"?

The episode runs 24 min; the transcript is about 4,307 words in 37 timestamped sections.

More from MeidasTouch

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on MeidasTouch
• People mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Sponsors mentioned on MeidasTouch
• Topics mentioned on MeidasTouch