Transcript

‘This is not justice for anyone’: Experts slam DOJ’s letter defending Epstein files redactions

From MS NOW · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 12 min · 2,234 words · 19 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "‘This is not justice for anyone’: Experts slam DOJ’s letter defending Epstein files redactions", an episode of MS NOW published February 15, 2026 (12 min, about 2,234 words). It mentions 13 people, works and ideas, including Jeffrey Epstein, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Congressman Ro Khanna, Donald Trump, 9-11 Commission.

What this episode is about

The Department of Justice has declared that it has released all available documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, despite retaining nearly three million additional files, prompting criticism from experts who argue that the lack of transparency does not serve justice. The controversy intensified as Attorney General Pam Bondi insists that all materials comply with the Epstein File Transparency Act, while former President Obama critiques the administration's handling of related issues.

Key takeaways

  • Epstein files withheld: Just another reminder that transparency often hinges on who’s in power.
  • Obama's 'clown show' comment: Powerful critique or self-serving distraction? Context matters more than ever.
  • The DOJ’s 3 million pages will only fuel conspiracy theories; clarity is the kryptonite of speculation.
  • Redaction rules mimic a magician's illusion: revealing names while hiding truths doesn't fool the audience.
  • Congress' reaction to DOJ's vague disclosures showcases political theater—real accountability seems like a distant act.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 3:00: Jeffrey Epstein, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Donald Trump, Barack Obama
  2. – 6:00: Jeffrey Epstein, Congressman Ro Khanna, Ankush Kudori, Jason Johnson
  3. – 9:00: Jeffrey Epstein, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Congressman Ro Khanna, 9-11 Commission
  4. – 12:00: Donald Trump, 9-11 Commission

Notable quotes from "‘This is not justice for anyone’: Experts slam DOJ’s letter defending Epstein files redactions"

  • Attorney General Pam Bondi tells Congress that's it, we're done.
    about Attorney General Pam Bondi · at
  • What the DOJ provided is three pages with more than 300 names, but nowhere does the DOJ differentiate between those whose names may have surfaced in news stories or random conversations.
    about Jeffrey Epstein · at
  • And Ankush Kudori, former federal prosecutor and senior writer at Political Magazine.
    about Ankush Kudori · at
  • Well, I think that Trump voters have already shown that they are not going to be intellectually swindled here right I mean they're going to see that from Pam Bondi as they've been protesting all along.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • We would have gotten an Epstein commission, something akin to the 9-11 commission where we appoint━ Or the January 6th committee.
    about 9-11 Commission · at
  • IT'S WHY THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE AND THE 9-11 COMMISSION, LEAGUE OF HIS OWN, JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THEY WANTED TO ACTUALLY PURSUE real references and make recommendations to the Justice.
    about January 6th Committee · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Jeffrey Epstein — Person · Central referenced subject (case figure) · 8 mentions · first at
    The segment centers on DOJ claims about releasing/withholding 'Epstein files' and how names are presented without context, with Epstein as the underlying criminal case reference point.
  • Attorney General Pam Bondi — Person · Referenced government official (decision-maker) · 3 mentions · first at
    Presented as the Attorney General communicating to Congress that no more Epstein-related files will be provided and defending/justifying redactions and withholdings.
  • Congressman Ro Khanna — Person · Referenced lawmaker / critic · 3 mentions · first at
    Cited as pushing for release of Epstein files and criticizing DOJ for 'muddying the waters' by mixing irrelevant/deceased names with alleged predators without clarification.
    Democratic congressman Ro Khanna who forced a vote in Congress to release the Epstein files posted last night, quote, the DOJ is once again purposefully muddying the waters on who was a predator.
  • Donald Trump — Person · Referenced political figure (implicated-by-discussion) · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as one of many famous names appearing in the released name list; also referenced in a separate thread about Obama criticizing the current administration and a 'racist video.'
  • Ankush Kudori — Person · Guest / legal analyst (panelist) · 1 mention · first at
    Provides legal/process analysis of the statute’s redaction requirements, DOJ compliance, and critiques the structure of the disclosure approach (document dump vs commission).
  • Jason Johnson — Person · Guest / referenced expert (panelist) · 1 mention · first at
    Introduced as an on-air contributor and professor brought in to discuss the DOJ release, congressional reactions, and accountability framing.
    Joining us now to get into all of this, Jason Johnson, MSNOW political contributor, professor of politics and journalism at Morgan State University and contributor to The Griot.
  • Barack Obama — Person · Referenced former president / commentator · 1 mention · first at
    Used in the show open as describing events in the current administration as a 'clown show' and speaking publicly about a Trump-related controversy.
    That's how former President Barack Obama is describing what's happening in the current administration as he speaks out publicly for the first time about President Trump's.
  • Larry Nassar — Person · Referenced comparator (known sexual abuser) · 1 mention · first at
    Used as a contrast case to show how the DOJ list mixes clearly criminal figures with irrelevant names, without clarifying why each person appears.
    To have Janis Joplin who died when Epstein was 17 and the same list as Larry Nassar who went to prison for the sexual abuse of hundreds of young women in child pornography with…
  • Janice Joplain — Person · Referenced example (deceased celebrity name on list) · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as an absurd inclusion in the DOJ name list because she died long before Epstein’s adult years, illustrating the 'flood the zone' critique.
    Muddying the waters on who was a predator and who was mentioned in an email, to have Janis Joplin who died when Epstein was 17 and the same list as Larry Nassar who went to…

Companies & orgs

  • Morgan State University — Company · Affiliation of guest · 1 mention · first at
    Jason Johnson is a professor at Morgan State University, adding credibility to his commentary on political matters.
    Joining us now to get into all of this, Jason Johnson, MSNOW political contributor, professor of politics and journalism at Morgan State University and contributor to The Griot.
  • The Griot — Company · Affiliation of guest · 1 mention · first at
    Jason Johnson is a contributor to The Griot, which may influence his perspectives shared during the podcast.
    Joining us now to get into all of this, Jason Johnson, MSNOW political contributor, professor of politics and journalism at Morgan State University and contributor to The Griot.

Places & events

  • 9-11 Commission — Event · Referenced historical event · 2 mentions · first at
    Mentioned as a model for how serious investigations should be conducted, contrasting with the current handling of the Epstein files.
  • January 6th Committee — Event · Referenced historical event · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned alongside the 9-11 Commission as examples of serious investigative bodies, contrasting with the current approach to the Epstein files.

Full transcript with timestamps

Good morning, it is Sunday, February 15th. New this morning. Attorney General Pam Bondi tells Congress that's it, we're done. You're not getting any more Epstein files. While making it appear as if Donald Trump is just one of hundreds of famous with people casually mentioned in the files, then the clown show. That's how former President Barack Obama is describing what's happening in the current administration as he speaks out publicly for the first time about President Trump's racist video. And our exclusive interview with former second gentleman Doug Emhoff on the brave new world of AI and the very real dangers of development goes unchecked plus much more so grab your coffee settle in and welcome to the weekend

welcome to the weekend I'm Eugene Daniels along with Jackie Alemany and Jonathan WE BEGIN THIS MORNING WITH QUITE THE DOOZIE. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CLAIMING ALL THE FILES THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO RELEASE RELATED TO CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER JEFFREY EPSTEEN HAVE BEEN RELEASED. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SENT TO CONGRESS LAST NIGHT. ATTORNEY GENERAL PAM BANDI WRITES, QUOTE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EPSTEIN FILE TRANSPARENCY ACT AND AS DESCRIBED IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENT SUBMISSIONS TO THE COURTS OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ASSIGNED TO THE DEPARTMENT RELEASED ALL RECORDS, DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS AND INVESTIGATIVE MATERIALS IN THE POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT RELATE TO any of nine different categories.

That was possession. It's early off. You may remember that two weeks ago, the DOJ released more than three million pages of documents and what it claimed was its final release, even though they admitted to having nearly 3 million more pages that they held back. As stated in the law by Congress, the DOJ had 15 days to provide a report explaining any redactions made or documents withheld including the legal basis, the new letter states that the only records withheld in full were those for which such withholding is permitted under the text of the bill as well as certain privileged materials like attorney-client privilege or deliberative process privilege, which the act has no carve-outs for.

It's not in the bill at all. In addition, the DOJ was also required to provide a list of all government officials and politically exposed people named in the documents, something long sought after by Epstein survivors and many members of Congress. What the DOJ provided is three pages with more than 300 names, but nowhere does the DOJ differentiate between those whose names may have surfaced in news stories or random conversations versus those with direct contact to Epstein or mentioned in the statements of Epstein survivors.

That is why I include it in the long list or names of those who have been deceased for a half century or longer like Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley, Janis Joplin. While the DOJ appears to want to wash their hands of the Epstein files and move on, members of Congress are already saying this is far from done. Democratic congressman Ro Khanna who forced a vote in Congress to release the Epstein files posted last night, quote, the DOJ is once again purposefully muddying the waters on who was a predator and who was mentioned in an email, to have Janis Joplin who died when Epstein was 17 and the same list as Larry Nassar who went to prison for the sexual abuse of hundreds of young women in child pornography with no clarification of how either was mentioned in the files is absurd.

Release the full file, stop protecting predators, redact only the survivors' names. Joining us now to get into all of this, Jason Johnson, MSNOW political contributor, professor of politics and journalism at Morgan State University and contributor to The Griot. And Ankush Kudori, former federal prosecutor and senior writer at Political Magazine. Ankush, I'm going to start with you. One, this letter coming out on a Saturday night tells us a lot about how they think about these kinds of things. They are making up privileges that are not in the law.

Client attorney privilege is not in the law. That is not one of the reasons in which they are allowed to redact things based on the law. The law was 30 days from December 19th, so they already broke the law for months at this point. And the 15 days, also my understanding from talking to the members of Congress who worked on the law, voted for it, was that the 15 days tell us the redactions wasn't just like blanket explanation about why you were that to things but specifically every time you were that someone, you had to say how and why they were redacted.

That's a lot I threw at you, but it feels like this is not going to cut it for a lot of people. Okay, some of the lawmakers need to read their own law. There are two separate provisions concerning redactions disclosures concerning redactions in the end of law one of which this letter is intended to satisfy is a summary of the basis for the redactions separately they are required to produce what we will call a redaction log which is a specific indicator of which redactions were made on which basis I believe that's supposed to go in the Federal Register.

Now, with respect to the concern that Congressman Kanah has raised about how this document does not distinguish between people who are just prominent and people who were criminally implicated, the law did not direct the Justice Department to do that. In fact, hold on, the premise of this law, please, was that the document dump, the millions of pages were going to allow Ro Khanna to do that sorting for us, right? He is the person who went on television three months ago and said and i quote epstein ran a rape island where rich and powerful men were abusing young girls with impunity so far he's identified a grand total of zero people who fit that bill but he did accomplish this week was slandering four people on the House floor by putting a bunch of names that he thought were implicated in the Epstein files and insinuating that those people had something to do with this terribly sordid conduct,

only to find out that he was wrong. He slandered them, but he can't be sued because of course he did it on the House floor. He's immune. And I don't even think he's apologized. Outside of the congressman, Pam Bondi, when you look at this list, THERE'S ALSO THIS IDEA, AND YOU TELL ME IF I'M WRONG, THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW. THERE'S NO ONE WHO THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE SENT A TWEET IN AN E-MAIL THAT THAT NAME should be a part of this list. Pam Bondi, how is Pam Bondi, how is the Department of Justice not muddying the water?

We have been talking about this for months and months and months. This is not new. Okay, here's what should have happened if Congress was going to take this as seriously as... Is Pam Bonney and the DOJ muddying the waters or no? I don't think this is muddying anything anymore that was already muddied by everyone in Washington, including Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey. Well, I think that Trump voters have already shown that they are not going to be intellectually swindled here right I mean they're going to see that from Pam Bondi as they've been protesting all along and call her out for it yeah no nobody's happy with the Justice Department and you are right the Justice Department has done a terrible job here okay no dispute for me on that they messed this up there have been so many mistakes disclosure the you know the victim and survivor related information is appalling but you know this law was sold to us

on a certain premise that this was going to reveal a bunch of criminals and by the way if like as i was saying if congress wanted to take this as seriously as they claimed if roe kanna and thomas massey were serious about this issue as they claim to be we would not have gotten a dump of millions of pages into the public domain for all of time for everyone to spin up their own conspiracy theories. We would have gotten an Epstein commission, something akin to the 9-11 commission where we appoint━ Or the January 6th committee.

Correct. But like a 9-11 commission where you appoint outside reputable former law enforcement figures. You give them staff and you give them resources. That is how you take an issue like this seriously for real, not a gigantic document dump. And the reason I suspect that we got a document dump instead of anything like THAT IS BECAUSE THE DOCUMENT DUMP WAS FREE. CONGRESS HAD TO SPEND OUT OF THE REGION. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. COME ON NOW. LOOK, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS YOU HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION THAT RAN ON RELEASING THE THE EPSTEIN FILES BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE FULL OF A WHOLE BUNCH OF LEFT-WING CRIMINALS. THAT WAS A BAD IDEA.

IT WAS A BAD IDEA FROM THE VERY, VERY BEGINNING. WHAT THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY WANTS, WHAT THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY WANTS, WHICH HAS BEEN MY COMPLAINT ABOUT THE EPSTEIN FILES ALL ALONG IS FOR PEOPLE TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. NO ONE'S GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. AND THAT'S THE FAULT OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, THAT'S THE FAULT OF THE PEOPLE IN THE DOJ, AND IN PART, THAT'S THE FAULT OF PEOPLE IN COUNTRIES. WE'RE THE CRIMINALS THAT HAVE YET TO BE HELD THIS IS THE THING. WE DON'T KNOW? WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN NO FULL INVESTIGATION.

BUT PART OF THE ISSUE HERE IS THAT, LOOK, AND AGAIN, RELEASING SOMETHING ON A SATURDAY, OBVIOUSLY IT'S BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DISTRACT OR CLEARLY THEY HAD NO VALENSTEIN DAYS PLANTS. I FEEL VERY BAD FOR THEM ALL. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, YOU DON'T SOLVE ANYONE'S PROBLEMS, WHICH IS SOMEBODY OF YOUR LAW. WHETHER THE LAW GETS PASSED OR NOT, CONSPIRACY THEORISTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE CONVINCED. THE VICTIMS AREN'T IN ANY WAY RECEIVING ANY additional justice. And the people who are legitimately concerned don't get helped either.

So all of this is nonsense to me. I looked through the list and the names of the fake people and the dead people, I was looking for Michael Jackson and Clark Kent and whatever else it is. Just random names showing up. This is not justice for anyone. I'm going to do some woman-splaining here. Yes okay. My favorite I mean, Ankush has a point. And if we're thinking about the survivors and what they want, it is the names of co-conspirators and accountability to be pursued and actual charges to be pressed. We had Jess Michaels on IN THE SHOW YESTERDAY YOU SAID HER DOCUMENT THAT SUMMARIZED HER FBI TRANSCRIPT WITH AN FBI AGENT, HER 302 THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IN THOSE DOCUMENTS AND IT OUTLINED DETAILS AND ALLEGATIONS AGAINST A CO-CONSPIRATOR THAT SHE DIDN'T NAME BUT SHE SAID IS SOMEONE WHO WAS WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH GLAINE MAXWELL WHO HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING.

SO ANKUSH IS RIGHT, IF CONGRESS WAS SERIOUS, CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATIONS ARE ALWAYS PURELY POLITICAL THEATER. IT'S WHY THE JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE AND THE 9-11 COMMISSION, LEAGUE OF HIS OWN, JANUARY 6 COMMITTEE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IF THEY WANTED TO ACTUALLY PURSUE real references and make recommendations to the Justice Department to pursue real prosecutions, they should have set it up into a committee. They should have hired legal staff to investigate it and actually follow up and corroborate all of these details that we're all to prove just to prove how unserious any of this is I'm surprised Eugene you didn't mention a key name that is actually on this list who I'm like why is she on here Beyonce yes on this list but Eric Swalwell congressman Swalwell called this out where he sent out a tweet yesterday with his name being on this list lol so one loser sends another loser a news article with my name in it and the cover-up Klan

at the DOJ wants to put me in the same drawer as Donald Trump doesn't work that way Trump is a friend of the pedos I'm their worst their worst nightmare this is the this is the equivalent of you know those heist movies where YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE A SMART CRIMINALS WALK OUT WITH ALL THE HOSTAGES AT THE END. THEY JUST KIND OF WALK OUT IN THE SAME COATS THAT EVERYBODY ELSE SO THEY DON'T GET CAUGHT. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT THIS LET'S JUST FLOOD THE ZONE WITH ALL THESE RANDOM NAMES AND LOOK, EVEN IF THE LAW CALLED FOR THAT, WHAT THEY WANT IS JUSTICE. WHAT THEY WANT IS JUSTICE.

WHAT THEY WANT IS JUSTICE AND USING THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO SAY, WELL, MY HANDS ARE TIED. I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF VICTIMS OVER DOZENS OF YEARS. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LAW IS SUPPOSED TO DO. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS SUPPOSED TO do it's not what congress was

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "‘This is not justice for anyone’: Experts slam DOJ’s letter defending Epstein files redactions"?

Eugene Daniels (Host), Jackie Alemany (Guest), Jonathan (Guest), Pam Bondi (Guest), Ro Khanna (Guest), Jason Johnson (Guest), Ankush Kudori (Guest).

What is "‘This is not justice for anyone’: Experts slam DOJ’s letter defending Epstein files redactions" about?

The Department of Justice has declared that it has released all available documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, despite retaining nearly three million additional files, prompting criticism from experts who argue that the lack of transparency does not serve justice. The controversy intensified as Attorney General Pam Bondi insists that all materials comply with the Epstein File Transparency Act,…

What is mentioned in this MS NOW episode?

13 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Jeffrey Epstein, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Congressman Ro Khanna, Donald Trump, 9-11 Commission, Ankush Kudori. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "‘This is not justice for anyone’: Experts slam DOJ’s letter defending Epstein files redactions"?

The episode runs 12 min; the transcript is about 2,234 words in 19 timestamped sections.

More from MS NOW

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated February 15, 2026.