Visit forestarrow.help for more information.
Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday, defending the Justice Department’s widely criticized rollout of the Epstein files against accusations that her department is shielding powerful men, including President Donald Trump, at the expense of survivors.
Democrats, who reviewed the unredacted files for the first time this week, revealed that the names of “wealthy, powerful men” were improperly redacted, while the names of victims were left exposed.
This week on The Intercept Briefing, co-hosts Jessica Washington and Akela Lacy gave their rundown of the politics stories they’re watching right now. Washington also spoke with Spencer Kuvin, an attorney representing nine of Epstein’s victims, about the failures of the Department of Justice to protect survivors.
“From the beginning of this case, the government, both from a state and federal level, have been trying to bury this, cover it up, and avoid any full exposure of the extent of the operation that was involved here,” Kuvin said, “and they’re doing it … because of all the both political, wealthy, and powerful individuals who were involved with Epstein and knew what was going on with these young women.”
Kuvin also spoke about the DOJ’s failure to redact the names of victims in the files, including two of his clients who were victimized as children. “The current Department of Justice has a focus on something different than victims and helping victims and prosecuting bad people that victimize these young girls,” he said. “Their focus instead appears to be on the important people — powerful people that are contained within these files and protecting them instead of protecting who needs the protection, the young victims in this case.”
Listen to the full conversation of The Intercept Briefing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
Transcript
Jessica Washington: Welcome to The Intercept Briefing. I’m Jessica Washington, politics reporter at The Intercept.
Akela Lacy: And I’m Akela Lacy, senior politics reporter at The Intercept.
JW: We’re going to be doing something a little bit different this week and start off the show by discussing the topics that are on our mind as political reporters. Akela, what do you have your eye on this week?
AL: The midterms are here. There has been an onslaught of news this week from New York to Illinois to New Jersey — where after days of tearing my hair out, waiting for them to finalize the election results in the special election in New Jersey, 11 — it appears that the pro-Israel lobby strategy backfired and helped elect a progressive critic of Israel. So we’ve been writing about that.
We also had done some reporting on AIPAC donors backing the Lieutenant Governor Tahesha Way in that race. And it appears that she is now potentially thinking about running against the winner Analilia Mejia in the next primary, which unfortunately is not that far away because there will be another race for the full term for this seat.
On Thursday, we published a story about a new endorsement in Illinois, where over the last week there’s been several ads, millions of dollars spent in four races, where AIPAC is making one of its biggest investments this cycle. Our story is about a candidate in the ninth district, Kat Abughazaleh, who is now running with the endorsement of Justice Democrats and a new pro-Palestine political action committee that launched on Wednesday and is endorsing several candidates in the upcoming midterms.
Related
Kat Abughazaleh on the Right to Protest
JW: Can you tell me a little bit about AIPAC strategy and how they’re viewing the midterms?
AL: Yeah, so we’ve done a lot of reporting on this. Basically the 2024 midterms, AIPAC was extremely loud and vocal about its endorsements, its investments in these races, and there has been sort of a groundswell in criticism of AIPAC. Lots of groups popping up. I think we’ve seen a big shift in the number of people in the general public who are paying really close attention to how this lobby is operating in these midterms.
And in response to that, AIPAC has retreated to the way that it operated before it started spending directly on elections and launching the Super Pac and the regular PAC that many people are familiar with now, distancing itself from candidates, directing donors to fundraise for candidates that it hasn’t publicly endorsed. On the other hand, you have candidates who are fundraising with AIPAC or aware that they’re receiving tens of thousands of dollars from big AIPAC donors are saying that they’re not seeking the endorsement of this group that they’re not involved, that they’re happy to take support from whoever wants to support their campaigns. And so this has made reporting on this a little bit more difficult in some ways because we’re looking at donors where they overlap between these two groups.
We’re trying to read between the lines of statements that officials and the group are making about whether or not they’re involved in this race. And, in Illinois in particular, as I was interviewing Kat Abughazaleh on Wednesday evening, she said, AIPAC knows how toxic it is and that’s why it’s trying so hard to make it appear that it’s not involved in this race when it very clearly is. And that I think is an evergreen statement about how it’s operating in lots of races that are coming up.
Jessie, I know you’re also focusing on the midterms. What do you have your eye on right now?
JW: Yeah. First I have my eye on all of your reporting because it’s been excellent.
AL: [Laughs.] Thank you.
JW: You have been writing a lot and really interestingly on AIPAC, so I’ve definitely been following your coverage.
I think for me, ICE is really something I’m watching going into the midterms. In my conversations with campaigns candidates and their teams are bringing up ICE over and over again.
They recognize that part of what this election is going to be about is what kind of country we want to live in, and people are really rejecting the violence that they’re seeing really publicly. Obviously, ICE and the Department of Homeland Security has been acting in ways that are violent towards communities in much quieter ways for years. But this violence that people are seeing, they’re really rejecting. So I’m seeing a lot of traction with that, with campaigns.
And I think it’s also an interesting juxtaposition with everything that’s gone on with the Epstein files. This week and last week, you’re really seeing this idea of conservatives as protectors of the innocent protectors of the weak, the ways that they’ve been trying to champion themselves to voters fall apart, both with the ways in which voters can see that they’re not protecting the survivors connected to the Epstein files, and also the ways in which they’re seeing that the authoritarianism that they have justified on the backs of, “hey, we have to protect the weak and vulnerable” is fake. So that’s something I’m really watching, for campaigns to touch on.
AL: And I just think it’s important to note here that Analilia Mejia, who you know, was elected in New Jersey as we were talking about, made that a cornerstone of her campaign. And like I know her campaign was really pushing that information out to reporters, that something that was so successful was that they were doing these ICE trainings at her campaign events — she was a critic of Israel. She was a supporter of all these progressive policies. But that specifically — the ICE issue — was what was resonating with voters in this district that was represented by a Republican before Mikie Sherrill was elected in 2019. So in terms of this everlasting quest to unite people across the ideological spectrum, it seems like that is being really effective.
JW: Yeah, it’s definitely a message that we’re seeing campaigns latch onto and we’re seeing the public latch onto. And what you just said about the trainings, I’ve found to be so interesting, just the ways in which people have — despite being really afraid; I think it’s rational to be afraid when we’re seeing the kinds of violence publicly on video — but instead of just staying inside of their house, we’re seeing people really resonate with this moment, go out, do these trainings, get into the streets, and that energy is something a lot of campaigns are trying to harness.
Now, whether or not they turn on that same energy, the ways in which we saw the George Floyd energy, which had been harnessed by Democrats and they really lost that momentum. It’ll be curious to see if Democrats can hold onto the momentum from activists on the streets who are angry about ICE or whether we’re going to see that exact same kind of turn we saw on organizers and activists who are connected to the George Floyd protests.
AL: Also this week I’m sure people were paying attention to the electric Pam Bondi hearing and the Epstein files. Jessie, you spoke to Spencer Kuvin, an attorney representing nine of Epstein’s survivors.
JW: Yeah, I did. It was a really great conversation. Spencer drove home the ways in which the Trump justice apartment has been protecting the powerful at the expense of the victims in this case.
AL: Let’s hear that conversation.
JW: Spencer, welcome to The Intercept Briefing.
Spencer Kuvin: Thank you so much for having me today.
JW: I want to start off by asking how the women that you represent are reacting to this latest batch of documents.
SK: Well, and thank you for asking about the victims, which really is the focus or should be the focus of everything that has been going on for the last 20 years.
Unfortunately, I had to make a very difficult call after the documents had been released. One of my clients, actually two of my clients were unfortunately unredacted and disclosed in those documents that included the first victim that came forward to police— the 14-year-old that I represented back in 2007, who the federal government was well aware of.
And another young victim who was 16 at the time that she was brought to Epstein’s home in Palm Beach, they were both disclosed in these documents, unredacted. So I had to make that awful call to let them know that they had been disclosed and that I had notified the Department of Justice of what had happened.
And then thankfully within a day the redactions took place. But it’s just unbelievable the failures of this Department of Justice.
JW: Yeah. Why do you think we saw such sloppy redactions in these files?
SK: I think you saw the sloppiness because of the lack of focus on what was important, and that was the victims.
I think unfortunately, the current Department of Justice has a focus on something different than victims and helping victims and prosecuting bad people that victimize these young girls. Their focus instead appears to be on the important people — powerful people — that are contained within these files and protecting them instead of protecting, who needs the protection, the young victims in this case.
JW: You’re talking about someone who was abused at 14 years old, and I guess my question for you is just what does that re-traumatization look like when you’re publicly outed in this way?
SK: It’s awful. It’s absolutely devastating. This is a young lady, for example, that chose to remain anonymous and wanted to move on with her life. And because of the drip of information over the last 20 years with respect to Epstein, she hasn’t been able to move on with her life. She is now someone who is in her thirties and has a family of her own. And really does not want to have to look back at this dramatic and awful period of her life. And remaining anonymous allowed her to do that. And unfortunately the federal government is re-traumatizing these victims by making them have to go back through this awful period.
JW: Spencer, you’ve been working on this case for roughly 20 years. Can you give us some of the background, particularly on the sweetheart deal that Epstein got originally?
SK: Yeah, so I started working on these cases when victim number one, the first victim to go to the police in Palm Beach, walked into my office and needed help because she had, along with her parents, reported what had happened to her at Epstein’s home. And that really started the snowball of this entire investigation for all of the future victims that came forward in the FBI investigation.
But what it started as was a local investigation by the town of Palm Beach, and Joe Recarey was the lead officer that I met with during that initial investigation. It was only after the state attorneys in Palm Beach refused to prosecute this case that it ended up at the FBI and the Southern District of Florida.
Then the FBI took over this case and started the prosecution and had an indictment that we now see that they’ve revealed unsealed that had almost 50 counts against Epstein and other potential co-conspirators that they shelved. And they shelved it because they entered into an awful, awful sweetheart deal with Epstein at the time.
That Epstein sweetheart deal was never provided to the victims. As an attorney on behalf of one of the victims, I had to fight in court just to see the crappy deal that they had entered into with Epstein and the immunity that they had given others. And that fight lasted a year in the litigation before I was able to even see it. And then once I saw it, I realized why they didn’t want anyone to see it because it was such an awful deal.
JW: There are some truly horrifying allegations inside of these files, but so far there haven’t been any high-profile arrests or charges brought. I think you’re uniquely qualified to speak on this. What does justice look like here for the victims, and is it going to have to come from outside of the legal system?
SK: That’s a good question and a very difficult one. In handling these types of cases, specifically the Epstein cases over the last 20 years, I get a lot of calls that are just not credible.
And unfortunately there is a mental health crisis in the United States and unfortunately, some of the people that have some issues will call in and make allegations that just factually don’t hold water. Having said that, there are a lot of very valid tips that deal with individuals. So the FBI just seemed to categorize all of the tips that came in as not credible without even investigating them. And that’s a problem.
In addition to that, Epstein entered into the sweetheart deal with the federal government as a result of the initial prosecution here in West Palm Beach in South Florida. And when they did that there were four co-conspirators that were clearly named in that agreement.
Four people that the federal government knew had assisted in the sex trafficking that Epstein was involved in. And by the way, one of those four was not Ghislaine Maxwell. She was not even named in the sweetheart deal at all. Most people don’t realize that there were four other people, four other women, that were part of this conspiracy that have never been prosecuted to the state.
So the victims want them prosecuted. That’s number one. There is enough information to prosecute those people and bring them to justice. Number two, they want this information out in the public so that the public can then see the full extent of this heinous operation that was going on for years. And then judge who they want to be running these important companies, corporations, in politics and whatnot, and have the public judge them for what they did, or what they didn’t do, and then have them be held publicly accountable.
JW: I want to talk about these redactions again and the ways in which powerful people have been shielded as you’ve been just discussing now. Members of Congress were able to view the unredacted files this week. Before we get into some of the shocking revelations, I just wanted to ask you about the use of redactions to protect powerful people within the files and what you make of that, and what the women that you represent make of that.
“How do we hold the Department of Justice accountable for breaking federal law? … [W]ithout a penalty clause in the law, the only way to do that is contempt of Congress.”
SK: It breaks the law. It violates federal law. The Department of Justice broke the law, and they are continuing to break the law. Make no question about this. The Epstein Transparency Act is very clear. You can read it. It is only about two pages long, and it states that no redactions shall be made for the purpose of merely embarrassment or protecting important or powerful people. In addition, it gives a deadline for the full disclosure of records. Both of those things have been violated by the Department of Justice.
The question really is just accountability at this point. How do we hold the Department of Justice accountable for breaking federal law? That’s a quandary that unfortunately, or fortunately, our country has not had to deal with yet. But right now we have to figure out a way to be able to hold the Department of Justice accountable. And I think legally speaking right now without a penalty clause in the law, the only way to do that is contempt of Congress.
JW: So on Tuesday, representative Ro Khanna revealed the names of these six, powerful, wealthy men, whose names had previously been redacted in the files. Those names included billionaire, former Victoria’s Secret owner Les Wexner and Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem. What did those new names add to our understanding of Epstein and his world?
SK: I can tell you Les Wexner name was connected with Jeffrey Epstein, even back during the original prosecution of these cases I was involved in 2007. We were well aware of Epstein’s connections with Wexner, and he was on our witness list as somebody, as a person of interest, that needed to be talked to or subpoenaed for a deposition.
Now the case is resolved before we got to that point. But the connection was clear even back then, and I think there were stories that came out in the news dating back into the late 2000s that identifies that connection.
The other wealthy, important and powerful people who were out outed in some of these records that shows the world the breadth —the true worldwide breadth —of Epstein’s conspiracy and sex trafficking. And I think that there was a lot of rumor that had circulated for years, and people would call other individuals who would talk about those rumors as conspiracy theorists and crazy. And, you’re making up crazy stories.
What we’re seeing with these documents is that that is the reality that wealthy and powerful men around the world were trading young girls like trading cards.
JW: I should note here that Wexner’s legal representative issued a statement saying “The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect. Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.”
I just want to get into the conspiracy element of this because I think it’s important. There’s been so much talk about how these files have validated conspiracy theories, like QAnon, but in my opinion, there’s been far less discussion about the ways in which these files have validated the accounts of women who were abused by Epstein as children and have been speaking about it, frankly, for years.
What would it have meant to listen to these women when they spoke out instead of waiting for a trove of government documents?
SK: Huge. It’s huge from an emotional standpoint a victim goes through a huge emotional trauma just reporting what she has been through or he has been through. Latest government statistics show that one out of every three women, literally, if you are in the room with three women, one of them was likely subjected to some kind of sexual trauma in their life, and one out of every five men, by the way, also according to government statistics.
“A victim goes through a huge emotional trauma just reporting what she has been through or he has been through.”
And what happens is that these young women, for example, in this case, that report this, when they’re met with denials, accusations, attacks, all it does is drive them deeper into a depression because they know the truth. I think what it teaches us as a society is that we have to believe victims and what they’re telling us because it takes a huge amount of bravery to even come forward and report these types of things.
I think that if that had occurred, if people had believed victims, then they would’ve been able to work through the healing process. Part of what I do as an advocate for victims in the civil arena is I listen to victims and I believe them.
I then fight for them based upon that belief. And just that alone can help a victim knowing that there is someone out there that’s fighting for them, believing in them, and wanting to get them justice. So being a part of the system and finding an advocate for them that is a very significant thing.
Look at, for example, Virginia Giuffre. She, for years, for years had been called a liar. And we are now seeing the absolute proof that everything she was telling us was true. She may not have unfortunately committed suicide had she been able to be believed and supported as a true victim.
[Break]
JW: I want to turn towards Donald Trump because obviously he casts a large shadow over the story. On Tuesday, Maryland Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin claimed that Donald Trump appears in the Epstein files more than a million times. He also said that Trump never asked Jeffrey Epstein to leave Mar-a-Lago as he previously claimed. What is your response to these revelations?
SK: I think it’s important to look at these documents within the context of what they are and the timeframe within which they were gathered. These documents were gathered after the FBI began their operation, which was around 2007. We know historically that Epstein and Trump were friends. He’s admitted that, and they were friends for years. But that friendship predated a lot of this investigation.
So a lot of the information we’re seeing in these files is after the 2007 period when the investigation began. What we’re not seeing is the extent of that relationship and what Trump may or may not have done with Jeffrey Epstein before 2007. We know because we’ve seen videos of them at parties and socializing together. He admitted that he knew that he liked young girls. And Trump now is trying to obviously distance himself as far as he can from Jeffrey Epstein.
But the reality is that there was a close connection, there was a good friendship. They did go to parties together. And this is something that the FBI never fully investigated. And unfortunately, given the fact that Trump is now the President and it seems as though he has a tight grip on the Department of Justice, I don’t know that there will be a full and complete investigation of his activities.
JW: I think Donald Trump complicates this story in so many ways because at its core, this is a story about the violent sexual exploitation of children, and we have to hold space for that. But it’s also a political story because of Donald Trump’s involvement. So I guess, how do you think about holding space for what these women have gone through as children, while also acknowledging the politics involved here?
SK: Yeah, I agree with you. I think that politics definitely complicates the issue, but we have to remember that Donald Trump is the one that actually brought this to the forefront. We have to thank him to a certain extent because during his campaign he made this a major issue as part of his campaign that he was going to release this information.
It was only after he was elected and realized what was actually in those documents, that he then started backpedaling on the release of information to the general public. Politics always complicates truth because politicians seem to have a very difficult time just being truthful with the general public.
We have to always remember that the Department of Justice is supposed to be neutral. They are not supposed to be a political arm of any political party, whether it be Democrats or Republicans. Unfortunately, Donald Trump has turned our Department of Justice into a political animal, and as we saw, for example, through the testimony of Pam Bondi the other day in front of Congress. The Department of Justice no longer has any credibility as a nonpolitical or apolitical organization. They are political, without a doubt. It is now controlled by the president and the executive branch, and that’s a shame because now victims cannot trust even our own Department of Justice to investigate crimes and do the right thing.
JW: As you’ve just mentioned, Attorney General Pam Bondi testified before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday. What jumped out to you from that testimony? I wanted to get your thoughts on that.
SK: Everything jumped out, including the Attorney General. It was an absolute embarrassment to our country that the highest ranking law enforcement officer in our country acted like a child.
That is exactly what the Attorney General was doing. She was acting like a child and she was clearly exhibiting pro-political leanings toward the current administration with absolutely no respect for the rule of law or her job, which is to remain neutral, and not favor either political party in any investigation or potential investigation.
And frankly, it was sad to me as a member of one of the branches of government to see a person like our own U.S. attorney general acting in that manner. It was sad and it was an embarrassment.
JW: Can justice be achieved with Pam Bondi as the attorney general? Is there a path towards that?
SK: No, I’m convinced that based upon the performance that she put on the other day, I don’t believe that there’s any way that justice can be accomplished. When we talk about an organization that is now a political arm of the executive branch, I don’t see there’s any possibility that justice can fully be accomplished while she’s in office. I think that if Congress frankly had any integrity whatsoever they would do one of two things, either begin impeachment proceedings against the attorney general, or alternatively hold her in contempt of Congress.
JW: As you pointed out, Pam Bondi, Donald Trump, they all came into office using Epstein’s survivors using the threat of violence against young women to really push a lot of their more authoritarian impulses.
This is historically true, for the Republicans and for conservatives, but particularly true in this moment. Did the Epstein files and the high profile men in Trump world mentioned in the files, plus what we’ve seen from the attorney general, reveal those concerns about violence against young women to be a farce?
SK: I think that what it revealed is the true nature of what politicians do. What politicians do is they find key issues that can separate society or inflame fears or tension within a society in order to trump up votes. I use that analogy and word specifically in this case because that’s exactly what the president did, right?
“What politicians do is they find key issues that can separate society or inflame fears or tension within a society in order to trump up votes.”
It’s exactly what other Congress people did, is that they utilized an inflaming type of language and situation to be able to get votes. And then once they’re in office, they completely retract what they said they were going to do. We see this in all types of enforcement actions when a government wants to move toward a more authoritarian type system where they justify actions through fear.
Be afraid of the illegals. Be afraid of the immigrants. Be afraid of the pedophiles that are in society. We are here to protect you, so you need more police and more military and more authoritarian governments to protect you from all of these bad people, when in reality that’s not what they want. What they want is control.
That’s how they get it is through fear. And I think that the way to combat that is really through truth and not being afraid, but instead standing up to power and questioning them and making them be held accountable in the public eye. And thankfully in a democratic society, we can vote people out of office if they fail to be held up to the standards that we expect of them.
JW: Do you think the American public is waking up to that reality? Because I see people in the streets, particularly in Minneapolis, but in LA throughout the country, really standing up against authoritarian power. And we also see people calling out what’s been now dubbed the Epstein class. These group of people — powerful people — who abuse women, but also, and children, and more broadly abuse our society. Do you think there’s been a wake up in our culture?
SK: I do think that certain people are now coming around to realize that these are not all just conspiracy theories, that there is a lot of truth behind what people have been saying for years about the elite billionaire class and their ploy to control society and the way that they think about the ordinary citizens in the world throughout the world, including the United States. But I also think that there is a certain group of society that looked at, for example, the testimony of Pam Bondi and cheered her on and said, “Wow, she did awesome, she did a great job.” And there are still people that look at what Trump is doing and defend his every action and defend everything he’s saying. So it won’t be until we get to those people that things will really change, right? You need to be able to get on a level where you are communicating with people you disagree with, but you’re discussing facts, not just bullet points, and not just points that are given to them by talking heads on television. You have to have a conversation with people you disagree with in a way that it can be fruitful to both sides to understand where they’re coming from and understand why they think the way they do.
And only then I think, will there be true change. Because otherwise you’re going to continue to have a society that is fractured along a very definitive line. There used to be gray, there used to be a middle, and now there is just team A and team B, and that’s the problem.
JW: A lot of people have called this a coverup, down from the federal government all the way to the local level. Do you see it as a coverup?
SK: 100 percent. From the beginning of this case, the government, both from a state and federal level, have been trying to bury this, cover it up, and avoid any full exposure of the extent of the operation that was involved here, and they’re doing it for many obvious reasons because of all the both political, wealthy, and powerful individuals who were involved with Epstein and knew what was going on with these young women.
“It is a billionaire crowd trying to protect their own.”
So as a result, you’ve got institutions that are controlled by wealthy, powerful politicians and individuals who are trying to cover up potential crimes of other wealthy, powerful politicians and powerful people. So it is a billionaire crowd trying to protect their own.
JW: That’s a really good point and a good point to end on. But just first I wanted to give you a chance if you had any final thoughts that you wanted to share.
SK: I think the most important thing that I want people to remember is that victims need to be heard and victims need to be believed. And as a society, we need to trust what victims are saying first, until evidence shows otherwise, and not immediately accuse people of lying or exaggerating because by trusting them you can at least hear them out. And at least give them the space to talk about what they’re going through. And even if it doesn’t prove to be true, which is frankly only about less than 5 percent of the allegations that come out, according to statistics, but even if it doesn’t, they believe it. And they’re saying it for a reason that they truly believe. Whether they have some kind of issue going on in their life or not, it doesn’t matter. Whether they remember an exact date, it doesn’t matter.
They are going through something emotionally, so we should listen to what they have to say and allow them the space to say it without any judgment or accusation and then get them the help they need.
JW: Thank you, Spencer. That was a really important conversation and I really appreciate you taking the time to share both your point of view and then also the points of view from your clients who deserve to be heard.
SK: Thank you.
JW: Thank you for joining me on The Intercept Briefing.
SK: Thank you so much for having me today.
JW: That does it for this episode.
This episode was produced by Laura Flynn. Sumi Aggarwal is our executive producer. Ben Muessig is our editor-in-chief. Maia Hibbett is our Managing Editor. Chelsey B. Coombs is our social and video producer. Desiree Adib is our booking producer. Fei Liu is our product and design manager. Will Stanton mixed our show. Legal review by David Bralow.
Slip Stream provided our theme music.
This show and our reporting at The Intercept doesn’t exist without you. Your donation, no matter the amount, makes a real difference. Keep our investigations free and fearless at theintercept.com/join.
And if you haven’t already, please subscribe to The Intercept Briefing wherever you listen to podcasts. Do leave us a rating or a review, it helps other listeners to find us.
If you want to send us a message, email us at [email protected].
Until next time, I’m Jessica Washington.
The post Attorney for Epstein Survivors Warns That Justice Is Impossible With Bondi as AG appeared first on The Intercept.
Read full story at source
