MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
For more on this, we're going to turn to Elie Honig now. He's a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, and he's now a CNN legal analyst. Elie, thanks so much for joining us once again.
ELIE HONIG: Happy to be with you, Michel.
MARTIN: So this was a huge release, you know, some 3 million pages. But from what you've seen so far, did any particular details or documents stand out to you?
HONIG: So we do have more transparency now. I don't think we have anything approaching full transparency. But one thing that's quite clear - and we've known this for some time, but it's been confirmed - is that so many women and girls came forward to the FBI, to the police. And their tips were not fully followed up on. And there was no consequence for many of the people they complained about. I'll give you one example.
There is a draft indictment in this batch of documents from sometime in the mid-2000s, so right around when Jeffrey Epstein was being investigated for the first time federally in Florida, that has Jeffrey Epstein as a defendant, plus three other codefendants whose names are blacked out. So at some point, there was serious thought given to, A, indicting Jeffrey Epstein with much more serious crimes than he ended up being charged with, and B, with indicting at least three other people. But that indictment never saw the light of day, and we don't know exactly why. I think that's a very telling document.
MARTIN: That's a very serious issue that you pointed out here. But just on the manner of the way the files themselves have been handled, representatives for a number of victims have criticized this. NPR has found examples of victims' names and photographs that were released without redactions. Meanwhile, in one instance, a photo of Trump in a news article covered his face with a black square. So from what you've seen, were the redactions done properly?
HONIG: No, there's both over-redacting and under-redacting. The under-redacting is, of course, the most inexcusable part, where victim identities have been revealed. The over-redacting, I mean, that's one example that you mentioned, but there are many. And the law says you are not - the Epstein Transparency Act says DOJ is not to redact any identities for fear of public, political embarrassment or reputational harm. Now, whether you like that or not, that is what the law says. Yet it seems DOJ has taken it on itself to black out the names, faces and identities of various people who are mentioned in the files, not victims of various people who are mentioned as coordinating with Jeffrey Epstein or knowing Jeffrey Epstein. So I think that is an over-redaction.
MARTIN: So it sounds to me like you're saying that you don't think DOJ has fully complied with the Epstein Transparency Act. If not, what should the consequence be?
HONIG: Well, I don't think so on that respect. And there's another important respect. The law specifically says that for the Epstein files, DOJ has to produce any internal communications about whether to charge or not charge a case. And yet, DOJ has said, no, we're not going to turn that stuff over. They've cited this thing called the deliberative process privilege.
So again, I think on that score they've also not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The only real remedy can come through Congress. And we heard Representative Khanna there talking about potentially taking action. But I think there's several - there's two key areas where DOJ has not followed the act as written.
MARTIN: You mentioned this draft indictment that detailed Epstein's abuse. Is there material here that could lead to new charges, new prosecutions?
HONIG: Well, it's a great question. And we don't know the answer. Todd Blanche - and you all played the clip just now - seemed to say there is no further Epstein-related investigation. He said we need to separate that from the other important sex trafficking work that DOJ does. Fine. But he seemed to give a no answer on whether there's any further investigation into anyone around Epstein.
However, two and change months ago, on November 14, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, retweeted Donald Trump's request for a criminal investigation. And she wrote that she had assigned the matter to the Southern District of New York and, quote, "the department will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people." So the attorney general, as of two months ago, and the deputy attorney general, as of now, are giving us completely opposite answers.
MARTIN: Before we let you go, as briefly as you can, the attorney general is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary Committee later this month. What's the question you'd want her to answer?
HONIG: Just that. Is there or is there not an ongoing criminal investigation of anyone relating to Jeffrey Epstein? We need a straight answer. We've gotten a yes from her, a no from Todd Blanche. What is it?
MARTIN: Elie Honig is a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York and a current CNN legal analyst. Elie, thanks.
HONIG: Thanks very much, Michel.
(SOUNDBITE OF PEDRO RICARDO'S "TEMA 3") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
