Breaking: Trump caught interfering in Epstein case - Brian Tyler Cohen

BTC: You're watching the legal breakdown.
Glenn, it looks like Donald Trump's DOJ
is now interfering in an effort to get
some exposure, some clarity as it
relates to Epstein. Can you explain what
just happened?

GK: Yeah, Brian, the cover up continues. And
you know, the leader of the cover up
effort is the Department of Justice,
obviously acting on behalf of Donald
Trump. Here's what happened. Um, an NBC
News reporter filed a request with the a
court in New York regarding the Epstein
case. When Epstein was arrested in 2019
before he turned up dead in his jail
cell, the prosecutors had filed um a
document in court and it said these two
people are potential witnesses in the
case and they redacted the names of the
witnesses. Why? Because ordinarily when
witnesses are about to testify in a
trial, you don't want their names
becoming public before they testify. It
turns out these two people were
individuals that Epstein paid $100,000
to in one case and $250,000
to in another case right after the Miami
Herald newspaper down in Florida began
publishing a series about Epstein sex
crimes and this horrific sweetheart deal
that the US attorney down in Florida
gave to Epstein. More about that in a
minute. Moreover, Brian, these two
people, the recipients of these
significant um wire transfers, these
cash payments by Epstein, um they were
um they were listed as Epstein's
co-conspirators, people that Epstein negotiated immunity
agreements for so that they wouldn't get
in trouble. And then when this all began
to hit the um the public square again in
that Miami Herald series in 2018, you
know, within days, Epstein is now paying
them big sums of money inferentially, it
would seem, to have them keep quiet or
potentially curry favor with potential
witnesses who could incriminate them.
But the the point right now is these
people are no longer going to be
testifying witnesses against Jeffrey
Epstein, which is precisely why the
prosecutors requested that the court
seal their names, not reveal them to the
public back in 2019. And so NBC News,
exercising its First Amendment freedom
of the press, asked the judge, "Okay,
unseal them now. These are potential
Epstein co-conspirators. So, what does
Donald Trump's DOJ do? The US attorney
up in New York, a guy named Jay Clayton,
a Donald Trump flunky, files an
opposition saying, "No, no, no, no, no.
Judge, don't disclose these names of
these two potential Epstein
co-conspirators that Epstein paid
massive amounts of money inferentially
to probably keep them in the Epstein
fold. Don't don't disclose them." Well,
why not? they're no longer going to be
testifying witnesses. And here is what
the US attorney put in this um response
to the court saying, "Please don't
disclose them." It talks about how there
are legitimate reasons to keep things
sealed. One, if they're about to be
testifying witnesses. Well, guess what?
Ain't nobody testifying about Jeffrey
Epstein anymore. Or two, if there's a
danger of impairing law enforcement or
judicial efficiency.
um those two things don't apply or then
Brian there's this catchall if it might
impact somebody's privacy interest and
that's what they seize on they contacted
these two people they being the prosec
the US attorney in New York and
solicited their opinion and guess what
both of those people through their
lawyers said we don't want our names
disclosed please keep them sealed even
though there doesn't really seem to be a
legitimate reason to continue to keep
them sealed. So, this again is Donald
Trump's Department of Justice
engaged in the opposite of transparency.
They continue to try to cover up any
shred of information that could inform
the public about what Epstein really
did, to whom, and with whom. And and
before I finish this answer, let me read
Brian something from the Miami Herald
reporting about this sweetheart deal
that Epstein got, this non-prosecution
agreement that he got from US attorney
Alex Acosta, who would go on to become
Donald Trump's labor secretary in his
first term. Because this is really
despicable. It reads, "In 2007 and 2008,
US Attorney Acosta's team, his
prosecutors, had prepared a 53 page
indictment against Epstein, citing
nearly three dozen underage girls,
mostly ages 13 to 16 who were molested
by the wealthy money manager. US
Attorney Acosta, however, agreed to
shelve the indictment, not let his
prosecutors bring that indictment
against Epstein, and instead he allowed
Epstein to plead to two prostitution
charges in Florida State Court. and
Brian Epstein's lawyers at the time who
negotiated this insane non-prosecution
agreement, you know, declining to indict
53 felony counts for sexually abusing
nearly three dozen underage girls 13 to
16 years old. His attorneys were uh uh
Goldberger, Alan Dershowitz, Roy Black,
Kenneth Star, Guy Lewis, Jay Lefkowitz.
Sounds like a cast of thousands that um
Jeffrey Epstein had employed as his
defense team. And those attorneys,
Brian, demanded that the deal, the
non-prosecution agreement be sealed, be
kept secret from the public. And worst
of all, that the non-prosecution
agreement be kept secret from Epstein's
victims. And you know, even though
notification of the victims was required
under federal law, Alex Acosta agreed to
keep it hidden from the very victims
that frankly he was duty bound to
protect. This whole thing stinks. It is
a twisted and contorted tale. But what
we know is that DOJ just weighed in and
said, "No, no, no, no transparency.
don't release the names of the these two
people who Epstein paid money to when
things got hot and who are identified in
substance as two of Epstein's
co-conspirators. So, look, the cover up
continues in full force.

BTC: Glenn, what
kind of an impact is the DOJ's request
not to release this information going to
have? Because normally we've seen judges
defer to the DOJ because of this uh this
phenomenon called the presumption of
regularity. And you've had Department of
Justices in the past that have acted in
good faith. And so, and so as a result
of that, a lot of these judges are going
to be differential to the DOJ. Now, of
course, we're in a a scenario where this
DOJ is kind of burning all of the
goodwill that has built up over the past
decades and centuries. But, but the
reality is they are still a major entity
here and them weighing in by saying,
"No, this shouldn't be released," I
presume is going to have something of an
impact. But what would you imagine uh
given this case that the judge is going
to do with regard to with regard to
deferring to you know a news
organization exercising their first
amendment right or uh the DOJ trying to
block this?

GK: You know the judge will probably balance
the competing concerns. They will take
into account the position of the news
organization as supported by first
amendment right of the of a free press
against what the DOJ says and that the
fact that these two witnesses
slash co-conspirators who received big
payments from Jeffrey Epstein have
objected to their names being provided
to the public to the unsealing of that
document. The judge will take it all
into account. But Brian, I have to
believe that the good will and the good
faith that judges normally extend to
federal prosecutors believing they take
their oath of loyalty to the
constitution and their ethical
responsibilities very seriously. I think
that is eroding generally and also in
the Epstein and Maxwell cases. Why do I
say that? Well, remember it wasn't long
ago that DOJ attorneys, really all
political appointees, no actual DOJ line
attorneys who appear in court regularly
in cases. It was Pam Bondi and Todd
Blanch and the US attorney in um the in
New York filed this big splash emotion
to do what? unseal the grand jury
transcripts in the Maxwell and Epstein
cases only to have the judges say, "You
all are putting on a show because, you
know, there's nothing new that the
public will learn."

BTC: But I mean, isn't that isn't that the
ultimate irony that they put on a bogus
show to release some transcripts that,
by the way, they already had uh in their
possession, but now they try to release
new information, and you have the DOJ
inserting itself to prevent that actual
substantive information from being
released.

GK: It's one inconsistent I guess
two hypocritical and three a transparent
effing game they are playing. Pretend
that they want transparency by asking
courts to unseal things like grand jury
jury transcripts which have absolutely
no information. All the while covering
up when there is actual information that
could be unsealed and provided to the
public about Jeffrey Epstein's
co-conspirators and potential attempt to
obstruct justice by making big fat
payments once the story broke in 2018 in
the Miami Herald. And and let me just
add this as a a personal pet peeve that
I have with the way this is playing out.
When we talk about how the DOJ wanted to
unseal these grand jury transcripts that
had absolutely nothing new in them, our
viewers may recall, we did videos about
this at the time, Brian, that the
prosecutors had failed to notify the
victims of Epstein and Maxwell's crimes
that they were even seeking to unseal
grand jury transcripts, which might have
some of the names of the victims in
there. And they even in substance defied
a court order to notify them and weren't
willing to answer questions directly
honestly and candidly with the court
about that. Right? But whereas they
couldn't notify the victims when they
were going through this bogus exercise
of pretend transparency. What do we see
in today's court filing? They said,
"Well, you know, judge, we instantly
notified the two people whose names are
sealed, and they say, "No, no, no, don't
unseal them." Can you look at the
inconsistency, the disparity in the way
they refuse to protect or honor the
rights of victims, but boy were they
quick to honor the rights of EP
Epstein's co-conspirators and make clear
to the court, these people do not want
their name names disclosed. and we're
here to protect them. This is the legal
upside down.

BTC: Last question here on this, Glenn. I
understand that the DOJ is concerning
itself. I understand that judges will
often be differential to the DOJ. I
understand that there does exist the
presumption of regularity. That means
that inherently judges are going to be
more differential to the DOJ. But is
there any reason here why uh a a judge
would not defer to NBC News in their
effort to get this information released
because this is just a matter of of
first amendment?

GK: Yeah. The the only reason I can come up
with is a privacy interest. But let me
read something else that the government
the DOJ's letter to the court that was
filed today cites to. It says that the
second circuit court of appeals which
sits a top the New York uh US attorney's
office. So they hand down precedent that
the US attorney's office must follow.
The second circuit court of appeals has
also held that the privacy interests of
innocent third parties may be harmed by
disclosure. So to that I would say if
Jeffrey Epstein negotiated immunity for
these two people whose names, you know,
may be unsealed soon because they were
his co-conspirators
and then he paid them money when the
heat got turned up on him. Um it doesn't
sound to me like they are innocent third
parties whose privacy interests might be
impacted by this disclosure. But there
is a general catchall for anybody's
privacy interest. And you know that will
uh that will weigh uh against disclosure
in the mind of the judge. But I don't
think that's enough to keep these things
sealed that were sealed back in 2019 for
the express reason that they might
testify as witnesses at trial against
Jeffrey Epstein.

BTC: Well, we will of course stay on top of
this. As soon as we have any legal
update, as soon as we have any ruling
from the judge, we'll bring it to you.
For those who are watching, if you'd
like to follow along and support our
work, completely free, the best way to
do that is to subscribe to our channels.
I'll put the link right here on the
screen and also in the post description
of this video. I'm Brian Taylor Cohen.

GK: And I'm Glenn Kershner.

BTC: You're watching the Legal Breakdown.