EPSTEIN FILES: Coffeezilla, BP BREAK DOWN Latest Release

Welcome, everyone, to a special breaking edition of Breaking Points. We are joined now by the one and only CoffeeZilla, who has been working at all hours with our own Ryan Grimm going through Epstein emails, documents, and all of that. Ryan, tell us a little bit about what you guys have been digging into.

Yeah, so also a little background on this unusual collab. I think, Stephen, you were, I reached out to you because you were about to do a version of Jmail, I think. So Jmail, which at DropSite, we're working with them. It's Jmail.world. You can also find it through DropSiteNews.com.

Like they're basically taking as many emails as they could find and making them searchable in like a Gmail format. It's actually brilliant. So then we started working with them because we had lots of other data sets. We had emails from the house oversight committee. We also had Ehud Barak's emails etc. So loading those in there too. I'd heard you were doing like let's combine forces. And so you've been working with us know, sifting through stuff for a while now. And last night, somebody on our team, you know, basically figured out that the DOJ had uploaded, you correct me if I'm getting the tech right here. So they had uploaded the eighth tranche of the Epstein files,

but had not made it indexed yet. But you could find it by just monkeying around with the URL. So we were able to find it, and then the JMAIL team made it searchable. They subsequently took it down, DOJ put it back up. DOJ has now put up a new version. And you can find all the different versions over at JMAIL.

A lot of interesting takeaways. First, I had never seen before the federal investigators talking about 10 co-conspirators. You know, the only one that was prosecuted was Ghislaine Maxwell. So that's one co-conspirator.

Yeah, I mean, it's stunning. I mean, it's truly stunning. Like you said, I mean, they just didn't password protect the data volume. I mean, this is kind of an embarrassing oversight. And so we got to look at it. As you said, I was also trying to put together my own like sort of way to pull together all this data. And then we basically got together with the JML team. They're kind of the tech guys behind it. But the TenCo Conspirators is the part that blows a hole, you know, in the July 25th memo saying we have no evidence to charge uncharged third parties. But six years ago they apparently had evidence to put grand jury subpoenas out to at least three of them. They're talking about ten of them less Wexner's implicated. I mean

Where did this go? And why don't we see the part that I was frustrated by is if you're gonna show us that you suspected ten co-conspirators And you didn't charge them then we should see in your data where you cleared them right where you said Hey, we don't have any evidence to actually go after these people. We don't see that. We just see, Hey, you had 10 suspects and you only went after one of them, which is Ghislaine. I mean, uh, that that's where this started for me. And yeah, it just went from, from there.

And if you guys could also explain a little bit about how this is the document dump from the DOJ, but also, Ryan, I know you have those DDoS emails. Right now, what you're doing with building these inboxes is kind of combining all of these different streams of Epstein documents that you have access to. Maybe if you could walk us through a little bit of exactly what's being pieced together here, I think that might be helpful too.

Actually, you go ahead and take that one. I'll be right back while you explain it.

Yeah, sure. So basically how it worked is that there's been so many different data dumps from different sources. On the one hand, you've got the house oversight who are putting out files that the DOJ is not putting out. Then you've got data leaks from like early Yahoo days.

There's been data dumps of Jeffrey Epstein emails that was first reported on by I think Bloomberg and then DropSite got some and they started putting those out. And it's just kind of fragmented the universe of information on Epstein. And that's why a lot of people, myself included, kind of had the same idea at the same time of, let's find a place to put all of this together, even the court documents. A lot of those aren't in the DOJ's kind of document dump.

And so there needed to be like kind of an independent place where you can pull it all together and have one searchable database. That's the other problem is these tools are really bad. I mean, when the DOJ released like their new volumes of data, people were searching names and it wasn't coming up, but those names were in the files. Like there's even their search functionality was not working at a basic level. And so, yeah, that's, that's basically what this endeavor was to do is to combine

all the data together so that we can really open source it to the public in a way that's useful. Because if you just give a bunch of data that's not processed, that's not, it doesn't have context, it's kind of a disaster. And that's what we're seeing. I mean, the fallout of this, it's worth kind of reflecting on, Emily, where we started

with this.

You know, when we started, you know, obviously they ran on, we're going to release the Epstein files. Then they gave us the phase one tranche, which was a lot of reused data. Then they said they're going to have phase two. Then they said phase two is not coming. There is no data. Then it turns out Jason Leopold obviously found that there was a, what they call a transparency project in March that we never found out about until his FOIA request and he sued the government to get it. So credit to him for that. But, and then on top of that, they called it the, actually, the transparency project was also called the special redaction project. That's a lot of what

we're seeing now was the fruit of this special redaction project, obviously, because we have the House Oversight Committee pushing to get those files to the public now. And obviously that's now became law and they were supposed to comply with it December 19th, although they withheld a bunch of data. And this volume eight, like one of the questions that's in my head is, had we not figured out

that you could just download it from the internet, when would we have gotten this? Clearly it was ready. We got the same files that they released, you know, a few hours later in the panic of it. But when was this going to go out?

Were they going to hold on to it for a few weeks? You know, hold on to this postcard from, you know, ostensibly Jeffrey Epstein. We can talk about that.

But all these kind of incendiary things, were they just going to get back to talk about the answer to that question. Maybe more and more, let's say, evidence tying Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein in escalating escalatory ways, meaning, well, sexually and all of that. So there's a postcard that was found and we're going to pause and wait for Ryan to get back because I do have one question, one more question on this, which is if you could speak a little bit to the redactions, because you mentioned this, Ryan mentioned this, the incompetence from the DOJ, I think is worth talking about, as you

just alluded to. Tell us a little bit about how people realized basically that they could copy the text, paste it into a separate document. And we have honestly victims. There was a Jane Doe who talked to the New York Times and said they were horrified because their name is unredacted in these documents.

But there are also going to be other people uncovered as the redactions are peeled away by copy and paste, right?

That's right. Well, it's some of the redactions to be clear. So the way you sanitize a PDF, there's a way to do it where you just put a black bar and you like and you sanitize it and you can't remove that. There's also a way where the metadata of that text is still there and so you can literally copy and paste it. So some of the files, yes, you're right.

They just were basically unveiled by a simple copy paste job. Some people have falsely believed you can do that with every file. That's not the case, but it's just some of them. And you're right. I mean, the mantra of this admin has been,

we are not releasing stuff because we're gonna be so careful about protecting the victims. But it's like, not only does that not seem to be 100% true, also there are clearly other people they're

protecting going back to that Tinco conspirator email. A lot of those names are redacted. Then you have Todd Blanch saying on Meet the Press, we did not redact any names that were not for the purpose or that were for the purpose of just embarrassment or like political reasons or whatever. It's only victims.

But are you saying that the 10 co-conspirators, like eight of them that were redacted were actually victims? Like how does that make sense? You cannot square those things.

All right. So let's then turn to the Trump of it all.

Yeah.

Ryan, did you just share something on the screen?

Yeah.

So here about here. The only one that they didn't redact here, it says Wexner, colon Epstein, investigator Russell cleared to participate. And then, yeah, so here of the 10 co-conspirators, three have been located in Florida and served grand jury subpoenas, one in Boston, one in New York City, and one in Connecticut. Connecticut may be Steve Hoffenberg, that's where he was living toward the end of his life. He was the, who knows, they had a falling out, so

I'm not sure if that could be him. He's no longer alive. That one is a wealthy businessman in Ohio, which appears to be a reference to Les Wexner, unless he had some other wealthy businessman friends in Ohio.

Well later they talk about, you know, getting, just real quick, later they talk about some of these people specifically and they bring up Wexner in Ohio. So it's almost certain that that's the co-conspirator they're talking about, unless there's two in Ohio. But they definitely were looking at Wexner. Ryan, I don't know if you feel the same way.

It feels to me like they redacted the names that were not publicly known before this drop and they didn't redact the names that were politically sort of fine to kind of leave out in the cold and to kind of expose that the public kind of already suspected. It's also true of people who've already died like John Luke Brunel famous pedophile. He's dead.

So they leave him unredacted. Right? Wexner, obviously the connections have been there forever. So they leave them unredacted. These other guys maybe weren't previously known. This does feel like the admin is running cover for those people

to not expose them. You can say that's right or wrong because they haven't brought charges, but that's not what the bill says. I mean, that's not what the Transparency Act says, right?

Right. And that that goes to people's feet. One of one of the theories that people had, why is Trump, you know, why does he care so much about this? It's not just his name in there, but people would say, well, he has a lot of friends and allies that are in there. And so this would support that idea that the Department of Justice and Trump have been trying to protect, you know, people's names

who have been in there. Like there was there was one case where they did release Trump's name, but it was in a in a situation where that particular document had already been published somewhere else. So that fits your theory. That's like, all right, we'll grab onto as much transparency, credibility as we can by releasing things that are already released. But try to make sure that we don't add to any new information.

Although with this latest tranche, they appear to have significantly added to what we know. It's incredible. I mean, I don't know how you guys feel. I feel like I got the first real glimpse at why the administration has been acting the way they're acting. I have been puzzled by this the entire time. I have been baffled by the way they are handling this. After last night I finally see a glimpse at what they might be thinking about. I think it's a good time to talk about the postcard. The Larry Nassar alleged, and I think it's important to say that because there are a lot of questions about this postcard and there's going to continue

to be a lot of questions. I think there's a lot of reasons to doubt it actually, but either way, this administration understands optics. And when you have a postcard, let's just read it off. I don't know if we can. When you have a postcard that says what this says, you know how people are going to feel about this.

Yeah, it's really funny. At minimum. And I actually— Funny is not the word.

Well, and I just want to—just on this question about being a bit careful with this, I also just want to mention, as we were talking, I found that the Associated Press actually reported this back in 2023. And their reporting here is, two weeks before ending his life, Jeffrey Epstein sat in the corner of his Manhattan jail cell with his hands over his ears, desperate to muffle the sound of a toilet that wouldn't stop running. Epstein was agitated and unable to sleep, and it goes on sort of describing his final

days. But this goes to show that the Associated Press had this Nasser email. Here it is.

Well, they knew there was a message, right? But they didn't have the actual

thing. They're describing what we're seeing here. It says, it appeared he mailed it out and was returned back to him. This is according to an investigator who found the letter. I'm not sure if I should open it or if we should hand it to anyone, he told the prison official. So anyway,

that's all I just to say that. There's that's the important line the letter itself was not Was not turned over to the AP so that they knew about the existence of a letter

But they didn't can you go back to the letter contents real quick? It's important to read this he goes as you but know by now I've taken the short route home. Good luck We shared one thing our love and caring for young ladies and the hope they'd reach their full potential Our president also shares our love of young nubile girls when a young beauty walked by you love to grab snatch Excuse me. I'm sorry. I'm just reading it Whereas we ended up snatching grub in the mess halls of the system life is unfair yours Jay Epstein

now this is like, I think regardless of we're going to talk about does it seem authentic, does it not? But the fact this existed in the files would make you not want to release it even if you knew 100% it was fake because you know, like Trump is a knows how optics work and he knows this is a disaster just no matter what if it looks like a pedophile sent you a letter or sent a letter to another guy who's a pedophile and blames you or say that kind of implicates you at the very end of his life that always is gonna seem

bad and I just want to note a few things from this letter do you have the part where it it's it stamps the letter? Like there's a part with the postcard piece of it because that's an important part because it's actually date stamped August 13th, 2019, which is three days after his death. Now there's some things to think about here. He could have, it stamps when they process the letter, which means it could have been written, he dies immediately afterwards, and as it's going through the system to get sent,

they stamp it three days later. But one problem that I also see is that... Oh, it's also worth... There we go. I think we have it up now. Can you rotate that so we can see what it looks like? Because, okay, there it is. If you see Nova 2220 in the top of that thing, top middle area, that references, I believe,

a Virginia mailing center. So what's weird about this is that it should be stamped New York City. This is part of why I'm a little skeptical of this at the moment is why is it date stamped after his death? Why does it seem to have been processed by a Virginia

facility? All of this kind of makes me have serious questions about this email. Now that's not to say or not email, postcard. Now that's not to say it couldn't be, whatever, but I just think people are going to rush because it's politically one side or the other, right? You either love this or you hate this. I think people should be careful in rushing to conclusions and just understand that this is a, it's obviously incendiary, whatever, but there are, there are reasons to kind of have questions about this.

And another way, yeah, another way that this could be fabricated and still wind up in the files, tell me if I'm my thought process is wrong here, let's say you sent it from this, you know, Northern Virginia mailing center, but you put the return address of MCC, Metropolitan Correctional. So when it gets returned, it gets returned to MCC rather than back to whoever sent it. And then it winds up in his collection of papers and then somebody sees it and tells the AP about it

and says, hey, in his papers here, we have a letter. We don't know what the letter says, but we have a letter that he apparently sent that was returned to Nassar. So I think that would, to me, that is a completely plausible scenario

where somebody saw him die and was like, this would be really funny if I wrote a letter from him to Nassar, who's the other super famous pedophile at the moment, and linked them all to Trump, and then by virtue of the return address it winds up in the files.

But then to your point, Steven, yeah, if you're Trump, you're like, oh God, this is not good, even if you believe it's fake.

And the only thing I was going to add is from that original AP report, it has this line from an investigator saying it appeared he mailed it out and it was returned back to him. I'm not sure if I should open it or we should hand it over to anyone. The only reason I bring that up is just to say at the time you have an investigator who appears to say or who is, it appears that Epstein himself

did this, and then that gets into the media through a document dump. So people can take that with the massive grain of salt that I think Ryan just appropriately applied here, which is there are a million different ways. And as I've been going through the files, I can see why. I mean, it's obvious, like, this was always a cope from the Trump administration, but it's a cope, it's a successful cope, because it's a good point, which is that there are going to be things that get released that are going to send people down a million different rabbit holes needlessly, because it was evidence that was collected, and then brought to the DOJ's Epstein files, quote unquote, and was

dismissed. And you don't necessarily see them showing the work as to how they dismissed this and the other thing. So, yeah, I think it's possible that's the case here.

And I also think, yeah, and yeah, I think we have some MCC jail markings, I would think, like mail that a prisoner sends out is going to get read and marked unless he has his attorney.

Right. They also did a handwriting analysis, though. I mean I think we should what we need to ultimately look at what they concluded as well because you know that is really telling the fact is handwritten actually gives you a lot of clues. You have a bunch of writings of Jeffrey Epstein match up the letters. I mean, there's specific tells and there's forensic analysis you can do to easily at least debunk it to say nothing of like

confirm it because there are there are some weird things here. I do think it's a funny Sophie's choice for like conspiracy theorists where the the postcard implicates Epstein killing himself which obviously a lot of people say well he didn't for sure they believe 100% he didn't but then you on the other hand you have the same postcard with this you know very explicit implicating of Trump.

Do you believe the postcard? Do you not? Do you insist that he was killed? Or do you think—it's definitely an interesting one. I don't know what to make of it. I think the hardest part about it is it was sent so quickly after his death.

I think that's going to fuel theories for years. I mean, because you could technically have it dated afterwards, like it's just within the window of being maybe like possible. Although like I said, there's a lot of, you know, I guess problems with the theory as well.

Yeah, it was September 19th they asked for this handwriting analysis, but I don't think we found yet the results of it.

Yeah, no, I don't think that's public yet, which they should. They need to ultimately publish that regardless of what it says. At this point, and this is part of the problem with how they've rolled it out, there is such low trust on this issue. They've shot all their credibility. It's gone. Nobody will believe anything if you don't release it.

So it's like when this handwriting analysis comes – like you say you sent it in. If you do not have those records, it's going to be a disaster because people are just going to say, well, it would have proved X or Y or whatever you want to believe.

And now as I'm Googling, I'm seeing like media is like running with this, like people.com's headline is Jeffrey Epstein wrote a parent note to Larry Nassar. It's like, but you're right. Like if you're if you're if you're this sloppy about how you're releasing it, like and you're just leaving it up to the public, it's going to get, you know, not that the public is less trustworthy necessarily than these goons. Well, but it's just that you could collect

any number of random scraps as you do when you're investigating things and yeah, anyway.

Yeah, but this definitely feels like the thing that they were kind of trying to be like, we do not want this out. This is so bad. I mean, there definitely could be more. I'm not saying there isn't, but this feels like the first thing that makes sense. Yeah, this is another one for sure.

You know, a U.S. attorney, assistant U.S. attorney saying that Trump was on more flight records than previously reported, specifically mentioning that, you know, he was on flights where some of the people present—well, one, it was during a time period we would expect to charge in a Maxwell case, and then on the second to last sentence, on the other—two other flights, two of the passengers respectively were women who would be potential—possible witnesses in a Maxwell case.

That's also really bad, I mean, obviously.

Yeah.

What do you make of it? Yeah, that is bad. The Department of Justice saying Trump flew on the plane more than they thought, and crucially at the moment where they're, you know, investigating Maxwell for trafficking, you know, and eventually convicting her of it and So, okay, who are these two witnesses what would they say about Trump?

You know that they're not saying that anything happened on that flight they're just saying he was there but there were victims on The on the plane and also it goes to this like I think it's so far clears the bar for what people want our public officials to be doing like even if you did not assault these two girls while you're on this plane what are you doing like what are you doing so many times on this plane called the lolita express at a time uh when these later to be convicted sex traffickers are trafficking women around and that two of the victims are on the

plane. Like I think the public is done with well nothing happened it's like

how like what are you doing there? It's gross. I think the question is did nothing happen with everybody? I mean how's that possible? Like what I've been saying from the beginning is I think it's definitely possible that a lot of the people in these files did nothing. I just don't believe all of them did nothing. And that's what I refuse to believe.

And when you see there's 10 co-conspirators, you go, where are the charges for the other people? And actually you see this interesting, like, I would almost call it a counter reaction to all the clamoring for more evidence. The fact that there's such little that's been done in charging new co-conspirators, there's been a new thread of reporting that's like, well, there's nothing. This is just all a big to do about nothing.

There's a big nothing burger. And there's been like some journalists who have now been very vocal about saying, you guys are crazy. He just was trafficking by himself. Like he was just, this was his own personal interest and nobody else was involved. So I think it, you know, the public doesn't buy the side of it where it's like, all of these guys are innocent. And also it gives credence to the idea of, well,

there's these Cinco conspirators, where are the charges? Like, okay, you say you're not involved, but at least go after the people who were clearly you have enough leads to get grand jury subpoenas. They got a search warrant for a evidence of a co-conspirator. You have to have some kind, there's a bar of evidence to

get that search warrant. You've got to go talk to a judge. You've got to get their approval. I mean, how did that lead nowhere? And if it did lead nowhere, tell the public exactly

how that happened. Yeah. And we're still missing a lot of that. The affidavits that accompany the warrant would be explosive. The federal indictment still, we haven't seen the details of it nor if we've seen the affidavits that accompany it and that's that's the stuff that yeah, I think that Trump very much does not want out because They they are charges. They're allegations and the public will treat them as kind of settled fact

Whereas that But it could be a lot of bad stuff in there. These are things that the federal prosecutors allege. And you know, we're so used to the news covering what federal prosecutors allege that that's what that's what people will naturally do. You know, we as reporters often say, don't take federal allegations as fact these are allegations. They need to be proven public The public takes them as fact and federal prosecutors love to just basically make sure that people believe that they are fact

So they're kind of caught in a vice of their own creation here. So that's why I think they're trying to keep those documents like There's no evidence that there are these nine, you know, 10 co-conspirators, but the fact that federal prosecutors, like they haven't presented the evidence yet, but the fact that federal prosecutors believe there were 10 co-conspirators, that's that's news and it's huge news. And now we want to know why they believe that.

Which we should mention on this point, we were talking about how random stuff that you would hope investigators are scraping into this broader probe would at least be looking at. That would include this bizarre video, Ryan, that you all flagged initially because you were changing the URL. Tell us a little bit about this because I think it gives us some insight into the process and into what is part, the contents of this larger dump.

Yeah, so basically somebody seems to have fabricated a video of Epstein in his cell and then sent it to federal investigators or somebody sent it to federal investigators and then through that, it wound up in the files which then were released.

And so you get this video released without context of Epstein in his cell, seeming to be like choking or something. But yeah, so-

Well, I wanna jump in here. That is their choice to release this without context. I think it's a huge strategic mistake to just dump these files and let the public like just run with it because if you know something that we don't know, like, why wouldn't you provide some commentary about what it is?

Instead of just trying to let the like just

an Emily click on the link, I think I took it down.

Yeah, they

click on that one. There you go. That was that was where the video was. What happens when you pull that

up? What do you mean? What happens when I pull it up? If

you that justice.gov link?

What happened? Sorry, I was sorry. It's right here. Yeah.

Yeah, they took it down. So they took this video down.

Just a complete mess. Just a complete mess. I wanted to bring up, by the way, what did y'all make of—the prosecutors were clearly getting frustrated with Prince Andrew, who is one of the people obviously being both looked at, but also he was at the time trying to clear his name with some PR. So he releases to the public, hey hey I'm cooperating with federal investigators. Investigators send each other like these links to the Sun and you know

basically the reporting on it and they're like this guy's not cooperating with us. He's not doing an interview. They reached out to him and they started leaking on their own terms like no this guy's not cooperating with us. You have a back and forth between Prince Andrew's lawyer and the US government where Prince Andrew's lawyer is like, you guys said it was going to be confidential and they're like, you lied to the public. I mean, it's kind of fascinating to see this jockeying for public narrative, right, between

people who are clearly on the one hand Prince Andrew's a person of interest on the other hand Prince Andrew's trying to get out in front of the story obviously he's been stripped of his title now do you think we know everything there is to know about like do you think we know everything the crown knows about Prince Andrew's involvement with Epstein or do you do you think they just did it out of an abundance of caution or do you think there is like proven allegations somewhere buried in here that we haven't seen yet?

I would suspect that they also have enormous numbers of private allegations that are separate from this because you know when they when they when they first started reporting on this I had been separately doing reporting on Prince Andrew and his relationship with this shady bank that was doing work with the UAE. And people were then were telling me

his widely known nickname was Randy Andy. And so like, I think when the Epstein stuff came in, it was more like, yeah, okay, this tracks. And then he gave that absolutely, debacle of an interview where he's like, yeah, I don't sweat.

None of this can be true because I don't sweat. So it was just this like unending.

You couldn't look more guilty at that point.

Yeah, I'm sure you don't sweat. So I think that's my suspicion that the family just kind of knew like it's his name's Randy handy And he's always like running around with like, you know, you know inappropriately aged Young young women or older girls and so they're like this is just too much for us. That's that's my suspicion So I don't know. I don't know if they even need to know More than is in this

document I don't know if they even need to know more than is in this document.

Might be losing you a bit, Ryan.

Oh, well. Oh, sorry.

Well, that's about all I got. Before we wrap, I just wanted to get your final thoughts on this and maybe also just from the perspective of somebody who's been in the like knee deep in all of this for days with the new documents being in some cases like 72 hours we've had, actually a little bit more at this point because it's Wednesday and we started getting them on Friday. But you're also connecting the bigger pieces of the puzzle. I always say my perspective on what's going to happen with Epstein is the government's not

going to accidentally or intentionally release a smoking gun document. In all likelihood, any document, whether it's a picture or an email that contains a smoking gun, is already gone. It's been destroyed, deleted, and it's certainly not going to get released to the public accidentally. Although with this DOJ, that would be that would that possibility seems to be higher because there's a level of incompetence to all of it. It looks like to me another evidence or another example of JFK syndrome, where we get a steady

drip drip over the course of decades of documents that are released and personal testimonies of people involved. And the public then has, you know, 900 pieces of a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle. And there's always going to be 10 that are missing. And so over the course of decades, as the years go on, the picture becomes more and more clear, but you can never be definitively certain of what happened. That's what I feel like we're, what the Epstein investigation, at least publicly,

is going to end up and that's what I think is it's becoming. So I'm curious for your position on that, having, you know, just as you still are, been in the

weeds of all of this for days. I think that's right. I think it's absolutely going to become the next JFK. I think people are going to be talking about this for decades. I think they're going to data drip it out. Like you said, I think there's, you know, given their evasiveness, nobody trusts that they wouldn't kind of pull, keep back a few files, right. Under the guise of some rolling production or ongoing investigations, or had to redact it for

xyz yeah victim reasons so national security let's not forget about national security of course it's a national security interest epstein's you know lolita express um so i i do think that's a that's gonna continue i mean i'll bring it all back to public trust. The administration has completely lost the public's belief in them on this issue specifically and I think that's across the board. I don't even think like straight down the line Republicans believe anything this admin says about Epstein. It's just on this issue they've lost everyone's trust

collectively and that puts them in a kind of a no-win position. But also, as they make these blunders, it seems like the only belief we have is in their incompetence and them accidentally releasing something. But also, they can never really falsify it because it's like, it's one of those things where because they've lost so much public trust in the way they've been handling it, because they've been acting so evasive, they put the public in in the last administration, we didn't see a lot of interest in releasing these either means, well, where's their credibility to?

It's like right now it's just in, we know this is a weak spot for Republicans who are pushing on this issue. That's what it seems to me to be politically. But do they have the public trust in we're going to come out and we're going to tell you actually, you know, the truth about it?

If they come out and say, we clear Trump, if they come out and say that, like the Democrats, they come out and say later, oh, he did kill himself in that cell. Are people going to believe it? Are they just going to say, no, you're lying too?

Ryan, as we wrap here, I'm curious for your final thoughts with the big picture that you've been working on, which is intelligence ties. Anything in this latest round of Revelation, are you pulling at any threads here with that

bigger picture in mind?

You're muted, Ryan.

I think the new Wexner stuff, the number of co-conspirators, you know, the amount of evidence we have of his criminality over the years that didn't lead to his prosecution until the very end is all interesting. Might have just lost you again. But yeah, check out J-Mail, check out Coffeezilla's post. If people haven't seen it yet,

this is such a great resource.

It's incredible. It's a very dark place to spend time, but when you do it really, I think in a... People usually say something humanizes with a positive connotation, but this humanizes, I think I've seen in an obviously horrifying way to be going through what appears to be his inbox as it would have appeared. It's very eerie, but I think also an incredible tool. Thanks to the team that's making all of this

possible and thanks to both of you for spending so much of the holiday season knee-deep in Epstein emails.

Davey Plankton – Indeed.

Davey Plankton – Good to see you guys. Davey Plankton – Good to see you guys.

Davey Plankton – Appreciate it. Thanks for joining us. All right, folks, we'll be back with any other breaking updates. Hope everyone is having a great holiday season.