Transcript of DOJ Makes Shock Admission on Trump’s Dark Past!!! New

Donald Trump's Department of Justice just made a stunning admission regarding its handling of the Epstein files and Donald Trump's connections with Epstein. One of the grounds that the DOJ may be using in order to withhold massive amounts of documents relating to Donald Trump's connection with Jeffrey Epstein, as well as accusations against Donald Trump relating to sexually abusing minors. Could be that the FBI and DOJ is currently criminally investigating Donald Trump. You may say, do you think that they're actually really criminally investigating Donald Trump? Of course, Pam Bondi and Cash Patel are not criminally investigating Donald Trump. But could they be claiming that there is an ongoing criminal investigation as another grounds for withholding documents that are in the Epstein files that relate to Donald Trump? They're also likely citeing deliberative process privilege and other claims of privilege that they're not allowed to assert. This is criminal conduct by the Department of Justice, which I've compared to a racketeering enterprise engaged in the cover up of a child sex trafficking ring. Before you go, whoa, whoa, whoa, Ben, this is the Midas Touch Network. Receipts, please. Evidence, please. Don't give us outlandish conspiracies. What the hell are you talking about?

The DOJ is criminally investigating Donald Trump. What do you even mean by that? No, I don't think they're actually doing it. Let me be clear. I think that it is a pretext for them to justify in their own minds not producing documents regarding accusations against Donald Trump and documents regarding Donald Trump's connections with Epstein that I believe are still being covered up. Let Justice. Let's go through the evidence, shall we? This is what the Department of Justice posted on social media. Remember also, the DOJ rapid response account is controlled by the White House. It's run by the White House. You know how the White House social media team has now been exposed to have that guy who runs that far right wing extremist horrific account, Johnny Magga, or whatever it's called, right? Those are the people who also run the DOJ social media account. Here's what they posted. That's why it's Trump making these posts with people like Johnny Magga and others in the White House. Doj rapid response posted the following yesterday. Oversight Dems, referring to Congress member García and the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee. Oversight dems should stop misleading the public while manufacturing outrage from their radical anti-Trump from base.

The Justice Department has repeatedly said publicly and directly to NPR prior to deadline, nothing has been deleted from the Epstein files. If files are temporarily pulled for victim redactions or to redact personally identifiable information, then those documents are promptly restored online and are publicly available. All responsive documents have been produced unless a document falls within one of the following categories: duplicates, privileged, or part of an ongoing federal investigation. Let's just go through those very quickly. Duplicates. Well, we know, for example, that a number of FBI 302 reports, these are statements with witnesses, victims, and survivors, are being withheld. We know that there is a document manifest that was produced in the Epstein files. You can see it right here. Right now, we've just posted it. Congress member Garci has posted it. Other members have posted it from the House Oversight, and others have posted it in general. You see it right there. The highlight related documents are the ones that are missing. These relate to an individual who apparently is accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault when she was a minor. These FBI I 302 reports are missing. If they are missing and they're nowhere to be found in the files, they're not being withheld on the basis of being duplicates, because if there was a duplicate Do they think we're stupid, right?

The Trump regime. If there was a duplicate, that means we would see it already. You can't be withholding on the basis of duplicates if you haven't produced the original that the duplicate is based on. That obviously doesn't apply. Privileged. What privilege are you claiming exists in an FBI 302? Are you saying that's a deliberative process privilege? The privilege between who and who. A survivor giving a statement to an FBI agent is in deliberative process. Deliberative process or attorney-client privilege refers to internal types of communications, which also, as I'll explain in a little bit, shouldn't be withheld. Then it says it can also be withheld if it's part of an ongoing federal investigation. All responsive documents, meaning all the documents that we're supposed to produce, they've been produced unless it is a duplicate, privileged, or part of an ongoing federal investigation. Are you saying that Donald Trump is under federal investigation right now? By the way, that's what the House Oversight Dems asked. Records of FBI interviews with a survivor, the Democrats, from the House Oversight Committee, of Trump's alleged sexual assault of minors of little children, little girls, aren't duplicates. There's no privilege. Are you saying that there's an active, ongoing federal investigation into President Trump.

Now, I want to share with you this. Not sure if you've seen it before. It is a January fourth memo from the Department of Justice written by Todd Blanch, the Deputy AG. He's Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorney. He's now the number two at the Department of Justice. He's the guy who interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell in Tallahassee, Florida. She lied through her teeth. Then she got moved to Club Fed. She's getting that VIP treatment in Camp Bryant, Texas. Now she's invoking her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, despite the fact that all of her appeals are over. She's been convicted of child sex trafficking. It's been affirmed by the Supreme Court, so she's already incriminated because she's been found guilty of child sex trafficking. But she was moved to this other facility by Trump and Blanch. In any event, Blanch writes this memo. Look at it. It's dated January fourth, 2026. It's an interesting date because under the Epstein Transparency Act, all of the files were required to be produced on December 19th. Despite the files being required to be produced on December 19th, this memo is sent 2-3 weeks later instructing FBI and DOJ staff, lawyers, agents, et cetera, what they need to do in terms of marking documents, withholding documents, not producing documents.

This memo is very telling, especially in light of that shocking admission that I showed you at the outset of what the DOJ is claiming as an excuse not to produce documents that we believe and that reporters believe show an accuser saying that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her as a minor. This memorandum, Todd Blanche writes, Memorializes the protocol for conducting a responsiveness review of the Epstein files and to assist in providing guidance on redactions for victim identifying information and other protected categories of information. Please review the entire protocol before beginning your review. It is a paramount to the department that this review is thorough and that victim information is properly protected. If you have any questions about this protocol or about the documents under review, please escalate them promptly by emailing your questions to eftareview@eft. Com. Usdoj. Gov. I'd love to subpoena that account to see all of the communications that were taking place there, although they'll probably assert Deliberative Process Privilege and not turn it over. When you go into this section where it says Permitted Withholdings and/or Redactions, you'll see that they even admit under the Epstein Transparency Act, it is not a permitted withholding to not produce something on the basis of a privilege.

Let's just go through it. We're taking this step by step. Here's what Todd Blanche writes, Even if a document is responsive, the act allows for certain withholdings and redactions, except that no record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary. Permitted withholdings or redactions under the act fall into five categories. One, that they contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims' personal medical files. Obviously, that shouldn't be produced. Depict or contain child sexual abuse materials. Obviously, that shouldn't be produced. Three, would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary. Pause on that one for a moment, okay? Four, depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person. That makes sense. You wouldn't produce death or injury pictures. Five, contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are, in fact, properly classified pursuant to such executive order. In addition, as detailed further below, certain personal identifying information, protected health information, must be redacted to comply with existing federal law.

All right, so a lot's going on now that it's 2026, and I'm still trying to stick to that little New Year, new me energy. Nothing extreme. I'm not flipping my whole life upside I'm just focusing on small upgrades that actually make my daily routine better. One easy one for me this year has been upgrading my laundry routine with laundry Sauce. If you don't already know, laundry sauce is a premium collection of high-performance detergent pods and other laundry essentials that are infused with bold and sophisticated fragrances, crafted by the world's top perfumers. Laundry Sauce has honestly become my signature scent in 2026. That Australian sandalwood scent has been my go-to. My entire closet smells incredible now. It's not just detergent, it's a full upgrade for your laundry routine, and it helps you smell amazing every day. The pods are pre-measured, which makes life easier. No mess, no guessing, no giant bottles spilling everywhere. When the laundry is done, I'm actually excited to take it out because it smells that good. They've got amazing scents. I already told you about my favorite Australian sandalwood. That one is warm and earthy. Himalayan cashmere is cozy and soft, and Italian bergamont is bright and citrusy.

If you subscribe to their signature package, you get everything delivered to your door so you never run out mid-wash. For a limited time only, our listeners get 20% off your entire order when you use code minus 20@laundriesaus. Com. That's 20% off at laundrysauce. Com with promo code minus 20, M-E-I-D-A-S-2-0. After you check out, they'll ask where you heard about them. Don't forget to drop our name. Trust us, your laundry has never smelled this good.

Now, in any that I just read for you, did the word privilege come up at all? Deliberative process privilege, attorney-client privilege, work product privilege? No, it did not. So the only possible category under the Epstein Transparency Act for a withholding as it relates to those documents for the accusations by an individual that as a minor, she was sexually assaulted by Donald Trump would be you would have to redact her name. If there were images of a sexual assault taking place, an injury or death, that could be a basis of withholding or an ongoing federal investigation. There is Nothing allowed under the Epstein Transparency Act for withholding on the basis of privilege. Notably, as you go through Todd Blanche's memo and you read down, as I did, to page 9, though, it then mentions on its own other Permitted Withholdings, Privilege. It invents an entire category that's not in the Epstein Transparency Act. You'll see it on page 9, Privilege. It then says, Also review if any of the following privileges might apply. Deliberative process privilege, documents reflecting advisory opinions, recommendations, and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.

Work product privilege, documents that, for example, reflect the mental processes of the attorney in the contemplation of litigation. Attorney client privilege, confidential communications between government officials and government attorneys. If a document contains material between Epstein and his attorneys and Maxwell and her attorneys, or the two of them, the document should be redacted. In other words, they are withholding communications between Epstein and Maxwell by by claiming that those are subject to attorney-client privilege because they have a joint common defense privilege. So notably, what they're admitting here is that even though it's not in the Epstein Transparency Act, because I read for you what the act said before, they're admitting in this memo that I'm reading for you now, which has really never been discussed anywhere else before. Have you heard this memo discussed before? That communications between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine are being withheld, and communications between their attorneys are being withheld. Why would those be withheld? That doesn't say that in the Epstein Transparency Act. Also, as you go through this memo, it says, If you see any 302s, that's the FBI survivor statements, statements between agents and survivors or victims, you need to mark those, 302, and set those aside.

I've highlighted the language right there. So None of that's in the Epstein Transparency Act. The only basis for a withholding that could possibly be related is if they're death photos, sexual abuse photos, if they have victim-identifying names, but then just redact the victim's name and the victim's face, that's fine, or if Trump's under active federal investigation. That's why I believe that what the DOJ is claiming, and I'm going to give you another layer of this in a moment, to themselves, at least, is that, well, there's ongoing investigations taking place, even though over the summer they claim there's no ongoing criminal investigations. And in any event, we've invented a new category that's not in the Epstein files called privilege, Which is a real thing, but it's not allowed to be withheld in the Epstein Transparency Act in the Epstein files, but we're going to withhold it on that basis. Remember when Roe-Khana and Thomas Massey, the Congress members behind the discharge petition that led to the Epstein Transparency Act went to a federal judge and said, Hey, we need a special master or a discovery monitor to come here because we're worried the Trump regime is going to do exactly what the Trump regime ended up doing.

Remember what the Trump regime said to the judge? Hey, Judge, the Epstein Transparency Act doesn't allow judges to make rulings because it doesn't have a private cause of action in it. What the Trump regime is going to be relying on right now is their view that no judges should be able to review their own call, their own determination of privilege when they assert it. Normally, what would take place is in a lawsuit, if there are parties fighting over documents that need to be produced and someone claims a privilege, It's a dispute over it, a judge makes the ruling and says, No, you have to produce it. But here, the Trump regime has taken the position that they're above the judges and that no judge can even make a ruling. Now, there's a lot of other things going on as well. Finally, you have corporate news recognizing what independent reporters like Roger Sullenberger and others have been saying for a very long time. This is the front page of the New York Times, finally. Epstein files are missing key records about women who made claim against Trump. Documents briefly mention a woman's unverified, this is how they have to say it, unverified accusations that Donald Trump assaulted her in the 1980s when she was a minor, But several memos related to her account are not in the files.

Here's what CNN says, dozens of FBI records apparently missing, including Trump accuser interviews. Then it goes on to talk about an evidence log provided to attorneys for Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell includes serial numbers for about 325 FBI witness interview records, but more than 90 of those records, over a quarter of the list, don't appear to be present on the DOJ website, according to CNN's review. Among those missing records are three interviews related to a woman who told agents that Epstein had repeatedly abused her, starting when she was approximately 13 years old, who also accused Trump of sexually assaulting her. A Democratic lawmaker on Tuesday pointed to the apparently missing documents to question the extent of the DOJ's release and whether the Trump administration followed the law. We have a survivor that made serious allegations against Donald Trump, Congress member Garcia said there. So just think about that. All of those 302s are pretty much missing at this point. And they were flagged because the memo said flagged tag 302s, put them aside, and now their claims of privilege or these other grounds for withholding them. Now, here's what the DOJ also posted on their social media account in response to all of this news.

By the way, the Wall Street Journal reported on this as well. So finally, this is getting a lot of attention. Here's what the DOJ posted. As the Department of Justice has consistently said and has done since the January 30th, 2026 publication of the Epstein files, if any member of the public, including victims, reported concerns with information in the pages, the Department would review, make any corrections, and republish online. Several individuals and news outlets have recently flagged files related to documents produced to Ghislaine Maxwell in discovery of her criminal case that they claim appear to be missing. As with all documents that have been flagged by the public, the Department is currently reviewing files within the category of the production. Should any document be found to have been improperly tagged in the review process and is responsive to the act, the department will, of course, publish it consistent with the law. Now, I hope I didn't bore value with this explanation, but like a tower, it needs to build on top of each other. Here, finally, yesterday, when the Department of Justice says that these files have been tagged and that consistent with the law, they will publish it, that's the key language that's actually coded and hidden here.

These have been tagged with bogus privilege federal investigation claims. They've been tagged 302 and segregated to not be produced. They've been utilizing the Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case and the protective orders that were there as their way to further delay things by, and this is what Roquana and Thomas Massey were warning Judge Anglemayer about in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, Hey, Trump is using you. He's blaming you. And he's saying, You, Judge, are the cause. So he's throwing you under the bus for this cover up of the child sex trafficking rate. And Angelmier was like, Oh, this is a criminal case. There's nothing I can really do here where you have the DOJ prosecuting Ghislaine. She was prosecuted, and neither of them are saying, Produce it. So what can I do? What are my powers as a judge? Well, I think you got to do something is the reality is what I think. So that's where we're at right now. I know that was a lengthy explanation, but I think that catches you up to where we're at. Hit subscribe. Let's get to seven million subscribers. I kept on saying six in other videos. I appreciate you for watching.

Love this video? Support independent media and unlock exclusive content. Add free videos and custom emojis by Becoming a paid member of our YouTube channel today.

You can also give memberships to others. Let's keep growing together. Amazon bietet all the fresh-gebacked Eltern in the Nikola, quizfrage: Homeoffice bei Stade oder Fahrtkosten. Was bringt uns mehr? Moment, ich check das kurz. Oha, Homeoffice gewinnt. Bringt uns 150 Euro mehr im Jahr. Ja, richtig. Aber wieso weißt du so was? Weil, wieso Steuer die Erstattung live anzeigt. Das ist einfach die Steuer-App für alle Fälle. Ja, und Fragen beantwortet sie auch. 247 und ohne Beamtendeutsch. Das ist einfach die App, die uns versteht. Steuern erledigt? Safe. Mit WISO Steuer. Jetzt kostenlos ausprobieren.