Transcript of Trump Gets Caught in Act Deleting Incriminating Files

So klingt Weihnachten bei REWE. Jetzt festlich sparen bei deinem Weihnachtseinkauf. Diese Woche bei REWE: Frische Netsekt, verschiedene Sorten, je 0,75 Liter Flasche, nur 3,49 Euro. Und außerdem: Emira Kletscheiben, Natur, je 200 Gram Packung, nur 2,22 Euro. Sichere dir außerdem bis zum 24. Dezember 10% REVE bonusguthaben auf Weihnachts Süßwaren. Nur in deiner REWE app. Frohe Weihnachten. Festlich sparen bei REWE. Dein Markt. Jeder meckert über den ÖPNV. Aber was steckt wirklich dahinter? Mit dem podcast, Ticket to Anywhere, blickst du hinter die Kulissen des Naheverkehrs. Schauspieler Maximilian Mund reist zu seiner Oma, trifft spannende Menschen, wie Imalte Zierden oder Linda Zervakes, und erklärt alles zu Bus und Bahn und wie sie besser werden können. Erlebe ein außergewöhnliches Audioerlebnis rund unsere alltägliche Mobilität. Jetzt reinhören auf Spotify oder unter zukunftnaheverkehr. De/podcast. The Trump regime is systematically deleting, destroying evidence that has already been produced in that already Sham document production that was done on Friday. And it's more than just file 468, which we previously covered here on the Midas Touch Network. And just to remind you, file 468 was a photograph that looks like it was on a desk of Epstein. And when you zoomed in, you could actually a photo of Donald Trump with looks like young women unclear their age, possibly a photo of Donald Trump, Melania Epstein, and Ghislaine.

That seemed to have been turned over by accident by the DOJ that's been involved in this massive cover up of anything having to do with Trump in these files. But we know file 468 was immediately removed from the production. So when you went back and looked at the DOJ website, it like file 466, 467, 469. But it's not just 468, it's others as well. The AP did an analysis. At least 16 files have disappeared from the DOJ web page for documents relating to Epstein, 16 files have been deleted. Now, the law, the Epstein Transparency Act, requires that all documents be turned over within 30 days, which is December 19th, subject to redactions just of the victim's name. Now, one of the things we're learning is that the Trump DOJ is now claiming that the victims are actually the men who were the perpetrators, the men who were involved in the sex trafficking realm. The Trump regime is saying they're actually the victims, while also saying that the actual victims, the underage girls, their names, some of their names have been disclosed. Like Aaron Parnas at the Midas Touch Network broke this story right here, that a Jane Doe survivor, whose name should have been redacted based on a report that she made about Epstein to the FBI in 2009.

Her name was actually released in the document dump that was done on Friday, and she sent a letter to the DOJ saying, Look, I'm a survivor of Epstein. I write to place the Department of Justice on formal notice of the grave and indefensible violation arising from the December 19th release of records under the Epstein Files Transparency Act. In that release, my name and identifying information was disclosed publicly without proper redaction. So this Jane Doe, who's actually a victim, who's a survivor of Epstein, her name was leaked through the sloppiness and maliciousness, or you may say intentional, aspects of what this Trump DOJ is doing. But they've covered up all of the... Other than just doing photos of Bill Clinton in contexts that are misleading, like they did a picture of Clinton, Diana Ross, Diana Ross's kids, or they did a photo of Michael Jackson and Diana Ross's kid. They did photos like this, and they were like, Look what we've got right here. Other than that, Trump is claiming that all these men, probably including himself, that were with Epstein, that they're the real victims and their names need to be redacted. Let's just take a look at what the Associated Press is saying, though, about the 16 files that have disappeared.

At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department's public web page for documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein, including a photograph showing Donald Trump less than a day after they were posted on the DOJ website with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public. The missing files, which were available on Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, include images of paintings depicting nude women and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, Inside a drawer, among other photos, was a photograph of Trump alongside Epstein Melania and Epstein's longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell. It actually looks like there's another photo there as you zoom in. It appears to be Trump, but that's at least two photos, maybe one photo there. The Justice Department did not say why the files were removed or whether their disappearance was intentional. A spokesperson for the Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Look, I appreciate that the Associated Press wants to do a diligent job here, but come on, Associated Press, we know the reason. It was intentional, and it's because Donald Trump's on it, and they're covering up everything related to Donald Trump and relating to all the people the rich and wealthy men that Donald Trump wants to cover up as this Trump regime is involved in a PPP, a PetroProtection program, or covering up this child sex trafficking ring.

You have Marjorie Taylor-Greens saying, My goodness, what is in the Epstein files? Release all the files now. Yeah, so then you've got this, and we uncovered that the Trump DOJ was redacting Donald Trump's name from documents that seemed to have been inadvertently produced that had Donald Trump's name on it from the files that were turned over. If you look on Saturday, it has these redactions that were not there on Friday. I'm just going to warn you right here. What I'm going to say is a little bit graphic. And again, I want to be very clear. This appears to be allegations that were being denied at the time. Again, these are just allegations that were being made at the time. It said, Blank liked flicking and sucking her nipples until they were raw. One evening when we were showering together, she showed me it They looked incredibly painful, and they were red and swollen. I also known she had sexual relations with redacted at Jeffrey's New York mansion on regular occasions. I once met Blank for coffee just before she was going to meet Blank and Epstein together at his mansion. Now, in what was produced on Friday, this document, what the redactions were, it had Trump's name on.

Donald Trump liked doing that. I know she had relations with Trump is what it said. Again, just to be... Let me be very, very clear and explicit. These are allegations that I believe were denied at the time. The only thing I'm simply trying to point out here is that they put documents forward and Trump's name was actually on it, and they seem to have inadvertently put Trump's name out there like that. Then they went back on Saturday and put a redaction over it. That's the only point I'm trying to make there. Let me just explain to you just everything that happened in general. I don't want you to be confused Just on Friday, Trump's DOJ produced about 2% of what is in... Say it's 5%, 5% of what is in the so-called what's been referred to as the Epstein files, which is terabytes and terabytes of information, data, FBI witness statements, photographs, all of this. So about the DOJ, Trump was required to produce 100% just to redact the victim's names on Friday. They violated the law because once they're implicated, they're involved, they're covering up. At this point, based on their conduct, they are, right?

Covering up this child sex trafficking ring, in my opinion, right? That seems obvious. They say that, Oh, well, this is just the first phase. This is an initial deadline. No, it's the deadline. Then from what they produced, they redacted 90% of the 2% was redacted, meaning you couldn't even read anything or make anything out because there were black lines that go through it, or are black lines covering the photos. Then from what was released, they've just deleted 16 of the files, and they didn't give any explanation. I mean, again, this is a crime. It violates the Epstein Transparency Act. Subsection B prohibits this as well. You can't withhold, delay, redact on the basis of embarrassment or reputational harm. Then one of the things we've learned from Fox, Fox of all places, Fox's state regime media, the same redaction standards for the actual victims were applied to, politically exposed individuals and government officials, the perpetrators, the rich men, the wealthy men and powerful men who were working with Epstein, who were involved with Epstein, who are in these. They're being treated as the victims. But it goes further than this as well. Jason Leopold, who's been really one of the best reporters on this, he writes for Bloomberg.

He explains that Todd Blanch just sent a letter to Congress. In his letter to Congress, Todd Blanch says that documents were withheld under something called a deliberative process privilege, an attorney-client privilege, and attorney-work product privilege. He explains that in a foia request, Freedom of Information Act request, that's equivalent to a B-5 exemption using the foia as a guide, Freedom of Information Act, it means expect vast swaths of docs to continue to be redacted and withheld, which is pretty the bulk of documents about the government's investigation everyone wants to see. Blanch says, although the Epstein Files Transparency Act broadly categorizes items required to be produced, the act does not include language, expressly requiring the Department to produce privileged materials. Even though the Epstein Transparency Act says, Produce everything other than the names of the actual victims, the Trump regime is saying, Well, you didn't say that we're not allowed to assert attorney-client privilege, attorney-work product privilege, and deliberative process privilege. So what does that mean? Well, Think about, deliberative process is like when the FBI is gathering witness statements. It's a deliberative process. Their investigation, their investigatory notes, all of that is a deliberative process. Their investigation, right?

What What did the witnesses say? What does the surveillance footage say or show? What do the wire tap show? A deliberative process. It really refers to the investigation that the DOJ did into Epstein in 2007, and then when Epstein and Ghislaine were arrested and charged again. Then they say work product privilege. Work product privilege is also the internal notes, internal memos. Then they claim attorney-client privilege, which they're basically saying, well, at this point, they're saying that they're their own client, so they're going to withhold basically everything by claiming that basically the DOJ is its own client, so they're not going to produce records. The attorney work product and attorney-client privilege, that's being asserted by Christie Nome and by Todd Blanch and by others in the The Contempt Cases right now, based on their violation of court orders, where they sent the migrants to El Salvador, and the judge said, Give me a declaration and tell me what you did. And despite the fact that they go on Fox and they spread all of these lies, and they put out all this propaganda. They go, attorney client privilege, attorney work product. We can't tell you anything at all.

Hey, everybody. Ben Meisellis here from the Midas Touch Network. I wanted to let you know about my podcast partner, Michael Popox, new law firm. It's called the Popox Firm. Michael Popack is pursuing his dream of starting his own law firm, really based on the popular demand by all the Midas, Mighty, and legal AFers who are approaching Michael Popack with their cases and saying, Can you help us? And at that time, Poppok was not able to. So he went out on his own. He started the Poppok firm, where he is now handling catastrophic injury cases like car accident cases, trucking cases, malpractice cases, big negligence cases, wrongful death cases. So if you or someone you know have a case like this, the consultation with Poppok's firm is free. Give him a call, see if you have a case. It's thepopakfirm. Com, thepopakfirm. Com, or you can call 877-popakaf, P-O-P-O-K-A-F. So 1-877-P-O-P-O-K-A-F. Give Michael Popak a call. I'm really proud of you, Popak. Thanks for all the hard work you're putting in. Just take a look at what this letter that Todd Blanch sent. This was just sent to Congress. Hat tip to Leopold for pointing it out.

In addition to the basis for withholding or redacting under the act, the Department has withheld and redacted a limited amount of information otherwise covered by various privileges, including the deliberative process privilege, work product privilege, and attorney-client privilege. These privileges are based in common law, not statutes, and Congress is fully aware of them. It is a long-held principle that Congress speaks clearly when it intends to abrogate a common law principle or privilege. Although the act broadly categorizes items to be protected, the act does not include language expressly requiring the Department to produce privileged material. Here the DOJ is saying, Well, Congress, even though you said everything, you didn't say that we couldn't assert these privileges and withhold the document. So again, to be very clear, the DOJ, Trump, are claiming that the perpetrators, the bad guys, are the victims, so they're not going to produce anything relating to them. They're not going to produce anything they deem to be deliberative process, which means all of the investigation, wire taps, internal notes, all of everything, work product, meaning a lot the same thing, and attorney-client privilege they're going to assert. So I just want to read it to you so you understand what's going on there.

Now, you got to go back, and do you remember when the DOJ Deputy Chief, Joseph Schnitt, where the guy, James O'Keefe, went undercover, and he did one of these undercover investigations where I think it was someone who claimed that they were be going on a date with the guy or whatever. I forget what it was. But they got the DOJ Deputy Chief who admitted, this was many, many, many months ago, what was going to happen. Here, let's just play this clip so you can hear it for yourself. Those files do exist. Yeah, thousands and thousands of H-5. They'll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal democratic people in those files. And did they visited that Maxwell person? Yeah. That also involved? Got transferred to a home security person too recently, which is against BOP policy because she's a convicted sex offender. There's something keeping us from. That was the acting Deputy Chief of the Office of Enforcement Operations, Joseph Schnitt, telling a stranger about the FBI and DOJ's handling of the Epstein files. Schnitt, who works at a high level inside the Department of Justice, goes on to comment on the inconsistent statements, special treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell, and the blatant backtracking on promises of transparency.

What are you doing for work here? I work for the Department of Justice. Okay. I've been there like 23 years. I'm an analyst. I'll be acting Deputy Chief of our office for a few months, starting next week. I work closely with all the federal law enforcement agencies, the US Attorneys Office, the prosecutors, and stuff. The thing is, is what you're saying, because I do deal with so many of the agencies. If we were prisons the Marshall Service, Most of the US Attorneys Office. Now, here is Maga Mike Johnson. This is what Maga Mike Johnson said during the government shutdown when he was trying to block the discharge petition that was being circulated at that time. That's when it was being circulated. Maga Mike says, The problem with the law... Remember I warned you and I said this is where they're going to go even when the law gets passed? Maga Mike says, It will create new victims, referring to the powerful men as the victims. Here, play this clip. The discharge petition could create new victims, okay? Because it requires the DOJ to release information, even in cases where the DOJ or the FBI has already reviewed it and determined it is not credible, it is false information.

Doing this and requiring this to come out could ruin the reputations of completely innocent people, such as those who have He may just have known Epstein but knew nothing of his crimes or whose names he exploited. Think of this, innocent people whose names he exploited and used to try to get close to his intended victims. Their names may be in these files, and they had nothing to What do we do with this? And so by just haphazardly releasing it, you're going to destroy their reputations. Releasing information containing the names of innocent people would subject those innocent people to a guilt by association. It would create an entirely new group of victims who have no means to clear their That's a concern of Congress, and it should be. Now, here was a PowerPoint presentation that Mag and Mike made at the time. Look at it over here. It says, Dangers of the discharged petition, if not amended. Victim privacy does not adequately protect victims. Innocent persons risks disclosure of non-credible allegations creating new victims. That's referring to the powerful men. That's how sick these Republicans are. That's I want to read it to you so I come with the receipts.

Csam fails to adequately protect against the release of child sexual abuse materials. Future investigations provides no protections for whistleblowers or undercover law enforcement. Declassification requires the release of information that could reveal confidential methods and sources. So ultimately, what Maga Mike, Donald Trump, and the DOJ agreed to is, look, let's pretend that we to support this Epstein Transparency Act because we're going to lose the vote. And then once the law is entered, we'll just assert all of these things that we didn't like about it and not produce it anyway. That's what they're saying. Do you remember during the shutdown when Maga Mike was like, Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. All they do is talk about Epstein here. Let's play this clip right here. President Trump has nothing to do with it. He has said himself he has nothing to hide. That's clearly what they've been trying to do. They're trying to attack President Trump. This is what they've done. They weaponized the justice system over the last several years to go after him, and this is their latest attempt. They don't have a platform or a principle to defend on the Democrat Party side, so they put all their eggs in this basket.

That's why you hear endlessly about Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. Everything's about Epstein. Then, of course, you had Donald Trump back in July. This is what he said. Each week, there was a different response about what he would say about Epstein. Cnn made this compilation here. Let's play this clip right here. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? I know it's a hoax. It's started by Democrats. It's been run by the Democrats for four years. They should focus on the fact that Larry Somers from Harvard, that Bill Clinton, who you know very well, and lots of other friends, really close friends of Jeffrey Somers, should be spoken about. Now we're at the stage where you have Roe-Kana, Democrat, Thomas Massey, Republican. They were the sponsors. They were the ones who put forward this discharge petition. They were saying, Look, Pam Bondi should be arrested. She should be impeached. These are crimes. These are clear and obvious crimes taking place before our eyes. Also before our eyes, don't you see all the Trump distractions that are taking place? When the Epstein files were released, you had the Department of Defense, they announced, Operation Hawk-Eye Strike in Syria. We blew up ISIS, even though Donald Trump claimed that ISIS doesn't exist anymore, and he destroyed ISIS, but now I guess it exists.

Then we also learned that we have troops in Syria because ISIS killed our troops who are patrolling Syria. Did you know we had troops in Syria? I mean, we learned that all together, and apparently, ISIS is there, too. Then on Saturday, you had Pete Hegsiff announced that our military seized a a China-based oil tanker that's not a sanction Venezuelan oil tanker. The tanker is technically registered in Panama, but it is a oil tanker that really belongs to China. It was taking about 2 million gallons, 2 million barrels, not the gallons, 2 million barrels of Chinese-owned oil from Venezuela to China. And the United States, like pirates, took over that ship right now. They're trying to create all these distractions as while all of this is going on. So there you have it. We'll keep you posted every step of the way, but I really wanted to break it down in a comprehensive way so you can share this with friends and people you know and say, watch this, because it shouldn't be a political thing. I just want to let you... As a former lawyer who dealt with these issues, I want you to be armed with the power.

I want to empower you to be able to push back against this stuff. Anyway, thanks for watching. Hit subscribe. Let's get to 6 Million. We appreciate you. Thanks for watching. Be sure to add the Midas Touch podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcast for new updates every single day.