Transcript of Whoa! Trump Falls into Perfect Trap to Expose his Past

Donald Trump just walked right into a perfectly laid trap that may expose his dark past. Precisely what he's been trying to avoid since December 19th, when the Epstein Transparency Act required that his Department of Justice turn over all of the Epstein files. The Trump regime to date has only turned over less than 1% of the Epstein files. Let's talk about the perfect trap, how Donald Trump walked right into it, and what I think a federal judge is now going to do. A lot of people didn't see how carefully planned this trap was, and now people get it. In the legal community, everyone's like, Wow, this was a brilliant move by Democratic Congress member, Roe-Khana, and Republican Congress member, Thomas Massey, who were the leads on the Epstein Transparency Act. You see, They filed this document on Tuesday, where they finally revealed their plan and the trap that was set, and it was brilliant. You may recall, about a week and a half, two weeks ago, Massey and Conna filed a request to be deemed something called an amici and file an amicus brief, meaning a friend of the court brief, before a federal judge, Judge Anglemier, in the Southern district of New York.

Why Judge Anglemier? Well, Judge Anglemier is the judge presiding over the United States versus Ghislaine Maxwell criminal case. She was, of course, convicted of child sex trafficking, sentenced to over 20 years, put in a maximum security facility before Trump's DOJ, moved her to the minimum security facility in Camp Bryant, Texas, and gave her VIP treatment. In this amicus brief that was filed a week and a half or two weeks ago by Roe-Kana and Thomas Massey. They make a recommendation to this federal judge, Judge Anglemier. Perhaps you appoint a special master or an independent monitor who can go into the Department of Justice files, determine how many records exist in the Epstein files, prepare reports for the court, and then produce the Epstein files forthwith because the Trump regime is in criminal violation. Now, it seemed that federal Judge, Anglemier, was a little bit skeptical whether these Congress members have standing. But Judge Anglemier then asked Trump's DOJ the question, Do you believe that these Congress members have standing, number one, in order to intervene in this action, right? Then number two, do you believe, Trump DOJ, that federal courts, like this one, like Judge Wendell Meyer, that we can make rulings compelling you under the Epstein Transparency Act to produce the Epstein files, to enforce the Epstein Transparency Act?

Last Friday, the Trump DOJ does this late night filing. They say, Thomas Massey and Roe-Khana do not have standing. They're not parties to this action. The only parties are the DOJ, the United States, and Ghislaine Maxwell. This criminal Criminal case is well over, Judge. You can't have parties now intervening. They're not parties to the case. This is a criminal action. But then the DOJ had to answer that second question, can courts enforce the Epstein Transparency Act and the Department of Justice last Friday? Remember I covered this filing? They said no. They said there's no private cause of action in the Epstein Transparency Act. The DOJ that Congress did not, events is the word, did not evince any intent to allow the Epstein Transparency Act to be enforced in a federal court. In other words, the Epstein Transparency Act, according to the DOJ, does nothing. It recommends the files get produced, but if the DOJ and Trump don't produce anything, then there's nothing a court can do about it. Just think about that. So So Epstein, the Epstein Transparency Act, according to the DOJ, means no transparency at all. So one brilliant thing that Thomas Massey and Roe, Kana, accomplish is they smoke out the DOJ's position and Trump's position all along, that Trump and Bondi and Blanche ultimately agreed, let's make this thing Allah, because they figured, we're just going to argue down the line a year from now after we delay, delay, delay, and maybe somebody brings a lawsuit.

We'll keep on delaying it, and then we'll eventually argue that there's no private cause of action. Nobody can enforce the Epstein Transparency Act, and that maybe buys them another year or two years. But in the Epstein Transparency Act, enforcement mechanism that's being used by Kana and Massey, they smoke this out right away that this is the DOJ's plan. But then yesterday, Kana and Massey file their brief, and their brief is brilliant. They said, Whoa, whoa, whoa. We're not trying to intervene in this case as parties, Judge. Simply, all we want to do is make a recommendation as a Michi. We want to file an amicus brief, and we just want to make recommendations as concerned lawmakers. Let us tell you what we're concerned about. That's all. We're not trying to intervene as a party. Then this is where they strike. They say, Judge, what we want to inform you of is that the DOJ is out there in public, and they're telling everybody that you had the power to order them to turn over the Epstein files, but that you are the one who's moving too slowly, but that you have the power, and it's your fault.

Massey and Conna just waited, waited, waited, saw what the DOJ filed. Then they filed a reply and said, Judge, we hate to tell you this, but it's not just that Trump and the DOJ are involved in criminal violations of the Epstein Transparency Act. They're blaming their crimes on you. And specifically, this is brilliant, that Massey and Conna, as Exhibit 1 to their filing yesterday, they attach a fact sheet from the Department of Justice that now has 1. 9 million views on the social media platform X that the DOJ posted on December 21st, 2025. Fact sheet, the Epstein Files release. This is what the DOJ wrote, December 21st, two days after the DOJ missed the Epstein Transparency Act deadline. Remember, to date, they've only produced 1% of documents. Maybe even less. Fact Sheet, the Epstein files release from the DOJ. Thanks to court seals being lifted as a result of President Trump enacting the Epstein Transparency Act, the Department of Justice is releasing thousands of pages of photos and other materials related to Jeffrey Epstein. Why is this material being released now? It says, Prior to President Trump's enactment of the Epstein Transparency Act, they say Trump's enacted, various judges had declined the Trump Department of Justice's request to unseal Epstein-related material.

The enactment of the new law gave the judges a legal predicate they found sufficient for granting the Trump administration's standing request before the courts to unseal the files. Do you see what the DOJ said right there? I know it's a little bit legalese, but they were saying here that the various judges, they declined to allow the Trump DOJ to produce these records. But once the Epstein Transparency Act became law that Donald Trump signed, this is what the DOJ is writing, the judges now have a legal predicate that they found sufficient to give Trump standing before the court to unseal the files. So, Massey and Kana are saying, You see, Judge, the DOJ is telling the public that because of the act, you have the legal predicate to compel them to unseal the files, and now they're doing it. But, Judge, that's what they put in their press release to the public that now has approximately 2 million views. But what they're now saying in their briefing to you after we filed our initial Imichi request is that you don't have any ability to enforce anything, Judge, at all. So they're saying you have no ability to enforce in court filings, but then they're telling the public their violations of the Epstein Transparency Act are your fault, Judge.

You see what happened here? What Kana and Massey did so brilliantly is they're not arguing that they need a private cause of action. They say, We don't even have to go there. They're saying, We're not arguing that we have standing as a party to intervene. Judge, we're just tipping you off because we're concerned lawmakers who were the leads of this Epstein Transparency Act, we don't want them to accuse you of the crimes that they're committing. Now, imagine you're Judge Anglmier, and you're like, Holy crap, they're accusing me of doing the crimes? And then, Massey and Kana in their brief go a step further and they say, Judge, we want to remind you of the timeline as well. This was a plan. This was a setup by the DOJ of you, Judge Anglmier, Going back, look at the filing by the DOJ on November 26th, where they say, Judge, we need your help amending the protective orders in the Epstein-Ghislaine case, not just as it relates to releasing grand jury transcripts. But on November 26th, the DOJ says, For clarification, Judge, we need you to amend all of your protective orders in this matter so we can release the files and comply with the act.

Then remember, Judge, on December ninth, you issued a ruling and saying, Okay, DOJ, because you say that you need me to lift the protective orders and amend the protective orders so you can now release all of these documents relating to the Epstein Transparency Act that are part of the Epstein files, I will amend the protective orders that were part of the criminal case involving Ghislaine. What Massey and Conna say is, Judge, Trump and the DOJ invoked your jurisdiction to amend protective orders. They lied to you and represented that they were going to release the files once you amended your protective orders. You amended the protective orders. They did not release the files, and then they blamed you. Now they're saying that you have no authority. Now they're pretending like, Judge, there's no controversy anymore. Ghislaine has been convicted. Her appeal before the Supreme Court is over. So she does, this case is done. It's toast. You can't intervene. Massey and Knaught said, What are you talking about? You all just requested the judge amend the protective orders. And now you're not turning over the documents. That's why I think this move is so brilliant. You go through this fact sheet and it says, How much more material can we expect to be released?

This is from the DOJ fact sheet from December 21st after they violate the Epstein Transparency Act. So you get the timeline, though. November 26th, DOJ says, Judge amend the protective orders. December ninth, judge amends the protective orders because he's told they're going to release the files on December 19th. December 19th comes and goes. Only 1% of the files are released. Then they do a fact sheet, December 21st, 2025, the DOJ does blaming the judges. Here's what they say in this next section. How much more material can we expect to be released? The Department of Justice has hundreds of thousands of pages of material to release, including material that must comply with the court orders. These court orders can slow the Department of Justice's ability to review and redact material, but will not prevent the release of this material. While they're separately arguing to the judge now in briefs, Prevent the release of the material, they're telling the public the opposite. When you go through the brief that was filed by Massey and Kana, basically, go to page 7, for example, and it says, The government should not be permitted to represent to the public that this court has the legal predicate to compel the release of the Epstein files under the act and blame this court for the government's delay, yet at the same time assert now that the court must permit the records to remain hidden from the public in violation of the act because the court does not the authority to enforce the act.

The trap that was laid, again, by Massey and Kana, they saw that the Trump regime was likely going to argue no private cause of action, but Trump went to the judge before to amend the protective orders. What Massey and Kana did by filing this amici was to remind the court to inject an adversarial nature into the proceeding and then tip off the court that behind the court's back, Trump was blaming the court. So now saying, Court, just take action. Remember, Court, you could take action on your own because they asked you to amend the protective order. So you should be involved in it right now. That, to me, is on eight different levels of chess right there, in my view, thinking ahead. And now the Trump regime's arguments about no standing and the court can enforce are like, mooted. Now I think there's a shot that Judge Anglemayer, because that Trump opened the door and invoked the court's jurisdiction to try to set up the court, That could now backfire in the Trump DOJ's face. Now I think Judge Anglmier or maybe even Judge Bermon in the other case may say, You know what? Let's release these files.

You invoked our jurisdiction. Let's go. Put them out there. Wow. I know I got a little legalese and dorky there, but this is some great lawyering. Everybody hit subscribe, get to 6 million subscribers. Thanks for watching. Want to stay plugged in? Become a subscriber for our sub stack at mitusplus. Com. You'll get daily recap from Ron Philip-Kausky, add three episodes of our podcast, and more exclusive content, only available at mitisplus. Com.