WEBVTT 00:00:00.880 --> 00:00:11.310 As Congress returns to Washington this evening, following a weeks-long recess, the two congressmen who eventually forced the Justice Department to release the Epstein files could soon potentially 00:00:11.320 --> 00:00:21.110 force lawmakers to vote on the issue once again. Tonight, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has just filed another discharge petition. It's that same maneuver that 00:00:21.120 --> 00:00:31.030 got the Epstein Files Transparency Act through Congress and to President Trump's desk last year. Now to push for a second act. Massie and his Democratic 00:00:31.040 --> 00:00:39.870 co-sponsor, Congressman Ro Khanna, are now arguing that the Justice Department is violating that law that did pass by withholding millions of files related to 00:00:39.880 --> 00:00:47.910 the late sex offender. This new bill tries to remedy that by giving state attorneys general, survivors, and members of Congress 00:00:47.920 --> 00:00:56.270 standing to sue the Attorney General and demand the disclosure of the documents. And Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Ro Khanna of California are my sources 00:00:56.280 --> 00:01:05.990 tonight and thank you both um for being here. I think one question is, you know, we've seen what the DOJ has said about why they haven't released, what else has not been released. Why do 00:01:06.000 --> 00:01:14.630 you think that this bill will be helpful in that? >> Well, we give as you said in your introduction, three groups of people standing. Most importantly, state 00:01:14.640 --> 00:01:25.350 attorneys generals uh because they the one in New Mexico hasn't got any cooperation from the US Attorney General, which is almost unprecedented. 00:01:25.360 --> 00:01:33.430 And he believes he can prosecute some of these crimes under state law if he could get the cooperation of the federal government. And so, we didn't really 00:01:33.440 --> 00:01:42.550 anticipate that problem with the first Epstein Files Transparency Act. So, now we're trying to create a conduit for the attorneys in the various states to 00:01:42.560 --> 00:01:50.590 prosecute these crimes. >> Had you known that this would be an issue, would you have written that differently the first time or what would that have looked like? 00:01:50.600 --> 00:01:58.790 >> It may have been tough if we had a private cause of action to build the coalition we did to get the votes. Uh what we ended up assembling in that 00:01:58.800 --> 00:02:08.070 coalition led to millions of files being released. It's led to worldwide prosecutions and it's led to dozens of people losing their jobs in the United 00:02:08.080 --> 00:02:17.550 States, but it isn't far enough. When you talk to the survivors, they still don't have access to millions of documents that have been covered uh and 00:02:17.560 --> 00:02:26.630 there have not been prosecutions here in the United States. And a lot of these states attorney generals want to prosecute and this bill would allow uh them to do so. 00:02:26.640 --> 00:02:34.830 >> Well, I mean, it seemed so rare that you got the first one passed. I mean, initially when you guys put this forward, a lot of people thought it was a long shot bid and then eventually 00:02:34.840 --> 00:02:43.790 obviously it did garner enough support and it did create this law. Do you have the coalition in terms of getting the support here? Do you have enough Republicans to support it this time 00:02:43.800 --> 00:02:54.470 around so far? >> Well, um incidentally, the math is the same this time as it was a year ago. We need every Democrat. We need the two empty Democrat 00:02:54.480 --> 00:03:03.350 seats to be filled, which should happen this week unless Speaker Johnson does something like he did last time and drags out uh swearing people in for two 00:03:03.360 --> 00:03:12.229 months. And then we need myself and three more Republicans. We do not have Marjorie Taylor Greene anymore, but there could be other Republicans that 00:03:12.239 --> 00:03:22.229 are compelled to join it this time because if you remember, ultimately when we got it to the floor for a vote, nearly everybody voted for it and in the Senate everybody did vote for it. It 00:03:22.239 --> 00:03:31.830 shouldn't be as toxic this time. >> Yeah. Well, I mean, and obviously the president eventually relented on that because it was clear the writing was on the wall of how much support it had. Um 00:03:31.840 --> 00:03:42.990 the when you talk about the DOJ and what they've done so far on this, this is something that Todd Blanche has been asked about multiple times in terms of what has not been released. He said it's 00:03:43.000 --> 00:03:51.670 they're duplicates, that it's files that can't be released, that it's you know, there's exceptions in the law. What do you say to Todd Blanche in terms of what 00:03:51.680 --> 00:03:59.910 you're now trying to do. >> Well, you can either believe Todd Blanches or you can believe the survivors. And if people read actually Maggie Haberman's book, who was your 00:03:59.920 --> 00:04:08.270 previous guest, she details how J.D. Vance was in the situation room right when Thomas and I introduced the bill 00:04:08.280 --> 00:04:16.390 directing a cover-up, directing people not to release these files. The reality is these survivors have given statements 00:04:16.400 --> 00:04:25.230 to FBI agents about what happened to them. Those are the 302 forms and those were scrubbed by the FBI and were never 00:04:25.240 --> 00:04:33.430 transmitted in unredacted form to the Justice Department. And that is what we are demanding be released. That is where 00:04:33.440 --> 00:04:42.630 the names are. That is where the information are about who raped, abused, or trafficked these these women. >> By the way, if I could, there's another 00:04:42.640 --> 00:04:52.750 entire category of things that Todd Blanche knows he's withholding because he's told us this in informal memos. They're claiming this deliberative process privilege that they use when 00:04:52.760 --> 00:05:00.830 they don't want to give you something, a FOIA document, Freedom of Information Act document. >> Which are the the conversations between DOJ officials about the materials? 00:05:00.840 --> 00:05:10.390 >> Yeah. They say, "We We owe you our final production, but we don't have to give you our decisions and our homework." But the Epstein Files Transparency Act that 00:05:10.400 --> 00:05:18.550 we wrote says that you have to give us those internal memos about decisions on whether to prosecute, whether to investigate, because that's central to 00:05:18.560 --> 00:05:27.750 this whole thing. Why didn't you investigate some of these people? Why didn't you prosecute them? And what we do in the new bill is we we say, "You 00:05:27.760 --> 00:05:36.870 know, when we said you have to tell us about your decisions, that covered deliberative process privilege." But we're saying it explicitly in this bill, you can't assert that deliberative 00:05:36.880 --> 00:05:45.950 process privilege. >> Okay. So, we'll see obviously if you get the support here. Another thing that you're working to address, we talked about data centers at the top of the show, are flood cameras. Something else 00:05:45.960 --> 00:05:54.510 that has become a a political issue by the day and has garnered a ton of backlash even. We've got Ron DeSantis, other governors, Josh Shapiro um 00:05:54.520 --> 00:06:02.910 addressing this now. There are these license plate readers that, you know, law enforcement says are helpful in solving crimes, finding missing people. 00:06:02.920 --> 00:06:12.030 You're working to actually create restrictions on funding when it comes to this. What are you proposing exactly? >> Well, uh we're not proposing to ban them 00:06:12.040 --> 00:06:21.550 because we actually don't even have that authority if you follow the Constitution. But, we do have the authority to withhold funding for these Flock cameras. You know, the Flock 00:06:21.560 --> 00:06:30.550 cameras in the data centers may be the only things that have a lower approval rating than Congress these days. And >> And can have far left approval and far 00:06:30.560 --> 00:06:39.190 right approval. >> Correct. And so, what we're saying is um we're not going to fund these Flock cameras in the communities. If you want to If you want to have them, you can pay 00:06:39.200 --> 00:06:47.270 for them yourselves, but don't ask the federal government to be part of this. >> Is that something you support? >> I do. >> I'm as first uh co-sponsor. I'm just a 00:06:47.280 --> 00:06:55.830 little jealous that the MIT guy gets old comes up with the creative ideas and then I uh I co-sponsored it. But, look, what Thomas and my partnership shows is 00:06:55.840 --> 00:07:04.990 that there are areas in this country where you can build unconventional coalitions. Going after elite impunity, a group in the Epstein class that abused 00:07:05.000 --> 00:07:14.190 young girls and faced no consequences. Stopping foreign wars, where Thomas and I have partnered in stopping the war in Iran. And stopping uh the abuse of Flock 00:07:14.200 --> 00:07:24.110 cameras. I mean, you have to have reports of women who are being stalked and harassed by former officers or current officers who are looking at these Flock cameras to go after their 00:07:24.120 --> 00:07:33.830 exes uh or to go after uh girlfriends. I mean, it's a horrific. >> Yeah, there's definitely abuse of it. I mean, we've seen that in these instances. But, in terms of where they 00:07:33.840 --> 00:07:42.470 can be helpful to law enforcement in solving crimes, I mean, do you You don't think that there should be Flock cameras in California? >> Well, this This not a ban. This is saying that 00:07:42.480 --> 00:07:51.230 >> what do you think? >> Well, personally, I think that there should be restrictions. There should be a process if you're a police officer that you shouldn't just be able to look 00:07:51.240 --> 00:08:01.310 at this information without getting layers of approval and without getting some authorization. We should have a system where there's 00:08:01.320 --> 00:08:10.710 oversight over the data. Right now, it's just unrestricted and it's being abused in many ways. >> We we got into this when I was drafting the bill. What is a Flock camera? Cuz we 00:08:10.720 --> 00:08:20.390 don't ban them by name, obviously. >> Right. The brand. >> Other manufacturers make them. So, what is it that we're saying that we're not going to fund? It's the real-time 00:08:20.400 --> 00:08:30.310 tracking of people who for which there is no warrant, for which they're they're basically sucking in all of this data and using it and you know, they can 00:08:30.320 --> 00:08:39.110 abuse it. If you went back to having a warrant in order to search this stuff, but they're collecting it and displaying it in real time. It's not like they're collecting this stuff and then they want 00:08:39.120 --> 00:08:49.070 to go back and see and solve a crime with a warrant. >> Where does the House Speaker Mike Johnson stand on this? Have you spoken to him about it? >> Don't know yet. We're actually going to 00:08:49.080 --> 00:08:57.110 drop the bill in a day or two this week. We've been on recess, so we haven't had the opportunity to introduce the bill. >> And you know what? Look, I represent Silicon Valley, but we need to have some 00:08:57.120 --> 00:09:06.710 guardrails on this technology. They have these meta glasses where you could actually go down the street and with facial recognition identify someone and then look up 00:09:06.720 --> 00:09:15.750 information on them. And the person doesn't know. And some of these young guys are using them to hit on women, getting their information. I mean, we 00:09:15.760 --> 00:09:24.390 can't live in a society of surveillance. I'm not against technology, but I'm against technology being used to abuse 00:09:24.400 --> 00:09:32.590 people. And that's what's going on in certain cases with Flock cameras. It's what's going on with these meta glasses. >> Congressman Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, 00:09:32.600 --> 00:09:38.640 it's always great to have the two of you on together. Thank you for joining us tonight. >> Much appreciated.