MASSIEFLIX

CNN The Source: Why Can't We Remove the Redactions?

Feb 10, 2026 · 11:23 epsteincnndojtransparency

On CNN's The Source: if the Epstein Files Transparency Act is law, why are the names still blacked out?

Original by Office of Rep. Thomas Massie on YouTube ↗ · Is this yours? Claim credit →

Play from here

Transcript

Download captions

Click any timestamp to jump to that moment.

76 lines
  1. We're monitoring new fallout tonight from the release of the latest batch of the Epstein files. The Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, was appearing before Congress today, and as he was
  2. testifying, he attempted to explain the gap between these two statements you're about to hear from Lutnick himself regarding his relationship with Jeffrey
  3. Epstein. My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person
  4. ever again. I did have lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation.
  5. Newly released emails from the Justice Department showed that Secretary Lutnick actually stayed in contact with Jeffrey Epstein even after Epstein had pled
  6. guilty to soliciting sex from an underage girl and had to register as a sex offender. And that contact continued including in business ties with Jeffrey
  7. Epstein well after we heard from Lutnick in that interview just a few months ago where he said that he and his wife distanced themselves from their neighbor
  8. in New York in 2005 after just being inside of his Manhattan town home. Appearing before senators today, the secretary tried repeatedly to clean up
  9. the record that includes the details of a family visit to Jeffrey Epstein's private island. >> I did not have any
  10. relationship with him. I barely had anything to do with that person. I literally met him three times over 14
  11. years with wide spread in between. That's all I can remember. That's all there is in the documents. And amid calls from Democrats for Howard
  12. Lutnick to resign over the inconsistencies in those statements, this is what we heard in the White House press briefing today. Secretary Lutnick remains a very
  13. important member of President Trump's team and the president fully supports the secretary. I will just point out that there are a lot of wins in the news this week that
  14. people in this room have not asked about cuz you continue to ask questions about the same subject. Of course, this story has stayed in the headlines because there's new
  15. information and survivors have been saying that they still want accountability here for what has happened. The Justice Department in just the last 24 hours or so has unredacted
  16. more names in the Epstein documents. You watched right here on the Source last night as the Deputy Attorney General had said that he made public the name of the
  17. former Victoria's Secret CEO, that's Les Wexner, after Congressman Thomas Massie had gone to the Justice Department but able to look at the unredacted files and
  18. said that in at least in one place Les Wexner's name was baselessly redacted. The Justice Department has also since unredacted the names of other people
  19. including Epstein's long-time assistant, a former French modeling agent. They, along with Les Wexner, are listed in that 2019 FBI document as
  20. co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein's. Now, being listed as a co-conspirator doesn't mean they're guilty of any crimes. They were never charged with anything. But what investigators
  21. uncovered about people in Epstein's orbit is what a lot of people, including the survivors, want to know. Republican Congressman from Kentucky,
  22. Thomas Massie, is back here with me tonight. And thank you, sir, for for being back here. I believe you went back to the the Justice Department today. If you did, what more can you tell us about
  23. what you saw? Well, I saw that Lutnick shared um his phone number with Epstein and that their
  24. assistants were setting up phone calls between them. So, there is at least that other connection. I didn't find any new names today. I didn't have a lot of time
  25. to spend there. But the main, by the way, it's a room with four computers and it's busy all the time. There's always at least four congressmen in there. And
  26. the main complaint that I hear uh as we search through these files is that when you unredact some of the files, you encounter more redactions. And then when
  27. we ask the DOJ, "Why are these files redacted? Why can't we remove the redactions?" The DOJ says, "Well, that's the form in which we received the files." Now, here's the
  28. problem with that, Caitlan. The legislation that Ro Khanna and I wrote directs the Attorney General to produce the documents, but they have to
  29. give all the documents that are in the possession not of the DOJ but also of the FBI and also of the um US attorneys.
  30. So, what's happened, it seems, is that the US attorneys and or the FBI are have redacted documents, given them to the DOJ, and then the DOJ hasn't done their
  31. diligence to go get the original documents. But the whole point of letting lawmakers go into that room is that you're supposed to be able to see what we cannot see. What is still
  32. redacted so you can look at the redactions and basically verify that they are warranted. And yet you're saying even what you're looking at that
  33. is supposed to be unredacted is still redacted, right? Correct. Sometimes you remove the black redaction and you see a white redaction. And sometimes you try
  34. to remove the black redaction and it's all completely redacted still. So, that's a problem. Also, there are files that are referenced in the files we're
  35. reading, but you can't find those files in in the document production. So, that's another problem. And specifically, we're very concerned that
  36. we can't see the 302 forms. And I have reason to be concerned because, as you know, you and I discovered yesterday live on air when the Attorney General,
  37. Deputy Attorney General, started unredacting files while I was talking to you, they have over redacted the files that they've released. They have
  38. withheld co-conspirators' names. And by the way, one thing I would like to add to that about that document that listed Les Wexner in it is that it's he's a
  39. co-conspirator not of drugs, not of money laundering, but of child sex trafficking. That is That is the case
  40. that was being tried that he's a co-conspirator in. And one more thing, Caitlan. Our bill says that the DOJ has to release all internal documents,
  41. emails, notes about decisions of whether to prosecute or not prosecute, investigate or not investigate. Well, that document was in 2019 where they
  42. considered him a co-conspirator. We need to see the document or documents where they decided not to prosecute him.
  43. So, that document yesterday where it says co-conspirator, you're saying was where they were attempting to put together a child sex trafficking case against
  44. multiple people but including the former Victoria's Secret CEO, Les Wexner. Correct. And it wasn't an accidental redaction. He doesn't look like a young
  45. woman. I want to know who made the redaction. Are they tracking that at the DOJ? And you want to know also, which I think is a good question, which is
  46. why that case wasn't ultimately brought. I mean, those were the internal deliberations that I believe Todd Blanche, when he held that press conference, said they did not believe
  47. they were obligated legally to produce that. Correct. But they are obligated to produce the decision about whether to
  48. prosecute or not prosecute. We anticipated this when we wrote the legislation. That's why we included in there that they have to release internal
  49. documents about decisions. Typically, under a FOIA um request, they wouldn't have to release that. That is why we put that exception in our bill.
  50. So, you're going in there. You're saying that you see documents. Last night you said you saw names that shouldn't be redacted that were redacted. Today you're seeing documents that are just
  51. redacted when you should be viewing totally unredacted documents behind this behind closed doors in this private room. And that you're also seeing, you
  52. know, or you're not seeing uh documents that should be in there that aren't in there. I mean, do you trust the Justice Department at this point right now based on what you can see behind the scenes?
  53. Well, if they'll admit that they're making mistakes and that their document production is not done, I can trust them. But I can't
  54. trust them if they say, as Todd Blanche did in his press conference, that "This is it. There's no more. It's over." That can't be true. And so tomorrow, we're
  55. going to have Pam Bondi in the Judiciary Committee. So, I'll have 5 minutes to ask her these questions. And do you think you'll get these answers?
  56. I hope I do. And what happens if you don't? You know, it's hard to refer a contempt
  57. or things like that on an Attorney General to the Attorney General. This is the problem that you run into. And so it it's going to be very difficult, but we
  58. can compel other people to come testify like the Oversight Committee is doing. I'm no longer on the Oversight Committee. I'm on the Judiciary Committee. But the Oversight Committee
  59. can compel some of these people that are named in these files to come and testify. Yeah. Have you heard from the Justice Department directly or is it
  60. just the tweets at you that that you've you that that you've heard from them on? heard from them on? just the tweets at Where they're pushing at you? Where they're pushing at you? There is communication between my staff There is communication between my staff
  61. and Justice Department staff. and Justice Department staff. Um but I haven't heard, for instance, haven't heard, for instance, from Todd from Todd Blanche directly. Um but I Blanche directly. Okay. Okay. And you mentioned Secretary Lutnick. You said Lutnick. You said that you saw an emails
  62. that And you mentioned Secretary today. you saw an emails today. Was it Was it Lut Howard Lutnick directly or Lutnick directly or was it an assistant was it an assistant sharing his phone sharing his phone number with Jeffrey number with Jeffrey Epstein? Lut Howard Epstein? Sharing his phone number and
  63. saying, Sharing his phone number and saying, "We want to set up a call "We want to set up a call um between the two." um between the two." And I'm I'm pretty sure those calls happened. pretty sure those calls happened. And Why are you pretty sure? Why are you pretty sure?
  64. Because they, Because they, you know, they you know, they there's no email that there's no email that indicates that it didn't happen. indicates that it didn't happen. Secretary Lutnick today, Secretary Lutnick today, uh uh as you heard, you'd you heard, you'd called on him to resign
  65. called on him to resign before he came before he came out today and out today and acknowledged that yes, he acknowledged that yes, he did go to did go to Jeffrey Epstein's island as Jeffrey Epstein's island with his family and another couple with his family and another couple in 2012. in 2012.
  66. Obviously, he had said that they'd cut had said that they'd cut off contact off contact back in 2005. Obviously, he back in 2005. Based on what you heard today, did that you heard today, did that change your change your mind at all? Based on what mind at all?
  67. It solidified my decision. It It solidified my decision. Look, the problem isn't that he went to Epstein Island. That That's not a crime. It's not appropriate, I would say, to take
  68. your family to an island where people knew that bad things were happening. Would the the problem is
  69. how do you have confidence in Secretary of Commerce who lied about it just recently? Like that podcast wasn't that long ago.
  70. He lied about it recently, and then he was forced, only when he was sworn in, to give a truthful answer. And I think it's a matter of confidence in the
  71. people who are leading this country. And I don't have confidence in somebody who will lie like that. House Speaker Mike Johnson said today that you were you should stop playing
  72. political games, and he said that Howard Lutnick is a great Commerce Secretary. What's your response to that, sir? The speaker has to do what Donald Trump
  73. wants. The The speaker right now, I think we're stalled on a vote in the House um because he can't get the bill passed, and he can't afford to lose any
  74. political capital. So, what he's decided to do, instead of signing with the American people or signing with our Republican conference, he's signing with Donald Trump, and basically doing
  75. whatever Donald Trump wants him to do over here. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, thank you for joining us again tonight. I appreciate you coming back here on the show. Thanks, Kaitlan. Maybe my voice
  76. will come back next time. Yeah, uh we'll get you some tea. Thank you so much, sir.

Comments

You have to be logged in. A comment stays up until three different people flag it. Then it comes down. Nobody on our side reads the queue.

Log in with a passkey to comment. No password.