Brian Tyler Cohen: Epstein files mystery BLOWN OPEN in massive update

[marmar]

[UpInArms]

1. Here's a clumsy transcript, for those who prefer one

What I saw um that bothered me were the names of at least six men that have been redacted that are likely uh incriminated by their inclusion in these files. So that's that's the first thing that I saw. It took some digging to find them. Um then I'll let you talk about what you saw. Well, and we discussed that. I mean, there are six men uh some of them with their photographs that have been redacted and there's no explanation why those people were redacted and Thomas uh discovered it through his MIT logic with some of the uh the searches. But, you know, that's really concerning. There are six men. We went in there for two hours. There's millions of files, right? And in a couple of hours, we found six men whose names have been redacted who are implicated in the way that the files are presented. >> What's your message to Pam Bondi after what you saw today? >> Um need need to do a little more work and I would like I mean we'll see her at the uh judiciary committee here in a couple days. >> At the very least they these six men maybe she can make public. I mean, we're happy to provide the information to them. Uh, and they should do that. >> These men, are these men US citizens? What fields do they work in? Is it finance? Is it political? >> Um, at least one is a US citizen, at least one is a foreigner, and the other three or four have names, so I'm not sure if they're foreign or US. >> And which field do they work in? Is it is it finance, banking, uh, political? one is pretty high up in the foreign government >> and and and and some are they're one of the others is a pretty prominent uh individual. But I I think that the the point is that these six are just what we found in two hours of a review of the files that aren't redacted. The broader issue is why so many of the files they're getting are redacted in the first place. Some bombshell news here. The names of at least six men who were likely incriminated in the Epstein Files have instead had their names redacted thanks to the DOJ. And remember, the plain text of the Epstein Files Transparency Act forbids that. I'm going to read this directly from the law. Quote, "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." So, not only has the DOJ violated the law by refusing to release the full Epstein files by the December 19th deadline, not only has the DOJ violated the law by their ongoing refusal to release the outstanding 3 million documents, not only has the DOJ violated the law by failing to explain their redactions by the December 19th deadline, but they violated the plain text of the law and frankly the spirit of the law by protecting the very people that this law was supposed to expose and hold to account. And the only possible explanation is that this Department of Justice is engaged in a coverup. Full stop. What makes all of this more obvious is that just a week ago, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch came out and said this. >> You said this is the end of the Epstein uh of your review of the Epstein files. So, just to clarify, are is the public going to learn the identities of the men who abused the girls with the information that you're releasing? And if not, why not? And then I have a quick followup. >> I mean, you just baked in an assumption into your question that I have never said and I don't know to be true. Is the public going to learn about men that abuse these girls? Like, what does that mean? I don't understand what that means. >> Well, I mean, there the men who abused the young women through Epstein's um through >> we we said in July um and it remains as true today as it was in July. um if we had information, we meaning the Department of Justice about men who abused women, we would um we would we would prosecute them, right? We talked about the work that we're doing. That's why I said that there I said this earlier. There's this built-in assumption that somehow there's this hidden trunch of information of men that we know about that we're covering up or that we're not we're choosing not to prosecute. That is not the case. So that was the deputy attorney general saying that there were no other co-conspirators and in fact mocking the very notion that such a thing could even exist, suggesting instead that this sex trafficking ring involving more than a thousand girls got trafficked nowhere to no one, which is convenient if you're, oh, I don't know, looking to cover for, say, your former criminal defendant client who may also be implicated in the Epstein files. Just, you know, to pick an example out of nowhere. Of course, thanks to Massie and Roana, we now know that that's a total lie. But there was already plenty of other evidence that it wasn't true. For example, back in December, an email was released that explicitly mentioned the existence of co-conspirators. The contents of the email read in part, quote, "Good morning, ASC Redacted is requesting an update on the 10 co-conspirators by close of business today. Can you tell us how many have been located, interviewed, served with grand jury subpoenas?" I believe the breakdown was five in New York, one in North Carolina, one in Boston, and three in Florida. Please let me know if you need anything from us. Thank you. Redacted violent crime section, crimes against children, human trafficking unit. The response email reads, "Of the 10 co-conspirators, three have been located in Florida and serve grand jury subpoenas. One in Boston, one in New York City, and one in Connecticut were located and served. Four of the 10 are outstanding with attempts having been made. One is a wealthy businessman in Ohio. A lead is being sent to CV. The remaining three are currently out of pocket. The team, eight SAS, TFOs, two US attorneys, is flying out tonight, tomorrow to various locations in Florida to interview approximately 25 victims. The 1800 call FBI line is up and running. We have received approximately 45 calls, which we are in the process of vetting out. Let me know if you need anything else, Sean. So, the theory that there are no other co-conspirators has been on life support for months based on the evidence, which raises the obvious question, why is the DOJ making sweeping proclamations that no one else is involved when there are emails by prosecutors, who are usually circumspect enough not to admit to the existence of co-conspirators in writing if they don't exist. At some point, the cover up becomes so apparent that it's hard not to believe that the Department of Justice is working on Epstein's behalf and spitting in the faces of the survivors that they claim to care about. In fact, I asked Congressman Roana about that exact email and got some pretty interesting news today. In those emails, they talked about the existence of 10 co-conspirators and grand juries that had been served for those co-conspirators. Three were in Florida, one was in Boston, one in New York, one in Connecticut. I'm assuming if these prosecutors felt strongly enough to put in writing that these people were co-conspirators in this case that they didn't do it completely baselessly. And so um did you have the opportunity to follow any of those leads based on those previously released emails? >> Yes. And that's where we're saying there's six men who are named whose identities have been >> So those are those are correlated with that email. >> They're correlated with that email and similar documents. Now, some of the co-conspirators again are women, and my guess is that they've redacted all the women. I'm not saying that all the women are survivors, but there may be some overlap between survivors and co-conspirators. There are maybe other women who were actually guilty who they shouldn't have redacted, but certainly they shouldn't be redacting men. And in just two hours, Massie and I identified six men uh with their pictures who who they were protecting. A couple of them pretty prominent. uh and uh that certainly shouldn't be the case. >> And of course, if you want to watch the full review with Roana, which I would highly recommend, please make sure to subscribe to my channel so that you can watch that video and more. That link is right here on the screen or also in the post description. It is and always will be 100% free, but again, a great way to support my work. So, look, the reality is that the only way we're going to get any movement on this is by people like Roana and Thomas Massie and the rest of us. A broad bipartisan coalition forcing the government's hand. nothing will come willfully from the Trump administration. They are not on the side of the victims. They are not on the side of the survivors. They are on the side of the perpetrators and co-conspirators that they're trying to gaslight the rest of us into thinking don't exist. So, this will be a battle, but it's a battle we're winning. And I feel confident in saying that between everybody in the coalition we're building to get to the truth, it's going to be increasingly difficult for the White House to win the coverup battle that they're engaged in right now. Before you go, if you enjoyed this content and you want to see more and support independent media, please subscribe to this channel. The subscribe button will be right here on the screen. But second, the reality is that we are now in a political environment where this administration can lean on any of the social media platforms to suppress certain voices if they don't like critical coverage. That means my longevity here is in the hands of a few tech billionaires who are already making it clear that they are willing to cater to this administration. To that end, signing up for my newsletter is a way for me to reach you directly if that ever becomes necessary. I'll put the link right here on the screen as well, so please sign up. It's free, but there's also an option to do a paid subscription if you'd like to support me and my team. I really appreciate it. Thanks so much for watching.