New Epstein photos: Trump, Woody Allen, Bannon, Clinton pictures released

There's only one nose and peck. Hello, I'm Ozempic. Because this ad is 30 seconds, I can't get into everything I'm FDA-approved to do, so I'm just going to play my jingle again. But first, ask your doctor about which FDA-approved uses of me, the Ozempic, may be right for you. Call 1833 Ozemp or visit Ozempic.com to view the medication guide and learn more about Ozempic. Somaglitide injection, two milligrams. Only Novo Nordisk makes FDA-approved Ozempic. Now here's that jingle again. There's only one Ozempic. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out we weren't alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to seven billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. Tonight on All-in. Just last night, we received about 95,000 photographs from the Epsine estate. The Epstein scandal roars back into the headlines. These pictures, some of these photos, are really disturbing. New images of multiple high-profile men, including Donald Trump, and one of his biggest allies. Did I mention that Trump's not perfect? Tonight, Congressman Robert Garcia on what his committee released today, and the photos they're not ready to release. I haven't seen it, but I've been everybody knew this man. He was all over Palm Beach. Plus, Epstein survivor, Jess Michaels, on what this means for the pursuit of justice. Then. It is funny because I won Indiana all three times by a landslide. Stunning new details of Donald Trump's failed pressure campaign in the state of Indiana. Right up into the last minute, President Donald Trump was calling individual senators here in the state and trying to get them the flip. But all in starts right now.

Good evening from New York. I'm Chris Hayez. Every time it seems that the Epstein story is going away, it comes roaring back without fail time and time again. And today is one of those days. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have released dozens of photos from the estate of the late child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. We're going to go through them here in just a moment. But even more shocking, maybe what we aren't seeing at least not yet. A trove of 95,000 images in Mr. Epstein's email account and on one of his lap stops. The estate has turned over those images to the House Oversight Committee, which subpoenaed them and has gone through about, they say, a quarter of them. Today, the ranking member, the Democrat on that committee, Robert Garcia, laid out what was in that full trove, where it came from, and why we are not seeing more of it. There's obviously 95,000 photos. There are many, many photos of women and of some of Epstein's properties, which is a significant portion of these photos. These photos were... basically in the possession of the Epstein estate. And so that includes pictures that maybe were sent to Epstein. Perhaps he took himself. We know there's some that he's himself that others took, but they were in his possession. And so that is what's important. And obviously, there are photos of powerful men and folks that we want to have an opportunity to speak with and ask questions of. These pictures, some of these photos are really disturbing. And I know we've put some out. today. There are many others. And some of the other photos that we did not put out today are incredibly disturbing. We're going to talk to Congressman Garcia later in the show. As he notes, there is a lot we don't know about the context around these images and the events they depict. They are just photos. And they do not appear to show anything wrong, certainly not criminal or even improper. The people in these photos deny any wrongdoing connected to Epstein or the crimes he committed. Parts of them were redacted before they released, and we are choosing not to air some edges, which include sex, aides, and bondage items. Some photos have been published previously. Others have never surfaced before. What we do know is that some of the people in them, they include lawyers, an economist, industrialists, artists. Two of the images show Epstein together with the disgraced filmmaker Woody Allen on different occasions. In fact, Woody Allen has written about going to dinners at Epstein's house. There are also politicians, including Democrats. Epstein had this photo of himself, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jimmy Buffett with Bill Clinton, a photo that appears to include a signature from the ex-president. There are images of another president, Donald Trump. This is one of Trump with Epstein at a gathering. There's another of Trump seated on an aircraft with an unidentified blonde woman. Her face has been redacted. A third photo shows Trump posing with what appear to be six women or girls, again redacted. We don't know the context of these images. Another presence in multiple photographs is that guy you see there. You recognize him?

I think he's only got one shirt on there. Steve Bannon, the right-wing provocateur, former Trump aide. There's Steve Bannon chatting with Woody Allen, Steve Bannon and Epstein in a mirror together, Steve Bannon and Epstein in conversation. Now, there is a backstory there. Steve Bannon was, in constant, we have to say, friendly contact with Epstein. We know this from leaked emails, advising him on how to handle the media around his case. We know that from a number of sources, but particularly from the Epstein emails released last month by House Oversight. Also from news reports that Steve Bannon shot an estimated 15 hours of interviews with the sex offender. Epstein reportedly financed the production as part of a planned rehabilitation tour that never quite happened. Steve Bannon says all that video for a documentary that was going to get to the bottom of the Epstein network, not because he was a part of it. I made a bag living from old thinking, but the future is for the way women think. The way women think. That's correct. The greatest threat to people put in solitary confines, they try to kill themselves. Imagine that. You're only in a room for 24 hours. You start to go crazy. Huh.

Now, Steve Bannon leaked that trailer four years ago. Still no documentary and hours and hours of video in Steve Bannon's possession that still has never seen the light of day. He says it's coming, quote, early next year. Every time we get some glimpse into Epstein's life, more people in his circle are exposed. That's exactly the thing that Donald Trump says and has said many times that he doesn't want to happen. Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? Are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. They're wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems, who died three, four years ago. You don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because it's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. It's something, it's a hoax that's been built up way beyond proportion. And by the way, I never went to the island. Donald Trump has been so adamant on this point that he alienated one of his biggest supporters and most successful fundraisers in Congress. That would be, of course, the soon-to-be retiring Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. We did talk about the Epsine files, and he was extremely angry at me that I had signed the discharge petition to release the files. I fully believe that those women deserve everything they're asking. They're asking for all of it to come out. They deserve it. And he was furious with me. What did he say? He said that it was going to hurt people. And of course, Donald Trump and the people that work for Donald Trump have fought at every turn tooth and nail against the release of any new information in the case of his old friend, the guy there in the video with him, paling around, looking at women, Jeffrey Epstein. And yet here we are, right? In just the coming days, we're going to be getting unsealed grand jury material and transcripts and more data and information from the Epstein estate. And don't forget, in one week. Trump's Department of Justice faces its deadline imposed by a 427-1 vote in Congress to turn over all the Department of Justice's at scene files. Andrew Weissman worked as a federal prosecutor for years, including his general counsel for the FBI. Lisa Rubin is an MS now senior legal reporter, and they join me. Now, Lisa, I wonder if you just give us a little more context about the photos we got today, the small group of them, and then the larger group that, and what's going to happen with those? So the 95,000 plus images that were turned over by the Epstein estate to the House Oversight Committee was as a result of a subpoena that they served on the Epstein estate in August, largely brought about by the existence of the birthday book as reported by the Wall Street Journal. But while they were at it, the House Oversight Committee listed a bunch of other categories of things that they wanted. And one of the things that they wanted was photographs and videos of Epstein's multiple properties. And so the 95,000 images that they got, many of them were responsible. to that. While they were at it, the Epstein estate also threw in lots of other photographs that they said, we're not sure if these are entirely responsive, but we came across these in our search. We're going to give these to you as well. And, of course, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, having seen a small subsection of these yesterday from what we understand in what's called an in-camera review, an in-person review at the office of the estate's lawyers, now has a small selection of it that they have chosen to make public.

to us. The question is, when are we going to get to see the rest of them, if at all? Because in addition to these 95,000 plus images, the House Oversight Committee is sitting on a bunch of other collections of documents that they already have pursuant to subpoena. And for whatever reason, haven't made public. I just want to detail for you a couple of the categories. Yeah, I'll ask Robert Garcia in just a few minutes about it. Yeah, they've got bank records. They've told us they have bank records from J.P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank. They've also told us that they subpoenaed a bunch of records from the Department of Justice of the U.S. Virgin Islands. That's the Attorney General of the U.S. Virgin Islands. That's because that office filed two major lawsuits in the wake of Jeffrey Epstein's death, one against J.P. Morgan and one against the estate of Jeffrey Epstein. And in the complaint against the estate of... Jeffrey Epstein, they went further than any law enforcement official has so far in terms of when the abuse was happening. They said that the abuse was continuing to happen on Jeffrey Epstein's island in the Virgin Islands as late as 2018, 2019. That's not something that we see coming out of the U.S. Department of Justice's mouth. When we think about the Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein cases, for example, the Jeffrey Epstein case was about abuse that occurred between 2002 and 2005. The Glenn Maxwell case, the sex trafficking charges that... she faced, those were about alleged abuse between 1994 and 1997. Now, granted, in Maxwell's trial, evidence of more recent abuse came to light through witness testimony. But again, the U.S. Virgin Islands has sort of put the latest marker in the sand in terms of when that was happening. So one of the big questions I have is, yes, I'm waiting like many of us are for the Department of Justice to produce files next week. in response to the deadline on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but I also know that the committee has a lot of stuff at their disposal and stuff that maybe the Democrats on the committee aren't at liberty to give us in their totality. So it's not only a question to Robert Garcia, of course, as the ranking member, but one to James Comer as well. Why haven't we seen the rest of what your committee has collected pursuant to this bipartisan subpoena that many of you are so proud of? That's a great point. Andrew, the part of what... kicked off this version, right, this round of coverage of Epstein and then the, you know, leading to the discharge petition and the legislation that was passed and signed by the president sort of against his will. Was that memo put out by the FBI and the Department of Justice where they said, we looked and there's nothing here and there's no more information to disclose? And I'm curious what you think about that memo in light of this. in sort of two directions. One is that it is incumbent upon the Department of Justice not to sort of disclose what could be essentially reputational damaging information if they're not going to charge people. It's not really what the Department of Justice does. And there's a plausible kind of by the book procedural argument for that. But then it's also the case that what Lisa was just saying, and particularly when we're talking about what the estate has, it does seem like there's a lot of information that hasn't been that hidden for that long that we just haven't had that is useful now to have. Well, to your point about the memo, just remember, there's one thing about the Department of Justice staying silent and saying, you know, we don't actually speak beyond what is in the criminal case. But that's not what they did here. They issued a memo that said there is nothing to see here. That's right. Yes. No, there is, don't look here. One of the things that I find particularly fascinating and these photos illustrate it is,

It is remarkable to me, even though there was a criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York, and there was a criminal investigation and charges against Jeffrey Epstein, it is remarkable that apparently the United States Department of Justice did not get any of this information. Todd Blanche has said that he did not have... this kind of information when he interviewed, and that's in air quotes, I would rather say what he met with and seemed to ask very friendly questions of Ghislaine Maxwell. It really tells me that there has not been a full and thorough investigation of what happened here. If I am a victim of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, I'd be fairly up in arms that you can have the Department of Justice saying, to your point, Chris, oh, there's nothing to see here when what we now know from the estates, photos, and other exhibits, that the Department of Justice appears to have not done the very basic things that you would think you would do, which is to issue subpoenas or a search warrant for the information. that we're now getting. And so it makes it really clear that the Department of Justice and Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche have no business saying there's nothing to see here because they apparently have not done the thorough investigation. And by the way, that goes beyond the Trump administration in terms of the department not doing a thorough investigation. Yeah, that point is a important one. It wasn't just, we're not going to say anything. It was we have conducted a definitive review. You're not going to see any of it because everything, there's no client list. There's no nothing. To Andrew's point, one of the other sort of areas that we're waiting on are grand jury materials. The judge's grants a request to unseal grand jury records in the Maxwell case. And in the Epstein case. We've got that just in the last, I think, week, basically. What should we think about that material? So I keep saying this, and I apologize, if they sound like a broken record, we have judges who have seen the grand jury transcripts and exhibits that were shown pre-indictment. And one of them even said in his order this week, there's nothing really to be learned from looking at this grand jury material. But those two orders did something else that I think is really significant, and that is modify protective orders in the case that pertain to the discovery that both... Jeffrey Epstein and Clayne Maxwell were given as criminal defendants. The government came back to these judges and said, look, we have lots of stuff that we accumulated during our investigations and prosecutions of these cases. We'd like to be able to give them to Congress in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but we can't do it as long as this protective order is in place. And the judge said, well... Tell me what it is that you think you're going to give over. What's covered by the protective order now that you can't just hand over because you think you're limited by my order? And then they detailed categories. One of those things is obviously interview notes and memoranda from witnesses. But in addition, Chris, they said we have school records. We have immigration records. We have bank statements, credit card statements, and other investment account statements. We have...

All sorts of returns that we got from electronic service operators, meaning like Jeffrey Epstein's emails or other accounts that he had. There is a treasure trove of investigative and discovery-related information there that now... The Southern District on behalf of the Department of Justice says they are going to turn over to Congress, right? They will be redacted, of course, because they're not only permitted to redact, but obligated to redact to protect the personal privacy of the survivors and the victims. But I think the stuff that's currently covered by the protective order is the really rich material that we might see as produced to Congress. And then the question, Andrew comes, we're a week away, you know, from the... deadline. We've got some new polling asked about the federal government. Is it hiding info about Epstein's alleged clients? 70% say yes. 21% say no. I guess it's not that surprising a finding. What are you looking for from the Department of Justice as we approach this deadline and when we hit it? What I'm looking for is what we don't get. I am highly, highly skeptical that we are going to get anything close to a full disclosure. I hope I'm wrong. But for the same reason, I think there has not been, and it seems pretty clear, a full investigation. The reason I am skeptical that we're going to get everything turned over is that the Department of Justice right now, as we are sitting here, could turn over just loads of information. So yes, it is good that they went to these two judges to get orders, but that covers a tiny... tiny fraction of what the government would not be able to turn over right now. And grand jury investigations are going to be very, very narrow and focused in terms of what's covered. So those orders are largely irrelevant, not entirely. And so if the Department of Justice and the White House were really serious that they really wanted full disclosure, we would have had it not just weeks ago. months ago. There's nothing about that they have to wait on some congressional bill and deadline if they wanted to turn it over. Donald Trump has reminded us repeatedly that he controls the Department of Justice. He has every ability to turn them over. And the same way he has ordered files related to, you know, whether it's Martin Luther King or John Robert F. Kennedy Jr.., sorry, senior, he could turn those over. And so he isn't doing that. It makes me very, very suspicious as to what will be withheld on the hope that if they turn over a swath of material, but not the sort of incredibly damning stuff if it exists, that this will go away. I don't think that's a very good bet, but I suspect there must be something there.

That is leading them to do this kind of tack that is this, as you pointed out in your very opening, that is sort of death by a thousand cuts where we constantly have the story because they are constantly not revealing everything that they have. Andrew Weissman and Lisa Rubin. Thank you both. Coming up, Robert Garcia, who we were just talking about, that's the Democrat leading this charge, release the Epstein Files, is going to join me. We've got some questions for him. We're also going to talk about why Donald Trump's epic failure in Indiana was even worse when we first thought. We got some new reporting on that, some new revelations. That's next. There's a pill version of those in pink. Hello, I'm Ozempic. And I'm other GLP ones, kind of like him. Hey, did I hear there's a pill version of Ozempic? Yep, you sure did. Ask your doctor about which FDA approved uses of the OZempic pen or pill may be right for you. Call 1833 Ozemp or visit OZempic.com to view the medication guide and learn more about OZempic somaglite tablets, 9 milligrams. And OZempic somaglite injection, two milligrams. There's a pill version of OZMPIC. Watch Disclosure Day at Home Now with exclusive bonus features. If you found out, we weren't alone. If someone showed you, proved it to you? Would that frighten you? Well, now the truth belongs to 7 billion people in an original event film directed by Steven Spielberg from a screenplay by David Kep starring Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Coleman Domingo. Find Disclosure Day on major digital platforms now with no subscription required, also in theaters. This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built-in AI, scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free.

The massive failure of Donald Trump's thuggish attempt to get Indiana Republicans to redraw their congressional maps is even worse than it looks in a few ways. Yesterday, remember this, the Conservative Heritage Foundation put out this seemingly kind of random tweet trying to shake down Indiana Republicans with threats to pull the state's federal funding. Now, of course, heritage action can't do that, so it was unclear whether Heritage was just freelancing or if this was a real threat coming from the actual White House. Well, now we know. The state's Republican lieutenant governor confirmed last night in a now deleted post. The Trump administration really did tell lawmakers they were going to cut off all federal funding if the legislature didn't vote their way. It's obviously mob-like and completely unconstitutional. And the more we learn about how this vote whipping transpired, the more we see just how active Trump himself was in the effort despite his insistence that he, quote, wasn't working on it very hard. As my next guest reports, quote, Trump was individually calling state senators in the final hours before yesterday's vote. It backfired and he lost in the most humiliating way possible. Adam rends a senior national politics correspondent for Politico. He's based in the Midwest where he's been reporting on the Indiana redistricting efforts and he joins me now. Adam, what can you tell us about the scope and intensity of the effort from the White House to lobby on this all the way up to the president himself? Yeah, Chris. I mean, in August of this year, Donald Trump invited Speaker of the House, Todd Houston and Senate President Port Tempore Rod Bray into the Oval Office, just him and these two Republican lawmakers, and asked them to consider redrawing the maps. We know that JD Vance flew here to Indianapolis twice to convince lawmakers. And at the last meeting, we know that Senator Jim Banks. went through a list of federal projects that the administration wanted to or was bringing to Indiana as kind of a, you know, hint, hint, we would like to be partners here as they were considering this. And then in the final days, Speaker Mike Johnson got involved calling individual lawmakers. Chris, this was a tremendous expenditure of political capital by the Trump administration and by Donald Trump himself, the political shop. in the White House was involved here. They took lawmakers out to the famous Steakhouse, San Elmo, and Indianapolis. When they came here, they literally whined and dined Indiana lawmakers, and they couldn't get it done. Indiana lawmakers really sort of broadly rejected this hot and heavy approach from the Trump administration. They didn't like it. They didn't like being bullied. Yeah. And the president was calling people individually. Is that right? That's right. Yeah, that's correct. I mean, I've talked to senators who talked to him on the phone. Senate President Rod Bray, who only gave one interview throughout the last four months, told me that he had a very heated discussion. with President Donald Trump around Thanksgiving, and that he told the president, look, we want to, we support you. We want the House of Republican Conference to maintain the majority. And essentially, we believe the best way to do that is to make our case to the voters in when, you know, the first congressional district, the northwest suburbs up by Chicago, and we think we should get a candidate and win this the old-fashioned way. And the president did not take well to that.

There was, there's been a lot of theories about why this went the way it did. One of them was that, you know, Mike Pence is from Indiana where he's very popular, I think, among fellow Republicans. He had been the governor. You know, the president, Donald Trump, you know, arguably facilitated him being chased from the Capitol by a violent mob. I mean, not even arguably. I mean, he seemed to encourage it. And maybe there's some bitter feelings about that. And I wanted to. quote something you reported. He said for weeks, MAGA figures speculated on X that it was Pence, the former VP in Indiana governor, who was pulling the strings on the anti- redistricting effort, but it was another former Indiana governor, Mitch Daniels, who is actually fielding calls behind the scenes. Tell me about the effort to block this behind the scenes. Yeah, so Mitch Daniels told me in August the day that Vice President JD Vance first came to Indianapolis to pitch this to lawmakers, that he was against this idea. He said that it was, quote, wrong, end quote. It was a moral issue for him. And, you know, he is still an outspoken influential figure in Indiana. In January, 2023, he looked at running for Senate. and would potentially face off with Jim Banks, our current senator, who is a very, you know, MAGA acolyte, close with Donald Trump Jr. and the president. And there was sort of a proxy battle happening then that spilled over until now, where traditional George W. Bush compassionate conservatism represented by Daniels collided with MAGA conservatism. And this entire redistricting debate was a proxy for that. And Daniels was working the phones. He said he didn't make calls, but he took a lot of them. A lot of Senate Republicans in Indiana were calling him, asking him for his opinion. And, you know, he made a forceful case here. Just today in the Washington Post, he's out with a victory lap. And, you know, he compared the Trump administration to Soviet commissars, he said, you know, going and trying to whip votes here. And so. This was really a cleavage between traditional conservatism, small sea conservatism, and mageism. And it's a peak into what the battle for 2028 for the reigns of the Republican Party is going to be like. Yeah, I'm thinking about that quote you just had her, I think paraphrase of Rod Bray saying, you know, we should try to recruit a candidate and win it the old-fashioned way. It's like, it seems like a good idea. Hey, let's run someone. Let's see what happens. See what the voters say. Adam Wren, you've done great reporting on this that we've all relied on here on the team. So thank you very much. Appreciate it. Still ahead. Congressman Robert Garcia on the new Epstein photos. That's next.

These pictures, some of these photos are really disturbing. And I know we've put some out today. There are many others. And some of the other photos that we did not put out today are incredibly disturbing. Today's batch of Epstein photos were secured by the House Oversight Committee, even though, like all House committees, right, it's under Republican control, the Republican majority's hand has been forced to some extent, both by the toxic politics of Epstein and quite deft maneuvering of the Democrats on that committee, including ranking member Robert Garcia of California, and Congressman Robert Garcia joins me now. It's good to have you in the program. I want to just follow up with the thing you said this morning, which I think has been haunting all of us all day, about... Some of these are very disturbing. And I wonder if you can just elaborate what you mean by that about disturbing, because we're talking about Jeffrey Epstein here. Right. I mean, look, I think first what's important is obviously we received, this was just yesterday, 95,000 photographs from the Epstein estate. We were able to put out so far probably about... 75 to 80 photos throughout the day today, many of which you've seen. A lot of the public has now seen, which is incredibly important for transparency. And our intention is to put out as many of the photos as possible while protecting, of course, the survivors. Including in the photos, are many photos of women and many photos that are disturbing and that need to be redacted and that we need to think through very carefully. and how those are presented to the public. Because at the end of the day, the most important thing is that we protect the survivors. And I personally met with numerous survivors, both individual and in groups. And this is critical to the investigation. But there is, make no mistake that beyond what folks have seen today, Jeffrey Epstein was a sick man. Ghislaine Maxwell was a monster. And the harm and abuse that they have caused. Women and children needs to be exposed, and the powerful men that did that harm need to be exposed, and there has to be justice. I want to be clear that from my perspective, I agree wholeheartedly, right? That there's no transparency prerogative here that would override the protection of those who have been abused here. But I just want to get a clearer sense from you. Like, are you saying there is documentation of these abuses? That, like, in the photos, there is documentary evidence of some of the things that Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are accused of or convicted of doing. There is, in the photos, there is clearly photos of women. There are hundreds and hundreds of photos that we've already seen. And as a reminder, we've only seen about 25,000 of the 95,000 batch. So we've been going through the whole production in batches. But of the 25,000 photos that we have seen, there are hundreds and hundreds of photos of women.

of which some of those are very disturbing, and of which some of those are horrific in nature, and certainly sexual in nature. And so that's the work that the team and the research team right now is focused on. And we're going to ensure that the public gets transparency, that we get the information out. And we're being very thoughtful about protecting those women. And again, we just got this yesterday. Yeah. But we are committed to transparency and the truth. And the truth will get out. And right now, there is one person in the United States that has the power to bring justice to these women and to get the truth out. And that's Donald Trump. And he should release the files today. Yeah, I mean, thank you for being a little clearer there. And again, I really don't want to repurient here. I don't want to, you know, what you're saying is really true. But just I think there's some sense, right, that people have that was any of this documented? Are there videos or pictures? And that's a horrific thing to contemplate, but also is part of the story here in terms of what this individual did, what the people around him may have done. We don't know. In terms of these files. These came from the estate. Now, I want to ask you something that was raised by my colleague Lisa Rubin in the first block of this program, which is she seemed to indicate that your committee has a lot of files, and only a small sliver of them have been made public, that there are bank files, there are other things. And I can't tell how much those are affirmative decisions being made by the chair, James Comer. How much those are... working your way through production carefully? Like, how would you describe why we have seen what we've seen and why we haven't seen what we haven't seen, if that makes sense? Absolutely. Look, I think first what's really important here is that every single document photo video that we have is because we have fought for them on the oversight committee as Democrats. And Republicans every single step of the way have tried to block the release. They try to stop our vote in the subpoena. Donald Trump sent, you know, brought in members of Congress to the situation room, tried to stop the vote from happening on the floor. And so Republicans, Mike Johnson, James Comer at every single turn. have dragged their feet and participated in this White House cover-up. Of what we currently have, we have one batch of documents from the DOJ. All of those documents were essentially already public records. So that was already given to the public. So there's nothing new there. Of the other documents that we have, much of what we have either has been, is already in the public record. Democrats have already put out as a committee. And we still have not put out yet fully are the bank records. And I'll tell you why. We're working right now with our partners on the Senate Finance Committee in both the Senate and the Financial Services Committee in the U.S. House. And we are carefully going through a complex system of documents, ledgers, bank statements that connect money laundry, we believe, possibly, and also information about who was paying.

who and where Jeffrey Epstein was receiving all of his resources from. And I'll note this one other thing, which is important. The Republicans only decided to subpoena two of the banks, Deutsche Bank and J.P. Morgan. We've asked for over 20 banks to be subpoenaed. So we need Republicans to join us and subpoena the 20 other banks where we want to get information from all of that. is going to be critically important in the weeks and months ahead. But I'll tell you, Chris, we're making really, really good progress. So if there are images here, I mean, one thing that's striking to me is something that Andrew Weissman said earlier in the program. And this is pertain to say the birthday book, right? Which in some ways, I think, kicked off a lot of this. The Wall Street Journal's reporting about that. Am I right that nothing from the estate has ever come into the custody of law enforcement? That everything being turned over by the estate, including the photos you got, like this is the first time U.S. government representatives or anyone has gotten this information? Is that true? We're actually not sure what representatives of the government or the DOJ may have that the estate also has. There's certainly a lot the estate has that according to some of the DOJ, they do not have. Look, the birthday book, Donald Trump spent weeks saying it didn't exist, as we remember. There have been comments from members of the DOJ and- members of the administration, that they weren't aware, obviously, of some of what the estate has. And so that is likely true that there are documents and photos that that we're releasing to the public, including possibly ones that we release today that are not in the possession of the DOJ. But I also want to be very clear that what we've released and what we have is a tiny amount of production. compared to what the DOJ has. From what we understand from talking to folks at the FBI, as well as at DOJ, there's an enormous, enormous amount of documents, of records, of photos, of videos, and other materials in the possession of the Department of Justice. And so... If we really want to solve this investigation and bring justice to the survivors, the DOJ is where the information is. And now we're going to collect it. If they choose to redact information or if they choose to not give us full information, we're going to get to the truth, even without the DOJ. But they need to do the right thing right now and release all the files. All right, Congressman Robert Garcia, who sits on that oversight committee. Thank you so much. A very busy day, and I appreciate you come by.

Still to come. Epstein Survivor, Jess Michaels, on today's big news. That's next. This is a Monday.com ad. The same Monday.com designed for every team. The same Monday.com with built-in AI, scaling your work from day one. The same Monday.com with an easy and intuitive setup. Go to Monday.com and try it for free. Saturday, September 26th, join MS Now Live in Texas for our biggest event yet with Rachel Maddo, Jen Saki, Michael Steele, and more for a day of powerful conversations and timely insights in a crucial state for the midterms. Democracies heal and advance themselves by engaging everybody where they are. Plus exclusive community experiences. MS Now Live together in Texas. September 26th, get tickets today at MS. Together. The story of Jeffrey Epstein has essentially been the story of those who survived his abuse, who've managed against all odds to try and try and try again to hold the people responsible to account. Survivors have often been stonewalled and sold out and betrayed, and yet they haven't given up. And now it's the survivors continued push for transparency and justice that has led to the release of all these documents. Jess Michaels is an Epstein survivor, someone who has been part of that push for justice, and she joins me now. It's really wonderful to have you here. Thank you very much for having me, Chris. I wonder just for our audience, if you can just let us know, when you first encountered Jeffrey Epstein, how old you were, where you were in your life at that point. Yes, thank you. I was 22 years old. I was a professional dancer living in New York City, and it was 1991. I am the earliest publicly known survivor of Jeffrey Epstein. He raped me. And I met him through my roommate and friend who I had known for a year and a half. I trusted her. She had been working for him for about six months. And so it was the... simple sex trafficking 101 playbook where a female comes in, creates safety and trust, and brings a victim to a predator. And that, of course, is the role that many people say Glenn Maxwell played, particularly down in Florida. Exactly. Where she sort of was this kind of, you know, vouching for him, essentially. Yeah. And that's what I like to remind people, that's there's nothing special about that, that that's actually bare bones basic sex trafficking 101. When did you first kind of publicly come out or start talking about this? The first time that I even acknowledged or was able to even deal with the fact that I was a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein, because I thought I was the only one. For 27 years, I thought I was the only one that he had raped was when I read Julie K. Brown's piece, Perversion of Justice. And I read the stories of those first four women who came forward, including Virginia Dufre. And...

I was, I was triggered and upset and at the same time so validated. It was this complex set of emotions all at once. It must, I mean, it must have been, to know that you were not alone. I mean, it was both horrifying and also kind of. And that it wasn't my fault. Right. That it wasn't my fault that, because for 27 years, I thought it was my fault the whole time. You have been very active in pushing for this transparency. Yes. And we've got these photos today. Just what is your reaction? I always think about you and the people that did survive this and have been pushing for this, about what a daylight today feels like from your perspective when we get some big development or big document done. So. It's again that complex set of emotions because there's a validation in it. There's a validation that people are finally seeing the truth and validating what happened. And at the same time, it's extremely triggering and upsetting. But we also don't want everybody to stop talking about it. We want people to continue to fight with us and alongside us because we need them. And it's interesting. We had a conversation among survivors today, and we were talking about the photos. And what I think people miss is that they are looking at the photos that are obviously gross. egregious, disturbing. But what people miss are the simple things we talked about. Like somebody remembered one of the rooms, a bedroom. And they said, oh, that table wasn't in that spot. And then it brings them back to being that age when things happened. There's a work of art on the wall. And they remember the picture frame. So it's actually the benign pictures that have a lot of context to them that people don't know. I want to ask you, and I don't, I want, I'm not trying to play a devil's advocate here, but I would like to ask you how you think about. the reputational repercussions here, right? And in these photos coming out. So there's a picture of, for instance, Jimmy Buffett. He's there with Bill Clinton and they're at an event. And I saw that today. I thought, oh, I like Jimmy Buffett. But then I thought, well, I don't know. Does he know that the guy on the other side of Bill Clinton was Jeffrey Epstein? That Jeffrey Epstein, Glenn Maxwell? Did he know what he had been accused of? Did he not? And presumably, as more and more photos come out, like... There is a little lack of context for us reporting on this, right? We're trying to be very careful about all this. Yes. Because obviously it's massively, understandably, reputational damaging to be in a picture of Jeffrey Epstein. And also, it does not mean that you specifically knew what he was doing or were doing something wrong. So there's a couple of ways that Jeffrey was really manipulative. One was in...

manipulating the enablers that did know, normalizing the behavior. But it was also in creating kind of this alter ego of everything's fine and surrounding himself with people that uplifted his reputation, therefore creating kind of a shield. Yeah. Because nothing happened in front of them. And that is part of what is so both, I think, gives the story this sort of shocking aspect, not just the scope of his predation, which we're talking about, we think, hundreds, maybe even into the thousands, but also that you can just find a picture with him with like a who's who of every powerful person in the world. Everyone, yeah. It's, it's, it's, it's, crazy, the massive manipulator he actually was, and all the more reason why this investigation needs to happen at length and at depth. Yeah, that point about the manipulation, I think, I feel like I keep missing something with him, right? Which is like... Why this guy, why this guy, right? Of all these people, how is this guy so, there's Bill Clinton, there's Donald Trump, there's Ehudu Barak, there's Nob Chomsky, there's Alan Dershow, it's like, why this guy? But clearly there was some kind of pathological talent for this. pathological. You know, it's something that I said early on when I first started talking about this was that people always talk about the teen girls or the young women, I was 22, who got roped in, but they really ignore the fact that all of these men got roped into. That's a really interesting way. I think of it. How confident are you we are going to get to the bottom of this, that we're going to see what we need to see?

It depends on how hard the people that are supposed to be protecting us work at it and stay with it. Because this is decades old, what is it, 300 gigabytes of information. It's complex. And if they don't look for the money, Chris, I mean, you can't prove sex trafficking if you don't look for the money. So we need them to be looking for that money demanding that they look into the money trail. Otherwise, this is, even the pictures coming out aren't enough. That's a great way for us to think about this. Just Michael. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it. Thank you. We'll be right back. That does it for All In. You can catch us every weeknight at 8 o'clock on MS now. Don't forget to like us on Facebook. That's Facebook.com slash on with Chris. There's a lot of news to cover. Money. The economic fallout from the war. Is it temporary? Power. Is this White House for sale? Politics. What is your message to the country right now? Money power politics with Stephanie Rule. Weekdays at 9 a.m. Eastern on MS. Now.