The aftershocks of Jeffrey Epstein's# crimes are rumbling once again.

And here in Washington, all roads# lead through President Trump's Justice Department, which is withholding# files that contain allegations against him.

That omission is just# the latest incident drawing pushback over the government's handling of# documents linked to the disgraced financier.

Tonight is the DOJ# bungling a politically radioactive case or something more deliberate at play.

Next.

This is Washington Week with the Atlantic.

Corporate funding provided by In 1995, 2 friends set out to make# wireless coverage accessible for all.

Today, consumer Cellular's# mission still rings true.

With a 100% US-based customer# support, no long-term contracts and nationwide coverage.

Our team has# been committed to helping find wireless plans to fit our# customer's needs for over 30 years.

Consumer Cellular, Freedom calls Additional funding is provided by Ku and Patricia Ewens with the Ewan# Foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.# Sandra and Carl Delay Magnusson.

Rose Herschel and Andy Shreeves,# Robert and Susan Rosenbaum.

Charles Hamawe to the Charles Hammoee# Fund.

Steve and Marilyn Kerman.

Leonard and Norma chlorine.

and by# contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

Thank you And now from the David M. Rubenstein# studio at WETA in Washington.

Here is Washington Week with the# Atlantic.

Good evening and welcome to Washington Week.

I'm Vivian Salama# in tonight for Jeffrey Goldberg.

It is possible the Justice Department# had just stumbled repeatedly when it comes to its handling of# the Epstein files, but after a year of overpromising and underdelivering,# backpedaling, and some flip flopping.

The Justice Department# was forced by law to release most of its files related to the late# sex offender.

But even that didn't go as it should have.

The DOJ# missed the deadline to make public all the documents in its possession,# and in fairness there are millions, but still it was striking when it# emerged this week that files containing allegations against President Trump# were withheld from the public.

There's a lot to sort through, and# luckily we have an expert panel to walk us through this and the# ensuing political fallout.

Andrew Desiderio is a senior congressional# reporter at Punch Bowl News.

My colleague Sarah Fitzpatrick is# a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Stephen Hayes is the editor of# the Dispatch, and Torrini Parti is a national politics reporter at# The Wall Street Journal.

It's so great to see you all.

Sarah, I'm# gonna start with you because there's probably no one who has covered# this more closely and for as long as you have.

Just walk us through,# give us an overview of how we got to this moment with regards to# the government's handling of the Epstein files and where we stand# on just the release of those files.

So I think the key thing to remember# about the Epstein story is that it is a case that has been mishandled# for decades, but the reason that we're we're hearing about this# now and why it's exploding into public view is because for the# first time, Republicans in Congress and Democrats in Congress were willing# to openly defy their leadership and call for the release of these# files.

That has never been done before, and I think that that really# is changing the political landscape in ways that we are still just starting# to learn.

And obviously there's been a big focus, Torrini, on how# the DOJ has handled this under Attorney General Pam Bondi# specifically, you know, what do we know about what documents they've had# they've released, what documents they've withheld, and their# position overall on this issue.

Uh, yeah, the, the, the person# who's been most frustrated by DOJ's handling is the president himself.# He's been so frustrated with Pam Bondi.

She's been on thin ice# with him, and he has the source of his frustration has been the sort# of back and forth and the back ped al ing that we've mentioned, and# we, we reported, you know, months ago that his name has been in the# files and now we've learned that DOJ actually, you know, removed# some of these files and so this back and forth has really sort of# frustrated him.

Um, we've also seen that, uh, you know, they've tried# to change their story, including a cabinet official this week who# who uh Howard Lutnick had initially said, you know, he had cut ties# with Epstein when he learned of um his his behavior, but then he had# to backtrack.

So the president is so frustrated with these constant# back and forths.

He wants the story to go away is the bottom line,# and DOJ continually mishandling, releasing information, taking it# back is not really helping, but do they, do they acknowledge that there# are files that exist um referencing President Trump that they haven't# released.

We know that there are files with his name in it that um# that, that, that we've reported exist.

Um, they just have um gone# back and forth in terms of releasing his name in some files and then# uh removing them.

Stephen, a a lot of this was driven initially by# Republicans who were calling for transparency.

Take us behind that.# What, what, what was inspiring that kind of push among Republicans?# Well, I mean, yeah, if you go long before President Trump's# reelection.

You had Republicans on the campaign trail.

This was# popular among sort of the the right wing broadcasting podcasting set,# making claims about the Epscene files and claiming that they were# going to get Democrats.

I mean, most of this came from a partisan# place, not surprising.

given where we are in the country.

But what's# been so striking is how many of those very same Republicans who# are calling for the release of the files, had promised to get to the# bottom of them, are now saying things that are just the opposite.# I mean, you're talking about Pam Bondi, Dan Bongino, the number 2# at the FBI made it made this, uh, you know, one of the things he# talked about incessantly, and then when he came in, he was less# interested in what was there.

I think because they learned that Donald# Trump's name was in these files quite a lot, and that the things# that we'd heard and seen from Donald Trump in public, raised more questions# about why he was in the files then then then they were not just# President Trump.

We're talking several members of the cabinet,# you know, Torrini just mentioned Commerce Secretary Lutnick, who we're# going to get to in a few minutes, but even Trump aide Steve Bannon,# who's repeatedly been in there, Elon Musk, um, this used to energize# the base, and now it's uncertain, it's unclear where the base stands on this# because it's been so divisive.

you know there was this moment back in# February of 2025, the White House made this big scene of inviting these# conservative right wing influencers to the White House, and they gave# them these binders, white binders, that said, the Epstein files phase# one, and said, you know, this is sort of a down payment on things# to come, we plan on being very transparent.

You're going to learn# a lot from what's in these files that we're giving you right now.

And# the people who had been agitating for the release of more files# looked at what they were given and said, this is old, this is out.# And I think that was a moment when people who had trusted Donald Trump# and who had looked to capitalize on this as something with which# they could attack Democrats, said, wait a second, this is, this is# bogus what they're giving us now.

Obviously we want to mention all# these names that we're talking about just because they're mentioned in# the files doesn't mean that there's criminal wrongdoing, right?

So# Andrew, one of the big developments this week was that both Hillary# and Bill Clinton testified for the House Oversight Committee.

What# do we know about their testimony and how did we get to this moment# where the Clintons were sitting with them to talk about what they# know.

Well, to Steve's point, you know, Trump has been trying to position# himself as the Epstein whistleblower, for lack of a better phrase, right?# And what we've seen is Republicans in Congress, they control the# House, they control the Senate.

Of course, in the House of Representatives# they're more, it's a more Trumpy bunch, if you will, trying# to sort of deflect a little bit from the president in this respect# and go after the Clintons.

Now there are a lot of Democrats in# the House too, particularly younger Democrats who have less allegiance# or practically no allegiance to the Clintons at all and didn't# mind voting to actually hold them in contempt of Congress for originally# not agreeing to testify, but what we saw over the last two days# when both Hillary and Bill Clinton testified, particularly yesterday# during Hillary Clinton's testimony behind closed doors, it appeared# that Republicans were not treating it with that much seriousness.

I# mean, Congress wo man Lauren Bobert took a photo from inside the room# and leaked it to a conservative provocateur who then published it# online.

They had to stop the deposition after that happened, um, you know,# Hillary Clinton was asked apparently about the conspiracy theories from# 2016 like Pizza Gate and all that stuff.

I mean, it just was not a# sort of a serious exercise and what we're seeing now is more and more# that photo that you mentioned, what we're seeing now is more and# more Republicans come out and say that, you know some members of# President Trump's administration, like Commerce Secretary Howard# Lutnick should testify as well, with Secretary Lutnick in particular,# uh, the issue is that he wasn't very forthr about when exactly he# cut off ties with Jeffrey Epstein.

He initially said it was sooner# than it actually was, and then the files came out and it and it and and# we saw that there was communication many, many years after he had said# that they had stopped having any sort of relationship.

Yes, Sara,# you know, you have a great piece um out today.

and also, you know,# I have the advantage of sitting right over, you're right over my# shoulder, so we can talk about a lot of this stuff during the day.# Um, and, and one of the things that you've mentioned in passing# is that for years Democrats didn't pursue the release of these files,# um, in part because of that Clinton link.

Can you talk a little bit# about that and how it as your story talks about, it became a bipartisan# issue.

Absolutely.

This is one of the things that I find most# fascinating about this story, because these all of these files, millions# of these files, could have been released at any point by abiding# Justice Department, by the first Trump administration.

I mean, these# have been there for a very long time, but the reason that that this# is coming out now, I think it's because party leadership had been# very, very clear to the rank and file, do not pursue this.

In part,# I think out of concern about donors, about the Clintons, also for the fact# that it was viewed as a distraction versus things like healthcare.

But# now I think what we saw as younger Democrats, to your point.

realize# that this is a transparency issue.

This is a trust in government issue,# and as Khana says in the piece, the only way that I'm ever going# to get other things passed, as if people believe in government.

One# of the things that's in my piece is that the Clintons were actively# lobbying, calling around on Capitol Hill to Democrats to try and prevent# this vote and to kind of influence how this was being done.

And I# think that really does not, it, it just hits the wrong way with Democrats# that are already feeling very jaded, given what happened with# allegations of a cover-up about Biden's health and Harris's loss, you know,# there's just so much less confidence in the kind of the elder generation# and a real belief that voters want transparency and that is the# winning issue.

It is generational too, because Nancy Pelosi was the# one actually behind closed doors admonishing those younger Democrats# for even entertaining the idea of voting to hold the Clintons# in contempt of Congress.

And when I talked to senators, you know,# when they come back from a recess, for example, their home in their# stay s and they come back to Capitol Hill and say, you know, held events,# what are people, you know, what's on people's minds, right?

We're# hearing this bubble in Washington, uh, you know, what are people# telling you when you're back home?

Um, the intensity of this issue# among the public, right?

Democrats, Republicans alike, senators in both# parties always say to me, people are pressing me on the Epstein# files every single day, every single event I go to, every, every event# I'm at, I get a question about this.

So it's the thing voter# voters care about, right?

The public intensity here, I think, should# not be lost on anyone.

I think even the Democrats who were reluctant# to make this an issue.

What I've been told by some of them is that# they can kind of package it into the broader mid-term issue, which# is Trump has failed on delivering his promises, so you know you can# talk about grocery prices or the economy, but Epstein files is also# another thing because it was a big, big promise to the base that# he clearly has not fully delivered on, so they can kind of wrap it# up into one package.

And you know, even let's talk about the way that# a lot of this kind of came back to light last year.

I mean, way# back last summer, if you all can remember when Elon Musk on his# way out was ruffling feathers, um, with the administration.

He posted# on X, uh, a post that alleged that President Trump was mentioned# in the files, and that's the uh real reason they have not made them# public, of course, um, that really set off a firestorm, and so, you# know, is is Congress sort of thinking about this Steve Stephen in the,# you know, with regard to Musk's post, um, seeing that there were# credible claims to this.

Is that what really made them have to, I# mean, hold their heads to the fire basically and say like, we have# to do something about this.

Yeah, I mean, look, Elon Musk tweets a# lot of stuff.

He tweets a lot of stuff that's not true.

I think he# was right about that, and I think it did lead to sort of more awareness# about this, and it got Democrats, I think, in particular to perk# up their ears, but you know, this is this moment, if you go back to to# July of last summer, the Department of Justice said that they were done# releasing these files.

They were sort of we were moving on, and they# weren't, and everybody knew that there was more there.

Pam Bondi# had made promises to release the the the names, um.

The Trump# administration whatever we find out, whatever the ground truth is, it's# very clear that they haven't been straightforward.

They haven't been# transparent.

They haven't been honest.

I think that's one of the# reasons that Democrats now say, whatever the truth is, whatever# we find out, we can make an issue of the fact that they haven't been# straight with us, and there are all sorts of, if you go back, you# know, if you go back as long as Sarah's been covering this, there# are all sorts of questions that are raised by things that Trump# administration officials thinks that the president himself, remember# he gave an interview in 2019 when he was asked shortly after Gillaine# Maxwell was arrested.

He gave an interview, asked about the# arrest, and he said, Well, I wish, I wish her well.

And then he was# asked about that again a week later and he doubled down on that, said,# I wish her well, and you just think, she was just arrested for# sex trafficking.

And you're saying you wish her well?

what's the# story behind that?

Well, what is, I mean, Andrew, what do we know from# previous mentions of President Trump and then Sarah, I'm going to# come to you for what we know that we haven't seen from the DOJ yet.# Well, we could learn a lot more after Trump is done being president# now because the precedent has been set.

We talk about precedents# all the time on Capitol Hill.

The president has now been set that# a former president can be compelled to testify before a congressional# committee, right?

Bill Clinton did that today.

When Democrats# are back in the major ity one day, which they will be at some point,# they will be able to do the same thing to Donald Trump when he is# out of office, and those answers could potentially come out when# he is under oath.

Now he'll fight it legally as much as he possibly# can.

But remember with the Clintons, this came to the point of them# being potentially held in contempt of Congress, which means a referral# to the US Attorney for the District of Columbia.

I mean, so it's a very# serious legal issue, right?

And so the president has been set.

I# would not be shocked at all if Donald Trump is forced to testify at# some point in time, not while he's president, right?

But after he's# done being president in front of Congress under oath and then subject# to those same sort of um, you know, legal requirements like# perjury, assuming that he shows up, of course, and Sarah, there's been# reporting by you and others that DOJ may have withheld files related# to President Trump's alleged conduct with minors in particular.# Um, allegations that the White House denies What can you tell us# about that?

So what we know from a couple of different avenues.

I# reported for the first time today that 9 people familiar with material# that has been provided to the FBI and to the DOJ in recent years.# That specific material is not among the files that has been# released, and so we, we know that it's a much broader uh potential amount of material that# has been withheld, and specifically some of those documents included# Trump's name and allegations of misconduct.

So it is a much broader# thing than one or two documents that just by chance may have been mishandled or misplaced, um, the,# uh, the New York Times and all their independent journalists,# NPR has done some reporting about a specific allegation against# Donald Trump that involves a minor that was featured.

Actually it's# the first mention on a presentation that the Justice Department, Trump's# own Justice Department put together last summer about notable people# in the file that had allegations.

So what we know from that and# those files are missing.

So what we know about that is that that's not# some offhand.

There's all sorts of tips that go into the FBI.

But# this is something that had clearly been elevated to a high enough level# that even a year ago, the Justice Department is identifying it as# important.

And the reason why all of this is important is because# this wasn't a subpoena.

This was a law that was passed, and most# importantly, it's a law that will continue on even after Trump is# out of office.

So there could be real ramifications, legal ramifications# for withholding this information.

I mean that could be tampering# with evidence.

I think it's, it's a major, major development, and I# think it's something, that's where this story is going.

And briefly,# even if, even if those allegations remain unproven, isn't that, I# mean, would it wouldn't that, you know, spark a firestorm within the# among the base or or do they want to see proof, and even then it's# kind of questionable.

To be honest, I don't really fully understand# what the strategy is here, but I will say a big problem among# Republicans on Capitol Hill.

It's that they, you know, there's what's been# said publicly by the president, but there's also what's been said# privately.

He has called lawmakers to the White House.

He put lawmakers# in the Situation Room to try and lobby them to vote against this.# And so there have been personal assurances, things that have been# said to Republicans that have proven not to be true, and that is putting# his, the very people that are keeping him politically going, are, are now# behind closed doors, really wavering on that support, and that's a really# explosive development.

Tarina, you mentioned Commerce Secretary# Lutnick, and I want to revisit that, um, the commerce secretary, who's# also President Trump's longtime friend, has come out with several# public comments, quite contradictory.

Let's take a listen.

Massage# table in the middle of your house.

How often do you have a massage?# And he says every day, and then he like gets like weirdly close# to me, and he says, and the right kind of massage.

Oh, now my wife# is standing here.

My wife and I decided that I will never be in the# room with that disgusting person ever again.

So I was never in the room with him.

socially for business, or even philanthropy.# If that guy was there, I wasn't going cause he's gross.

I did have# lunch with him as I was on a boat going across on a family vacation.# My wife was with me, as were my 4 children and nannies.

I had# another couple with, they were there as well, with their children, and# we had lunch on the island.

That is true for an hour and we left# with all of my children, with my nannies and my wife all together.# We were on family vacation.

We were not apart to suggest there# was anything untoward about that in 2012 I don't, I don't recall why we did# it.

Trini, this is arguably one of the most radioactive topics# for the Trump administration.

How is the White House receiving these# comments?

Yeah, that was definitely a real flip flop there, and the# president himself, my colleagues have reported, had a conversation# with Lutnick about this and questioned him on this back and forth and# has expressed how frustrated he is with the Commerce Secretary.

Again,# he wants the story to go away and having a cabinet, his own# cabinet official go back and forth like this is not a good look for the# administration, but the president himself has said that he had never# flown on Epstein's plane.

He's in the flight logs.

I mean, everybody# involved in this has offered those kinds of, I mean, they're,# they're flip flops is generous.

They're just lies.

Like what he did# was lie there, and he was sending emails to Epstein as late as 2018,# maybe later than that, but what's striking about this, and look, I# mean, I've been around here, been in Washington for a long time.

I'm# not new to politicians exaggerating or lying.

It's sort of breathtaking.# The, the, the way in which they're willing to say things that are just# fundamentally demonstrably provably untrue, again and again and again,# and it's this, this sort of moment of desperation and Republicans# are taking notice exactly, and one of the things I wanted to add too# is that this is not the first time it's been a scandal in a Trump# administration.

In the first Trump administration, Alex Acosta was# forced out of his cabinet position after details were revealed about# the the sweetheart plea deal that he gave to Jeffrey Epstein when# he was US Attorney down in Florida at the time.

And and you know, to your# point about, of course, Republicans, more and more are willing to# entertain the idea of bringing Howard Lutnick under oath, for example.# Congresswoman Nancy Mace, for example, who is running for governor in South# Carolina would definitely benefit from an endorsement from Donald# Trump is still sticking her neck out on this issue and saying, saying# things that she knows will rattle the president and his inner circle.# Unfortunately we're running out of time, but of course we want to# stress that in all of this we have to remember the survivors, um, most# importantly um, out of this whole entire crisis.

So we're gonna have# to leave it there.

Thank you so much to our guests for joining me# and thank you at home for watching.

For more on the fight over the Epstein# files.

Check out Sarah's article at theatlantic.com.

I'm Vivian# Salama.

Goodnight from Washington.

Corporate funding for Washington# Week with the Atlantic is provided by Consumer Cellular Additional funding is provided by Ku and Patricia Ewens for the Ewan# Foundation, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.# Sandra and Carl Delane Magnusson.

Rose Herschel and Andy Shreeves,# Robert and Susan Rosenbaum.

Charles Hamawe to the Charles Hammoee Fund.

Steve and Marilyn Kerman.

Leonard and# Norma chlorifying.

and by contributions to your PBS station from# viewers like you.

Thank you.

You're watching PBS