The news doesn't stop on the weekends. Context changes constantly. And now Bloomberg is the place to stay on top of it all. Hi, I'm David Gurra. Join us every Saturday and Sunday for the new Bloomberg This Weekend. I'm Christina Raffini. We'll bring you the latest headlines, in-depth analysis and big interviews. All the stories that hit home on your days off. And I'm Lisa Mateo. Watch and listen to Bloomberg This Weekend for thoughtful, enlightening conversations about business, lifestyle, people, and culture. In Saturday mornings, we put the past week's events into context, examining what happened in the markets and the world. That on Sundays we speak with journalists, columnists, and key political figures to prepare you for the week ahead. Join us as soon as you wake up and bring us with you wherever your weekend plans take you. Watch us on Bloomberg Television. Listen on Bloomberg Radio, stream the show live on the Bloomberg Business app, or listen to the podcast. That's Bloomberg This Weekend. Saturdays and Sundays starting at 7am Eastern. Make us part of your weekend routine on Bloomberg Television, Radio, and wherever you get your podcasts. So, Matt, I've been up since 3am waiting for this story to drop. Ooh, better be a big one. It's huge. Huge. This week we've had a special episode of Disclosure. Let's go, let's go, let's go. I'm investigative journalist Jason Leopold. I spend most of my days getting documents from the government. I'm attorney Matt Tapping, and I fight them in court to open their files when they don't want to. From Bloomberg and No Smiley, this is Disclosure, a podcast about prying loose government secrets, the Freedom of Information Act, and the unexpected places that takes us. Cool shirt Jason. Horror Business by The Misfits. This is my annual Halloween shirt. We're recording this on Friday, October 31, my favorite day of the year. Halloween. I swear this is a coincidence. I have on my annual Halloween original misfits hoodie that I bring out every Halloween as I'm giving out candy to the local kids with a soundtrack of like Slayer, D.S.I.D. and a bunch of like thrash and stuff. Oh man, you threw in D.S.I.D. So where you been? You've been quiet this week. Well Matt, I've been working on a story. A Jeffrey Epstein story by The Looks of It. Yes Matt, that is correct. There's a breakthrough in the Jeffrey Epstein case. Today, Bloomberg is reporting this revelation. The scope of the investigation to Epstein may have been actually much larger than we previously knew. Congressman Robert Garcia, the ranking member on House Oversight, chaired his alarm. And this is a huge problem, and part of the investigation is incredibly troubling. You know, Jeffrey Epstein has been in the news a lot this year. And of course, is the wealthy and connected financier who is convicted of sex trafficking minors before his death and detention in 2019. So the news cranked up in the past year again when Donald Trump on the campaign trail said that if he were elected, he'd put out the full vials that the government has on Epstein. However, in July, the Trump administration backtracked saying that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. Uh oh. And that goes over. Well, it's left a lot of unanswered questions about Epstein that go back almost 20 years. To the first Epstein investigation we know about, that was the federal probe into allegations that he solicited sex with minors. A lot of the Epstein controversy dates back to that investigation and the deal that federal prosecutors struck. That deal led Epstein to plead guilty to lesser state charges in Florida and effectively shielded co-conspirators from prosecution. And it left as accusers in the dark about the deal the feds were striking. The outcome has been widely derided as far to lenient and it let Epstein return pretty quickly to a social circles that also included a lot of well-known wealthy people. Like say, Prince Andrew. Well Matt, it's just Andrew now. Prince Andrew will no longer be a prince, something that has not happened in more than a century. King Charles stripping his brother of all his titles over his ties to the late convicted sex predator Jeffrey Epstein. Okay. So there's a lot out about Epstein and yet you found something pretty big. Oh, yeah. I definitely found something pretty big Matt. I found out about a whole other line of federal investigation to Epstein that hasn't been reported ever. Nine allegations about sex trafficking or sex with minors, but something else entirely. Money laundering. Wait, what? Well, let me tell you Matt, this really does change a lot about how we look at the whole Epstein affair. There's still big questions about his money. How a college dropout turned financial advisor builds his fortune in the first place. And since he was found dead in his cell in 2019, those questions have only grown. This summer Senator Ron Wyden, he's the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, stoke that fire. Now, somewhere in the Treasury Department, Mr. President, locked away in a cabinet drawer is a big Epstein file. Biden said his panel reviewed records compiled by the Treasury's financial crimes enforcement network, also known as FinSend. And those records revealed that major banks processed more than 1.5 billion in suspicious transactions. That's billion with a B. Yeah, 1.5 billion that Epstein allegedly used to traffic women or in suspicious transactions that looked a lot like money laundering. 4,725 wire transfers flowing in and out of just one of Mr. Epstein's bank accounts. That is more than 4,000 potential lines of investigation. So my new story, Matt, shows that almost 20 years ago, federal prosecutors were going down a similar path following Epstein's money until they just stopped. Okay, tell me, where does this start? Alright, so I've been learning quite a bit about Jeffery Epstein this past few months. Because I've been going through a trove of emails. 18,000 emails from Epstein's private Yahoo email account obtained by Bloomberg. And these emails show Epstein in his own words. They've never been released before. They detail a methodical and callous approach he took to recruiting young women, his close partnership with Galein Maxwell and the support he received from an array of high-powered associates, attorneys, academics, bankers. So when is he writing all these emails? These emails from Epstein's inbox span a 20-year timeframe. Wow. But the message traffic was most active between like 2005 and 2008, which is critical because that happens to be a pivotal period for Epstein. That was the period when he came under scrutiny by Florida officials. And it's when the Palm Beach Police Department opened a criminal investigation into a local man that teenage girls refer to simply as Jeff. So this first investigation into allegations relating to sex with minors started locally. But then about a year later in 2006, in came federal prosecutors from the Southern District of Florida. So how do you know what the feds were looking into? Do you have documents from their investigation? For the most part, no, I don't. What I have though are Epstein's emails. So I'm not seeing the investigation itself, just how Epstein and his lawyers reacted and shaped their legal strategy. From the start, he cast this whole thing as an unfair probe into him, despite that it focused on his involvement with underage girls, which by then investigators had known about for years. So did you get these records through FOIA? From that, I have other ways of getting records. Could you FOIA the DOJ and ask for the prosecutor's records? Yeah, you could. And in fact, a lot of people have FOIA DOJ FBI and even some other agencies for Epstein's records, which are the records that make up the Epstein files. And in fact, way back in 2017, Radar Magazine had filed a FOIA request with the FBI for Jeffrey Epstein-related records, and they got about a thousand pages released. But it took them suing the FBI to get those records and the bureau withheld thousands of other pages. That lawsuit is still pending. It's still happening right now. And so it's happening alongside the pressure that's coming on the Trump administration to release the Epstein file. So there is active FOIA litigation. There's still a bunch of FOIA requests that have been filed for Epstein records. So we may be learning more through some government records later on, possibly. Okay, so where does the money laundering investigation come in? Okay, so documents in Epstein's inbox show that in November of 2006, prosecutors issued a subpoena for Epstein's personal income tax returns for the previous two years. Then in February 2007, a money laundering probe was opened. And around the same time, prosecutors focused on a pattern of transactions in which Epstein directed some of his employees to withdraw large amounts of cash to disperse to women around the world he exploited. And that was the basis for a potential charge of operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. So these emails show Matt that the lead federal prosecutor on this case requested that a grand jury issue subpoenas for every financial transaction conducted by Epstein and his six businesses dating to 2003. And I also reported that prosecutors sent subpoenas to some major banks. And so according to the emails when Jeffrey Epstein learned that the investigation had been brought into financial crimes, how did he take that? Oh, he was furious. In part, because the prosecutor contacted one of his longtime wealth management clients, Les Wexner. Les Wexner is the billionaire businessman behind Victoria's secret and bath and body works. And Epstein's emails show that not long after the prosecutor's conversation with Les Wexner, Wexner then took steps to end Epstein's role as his wealth manager. I'm guessing that didn't go over too well with Epstein. So what did he do? Epstein pulled in some high-powered lawyers, including Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz and former independent counsel Ken Star. The lawyers launched an aggressive campaign to discredit federal prosecutors' attempts to follow the money and pressure higher-ups to remove the prosecutor and others from the case or scuttle it entirely. Dershowitz told Bloomberg that he does not recall any involvement in the discussions related to allegations of money laundering and Ken Star died in 2022. Now, that's interesting, Jason, because listeners on this pot are going to hear a lot about the fact that when famous people die, you can foie the FBI and see what files there are, which you normally can't get while they're alive because it's considered an invasion of privacy. But once they've died, you can get records. Which you know very well is my knee-jerk reaction whenever someone prominent dies. I usually find out about famous people dying when I get a text from Jason about his foie request before I've even seen it in the news. So I took a look on the FBI vault. That's where they post records that are frequently requested, if they've been requested multiple times. And sure enough, there are hundreds of Ken Star pages. All right, let's get back to the story here. So who is the federal prosecutor that's issuing these subpoenas and talking to Epstein's client? So the lead prosecutor here was an assistant US attorney for the Southern District of Florida. Her name is Marie Villafania. She left that office in 2023 and she declined to comment on the story. But we already know some things about her broader prosecution. By May 2007, she had drafted a 53 page indictment and an 82 page prosecution memo. And we know from a Justice Department report that came out in 2020 that Villafania urged her superiors to move swiftly because she believed that Epstein was continuing to sexually abuse girls. But the report says that Villafania was stone walled by senior officials at the office who saw her as too aggressive. Interesting. So that Justice Department report from 2020, does that mention that the Florida prosecutor was looking into financial crimes? No, there's not a single mention in that report about financial crimes. But we know it from Epstein's inbox. And I also talked to a former law enforcement official who was familiar with the case. And that person said the evidence Villafania collected was serious enough that she wrote in the prosecution memo that Epstein should be charged with money laundering and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. And this person also said that the probe lasted 18 months and turned up at least tens of millions of dollars in questionable financial transactions. And Matt, what is really important here is that these details have never been disclosed. So everything that we know about the Epstein investigation that took place in 2006 through 2008 for the most part center on the sex crimes. There's never been any disclosure around financial crimes. Yeah, this is really good stuff. So that's what we know about the indictment. It's just a draft indictment, Jason, right? Yeah, the indictment has never been publicly released. It was never filed with the court along with that 82 page prosecution memo. And to this day, it remains shrouded in secrecy. So he was never indicted for the things that the lengthy memo and draft indictment were contemplating. No, never. Jump to July 2007, she and another prosecutor are then directed to enter into negotiations with Epstein and his legal team on a non prosecution agreement. So she works up the materials towards an indictment, but her superiors decide we're not going to do that. Let's go negotiate a deal instead. Well, that's the implication. So the Justice Department report that was released in 2020 that basically examine the integrity of the non prosecution agreement, as well as our emails show that prosecutors wanted Epstein to plead guilty to sex crimes with a minor registers a sex offender paid damages to an undisclosed list of victims and spend two years in prison. But Epstein's lawyers rejected that and a month in these negotiations stalled. So what happens after that? Well then on August 16th, 2007, Vilifania requested that a grand jury issue subpoenas for Epstein's financial records dating back to 2003. And on the same day, she also sent a letter informing Epstein's defense attorneys that she would continue investigating his finances as long as the non prosecution agreement remained unsigned. And in the emails, you can see Epstein and his lawyers are grappling with this. So they prepare a 22 page document titled in re-grangery investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. Hey, it's in Ray. Um, I like to say in re. Do you really? Um, because I have no idea. Uh, yeah, I mean, that's what I usually say in Ray. That's legal speak for with regard to grand jury investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. And you can see from the track changes that there were a lot of edits here from JEEE and those are Epstein's initials. And there's a line in it from Vilifania that says, quote, in other words, if the sex offends cases resolve, the office would close its investigation to other areas as well. The matter has not been, and it does not appear that it will be resolved. So the money laundering investigation continues. And request number six, seeking records of every financial transaction conducted by Epstein and his six businesses from January 1st, 2003 to the present will not be withdrawn. So the prosecutor is basically saying, plead to the sex offence charges or we're continuing on with the money laundering investigation. Well, it's hard to say for sure, but he signs the non-prossecution agreement on September 24th, 2007, one day before Vilifania says she was prepared to indict him. And he would ultimately agree to plead guilty to two sex charges. The money level charges, not federal charges. And that's what led to all these criticisms that the deal was way too easy on it. In part, yes. And the fact that a later came out, the women who had accused Epstein didn't know the feds were making this deal. So Epstein agrees to the deal. The money laundering investigation goes away. And that's that? Not exactly. I'll tell you what happens after the break. It's a special agent regal, special agent Bradley Hall. The time is approximately 11.15 AM about to start a consensual telephone call with Dr. Dawa Sang. China's Ministry of State Security is one of the most mysterious and powerful spy agencies in the world. But in 2017, the FBI got inside. What? That's a Nazi, huh? Hey, you have to be on your own. I used to. I've never seen that much evidence in my entire career. And I don't think we'll ever see that much evidence again. I now have several terabytes of an MSS officer, no doubt, no question of his life. And that's the unicorn. This is a story of the inner workings of the MSS and how one man's ambition and mistakes opened its vault of secrets. Listen to the six bureau from Bloomberg podcasts starting on February 13th on the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. So it's September 2007. Epstein has just agreed to admit sex charges as part of this non-prossecution agreement. But according to the Epstein emails we obtained, the federal investigation and the money laundering probe didn't end there. The prosecutor, Marie Villaphania, she kept both the sex crimes and financial crimes investigations open as she began working with Epstein's attorneys to reach an agreement on certain terms of the plea deal. And Epstein was incensed. He and his attorneys immediately took steps to back out of the agreement he'd signed. And on October 15th, 2007, Epstein sends himself an email and attached a word document he wrote titled, Did You Know That? I see some of that in the story. So what does it say? Okay, so this document contains 29 complaints about the federal investigation. It portrays his victims as unreliable witnesses and drug abusers vying for his money and it casts the investigators and prosecutors as biased, inept, and unethical. And he says he was unfairly targeted by the financial investigation. Here are a few bullet points. Point 20. She begins a money laundering investigation without the necessary requirement of specified illegal funds. Point 21. She says she is contemplating charging a violation of a money transmitting statute though Epstein has no such business. So he's lashing out. His email is becoming pretty frantic. You can see Epstein venting about the prosecution in another email he wrote in November 2007 to Jimmy Kane, the former chief executive officer, Bear Sterns, and another friend. Matt, read the subject. Subject line. This is how crazy. Jason, what is Epstein right? Okay, so this is a lengthy email and he starts off this email, Matt, by writing, my team consists of professionals with over 250 years of criminal experience. Wait, wait, criminal experience or criminal justice experience? No, no, 250 years of criminal experience. Look, my guys know about crime and the third telling me this isn't a crime. Why do you think you need to know about Epstein's emails is they contain so many typos and grammatical errors, misspelled words, and we just published it as he wrote it. So yeah, but yes, 250 years of criminal experience. I'm going to jump in here too and just note his email address is littlestjef at Yahoo.com. That's how it reads. That's how it reads littlestjef, but it's actually little saintjef, which is the name of the island he bought. Oh, it looks like littlestjef, but it's little saintjef. Yeah. So the email goes on to say in an abundance of care, we have also consulted with outside experts and former justice department officials. The clear and unanimous consensus is they find the conduct outrageous and frankly not one of them has been able to recall seeing anything like this before. And among the outrageous behavior he accuses the feds of is demanding that he registers the sex offender and pay his quote alleged victims a minimum of $150,000 each in his letter to Cain. He accuses the federal government of engaging in quote virtual extortion. I got to say, I mean, this guy's facing some pretty serious stuff. And I think he's worth a lot of money at this point. And he's quibbling over the amount of money to be paid to the victims. Yeah, he is questioning whether they are actually victims. That's what is laid bare in these emails during the course of the government's investigation and prosecution. And this particular email goes on to say quote, they demanded a jail sentence for someone who had no criminal history, no violence, drugs, no position of authority. Then when they were confronted with an extensive brief as to why these statutes did not apply, they threatened to bring a money crime based on an illegal money transmitting business, even though no such business ever actually existed. I get to say as a lawyer, this guy sounds like a nightmare of a client. So anyway, now you have an email a week later. What's that about? Epstein is sending himself an email with a file he's intending for his attorneys to send to the top federal prosecutor in Southern Florida, Alex Acosta. The documents called Acosta Challenge. It criticizes prosecutor Villafania, who's leading the investigation, especially our focus on his alleged financial crimes. And he also falsed the department for ignoring its own policy of so-called horizontal equity, which is supposed to ensure a level playing field in prosecutions. He's saying they're prejudiced against rich people. That's his argument. They're prejudiced against rich people. So tell me more about what that letter says. Okay, here's part of it. The policy clearly implies that a man of wealth should be treated no differently than any of those less fortunate. That has certainly not happened here. So many cases of a similar and even more serious nature have been resolved with a sentence of house arrest. We were told that it was not available to my client because it would be considered man-shin arrest. My client under investigation for a sex offense has been asked for his income tax returns, all bank accounts, his medical records, threatened with a money laundering charge. So the minimum prerequisite of a specified unlawful activity could not be described. Okay, so Epstein's high-powered lawyers are engaging with US Attorney Alex Acosta. That's the Alex Acosta? Yes, the Alex Acosta, Matt, the US Labor Secretary in Donald Trump's first administration. And years before he got that job, he was a US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, who oversaw the Epstein prosecution and the deal he worked out. That deal finally came together in June of 2008. Nine months after Epstein signed his non-prosicution agreement and after relentless letters from Epstein's lawyers. In its final form, the agreement allowed him to escape federal charges, serve a reduced jail sentence, and shield his co-conspirators from prosecution. Alex Acosta signed off on the plea deal. So what does this mean for Acosta now? Well, Matt, I'm glad you asked. Last month, Acosta met with a House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. And during that interview, Representative Melanie Stansbury, she's a New Mexico Democrat on the committee, asked Acosta whether his office had discussed potential financial crimes and whether that factored into the decision not to pursue federal charges. So what did he say? What was his answer? According to the transcript of this interview, the committee released this month, Acosta answered, quote, I don't recall a financial aspect. And then he went on to say, to my recollection, the discussion was focused on the sex crimes. And so what do the emails that you obtained add to that? Well, the emails and documents from Epstein's Yahoo account show that prosecutors in Acosta's office discussed the financial crimes component of the investigation with Acosta and copied him on correspondence about it. I spoke with Senator Ron Wyden's office for my story. And in a statement, he said the new details, quote, only raise additional questions about Acosta's truthfulness. And then Wyden also said that the best case scenario, according to a story, that's Acosta's story, is that it was by incompetence rather than by choice that he allowed Epstein to go on trafficking women and girls for another decade. Wow. So what is Acosta said? So Acosta's attorney told Bloomberg that he stands by his testimony. He said that back in 2006, the Southern District of Florida employed over 200 attorneys working on countless investigations. And although Acosta approved of the Epstein matter, he did not direct that or any investigation. That's what his attorney said. So this whole financial crimes investigation of Epstein, that happened almost 20 years ago, but it managed to stay pretty quiet. This has never been out there. Well, there was a hint of it. Remember in the emails that I read, the lead prosecutor in the case, Marieville Fania, she was on the receiving end of a lot of attacks from Epstein's attorneys. And at one point, she responded in a five-page letter to one of the lawyers. She writes, quote, the time has come for me to respond to the ever-increasing attacks on my role in the investigation and negotiations. And that letter made its way into a court filing in a 2016 lawsuit filed by Epstein's victims. So the letter was public, but no one ever picked up on it. And at the bottom of one of the pages, Villa Fania included a footnote. And she calls out the Epstein lawyer, for quote, unfounded allegations in your letter about document demands, the money laundering investigation, contacting potential witnesses speaking with the press and the like. So she mentions a money laundering investigation. Yeah, there was a mention, one breadcrumb, easy to miss, but now we have way more. So when I see this, Jason, I mean, I'm thinking there's got to be all kinds of lawyers to be asking, right? So there are a ton of lawyers that could be filed for this material. And as I said earlier, Matt, these records presumably make up what's in the Epstein file. So the letters that were sent to the government by Epstein's attorneys could be requested through the FOIA, but the Justice Department and the FBI has already said that they are not releasing any more records from the so-called Epstein files. What could the public request through FOIA from say the Department of Justice or FBI? Well, I mean, prosecutor records, FBI records, these things are all what are called agency records under FOIA. And so they're subject to disclosure, unless an exemption applies. And when you get into criminal kinds of records and law enforcement records, there's a lot of things that can be with help, names of people who are alive, whether they're a witness or a suspect or just incidentally mentioned, it's often hard to get those. I mean, you can sometimes overcome that with sufficient public interest. And I think there's an awful lot of public interest in legitimate public interest in getting to the bottom of the Epstein prosecution and how all this stuff was handled. You can have withholdings based on ongoing investigations, but at this point, Epstein has died. They're not going to charge him with anything further. You know, I suppose there could be others who maybe there's still some active investigations, but I haven't heard of that. And that seems kind of unlikely. And you have like investigative techniques and things like that that, you know, they could say, well, we were using these secret techniques. And if we disclose them, then it would be harmful to other investigations. So I think that in general, there should be things that the public could know under FOIA around this, especially given the high public interest in disclosure. Yeah. And none of this would be controversial for the government's process. I mean, for example, if I wanted to gain access to the various letters that went to say the US Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida and correspondence around that, would that be withheld under attorney client privilege? Uh, don't know the liberty of process or could I get that? Could we get that? Well, yeah, if you're talking, you're talking about the exchange of letters between the prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers. Yeah. Yeah. No, definitely not privileged. I mean, it's the opposite of privilege. You're disclosing it to your adversary. So that's not privilege. It's not going to be deliberative process because they're not like deliberating together. They're adverse to each other, right? So now that the government's internal discussions about how to respond to a letter from Epstein, then you're going to run into some exemptions around attorney work product and potentially attorney client privilege and deliberative process and stuff like that. But all that back and forth, that's not going to be privilege. There could be some privacy redactions or some other things like that. But that's, that's the opposite of privileged. Yeah, that raises the question as to why the Justice Department and the FBI made the final decision in July that they would not release any additional files from the Epstein investigation. Files like we were just discussing, like the various correspondence that took place between the prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers. I mean, some of that has been disclosed in civil litigation as exhibits. But based on what I've seen in Epstein's emails and what I've reported through this story, it's really clear that there are a lot of records that the Justice Department and NFBI have that could appease many of those who are clamoring for some more info from so-called Epstein files. Yeah, I mean, this is the maddening thing that I've seen and you've seen over and over again, both political parties, all levels of government running on a campaign saying, we're going to be transparent and when the time comes, yeah, no, we're not going to be so transparent after all. So Jason, what's the takeaway? When I talked to Ron Wyden, he said, money laundering charges would have been a centerpiece in what he called any serious prosecution of Epstein. He said, resolving the federal money laundering case as part of the government's non-proscution agreement was a staggering miscarriage of justice. And another expert, I spoke with a former top money laundering prosecutor, said if the money laundering investigation had continued, it's possible that prosecutors may have been able to identify other individuals and institutions that facilitated Epstein's sex trafficking operation or recovered more restitution for his victims. And beyond that, it's a reminder that there's just more to the Epstein story. And you can see how the prosecutor's files could shed some light on one of the central mysteries of Epstein, the source of his money. If prosecutors were following the money long before the public demand-a-fall accounting of his case, what other evidence might they have gathered? In that, presumably, is still in the files. So that's it for this week. Since this is a special episode, we won't have a public episode next week, but subscribers will be able to access our next episode then. And you won't want to miss it. Here's why. We should estimate how many presidential records are fit inside the toilet. There were these big sinkholes, both at the White House and on Mar-a-Lago's lawn. Matt, sinkholes, sinkholes. There is a chance that some intrepid spelunkers could find these documents in the sewage system. Heather, I want to go on a sewer tour. You really want to go on a sewer tour? This feels like, yeah, I don't know, a Nicholas Cage movie. That's next Tuesday, early access for subscribers. From Bloomberg and No Smiling, this is Disclosure. The show is hosted by Matt Topic and me, Jason Leopold. It's produced by Heather Schroening and Sean Cannon for No Smiling. Our editor for Bloomberg is Jeff Grokot. Our executive producers for Bloomberg are Sage Bauman and me, Jason Leopold. And our executive producers for No Smiling are Sean Cannon, Heather Schroening and Matt Topic. The Disclosure theme song is by Nick, with additional music by Nick and Epidemic Sound. Sound design and mixing is by Sean Cannon. Special thanks to my co-authors on this story. Jeff Cow, Max Abelson, Harry Wilson, Ava Benny Morrison, and Surrier Motu. For more transparency news and important document thumbs, you can subscribe to my weekly FOIA files newsletter at bloomberg.com slash FOIA files. That's FOIA files. To get every episode early on Apple podcasts, become a bloomberg.com subscriber today. Check out our special intro offer right now at bloomberg.com slash podcast offer, or click the link in the show notes. You'll also unlock deep reporting, data, and analysis from reporters around the world. We'll see you again next Tuesday. What's up, Bella? She only wants to growl. I mean, rip my face off. I said, get your punk inside, girl. Hello, I'm Michelle Hussein. And for more than 20 years, I was at the BBC. The military withdrawal from Afghanistan. But all the time I was delivering the headlines, I wanted to go further than the news of the day to spend more time with the people shaping our world. And that's what I'm doing here on this podcast. Speaking to people from Nigel Farage, to tech journalist, Kariswisher. And the tech industry is running wild. You know, they've gotten what they wanted and they've seen a huge run up in their stock prices. This will be a place where every weekend, you can count on one essential conversation to help make sense of the world. So please join me, listen and subscribe to the Michelle Hussein show from Bloomberg Weekend. Wherever you get your podcasts. You certainly ask interesting questions.
