'Likely incriminated': Congressman names six men unredacted from Epstein files

As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNOW newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at ms.now slash project 47. We are following a number of big breaking stories tonight. And let me just start with this, because this is a piece of very good news. A person familiar with the proceedings tells MSNOW that a federal grand jury in Washington declined to indict six Democratic members of Congress today, including Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Senator Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, on charges of seditious conspiracy. Now, the Trump administration was pursuing criminal charges against those members for participating in a video. You all remember this. We've played it here. We've talked to all these members as well. Basically telling service members they have a duty not to obey illegal orders. Again, they tried to indict them on charges of seditious conspiracy, and a grand jury said no. Former U.S. Attorney Preber Rara is standing by for us, and let's just say I've got a lot of questions about that and what it all means moving forward, really. Also today, Congressman Ro Khanna took to the House floor and read the names of six men, powerful men, whose dealings with Jeffrey Epstein, Khanna says, the Department of Justice had hidden and who Khanna says are likely incriminated by their inclusion in the files. And Congressman Khanna is going to join me to discuss that in just a moment. But before we talk about who those men are and what more Congressman Khanna wants to know, and there's a lot, I want to talk about the incredible revelations. And Chris just alluded to some of them there, and probably you've all seen many of this, a bunch of this too. But there have been a number of revelations that have been trickling out of the more than three million files the Justice Department made public late last month. And the political consequences those revelations have brought about have been, well, quite interesting in some places. I mean, this was the scene in London on Friday, as British police searched the home of the former UK ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson. You can see they got a whole barrels of files there and information. Mandelson is under criminal investigation by the British police after the latest trove of Epstein files revealed that Epstein not only sent the British politician and his husband tens of thousands of British pounds over the years, but that Mandelson appeared to have leaked sensitive government information to Epstein while he was the UK's business secretary, which is basically the British equivalent of the American position of commerce secretary. And I'm going to get to that guy in just a moment. But among those alleged leaks is one huge, huge, huge one. Because back in 2009, debt had thrown the economy of Greece into a crisis. And because Greece is in the EU and uses euros that put the value of euro itself at risk. So in May of 2010, the finance ministers of the governments of the EU agreed to try to avert the crisis from spreading with a 500 billion euro bailout. That's a big one. But the latest transfer of Epstein files appears to show is that Mandelson, who would have been a key figure, of course, in negotiating that deal as their version of the Commerce Secretary, appears to have tipped Epstein off about not just that the deal was going to happen, but exactly when the deal was going to happen. Because the night before the deal, Epstein emailed Mandelson, sources tell me 500 billion euro bailout almost complete. Then someone whose name is redacted, but appears to be Mandelson, replied, should be announced tonight. He said he was just leaving 10 Downing Street, which is, of course, the British equivalent of the White House. And as Mandelson said he was leaving Downing Street, he said he would call Epstein. Now, obviously advanced knowledge of a major government bailout, one that would create huge winners and huge losers in the stock market is incredibly valuable information. It's the kind of insider trading info that could make someone a fortune. And allegedly revealing that information to Epstein is what Mandelson is now under criminal investigation for. It's why he's been effectively forced to leave the British government altogether. But the thing is, he isn't the only one in hot water over this. This was the cover of the British tabloid The Daily Express today. Resign now, PM on brink as calls to go mount. As calls go to go mount. There you go. Okay, you could read it yourself. The Prime Minister of England, Keir Starmer, is fighting to keep his job over this scandal. Now, to be clear, Starmer has no personal ties to Epstein that we know of at all. The scandal that has the British public so mad at him that they are trying to oust him from his job is simply that Starmer would not have appointed someone with known ties to Epstein to be the British ambassador to the U.S. in the first place, that he should not have. That's enough for the public in England to say the prime minister should go. That's how completely toxic Jeffrey Epstein is in a normal political environment. I mean, even the king of England is now supporting a police investigation into his own brother, the man formerly known as Prince Andrew, over the revelations of his ties to Epstein that have come out in the latest batch of files. Literally, the king of England is supporting a police investigation into his own brother because of how toxic it is to be connected to Jeffrey Epstein in England. Then there is, of course, what is happening here in the United States. I mean, the latest batch of Epstein files also detailed the social and business entanglements Epstein had with Trump Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Now, being associated with Jeffrey Epstein is not a crime. Epstein was a businessman and a creepy version of a socialite. He did business with and socialized with a lot of people, as we now know. But check out how Trump Commerce Secretary Howard Letnick described his relationship to Epstein late last year. I mean, this was Letnick telling the New York Post about an incident with Epstein, who happened to be Letnick's next-door neighbor when he visited his house back in 2005. I say to him, massage table in the middle of your house? how often you have a massage and he says every day and then he like gets like weirdly close to me oh and he says and the right kind of massage now my wife is standing here so she looks at me and I look at her and we say, I'm sorry, we have to go. And we left. And in the six or eight steps it takes to get from his house to my house, my wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. Okay. That's a, he was quite the storyteller there. I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again. That's how Letnick described his decision to cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein in 2005. I mean, Letnick even went further telling the New York Post not only that he made the decision to never see Epstein after that, but that he, in fact, never did see Epstein after that. I was never in the room with him socially, for business, or even philanthropy. If that guy was there, I wasn't going because he's gross. Yeah, he is gross. But again, that was Lutnick just four months ago, saying that he was never even in a room with Epstein, not socially, not for business, not even philanthropy. Then in this latest batch of Epstein files, well, we got this. This is an email from Howard Lutnick to Jeffrey Epstein from December 19, 2012. And yes, if you're doing the math, it is seven years after Lutnick claims to have cut Epstein out socially. to have been disgusted by him, to think he's gross, in which Lutnick arranged to have lunch with Epstein on Epstein's private island, saying, quote, Hi, Jeff. We are landing in St. Thomas early Saturday afternoon. Where are you located? What is the exact location for my captain? Does Sunday evening for dinner sound good? I have another couple with me on my boat. Each of us has four children, two 16-year-olds, two 14-year-olds, a 13-year-old, a 12-year-old, and 11-year-old, and a seven-year-old. Thanks, Howard. Epstein then replied, quote, come Saturday or Sunday for lunch, question mark, and gave the exact location of his island. To which Lutnick replied, okay, lunch on Sunday. See you then. Now, I don't know if Howard Lutnick does not include an island as being in the same room as him, but that is quite a stretch. That all seems pretty social to me. Now, when the New York Times confronted Lutnick about the existence of those emails, Lutnick said he could not comment on the island visit because he had not seen the latest Epstein documents. Now, that wasn't exactly the question, was it? I'm guessing anyone would remember taking their family to an island with a known predator, I would think. Lutnick told the Times, quote, I spent zero time with him, and then Lutnick hung up on the reporter. Now, today, Senator Chris Van Halen held Lutnick's feet a little closer to the fire, much closer, asking him about the island visit while Lutnick was testifying to the Senate. And this time, Secretary Lutnik seemed to remember a lot more about that trip. Did you, in fact, make the visit to Jeffrey Epstein's private island? 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 four children and nannies. I had another couple with, they were there as well with their children. and we had lunch on the island. Again, there's a lot to unpack there. Taking your children to the island with Jeffrey Epstein and nannies, lots, but we don't have time for that. But again, it's not a crime to have lunch with someone, no matter how terrible they are. It's not even a crime to lie to the press. But why was Howard Lutnick lying? Why was he so emphatically denying he had any relationship at all with Jeffrey Epstein when he clearly did have a relationship with Jeffrey Epstein? In England, Jeffrey Epstein is so toxic that the literal king of England is telling the police he will help them investigate his own brother. The prime minister is fighting for his job because he appointed someone with Epstein ties to be his ambassador to the United States. And that guy the former ambassador to the U who allegedly used his position as the British equivalent of a commerce secretary to tip off Jeffrey Epstein about major financial deals that guy is under criminal investigation That how England is responding to revelations about their rich and powerful in these new files Here how Trump White House spokesperson Caroline Levitt responded to a question about Howard Lettnick today. She was asked simply if there has been any shift in how the White House is viewing Secretary Lettnick after the revelations of his ties to Epstein. Not a hard one. Here was the response. No, Secretary Lettnick remains a very important member of President Trump's team, and the president fully supports the secretary. He does? I mean, sometimes saying fully support is a death knell, but I don't think it sounded like that there. The Trump administration is trying to just sweep all of this under the rug. And I don't just mean the mystery of why Howard Letnick was lying about his ties to Epstein. I mean all of it, the Epstein files altogether. Yesterday, members of Congress finally got to see what the Department of Justice was claiming were the complete, unredacted files. Democrat Ro Khanna and Republican Thomas Massey have been some of the members spearheading the fight to release the Epstein files for a while now. And they were some of the first to go down to the Department of Justice themselves to look at those supposedly unredacted files. And here's how Congressman Conner described that visit. We spent about two hours there, and we learned that 70 to 80 percent of the files are still redacted. In fact, there were six wealthy, powerful men that the DOJ hid for no apparent reason. Now, after uncovering those six names, Congressman Connod then used his speech and debate privileges, which protect him from being sued over anything he says on the House floor, to name some names. These men are Salvatore Navora, Zorab Mikolads, Lepig Leonor, Nicola Caputa, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayam, CEO of Dubai Ports World, and billionaire businessman Leslie Wexner, who was labeled as a co-conspirator by the FBI. Now my question is, why did it take Thomas Massey and me going to the Justice Department to get these six men's identities to become public. And if we found six men that they were hiding in two hours, imagine how many men they are covering up for in those three million files. MSN was trying to reach all six of the men Congressman Conant named for a response. So far, only Lex Wexner, Les Wexner's legal representative has replied, saying he was a, quote, source of information about Epstein and was not a target in any respect. Okay, there's still a lot of questions there. As for the other men, we have not heard back. And to be abundantly clear, we at MSNOW have no information to confirm any allegations of wrongdoing by any of them. But as Congressman Khanna pointed out, those were just the six names they found in a few hours, two hours of digging. And Khanna claims there's a lot more digging still to be done. And joining me now is Congressman Ro Khanna. He's a member of the House Oversight Committee, and he went through the Epstein documents on a Justice Department computer just yesterday. Congressman, I obviously want to ask you a lot about the list of names you read today on the House floor. That was quite a moment. But I just want to start with Howard Lutnick, who clearly, as everyone watching knows, lied about his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and today was forced to admit that he literally visited Epstein Island in 2012. What did you make of that? And what other questions? Because we know he lied about that. But what other questions do you have for Howard Lutnick? He needs to resign. And it's not a political issue, a Republican or a Democratic issue. After Massey and my Epstein Transparency Act, you've seen the king of England say that his own brother needs to face investigation and prosecution. You've seen Norway, as public say, that their princess who just had some social relationship with Epstein shouldn't become queen. You've had other governments say anyone who had contact with Epstein, we're going to investigate. And the United States of America is the only place where we're not going to have accountability. You have literally our ambassador for business to the world who lied to the American people about his relationship with Epstein, who allegedly had a business venture with Epstein after Epstein was a convicted pedophile, who lied about going to Epstein's island. And this sends a message to young girls across this country that there's no accountability. I know Republicans who feel this way. It's honestly not politics. In fact, I'd call for him to resign if he was part of any Democratic administration. Hopefully more Republicans are more vocal about it. We will see. One of the things that you have been doing here is really trying to press and push names out there. I mean, you found that list of names and photos that had been improperly redacted after you basically called the Justice Department out on that and they unredacted those names. And today, as I mentioned in my opening, you decided to read them aloud on the House floor. But help us understand, and people who are just catching up on all of this, why those people whose names you read out are significant. These people were in documents as co-conspirators. And one of the things that I've been most angered by because I've gotten to know the survivors is people saying, oh, they're lying. It was just Epstein and Maxwell. When we have actual documents showing so many people who were co-conspirators and the Justice Department redacted the names of these individuals. Thomas Massey and I were just there for two hours and we found six names. There are probably dozens of other names. And the Justice Department admitted that they made a mistake in redaction and they have actually unredacted them. But I just thought it was time to go to the floor and call out these individuals who were co-conspirators, not because of the particular individuals, but because people want to see some accountability. There's been none. We've passed a whole law. It passed the House. It passed the Senate. The president signed it. We've had millions of documents released. It's not about transparency. What the survivors want, what people want is accountability. And that for me was sort of a cry out saying, look, let's start to hold people accountable. And by the way, Jen, it's not the most famous people. Some of the people who raped these young girls, they're not the biggest names, but they have also escaped prosecution. I don't care about the biggest names. I want the people who actually raped these girls held accountable. And some of them are out loose and in the files and nothing is happening. One of the things that has struck me and I'm sure has struck you is kind of the more we learn and the more they are pushed, the more the House of Cards unravels and the more it seems very clear that there's a lot, a lot of lying going on. And FBI Director Kash Patel said under oath back in September, I'm sure you remember this, that there was no credible information, none, that Epstein trafficked women to other individuals. I know you can't tell us everything you saw, but did the things you saw in those files contradict that claim? Absolutely, it contradicted it. And, you know, you can ask other members. They were sickened to their stomach by reading some of the things. It's not just trafficking. It's violence. It's grotesque types of incidents. And by the way, some of the redactions are the most sensational things is because there were some women and some people may have been survivors and also engaged in, unfortunately, become part of Epstein's conspiracy network. But there is no doubt that there was an entire network in the United States and overseas that was engaged in the rape of young girls. And there has been no accountability for that. That's something survivors have been telling me and you and so many people for so long now. You, based on the files, you had those six names that were out there. I know you've said you're going to go back. You just said there could be dozens more names. You were only there for two hours. Were you able to tell whether there has been, what extents these six individuals you named have been investigated? What can you tell us about that? It's unclear. From the survivors, they believe that many of these people who raped them have not been investigated. And there's been such a focus, like I said, on these big names that some of the people who raped them are not famous, but they still have not faced investigation. One of the people, you know, raped this person and then has left the country and left any country where the rape actually took place. And there's no prosecution. There's no investigation. And you know what is the biggest problem, which I've made this point, is that the FBI scraped these files back in March at Donald Trump's direction. And those are the files that have most of the details. So even what members are seeing are already scraped files by the FBI. I never used to use the word cover up, but it's certainly a cover up that they did not unredact those FBI files and that they did that in blatant violation of the law that was passed. Why do you think they left them? I mean, they gave these redacted files from all the way back in March to the Department of Justice. They could have been unredacted at any point in the process, right? Why didn't they unredact these names? I don't think they're protecting people. I mean, they're protecting that. They're playing games and they think we don't know this. So, you know, OK. And I felt bad, actually, for the Justice Department person there because Massey and I would see these documents and then we'd say, OK, now show us the original. And I said, well, there are all these redactions. Why does the original have almost the same exact redactions? And the person says politely, sir, well, that's how we got the document, that we just uploaded what we got. So they're assuming that no one would notice. But the reality is the FBI files is where the most damaging information is, because that's where the survivors told the FBI agents who raped them, who committed these heinous acts. And that's what we've actually been pushing to release. And that's what's all redacted. So what was released was a lot. And it's a window into, unfortunately, how many of our elite have been caught up in this. And it's not a good look for the American elite or the global elite. But in terms of the actual crimes committed, those are in the FBI files. And that's where the nuclear information really is. And they're protecting people. No question about it. A tremendous web that is hopefully going to continue to unravel. And the more we learn, the more questions there are. Congressman Rokhan, I know you're going to go back. I hope you will keep all of us updated, as I'm sure you will, about what you find. And I hope you will continue to read those names on the House floor as well. Thanks so much for joining me. Thank you, Jen. Coming up we have some shocking breaking news out of the Trump Justice Department tonight A grand jury has failed to indict six Democratic members of Congress including Senators Alyssa Slotkin and Mark Kelly on charges of seditious conspiracy We also have breaking news out of that FBI raid on the election offices in Fulton County Georgia where a search warrant affidavit has just been unsealed Priper R is the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and he joins me here live when we come back. Start your day with the MS Now Daily Newsletter. Sharp insights from voices you trust. Standout moments from your favorite shows. And fresh perspectives from experts shaping the news. Sign up at MS.now. Meet Kurt Olson. Six years ago, he was a little-known lawyer who primarily worked on product liability cases representing big companies who were being sued for issues like asbestos causing cancer and the impact of rupturing breast implants. So all good things he was defending there. But after the 2020 election, Kurt Olson became one of the many conspiracy theorist lawyers who got Trump's attention by repeatedly claiming the election was stolen. And Kurt Olson even joined Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's failed lawsuits to overturn the election results, despite little or no experience in election-related cases. Now, when that lawsuit failed, Kurt Olson kept at it. He started harassing then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, even showing up at DOJ headquarters trying to convince him the election was right. In 2022, when Republican Arizona candidate for governor, Carrie Lake, decided to deny the results of her election loss, well, it was Kurt Olson who she chose to represent her in her lawsuit against the state. Olson not only failed to prove that Carrie Lake's election had been stolen, he actually got sanctioned by the Arizona Supreme Court for making arguments that were, quote, unequivocally false. Now, none of that seemed to bother Donald Trump, who made Olson one of his campaign lawyers in 2024. According to the New York Times, even among Trump allies, Olson was considered something of a fringe figure. And that is saying something. And today we have just learned that that fringe conspiracy theorist court-sanctioned lawyer is the person who provided the basis for the FBI's raid of Fulton County's election offices. According to a newly unsealed affidavit, the FBI criminal investigation originated from a referral sent by Kurt Olson, presidentially appointed director of election security and integrity. Yes, that's his title now. And Kurt Olson is far from the only crank conspiracy theorist with his fingerprints all over this raid. The affidavit also refers to election denier Clay Parperik, another discredited election denier who is affiliated with none other than Mike Lindell of MyPillow fame. And just yesterday, ProPublica reported that the FBI may have also relied on information from conservative researcher Kevin Monkla. Yet another discredited election denier who once pleaded guilty to misdemeanor voyeurism charges for secretly filming guests in his home bathroom. Very creepy. When all of this would almost, almost be funny, it is not, if it weren't for the fact that the Trump administration is now using these crank conspiracy theories to actually seize the ballots from a legitimate election. Joining us now is Pri Perera, former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, and the host of the excellent podcast, Stay Tuned with Preet. Okay, Preet, you were a lawyer, an excellent one, an experienced one. I am not. But I just walked through, because I think this is so eye-popping, where this information came from, the history of election denialism, of the people behind it. And I think for most laypeople, it's like, how on earth did the judge issue a warrant to them for this information? Or not to them. But yeah, I mean, so how did they? Were you surprised by it at all? reading all the information? Yeah, no, a little bit. And by the way, you're half a lawyer, if not three quarters of a lawyer, so don't sell yourself short. I only play a quarter one on TV, but you're a real one. Look, on the one hand, this was not a unilateral action taken by the Justice Department. There is a federal judge who had to weigh in and presumably read the affidavit and found probable cause. But on the other hand, as you laid out in the intro, there are lots of red flags here, including the credibility of the people who are the referrers, including the fact that some of the claims that are at issue in the affidavit and in connection with the search have been litigated again and again and again. Overall, not with respect to the affidavit, but the overall search, the fact that the DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, was present, even though she does not have domestic law enforcement authority is another red flag. But if you read the affidavit, you know, it does not state, as many search warrant affidavits do, that there is absolutely overabundant evidence of a crime that has been committed, and they're just searching for fruits of the crime or contrabanding connection with the crime. You know, some of the language of the affidavit is fairly mild, asking the question, you know, was there intentionality here? There's no evidence in support of intentionality here. You know, a lot of the affidavit is spent talking about whether or not there was a crime of record keeping, I'm sorry, a violation of record keeping requirements, which is a far cry from overturning the election. So one of the things, obviously this itself is a concern, the fact that they have these ballots, the fact that Tulsi Gabbard was there, as you just referenced. It's also, it's kind of a win for the Trump administration that they were able to get this warrant, that they were able to get these ballots. And to me, it probably indicates they may try it again. What should election officials, what should states be doing to prepare for that possibility? Give them some free legal advice. Well, look, if there's a court-authorized search warrant, I tell clients all the time, whether you think it's wise or not or justified or not, you have to comply. So my first being a law and order guy when I was in government and also in private practice, you got to comply, but then you have lawyers who can challenge things. Look, I think there is a real concern that he's going to try again and again. Look, in some ways, this is the umpteenth attempt at trying to cast dispersions on the 2020 election in Georgia and elsewhere. And, you know, there was reporting that there was, you know, it's different, but parallel, a search for, not through a court-authorized search warrant, but through other means, you know, ballot information in Puerto Rico. And for whatever reason, as your viewers know very, very well, Donald Trump will not let the election of 2020 go. And so wherever there is a place where they think they can make the barest minimum showing to go in and seize ballots or do any other kind of investigative task, they're going to do it. So people should make sure they have their T's crossed and their I's dotted and then fight with whatever legal process they have. And the Congress should get involved as well as I think they will. We know why they're doing it, because they want to lay the predicate to make election to voting harder and participating in it. But while I have you, I just mentioned this. And I just we have new reporting tonight that a federal grand jury in D.C. has declined to indict Senators Mark Kelly and Alyssa Slotkin and four other members of Congress on seditious conspiracy charges after they participated in a video we've shared on this show, reminding service members that they should not follow illegal orders, which they should not follow illegal orders. I know you represent Senator Slotkin, so you're going to be limited in what you can say. But this is now the latest in a long line of failures at the grand jury level for this administration. We've talked about this before, especially in D.C. Tell us a little bit about how rare that is, what it could mean as they continue to, you know, try to go after their perceived political enemies. Yeah. So, number one, I'll say it's a great honor and privilege to represent Senator Slotkin in this case. Number two, never get ahead of your client. She will have plenty to say about the events that you're describing this evening and in the coming days. As to your broader general question, I mean, I was the United States attorney for seven and a half years in the Southern District of New York. I don't remember any grand jury rejection of a matter. Maybe there were one or two that either I've forgotten or I guess that I've forgotten. this office in D.C. and other offices have had, you know, a higher rate of rejection of indictments being sought than anything I can remember. And when that happens, the people in charge of those prosecutions and decisions to go to the grand jury and decisions to indict need to take a really, really hard look at their standards, at their ethics, at their responsibilities, take a look in the mirror, and decide if you're doing the right thing or not. This is not a common thing. It is an incredibly rare thing. And when you go through the process of investigating someone, sometimes publicly, having them have to hire a lawyer, deal with the agita, the stress and the expense of defending yourself, and then it turns out that you have a BS case that multiple grand juries have rejected, as was true in the case of the New York Attorney General Letitia James, you're doing something wrong and you need to knock it off. That's all I'll say. Priperara, thank you as always for joining me. Really appreciate it. Thanks for having me. We have some breaking news on the search for Nancy Guthrie coming up. After a new Ring camera video was released today, law enforcement sources tell MSNOW there's FBI activity near Arizona's border with Mexico. We've got a live report coming up next. We have some breaking news in the disappearance of 84 Nancy Guthrie who has been missing for 10 days from her home near Tucson Law enforcement sources tell MSNOW there is FBI activity about 15 miles from Arizona border with Mexico We don't yet know details about that activity. Obviously, this is all developing as we speak. But this afternoon, the FBI released video and surveillance photos showing a masked person at Nancy Guthrie's home the night she disappeared. Doorbell camera images show a person walking up to her front door in a ski mask. You can see it right there on your screen and apparently tampering with the camera. Joining me now is MSNOW's Mark Santilla live on the ground in Rio Rico, Arizona. Mark, this is obviously a story that's continuing to develop every moment. But what can you tell us about the latest on the investigation? So, Jen, right now, as you said, we're in Rio Rico, Arizona, not far from the U.S.-Mexico border. two law enforcement sources tell us that there has been and there is FBI activity here on Rio Rico. Now, we don't know at this point if this activity has led to successful fines in the investigation, but it does speak to the radius. Jen, this is a growing investigation from Tucson, about an hour and a half or like an hour, hour and a half south of Tucson. We also know that the FBI Border Patrol, as well as the Pima County Sheriff's Department, they were in Annie Guthrie's neighborhood. Annie is Nancy's daughter as well as Savannah's sister. So they were in the area of Annie Guthrie's neighborhood, the block over. We were there a short time ago before the sun went down and we saw these agents going house to house. They were talking to residents. They were also in the brush looking through bushes. They were doing a search. There were multiple teams of about four agents and deputies working together. They would reconvene, go over what they found or didn't find, and then head out again. We saw them there for at least an hour in the neighborhood. And we know this is all part of, again, the growing radius of this investigation, really picking up in the last 12 to 15 hours. After that, the new video and the new images were released, we really saw this investigation, Jen, start to really pick up again from the Tucson area to here near the border. Jen? So as you said, Mark, it's expanded geographically, it sounds like. There was video footage that we saw. I just showed it a little bit earlier. In the last hour, FBI Director Kash Patel also said he's there looking at people who are, quote, persons of interest. You know the language very well of law enforcement officials. What should people take from that out there? Everybody out there is rooting for the Guthrie family. Yeah, absolutely. I think people of interest, and we've seen that with several different cases. Those are people that investigators are looking at. Sometimes they may question that person of interest, but at this point in the investigation, it's very important. The FBI director didn't say they had suspects. They said they had a person or people of interest they're looking at. So, again, and I think that what was important is the FBI director said they've really seen great gains in the last several hours. So when he's talking about that, we know after, especially after that new video and those new stills were released, that the call center, the command center, tips start flowing in, people start to pick up the phone. If you see something, say something. And especially when you saw that video, that somebody, and even Savannah said it earlier today in one of her posts, that if you recognize this, someone out there will recognize this person. And Jen, sometimes video and images, they're released for the public, to have the public sort of pick up that phone, but they're also released for that suspect. It's a strategy to see if that suspect makes a move, maybe trying to cover their tracks, but in turn really exposes themselves, makes a mistake, makes a phone call, leaves something somewhere. So this was really put out there. It was a strategic move, and we really saw the investigation start to speed up. Again, going through the neighborhood, I talked to one resident, Jen, who told me, look, police were here a few days ago. They've been in the neighborhood, but this was the first time she had an FBI agent at her house asking her, hey, do you have any surveillance video? Did you see anything suspicious? And the resident said, look, I didn't see anything suspicious. It's a very quiet neighborhood. People aren't sort of, you know, it's spread out. So you don't really look over and see your neighbor per se in that neighborhood. But this neighbor, the resident telling us it was very different to have an FBI agent at the door as this investigation again picks up. Jen? Mark Santia, thank you so much. This is obviously a developing story. We'll bring you any and all developments throughout the night here on MS Now. But up next, the family of Epstein survivor Virginia Dufresne took their fight back to Capitol Hill today, and they are going to join me here at the table in just a moment. Today, Democrats in Congress introduced a bill they're calling Virginia's Law, named after Virginia Roberts-Dufresne, a survivor and staunch advocate for the scores of women who were abused at the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and many associates. In her pursuit of justice, Virginia fought for the ability to take abusers to court because many survivors don't come forward for years after their abuse, putting some outside the statute of limitations. And Virginia's law would change all of that by eliminating the statute of limitations for adult sex trafficking survivors to be able to file civil lawsuits against their abusers. It's incredibly powerful. I don't understand who would ever be against this. But joining me now are Skye and Amanda Roberts, Virginia Dufresne's brother and sister-in-law. They flew in overnight last night, I should just note, to be here to continue to advocate. Let me start with you, Amanda. I just kind of outlined lightly why this is so important. You have the attention of so many people, the hearts of so many people watching out there. Why is eliminating the statute of limitations something that Virginia cared so deeply about that you all are using your powerful platform to talk about? Yeah, it was the deepest passion of hers. It was the beast that she wanted to tackle because when you think about just abuse in general and the trauma that it leaves behind, many survivors take years to be able to even get to a place where they can reconcile with what actually happened to them. And in some states, the statute of limitations could be as low as three years. And by that time, it's too late. It's like, oh, sorry, the government clock is up. And it's almost like telling survivors what happened to you doesn't matter. And so it was very important because when we think about even the Epstein case, you know, there's only maybe the opportunity of civil lawsuits. And so we really want to be able to see real justice and legal consequences for actions of child sexual abuse. I don't think that that's a hard thing to ask for. It shouldn't be allowing survivors the ability when they're at the point where they can speak of the trauma, which can take many years to get to that point. Sky, there's so much happening right now. I think some of it is good and some of it, I assume it's very disappointing as to everybody out there. The notion that the case is closed and that there is not more information that is going to be released, the redacting of names in these files, although seeing Ro Khanna read some of the names on the floor hopefully was a point of light. Talk to me about how you're feeling about where things sit right now and what, for people watching out there, you really need to see and want to see happen moving forward. Yeah. I mean, what a blatant lie from from Todd. Right. I mean, do your job, Todd, is the way I want to put it. But the reality is that he's blatantly lying to the American people. We know that Blanche, the deputy attorney general. Correct. So sorry to refer to him by first name. But don't apologize. So people know who he is. But that's who he is. So but I mean, what a blatant lie. Right. It's it's your gaslighting that you continue to gaslight the American public out there. I think people can see through at this point. And it's clear. I mean, you can read through it clear as day that the names of the perpetrators are being redacted and the names of the survivors are being unredacted. And many of them are Jane Doe's. They didn't want to come forward. All right. And it's not their fault. This is the DOJ's fault. And they are breaking the law right now. But it's clear. And Thomas Massey and Ro Khanna, they are coming forward. They are reading names. The names are out there. And we need to start asking for accountability. No question about it. I've learned so much from both of you every time I talk to you. And one of the things that struck me that you've taught me is that this is a web of people. And I know you can't name names and you don't want to name names just as survivors don't because of concerns about threats and lawsuits. But they're still digging in these files and they're still looking to unredact these names. Help people out to understand how big. Are we talking about there could be dozens more names people should keep fighting for? How big is the web of people that could be in these files? I would say Virginia alone in public depositions and sealed depositions, she's named over 40 potential co-conspirators and perpetrators. And that is just one victim of a case that we are potentially talking about over a thousand victims. That is shocking. We're talking about a global sex trafficking ring that operated for almost 30 years. And so the web is deep. And it's deep as far as like the trafficking ring. But also this was a criminal organization. We have to think about the institutions that enabled this, right? The financial institutions, the lawyers, the doctors, all of the people that allowed this to operate for over 30 years. I can't tell you how grateful I am for both of you stopping by. You've been up for a lot of hours. And thank you for your tireless work. I've learned so much from you every time I talk to you. Sky and Amanda Roberts. Okay, we've got to sink in a quick break, but Lawrence has Senator Adam Schiff standing by. He always has a lot to say. We're continuing to follow developments out of the search for Nancy Guthrie. Lots going on tonight. We'll be right back. That does it for me tonight. You can catch the show Tuesday through Friday at 9 p.m. Eastern on MS Now. And don't forget to follow the show on Blue Sky, Instagram, and TikTok. As President Trump continues implementing his ambitious agenda, follow along with the MSNOW newsletter, Project 47. You'll get weekly updates sent straight to your inbox with expert analysis on the administration's latest actions and how they're affecting the American people. The American people are basically telling the president that they are not okay with any of this. Sign up for the Project 47 newsletter at ms.now slash project 47.