Bonus Episode: Reacting to the Epstein Files’ Release

The world moves fast. You work day, even faster, pitching products, drafting reports, analyzing data. Microsoft 365 Co-Pilot is your AI assistant for work. Built into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and other Microsoft 365 apps you use. Helping you quickly write, analyze, create, and summarize. So you can cut through clutter and clear path to your best work. Learn more at Microsoft.com slash N365 Co-Pilot. I'm Charlie Worsell and this is Galaxy Brain. Yesterday, conspiracy theorists, politicians, investigative reporters, concerned bystanders, they all got what they've long been asking for, at least partially. The Department of Justice, as mandated by Congress, has released the Epstein files, which is a massive multimedia tranche of documents. They include files more than 3,000 photos of Epstein's homes in New York City and in the Virgin Islands. Images of his house filled with art and photographs of nude and half-closed women. There are photos of Epstein's jet-setting lifestyle, a number of which depict Epstein and his associate Glean Maxwell with former President Bill Clinton. In a statement on X yesterday, a spokesperson for Clinton said there are two types of people here. The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We're in the first. This information that has been released has been held by different sections of federal law enforcement. And for the last month, according to CNN, lawyers at the Department of Justice's National Security Division have been pouring over these files. They've been trying to comply with dueling directives to either release the information for public and maximum transparency and to protect the executive and legal privacy of victims and those who haven't been accused of any wrongdoing. The redaction process has been described by insiders as chaotic. And these files are heavily redacted. Now that it's here though in the public, everyone from vigilante investigators to journalists like myself can pour over this information in an attempt to better understand the life and crimes of Epstein, who in 2019 was charged with operating a sex trafficking ring that targeted young women and underage girls. Prosecutors say he was aided by Glean Maxwell as long time associate who's currently serving a prison term. Epstein died in 2019 in his jail cell of reported suicide and that incident ignited speculation about the particulars of his sex ring and rumors of reported client list. It's worth backing up though to briefly explain the timeline of how we all got here. All the way back in February in an interview with Fox News, Attorney General Pam Bondy was asked about a list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients and if the Justice Department was planning to release them. Bondy responded quote, it's sitting on my desk right now to review. In May, the House Task Force on the declassification of federal secrets requested the release of the files in a letter to Bondy. Bondy did not respond to the request before the May 16th deadline. The story didn't really heat back up until July when Trump's Justice Department issued a memo that claimed there was no Epstein client list. Quote, while we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and insured examination of any evidence in the government's possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the federal Bureau of investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted. Bondy noted that when she said the Epstein list was sitting under desk, she was actually referring to the DOJ files and not a client list. Around the same time, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's name appeared multiple times in a set of Epstein files currently in possession of the Justice Department. So later, Democrats in the House Oversight Committee, a numerous occasions, released tranches of documents from Epstein's estate. In September, they released a 238-page PDF. It was a document of the 50th birthday book to Jeffrey Epstein that includes a prologue by Maxwell and a page allegedly written by the House Office. In November, it released a trove of emails between Epstein and many prominent figures, some of which referenced Donald Trump, though he was not accused of any wrongdoing. In recent weeks, the committee has released a series of photographs of Epstein and his associates. Some of those photos include close-ups of what looks to be a woman's body with passages from the novel Lolita drawn on them. In late November, Congress passed legislation mandating Trump's DOJ release all Epstein files with few exceptions that gave him 30 days, Trump signed the bill into law on the 19th of November. Now, the files are here. And let's be clear, for all the chatter and the intrigue around Epstein for his famous associates, the memes, the wall-to-wall coverage, this is a sorted moment in American history. The release of the files is theoretically this moment of transparency, but it's worth remembering why the files needed to be released. They depict the life and operations of a prolific sex trafficker, someone who was alleged by on the record, victim testimony, to have abused an unknown number of women some underage. That these files are so eagerly sought is because of how firmly Epstein was ensconced in the social, political, and financial dealings of extremely powerful people all over the world, even after taking a plea deal that made him a registered sex offender. His associations, known and unknown, the provenance of his great wealth, the extent of the influence, this is what makes Jeffrey Epstein a newsworthy figure more than six years after his death. That said, the release of the files are culmination of sorts, the unites an unlikely conglomeration of interests from QAnon to House Democrats, and in a politics where conspiracy theorizing has replaced scandals of old, the release of these files is an intentional event without much precedent. The scattershot release offers anyone to choose your own adventure control F-search bananza. People have and will continue to post their findings often without context to social media and elsewhere. There will be silly and offensive and irony poise and memes, there will be endless pontification, name calling, political point scoring. The release of the files is an act of transparency, but dumping them on a Friday evening during a holiday week is also something of a chaos agent. And so there's a lot to take in here. It will likely take reporters and other investigators months, maybe years to understand the scope, and this isn't even all of the files. But what we wanted to do today on Galaxy Brain is to try to walk through this as best that we can. Over the last couple of hours, we at the Atlantic have been up and looking over these documents. We've been trying to surround them with the appropriate amount of context. And so joining me today to talk about the files is Adrian LaFrance, the Atlantic's executive editor and staff writer Isaac Stanley Becker. They're going to come on and share a little of what they found and what if anything we can learn from what has been released. This is not an exhaustive list of findings. This is an early reaction and a chance to try to ground this extremely grim, but important moment and understand what if anything might happen next. Here's Adrian LaFrance and Isaac Stanley Becker. Adrian Isaac, it is very early in the morning where I am. It's light out where you are. Thank you for joining me to talk about the Epstein files, which are now out in the world. They've been released for a few hours. We've all looked through them in some capacity and I'm delighted that you're all here to talk about it with me. Thanks for having us. Absolutely. I think the first thing that I just want to start with is this is a partial release of the files. There are hundreds of thousands of documents. Supposedly the Department of Justice has been working according to reports for a long time, trying to redact these things, trying to maintain the privacy of the victims and certain people involved in the files. On Friday, they noted that they weren't going to be able to release the absolute full tranche of documents. Instead, we have a partial release. How do we feel about this? Is this, has the Department of Justice complied with this investigation? Isaac, do we feel like this is what Congress wanted to some degree or is this partial release unsatisfying in terms of the Department of Justice actually giving Congress what it wanted? I think plainly the administration has not complied with the legislation that was passed, which required the release of these files, these documents by yesterday, Friday, and a partial release is a partial release. It's not a full release. It doesn't meet the letter of this legislation that was passed. We've already seen members of Congress on both sides of the aisle make this point and discuss various possibilities of what they steps they might take, whether it comes to the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche or Pambondi, the Attorney General. I think there's been some discussions of content proceeding. Certainly, Democrats have used the word impeachment. But I think there's a lot of anger about what happened here. These are files that, as you said, been discussed for months that the Attorney General said that she had aspects of them sitting on her desk. I think people have a right to be asking why it took so long and what the reason for the delay was and what has been withheld in this initial batch. I'm sorry, I just could say it also colors our ability to understand why they released what they released. So it sort of warps the entire thing in that way. And just to be clear, the Attorney General Pambondi saying that the files were under desk, that was back in February of 2025. So this has been dragging out for a very long time. I think a lot of people don't remember that first part who have been paying attention to this. And this is something that really heated up over the summer. And then that really started this process. But genuinely, this goes back to almost the first days of the administration all the way back then. I want to talk about most people, I imagine, on these were released on a Friday, right before the Christmas holiday, sort of later in the afternoon on the East Coast. I doubt most people in the world have been actually sifting through these files in any capacity we have. And so what I wanted to kind of do for people is talk about the experience first and foremost of going through this, right. This is a lot of, even though it's a partial release, this is a lot of documents. This is kind of a very classic reporter thing of having to come through this. And so I just wanted to start first with you, Isaac, can you kind of walk me through your process of getting these accessing these files, how you went through them. Like what, what is it like to dive into this? Because the Epstein files is something that has just been, you know, obviously shrouded in secrecy, but something to that, that I think people have, have really kind of, you know, had to imagine in their heads, right. What is this going to be? I think a lot of people thought they were going to be like IRS files or things like that. You know, a lot of lot more sort of nitty gritty stuff. It was very image heavy, but I just starting with Isaac and then Adrian to your experience of it. Like what, what was it like going through this? Well, there was an anticipation that there was going to be some sort of release yesterday. We didn't, we didn't know exactly what, what kind and our terrific colleagues, our Fitzpatrick had some good lines in to trying to figure out when and what and what was the administration telling various people about what they were doing. And so there was some sense that at some point during the day, and I think even some indication of the afternoon eventually. And so I think it was, I think it was, I, for 30, four o'clock, but as you say in the afternoon, when this dropped and it was linked on the DOJ website, and we didn't know what to expect. We didn't know whether it was going to be transcripts, investigative materials, photos. So, you know, we just kind of clicked, opened it and started clicking around and seeing what it looked like, even, even seeing sort of how to divide it among those of us reporters who were looking through it to do it in a kind of concerted way. And so it soon became clear that there was some material that appeared to be new, some old, so we kind of wrapped our hands around the new material and it was released in batches like a set. There's four sets. So I just downloaded it was a zip file and started clicking through as you say a lot of images, especially where I started. So images of Epstein of Glenn Maxwell, you seemingly in various vacation destinations with friends of theirs and discussing with colleagues what here has been released, what's new, do we recognize this person. And you know, passing it over to Adrian and one of the points that she made that I think is so important in how we were processing this and making sense of it was, as she said, there was no rhyme or reason to this release versus what remains held back. And I think that that's right, that that has fueled so much of the suspicion and the cynicism because say even if we knew that this was some way chronological, like they were releasing the first batch in the investigations and they hadn't yet gotten to the later batch. But there was nothing like that or this was photos and they were going to get on to other materials in their possession. But for all we know it would they picked and choose, you know, as they as they please. So that made I think the experience really challenging and and, you know, grounds for a lot of concerns, suspicion. Adrian, what's your what was your experience of this your help to direct all of our coverage. What was your experience of of looking through this or you know trying to make sense of it. Right. Well, I mean, it's what Isaac said and it's really just as journalists trying to figure out what's new. Is there anything in here that's revealed that changes are understanding of the scope of Epstein's crimes, obviously looking for affiliations to other powerful figures. And we can of course talk more about that, including multiple presidents. And just trying to understand what does it mean and what is why does it matter because one of the more complicated aspects of all of this is the collision of actual crime and robust conspiracy theorizing. And I kept thinking about something. So I've written a lot about conspiracy theories as you guys know over the years. And one of the things that always comes to mind for me is the more I've talked to conspiracy theorists, the more I understand that a lot of what draws them to sort of the work of conspiracy theorizing if you can call it work is a lot of what journalists love, like combing through difficult complicated, limited, redacted documents trying to find meeting. And so when you have sort of unleash a document dump on the public in this like really, you know, rich conspiracy-laden environment, while also knowing that it's a hugely important new story with real crimes and real victims, it's even harder to sort of disentangle and find meaning. And then you layer on possibly a bad faith, political maneuvering. And it's, I mean, it's extraordinary, extraordinarily complicated. I go ahead, I ask. Well, and in this case in particular, because I just think it can't be emphasized enough that this, the Epstein's crimes are being arbitrated on the internet because they were never arbitrated in court. And that is one of the many tragedies and wrongs of the fact that he committed suicide in jail. That there was never ever an opportunity to really arbitrate this and get to the facts. And so it's understandable that people are taking matters into their own hands on the internet because it was never dealt with carefully and in a methodical way in court. And, you know, there's lots of reasons for that and lots of failures of our justice system that allowed that to happen. But it just speaks to one of the enduring wrongs and, you know, just utter failures of this whole saga. There is a Miami Herald article by Julie K. Brown, who has done a lot of the investigative reporting that broke this story open and really revealed to the public the extent of Epstein's operation over a long period of time. And she wrote about the files that the House Oversight Committee, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, released actually on Thursday, just some photographs. But said that, you know, one of the revelations in a lot of these stories is that the FBI never obtained Epstein's computers in the original investigation. Right? That some of what we are seeing here in general, broadly, is stuff that, you know, as you're saying, Isaac, had had the government, you know, done its job in other ways. This information would have maybe not been public, but it would have been things that, you know, had had been brought to light at least privately in terms of the investigation. I think that that is a very important way to ground this in general. I would love to talk a little bit about what's in here, right? We didn't get a lot, right? But what did you ask? So your last point? Yes, please. I mean, one of, I think, arguably the most important thing, and forgive me because I have not come through all 13,000 documents. So we are certainly going to learn more in the coming days, and with subsequent releases. But, but from what we know now, one of the most consequential things in here is this, I think, 1996 tip from someone who had contacted the FBI, asked them to look into Epstein's affairs. And has said that the FBI did not even respond to her. And so to see evidence of that early complaint is really shocking. And I think, you know, as this person has told other news outlets, validating for her, but I think it speaks to exactly what Isaac was just describing. Yeah, apparently the FBI did not contact the person who made this complaint about child sex abuse material and Epstein for a decade, which, which yes, I think, I think speaks very highly to how this was all all this unfolded. So yeah, so let's get to look what? You know, that that was in there. Certainly that was, I believe, you know, as people were going through it, myself included, but also, you know, reported in other places. That seems to be a real revelation there in terms of that, you know, that that complaint was unearthed. It was also, you know, it was something where the way that these files come out, a lot of them are just images that you are kind of, you know, downloading on a zip drive and you are rifling through. And when it's just an image, it's actually very easy to process, right? You can just see Jeffrey Epstein is on a jet ski. There's someone in a helicopter. There's someone on a plane, et cetera. When it is some of the, some of like, you know, the photographs of images. Or photographs of documents rather, it can be kind of hard to see and to know what it is that you're looking at. So that that was definitely a revelation. But yeah, what, what? Let's start with you guys. Like, what, what, what did we get here? And what? Did you really, you know, take away and, and notice here? Well, I think we should also emphasize that in addition to this being a partial release, it was also the materials were also heavily heavily redacted. And that's another thing that is fueling a lot of the criticism of a DOJ's approach here. I think maybe most most strikingly, there was one file grand jury file, I believe from New York, that was just entirely redacted. People were pointing out that it's like one of those memes about non-transparency where just everything, every single line is blacked out. So literally what the document was, I mean, I think stepping back, I would make a couple points. One is that overall this, this does not really add much to our understanding of Epistines crimes, of the people who enabled Epistines crimes and of the way in which he evaded, you know, just as for so long with the exception of, I think, the really important document that Adrian pointed out. And I think the second point I would make is associated with that that sprinkled throughout here. There was some really troubling and just frankly grotesque details about the way in which he went about abusing young women and details are hints because again, it's really hard to understand the full context because of the redactions, because there may be some of the missing material. But there are a few documents that record phone calls, messages that were intended for Epstein and one of them says, I have a female for him, just absolutely chilling. There's a reference at one point to someone not being available because of soccer, you know, potentially a young person, though it's not clear. So there are some examples of that and also images of Epstein with what appear to be young women, though there's a number of again redactions of those faces, in that case, most likely to protect victims. And then I think the third point I would make is that there's a lot of Bill Clinton in these images and in these files. And one of the things that we did was reach out to spokesman for former president Clinton about this. And his office hit back pretty hard and saying that this was this was selectively released that it was intended to serve a political purpose and to strangle from all the ways in which we know that President Trump associated with and was friends with Epstein. And also, you know, an argument that they were friendly, there was some traveling together, but that President Clinton knew nothing of Epstein's crimes. But again, in the way in which all of this is being used and politicized, we saw immediately an effort by White House officials, people in the communications department, Trump, the Clinton materials and arguing that this is what the focus should be. So those are the kind of main takeaways that I had. Well, and I have to say too, like it's definitely seems clear that the Trump camp is using this opportunity to politically weaponize the Clinton material. And yet it is shocking and it's so unrate. I mean, just within our newsroom, I think those were the photos that were being passed around first because it's legitimately shocking to see a president in that capacity. Even someone who you know has had inappropriate relationships with young women before. Yeah, those photos. You know, we talked a lot about like, was this the just chronologically, right? Like the first stuff. Again, there's so much that we don't know here. Was this chronologically some of the some of the first stuff there? Was it some of the easiest stuff for DOJ lawyers to clear? Because we don't know what the actual process was here, we don't have any insight into that. What was interesting to me as someone who was going through it, but also observing online, was you know, the my I think they were released around one one 15 my time, Pacific time. So that would be about four o'clock Eastern time within two or three minutes on X. I was seeing multiple accounts of all political persuasions immediately going through and posting the the photos of Clinton one, which has sort of become, I guess infamous at this point is him sort of reclining in what looks like either a hot tub or a pool. There is a redacted black square that I guess represents somebody who's in there and there was something about that though the fact that it was so quick to have that be there that I think it led to that feeling right of is this being weaponized in some way this this has shown up so quickly. And and you know his his presence so prominent and and this this feeling of of you know potential weaponization or using these documents for to score political points I think is underscored by the fact that you know the White House press secretary is reposting that photo and having you know putting an emoji next to it and saying oh my a DOJ spokesperson tweeted and then deleted the tweet according to reports from Politico that said oh I wonder why the Biden DOJ refused to release the files. It really seems like very quickly this just became another way to you know snipe on on social media and I think that sort that landed this this feeling that like what what is what are we seeing has this been released selectively. Well there's also no pretense that it's anything other than political I mean president Trump directed his attorney general to investigate as as the kind of pressure was intensifying on him related to these files he directed his attorney general to investigate Clintons ties to Epstein along with a number of other prominent Democrats and people he proceeds as his enemies so as in many cases. The president's his president's actions are sort of so out in the open there's not an effort to kind of hide the way in which they want to amplify the potential downsides for Democrats in these files. I think I mean the other thing that struck me about the Clinton material because again his people had all sorts of arguments about how this was selective and political they've also said that there's no wrongdoing on the former president's part and certainly these images are unsavory but there's no there's nothing in them that shows him in a really compromising position with a minor or anything like that but I should be clear he said that they sorry to interrupt you but also the the Clinton camp said that this was a relationship that was terminated right his relationship with Epstein as soon as he knew about any of Epstein's wrongdoing that's right you know seems like a sort of low bar yeah but I think it was one more really graphic illustration of a point that's not going to be a good thing. Yeah but I think it was one more really graphic illustration of a point that's been made and written about well recently just about the way this is such an indictment of a kind of elite class that Epstein managed to wrap around his finger I mean he was fantastically wealthy he had lots of fancy associates but how is he able to weasel himself in so effectively with you know people as prominent and important as former presidents I mean what was the former president doing associating with this individual what we see getting out of this relationship I mean we may learn more about the facts here but it strikes me it strikes me as kind of pathetic in addition to everything else. Right I feel this is a really important point to that I think you can hold sort of two things to be true at once that like there are legitimate questions to be asked about Bill Clinton and Epstein's relationship still absolutely of course there are legitimate questions to be asked about Trump's relationship with Epstein and also it seems quite apparent that both sides will try to politically weaponize I mean certainly we see Trump's side trying to politically weaponize Clinton's appearance in these files and so. It like is it extremely creepy yes is it being politically weaponized electively also yes yeah and I you know I think it's what's. What's interesting and also difficult to hold in one's head right is that some of what we know about some of the releases of information that have been you know kind of. Drift and dropped through throughout the fall have come from Democrats on the House oversight committee right and these are some these are you know. Emails that mention people like Peter teal you know a lot of correspondence between Donald Trump and Steve Bannon a lot of mentions from Epstein of and other people in Epstein circle of Donald Trump and then you have. The Epstein files released by the Trump administration which contain very scant mention of Donald Trump there is you know to to what I have seen and again we're you know kind of pouring over this but what I have seen at present there is there is a photo of Jeffrey Epstein's desk and there seems to be what appears to be Donald Trump among a bunch of photos in his desk there is a complaint from the. Southern District of of New York a Jane Doe versus Epstein Maxwell complaint that mentions an interaction that Donald Trump had with a 14 year old girl in the presence of Epstein at Mar-a-Lago. Kind of it there's not a lot there and and I think that that you know. The fact that you have Democrats on the House oversight committee releasing this stuff that shows kind of an you know an extended world or associates of Donald Trump just speaks to the relationships that they have had over the course of their lives running in similar social circles and then you have what is supposed to be the be all end all of transparency and and and there is this this scant mention it seems it did that surprise you guys at all. I mean yeah not necessarily surprise me but I do feel that there is more that we're missing I'll also point out that Democrats did not seem interested in the Epstein Files at all until it became politically convenient for them which hurts their credibility now and the other thing I think we haven't touched on that's really important is this question of sort of like to what extent is someone guilty by association especially when we don't exactly know what the association is. Our colleague Liz Brunegroat a really thoughtful piece about how there are you know because of the sort of dynamic you've described where Epstein seemed to sort of collect famous powerful figures in his life there are lots of well known people who have encountered him and from the very limited information that the public has it's really hard to know is it that Epstein was just a wheeling and dealing and meeting famous people and yeah sometimes they got photographed together and now that looks bad or you know I mean you don't just see it. You know I think it's just accidentally getting to a hot tub so that association seems deeper than someone who might have just been like sitting beside him at a event or something but but I think there is this real question of you know in a culture that rushes to condemn people for with limited evidence you do have to sort of wonder how to contextualize or understand these little snippets or photos that we're getting that don't provide adequate information at this point does that make sense. I think it also speaks to the difficulties with the redactions right because there are lots of things as we have mentioned in here that are redacted some of them almost perhaps comically right like you have entire files that are just big black squares you don't even really know what the heck is in there. But there's also a lot of photos and a lot of people online who even even journalists that I've seen who are very upset about the number of redactions right like if you are on what appears to be a private plane with Jeffrey Epstein why are we redacting you right and there was a report there was a report from Fox News that came out sort of you know early early in the day I'm going to I'm going to find it here after the files were released that said that file was going to be a real question. Fox learned that the same redaction standards were applied to politically exposed individuals and government officials and that kind of floated around the internet for a while and it was like wait why are potentially politically exposed people in government officials being treated the same with the same you know privileges as people who have been abused by Jeffrey Epstein that that seemed very out of you know out of place. General Todd Blanche later said that the Justice Department is quote not redacting the names of any politicians and quote there are no redactions of famous people that leaves that's a little bit vague in terms of you know what actually is in there but I think what's fascinating right is this idea that there is this guilt by association there is this you know sense that you could end up at a dinner not know the Jeffrey Epstein's there there's a you know a photographer or something like that. It gets shown it's the only time you've ever interacted with this person and yet you know you have been quote put in the Epstein files there is this association as as as Liz writes in the piece and yet at the same time it seems like we're also all kind of collectively struggling with this this idea of well if there's you know you don't just get in a hot tub as you said right and there's this idea that like you don't just get on the plane and that's very different. But all these things get smashed together especially I think because of the way that these files are released and that that just becomes extremely difficult for normal people and concerned people and people who are outraged by you know this type of sex trafficking and abuse it makes it really hard to disentangle. I think it also speaks to I mean there's now been so much ink spilled on this whole sorted affair but one of the in my mind somewhat unanswered questions is how much Epstein's globe trotting life and lifestyle was mixed in with the criminal conduct he was engaged in how cabined off was it and I think that goes a long way toward helping us to understand whether all of these associates would have been privy in some way I mean I think as you both are saying there's a big difference between being pictured with him an event and being pictured in his hot tub but okay if you're on his plane if you are at one of his homes what degree of knowledge could you rightfully have been expected to have of what was going on behind closed doors and I think that's that's one of the in my mind the kind of reporting questions that remains unanswered about about all of this. But it's sort of treated as as though it wasn't open secret all along and it certainly appears that way for people like us who've come to the information much later than these crimes took place but that's a real question for me is sort of it's almost the most one of the most basic things like who knew when did they know what what did they know I mean it's just I feel that that's fundamental. I'm going to go ahead. Well I was just going to say I mean maybe there are materials in this cash of documents that will be forthcoming that will help answer this I guess I'm not really holding my breath because of all the previous failures it seems to me like one of the most salient questions maybe we can get into this is whether this will satisfy the kind of ferocious right when fascination with Epstein and the kind of beast that's going to be a real question. I think that Trump and some of his associates created in how they hyped these documents and the kind of unintended consequences they've had to face as a result of that I mean can that can that beast be tamed and will it continue to dog him politically as I think one of the one of it is a one of the key political questions aside from the question about you know will victims get their answers are there more co conspirators who can be brought to the court. But you know can be brought to justice at this at this phase. I think to to to to your earlier point there. About you know what what people knew and when obviously that's that's still a huge open question I think one of the things that was really dissatisfying for me going through this as as someone who's been writing about and covering this as opposed to you know the in in early September House of Versailles Democrats released the the infamous I think it was his 50th birthday Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday book right and in that one of the takeaways outside of confer or outside of showing a a reported doodle that Donald Trump made you know for for Epstein that he had previously denied having made outside of that one I think what it revealed to me was a lot of winking from you know and kind of just during from these wealthy friends of Jeffrey Epstein towards this idea that well he he loves you know young women right or or as they're referred to girls we don't know know the age of people that were being referred to in some of these things but it was this idea that there is a little bit of that potentially an open secret right that that that he has predilections and there are people around him who are either okay with that or willing to overlook that or or whatever and and even you know put that on paper in in some capacity and I think you know what we see here in these documents you have to sort of like you said it infer right you have to you have to have you know your imagination has to take over on that and I think that that's just extremely unhelpful to people right you have to you have to sort of give yourself what did Bill Clinton know and when what what is what is he up to what did this person know and when and I think in that sense it's just you know it just obvious obvious skates more than anything there's it's also points to this much larger sort of cultural question of what people are willing to tolerate and I mean look it's kind of fascinating and revealing that it hasn't even yet come up in this conversation something that we all know which is that Donald Trump himself has been credibly accused of multiple sexual crimes and and that sort of you know I think sort of with the access Hollywood tape back in 2016 was the moment where it was sort of like well people make not everyone but many people are just kind of okay with that and so to me there is this much larger cultural question I mean it goes to your point of when what did people know what were they willing to sort of look away what was treated as just sort of oh he likes girls whatever I mean it's just it's all of a piece in a way that I don't think anyone has sort of properly contextualized or or explained yeah Adrian I was going to make a really similar point which is that a lot of the really strong reporting about Trump and Epstein's relationship has focused on their kind of shared pursuit of women and how they competed against each other and you know participated in this in this in this kind of pursuit of women and and I think that you know you mentioned that Accusate credible accusations against the president the access Hollywood tape and this continues this kind of language at least an approach and rhetoric continues to the present day so you know I admit all of this the president was delivering remarks in North Carolina last night and in the course of many of the things Ilhan Omar et cetera immigration he does this routine about Hillary Clinton talks about how he's she's nasty and he wouldn't want to go home to a woman like that so the misogyny and the kind of discussion of women as as you know objects that men are going home to and and finding pleasing or not pleasing remains part of his ongoing stick which is shocking when you step back and think about it. When you look back to that you know we talked about that that 1996 tip to the FBI about Epstein that's taking place around the time shortly before Bill Clinton has an interaction with an intern in the White House and so there really is this much larger cultural thing where we have to kind of step back and be like wait a minute how are we treating women in the society and you think about how that was received culturally and how Monica Linsky was the butt of all the jokes at the time. I mean Clinton to some extent of far less so and so I that all of this just feels really of a piece in a way that I think is important and it also speaks it speaks to that political point scoring to write and and you know I reached out in a piece that that I wrote yesterday for for the Atlantic to the White House and you know they they came back with comment and and said I want to make sure that I get this right. The Trump administration has done more for the victims the Democrats ever have was the big takeaway from from that I was asking whether or not Donald Trump wanted to address that you know there was this complaint or that you know there was there's a photograph of him. But it was very much this you know look what we did look what we you know using using and referencing the victims using them as you know a you know political object in this right and I think that something that I saw speaking to this you know this this cultural misogyny in the way that that all this is treated I saw people treating this like the Super Bowl on social media right oh my god they're here it's Christmas come early the files are here when you zoom out what this actually is is this is some of this is crime scene evidence some of this is you know evidence of of either sexual assault or in propriety or sex trafficking there's a lot that we we don't know what it's even showing because it's so heavily redacted but this is this is monstrous at its core like nothing about this is actually funny or you know it's super dramatic it is is culturally extremely relevant it's politically extremely relevant because of F.C.'s connections and you know to various elites in the world and powerful people but this is all this this is again this is like a digital crime scene and it is being treated as you know well look look what we did for the victims who you know according to our are the great reporting from our our colleague it this is this is something that has actually left a lot of Epstein's victims high and dry they they don't feel like they've gotten the transparency and the accountability from this that they were hoping they they didn't even get a meeting with the attorney general at the end of the day about this ahead of the release of the files so I I fully agree I think this is this is you know what has happened culturally as a result of this seems to be even even more galling in terms of you know respecting the the victims of sex trafficking and sexual assaults and and the way that we talk about this in general just seems to to to underlie that right well and it's sort of I mean you're alluding to like one of the great contradictions of the internet which is you get a bunch of people on a social platform and let them do whatever they want and things can be awful and monstrous and glib and all the you know all the worst possible qualities you can be in the online but also this is a week where a tip on reddit helped lead to the capture of the brown shooting suspect and so it's yeah I mean I think it's complicated that way like I do wonder if certainly journalists will be working hard including many of our colleagues in both of you to make sense of all this but this is one where like the collision of conspiracy theory and sort of amateur sleuthing and actual professional journalism can can be a force for bad obviously but I I be curious how you know what what emerges from from ordinary people who are coming over these files too so you know to to that point of people going through I want to talk about the you know the broader conspiracy stuff in a second or the conspiracy theorizing rather do you feel the response to this was muted given the how these files had been touted given that you know this I mean release the files is a has been a hallmark of of Trump's campaigning in the past this has been a real load bearing it's a both meme and political issue for a long time do you feel like the reaction is more muted than you thought I want to hear it Isaac things but I would just say is I mean first of all you mentioned this earlier but it's like the granddaddy of Friday night news dumps meaning sure these were released at a time when most people are trying to check out for at least a couple days and so that's a huge factor I think and then and then the other thing I would make another point I would make is just like most people are not extremely online we are and people who tend to care about the upstein files are but most people really aren't and so it's hard to gauge what muted even look what we should expect and what muted even means but I do think and this is a point you you've both made is that this isn't something that's going to go away even if it you know you can try to bury at the Friday before Christmas but people are intensely interested in this and that will continue but I think I'm curious what you think is up to you What do you think? Yeah, I think that this whole situation is kind of shot through with cynicism. So I think people were primed to expect to cover up, expect unsatisfying answers. I mean, certainly we're hoping for some kind of really scandalous reveal, but I think also very much prepared to be let down in that respect. I guess another way of thinking about this is is there any kind of release? Is there any kind of document that would put an end into this speculation or would satisfy people's craving for answers, for accountability, for you name it? And I think basically no, it's really hard to imagine what that would be. Again, it speaks to the way in which this beast has been created and is really hard to feed or to satisfy. So I think the reaction was somewhat muted for some combination of the reasons you both have mentioned, but it'll be interesting. And I think some of it will depend on what sort of actions if any these lawmakers do take to what extent the kind of outrage and the responses bipartisan and whether it forces some additional cleanup by the likes of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. I'll just put my own feelings out there on this. I was honestly kind of surprised. I mean, I understand that the world does not respond the way that terminally online journalists and people who study conspiracy theories and folks who are interested in the way that stuff travels around the internet or whatever. I understand that most people aren't like that, but it's been hard to not turn on a television and see, you know, file footage of Jeffrey Epstein's face over the last six months. It's been the thing politically that has dogged Donald Trump, right? That the story as we have put that will not go away. And I know that it was a Friday night news dump. I know that it's, you know, a big holiday is coming up. If people are checking out for like two weeks, you know, this is the actual, the slowest period of the year. I'm still surprised. What were you expecting? I mean, what did you, I'm just interested? What kind of reaction or response would have in your mind fit with that kind of fascination wall to wall coverage that you've been describing? Honestly, the way that the emails in November from the tranche of emails that the House Oversight Committee put out across both across all the social media platforms that I'm on, there was so much screenshotting, there was so much. And I know everyone's feed is different. Everyone, you know, has a different experience on the algorithmic internet, right? But I felt like that was, that was very much a lot of people reacting to like here, here is helpful information that contextualizes the Epstein experience, right? Like here is, we are, we are seeing the way that he interacts and corresponds. And I think that may have had to do with the fact that it was emails, you know, like it's hard to see a photo of Jeffrey Epstein globe trotting or you know, on a jet ski and say, well, now I understand everything, you know, like it's much easier to see correspondence between Jeffrey Epstein and someone else over a long period of time. Yeah, I don't know. I guess I, I see what you need about that. I see it somewhere differently and it's making me think of that, that Giac line, I think it's Giacore talks about the anticipation always being more satisfying than the fulfillment of the anticipation, like looking forward to something is actually always more enjoyable than experiencing it. And I think that's so true in this case. Like, isn't it so much fun and so fantastical to imagine what these files might show, what they might reveal and to talk with all your friends online about them and then when they actually drop, it's like, well, of course they're gonna be dissatisfying and, and you know, not live up to your expectations. I also think it's such a part is it, I mean, like, this is also partly like death of the monoculture and fracturing of informational environments. I mean, it's sort of like the most boring but also possibly true explanation, which is, a lot of people are tuned out, everybody's getting their information from different sources, nobody trusts each other and it's very hard for any major news event to capture everybody's attention at once. We very rarely see that now in a way that we used to even five years ago. Well, I think, I think especially to you to Isaac to your point, I mean, that's conspiracy theorizing, right? This, the, the, the, the waiting, the thing, you know, I, I have written and a lot of people have also talked about, this is an almost perfect conspiracy theory, right? Because it blends real crime, real intrigue, real relationships, real wealth, real power, with this idea of something that we can't see that helps to explain the world. And as soon as we understand it, as soon as we can see it, we will know why, you know, things feel the way that they do, why things are dissatisfying, why certain people have power, why, you know, you name it, right? And, and, and that, that reveal is, you know, the fact, the fact that we don't ever know, like there's never been a confirmed report that there is a client list, right, of Jeffrey Epstein. There's his address book, there's all sorts of, you know, just logistical things in his life, but we don't have that. And yet, the Epstein client list remains this load bearing conspiracy theory meme because that would explain everything, right? That would be the skeleton key to unlock the awful behavior of the, of the global elite. And, and so it's this, it's this, what we don't know, you know? But correct me if I'm wrong, Charlie, because you would know the origins of this better. I mean, the person responsible for that is the attorney general, the most powerful law enforcement official in the country, who said that she had access to that document. So, I mean, yes, there's this kind of swamp of conspiracy theories, but also there are people in positions of tremendous authority and power who have fed this and, and, and given rise to it. And I think, you know, I mean, everything else, one of the, one of the kind of trends or dynamics of the first year of the second Trump term that I'm personally fascinated by, is this dynamic of, of kind of mud slingers and conspiracy theorists when they're outside of government, giving rise to these theories, whipping up fascination and then coming into government and having the authority to prove it or disprove it and being kind of unwilling or unable to do that. I mean, suddenly you have the authority to prove what you have claimed. And, you know, what do you do? That's a, you're in a, you're in a real bind in that situation. This is such a good point. And it also makes me think it's important to point out that Donald Trump is like the OG version of this in the sense that he rose to political power based on the birth orism conspiracy theory. And so, I think you're spot on there. We're about every, oh, sorry. Just really quickly. I mean, and Thomas Massey, who's been the kind of main Republican voice on this, just passing the other day I saw tweeted, if the 2020 election had been a, you know, a criminal conspiracy theory why has no one been arrested over it? And it's an amazing point. And, and the fact that the, you know, people who believe this, the president's supporters who believe this have not been dissatisfied, outraged and, and, you know, demanded something different from, from their leader is psychologically fascinating. Sorry, I interrupted. No, no, I'm totally with you. I mean, the other thing that it makes me think is the, like in terms of the conspiracy theorizing, this Epstein as a conspiracy theory, setting aside the actual crimes, it has fodder for any conspiracy theorists. So say you're conspiracy, and it's important to point this out. Like there are conspiracy theorizing is not tied to one ideology or another, like it's, it's the qualities that sort of unite the people who are drawn to conspiracy theories are intense distrust for government, but power generally. So like anti-establishment views, a sense of being aggrieved or victimhoods sort of status. And so if you look at this from that lens and you think, okay, if you're a conspiracy theorist and all you want to do is prove whatever your conspiracy theory about Donald Trump is, like you've got plenty of fodder there. If you're an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist, this is like total fodder for that sort of like the global elite with a powerful Jewish man. And so that squarely fits onto that conspiracy theory. And you sort of tick down the list of all of the most potent and dangerous conspiracy theories and you can see how it maps on to Epstein. And so I feel like that's a huge part of this as well. I think that's that's very true. And there is this this dynamic Isaac also, as you as you said, of, you know, I mean, I guess one could say don't, don't put podcasters in charge of the government is one part of this. But it's also it's also this it is so easy to crusade against, you know, the against the government against the, the, the, the people in power, right? And use that and leverage that. And what we have seemed to be seeing time and again in this administration is once you get in that position of power, it becomes really hard to deal with this, right? Like, like, like, Kashpatel and Dan Fungino, the FBI have, have on some of these other sort of smaller issues have said, you know, I've looked, I now I've looked at this thing, you know, it's not what, it's not what you think because I just trust me. And that's a really hard that's a really hard position for, for anyone to be in. But I think that I think you're, you're right. This was the, the flames of all this were, were fanned by this administration. You know, it was starting with, with Bondi, you know, referring to a clientless. She then later said, I should note that she was just referring to what, some of what we looked at over the over the past day. So that the file is not the, not the actual clientless. But, but it's also very clear that, you know, back in February, a lot of people probably don't remember the administration made binders of information about Jeffrey Epstein and invited a whole bunch of right-wing influencers to come and collect them. And then again, they, they've denied that this is what they did, but walked them out the door of the White House in front of a pool of press photographers. And they were all the influencers were holding up, you know, the binders of this. Like this has certainly been played up by the administration. Totally. Well, and the other thing is, I think with, with any major mainstream conspiracy theory, you always have to think about the true believers, because there are people who truly believe conspiracy theories and truly worry about victims in cases where there aren't any. Obviously there are victims. In this case, you know, you think about Pizza Gate, which was someone who believed that there was a Washington, DC, pizza parlour where they were abusing children. There was no evidence that that was true. I actually go to this pizza place all the time. It's great. And someone came in with a gun and on a crusade. And so, you know, that that's a true believer. You have true believers on all kinds of conspiracy theories, but conspiracy theories also attract grifters and people who are opportunists and using them for political gain as you point out that we've seen within the Trump administration. And so, the other thing that I think we should watch very carefully going forward is this sort of as more information comes out, as people are able to watch the administration's handling of this, you're going to see more of a divide between the true believers and the grifters. And some true believers may, you know, tie themselves in knots justifying why they still trust Donald Trump, or why they still trust Pambonda or whoever. But I think it's harder and harder to, you know, have it all hold together when the grifters show themselves so obviously to be grifting. So, that's a great bridge to how I want to kind of tie a bow on this at the end. And which is, do we think this is going to fan the flames? Is this only going to make the conspiracy theory stronger? Do you think in some sense, you know, there's a little bit of fatigue that might set in here? Even politically, right? Like this is something that also has, it's tough to capture people's attention for a long period of time. This story has for quite a long time. And now with the release of this, I'll start with you Isaac. Do you see this ramping up? Ramping down? Is this going to drag out in a very unsatisfying way for the next, you know, forever? What are you thinking in regards to that? Yeah, I'm sort of torn on this actually. It has shown remarkable staying power more so than more so than other dynamics. And I think it's been one of the areas where President Trump has this kind of Teflon political character where issues that would be very damaging for others seem to kind of bounce right off of him. I think this, he has sustained some political damage from this. And I think that as we've been discussing, this release was deeply unsatisfying. And there's a lot of grounds for continued suspicion and concern and, you know, attacks. But I also do think that there may be somewhat of a fatigue factor setting in. I think fatigue is maybe it's the word I was going to use as well and the one you used. And maybe that was responsible for some of the muted reaction last night as well, is that people are ready for their kind of fresh outrage, fresh, fresh conspiracy theory, fresh kind of gamified experience. And I think also too, it becomes the more we know, the more unsatisfying, right? Like the more that your team is in power, it becomes a little harder to leverage this, right? It becomes, it's, I think part of the reason that some of the reaction was muted is also because it's less clear. There are people who realize that you don't want to get out over your skis on this, right? Because you don't know what's what's coming next. I feel that a lot of that there are people, you know, who, who might want to score political points. I'll just say there's a lot of right-wing influencers on the internet that I saw who were like kind of remarkably quiet, right? Even though the fact that like, I mean, there were some mentions of Bill Clinton, but it wasn't their superbowl of conspiracy theorizing or anything like that. And I think there is for some of those people potentially say, dear, like, you don't know what's around the corner. You don't know what's going to be there. And, you know, you want to, I think there are more people strangely enough for 2025, like playing in a little bit, a little bit safe with regards to that. Well, and I'll just add, I think what all three of us know acutely from being journalist is that something is the biggest story in the world until the next biggest story in the world comes along. And so I think what we're probably likely to see is this sort of edbing and flowing, and there'll be moments where it's less prominent and potentially depending on what the public is able to learn, moments where it comes back again. And so that's that's sort of what I think we'll be watching for, and obviously trying to report out. Okay. I think also, oh, I was just going to say the theme isn't going the way of the kind of selective release and weaponization of information by this information, by this administration, and you know, Adrian mentioned Pizzigate and the right-wing influencer, you know, responsible for propagating that conspiracy theory, Jack Pizovic is, you know, totally tied in with the administration with DHS in particular, accompanying, accompanying Christy Nome on raids. So I think the administration sees a lot of benefit in some of this conspiracy theorizing. So I expected to continue whether it's about the Epstein files or other issues. So last thing to land this plane, what did we learn? Did we learn anything? I mean, like, what is, what is, if either of you are going to offer a high-level takeaway to somebody who is blissfully enjoying their holiday break and not combing through Department of Justice files over the weekend, like, Adrian, I'll start with you and then Isaac, what did you learn? What did you learn? What did you learn? You know, what did you learn? You know, oh, man, I, this is maybe a cop out, but I don't know. I don't think we know yet. I mean, we know there were crimes committed. We know Epstein had associations with powerful people, at least two presidents. But I think our society could use more people saying, I don't know. So I'm going to say, I don't know, and I think we need to keep asking questions about it. But yeah, I think we're very much in the midst of trying to figure this out. Isaac will know that. Yeah, no, no, gosh, it's, it's really tough because, you know, there were small bits and pieces, the, the 1996 tip to the FBI that, you know, to those on the inside of this are trying it, you know, matter, they matter a great deal to understanding why this happened and why victims weren't believed. But zooming, wow, way, way out, I do think it's a kind of x-ray look at why our politics society are so broken because it's, it's got everything, you know, it's got the failure of accountability, it's got the distrust, it's got the, you know, politicization of everything. So I think that's the kind of bleak takeaway is that it really is a window into how a skew things are in our country and have been for a while. I'm going to be glib and I'm going to say I learned that the government cannot build a search function that works properly. That's happening to true. The, the, the website of it all was, was underwhelming in that, in that sense. No, I, I think that that's, that's actually a, a really good way to end this and to, and to think about this in general is that I, if you do zoom out far enough, this is a, in some ways, not just this dump of documents, but the whole saga, feels a little bit like a skeleton key to understanding the frustrations that so many people have, right? The, the, the reason why there is a lot of distrust in institutions can be very much explained by the fact that there are wealthy and powerful people, people who currently occupy positions of power, who have been a scene associating with this person in some capacity, either before or in some cases, after this person was a convicted sex offender, right? I think that there is, there's a way that you, you can look at these things and really get an understanding of, of, as you said, why, why a lot of people feel so cynical about government and politics and, and elites, you know, to use that word in, in general. So I, I think that that is, that is a, a good takeaway in this. Can I have a one-hopeful note? Oh, wow, hopeful note. I have a hope. What I would say is it also shows that the truth matters and, and people won't be satisfied until they get the truth. And sometimes the truth is elusive and that's very hard, but to me, there is some glimmer of hope that the intense focus on this means that people care about the truth and that people will seek it and report it and that really does matter. So I'll just throw that out there. Hell yeah. In order of the France, Isaac Stanley Becker, thank you for coming on Galaxy Brain. Thank you for taking time out of out of your holiday break and also trying to make sense of this for all of us because again, this, this, this does matter. This is something that is, is of, is of great importance. So thank you all for, for, for your time and, and you're reporting. Thank you. And I hope your fun comes up soon over there. Is it done yet? No, no, we got like two hours to go here. Very good speed. Thank you. Bye. That's it for us here. Thank you again to my guest Adrian Lafranc and Isaac Stanley Becker. If you liked what you saw here on this emergency episode of Galaxy Brain, new episodes will drop every Friday. You can subscribe to the Atlantic's YouTube channel or on Apple or Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And if you enjoyed this, remember you can support our work and the work of all the journalists of the Atlantic by subscribing to the publication at the Atlantic.com slash listener. That's the Atlantic.com slash listener. Thanks and I'll see you on the internet.