“Blockbuster!” Prosecutor on INSANE Epstein blackmail scandal

You're watching the legal breakdown at Glenn. We have a staggering story here that might shine light on a blackmail scheme involving the Epstein files and possibly even current government officials.

So can you explain some of this reporting from Reuters? Yeah, Brian, this is sort of beyond troubling. You know, we use the word blockbuster a lot and the information is not necessarily all that blockbuster ish. This is really kind of blockbuster because, you know, hold on tight. But what we just learned was that there was apparently a break-in in the FBI field office in New York. Now, first of all, I've been in FBI field offices and they are like vaults, very difficult

for anybody to break in or improperly gain access. Well the Reuters reporting is that back in February of 2023, somebody broke in to the FBI field office in New York and accessed a computer that was allegedly sort of left open by an agent, an agent who is named in this reporting, his name is Special Agent Aaron Spivak, who apparently left his computer open and running and somebody broke in, accessed the computer, and based on the reporting, they rummaged through, had

access to Epstein files. You know, I wouldn't have believed all this if I didn't read it in a reputable news publication like Reuters. So, you know, this conjures up just unbelievable national security concerns among other things,

because we know that Pam Bondi's DOJ has not just slow walked the release of Trump-related information and evidence in the Epstein files, she wrongfully withheld a good bit of it in violation of federal law, the Epstein Files Transparency Act,

and Brian, when it was released, even if only partially, we learned these dramatic allegations about what Donald Trump is alleged to have done with a teenage girl. So the problem becomes if you have you know folks who are in possession of this information who shouldn't be particularly foreign actors who love to get their hands on

compromising information about, among others, high government officials. That can be used as leverage, that can be used as blackmail, that can impact, you know, literally what Donald Trump decides this nation should do if somebody is in possession of information in the Epstein files that was especially damning when it comes to Donald Trump. Now, the reporting doesn't say exactly what in the Epstein files.

This person, who is described as both having broken in to the FBI office in New York, and he is also described as a hacker, but it sounds like he had ready access to an FBI computer and went into the Epstein files. We don't know what he got. Did it involve Donald Trump? Did it involve other high profile individuals?

We don't know, but talk about sort of compromising our cybersecurity, compromising potentially our national security. You know, this really is remarkable reporting.

So the part that I want to dig in here is the prospect of blackmail. And normally this wouldn't be a big deal if the Epstein files were all released in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, because then a hacker would have information that's already public. And so, you know, that's basically useless at that point. You can't blackmail anybody with public information because there's nothing to use blackmail on. But the reality is that only half of the Epstein files have been released and the Trump administration

is doing its level best to make sure that we don't see those other three million files, which means that there is information that's damaging enough within the Epstein files to necessitate this kind of behavior by the Trump administration. And so then if we have a hacker that has access to this information or a foreign actor, a foreign state, whoever it may be, a corporation, malicious individual, whatever, then they have information that clearly even Trump is already proving, already broadcasting that he has a vested interest in hiding. And so couldn't we then be more

susceptible to a situation where Trump can be blackmailed since we already know how much he

wants all of this information suppressed? Absolutely. And let's remember this alleged break in and hack and compromise of Epstein information in the FBI's computers happened in February of 2023. So whoever got their hands on Epstein files could have been using it as leverage, as blackmail ever since then.

And as you say, the Department of Justice still hasn't released all of the Epstein files. I think they have held back some 3 million documents and released some 3 million plus documents. And because we know that they selectively held back in the first instance, allegations about Donald Trump,

what in the world are they continuing to hold back? What might be even more damaging to Donald Trump than what they finally decided to reveal publicly? But this hacker may have it all. And Brian, how many times have we seen Hollywood movies where somebody goes into an office

they're not supposed to be in and they have one of those little thumb drives, one of those portable drives, and they're downloading all the information in the computer while, you know, the guard is walking up the hall. We've seen that a million times. Well, that is this come to life in the FBI field office in New York involving, you know, Epstein files, some of the potentially most explosive electronic files that the FBI has in its system.

We know that now because with the release of just some of the Epstein files, what have we seen? We've seen high profile people around the world, former royalty, former members of parliament in the UK, former ambassador to the United States and others, being held accountable because the US government finally decided, after a law was passed forcing them to do it, to release this extraordinarily damaging information.

In literally more than a half a dozen countries around the world, there are criminal investigations and arrests being made, whereas here at home, Pam Bondi and Todd Blanch decide there's nothing to see. Apparently no criminality by anybody in the U.S., but we know better.

I want to ask a question about the DOJ's culpability in all of this. But first, a quick note for those who are watching right now. If you'd like to stay on top of all legal news, whether it's regarding Epstein or any to I'm curious what you think the DOJ's culpability here because isn't in effect the DOJ Validating this entire possible blackmail scheme by suppressing certain documents three million of these documents thereby raising the value of The stolen files the DOJ it has in their court the ability to just release the files and thereby completely devalue the stolen files,

but because they insist on holding onto them and suppressing them from public view, doesn't that just increase the value and likelihood of it being blackmail for the person who stole

all this stuff?

Potentially, but there are a couple of what we lawyers call conditions precedent in order to get to that conclusion. It's a fancy way of saying you know if there are a couple of other factors present then yes there is extraordinary danger in DOJ continuing to withhold files if you know this hacker or a foreign government is in possession of the information. So what we've seen in the reporting is they said

that there was a suspicious activity alert that was found on that computer after the break-in and after the improper access to the FBI computers, and that some of the FBI, and that some of the Epstein files were apparently compromised.

So we don't know, did they get all, you know, six, eight, ten million, you know, the entire tranche of Epstein files from the FBI computer? If the answer to that, if that, you know, condition precedent is satisfied, is yes, they got it all on, you know, a thumb drive and they made good their escape as we say well then absolutely I think DOJ by continuing to wrongfully and unlawfully withhold Epstein files that plays right into the hands of anybody who is in improper unlawful possession of this material that they can then leverage they can use

it as blackmail as comp compromise, and potentially direct governmental behavior for anybody that they have compromising information about. So, if all of the Epstein files were compromised and are now in the possession of a cyber hacker or a foreign actor, then DOJ's failure to comply with federal law and release all of the Epstein files is only upping the national security danger that we are all likely to experience.

And by the way, that's to say nothing of the fact that suppressing these files in and of itself is illegal. The Epstein Files Transparency Act mandated the release of the full files, not half the files, not three quarters of the files, the full files by December 19th, 2025. We're in the middle of March right now, March of 2026, three months after this thing was supposed to be released, and we still have the DOJ screwing around and failing to produce

a full 50% of the documents that they have. And so I know that we can talk about the increased danger by virtue of holding onto certain files, thereby increasing the value of a potential hacker's haul, but like that's ignoring the fact that the whole thing, the whole basis for this is that the DOJ

is holding onto files illegally.

And let's face it, the rule of law is not really a motivator for Pam Bondi or Todd Blanch or any of Donald Trump's dirty leadership at the DOJ. They are sort of casually, cavalierly, even obstinately in violation of the federal law, which as you pointed out, required, mandated that all of the files be turned over only with appropriate redactions by December 19th. So listen, the rule of law isn't a concern to Pam Bondi. It doesn't motivate her.

And apparently I think we can reasonably infer that the potential enhanced risk to public safety and to national security doesn't seem to move her either.

Is there a world where the continued cover up, and I know that we've spoken about this before, but I think it's worth reiterating here, this continued cover up means that Pam Bondi will shoulder some personal legal liability. I mean, not only is she defying the law by refusing to release these files in accordance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, But if we are now in a situation where it's possible that some foreign actor or malicious actor could be blackmailing American leadership because of files that that they're dangling over

the president's head and think about the downstream consequences of that. If that dangerous actor is able to induce the president to take some, you know, take some course of action that's not in the best interest of the United States, but rather is in the best interest of that hacker, for example. Is there a point where the attorney general shoulders some legal exposure, legal liability for acting this way?

You know, I think, Brian, the answer is yes, but there are a few bases we have to sort of touch on the road to yes, she might bear some criminal responsibility. First of all, it sure feels like she and others at the Department of Justice have entered into this agreement. There is a concert of action in this ongoing cover-up, and a concert of action, I'm turning this into a law school class, gives rise to the

inference that there's an agreement to cover it up. Because in order to prove a conspiracy, you need an agreement. It doesn't have to be written. It doesn't even have to be spoken. But when you see a concert of action among Donald Trump's FBI officials to cover up and continue to violate the Epstein- Files Transparency Act,

that begins to feel like a criminal conspiracy. Why? Because you're all agreeing to suppress certain files, to violate the law by not releasing them by back on December 19th. And obviously that is at least potentially benefiting the wrongdoers and the files that you are still unlawfully concealing.

So that could be a conspiracy to obstruct justice. That could be accessory after the fact. Because if your conduct assists somebody who has committed a crime in avoiding or evading detection, arrest, trial, and punishment. That's the language of the accessory after the fact, criminal offense in the federal

code.

So, in theory, you have to get past the evidentiary basis that you would have to touch before you could say she had criminal responsibility. And then there's another hurdle, and that is a presidential pardon. Is there anybody who believes Donald Trump won't pardon Pam Bondi and other Cabinet officials before he leaves office?

But here's the thing. You know, we need to remain focused on accountability when Donald Trump falls from power and the rule of law comes back into the light of day. And, you know, we talk about something that we're calling the American Accountability Project, which will be our version of the Nuremberg trials, holding all of these criminal

wrongdoers accountable. And even if a Pambandi gets a presidential pardon, what I suggest should be considered is charging her with a crime anyway, obviously in the event we have enough evidence to support a criminal indictment, and then let her offer up a corruptly delivered presidential pardon as her get-out-of-jail-free card. And then you know what we do, Brian? We litigate the legality and

constitutionality of Donald Trump delivering that kind of pardon to his attorney general who looks like she was doing his cover-up bidding potentially and certainly the cover-up bidding of others. And there's no shame in challenging a pardon and losing in the trial court or the appellate court or ultimately before the Supreme Court because these these battles have to be fought. And I actually think there is a reasonable chance

that if we fight these battles, we will win, we will make new precedent when it comes to corruptly delivered pardons, and then we can move in the direction of accountability. So there's a whole lot of caveats and a whole lot of bases that have to be touched

before we ultimately get to potential criminal liability for a PAM bondi.

Well, we will of course stay on top of all of this as this process continues to play itself out. For those who want to stay on top of any more Epstein news, any more legal news, the best way to do that is to subscribe to both of our channels. Again, it's 100% free, but a great way to support us, a great way to support independent media. So I'm going to put those links right here on the screen and also in the post description.

I'm Brian Tyler Cohen.

And I'm Glenn Kirshner. And I'm Glenn Kirshner.

You're watching The Legal Breakdown.