Judge EXPOSES Trump-Epstein link in SHOCK move

You are watching the legal analysis. Glenn, we have a totally new update on the disclosure of the jury's testimony in the Epstein case. You can explain. A third federal judge has just denied the motion of Pambon Dai and DOJ, which sought that the transcripts of the jury in the Epstein case were released so that the public could. There were three motions protocoled by the Department of Justice.

One in Florida, seeking to disclose the materials of the Epstein jury. The judge said, one, no, you don't have a legal basis, and two, it's an easy win with Judge Richard Berman, who is the federal judge of the South District of New York, really repressing the DOJ and Pambondai. Once again, rejecting the motion, saying, you do not provide a legal basis for the disclosure

of this transcript. But what is much more important than the decision, Brian, is what the judge said about what the DOJ is really trying to do here. And let me read to our viewers just a few sentences from this new judicial order and the DOJ has committed to sharing its material. The DOJ has more than 100,000 pages of Epstein files.

70 pages of transcripts from the jury that consist of testimony. Brian, this is where we see the bait and the exchange happening. The testimony of a FBI agent without first-hand knowledge who offers rumors to the jury. The rumors are basically the FBI agent saying, well, one of the witnesses said that. Well, one of the victims said that this is really useless evidence. So, it is important to note that there was no single witness, there was no single victim who testified before the jury when the Department of Justice of Bilbao was seeking an accusation

of Jeffrey Epstein and then of Gilead and Maxwell. And this is where the judge sums up. The government, the DOJ, is the logical part to make a broad disclosure to the public of Epstein's files. In comparison, the jury's instantaneous motion to reveal the seal seems to be a diversion. In short, this judge accuses the Department of Justice and PAM Bond refuse to try to basically put a smoke screen, a distraction, because there is no absolute to disclose Epstein's files, with 100,000 pages, and inform the public completely about what is in them.

And after promising to do this at the beginning, of course, they recently changed course and said, you know one thing, we will not disclose anything and then tried to divert the public's attention saying, but let's try to get a judge to order the disclosure of the jury transcripts this is nothing more than a reality show that went wrong right and knowing very well that the judges have no authority or legal basis to do this, they can point them out and say we wanted to free them, we did our best, we went to the judges, they can point them out and say, we wanted to free them, we did our best, we even went to the judges.

They are those communist, Marxist and leftist judges, who are definitely hiding something to protect some of their democratic friends who refuse to release these files. Quotes. Again, they knew from the beginning. We talked about the rules of seal 6 is that they prevent these judges from disclosing these things.

Not that Pambon Dai doesn't know about it. So, they did all this nonsense and these things only talk about the convictions of Guy Maxwell and Jeffrey Epst. So, they wouldn't even spread the information we want to be spread, which is the information about the other clients. All this, you know, there was a smoke screen, which I think raises this question. How unorthodox is it for these judges to be responsible for denouncing this charade? Because, usually, I would think of the judges just deciding on the issue of the Grand Jury,

or we can't disclose these testimonies from the Grand Jury and kind of decide on the case in the vacuum. But the reality is that they are kind of pointing the whole game here, and what the Trump government is trying to do by deceing them, involving them in this whole thing? How unorthodox is it for judges to denounce this? Brian, this is the perfect question because, as you said, judges are exposing the shell game, the distraction in which the DOJ is involved now. Is this unusual? Can you bet it's unusual? Is it improper?

Of course not! and here's why. Because the Department of Justice is usually on the side of the people, the state of law, the Constitution and the victims of these horrible sexual crimes, but not the Department of Justice of Pambon Dai. She's here to protect Donald Trump and do what the dear leader says. So, I would be disappointed and perhaps angry if the judges did not inform the public about

what is happening. And one of the previous judges stated in her decision that see well, there is nothing new that the public no longer knows in the transcript of the jury that the DOJ is trying to disclose. So, judge after judge is exposing the Department of Justice as a game created to hide the Epstein files of the American people. Glenn, just for posterity, can you talk about what prevents these judges from publishing these files? Because, obviously, as I mentioned before, the Trump government is confident that these judges cannot release these testimonies so that they can point them out and say, look,

we want to be transparent here. It's not our fault, it's these judges. We are trying our best. It's the judges who are hiding something here. Quotes. So, you can explain what the coup is that these Republicans are trying to perpetuate by putting it in front of the judges knowing very well that they cannot release them, that

they have no authority to release them. Yes, Brian, here's the coup. The law provides, as implemented in the Federal Criminal Procedure Law 6, for anyone who is evaluating at home, that the materials of the Grand Jury are secret. They are protected by law. Why? Because we want witnesses and victims of crimes to be sure that, if they talk about these

horrible and traumatic things they experienced as victims or saw as witnesses, they will be protected. Their identity will be protected, they will not be exposed. Do you know why? Because if the bandits or the bandits find out that someone is handing them over to the jury, deleting them, as they say on the streets, this can be very dangerous for witnesses and victims. So we do everything to protect the seal of the materials and transcripts of the jury's testimonies .

And the law says, as incorporated and implemented in Rule 6, that there are only very limited circumstances in which a judge can order the release of these materials. Let me give you the one that is by far the most common exception to the jury's seal. If I'm prosecuting, say, a killer in Washington, D.C., and that person is also being prosecuted or investigated criminally by my colleagues, the prosecutors in all the districts in Maryland or on the other side of the river in Virginia,

I would go to the judge and seek an order that would allow me to release my information, evidence and transcripts of the jury for these other prosecutors for the purposes of applying the law, so that they could investigate completely the crimes that were committed in their jurisdictions. This, in fact, is to promote the efforts to apply the law. There is also an exception to terrorism. In fact, there is an exception to bank fraud. There is no exception to the real public interest in these things.

Now, some courts, some appeals courts said, know something, if it is a public interest so deep and it is a case that is 50 or 100 years, the case of Rosenberg's espionage, for example, I think they had some transcripts of the Grand Jury finally revealed and made public on this subject. Perhaps the judge has the authority to order the disclosure, even if it is no exception to the rule or the law.

But you know that this almost never happens. And the judges in all three motions to reveal the seal easily rejected the allegation of DOJ and Pambon Daide that we think that public interest here surpasses everything else, and the judge simply goes ahead and reveals the seal. Especially Brian, when they are looking to reveal something that will not really inform the public. What will inform the public are the more than 100,000 pages of Epstein files that the DOJ has authority to disclose at any time they choose and are choosing to

keep them in secret to hide them. So, let's talk about it to finish here, just this idea, your reaction to the coup, in a broader way, about how the Trump government is kind of a bait and is fooling all its own supporters, given the fact that it was they who promised during the campaign to disclose these Epstein files, and now they used all the tricks in the book, not only to refuse to disclose these files, but to purposefully manipulate their own supporters, making them think that, in some way, they do not have the authority for which they clearly

have authority. I mean, there were videos of Cash Patel talking about how the FBI Director has the authority to divulge the files. The guy is the FBI Director right now and he's not divulging the files. You have Dan Bongino, who talked about how the State was secretly keeping these files a secret so that we all didn't see them. He is the FBI Deputy Director. He's not going to divulge the files. You have Pam Bondi, who introduced herself and said that the files were on his table.

These files suddenly disappeared in the air and she has no longer authority to divulge them. You have Trump himself, Don Jr., all these Republicans who demanded that these files be disclosed until the moment they had the opportunity to do so. So we found out that Trump himself is in the files. And now the entire federal government is involved in this cover-up from top to bottom, where we apparently have a thousand FBI agents involved in finding out where the name of Donald Trump

is revealed in the Epstein files and erasing it so that no one can see it. So, can you give me your general reaction to the bait and the trick that his supporters used, now that the intention was to expose these criminals and cover up the criminals? Brian, this is a cover-up on an almost unimaginably large scale. You just said it's a cover-up from the entire federal government, I wouldn't say everyone, but almost everyone.

I think Democrats in Congress would really like Epstein's files to become public. You know something? Even if there are one or two Democrats there, it doesn't matter if you have an R after your name, a D or an I after your name. If you are involved in sexual abuse of children, girls, well, then everyone should be held responsible.

And the Democrats have complained about the disclosure of this, but, you know, that takes me back to Richard Nixon in Watergate, right? If the crime doesn't get you, the cover-up will. This is just a big cover-up going on in the open. Even the judges are calling, you know? This judge, Judge Burma, quoted Pam Bondi saying

that she said to disclose the files. I mean, yes, you know, if this cover-up doesn't have repercussion, not to continue to have legs to walk and not to manifest again, even Donald Trump's own supporters, who he says are weak because they are still interested in what is in the Epstein files. In addition, the Republican allies of Donald Trump in Congress, who he says are, in quotes,

fools and stupid for continuing to talk about Epstein's files. If this cover-up has no repercussion, then, you know, I don't know what kind of hope we have for the future of our government or, frankly, of our democracy. Well, see, this is obviously not the last time we will hear about Epstein's files. For everyone watching now, if you want to stay on top of these things and support our work, it's totally free. Subscribe to our YouTube channels. I will put the links here on the screen and also in the description of the post of this video. Again, it's free to subscribe.

It's a great way to support our work and the independent media in a broader way, especially considering the fact that many of these problems that are plaguing the country now, traditional media is not meeting the urgency, at the moment, with the urgency it deserves. And so, we try to do what traditional media doesn't do. We really try to bring to the table issues that deserve to be discussed, not just the two sides, as we have seen for so long. So, again, we will put the links here on the screen and also in the post description.

I'm Brian Taylor Coen. And I'm Glenn Kersner. And I'm Glenn Kersner. You are watching Legal Breakdown.