🚨Trump’s DARK PAST Surfaces in DATA SET 8 of EPSTEIN FILES

We told you that Donald Trump's dark past would surface. We told you he could run, but he could not hide. Now, new Epstein documents are surfacing on Monday night. They're very, very, very concerning. I want to share them with you, and I want to share with you the sequence of what went down yesterday. So earlier in the day, Democratic Congress member Ro Khanna stated that he had heard that the DOJ would be producing another batch of Epstein files in the afternoon. People waited for the afternoon and those files were not produced. So we at

the Midas Touch Network entered a search term to look for data set eight using the prior search formats and constructs, even though it wasn't on the DOJ website. And sure enough, that actually opened up a website for data set eight, even though it was not posted on the DOJ website. So at the Midas touch network, we quickly

Downloaded everything on data set 8 tens of thousands of documents still nowhere near the complete file that Constitutes the Epstein files, but there were tens of thousands of records We downloaded them and we started going through them document by document. Some of these documents raise a lot of serious questions. And the fact that it was not posted on the DOJ website also raised some red flags. Then later in the evening on Monday night, the DOJ posted set eight. Now, some of these documents that we uncovered

that I say raise these concerns, these red flags were moved. Still there, but the document numbers were shifted, and so you had to go and re-examine them to determine where they were. So it also raises some serious questions. Why were they manipulating

and changing the document numbers on these pages within a matter of hours and what else might they be covering up? So here's one of the messages that we uncovered. Let me read it to you. In data set eight of the Epstein files releash, which was briefly posted on the Justice Department's website yesterday, there is a letter alleging to be sent from Jeffrey Epstein to convicted sex offender Larry Nassar. Remember Larry Nassar? You know who that was? The American convicted serial sex offender former family medicine physician

He was the team doctor of the United States women's national gymnast gymnastics team and a physician at Michigan State University where he sexually assaulted hundreds potentially thousands of young girls So in the Epstein files in data set 8, which was briefly posted and then posted later in the night with different Bates numbers document numbers. There's this letter which was postmarked just days after Epstein died. Here's how it reads. Dear LN LN Larry Nassar

dear LN as you know by now I have taken the short route home. Good luck. We shared one thing, our love and caring for young ladies at the hope they'd reach their full potential. Our president shares our love of young nubile girls. When a young beauty walked by, he loved to quote grab snatch.

Whereas we ended up snatching grub in the mess halls of the system. Life is unfair. Yours J Epstein. Now this letter you analyze it was returned to sender reporting indicates that Epstein sent a letter to Nasser from prison before his alleged suicide. The contents of that letter was never revealed.

Additional documents show that the letter was submitted for handwriting analysis within the FBI, though it's unclear if investigators ever reached a conclusion on whether or not this letter was definitively written by Jeffrey Epstein. So these images had the document numbers, or we call them Bates numbers, EFTA 36086, 36085, and then there were the various forensic analysis documents,

36076, 36077, and 3607878 where it was actually sent out to a lab for a handwriting analysis to see if it was Epstein's and we never got back those results or we don't know where those results are as of now. Now in addition to that there was another document that we uncovered that I want to share with you, which raises a lot of red flags. Here it is right here. You'll see the document number EFT29798. Subject Epstein flight records dated January 8th, 2020. Let me read it to you.

And by the way, this is a letter sent by assistant United States attorneys. So these are federal prosecutors from the Southern District

of New York.

They were the ones who would have been prosecuting Epstein before he died by alleged suicide. And they were the ones who successfully prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell. Maureen Comey was the successful prosecutor

who Donald Trump fired a few months ago. But here's one of the internal emails relating to Epstein flight records from those Southern District of New York prosecutors. Let me read it. For your situational awareness,

wanted to let you know that the flight records we received yesterday reflect that Donald Trump traveled on Epstein's private jet many more times than previously has been reported or that we were aware of, including during the period we would expect to charge in a Maxwell case. In particular, he is listed as a passenger on at least 8 flights between 1993 and 1996,

including at least 4 flights on which Maxwell was also present. He is listed as having traveled with, among others, and at various times, Marlon Maples, his daughter Tiffany, and his son Eric. On one flight in 1993, he and Epstein are the only two listed passengers. On another, the only three passengers are Epstein, Trump, and then 20-year-old, and this is redacted.

Often, these redactions are associated with victims. On two other flights, two of the passengers, respectively, were women who would be possible witnesses in a Maxwell case. We've just finished reviewing the full records, more than 100 pages of very small script, and didn't want any of this to be a surprise down the road.

And this is signed by an assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York. In other words, a federal prosecutor sent this email and you'll see it has document number 29798. Now, that first letter that purports to be from Epstein to Larry Nassar, that was sent here.

Pull it up right here. Look at the date, August 13th of 2019, and that was postmarked a few days actually after Epstein died. But we've heard about the potential existence of a letter like that before. And this idea that Epstein may have sent a letter and it may have been rejected and sent back after he died. Now the Associated Press actually did public records requests back in 2023 to the Bureau of Prison.

They found emails that reference that letter, but they never were able to uncover the actual letter. Just emails back and forth that reference the Epstein-Nasser letter. So this was an article from June 2nd, 2023. Prison documents reveal Jeffrey Epstein tried to reach out

to Larry Nassar, gymnastics coach convicted of sexual abuse. While he was in prison, disgrace financier, Jeffrey Epstein sent a letter to Larry Nassar, the former Olympic doctor who sexually abused girls for decades.

New documents reveal the Associated Press first reported the discovery, which was found in the midst of over 4,000 pages of documents the news agency obtained nearly four years after Epstein, who was accused of child sex trafficking, died of an apparent suicide in New York City jail

while awaiting trial. The new documents offer additional insight into what documents previously released by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, BOP, in 2021 revealed about Epstein's suicide. The documents were acquired from the Bureau of Prisons, BOP, in 2021 revealed about Epstein's suicide. The documents were acquired from the Bureau of Prisons under the Freedom of Information Act and

shed light on Epstein's death and his behavior during his 36 days at the Metropolitan Correction Center, MCC, including his attempt to connect with Nassar, according to the AP. An investigator discovered Epstein's letter to Nassar in the jail mailroom weeks after Epstein was found dead, according to the documents. The letter was not part of the documents obtained by either the AP or CNN,

but the documents referenced that the letter was returned to the jail in September, 2019, weeks after Epstein's death. Quote, it appeared he mailed it out and it was returned back to him, the investigator told a prison official

in an email included in the documents. Quote, I'm not sure if I should open it or if we should hand it over to anyone. The copy of the email exchange by CNN, obtained by CNN, is redacted and does not reference Nassar by name,

but in their reply, an MCC staff attorney described the original addressee of Epstein's letter as, quote, the former doctor of the US female gymnastics team that was convicted of molesting a bunch of girls under the guide of medical procedures examinations. The attorney added, some of the victim accounts are pretty horrific. It is unclear if the two men had any relationship.

Also, an article from The Guardian described the letter from Epstein to Nasser that was previously reported among the documents that were found in the mailroom weeks after Epstein's death, okay? So I wanna give you all of that context.

So that letter purportedly sent from Epstein and Nasser was referenced before, but the actual letter itself was never uncovered potentially until what was just released right there. Also, you have that other letter from the top federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York referencing Trump being on the jet with Epstein more than they even expected right there. But what this is all telling me as well is that there's a lot more documents out there, specifically the documents that really need to be released right

now are the FBI interviews with the victims, with the witnesses, with all of these people, right? I mean, when we talk about Trump being on the jet with Epstein more than those federal prosecutors expected, they're also referencing an entire corpus of evidence and witness interviews that have yet to be released. Those are the documents that need to get out there. And if what I'm sharing with you references Trump or potentially references Trump in these settings, you could judge for

yourself. I'm expressing to you opinion protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, right? I'm giving you my opinion here by showing you what's been produced and I have a right to give you my First Amendment opinion. I want to see victims. All this is protected by First Amendment opinion, right? So I want to also, I want to get you the witness statements. I want to get the FBI statements. I want to get you all these victim and survivor statements. So yesterday, before all this news even broke, I had the opportunity to interview with Democratic Congress member Ro Khanna.

He's the Congress member who put forward the discharge petition with Republican Thomas Massey. And he was spot on when he was saying, we know there's a coverup taking place and we want to see the FBI witness interviews, especially in light of everything

that I just shared with you, we need to see that. So, because what was just uncovered that I'm sharing with you, we need to see that. So, because what was just uncovered that I'm sharing with you was all yesterday evening, and the Midas Touch Network was one of the first to break this, let me show you the interview I did with Democratic Congressmember Ro Khanna slightly earlier in the day. But this works perfectly together. Let me show you what my interview with Congressmember Khanna said. Here, play this clip. So, look, rather than us just speculating about what our sources are saying, why don't

I bring in Democratic Congress member Ro Kana. Ro Kana along with Republican Congress member Thomas Massey were the ones who put forward this discharge petition that became the Epstein Transparency Act that the Trump regime has now violated. So let's bring in Democratic Congressmember Kana, Congressman Kana, it is great to be with you right now.

So my question for you is, my sourcing tells me that all the victims and survivors that have been speaking with Congressmembers like yourself are saying that get those FBI interviews released. Those FBI interviews, mention some of these other men,

these Wall Street tycoons, these politicians, these other people, they'll be on those FBI files. So if there was a hierarchy, wouldn't we want those FBI interviews? And what else could we be doing

with this Trump regime right now, given their obstructive behavior, their criminal behavior, Congressman?

Ben, you nailed it. As usual, you got to the heart of the matter. This is what it's all about. The FBI interviews with the survivors. You know what is appalling? You've got justice releasing the names of survivors. They're literally releasing the names of survivors, which they're not allowed to do by law, but they're not releasing the FBI interview files with those same survivors.

And the FBI interview files have the names of other men. They have the names of the Wall Street tycoons, the politicians, who visited Epstein's rape island, and who either engaged in the rape of these underage girls or covered it up. How do I know?

Because I've talked to the survivors, I've talked to the survivors' lawyers who were at the FBI interviews, who gave these names, who were saying, release them. But you have the Department of Justice more concerned with protecting the reputations of these men than they are protecting the reputation of these survivors.

So, you know, I hope everyone listens to your 90 seconds because that's what it's all about. It's not, we don't need all 300 gigabits. We don't need all the documents. I mean, that's what the law calls for. What we need is those interview memorandum. If people don't think it's a hoax, I mean, it's not, because I've talked to the survivors, then just release the interview memos

and we'll put it to rest. But I guarantee you once those interview memo, random are released, there are going to be other powerful men implicated.

Well, Congressman, what happens next though, when the Trump regime doesn't produce this? Now, I've seen you and Congressman Massey talk about inherent contempt. What does that mean? What else is being discussed?

And let's face it. I mean, it's great that Thomas Massey is a Republican in a bipartisan way working with you and you could pull in a handful of others as we saw with the discharge petition. But you've got people like James Comer, who actually chairs the oversight committee, and he's like, this was great. This is transparency.

This is amazing. So how do you deal with all of that?

James Comer is part of the 3%. Thomas Massey put out a poll to his supporters, to the MAGA base, how many people think it was transparent? 3%. How many think it was not transparent? 97%. I have never had more MAGA Republicans back me up

than when I called out Pam Bondi. One said, I don't ever retweet Indians, but I'm gonna make an exception and retweet Khanna because he's right about Pam Bondi. I mean, these are the kind of MAGA people who are upset with what Pam Bondi has done.

They know it is total fabrication. They know that they're hiding and protecting these rich and powerful men. And you know, Massey and I, we don't stand at convention. You know, we have some people in our own party saying, well, we gotta have a process and it's too premature.

Come on, we know she's lying. So we said, we're gonna introduce inherent contempt. That means that every day she doesn't produce a document after a certain grace period, she's gonna be fined $5,000. And the Sergeant of Arms can actually arrest her to do that. Now, whether that actually comes to pass, it scared them enough that they suddenly started

to release unredacted versions of the documents that they released that were redacted. Why? Because they know that Republicans are gonna support our contempt proceeding. They know that Susan Wiles,

the White House Chief of Staff, is livid at how botched Bondi has been and the DOJ has been. They know that the MAGA base on this issue, not on any other issue, on this issue, the MAGA base disapproves of Donald Trump overwhelmingly. And our final step is gonna be with the survivors.

We've talked to them today. They're willing to come to the Capitol again to relive their trauma a third time. The first time they came, we passed it through the House. The second time they came, we passed it through the Senate and the president signed it.

And the third time they came, the whole country is going to be watching. I don't think Pam Bondi wants that.

She should release the files. Can you share maybe some of the other things under consideration in terms of legal action? I think you have your quasi civil criminal, this inherent contempt, these fines, and perhaps criminal referrals. I think people want the documents too.

They're like people still, is there a process to get at the documents? And I've tried to wear my former litigation cap in these big types of cases. And I'm thinking, you know, in these big disputes where I fought over terabytes of documents, when I was taking down big Ponzi schemers out here

in California, the big MedCap Ponzi scheme, I was involved, you may remember that back in California, back in the day, you know, as well, you know, we had three, four or five terabytes, way, actually more documents than here. And you would bring in discovery referees and people who can help, you know, turn it over. So I just wonder if there's any jurisdiction

amongst any of the federal records that have released these grand jury transcripts, because you noticed on that so-called fact sheet that the DOJ put out, which is like a lie sheet about their cover up, they try to blame it on the judges and say the judges are the one holding up. So I just wonder you show it to Judge Engelmeyer and Berman, you're like, look what they're

saying. They're saying you have jurisdiction. Let's get a referee and let's turn this stuff over.

It's a brilliant suggestion. and I was actually talking to several of the lawyers on the Oversight Committee and others about exactly your suggestion, that we take it back to the federal judge. That federal judge has already ruled that these documents should be released based on the Epstein Transparency Law.

And we said, look, you should appoint a special master to see what should be redacted to protect victim identity, but not redacted to protect rich and powerful men who raped underage girls. And Juana, you make a determination about what complies with the law.

A lot of the law professors and others who have looked at it and legal experts have said, what the Justice Department doesn't pass the laugh test in terms of compliance with our law, because our law explicitly says two things. Internal communications need to be released.

Work product needs to be released. Draft of decisions whether to charge or not need to be released. And they're claiming work force, work product privilege. Well, we explicitly drafted the statute to make that an excuse that they couldn't use.

Our law also says you can't consider reputational harm. You can't consider embarrassment. They're out there saying, well, we want to protect some of these rich men because they weren't charged and there's no corroborating evidence. No, you can't use that.

If there is an accusation in a witness memorandum, you need to release that. So going to these judges is an excellent strategy. By the way, it doesn't have to be Congress. It can be any litigation that does that. It could be the survivors. It could be a nonprofit whistleblowing agency.

Go to the federal judges, ask for a special master, have them review the documents. That probably is another way that we're gonna get to the truth of the matter.

Right, you have that. You can bring an injunctive relief action, an initiative proceeding, maybe you relate it to the, of the matter. Right. You have that. You can bring an injunctive relief action and initiate a proceeding. Maybe you relate it to the you know, it's so fascinating. The, you know,

enforcing this, enforcing the law that you create. What I find fascinating, too, and you probably use a different word for or other than fascinating is Todd Blanche is saying, look,

the drafters of this, Kana and Massey, they never excluded our ability to assert attorney-client, work-product, deliberative process privilege. He's expressly said that in that memo that I read. And he's like, so the law enables us to do all of these. So before we go, what do you say?

You're the drafter of the law.

You and Massey came up with this thing. us to do all of these. So before we go, what do you say? You're the drafter of the law.

You and Massey came up with this thing. So when he's out there saying the drafters never stopped us from doing that, what's the congressional intent behind this?

Oh, he's flat out wrong. And former prosecutors have looked at this. Former law professors have looked at this and said, that's not going gonna survive five minutes in front of a court. And the reason is we explicitly wanted the word product. What we knew when we had talked to survivors that we wanted the 60 count draft indictment that had been prepared in the Epstein case. Only two counts were actually charged.

Why were the 60 counts dropped? We wanted that draft indictment. We wanted the draft prosecution memo. That's how we drafted the language. So we have a section in a two-page bill, a section saying any internal communication

in the Justice Department about whether to charge or not needs to be released, it's explicitly asking for the internal deliberations for the work product. This is not ambiguous, and there is congressional record and testimony about how Massey and I want those explicit documents.

The survivors who are standing with us are saying those are the documents we want. So you know, Blanche is he just thinks that he could have talked his way out of this and everyone would forget because we're headed to Christmas. That was their strategy. And what's mind boggling to me is that's been their strategy for the last nine months. Let's just put something out and let, help people

forget. And Susan Wilds herself is saying this is incompetent. This is a whiff. And by the way, they're just making it a bigger and bigger deal because the average person at home is saying, huh, they're exposing the survivors, but they're not exposing the people who are abusing the survivors. Why are they hiding for these people? What are they covering up? And what is so corrupt about this system? And so they're going to be in for a rude awakening in January, if they do not in the next seven

days, get this stuff out there.

I don't know if you can share this, but any FBI whistleblowers or DOJ whistleblowers who may be on the horizon who's upset about the way this was handed, who may have information?

We've had some approaching our office and the committee. I obviously can't get into the details, but there are people who are upset about the non-compliance of the law and they don't wanna be held accountable, right? Anyone who is at the Justice Department who's involved with this, who's not complying

could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Now, Pam Bondi is not gonna prosecute them and Donald Trump isn't gonna have an attorney general who prosecutes them, but you know, in 2029, we're going to have a Democratic president. And that Democratic president is going to have an attorney general.

And that attorney general is going to prosecute the law, not out of vindictiveness, out of just saying that you can't commit crimes and get away with it. By the way, I think that should apply to crimes not just in violating the Epstein Transparency Act. I think it should apply to crimes with ICE, crimes in terms of the strikes in the Caribbean. We need accountability before reconciliation.

So if you're at the Justice Department and you know that you're violating the law, you probably don't want obstruction of justice charges brought against you. And that's why I think more and more people are speaking up.

Well, I want to thank you, Congress member Connor, for joining us. That was, I think, helpful for our audience to understand what happens next. Everybody hit subscribe, help us get to 6 million subscribers. And again, thank you, Congressman Connor, for joining us. Let's get to 6 million subscribers. The truth is more important than ever. Check out our new truth over lies collection at store.mitustouch.com.

All 100% USA union made.

♪ ♪ ♪