Michelle Goldberg warns Trump's new Epstein ties probe could be a tactic to block the Epstein files - The Weeknight MSNBC

[Rhiannon12866]

Trump is now calling on the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to political and other figures. MSNBC political analyst Michelle Goldberg and former federal prosecutor Ankush Khardori join The Weeknight to discuss what it could mean for the release of the Epstein files. - Aired on 11/14/2025.

[Ilikepurple]

1. I don't like watching videos, but I'm glad to see some coverage of this potential tactic.

Maybe I’m too cynical and I haven’t been glued to the tv, but news agencies’ legal and journalistic departments really can’t be this slow. It’s kinda crazy and exhausting to have aberrant announcements come out of this administration everyday if not more frequently.

[rampartd]

4. the very announcements are prima facie evidence of malicious prosecution

before this is over we taxpayers will be sued for trillions,

[PJMcK]

2. NBC?

Bullshit.

Let’s see what real journalism digs up.

Also, let’s expect that Democrats in Congress won’t fall for Trump’s diversions.

[rampartd]

3. "can't say anything. ongoing investigation?

as they continue to slander the "enemy within."

campaign financing. if there is one bipartisan agreement, it is that we all need more campaign financing.

of course they raised funds from epstein and everybody else on his list.

pedophilia? obama would surprise me. the time frame seems way off. clinton? less so, but trump has thousands of fbi agents dealing with his name in this evidence, i'm sure he can afford to ai a little sex tape on anyone.

i think kenny hess had a comedian on to explain, in detail, the differences between pedophilia, and whatever the other clinical names. The punch line was "anyone who needs to explain this is a pedophile."

[pat_k]

5. Frustrated with lack of analysis of the differences in challenging a Congressional subpoena v. this BILL.

All discussions I have heard talk about the type of challenges that have been brought against a Congressional subpoena.

And yeah, there are all sorts of ways such subpoenas have been challenged that have delayed release, or even thwarted the release of some portion of the subpoenaed documents.

But this is NOT that.

This is a bill -- the Epstein Files Transparency Act -- that requires Bondi to publish all unclassified records in a searchable and downloadable format. Specifically, House (H.R.4405) and Senate (S.2557).

If the respective bills pass with a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate, what then?

How would that situation be different from a Congressional subpoena?

Yeah, sure, the WH would likely take a shot at invoking executive privlledge of some sort -- that national security and the functioning of government demands that certain documents not be released -- but how would that fly in this situation, which strikes me as quite different from a Congressional subpoena?

It it were treated the same as a Congressional subpoena, there is still a VERY high threshold. Simply claiming "ongoing investigation" would be shot down instantly, unless there was:

1) A showing of clear evidence of a crime that triggered the investigation.

2) A showing of how the release of the documents would compromise the investigation.

So, if this were are Congressional subpoena, yeah, we could expect litigation over the above.

But this is NOT a subpoena. It is a BILL.

Perhaps there there are obvious implications to lawyers based on some previous example of a bill like this, But, I haven't heard ANY discussion of any previous bills that were similar, much less any discussion of the sorts of challenges brought against those bills and how those might differ from challenges to a Congressional subpoena..

If there are discussions that just haven't been on my radar, I would love a pointer!