Epstein Files, FBI Pressure, and the Truth Behind the Redactions

In this special edition of Behind the Story, Jelani sits down with attorney Courtney Groff and retired FBI agent Eric Robinson for a timely roundtable on the Epstein files, the DOJ response, FBI procedure, congressional pressure, and the growing crisis of public trust. The conversation breaks down how investigations actually move between the FBI and DOJ, why records are sometimes released in pieces, what redactions are supposed to protect, why victim privacy complicates public demands for transparency, and what the reported hack of Kash Patel’s personal Gmail says about the moment we’re in right now. This is a grounded conversation for listeners who want clarity, not chaos.

Transcript

speaker-0: ask why all the time for even the smallest things. And I've taught all of my employees to question me when I give them a directive, ask me why, because if you know why, then it broadens your base of knowledge. It broadens your ability to apply that knowledge in various forms. And it keeps you informed of whatever it is and not just why is Cash Patel doing this? Why is Trump doing this? Why is Keir Starmer doing this? But why is that important to me? Why do I believe what I believe? Why is it sitting wrong with me? Why do I like that so much? You know, things like that. And ask why, not only of yourself, but of the things you're hearing.

speaker-1: you

speaker-2: Well

speaker-0: Welcome everybody to Behind the Story Special Edition. Unlike typical behind the stories where we go behind the story of entrepreneurs, CEOs, and people that are not in the public, today we're going to have a special roundtable where we're going to discuss a few of the things that are prevalent in the news cycle today that we possibly need to have some clarity on from a legal perspective, from an investigative perspective. I know if you're like me, a member of the Joe Blow general public, it's not making sense. So hopefully today the panel will help to make some of this make sense for you and we'll get into all the details behind the files, FSTEIN files, the DOJ response. And we'll also touch upon some breaking news today that Cash Patel, the director of the FBI, his personal Gmail account got hacked. So we will welcome Eric Robinson, former FBI retired tactical and also Baptist minister and also Welcome Courtney Groff, who is an attorney based out of Arizona. So welcome to both of you. Thank you.

speaker-1: Thank you, Jelani.

speaker-0: Thank you both for being here. Now, before we get into the specifics, let's set the stage for a bit. Eric, let's start with you. And we touched upon this enough in our interview that we did a few weeks ago, but just kind of revisit, like, what do we, me, the general public, what are we misunderstanding right now about how investigations work and also this particular thing? Because in my head, I'm thinking, and I know I'm a bit naive, Courtney will tell you that, if there was a case, FBI would have recommended charges to the DOJ. DOJ would didn't bring charges if there was a case. So I know I'm being completely naive. Why is it that we're not seeing that normalcy in how crimes are prosecuted between the FBI and the DOJ?

speaker-1: Well, the way a case like this would start is there'd be an allegation and the case would be assigned to an agent. So there's a case agent and there's probably going to be an entire squad assisting, especially since there's such a volume to this and the FBI works well because we can be in Florida, we can be in New York and set leads so that people can do interviews wherever they are. But as that case is brought out, the investigations start to firm where now you can say, well, we're capable of bringing prosecution. Then that's brought to an assistant United States attorney. And so even if that AUSA says, let's go, it's going to keep going up the chain. So somewhere most certainly beyond the FBI case agent, the field office, and beyond the local federal prosecutor, someone was saying, No, we're not going to do this. What?

speaker-0: sort of things can influence that? it just the facts of the case where they... I mean, I know there's a presumption where you bring a case that you think you have a likelihood of getting a conviction. There's some sort of prosecutorial responsibility. And if you don't think that it's in their discretion whether or not to bring the case, is it that simple or is there more at play from your perspective?

speaker-1: No, there's more at play because there are politics involved. There's influence. I've had cases where I get informed by my supervisor that some representative has called and said, hey, this guy's my friend. I'd like to know more about where you guys stand in this case. So there can be some influence, but there can also be a more innocent reason for this because if you've got a case and I believe that we can get a conviction. but a prosecutor, especially the federal prosecutors are going to want almost certainty that this could be carried out. So there's always the possibility that somewhere along the way they just believed we can't make this case. Think based on public perception, no one can understand that to be true. I don't know all the details. I haven't seen the case file, but that's going to hold people up. And then Counterbalancing that is that if a prosecutor thinks that this is an iffy case, but it has an overall righteous end to it, which this one would, then they're more likely to push forward.

speaker-0: Okay. Courtney, before I bring you in, I want to say, I remember we had a brief discussion about this before the election and after the election. And I had asked you, because I wasn't really aware of it, and I asked you, why is it important? Why do people care that these files should be released? And I remember you explaining it to me, and it made sense. And then I don't know if you remember, I said to you, I think what is going to happen is it's probably won't, because I think the people that are pushing and saying they will release it, when they get behind the doors and actually see what it is, their hands are going to be tied. And then they won't. I don't know if you remember that, but now that you've seen how things have processed, what are you thinking about the whole situation just broadly from that perspective legally? Broadly, first off, we don't know what they know. And that's a big problem with the general public is the general public thinks they're entitled to something. but they don't have all of the pieces. And that's generally true about just about everything in government. But from the perspective of these files, I agree with you and there is an expectation. The law requires transparency. The law demands transparency in governmental records, both at the federal level and at the local level. But that is not a wholesale access to records. There are exemptions to FOIA. which is the Freedom of Information Act that we've all heard of. And there are local exemptions and exceptions, and there are ones that can be read broadly or applied. And that's that behind the door that you're referencing. They get behind the door and their hands are tied because they learn more, they see more, and they see what exemptions are going to apply. And some of those exemptions are going to have to apply, and some of them they're going to choose to apply. ⁓ And that's just kind of how public records work. whether it's a sensational case or just your run of the mill document that somebody wants from a federal agency. help me out. You're the legal voice on this panel. Help me out. So the DOJ was not releasing the files. Congress passed a law that said you had to release the files. Now I know that the public may have some perception of what they're going to see in the release, but how is it that it seems to be they've released some, they haven't released others? Is it... Like, what does it mean? Are they able... Is the fact that they're not releasing certain things falling into... And I know you don't know this, you're not behind the scenes, but I'm asking legally, is it falling into those exceptions as to why they're, I guess, getting away with it? Because they're getting away with not releasing something Congress said you have to release. Well, I look at it a little bit differently because I don't think Congress said you have to release it. Congress said, you have to release it, but there are exceptions to that because even the Epstein Transparency Act of 2025, which is the law you're referring to, has exceptions attached to it. There is no access to records that is completely 100 % unfettered. Everything has exceptions that can be applied to it. And so whether that applies to just a certain level of records or they're doing it incrementally and doing a rollout, we don't even know what the entire universe of records looks like. So this could be a function of volume and the ability to give it the attention that it requires to be able to protect. mean, because the stuff that's in these files or the potential things that are in these files, they're heavy duty things and they're very sensitive things. And so they're not going to review them lightly and they're not going to rush. They are going to do it in a quick, quick period of time because the law says they have to, but they're still going to... exercise whatever discretion they can to make sure that protected things are protected because as we say, you can't unring that bell. Once it comes out, it's out. And so you have to be really careful when you choose what to redact and ensure that what gets put out is appropriate for whatever purpose, for whatever audience. And with these files, my guess, without knowing for certain, there are multiple layers of approval that every single page is going to have to go through. And there's probably internal dialogue and argument and discussion about how certain pieces of information should or should not be treated. What do you make of what we've seen so far? Not the content, but the way that it's been done where some survivors, some victims names have been inadvertently released and some people's names have been inadvertently redacted. it, again, I'm in the public sphere. For me, it looks like it's a mess. How is that occurring? it that they don't understand the process of what they've got to do as far as where exceptions are? It seems quite haphazard. Like, what do you make of that? Public records, in my opinion, is messy. First of all, it's not an automated process. It is done by humans. And whenever you introduce humans, you're going to have human error. And if you have multiple humans doing it. You will never have identical applications of exceptions. One person is going to interpret a record in one way and another person's going to interpret it another way. I don't really get too concerned about the parts of the records that are inadvertently redacted. That's an easy fix. You go back and redact it and release it again. The ones that are inadvertently produced when they should have been redacted is the problem. And that can be chalked up to human error. miscommunication, difference of opinion. I would hope that on a record of this level, miscommunication would be quickly and swiftly addressed. Human error, you can't prevent it 100 % of the time. It's impossible. But that component where perhaps there was miscommunication, perhaps there were different standards, there are certain areas of records, regardless of who you are what you're doing, that should be classified as guaranteed redactions and should be applied across the board. And if that hasn't happened at that core level of instruction, then that's something that I would expect to be rectified. Eric, let me bring you in. Courtney just said something that really stood out, guaranteed redaction. From an investigative standpoint, what sort of materials are almost never releasable, regardless of the public's demand for transparency or in this case, the legislation that was passed?

speaker-1: Well, from my experience, the redactions are largely victim names and any identifying information. Even if you're the subject, your date of birth, social security number, those types of things are taken out. I see it a little more, and I do understand the nuance that Courtney's talking about. I see it more of a clean, cleaner black and white where there are clearly, there's going to be child pornography in there. That's got to be redacted or removed. That can't be released, but there are. what we've seen trickle out is contrary to typical redaction techniques. part of the issue here is the public now wants to try those who are involved as opposed to going back to the FBI and saying, what can you make now? Now that people have had an outcry, now let's bring justice as opposed to just shaming or canceling people.

speaker-0: Right. You know, I wonder if it's less than what we're assuming. And what I mean specifically is not to minimize crime, but before there was even a release, the public perception was, this is going to just destroy so many people. It's going to be so huge. We're going to drain everybody out. I wonder, because this goes back to even what the Bush administration dealing with Epstein. So No administration is really exempt because he got his deal during the Bush administration, the first deal or the sweet deal that they talked about from what I remember. And then you had president Obama, then you had the first Trump and then you had you come once and I don't really blame an administration to say that's why I'm sort of skeptical as to what's really there because can all for those administrations want to have a quote unquote alleged criminal free? That's the part that's not making sense to me. Or am I just overthinking it.

speaker-1: I don't think you're necessarily overthinking it. This is just speculation. I have no evidence, but I was speaking with a friend of mine who's an agent and he's worked counterintelligence. And I asked him, if you were a foreign asset, would you act any differently than Jeffrey Epstein did? Because clearly he's a different type of person, but all the pedophiles I've come across don't have large sex parties. They do things privately. They don't want people to know what they're about. And the people that he purposely reached out to, maybe you could chalk it up to, he wanted to be around powerful people, but these powerful people that he was connecting himself to seem to be very purposeful. And then there are some alleged and some confirmed who he then pulled into things that could be used against them. So there's always been rumors and there's been whispers, but if I were to create someone. who would be a foreign asset to bring down important people, this guy is perfect. And you see him as someone who already has that proclivity, already has the desire to engage in that. And if I can pull you into the mud with me, I'm doing it anyway.

speaker-0: Courtney, want to ask you something from a legal perspective. Here's something I saw that it doesn't make, not that it doesn't make sense. Here's where I'm going with it. I saw one of the victims, I'm not going to name her just to be respectful. And she was given an interview. And she said that one of the things that they get, all of the victims is unlimited therapy. One of the settlements that they have from the estate is that if they need therapy, estate has to pay. And I thought, that's great. That's brilliant. Here's the thing that I can't reconcile mentally, which is their victims are not naming the people who assaulted them, right? And one of the arguments they made is for their security. And I'm thinking, wait, as much attention that's on this, if you were to name somebody, how would you, in my opinion, not be safe? Everybody's going to know there's going to be such a spotlight on this person. And I thought even a step further. If you guys can get the guaranteed therapy, why not guaranteed security? What if it, why, why isn't that if we name one of these people, the estate has to provide security from the, one of these men so that we can name them. The part that I keep going back to what, just name them. Why is it that they're, it's sort of like they're wanting the government to do it. That's the part that I can't understand. I don't know that I can understand or help you understand because I'm not one of them. And I'm not, I'm not dealing with whatever fear or intimidation or trauma that they have going on. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I also know that there is a whole lot that I don't know. And there is a whole lot I don't have access to. And I'm sure Eric's seen. depths of evil and fear and things that he probably can't even talk about that don't even scratch the surface of what I know. But I do know that powerful people can do powerful things. And if these victims are afraid of powerful people, that's a whole different ballgame than giving guaranteed therapy. People can go and get therapy and talk to a therapist, but if you're outing a very powerful person, It doesn't stop with just naming that person. If that person's powerful enough, they have people too. And just protecting them from person A doesn't mean they're actually protected from what person A can do. And the reach can go so much further. you deal with, law enforcement, you know, we deal with victims not wanting to name, not wanting to press charges. And that's just against loved ones or a gang member or somebody that intimidates them or whatever. This is next level. This is bringing in the most powerful people that we can conceive of, either by power through government or power through money and access. so powerful people can do a whole lot of things that we don't even know about. And these victims, if the things that have happened to them are accurate, even partially, they've seen things. They know things and they probably have verified fears according to them and they're not willing to put their neck out there and expose that further and put themselves in danger because they know what's possible. Okay. I can understand that. But let me ask you this from a legal perspective dealing with defamation because there are some members of Congress have said they've seen the files. What's to stop them from naming the names? Obviously I'm not, I'm just asking your opinion. know you don't know, but from a legal perspective. If, are they worried about defamation or like, can't they? Well, I mean, if it's not being produced in a public record, you have to start off first with why isn't it being produced? What's the reason? And the members of Congress who have seen it, they know the reasons that they haven't been produced. And some of them agree with them, some of them don't. But again, I'm going to go back to you can't unring the bell, you can't put toothpaste back in the tube. Once it comes out, it's out. From a defamation standpoint, that's a little tricky because truth is an absolute defense to defamation. if an allegation against somebody comes out that hasn't been tried, and let's not forget, a criminal investigation were to be launched or if there are future things that could come from these files, I don't know if there are. That's something that the government's going to lock down. They're going to lock down details and say, I'm not certain we're not going this route. So I don't want this to come out. And if Congress knows that, Congress gets to see behind the curtain. And so they are privy to other things. as vocal as many of them are in favor of producing the records or in favor of protecting the records, they all know that there's a line they can't come back from. And so they're going to protect it. up and to the point that they feel safe. And by safe, don't mean their physical safety. I mean, the ramifications of letting something out that shouldn't be out. And I don't mean to sound like a broken record saying, we don't know all the information, but that's really the truth. There is a whole lot that goes into these investigations, these records, these discussions that we as the general public are never going to know. We're never going to get to know. mean, we haven't even seen the JFK files. And that happened how long ago. So there are just things that the government for its reasons that it is apparently allowed to have because they have withstood challenges they're allowed to have. I'm just to be clear, I'm not for just putting people's name out there because I am against when an allegation is made and the person is automatically canceled. They can't get their reputation back. So I'm not... saying willy-nilly, I'm just saying from the victim perspective, like Eric alluded to earlier, secrecy is the abuser's number one power, in my opinion. So we're actually helping them stay powerful by keeping it secret. That was my thought process as far as that questioning. Eric, let me bring you in on this context. I remember seeing Director Patel testify early on last year. We said, I saw the files. There's nothing to see there. and then Attorney General Abondy saying, the files are on my desk or whatever. What sort of institutional pressure is going on behind the scene that you've seen throughout your career that we don't know what's going on as to why those answers make sense? Because they don't now.

speaker-1: Well, let me start by giving a little insight. when I was in the FBI, I can search names, I can search files. So most FBI cases are digitally accessible. Some are going to be locked down, sensitive matters. And certainly this is going to be one that would be locked down too. But I could be searching a name that's tied to my case. And I see there's a case in San Francisco where he crossed paths and I'm calling the agent or I'm sending leads. So in case someone says, You know, why doesn't an FBI agent, you know, be noble and leak this there? They would not have access to that as well. But I have, I, I just would say this, I have my doubts that Cash Patel has seen the file. I would assume, and again, this is making assumptions on how directors work, that there's been a briefing, but with the volume of this case, he hasn't sat down and taken. two weeks to go through and pour through it the way that I would if I inherited a case from someone who retired and now I've got to work it. I would assume that there is likely some type of memo that says these are the victims, these are the people, these are the allegations. I think we've seen some spreadsheets that say some of those things too, but I don't know about Pam Bondi. I'm unsure why DOJ is heading this up as opposed to FBI agents because that's a normal process. It's formally an FBI case. FBI agents go through it. They've already had the assignment and they're working it. you know, we would reference two attorneys and ask their opinions. But for the most part, if I have a case and there's a FOIA request, I'm doing the redactions myself and then giving them to the attorney to say, yeah, that looks good. Or take this out to, why did you black this? But nothing like we've seen, it's, it will be very little. And the only things other than victims and personal information would be perhaps trade craft or other sensitive information. But again, if Courtney is a witness to this, she's not guilty in any way. I'm not redacting her name because she's a witness and it just says that. So I'm unsure why the process is being handled the way that it is.

speaker-0: And from your experience, when you see, because Courtney mentioned something that I know is true, members of Congress get briefings. They see things we don't see. How should we in the public interpret them getting subpoenaed? You know, both of them. Is it that they're not showing Congress what they normally would? why would the Congress have to subpoena the attorney general? She should just not come and say, here's what's going on.

speaker-1: Well, you just stuck your thumb in my eye for the one thing that I despise, which is Congress is not an investigative body. And I understand they look into things, but this, you can have oversight. You can call the director in, but again, call the director in. All he has to do is put up with four hours of being yelled at and go back to what he's doing. Congress shouldn't be handling this. This should go back to the FBI done properly. Congress needs to have oversight to say, don't think you're doing it right. That's one thing, but they're getting subpoenaed so that they can be on record and then they can threaten to be in contempt of Congress. that won't go anywhere because nobody's going to hold the attorney general in contempt of Congress. They're not going to put her in jail.

speaker-0: I mean, it doesn't seem as though the normal oversight processes are being carried out. It seems something different. I mean, I haven't seen this before.

speaker-1: Now, if they want to call in Cash Patel or Pam Bondi and say, need to go back and reopen this investigation and do it properly, we'd like to see something. Trying to have multiple lines of investigation where Congress is doing it, DOJ is reviewing things, FBI has some too, that's unprecedented. And it's very messy too, obviously.

speaker-0: Yeah. Let's zoom out for a bit from the documents and talk about the FBI from a broader institutional perspective at the moment. Eric, I know you're retired, so I'm really not asking you for current day information, obviously, but I'm asking just from the context. You've worked through multiple administrations and we touched upon it in our last conversation, but what actually changes when the leadership shifts the way it has? And how does that impact like... the handling of this case because I know basic if the FBI is investigated, they're not going to come tell you. So to Courtney's point, we don't know if they're actually investigating any of these people. We don't know. They could be.

speaker-1: Right? That's correct. Although I would assume that FBI representatives would say, are looking into it. They don't have to say we're looking at Les Wexner. They can just say, we are looking into those who may have engaged in this. And in different administrations, there's different emphases, usually not mandates. In this administration, there have been some such as doing immigration enforcement, which was unfamiliar to the FBI. But that's also... just a few agents. I was in Cleveland division. So, you know, we need six people who are going to go to Nashville and work there and, you know, help out or to Memphis. So there will be some things, but unless you're tapped on the shoulder or your phone rings, your everyday is, is pretty much going to be the same. And that's on cases that aren't like Jeffrey Epstein. So you get one like that where. There are secretaries of states and presidents and heads of corporations and billionaires. Yeah, the headquarters is definitely going to be involved with that.

speaker-0: What are your sentiments? What are you hearing from past colleagues as far as the culture within the bureau now? mean, we talked about this before too. The FBI does not seem to have a positive public perception going back to the last four or five years. And you and I talked about this, Eric, it's really unfortunate for the people doing the everyday jobs that are not political. They're just going about their investigations. They're trying to follow the law. They're trying to do that. But when they see how this is going on from the top, you know, I don't expect any of you to say it, but I'm seeing it as a member of the public where the head of the FBI is on private jets and doing this and doing that. And it seems to take away from the seriousness of what the perception should be of the FBI. What are you hearing from your past colleagues about how the culture is internally?

speaker-1: Well, I got a text today from a good friend who was saying he shared with me a post that people are talking about headquarters is scouring DMs and messages and emails for certain information that might suggest people are disloyal or speaking out or, you know, maybe being lewd, ⁓ in their direct messages and there are people being walked out for that. So. There is two aspects going on. There is 20,000 agents and support staff who are fed up. They don't like what's going on. They just want to do their job. They don't like the negative attention that has nothing to do with them being now they're labeled with being in that same group. And then there's the fear that started with the threats that if you had any involvement with a January 6 investigation, you might get fired and here's a list and I'm on the list and you're on the list because most people had something to do. It's people aren't the agents and the support staff are I think a bit worried. And so we have individual agents, a handful being fired because they were involved with a previous Trump investigation. They were just doing their job agents fired because they knelt during a BLM rally years ago. They get fired. So. There's specific people being concerned for their jobs. And then there's just that general sense of, I'm not sure how long I'm going to last in here until somebody again, calls me into the office.

speaker-0: You know, as a member of the public, the sad thing about that for me is I heard before the last election where the DOJ was weaponized, the FBI was weaponized, it's all this biased stuff. And I'm hearing in my head, my mom and dad, two wrongs don't make a right. It's the same thing going on now. You know, and I remember Mitch McConnell saying to the late Harry Reid years ago, and Obama was still president, he said, you know, be careful with what you do because... You're not going to always be in charge. And when we take over, there's going to be hell to pay and we're living it. People are living it. And I think somebody needs to say the same thing in reverse. Guys, remember, you're not going to probably always be in charge and you're farming all these, you're making it such political to us. It's going to swing the pendulum every four years. That's all productive.

speaker-1: Yeah. the, but the, the, for me, what is very disappointing is now there are, there's stray fire catching other agents. So yeah, they don't, nobody likes the FBI being weaponized and yet they're taking fire as well. So it's on top of that, the, the aggravation of being a political pawn, this is not what anyone signed up for. And then now you have a fear for your career safety too.

speaker-0: Yeah, Courtney, I want to bring you in from a different perspective. You my dad used to say, any idiot can say something doesn't work. You get no points for that. could train a chimpanzee to say it doesn't work. You get points for coming up with a suggestion. So let me paint a picture for you. You're now working for the DOJ and you are part of a committee to advise the AD. And the AD said, listen, you've seen the general sentiments of the public. on what we're doing specifically with this case with the Epstein files and how it's being handled and whatnot. What are some of the advice you would give the AD to improve how it's being handled? Of course you have limited information now, but let's presume you're on the inside now, you've got some data, you know what the public perception of idiots like me are, and you're tasked with improving that and improving the process. What does that advice look to the AD? Well, as far as the FBI side of things is concerned, I would consider myself a member of the general public, so I'm an idiot with you. But in terms of legal advice, as a lawyer, I'm going to tell you that's really hard to do because it's a really hard question to answer because the first thing I tell young attorneys, the first thing I learned is every single bit of advice that comes out of your mouth can turn on the smallest detail. And so without having, I mean, you can give me a scenario all day long, and then I'm going to ask you 25 questions about one part of the scenario because I need that information because it's going to dictate the advice that I give. So I wouldn't be able to sit down and give advice. would even, even sitting behind the curtain, getting all the information because I would need somebody to answer my questions because I get files. Now I'm a civil litigator. I don't do criminal, but I get a file now and I get lots of information. get police reports, I get medical records, I get internal investigations and professional standard bureau documents. I get all of that kind of stuff. And what I do is I go through it with a fine tooth comb and then I make appointments and meetings because I've got questions. Teach me this, tell me this. Why didn't you, did you tell me why you did? explain the scenario to me, paint the picture because I wasn't there. You know, all of that. Were you standing a little to the left? Were you standing a little to the right? Were you sitting kneeling? All of that. I ask those questions. So attorneys can give general ideas and things about grander situations, but a question as precise as yours about advice that I would give to make the system smoother, it's very difficult to answer because every single piece of advice given turns on multiple tiny little points and I would need to ask questions. I would need to have an audience with that person or people to be able to fill in the blanks in my brain that would then give me enough information to give advice. Point taken. So let's change it. Because that all makes perfect sense. But let's go back to what the public perception is. The public perception is this is just a bunch of swashbuckling going along, going on. It's all over the place. When the AD shows up at hearings, like Eric said, to yell that, she's yelling back and the public has this perception of, nobody's answering any questions. We don't know what's going on. If you're going from that perspective where it's like, listen, we need to change the public perception of how we are being viewed when we make these public statements. What does that advice look like then to improve the reputation of the department? So not commenting on any particular cases or... processes like that, because again, you'd have a thousand and one questions and get that. But we still need to improve the reputation of the department. What does that advise me? Well, the first question I ask is, you want to? Yes. Because we're being very negatively. There's no trust with the DOJ and FBI. We need to build back that public trust, though, because we need to rely on them. For example, like Eric and I talked about before, to find Saranagotchi's mom. We need the public to help us. So we need to regain that trust, that perception that We're not political. We're not biased. have to face the reality of the situation right now though. And that is that a lot of this is sensational. Some of like the Epstein stuff. That's sensational. That is just next level things that we never anticipated ever hearing about. And you've got in this administration and you have, you have these kinds of issues in every single administration. But in this administration, we have what I would term a more wild west mentality of we're going to get it done. We got to get stuff done. Trump, I don't think cares if people like him or don't like him. You know, you can see that in the way he communicates. And I particularly appreciate some aspects of that because one of the complaints about Trump, and I'm not trying to get political in any way, but one of the complaints about Trump from some is he's not presidential. To that, I say, thank you. Good. I don't want somebody that's presidential because I feel like that's phony. I feel like it's performative. I feel like it's condescending. And for us, Joe blows in the public who are just looking at our president. don't need to be talked down to, know, serve me, you serve my people. So, so talk to me just like I'm a human. it sometimes cross the line? Sure. Absolutely. I'm not saying he's perfect. I'm not saying I love his brand of communication. But that goes into the perspective of or perception of how they're viewed. Because if they were able to haul Trump into Congress and question him, everybody would tune in. But if they were able to do that, I'm quite certain Trump would be like, you don't like it. get it. Okay. Next. I don't like, you don't like it. This particular administration has really divided the two sides, if you will, the conservatives and the liberals. the liberals... the independents. But the division is really, really clear between the two parties. And it always has been, but it's really, really... For the people that love him, they love him hard. For the people that hate him, they hate him hard. And so I think if Trump came out or our bondy came out, And they said, look, here's what we're doing. We want America's trust. The people that hate Trump are still going to hate him. They're still going to. And that population, just like the opposite on the other side, that's the loudest population. The ones that hate him hard are the loudest. The ones that love him hard are the loudest. Everybody else in between, they're watching, they're hearing, and then they're forming their opinions. And that's the majority of people. The majority of people don't fall on the hard right and the hard left or the vocal part. But, you know, it's kind of like the analogy of watching the news. You only hear bad stuff because people don't talk about good news. They talk about the bad news. And so to change the perspective or the perception of the department, they're going to have to want to. And the public at large, the people that are viewing the news, viewing the hearings, reading the tweets or whatever we're calling them now, and all of that... are going to have to recognize that you're still going to hear all of that negativity. The people that hate the department are still going to hate the department because the loud people, you cannot change their mind because you see all those, some of them are social media, some of them are journalists, whatever. They go out and they interview people and they'll give them a line. and they'll tell them Trump said it. I hate it. I can't believe he said it. then they'll drop the bomb that it was actually Obama. And they'll go, what? You know, and things like that. So there's an ingrained perception for some of the population. And I'm not trying to generalize, but there is that vocal part of the left that is going to hate him regardless. So the middle people who are wanting to hear that reassurance from the department, who want to trust, who want that perception to change, and want to see the good, they're still going to hear that. And part of the problem is the whole public perception really gives me a lot of heartburn because some of it is never going to change. People believe that they are entitled to things without going into any kind of in-depth analysis. And they talk like it's authority, like their opinion, their views, their desires are authority. And I see that every day in my work where people are like, well, I want this. And I'm like, it's good to want things. You can't. can't have I've heard you say that so many times. You know, it's good to want things. But my point is, even if I went in and I said, hey, let's do some goodwill, let's have some good communication, let's really lay things out about expectation, future communication, future goals, future endeavors, whatever it might be, and let's tell the American people what we're doing for them. And let's explain to them why we can't do some of the things they wish we could. If that were my advice, that would be wonderful. But if the department came out and did that, the vitriol calmed down, the yelling calmed down from both sides, and all of the accusations calmed down within the hearings within Congress, the vocal people are still going to have their opinions. And so we're still gonna see in the media, the vocal left and the vocal right... saying what they want to say and it's not going to change from what they're saying right now. agree with you, but to go back to something you mentioned that's very important, because I'm a member of that majority, the ones who are not on either side, we do have an impact on it. Absolutely. we would appreciate it because I had this memorized just to reinforce this fact in my head. Seventy-seven million people voted for the president. Seventy-five million voted for the opponent. 89 million of us said no to both. So it's actually the majority of us in independence were not part of it. That's the ones that that message you just said would apply to, which is most of people. But I would tell the people, I would tell you, your group, your collective, that here's our explanation. Here's that communication you want. Everything you've heard on the media, it's going to continue. Everything that's being... We tuned that out. Not all of you do though. I mean, you're a discerning individual just because I know you personally. I'm an independent libertarian crazy person. We tune that stuff up. Not all of the libertarian independent crazy people do that. That's true. That's true. Because we're not a clique. Like somebody will say they're independent libertarian and they'll have the complete opposite views to me on my taxes, for example. And so many people are not informed and they hear and act. That, I mean, that's a very real phenomenon. is that people hear what the media, whether it's conservative media, foreign media, to foreign to Americans, media, ⁓ conservative media, whatever it might be, they hear the media and go, okay, I follow that. There's a big collection of people that do that. There's a big collection of people, ⁓ my parents voted that way, so I vote that way too. And they don't have the critical analysis to apply as to why. And so for those people... The fact that they're going to continue hearing whatever they're hearing in the media, that's going to negate a lot of the good messaging. I'm not saying that good messaging isn't helpful, it won't reach people or isn't necessary, but I'm just saying it's not going to fix the perception to the degree that I think people hope it would. Okay. Erica, same thing to you from the original question I asked Courtney, but Now you're retired obviously, but you're an elder statesman and you've been asked to be part of the committee to advise the director. And you have insights, all the issues going on in the culture of the FBI, the perceptions of the FBI publicly, what we, the public is seeing and you know, the behavior of the current director. And for some reason he woke up and said, you know what, I've got to change this. This is, this needs to be fixed. I need to reinvigorate the truth, so to speak. And you've been called upon to advise the director. on a few things that you know will help the people that you talk about that just want to go about their jobs and their investigations and serve the country. What does that advice look like to the director?

speaker-1: Firstly, I'd like to congratulate Courtney on her appointment in DOJ. Good job.

speaker-0: Thank Thank you. appreciate it's a hard job, but somebody's got to do it.

speaker-1: And secondly, please watch with the elder remarks. Right, right, but elder. So, right.

speaker-0: I said statement. Spring chicken. There you go.

speaker-1: So I think the point that you made is apt and that would be an appeal to what a person's actions, how that plays out to the public. And I would emphasize how the FBI so much more than DOJ relies upon the public. We need the public to report crimes, to report suspicious activities, to engage with us, to be witnesses. We need to look professional for other law enforcement. Other law enforcement look at us, respect us, want to work with the FBI because they know we have tools, we have resources, we have professionalism. And I, I would emphasize that that is harming the, if you have a workforce that fears for their safety because a stick might come that doesn't, it's, you're going to lose some good people. I've had these discussions with folks before talking about morale. So the common idea with morale and the FBI is, you know, folks would say, if you don't like it, leave, we'll find somebody else because we're the FBI and we'll always get good people. And I think, well, I think you're underestimating the influence of morale. When you have people who feel like they're doing what's right, being, they're given the resources that are needed to get it done. They feel appreciated. It's. You're going to get a lot more out of them. And so if you have a workforce that is afraid for their jobs, has seen people fired, others leaving because they don't like the situation, and then they see yelling matches going on in Congress where people are not behaving the way past directors have, I would emphasize how that is not good in the long run for how the FBI is going to do their job.

speaker-0: What should the public expectation be now from the FBI based on what you know that's going on internally from your friends and colleagues that still work there? What should our expectation be?

speaker-1: So if you report to the FBI office and you say, I had an employee embezzle $200,000, you should expect that they're going to do the job that they always have done. If you are somebody who works for ⁓ a medical wares company and you say, I think that my boss is defrauding the government through fake orders, you can expect the same high quality. And my fear is that it's incremental and you don't know where you see it, but then you get that one person who works healthcare fraud, but they know they've been sending DMs that are against cash Patel or something. And now they're distracted and maybe they're not doing their work well. Maybe they're depressed. So you don't know what you'll get out of that again. Otherwise, when the agents get a case, when I got a case, you're looking at this. Is this righteous? Can we get it done? What resource do I need? How do I get an informant in on it? And it's a process that hopefully and presumably agents are just going to shake off all that noise, the things that are on the news. The distractions, when I would check in early in the morning, the distractions weren't there. I had my own things right here. so anything that was going on in DC, honestly, it's more interesting to the public than it is to us because Got work to do, let's go.

speaker-0: I'm going to be a bit conspiratorial for a minute and Courtney is going to be surprised because I'm really not a conspiracy theorist. But I'm going to be conspiratorial for a minute because something you said and something triggered a memory with my dad. My dad used to say, if we both have the same opinion, one of us is unnecessary. So that's one of the reasons you value the differences because people bring different things to the table. But if all the same, then you're not needed. We have the same ideas, the same thoughts, so you're not needed. And I'm thinking, I remember before the election, we heard all these things about free speech and we have to be able to say what we want to say and all of that stuff. And it's almost like the antithesis of everything we heard. know, isn't free speech saying, know what, Jelani's an idiot. He might be in charge, but he's a moron. That's your freedom of speech. And now I want to get rid of you because you say something that I don't like. My conspiracy head is going like this. Let me get rid of all the people that could potentially disagree with anything that I want to do. So if I do something that's maybe not above board, it's all my people and there'll be zero accountability. That's me putting on my conspiracy head. Do you hear anything, any sentiments of that from the people that you get sort of contact with?

speaker-1: Well, this is how I always considered it when there were always, there were rumors of like, ⁓ you know, they can search your, what you're texting or what you're saying. And I think, okay, but they're not going to fire one third of the FBI. And I feel like I'm not in the bottom third. So I feel like I'm safe. So with that, I mean, it backfires because knowing the agents and the loyalty and the support staff and their loyalty to each other as well. the camaraderie and the family atmosphere there, you start getting rid of, like even now people are upset, but you start getting rid of thousands of agents and support staff. The ones remaining are going to be very upset about what's been done because those are their brothers and sisters. I don't think it would have the coalescing effect that one might think they would have.

speaker-0: then they would just have to stay quiet anyway.

speaker-1: Right, there you go. Now you see what'll happen.

speaker-0: You think they'll have to stay quiet, right Courtney? do think? Well, one thing that always strikes me and working for government entities and things, you don't have an expectation of privacy. You work for government? Now, that's for your professional. Yeah, professional, yeah. Computers and all that stuff. So, you know, my dad always told me, keep your own counsel. So if you're unwise enough to put something in writing on your... professional system, that's on you. With government agencies, whether it's federal, local, what have you, tides change, political heads change. Certain people are going to change with those tides and the elected official has every right to change his people. But the elected official also has every right to expect loyalty for his mission. And if he thinks people are disloyal to that mission or are going to counterbalance his mission in what he's trying to deliver, He's going to make those decisions. I'm not saying they're all correct, but I'm saying that's what he's going to do. And is he within his right to do so? Absolutely. Is it always the best choice? No. But he's certainly absolutely able to do that. And I don't have any heartburn whatsoever about the government looking at government systems, computers, DMs, whatever. Because if it's on a professional's, they own that. You don't.

speaker-1: No, and I agree with you that you gotta be smart about what you're saying, what you're not saying. But ⁓ the purpose of the FBI is to enforce federal laws and to carry out what's needed in the constitution. Absolutely. The loyalty to a certain party is not involved and shouldn't be involved in the decisions of who should work there or who shouldn't. So any type of... consideration or fidelity test to say, look, you've said these negative things about the director or your supervisors that I would think would probably result in lawsuits.

speaker-0: Absolutely. Courtney, I saw you, made that face. Yeah. Say more like homey would say, say more. Because we have a primarily two party system. I know there are other parties that are out there, but we know we're a predominantly two party system. The interpretation of the constitution is very different between the two parties. The application of the constitution. is very different between at least some members. mean, people used to call Justice Scalia a constitutionalist. There's the debate of, the Constitution a live document or is it not? Things like that. And the different political parties are going to view it differently. So the application is to an extent. from a lawyer's perspective anyway, is going to be different. And that's what I mean when I say the mission. Now, if people are going around firing people because Eric said something about Cash Patel or some other guy or whoever that wasn't kind or wasn't flattering or whatever, I agree with you. That is a grounds for some potential lawsuit investigation there. But if they are saying things that are counter to the interpretation of the law that the... president or the director or anything is trying to fulfill and it differed from previous administrations because of that analytical difference of understanding and application of the law, then they do have concerns there or have a right to have concerns there. My only pushback to that would be this, and I'll bring you in on this, Eric, because I can almost guarantee the answer is yes. I agree with you, Courtney, from the perspective of the political appointments, like the director And though, because they're political appointments. But where I push back is like, Eric was a part of the rank and file, for example, in quotes. I am 100 % sure Eric working across what is it four administrations, Eric or five?

speaker-1: Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump.

speaker-0: So I am sure there were things that you did not agree with that you did your job for. Whether you commented on it negatively or not, you still did your job. that's where say, go ahead, Courtney. That's the point. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you, but that's the point. Rank and file, and I don't say that in a pejorative sense, rank and file doing their job, even if they disagreed with it, he wasn't going around saying things that diminished or counterbalanced or contravened the mission. What if he said it privately? That's my word. What if he said it privately? Then the government's not going to know about it. He can have his opinions. Well, Cash is reading his DMs. What DMs is he reading, Doesn't say Cash is reading his DMs. Go ahead, Eric.

speaker-1: Well, I will say this had before I retired our Intel analysts came to me and said, Hey, we've got a directive to look into like Antifa and like what they're up to. I said to him, come on, man, you know, well enough there's, there's nothing out here. And this is, this is not, you know, in 2020, 2021, this is in 2025. said, there's nothing out there. So in a sense that's counter to. The mission of the FBI, it's critical of what was coming down of we need, we need more information on Antifa. I would think that's a fair statement because that's my assessment. You know, I can have my informants go out there and look, but I'll put an email, you know, very well, there's nothing out here.

speaker-0: So, and that's what I mean Courtney, he has the disagreement, he's still doing his job, so he shouldn't be fired because he typed the email as Michael. Now if his email didn't say that and it went further, like can you believe that we're investigating this? I don't want to do this, I'm not going to do this, we should, whatever, anything around that. That's completely different. That's insubordination.

speaker-1: In subordination, yeah.

speaker-0: Yeah, or if people are DMing each other or texting each other or listening to phone calls or whatever, and those people are saying things that aren't just simply, have a different ideology, I have a difference of opinion, I even think we should go about this a different way. If they are going further in their comments and saying things that are more skirting the line of that insubordination or undermining or anything like that, then yeah, even if it's a rank and file person, if that person, because that person has power, rank and file has a lot of power because they're the ones doing the work. They're the ones seeing the documents. They are valuable. And so if you can't trust your rank and file all the way up, That's a problem. What causes you not to trust them? That's the big question. Where, what degree is it that makes it notable, so to speak? And that's it for any business. I mean, if my boss tells me to do something and I grumble and I do it, it's not grounds for being dismissed. But it is because my boss could say, know what, you're not beneficial to the culture. I don't like your attitude. I mean, you could apply to government too. Yeah, I know you're doing your job. But you know what, you're affecting their morale because people are listening to you and having a difference of, it's not fair, but I can see it in the reality of, know what, Eric's been in the bureau for 20 years and he said, there's nothing there. Well, I'm not going to waste my time. And that's not Eric's intent. He was just making a comment. But I'll also counter that. Unfortunately, just like you said, that happens in every single business. Yeah. And, and you know, Arizona is an at-will state. you can get fired for anything. And so if, yeah, I wore brown shoes and they like blue. Is it a good reason? No, but it's a reason. just can't fire me for an illegal reason. so if the director doesn't like Eric's face and just decides something about you, you look like my stepdad and I didn't like him, he can say, I'm sorry, your services are no longer needed. But he can't sit there and say, you know, you're over 40 or you're a pregnant female or things like things of that nature, or you have a different political party, so you're out of here type thing. There has to be more. And so I agree. I think we all agree on the premise, but I will say my personal mentality is that kind of action happens in everyday life is that a new administration, new boss, new admin, whatever it might be comes in. And if they don't think that people align with what they're trying to do, as long as it's not for an illegal reason, they are entitled to fire them or change their team. Is that, the next question though is, is that good for morale, especially for a place like the FBI? Because like Eric pointed out earlier, the FBI has a much bigger piece of the pie when it comes to the public. And it has much more investment with the public than say, attorneys do because our work is usually internal and within a system. When we interact with the public, it's as witnesses for our tiles, for our hearings, things like that. The FBI needs the people to trust them in order to do their job and to do it well. I think that's true, Eric. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. you know, as a regular Joe Blow, that's my perception. So from a legal perspective, and that's, of course, the lens that I look at things through is, can they do what they're doing? As long as it's not for an illegal reason. Yeah, that doesn't mean it's always the right choice, especially for niche areas that have these special makeups like the FBI where morale, public facing, public trust really comes into play versus another area of the agency where the public doesn't matter. mean, the budgetary committees and things like that, they don't interact with the public. So they don't really get invested in their public outreach, so to speak. Those niche areas though that do have those considerations That might not be the best messaging to send. That even though you can get rid of those people if you so choose for whatever reason that isn't illegal, you should. That's not necessarily the best messaging, but they can. Very true. Before we wrap up, I want to ask you both the same question. Eric, if somebody's listening and we're aware of everything that's going on in the news and all the sensationalist reporting that we're seeing, what advice would you give the public in regards to... staying informed without being misled by the headlines. What would that advice be?

speaker-1: I staying informed is good, but I mean, ultimately either those men who are involved with Jeffrey Epstein are going to be charged or they're not. And so, you know, I can watch the congressional hearings and I can go online and download all the forms, which I haven't and I have no interest in because I have no control over it. I'll just get outraged or, you know, get miffed that nothing's being done. So I have to either trust that those in charge will do it or when they fail to do it, take note and say, great. Now I know that you're either incompetent, you're crooked, or you're lazy. I say, you know, stay, stay informed enough that you can just know what's going on. And the people who dig so deep, I think are probably just doing more damage to themselves. Cause it's just more aggravation of how people are terrible.

speaker-0: Courtney, I'll give you the last word from a legal perspective. What should people be looking at whilst trying to stay informed without thinking there's legal cases where they possibly are not? What's the advice? I'll just echo Eric's sentiments that going down the rabbit hole is never good. For your own entertainment or something, go for it, but for informing yourself. But I will say when forming an opinion, my favorite question just about anything is why. Why? Why? I ask why all the time for even the smallest things. And I've taught all of my employees to question me when I give them a directive, ask me why. Because if you know why, then it broadens your base of knowledge. It broadens your ability to apply that knowledge in various forms. And it keeps you informed of whatever it is. And not just why is Cash Patel doing this? Why is Trump doing this? Why is Keir Starmer doing this? But why is that important to me? Why do I believe what I believe? Why is it... sitting wrong with me. Why do I like that so much? You know, things like that. And ask why, not only of yourself, but of the things you're hearing. But my biggest problem is people are not, they're unrelenting in their opinions. And they're committed to their opinions in such a way that it doesn't allow them to hear anything else. And we've gotten away from the mentality of we don't agree. All right, I think you're wrong, but okay, you do you. That whole mentality is gone now. It's you don't agree with me and you must. So let me explain to you until you're tired of hearing from me then I'm going to still tell you you're wrong. And you you have to sometimes cut bait and just say, we don't agree. We do not see things the same way. And that's okay. I have a better understanding of why you think that way. And I hope you have a better understanding of how I think, but we're going to have to agree to disagree. But people need to really let go of this mentality of, I'm always right, my opinion's the only way, so that the dialogue that we used to have can come back and people are able to safely and sufficiently inform themselves and others, not only about their own opinion, but getting it from other people too. Well said. Well said. And we will leave it there. Thank you both. for coming on BTS and doing this special edition. I hope we can do it again. really think it was a good conversation. Thank you both. Thank you.

speaker-1: Thanks Thanks. you