And for a closer look at the legal issues surrounding this latest release of Epstein Files, we turn to Barbara McQuaid.

She's a former federal prosecutor and a professor at the University of Michigan Law School.

It's great to have you back on the program.

Thanks, Jeff. Glad to be here with you.

So the Justice Department says Friday's release brings it into compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but millions of files, as you well know, remain unreleased, withheld for reasons like attorney-client privilege, privacy concerns, and the like.

Democrats are now demanding access to the full record. From a legal standpoint, did the DOJ actually comply with the law?

Well, no. First of all, the deadline was December 19th, and here we are many weeks after that deadline. But also in light of all of these redactions, Jeff,

I think there is some room to argue here that they're not in compliance in it. Within 15 days,

which should have been 15 days from

December 19th, the Justice Department is also required to produce a log explaining what was

redacted and why. One of the things they've said they have redacted is internal memoranda

and things that disclose their deliberative privileges. But that was specifically

spelled out in the statute that required production. That could be something that the Justice

Department and Congress might have to litigate if the Justice Department continues to refuse

to produce those things. But I think that the enormous amount of redactions seems to go beyond the scope of what

would be obvious, you know, things like names of survivors and other things. And so I think we're going

to have to see that log first before Congress can really ascertain exactly what was withheld.

Why have no perpetrators beyond Jeffrey Epstein and Galane Maxwell been charged,

despite years of investigation and the volume of information that's now public?

Well, of course, we still don't know what's behind those redaction bars. But I think what the

public is seeing here is there is a difference between things that are wrong,

morally reprehensible, shady, even awful. But to prove a crime, you'd have to show that someone

...