Blanche says Epstein files review is over

So, Scott, this release was only partial, and the DOJ is saying that the review is over, that no new charges are going to be coming. So what does this mean for the files that remain? Fundamentally, Adriana, it means that this release on Friday, rather than extinguishing a fire that is burning inside the administration, has poured kerosene on a fire that is burning inside the administration. This is going to become a chronic, if not growing issue because the administration is being accused of withholding way too much. Roughly half of the page's estimated in the Epstein files have not been released-- roughly half.

Wow. There are hundreds of thousands of redactions. Critics are arguing those might be unnecessary, unjustified redactions. You have members of Congress of both parties, Adriana, who have asked to see the files themselves as early as today to cross check what the Department of Justice did. And, Vlad, I think you're going to hear a lot from survivors saying they want to see more too. They've been fighting for years for records, and they don't think they've been served.

Well, so as you know, Scott, Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee are asking the DOJ to see the full Jeffrey Epstein case files without the redactions. Can they do that, and would they actually get the files? And this is maybe asking you to look ahead and speculate a bit, but if the Democrats are able to win back control of the House, could we then see more files released? The deputy US attorney general, Todd Blanche, on Sunday said if members of Congress want to see what they have, of course they're empowered to do so, opening the door for whether it's Judiciary Committee Democrats, the Republican sponsor of the bill, or anybody else to come in and cross-check their work. But the Department of Justice was unequivocal on Sunday, saying their review is done. Their work is done. That's not going to satisfy those who said this may not be a fulsome release. So yes, if Democrats took control of the Congress, they could try to go back at this with new amendments or a new law to further pry open the records, but it's also appearing to be a no-win situation for the Department of Justice. If they withhold just one page of records, they could be accused of a cover-up, and they have grounds to withhold quite a bit. It's unclear they're ever going to satisfy every critic on every facet of this investigation.

So is Todd Blanche essentially saying that there's nothing that appears criminal in these files, if he's saying that they're not planning to bring any more charges, A? And then B, Scott, I'm curious to go behind the scenes of our reporting on this. I mean, 3 million files, Tony Dokoupil said the other day on the Evening News,stacked up. That's about three times the height of the Statue of Liberty. How do you and the team start to through this? I'll let you know when we finally figure it out. I mean, if you have to read 3 million-- if you have to read 3 million pages of anything, it is a process you make up as you go or you learn as you move along. We're making good progress getting through what's there. A Herculean effort by our CBS News team going through what's there, but it is a process, not a finite thing that you just do in one sitting. I think what we can see, though, still are those macro trends, that there doesn't seem to be anything the Department of Justice can use and mobilize towards more criminal charges against more people, at least not yet. But we're still going through the records, as are other stakeholders, other media organizations, the survivors, and congressional leaders. We'll see if this really means the investigation is done or if the review really is done.

All right, Scott MacFarlane always breaking it down for us with clarity. Thank you, Scott. Appreciate it. The release of the latest batch of Epstein files is also causing ripples across the pond. CBS News Foreign Correspondent Ramy Inocencio has more from London.

Andrew's eyes stare straight at the camera while kneeling on all fours, touching the waist of a woman with blonde hair. Her identity, their location, and the date are unknown. These new, awkward photos piling on more disgrace on the brother of King Charles, who last year stripped him of his titles for his ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, ties that endured after Epstein's release from a Florida jail cell in July 2010. In newly surfaced emails from August that year, Epstein suggested Andrew meet a friend who he might enjoy having dinner with. Andrew replied, "of course" and asked for more detail. Epstein's response, "26, Russian, clever, beautiful, trustworthy." In another exchange, Andrew invited Epstein to dinner at Buckingham Palace. Epstein offered to bring more women, whose names are redacted, "so as to add some life." Andrew replied, "yes." Now the lawyer of a second alleged victim of Jeffrey Epstein suggests filing a civil lawsuit against Andrew. We're talking about at least one woman who was sent by Jeffrey Epstein over to Prince Andrew.

To be clear, this is not American Virginia Giuffre, who alleged she was trafficked by Epstein, including to London to have sex with the former prince in 2001. In 2021, Andrew reached a multimillion-dollar settlement with Giuffre. Last year, she died by suicide. Andrew has long denied any allegations of wrongdoing. There's been no comment from Buckingham Palace or Andrew's representatives on the documents released Friday, but over the weekend, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer urged Andrew to testify before the US Congress, saying that Epstein's victims have to be the first priority. Ramy Inocencio, CBS News, London.