THE DEEPER DIVE: The Epstein Files Betray the Government's Many Reasons for the Coverup
The more that is released, the more we know how much remains to be released and the more we see how the wrong stuff has been redacted in past releases while stuff that should have been redacted wasn't
Let us start our tale of all the confounding lies and subterfuge that have surrounded the government’s release of the Epstein Files with the biggest and most obvious lie of all—the lie Pam Bondi told when she said to all of America, “The Epstein Files are sitting on my desk.”
With millions of files now admitted to exist—a volume of documents so great it has taken 500 Department of Justice employees several months just to go through and redact about half of them—the ONLY way the files were sitting on Bondi’s desk would be if a semi trailer was parked on top of her desk. “Back her up, Boys. Shove the files out here!”
The immense volume of files tells us that 1) There was no physical way Bondi’s statement could ever have been even remotely true because the files exceeded anything any of us ever imagined; 2) There is no way Pam Bondi could have possible been aware of everything in the files because no one can read that much. 3) So, to claim no list of perpetrators could even be developed from those files is preposterous because attorneys and reporters will be poring through those files until the day they retire, pulling out cases to be made (or they could be if the government wanted to make any cases on behalf of the sexually abused girls.)
With that overview, let’s just go through the stories from the files that hit the news over the past week. I’ll start with the story I used for my preview of this weekend’s Deeper Dive:
A brighter shade of blond
Not that Trump’s Attorney General is so bright, but just that she is so blond in the stereotypic manner that she is blinding to any hope of truth.
I call her “Blondi” because she deserves being treated like the ultimate caricature for blond jokes because she is a caricature by her own making. Her lie to the public was so enormous even on the face of it that you have to figure that part of the lie must have an attempt to imply the number of files the government had was so small that it could easily fit on her desk without making her desk look like a cartoon, too, due to the mountain she would be buried under if that were true.
It was natural to assume—if the files were, indeed, sitting on her desk—we must be talking only a couple of boxes of files; yet, the number of files the government has and is still revealing was so great that Blondi, herself, later had to claim it was impossible for a huge team of highly skilled redactors to go through them in less than several months—a mountain of work they are still ploughing through, which would look more like this:
We have gone from admission of what sounded like a box or two of files staring her down on her desk, to 5,000 or more files to a million and now to millionS. “Back up the truckS, Boys, and try not to bury the White House under the pile.”
Embedded in one of the most blatant lies ever told to America was a claim that nowhere in this Mt. Everest of files was there any list to be found (or that could be made) naming the people who might be worth prosecuting. That brings us to our first story from the Epstain Files about the list Blondi said she had even before her lies began claiming she did not.
Before the latest file dump, there were rumors of a letter from Blondi stating there was a list.
Posts authentically showed a letter that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent to FBI Director Kash Patel about the Epstein files in February 2025.
Following a July 2025 memo from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI that said convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein did not keep a “client list” — contrary to a persistent rumor — some social media users shared a screenshot of a purported letter that they suggested contradicted the official finding.
Five months before her public statement that Blondi’s Department of Justice could find nothing to prosecute, the following claim was made:
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi sent the alleged letter dated Feb. 27, 2025, to FBI Director Kash Patel, according to the social media posts. In the letter, Bondi “acknowledged receiving the Epstein files containing” the convicted sex offender’s “list of contacts and a list of victims’ names,” a Facebook user who shared the purported letter claimed.
That was the claim, but now we all can see the actual document as officially released by the DoJ after demands by courts based on new laws by congress to force release of the files:
Snopes compared the version of the letter shared on social media to the letter shared on the DOJ website, and found that the text in both versions was identical.
Now, in Blondi’s defense, maybe she was telling the truth, and Patel, Bongino and her whole FBI were lying to her, claiming a small number of files on her desk was all there was, because we also have this claim by Blondi found in the Epstain Files:
Bondi received approximately 200 pages of documents in response to a request for all of the files related to Epstein, according to the release. However, she was “later informed of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment that were not previously disclosed,” the release said.
Of course, that is also the kind of lie she would have to tell to cover her earlier statement. If her earlier claim wasn’t a lie, it was certainly an error of great magnitude and great ineptitude for the person at the top to be so thoroughly and publicly tricked by her subordinates.
In her letter to Patel, Bondi addressed the alleged missing documents and asked the FBI to deliver “the full and complete Epstein files” to her office by 8 a.m. on Feb. 28, 2025. Bondi also tasked Patel with investigating why the FBI did not follow her order requesting the full set of Epstein files.
“You will deliver to me a comprehensive report of your findings and proposed personnel action within 14 days,” Bondi wrote in the letter.
Was she covering for herself with this letter, or was she really that blindsided? If blindsided, why is Patel still working at the FBI? What heads rolled? Why is she still working as the DoJ’s head? No firings were reported. If she was being lied to by her own department, then who ordered the huge public lie? It would have to be someone whose authority was higher than hers. Who would have protected Kash Patel and Dan Bongino and others from her firing them for so publicly humiliating her?
Before you came into office, I requested the full and complete files related to Jeffrey Epstein. In response to this request, I received approximately 200 pages of documents, which consisted primarily of flight logs, Epstein’s list of contacts, and a list of victims’ names and phone numbers.
Now, just a minute! Based on her own letter now found in the Epstein Files, Epstein’s contact list plus a list of victims existed in the 200 pages Blondi said she got. In that case, she is the liar for later stating to congress and all of America those did not exist at all.
Wouldn’t those two lists have been the obvious place to start an actual investigation? Isn’t it standard procedure to start thoroughly interviewing and even taking depositions from all the known victims on your “list” in order to find out who the perps were? Wouldn’t a list of “Epstein’s contacts” likely have included some of Epstein’s clients? That seems like a good place to start looking for cases to be made. Instead, Blondi announced there was no list to be found—as if NO LIST OF ANY KIND, but even worse, claimed, “We have nothing that merits further investigation for potential prosecution.”
The “contacts” list is actually quite sizable and includes some famous names like Alec Baldwin, Tony Blair, Mike Bloomberg, Jimmy Buffett, Naomi Campbell, Phil Collins.” You get the point, it is a who’s who of the rich and famous, worthy of Robin Leech. Interestingly, Epstein (or someone) circled the names ending in “Soros.” Interestingly, several Trump names, except the Donald himself, are on the list. (He was probably on speed dial or easily memorized by frequent use.)
Of course, being on a list of “contacts” doesn’t make you guilty of any crimes, even if it is a list kept by a condemned criminal. BUT you do have to wonder why Blondi said she didn’t have a single list of any “clients.”
There is a sublist, handwritten at the end of a redacted section titled “Visitors Massage.” Might not the listed visitors of his massage program, which is so well known now to have been performed by underage girls, be the list of clients who were set up for those special massages? In the handwritten list, we also see contact info for the “Secret Service Personnel escorting Mr. Barak, Ehud former P.M. of Israel on J Epstein planes” and David Cook with the odd note, “interacted and chat daily with underage girls.”
While Blondi’s claims are now literally incredible, in her defense, she also wrote to Kash Patel, director of the FBI,
I repeatedly questioned whether this was the full set of documents responsive to my request and was repeatedly assured by the FBI that we had received the full set of documents. Late yesterday, I learned from a source that the FBI Field Office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein. Despite my repeated requests, the FBI never disclosed the existence of these files. When you and I spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was to learn this new information.
So, the story went from 200 pages to thousands, and now we have gone to millions! Pinocchio cannot grow a nose this long this fast.
By 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, February 28, the FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office, including all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained. There will be no withholdings or limitations to my or your access….
I appreciate our immediate attention to this important matter. I know that we are both committed to transparency for the American people and I look forward to continuing to work with you to serve our President and our country.
The last paragraph there sounds like the letter might have been written for American presentation.
Oh, did I say “in her defense.” I guess not because that letter was written back in February, months before the memo in which she was still telling all of America and congress that Epstein kept no “client list.” The continued claim made using exactly words each time seems misleading, in light of what we now know, in the same way Bill Clinton was misleading when he claimed under oath, “There is no sexual relationship with that woman” and then later said it depended on what the meaning of the word “is” is.
Sure, there was no list kept by Epstein that was specifically labeled “Client List.” When does the FBI ever get any evidence spelled out so clearly? Yet, her memo also said,
Consistent with prior disclosures, this review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history….
So, we are to believe that the head of the DoJ confirms there were actual DAMAGED victims that are “confirmed”—more than a thousand to be clear—and that Epstein was the only one who harmed all of them? There were no other perpetrators? The FBI claims it has very specific details identifying these victims, but not a single detail about the people who victimized them? The DoJ was content with the concept that they were “confirmed,” “harmed” victims without any victimizers? There is no indication that they interviewed all of these victims and took depositions to specifically identify who victimized them, and the victims claim they did not.
All of this goes so far beyond credulity. It stretches credibility to the snapping point as do the many other details now seeping out of this dark, crimson stain as does Blondi’s protest clear back in July that she had provided all pertinent information, AFTER all that she had written in complaint to Patel:
…while we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.
What a mouthful of manure that is! What we see in the truckload of info just released this past week was both warranted and withheld.
Elsewhere she had written,
There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
In that case, the DoJ is a pretty stupid group, since real DoJ and FBI people know they have to depose witnesses thoroughly to build such lists. It almost never happens that someone just hands you a readymade list of all the criminal names perfectly categorized as “clients” of the main criminal. You have to dig through your leads, and clearly Blondi’s DoJ had “over a thousand” leads to dig through.
Blondi also said in her memo,
After a thorough investigation, FBI investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on August 10, 2019. This conclusion is consistent with previous findings, including the August 19, 2019 autopsy findings of the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner….
Uh huh! So thorough I busted that lie as soon as she told it. Today’s release of the files now proves what I said back then with regard to their “proof”:
The conclusion that Epstein died by suicide is further supported by video footage from the common area of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) where Epstein was housed at the time of his death. As DOJ’s Inspector General explained in 2023, anyone entering or attempting to enter the tier where Epstein’s cell was located from the SHU common area would have been captured by this footage. The FBI’s independent review of this footage confirmed that from the time Epstein was locked in his cell at around 10:40 pm on August 9, 2019, until around 6:30 am the next morning, nobody entered any of the tiers in the SHU.
We’ll come to new disclosures about that utter nonsense in a minute—a blatant lie that Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino all promoted in unison, which I proved was a lie back then. You can read those two earlier exposés here:
Epstain May be the Dirtiest Mess Trump has Ever Hung around his Own Neck
Additional info that I’ll provide below now verifies my original analysis back when the video was first presented.
Thus, I conclude that when …
Attorney General Pam Bondi told Fox News in February 2025 that the Epstein client list was “sitting on my desk right now to review,” citing a “directive” from Trump.
… it was probably just lost somewhere in that semi trailer parked on top of her desk. Now we have it according to Blondi’s revealed letters—the list of ALL of Epstein’s contacts and victims. We can read the actual contacts in redacted form. Since not all of his contacts would have been doing the crimes, some of them could probably be made to talk if the Department of Injustice really wanted to go after this to get justice for the girls that were “harmed,” or as Blondi also wrote, that “each suffered unique trauma.”
Where was Trump?
Another part of this ongoing mess of lies surrounding Epstein has been the claim that Trump was not in the files. We moved from being told that to hearing that he was only mentioned a handful of times. Suddenly, the number of times is THOUSANDS. That came out last week in the new files released along with this story:
Pam Bondi had an epic meltdown when questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee over who told her to redact President Donald Trump’s name from disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s famed Epstein files.
Asked by a member of congress who gave the order to flag Trump’s name everywhere in the files, she didn’t deny the order, she just said there was no way she would answer that question, to which the member of congress told her, “You will eventually.”
As millionS of additional documents were released last weekend, Trump chimed in with the lie:
On January 31, Trump told reporters, “I didn’t see it myself, but I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it’s the opposite of what people were hoping, you know, the radical Left.”
It now turns out that his name is in the documents more than a thousand times (just like there were more than a thousand victims who had no victimizers. Some of those times are allegations that claim Trump WAS a victimizer, so they don’t absolve him by any means. We’ll come to those below, too.
Once again,
Bondi insisted the latest dump of files marked “the end” of the government’s efforts to comply with the law, immediately drawing a ton of flak from Democrats.
She says that at the end of each dump, and then the next dump turns out to be even larger. When do we ever get to the real end of this pile? Why would this be the last when further information came out that said there are more than another 3-million files still in cue?
Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, alleged the Trump administration was still withholding about half of the files.
Every time the Dem’s say that, Trump & Co. thoroughly deny it, then they mysteriously find more than they were even accused of still holding back.
So, naturally, Garcia concludes,
“Donald Trump and his Department of Justice have now made it clear that they intend to withhold roughly 50 per cent of the Epstein files, while claiming to have fully complied with the law.
The “most transparent government ever” knows the additional files exist. Blondi doesn’t even try to deny that she expunged the president’s name under oath before congress. She just says she’s not about to answer who directed the redactions of the president’s name. If the files truly absolve him, why don’t they release the remaining millions of files? Could it possibly be that the files that look the worst for him are in the millions that are still being withheld? The lie keeps dragging on and getting bigger as we find out about more and more times the president is mentioned.
Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Leader, also accused the Justice Department of not being upfront with the public.
“DoJ needs to get its story straight,” he said. “They say they collected six million pages, but only admit to releasing three million. But I checked – even that’s inflated. Less than 2.7 million pages were released. DoJ thinks it can just round up 300k by pages, and we won’t notice. We’re wondering what’s in those 300k pages, and we’re still waiting to hear where the other three million pages are...”
I feel uncomfortable being on Schumer’s side for anything, but aren’t we all waiting for the other THREE MILLION pages?
Epstein’s victims also released a joint statement on the newly released files.
“This latest release of Jeffrey Epstein files is being sold as transparency, but what it actually does is expose survivors,” they shared. “Once again, survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed, while the men who abused us remain hidden and protected.
This raises an important question that one of my readers raised in comments this week. The flip side of this story that is equally puzzling is why haven’t all the victims just publicly released their own list of Epstein clients—the people who abused them? Even if the government threatens them over such a release, do it anyway! With so many eyes now watching, the government will be hard pressed to harm you and get away with it.
Aside from that puzzle as to why the victims haven’t released a clear list of all the perps, it was certainly a disgrace that the victims indents and nude photos were released while the victimizers were held back.
“The justice department cannot claim it is finished releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuse and enabler is fully exposed.”
That’s true. For every victim, there has to be a victimizer, so the onus is equally on the government to list all the alleged victimizers for those “confirmed” thousand-plus victims they have told us do exist now that we have Blondi’s letter stating that fact.
Maybe we’ll find out more now that the Democrats are going in to read all the redactions today:
“Our review is particularly urgent because DOJ itself claims to have identified over 6 million potentially responsive pages, but after releasing only about half of them—including over 200,000 pages that DOJ redacted or withheld—says strangely that it has fully complied with the Act,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote in a letter to the DOJ last month.
“We seek to ensure that your redactions comply with the Act’s requirement that materials be withheld only in narrow circumstances, such as protecting victims’ personally identifiable information, and not on the basis of ‘embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.’”
I wouldn’t hold my breath, though, because the Dems are bound to find an equally great number of their favorite members of congress named in the files.
Khanna showed various snapshots of emails on social platform X, demanding the meeting “to ask why the senders of these emails have been redacted.”
“Concealing the reputations of these powerful men is a blatant violation of the Epstein Transparency Act we passed,” he wrote.
In one such exchange, a sender references a 9-year-old girl, while in another a message references “your littlest girl.”
You’d think those emails might be the start of a good list of potential perps worth investigating for prosecution; but Blondi still maintains she cannot find a soul worth going after. In that case, she must be dummer than her caricature suggests.
The Epstein Transparency Act only allowed for narrow redactions, largely to protect the identities of victims.
All of this about Trump being named thousands of times, raises the question of why did the DoJ also sudden take down thousands of pages last week that it had just released? Did someone not realize they had accidentally released Trump’s name thousands of times?
Ostensibly it was because, even though they have thoroughly managed not to release the single name of an alleged perpetrator, they did manage to accidentally release the names of hundreds of victims, which are the only ones Blondi claims she intended to protect:
The DOJ said it has temporarily removed thousands of Epstein files.
The files contained victim-identifying information and needed to be further redacted, officials said.
So, the official story from the DoJ is that the pages were removed due to the DoJ’s own gross ineptitude. Again strange.
In a Thursday letter to judges in the Southern District of New York, DOJ officials said they had removed approximately 9,500 documents, in part because they originally included information that identified Epstein’s victims.
I wonder how those same mistakes were not made with information those same files must have contained about some of the victims’ victimizers. Are we to believe 9,500 documents about the victims had to be suddenly taken down because they “accidentally” disclosed the victims’ identity by the DoJ’s own admission, but none of those files mentioned any of their victimizers? How is it that the names of victimizers were not accidentally released by the same mistake? That stretches how much credulity it takes to believe these things.
In the court filing, the Justice Department said the hiccups could be attributed to the sheer volume of records “from multiple offices and investigations spanning over twenty years” it needed to prepare for public release following the passage of the Epstein Files Transparency Act….
That would be the sheer volume from the semi truck full of files that was apparently parked on Blondi’s desk.
A Justice Department spokesperson told Business Insider that it “takes victim protection very seriously.”
Not as seriously as it apparently takes victimizer protection since it managed to leak numerous victim identifications but not a single perp.
“The Department had 500 reviewers looking at millions of pages for this very reason,
The release of victim information was actually a whole lot more obvious than the DoJ lets on:
DOJ release exposes dozens of Epstein victims’ names and nude photos
How do you accidentally release nude photos of the victims? Is the DoJ so sloppy in its redactions that no one happened to notice naked women in the photos? I would think that might stand out! Names and nude photos attached by the people who are only obsessed with protecting the victims?
The lack of nude photos of the victimizers and lack of identifying information about the makes me wonder if the “accidental” release was a threat of more to come if any victims start coughing up names of victimizers, perhaps answer my question above as to why they don’t cough up their own public list. The DoJ actually released the very “pornography” that Blondi kept insisting the department would NEVER release:
“It’s hard to imagine a more egregious way of not protecting victims,” survivor says after images were released
Indeed. Very hard to image how that slipped past the eye of so many male redactors dedicated as they were to protecting victim privacy. I’m pretty sure, as normal guy, so many nude photos of women might have caught my attention. I might have noticed they were naked. Just saying. But we’re supposed to believe it was another accident, just like Blondi’s apparent mistake in thinking there were only 200 pages of files to begin with. Ooops. Try 6,000,000.
The newest batch of Epstein files has exposed the names of dozens of his victims, with some appearing more than 100 times, and included dozens of unredacted nude images of young women, some of whom may have been teenagers.
How do you miss a hundred cases of a name being mentioned in conjunction with nude photos of the victim? “Sorry, we didn’t see that. We thought it was fit for public viewing. Oh, by the way, we did pull the files that contained all the Trump names, though, but we refuse to tell congress why his name was redacted. We got that part right.” (Much more below on that part.)
A Wall Street Journal report found that 43 names were left unredacted in files released by the Department of Justice. Among them were many individuals who had not gone public with their identities or were minors when they were abused by Jeffrey Epstein.
A New York Times analysis also turned up more than 40 unredacted images that appeared to be part of a personal collection.
Ooops!
Let no one say Pam Blondi’s justice department is injustice or incompetent. They are clearly capable of releasing the pornographic information they stated would never be released for the protection of the victims, even if they did also accidentally release Donald Trump’s name in some files.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche downplayed the breach in victim safety, saying that the errors affected “. 001% of all the materials.”
Of course he did.
“Every time we hear from a victim or their lawyer that they believe that their name was not properly redacted, we immediately rectify that,” he told ABC News on Sunday.
I guess it happens a lot then. Almost as if they are saying, “We’ll teach you to force us to release these files.” Yet, still not a single identified victimizers. Thousands of victims with no victimizers! Hard to imagine. They manage to keep that part out of the public eye.
A spokeswoman for the DOJ said it “takes victim protection very seriously” and has already moved to correct the errors. “When a victim’s name is alleged to be unredacted, our team is working around the clock to fix the issue and republish appropriately redacted pages as soon as possible,” the spokeswoman told the Journal.
However, lawyers for Epstein survivors say their clients needed to find their names themselves, then submit lengthy requests for removal to the DOJ.
“We notified them of the problem within an hour of the release,” attorney Brad Edwards said. “It’s been acknowledged as a grave error; there is no excuse for failing to immediately remedy it unless it was done intentionally.”
Certainly makes one wonder if it was intentional as a warning: “Mistakes like this might happen if you keep pressing us to disclose the victimizers … or if you release the names of the perps, yourselves.” Whatever the reason for the shamefully pornographic errors (we’re talking child pornography published by the DoJ that the public had never seen before), everything about this destroys credibility, and may even be outright threats and intimidation while still managing to cover up the corrupt people.
Conclusion on this one matter: The very parts the DoJ was instructed by congress TO REDACT are the very parts they did not redact … and the most obvious parts. Apparently Blondi, Patel and Bongino (as I’ll also present below) are the Three Stooges, and the DoJ Bondi runs are the Keystone Cops:
Don’t worry. Our nation is in good hands
… but the victims are not:
Anouska de Georgiou, a survivor who testified against Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell at her trial, told the Journal that her personal information was made public, including a picture of her driver’s license.
“I cooperated with the United States government when it asked for my help, and now it has failed me—and other survivors—by demonstrating a profound disregard for the safety, protection, and well-being of victims of crimes like these,” de Georgiou said.
Annie Farmer, who testified about being groomed and abused by Epstein, called the release of the images “extremely disturbing.”
“It’s hard to imagine a more egregious way of not protecting victims than having full nude images of them available for the world to download,” Farmer told the Times.
Particularly interesting was how, even though the DoJ was unable to keep the nude photos of victims from being released, they actually did fully succeed in redacting Trump’s photos. Maybe all of his info was flagged for a little extra precaution:
DOJ slammed for exposing Epstein victims while shielding Trump’s face in file dump
The long-awaited Epstein Files were finally released on January 30, 2026. It’s no surprise that President Donald Trump was also mentioned among the 3.5 million files. But, there’s one bizarre twist: Trump’s face was redacted. Trump’s involvement has been widely reported before, so why did the DOJ take this step?
So, dozens of nude photos of victims made the release but not Trump got redacted?
Only explicit images and victims’ names were supposed to be redacted per the Epstein Transparency Act.
But, but, but … that’s the part they didn’t redact.
In fact, one photo of Trump that was redacted was just an image of him giving a public speech. Did they so thoroughly redact anything about the boss that they even redacted already public photos that had no reference to anything wrong—just the president giving a speech?
For all their inability to keep from releasing extremely obvious personal information about victims (including one’s driver’s license) and photos about the victims that can now be posted all over the internet forever because you can never claw them back from everyone who might have dowloaded them, the Department of Injustice did manage to keep from releasing other important information about themselves, too, which they were supposed to disclose. So, they are selectively skilled at not releasing some things:
DOJ omitted Bondi, Patel, Blanche communications in Epstein files
A watchdog group is asking the Justice Department to explain why communications from Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and FBI Director Kash Patel don’t appear anywhere in the 2 million+ pages of Epstein files released to the public.
A little self-protection over the internal corruption going on there? Maybe they can claim executive privilege. It is disgusting that they are so able to protect themselves but not the victims they were expressly told to redact and not their nude photos either.
The group calls it “deeply troubling” that no communications from the three officials appear in the documents, despite their central role in releasing the files.
Well, a few were obviously just made public, and those few clearly do not make the department look in the least bit transparent, honest or competent. They claim the head didn’t know what the hands were doing.
“If DOJ were adhering to the broad scope of the EFTA, the Epstein Library should be replete with their communications. It is not. The obvious conclusion is that these communications have been withheld, destroyed, or redacted to the point that they are not traceable.”
That’s transparent Trump for you. Everything hidden every time you turn around, only wrenched into public view upon much protest by new laws and court orders and, still, always showing less than was demanded. No cover up there!
The DoJ rebuts the claim as follows:
A DOJ spokesperson dismissed the complaint as “a tired narrative,”
It’s a tired narrative because you have to keep being told to do what you were already told to do.
adding: “Just because you wish something to be true, doesn’t mean it is. This Department produced more than 3.5 million pages in compliance with the law.”
Yes, they did, while also withholding over 3-million pages more that were also necessary to comply with the law and while refusing to answer congress’s question about who ordered the reductions of Trump’s name.
Many are suggesting that it was a selective redaction and calling out the Department of Justice for their actions. Victims and their attorneys have also expressed outrage over the matter on social media.
It certainly is hard to see it any other way, given how nothing like that has ever happened to the victimizers and given how well the DoJ managed not to disclose its own action.
One such victim’s attorney, Jennifer Freeman, spoke up about the files. The attorney said the DOJ’s handling of the files was a mess. Freeman also claimed that the files were full of “ham-fisted redactions.”
It’s hard to argue against that.
“Let’s keep the president’s picture at one of his public speeches redacted so he’s not associated with any of this, but release these nude photos of underage girls.”
Why should the public and congress be outraged by that kind of incompetence?
Retribution?
Some online conspiracy theories suggest that it was a deliberate attempt to protect Trump and expose the victims.
Literally.
Trump and other influential figures’ faces were also redacted from the files. Journalists reviewing the immense volume of files spotted the DOJ error and immediately notified them about it.
The “errors” are just as ugly as one would expect if retribution is the case, and Trump is well known to love and demand retribution. So, you have to stretch to try to believe all of this was an error. If it is an error, why hasn’t everyone involved in the error, including Blondi, been fired for re-victimizing the victims?
Now let’s get down to the really juicy information that came from the latest file release about Trump and others so you can see what they might want so badly to protect … and about the Epstein MURDER that the FBI and Bondi are still covering up with equally odious lies … and about the new Israel spying information that would seem to confirm another “conspiracy theory” … all emerging last week as though seeping out like a blood stain from under the black redactions.
Let’s start with how those files did implicate Trump with his name attached (suddenly pulled down from the perp wall for the protection of the victims’s of course) …
