The Department of Justice has released less than 1% of the so-called Epstein files, a court filing has revealed, as Democrats step up criticism of the Trump administration’s “lawlessness” for keeping records under seal.
The department conceded that only 12,285 documents, totalling 125,575 pages, relating to the disgraced financier and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein have been published to date, despite a federal law requiring the vast majority to be released by 19 December.
Pam Bondi, the US attorney general, wrote a five-page update to Paul Engelmayer, the federal New York judge overseeing the case, on Monday, asserting that efforts to protect the identities of Epstein’s victims were a priority, and had slowed the process.
“There are more than two million documents potentially responsive to the Act that are in various phases of review,” she wrote in the letter co-signed by Todd Blanche, her deputy, and Jay Clayton, US attorney for the southern district of New York.
"What are they trying to hide?” Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said in a post to X on Monday accusing the justice department of failing to submit a required unredacted list to Congress “of all government officials and politically exposed persons” named or referenced in the files.
“It’s been 17 DAYS since the Trump DOJ first broke the law and failed to release all the Epstein files. It’s been 14 DAYS since Trump’s DOJ released anything at all – with the DOJ doing everything in its power to delay and obfuscate.”
That 1% contains Trump’s name hundreds of times and has credible evidence of him being party to his own child’s infanticide
What could even be worse at that point
Actually, the tip doesn’t allege that it was Trump’s child, it alleges that Trump was present when her uncle killed the baby. It makes no allegation about who the father is, and sadly the list of candidates would be very large in that scenario. He was there near the birth, no claim about who was there for the conception.
I also hate to admit it, but that specific “credible evidence” was a tip submitted via an online form in October 2020. Certainly worth searching for/demanding more to see where, if anywhere, the tip went, but by itself it isn’t credible evidence. There’s so much more credible bad stuff about Trump that makes this quite believable, but until linked to more substantive stuff, probably best to stick to the more concrete stuff. I suspect there were quite a few crafted attempts at ‘October Surprises’ during the 2020 race and Epstein was a solid topic well known by the populace to try those sorts of things.
The more interesting thing about that particular piece of evidence is that it’s concrete proof of what we already know: that they’re censoring Trump’s name in the documents.
Actually, that tip didn’t even pretend to redact Trump’s name. This was not one of the documents where someone had to highlight/copy/paste to ‘defeat’ the redaction.
There may be other places where they did redact his name, I don’t know. I haven’t bothered and the specific examples that people bothered to highlight weren’t Trump.
They retracted it and then republished it with his name redacted.
I missed that, currently it’s published without that redaction… https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 8/EFTA00025010.pdf
When did they redact it?
My bad it was a different Trump Epstein reference.
https://bsky.app/profile/meidastouch.com/post/3mahwlfgxdc2p
Ok, now that makes sense, and I can see the strategy.
Some unsubstantiated tip submitted during the 2020 election? Leave Trump’s name in and emphasize how tenuous Trump’s presence is in the Epstein files.
Your linked document appears to be a part of more substantial testimony, so redact Trump since it’s not really suitable for debunking.