Epstein Files

[Blake]

I understand the bill has been signed by the President so...what's the new complaint going to be?

Why is it like pulling teeth to get this done?

[Blake]

".....It is unclear when -- or even whether -- the public will see the files, or how complete they might be, as the bill includes several exceptions to a full release that could complicate or delay disclosure.

The bill says the DOJ "may withhold or redact" the iden ies and "personal and medical files," of Epstein's victims. Bondi has said the department will "continue to follow the law while protecting victims."....

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/afte...y?id=127700652


So they'll just pass out the same high school binders they used for Phase 1.

Lol you Trump rubes are so stupid.

[ChumpDumper]

I understand the bill has been signed by the President so...what's the new complaint going to be?

Why did he fight for months to keep them hidden?

[Yonivore]

so, he freed Palestine to execute their own citizens in the streets of Gaza and now, he's done what Democrats refuse to do for years, and released the Epstein Files. Here's hoping it destroys a bunch of Democrats and their cronies, in the process.

[Blake]

so, he freed Palestine to execute their own citizens in the streets of Gaza and now, he's done what Democrats refuse to do for years, and released the Epstein Files. Here's hoping it destroys a bunch of Democrats and their cronies, in the process.

If it was going to destroy a bunch of democrats, why haven't the Republicans released it quicker? That's been your argument all along......"why didn't Biden release them if Trump was in it??"

you s always want it both ways

[ChumpDumper]

so, he freed Palestine to execute their own citizens in the streets of Gaza and now, he's done what Democrats refuse to do for years, and released the Epstein Files. Here's hoping it destroys a bunch of Democrats and their cronies, in the process.

Why did your Trump work so hard to block the release of his Epstein files before he TACOed in the face of losing to his own party?

[Winehole23]

FOIA request related to the handling of the Epstein files gets expedited

In this Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case, Democracy Forward seeks expedited review of FOIA requests regarding the Justice Department’s handling of files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. After the Department constructively denied its expedited review requests, Democracy Forward filed this lawsuit and moved for summary judgment. Because Democracy Forward has demonstrated that the Department’s handling of the Epstein files is a “matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there exist possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence,” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv), its FOIA requests are largely en led to expedited review. But because its requests are partially overbroad, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Democracy Forward’s Motion for Summary Judgment. At the outset, the court notes that Plaintiff’s Notice of Recent Developments, ECF No. 16, does not affect the court’s review of the instant motion. In reviewing requests for expedited processing, the court is limited to “the record before the agency at the time” of the denial or constructive denial. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(iii). Therefore, although recent Congressional activity and media coverage may support Democracy Forward’s claim regarding “the public’s urgent need for access” to the information Democracy Forward seeks, Pl.’s Notice at 3, the court cannot and will not consider it. Moreover, recent legislation concerning the release of the Epstein files does not moot this case because Democracy Forward seeks records concerning the Department’s handling of the files—records that are distinct from the files themselves.

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2025cv2597-17

[Winehole23]

Democracy Forward has also established that this widespread media coverage raises “possible questions about the government’s integrity that affect public confidence.” 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). As the plain text of the regulation makes clear, a requestor need not point to actual evidence of government misconduct; they need only show possible questions regarding government integrity. “The primary way to determine whether such possible questions exist by examining the state of public coverage . . . and whether that coverage surfaces possible ethics issues” that affect public confidence. Am. Oversight, 292 F. Supp. 3d at 508. Democracy Forward has cleared this bar. As its submission to the Justice Department showed, prominent outlets have reported that the Department’s change in position has generated widespread controversy that has undermined public trust. See, e.g., David Morgan, Epstein Furor Undermines Public Trust, Republican Election Hopes, Two U.S. Lawmakers Say, REUTERS (July 27, 2025), https://perma.cc/7H7D-T95C. The New York Times wrote that it “fueled further su ion that something was being hidden.” Maggie Haberman & Glenn Thrush, Attorney General Told Trump His Name Appeared in Epstein Files, N.Y. TIMES (July 23, 2025), https://perma.cc/T4BE-HQXG. Newsweek similarly reported that “the controversy over transparency and accountability in the Epstein investigation remains a focal point for the public, with polls indicating most Americans—across party lines—believe the federal government is concealing evidence related to the case.” Anna Commander, Republican Targeted by Trump Says Epstein Issue “Not Going to Go Away,” NEWSWEEK (July 23, 2025), https://perma.cc/8YHB-FUNE. And NPR reported that the Justice Department’s handling of the matter has resulted in “credibility problems” for the Department. See Sacha Pfeiffer et al., DOJ Faces Credibility Questions As It Investigates Jeffrey Epstein, NPR (July 25, 2025), https://perma.cc/M3WE-C7D8. In sum, the media coverage cited by Democracy Forward shows that the Department’s handling of the Epstein files raises possible questions regarding the government’s integrity.

[Winehole23]

For the reasons explained above, the court will GRANT IN PART and DENY IN PART Democracy Forward’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The court will order Defendants to expedite processing of Democracy Forward’s July 25 and July 28 FOIA requests, except with respect to the overbroad search terms “whistleblower” and “flight logs.”

[Winehole23]

That's your standard and I'll stick to my assertion that I've yet to see anything that leads me to believe Trump has committed any crimes but, in fact, has helped end the terror of Epstein's crimes

neither honor nor morality bind you in your loyalty to Trump

crystal clear

[Winehole23]

[Winehole23]

“Federal employees do not lose their privacy simply because they work for the U.S. government, nor do they forfeit their cons utional rights of free speech or to hold personal opinions,” Zaid said in a statement. “Most importantly, this Administration does not have the right to fire an employee without following proper due process protections.”

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/1...iring-00666788

[Blake]

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/1...iring-00666788

The problem starts with us electing morons like TV celebrities and sports heroes that have no clue how the government or the law work.

[Winehole23]

Bill Richardson died two years ago

[ChumpDumper]

Bill Richardson died two years ago

Sperry knows this is old (and dead) news.

[koriwhat]

The problem starts with us electing morons like TV celebrities and sports heroes that have no clue how the government or the law work.

You elected Biden... I guess it's ok because he's been a leech in govt for over 50 yrs and had pudding for brains; Biden was your perfect candidate, an old white racist govt leech!

[ChumpDumper]

Not a convicted felon and adjudicated rapist tho.

[Blake]

Bill Richardson died two years ago

kori still wishes death on him

[koriwhat]

kori still wishes death on him

I don't even know who that dude is. And why are you so hung up on me? Seriously? It's quite the obsession bro.

[ChumpDumper]

Low information.

[Winehole23]

status update requested by House members

Five members of Congress from both parties and both chambers are asking Attorney General Pam Bondi for a briefing and status update by the end of the week on the legally mandated release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.

Congress overwhelmingly passed a law requiring the Justice Department to release the do ents within 30 days of the Nov. 19 enactment of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“In light of the short 30 day deadline to release the Epstein Files, we are particularly focused on understanding the contents of any new evidence, information or procedural hurdles that could interfere with the Department’s ability meet this statutory deadline,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Bondi dated Wednesday and first obtained by NBC News.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ate-rcna246980

[Winehole23]

new Epstein docs dropped, pics from his house in the Virgin Islands



12.03.25 USVI Production - Dropbox

[Winehole23]

House Oversight Dems released the stuff

[Winehole23]

(the man had really bad taste, it's a shame for us all that Jeffrey Epstein was a role model for TRUMP)

(pic of Epstein's Manhattan Living room)





(TRUMP's Oval Office)

[Winehole23]