US Justice Department begins releasing government Epstein files | Donald Trump News

The United States Department of Justice has begun to release part of its trove of files documenting the life and crimes of the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

But Friday’s much-anticipated release is expected to fall short of the full publication of the Epstein file mandated under a recently passed law.

Earlier in the day, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche warned that some documents would be delayed, in order to ensure the privacy of Epstein’s sex-trafficking victims.

“I expect that we’re going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks,” Blanche told Fox News.

“So today, several hundred thousand, and then, over the next couple of weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more.”

That announcement, however, has spurred outrage — and the possibility of a backlash from the US Congress.

“It is disappointing that they haven’t been able to release these documents on time in compliance with the law,” Democratic Representative Ro Khanna said on Friday.

“While it’s clear they’re trying at the very least to meet the deadline, they should have been able to do more.”

Congress had set a 30-day deadline for the release of the full investigative file when it passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 19.

The law required the Justice Department to “make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials” in its possession.

That includes records obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), as well as internal communications about decisions to charge — or not charge — the late financier.

The law’s purview also extends to materials in the government’s possession related to Epstein’s co-defendant and ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell and documents about entities with “known or alleged ties” to Epstein.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act, however, did contain some exemptions. It allowed the government to redact information that might be used in ongoing investigations or that might identify victims. Explicit material was also allowed to be concealed.

Still, Khanna said Justice Department leaders owed the public “ a clear timeline of when the rest of the documents will be released and an explanation for why they did not release all of them today”.

He also criticised Friday’s release for containing “ very heavy redactions”, even for material that should have already been publicly available from grand jury materials.

“They owe the Congress and the American public an explanation for every redaction that I didn’t see published on the DOJ page,” Khanna told reporters. “The law is very clear that any redaction has to be justified in writing.”

Frustrations with Friday’s release

Friday’s release on the Justice Department website included a search bar that promised the “full Epstein library”.

But on social media, users complained that there was a queue to enter the Justice Department’s site and that the search tool failed to return results for basic terms related to the case.

Viewers also pointed out that many of the newly released materials included pages that were largely blacked out.

“ I was encouraged initially when Todd Blanche said that we were going to have hundreds of thousands of documents released,” Khanna himself said. “So far, I have not seen much new.”

Khanna and Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky were among the sponsors for the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

He warned that members of the Trump administration could face consequences if they fail to release the full Epstein file.

“Thomas Massie and I will continue to explore all options to fight to make sure that they comply with the law, whether that is holding people in inherent contempt, recommending people for prosecution, recommending impeachment or private lawsuits,” Khanna said.

The official account for the Democratic Party, meanwhile, underscored Blanche’s comments that Friday’s release would be partial.

“Trump’s DOJ will not comply with today’s release deadline for the Epstein files,” the party wrote. “All files were required by law to be released today.”

Even some Republicans appeared to express frustration with the limited scope of Friday’s file drop.

“Release all the files,” Congress member Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia wrote on social media in the hours after Blanche’s interview. “It’s literally the law.”

In the lead-up to Friday’s release, Massie himself posted a 14-minute video on social media instructing the public about how to evaluate Friday’s file release.

“The victims’ lawyers have been in contact with me, and collectively they know that there are at least 20 names of men who are accused of sex crimes in the possession of the FBI. These would reside in the FD-302 forms,” he said.

“The FBI fills out these forms to summarise or memorialise what a witness gave them as far as testimony when they interviewed with the FBI.”

“So if we get a large production on December 19, and it does not contain a single name of any male who’s accused of a sex crime or sex trafficking or rape or any of these things, then we know they haven’t produced all the documents.”

Honouring survivors’ requests

Survivors of Epstein’s abuses have long petitioned for the US government to release its full file on the late financier, who died in 2019 while in a New York City jail, awaiting federal trial.

Previously, in 2008, he had been found guilty on solicitation and child prostitution charges after reaching a plea deal with federal prosecutors in Florida, but critics slammed that deal as a lightweight sentence that failed to hold Epstein accountable for the magnitude of his crimes.

Hundreds of women have stepped forward in recent years to testify to sexual abuse and misconduct at Epstein’s hands. Many say they were minors at the time of the abuse.

Public scrutiny has long swirled around the case, given Epstein’s wealth and prominent connections. He was known to socialise with figures including Microsoft founder Bill Gates, scholar Noam Chomsky and political figures like Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.

Earlier this year, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly a prince in the United Kingdom, had his royal titles and privileges stripped as a result of his association with Epstein and the sexual abuse allegations against him.

In the US, the case has proven to be a lingering black eye for the Trump White House, which has publicly touted itself as the “most transparent administration in history”.

Trump’s “Make America Great Again” base was strongly associated with Epstein-related conspiracy theories, including that the late financier kept a “client list” to coerce the rich and powerful.

But despite a public statement in February that the list was on her desk, Trump’s Attorney General Pam Bondi later issued a memo in July, alongside FBI director Kash Patel, saying that the government had no such document.

That fuelled public outcry against the Trump administration, reigniting rumours and scrutiny about the president’s own relationship with Epstein.

Trump has long denied being friends with Epstein, despite photos and documents that suggest a certain intimacy.

In July, Trump told reporters that he and Epstein had a falling-out after the financier allegedly poached employees from the Mar-a-Lago spa.

“I said, ‘Listen, we don’t want you taking our people,’” Trump explained. “And then, not too long after that, he did it again. And I said, ‘Outta here.’”

In a recent article with the magazine Vanity Fair, Trump’s chief of staff Susie Wiles acknowledged Trump was in the Epstein files, but she denied he was involved in any wrongdoing: “He’s not in the file doing anything awful.”

“I know it’s a passe word, but [they were] sort of young, single playboys together,” Wiles told the publication.

Trump has often gone on the offensive against critics who sought to tie him to the Epstein files, calling members of his own base “stupid” for fixating on the file.

But in November, he reversed course and urged Republicans to vote for the Epstein Files Transparency Act. It passed with bipartisan support, with a vote of 427 to one in the House of Representatives and unanimous approval in the Senate.