DOJ's Bungled Epstein Rollout Ignores the Law

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin? Or what that clunking sound from your dryer is? With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top-rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

Hey everyone, Ellie here wishing you a happy Friday for the first time. In the year 2026, whenever we turn the corner on New Year, it gets me thinking about sort of time more generally, not to get super philosophical on you. But one thing that occurred to me, I'm sure I'm not the first to observe this. We are now in the second quarter. of the 21st century, which...

Boggles my mind. I mean, those people who are about my age remember when the Prince song came out in 1999. I think it came out in the early 80s, 83 or 84. You'd think, oh man, 1999, 2000. I'm going to be alive when it happens that we turn over to 2000. Well, here we are now into the second quartile of the 21st century. I don't know. It's all crazy. More directly, more recently, think about where we were one year ago, January 2nd. 2025.

Joe Biden was still the president. Kamala Harris was vice president. Donald Trump was just a few weeks away from taking back office as the 47th president. Think of how much has changed legally and politically in that one year. of Donald Trump's presidency. Will things change as much in the year ahead? Nobody knows. I have no way of knowing, but my guess is probably not. I think Trump came in and put in so many changes so aggressively and so quickly. I don't think we're likely to see

quite as much upheaval in 2026. But God only knows, I consider myself privileged to have been here with you throughout 2025 to try to explain and make sense of it all. And I'm thrilled to be doing the same with you as we move together. into 2026. So wishing you all a very happy and healthy new year. Okay, on with this week's piece. As always, really do enjoy hearing your thoughts, questions, and comments. Send them in to lettersatcafe.com.

The first sign of trouble came when Justice Department leadership, sworn and ordinarily inclined to follow the law, casually blew off their statutory due date. The Epstein Files Transparency Act. passed 427 to 1 in the House, unanimously affirmed in the Senate and then signed by the president, required that DOJ, and I quote, shall, not may, produce, and again, I quote, all.

not some, documents within 30 days of the law's November 19th enactment. Yet when the December 19th deadline hit, Justice Department leadership channeled the fast times at Ridgemont High stoner Jeff Spicoli. to explain their unlawful delinquency. Just couldn't make it on time. That was a terrible Spicoli. That was more like Beavis and Butthead. Alas, I'm not an impressionist.

Things spiraled from there. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche reassured Congress that DOJ was really, really trying its hardest and would finish its work, and I quote, over the next two weeks, end quote. Yet, as the Justice Department sporadically dropped additional document tranches throughout the Christmas holiday.

Blanche announced that prosecutors had, quote, uncovered over a million more documents potentially related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, end quote. Uncovered is a charitable word choice here, given that the documents mostly sat in DOJ's own internal. Here we are two weeks out, and we presently have no idea where the overall production stands. Has DOJ released, say, 95%? of the Epstein files, 50%, 22%, the Justice Department itself seems not quite sure.

Compounding the problem, the rollout of the so-called Epstein library, it makes me chuckle because it's such a strange thing to label this and it's nowhere near an actual library, was riddled with Bush League errors. The word search function specifically required by the act did not work for hours after the initial production went live, surely resulting in countless searches for Trump. or even Clinton, that yielded no results. Now each gives us over 300 results.

Thousands of documents, some relating to Trump, mysteriously disappeared from the database and then resurfaced hours later without explanation. And the Justice Department offered up a mishmash of internally inconsistent redactions. Some names were surgically removed from longer narratives, but other times DOJ apparently used a paint roller to black out entire hundred plus page documents. Worst of all, DOJ unforgivably failed to fully redact victim identifying information as required.

by the act, this after Blanche crowed that, and I quote, protecting victims is of the highest priority for President Trump, the attorney general, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. Alas. But the Justice Department's bungled rollout.

should not distract from an even more serious problem. It's open disregard of the law's substantive commands. DOJ leadership and politicians alike are fond of praising themselves for seeking transparency. Now, if they're truly concerned with shedding meaningful light here, they'd focus on two overarching questions. First, why did federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida

give Epstein an outrageous state-level sweetheart deal in Florida in 2007 when they had ample basis to prosecute him federally and lock him up for decades. And second, who else? Beyond Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell participated in the massive child sex trafficking conspiracy. Now, the act, as written.

is intentionally geared towards these questions. Yet DOJ's leaders have simply reinterpreted the law to their own preference and convenience and have left victims and the public largely in the dark on these key issues. For example, Blanche has declared that the Justice Department will not release documents subject to the deliberative process. Privilege, lawyer talk for internal prosecutorial communications about whether to investigate, charge or plead out a given case.

The problem is that the Epstein Act specifically requires disclosure of precisely those documents. And I quote, internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos. meeting notes concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates, end quote. Now, there's a fair argument that it's a lousy idea for prosecutors to publicly reveal their internal deliberations.

But the problem is the act specifically requires it. So long as Justice Department leadership refuses to follow the law as written, we'll never learn what really happened inside the Southern District of Florida in 2007. How much evidence did prosecutors have? Why did then U.S. attorney Alex Acosta let Epstein plead out to piddly state level charges? Why did prosecutors ignore and at times mislead Epstein's victims? Did anyone inside?

DOJ object. Similarly, the Justice Department has decided to redact the names of 10 individuals labeled as co-conspirators by FBI agents working the case. And it appears the prosecutors have decided to black out the names of various others who, according to investigative documents, allegedly had or sought sexual contact with minors. Yet the act specifically requires to the contrary that, quote.

No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity. No sentient human being actually believes that only two people... Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were entirely responsible for an international child sex trafficking ring that victimized hundreds of underage girls.

Yet nobody else has been charged and will never learn the identities of other culpable facilitators and participants so long as the Justice Department refuses to follow the law's plain language.

Relatedly, Justice Department leadership seemingly have no clue whether they're actually criminally investigating anybody. In July 2025. Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Cash Patel released a formal memo concluding that after an exhaustive review of all material known to the Justice Department, quote, we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation of uncharged.

end quote. Four months later, President Donald Trump called for an investigation of Bill Clinton and other Democrats. Bondi promptly announced that she had assigned the matter to prosecutors in the Southern District of New York, who, quote, end quote. But just weeks later, upon the initial release of the Epstein files, Blanche declared that, quote, nor did it, meaning the Justice Department, uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged.

third parties, end quote. So what's the SDNY doing then? Investigating nobody? Bondi, Blanche and Patel need to get together and figure out if they're actually criminally investigating anybody or not. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Yet for all their self-congratulatory bluster about transparency, Bondi and Blanche have decided to ignore the law and reinterpret it to their own convenience. Unless that changes, Epstein's victims and the general public alike will never.

get meaningful accountability. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed. Well, the holidays have come and gone once again. But if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift, well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half-off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now. You call it an early present for next year. What do you have to lose? Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

Limited time, 50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required. $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12-month plan. Taxes and fees extra. Speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms.