The Department of Justice released its latest tranche of Epstein-related documents and photos late Monday along with a statement on the department’s official social media account: The files contain “untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump,” it said. “To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”
First, the U.S. Department of Justice, an agency charged with serving the American people and victims of crime, should not be acting as a defense for Donald Trump. These disclosures are being made in connection with a federal law. The Epstein Files Transparency Act is broad and clear in a way that many statutes are not. Understanding it doesn’t require careful parsing or statutory analysis. It is intended to do one thing: get information, all of the information, out into the public arena. If something in those disclosures makes Trump look bad in some way (as he apparently thinks it does), he can explain it himself or through his political apparatus.
But the Justice Department’s noncompliance with the law and its political defense of Trump are themselves telling.
The legislative branch (and the public) actually listened to survivors and crafted a law for the benefit of women who have been demanding information to move forward from trauma they experienced at the hands of child predators and a justice system stacked against them. But current Justice Department leadership has been using the survivors as a shield to justify its failure to comply with the mandated release of information.
Ordinarily, the Department of Justice would not release files or information about uncharged individuals. The Justice Department does not normally release internal memos or deliberations about its charging decisions. There are good reasons behind these policies, like protecting reputational harm to individuals when evidence of a crime cannot be proven. Similarly, the Justice Department normally does not publicly release grand jury testimony or information because of secrecy laws barring exactly that.
The Justice Department’s noncompliance with the law and its political defense of Trump are telling.
But the Epstein Files Transparency Act changed all of that in this circumstance. It overrides that normal process with respect to a wide range of information in the department’s possession. Among the broad categories of people and entities it covers are Justice Department and FBI investigations of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, other Epstein’s “associates,” and “[i]ndividuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings” and “[e]ntities (corporate, nonprofit, academic, or governmental) with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks.”
Additionally, the law overrides the typical process with regard to broad categories of information, including “non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates” and “internal DOJ communications” concerning “decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates.”
The law does allow for redactions, with respect to “personally identifiable information of victims” and other exceptions related to the victims, child sex abuse materials and information that would “jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary.” There are also exceptions for information that pertains to national security or foreign policy.
All of these categories of information were to be released by Friday, Dec. 19, in a searchable database. Despite the clarity and breadth of the law, this Justice Department leadership has been stunningly noncompliant. Despite the clarity and breadth of the law, this Justice Department leadership has been stunningly noncompliant. Only a fraction of the files were released Friday, though there was no mechanism (or request) for an extension or a rolling production; files were initially not posted in a searchable format but, rather, as individual documents; and the initial files released did not include internal Justice Department memos and communications, immunity agreements, financial records or even names of associates. The Justice Department’s justifications for its omissions? Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has echoed Attorney General Pam Bondi’s July statement that a review of the files did not reveal a predicate for further investigation of any individuals. This means there is no “active federal investigation” on which to base withholding (which also means that the New York “investigation” of Democrats affiliated with Epstein ordered by Bondi at Trump’s direction should be closed). Blanche’s stated reason for noncompliance would be laughable were it not such a serious issue: “The reason why we are still reviewing documents and still continuing our process is simply that– to protect victims,” he said on Sunday. This is coming from the same Justice Department leadership that has, according to the survivors, consistently refused to communicate with them or assist them in reviewing and comprehending the massive files. It’s the same leadership that a federal judge reviewing the disclosure requests said has paid “lip service” to the victims but has “not treated them with the solicitude they deserve.” It’s the same leadership who gave air to lies spewed by Epstein’s associate Maxwell, herself a convicted offender, and then rewarded her with a cushy prison transfer. The DOJ leadership’s conduct with respect to disclosure, “suggests an ongoing intent to keep survivors and the public in the dark as much as possible and as long as possible,” a group of survivors said in a statement Monday. The current DOJ leadership seems far more concerned with protecting Trump than survivors themselves.
Mimi Rocah
Miriam E. Rocah is a former district attorney of Westchester County, New York, and former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, where she also served as chief of the Westchester Division. 
