By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Department of Justice (DOJ) has reported “substantial progress” in its review of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, with over 500 individuals assigned to the task, including redactions. Despite the efforts, the review has experienced “inevitable glitches” due to the high volume of materials. The DOJ stated that the materials reviewed and redacted thus far include sensitive victim information and the department is coordinating resources across various offices using a centralized platform. The agency has already released 12,285 documents and has over two million documents undergoing review, with an additional five million records being reviewed.
Read the original article here
Epstein files update as Pam Bondi admits “glitches,” and the whole situation feels incredibly frustrating. It’s almost unbelievable that the Department of Justice, after missing its legal deadline by weeks, is now citing “glitches” as the reason for the delay. Are you kidding me? This administration seems to treat accountability like a suggestion, not a requirement. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that this is just a way to buy time, to stall, and to potentially shield certain individuals from the full light of the truth.
The excuses are getting increasingly ridiculous. To hear “glitches” used as a catch-all explanation for such a high-profile case is insulting. Are we supposed to believe that with the resources and manpower of the DOJ, they can’t manage to release these files efficiently? It’s like they ran out of red markers or something. This isn’t a video game; it’s a matter of immense public interest, with potential implications for justice and accountability.
The fact that over three weeks have passed without a single file being produced, despite a law that was passed to ensure their release, is deeply concerning. It feeds the suspicion that something is being deliberately obstructed. The silence from Congress, despite the almost unanimous vote to release the files, is equally disheartening. It raises questions about political maneuvering and the potential for compromise when it comes to holding powerful figures accountable.
Reading the official statement from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is supposedly leading the charge on this review, only adds fuel to the fire. Her letter to the judges, acknowledging “inevitable glitches,” feels more like a tactic to deflect criticism than a genuine attempt to provide transparency. The mention of 500 people working on redactions feels more like a justification for the delay than an explanation of the progress. The lack of a clear timeline for completion further fuels the perception of stonewalling.
The constant references to redactions, especially the suggestion that “Trump” is a particularly difficult word to redact, feels almost comical. It suggests that there’s a conscious effort to protect certain individuals, even if it means dragging out the process and further undermining public trust. The whole thing smells of a cover-up, a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice.
It’s difficult not to wonder what other legal situations allow defendants to manipulate evidence and control the timeline of events. The consistent patterns of lies and misrepresentation from the administration create a sense of outrage. The term “glitches” feels like a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth, a way to spin the situation and avoid accountability. It is hard not to think that Bondi and her allies are intentionally running interference for someone.
The idea of a “special master” to oversee the release seems like a reasonable suggestion at this point. The potential conflicts of interest are far too significant to ignore. If, as some have suggested, the primary motivation is to protect certain individuals, then the current setup is unlikely to deliver the truth. It’s a reminder of how quickly power can be abused and how essential it is to have checks and balances in place.
It’s also hard not to wonder if the situation would be viewed differently if the names involved weren’t so politically charged. The sheer level of interest in the Epstein files is partly driven by the figures involved. If it wasn’t for the potential involvement of a former president, would the public and the media be as focused on this? It is statistically impossible that there isn’t someone involved in the cover-up that isn’t documenting or sabotaging the cover-up.
In this case, it is not a “glitch.” It is a feature, a deliberate attempt to protect powerful individuals. The use of “glitches” as an excuse is nothing short of insulting, and the lack of accountability is disheartening.