By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In accordance with the Act’s requirements and as previously submitted to the courts, the Department has now released all relevant records, documents, communications, and investigative materials. These materials pertain to nine distinct categories, as detailed in submissions to the Southern District of New York concerning the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutions. This comprehensive release aims to fulfill the legal obligations surrounding these significant cases.
Read the original article here
Pam Bondi finds herself under a considerable amount of fire after declaring that all files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein have been released. This statement, made in a letter to members of Congress, has apparently stirred the pot not just among usual critics, but even among outlets typically aligned with the political right, such as Fox News and Newsmax. It’s quite telling when these networks, often seen as staunch supporters of conservative viewpoints, are expressing anger and disappointment over the handling of this sensitive information. One can only imagine the internal discussions and analyses happening within those media organizations to reach such a conclusion.
The core of the criticism hinges on the assertion that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has fulfilled all requirements of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Bondi, along with her deputy Todd Blanche, communicated this in a letter, even providing a list of names found within the released documents. However, lawmakers who were instrumental in crafting the legislation, like Republican Representative Thomas Massie, argue that this release is far from sufficient. Massie, for instance, has pointed out that crucial internal memos detailing past decisions about charging Epstein and his associates have not been made public. This suggests a deliberate withholding of information that could shed more light on the DOJ’s historical actions and potential oversights.
Adding to the controversy, Representative Ro Khanna, who co-authored the Transparency Act, has accused the DOJ of deliberately obscuring the truth. His concern is that the current release aims to “muddy the waters” between genuine predators and individuals merely mentioned in communications. He highlighted the absurdity of lumping together individuals from vastly different contexts, such as Janis Joplin, who passed away long before Epstein’s documented activities, with someone like Larry Nassar, a convicted abuser. This lack of clear distinction, Khanna argues, makes it difficult to discern the true nature of each person’s connection to Epstein and the broader scandal, further fueling suspicions about what information is being intentionally obscured.
Many observers feel that the DOJ’s approach to this document release has been a mere “dog and pony show,” designed to appear transparent while actually concealing key details. The sentiment is that a true and complete accounting of the events and individuals involved remains elusive. The suggestion that all relevant files have been released is met with significant skepticism, with many believing that crucial information continues to be withheld. This distrust is amplified by the fact that these are Epstein-related files, a subject matter that has already been shrouded in controversy and secrecy for years.
The notion that Bondi is deliberately lying under oath is a recurring theme in the reactions. The idea that she might face consequences for this is also met with cynicism, with some pointing out that such statements are often made with the expectation of immunity, particularly within certain political circles. The alleged existence of gaps in the released files, specifically between 1999 and 2001, further fuels the accusation of deliberate deception. The swiftness with which this criticism has arisen, even from seemingly unexpected corners of the media landscape, underscores the gravity of the accusations and the public’s deep-seated desire for full disclosure.
There’s a palpable sense that Bondi, and by extension the DOJ, is playing a strategic game, possibly influenced by political pressures or a desire to protect certain powerful individuals. The argument is that transparency here is not a genuine goal, but rather a performance. The critique extends to the broader implications for accountability, with many believing that the current approach is designed to shield high-ranking officials and wealthy elites implicated in the scandal. This perception of a cover-up, especially given the history of the Epstein case, is deeply unsettling for many.
The reaction highlights a broader frustration with perceived dishonesty and a lack of accountability in public service. The comparison to Donald Trump, suggesting Bondi “lies like Donald Trump,” is a potent accusation that resonates with those who believe a pattern of deception exists. The calls for her to be jailed or impeached reflect a profound level of anger and a belief that obstruction of justice is being committed. The sentiment is that this is not a simple case of bureaucratic error but a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice and protect those involved.
The sheer volume of documents, or rather, the perceived lack thereof when compared to earlier statements about the extent of the files, is also a point of contention. Reports suggest millions of documents remain in government possession, with the released portion heavily redacted. This mathematical discrepancy, as some have pointed out, does not “math” out, leading to further suspicion. Furthermore, accusations of the DOJ mishandling the release by exposing victim names while concealing associate names are viewed as incredibly problematic, regardless of intent.
Ultimately, the criticism leveled against Pam Bondi following her statement about the Epstein files being fully released reveals a deep distrust in governmental transparency and accountability. The widespread outrage, even from right-leaning media, suggests that the handling of this information has crossed a line for many, fueling demands for genuine disclosure and serious consequences for those perceived to be obstructing justice or protecting powerful individuals. The core message is clear: for many, the released files are simply not enough, and the narrative of full transparency is not being believed.