By John Q. Hosedrinker 
An NPR investigation reveals the Justice Department withheld and removed some Jeffrey Epstein files, including those detailing accusations that President Trump sexually abused a minor. Despite a law mandating release, dozens of pages of FBI interviews and notes that appear to catalogued by the Justice Department have not been made public. Other documents concerning a key witness in the Ghislaine Maxwell trial were temporarily taken down and then partially restored. The Justice Department declined to comment on these specific files or the reasons for their non-publication.
Read the original article here
The Justice Department’s handling of certain Jeffrey Epstein-related files, particularly those that may involve Donald Trump, has raised significant concerns and accusations of deliberate withholding and removal of information. Reports suggest that a substantial number of documents mentioning Trump have been either kept from public view or taken out of a publicly accessible database, sparking questions about transparency and potential cover-ups. This situation seems to imply a deliberate effort to shield certain individuals from scrutiny, which many find deeply troubling, especially when considering the nature of the allegations surrounding Epstein and his associates.
The core of the issue appears to be the perception that the Justice Department is acting to protect powerful figures rather than to ensure justice and accountability. There’s a sentiment that laws are being treated as mere suggestions by the DOJ when it comes to sensitive cases like this, particularly when a former president is involved. This selective enforcement of legal principles or information dissemination fuels accusations of a “cover-up,” a term that seems to resonate with many observers. The idea that individuals within the Justice Department have reviewed these files and deemed it acceptable to conceal such information, especially concerning the abuse of children, is seen as a profound betrayal of public trust and a disheartening reflection on human nature.
Further complicating the narrative is the role of the media. Some believe that media outlets have also been less than forthcoming, making “ham-fisted attempts to cover for the pedos.” There’s a notable observation that a prosecutor suggested the release of certain files was a mistake, which, from a public transparency standpoint, raises eyebrows and fuels suspicion about what these files might contain. The alleged complacency and capitulation in the face of such potentially damaging information are described as “sickening,” and the hope is that Congress will find a way to hold those responsible accountable.
There’s a strong suspicion that a significant portion of the unreleased files, potentially more than half of the millions of pages, could contain incriminating details about Donald Trump. This belief is bolstered by comparisons to other instances where sensitive information related to Trump, such as sealed documents in a separate case, was kept from the public, purportedly to avoid “embarrassing” him. The lack of widespread public outcry or action is seen by some as a sign of profound societal complacency, leading to questions about why people aren’t demanding more answers and accountability.
A particular point of contention is the White House’s statement that Trump has done more for Epstein’s victims than anyone before him. This claim is met with strong skepticism, given that only Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell have been convicted. The argument is that without the release of all files and thorough investigation, no one can definitively claim progress, especially while numerous alleged abusers remain unexamined and human trafficking continues to be a pervasive problem. The absence of concrete actions from Trump to aid victims, find abusers, or thoroughly investigate all aspects of the case is highlighted as evidence that his supposed efforts are insufficient or disingenuous.
The critique extends to Trump’s perceived lack of empathy and genuine commitment to justice for the victims. His alleged past positive remarks about Maxwell, his silence on future actions regarding the investigation, and his failure to express remorse or take decisive steps to compensate victims or bring perpetrators to justice are presented as indicators that he is more interested in closing the case than in achieving genuine resolution. The idea that an innocent person would not wish to close such a case or would actively seek to hide information is a recurring theme.
The suggestion to rename these files the “Trump Files” reflects a sentiment that the former president is central to the controversy. There’s a call for Republicans in Congress, who have previously passed what are described as “toothless” transparency acts, to now take meaningful action. The hope is that they will abandon any perceived protection of fellow politicians and support legislation and investigations that hold individuals accountable for their involvement in the Epstein network and human trafficking.
The frustration with the perceived lack of transparency is palpable, with some expressing surprise that more information hasn’t leaked, while others attribute potential delays or lack of leaks to complicity from certain groups. The term “Justice” Department is used sarcastically, implying a contradiction between its name and its actions. The question of whether leaking ordered-to-be-released documents would be illegal is raised, suggesting a potential avenue for transparency if official channels are blocked.
The current situation has led to calls for a more aggressive approach from Democrats, moving beyond mere expressions of concern to outright accusations against Donald Trump. The idea is that making bold, public statements about alleged wrongdoing could normalize such truths and pressure those in power. The focus is shifting from protecting victims to exposing perpetrators, with the argument that if most victims have already been identified, then the names of their abusers should now be revealed. The difficulty in understanding how such atrocities remain hidden when so many individuals are supposedly involved in redacting files is a point of confusion and frustration.
The systematic nature of the perceived cover-up is deeply concerning, leading some to question the fundamental cognitive processes of those who continue to support Trump, especially in light of these revelations. The media’s role in potentially downplaying or burying the story is also a significant concern, with a plea for continued support for public broadcasting outlets like PBS and NPR, which are seen as vital for investigative journalism. The possibility of technical glitches, like an automatic filter mistaking “Don’t” for “Don T,” being used as an excuse for redactions, further fuels cynicism.
The sheer scale of the scandal, with the Justice Department allegedly withholding and removing files related to allegations of sexual abuse involving Trump, is considered by many to be the biggest political scandal in American history. However, there is a pessimistic outlook that the media and Congress will allow the story to fade away quickly. The notion that “traitors stick together” suggests a belief in a network of complicity among powerful individuals. The repeated assertion of “Some?” in response to the withholding of files implies that the problem is far more widespread than admitted.
The ongoing obstruction of justice and potential perjury by the DOJ and FBI are serious accusations that highlight a systemic flaw in the oversight of these institutions. The repeated question of “Who holds the DOJ responsible?” points to a perceived lack of accountability for the department itself, suggesting a critical gap in the American legal and political system. The simple yet profound observation, “…Some…” encapsulates the frustration and disbelief at the selective nature of information release and the apparent unwillingness of the Justice Department to provide complete transparency, particularly when it comes to allegations involving prominent political figures.