DOJ

Trump DOJ Email Suggests Epstein Death Was Murder Investigation

A newly unsealed email from 2020 suggests an investigation into the “murder of Jeffrey Epstein,” according to an individual identifying as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of New York. This revelation, uncovered from recent DOJ file releases, appears to contradict the official ruling that Epstein’s 2019 death was a suicide. The email indicates that the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner signed a confidentiality agreement related to this investigation, raising further questions about the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death long after it was declared a suicide.

Read More

DOJ Scrubs Trump Accuser Interview From Epstein Files

Attorney General Pam Bondi has asserted that no evidence of criminal activity by Trump exists, a statement that contributes to a pattern of denials from Trump officials. Simultaneously, FBI records, discovered by journalist Roger Sollenberger, reveal the bureau interviewed a specific woman at least four times during the summer of 2019. These interview records, which were accessible through a separate Epstein document database and provided to Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense, have since been removed from public view, despite legislation mandating transparency regarding Epstein-related documents.

Read More

Bondi Mocks Epstein List With Fictional Names

This article discusses the controversial release of a list of names associated with Jeffrey Epstein, purportedly from former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. The list, which includes prominent figures like George Clooney, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, has been criticized for its inaccuracies and for allegedly omitting damaging information about Donald Trump and his associates. The author argues that this move, coupled with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) failure to release all relevant Epstein files, appears to be a transparent attempt to appease the public and critics, ultimately backfiring by exposing attempts to shield certain individuals from scrutiny.

Read More

Bondi Accused of Renewed Epstein File Cover-Up Efforts

In an effort to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the Department of Justice sent a six-page letter to Congress containing a list of government officials and politically exposed persons mentioned in the files. This list, which includes prominent figures like former presidents and even deceased celebrities, has drawn criticism for its broad and seemingly arbitrary inclusion of individuals, leading to accusations of deliberately obfuscating culpability. Critics argue that the DOJ’s approach fails to distinguish between predators and those merely mentioned, and that significant redactions are obscuring crucial information, violating the spirit of the transparency act.

Read More

Newsmax Host Demands Jail Time Over Epstein Redactions

It’s certainly noteworthy when a host on Newsmax, a network often seen as a staunch supporter of Donald Trump, expresses such strong criticism of the former president’s Department of Justice, particularly concerning the redactions in the Jeffrey Epstein documents. The sentiment that heads should roll, and that people should go to jail, highlights a growing unease and demand for accountability, even within circles that have traditionally been highly supportive of the Trump administration.

The core of the issue, as voiced by the Newsmax host, revolves around the perceived cover-up or incompetence demonstrated by the DOJ in handling the release of these sensitive documents.… Continue reading

Bondi’s Fear: Victims Faced Rage as She Refused to Look

During a recent congressional hearing concerning the Department of Justice’s handling of Jeffrey Epstein’s files, US Attorney General Pam Bondi faced criticism from a group of Epstein victims. While Bondi offered an apology for what victims had endured, she did not acknowledge the victims present or face them directly. A representative challenged Bondi to look the victims in the eye and apologize for the DOJ’s failure to fully redact their names in publicly released documents.

Read More

Justice Department Antitrust Chief Resigns Abruptly

The head of the Justice Department’s antitrust unit, Gail Slater, has announced her immediate departure from her role. This comes at a significant juncture for corporate mergers, with major deals such as the potential acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery and an ongoing legal challenge against Live Nation’s ownership of Ticketmaster on the horizon. Slater’s exit follows that of her deputy and occurs amidst heightened scrutiny of large corporate transactions.

Read More

Raskin Accuses DOJ of Epstein File Cover-Up After Viewing Unredacted Documents

Top House Democrat Jamie Raskin has accused the Department of Justice of making “mysterious redactions” to documents related to Jeffrey Epstein, obscuring the names of abusers while inadvertently revealing victims’ identities. Raskin’s review of unredacted files revealed unnecessary redactions and the release of victim information, which he characterized as either incompetence or a deliberate attempt to intimidate potential witnesses. The criticism comes as millions of Epstein-related files are being publicly released under a congressional act, with Raskin planning to question Attorney General Pam Bondi about the redaction process and demand a commitment to expedite the release of remaining documents.

Read More

Federal Judge Rules DOJ Cannot Be Trusted in Voter Roll Cases

A federal judge has delivered a significant blow to the Department of Justice’s recent efforts, ruling that the agency can no longer be trusted in its pursuit of voter roll data. This decision stems from a perceived disconnect between the DOJ’s public pronouncements and its actions, leading a judge to conclude that the presumption of regularity, typically afforded to government entities, no longer applies. Essentially, the court is stating that assurances from the DOJ regarding the privacy and intended use of sensitive data must now be met with heightened scrutiny, especially when these assurances appear to conflict with public statements.

The judge’s ruling highlights a profound loss of faith in the Department of Justice’s intentions and methods.… Continue reading