Why does it take a judge's order to get this DOJ to comply with the law?

"A judge on Thursday ordered the Justice Department to either release unredacted versions of several files on the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein or explain why it can't do so, following a lawsuit accusing Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche of improperly redacting documents.

Lawmakers and Epstein survivors have raised questions about missing or heavily redacted records. The Justice Department has said only about half of the 6 million pages of documents it collected on Epstein would be released, and many of the released files are partially blacked out.

One of the emails covered by Thursday's order, in which Epstein refers to a "torture video", drew scrutiny earlier this year after Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California and GOP Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky questioned why the recipient was blacked out. Blanche later suggested on social media the recipient was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, former CEO of the Dubai-based logistics firm DP World."

STONEWALLING

"The Trump administration also was ordered to reveal the sender and recipients of a series of emails that reference the recruiting of young women.

"The key are the 14 to 15 year old girls--i am a sexual pervert because i say they are now of a reproductive age?" said one email sent to Epstein in 2015. "My heart goes out to you brother ... being called a sexual pervert is no fun."

"She is like Lolita from Nabokov, femme miniature So now I should send you her type of candidates only," another email, sent to Epstein in 2017 said."

FILES

Judge Emmet Sullivan has been in senior stays for 5 years and oversaw the persecution of Michael Flynn.

For some who prefer conciseness:

Trump AG Concedes Violations of Law

Quote:

---

Judge Emmet Sullivan has been in senior stays for 5 years and oversaw the persecution of Michael Flynn.

---

Exactly. And he ruined his reputation in the process which led to his "retirement."

Sad because he was known before as pretty good judge who followed the law and didn't put up with nonsense in his courtroom. TDS got to him, I guess. The crap he pulled in the Flynn case was ridiculous. Even the DC Circuit Court of Appeals smacked him down, TWICE on the Flynn case.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Emmet Sullivan has been in senior stays for 5 years and oversaw the persecution of Michael Flynn.

---

Exactly. And he ruined his reputation in the process which led to his "retirement."

Sad because he was known before as pretty good judge who followed the law and didn't put up with nonsense in his courtroom. TDS got to him, I guess. The crap he pulled in the Flynn case was ridiculous. Even the DC Circuit Court of Appeals smacked him down, TWICE on the Flynn case.

---

So was he wrong in this situation or not?

PaulsBunions said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Emmet Sullivan has been in senior stays for 5 years and oversaw the persecution of Michael Flynn.

---

Exactly. And he ruined his reputation in the process which led to his "retirement."

Sad because he was known before as pretty good judge who followed the law and didn't put up with nonsense in his courtroom. TDS got to him, I guess. The crap he pulled in the Flynn case was ridiculous. Even the DC Circuit Court of Appeals smacked him down, TWICE on the Flynn case.

---

So was he wrong in this situation or not?

---

This should be good. Popcorn.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Judge Emmet Sullivan has been in senior stays for 5 years and oversaw the persecution of Michael Flynn.

---

Exactly. And he ruined his reputation in the process which led to his "retirement."

Sad because he was known before as pretty good judge who followed the law and didn't put up with nonsense in his courtroom. TDS got to him, I guess. The crap he pulled in the Flynn case was ridiculous. Even the DC Circuit Court of Appeals smacked him down, TWICE on the Flynn case.

---

That is simply not true. His reputation as a judge is still excellent, and he is highly regarded and respected by his peers.

People are really hanging on to the fact that this judge is a Clinton appointed judge. They are correct, though they are leaving out that Reagan and Bush appointed him to his previous positions.
"I disagree with that judge's opinion, it can't be that a republican did something wrong, it must be the fact that the judge was appointed by a democrat 30 years ago" is a statement on nearly every thread and is really getting old.

EFR said:

---

People are really hanging on to the fact that this judge is a Clinton appointed judge. They are correct, though they are leaving out that Reagan and Bush appointed him to his previous positions.
"I disagree with that judge's opinion, it can't be that a republican did something wrong, it must be the fact that the judge was appointed by a democrat 30 years ago" is a statement on nearly every thread and is really getting old.

---

no, it's mentioned as context. I highlighted in the Politico article how ******ed this judges "memo to file" which are typically not published, not precedent setting commentary akin to "if ftc does not appear in court on Tuesday, then in our opinion he will be held in contempt".

It's being presented as some sort of admission by Blanche that something nefarious is afoot.

This judge may be technically right IF, big IF, he has considered everything and applied the law correctly. With this "judge" and this circumstance, there is even further reason to be diligent in understand and parsing what they are saying.

Instead, Politico mischaracterizes all of it to drive clicks and further a narrative.

The fact that it's posted here twice and then people ignore the content and try and simply defend the judge is very telling.

Quote:

---

A spokesperson for the Justice Department said Blanche "has not conceded anything."

"Judge Sullivan's perverse interpretation appears to be focused on driving misleading headlines. This judge is suggesting DOJ violate the law by un-redacting victim names, who as the Department has always explained, sadly became co-conspirators. DOJ has produced all responsive documents and will appeal this decision with confidence," the spokesperson said.

---

Gilligan said:

---

Just release everything but the victims names. Let the chips fall where they may...

All of it.

---

Cant, "National security"

Really just means personal and financial security for the people who own our Country like a business, but…….

But Epstein was just a patsy lmao

this is coming from a guy that believes men can change into women and women can change into men. you and your ilk are as crazy as flat earthers. Because of that you will never be taken seriously.

I bet you believe the Muslim Rape Gangs in the UK are false. I haven't seen you in that thread disavowing those atrocities. This is all politics for you. You don't care one ounce about 250,000 young girls be brutally raped by animals....unless you think it can bring down trump.

If you are on this thread demanding justice with the Epstein stuff but not on the the Muslim Rape Gangs, that tells me you don't really care about the Epstein stuff. You only want to pin the Epstein stuff on Trump. There are a lot of ya'll on this. The Muslim Rape Gangs were 100x worse than Epstein. The stuff he did was sick....but those POS 3rd worlders have raped over 250,000 young girls.

You only care about bringing down trump that is all

The Unforgiven said:

---

If you are on this thread demanding justice with the Epstein stuff but not on the the Muslim Rape Gangs, that tells me you don't really care about the Epstein stuff. You only want to pin the Epstein stuff on Trump. There are a lot of ya'll on this. The Muslim Rape Gangs were 100x worse than Epstein. The stuff he did was sick....but those POS 3rd worlders have raped over 250,000 young girls.

---

Good thing we can care about both issues. Hope this helps

The Unforgiven said:

---

If you are on this thread demanding justice with the Epstein stuff but not on the the Muslim Rape Gangs, that tells me you don't really care about the Epstein stuff. You only want to pin the Epstein stuff on Trump. There are a lot of ya'll on this. The Muslim Rape Gangs were 100x worse than Epstein. The stuff he did was sick....but those POS 3rd worlders have raped over 250,000 young girls.

---

This. Bunch of hypocrites here. That is a real scandal, not some made up one about Trump.

Was Epstein bad? Yes. Was Trump complicit? Nope. He reported Epstein and had nothing to do with him when he realized Epstein was a sleazeball. As has been repeatedly shown there is no there there against Trump. If there was, O'Biden would have used it against him.

Spare us your faux moral outrage against Trump and go after those rape gangs.

Sounds good, the DOJ should release the files referenced in the lawsuit or provide a good reason not to, per the law Trump signed a year ago.

I know it's probably been beat to death here but how do we harmonize Bondi's early statements with where we sit today? Either she was lying or there's been a cover up.

Imo she took the job in good faith then was forced to go along with the cover up. I don't see any other reason for her cute little Epstein pt 1 binder press release in February just to turn around and say they're done with the issue after.

Yep. I 100% don't think she was lying. I don't necessarily think Trump was very involved with Epstein but they are certainly covering up for someone.

techno-ag said:

---

The Unforgiven said:

---

If you are on this thread demanding justice with the Epstein stuff but not on the the Muslim Rape Gangs, that tells me you don't really care about the Epstein stuff. You only want to pin the Epstein stuff on Trump. There are a lot of ya'll on this. The Muslim Rape Gangs were 100x worse than Epstein. The stuff he did was sick....but those POS 3rd worlders have raped over 250,000 young girls.

---

This. Bunch of hypocrites here. That is a real scandal, not some made up one about Trump.

Was Epstein bad? Yes. Was Trump complicit? Nope. He reported Epstein and had nothing to do with him when he realized Epstein was a sleazeball. As has been repeatedly shown there is no there there against Trump. If there was, O'Biden would have used it against him.

Spare us your faux moral outrage against Trump and go after those rape gangs.

---

Biden's (or whatever deep state operation acted as President while Biden was in office) also had friends and donors implicated in the Epstein files. It's almost like that's what people have been saying every single page of this thread……. That also might be what Donald Christ Jr and his supporters were saying prior to him being in the position to prosecute the people responsible for coordinating with/or enabling Epstein (just like Biden)

The reason they won't be released ever is because our intelligence agencies/Deep State/Elite Class (combined these people are the true Owners and decision makers here in the United States. We are a Banana Republic at a black tie affair) knew all about it and used it for their own gain for over a decade.

But you already knew all that, at least I sure hope you did by now.

Donald Christ Jr?

Trying to get this back on track. The DOJ was sued for failure to follow the Epstein Files Act. The DOJ's response was not they indeed had followed the law but that the Plaintiff lacked standing. The Judged ruled against the DOJ's position and ordered them to comply.

Dorm 15 said:

---

Trying to get this back on track. The DOJ was sued for failure to follow the Epstein Files Act. The DOJ's response was not they indeed had followed the law but that the Plaintiff lacked standing. The Judged ruled against the DOJ's position and ordered them to comply.

---

Yes, to me it sounds like if the DOJ wants to win the appeal they'd have to convincingly argue they don't have standing. The DOJ still hasn't unredacted the names with the torture video or provided a reason for the redaction, which was required by the ETA. They have until July 2.

From the substack article:
"Katie sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing she had standing because she could not fulfill her obligation to report as a journalist without access and that DOJ's failure to release the Files in compliance with the law impacted her financially because of limitations on her work, as well.

The government tried to argue that the only remedy available would be a request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). But the Judge rejected that argument, noting that "the Attorney General ignores the fact that the Epstein Act requires disclosures that would be exempt under FOIA."

The DOJ was sued by some rando reporter likely seeking information she had no legitimate purpose for.

And the DOJ gave their response, judge said nuh uh, here's a memo otherwise.

PaulsBunions said:

---

Dorm 15 said:

---

Trying to get this back on track. The DOJ was sued for failure to follow the Epstein Files Act. The DOJ's response was not they indeed had followed the law but that the Plaintiff lacked standing. The Judged ruled against the DOJ's position and ordered them to comply.

---

Yes, to me it sounds like if the DOJ wants to win the appeal they'd have to convincingly argue they don't have standing. The DOJ still hasn't unredacted the names with the torture video or provided a reason for the redaction, which was required by the ETA. They have until July 2.

From the substack article:
"Katie sued under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing she had standing because she could not fulfill her obligation to report as a journalist without access and that DOJ's failure to release the Files in compliance with the law impacted her financially because of limitations on her work, as well.

The government tried to argue that the only remedy available would be a request made pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). But the Judge rejected that argument, noting that "the Attorney General ignores the fact that the Epstein Act requires disclosures that would be exempt under FOIA."

---

Seems like a solid case.

Yeah it sucks we have to have rando reporters sue the government in order to get them to follow the law. Blanche should just unredact those names like every normal person wants and we can be done with it.

I am confident he will or will provide the legal rationale for not doing so.

They have already refuted the judge which they correctly assert pulled his stunt to produce a friday headline for politico, in the name of justice and such.