Epstein Abuse Ring

Away End - General Chat
548

Makes me so uncomfortable releasing unredacted files. I am assuming and hoping that they are not forcing victims and/or *innocent person having their name plastered everywhere just so that some idiots can get their jollies off.

*like a model that didn’t get abused or trafficked, that just doesn’t want their name dropped as most people will think she was abused and trafficked.

It’s such conflicting information, some places say unredacted, some say redacted if there is good reason. I would logically think redacted with the reason why it’s redacted is sufficient.

1 Like
549

I think this is exactly what the judge is doing. He is asking for the fully unredacted files, in his chambers only, and with proof that the proper redactions were made. No chance a judge of this caliber would release anything that might harm innocent victims. Think Todd Blanche is truly over a rock now. We will see what transpires.

2 Likes
550

Sounds unrealistic. Give me 3 million records unredacted and reasons why you have redacted certain things. This is going to take a huge team to go through 3 million records and check the validity of redactions.

e.g.

Q: Why is this girls face redacted that is sitting on Epstine’s lap.
A: She was the 8 year old daughter of a family friend at her birthday party.

  1. Now do you take that at face value?
    or
  2. Do you do more in depth investigation. Who is the parent? What is the girls birthday? Where was the event? Who else was present? What other photo’s do you have from this event?

If its 1, its a complete waste of time.
If its 2, well then this has become a multi-year project that will have 100’s of people working on it.

1 Like
551

… I think the judge just wants the few files connected to a particular case..

1 Like
552

Makes much more sense. Right now I don’t know if its 3m unreleased records, 3m released but some redacted. Don’t know why they just don’t say “We need 10k records” rather than making a big deal about 3 million. I guess that’s the media for you.

553

It is with regards to the Katie Phang case…

Re: Forbes

Key Facts

Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled Saturday the DOJ must turn over a set of redacted or withheld documents about Epstein to the court by Thursday, so that the court can review the documents “in camera,” meaning privately without other parties or the press present.

The files at issue include multiple emails about women where the name of the person Epstein was emailing with is redacted, as well as FBI notes regarding allegations against President Donald Trump, documents that aren’t in English and names of potential Epstein co-conspirators in a draft indictment against the financier.

Journalist Katie Phang sued the DOJ, arguing keeping the files hidden violates the Epstein Files Transparency Act and her right to report on them, and while Sullivan previously sided with her, the government has disputed the ruling and fought to keep the documents hidden.

Sullivan ordered the government to either turn over the documents or explain why it couldn’t, which the DOJ responded to by alleging it either couldn’t turn over the documents or wasn’t required to—making arguments that Phang has alleged are insufficient, such as claiming one name didn’t have to be unredacted because it had already been reported in the press.

Sullivan will look at the unredacted files and decide whether they should be released, and, if he thinks they should be, whether or not he should pause his order so the Trump administration can appeal it—which would keep the files private for potentially months longer as the case goes to a higher court.

Phang has also asked for the court to fine Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche $1,000 per day for each day the files aren’t released, in order to compel the government to speedily make them public.

1 Like
554

This might shed better light on it… It makes good sense

: The Epstein files case is back in the spotlight. A judge has ordered Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche to appear in court in person and bring the unredacted Epstein documents!

Journalist and attorney Katie Phang shared the update on podcaster Aaron Parnas’ show. She said the federal judge overseeing her lawsuit against Todd Blanche just sent a clear message: “Show your work.”

Phang explained to Parnas why Saturday’s court order could be more important than it looks.

“So far, my lawsuit against Todd Blanche has been successful at every step,” Phang said.

“This order shows how the judge views the merits of my case. And it shows that public trust in the DOJ is being tested right now.”

The order directs Blanche to appear in court by Thursday with the Epstein files, emails, and other documents in full, without redactions. But according to Phang, the key part isn’t just the deadline.

She said Judge Emmet Sullivan is asking Blanche to do something the Department of Justice has tried to avoid.

“He has to show his work,” Phang said. That means Blanche can’t just claim the redactions were appropriate. He has to bring documentation explaining the reason for withholding each piece of information from the public.

Under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, Phang said the main legal reason for redactions is to protect victims.

She also noted that both Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi have already stated the files do not contain classified information or national security concerns. That makes victim protection the central issue the court will review.

“Judge Sullivan is telling Blanche he has to prove what he’s claiming,” Phang said, “and that’s a significant moment for anyone who wants to lead the Department of Justice.”

That may be the most important takeaway from Saturday’s order.

Instead of accepting the DOJ’s statements at face value, Judge Sullivan is requiring the department to produce the full records and justify its redactions with evidence.

In other words, the court isn’t just taking the DOJ’s word for it.

For those following the Epstein files case, this is an important step in the legal process.

If the Department of Justice wants to keep information sealed, it now has to explain exactly why, with documentation. By Thursday, Todd Blanche will have to show up in court.

And he’ll have to bring proof. Finally!

image
image720×540 49.4 KB

3 Likes
555

My concern is not so much the ruling, but the enforcement of it. If the DOJ does not want to play ball, who is going to make it comply?

The judge here is trying, but I’m not hopeful that he will get what he has asked for. It is sickening but Trump has long shown that he is above the law. There have been a few things that have hit, but they have not been with too much consequence for him, as they would have been for another person.

He appears to have the Supreme Court largely on board, and the DOJ largely in his pocket - and weaponized to go after opponents. A lot of work has been done behind the scenes to suppress free and fair elections and that will be a huge litmus test in the midterms. Many have pointed out that a vast, well paid ICE army at his beck and call seems ominous too, especially if enough people vote against him that he can’t rig it.

His first term was awful, but it seems like child’s play, as he was just learning about what he could get away with. He has worked out that enforcement is key, and he has decided that all the rules and norms that constrain others do not apply to him.

I know this post straddles the Epstein thread, and the Trump thread, but I am concerned about enforcement when it comes to Trump.

There are increased calls for the 25th Amendment to be applied, and he is now going out and saying he is running for 2028, which is squarely against the Constitution.

Ultimately, it feels like his only accountability will be with death itself. He is an old man in poor health, being juiced up and wheeled out to keep going, but he is falling apart before our eyes, not least mentally, but physically too.

For years I had been hoping that the system would stand strong and rule against him, and there would be accountability and so on, for what he has done. It might just be that I am worn down, but I don’t have much hope for that any more.

Still, at some point the grim reaper is going to provide - and enforce - a ruling the world is waiting for.

3 Likes
556

Is that at redacted face value…sorry bad joke.

I think (and hope) it would most likely be to protect the privacy of minors. Especially, where the minor is not known - so not a child of a celebrity.

I assume they would generalise some crimes rather than investigate it fully. In the end Epstein is “dead” so who can they prosecute? They will more than likely be looking for people active/complicit to a potential crime and investigate those incidents further.

What is important is that people are held to account whilst maintaining the dignity of the victims. It is also important to protect people from being deemed guilty by association.

Having someone like Woody Allen as a close associate - someone who has already had allegations made against him - you can only fear the worst. Sadly, I feel this will be a long drawn out affair and most of the culprits will die before facing justice.

2 Likes
557

Court hearing after DOJ failed to deliver unredacted docs to the Judge in DOJ vs Katie Phang lawsuit

Judge Sullivan promises to hold DOJ lawyers in contempt if they fail to deliver … “That’s not a threat. That’s a promise,” Judge Sullivan said.

https://x.com/KlasfeldReports/status/2087992685927727576

======
New Mexico State Legislature - new legislation for unredacted Epstein Files

(New state )… legislation that could ramp up pressure in forcing the U.S. Department of Justice to hand over unredacted Epstein files to New Mexico investigators. The bill would give state and local investigators a court path to sue the Department of Justice if it does not turn over the Epstein files. The courts could then force the Department of Justice to release the files and let local investigators collect damages over legal costs. …

https://x.com/KOB4/status/2087704174867751027

1 Like