A judge’s brutal rebuke of Trump’s Epstein gambit

The increasing question for them – and especially those in the MAGA movement who really pressed this issue for years – is whether they begin to see through this effort and see it as the cover-up that Epstein’s victims and their allies have suggested.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/11/politics/epstein-files-judge-ruling-grand-jury-materials

didja y'all get duped again by the Mango Mussolini?

Why wouldn't they have unleashed this when Trump was running for President? When the Dems had the power to make it happen?

10 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

A judge’s brutal rebuke of Trump’s Epstein gambit

The increasing question for them – and especially those in the MAGA movement who really pressed this issue for years – is whether they begin to see through this effort and see it as the cover-up that Epstein’s victims and their allies have suggested.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/11/politics/epstein-files-judge-ruling-grand-jury-materials

didja y'all get duped again by the Mango Mussolini?

It would be nice if info was release, why would the judge not release the testimony if as the article says, it's already public info, nothing new? I also learned years ago that CNN is a trash news site that only Liberals quote. "hint, hint".

Epstein 🤣

Well, instead of nothing burgers I will be cooking up blue cheese burgers on the grill tonight.

There is simply no denying this, neither side wants these files released. Ever. They know full well it be the end of many careers for both. Instead they want to use this as a political football to keep us divided and focused elsewhere.

58 minutes ago, airflite1 said:

It would be nice if info was release, why would the judge not release the testimony if as the article says, it's already public info, nothing new? I also learned years ago that CNN is a trash news site that only Liberals quote. "hint, hint".

release the GJ testimony and everything the FBI has on file going back to the early 90s redacting only the names of the victims, right? Right? Patel, Bongino and a lot of other people in right wing media hyped releasing this stuff for years, YEARS! I've no doubt Epstein and Maxwell were complete pieces of shit, but if Clinton, Trump or anyone else was diddling little girls, people of power, etc then let it all out and light the torches... RIGHT?!?!?

there's suddenly just an amazing silence from some of these fucks the past few months, wonder why?

maybe by year four they'll release all the information about Epstein, Bigfoot and Area51

The files they wanted released are already released.

Now let’s release the redacted reports.

2 minutes ago, Mainecat said:

The files they wanted released are already released.

Now let’s release the redacted reports.

stop...

that's hardly suspicious

The Federal Bureau of Investigation redacted President Donald Trump’s name and those of other high-profile individuals from government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The redactions were made by a team of FBI employees tasked with reviewing the Epstein files for potential public release. The names were withheld under privacy protections because those individuals, including Trump, were private citizens when the federal investigation into Epstein began in 2006, the people said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-01/fbi-redacted-president-donald-trump-s-name-in-the-epstein-files

or this...

Here’s a Look at What the FBI’s Epstein Files Would Reveal

Welcome back to FOIA Files! Another week, another deep dive into the Jeffrey Epstein saga that has engulfed the Trump administration. We know that the Justice Department and FBI amassed more than 300 gigabytes of data during the epic two-month search for all of the government’s documents on the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. We know that the DOJ and FBI concluded in July that further disclosure of the Epstein files would not be “appropriate or warranted.” What we don’t know is what, exactly, is in the files. It turns out, some clues are buried in an under-the-radar, eight-year-old Freedom of Information Act case. I’ll explain. If you’re not already getting FOIA Files in your inbox, sign up here.

Neither confirm nor deny? Really?

The intense secrecy shrouding the Epstein files dates back to President Donald Trump’s first term. Back then, the FBI blocked the release of documents from its investigation into Epstein. Since then a pretty interesting—and infuriating—chain of events has unfolded.

It dates to April 20, 2017. That’s when James Robertson, an editor for The National Enquirer and RadarOnline, filed a FOIA request with the FBI seeking “all documents relating to the FBI’s investigation and prosecution of” Epstein. A week later, the FBI denied his request, saying that the bureau could neither confirm nor deny the Epstein records existed and, even if they did, Robertson’s request for records on third parties bumped up against two privacy exemptions. (They were the exact same exemptions the FBI used to justify redacting Trump’s name from the files, which I wrote about in last week’s edition of FOIA Files!)

However, in its response, the bureau held out an option that was untethered from reality: It included a privacy waiver, and explained that Robertson must first obtain permission from the subject of his request—Epstein—before the FBI would even consider releasing documents about him.

Ultimately, the FBI’s argument in denying the records boiled down to this: Epstein was never charged with a federal crime. Therefore the release of any FBI records revealing his name could “engender comment and speculation and carries a stigmatizing connotation,” according to the exemption cited by the FBI when it refused to release the documents.

Robertson, who later co-authored a book about Epstein, sued the FBI a month later, arguing that the bureau was wrong in its decision to withhold the records.

In October 2017, the FBI did start to release a sliver of its investigative files on Epstein. Ultimately, over the course of nearly three years, it processed a total of 11,571 pages that the FBI considered responsive to Robertson’s initial request. However, it released only about 1,200 pages, which were heavily redacted.

The FBI posted those 1,200 pages in the bureau’s online FOIA reading room, The Vault. To be clear, the FBI wasn’t acting particularly generous or proactively transparent when it released this narrow set of Epstein documents to the Vault. It was forced to do that. Under the 2016 FOIA amendments, if an agency gets three or more FOIA requests on the same subject it is required to release the records to everyone. If there’s any doubt that’s why the FBI released those files, there’s the telltale series of numbers at the bottom of each page, which corresponds with the federal docket number of Robertson’s FOIA case.

Withheld in full

So what happened to the remaining 10,371 pages of documents not released by the FBI? Well, here’s where the plot thickens. The processing of the Epstein files ground to a halt in July 2019 when Epstein was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges.

The FBI explained to Robertson and his attorney, Dan Novack, that it couldn’t release any further records on Epstein since the man was now being prosecuted. In particular, the department said that the remaining records would be withheld in their entirety due to ongoing law enforcement proceedings and because disclosure could impact Epstein’s ability to get a fair trial.

But wait. A month later, Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell while awaiting trial. Wouldn’t the fact that the defendant was no longer alive mean that the documents could now, finally, be released? Not so fast. The FBI did release another 46 pages that it determined wouldn’t interfere with the ongoing proceedings (mainly news clippings), but it stopped there. The bureau’s FOIA team said that even though Epstein was dead and federal prosecutors dropped their case against him, records still needed to be withheld because of ongoing law enforcement proceedings.

blah, blah, blah...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-08-08/here-s-a-look-at-what-the-fbi-s-epstein-files-would-reveal

NBC News

Congress doesn't want to talk to Alex Acosta, Epstein's '...

Acosta, who previously was Trump's labor secretary, wasn't named in a list of people a House committee subpoenaed.

why not? that's the guy who gave him the sweetheart deal and became Trump's labor secretary...

TDS fucks HOPING to snag SOMETHING to hurt TRUMP. Ain’t gonna happen assholes.. SBYI

16 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

stop...

that's hardly suspicious

The Federal Bureau of Investigation redacted President Donald Trump’s name and those of other high-profile individuals from government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, according to three people familiar with the matter.

The redactions were made by a team of FBI employees tasked with reviewing the Epstein files for potential public release. The names were withheld under privacy protections because those individuals, including Trump, were private citizens when the federal investigation into Epstein began in 2006, the people said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-01/fbi-redacted-president-donald-trump-s-name-in-the-epstein-files

or this...

Here’s a Look at What the FBI’s Epstein Files Would Reveal

Welcome back to FOIA Files! Another week, another deep dive into the Jeffrey Epstein saga that has engulfed the Trump administration. We know that the Justice Department and FBI amassed more than 300 gigabytes of data during the epic two-month search for all of the government’s documents on the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender. We know that the DOJ and FBI concluded in July that further disclosure of the Epstein files would not be “appropriate or warranted.” What we don’t know is what, exactly, is in the files. It turns out, some clues are buried in an under-the-radar, eight-year-old Freedom of Information Act case. I’ll explain. If you’re not already getting FOIA Files in your inbox, sign up here.

Neither confirm nor deny? Really?

The intense secrecy shrouding the Epstein files dates back to President Donald Trump’s first term. Back then, the FBI blocked the release of documents from its investigation into Epstein. Since then a pretty interesting—and infuriating—chain of events has unfolded.

It dates to April 20, 2017. That’s when James Robertson, an editor for The National Enquirer and RadarOnline, filed a FOIA request with the FBI seeking “all documents relating to the FBI’s investigation and prosecution of” Epstein. A week later, the FBI denied his request, saying that the bureau could neither confirm nor deny the Epstein records existed and, even if they did, Robertson’s request for records on third parties bumped up against two privacy exemptions. (They were the exact same exemptions the FBI used to justify redacting Trump’s name from the files, which I wrote about in last week’s edition of FOIA Files!)

However, in its response, the bureau held out an option that was untethered from reality: It included a privacy waiver, and explained that Robertson must first obtain permission from the subject of his request—Epstein—before the FBI would even consider releasing documents about him.

Ultimately, the FBI’s argument in denying the records boiled down to this: Epstein was never charged with a federal crime. Therefore the release of any FBI records revealing his name could “engender comment and speculation and carries a stigmatizing connotation,” according to the exemption cited by the FBI when it refused to release the documents.

Robertson, who later co-authored a book about Epstein, sued the FBI a month later, arguing that the bureau was wrong in its decision to withhold the records.

In October 2017, the FBI did start to release a sliver of its investigative files on Epstein. Ultimately, over the course of nearly three years, it processed a total of 11,571 pages that the FBI considered responsive to Robertson’s initial request. However, it released only about 1,200 pages, which were heavily redacted.

The FBI posted those 1,200 pages in the bureau’s online FOIA reading room, The Vault. To be clear, the FBI wasn’t acting particularly generous or proactively transparent when it released this narrow set of Epstein documents to the Vault. It was forced to do that. Under the 2016 FOIA amendments, if an agency gets three or more FOIA requests on the same subject it is required to release the records to everyone. If there’s any doubt that’s why the FBI released those files, there’s the telltale series of numbers at the bottom of each page, which corresponds with the federal docket number of Robertson’s FOIA case.

Withheld in full

So what happened to the remaining 10,371 pages of documents not released by the FBI? Well, here’s where the plot thickens. The processing of the Epstein files ground to a halt in July 2019 when Epstein was indicted on federal sex trafficking charges.

The FBI explained to Robertson and his attorney, Dan Novack, that it couldn’t release any further records on Epstein since the man was now being prosecuted. In particular, the department said that the remaining records would be withheld in their entirety due to ongoing law enforcement proceedings and because disclosure could impact Epstein’s ability to get a fair trial.

But wait. A month later, Epstein died by suicide in his jail cell while awaiting trial. Wouldn’t the fact that the defendant was no longer alive mean that the documents could now, finally, be released? Not so fast. The FBI did release another 46 pages that it determined wouldn’t interfere with the ongoing proceedings (mainly news clippings), but it stopped there. The bureau’s FOIA team said that even though Epstein was dead and federal prosecutors dropped their case against him, records still needed to be withheld because of ongoing law enforcement proceedings.

blah, blah, blah...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-08-08/here-s-a-look-at-what-the-fbi-s-epstein-files-would-reveal

NBC News

Congress doesn't want to talk to Alex Acosta, Epstein's '...

Acosta, who previously was Trump's labor secretary, wasn't named in a list of people a House committee subpoenaed.

why not? that's the guy who gave him the sweetheart deal and became Trump's labor secretary...

Another left leaning publication whose report is based on 3 people familiar with the matter, what a joke! Everyone knows if there was anything that would incriminate Trump it would have been released during all the Political Trump persecutions. (MC already posted this report by the way). I'm sure all the evidence was presented to the Grand Jury, hence until they're given permission to release it to the public they can't because it would corrupt the jury pool. It doesn't matter if Pam Bondi has all the files on her desk, it can't be released. Well unless you're a Democrat leaking info. First your upset Trump's interpretation of a law doesn't follow an activist Judges interpretation. Now you're upset that he's doing what the Grand Jury tells him to do.

17 minutes ago, Pete said:

TDS fucks HOPING to snag SOMETHING to hurt TRUMP. Ain’t gonna happen assholes.. SBYI

Yep, then they jump and down saying they aren't liberals, all the while quoting liberal media.

https://ifunny.co/video/daddy-called-me-a-democrat-o-3nRSnKLq7?s=cl

1 hour ago, airflite1 said:

Another left leaning publication whose report is based on 3 people familiar with the matter, what a joke! Everyone knows if there was anything that would incriminate Trump it would have been released during all the Political Trump persecutions. (MC already posted this report by the way). I'm sure all the evidence was presented to the Grand Jury, hence until they're given permission to release it to the public they can't because it would corrupt the jury pool. It doesn't matter if Pam Bondi has all the files on her desk, it can't be released. Well unless you're a Democrat leaking info. First your upset Trump's interpretation of a law doesn't follow an activist Judges interpretation. Now you're upset that he's doing what the Grand Jury tells him to do.

1 hour ago, airflite1 said:

Yep, then they jump and down saying they aren't liberals, all the while quoting liberal media.

https://ifunny.co/video/daddy-called-me-a-democrat-o-3nRSnKLq7?s=cl

which part of I don't give a fuck who burns over this aren't you receiving?

1 hour ago, Pete said:

TDS fucks HOPING to snag SOMETHING to hurt TRUMP. Ain’t gonna happen assholes.. SBYI

you should quit and take your ball home... : 😂

26 minutes ago, Crnr2Crnr said:

you should quit and take your ball home... : 😂

Get back to me when there is something.. until then stfu ya big wind bag..

1 hour ago, airflite1 said:

Yep, then they jump and down saying they aren't liberals, all the while quoting liberal media.

https://ifunny.co/video/daddy-called-me-a-democrat-o-3nRSnKLq7?s=cl

Closet liberals. WiZZconsin gots a bunch

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

Closet liberals. WiZZconsin gots a bunch

99% of his posts are liberal talking points then gets mad when you point out how liberal he acts.

3 hours ago, Kivalo said:

There is simply no denying this, neither side wants these files released. Ever. They know full well it be the end of many careers for both. Instead they want to use this as a political football to keep us divided and focused elsewhere.

Swamp behavior. There is zero reason to not. Hang every piece of shit.

1 hour ago, airflite1 said:

99% of his posts are liberal talking points then gets mad when you point out how liberal he acts.

Daddy was a teacher so you know it's a liberal indoctrination in Karen's family.

8 hours ago, Bontz said:

Daddy was a teacher so you know it's a liberal indoctrination in Karen's family.

Wow interesting

C2c is really just an emotional wreck.

14 hours ago, ViperGTS/Z1 said:

Epstein 🤣

Well, instead of nothing burgers I will be cooking up blue cheese burgers on the grill tonight.

Did Schumer make those? Isn’t this when he puts the cheese on them?