You didn't really think they were just gonna give over the unredacted Epstein files after they've spent so much time protecting Trump?
They were always gonna weaponize it against their enemies.
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2025
177 points (98.4% liked)
politics
26404 readers
2308 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
However, the bill does allow Bondi to redact records in specific instances, including documents that "would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution."
There it is...
We knew it. We're not stupid (some of us). We'll see how it plays out I guess. No surprise here. They know we know, and how obviously transparent this is.
I think our only hope is if enough MAGA drop their support, which is a lot to fucking hope for.
The entire thing is adb am active investigation so we'll get this, except for democrat names, and just enough context to imply guilt, even if they're just being indirectly referenced.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text
The bill is not long and everyone who is tracking this should take the time to read it.
Your concern is valid, but Bondi isn't given completely free reign.
SEC. 3. Report to Congress.
Within 15 days of completion of the release required under Section 2, the Attorney General shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report listing:
(1) All categories of records released and withheld.
(2) A summary of redactions made, including legal basis.
(3) A list of all government officials and politically exposed persons named or referenced in the released materials, with no redactions permitted under subsection (b)(1).
So if Bondi were to follow the law, the AG's office will have to provide congress a summary and justification for everything that is redacted.
Which isn't to say that I have any faith in the AG's office following these requirements, but it should give us reason to pressure congress into holding Bondi et al. to these requirements and would give them cause for impeachement of Bondi if she does not comply.
if Bondi were to follow the law
There's your problem. This regime has proven time and time again that laws are rules for thee, not me. If the laws help them, their hands are tied. If it hinders them, they just close their eyes and whistle until it goes away.
Yeah but the fix was in long ago when the 1,000 FBI agents or whatever we're removing Trump's name from the files. If his details were already redacted then they can't tie that back to Bondi, right?
This seems so obvious that I must be missing something
There are carve outs to that exception. Names of individuals who are not victims cannot be withheld.
And full summaries of all items withheld must be provided.
It will still likely end up in court.
What do you make of this?
Ok I agree it is very suspicious that Congress suddenly got their shit together for this one thing. But people keep doomposting this bill without actually reading it. And it deserves to be read in all the beautiful airtight glory that it is.
Massie and Khanna anticipated every single excuse DOJ normally uses to bury sensitive records, and they wrote the law to shut all of them down. To be clear, the DOJ will still try to hide, but it’s going to fail.
Here’s what the bill actually does:
They can’t hide anything for “embarrassment,” “reputational harm,” or “political sensitivity.”
That’s an explicit statutory ban. No shielding Trump, Clinton, Gates, etc. The law literally forbids it.
The argument of “Everything will suddenly be classified!” doesn’t work either.
The bill forces DOJ to declassify to the maximum extent possible and if anything stays classified, they must publish a public unclassified summary for each redaction.
That’s not optional.
“New investigations” don’t block release.
The “active investigation” exception is temporary, narrow, document-specific, and requires a written public justification in the Federal Register.
You can’t just open a random investigation and hide whole categories of documents under this bill.
The best part? Congress still gets the full list of names.
No matter what gets redacted publicly, DOJ must give Congress an unredacted list of every government official and politically exposed person named in the files. No exceptions. Not for classification. Not for investigations. Not for national security.
And enforcement is real. This is a mandatory “shall release” statute. If DOJ drags its feet, it goes straight to D.C. District Court, which has zero patience for agencies abusing secrecy laws.
This isn’t a symbolic transparency bill. It’s one of the tightest, most loophole-proof disclosure laws Congress has ever passed — which is exactly why all of their objections on the GOP side were never successful or just weak attempts to attack a statute that defines CSAM.
People can be cynical all day, but the text is the text.
And the text is a brick wall against the usual bullshit.
Republican ---» redact
Democrat ---» highlight
Whoa! How'd you get a copy of Bondi's orders already?
Pam Bondi is the last person I would want to redact anything. If trump needs to piss, that bitch is there to catch it. I’ve never wanted to punch a woman as much as I want to with her. Fuck Pam Bondi!
Agreed. Although it's a tight competition between her, Leavitt, and Noem over who is the worst MAGAt woman.
By Trump’s thinking and current stance is that the Epstein files are really all full of Democrats, and that’s why we shouldn’t talk about them.
Wait, what?
If they’re full of Democrats, wouldn’t you want everyone screaming about them from the rooftops? The logic doesn’t logic. But that’s where we are.
Exactly. If it were full of democrats, they'd have released them day 2 in office. The fact they've fought it, lied about it, claimed it doesn't exist, proves that it's overwhelmingly republican names on that list. To the point where the handful of democrats that are there, are either dead, completely irrelevant, or already held accountable.
And if there are democrats in there who haven't been brought to justice, throw the book at them to the highest ability, too. This isn't a popularity contest. We should be holding these people to a higher standard. When they fuck up in ways related to Epstein, they should feel it, party alignment be damned.
The bill says Bondi can redact parts of the records that "contain personally identifiable information" about victims that would "constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
Nobody plays the victim better than Republicans. Gonna have to redact all of them.
Okay, let's get after all of them, then cut some sort of deal to snitch on the redacted ones.
Only the Democrats are under investigation so that should still show all the Republicans, right? (Though any Democrats on the list shouldn't be protected either)
The bill said that redactions "must be accompanied with a written justification" to Congress
“There appears to be an R next to the name. REDACTED”
The bill has in the provision that those redactions must be specifically targeted and temporary. Redactions must come with a summary and legal justification.
Since when has breaking the rules stopped this administration?
"Where are the 30k files?" DJT pitching about Hillary's emails