Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files

[Roadvirus]

I'll leave any legal actions to the DOJ. That's what they are for.

Unless it relates to Trump. Then they suddenly forget how to do their jobs.

 

[Mycroft]

Unless it relates to Trump. Then they suddenly forget how to do their jobs.

No. In the case of Trump...at least, before his second term...they tried real hard to corrupt their powers against him. They failed.

 

[MAGAnificent]

He released nothing. And the GOP are protecting him.

The records are under federal court seal. Have patience. They will be released.

 

[Desert Storm]

No


You blew that

@NuffSaid
@TheDoctorWasIn
@Emlee
@Callen
@reinaert

I hope none of you are in law school.

A judge has put a gag order on the pertaining information regarding Epstein's client list (along with a bunch of other sensitive information).
Pam Bondi, who obviously works for Trump, is not legally allowed to break that gag order, she can only request the judge to do so.
Trump (and Bondi) have asked to judge to release the information, but the judge has refused.

And if you think Trump (or Bondi) has the power to overrule the judge and release the information anyways, then I suggest you stop typing because you guys are making yourselves look like fools.

Here's what Grok says on the subject:

Q. Can Pam Bondi overrule a judge gag order?

A. No, Pam Bondi, as Attorney General, cannot directly overrule a judge's gag order. A gag order is a judicial directive issued by a court to restrict parties involved in a case from publicly discussing specific details, and it carries the weight of a court order. The Attorney General, as part of the executive branch, does not have the authority to unilaterally override or nullify a judicial order, as this would violate the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.To challenge a gag order, Bondi or the Justice Department would need to follow legal processes, such as filing a motion with the issuing court to modify or lift the order, or appealing the order to a higher court. The judiciary retains ultimate authority over such orders, and any challenge must go through proper legal channels, typically involving arguments based on constitutional rights (e.g., First Amendment free speech claims) or procedural issues.

Dont believe me, type it into Grok yourself: https://x.com/i/grok

 

[Chomsky]

Not a bill but rather a resolution. I thought, if passed, the Senate would be compelled to subpoena the documents but I may wrong......hard to follow you guys!!!

It's even hard to follow the B.S. played by the GOP Administration & Congress.

 

[Chomsky]

The records are under federal court seal. Have patience. They will be released.

What "records" are "sealed"?

It's the DOJ files that the public wants to see. Including the list. Trump can do that in with a word.

 

[Airyaman]

Is RFK Jr. in the files?

I'd love that for him.

 

[Chomsky]

@NuffSaid
@TheDoctorWasIn
@Emlee
@Callen
@reinaert

I hope none of you are in law school.

A judge has put a gag order on the pertaining information regarding Epstein's client list (along with a bunch of other sensitive information).
Pam Bondi, who obviously works for Trump, is not legally allowed to break that gag order, she can only request the judge to do so.
Trump (and Bondi) have asked to judge to release the information, but the judge has refused.

And if you think Trump (or Bondi) has the power to overrule the judge and release the information anyways, then I suggest you stop typing because you guys are making yourselves look like fools.

Here's what Grok says on the subject:

Q. Can Pam Bondi overrule a judge gag order?

A. No, Pam Bondi, as Attorney General, cannot directly overrule a judge's gag order. A gag order is a judicial directive issued by a court to restrict parties involved in a case from publicly discussing specific details, and it carries the weight of a court order. The Attorney General, as part of the executive branch, does not have the authority to unilaterally override or nullify a judicial order, as this would violate the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.To challenge a gag order, Bondi or the Justice Department would need to follow legal processes, such as filing a motion with the issuing court to modify or lift the order, or appealing the order to a higher court. The judiciary retains ultimate authority over such orders, and any challenge must go through proper legal channels, typically involving arguments based on constitutional rights (e.g., First Amendment free speech claims) or procedural issues.
Dont believe me, type it into Grok yourself: https://x.com/i/grok

There is no gag order to which I'm aware on the DOJ files and Epstein's list. The only sealed item is the Grand Jury testimony. Trump knows this and conned MAGA.

 

[Emlee]

@NuffSaid
@TheDoctorWasIn
@Emlee
@Callen
@reinaert

I hope none of you are in law school.

A judge has put a gag order on the pertaining information regarding Epstein's client list (along with a bunch of other sensitive information).
Pam Bondi, who obviously works for Trump, is not legally allowed to break that gag order, she can only request the judge to do so.
Trump (and Bondi) have asked to judge to release the information, but the judge has refused.

And if you think Trump (or Bondi) has the power to overrule the judge and release the information anyways, then I suggest you stop typing because you guys are making yourselves look like fools.

Here's what Grok says on the subject:

Q. Can Pam Bondi overrule a judge gag order?

A. No, Pam Bondi, as Attorney General, cannot directly overrule a judge's gag order. A gag order is a judicial directive issued by a court to restrict parties involved in a case from publicly discussing specific details, and it carries the weight of a court order. The Attorney General, as part of the executive branch, does not have the authority to unilaterally override or nullify a judicial order, as this would violate the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches of government.To challenge a gag order, Bondi or the Justice Department would need to follow legal processes, such as filing a motion with the issuing court to modify or lift the order, or appealing the order to a higher court. The judiciary retains ultimate authority over such orders, and any challenge must go through proper legal channels, typically involving arguments based on constitutional rights (e.g., First Amendment free speech claims) or procedural issues.

Dont believe me, type it into Grok yourself: https://x.com/i/grok

Oh ffs, save the snark because you’re intentionally distorting.

You made up that the ‘Epstein list’, ‘the Epstein files’ are all included in the judge’s ruling, that it’s the same as grand jury testimony, that the judge put a gag order on all of it, and “a bunch of other sensitive information”, whatever that’s supposed to mean

And nice twisting, you’re even distorting it further regarding the responses to your made up claims. Further distorting with claims of, see grok said Bondi can’t overrule the gag order.

Good try, except the issue wasn’t whether she can overrule a gag order, the issue was that you made up the details of it.

But sure, I went ahead and asked grok. I asked grok the right questions though.

———-

Here you go from grok:

No, the grand jury testimony (transcripts) from the 2005 and 2007 Florida investigations into Jeffrey Epstein is not the same as the entirety of the Epstein files in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) possession, nor is it equivalent to the so-called “Epstein list.” Below is a clear breakdown to address your question:

1. Grand Jury Testimony (Transcripts):

Definition:

These are specific records of witness, victim, and law enforcement testimony presented to grandjuries in Florida during the 2005 and 2007 investigations into Epstein’s activities. They were used todetermine whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Epstein.

Scope:

The transcripts are limited to what was discussed in those grand jury proceedings, focusing on evidence related to Epstein’s alleged crimes, such as sex trafficking and abuse. They may include victimstatements, police reports, and testimony from other witnesses but are not a comprehensive collection of all investigative materials.

2. Epstein Files in DOJ Possession:

Definition:

The DOJ holds a broader collection of documents related to Epstein, accumulated from multiple investigations, including the 2005–2008 Florida case, the 2019 Southern District of New York (SDNY) case, and Ghislaine Maxwell’s prosecution. These files may include investigative reports, FBI records, victim interviews, plea deal documents, emails, flight logs, and other evidence gathered over years.

Scope:

This collection is far more extensive than the grand jury transcripts, encompassing materials from various jurisdictions and phases of investigation. For example, in February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi released a “first phase” of declassified Epstein files, which included previously leaked documents but no major new revelations. Additional releases are under review, with redactions to protect victim identities and sensitive information.

Legal Status:

Not all DOJ files are sealed.

Some, like redacted flight logs or court filings from Maxwell’s case, are already public.
Others may be released by the DOJ after review, provided they are not subject to court orders (like the Florida grand jury transcripts) or privacy protections.

—————-

 

[Emlee]

Also from grok:

No, the judge’s ruling against releasing grand jury testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein case is not the same as a ruling against releasing the complete Epstein files. Here’s a clear distinction based on available information:

1. Judge’s Ruling on Grand Jury Testimony:

Specific Ruling:

On July 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to unseal grand jury transcripts from Epstein’s 2005 and 2007 Florida investigations. She cited Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which mandates secrecy for grand jury materials to protect victims, witnesses, and uncharged individuals. Rosenberg stated her “hands are tied” under 11th Circuit precedent, as the DOJ’s public interest argument did not meet the legal exceptions for disclosure.

Scope:

This ruling applies only to the grand jury transcripts from the Florida investigations. These transcripts contain testimony and evidence presented to the grand juries to determine whether to indict Epstein, covering a narrow subset of the overall evidence related to his activities in Florida at that time.

Complete Epstein Files:

Definition:

The “complete Epstein files” refer to the DOJ’s extensive collection of materials from multiple investigations, including the 2005–2008 Florida case, the 2019 Southern District of New York (SDNY) case, and Ghislaine Maxwell’s prosecution. These files include:

FBI investigative reports
Victim and witness interviews (beyond grand jury testimony)
Flight logs, emails, financial records, and search warrant evidence
Court filings, depositions, and plea deal documents
Materials from Maxwell’s 2020–2022 prosecution

Scope:

The DOJ’s files, estimated at 300 gigabytes per a July 2025 memo, are far broader than the grand jury transcripts, encompassing evidence from various jurisdictions, agencies, and time periods, much of which was not presented to any grand jury.

Release Status:

Some files have already been released. For example, in February 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi declassified a “first phase” of Epstein files, though these were largely previously public. In January 2024, Judge Loretta Preska unsealed over 1,000 names from a civil lawsuit against Maxwell.

Additional releases are under review, with redactions to protect victim identities and sensitive content (e.g., child sexual abuse material).

No single judicial ruling prohibits the release of all Epstein files. Restrictions apply only to specific materials, like the Florida grand jury transcripts or documents with privacy concerns.

Key Differences:

Scope of Ruling:

Rosenberg’s July 23, 2025, ruling pertains solely to the Florida grand jury transcripts, a limited subset of evidence focused on the 2005–2007 indictment process.

The complete Epstein files include a much wider array of materials, such as investigative reports, court documents, and evidence from later federal probes (e.g., 2019 SDNY), which are not covered by Rosenberg’s ruling.

Legal Basis:

The grand jury transcripts are protected by Rule 6(e), which imposes strict secrecy unless specific exceptions are met. Rosenberg’s decision upheld this for the Florida case.

Other Epstein files are subject to different legal standards, such as privacy laws or court seals, but many have been or can be released after redaction. For example, New York judges are reviewing a separate request to unseal 2019 grand jury materials, with a decision pending as of July 24, 2025.

Impact:

The ruling on grand jury testimony does not affect the DOJ’s ability to release non-grand jury materials, such as FBI reports or flight logs, which Bondi has indicated may be declassified after review.

The complete files are not under a blanket prohibition; releases are limited by specific court orders or privacy considerations, not a single ruling like Rosenberg’s.

Conclusion:

Judge Rosenberg’s July 23, 2025, ruling against releasing the Florida grand jury transcripts is specific to those materials and does not equate to a ruling against releasing the complete Epstein files.

The grand jury testimony is a limited subset of the DOJ’s extensive collection, which includes diverse evidence from multiple investigations.

While the Florida transcripts remain sealed, other files have been partially released, and more may be declassified after redaction, subject to privacy laws and other court orders. A separate New York review of grand jury materials is ongoing, further indicating no blanket prohibition exists.

 

[Desert Storm]

Legal Status:

Not all DOJ files are sealed

If they are not sealed, then anyone should be able to access them.

So please post those DOJ files

 

[Emlee]

If they are not sealed, then anyone should be able to access them.

So please post those DOJ files

This ^ is just trolling now.

No one should really be unaware that there’s a major difference between the files being ‘sealed’ per a judge’s order and Bondi/Trump simply not releasing them, and/or that Bondi/Trump simply not releasing them means they’re under ‘seal’ per a judges order.

 

[MAGAnificent]

What "records" are "sealed"?

It's the DOJ files that the public wants to see. Including the list. Trump can do that in with a word.

All connected to federal grand jury records and testimony. Cannot release one without the other.

 

[Chomsky]

All connected to federal grand jury records and testimony. Cannot release one without the other.

No, this is not true at all.

 

[MAGAnificent]

No, this is not true at all.

 

[gbg3]

This is insane, gbg3. Ghislaine & Epstein procured hundreds of children for Epstein and his clients. Ghislaine went to prison for it, and Epstein died for it.

You don't believe there was pedophilia? You don't see Trump protecting them?

I'm shocked at this post. Seriously, shocked.

Did you just hear the name Epstein and learn about this story for the first time? You are spinning like a top with dramatic posts, rapid fire.

I bet you didn't just learn about him - so why are you just now suddenly and dramatically so wound up? Did you feel like this last year, the year before,.......? Where have you been with this outrage, before this Trump term, about those in power who have not gone after these bad people.

I'm actually kind of shocked at you suddenly manufacturing this highly dramatic upset in July of 2025 for something that happened so long ago. Heck, the FBI raid of his home was 6 years ago.

 

[jaypatriot]

"Protecting" rom pedophilia, jaypatriot. And the the other pedos, too.

Think about what your defending, here.

Actually, I am protecting any dumb bastard who thought it a good idea to go to Epstein's island and not considering the possibility there would gullible bloggers hungry for a juicy story about rich and famous caught with their pants down.
This is what I asked:
Don't you think evidence should be present before a president is found guilty (in public opinion) of being a pedophile or covering up for others?

Are you one of those ready to convict ANYONE who went to Epstein's island to hobnob with the rich and famous AND DID NOT CAVORT WITH UNDERAGE GIRLS?

 

[jaypatriot]

What's to speculate? Or, uncover? He won't release the files. He's protecting them. And maybe protecting himself, too?

And protecting files means nothing. Are you now a conspiracy theorist?

 

[Luce]

I fail to see how this is some kind of dilemma.

Release the files. Let the guilty worry about it.

 

[jaypatriot]

What are we to suspect when on a Trumpian moment's notice, the list, files, abused girls, pedos, are all found to be "fake"? "No crimes found". Yet Ghislaine got twenty years for purveying several hundred children to several dozen clients?

Chomsky,
Take a wild guess as to why the Biden Administration which had the Epstein files in its possession chose to NOT release those files to the public.
What were they hiding then?

 

[Luce]

Actually, I am protecting any dumb bastard who thought it a good idea to go to Epstein's island and not considering the possibility there would gullible bloggers hungry for a juicy story about rich and famous caught with their pants down.
This is what I asked:
Don't you think evidence should be present before a president is found guilty (in public opinion) of being a pedophile or covering up for others?

Are you one of those ready to convict ANYONE who went to Epstein's island to hobnob with the rich and famous AND DID NOT CAVORT WITH UNDERAGE GIRLS?

What is the standard for guilt in public opinion?

And if someone went to Epstein's island and never said anything about the shit that went on there, they're just as vile as the people who were doing things.

 

[Luce]

Chomsky,
Take a wild guess as to why the Biden Administration which had the Epstein files in its possession chose to NOT release those files to the public.
What were they hiding then?

Let's find out. There are no shortages of bunks in federal prison.

 

[jaypatriot]

What is the standard for guilt in public opinion?

And if someone went to Epstein's island and never said anything about the shit that went on there, they're just as vile as the people who were doing things.

So you have concluded any visitor to the island should report any sexual misconduct by anyone on that island. And, of course, your hypothetical saint would be obligated to check the birth certificates of every female there to first see if she was underage or not. Otherwise, why would you feel some pure honest guy should report which young lady was with which horny guy?

 

[gbg3]

Chomsky,
Take a wild guess as to why the Biden Administration which had the Epstein files in its possession chose to NOT release those files to the public.
What were they hiding then?

No kidding. @Chomsky rapid firing strongly worded posts and not one single mention of Biden or Biden's DOJ not touching a release of these files for 4 years. Yet now Trump "is protecting them". Biden's inaction with any transparency or any accountability is simply and conveniently erased from the entire conversation.

 

[Luce]

So you have concluded any visitor to the island should report any sexual misconduct by anyone on that island.

Yes. Normal people would report pedophiles.

And, of course, your hypothetical saint would be obligated to check the birth certificates of every female there to first see if she was underage or not. Otherwise, why would you feel some pure honest guy should report which young lady was with which horny guy?

We hear that line from statutory rapists all the time.

"I had no idea she was 12!"

Doesn't cut it.