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
512 points (98.5% liked)
politics
26576 readers
1133 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
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
Hopeful. Time will tell.
Since when has this administration ever followed the law?
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A lot of MAGA are and they're taking up a new slogan "America First, America Only."
Republican ---» redact
Democrat ---» highlight
Whoa! How'd you get a copy of Bondi's orders already?
PSA: When they release heavily redacted files, and you see some Nazi on the internet say "actually technically they did release the files", do not give them the benefit of the doubt.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity - and American fascists are not adequately explained by stupidity. At this point it's simply stupid to believe they're acting in good faith.
They've not acted in good faith the entire time
I hate that rule, it has caused so much harm, and is at least part of the reason why were in this mess right now. People simply didn't take the threat seriously
Besides, does it even matter? Whether someone does harm by stupidity or malice, you get them the hell out of a position or power by any means possible, clearly it's not good for them to be there
Watch them post fully blacked out pages but embedded metadata will the full text. These people are fucking idiots.
God I hope so
Or they've simply changed the background colour of the text.
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.
Who would have thought there was something at the bottom of the barrel under Kellyanne Conway and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
It's a sad and weird time when Handjob boebert and crazy Marge don't get in the top 3 of this list. Wow.
Really? Anne Coulter comes to mind
Now obviously Trump and his dogs are going to redact everything related to him and his allies, but there's a good chance he lets some people go down—most likely, political enemies. This, in my opinion, will force those who are implicated and revealed to go scorched earth on Trump in return. I guarantee Trump will fuck this up somehow. I'm hoping for a metaphoric shootout at the OK Corral where there's no one left.
There will be more than a few that will gladly sacrifice themselves for their great leader.
And it begins.
They didn't release shit.
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.
They will redact anything related to the victims. The victims in this case are old man pedophiles. SMH.
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.
They're going to use that equally on Republicans and Democrats, right?
I can't remember who said it...
"For my friends anything, for my enemies, the law!"
And here we are
I'm calling every single person in the government who has access to those files and chooses not to leak then a spineless coward protecting pedophiles.
fuck them all. regardless how they voted.
So they can open an investigation on everyone they want to protect and give themselves the justification to redact any info in the files. Since nobody sees the unredacted files, nobody can confirm if the info is part of an investigation? I mean this is the kind of shit people with a brain were saying would happen when the division of powers and the roles of the branches aren't upheld.
No this reporter didn't bother to read the bill either.
(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.
(3) To the extent that any covered information would otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that classified information to the maximum extent possible.
(A) If the Attorney General makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security, the Attorney General shall release an unclassified summary for each of the redacted or withheld classified information.
(4) All decisions to classify any covered information after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.
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).
There is zero chance my brain knows what any of that actually means in practice.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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)
Okay, let's get after all of them, then cut some sort of deal to snitch on the redacted ones.
sigh.
"We're going to release the files, but we're making it so they'll only have democrats in them"
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?
Hm, what do they have to hide?
Dead girls.
Does anyone really think a sex trafficking ring doesn't have casualties?
DEAD GIRLS at minimum. Dead women, boys, men. All on the table.
That one woman said how the prince beat the shit out of her and strangled her until she passed out. How many girls did he go farther with?
The one girl who said Trump raped her at 13 says he was violent.
Other violence reported on Epstein.
Also.
Trump was running his own trafficking too. That's why he and Epstein fell out. Epstein stole one (or more?) of his working girls. He literally said so.
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”
"Where are the 30k files?" DJT pitching about Hillary's emails
They'll probably pull some bullshit and censor Trump's name, but we'll just get louder when they do.
Go to every page with a suspicious black mark and scream his name. Unless they've got a good reason, they're covering their own asses.
He's too much of a guilty liar to do the right thing, so we can use it to drag him even further down, burn every cent of political capital he has from now on. He will be a lame duck, whether he likes it or not, because no one can stand next to the senile pedophile and walk away clean.
view more: next ›