Editorials & Other Articles

Uncle Joe

(64,231 posts) Wed Jan 7, 2026, 05:07 PM Yesterday

Massie: Trump officials could be prosecuted over Epstein files

(snip)

“Typically, with contempt, you might refer it to the DOJ, and the DOJ never prosecutes, and the problem goes away at the end of the Congress. This law does not expire,” Massie told reporters outside the Capitol.

(snip)

“If this were a private law firm with 5 percent of the resources of the DOJ, this would have been done by the deadline,” Massie said Tuesday. “They just missed another deadline to report all of the politicians in their files, and they’re supposed to justify all of their redactions.”

“The biggest problem isn’t that they’re missing deadlines — it’s what they’re redacting,” he added. “They’re trying to pretend the Privacy Act overrides a law that explicitly says you can’t withhold records to prevent embarrassment.”

His comments came after the DOJ unveiled Monday that it was still reviewing over two million files.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5676417-massie-trump-doj-epstein-files-prosecution/

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Massie: Trump officials could be prosecuted over Epstein files (Original Post) Uncle Joe Yesterday OP

So waive the redaction requirement and release all the files NOW!!!!!! nt Those who are causing the chaos in in2herbs Yesterday #1

This has nothing to do with "protecting the rights of the survivors," they haven't released ANYTHING in over two weeks Uncle Joe Yesterday #2

The law gave the DOJ 30 days to redact the names of the survivors, so I disagree with your statement. nt in2herbs Yesterday #3

The law started November 19th and surely they redacted something to be released in the past two plus weeks. n/t Uncle Joe Yesterday #4

Stop talking and start doing. we can do it Yesterday #5

So, prosecute! Bayard Yesterday #6

in2herbs

(4,238 posts)

1. So waive the redaction requirement and release all the files NOW!!!!!! nt Those who are causing the chaos in

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2026, 05:11 PM

Yesterday

the US and world-wide are those that are named in the E-files. Sorry, but protecting the rights of the survivors won't mean anything if we no longer have a country of laws.

Uncle Joe

(64,231 posts)

2. This has nothing to do with "protecting the rights of the survivors," they haven't released ANYTHING in over two weeks

Reply to in2herbs (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 7, 2026, 05:20 PM

Yesterday

"US justice department has released less than 1% of Epstein files, filing reveals"

(snip)

“What are they trying to hide?” Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said in a post to X on Monday accusing the justice department of failing to submit a required unredacted list to Congress “of all government officials and politically exposed persons” named or referenced in the files.

“It’s been 17 DAYS since the Trump DOJ first broke the law and failed to release all the Epstein files. It’s been 14 DAYS since Trump’s DOJ released anything at all – with the DOJ doing everything in its power to delay and obfuscate.”

(snip)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016420858

in2herbs

(4,238 posts)

3. The law gave the DOJ 30 days to redact the names of the survivors, so I disagree with your statement. nt

Reply to Uncle Joe (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 7, 2026, 05:25 PM

Yesterday

Uncle Joe

(64,231 posts)

4. The law started November 19th and surely they redacted something to be released in the past two plus weeks. n/t

Reply to in2herbs (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 7, 2026, 05:28 PM

Yesterday

we can do it

(12,986 posts)

5. Stop talking and start doing.

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2026, 05:48 PM

Yesterday

Bayard

(28,577 posts)

6. So, prosecute!

Reply to Uncle Joe (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2026, 06:38 PM

Yesterday

Charge them with contempt and obstruction.

They could have gone through these files pretty quickly and wiped out these girls names to protect their identity. The slow walk is to wipe anything to do with trump or his cronies. And no--this is not a matter of national security.

Reply to this discussion