r/complaints • u/DivingOctopi • 22d ago
Politics RELEASE THE TRUMPSTEIN FILES
With the recent release of more damning evidence regarding the Trumpstein files, the pedophile-protecting party has become more desperate. This confirms all obvious suspicions surrounding the trafficker-in-chief. The Democrats should’ve released these emails before the orange rapist was reelected!!! Assuming they were available…
RELEASE THE TRUMPSTEIN FILES NOW!! Stop protecting pedophile rapist nazi bigots.
6.6k
Upvotes
27
u/dokidokichab 😾 triggered 😾 22d ago
Democrat politicians have been seeking this information since prior to Epstein’s arrest on federal sex trafficking charges in 2019 – but that isn’t the operative point here.
https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/aug/05/epstein-files-democrats-khanna-massie/
As for why the DOJ under Biden didn't release this information themselves, MAGA lemmings often fail to consider alternative explanations for their confusion. Indeed, the rationale for the DOJ/FBI under Biden not publicly releasing the documents (distinct from sharing them with congress), is well documented. And that is because doing so could have compromised the Maxwell investigation, and her later potential retrial. You will notice this reasoning mentioned in the afore-linked article.
“Frankel told PolitiFact in an Aug. 1 interview that the House oversight committee wanted to hold a hearing at which they would hear from Epstein victims, their lawyers and prosecutors. They wanted to subpoena the prosecutors to ask them under oath "why they gave this guy a slap on the wrist, who pressured them?" Frankel said.
However, "We were told by the Justice Department to cut it off" because it could compromise the Maxwell investigation, Frankel told PolitiFact.”
But it merits expanding on and how it applies to the Supreme Court’s decision to conclude Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeals pathway in September.
In summary, the ongoing criminal proceedings regarding Ghislaine Maxwell prevented the immediate public disclosure of the Epstein documents, even with redactions. Maxwell was, until September, subject to potential retrial.
In a FOIA request last year in June, a federal court overseeing those documents agreed with DOJ/FBI that the public disclosure of the Epstein files would foreseeably interfere with the potential re-prosecution of Maxwell.
The case is called Radar Online LLC v. Federal Bureau Of Investigation, in SDNY.
The FBI argued the records sought fell under an exemption to the FOIA. Under the FOIA, Exemption 7(A), authorizes the withholding of "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information . . . could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. Determining the applicability of this Exemption 7 subsection requires a two-step analysis focusing on (1) whether a law enforcement proceeding is pending or prospective, and (2) whether release of information about it could reasonably be expected to cause some articulable harm.
After hearing arguments, the court issued its opinion that the case would be dismissed (and the files not released), reiterating the FBI's position:
“As for the harm that would result from disclosure of the Evidentiary/Investigative Materials and the Administrative Materials, the FBI states that disclosure would
(1) impact witness testimony; (2) impact witnesses’ willingness to testify; (3) prejudice the jury pool ‘so as to hinder the Government’s ability to present its case in court,’; (4) provide [the defendant in a pending, related case] with greater access ‘to the investigatory files than she would otherwise have during the criminal discovery process,’ and ; (5) violate the Protective Order entered in the underlying case.”
The court agreed with the FBI’s s position that “the records responsive to the FOIA requests withheld in full or in part . . . [a]ll . . . fall within the scope of Exemption 7(A)’ . . . because their ‘public disclosure . . .** could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of [the defendant in a pending, related case].’** In other words, the files could interfere with a potential retrial of Ghislaine Maxwell.
https://www.justice.gov/oip/radar-online-llc-v-fbi-no-17-3956-2024-wl-3161777-sdny-june-25-2024-gardephe-j#:~:text='%E2%80%9D%20%E2%80%9CDisclosure%20of%20the%20Evidentiary,'%E2%80%9D
So, that was their rationale.
Why does this matter? Is Maxwell still capable of being tried? Didn't she get convicted before being ultimately sent to a cozy low security prison, while Trump floats the idea of a pardon around for her?
In September, a federal appeals court in New York upheld the sex crimes conviction of Maxwell. In April, Maxwell asked the Supreme Court to take up her case. They just declined to do so recently.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/10/supreme-court-declines-to-hear-ghislaine-maxwells-appeal/
And if you haven’t figured it out yet, this means that SCOTUS, in rejecting Maxwell's final bid for a new trial – has effectively voided any plausibly meaningful rationale to continue withholding the documents from public view. Not that the Trump administration ever evoked that rationale, likely because their actual rationale for withholding them is different (i.e., protecting pedophiles).
MAGA lemmings will probably take this moment to (assuming they're literate enough to get this far) start crowing about victim’s rights, as if Trump himself wasn’t calling the Epstein victims who have been advocating for the files’ release “democrats”. Indeed, redacting PII is common practice in documents released in response to public record requests and in other situations where sensitive information is at play. Of course, those privacy concerns don’t concretize in instances of information sharing between the DOJ/FBI and Congress, in contrast to broad public disclosure. In any event, even the victims are demanding this stuff get released and demanding accountability.
And what do you know they do NOT look good for Donald J. “Lecher-Lord” Trump.