The Department of Justice will not be releasing all of its files on convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein by Friday’s deadline, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Friday morning.

In an interview with Fox News, Blanche said the department would “release several hundred thousand documents today.”

But he acknowledged Friday’s release would not encompass all of the DOJ’s documents for the investigation into the late financier.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 165 points 7 months ago (1 child)

The delay means the White House is in apparent conflict with a law

That's the thing. "Apparent" is actually too strong of a word here, because they aren't in conflict with the law at all. Unenforced laws are meaningless laws.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 145 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    What the fuck is even the point of having a deadline when there are zero consequences when they blow past it?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    While the republican controlled congress might not care if dems ever retake both chambers it will be added to the list of crimes for impeachment.

    Lots of ifs, but in a sane world this would have been enough at one time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Not unless the Democrats flush half their own leadership because NONE of the DNC leaders have any interest in actually doing anything about Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    They did impeach him last time and I believe all the senate dems voted to remove him from office. Still shy of the 2/3rds majority

    So if anything it's the Republicans not doing anything.

    But you are right, the resistance to Trump has been ineffective and they keep rubber stamping his appointments. So my hopes are low, but we can only know if they get a majority.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago

    I despise "both sides" bullshit, but they were definitely correct in this case.

    Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have completely abdicated their responsibility as the main check on the Executive branch. They need to go.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    What's the point of impeachment? Wasn't trump already impeached a couple of times in the first term? He didn't get kicked out or banned from running again

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 107 points 7 months ago (18 children)

    I know it's a big word and people hesitate to use it, but it's not debatable anymore.

    These are traitors.

    Traitors are operating our federal government.

    And they aren't just going to leave when asked politely.

  • source
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • load more comments (18 replies)
    [–] 80 points 7 months ago
    [–] 51 points 7 months ago (2 children)
    load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 46 points 7 months ago

    Surprise, surprise...

  • source
  • [–] 45 points 7 months ago

    If they aren't made to follow the rules, then they don't need to follow the rules, and then the rules are optional, enforced only when it empowers them.

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    They need thousands of FBI agents more to obscure Orange's name?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 7 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That's not true. Schmuck Schumer might issue a stern letter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 25 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Stop calling Epstein a "late financier". They were a "child sex trafficker".

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 23 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Who's gonna hold them accountable? Democrats? SCROTUS?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    I'm confused why would they miss a deadline. Is their hard drive copying slow? Or have they not finished altering the files to suit?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

    Anyone who was thinking Trump wasn’t just going to shred or redact anything that implicated him was dreaming.

    It’s a little weird that they’d delay…so much. I don’t understand and can’t sufficiently explain why they’re doing it. My best guess is they want to start a war before they release some of the stuff that makes him look bad by proxy. I guess maybe some of the people he’s throwing under the bus need a heads up?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 21 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    They can do that? Why the fuck can they just ignore their own deadlines???

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago

    If they were at all interested in transparency, they could/would/should have been releasing files as they were ready every one of the last 30 days. No reason to wait until the last minute to dump all of them at once other than slow walking the inevitable.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago

    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Alright, who's going to sue them?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 15 points 7 months ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 14 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    ok so go arrest Bondi like you said you were gonna but you actually won't.

    Heaven forbid a Democrat actually does what they say they're going to do.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 7 months ago* (4 children)

    Which Democrats have the authority to arrest her?

    Which one said they would?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 14 points 7 months ago

    So, who's going to prison for this? Party of law and order, right?

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago

    Why are we still calling Epstein a financier?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    To the surprise of absolutely no one.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    You don't say.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    imagine being so slow and inefficient that you can't even redact names on time

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 10 points 7 months ago

    Oh that's fine. Bondi can be released from custody when the files are.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    OfCourse not

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›