I want to be abundantly clear about the DOJ memo released tonight: Citing "Work Product Privilege" will NOT save the DOJ from releasing all the Epstein files. I'm not an attorney and even I know this won't hold up in a court of law.
RE deliberative process privilege, it would not cover factual information, which is missing from the files. If they can give the names, then they can give them in unredacted files. The list is an admission that they can remove those redactions.
Furthermore, federal agencies have already waived privileges with the information they've already disclosed redacted and unredacted.
If there is an active investigation or prosecution the DOJ can indeed cite these privileges, but not when they've concluded their investigation and decided no one is going to jail, no one else will be prosecuted and after they wipe their hands clean, etc.
Meanwhile, the DOJ claims in this report that 'no records were withheld or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.'
Then explain this: an internal FBI email from March 17, 2025 shows agents requesting 'clear and specific guidance' on redacting photographs depicting 'former U.S. Presidents, Secretary of State, and other celebrities' from the Epstein files.
So which is it? You didn't redact to protect the powerful, or you needed specific guidance on how to do exactly that?
Your government is withholding information and files whether it's SDNY, FBI, CBP, CIA, DOJ or elsewhere.
Also - they're missing names on the list disclosed this evening.
Stay tuned...
RE deliberative process privilege, it would not cover factual information, which is missing from the files. If they can give the names, then they can give them in unredacted files. The list is an admission that they can remove those redactions.
Furthermore, federal agencies have already waived privileges with the information they've already disclosed redacted and unredacted.
If there is an active investigation or prosecution the DOJ can indeed cite these privileges, but not when they've concluded their investigation and decided no one is going to jail, no one else will be prosecuted and after they wipe their hands clean, etc.
Meanwhile, the DOJ claims in this report that 'no records were withheld or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.'
Then explain this: an internal FBI email from March 17, 2025 shows agents requesting 'clear and specific guidance' on redacting photographs depicting 'former U.S. Presidents, Secretary of State, and other celebrities' from the Epstein files.
So which is it? You didn't redact to protect the powerful, or you needed specific guidance on how to do exactly that?
Your government is withholding information and files whether it's SDNY, FBI, CBP, CIA, DOJ or elsewhere.
Also - they're missing names on the list disclosed this evening.
Stay tuned...
And where are ALL the videos? If he had as many cameras as has been reported, there would be far more than 2,000 videos. Trust me on this. I know, because I've worked with an extensive number of victims in voyeurism cases.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
