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
136 points (97.9% liked)
politics
26409 readers
2384 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.
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.
Republican ---» redact
Democrat ---» highlight
The bill has in the provision that those redactions must be specifically targeted and temporary. Redactions must come with a summary and legal justification.
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.
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.
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're going to use that equally on Republicans and Democrats, right?
Okay, let's get after all of them, then cut some sort of deal to snitch on the redacted ones.
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)
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”