126
Jamie Raskin accuses DoJ of cover-up after viewing unredacted Epstein files
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2026
126 points (99.2% liked)
The Epstein Files
759 readers
694 users here now
We keep track of the release of the files, but also to explore what’s already available, and why – with enough exposure – this could bring the man down, and who knows even his regime or the empire.
Our Rules
(Subject to Change)
- Be kind: keep it civil and amicable. The enemy is not in this community but in Palaces, The White House and penthouses.
- Trigger Warnings: required. Mark posts which may be triggering to read or see for victims of sexual abuse with "[TW]" in front of your post title. If you're posting an image or video with explicit thumbnail, you will have to set the entire post as NSFW AND include the TW.
- Cite sources: preferably direct link to the article/pdf and or an archive link in case there is a paywalled. In the article find a relevant few paragraphs and quote them in your post.
Our Justice System
- First offence: warning + 2 day ban
- Second offence: 7 day ban
- Third offence: permanent ban from community
- Creating multiple accounts to interact with this community: permanent ban for all accounts in community + report to your instance admin.
This community is run by volunteers so please don't test the justice system, as with all justice systems it is critically underfunded.
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
What exactly is the point of this exercise from the DOJ? Is it to appear transparent about what they have on file, with no real consequences to them? You can only go alone, and you can't make a physical copies or even write down any details of what you have read in those unredacted files. So you come out of there, by yourself, with just what you have retained in memory, of what you've read, some 10 days after the files have been released, and just a few needles have been established to exist in that massive haystack.
Say you go there, you find documents where the name of a high ranking government official has not been redacted, and the context this official appears in, is highly suspicious, and contradicts what has been publicly shared by the government until now.
What can you do about it then? What are your options, if any? Would you then tell a fellow government official to go and verify it, by finding the same file? And then what happens? Anything?
I don't get it.
They're allowed to take notes. I don't know what they can do with them. They can theoretically write down the doc # with evidence and bring it to a judge for release and to be used in court, but the courts have already decided they ALL have to be released and the DOJ is just refusing to comply.
And anyone who doesn't believe them just calls them a liar, and they have no way to prove it. So yeah, basically nothing.
My only theory is that maybe the DOJ legitimately foolishly thought that reviewing these documents would maybe convince them they needed to be redacted or something.
Oh no you're exactly right. Best I can tell it's straight up "We'll give you transparency," but in a way that's basically entirely unactionable by the members of Congress. Even if a dozen members go in and say they saw something in the files that contradicts the narrative, the regime will just say they're lying and fight any subpoena for the files.
Until Congress starts actually impeaching and removing people for this, it's basically nothing as far as I can tell. Unless I'm missing something huge here.
I wonder if a part of it is just to create more confusion. The more they can confuse people, the more likely they'll just ignore it.
Or, just, total and utter incompetence.
I believe they are able to bring a notebook and take notes, but no pictures.
Ok, so they can take notes. But they can't be used as evidence for anything I assume? DOJ can just say, "well you must've written the wrong document ID in your notes, because that document doesn't say what your notes says it does."
That they can't bring staff members who have been researching the issue is also an odd restriction. As a member of congress, you can go there and look at a tiny sample of 3+ million files, potentially make some handwritten notes. I doubt many members of congress have spent the majority of their last 10 days digging into the files to find lines of investigation into specific files, They do have other things to do, so the restriction for them to not bring anyone who are more familiar with the files simply seems like another roadblock for this exercise to be useful to anybody.
Yeah. They've built a rat maze around the cheese, but, if someone was determined and went in with a plan, they might be able to find it.
Whether or not that happens is out of my hands.