- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Three months ago, did or didn't Trump sign an order to release unredacted Epstein files?
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:23 am to SloaneRanger
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:23 am to SloaneRanger
Redactions on victims only. Try again.
3
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:29 am to Perfect Circle
quote:
The legislation sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (along with Rep. Ro Khanna), known as the **Epstein Files Transparency Act** (H.R. 4405, enacted in late 2025 and signed by President Trump), required the Department of Justice to release all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials related to Jeffrey Epstein's investigations, prosecutions, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, and associated individuals or entities. The bill explicitly outlined **narrow, permitted reasons for redactions or withholdings** to balance transparency with protections. These valid reasons, as detailed in the bill text (particularly in sections addressing permitted withholdings and prohibited grounds), included: - **Personally identifiable information of victims** — Redactions allowed for victims' personal information, medical files, or similar details where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. - **Child sexual abuse materials (CSAM)** — Any depictions or content defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under related statutes. - **Materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution** — Permitted only if narrowly tailored and temporary. - **Images of death, physical abuse, or injury** of any person. - **Properly classified information** — Specifically authorized under Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy (with a requirement to declassify to the maximum extent possible). The bill also included strong prohibitions: No records could be withheld, delayed, or redacted on grounds such as **embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity** (including to government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitaries). All redactions required written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress. In practice, Massie and others (including Khanna) have publicly criticized the DOJ's implementation, arguing that observed redactions (e.g., of certain men's names and photos in released files) exceeded these limits and lacked valid justification under the law—often appearing to protect non-victims without fitting the permitted categories. Massie has stated there was "no reason in our legislation that allows them to redact the names of those men" in such cases, and the act emphasized limited redactions "mostly to protect the identities of Epstein’s victims." For the full bill text, see the congress.gov entry for H.R.4405 or related resolutions like H.Res.581 that incorporated similar language. Recent events (as of February 2026) show ongoing disputes over compliance, with some redactions later reversed after congressional review.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:32 am to SloaneRanger
quote:
Uh, the statute Congress passed requires redactions. The Dems insisted on it I believe. I have no opinion on whether they were done correctly, but the law requires it.
The law stipulated that the only redactions were to protect the victims which they didn’t do a good job of since some victim names and even a photo of a drivers license were left unredacted. But all the names associated with Epstein and possible crimes were redacted. An obvious violation of the law that was one vote short of an unanimous passage by Congress and signed by Trump.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:36 am to Perfect Circle
quote:
Three months ago, did or didn't Trump sign an order to release unredacted Epstein files?
No.
The law didn’t require an unredacted release of documents.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:44 am to AubieinNC2009
Correct. There are victims whose names by law, must be redacted because they joined the civil suit as Jane Does. There are also 20 years of documents and communications from civil, criminal, state, federal, FBI, DOJ, local law enforcement, defense counsel discovery, etc... All with different rules, spanning state and federal proceedings across different jurisdictions. Todd Blanche has been on X trying to clear this up since the idiots have been melting about redactions since the release. Nothing is being "hidden".
Motherfrickers will never let this go no matter what, which is why I suspect the DOJ had second thoughts about the release in the first place.
Motherfrickers will never let this go no matter what, which is why I suspect the DOJ had second thoughts about the release in the first place.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:47 am to Vacherie Saint
It’s all the democrats have left. It’s the only issue they have to run on.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:47 am to Perfect Circle
quote:
Redactions on victims only. Try again.
So you admit that redactions are required under some circumstances. As I said, I don’t know whether the DOJ did it correctly or not. And neither does anyone else in this thread. If there are specific documents people think are improperly redacted, take it up with a judge. This isn’t hard. I think Congress should have required everything be released with no redactions. But they chose not to do that.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:49 am to Perfect Circle
I predicted a big nothing burger, REDACT CITY!
Posted on 2/10/26 at 9:55 am to Perfect Circle
quote:Dude!
Redactions on victims only. Try again.
First off, your OP title is stupid. Trump never signed anything of the sort.
Second, a week and a half ago, the DOJ released a massive tranche of 3.5 MILLION pages, including over 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.
The release included technical errors where "blacked out" text could be revealed by copying and pasting. Redacted names, including victims' names, were accidentally left visible, there essentially were NO REDACTIONS in that giant release.
Lawsuits have been filed.
Now Congress is privately accessing unredacted materials, and in some instances, lying about what they claim to have found.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 10:26 am to Flats
quote:
The second Trump called it a hoax a plurality if not a majority of this forum had the exact same view on this that SFP pushes, whether they wish to admit it or not. It was only later that "hoax" got retconned into whatever tortured definition they're using these days
This simply isn't true. We told you all what Trump meant by hoax since the beginning. It was extremely obvious what he meant, but you people just refused to accept it, because smearing Trump is your main goal. That the entire saga with Epstein never happened was never the meaning of 'hoax.'
The hoax always was that Trump was involved. And even now, after it's been explained a million times, some you still want to push the false narrative.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 10:31 am to FredBear
quote:
don’t bring up the fact that Biden didn’t release.
frick you
quote:
Biden didn't release. Don't hide from it
frick you
Stop playing politics. Protect the fricking kids and stop playing politics. You can poke each other in the eye afterwards, FFS.
Posted on 2/10/26 at 10:41 am to Perfect Circle
Tell you what, you explain your position first. How the failures of the Biden administration did not exacerbate the current situation.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News