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 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 167 points 10 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 1 child comment
  • [–] 145 points 10 months ago (15 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 10 months ago (13 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 13 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 10 months ago (4 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 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 10 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 2 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 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
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    It was performative. The only reason they voted that way is because they knew they wouldn't have the votes to make any change. If they did they would've stalled or pulled some bullshit about moral upstanding

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago

    Biden: I'm totally serious citizens, Trump is bad news, and will literally take the constitution, as in the one in the National Archives with Franklin's preserved chocolate fingerprint in the upper left corner--and he will ejaculate on it (which is slightly green for some fucking reason) and then set it on fire. Don't elect that dude for real guys.

    Garland: Hey boss, Donny said he's on vacation with Ivanka and thirteen 13 year-olds, so he'll totally send thise docs over next week. Or something. I told that hound dog it was all good in the hood. So I'm gonna punch out early, kay?

    Biden:

    Garland: Boss?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    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 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Impeachment is necessary to kick him out. That's the point. Yes it takes votes, but you have to Impeach first then the Senate can vote to remove.

    Being impeached has no effect on eligibility to run again.

    That's the legal framework

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Ahh ok, so it's like the first step. How come last time there wasn't the second step? Also on a related question, if he'd been kicked out last time would he have been able to run again this time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

    Ahh ok, so it's like the first step. How come last time there wasn't the second step?

    There was a second step. It just failed. To "introduce articles of impeachment" requires a simple majority in the house. Then to formally remove the president during the impeachment proccess requires a 2/3rds vote in the senate.

    That second step did occur, but didn't have enough votes to pass. The democrats did not have a 2/3rds majority in the senate and Republicans weren't willing to impeach their own president

    Also on a related question, if he'd been kicked out last time would he have been able to run again this time?

    Yes he would have

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 107 points 10 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
  • [+] -14 points 10 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    You're like those people who say you can't criticize movies unless you're a director

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (10 children)

    How about you get off our least popular social media platform in existence, leave us alone, and go and do something about the traitors yourself if you think it's hypocrisy not to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 10 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    So when are you gonna go do something about it? Are you a gun guy or a poison guy?

    This appears to be a claim that voicing opposition without taking action is hypocrisy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -3 points 10 months ago* (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [+] 0 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (2 children)

    Are you not arguing that people who advocate for an action should be willing to do that action?

    Whatever, sure we can stop.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    post on the least popular social media platform in existence

    So I should post on Reddit where there are so many comments mine gets hidden in the pile and no one sees it?

    I have over 80 upvotes on my comment. That means at least that many people saw it. People see comments they agree with, then they talk about those subjects elsewhere online and IRL. The sentiment spreads. If it spreads enough then words slowly turn into actions.

    You coming on "the least popular social media in existence" and trying to speak down to people communicating to each other is unproductive and, frankly, stupid.

    And believe me, you are in no position to think less of anyone.

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

    In case you aren't just trolling...

    The conservatives WANT violence from their opposition. They will use it to further destabilize the country allowing them to gain more actual power.

    Sometimes violence is the answer. And there are plenty available if it gets too that. But despite where we are, playing their game the way they want us to isn't the solution. Violence isn't the answer... yet.

    And hopefully we never get to that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 52 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 45 points 10 months ago

    Surprise, surprise...

  • source
  • [–] 80 points 10 months ago
    [–] 34 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    How many FBI agents know how to use sed?

    's/Donald Trump/Bill Clinton/g'

    They even have the same number of characters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    "Bill Clinton went down on Bill Clinton" doesn't have the same ring to it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 10 months ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 10 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
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 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 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Trying to just not quite release the files, playing along with "wanting to release the files" combined with a smattering of the content they hope to be enough to mollify most people.

    A pretend "good faith effort" to stall until people stop paying attention. Presumably something in the news cycle at some point will cause people to stop caring about some 'inconsequential' content beyond what they released.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    It’s a little weird that they’d delay…so much.

    Trump is just a human loyalty test. Prolonging the Epstein shit lets them make sure that anyone who continues to follow him is utterly and completely on board with this crew's agenda.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 10 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 10 months ago

    I am Jack's complete lack of surprise

  • source
  • [–] 32 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Alright, who's going to sue them?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 10 months ago

    Why are we still calling Epstein a financier?

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    To the surprise of absolutely no one.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

    You don't say.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

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

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

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago

    OfCourse not

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago

    Ran out of black markers I'd guess.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    I wonder which files won’t be realeased /s

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    Trumps chumps cant do anything right. Especially when they can't alter the files fast enough.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 10 months ago (8 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 8 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 10 months ago* (5 children)

    Which Democrats have the authority to arrest her?

    Which one said they would?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Shh. You're stepping on the non-American throwing out ragebait in US news and politics with your pesky follow-up questions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I am shocked

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    So the invasion plans aren't ready yet?

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›