July 3, 2026
Deadline Up: DOJ Defends Epstein File Redactions, Refuses To Release More Documents
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed Hours before the July 2nd deadline imposed by a federal judge, the Department of Justice asked the judge for 60 more days OR accept its reasoning why it would not produce unredacted versions of several documents. The reasoning included protecting victims, protecting people from disturbing allegations without context and it even used “the dog ate my homework” excuse. The DOJ claims they can’t find an unredacted version of a list of possible Epstein co conspirators.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, July third, and the Department of Justice had a Thursday, July second deadline to produce Epstein files unredacted or if you don't at least explain to the judge why you haven't released him, what option do you think they went with?
00:00:23
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and tj Epstein files. We're told they were all released, and they we're told there are tons more now. People want to see them, they want to see them unredacted, and they're not going to see them yet at least at least.
00:00:40
Speaker 3: Yes, we haven't gotten a response from the judge as of yet. But did you actually think there would be any other outcome other than this when that deadline was made by that judge last week? Did anyone actually believe the dj is going to say, okay, let me go ahead and just unredact these files.
00:01:00
Speaker 1: No, No, I don't think anybody was anticipating that. Todd Blanche did exactly what everybody expected him to do, which was to be, in their minds, a good soldier for President Trump and keep certain things hidden from the public. So that's always going to be the line that goes along it doesn't matter what he does. He could let the entire public into the Department of Justice say knock yourself out, go through any computer you want, here's some logins. Nobody's gonna believe it. You can do whatever you want with the up thing fire.
00:01:27
Speaker 4: That would be a start.
00:01:29
Speaker 1: No, it won't. It's just going to lead to more controversy. This is just what this is. There's no real transparency, there never will be, and no one will ever believe it on.
00:01:37
Speaker 3: This well, and it's there's nothing to believe right now because we can't see what we can't see. And it was just a few hours before that deadline occurred that Todd Blanche the Department of Justice actually asked the judge to delay the deadline for sixty days or accept their reasons for withholding. Those were the two options the dj gave back to the judge.
00:02:00
Speaker 4: So they offered to share. This was the other caveat.
00:02:04
Speaker 3: They offered to share some additional materials in camera, which is a legal term for a behind closed door meeting with the judge.
00:02:13
Speaker 4: So again, not transparent.
00:02:17
Speaker 3: We'll do some more explaining, but behind closed doors that's probably not going to go a long way for folks to feel like we've gotten the full truth, and so yes, that is where we stand right now. I find I believe at least, Look, they went through and gave reasons for several of these specific documents that were asked by from an independent journalist, and some of the explanations, what did you make of them?
00:02:47
Speaker 1: I buy them? Legally, Yes, I would listen to anybody except this Department of Justice about it, just because of the track record. Now, not insulting anybody, I'm just saying the track record, nobody's ever going to believe anything this department is about the Epstein file. So it doesn't matter what reason they could have given. The dog ate my homework is just as good of an excuse as there's a legal reason.
00:03:10
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter, And one of what you just said is kind of what one of the excuses was. Look, I think I feel like this is a fair assessment to make. Most Americans, if not all Americans, understand why victims' names need to be redacted. So that isn't really Yes, we understand no one wants to out a victim of sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein if they don't want to be known. Don't you feel like that's something that that doesn't even need to be defended at this point.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: The problem is the messenger. We don't trust who is in charge, the gatekeeper. That's the problem. Yes, we all get on board with, but that we don't trust the gatekeepers, and the gatekeepers have earned that reputation.
00:03:53
Speaker 4: That's a fair way to put it.
00:03:54
Speaker 3: Yes, so, Yes, One of their excuses is some of the emails redacted are to protect the names of victim. Okay, I think that's we all accept that. Here is where it gets tricky. So the DOJ said the one email that had information withheld because they claim many communications written by victims without context can appear disturbing on their face.
00:04:20
Speaker 4: Huh.
00:04:22
Speaker 1: Again, it doesn't matter what reason they give. Yes, disturbing, Yes, that's I believe that if you just release something with somebody's name attached to it without the understanding or full background, Yes, it puts out whatever. Now the judge, it's up to him. I'll listen to him. Or whether or not he says that is a substantial or legitimate legal argument to make, I don't know. But again, we're just reading one line and one excerpt from what their reasoning was.
00:04:50
Speaker 3: Yes, so look, so That is one of their justifications for redactions that they don't want to put out victims accusations against I'm assuming other people other than Jeffrey Epstein without context. But that is kind of the whole point of folks wanting answers. They want names, they want to know who else has been implicated. Here's the one for me that really raised eyebrows.
00:05:16
Speaker 4: This is the big one.
00:05:17
Speaker 3: There is a draft indictment back in two thousand and seven. This is when Epstein was initially well. He got a slap on the wrist for having sex with underage with minors, and he just had home confinement. He could go about his business. This has been a huge point of contention.
00:05:36
Speaker 1: Wait, this is the one. He spent thirteen months in jail. Did he know he did?
00:05:39
Speaker 3: But then he got to Then he got to but it was like jail in quotes, he had a lot of leeway to come and go. He had like the ability to leave. Folks have said this was a ridiculous punishment for some serious crimes. So there was a draft indictment that had names, other names of potential co conspirators or who could become co defendants. This draft has been of supreme interest because there are names on this draft and they're all redacted, they're all blacked out. So this was one of these specific files that this independent journalist was asking for. The DOJ's explanation for not or for unredacting those names. They can't find the unredacted versions. They literally said, they are unable to locate an unredacted version of.
00:06:33
Speaker 4: This specific photocopy. That was their response.
00:06:37
Speaker 1: That's a better answer than I usually expect. So they can't find it. I believe I O the dog ate my homework.
00:06:45
Speaker 3: Literally, the document that most people, I think a lot of folks have been focused on, that's the one document they can't find with the names unredacted.
00:06:56
Speaker 4: You, I mean, what are you going to say.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: We can say bs, we can say we don't believe it, But how do you prove that they can't find it?
00:07:04
Speaker 1: You can't. It doesn't matter what they say. It just doesn't matter. They can produce the document right now and somebody's gonna look at it and say, oops, it looks like a name was erased. Who was the other one that was supposed to be on here? It will never.
00:07:14
Speaker 3: End, but with some names, at least there would be some some accountability or at least some transparency.
00:07:20
Speaker 1: But there's not because you see a name on this thing. But somebody who gets thrown into this and gets accused of something who had nothing to do with nothing, or maybe never was accused, never was a part of that part. I understand, everybody understands. But this is just the story. It's just it's just ballooned into this non stop trickle and circus that will never be satisfied. So yes, this document, Yes, hand it over, and what's going to happen. It will need to the next thing that we didn't get in the next thing. I just.
00:07:56
Speaker 3: Going on millions of documents that haven't been released. That is what is going to happen. But now, the other big document that folks wanted to look at were the redactions to the interview notes of this Trump accuser. These were the unsubstantiated sexual assault claims by a woman who claims that and again unsubstantiated claims that President Trump, not president at the time, assaulted her when she was thirteen years old. So the reasons why they won't provide the interview notes by the FBI is they say the materials were deemed duplicative of the type written reports memorializing the interviews. So here is the specific language they used. They said their handwritten nature further complicates the redaction process and increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure of victim because of technical limitations on the department's ability to run meaningful quality control checks for the victim across handwritten materials. So they're saying it's hard for them to redacts because it's in handwriting versus maybe using what a computer or AI to redact names. That is their excuse for or their reasoning for not releasing the notes of that interview of that Trumpet user.
00:09:16
Speaker 4: And so that is what they had to say.
00:09:18
Speaker 3: Now, they also fired back a bit in this in this filing that they gave to the judge, they were upset that the judge concluded because last week this was a big headline. The judge said the DOJ has violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act, And so they came back swinging and said the Department has not knowingly violated, nor has it ever acknowledged violating the Act as it continues working to comply with statutory requirements. So look they're saying, we did not and we have an acknowledge that we have and basically they didn't appreciate that the judge said they did. So that is where they are, and we have to see how this is go work because it's back and forth between the judge and the DOJ. And in the middle of all of this is independent journalists. I didn't say her name, Katie Fang. She used to work for ms NOW. But the judge did agree that by not having access to these materials, by only having redacted versions of them, that she was harmed in doing her job. So this is where things stand at this point.
00:10:22
Speaker 1: I'm sure she'll still pursue it, and it's a worthy pursuit. I mean, just release all this stuff. I mean I do. There's some protections that need to be in there to some degree, but it just the folks who are telling me just be trust us. These redactions are necessary. Never going to take care word for it.
00:10:38
Speaker 4: They're not.
00:10:39
Speaker 3: So when we come back, we're going to go over just a little bit about what is missing. But I also wanted to go over some pretty hilarious reaction from folks in response to the Department of Justices response. Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We're talking about the Department of Justice. Their response to that deadline that a judge set last week that they had to basically produce all of these unredacted Epstein files based on a lawsuit file by an independent journalist, Katie Fang, And the DOJ said, Hey, give us sixty more days or accept our excuses or our reasons I shouldn't say excuses, our reasoning behind these necessary redactions. And look just for the perspective of this all, the Department of Justice released three and a half million pages of documents. Much of those pages are heavily redacted, the DOJ says, primarily to protect victims, but they will withheld another two and a half million pages. And so the outcry is the DOJ must be predecting, protecting the rich and the powerful people who are mentioned but redacted in files. Do you buy any of that? How many people do you think actually believe that. I think quite a large amount of people believe that.
00:12:10
Speaker 1: There are very legitimate reasons to redact this stuff. You have a credibility problem, that's all. That's all. And there is no victim who trusts the Department of Justice to be good stewards of their identities, of their stories, of their information of anything. So the very group that the victims are going after for not protecting them, that group just can't raise their hand now legally and for the purpose of a core proceeding to say we are here to protect victims. It's doesn't work.
00:12:45
Speaker 4: It's so true.
00:12:46
Speaker 3: I like how you said they're not basically trustworthy stewards of that information and at issue some of these redacted names that this particular journalist, Katie Fang wants, and I this is where I don't understand how the DOJ can say this is protecting victims because they want the names of the senders and recipients. In email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein. Those senders and recipients have been blacked out, including a specific email about a torture video and sexual activity with young women and miners. So look, they blacked out who sent them, who received them. But these were back and forth emails between Jeffrey Epstein and we don't know, but certainly describing criminal activities.
00:13:32
Speaker 4: So that is why folks.
00:13:33
Speaker 3: Want the names of folks who were corresponding with Epstein about illegal horrific acts. So look, we'll see how the judge reacts to this, but there certainly has been a reaction from people upon Todd Blanche's response, this is one of my favorites. Maybe send it over covered in a tarp. Else someone else said, just say it's in connection to the reflective pool sabotage.
00:14:04
Speaker 1: See that one coming.
00:14:05
Speaker 3: And then someone said this, the only appropriate reactions are victim names, period. So look, you know people, as you pointed out, it's the stewards, it's the folks who are saying they're protecting the victims, who are protecting some of these files. And look, when you have other stories out there like the tarp and the reflecting, well people made jokes about the Kennedy Center and take the name down, like maybe put it up on the Kennedy Center like it's just they have a credibility problem with the American people, period. And that is where we stand right now. And we'll see how a judge decides to pursue this based on Todd Blanche's response. It continues, and as you point out, it likely will until the end of time. All right, And with that everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robot alongside TJ.
00:14:58
Speaker 4: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: The catcher pas
Speaker 1: Hey, that folks.
00:00:02
Speaker 2: It is Friday, July third, and the Department of Justice had a Thursday, July second deadline to produce Epstein files unredacted or if you don't at least explain to the judge why you haven't released him, what option do you think they went with?
00:00:23
Speaker 1: And with that, welcome to this episode of Amy and tj Epstein files. We're told they were all released, and they we're told there are tons more now. People want to see them, they want to see them unredacted, and they're not going to see them yet at least at least.
00:00:40
Speaker 3: Yes, we haven't gotten a response from the judge as of yet. But did you actually think there would be any other outcome other than this when that deadline was made by that judge last week? Did anyone actually believe the dj is going to say, okay, let me go ahead and just unredact these files.
00:01:00
Speaker 1: No, No, I don't think anybody was anticipating that. Todd Blanche did exactly what everybody expected him to do, which was to be, in their minds, a good soldier for President Trump and keep certain things hidden from the public. So that's always going to be the line that goes along it doesn't matter what he does. He could let the entire public into the Department of Justice say knock yourself out, go through any computer you want, here's some logins. Nobody's gonna believe it. You can do whatever you want with the up thing fire.
00:01:27
Speaker 4: That would be a start.
00:01:29
Speaker 1: No, it won't. It's just going to lead to more controversy. This is just what this is. There's no real transparency, there never will be, and no one will ever believe it on.
00:01:37
Speaker 3: This well, and it's there's nothing to believe right now because we can't see what we can't see. And it was just a few hours before that deadline occurred that Todd Blanche the Department of Justice actually asked the judge to delay the deadline for sixty days or accept their reasons for withholding. Those were the two options the dj gave back to the judge.
00:02:00
Speaker 4: So they offered to share. This was the other caveat.
00:02:04
Speaker 3: They offered to share some additional materials in camera, which is a legal term for a behind closed door meeting with the judge.
00:02:13
Speaker 4: So again, not transparent.
00:02:17
Speaker 3: We'll do some more explaining, but behind closed doors that's probably not going to go a long way for folks to feel like we've gotten the full truth, and so yes, that is where we stand right now. I find I believe at least, Look, they went through and gave reasons for several of these specific documents that were asked by from an independent journalist, and some of the explanations, what did you make of them?
00:02:47
Speaker 1: I buy them? Legally, Yes, I would listen to anybody except this Department of Justice about it, just because of the track record. Now, not insulting anybody, I'm just saying the track record, nobody's ever going to believe anything this department is about the Epstein file. So it doesn't matter what reason they could have given. The dog ate my homework is just as good of an excuse as there's a legal reason.
00:03:10
Speaker 3: It doesn't matter, And one of what you just said is kind of what one of the excuses was. Look, I think I feel like this is a fair assessment to make. Most Americans, if not all Americans, understand why victims' names need to be redacted. So that isn't really Yes, we understand no one wants to out a victim of sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein if they don't want to be known. Don't you feel like that's something that that doesn't even need to be defended at this point.
00:03:40
Speaker 1: The problem is the messenger. We don't trust who is in charge, the gatekeeper. That's the problem. Yes, we all get on board with, but that we don't trust the gatekeepers, and the gatekeepers have earned that reputation.
00:03:53
Speaker 4: That's a fair way to put it.
00:03:54
Speaker 3: Yes, so, Yes, One of their excuses is some of the emails redacted are to protect the names of victim. Okay, I think that's we all accept that. Here is where it gets tricky. So the DOJ said the one email that had information withheld because they claim many communications written by victims without context can appear disturbing on their face.
00:04:20
Speaker 4: Huh.
00:04:22
Speaker 1: Again, it doesn't matter what reason they give. Yes, disturbing, Yes, that's I believe that if you just release something with somebody's name attached to it without the understanding or full background, Yes, it puts out whatever. Now the judge, it's up to him. I'll listen to him. Or whether or not he says that is a substantial or legitimate legal argument to make, I don't know. But again, we're just reading one line and one excerpt from what their reasoning was.
00:04:50
Speaker 3: Yes, so look, so That is one of their justifications for redactions that they don't want to put out victims accusations against I'm assuming other people other than Jeffrey Epstein without context. But that is kind of the whole point of folks wanting answers. They want names, they want to know who else has been implicated. Here's the one for me that really raised eyebrows.
00:05:16
Speaker 4: This is the big one.
00:05:17
Speaker 3: There is a draft indictment back in two thousand and seven. This is when Epstein was initially well. He got a slap on the wrist for having sex with underage with minors, and he just had home confinement. He could go about his business. This has been a huge point of contention.
00:05:36
Speaker 1: Wait, this is the one. He spent thirteen months in jail. Did he know he did?
00:05:39
Speaker 3: But then he got to Then he got to but it was like jail in quotes, he had a lot of leeway to come and go. He had like the ability to leave. Folks have said this was a ridiculous punishment for some serious crimes. So there was a draft indictment that had names, other names of potential co conspirators or who could become co defendants. This draft has been of supreme interest because there are names on this draft and they're all redacted, they're all blacked out. So this was one of these specific files that this independent journalist was asking for. The DOJ's explanation for not or for unredacting those names. They can't find the unredacted versions. They literally said, they are unable to locate an unredacted version of.
00:06:33
Speaker 4: This specific photocopy. That was their response.
00:06:37
Speaker 1: That's a better answer than I usually expect. So they can't find it. I believe I O the dog ate my homework.
00:06:45
Speaker 3: Literally, the document that most people, I think a lot of folks have been focused on, that's the one document they can't find with the names unredacted.
00:06:56
Speaker 4: You, I mean, what are you going to say.
00:06:58
Speaker 3: We can say bs, we can say we don't believe it, But how do you prove that they can't find it?
00:07:04
Speaker 1: You can't. It doesn't matter what they say. It just doesn't matter. They can produce the document right now and somebody's gonna look at it and say, oops, it looks like a name was erased. Who was the other one that was supposed to be on here? It will never.
00:07:14
Speaker 3: End, but with some names, at least there would be some some accountability or at least some transparency.
00:07:20
Speaker 1: But there's not because you see a name on this thing. But somebody who gets thrown into this and gets accused of something who had nothing to do with nothing, or maybe never was accused, never was a part of that part. I understand, everybody understands. But this is just the story. It's just it's just ballooned into this non stop trickle and circus that will never be satisfied. So yes, this document, Yes, hand it over, and what's going to happen. It will need to the next thing that we didn't get in the next thing. I just.
00:07:56
Speaker 3: Going on millions of documents that haven't been released. That is what is going to happen. But now, the other big document that folks wanted to look at were the redactions to the interview notes of this Trump accuser. These were the unsubstantiated sexual assault claims by a woman who claims that and again unsubstantiated claims that President Trump, not president at the time, assaulted her when she was thirteen years old. So the reasons why they won't provide the interview notes by the FBI is they say the materials were deemed duplicative of the type written reports memorializing the interviews. So here is the specific language they used. They said their handwritten nature further complicates the redaction process and increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure of victim because of technical limitations on the department's ability to run meaningful quality control checks for the victim across handwritten materials. So they're saying it's hard for them to redacts because it's in handwriting versus maybe using what a computer or AI to redact names. That is their excuse for or their reasoning for not releasing the notes of that interview of that Trumpet user.
00:09:16
Speaker 4: And so that is what they had to say.
00:09:18
Speaker 3: Now, they also fired back a bit in this in this filing that they gave to the judge, they were upset that the judge concluded because last week this was a big headline. The judge said the DOJ has violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act, And so they came back swinging and said the Department has not knowingly violated, nor has it ever acknowledged violating the Act as it continues working to comply with statutory requirements. So look they're saying, we did not and we have an acknowledge that we have and basically they didn't appreciate that the judge said they did. So that is where they are, and we have to see how this is go work because it's back and forth between the judge and the DOJ. And in the middle of all of this is independent journalists. I didn't say her name, Katie Fang. She used to work for ms NOW. But the judge did agree that by not having access to these materials, by only having redacted versions of them, that she was harmed in doing her job. So this is where things stand at this point.
00:10:22
Speaker 1: I'm sure she'll still pursue it, and it's a worthy pursuit. I mean, just release all this stuff. I mean I do. There's some protections that need to be in there to some degree, but it just the folks who are telling me just be trust us. These redactions are necessary. Never going to take care word for it.
00:10:38
Speaker 4: They're not.
00:10:39
Speaker 3: So when we come back, we're going to go over just a little bit about what is missing. But I also wanted to go over some pretty hilarious reaction from folks in response to the Department of Justices response. Welcome back everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ. We're talking about the Department of Justice. Their response to that deadline that a judge set last week that they had to basically produce all of these unredacted Epstein files based on a lawsuit file by an independent journalist, Katie Fang, And the DOJ said, Hey, give us sixty more days or accept our excuses or our reasons I shouldn't say excuses, our reasoning behind these necessary redactions. And look just for the perspective of this all, the Department of Justice released three and a half million pages of documents. Much of those pages are heavily redacted, the DOJ says, primarily to protect victims, but they will withheld another two and a half million pages. And so the outcry is the DOJ must be predecting, protecting the rich and the powerful people who are mentioned but redacted in files. Do you buy any of that? How many people do you think actually believe that. I think quite a large amount of people believe that.
00:12:10
Speaker 1: There are very legitimate reasons to redact this stuff. You have a credibility problem, that's all. That's all. And there is no victim who trusts the Department of Justice to be good stewards of their identities, of their stories, of their information of anything. So the very group that the victims are going after for not protecting them, that group just can't raise their hand now legally and for the purpose of a core proceeding to say we are here to protect victims. It's doesn't work.
00:12:45
Speaker 4: It's so true.
00:12:46
Speaker 3: I like how you said they're not basically trustworthy stewards of that information and at issue some of these redacted names that this particular journalist, Katie Fang wants, and I this is where I don't understand how the DOJ can say this is protecting victims because they want the names of the senders and recipients. In email exchanges with Jeffrey Epstein. Those senders and recipients have been blacked out, including a specific email about a torture video and sexual activity with young women and miners. So look, they blacked out who sent them, who received them. But these were back and forth emails between Jeffrey Epstein and we don't know, but certainly describing criminal activities.
00:13:32
Speaker 4: So that is why folks.
00:13:33
Speaker 3: Want the names of folks who were corresponding with Epstein about illegal horrific acts. So look, we'll see how the judge reacts to this, but there certainly has been a reaction from people upon Todd Blanche's response, this is one of my favorites. Maybe send it over covered in a tarp. Else someone else said, just say it's in connection to the reflective pool sabotage.
00:14:04
Speaker 1: See that one coming.
00:14:05
Speaker 3: And then someone said this, the only appropriate reactions are victim names, period. So look, you know people, as you pointed out, it's the stewards, it's the folks who are saying they're protecting the victims, who are protecting some of these files. And look, when you have other stories out there like the tarp and the reflecting, well people made jokes about the Kennedy Center and take the name down, like maybe put it up on the Kennedy Center like it's just they have a credibility problem with the American people, period. And that is where we stand right now. And we'll see how a judge decides to pursue this based on Todd Blanche's response. It continues, and as you point out, it likely will until the end of time. All right, And with that everyone, we always appreciate you listening to us. I'm Amy Robot alongside TJ.
00:14:58
Speaker 4: Holmes. We'll talk to you soon.
00:15:01
Speaker 1: The catcher pas