this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2026
772 points (99.6% liked)

News

34394 readers
3002 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The law was clear: Donald Trump’s Department of Justice was required to disclose all investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein by 19 December 2025, with rare exceptions.

One month after this deadline mandated by Congress’s Epstein Files Transparency Act, however, Trump’s justice department has not complied with this law, prompting questions about when – and whether – authorities will ever release investigative documents about the late sex offender.

Justice department attorneys said in a 5 January Manhattan court filing that they had posted approximately 12,285 to DoJ’s website, equating to some 125,575 pages, under this legislation’s requirements. They said in this same letter that justice department staff had identified “more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the Act that are in various phases of review”.

That these DoJ’s disclosures apparently comprise a drop in the bucket – and have done little to shed light on how Epstein operated with apparent impunity for years – has roiled survivors’ advocates and lawmakers. They include attorney Spencer Kuvin, who has represented dozens of Epstein’s survivors.

They note that the Department of Justice has also flouted another requirement of this act, which requires that the attorney general provide a report identifying “categories of records released and withheld and summarizing all redactions and their legal bases” within 15 days of their disclosure deadline.

“To date, no such report has been provided. Without it, there is no authoritative accounting of what records exist, what has been withheld, or why, making effective oversight and judicial review far more difficult,” they wrote. “Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I agree but I suspect his base doesn't. They love all this power projection and hostility, and the Epstein stuff is something that they're unusually not in agreement with the administration on.

That being said, I think it detracts from the real implications of these actions if they're only referred to as a distraction. These are very, very likely things that Trump wants to implement regardless and not just something that's done to shift the attention elsewhere.

[–] village604@adultswim.fan 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They could release video footage of Trump raping an infant to death and his base would find a way to justify it.

Anyone who thinks Trump will suffer any consequences from being implicated in the files is delusional.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

(smart) people really don't care about trump, he will be short-lived even if he makes it through this 2nd term. it's about cutting out the rot behind him, cults of personality rarely extend past the cult-head.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I really do care about Trump, and I don't care whether you think I'm smart.

He may be old, and even unwell, but the amount of damage he's doing every day / week / month is obscene. Just in the last week he's done significant lasting harm to trade relations with Europe.

If he withdraws the US from NATO he will have done irreparable damage to global security.

I don't have a lot of faith that the harm he's doing can be undone.

[–] IronBird@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

i just dont think it'll be materially different with vance in place of trump, the national distraction/embarrassment aspect might be less but the bts christofacist shit would be much more precise

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 1 points 3 days ago

You might be right, I dont know.

Trump seems to have absolute control of the republican party. Its not clear whether Vance would have that same grip.