WASHINGTON — The Justice Department is defending its heavy redactions to thousands of files on notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein that were released Friday in keeping with a congressional deadline.
The sweeping redactions shielded even the late pedophile’s own apparently nude or scantily clad butt, photographed on a beach, and one file contained 100 entirely blanked-out pages.
In a confounding redaction, the Justice Department appeared to reproduce a photo published this week by The Post of Epstein with former President Bill Clinton at the 2002 wedding of Morocco’s King Mohammed VI. In the DOJ version, Clinton’s face is visible, but Epstein’s is blacked out.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche released a six-page letter amid mounting social media outcry over the release of files, which was congressionally mandated after a firestorm of renewed interest in whether powerful men got away with sex crimes.
“Never in American history has a President or the Department of Justice been this transparent with the American people about such a sensitive law enforcement matter,” insisted Blanche, who interviewed Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence, earlier this year before she was mysteriously transferred to a cushy lower-security facility.
“President Trump, Attorney General [Pam] Bondi, and FBI Director [Kash] Patel are committed to providing full transparency consistent with the law,” Blanche wrote.
“Because of the volume of the material and the requirement that every page of every document be reviewed for potential redactions under the Act, final stages of review of some material continue.”
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, the law that prompted the DOJ to release the files, allows the Justice Department to withhold certain information such as the personal information of victims and materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation.
Blanche wrote: “The Review Protocal is consistent with the Act and instructed attorneys to redact or withhold material that (1) contained personally identifiable information of victims; 2) depicted or contained child sexual abuse materials… (3) would jeopardize an active investigation or prosecution; (4) depicted images of death, physical abuse, or injury; and/or (5) properly classified national defense or foreign policy information.”
None of those reasons explain why Epstein’s rear end and face were redacted from photos.
“In addition to the bases for withholding or redacting under the Act, the Department has withheld and redacted a limited amount of information otherwise covered by various privileges, including deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege, and attorney-client privilege,” Blanche added.
“In addition to redacting the names of these victims, the Department has also redacted and is not producing any materials that could result in their identification.”
Blanche insisted that “the [DOJ’s] commitment to transparency and compliance with the law has been historic.”
The law mandating release of the files says that within 15 days of Friday, Bondi must
submit to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report listing all categories of records released and withheld and a summary of redactions made, including the legal basis.
It might not be until January, when the report is due, that Congress will have a better understanding of why redactions were made.
Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) said the Justice Department defied their Epstein Transparency Act with the heavy redactions and not turning over all that the law required.
“The DOJ’s document dump of hundreds of thousands of pages failed to comply with the law,” Khanna said.
The hundreds of thousands of pages of released files included photos of convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein with former President Bill Clinton, Mick Jagger, and Michael Jackson.
