“Sloppy”: a word that could be applied to joes, or the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s handling of the Epstein Files. On Nov. 19, Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act to force the release of all files related to the Epstein investigation within 30 days. The DOJ has not released all of the Epstein files; it has released only 3.5 million of the six million files that could potentially be released, and has broken the law by not releasing the files by Dec. 19. Instead, the DOJ has focused on pursuing political enemies with a stunningly low success rate. The DOJ should focus on promoting justice rather than politics and work to make real arrests of criminals rather than political enemies.
For a Bark social media standalone, I looked into what towns were mentioned in the Epstein Files. While investigating various threads, I immediately found an error. One email, from 2013, had a significant portion of its contents redacted. The email referred to an earlier interaction with a woman in the context of providing models to Epstein that hadn’t worked out, then insulted “stupid” French laws that seemed to prevent Epstein from doing what he pleased. The bottom half of the email is redacted, along with the sender’s name.
“Tell me Joel from Next can be interested to take me in Next miami? I dont care about position but need it for documents.”
That was the redacted portion of the email. You may be wondering what kind of computer wizardry and trickery I used to find this. Did I copy and paste it into a special program? No. I simply looked at the next file under my search, and there was an unredacted version. Note that the sender’s name was still redacted, because someone who is complaining about Epstein’s lack of ability to exploit France’s laws is not only innocent, but also a victim. Someone who clearly is intimate enough with Epstein to know the functions of his daily life has been protected by the DOJ. Why not the innocent bystanders listed in the files who simply wrote books that Epstein read, which were of interest to Epstein? Those who are facing public scrutiny simply because their names come up in a search, when it seems long black lines protect the true perpetrators. In fact, nude photos of women were left unredacted, and identifying details of the victims were left intact in the files.
Redactions in the Epstein files seem to be occasionally random, almost to the point of purposeful deception. Entire files with just one word, a random name, not blacked out. Is the word “the” such a danger to Epstein’s victims? “Of?” Mind you, this is only my experience with the files I investigated and the leads I followed based on Marin’s connections to the files, not files pointed out by legacy media. These files are untouched by the likes of Fox News or the New York Times, implying that there are thousands of mistakes to be found within the files. Some victims’ names likely remain unredacted somewhere in the millions of pages and photos. One file blocks out a woman’s name who said, “What time and remind me exact address so I can give her! She will come alone!” In reference to another woman. Why? Are you protecting this person? The American people asked for the names of those wrapped up in Epstein’s web. Instead, we’ve received the random names of authors, and those simply caught in the crossfire.
On that note of protecting the rich and powerful, the New York Times recently reported that the DOJ had failed to produce witness statements from a woman who had testified against Donald Trump. The woman produced four witness statements against Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein, yet the only one released was the one where she testified against Mr. Epstein. The other three, including notes from the FBI, are notably missing. For the “most transparent administration in history,” this seems like a grave mistake.
The DOJ seems to think there are more pressing matters at hand, as they have spent much of their time and resources since Trump’s inauguration going after the administration’s political enemies. In most cases, they have been entirely unsuccessful. Just recently, it was announced that the DOJ had failed to build a case against former President Joe Biden for his use of an autopen while in Office. They spent several months not only publicly slandering Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, but attempting to have him deported to various third-world nations. They attempted to prosecute a man for throwing a sandwich at federal agents in D.C. for felony assault, but were unable to convince a grand jury to indict him. Other high-profile Trump enemies, like Letitia James and congress members who made a video telling members of the military to ignore illegal orders, were indicted by the DOJ. The DOJ failed twice to indict James and failed to indict the congresspeople. While operating on the president’s whims, the DOJ has failed not only in its job but also in its mission to bring justice and instead focuses on protecting the rich and powerful.
Indeed, 30 days is not a long time to redact 3.5 million files. The DOJ is the self-proclaimed “world’s largest law office,” employing more than 10,000 attorneys nationwide. If the DOJ has exactly 10,000 attorneys, each attorney would need to look over 350 documents, or about 12 per day. One could argue that the DOJ has other, more pressing matters to tend to, but considering that the “pressing matters” seemed to include trying (and failing) to prosecute a man for federal assault, then trying (and failing) to charge him with a misdemeanor for throwing a sandwich, perhaps it’s time to go in the direction the American people want you to go in.
While each attorney obviously did not look at 12 files per day, this is a manageable number for the self-proclaimed “world’s largest law office.”
I would be remiss not to mention that a computer performs the redactions using instructions given by the DOJ.
The argument that the Epstein files shouldn’t have been released because of the public’s speculation around them is the most valid. In the Instagram comments of a recent Bark post relating to the files, we have seen the public speculate about what we reported—bland though our findings were—in the files. One comment, potentially a bot, said, “Notice how it’s all democratic liberals.” We didn’t mention a single political figure. Another commented that a book written in Kentfield was “likely by Newsom’s wife.” The book was not by Newsom’s wife, and that speculation was pointless and unfounded, yet it has real consequences. Many of the people in the files risk having their reputations sullied solely because they wrote a book or article that Epstein read, and people are unwilling to do their research. This problem would be minimized if American children were taught media literacy.
Media literacy helps improve critical thinking and investigative skills, preventing children from drawing immediate conclusions about things they see on the internet. When critical thinking and media literacy skills remain undeveloped into adulthood, speculation can run wild, like in our own comments. Also, the DOJ chose to keep the names of those who could’ve legitimately been involved in criminal activities redacted while leaving those who were simply on the sidelines unredacted, allowing speculation to run wild because so many Americans have minimal media literacy skills. This problem is compounded by the DOJ and Trump administrations’ attacks on the media, where they make baseless claims about the truthfulness of reporting by legacy outlets.
While other news outlets have reported on missing witness testimonies, poor protection of victims, other missing files and protection of the president, the fact that I was able to find errors within minutes of starting to comb through the files says something about the DOJ’s incompetence. I have no degree in journalism, nor a high school degree, but I was easily able to find errors, random redactions and potential protection of abusers.
