DOJ declines to turn over redacted information after judge’s order to release documents or explain why they’re being withheld
Removed from bookmarks
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
The Department of Justice is refusing to hand over redacted information frominvestigative files connected to Jeffrey Epstein, despite an order from a federal judge to either release the documents or explain why they were withheld.
Hours before a deadline to turn over the materials, Associate U.S. Attorney General Stanley Woodward asked the judge to delay the deadline for another two months, or to dissolve the order entirely by accepting the Justice Department’s explanation for withholding those documents.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan sided with journalist Katie Phang after shefiled a lawsuitaccusing Donald Trump’s administration of violating theEpstein Files Transparency Act, which the president signed into law last year.
The lawsuit, which was filed against Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, accuses the government of obstructing the public’s right to access materials connected to investigations into Epstein. The judge gave the Justice Department until Thursday to respond.
On Thursday night, Woodwardwrotethat the government is “committed to transparency and compliance” but “strongly disagrees” with the judge’s order.
The government does not believe it violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act by withholding materials from the public. “Indeed, the Department has not knowingly violated, nor has it ever acknowledged violating, the EFTA as it continues working to comply with statutory requirements,” Woodward wrote.
“As will become apparent, it would contravene the settled application of [the law]for the Department to produce unredacted versions of many of the records at issue, and nothing requires that result,” he said.
Interview notes from investigators who spoke to a woman who madeunsubstantiated assault claims about Trumpwere “deemed duplicative of the typewritten reports memorializing the interviews,” according to Woodward.
The president has not been accused of criminal wrongdoing, and one’s appearance in the Epstein files does not suggest otherwise.
“Their handwritten nature further complicates the redaction process and increases the risk of inadvertent disclosure of victim [personal identifiable information] — including because of technical limitations on the Department's ability to run meaningful quality control checks,” he added.
