|
 |
The Trump administration seems to be betting that a slow roll disclosure of more Epstein Files over the holidays will be enough to end the clamor. But the failure to comply with the Transparency Act and the continuing public interest in the matter doesn’t seem to be dissipating. People are frustrated by full page redactions and the absence of files that should be there, like FBI 302s, the reports of interviews with witnesses and victims.
The incomplete release of the Epstein Files
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was on Meet the Press Sunday morning. It’s worth pointing out that it is fairly unusual for a DAG, who is charged with maintaining political neutrality, to do new shows. But it’s not completely unprecedented. Eric Holder went on CBS’s Face the Nation in 2000 to discuss the international dispute over a custody case involving a young Cuban boy in the U.S., Elian Gonzalez. And lest you think I’m digressing too far here, there’s an interesting data point from Trump’s first administration, when Rod Rosenstein went on Fox News Sunday in 2017.
Here’s the interesting part, given the way Trump’s current Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has been taking orders to open investigations from the president on Social Media. On Fox, Rosenstein “said that President Donald Trump has not directed the Justice Department to investigate ‘particular people,’ after Trump said at a rally Thursday that prosecutors should look at Hillary Clinton’s ‘33,000 deleted emails.’” Rosenstein was asked if he viewed Trump’s comment as an order, and responded, “If the president wants to give orders to us ... he does that privately and then if we have any feedback we provide it to him.’”…”The president has not directed us to investigate particular people.” “That,” he concluded, “wouldn’t be right. That’s not the way we operate.” But now, apparently, they do.
Blanche’s job this morning was to vehemently object to any suggestion that the redactions in the files were made due to concerns about “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” He told NBC the Justice Department was not redacting information around Trump or any other individual involved with Epstein. His explanation for removal of released material from the public library happened “because a judge in New York has ordered us to listen to any victim or victim rights group, if they have any concerns about the material that we’re putting up.” He explained that they’re doing their due diligence when this happens, which seems appropriate, although it doesn’t explain why they didn’t use the last few weeks to review the materials with the victims, to let them express concerns in advance, before the items are made public in the first place.
When Welker pressed him on the apparent political nature of the release, which leaned heavily into Bill Clinton, one of the Democrats Trump demanded Bondi open an investigation into over the files, Blanche, who is Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer had this to say: “I will never talk about ongoing criminal investigations. So I'm not going to answer that question.”
Blanche seems completely unconcerned about the administration’s flagrant violation of the deadline the Epstein Transparency Act imposed for full release of the files, which was last Friday. “I expect that we’re going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks,” Blanche said that day, an acknowledgement of the government’s failure. The administration is not taking its obligations seriously, and it seems to be daring Congress to do anything about it.
There is a murmur about the possibility Congress might actually…do something. California Democrat Ro Khanna and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie co-sponsored the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Massie said on CBS’ Face the Nation that he thinks “the most expeditious way to get justice for these victims is to bring inherent contempt against Pam Bondi.” Inherent contempt hasn’t been used since the 1930s, but gives Congress the ability to arrest or sanction executive branch officers who obstruct legislative functions. Massie indicated that he and Khanna were “talking about and drafting that right now.” Impeachment could also be an option, but that would require action by the Senate. The House can pursue inherent contempt on its own.
Blanche was sanguine about this possibility as well during his appearance on Meet the Press. When Welker asked if he was concerned, his response was, "Not even a little bit. Bring it on." He called members of Congress who have been critical of Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel "have no idea what they're talking about." It’s hard to overstate how unusual of a public posture this is for DOJ to take toward Congress, which, after all, funds its work and has constitutional and statutory authority to engage in oversight of it. While this Congress hasn’t done much in that regard, that could change after the midterms or even earlier, and the institution can have a long memory.
Will the public ever hear from Jack Smith?
In the meantime, there is one person fighting for transparency at the Justice Department: Jack Smith. The administration is probably hoping interest in his closed door testimony before the House Judiciary Committee will peter out over the holidays as well.
After testifying, Smith’s lawyers sent a letter to Committee Chair Jim Jordan, saying Smith “welcomed” the opportunity to testify and “hopes that it will serve to correct the many mischaracterizations about the work of the Special Counsel’s Office.” If they are successful in generating a public demand for the release of the full videotape of Smith’s testimony, which they called for, Jordan may well regret his effort to score political points off of Smith. The lawyers wrote that releasing the video “will ensure that the American people can hear the facts directly from Mr. Smith, rather than through second-hand accounts.” They also asked that Smith be recalled for an “open and public hearing.”
There is little doubt that Jordan hoped House Republicans could ensnare Smith in some sort of indictable false statement in the course of his testimony, ala the effort to indict Jim Comey. But their relative quiet following Smith’s trip to Capitol Hill suggests nothing of the sort happened, nor should Jordan have expected to be able to outfox Smith, given the latter’s prosecutorial pedigree. It’s pretty simple to get it right when you’re telling the truth—but Smith’s opponents fail to understand that about how he operates.
Senator Mark Kelly’s lawyer calls out Hegseth
Mark Kelly’s lawyer, former New Jersey U.S. Attorney (Obama administration) Paul Fishman, wrote a letter on behalf of his client to “Secretary of War” Pete Hegseth. Apparently, Kelly is learning the details of the “escalating” investigation into him—Fishman calls it “unprecedented and dangerous overreach” in the letter—in the press. Contacting the lawyer seems to have gone out of vogue. The investigation into Kelly stems from the video he and other members made to remind service members they did not have to follow illegal orders. We discussed it here.
 |
Fishman points out that the video is correct and is protected First Amendment speech. He also raises the issue of inappropriate investigation into a member of Congress who is no longer subject to military command. The administration contorted itself to find someone to go after over the video incident; Kelly is the only one of the six they seem to be proceeding against, although Hegseth previously referred to them as the “seditious six.” But the letter suggests there is more talk than action going on here, when it comes to the investigation. It’s not difficult to imagine that the public comments maligning Kelly were motivated by a Commander in Chief who is intent on revenge against yet another political adversary.
Trump has repeatedly employed a strategy of announcing, or having someone else announce, an investigation into an opponent in order to damage them. That was what led to his first impeachment, when he tried to get Ukraine’s government to do just that to Joe Biden. Kelly’s lawyer is calling the bluff here, asking whether an investigation is actually open, what the allegations are, and what the authority for conducting it is. That’s exactly what’s called for in a case like this, where government authority is being baselessly used to damage the reputation of a public servant.
Gone to the dogs
If you follow me on Instagram, you know that I got myself in a bit of trouble this morning. I committed the cardinal sin of talking about going for a drive in the car in Bella’s hearing. I ended up with both Bella and Elsa with me, and my first effort to park the car and go back home was an abject failure because they WHINED. We ended up driving an entirely different direction, with both dogs intently taking everything in the entire time, before they would let me take them home. I miss long, lazy hours like that and I’m hoping we can all get just a bit of that in this week!