Yes it is true Trumps name was redacted, along with many others. Dick Durbin fed the internet with partial information. Redactions were done IAW existing FOIA protocols.....nothing more nothing less. Here is a detailed explanation why.
Instead, Bondi’s big Epstein files party was a bust. It turned out the documents she called declassified, which included pages from Epstein’s infamous “black book,” had been previously released, most recently during the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell four years earlier. (The black book revealed Trump’s name and the names of his wife, Melania, and other family members.)
Trump’s followers were irate. Bondi was angry, too. She fired off a letter to FBI Director Patel demanding to know why the bureau failed to provide her with the thousands of pages of documents related to the Epstein investigation and indictment she requested. She wanted answers from Patel, and accountability.
_______________
The FBI employees reviewed the records using the Freedom of Information Act as their guide for deciding what information should be withheld. That alone isn’t uncommon. In the FOIA, Congress established nine exemptions as a way to balance the public’s right to know against the government’s need to protect sensitive interests, such as national security, official deliberations, ongoing law enforcement proceedings or privacy. When such competing interests arise in non-FOIA matters, those exemptions are often applied even if the exact language set forth in the FOIA statute doesn’t appear in the final record.
________________
While reviewing the Epstein files, FBI personnel identified numerous references to Trump in the documents, the people familiar with the matter told me. Dozens of other high-profile public figures also appeared, the people said. (The appearance of Trump’s name or others in the Epstein files is not evidence of a crime or even a suggestion of wrongdoing.)
In preparation for potential public release, the documents then went to a unit of FOIA officers who applied redactions in accordance with the nine exemptions. The people familiar with the matter said that Trump’s name, along with other high-profile individuals, was blacked out because he was a private citizen when the federal investigation of Epstein was launched in 2006.
In particular, the reviewers applied two FOIA exemptions to justify their redactions. The first, Exemption 6, protects individuals against “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The Supreme Court has said the exemption protects "individuals from the injury and embarrassment" that would result from the disclosure of personal information in possession of the government.
The second, Exemption 7(C), protects personal information contained in law enforcement records, the disclosure of which “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
_________________
_________________
But the reality is, there’s established precedent to protect the identities of private citizens named in law enforcement files no matter how famous they are. It’s a really high bar to overcome. The privacy exemptions were designed to prevent the government from releasing personal information on individuals just because it wants to. Of course, the government does break the law sometimes.
_________________
I previously published information from Brad Edwards, former Epstein prosecutor, acknowledging Trump voluntarily provided an open ended question and answer period during his investigation of Epstein's earlier crimes. So there's one reason why Trump was redacted.
_________________
Also, FOIA case law has established that the names of private individuals contained in law enforcement files will not be released unless they have to be in order to confirm government misconduct.
_________________
That brings us up to today. After the FBI redacted the Epstein files, they were sent to Bondi. (Media reports said Bondi briefed Trump at the White House in May and told him he was named in the files.)
Then, on July 8, the Justice Department and FBI released an unsigned joint statement that said the FBI collected more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence related to the Epstein investigation. However, the promises of “transparency” made earlier by Bondi and Patel didn’t materialize.
“While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein,” the statement read, “it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” The officials added that “much of the information is subject to court-ordered sealing.”
Instead, Bondi’s big Epstein files party was a bust. It turned out the documents she called declassified, which included pages from Epstein’s infamous “black book,” had been previously released, most recently during the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell four years earlier. (The black book revealed Trump’s name and the names of his wife, Melania, and other family members.)
Trump’s followers were irate. Bondi was angry, too. She fired off a letter to FBI Director Patel demanding to know why the bureau failed to provide her with the thousands of pages of documents related to the Epstein investigation and indictment she requested. She wanted answers from Patel, and accountability.
_______________
The FBI employees reviewed the records using the Freedom of Information Act as their guide for deciding what information should be withheld. That alone isn’t uncommon. In the FOIA, Congress established nine exemptions as a way to balance the public’s right to know against the government’s need to protect sensitive interests, such as national security, official deliberations, ongoing law enforcement proceedings or privacy. When such competing interests arise in non-FOIA matters, those exemptions are often applied even if the exact language set forth in the FOIA statute doesn’t appear in the final record.
________________
While reviewing the Epstein files, FBI personnel identified numerous references to Trump in the documents, the people familiar with the matter told me. Dozens of other high-profile public figures also appeared, the people said. (The appearance of Trump’s name or others in the Epstein files is not evidence of a crime or even a suggestion of wrongdoing.)
In preparation for potential public release, the documents then went to a unit of FOIA officers who applied redactions in accordance with the nine exemptions. The people familiar with the matter said that Trump’s name, along with other high-profile individuals, was blacked out because he was a private citizen when the federal investigation of Epstein was launched in 2006.
In particular, the reviewers applied two FOIA exemptions to justify their redactions. The first, Exemption 6, protects individuals against “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The Supreme Court has said the exemption protects "individuals from the injury and embarrassment" that would result from the disclosure of personal information in possession of the government.
The second, Exemption 7(C), protects personal information contained in law enforcement records, the disclosure of which “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
_________________
Established precedent
If you’re surprised by the revelation that the FBI used privacy exemptions to withhold the name of a sitting president, you’re not alone. However, it’s common practice for government agencies to redact names on privacy grounds, even when they’re clearly public figures like Trump. I lost count of how many times the government invoked a privacy exemption in response to my FOIA requests to deny releasing records on public figures and government officials._________________
But the reality is, there’s established precedent to protect the identities of private citizens named in law enforcement files no matter how famous they are. It’s a really high bar to overcome. The privacy exemptions were designed to prevent the government from releasing personal information on individuals just because it wants to. Of course, the government does break the law sometimes.
_________________
I previously published information from Brad Edwards, former Epstein prosecutor, acknowledging Trump voluntarily provided an open ended question and answer period during his investigation of Epstein's earlier crimes. So there's one reason why Trump was redacted.
_________________
Also, FOIA case law has established that the names of private individuals contained in law enforcement files will not be released unless they have to be in order to confirm government misconduct.
_________________
That brings us up to today. After the FBI redacted the Epstein files, they were sent to Bondi. (Media reports said Bondi briefed Trump at the White House in May and told him he was named in the files.)
Then, on July 8, the Justice Department and FBI released an unsigned joint statement that said the FBI collected more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence related to the Epstein investigation. However, the promises of “transparency” made earlier by Bondi and Patel didn’t materialize.
“While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein,” the statement read, “it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” The officials added that “much of the information is subject to court-ordered sealing.”
Last edited:
