# Epstein Files =\> Trump Impeachment & Conviction? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [November 10, 2025, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733 "2025-11-10T17:42:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 54
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1062 "2026-08-02T03:58:32Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > One thing that blows me away about all of this is “individuals represented by attorneys who have asked the department to treat their clients as victims.” Just being mentioned in those %$#@! “files” is enough to ruin someone. Yes, there are a few “Guests” of Epstein in there, but far far more normal business dealings, and yes- victims. Do we really want to hurt 10000 victims and ordinary people to find some dirt on a few dozen or so? > **[Justice Department under scrutiny for revealing victim info and concealing...](https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/05/politics/justice-department-under-scrutiny-for-revealing-victim-info-and-concealing-possible-enablers-in-epstein-files)** > > The Justice Department failed to black out identifying information about many of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and redacted the details of individuals who may have aided the convicted sex offender, prompting an outcry from survivors who accuse DOJ of... > But Epstein _ **survivors** _ say the files appear to shield those who specifically enabled the convicted sex offender’s _ **abuse** _, as well as other men who > **[Epstein survivors sue Justice Department and Google over release of private...](https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/27/us/epstein-survivors-sue-doj-google-hnk)** > > A group of Jeffrey Epstein survivors filed a class action lawsuit against the Department of Justice and Google on Thursday over the release of victim-identifying information in files related to the late convicted sex offender. > A group of Jeffrey Epstein _ **survivors** _ filed a class action lawsuit against the _ **Department** _ of _ **Justice** _ and Google on Thursday over the release … (sorry CNN is paywalled) > **[Justice Department under scrutiny for revealing victim info and concealing...](https://www.kcra.com/article/doj-epstein-redactions-victims/70255327)** > > Epstein survivors are up in arms about the mishandled redactions, including blacked out statements that victims made to the FBI. > The Justice Department failed to black out identifying information about many of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and redacted the details of individuals who may have aided the convicted sex offender, prompting an outcry from survivors who accuse DOJ of botching the release of more than 3 million documents last week. > “To have pieces of my life be out there on display in that way, was really troublesome,” said Dani Bensky, who told CNN in a roundtable with Epstein survivors that her name, address and phone number were all initially in the files. > > “And I know that I’m public now, yes, it hurts me — but it really hurts our survivor sisters who are still ‘Jane Does’ even more,” she added. > **[Epstein files: How victims remain exposed to identification](https://www.dw.com/en/epstein-files-how-victims-remain-exposed-to-identification/a-78137137)** > > US officials vowed to revise redactions after files exposed information that identified survivors of sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. A DW investigation found that sensitive information remains online. > “I cannot live without looking over my shoulder,” a sexual abuse survivor told US lawmakers in May, describing how her personal information was publicly exposed **[in January](https://www.dw.com/en/more-epstein-files-released/a-75736606)**, when the Department of Justice (DOJ) released **[hundreds of thousands of documents](https://www.dw.com/en/epstein-files/t-74800490)** related to **[the financier Jeffrey Epstein](https://www.dw.com/en/where-did-jeffrey-epstein-get-all-his-money/a-75944096)**. “I can only imagine the long-term impact this mistake will have on my life.” > > Three days after the DOJ released the largest of 12 datasets on Epstein on January 30, a department lawyer told a federal court that “human or technical error” had been among the factors that led to the publishing of personally identifying information of people who had been sexually abused by Epstein and his associates. As a result, the DOJ said it would remove, review and redact flagged documents before republishing them. > > **[DW’s investigative unit](https://www.dw.com/en/investigations/t-71772603)**, along with its **[Innovation](https://innovation.dw.com/articles "External link — Innovation")** and **[Data](https://www.dw.com/en/data/t-43091100)** teams, spent months reviewing thousands of documents released by the DOJ. In the six months since the release, DW identified dozens of files that still contained information — including names, faces and email addresses — that could be used to identify survivors, witnesses and informants, among other people. So can we all agree that survivors, witnesses and informants info needs to be redacted? ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1063 "2026-08-02T04:22:38Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Do we really want to hurt 10000 victims and ordinary people to find some dirt on a few dozen or so? It’s right in the law itself: > Prohibited grounds for withholding.— > > (1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary. That’s from here: [https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text/rds#H5B5BD91F01BF46F985CA3AA0A7FC5560](https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text/rds#H5B5BD91F01BF46F985CA3AA0A7FC5560) > [@DrDeth](#): > > So can we all agree that survivors, witnesses and informants info needs to be redacted? Katie Phang isn’t trying to out rape victims. She’s trying to get information on what seems to be clear cut cases where names are being protected in violation of the law. And so far she is winning because every argument Blanche comes back with is bullshit: [https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/25/todd-blanche-conceded-epstein-files-00977481](https://www.politico.com/news/2026/06/25/todd-blanche-conceded-epstein-files-00977481) ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1064 "2026-08-02T18:16:01Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > It’s right in the law itself: > > > Prohibited grounds for withholding.— > > > > (1) No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary. I am not talking about “government officials, public figures, or foreign dignitarys” I am talking about victims, survivors, witnesses and informants . > [@DWMarch](#): > > Katie Phang isn’t trying to out rape victims. Yeah, but if they get rid of all redacted names, or even most redacted names, some are bound to be victims, survivors, witnesses and informants- and I know that because the government already outed many of those. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1065 "2026-08-02T18:21:51Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yeah, but if they get rid of all redacted names, or even most redacted names, some are bound to be victims No on, and I mean NO ONE here is advocating for the names of victims to be unredacted, which makes your continued push-back against unredacting some of the names puzzling. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1066 "2026-08-02T18:34:19Z")
> [@TroutMan](#): > > No on, and I mean NO ONE here is advocating for the names of victims to be unredacted, which makes your continued push-back against unredacting some of the names puzzling. I know that. No one WANTS those names to be unredacted. But the fact is- last time many victims, survivors, witnesses and informants were not properly redacted due to incompetence and being rushed . So, if the same unit would be told to un-redact a bunch of names- you have to _know_ for sure they will screw up and make mistakes. Note that after the release of the Files, _not one US Indictment followed_. Does anyone think that if more names are made public, indictments will follow? ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1067 "2026-08-02T19:17:11Z")
There’s a good summary here (more than halfway down the page, it is not sectioned so that I can link to it directly though): > **[Trump's Plan to Keep Todd Blanche in Power Raises Stakes in Epstein Files Fight](https://msmagazine.com/2026/07/29/todd-blanche-epstein-files-katie-phang-lawsuit-court-judge/)** > > Blanche's bid to become attorney general permanently has hit a Senate roadblock. President Trump has responded by vowing to keep Blanche in the acting role indefinitely if necessary, ensuring he could remain in charge of the Justice Department—and... One of the emails in question says this: > “Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little bit naughty” Sure, there could be a reasonable explanation for this aside from it being something sexual. But the person who sent this email should be prepared to explain themselves rather than lawyering up and saying “I’m the real victim here!” In any case, Judge Sullivan has the unredacted stuff now so he’ll be the one to decide. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2026, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1068 "2026-08-02T21:49:05Z")
It’s important to understand what Phang’s lawsuit actually is. It doesn’t concern public release of the unredacted Epstein Files. One: For legal reasons detailed in the link below, only four brief passages have been ordered to be unredacted. Two: The unredacted portions will not be released to the public, but reviewed by Judge Sullivan _in camera._ Phang’s lawsuit is intended to demonstrate that the DOJ’s redaction “scheme” was applied in violation of the Transparency Act. Public release of the Epstein Files — or any portion thereof — is not sought and is not necessary for Phang’s suit to proceed. > **[A Judge Wants to See Some Missing Epstein Files for Himself](https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/a-judge-wants-to-see-some-missing)** > > District court judge Emmet Sullivan has called the DOJ’s bluff on the Epstein files and ordered an “in camera” review of documents this Thursday. ---
**Author:** ![ShadowFacts](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shadowfacts/32/2934_2.png) [@ShadowFacts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShadowFacts)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2026, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1069 "2026-08-03T14:58:04Z")
That’s a very informative link - thanks! ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2026, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1070 "2026-08-03T19:35:47Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > In any case, Judge Sullivan has the unredacted stuff now so he’ll be the one to decide. Queen/David Bowie 🎶 “Under Pressure” I do not envy the judge. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [August 8, 2026, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1071 "2026-08-08T01:43:57Z")
> [@ShadowFacts](#): > > That’s a very informative link - thanks ! You’re welcome. Jay Kuo is a fantastic follow in the liberal Substack space. Kuo has a lot in common with Democracy Docket’s Mark Elias in making the legal machinations make sense to lay-folks. **[Here’s Kuo’s update](https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/the-legal-noose-tightens-around-blanche)** following Judge Sullivan’s _in camera_ document review last week: > That review has now happened, and Judge Sullivan didn’t like what he found. In an [order](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779/gov.uscourts.dcd.291779.29.0_2.pdf) issued Thursday, he scheduled an Aug. 13 status hearing after conducting his in camera review on July 30. The order doesn’t reveal what Judge Sullivan saw; that review remains private, as I explained in a [prior write-up](https://statuskuo.substack.com/p/a-judge-wants-to-see-some-missing?r=7xfrr9). But the order makes clear that he’s not simply accepting the DOJ’s account of its redactions at face value. > > “The Defendant did not provide such documentation,” Sullivan wrote, describing DOJ’s response to his order requiring _proof_that certain redacted names belong to Epstein victims. The department’s excuse—that attorneys for those individuals had asked to be treated as victims—was insufficient. “The Defendant’s assertions do not comply with the Court’s Order, which requires documentation to support the assertions.” ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2026, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1072 "2026-08-14T04:59:58Z")
The DOJ got kicked in the nuts today by Judge Sullivan. They sent an new, unprepared lawyer who answered every question with “I don’t know” or “we’re working on it”, prompting the judge to ask if he needed to issue a clearer order with “I really mean it this time” written on it. He also told a story about how he is the only judge to have held DOJ lawyers in contempt and while he doesn’t necessarily want to do it again, they’re not giving him a lot of choice in the matter: > **[Judge shows signs of frustration with DOJ attorneys over handling of Epstein...](https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/judge-shows-signs-frustration-doj-003453587.html)** > > The judge said he had “absolutely no desire” to go down the road of holding government attorneys in contempt, but he gave a history lesson on when he has done so. There’s also a good [video summary](https://youtu.be/Bqdo7JB_jMA?si=lZYlvH2a1N-Y0Bz6) by Katie Phang, who got this whole thing started. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2026, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1073 "2026-08-15T00:06:30Z")
Brian Tyler Cohen and Glenn Kirschner also [covered the story](https://youtu.be/S8_wbJX4c4U) (18 min). Kirschner was in the courtroom. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2026, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1074 "2026-08-15T03:18:34Z")
And here’s why the judge is somewhat hesitant to hold these lawyers in contempt: > **[DOJ Attorney Who Helped Prosecute Stevens Dies in Apparent Suicide](https://rollcall.com/2010/09/27/doj-attorney-who-helped-prosecute-stevens-dies-in-apparent-suicide/)** > > A Justice Department attorney who was part of the team that bungled the prosecution of Sen. Ted Stevens has apparently committed suicide. Nicholas Marsh helped argue the corruption case against Stevens before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan.... Is this why the DOJ sent some new lawyer who had no idea what was going on? ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2026, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1075 "2026-08-19T03:27:25Z")
In 2015, Virginia Giuffre sued Ghislaine Maxwell. The case was settled and judge at the time, in a fit of sympathy for the plight of child molesters everywhere, ordered all documents sealed. A brave reporter from the Miami Herald has successfully litigated to get these files released and because of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, old Judge Pedo Protector (now dead and may he burn in hell) has been overruled. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the thousands of pages of documents here. > **[Federal Judge Orders Release of Virginia Giuffre’s Case Files at Last](https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/federal-judge-orders-release-virginia-145718986.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall)** > > The files in Virginia Giuffre’s lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell will be public at last. Trump is not implicated in Giuffrey’s case (she actually somehow liked him) but this will certainly shed some interesting light on Maxwell, whom the Trump administration has seen fit to cater to in a prison that isn’t supposed to have any sex offenders in it. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2026, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1076 "2026-08-19T20:29:23Z")
> [@DWMarch](#): > > will certainly shed some interesting light on Maxwell, whom the Trump administration has seen fit to cater to in a prison that isn’t supposed to have any sex offenders in it. Conceivably there could be public outcry to such a degree that they have to put Maxwell back where she belongs. Which could lead to her blabbing things Donald doesn’t want blabbed. So they have to decide whether whatever happened to Epstein in his jail cell, should happen to Maxwell, too… In any case it’s likely to be a well-deserved headache for the deplorable Todd Blanche. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2026, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1077 "2026-08-19T21:02:43Z")
“Can you believe it? She hung herself right in the moments the security cameras stopped working! Darndest timing.” ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2026, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1078 "2026-08-19T21:03:50Z")
I can just hear them saying that. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2026, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1079 "2026-08-20T01:09:54Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > “Can you believe it? She hung herself right in the moments the security cameras stopped working! Darndest timing.” She must be scared to death. Or maybe she will be scared to death. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2026, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1080 "2026-08-20T03:47:52Z")
Maybe she’ll be immortalized in an updated version of Clue. “It was Elizabeth Holmes with a knitting needle in the puppy room!” ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2026, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/1081 "2026-08-20T04:06:48Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > Conceivably there could be public outcry to such a degree that they have to put Maxwell back where she belongs. She is in prison. Where do you think she belongs? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733.md?page=53) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733.md?page=55)