Bloomberg has new reporting on the FBI investigation into the Epstein files in the possession of the FBI. As has been previously brought forth in this column, Attorney General Pam Bondi had 1,000 FBI agents scour the files early this year, flagging all mentions of Donald Trump. Now we have reports that the instructions also included a demand to black out or redact Trump’s name. Trump was not the only one to (for now) escape all accountability, but he represents the major impetus for tasking so many agents to review the voluminous material in the file. The outrageous move to redact names (Especially Trump) for all Freedom of Information Act requests (They are already filed) was done under established exceptions for release of criminal files, however – Trump is a very loose fit in the exception category. For the purposes of the investigation, Trump is cast as a private citizen during the relevant time frame.
From Bloomberg’s incredible report:
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.
Not only should Trump be referenced as the current president – because the investigation remains ongoing as evidenced by the agents working on the matter, but one wonders how it is that simply being a private citizen could act as a shield regarding release. The report goes on:
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.”
It is easily understood why the SCOTUS would exempt private citizens from purely embarrassing details, ones that have nothing to do with law-breaking. But there is no privacy right to know of and engage in Epstein’s child trafficking. Additionally, stretching the private citizen’s “embarrassment” interests to cover the current President, the guy with ultimate authority over the investigation, is – again, outrageous.
The report goes on to conclude that the public will never get an unredacted copy of the files from the federal government, and that likely includes files that Congress may obtain, or even if there is a change in administrations, whether it be Vance or an incoming Democratic presidency. It is likely correct and a given now. Traditionally, the FBI is the FBI, and it doesn’t mold itself to the wants of the current president (This administration being the massive exception), and it’s unlikely that an honest administration would ask the FBI to reverse itself. The courts could force the FBI to do so, but that is an even greater stretch. Courts are loath to get into privacy decisions made within the FBI – most of the time for good reason.
So there it is. The first official report that the administration is actively covering up Trump’s involvement in the Epstein scandal – among many others. It certainly appears that there is far more thought to covering the tracks of powerful men than getting some justice for the victims who continually, over and over, get run over with respect to the priorities in this investigation. There is no mention of redaction of the children’s names, though one hopes that is almost a given.
Once again we go back to the great hope that lies in the fact that just so many agents know of the files’ contents and who did what. It is entirely possible that the FBI is well aware of the fact that the files indicate that Trump raped children – though, short of video, that would be nearly impossible to sufficiently prove in a court of law. The women who might otherwise testify would be going against the denials of some of the most powerful men to ever set foot in this country and others.
There is one example of how this matter should be handled. The royal family, the House of Windsor, didn’t wait for some express release of materials or official investigation; it benched Prince Andrew for good back in 2019. He no longer participates in any royal duties. If this country had sufficient moral conviction, it would publish the names of men who ran in this circle and shame similar figures into submission. Alas, Andrew is the only one who truly seems to be suffering the consequences (Though, to be sure, Epstein “paid” for his crimes, ultimately dying, however it came about). But it sure appears that nothing will ever be officially disclosed.
Though it is of little surprise, it is still outrageous. It sure fits into Trump’s demand for a “fair” release of the files – “fair” meaning no one is specifically accused. Trump also needs to ensure that his friends from that period are hidden, lest they be exposed, possibly charged, and then spill that Trump, too, was involved.
Exactly! The 1,000 or so employees were tasked with marking the names of high profile figures for redaction. There was even a master spreadsheet on the high side SharePoint used to log the mentions of Trump himself for redaction. www.bloomberg.com/news/newslet…
— Mueller, She Wrote (@muellershewrote.com) 2025-08-01T15:09:45.892Z
Trump says he’s fine with releasing the Epstein files as long as they’re ‘fair and balanced.’ Translation: scrubbed until they look like his golf scorecards.
— Ms. Misanthrope 🇺🇸 (@lilmsmisanthrope.bsky.social) 2025-07-30T23:11:47.507Z
Yes, the “fairness” demand was always a bit obvious, but we now have the underlying basis – all exceptions for redaction are based on “fairness” to the parties involved. The doctrine surely wasn’t meant to provide cover for child predators. But it doesn’t matter given this administration’s priorities – which are, in total, covering up for Trump.
It is now official.
**** Please follow me now on Bluesky
God Bless: I can be reached at [email protected] and also on X at @JasonMiciak.
Zoomers, we are always in need of donations. We work hard to get you analysis that you will not find in the mainstream media, but all media have been hit hard since the big companies have gobbled up and monopolized commentary. Anything you can spare will be immensely appreciated. And thank you to all who have donated generously already. Ursula
Next we’ll learn that el pedo told them to destroy images and videos that he was in. He’s going to have a hard time keeping the army of agents who worked on this project from leaking. Maybe some of the footage will come out. Let’s hope.
It might be interesting to see what names are released; especially if the number of names redacted greatly exceed those released
are you kidding? prince andrew NOT Prince Edward jeeps! terrible reporting by u and AI!!!!
Just terrible.
with everything breaking I have had to put out 3 stories by 11:00 a.m., and the story about what the royals did was something I added that few others even analyze (as to an example), so I made a small mistake now corrected.
Thank you for the correction.
But as for “terrible” I would point out that few others even reference how it is all supposed to be done as an example.
jason
She was never formally charged with assault and so I am staying conservative. My entire point is that even without any sort of physical assault she is every bit as much culpable and guilty as Epstein – that’s the whole point. It is not all that different than a murder for hire scheme. She enjoyed the good life and offered up adolescent bodies as payment. A monster, that is the point. On those rare occasions that I use AI I specifically reference it. You’re welcome to get your analysis from anyone else at any point.
jason