This article first appeared in Rawstory
Of the innumerable Trump scandals in this or his previous administration, the mishandling or non-handling of the Epstein investigation manages to stand out, which, given the scandal-a-day pace, all but puts higher functions into a comprehensive coma.
It would otherwise be fun to ask why the administration has gone to such great lengths to hide the matter and shown so little enthusiasm in prosecuting the co-conspirators were it not for Occam standing right there, aghast, shaving away: “Take a wild guess, jackasses.” Well, thanks to the New Mexico Attorney General’s Office, we may soon have well-tamed accusations, as New Mexico has sued Acting Attorney General (for now, at least) Todd Blanche and the United States over why DOJ has heretofore blocked the state from investigating the Epstein matter.
No lawsuit is fun, ever- but it’s especially no fun when you have little to no defense for appearing to hide teen girl rapists.
Short and sweet, New Mexico- as is its duty and right- intends to investigate the crimes that may or may not have occurred at “Zorro Ranch,” a sprawling estate 30 miles south of Santa Fe. But its investigation continues to stall due to roadblocks and uncooperative behavior by Blanche’s DOJ, to the point that New Mexico feels it has little choice but to ask a judge to order the Justice Department to deliver some justice.
In response, according to MS Now, DOJ says any reluctance is due to its deeply sincere intent to preserve the victims’ anonymity: “The Justice Department said it was not releasing some information the state requested because federal court orders ban disclosing “victim-identifying information carte blanche, and New Mexico has provided no lawful basis to justify such sweeping disclosures.”
Hang on.
“Carte blanche”? This is not the University of New Mexico’s library seeking access to the information. It’s the state cops. Federal court orders banning dissemination of victims’ names surely don’t encompass “All other American law enforcement.”
Were that the only problem. See, New Mexico isn’t even suing “just to get the names of the victims.”
“Torrez said his office has made 10 separate requests for key information and has been ignored or denied. ‘We have heard repeatedly they will cooperate and what our team has experienced is anything but cooperation,’ Torrez said.”
Right.
And that’s a much bigger problem for Blanche than may appear at first blush. Because it’s one thing to go in front of a federal judge and say, “But we cannot give this stuff out to them, and we’ve told them that repeatedly for 18 months now,” versus that same federal judge reading an email or hearing DOJ say, “Yes, we will be getting that to you shortly,” and never coming around. Torrez says it’s the second, and judges are busy enough without having the hassle of ordering you to do what you promised. Especially when it appears you might have an especially nefarious reason for holding back. Occam grabs the gavel.
Two elements make the suit even more complicated for Blanche, the first simple, the second less so. Right off, New Mexico has at least as powerful a right to investigate the matter as the feds. The Founders of this nation specifically contemplated granting the states the rights to ensure the safety and welfare of the people, including the police power, leaving national defense and international relations to the feds. It took cross-state cables, trains, and modernity to even bring about the FBI as a national police force. True, Epstein flew his victims in and out of New Mexico across state lines, but that hardly means New Mexico doesn’t have a duty to prosecute crimes that occurred in New Mexico.
It’s not like giving the victims’ names to the New Mexico state police (For the love of God) is “publishing” or in any way placing the safety of the victims in any danger; indeed, one could make a very cynical argument that the more cops outside of DOJ having the names, the safer the real victims.
The second element is a bit more dangerous to Blanche personally and through Blanche, to Trump, and that is the definition of who is and who is not a “victim” in this matter. As reported by this site, Blanche supplemented his filing to a federal judge last week by noting that the definition of a “victim” in the Epstein matter is anyone who so identifies. This is absolutely extraordinary in that men who believe aggressive questions regarding their behavior with teen girls may self-identify themselves as victims due to these questions, not victims of Jeffrey Epstein or any other rapists, but of the police themselves (In what other way could they be a victim?)
This is not to be taken lightly at all, but such self-identification regarding victimhood is not that far from “Yes, I slapped her, but this is my house, and you coming to ask me about it is intrusive, and so I declare myself a victim, too, and thus I shall not be prosecuted, and my name shall be protected.” And, when you really think about it, this has been Donald Trump’s approach to every encounter with law enforcement in his life, and thus not really a stretch.
But given Blanche’s DOJ stretched the definition of victim this far (Or at least that’s how it appears as of now), he and his department are about to get stretched a bit themselves. It was bad enough back when Judge Emmet Sullivan effectively said, “Prove it to me, because I don’t believe you” in asking about redactions, taking the files in camera (viewed privately in chambers). But now Blanche faces an even bigger problem with more significant ramifications.
Given there are indications that DOJ previously told New Mexico, “Yeah, we’re getting right on that, we’ll call you back,” there is reason to believe that the Feds withheld far more than just victims’ names – which they’re not supposed to withhold from other police anyway, Blanche and his litigators will have to explain why they initially agreed to pass on information, broke that agreement, then believed that victim privacy meant withholding from other cops trying to protect victims, and explaining why their process allows the possibilityt that a rapist can claim victimhood and thus not only be free from bother by Blache but more interested parties in New Mexico.
That’s a federal-sized problem and one that could shake the federal government to the foundation because – perhaps literally, God only knows what New Mexico might “find” in its investigation, including stuff previously and intentionally hidden.
As noted far above, this administration’s scandal-a-day service has served it well; it almost literally lulls the public into a hypnosis, where nothing seems to matter anymore, no amount of criminality threatens Trump, right up to shooting someone on Fifth Ave. When faced with such cries from readers or other interested Americans, it’s always been good advice to suggest, “Then just pick one scandal and hold it tight, don’t let go, demand answers. Oh, and if you’re going to pick one, make it the Epstein scandal.”
Not because raping teen girls is obviously the worst thing Trump could possibly do (if proven). We don’t even want to assume there is a limit on what else might be out there. But because this scandal is so clearly and easily proven as wholly impeachment-worthy. Presidents used to keep DOJ at arms’ length precisely because the DOJ may find itself investigating the president or their cabinet. A president could set DOJ policy: “No requesting jail time for small marijuana possession.” But a president never involved himself in any single investigation, never mind one involving his friends, and really never mind one that involved him at some level, blowing the doors off possibly involving his own criminal behavior.
Such an act used to be laughably auto-impeachment and thus- if one picks a scandal, pick this one for meddling alone.
Blanche’s problem is that this may be beyond political scandal because lawsuits still remain largely beyond politics. (Forget the SCOTUS momentarily, focus on the lawsuit itself). We know Judge Emmett Sullivan won’t take DOJ’s word on the scandal anymore. Soon, another judge will hear why their docket now includes having to force DOJ to simply do what they promised on a phone call just a few months ago, along with why men who, at best, AT BEST, socialized with teen girls get to call themselves victims of an investigation into who is responsible for raping girls, and do so all while explaining why DOJ believes they get to redact names from other cops in the first place.
One thing we know with certainty. No DOJ attorney, never mind Blanche, wants to answer these questions in front of a federal judge. Even their best answer, “We won’t say who is or is not a victim; we let them decide,” still doesn’t answer the question, “But why won’t you share victims’ names with other cops attempting to catch bad guys?”
When you can’t answer that simple question, the judge may turn to the new law clerk, Occam, and nod, “Gimme back that sharp gavel. You were right. It’s most likely because these are the bad guys.”
In more ways than we likely even know. So, focus on this one.
Jason Miciak is a Rawstory Columnist, past editor of Occupy Democrats, an author, political consultant, attorney, and single parent, girldad. Please follow on Bluesky, and he can be reached at [email protected]
