FOIA Documents Show Epstein Files Had Flag List Which Included The Term ‘POTUS’
from the we-don't-need-to-talk-about-the-sex-offender-in-chief dept
MAGA, the GOP, and the Trump administration don’t really care about the victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking. The MAGA GOP made a lot of noise during Biden’s single term because they were sure the files would show a Pizzagate’s-worth of Democratic political figures engaged in the ritual abuse of underage girls.
Once Trump was elected in 2024, the furor died down. While the MAGA faithful were willing to take down their own just to put a few Dems’ heads on spikes, they were suddenly less audible once they realized any document dump would take down a few of their own. Even Donald Trump seemed to know this, which is he why he shifted his focus elsewhere.
It took a literal act of Congress to get the Epstein files released, despite Trump and other GOP figures having promised to put this at the top of the MAGA to-do list if they retook the White House. Trump engaged in multiple rounds of spin, hoping to make it look as though demanding the release of the files and refusing to release the files were both the same side of the MAGA coin.
Trump’s DOJ then reluctantly began complying with the law. Millions of records were withheld. Those that were released were riddled with redactions, forcing politicians on the other side of the political divide to demand more releases with fewer redactions. Meanwhile, a handful of leaks and unforced errors revealed the Trump DOJ was doing whatever it could to cover for Trump and anyone else Trump might want to have redacted from rolling Epstein File releases.
FOIA requests are incapable of expediting the full release of the Epstein Files. But they are capable of sniffing out the details of the Trump administration’s attempts to maintain control of the “this was mainly Dems” narrative even as it seeks to satiate the MAGA base that has been demanding access to these files for years.
This report for Bloomberg — written by “FOIA terrorist” Jason Leopold and Harry Wilson — not only details FBI Director Kash Patel and former DOJ deputy director Dan Bongino attempts to spin Trump’s refusal to release documents as demonstrative of his “full transparency” promises.
It also shows the DOJ’s pre-release review of the files had President Trump in mind the entire time. While pretending to be engaging in radical levels of transparency and complying with both the letter and the spirit of law, the DOJ was actually flagging anything that might include Trump for the apparent reason of keeping these files out of the public’s hands.
In addition to the discussions about Ferguson and Hervey, the documents contain other noteworthy details, including a spreadsheet dated March 25, 2025 and titled “DOJ Document Flag List.” The first page, labeled “FLAGGED Items List, per case – per DOJ guidance,” includes a case number associated with the FBI’s 2006 investigation of Epstein by its Miami field office.
[…]
There are 16 entries on the list where the reason for the flag was simply marked “POTUS.” Those items include magazine and newspaper articles, message pads, phone message books and one unidentified record.
The report notes that some of these flagged files have since been released. But others have not and this FOIA release by the DOJ perhaps points to why they have not been. The DOJ could have cleared everything up with an explanation, but of course it didn’t, because why would it.
DOJ referred a request for comment on the “Flag List” to the FBI, which declined to comment.
Assuming every “no comment” is an admission of guilt is as fatuous as assuming everyone who pleads the Fifth is guilty of whatever they’ve been accused of. We won’t be doing that here. But it is strange that agencies that treat every request for comment as an opportunity to engage in attacks on journalists and/or personal attacks on the person making the request would have absolutely nothing to say here. Read into that what you will.
Filed Under: doj, donald trump, epstein files, faux transparency, foia, jason leopold, jeffrey epstein, kash patel, opacity, todd blanche, trump administration
Comments on “FOIA Documents Show Epstein Files Had Flag List Which Included The Term ‘POTUS’”
Weird how an administration more than happy to hire child molesters and domestic abusers for ICE and CBP is also trying to protect people from being called out for their connections to (or work with) a notorious child-abusing human trafficker who was allowed to keep raping underage girls even while he was supposed to be serving time for sex crime charges. 🤔
Re:
Wait, are you talking about Trump?
Worth noting is that in some contexts “No Comment” shall be presumed to be the worst case imaginable.
If, for example, a District Attorney ‘refuses to say’ how evidence was obtained, then everyone else must presume the worst way.
Re:
Shouldn’t the same be true if they do say, on the basis that we’d have no idea whether they’re telling the truth?
Donald Trump was friends with a well known international pedophile and human trafficker.
Donald Trump stole classified documents, among them nuclear secrets and Erik Prince (of Blackwater, ne Xe, ne Academi, ne Constellis holdings.) was the bag man who handed the documents over, Ivanka and Jared are holding the money.
He is a court adjuicated rapist and serial liar who routinely praises Nazis and dictators.
Who is personally responsible for hundreds of murders and acts of piracy as well as war crimes. While simultaneously running the most corrupt government administration in modern history.
Might be time to admit this country has a problem.
Re:
You mean the land of slavery and the Confederacy might have some unaddressed issues? That’s crazy.
Re:
Clearly it needs more cowbell.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Yeah, neat, Epstein was still huuuugee democratic operative and everyone involved with him was leftist.
There was no refusal to release, there were just a ton of documents and most of dubious value, like the guys in lineup that Massie and Ro Khanna (quite wrongfully) read on the floor.
You are all such idiots, it’s really amazing.
Re:
And where’s the proof?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
In the Epstein files.
You should probably read the news.
Re:
[citation needed]
Also, considering Trump’s own lengthy relationship with Epstein, wouldn’t your logic make Trump a leftist? I suppose that makes sense, though, considering he’s pushing to have the government take over private industry… 🤔
Then why did it take months after the whole “I have the list on my desk right now” debacle for the Trump administration to release the Epstein Files, and why did releasing those files require a practically unanimous act of Congress aimed at forcing their release?
…says someone who is trying to downplay the cover-up of the crimes of a human trafficker and child rapist as “insignificant” because a whole hell of a lot of rich people—including some rather rich and powerful conservatives—are implicated in at least being friendly with Epstein after his plea deal for committing sex crimes.
And before you say it: I don’t give a fuck what political alignment/party/whatever someone belongs to if they’re implicated in Epstein-related crimes. Left, right, Dem, GOP, Christian, atheist, rich, poor, black, white, male, female, straight, gay, cis, trans—none of that shit matters more than whether they did crimes with or for Epstein. Out of power, out of society, they all gotta fuckin’ go.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
The citation is the Epstein files, you retard.
No such thing. They were just two very rich New Yorkers. And he cut off all contact like 2 decades ago, you lying retard.
Bondi was fired for a reason.
I said no such thing.
Lol, making shit up is not an argument.
You care about almost nothing else, except when you’re being a rabid antisemite.
Re: Re: Re:
Using the r-word in current year and calling someone an antisemite for no reason is certainly a way to make your arguments more convincing. /s
You have zero legs to stand on. All of your assertions are easily contradicted by information in the public record. All you are is a Trump cultist desperately trying to spin the Epstein Files as anything other than mostly implicating Trump and other Republicans. The only Democrats of note associated with Epstein are already disgraced in some form (including Bill Clinton, who nobody is going to go to bat for).
Re: Re: Re:
Lol, making shit up is not an argument.
Take your own advice Fuckface. We know the midterms are getting you down. And we enjoy you flailing like you’re drowning.
Go spam your shit on Reason. You use the word ‘retard’ alot there too. Seems like projection with the number of times you use it.
Re: Re: Re:
Cite the file, then. Otherwise you’re just making shit up.
Even assuming that’s true, Trump still associated with Epstein for almost two decades.
The fact that you think she was fired for being too slow in releasing the files says everything your level of gullibility.
Then why do you do it?
Re: Re: Re:2
They’re probably right next to all those “videos of people cutting the reflecting pool.”
Re: Re: Re:
Then why don’t you cite the exact documents that prove your claims? It shouldn’t be that hard to cite document numbers or provide URLs if the evidence for your claims actually exists. Speaking of which: Where’s the video of the Reflecting Pool vandals that you keep saying exists?
But they were friends for many years, to the point where a letter from Trump appeared in Epstein’s now-infamous birthday book. By the logic you presented of “anyone associated with Epstein was a pinko commie leftist”, Trump would qualify as a pinko commie leftist—especially now that he’s directing the U.S. federal government to buy shares in private companies, which is much closer to communism than any call for single-payer healthcare or any push for living wages will ever be.
And it wasn’t “she mishandled the Epstein Files”, because if that were true, she would’ve been fired after she had to come clean about not having an Epstein client list, which was the follow-up to a mistake that led to the Epstein Files Transparency Act in the first place.
Also: People like you love to crow about Trump not being Epstein’s friend and all that jazz. But isn’t it weird that Trump refused to sign the Epstein Files bill into law on camera when that would’ve been a wonderful opportunity to score easy political points by making claims that the Trump administration doesn’t let human traffickers and child rapists get away with their crimes? It’s almost as if Trump didn’t want the Epstein Files to go public and considered the near-unanimous passage of that bill in Congress (only one vote against it across both chambers!) a stunning and humiliating defeat. Imagine that~.
You and your Trumpist brethren, including Trump himself, have sure tried hard to gloss over or move on from the Epstein Files. If you thought holding Epstein’s associates accountable for their actions in helping a notorious child rapist/human trafficker was important, why would you be trying to convince everyone that the Epstein Files are a Democrat hoax or not worth thinking about compared to anything else? Sure seems like you don’t think taking down a network of child raping human traffickers is all that important in comparison to, say, prosecuting an Olympic athlete for tearing a tiny bit of already-damaged lining away from the Reflecting Pool. Or at least you stopped thinking it was important when you figured out that Democrats/left-leaning politicians (A) weren’t nearly as widely implicated as you hoped they would be and (B) were more than happy to throw under the bus anyone who was named in the Epstein Files in a way that implicated them in Epstein’s crimes.
…he says without a hint of irony or self-awareness. Where’s that alleged video of those alleged vandals allegedly putting an alleged football field–sized gash in the Reflecting Pool?
When it comes to sex crimes and crimes against children? No, I don’t give a fuck about political affiliation at all. If a Democrat lawmaker raped their spouse or molested a child, they gotta go. Same for Republicans, libertarians, and anyone else regardless of ideology or party affiliation. If you do that sick shit, you don’t deserve to hold public office; whether they’re ultra-conservative or what passes for a “far leftist” in the U.S. is completely fucking irrelevant.
Are you willing to say the same about Republicans? Or is the fact that Donald Trump is an adjudicated sex pest—who just fully lost one of his defamation cases thanks to SCOTUS denying him a rehearing!—keeping you from saying “they gotta go” because you know you’d logically have to support him being removed from office?
Sorry, I’m not the one who acts like the Israeli government represents and speaks for all the Jews in the world, or that the Israeli government’s actions can never be questioned or criticized by anyone (but especially Jews and doubly so for Israeli Jews). That would be people like you.
Re: The leftists are the problem!
And Trump has big influence over every branch of government!
The Democratic party are the pedophiles!
Makes sense. More worried about immigration civil violations, than felony pedophilia.
Re:
Yeah, neat, Epstein was still huuuugee democratic operative and everyone involved with him was leftist.
Then it begs the question “Why is Trump and his merry band of fuckheads NOT releasing the files?” He’s PROTECTING Democrat pedophiles?
I’ll bet that you’re going to be a nutless eunuch and not answer. I’ll understand if you don’t want to continue making a fucking fool of yourself, but you’re too much of a Trump cuck to hold yourself back.
The fact that the Democrat base is much more willing to throw politicians of their own party to the wolves for associating with Epstein might be a part of it, methinks. It’s embarrassing for said politicians, but it’s not gonna be as damaging for the party as a whole when the party and its base are much more willing to perform actual accountability.
Like… nobody was going to go to bat for Bill Clinton. Or care about him being in the Epstein Files. And no other Democrat of note has actually come up anyway – it’s basically mostly Trump and Republican associates.
Re: One side sees that as undesirable, the other loves it
When it comes to democrats a credible accusation of sexual misconduct or worse full blow assault is enough to get voters against a candidate or elected official and calling for their removal from office or campaign.
When it comes to republicans those same accusations are seen as a positive character trait for republican-now-MAGAt voters, and if anything get them to like the candidate/office holder more.
These are not normal circumstances, this is not your regular case
Assuming every “no comment” is an admission of guilt is as fatuous as assuming everyone who pleads the Fifth is guilty of whatever they’ve been accused of.
In normal circumstances? Sure.
In this case, where the government has bent over backwards to do everything it can to prevent the release of the files even after congress passed a bill requiring them to do so? No, they deserve no benefit of the doubt here and a ‘no comment’ should be seen and treated as a damning admission of malicious and/or illegal intent or action.
Re:
Practically unanimously, at that—literally one “no” vote in the House kept it from being wholly unanimous. When’s the last time Congress agreed on something that much? It’s no wonder Trump didn’t sign the bill on camera: He thought it was going to fail or that Dems would run from the bill because some of their own would be implicated.
Epstein wasnt so much a “huuuuge democrat” as much as “the biggest blackmailer of the century”
Its just the Republicans were more ‘pro lowering the age of consent’ if you know what I mean.
You dig where the dirt is.