(Evan Bucci/The Associated Press)
The Justice Department is now involved in an open cover-up in direct violation of federal law.
Over the weekend, the department quietly removed 16 photos from the Epstein file website to comply with disclosure laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. Donald Trump. The removals came without notice or explanation. Among the deleted photos was one of the few images that indirectly featured Trump, a photo of a credenza drawer inside. Jeffrey Epstein A Manhattan home containing other photos, including at least one of Trump. Twelve others depicted Epstein’s third-floor massage room, the central crime scene in the federal investigation. Some pictures of the same room are public. Others disappeared.
When Democrats on the House Oversight Committee asked whether the image associated with Trump had been removed, the Justice Department declined to respond.
What happened next made matters worse.
Quoting the Deputy Attorney General in a post on X Todd Blanche, The Justice Department asserted that “photos and other materials will continue to be reviewed and will be taken with due diligence as we obtain more information.” Blanche’s original post emphasized that the department had released the Epstein material “under the Epstein File Transparency Act” and that further disclosure would follow “as our review continues, consistent with the law and with protections for victims.”
That explanation fails under the statute invoked by the Department.
Congress did not authorize rolling review. The Epstein Files Transparency Act forces the Justice Department to release all Epstein-related materials in its possession. The law imposes a mandatory disclosure obligation and allows only limited remedies to protect victims. It does not grant the right to withdraw, modify or curate records after release. Once the department published those materials, the law required them to be made available to the public.
Their removal puts the department in direct conflict with statutes enacted by Congress.
That conflict was immediately recognized. Blanche’s post received a community note saying that the law requires the release of all files and allows only narrow corrections to protect victims, saying the department’s partial release and extensive redaction violated the statute. The Justice Department’s own post received a community note citing the law directly and saying retractions and redactions are not allowed to protect politically exposed individuals. Community notes appeared only when users with differing political views agreed on their accuracy, underscoring how widely that conclusion was shared.
Department’s own explanation confirms It is violating the law it claims to follow.
The sequence reveals the purpose. The files went live. Then came the political reaction. The department then changed the public record. Compliance was maintained only until the president’s exposure appeared, then gave way to deletion.
In November, I described Trump’s Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files as a cover-up. Last week, I wrote that the administration’s delay in disclosure created a political problem rather than an immediate legal one. That assessment reflects weak enforcement mechanisms and an approach built on delay rather than open defiance.
This moment indicates growth.
Removing already released material implicating the president turns a credibility crisis into a legal violation and a far greater political crisis. Congress passed the Epstein Disclosure Act precisely to eliminate executive discretion. Lawmakers acted because the Justice Department had repeatedly demonstrated that it could not be trusted to handle politically sensitive material involving powerful figures. The law mandates disclosure to prevent executive self-protection.
The department seized that discretion anyway.
Attorney General Pam Bondi There was a legal option. He could have sought judicial review. He could have consulted the Congress. She sought an amendment, admitting that the law did not allow the right to remove. Each route would preserve institutional legitimacy. She chose cover-ups and false justifications instead.
This erasure differs from previous Trump-era document wrangles. Earlier controversies centered on whether the materials should be disclosed. This episode contains evidence released publicly under statutory standards. The department determined the images met the law’s requirements, then removed them when the political cost became apparent.
It changes everything.
Every disclosure statute now faces the same test: Compliance survives only as long as the president is not threatened. Months of delays, extensive corrections, and staged announcements have already convinced many people that the Justice Department has prioritized Trump’s stance on transparency, victims, and the public interest. Image removal conclusively confirms that conclusion.
The Justice Department’s redaction of evidence to protect the president loses legitimacy. Oversight collapses when obedience ends in political inconvenience. The executive relies on binding laws even when enforcing the rule of law proves costly.
Congress enacted laws to prevent this abuse. The President signed. The Attorney General is now violating it to protect himself. It meets any reasonable criteria for impeachment.
The reaction on Capitol Hill was immediate and bipartisan. Democratic Republic Ro Khanna of California, who co-authored the Epstein File Transparency Act, and Republican Rep. Thomas Massey of Kentucky, which led to the House vote to mandate mandatory disclosure, both said the Justice Department had failed to follow the law. Khanna has confirmed that he and Massey are drafting impeachment and contempt motions against the Attorney General. Pam Bondi.
The Congress is now faced with a choice. It may accept that disclosure laws apply only when politically painless. This may normalize the loss of already public evidence. It can allow executive power to override legislative orders.
Or it can enforce written laws.
It is a cover enforced through executive insubordination. Now the question is whether the Congress will implement its own law.
Impeachable: Pam Bondi defies federal law by deleting Epstein photos to protect Trump appeared first on Mediaite.
