The Daily Populous Sunday February 1st, 2026 morning edition
Authored by cbsnews.com and submitted by Dont_think_Do

Democratic members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee are asking the Justice Department for immediate arrangements to view the full Jeffrey Epstein case files. In a formal inquiry sent Saturday, the lawmakers said the need for a review of the papers is "urgent," in part because of a forthcoming public committee hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi.

The committee's inquiry, a copy of which CBS News obtained Saturday, said the panel has questions about why the Justice Department released only half of the estimated pages of Epstein files.

"Our review is particularly urgent because DOJ itself claims to have identified over 6 million potentially responsive pages, but after releasing only about half of them—including over 200,000 pages that DOJ redacted or withheld—says strangely that it has fully complied with the (law)," the letter said.

The inquiry, signed by the panel's ranking member and Maryland Democrat, Rep. Jamie Raskin, is addressed to Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche. It reminded Blanche that he previously said that if any member of Congress wishes to review any portions of the files "in any unredacted form," they are welcome to make arrangements to do so.

"The Democratic Members of the House Judiciary Committee do wish to review the files," the letter said.

The Judiciary Committee Democrats are not the first to ask for access to the full files. In a formal request sent Friday night, Reps. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna asked for "access to unredacted documents of the Jeffrey Epstein files in order to fulfill Congress's oversight responsibilities and to ensure that survivors receive the transparency and accountability they deserve." Massie, a Kentucky Republican, and Khanna, a California Democrat, sponsored the 2025 legislation that passed Congress and required a full release of Epstein files.

The Congressional inquiries to the Justice Department question whether the Trump administration is withholding documents without justification.

"We seek to ensure that your redactions comply with the Act's requirement that materials be withheld only in narrow circumstances, such as protecting victims' personally identifiable information, and not on the basis of 'embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary,'" the Judiciary Committee Democrats' letter said.

Blanche defended the agency's document release and redactions at a news conference on Friday.

"When we said that we were not legally allowed to release documents, that's a fact," he said. "That was true, it remains true today, and then with the act's passage, we are now able and directed to release documents, which is what we are doing."

Groups of Epstein survivors have blasted the Trump administration for its handling of the files, including Friday's release.

"The Justice Department cannot claim it is finished releasing files until every legally required document is released and every abuser and enabler is fully exposed," one group, which included Epstein survivors Annie Farmer and Dani Bensky, wrote in a statement Friday.

When reached for comment Saturday, a Justice Department spokesperson referred CBS News to Blanche's statements from Friday about the file release.

Aggressive-Will-4500 on January 31st, 2026 at 22:45 UTC »

Seems like it's only the DEMOCRATIC members of the House Judiciary Committee who are seeking access.

> Democratic members of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee are asking the Justice Department for immediate arrangements to view the full Jeffrey Epstein case files. In a formal inquiry sent Saturday, the lawmakers said the need for a review of the papers is "urgent," in part because of a forthcoming public committee hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi.

TheParadoxigm on January 31st, 2026 at 22:39 UTC »

This is the perfect situation for a special investigator. Someone needs to sit down and see every file, no matter how bad it is.

I'm not fond of subjecting people to that type of content, but what else can be done? Its blatantly obvious they arent following the law.

twirlingmypubes on January 31st, 2026 at 22:38 UTC »

Good luck. All that's going to happen is Pam's going to throw a fake tantrum again.

"Are you calling me a liar?!"

Yes, yes we are.