The Justice Department was forced by law to release all of the investigation files around sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. But on Friday's deadline, the DOJ only released a partial cache of documents.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) posted on X that Attorney General Pam Bondi "is breaking the law. Epstein survivors aren't satisfied with the DOJ's incomplete and redacted Epstein files disclosures, and neither am I. Congress should assert its ability to hold Bondi in 'inherent contempt' to get justice for the survivors."
"Nobody is buying this bogus Epstein release. The DOJ needs to quit protecting the rich, powerful, and politically connected," he added after taking a poll asking his followers whether the DOJ was or was not being transparent.
Khanna announced with Massie that the two will bring contempt charges against Bondi.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced he'd introduce his own resolution directing the Senate to "initiate legal action against the DOJ for its blatant disregard of the law in its refusal to release the complete Epstein files," said MS NOW producer Kyle Griffin on BlueSky.
It prompted legal analyst Allison Gill, of "Muller, She Wrote Media" fame, to remember, "You’ll recall I told you that if Bondi violated the Epstein Files Transparency Act, it would trigger a lawsuit. That’s what Schumer’s resolution does. It directs the Senate Majority Leader to file federal civil action against the government over failure to release the Epstein files. Schumer also disclosed that only 9,675 pages were released Friday Todd Blanche went on the Sunday shows and said 'hundreds of thousands,' and corporate media repeated that number all damn day."
National security lawyer Bradley P. Moss posted, "This would have all been so easily addressed if the original damn legislation had added provisions for it. An infant just emerging from the womb could have told you they were never going to comply properly with the 30 day deadline."
Former federal prosecutor Neema Rahmani told CNN on Monday that the smart move is to go directly to a judge and bypass Congress entirely.
"I think contempt of Congress is certainly a possibility. Obviously, the Department of Justice typically enforces those contempt orders. So, [it's] not really going to go anywhere," he said about the moves by Massie, Khanna and Schumer. "It's more political fodder than anything. That's why I think getting an Article III judge involved is the way to go."
In that case, when a document is withheld, a log is provided showing the legal basis for redacting the document.
"Then if that is challenged, a judge will step in and a judge will review the documents," said Rahmani. "Now, here obviously we're talking about thousands of files, a special master may have to be appointed. That's a retired judge that will comb through the documents to make sure that the redactions are appropriate, because there's really three broad categories that we're talking about here."
He encouraged members of Congress to instead file a lawsuit that would force the DOJ to provide the evidence that the redactions follow the law.