DOJ Could Have Deployed Thousands of Lawyers to Review Epstein Files But Did Not

The Department of Justice possessed both the authority and resources to release comprehensive Jeffrey Epstein-related documents but apparently chose not to utilize them, according to a former federal prosecutor with extensive experience in high-profile cases.

Sarah Krissoff, who served nearly 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, delivered a straightforward assessment of the DOJ’s approach to the Epstein file release. The facts here are simple: the Justice Department commands virtually unlimited resources. If officials wanted to assign one thousand attorneys to review these documents and prepare them for public disclosure, they could have done exactly that.

They did not.

The DOJ released heavily redacted Epstein files on Friday, triggering bipartisan criticism from lawmakers who argue the agency failed to meet requirements established by recently passed transparency legislation. This is not a partisan issue. Both sides of the aisle recognize something appears fundamentally wrong with how this release was handled.

Krissoff identified critical distinctions between the Epstein files and standard document review processes that federal attorneys typically navigate. These differences raise significant questions about who exercised final authority over what information the American public received and what remained concealed.

The former prosecutor’s analysis cuts through bureaucratic excuses. The Southern District of New York, where Krissoff spent her career prosecuting federal cases, maintains a reputation as one of the most prestigious and well-resourced U.S. Attorney’s offices in the nation. Her institutional knowledge provides credibility to her assessment that resource constraints represent an implausible explanation for the extensive redactions.

The Epstein case involves allegations of sex trafficking and abuse connected to powerful figures across politics, business, and entertainment. The public interest in full transparency could not be clearer. Americans deserve to know what their government knows about individuals who may have participated in or enabled Epstein’s criminal enterprise.

The DOJ’s silence speaks volumes. The agency did not respond to requests for comment regarding Krissoff’s assertions. This pattern of non-response has become troublingly familiar when agencies face legitimate questions about their decision-making processes.

The transparency law that Congress passed enjoyed bipartisan support, reflecting a rare consensus that the American people deserve access to information about the Epstein case. When lawmakers from both parties agree the DOJ fell short of legal requirements, the agency owes citizens more than heavily redacted documents and bureaucratic silence.

Krissoff’s argument rests on logic rather than speculation. The DOJ commands enormous resources. Document review, while time-consuming, represents routine work for federal attorneys. The agency regularly handles sensitive materials requiring careful evaluation before public release. Nothing about the Epstein files placed them beyond the DOJ’s institutional capabilities.

The question becomes not whether the Justice Department could have done better, but why it chose not to. Americans across the political spectrum should demand answers. Transparency in government is not a partisan value. It represents a fundamental requirement for maintaining public trust in institutions that wield extraordinary power over citizens’ lives.

The DOJ must provide a substantive explanation for its approach to these files. The American people deserve better than what they received on Friday.

Related: JD Vance Warns Mass Immigration Threatens American Social Cohesion