Washington Post editorial board comes out against releasing the Epstein files

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Sun Nov 23, 2025, 09:07 PM - Edit history (4)

Eliza Orlins
‪@elizaorlins.bsky.social‬

The Washington Post editorial board decided the Epstein files have “no public interest” before even seeing them. That’s a stunning position for any newsroom to take. Praising Clay Higgins as the lone ‘no’ vote, too? No wonder no one trusts legacy media. Absolutely disgusting.

@adamjohnsonCHI
X.com
Washington Post editorial board comes out against releasing the Epstein files, dismisses them as having no public interest (how they know this without seeing them first is a mystery) and praises the lone 'no' vote against their release from Clay Higgins
ALT
Nov 22, 2025, 1:42 PM

The Washington Post editorial board decided the Epstein files have “no public interest” before even seeing them. That’s a stunning position for any newsroom to take. Praising Clay Higgins as the lone ‘no’ vote, too? No wonder no one trusts legacy media. Absolutely disgusting.

— Eliza Orlins (@elizaorlins.bsky.social) 2025-11-22T18:42:21.609Z

Edited to add:

I do not have a subscription to the Washington Post. If I tried to include the editorial or op-ed, I would run into the paper's paywall.

If Adam Johnson's assertion is misleading or incorrect, I'll delete the post.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Pedocracy thrives in darkness

[Dwild]

43. Pedocracy thrives in Darkness

Great response
Thanks

[Celerity]

51. From the editorial: Now that the law has passed so overwhelmingly, it is essential for the government to promptly comply

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/20/jeffrey-epstein-files-trump-justice-department/

https://archive.ph/KQxcS



snip

Federal prosecutors have the power, with a judge’s signoff, to seize almost anyone’s records. That information can become public if it is evidence in a criminal case. It shouldn’t solely because there is political clamoring to view it. That norm prevents the Justice Department from becoming a roving political instrument. Of course, the norm of law-enforcement secrecy works best when people trust law enforcement. The criminal-legal system failed in Epstein’s case to do justice in the first instance, then failed again by allowing him to die in jail in 2019 before he could go on trial. The apparent extent of Epstein’s abuse and connections to the rich and powerful are fodder for conspiracy theories.

People in Trump’s orbit indulged Epstein conspiracies for political gain before they blew up in their faces. Now Democrats are indulging them because they think Trump himself might be tainted, even as the president vigorously denies any wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct. Trump says the two had a falling out before the financier was charged with any crime. The mistrust is now so widespread that opposing disclosure was futile. Higgins had no hope of stopping the political stampede, but don’t expect the coming disclosures to refute the conspiracy theories.

After all, the measure Trump signed Wednesday contains an exception for information that could interfere with “an active federal investigation.” Trump ordered up just such an investigation last Friday — contradicting his own Justice Department’s statement that the case was closed. Bondi claimed Wednesday that she received new information but declined to provide details. The bill also does not waive grand jury secrecy rules and allows the Justice Department to withhold material that “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” In announcing on social media that he signed the law, Trump showed his intention to keep leveraging Epstein’s crimes against Democrats. The president said Epstein was “a lifelong Democrat,” noted that it was the Trump Justice Department that indicted him in 2019 and accused Democrats of using the files to “distract” from his achievements.

Now that the law has passed so overwhelmingly, it is essential for the government to promptly comply. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is right that it will be a “mistake” if the Trump administration plays games. For example, it will be scandalous if the Justice Department tries to use the privacy exemption to withhold information about Republicans while putting out similar information about Democrats. Politicians claim to want to restore public trust in institutions, but often they’re merely exploiting the loss of trust for their own gain. The result in this instance was a stampede for “transparency” that could surface some information in the public interest while also distorting the Justice Department’s role. Don’t expect it to be the last.

[MorbidButterflyTat]

62. Sounds both-sidesish

"Now Democrats are indulging them (Epstein conspiracies) because they think *rump himself might be tainted, even as the president vigorously denies any wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct. *rump says the two had a falling out before the financier was charged with any crime. The mistrust is now so widespread that opposing disclosure was futile."

Democrats are following truth and evidence, regardless of who is incriminated.

"...the president (sic) vigorously denies any wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s criminal conduct."

Well if he denies it vigorously!!!

Reminds me of "Putin strongly denies it!" in Helsinki. Jeez, that seems ages and ages ago!

Anyway I just realized I don't care.

Thanks for posting this.

[Blumancru]

2. Half of them are probably on it.

[JT45242]

3. Wanna bet someone in Bezos' inner circle is in there

That's not a move protect me mango Mussolini. That is a move protect ownership

[NotHardly]

34. I have $5 that says Bezo is on the list of "inner circle" of Epstien...any takers?

[Jilly_in_VA]

83. Maybe that's why Mackenzie Scott dumped him

She found out about it. Smart woman. (I like her anyway for her charity contributions.)

[Bev54]

39. He doesn't need to be on the list, look at what he wants from Trump. Bezos

is as greedy as Elon and is competing with Elon on space travel and AI. He is kissing Trump's ass to get what he wants.

[Maru Kitteh]

41. This. The window is closing. JB is getting what he can, while he can.

This makes sense.

[Texin]

46. Yep. That was my first thought. Also, who else among the so-called elite are in the documents?

[CTyankee]

4. This makes me suspicious. There is something there the Post does not want revealed.

[edhopper]

5. Let me fix your title

Jeff Bezos comes out against releasing the Epstein files

[KS Toronado]

37. Right after Donvict threatened him.

[BComplex]

50. Jeff Bezos just TOTALLY added his name to the pedo perps!

That was so fucking stupid of him!!!!

[Aviation Pro]

6. Fuck that rag

Have another round of subscription cancellations, you goofy, bald-headed fuck.

How’s your space penis faring, shitbag?

[FalloutShelter]

7. This

[MaeScott]

31. I regret I only had one cancellation to give for my

….country. Protector of pedos.

[2naSalit]

8. Imagine that.

[BootinUp]

9. The WP doesn't exist except as a name. nt

[Tesha]

10. The $$$ says no, and the Board Bows

[Ping Tung]

11. "A public man has no right to let his actions be determined by particular interests.

“A public man has no right to let his actions be determined by particular interests. He does the same thing as a judge who accepts a bribe. Like a judge he must consider what is right, not what is advantageous to a party or class.” Lord Acton

[Sympthsical]

12. Here is WaPo's argument

I don't have any thoughts about it really. I just really hate sourcing someone on Twitter's opinion/interpretation when the source material is available right there. People should really read material for themselves rather than have it summarized by social media for them.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/20/jeffrey-epstein-files-trump-justice-department/

After all, the purpose of criminal investigations is to determine whether people are guilty of crimes. The Justice Department exists to prosecute those crimes. It does not exist to satisfy public curiosity. That’s a job for Congress and journalists. When prosecutors leak investigative information about people who haven’t been charged with a crime, that is normally considered a breach.

Yet here the Justice Department, by popular demand, is being directed to open its investigative books and publish a trove of information related to any “entities” with “known or alleged ties” to Epstein. That could include private information obtained in search warrants that is not incriminating.

It’s not as if the Justice Department’s information about Epstein is sitting around unexamined. Five years ago, the Office of Professional Responsibility released the results of its extensive investigation into how Epstein secured a lenient plea deal in Florida in 2008. The 348-page document said the deal reflected “poor judgment.” It also noted that the line prosecutor in charge of child exploitation cases at the time said that none of the victims they spoke with “ever talked about any other men being involved in abusing them.” This year, the FBI again trawled its Epstein documents and found no “evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

Federal prosecutors have the power, with a judge’s signoff, to seize almost anyone’s records. That information can become public if it is evidence in a criminal case. It shouldn’t solely because there is political clamoring to view it. That norm prevents the Justice Department from becoming a roving political instrument. Of course, the norm of law-enforcement secrecy works best when people trust law enforcement. The criminal-legal system failed in Epstein’s case to do justice in the first instance, then failed again by allowing him to die in jail in 2019 before he could go on trial. The apparent extent of Epstein’s abuse and connections to the rich and powerful are fodder for conspiracy theories.

[WmChris]

19. Problem

We can no longer trust the law enforcement system which has been bastardized by the current administration.

[Sympthsical]

27. Agree

I'm not agreeing with the editorial. I just posted it because "Reading Twitter opinion about article instead of actual article" is a profound pet peeve of mine.

[returnee]

66. It's not as if Bezos and his editorial board are unaware...

…of the current context of corruption. This makes the article entirely disingenuous.

Also, although public opinion had a lot to do with the vote requiring the release of the files, it was actually Congress that made the official demand, the way they said it should be. All the people did was express their opinion to their representatives-exactly the way it’s supposed to happen.

I have no illusions that Bezos bought the post for any purpose other than doing exactly this, as well as blocking the old Post’s more progressive opinion. And let’s not have any illusions about Bezos needing subscriptions. This is all chump change for him.

[NCDem47]

13. Is the WP just left open as a loss leader for Bezos to pump out propaganda and misinformation at this pont?

[onenote]

14. Not exactly

The author of the piece cited in the OP ignored this part of the Post editorial:
"Now that the law has passed so overwhelmingly, it is essential for the government to promptly comply. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is right that it will be a “mistake” if the Trump administration plays games. For example, it will be scandalous if the Justice Department tries to use the privacy exemption to withhold information about Republicans while putting out similar information about Democrats.

[YodaMom2]

36. Don't tell me, let me guess...

This part of the post is buried somewhere around paragraph 15?

That seems to be a WP editorial tactic these days - include some reasonable, neutral sounding language deep in the text to counter the appearance that they’re just a propaganda rag for the WH. Knowing that most people won’t read that far.

[allegorical oracle]

15. Sniffs of Bezos calling the shots. Especially like the bit wherein "the Justice

Department exists to prosecute crimes." Not so much in this administration.

[PatSeg]

33. Yes, in Trump World

the Justice Department exists to prosecute political enemies. There's no "justice" involved.

[intheflow]

81. It's "just us" to the oligarchs. n/t

[PatSeg]

82. Ah yes, very clever!

[Deep State Witch]

16. Bezos Is In The Files

That's why Mackenzie Scott divorced him. I'll betcha dollars to donuts.

[Arazi]

17. The only conclusion is Bezos is a pedo alongside with Epstein

That’s my new position on anyone who says they don’t want them released

[Zambero]

18. Have they issued a glowing endorsement of RWNJ Clay Higgins yet?

As the lone House vote against moving forward on releasing the files, he could be portrayed by the Post as being an exemplary "Profile in Courage".

[Vinca]

20. So WaPo is pro-pedo? That'll cost them.

[Clouds Passing]

21. Probably because bozos and the rest of the board are in the files.

[paleotn]

22. Hmm...seems Jeff Bezos is mentioned in those files.

Just a guess.

[Trueblue Texan]

23. The ONLY reason I can think for for WAPO to be this irresponsible is that someone on their board...

...or a MAJOR stockholder is on the Epstein list. Who could it be? Looks like WAPO is about to ruin my Christmas again. I thought it was going to be an Amazon year. But maybe not.

[LilElf70]

24. F the Post

The American people WANT TO KNOW! ALL OF US!!!!!

And the truth shall set you free........

or

put your ass in jail.

[Baitball Blogger]

25. Jeff Bezos is making a strategic strike to pay for his billion dollars in government favorable decisions.

[Ocelot II]

26. Could Bezos possibly fellate Trump any more enthusiastically?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

28. I do not have a subscription to the Washington Post.

I do not have a subscription to the Washington Post. If I tried to include the editorial or oped, I would run into the paper's paywall.

If Adam Johnson's assertion is misleading or incorrect, I'll delete the post.

[Joinfortmill]

29. Two things: Must be bad. R I.P. WAPO.

[generalbetrayus]

30. I cancelled my digital subscription to the WaPo earlier this year. Here's hoping Jeff Bezos

gets his tit caught in a wringer before this is all over.

[33taw]

32. I cannot verify this claim. Does anyone have a valid link?Yahoo had brief references.

[Martin Eden]

35. I don't think it's much of a mystery.

Bezos is protecting bigwigs implicated in the files, not just Trump.

[Walleye]

55. Yes, it's just a long way of saying "we have to protect powerful men who use young girls for sex

Exploiting girls for sex seems to be the glue that holds these billionaires together in a little club.

[RandomNumbers]

40. You should delete or at least update this post. Here is the opening of the editorial:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/20/jeffrey-epstein-files-trump-justice-department/

This is hardly a glowing endorsement of Trump. (Note the title of the piece - emphasis added: "The Epstein files will come out. No one is looking good." )

If you can’t beat them, join them. President Donald Trump took credit Wednesday night for getting the Jeffrey Epstein files released by signing a bill he spent four months trying to kill. The whole sordid exercise is a testament to the collapse of political trust, and no one comes out looking good.

The president could have ordered the Justice Department to release the files months ago. Instead, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) kept the House out of session for more than six weeks and refused to swear in a Democrat who had won a special election to delay the discharge petition that forced a vote on the measure.

(I cancelled my WaPo sub sometime last year or early this year ... I had hung on for awhile because they still had some good writers and often some useful articles. I forget which particular thing was the last straw, but at some point I found the dreck outweighing the good. There are still thoughtful articles, but the kiss-republicans-ass component is way higher now and I won't be resubscribing. I'm not extolling this piece particularly, but I think the twitter posted in the OP doesn't reflect it accurately.)

[aggiesal]

42. 🤔 Wondering if Jeff Bezos is on the Epstein List 🤔 n/t

[Hotler]

44. So they're saying the crimes of paying to rape children have "no public interest". I tripple dog dare them to go

out on the street and ask citizens about that.
P.S. This proves that the Epstein files reach far and wide amongst the wealthy.

[dedl67]

45. I was a delivery boy for the Washington Post for seven years in the 1950s. ...

long before Bezos was born. It was a great, respected paper then, even before its role in uncovering Watergate. A subscription cost $1.75 per month to get it delivered to the door. I was glad when the subscription price went up to $1.95, because then I stood half a chance of getting a 5 cent tip. With two tips I could buy a comic book.

[Bo Zarts]

47. Praising Clay Higgins? Please let me modify and mis-quote two oft mis-quoted phrases:

1. Praising Clay Higgins is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. (the original is probably from the right-wing political writer, the late P.J. O'Rourke, who was talking about giving money and power to the federal government)

2. Praising Clay Higgins is like looking at the trombone section .. it only encourages them. (the original phrase is often attributed to Richard Wagner, in error)

[dpibel]

48. Archive link

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/20/jeffrey-epstein-files-trump-justice-department/

Put generously, I'd say the twitterer who's quoted in the OP is engaging in clickbaitery.

For instance, the actual bit about Clay Higgins is:

The lone congressional objector, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana), has a point when he says this indiscriminate release “abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America” and could “result in innocent people being hurt.”

I don't believe Higgins is right, but I also don't think that graf constitutes praise.

In my defense, I'm not slightly in the habit of defending the WaPo. It mostly does wicked. The fact that it comes up short of wicked in this instance does not excuse any other misbehavior.

[Celerity]

84. That is not an archive link. Here is an actual archive link:

https://archive.ph/KQxcS

[dpibel]

86. My bad

Not quite sure where my wires crossed on that one. I actually do know the difference.

[Celerity]

87. All good!

[Initech]

49. Fuck you Jeff Bezos!

[Stargleamer]

52. They moved from All the President's Men to this shit. . .

They helped bring down Nixon and now they don’t even care if there’s incriminating evidence against TCF

[dlk]

53. This begs the question, whose name(s) might be released with the files?

And why would exposing sexual predators be a problem for the Post? A definite tell.

[Ocelot II]

54. Archive link, no paywall:

https://archive.is/ORS6T

Adam Johnson's post is not misleading. WaPo does not think Congress should have voted to release the files, and it does praise the sole objector, Clay Higgins:

The lone congressional objector, Rep. Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana), has a point when he says this indiscriminate release “abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America” and could “result in innocent people being hurt.”

Buried toward the end of the op-ed is an admission that the government does have to comply, now that the bill has passed:

Now that the law has passed so overwhelmingly, it is essential for the government to promptly comply. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is right that it will be a “mistake” if the Trump administration plays games. For example, it will be scandalous if the Justice Department tries to use the privacy exemption to withhold information about Republicans while putting out similar information about Democrats.

WaPo's main complaint seems to be that the whole matter should have been under the sole purview of DoJ - ignoring the obvious fact that DoJ is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trump personally.

[Celerity]

69. We normally agree, but I think his post IS misleading due to this quote from the editorial:

"Now that the law has passed so overwhelmingly, it is essential for the government to promptly comply."

No way to square that with Johnson's direct language:



The WaPo board's whingeing about the process is dodgy and both-siderish, but they DID say that now, after the votes and Trump signing it, the files need to be released, Trump needs to comply and not fuck about.

[Ocelot II]

71. I see your point, but I took it as the Post opposing their release in principle

but agreeing (grudgingly) that since the bill has passed they have to be released. In other words, if the legislation had been unsuccessful in WaPo's opinion there would be no good reason to release the files. Hairsplitting, maybe, but what was pretty clear from the op-ed is that WaPo didn't want the files released in the first place.

[Silent Type]

56. Not exactly true or accurate, but that's never stopped anyone from posting. Here's some actual quotes from editorial.

The Epstein files will come out. No one is looking good.
Conspiracy theories are unlikely to be put to rest with looming disclosures.

November 20, 2025

"If you can’t beat them, join them. President Donald Trump took credit Wednesday night for getting the Jeffrey Epstein files released by signing a bill he spent four months trying to kill. The whole sordid exercise is a testament to the collapse of political trust, and no one comes out looking good. . . . . .

"After all, the measure Trump signed Wednesday contains an exception for information that could interfere with “an active federal investigation.” Trump ordered up just such an investigation last Friday — contradicting his own Justice Department’s statement that the case was closed. Bondi claimed Wednesday that she received new information but declined to provide details. The bill also does not waive grand jury secrecy rules and allows the Justice Department to withhold material that “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”

"In announcing on social media that he signed the law, Trump showed his intention to keep leveraging Epstein’s crimes against Democrats. The president said Epstein was “a lifelong Democrat,” noted that it was the Trump Justice Department that indicted him in 2019 and accused Democrats of using the files to “distract” from his achievements.

"Now that the law has passed so overwhelmingly, it is essential for the government to promptly comply. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is right that it will be a “mistake” if the Trump administration plays games. For example, it will be scandalous if the Justice Department tries to use the privacy exemption to withhold information about Republicans while putting out similar information about Democrats. Politicians claim to want to restore public trust in institutions, but often they’re merely exploiting the loss of trust for their own gain. The result in this instance was a stampede for “transparency” that could surface some information in the public interest while also distorting the Justice Department’s role. Don’t expect it to be the last . . . . . ."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/20/jeffrey-epstein-files-trump-justice-department/

[Walleye]

57. "Political clamoring" is the same thing as public interest

So now the Washington Post doesn’t think of regular people as worthy of hearing the truth. If the billionaires wanna keep it a secret we shouldn’t find out about it, according to Bezos.

[regnaD kciN]

58. In other words, Bezos is in the files...

[RockRaven]

59. The basic idea that it isn't in the public interest to release DOJ materials in this case

shows how utterly corrupt and immoral the WaPo is now.

The matter at hand is a:

Decades-long... (check the dates)
Conspiracy of... (two or more yada yada, Epstein and Maxwell at minimum are not in dispute)
Serial... (check the number of victims)
Sex-trafficking and sexual assault... (check the victims' testimony)
Of minors. (check the victims' ages)

Those conspirators were at, or rubbed elbows with, or rose to, the highest levels of wealth and power in the country if not the world. And apparently it needs to be pointed put to the ghouls at WaPo: the above listed behavior is illegal and anti-social in the extreme.

Because of the glaringly antisocial nature of these behaviors, it is in EVERYONE'S interest to KNOW EVERYTHING about this matter, regardless of the source of that information. Which means that, yes indeed, it is the public interest for those normally non-public materials in DOJ possession to be released regardless of the caveats or conditions of those materials being collected and processed.

This is not the WaPo losing their way, this is not some rich dickhead having too much influence over a newspaper he bought. This is WaPo once again going mask-off as the utterly monstrous disgusting shit-pile they now are. Fuck you, WaPo. Fuck you all.

[Mysterian]

60. Bezos Toilet Paper

Does anyone still pay money for this trash?

[Trueblue1968]

63. Morons run the WA Post. I wanna know and I am ......The Public !!!!!!!

[phylny]

64. So glad I dumped my subscription.

[LudwigPastorius]

65. Hunh...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/01/jeffrey-epstein-friend-ghislaine-maxwell-was-guest-at-jeff-bezos-event.html

She must have brought the "party favors" for Bezos' getaways.

[Buckeyeblue]

67. I would agree during normal times

The problem is these aren't normal times. We have a president who continues to lie about his relationship with a known man who was sex trafficking children. The known sex trafficker died in custody under suspicious circumstances.

Did Trump participate in the sex trafficking? Who knows. But if he did, it's a national security concern because another country could be black mailing him to make decisions that aren't in our country's best interest.

[mike_c]

68. wapo used to be a fine newspaper

No more, I'm afraid.

[Cha]

70. What a surprise. Bezos the Pedo Protector.

[relayerbob]

72. Right after the meeting with MBS

Hmmm, I wonder whose name might be mentioned in there.

[Blue Owl]

73. The Washington POSt needs a massive boycott

Might be useful to line some litter boxes but that’s about it

[SamuelTheThird]

74. lol they must be really, really, really bad

[Ruby the Liberal]

75. If this stuff ever gets out its going to be spectacular

The right wing thought MeToo was too career destroying & launched a counter offensive on wokeness.

Lets see how the MAGA crowd handles their Masters Of The Universe being outed as pedos.

[spanone]

76. Bezos on a leash.

Fuck the Washington Post.

[Patton French]

77. State run media

NT

[orangecrush]

78. JFC

[Paladin]

79. Shameful decision by a once-respectable paper. (nt)

[Botany]

80. Shameful use of once was a great paper to spread misinformation and protect the people in an international

child sex trafficking ring. America is being burned to the ground by evil acts that will destroy
our democracy.

Ben Bradley and Katherine Graham are luck to be dead so they don’t have to see this shit.

[Celerity]

85. The OP is misleading due to its using a clickbait X-tweet that false frames:

See these 2 replies:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220826017#post51

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220826017#post69