I’ve Read 50,000 Epstein Emails and I Need About 50,000 Showers

(Please note graphic language in column.)

I’m only about 100,000 pages into the Epstein files, so these are just my preliminary observations, but clearly the Department of Justice abused its redaction pen. One of my own columns, printed in full, appears in the files, sent from XXXXXXXXX, to XXXXXXXXX, with a cc to XXXXXXXX. Or maybe it was XXXXXXXX — I always get those guys confused.

Although the column is available online and wherever fine publications are sold, the DOJ redacted one name from it: “Haley Robson,” an Epstein victim-cum-procurer.

Robson’s name is not a secret. She’s been publicly identified at least since 2009 as an Epstein associate. Ironically, she’s also been one of the loudest voices denouncing the many redactions in the files.

She’s right. Way, way too many names have been X-ed out. I’m guessing the DOJ must have gone through at least 70,000 redactor pens.

The law expressly disallows redactions “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” So why has the Department of Justice blacked out the names of adult men — or women, God help us — sending emails to Epstein that say things like this:

a) “Pussy hunters!!”

Yes, that’s it. That’s all the email said.

b) “Subject: Hi from PB Hi J, Hope you can find a great guy for REDACTED :)) her pussy is getting wet”

Remember the good old days, back when we were outraged about “grabbing pussies”?

c) One email is entirely redacted except … “Has discovered the distraction of pussy, I assume. Well, I say good for him.”

I’m almost certain this wasn’t a reference to some cat lover.

d) “Love whats wrong with you you sound like a dirty old guy!! You’re surrounded by tits all day long… “

No, definitely not about cats.

e) “no one can beat your pussy network”

Thanks to all the redactions, we’re not even sure which banks these guys work for.

f) “I’ll send car pics and updates as they come 🙂 all set for her trip. Photos to come. …her tits are great! ;)”

By the way, her eyes are up here, fellas.

g) “Meet me at class 9:30 so Many hot girls promise … Promise an abundant of young pussy flesh ….. Love A”

Epstein may have been a serial statutory rapist, but give the guy credit: He was always very punctual.

h) “All I need later is to bring REDACTED over and have her pussy;)))”

Okay, but just promise me you won’t objectify her. She’s still a person. She’s got a name. It’s XXXXXXXXXX.

Sure it would be embarrassing to have one’s name attached to these emails, but the law says redactions are permitted only for “clearly unwarranted invasion[s] of personal privacy.”

Perhaps if these emails were being produced in response to a scandal involving, say, the Federal Railroad Safety Act of 1970, then revealing the senders’ names would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy. But this is a case expressly about an international sex ring, the collection of kompromat, and the entire absence of law enforcement.

The names of men joking about their carnal knowledge of Epstein’s girls is precisely why Congress ordered the files released. (Well, that and the possibility of impeaching Trump.)

Not only names, but way too many faces are blacked out. (And I’m ordinarily a big fan of people working in blackface.)

The files include a boatload of photos from Epstein’s private collection, showing men having every kind of sex with young girls. The girls’ faces are blacked out, obviously — but so are the men’s. Ordinarily, showing their faces would be a wild violation of their privacy, but the law clearly states that redactions are not allowed for “embarrassment” or “reputational harm.”

These guys were either Epstein’s co-conspirators or his marks. Even if the girls were of age and the sex was consensual, those photos could still be used for blackmail (and the occasional Christmas card photo).

If we saw their faces, it could explain why it took so long to bring Epstein to justice. It might help answer the peculiarly unresolved mystery of who told Alex Acosta, the U.S. attorney who struck the second plea deal with Epstein, that he “belonged to intelligence”? (Why do we still not know that?)

Shockingly, The New York Times, remembering that it’s a newspaper, has done fantastic work on the files. Only because the paper pursued the matter, did the government un-redact a face in one photo. It showed a Mount Sinai doctor performing surgery on a girl laid out on Epstein’s dining room table — an unheard-of ethical breach. Based on other files, the Times figured out it was Dr. Jess Ting. But, when contacted by the paper, he denied it. After the DOJ unredacted the photo, showing Ting’s bright, smiling face, he stopped returning the paper’s calls.

Only 2.9 million pages to go.