Podcast Summary: Lawfare Daily — The Epstein Files and the Politicization of the Justice Department

Podcast: The Lawfare Podcast
Host: Lawfare Institute
Episode Date: November 18, 2025
Guests: Anna Bauer (Senior Editor), Mike Feinberg (Public Service Fellow), Eric Columbus (Senior Editor)

Episode Overview

This episode delves into the ongoing saga of the “Epstein Files” during Trump’s second administration, focusing on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) unconventional handling of the files, the recent political maneuvers involving public disclosure and Congressional oversight, and the broader risks associated with politicizing federal investigations. The discussion highlights irregularities in DOJ procedure, efforts on Capitol Hill to force disclosures, and the emergence of so-called “ghost investigations” for apparent political gain.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. DOJ’s Initial Actions Post-Inauguration

[05:32] Mike Feinberg outlines how transparency around the Epstein investigation became a campaign promise, championed by future DOJ and FBI appointees like Pam Bondi and Kash Patel.

• Performative Transparency: Shortly after Trump’s second inauguration, the FBI was ordered to conduct an expedited, thorough review of Epstein case materials.
  • This process was “rushed,” and involved nationwide FBI offices, leading to the creation of thick binders dramatically presented to right-wing influencers at a White House event for public show.
  • Quote:
    “Once that was done, there was this big sort of performative act where the Justice Department created these binders...presented to a lot of MAGA adjacent and far right influence officers at a sort of informal ceremony...But those more disclosures never really came.”
    — Mike Feinberg [07:10]
• When the contents became public, they were found to contain little new or revelatory. The promised transparency failed to materialize.

2. Unusual DOJ Announcements & Procedures

[10:01] Mike Feinberg addresses the July departmental memo claiming there was no Epstein “client list,” no credible blackmail, and no evidence to investigate additional third parties:

• Abnormal Public Statements:
  • The DOJ publicly declaring the end of a review and the “lack” of further actionable evidence is highly uncharacteristic.
  • This abrupt reversal, following prior official claims of new revelations, appeared politically motivated.
  • Normatively, a closed investigation might get an Inspector General review—not an in-house “poke around.”
  • Reference to James Comey’s controversial “reopening” of the Clinton case as the only precedent for such a public FBI move.
  • Quote:
    “It’s a little curious that people who have made such a career out of criticizing Jim Comey would make the same mistake he did.”
    — Mike Feinberg [13:24]

3. What Actually Exists in the ‘Epstein Files’?

[15:30] Anna Bauer and Mike Feinberg discuss the public’s misconceptions about what the government can or will release:

• Nature of Investigative Files:
  • Not all files are off-limits; much is protected only by specific laws or norms (e.g., grand jury secrecy Rule 6(e), victim privacy, reputation of uncharged parties).
  • DOJ is generally reluctant to release information that could unnecessarily harm reputations or expose victims, especially minors.
  • Quote:
    “There’s this sort of mesh network of other DOJ and FBI policies that prevent other material from being released...another set of restrictions for victims in general...and public policy aversion to releasing information...that could not be corroborated.”
    — Mike Feinberg [17:28]
• FOIA Process:
  • Closed criminal investigations can be FOIA’d, but released material is heavily redacted.
  • High-profile cases are (in the past) made available via the FBI’s FOIA Vault, but that is unlikely under the current politicized climate.

4. Congressional Oversight and the Push for Disclosure

[27:30] Anna Bauer and [29:17] Eric Columbus walk through the escalation to Congressional involvement:

• Legislative Maneuvering:
  • After DOJ’s July memo, bipartisan pressure led to a bill mandating release of all Epstein-related DOJ materials—with exceptions for privacy, abuse imagery, and active investigations, but notably omitting grand jury secrecy.
  • To force the bill to a House vote, the minority (Democrats) launched a rare discharge petition, eventually reaching the required threshold after a special election.
  • President Trump, having opposed the bill (even summoning Rep. Lauren Boebert to discourage her support), reversed course and endorsed it, possibly anticipating the “active investigation” exemption would provide cover.
  • Quote:
    “Pam Bondi could try to find a way to, with some jiggery pokery, try to use that [active investigation] to prevent the disclosure of materials relating to Trump.”
    — Eric Columbus [38:57]

5. The ‘Ghost Investigation’ & Political Selectivity

[41:06] Mike Feinberg, [43:25] Eric Columbus, [62:57 Anna Bauer]

• Initiation of a New SDNY Probe:
  • In line with Trump’s Truth Social posts, AG Pam Bondi launched a new “investigation” into Democrats and institutions listed in the recent congressional trove from Epstein’s estate (ex: Clinton, Summers, JPMorgan).
  • This procedure aligns with Ben Wittes's “ghost investigation” idea: announce probes for political effect without real investigative action.
  • Quote:
    “This is pretty transparently an attempt to set up a series of ongoing investigations which will not redound against any Republican supporters or members and will allow Bondi to withhold the overwhelming majority of the larger Epstein file.”
    — Mike Feinberg [41:40]
• Escalation of Politicized Prosecutions:
  • Such steps go beyond prior DOJ actions against Trump’s adversaries (Comey, Letitia James), because the July DOJ memo had already declared no predicate for further prosecutions.
  • Quote:
    “It certainly seems like an escalation even beyond...the very odd prosecutions of Comey and James...In this case...their July statement said, literally, ‘we did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.’”
    — Eric Columbus [63:02]
  • The existence of politically motivated or “ghost” investigations is evidence of a corrupted process, resting on abuse of DOJ norms and independence.

6. Limitations, Legal Remedies, and What Comes Next

[45:24] Mike Feinberg, [46:41] Eric Columbus, [48:01] Eric Columbus

• Judicial Options and Limits:

  • Courts are unlikely to intervene unless selectivity or vindictiveness is shown in prosecutions; judicial claims over ongoing investigations are improbable.
  • The administration could claim Congressional interference is unconstitutional (executive privilege), but this has not been fully tested in court.

• Ongoing Uncertainty:

  • Whether the files ever become public, and whether investigations proceed beyond political theater remains open. Multiple procedural paths (Senate inaction, legal battles) could forestall any real resolution.

7. Disclosure Disputes and the ‘Universe’ of Documents

[52:16] Anna Bauer, [53:58] Mike Feinberg

• Are Congress and DOJ Dealing with the Same Materials?
  • DOJ claims to lack emails released by the Epstein estate—a plausible legal distinction, since warrants limit what law enforcement can retain/use, and some materials may have been in personal or estate hands, not seized by authorities.
  • The assertion that the Epstein estate was “hiding” documents is hard to verify without knowing every warrant and request over the years.
  • Quote:
    “Unless Todd Blanche is familiar with every single records request or warrant...I don’t know that he’d be in a position to say that the estate was withheld these documents.”
    — Mike Feinberg [58:16]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Very little of what has occurred with the Epstein matter since the inauguration has been even in the same time zone as normal.”
  — Mike Feinberg [10:01]

• "You have the director of the FBI and the Attorney General...first saying there is this plethora of information that the public needs...then...saying there is no further information being hidden."
  — Mike Feinberg [11:14]

• "You typically can't get information about people who were not charged ... these people have substantial privacy interests...and the DOJ charges who it charges, and doesn't talk much about anyone else."
  — Eric Columbus [27:46]

• "It is unheard of in United States history...for a President's order to look into a named political enemy...to even be entertained by the FBI Director or the Attorney General."
  — Mike Feinberg [65:05]

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [05:32] — DOJ’s post-inaugural Epstein file review process
• [10:01] — Abnormal DOJ statements on lack of Epstein client list
• [16:55] — What can/can’t be released from investigative files and the limits of FOIA
• [27:30–39:52] — How Congress got involved, the discharge petition, and legislative efforts for disclosure
• [41:06–43:25] — Trump’s reversal on disclosure, "active investigation" exemptions, and likely strategy
• [52:16–60:43] — Disputes over which files DOJ and Congress actually possess, and the challenges in seizure and retention
• [62:57–66:38] — Does the new SDNY “investigation” represent a further politicized DOJ? What is a “ghost investigation”?

Conclusion

This episode provides an in-depth critique of how both DOJ practices and Congressional maneuvers around the Epstein files have become politically charged and detached from long-standing norms governing federal investigations and transparency. The hosts and guests make a strong case that the current tumult—characterized by performative transparency, selective disclosure, and “ghost investigations”—represents a dangerous precedent for the politicization of law enforcement in the United States.

Contributors:

• Anna Bauer: Host, Senior Editor
• Mike Feinberg: Public Service Fellow
• Eric Columbus: Senior Editor

Listen to The Lawfare Podcast for more expert analysis at lawfareblog.com.