Massie, Khanna Say DOJ Is Illegally Withholding Epstein Files. Reps Are Preparing Impeachment Articles Against Bondi
Khanna said the DOJ omitted required documents and that he and Massie were preparing impeachment articles against Bondi.

SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYThe New American is an opinion-oriented publication, which lowers the institutional score relative to established general-news organizations. The article names its author and includes attributed statements and reporting from CBS News, but its reliance on social-media posts and a strongly framed account limits confidence in its editorial rigor.
- Source type — Opinion-oriented publisher; this is a substantial reason to score below established general-news outlets.
- Transparency — The article attributes claims to lawmakers, a DOJ letter, and CBS News, but relies heavily on embedded social-media material.
- Author attribution — A named author is identified.
- Editorial standards — The available article text does not demonstrate a clear corrections practice or extensive independent verification.
The article provides direct quotations from the lawmakers and a DOJ explanation for continued production, and it cites CBS News reporting on redacted pages. However, much of the account repeats social-media claims and does not independently resolve the dispute over what the law required or why particular records were withheld.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article includes the DOJ’s explanation for rolling releases and legally permitted victim redactions, but most of its detail supports the lawmakers’ objections. It does not provide a substantial independent assessment of the department’s legal position or responses to the specific allegations.
- Counterarguments presented — Blanche’s explanation about volume, review, and victim redactions is included, but the article gives far more space to the lawmakers’ claims.
- Source diversity — Includes lawmakers, a DOJ letter, and CBS News, alongside multiple social-media posts.
- Loaded language — The narration and selected quotations use emphatic language about the release and alleged legal violations.
- Omitted context — The article does not independently examine the legal dispute or provide a detailed DOJ response to the specific missing-document claims.
The article is sharply critical of the DOJ’s release but presents that criticism as claims by Massie and Khanna and includes Blanche’s explanation. Its framing is critical of the department without a clear left-right political alignment.
- Language tone — Uses charged descriptions and quotes angry posts, while generally attributing them to their authors.
- Source selection — Centers Massie and Khanna’s allegations but also includes Blanche’s explanation and CBS News reporting.
- Framing — The article foregrounds alleged noncompliance and the planned impeachment effort rather than treating the release as routine.
- Headline — The headline emphasizes the lawmakers’ allegation and possible impeachment articles, with the allegation attributed to them.
Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna say the Justice Department failed to release records required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Khanna said they are preparing impeachment articles against Attorney General Pam Bondi, while Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended the department’s rolling release and redactions.
Massie and Khanna said the Justice Department’s release of Epstein-related records did not comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which they said required disclosure by December 19. Khanna said two documents were missing, including a draft indictment and a memorandum, and said the representatives were preparing impeachment articles and considering contempt measures against Bondi. Massie cited the act’s limits on withholding records for political sensitivity and argued that the release did not include material he expected.
Community verdict
22 VOTESCounts every outlet’s report of this story. See all 39
Votes cast on this page
Votes cast on this page: ▲ 0 · ◆ 0 · ▼ 0
People in this story
SWIPE →Representative criticizing the DOJ’s release of Epstein-related records
Attorney General accused by Massie and Khanna of withholding documents required by law
Bondi's version of this story ↗Representative criticizing the DOJ’s release of Epstein-related records
Massie's version of this story ↗Deputy Attorney General who explained the DOJ’s continuing review and release of records
President who signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act
Vice President whose 2021 post Massie cited
Part of a bigger story
30 OUTLETSThe Justice Department released Epstein-related records in a partial, heavily redacted batch. Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie said they were preparing or considering inherent-contempt action against Attorney General Pam Bondi over the release. Left-leaning outlets frame Khanna’s push as accountability for redactions and omissions, with some questioning whether powerful people are being protected. Center outlets detail proposed congressional remedies and competing claims about legal compliance. Right-leaning outlets also stress the bipartisan push for fuller disclosure, often alongside the department’s defense.
- ARTICLES
- 39
- OUTLETS
- 30
- AVG CRED
- 63
- Cbc · Authorities were hot on the trail of Epstein's co-conspirators. Why weren't they named in the document dump?
- Daily Mail · Epstein docs bombshell exposes 10 possible coconspirators
- The Independent · Epstein survivors blast 'unacceptable' partial release of files as Congress members weigh legal options over DOJ's missed deadline
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…







