All discussions I have heard talk about the type of challenges that have been brought against a Congressional subpoena.
And yeah, there are all sorts of ways such subpoenas have been challenged that have delayed release, or even thwarted the release of some portion of the subpoenaed documents.
But this is NOT that.
This is a bill -- the Epstein Files Transparency Act -- that requires Bondi to publish all unclassified records in a searchable and downloadable format. Specifically, House (H.R.4405) and Senate (S.2557).
If the respective bills pass with a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate, what then?
How would that situation be different from a Congressional subpoena?
Yeah, sure, the WH would likely take a shot at invoking executive privlledge of some sort -- that national security and the functioning of government demands that certain documents not be released -- but how would that fly in this situation, which strikes me as quite different from a Congressional subpoena?
It it were treated the same as a Congressional subpoena, there is still a VERY high threshold. Simply claiming "ongoing investigation" would be shot down instantly, unless there was:
1) A showing of clear evidence of a crime that triggered the investigation.
2) A showing of how the release of the documents would compromise the investigation.
So, if this were are Congressional subpoena, yeah, we could expect litigation over the above.
But this is NOT a subpoena. It is a BILL.
Perhaps there there are obvious implications to lawyers based on some previous example of a bill like this, But, I haven't heard ANY discussion of any previous bills that were similar, much less any discussion of the sorts of challenges brought against those bills and how those might differ from challenges to a Congressional subpoena..
If there are discussions that just haven't been on my radar, I would love a pointer!
= new reply since forum marked as read