Lawmakers request court-appointed official to oversee the Epstein files release

The bipartisan duo that spearheaded efforts to force the Justice Department to release the Jeffrey Epstein files is now asking a federal judge to appoint an official to oversee the process.

This new request from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) comes as the DOJ is under criticism from members of both parties for not complying with the law Congress passed late last year, which mandated the department to make materials related to the late convicted sex offender public by Dec. 19.

The department, instead, has been rolling out documents in tranches, with redactions Massie, Khanna and others say go beyond what they outlined in their legislation.

“Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the Act,” Massie and Khanna wrote to Judge Paul E. Engelmayer of the Southern District of New York, who is overseeing the case against Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell. “Absent an independent process, as outlined above, we do not believe the DOJ will produce the records that are required by the Act and what it has represented to this Court.”

The two lawmakers are asking Engelmayer to appoint a so-called special master, or independent monitor, to preside over the continued release — a court-appointed administrator who would ensure the administration follows the law.

A judge has wide discretion to appoint a special master, and judges sometimes take such a step in cases where there are a large number of documents and questions of privilege. A special master is often a retired federal judge.

The judge who oversaw the case against Michael Cohen, Trump's former lawyer, appointed a special master to review the documents seized from Cohen's properties to assess which were subject to attorney-client privilege, for example.

It's not clear if Engelmayer might be inclined to appoint a special master.

Massie and Khanna criticized the limited roll-out of materials and the extensive redactions. They also note their bill required Attorney General Pam Bondi to provide details on redactions, which was not submitted to Congress by the statutory deadline.

“The court can rule fairly quickly,” Massie told reporters Thursday. “Pam Bondi is in communication with this judge about the document production … we are stepping in and offering our opinion on what would be helpful.”

“We believe they’re over-redacting material,” he continued. “And they’re also releasing it in a manner as to just flood the channel with stuff that doesn’t matter while they withhold the things that do matter.”

Massie and Khanna have also threatened to hold Bondi in “inherent contempt” — a long-dormant congressional power — over her department’s handling of the case. Massie said Thursday that their effort to pursue that mechanism was still ongoing, but that he is currently focused on the effort to appoint a special master.

“I think it's the quickest way to produce, to expedite the document production, because these lawyers at the DOJ understand what judges can do in courtrooms,” he added. “And they are already communicating with that judge, even though they're not communicating with us.”