WASHINGTON — While in political exile at his Florida mansion and under investigation for possessing highly classified documents, Donald Trump called his lawyer in 2022 for a fateful conversation. A folder was compiled containing 38 documents that were to be returned to the federal government. But Trump had other ideas.
In a decisive move, Trump suggested that his lawyer, Evan Corcoran, remove the most incriminating material. “Why don't you take them with you to your hotel room, and if there's anything really bad in there, like, rip it out,” Corcoran recalled in a series of notes that surfaced during criminal proceedings.
Trump's alleged willingness to withhold evidence from law enforcement as a private citizen is now raising concerns on Capitol Hill that his efforts to block the release of Justice Department files in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation could lead to similar obstruction efforts – this time using presidential powers.
Since returning to power in January, Trump against publishing files from a federal investigation into the conduct of his former friend, a convicted sex offender and alleged trafficker who is believed to have abused more than 200 women and girls. But bipartisan fervor has only intensified In the case, House lawmakers across party lines are expected to unite on Tuesday around a bill that would require the documents to be made public.
Last week, facing increasing public pressure, the House Oversight Committee released more than 20,000 files from Epstein's estate. this is a reference to Trump more than 1000 times.
The files, which included emails from Epstein himself, showed that the notorious financier believed Trump had deep knowledge his criminal behavior. “He knew about girls” Epstein wrotecalling Trump “the dog that didn't bark.”
Rep. Dave Mean (D-Irvine), a member of the Oversight Committee, noted that Trump could order the release of Justice Department files without any action from Congress.
“The fact that he did not, coupled with his long and well-documented history of lying and obstructing justice, raises serious concerns that he is still trying to stop this investigation,” Min said in an interview, “either by trying to persuade Senate Republicans to vote against the release or through other mechanisms.”
A spokesman for Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said altering or destroying portions of Epstein's files “would violate a wide range of federal laws.”
“The Senator is certainly concerned that Donald Trump, who has been investigated and charged with obstruction, will persist in attempting to obstruct and otherwise impede the full disclosure of all documents and information in the possession of the U.S. Government,” the spokesman said, “even if the legislation passes with overwhelming bipartisan support.”
Following the House vote on the bill entitled Epstein File Transparency ActThe measure will require bipartisan support in the Senate to pass. Then Trump will have to sign this law.
Trump called on Republican House members to support him over the weekend after enough GOP lawmakers broke ranks last week to force a vote, overcoming opposition from the House speaker. However, it is unclear whether the president will support the measure when it reaches his desk.
On Monday, Trump said he would sign the bill if it ultimately passes. “Let the Senate look at this,” he told reporters.
The bill prohibits Attorney General Pam Bondi from withholding, delaying, or editing the release of “any records, documents, communications, or investigative materials for reasons of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including for any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”
But caveats in the bill could provide loopholes for Trump and Bondi to hide records related to the president.
“Because the Department of Justice owns and controls these files, it is unlikely that a vote to release the Epstein Files would include documents related to Donald Trump,” said Barbara McQuaid, who served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan from 2010 to 2017, when Trump demanded the resignation of scores of U.S. attorneys.
Already last spring, FBI Director Kash Patel assigned a Freedom of Information Act team to work with hundreds of agents to comb through the entire trove of files in the investigation and tasked them with redacting references to Trump, citing his status as a private citizen with privacy protections when the investigation was first launched in 2006. Bloomberg reported this. at that time.
“It would be wrong for Trump to order the documents destroyed, but Bondi could have redacted or deleted some of them in the name of grand jury secrecy or confidentiality laws,” McQuade added. “While the criminal investigation is still pending, I think she can either block the release of the entire case or block the release of information about individuals who have not been charged, including Trump.”
Destroying documents will be more challenging and “will require a loyal secretary or equivalent”, said Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, emeritus professor and FBI historian at the University of Edinburgh.
Jeffries-Jones recalled how J. Edgar Hoover's assistant, Helen Gandy, spent weeks at his home destroying the famed FBI director's personnel file on the dirty secrets of America's rich and powerful.
It would also be illegal, the scientists say, citing the Federal Records Act, which prohibits anyone, including presidents, from destroying government records.
After President Nixon attempted to assert executive authority over a collection of incriminating tapes that ultimately ending his presidencyCongress passed the Preservation of Presidential Records and Materials Act, establishing that government documents and presidential records are federal property. Courts have upheld the law repeatedly.
While presidents have immunity from prosecution for their official conduct, it is not the president's responsibility to order the destruction of criminal investigative documents, legal scholars argue, exposing Trump to charges of obstruction of justice if he did so.
“Multiple federal laws prohibit anyone, including the president and his entourage, from destroying or altering material contained in the Epstein files, including various federal records laws and criminal laws. But that doesn't mean Trump or his associates wouldn't consider trying,” said Norm Eisen, who was President Obama's chief ethics lawyer and counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Trump's first impeachment trial.
The Defenders of Democracy Foundation, a nonprofit co-founded by Eisen, sued the Trump administration over all records in the Epstein investigation linked to Trump, warning that “judicial oversight is necessary” to ensure Trump does not try to undermine the lawful order for their release.
“Perhaps the greatest danger lies not in altering documents, but in mistakenly concealing them or producing and editing them,” Eisen added. “These are both issues that we can address in our litigation and where judicial review can be valuable.”
Jeffries-Jones also said Trump may try to demand redactions based on national security concerns. But “this may seem unconvincing for two reasons,” he said.
“Trump was not yet president at that time,” he said, and “if the amendments do not apply in the case of President Clinton, additional questions will arise.”
Last week, Trump directed the Justice Department investigate Epstein's ties to Democratic Party figuresincluding Clinton, former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and Reed Hoffman, the co-founder of LinkedIn and a major donor to the Democratic Party.
He did not ask the department to conduct a similar investigation into Republicans.
Times writer Ana Ceballos contributed to this report.
