The glibberish response from the Department of Justice provides no clue as to why the summaries and 302s are nowhere to be found.

The Justice Department said in a statement to The Times on Monday that “the only materials that have been withheld were either privileged or duplicates.” In a new statement on Tuesday, the department also noted that documents could have been withheld because of “an ongoing federal investigation.” Officials did not directly address why the memos related to the woman’s claim were not released.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Justice Department said in a new statement that it was reviewing which documents were released in connection to the index. The department said it would publish any documents “found to have been improperly tagged in the review process” that are legally required to be made public.

Did the DoJ screw up when it released the index of investigations into “prominent” men, giving rise to the next question of why these summaries, these 302s, were not part of the millions of pages released?

The existence of the memos was revealed in an index listing the investigative materials related to her account, which was publicly released. According to that index, the F.B.I. conducted four interviews in connection with her claims and wrote summaries about each one. But only one of the summaries, which describes her accusations against Mr. Epstein, was released by the Justice Department. The other three are missing.

These reports, contrary to Trump’s claims that he was “exonerated,” yet another word with which he’s apparently unfamiliar, are of an Epstein accuser who came forward in 2019 and was taken seriously enough for the FBI to interview four times.

The materials are F.B.I. memos summarizing interviews the bureau did in connection to claims made in 2019 by a woman who came forward after Mr. Epstein’s arrest to say she had been sexually assaulted by both Mr. Trump and the financier decades earlier, when she was a minor.

Sexually assaulted is a conclusory phrase. The lurid details are, well, not only lurid, but violent.

The public files do contain a 2025 description of her account, as well as other accusations against prominent men contained in the documents. In that 2025 memo, federal officials wrote that the woman had said that Mr. Epstein introduced her to Mr. Trump, and that she claimed Mr. Trump had assaulted her in a violent and lurid encounter. The documents say the alleged incident would have occurred in the mid-1980s when she was 13 to 15 years old, but they do not include any assessment by the F.B.I. about the credibility of her accusation.

While the New York Times omits the ugly allegations, NPR provides the nitty gritty details.

The woman who directly named Trump in her abuse allegation claimed that around 1983, when she was around 13 years old, Epstein introduced her to Trump, “who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out.”

If true, this would be shocking, even for someone with a reputation like Trump’s. But then, if true, why was no action taken during the Biden administration against Trump? After all, these allegations arose in 2019 when the woman claims to have realized that she was an Epstein victim and that the man whose penis she bit was the president?

There is a putatively legitimate reason why these reports remain concealed. The government is engaged in an investigation to pursue prosecution of these allegations. They aren’t otherwise privileged, and fall under no other exemption from disclosure under the Epstein Transparency Act. But what are the chances that Pam Bondi, having seen the woman’s statements, would bite?

There is an argument to be made that the allegations aren’t credible, for reasons unknown since the reports remain undisclosed, and consequently a decision was made not to reveal unconfirmed allegations that the president was a violent pedo, clearly something that would not make him look any better to those inclined to use any reason available to demean him. But that’s not a reason, under the law, to conceal the existence of these allegations or the reports of the accuser’s interviews.

Regardless of whether it was true or not, the concealment of the summaries and 302s of accusations against Trump raise the perpetual problem with disclosure of the Epstein files in the hands of Ka$h Patel’s FBI or Pam Bondi’s DoJ: They can’t be trusted to comply, and even if they hadn’t blown it by revealing the index while concealing the underlying reports, will inevitably bear the taint of sycophants whose primary duty is to protect Trump at all costs.