Filing by attorney general Raúl Torrez comes after DoJ appears to have ignored deadline for key Epstein ranch files

New Mexico filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Justice and acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, on Wednesday for “stonewalling” its criminal investigation into the activities of the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein at a remote ranch in the state.

Raúl Torrez, the New Mexico attorney general, had said he was mulling the possibility of legal action if the justice department did not share with him by 31 July information about the alleged historical abuse of girls and young women at Epstein’s Zorro ranch about 30 miles south of Santa Fe.

Wednesday’s filing, seen by the Guardian, delivers on that threat after the justice department appeared to ignore last Friday’s deadline.

  • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 hours ago

    This is theater. New Mexico dragged their heels until after Epstein’s ranch was purchased and completely excavated by the new owner.

    The gravesite/murder garden/whatever was dug up and trucked away to an unknown dumpsite. 2/3 of the usable grounds around the ranch was immediately destroyed as soon as the property was purchased. This evidence was not dumped elsewhere on property. It is gone gone.

    • CannonFodder@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      It won’t. The current administration will just ignore it. Anyone suing the federal government should instead name people individually and detail their personal crimes. They should ignore any vicarious liability and go after individuals. Trump will likely throw them under the bus. Nail them to the wall or get info out of them to nail bigger fish.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        1 day ago

        The orangeboi cannot (currently, at least) issue pardons for state crimes and investigations, which this is.

        This lawsuit will determine whether the federal government can simply stonewall a state government in a criminal investigation.

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          While this is true, the FBI and the DoJ have the power to quite literally just go “make me” when ordered to produce evidence or cooperate. This administration has a very fun habit of simply ignoring anything they don’t like, and I expect that even a federal court order, even one from the Supreme Court if it comes to that, will not get them to do a damn thing.

        • Manjushri@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 hours ago

          This is true, however, he doesn’t need to pardon anything. This administration has made a habit of just ignoring court rulings that they don’t like.

          Since taking office, the Trump administration has employed various tactics to avoid complying with some of the dozens of orders courts have issued limiting its authority. In some cases, the administration has cited administrative error to explain and justify evident noncompliance. In others, the government has frustrated inquiries made by litigants and courts into whether an order is in fact being complied with. In the first six months of this administration alone, courts in at least 12 cases have found that the administration violated one or more court orders. In many more cases, litigants allege that orders are being violated, but haven’t yet been able to prove it.

          In order for your point to really come into play, the courts/litigants, need to go after individuals rather than the administration as a whole. The court can charge people with a (state level) crime for ignoring its orders. It cannot charge the administration to any effect.

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Not complying with a court order where the plaintiff is a normal citizen is one thing.

            Not complying with a court order where the plaintiff is the Attorney General of an elected state government, and thus effectively representing the interests of said state government, is another matter entirely. More pointedly, I expect Blanche Torrez (Blanche is DOJ and is one of the parties being sued, oops) to go full pitbull on this matter, and to leverage the whole legal apparatus of the state to the greatest degree possible against the DoJ here. That scenario, to be clear, is not something we have yet seen while this regime has been in power.

        • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Agreed, and the number of EFTA suits alone are stacking up, with fines, as his department continues to bleed out attorneys, even the new ones. This article is an example of state attorneys general adding themselves to that growing list. He’s also under fire for personally blocking Sen Ron Wyden’s specific request for unredacted DEA and banking materials related to Epstein. And EFTA II may pass, which will make it all worse for him. And that’s just off the top of my head: there are so many more.

          So while it’s true that Blanche has physical control of the process by which specific items of evidence are released or not, it is absolutely imperative for both Blanche and the orange chancre to retain some semblance of legality, especially over the next three months. Every little lawsuit counts, drawing time and resources away from what they want to do, and this one is not so little. This is not an individual plaintiff but a state, and as you rightly point out, Blanche’s abilities are limited in terms of restricting a state’s legal powers.

          Also, there’s a reason Bondi got fired when and how she did: the orange excrescence was under fire for exactly this kind of ongoing Epstein obstruction, and he discarded her when he needed to deflect blame more than he needed her to stay. Blanche is just another meatsuit heading down that same road, in a scenario where all roads lead to the same presidential pedo’s predilection for little girls. Among all of them they have only ever fanned the flames and it only just gets bigger, to the point that these days when the president goes walkabout people are openly shouting Pedophile! at him. They really do not understand how disgusted most of us truly are, as we near an election that not only decides our fate but theirs.

          They’ve dug their own grave here, and created a situation where Blanche is now having to fight thousands of legal fires at the same time they’re losing allies and public tolerance, even as the midterms approach. These things expand until they don’t, and the more extreme the expansion the more they tend to contract with sudden ferocity: it’s entirely possible now that something tiny is going to snap and the whole tower of shit is going to collapse. He can fire Blanche too, and probably will, but this situation in NM is out of their direct control, in more ways than one.

          • Manjushri@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            12 hours ago

            It took a bit of research to figure out that EFTA means, Epstein Files Transparency Act. Searching EFTA gave me results like European Free Trade Association and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act which clearly were not what you meant. I didn’t figure it out until I searched EFTA II.

            I for one would appreciate it if you could include the full name the first time you use an acronym to save your readers a bit of effort in cases like this.

            • ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 hours ago

              That’s funny because I usually do and for whatever reason this time it never even occurred to me, probably because the article mentioned it twice. But they did not call it by name – they just refer to it as the Epstein “transparency law” or “transparency act” – so your point is well taken. Apologies for the omission.

        • some_designer_dude@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          Spoiler alert (if somehow you’re just tuning in): the federal government can, has been, and will continue to do whatever they want.

          • chaogomu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Yes, and people should fight back in every way they can, which means that if you are a lawyer, you sue them.

            Basically put in resistance at every step. Protests in the streets and lawsuits in the courts, and anything else you can come up with.