Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

FBI–DOJ Failure on 1996 Epstein Complaint Demands Congressional Accountability

Opinion

​A billboard in Times Square.

A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein Files on July 23, 2025 in New York City. Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department's review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, telling him that his name appeared in the files.

Getty Images, Adam Gray

On Aug. 29, 1996, Maria Farmer reported her sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the New York Police Department. Ms. Farmer contacted the FBI as advised by the police. On Sept. 3, 1996, the FBI identified the case as “child pornography” since naked or semi-naked hard copy pictures existed.

It wasn’t until Nov. 19, 2025 when the Epstein Files Transparency Act became law whereby all files – including Farmer’s 1996 complaint -- were to be made public by Dec. 19. Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to release 100% of the files as mandated by law.


Obviously, Congress should question six individuals who had access to the original 1996 file during their tenure as FBI director: Louis French, Robert Mueller, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Wray and Kash Patel. Likewise, 10 managers of America’s DOJ since 1996 should testify before Congress as to their knowledge of the case: Janet Reno, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Mukasey, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Jeff Sessions, William Barr, Merrick Garland and Pam Bondi.

Questions asked of the above FBI and DOJ leaders might include the following:

Establishing the factual record

When did you first learn of the 1996 Epstein-Maxwell complaint and through what channel (e.g., briefing, media report, internal audit, inspector general review, civil litigation, etc.)?

Second, what, if anything, did you do when you first became aware of the 1996 complaint?

Third, during your tenure was the 1996 complaint ever flagged, re-opened or re-reviewed in connection with later federal investigations of Jeffrey Epstein or related sex-trafficking and child-exploitation cases? If so, what did you do about the case? If not, why not?

Decisions or non-decision on the 1996 complaint

At any time during your leadership, did you review or order a review of the 1996 complaint to assess whether FBI and/or DOJ personnel mishandled allegations of child pornography, threats or child sexual exploitation, and if not, why not?

Systematic failures in child-sex-abuse cases

During your tenure, what changes were implemented to ensure that tips involving alleged child pornography and/or child sexual exploitation were: A) logged correctly, B) assessed by specialized child-exploitation units and C) reported to state, local and tribal authorities within the required time framework?

Director-level accountability

What do you think is the proper recourse for any FBI director or DOJ leader employed since 1996 who was negligent about the child pornography-related crimes alleged against Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators?

Culture, incentives and possible favoritism

At any time in your leadership role, did you have any evidence that the complainant, Maria Farmer, was disbelieved, minimized or discredited because she was accusing a wealthy, well-connected figure?

Second, during your tenure, was there any discussion by you and/or your associates about the risks of “rocking the boat” with politically connected targets in child-sex or exploitation investigations?

Remedies for survivors, FBI reforms and DOJ reforms

Will you support a bipartisan congressional investigation on the handling of the Maria Farmer complaint and all related leads since 1996, including naming responsible federal officials who failed their duty as well as disclosing to the public the names of individuals who were involved in child pornography, sex trafficking and child-exploitation?

Second, what concrete remedies should be offered to the approximate 1,200 female survivors whose abuse might have been prevented had the 1996 complaint been properly pursued, such as expedited victim-compensation and/or formal apologies from the FBI and DOJ?

Citizens’ clarion call

First, contact each of your three elected Congressional delegates and ask if they support a complete investigation as to why six FBI directors and 10 DOJ leaders – employed since 1996 – did or did not take proper action related to the Maria Farmer complaint as well as for the 1,200 females allegedly harmed by Epstein, Maxwell and other men.

Next, contact the following legislators who have major responsibility for general oversight of the relevant federal agencies related to the handling or mishandling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and request in-depth congressional hearings of the matter: 1) House Representatives’ James Comer (R-Ky.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Clay Higgins (R-La.), Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), Scott Perry (R-Pa.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), and 2) Senators’ Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

Finally, request your three legislative representatives at the Capitol to take two additional actions: 1) eliminate the statute of limitations for criminal charges and civil lawsuits related to child pornography, sexual assault and sex trafficking and 2) revise the Epstein Files Transparency Act so that while protecting victims’ identities is crucial, the law should prevent broad redactions that shield powerful individuals or jeopardize the public interest.


Steve Corbin is a professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.


Read More

Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less
American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

American Flag, Capitol building and the United States Constitution

Getty Images

Lawyers Must Reaffirm Their Oath to Defend the Constitution

Every lawyer admitted to practice in the United States takes a formal oath to support the Constitution and faithfully discharge the duties of the profession. In recent years, bar associations and courts around the country have held voluntary oath reaffirmation ceremonies, inviting lawyers to publicly renew their commitments and reaffirm the profession's responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

Between us, we have taken the oath eight times - having been admitted to practice law in six jurisdictions, across five states, and both having organized oath reaffirmation ceremonies in our respective Virginia hometowns.

Keep ReadingShow less