A former federal prosecutor with nearly a decade and a half of experience in one of the nation’s most powerful legal districts says the Department of Justice had more than enough resources to release the full collection of files related to Jeffrey Epstein but chose not to do so.
Sarah Krissoff, who spent almost 14 years as an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, said the DOJ possesses extraordinary legal manpower and institutional capacity, making it difficult to accept arguments that time or staffing limitations prevented a more complete disclosure. Her comments come amid mounting bipartisan criticism of the Justice Department’s initial release of Epstein-related documents, many of which were heavily redacted.
Speaking about the DOJ’s response to the recently enacted Epstein Files Transparency Act, Krissoff argued that the department could have dramatically expanded its review effort if full disclosure had truly been a priority.
“The Department of Justice has virtually unlimited resources,” she said. “If leadership had decided to dedicate hundreds or even thousands of attorneys to reviewing these materials, they absolutely could have done that. They had the ability to prepare these documents for release in a more thorough way.”
She added that the pace and scope of the release suggest that such a large-scale effort was never undertaken.
The DOJ has not publicly responded to questions about whether additional staff or resources were allocated to comply with the new law.
A Law Meant to Force Transparency
The controversy stems from legislation passed by Congress last month and signed into law by President Donald Trump on Nov. 19. The Epstein Files Transparency Act gave the Department of Justice just 30 days to make public its documentation related to the late financier and convicted sex offender, whose case has long fueled conspiracy theories and public outrage.
While the law allows for limited redactions primarily to protect the identities of victims many lawmakers and members of the public argue that the DOJ’s first release fell far short of expectations. Although thousands of pages were posted online on Dec. 19, much of the material was blacked out, leaving critics to accuse the department of shielding powerful individuals or withholding information unnecessarily.
Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, a Democrat from Virginia and a member of the House Oversight Committee, publicly criticized the release, saying key information appears to remain hidden.
“There are still a lot of documents being kept from the public,” he said in a television interview. “Those records would be extremely helpful to our investigation and to understanding the full scope of what happened.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has gone further, accusing the DOJ of potentially violating the law by failing to comply with the transparency mandate.
Why the Epstein Files Are Different
Krissoff, however, emphasized that what Congress has demanded of the DOJ is highly unusual by legal standards. During her years as a federal prosecutor, she said, there was no expectation that entire case files would ever be released to the public simply because of public interest.
“There isn’t a general rule that allows people to access investigative files just because they want to see them,” she explained. “Normally, documents become public only if they’re filed in court, and even then, only the portions that serve a specific legal purpose.”
In most cases, redactions are the product of detailed negotiations between prosecutors and defense attorneys. Those discussions can focus on individual sentences, specific phrases, or even single words, often balancing transparency against the rights of defendants and third parties.
The Epstein case, however, presents an entirely different scenario. Epstein died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. His death ended the prosecution and left unanswered questions about his associates, his financial dealings, and whether he facilitated sexual exploitation for a powerful social network.
Because there is no ongoing trial and no defense team actively negotiating disclosures, Krissoff said it is unclear who within the DOJ ultimately made decisions about what to redact and on what basis.
“It’s not obvious who reviewed these documents or how those decisions were made,” she said. “Are there still members of the original case team involved? Or did someone else step in years later to determine what the public could see?”
Protecting the Innocent or Protecting the Powerful?
One of the DOJ’s primary justifications for redactions is the need to avoid harming individuals who were never charged with any crimes. Case files often contain references to witnesses, acquaintances, or peripheral figures whose names appear in investigative materials but who were not accused of wrongdoing.
“In many investigations, a case file may mention dozens of people,” Krissoff explained. “You might only charge one or two defendants, but the documents could reference many others. Releasing that information without context can unfairly damage reputations.”
She noted that this concern is especially relevant in high-profile cases like Epstein’s, where any association can spark intense public scrutiny. Photos released by the DOJ last week, including images showing Epstein with prominent political figures, do not in themselves establish criminal behavior.
One example involved photographs of former President Bill Clinton with Epstein, which were included in the release. The DOJ later restored a photo of former President Trump that had initially been removed, stating that no victims were depicted in the image.
Krissoff stressed that releasing such materials without explanation risks creating false impressions.
“The last thing you want is to put someone’s name or statement out there when they haven’t been charged with anything,” she said. “That can have real consequences for people who may have done nothing wrong.”
A Dangerous Precedent?
Despite her skepticism about the DOJ’s execution of the law, Krissoff warned that forcing the release of investigative files purely because of public pressure could set a troubling precedent.
If future investigations are subject to similar disclosure demands, she argued, it could interfere with law enforcement’s ability to conduct sensitive inquiries particularly those involving national security, organized crime, or political corruption.
“There’s a risk that this becomes the norm,” she said. “That anytime there’s enough public interest, Congress could step in and demand the release of investigative materials. That could seriously disrupt how cases are handled in the future.”