Harris’s performance highlighted a deepening, festering skepticism toward federal power that has come to define the mid-2020s. To advocate for the DOJ’s total independence in this specific context felt, to her detractors, like an attempt to rewrite the history of the last four years. The administration’s critics were quick to point out the perceived double standards of a Justice Department that Harris described as “independent.” They pointed to a string of controversial actions: dawn raids on pro-life activists, the labeling of concerned parents at school board meetings as potential domestic threats, and the aggressive prosecution of political rivals. Against this backdrop, the Vice President’s insistence on the department’s neutral, non-partisan nature felt disconnected from the lived experience of millions of citizens who view the current legal apparatus as increasingly weaponized.
The logic behind using the Epstein files as a shield for the DOJ’s integrity is particularly fraught with contradictions. If the goal of the Biden administration and Attorney General Merrick Garland was true transparency and the restoration of public trust, the records could have been released at any point during their control of the executive branch. Instead, the administration opted for a policy of continued delay, only to later frame that delay as a virtuous adherence to protocol. This pivot has led to a collapse in the administration’s narrative logic. Political analysts have noted that if the files contained information that was genuinely damaging to Donald Trump—as many partisans have long speculated—the Biden DOJ would have had every political incentive to see them publicized. The fact that they remain shielded suggests to many that the contents may be equally, if not more, damaging to individuals within the current establishment or the broader global elite. Continue reading…
