Rep. Mace Slams DOJ Over Epstein Files Redactions Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) is not mincing words, declaring the DOJ is still protecting the powerful. This comes after the Department boasted about releasing all Epstein files and complying with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The Gateway Pundit quotes Pam Bondi confirming the DOJ's claim. Yet, the redactions were limited to victim and medical info, active investigation jeopardy, and graphic scenes. Mace isn't buying it. Mace argues that the contention for using work-product privilege won't stop the full release of files and won't stand in court. She's calling the DOJ's bluff, stating "RE deliberative process privilege," facts are missing which can't hide behind legal jargon. Names are redacted, and if they can be offered, they can be unredacted, exposing the department's reluctance. The crux of Mace's beef? The DOJ's dance around "embarrassment" of elites. An internal communication exposes agents needing "clear and specific guidance" on concealing photos of influential figures in Epstein's circle. Mace isn't alone in echoing sentiments of mismanagement. She asserts, "Shame on the DOJ," pointing out how mishandling has sullied the President's reputation, though he acted in good faith early on. With the files still shrouded in mystery and…

What Yale did Yale told students that a longtime computer science professor will not teach his class while the school reviews his conduct. The move came after federal documents showed email exchanges between the professor and Jeffrey Epstein. The university said it does not condone the way the professor wrote a recommendation and placed him on leave from teaching during the review. The emails in question The government released millions of pages tied to Epstein under a transparency law signed last year. Among the files were emails between the professor and Epstein from about 2009 to 2015. In one 2011 message the professor described a Yale undergraduate mainly by her looks, noting she was a small, good-looking blonde when recommending her to Epstein. That description is what prompted the current review. The professor's explanation The professor defended his note as trying to match a potential boss's tastes. He told administrators he was keeping the employer's habits in mind and later said the email was a private message dredged up from a large document release. He also wrote that he thought the employer was intelligent and a good conversationalist. He has since told reporters he did not know about Epstein's sex…