The Justice Department publicly scolded reporter Jamie Dupree after he questioned why the DOJ released a postcard tied to Jeffrey Epstein that the FBI later called fake. The DOJ said it is legally required to disclose Epstein-related records and pointed to timing, origin and handwriting discrepancies as reasons the postcard was inauthentic. The 2019 card — addressed to Larry Nassar — referenced language associated with Donald Trump; the sender remains unknown.
DOJ Calls Reporter a “Dope” Over Epstein Postcard — Agency Defends Releasing ‘Fake’ Letter
Trump Destroyed 6-to-1 On Pardons — Including 2-to-1 With Trump Fans
The Justice Department sharply rebuked congressional reporter Jamie Dupree after he questioned why the DOJ would publicly release a postcard that the FBI has since determined was fake and allegedly tied to Jeffrey Epstein.
Department Response
The department's official X account replied directly to Dupree:
"Because the law requires us to release all documents related to Jeffrey Epstein in our possession so that’s what we are doing, you dope. Are you suggesting we break the law?"
Why the Postcard Was Deemed Inauthentic
The DOJ and FBI outlined several reasons for concluding the 2019 postcard was not authentic: it was mailed days after Epstein's death, it originated from an address in Virginia even though Epstein was detained in New York, and the handwriting did not match Epstein’s known samples. The agency released those findings as part of broader disclosure obligations for Epstein-related records.
Contents And Reaction
The postcard reportedly included language referencing "young, nubile women" and echoed the crude phrasing tied to former President Donald Trump’s 2005 remark — though Trump was not named directly. The card was said to have been addressed to Larry Nassar, the former U.S. gymnastics doctor convicted of sexual abuse.
There has been no public reporting identifying who actually mailed the postcard. The release prompted a political reaction: Trump called coverage of Epstein-related records a distraction from the Republican Party's successes.
Why It Matters
This exchange highlights tensions between journalists scrutinizing document authenticity and government agencies fulfilling legal public-disclosure obligations. It also underscores how disputed documents can attract intense attention when they reference high-profile figures.
