Congress
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Advisory lobbying |
9
Strong
|
1 | |
|
location
China
|
Unknown |
9
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
President Johnson
|
Political opposition |
8
Strong
|
1 | |
|
person
President Grant
|
Separation of powers |
8
Strong
|
1 | |
|
organization
Chinese government
|
Target of influence operation |
7
|
1 | |
|
location
Taiwan
|
Unknown |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Advisory legislative commentary |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
US congressional delegations
|
Visitor host |
7
|
1 | |
|
organization
MIT
|
Lobbying |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
Jimmy Carter
|
Governmental executive legislative communication |
7
|
1 | |
|
person
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
|
Delegation of authority |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
President Obama
|
Political adversarial |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Adversarial collaborative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Administration
|
Political alignment on china policy |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Chinese government
|
Target of influence |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Orrin G. Hatch
|
Correspondence |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
John D. Rockefeller IV
|
Correspondence |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
Department of Justice (DOJ)
|
Unknown |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Christine C. Quin
|
Guest of honor |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Carter
|
Executive legislative conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Wilson
|
Executive legislative conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Eisenhower
|
Executive legislative conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The President
|
Institutional conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President Grant
|
Constitutional opposition |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President (Executive Branch)
|
Constitutional separation of powers |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Dubai bought US port operations and faced political backlash. | USA | View |
| 2006-01-01 | N/A | Dubai bought US port operations and faced political backlash in US Congress | USA | View |
| 1999-01-01 | N/A | Publication of a report by the Select Committee, U.S. Congress (Cox Report). | U.S. | View |
| 1998-01-01 | N/A | Establishment of the Select Committee on National Security and Military and Commercial Concerns w... | Washington D.C. | View |
| 1998-01-01 | N/A | US Congress set up the Select Committee on National Security and Military and Commercial Concerns... | United States | View |
| 1998-01-01 | N/A | US Congress set up a special bipartisan investigative unit regarding Chinese technology theft. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 1989-01-01 | N/A | A period of turmoil in US-China relations where Beijing relied more heavily on lobbying the US bu... | United States, China | View |
| 1989-01-01 | N/A | The Chinese crackdown around Tiananmen Square, which prompted active resistance from the US Congr... | Tiananmen Square, China | View |
| 1984-01-01 | N/A | Assassination of Indira Gandhi and subsequent election victory for the Congress party. | India | View |
| 1979-01-01 | N/A | Passage of the Taiwan Relations Act by the US Congress. | United States | View |
| 1955-07-13 | N/A | President Eisenhower sent a special message to Congress upon signing the Department of Defense Ap... | N/A | View |
| 1946-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case United States v. Lovett, where the President enforced a law he believed was un... | United States | View |
| 1946-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case *United States v. Lovett*, where the President enforced a statute he believed ... | United States | View |
| 1946-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case: United States v. Lovett. The President enforced a statute to withhold compens... | United States | View |
| 1938-01-01 | N/A | Enactment of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). | United States | View |
| 1935-01-01 | N/A | Enactment of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). | United States | View |
EFTA00038270.pdf
This document is a confidential letter dated September 2, 2020, from the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) to the FBI. OPR informs the FBI that it has completed an investigation into the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida regarding the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein. OPR is providing the draft report to the FBI for a sensitivity review before releasing it to Congress and the public, noting that FBI personnel names will not appear in the final text.
EFTA00036006.pdf
This document is a March 21, 2025, memorandum from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) providing a status update on recommendations stemming from the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's custody and death. The BOP details ongoing revisions to Program Statements regarding suicide watch, cellmate assignments, and security camera systems, noting that these changes are subject to Union negotiation. The document also addresses staffing shortages, reporting retention improvements in FY2024, but notes that financial incentives will be cut effective March 23, 2025, due to budget constraints, while simultaneously requesting over $2.5 billion in funding for salaries and new positions.
EFTA00035791.pdf
This document is a transcript and summary of a Fox News segment by Tucker Carlson from January 25, 2023. Carlson criticizes the lack of accountability regarding Jeffrey Epstein's death, highlighting that former AG Bill Barr promised an investigation that never materialized and that the only guards charged had their cases dropped. The segment also details a call to a DOJ case officer named Lyeson Daniel who refused to confirm his employment, and questions the official narrative regarding the suicide ruling.
EFTA00035776.pdf
This document is a status update from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) dated June 30, 2025, responding to recommendations made in the June 2023 OIG report on the custody and death of Jeffrey Epstein. The BOP addresses several recommendations concerning suicide watch protocols, cellmate assignments, inmate whereabouts accountability, staffing shortages, and security camera systems. The document outlines ongoing revisions to various Program Statements (policies) and discusses budgetary constraints affecting staffing incentives.
EFTA00032477.pdf
An email chain from July 2021 discussing a voicemail received from Congresswoman Lois Frankel (FL). Frankel indicated that Congress intends to look into the Epstein case. The email mentions attorney Jack Scarola, who represents a redacted client, provided Frankel with the recipient's contact information. The sender suggests routing the inquiry to OLA (Office of Legislative Affairs) for a formal response.
EFTA00027096.pdf
This document is an email chain dated August 12, 2019 (two days after Jeffrey Epstein's death), involving high-level officials from the ODAG, OIG, FBI, and USANYS. The correspondence concerns the urgent review of a draft letter intended for Congressional leaders regarding Epstein. The Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General asks for a quick turnaround on the review, incorporating comments from the previous night.
DOJ-OGR-00000132.tif
This document discusses the legislative history and intent behind the PROTECT Act's retroactivity provisions, emphasizing that Congress removed an express retroactivity clause due to constitutional concerns. It cites a Supreme Court case (Stogner v. California) and Senator Leahy's statements to argue that the Act applies to past conduct, like Maxwell's, where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00000129.tif
This document is a legal excerpt discussing the application of the PROTECT Act and related statutes of limitations, particularly concerning offenses involving child sexual abuse. It references legal precedents like Weingarten, Schneider, and United States v. Dodge, emphasizing Congress's intent to broadly apply these statutes. The text also addresses Maxwell's contention regarding the applicability of the PROTECT Act to her alleged offenses based on the timing of the conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00000127.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal analysis discussing the interpretation of statutory language, specifically § 3283, and the application of 'categorical' versus 'circumstance-specific' approaches in legal contexts. It references several court cases including United States v. Schneider (2015), Weingarten (865 F.3d at 58), United States v. Morgan (2004), and Nijhawan v. Holder (2009), to support the argument that courts should look beyond bare legal charges to the circumstances of an offense, especially when a statute uses the word 'involves'.
DOJ-OGR-00000125.tif
This document is a legal analysis concerning the timeliness of an indictment, specifically addressing the statute of limitations for charges involving the sexual abuse and kidnapping of minors. It discusses the PROTECT Act of 2003, which extended the limitations period for such offenses, and concludes that the charges against Maxwell and Epstein, including Mann Act charges, are timely under this act because they involve the sexual abuse of minors, with Maxwell allegedly enticing them to travel and Epstein allegedly abusing them.
DOJ-OGR-00000078.tif
This document discusses legal arguments related to the application of statutes of limitations for sexual abuse charges under the PROTECT Act, specifically as it pertains to Maxwell's conduct. It also details Maxwell's appeal for a new trial, arguing that Juror 50's failure to disclose a history of sexual abuse during jury selection deprived her of a fair trial, a motion which the District Court denied. The document cites several legal precedents regarding the definition and application of 'abuse of discretion' in judicial review.
DOJ-OGR-00000077.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing or opinion, discussing the application of a statute of limitations (§ 3283) in a case involving Maxwell. It focuses on whether the 2003 amendment to § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse and kidnapping offenses, can be applied retroactively to pre-enactment conduct, citing Supreme Court precedent on statutory retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00000076.tif
This legal document discusses the denial of Maxwell's motions to dismiss charges related to the sexual abuse of minors, focusing on the application of § 3283. It references the Weingarten v. United States case, which established a 'case-specific approach' for interpreting statutory provisions, and notes that one of the victims is identified as 'Jane'. The document cites several legal precedents, including United States v. Sampson, Weingarten v. United States, United States v. Maxwell, and Taylor v. United States.
DOJ-OGR-00015254.tif
This document is a partial curriculum vitae or list of professional engagements spanning from 2004 to 2007, detailing various lectures, conferences, and addresses given at universities and organizations across the US, Europe, and Mexico. It includes specific dates for events, participating organizations, and locations, highlighting a professional's involvement in psychological and legal fields.
DOJ-OGR-00023321.tif
This document is a conclusion from an OPR report detailing the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case by federal prosecutors. It outlines the Miami Herald's 2018 report, the subsequent OPR investigation into the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) involving R. Alexander Acosta, and the findings regarding victim rights violations. The report identifies five former USAO attorneys, including Acosta, as subjects of the investigation concerning their involvement in the NPA and victim notification.
DOJ-OGR-00023230.tif
This document outlines victim's rights under the CVRA and VRRA, including amendments made in 2015. It details the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) 2005 informal guidance on the definition of a 'crime victim' in the context of the Epstein investigation, stating that victim status commences with a complaint and ends if no indictment or prosecution occurs. The guidance was summarized in a 2010 Memorandum Opinion by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John E. Bies.
DOJ-OGR-00015116.jpg
This document is the second page of a letter filed on August 6, 2025, by a victim in the Epstein/Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The author expresses deep frustration with the DOJ and FBI regarding the lack of transparency, the sealing of documents, and the transfer of Ghislaine Maxwell to a minimum-security prison. The victim demands access to evidence seized from Epstein's properties, supports Senator Wyden's financial investigation, and questions the official narrative of Epstein's suicide.
DOJ-OGR-00014866.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the 2003 PROTECT Act's amendment to § 3283 should be applied retroactively. The document asserts that Congress's intent was to eliminate the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, even for conduct that occurred before the law was enacted, and therefore it applies to the conduct of an individual named Maxwell as charged in an indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00014865.jpg
This document is page 15 of a legal filing (likely a government appellate brief) concerning United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses the legal applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (statute of limitations for child abuse offenses) to the specific facts of the case, rejecting a 'categorical approach.' It specifically mentions witness 'Jane,' who testified to being sexually abused after being transported across state lines as a minor, and addresses Maxwell's argument that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations.
DOJ-OGR-00014864.jpg
This legal document is a court opinion addressing an appeal by Maxwell, who argues that Counts Three and Four of her indictment are untimely. She contends the offenses do not fall under the extended statute of limitations provided by § 3283 and that a 2003 amendment to the statute cannot be retroactively applied. The court disagrees on both points, affirming the District Court's decision to deny her motion to dismiss and citing precedent from 'Weingarten v. United States'.
DOJ-OGR-00014788.jpg
This document is page 41 of a court transcript from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 22, 2022. The judge is ruling on sentencing guideline objections, specifically rejecting the defendant's argument against an enhancement for sexual abuse of minors and moving to discuss an enhancement for her 'leadership role' in the criminal activity. The text references Congressional intent regarding the sentencing of sex offenders and the requirements for proving a defendant was an organizer or leader.
DOJ-OGR-00014787.jpg
This document is a page from a legal transcript or ruling, filed on August 22, 2022. A judge is overruling an objection from the defense concerning a sentencing enhancement for a defendant convicted of a sex crime. The judge asserts that the clear text of the Sentencing Guidelines is unambiguous and binding, and cannot be overridden by background commentary from the Sentencing Commission or scattered legislative history, which the judge deems unreliable.
DOJ-OGR-00014782.jpg
This document is a transcript from a court proceeding on August 22, 2022, in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An attorney, Mr. Everdell, argues that the commentary on a sentencing guideline for 'dangerous sex offenders' is authoritative guidance from the Sentencing Commission and should be considered by the court. The opposing counsel, Ms. Moe, declines to offer a verbal rebuttal, choosing to rest on her previously filed written arguments.
DOJ-OGR-00008639.jpg
This document is page 101 of the jury instructions filed on December 18, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text, labeled Instruction No. 12, defines the legal distinction between 'Conspiracy Counts' (agreement to commit a crime) and 'Substantive Counts' (actual commission of a crime), instructing the jury that these are separate offenses and outlining the order in which specific counts (One through Six) will be addressed.
DOJ-OGR-00008475.jpg
This legal document, filed on December 17, 2021, is Instruction No. 12 to a jury in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The instruction explains the legal difference between a 'conspiracy count,' which involves an agreement to commit a crime, and a 'substantive count,' which involves the actual commission of a crime. It clarifies that conspiracy is a separate, punishable offense even if the underlying crime is not completed, and outlines the order in which the jury will be instructed on the various counts in the indictment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity