Which specific pages in the DOJ Epstein release mention Janet Mills and what do they contain?

1. What the available reporting actually says about Janet Mills

A Maine conservative outlet reported that an anonymous tip in the DOJ/SDNY files alleges Governor Janet Mills “has been instrumental in the crimes against my daughter and I,” and links her to claims of child-abuse cover-up and longtime allegations of cocaine use and trafficking that have circulated in Maine politics for decades; the same story cautions there are “no other documents to substantiate” those claims in the released set, according to that report ^[1]. Independent commentary and partisan posts amplified the claim online but those pieces repeat the same sourcing—a tip in the DOJ tranche—without reproducing document images or citing precise DOJ page numbers ^{[5] [1]}.

2. What the DOJ release and mainstream outlets provide instead

The Justice Department published roughly 3–3.5 million pages in its recent tranche and hosts them in an online Epstein library and related datasets; news organizations note that the released material spans multiple datasets (including Data Sets 9–12) and comes from many investigative sources, but the mainstream coverage does not list a granular index of every named individual’s page references in publicly quoted stories ^{[3] [2] [6]}. Major outlets covering the release emphasize scale, redactions, and that inclusion in the files does not equate to proven criminal conduct—context the DOJ and press have repeatedly supplied as the documents were posted ^{[2] [7] [8]}.

3. Redactions, removals and why specific page citations are often missing

Thousands of pages were withdrawn or further redacted after victims and counsel identified unredacted personal information, and the DOJ acknowledged it was removing flagged files for additional review; this remediation effort has complicated downstream reporting and made some originally posted pages unavailable while corrections proceed ^{[4] [9]}. Because of that ongoing cleanup and the enormous volume of material, many secondary reports cite names appearing in the corpus without supplying stable, direct page references—both to avoid republishing sensitive victim details and because the files can shift as the DOJ re-redacts or withdraws pages ^{[4] [9]}.

4. What the anonymous tip in the reporting contains and its evidentiary limits

The tip quoted by The Maine Wire asserts serious allegations—accusations that Janet Mills participated in protecting alleged abusers and in other crimes—and names other Maine figures; however, the reporting itself notes the claim originates from an anonymous submission to federal authorities and that the outlet found no corroborating documents in the release to substantiate the allegations beyond that tip ^[1]. That distinction matters: appearing as text in a repository is not the same as investigatory confirmation, and mainstream coverage of the DOJ dump stresses the difference between mentions and proven culpability ^{[1] [2]}.

5. How to get the definitive answer (and why it’s beyond the supplied reporting)

A definitive list of the exact DOJ page numbers that mention Janet Mills would require direct forensic searching of the DOJ Epstein library, downloading or querying the specific datasets, and noting current file identifiers—steps the public DOJ portal is designed to permit but that are not reproduced in the articles provided here ^{[10] [3]}. The supplied sources document that her name appears in the released corpus via an anonymous tip and that the repository exists and is partially redacted or in flux, but none of the supplied materials reproduce or cite the unique DOJ file IDs or page numbers needed to answer the user’s question with the precision requested ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

6. Bottom line and journalistic cautions

Based on the reporting available here, Governor Janet Mills is named in at least one released DOJ document described by local outlets as an anonymous tip alleging grave misconduct, but there is no corroboration provided in those pieces and no exact DOJ page citations available in the supplied sources; further, the Justice Department and multiple news organizations caution that appearance in the files should not be read as proof of criminality and that many documents are redacted or withdrawn for victim protection ^{[1] [2] [4]}. To move from allegation to verifiable fact requires either direct inspection of the current DOJ files (searching the Epstein library/datasets) or reporting by outlets that publish the exact file IDs or page images—neither of which is present in the sources provided for this analysis ^{[10] [3]}.