I guess when DOJ issues a statement about "untrue and sensationist claims" these claims have been investigated and found untrue - yet you keep saying they are unverified -

1. What the DOJ actually said and did

The Department of Justice posted that “some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims” about President Trump and later emphasized that a particular letter circulating on social media was confirmed by the FBI to be “fake” — language the DOJ used while continuing to release materials required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act ^{[1] [4] [5]}. The department’s public post went further, asserting that the claims were “unfounded and false” and arguing that “if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized” during the 2020 campaign, signaling the DOJ’s judgment about provenance and plausibility even as it disclosed the records ^{[4] [1]}.

2. What the released records actually are

The tranche includes a mix of internal files, emails, photographed materials and unvetted tips submitted to an FBI tip line; Reuters and other outlets report the documents contain reports of phone calls and third‑party tips that the government published without identifying callers or showing whether investigators followed up, meaning many entries are raw allegations rather than investigative conclusions ^{[2] [1]}. CNN reported the FBI concluded the specific questioned letter was fake, in part based on handwriting analysis — a discrete finding inside a much larger, messy release ^[3].

3. Why “untrue” in a DOJ statement isn’t the same as a full exoneration after investigation

A public DOJ label that material is “untrue” can reflect discrete technical findings (for example, that a document was forged), an internal assessment of credibility, or a policy decision to flag sensational items released alongside victims’ materials; it does not automatically mean every tip in the batch was subjected to and cleared by a complete criminal investigation, and reporting indicates the files include unvetted tips where follow-up is not documented ^{[3] [2]}. Multiple outlets note the department both released the records under a new law and simultaneously offered commentary — a combination that critics say risks conflating raw, unverified allegations with matters formally disproven ^{[5] [6]}.

4. The political and institutional context that matters

The DOJ’s wording — and the choice to explicitly call some claims false — entered an already politicized environment: Democrats on the House Oversight Committee accused the department of a “cover‑up,” while others praised the FBI’s determination that a specific letter was fabricated ^{[4] [3]}. Opinion pieces and coverage have questioned whether DOJ leadership is straying from a neutral role by publicly defending a sitting president while managing sensitive survivor materials, raising legitimate concerns about implicit agendas in how the department framed the release ^{[7] [6]}.

5. How to read future similar claims responsibly

Public consumers should distinguish between three categories present in the files: material that an agency has analyzed and declared forged or false (e.g., the FBI’s finding on the letter), raw tips and third‑party allegations published without documented follow‑up, and internal notes or redacted materials whose meaning can’t be judged from the page alone; the sources make clear that the DOJ flagged at least one forgery while many entries remain unverified in the released record ^{[3] [2] [1]}. Reporting does not show universal investigative debunking of every claim; where the files do not document follow‑up, assertions remain asserted, not judicially or investigatively resolved.