The Epstein brouhaha
The Epstein conspiracy theories are tenacious, and most people who hold to them will never give them up. They take three forms, not mutually exclusive. The first is that Epstein was running a ring in which he supplied underage girls to the rich and famous for sex. The second is that there is a list he kept of such compromised clients. And the third is that he was murdered and did not kill himself.
I think all of those ideas are likely to be false – even the first one. Of course, that’s not the same thing as saying I believe there’s no way on earth any of them could be true. It’s possible, but I nevertheless think all three are unlikely. In that, I probably disagree with the majority of people in the blogosphere, especially those on the right. But I’ve done a lot of research into the case and I’ve written many posts about it, and that’s my conclusion.
If you’re interested in some of my reasoning, please see the following previous posts of mine: this, this, this, and this.
The present Epstein-related flap, however, seems to be between Dan Bongino and Pam Bondi, and is about these issues, over which Bongino is said to be contemplating handing in his resignation. For example:
The infighting over the case came to a head during a Wednesday meeting, which included Bongino, Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, the sources said. Bongino and Patel were confronted about whether they were behind a story that said the FBI wanted more information released but was ultimately stymied by the Department of Justice, they said.
Bongino denied leaking that notion to NewsNation, which published the story, a source familiar with the matter told CNN, though he did not sign on to a statement defending the review included in that article.
The following tweet is typical of the sort of reactions I’ve seen among many on the right; the ire seems to focus on Bondi’s unfulfilled promises regarding the Epstein “client list”:
Pam Bondi said the Epstein client list was on her desk to review for release to the public just a few months ago. Now the DOJ she leads claims that there’s no Epstein client list.
Sorry but this is unacceptable.
Was she lying then or is she lying now?
We deserve answers. pic.twitter.com/VcBSLsCLtl
— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) July 7, 2025
What did Bondi actually say about this, back in the early days of the administration? Did she specifically say she had the client list of guilty parties? I think people often tend to hear what they want to hear, and they wanted to hear that. Granted, she was not especially clear in her statements; see this. But at no point did I get any sense that she was saying she had the smoking gun list of guilty parties, although I can understand why other people might think she was saying exactly that.
The thing is, Epstein had plenty of clients and contacts and names and addresses. But he did not have – nor would he even be expected to have had – a list that went something like “here are the people whom I supplied with underage girls for sex.” Why would anyone keep such a list, even if he was engaging in that activity? It makes no sense to me and never made sense to me. And a list of mere clients and contacts drags innocent people through the mud, without proving anything whatsoever about whether they engaged in criminal contact in concert with Epstein.
This is about Bondi’s February 21 Fox interview, the one that I believe has been so misinterpreted and/or misunderstood:
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday she is reviewing a list of clients of Jeffrey Epstein, the financier who was charged with sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.
“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review,” Bondi said during an interview with Fox News anchors John Roberts and Sandra Smith. “That’s been a directive by President Trump.”
Roberts then asked the attorney general whether she’s seen anything that’s led her to say ‘oh my gosh,’ to which Bondi responded, “not yet.”
“It’s sitting on my desk to review” means the in-depth review hasn’t happened yet. And she’s specifically saying that, so far, there are no smoking guns. That’s what the administration ended up saying, too, which many people take as a coverup.
People don’t like that idea. It doesn’t fit with their preconceived notions or their expectations or their assumptions. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But no, not always.
I discover that I seem to be in basic agreement with this guy.
Also, on February 27, 2025, I wrote this post back when the Epstein files were supposedly released. So now I’m just going to repeat the content of that older post, because I think it contains a lot of relevant information – and so everything from here on is the content of my February 27 post.
I’ve long been curious about the so-called Epstein files. Most people seem to think that the list of names will be a list of perpetrators in the sexual abuse of minors. But I’ve never understood why they believe that, although it’s certainly true that some of those names may be of guilty people. But in terms of criminal evidence, what would the list mean? I’ve never seen a definitive description, perhaps because most people don’t know and are merely imagining.
Epstein was, among other things, a man who liked to sexually abuse underage girls in their teens, as far as I can tell. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that. But did he procure such women for others? And if so, who were those others who were also guilty of the sexual abuse of minors? Epstein also was a very rich man who was a major Democratic donor and had an enormous number of contacts and acquaintances. Those people almost undoubtedly would make up the bulk of those on his contacts list, I’ve always assumed.
Now the list – or some portion of the list – has dropped:
A source who has reviewed the files said the release spans more than 100 pages, including a list of contacts without further context.
The person said the unveiling was likely to be a “disappointment” to sleuths eager for bombshell new evidence about the billionaire pedophile’s connection to prominent political and business leaders.
It’s called “Phase 1.” Will there be a Phase 2? And what will that reveal? More names without context?
Reactions:
The limited scope of the release drew criticism from transparency advocates including Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.), who leads a House GOP task force on government transparency. …
“THIS IS NOT WHAT WE OR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ASKED FOR and a complete disappointment. GET US THE INFORMATION WE ASKED FOR!”
Just what is that information? A list of guilty parties? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the government doesn’t have such a list, there’s only a list of contacts and flight logs and that sort of thing. Guilt by association, which isn’t guilt enough – although the public will infer guilt.
If the authorities do have better evidence than that, the proper way to deal with it is to prosecute.
You might believe that is naive of me and that obviously tons of smoking-gun evidence is being covered up. But I just don’t think so. Of course, I could be wrong. But until I see something that changes my mind, my best guess is that such a list says nothing about guilt and that the government lacks good enough evidence to prosecute. You might ask, what of the videos? As far as I can tell, Epstein made videos of himself having sex with minors. But I”ve never read anything about videos of others having sex with minors, other than speculation that such videos exist.
NOTE: Bondi seems to think the FBI is covering something up. But I think that perhaps Bondi just doesn’t want to look like Geraldo Rivera opening Al Capone’s vaults.
ADDENDUM: In response to some comments in this thread –
I thought I made my point of view quite clear. But perhaps not clear enough. So I’ll try a clarification.
Epstein was a sexual abuser of many underage women. I am not disputing that at all. And I am also NOT saying there couldn’t once have existed evidence that implicated others in some sort of sex ring run by Epstein, one that exploited underage women, with the evidence having been destroyed at some point. In fact, if there was such evidence and especially if it implicated powerful people, it probably would have been destroyed.
However, I think it’s wrong to assume either that there were such other people for whom Epstein was procuring underage women, and/or that strong evidence of their guilt existed, and in particular that anyone on an Epstein contact list was guilty simply by virtue of being on that list.
Regarding Epstein and whether there were other men involved – I understand that many human beings are guilty of very dark doings. I don’t think I’m the least bit naive about that. But I also believe that many such people are quite secretive about their crimes and do not necessarily like to spread the word around, and I think Epstein may have been of the latter variety. There are plenty of other reasons all those people might have associated with him short of engaging in sex with underage girls. He may also have been a voyeur who liked to spy on people with hidden cameras when they were his guests. But again, that doesn’t mean he procured underage girls for them. Just that he himself was guilty of sex crimes.
The evidence that Epstein procured girls for other powerful men rests solely – so far at least, as far as I can tell – on the testimony of a couple of the women years later as part of civil lawsuits they filed for money. I am not a proponent of the idea that women don’t ever lie about such things, especially where there’s notoriety and money involved.
It gets rather complicated, but one of the main people on whom this perception of Epstein shopping young women around for other rich and/or famous men rests is a woman named Virginia Giuffre. You can read about her here and in particular about her accusations against Alan Dershowitz here. Read about her here also. Note that in the latter article she says, “When you are abused, you know your abuser. I might not have my dates right, I might not have my times right… but I know their faces and I know what they’ve done to me.” And yet later, regarding her allegations that she had sex with Dershowitz six times, she said maybe her accusations against him were a case of mistaken identity. Oopsies!
I have come to my own conclusions about her veracity, and you can come to yours.
If I were to make a list of the 100 things I want the Trump DoJ to focus on this Epstein crap would come in at about #623 and the fact that these people are feuding about it and apparently threatening to quit over it reflects very, very poorly on them. This stuff has zero effect on people’s lives.
And I would add that any ‘influencer’ or podcaster or whatever that obsesses about this like so many seem to be doing is someone I automatically take less seriously on other issues.
Griffin:
Agreed.
I agree; people need to get over this. There is no magic list that’s going mean the jailing half the Democrat (or Republican) party. And even if there were it wouldn’t be the half of the party that most of us dislike.
https://x.com/Kash_Patel/status/1944101148903760317
Patel: “The conspiracy theories just aren’t true, never have been. It’s an honor to serve the President of the United States @realDonaldTrump — and I’ll continue to do so for as long as he calls on me.”
Yeah, it was poorly handled, I don’t think bongino would resign over this, but there should have been more than a perfunctory anonymous memo,
yes the late miss roberts, who made amends with Prince Andrew, before her passing didn’t help things along,
of course the conspiracy doesn’t make sense in at least one point, why did they allow him to get arrested in the first place true he hired every attorney of note including ken starr, to spring him,
someone who apparently died a natural death, ‘free as a bird, guilty as sin’ was Mark Rich whose firm glencore resurfaces everyonce in a a while, in the Clinton foundation associATES, why did
he get top shelf legal talent, including a future White House deputy chief of staff, Lewis Libby, apparently because his intelligence connections,
but it all ends up in that same farrago as the jfk
assasination records the latest the matter of mr joannides, who was an observer in new orleans in 1963
There’s a lot in the Epstein narrative that’s plausible and not inconsistent with known information, but just because something could have happened doesn’t mean that it actually did.
I think if he really were pimping the girls to others, and if those were somehow known to be very important people, then the government would take care to not ask the kinds of questions that would lead to inconvenient answers. Only 4 victims testified against Maxwell, I believe, and none of them mentioned any other abusers besides Epstein and Maxwell. If we believe that highly placed and powerful perverts are protecting themselves, then it’s not safe for government employees to have any evidence of it, and they can easily be directed to take their questions only so far and no farther.
Incidentally flight logs and the “little black book” are already online if you choose to look for them. Donald Trump and Bill Clinton flew with Epstein, lots of people did, but not to his island. Claudia Schiffer did fly to his island, and David Copperfield proposed to her there, but I’ve never heard her presented as a plausible abuser of teenage girls.
Some people who have wealth or power like to use it so they can have things regular people can’t have–see Henry Hill’s lament at the end of Goodfellas. Some go in for things like Faberge eggs. In more than one sordid story it’s underage girls–for example Charles Manson’s pimping of underage girls is a big part of the Manson Family story.
Epstein being a pimp could explain a lot, but no matter how convenient it would be for it to be true, you’d still need to have better evidence than there currently is, and there’s good reason to think that even if true it would be very difficult to collect, just from the other things that would need to be true as well.
I would like to know more about what Acosta said about Epstein and intelligence, and on what that was based. I don’t trust third-hand accounts on this any more, and I’ve seen plenty of “facts” hallucinated in this story and in many others. That to me is the biggest sign that there may be something more: if he really said that and he really had reason to think that. But someone with subpoena powers would have to be willing to try to dig up more.
this came from vicky ward, who covered up much of his story from vanity fair I think, then she wrote a book not about Epstein, but about the Kushners, full of the same sudsy gossip, the DA in Palm Beach, Aronowitz I think is just the low down slithy tove they seem to aggregate, he was part fo the whole brouhaha around another trump aid, that forced the resignation and the introduction of Manafort, who conveniently served as a catspaw for the Russian maskirovna, that Brennan and co, constructed,in the subsequent years, curiously the dirt seemed to stick to certain people, the likes of weber and podesta who were actually lobbying never seem to be affected, same with greg craig, the sleazy Kennedy minion,
was guiffre the source of the accuasations around bill richardson and george mitchell I don’t remember,
why did well connected persons like William Burns and Bill Gates visit him after the plea,
Barak did so before if memory serves,
of course the setting of the subjects passing readily lends itself to conspiracy, this is the kind of security that the lead prison on the East Coast offersn
I agree that the likelihood of finding a book of specific clients for a sex procurement operation was very small. I haven’t followed the Sean “Diddy” Combs affair closely at all. I gather the prosecution failed to prove the RICO charges but convicted him on some lesser charges. This may be similar to Epstein. An entirely repellent individual with connections to well-known people, but no charges of organized “pimping” could be proved.
A few thoughts of my own on this matter:
I do think Epstein killed himself. If he’d ever made it into the general population of a prison he’d have been passed around like a joint at a Phish concert and he knew it. The conspiracy was to allow him time and opportunity to do the job, even though he was supposedly on a suicide watch.
Mere appearance once on the flight logs would mean nothing to me. I think his MO was to take somebody he wanted power/influence over to the island. Parade a topless teen around them, or tell a vulgar joke, and gauge their reaction. If disgusted or uneasy, they’re never coming back. If pleased, they get a return visit where they are catered to in the way many of us suspect.
In the old days, when brothel madames kept the proverbial “little black book”, they would always include the most powerful people whose contacts they could find whether they were clients or not. A prosecutor seeing the name of the Mayor or a couple of senators would be less likely to push the matter. So I’d be doubtful of any lists found.
Hard evidence is another matter. There are reports of videos of adults having sex with minors. Name the adults in those videos. That would satisfy most of the complaints about how this whole thing has been handled.
OK, but it would help to go back to the original source. Here is the interview:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bondi-says-epstein-client-list-sitting-my-desk-right-now-reviewing-jfk-mlk-files
You have to fiddle with the first video at the top to get it to play. But it is consistent with the CNN story on the interview linked in Neo’s post.
So, strictly speaking, the question is: What does “It” refer to in Bondi’s response? (“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review.”) It sounds like it refers to “client list” in the interviewer’s question. I guess it could also mean “the matter” or “the issue” or “the file” or some other abstract thing. Perhaps the interviewer should have followed up with, “You mean you have the actual list on your desk?” But because it sounded like she meant the list when she said, “It…”, the interviewer probably wasn’t prompted to follow up and belabor what sounded obvious already.
This raises the question: Why hasn’t Bondi gone on record to harmonize her Feb 21 and her more recent statements? (If she has, I’m not aware of it.) Would it be that difficult to explain what she meant on Feb 21 (which would necessarily have to include what she meant by “It”)? People may believe her or not. But her silence doesn’t help.
There is no fun, no entertainment to be had with Neo’s likely correct assessment. Personally, I like the plot twist that now that Trump has the list he can use it against people. Much better second season twist.
I have zero interest in the Epstein thing at this point. I agree with Griffin–Trump has way too many more important things on his plate for us, and the crybabies need to grow up and stay on board the MAGA train. Its saving our country.
And if there was any type of list, the records were stashed away in NY. The FBI had to transport them in a truck to DC. During that time from the trial to the DC delivery, the papers could have been cleaned up to prevent any type of trial.
Remember, if Trump had been doing anything nasty, that would have been leaked. But, if one person’s name was leaked, then there would have been a demand for everything to be disclosed.
I think there are more pressing things to be worked on, including getting rid of all the bad actors in the DOJ, FBI and so on. Get the budgets done, the government reorganized, and the debt paid off.
If Powell would reduce the interest rates, the interest we pay on the debt would be greatly reduced.
The list is of great interest to journalists/talk show hosts/podcast influencers/etc. Why? Because it guarantees many eyeballs and clicks. It’s basically touted as something that will embarrass many top people. And that’s just too juicy to pass up for those who need that sort of material to draw in viewers/readers.
I agree with Neo and others here. Epstein was a depraved man, who was mysterious in many ways. Bu this list of clients, if one exists, is not a big deal now.
Of more interest to me is how a tax consultant (his alleged occupation) became so wealthy. He was either exceptionally good at giving tax advice, or investing, or something. Maybe someone should try to decipher that issue.
I don’t give a hoot about Epstein, his acts, his travails. But the titillated many among us do, this distraction for more substantive matters of real national importance.
But what do make of that rather curious portrait of Bill Clinton in the Blue Dress (Mitch Ryder!) hanging in Epstein’s apartment.
Agree with you Neo and also Liz (above) there are more pressing issues. Let the dwell on ‘Seth Rich’ for instance.
@James Hughes:what do make of that rather curious portrait of Bill Clinton in the Blue Dress
He liked to prod people to praise art that was either fake or bad. I think he enjoyed seeing people with accomplishments suck up to him because he had money. I think that was a huge factor in his little gatherings for famous scientists: he would ask them a few scientific questions as thought genuinely curious, let them go on a bit, and then humiliate them with a vulgar exclamation. He knew they were there hoping he’d fund something and he rarely or never did.
He used Ghislane Maxwell to climb higher in society and then would humiliate her in front of other people. One longtime friend of Epstein’s said she though she disliked Maxwell, she still hated to see Epstein humiliate her.
Bondi is reportedly building criminal cases against Comey, Brennan, etc. This uproar may be an effort to derail that. Don’t play along. If there had been a list which survived being found in New York, we’d have heard about it by now.
The latest version of the saga, that there was no blackmail operation and the only evidence of sexual misdeeds with underage girls is downloaded porn on Epstein’s computer may be true or it may be false. If true, many questions still need to be answered:
1. Why is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, why was she even prosecuted? For sex trafficking to nobody, for sex crimes of which there is no evidence?
2. Why was Epstein himself arrested, imprisoned, and killed (whether by his own hand or otherwise)?
3. If there was no blackmail, no actual evidence of sex crimes, why would Epstein kill himself?
4. What is the source of Epstein’s money?
For years now we have been told that there was sex trafficking of minors, there were vast amounts of evidence including pics and video, but now we are told that that’s not the case. Along the way there was the now seemingly baseless arrest and death of Epstein and prosecution and imprisonment of Maxwell. Why?
If no answers to these questions are forthcoming we are entitled to believe that federal authorities (DOJ, FBI, CIA, whoever) are still covering up something important, even if we have no idea of what it is.
@matthew69:
Why is Ghislaine Maxwell in prison, why was she even prosecuted For sex trafficking to nobody, for sex crimes of which there is no evidence
In Maxwell’s trial four women testified that he did commit sex crimes and that so did Maxwell.
“Trafficking” does not mean what people think it means. If you read the statute, it need not involve a “customer” or money changing hands. Short version is Epstein and Maxwell offered underage girls some benefit to get them to travel for sex–and the only ones named are Epstein and Maxwell.
Why was Epstein himself arrested, imprisoned
For sex trafficking and sex with minors.
If there was no blackmail, no actual evidence of sex crimes, why would Epstein kill himself?
There was evidence of sex crimes, and possibly because the life he’d built for himself was going to be permanently over.
What is the source of Epstein’s money?
Who the hell knows?
For years now we have been told that there was sex trafficking of minors, there were vast amounts of evidence including pics and video, but now we are told that that’s not the case.
You’re mixing up a bunch of things different people have said at different times, some speaking from hard evidence and some just spreading rumors. There’s not one unified group telling you one unified story, to be sure.
“If there was no blackmail, no actual evidence of sex crimes, why would Epstein kill himself?” matthew49
Indeed. Blackmail requires evidence of grave criminality. If in fact Epstein was blackmailing those he’d ensnared, a list and/or a trove of material evidence must have existed.
This simply doesn’t pass the ‘smell test’ and we don’t have to see the manure to know its there.
Incidentally, in this very thread, in real time, you can see what I was talking about yesterday:
Not at all surprising that the Democrats and their accomplices are beating the drums at a fever pitch to try to drum up dirt, disarray and division.
A little surprising, but probably should not be, that any Trump supporters, aka MAGA, would fall for it.
As for Bondi vs Bongino, it remains to be seen if this is serious; although if not I would expect him to have clarified by now. If he has stated that it is he or Bondi as claimed, then he he will have to go. It is a shame because indication were that he fit well with Patel. (But, who knows?) On the other hand, this smacks of rather juvenile like behavior; ‘You didn’t do what I want, so I will go home’.
Ok Danny, nice knowing you. Bondi has a respected track record, while you were a TV personality with some fairly modest law enforcement experience back in the day. Who is expendable?
Can Trump let other key cabinet members see that they can be undercut by underlings over a single disagreement? A tangential one at that. Trump has made his feelings known on the importance of the Epstein conspiracies.
It is important to keep in mind that a large number of those who voted to put Trump in office did so because they trusted that he would do specific right things, because he is a political outsider. They did not become conservative or Republicans, they specifically trust Trump.
I might not care about Epstein, you might not care about Epstein, he might not care about Epstein, but Trump’s apparent willingness to expose what was hidden about Epstein is part of why a lot of people put their trust in him. It wouldn’t take too many other examples for him to lose that trust that he’s not like the others in Washington DC.
I don’t have any reliable sense of how many people pinned their trust in Trump to transparency on Epstein. There’s a lot of issues in politics I am passionate about that a lot of people think is dumb and who could possibly care about that; that Epstein doesn’t loom large for me doesn’t mean there’s a lot of people for whom it doesn’t.
If I had to bet on how this turns out, I would bet that no one will remember anything that happened more than six months ago, which is the trend I’ve been seeing for the last few years.
Nikitas Choniates,
Yes many of these same very online people spouting off now were going on about Trump starting WWIII a couple of weeks ago and how they didn’t vote for more forever wars and blah blah blah but now it’s like that never happened.
The speed at which these things blow up and then disappear is really something else.
Like several others here I am not focused or concerned about the Epstein matter. Transparency is the quickest and easiest way to put this behind us. Withholding snippets of video and rumored documents provides leverage to President Trump and his administration. The folks that are upset by the limited release of information believe there is a smoking gun that can be exploited to undermine and eliminate their political enemies. That Trump hasn’t done so says to me it does not exist.
@ steve > “The folks that are upset by the limited release of information believe there is a smoking gun that can be exploited to undermine and eliminate their political enemies. That Trump hasn’t done so says to me it does not exist.”
That Trump hasn’t released the information may mean it doesn’t exist (I’m leaning to Neo’s view that it doesn’t), or that the names WITH evidence of crimes implicate GOP honchoes that he needs to keep in place.
Along with some others here, and Cynical Publius in Neo’s links, I don’t want this relatively minor fracas to derail the MAGA train.
CP: “Finally, please consider further that the REAL conspiracy is to destroy such success by making MAGAs rabid over Epstein evidence that may or may not exist, thereby wrecking DOJ leadership in the same manner as when Jeff Sessions was sabotaged.
I’m pretty good at spotting actual conspiracies to undermine our success, so please consider all I have to say.”
However (there is always a however), that the people in the administration are putting out conflicting information and signals IS something that has to be addressed and squashed.
Agree that there are at this stage far more important things to take care of.
But also agree with the view that Trump ran on a platform of getting to the bottom of sleazy, shady dealings and that a coverup may likely have serious repercussions (though noting that if this is in fact a coverup it did NOT originate with the less-than-seven-month-old Trump administration).
Would also like to take into consideration that there’s been an awful lot of…let’s call it “strategic misdirection” going around.
Finally, did someone mention Dershowitz?
“Dershowitz says he knows Epstein client list names: ‘But I’m bound by confidentiality’”—
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5395597-dershowitz-says-he-knows-epstein-client-list-names-but-im-bound-by-confidentiality/amp/
…though why he believes it necessary to open up this king-size can of worms, only he knows….
The Hill article does not quote Dershowitz saying what the Hill headline describes him as saying.
I don’t have a transcript from the original source to see if Dershowitz said anything like that, because it is a podcast. God I hate podcasts and the general reversion from literacy.
https://x.com/seanspicer/status/1943322536189509719
Yep, a freakin’ toxic can of worms….
+ Bonus:
Appears that Tucker Carlson doesn’t believe he has to ask questions anymore…
“Tucker Carlson Reveals Who He Thinks Funded Jeffrey Epstein’s Crimes”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/tucker-carlson-reveals-who-he-thinks-funded-jeffrey-epsteins-crimes
File under: “Hey, I’m only throwing out possibilities…”
Speaking of coverup…another huge mess…(UNLESS, of course, it turns out to be just another conspiracy theory thst turns out to have legs…).
“One Year after Butler, Secret Service, FBI Face New Questions”—
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/07/12/one_year_after_butler_secret_service_fbi_face_new_questions_153040.html
H/T Powerline blog.
(Apologies if this has been already linked to…)
Niketas linked this post a few days ago. It was quite interesting, and while it doesn’t solve any of the problems about whether or not Bondi is hiding Epstein’s list of perverts or not, it puts “faces” on some of the people in his circle that haven’t gotten a lot of attention.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/10/i-called-everyone-in-jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book/
Trump makes a good point here, but that doesn’t solve all the problems pointed out by those dissatisfied with the report from Bondi and Patel. I agree that there is no list per se setting out who was being supplied with underage sex partners (as someone I don’t remember remarked: Epstein would know who those were, and didn’t need little red check marks on his contacts list), but there are other considerations such that the whole thing shouldn’t be dropped.
Just not obsessed over.
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2025/07/12/trump-jumps-to-defense-of-embattled-attorney-general-pam-bondiwere-on-one-team-maga-n2191574
IF there is indeed information that is not being disclosed, that may be because the damage to Democrats and RINOs would be outweighed by potential damage to Republicans that Trump needs to keep in position because they are supporting MAGA priorities. As unlikely as that might sound, sexual perversions can be indulged in by people of all political ideologies.
Another summary of the Epstein controversy, with numerous citations of other commenters’ views. Clarice Feldman is with Neo on this, in general.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/07/beware_engagement_ragebait_engagement_farming.html
I’m not sure what to make of all this. I’ve read both Neo’s and Feldman’s thoughts, and frankly don’t find them convincing as it seems to me both trying very hard to bend a pretzel of logic. I know…that’s not a good counter argument so don’t attack me on it…it’s just a nagging thought.
What I do know is that this has the extreme potential to blow up the whole Trump administration before it’s even a year in. And the GOP/right better think hard about this. Trump’s long message this morning reads as too defensive and not the right way to approach the problem. I’ve seen this morning from the leftys that they certainly smell blood in the water and are on the attack hoping for the whole thing to bring down Trump.
@physicsguy:. I’ve seen this morning from the leftys that they certainly smell blood in the water and are on the attack hoping for the whole thing to bring down Trump.
I suppose there’s two things which could lighten your gloom:
1) “Smelling blood in the water”, “hoping… to bring down Trump” has been a fortnightly occurrence since about 2016. Maybe they’ll try to impeach him a third time? Maybe they’ll try to convict him of another felony?
2) The Left cannot themselves make anything of this issue. Whatever they had on Epstein they too kept it buried, and will in the future–if there’s anything. If there’s nothing, and it’s really such a huge issue as to bring down anyone who doesn’t deliver on it, they too won’t be able to deliver on anything.
Well, a ‘list’ in ‘little black book’ form is available at CFP. Doesn’t appear to be anything all that ‘new’. Me thinks the demonrats are responsible for most of the mud in the water… beware!
I don’t think this is going away. It might be replaced in the headlines by other events, but it will remain an undercurrent.
This has a very Watergate vibe. The left smells blood and an opening to split the MAGA movement. The right is disappointed because it has a whiff of insiders protecting their own and that is one of the reasons President Trump was elected– to dismantle this insider club.
It’s always the coverup that does the damage.
Pam Bondi’s response to the question on the Fox interview was extremely sloppy, and surprising for a lawyer, especially America’s top lawyer. But even if she had handled the question with the nuance it deserved (separating any talk of a list from the files themselves), the question of a list remains and has been raised by others.
The fact she implied she had “the list” on her desk just makes what’s happening now more suspicious.
Here’s an interview by Sean Spicer on March 20 where Alan Dershowitz talks about the documents where people that had associations with Epstein are revealed. Dershowitz doesn’t refer to it as “a list” and it may devolve into a Clintonesque definition of what the word list is.
There may be a list. There may be no list, but there are documents where people are named. And as Dershowitz states, some of the perpetrators are claiming to be victims.
President Trump has alluded to the fact merely releasing the documents could harm innocent people and the second video I’ve linked to includes a discussion of the fallout of both that harm that would probably come to some innocent people– and the potential harm to the country that might come from finding out very powerful people
Fast forward to minute 9:50 where the discussion about The List.
Here is a portion of the transcript. (I’ve added punctuation to this portion of the transcript to make it readable.)
“I’ve Seen ALL the EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS” | Alan Dershowitz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Esfvoxrm9g
Now I’m seeing people claiming that Epstein was a Mossad agent, and his death typical, they say, of a Mossad hit. Seriously? Tell me why Mossad would need an American who liked criminal relations with young teenaged girls. and what Epstein would allegedly have uncovered for them.
I’m out. He was a sleazy character, no doubt. I need evidence before believing wild theories.
Kate,
And by you being skeptical that he was a Mossad agent is proof that YOU are also a Mossad agent. It’s so ridiculous.
Just about everybody that was trying to be a little reasonable on X last night was being accused of this. Clay Travis, a non Jew from Tennessee, was getting all kinds of ‘the Jews got to you’ or ‘Bibi bribed you’ stuff last night.
One upside to things like this is identifies the nutjobs that I can ignore.
as I understand it, most of these files, would have been sealed after the 2022 settlement that the Justice Department made with many parties mostly in the Virgin Islands, was much of the evidence destroyed after that interval, probably,
i
t was incumbent on Bondi to task someone to follow this up, mostly a self inflicted wound, an unsigned memo doesn’t really do it justice,
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/07/beware_engagement_ragebait_engagement_farming.
the other side of the coin, it seems long ago files of a historical nature like the jfk and rfk assasination are easier to release,
yes my paisan robby starbuck does not look good in this matter, basically flushing much of the credibility, in the anti dei wars, but no one really looks well,
Kate wrote “Tell me why Mossad would need an American who liked criminal relations with young teenaged girls. and what Epstein would allegedly have uncovered for them.”
I’m surprised that you are surprised by this allegation. One theory is that Epstein recorded video of his guests’ activities, for blackmail material, which would be valuable to many organizations, including Mossad.
There is also the story that the prosecutor in Epstein’s original case gave him an extremely light sentence, because he was told by the CIA that Epstein was “one of theirs.”
Charlie Kirk made a big deal about the Epstein issue last week. He said Trump couldn’t be compromised, because if he was, the Democrats would have already exposed him. However, there could be a form of Mutually Assured Destruction, if Democrats are also compromised.
I have no knowledge of who (if anyone) is compromised, but I wouldn’t be surprised if powerful people are, given the history of sexual misbehavior in DC and beyond.
Finally, let the chips fall where they may, but the MAGA train must roll on!
Good question, boss: “Why didn’t these Radical Left Lunatics release the Epstein Files? If there was ANYTHING in there that could have hurt the MAGA Movement, why didn’t they use it? They haven’t even given up on the John F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr. Files,” Trump said on Saturday.
Epstein and his playboy island complete with underage masseuses will fade away into infamy if there are in fact no more prosecutable offenders. Intelligence services no doubt gathered intel about Epstein and his associates that may or may not be sitting in files they’re reluctant to release in fear of the proverbial loss of sources and methods or damage to international relations.
DOJ should speak through indictments not cable TV hits. FBI should speak through arrests. The only way to correct the corrupt actions of the last administration is to return to lawful behavior not by continuing to leak and smear as others have done.
As far as I know: the DOJ investigation of Jeffery Epstein’s + his friends’:
suspected crimes, + suspected sex crimes, is still ongoing.
I ask, please, that all American people wait, patiently, for the results of the DOJ’s investigation before thinking that- the Government, and/or President Trump, is blocking this investigation.
[Also- from what news articles I’ve read: there are many criminal mob groups, in the USA.
These mob people have never kept a list like- [I’ll keep a list of all of my horrible crimes, + all my partners in these horrible crimes, for my own fun.
I’ll make that type of a list.
Nooo- THAT could never come back and bite me on the “ankle”, if my house is ever raided by the police].
What mobster or other criminal, [who is completely dumb or not], would ever be dumb enough to keep a list, that could get them millions of years in jail, if this list was ever found by police?
There is a difference between being- a [suspected], morally-bad criminal, and being completely dumb.
This “list” idea is just absurd.]
we don’t rightly know any such thing, but the failure to establish a chain of custody with the evidence, makes it dubious they would really proceed,
TR
FWIW, the controversy appears to have surfaced because the AG has determined DOJ is done. If the investigation were ongoing it’s unclear why the AG wouldn’t say so.
Hi crasey,
I really hope that this is the case.
Cheers.
Liz Wheeler, citizen journalist, on Megan Kelly explaining some of the background to the inflated expectations surrounding the Epstein files that were supposedly going to be released by Bondi’s DOJ.
Wheeler has a podcast “The Liz Wheeler Show” and was one of many influencers/citizen journalists/commentators invited to the White House where the White Binder, Epstein Files Phase 1 was released.
According to Wheeler, after showing the Binders, which had no new information, Bondi said a whistleblower had revealed the Southern District of New York had thousands of documents about the Epstein affair and she showed them a letter she had sent to FBI Director Kash Patel to retrieve the documents. The letter was sent to Patel on Feb. 27. Patel had only been confirmed on Feb. 20 so Bondi’s demands all the files being held by the SDNY be sent to Washington by Feb. 28, might have caused some friction between Patel and Bondi.
Given this background, it appears on the surface like Bondi handled this poorly. The SDNY worked for her. Why did she direct Patel, who had only been on the job for 1 week, to retrieve the files? Why not demand the files directly from her subordinates?
Why did she give the influencer/citizen journalists like Liz Wheeler the impression there was more evidence being suppressed by the SDNY, when she didn’t have specific knowledge about it other than a whistleblower. Did this person have ulterior motives?
Here’s part of the interview. Wheeler begins by responding to some of the people there may broad claims about what was going to follow up to the “phase 1” binder.
PS: I don’t think Wheeler is a fan of Bondi as AG. At the same time I don’t have any reason to think her account of this meeting at the White House isn’t factual.
Liz Wheeler Details What Happened Behind-the-Scenes When She Received “Epstein Files” at White House
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo_lVGxYPAM
According to Grok, when I asked it why there weren’t more prosecutions of underage sexual abuse than the single charge against Epstein and his confidant Maxwell:
“Based on web results (), X posts (), and legal analysis, the following factors explain why SDNY did not prosecute more individuals despite the evidence:2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA):Context: In 2008, Epstein secured a controversial plea deal with South Florida federal prosecutors, pleading guilty to state charges (procuring a minor for prostitution, solicitation) for an 18-month sentence and 12 months of house arrest, avoiding federal sex trafficking charges (). The NPA granted immunity to “any potential co-conspirators,” potentially shielding clients and associates (,).
Impact on SDNY: The NPA, negotiated by then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, was ruled illegal in 2019 by Judge Kenneth Marra for violating victims’ rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (). However, it created legal barriers for SDNY prosecutions in 2019, as co-conspirators (e.g., unnamed clients) were protected unless new evidence clearly established independent crimes post-2008 ().
Critical Analysis: The NPA’s broad immunity likely deterred SDNY from pursuing figures named in allegations (e.g., Dershowitz, Prince Andrew), as prosecutors needed evidence beyond the 2002–2005 scope or outside the NPA’s protection. X posts () suggest this was a systemic cover-up, but no primary evidence confirms intentional obstruction by SDNY.
Insufficient Evidence for Additional Charges:Evidentiary Challenges: While SDNY seized extensive evidence (e.g., photos, flight logs, victim testimonies), much was circumstantial or lacked corroboration for specific individuals beyond Epstein and Maxwell (). For example:Virginia Giuffre’s allegations against Dershowitz and Prince Andrew () were struck from a 2015 lawsuit by Judge Marra as irrelevant to the NPA challenge, with no ruling on their truth (). No physical evidence (e.g., videos) substantiated these claims in SDNY’s possession.
Jane Doe #3’s claims of being trafficked to Jean-Luc Brunel lacked sufficient corroboration for SDNY charges, though Brunel faced French charges before his 2022 suicide ().
Johanna Sjoberg’s testimony about Prince Andrew’s inappropriate behavior (2001) was not prosecuted, likely due to jurisdictional issues (foreign national) and lack of direct evidence of trafficking ().”
Neo, I enjoy your analysis and posts.
But I have to disagree with your conclusion that about Bondi’s answer to Fox News.
The pronoun “it’s” can only refer back to the question– the “list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients”. It was sloppy at best, and for a lawyer to do that is very misleading, probably on purpose.
My guess is she was avoiding answer the client list question– which turned out to be a horribly bad mistake.
Does it matter? If people haven’t chosen by now, it doesn’t matter?
Regarding the speculation that Epstein was a Mossad asset.
According to Grok this relates back to a comment Labor Secretary Alex Acosta made in 2019, defending the NPA he negotiated in a criminal case against Epstein.
This is more than idle speculation, and the fact there is no official confirmation doesn’t make it any more or less true, since being a spy is usually never confirmed. Remember when Scooter Libby was convicted for outing Valerie Plame as a CIA spy? (as I remember it.)
Epstein didn’t kill himself, but, I really don’t care too much about the media trying to create drama around Pam Bondi and the rest of President Trump’s law enforcement agencies.
Megan Kelley, Glen Beck and the others can take a chill pill.
And Tucker? He can just take a hike.
Has anyone seen a balance sheet or statement of income from Epstein’s business? Know of anyone who worked for him in that venue? (Household employees have been identified).
Of course criminals keep records, if they have complex, organized enterprises. Of course there are many highly organized USA and multinational crime groups operating in the USA. Of course their records would be coded so as not to be incriminating.
@Art Deco:Has anyone seen a balance sheet or statement of income from Epstein’s business?
Good luck trying to find those. He wasn’t doing any business I can think of that would have required public filings. He had to file something for taxes. He had a consulting business and a financial management business that I heard of, incorporated in the US Virgin Islands.
Here’s an article from 2002:
Acosta comment is a dead end. A “former senior White House official” told to a Daily Beast reporter in 2017 that he had heard it came up in meetings with Trump’s transition team. Garbage.
Washington Examiner story from 2019. This is quite the denial that he had said earlier that Epstein belonged to intelligence.
Regardless of whether Epstein was actually an intelligence asset, I would infer from this denial, he did make the claim at some point in the past reported by The Daily Beast and Vicky Ward. He could have just denied it.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/746404/acosta-dodges-when-asked-if-epstein-was-an-intelligence-asset/
Of all the things that concern me, Epstein having a list or not, is not on that list. I think Bondi is being carefully cautious and is also dedicated to not succumbing to political pressures to be political. Which is what I think Trump desires as well. He wants justice, but not Democrat style justice.
@Brian E:He could have just denied it.
That would mean he’s lying about being “prohibited from doing so due to Justice Department regulations”, is there a way to check?
Bondy clearly handled this poorly, and Trump doesn’t seem to understand the view much of his base has on this.
Personally it isn’t something I much care about. There are much bigger issues and I want to keep on winning.
But people have very low trust of authority at this point, and it is understandable they don’t trust the government on this.
Also, it was thought Epstein had porn tapes so he could blackmail. I’m not sure why a “list” is so important vs the tapes. But if he had clients he would have some manner of list of them.
Kate on July 13, 2025 at 3:03 pm said:
Now I’m seeing people claiming that Epstein was a Mossad agent, and his death typical, they say, of a Mossad hit. Seriously? Tell me why Mossad would need an American who liked criminal relations with young teenaged girls. and what Epstein would allegedly have uncovered for them.
The idea is that he was gaining leverage over important / powerful people by videotaping them having sex with underage girls. KGB certainly did that back in the day.
The problem is we don’t have evidence to give us a clear idea of what was up. Even if we did, many would refuse to believe it, much the way many insist 9/11 was an inside job or done by Mossad.
Niketas C., there are two levels of “proof” at work here. In my former work as a newspaper reporter, I would have to have verification before making an allegation. I could use a source like The Daily Beast and probably include potential biases, all with attribution in the story.
But just as speculation, I would apply the smell test. And in that case, Acosta’s assertion he had been told to go easy on Epstein makes perfect sense in that there is a pattern of confidential assets– whether tied to DOJ or Intelligence agencies get special treatment. The deal Acosta made with Epstein’s lawyers– Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr was unusual to say the least. House arrest and an NPA.
I know you’re not a fan of Grok, but here’s what it had to say about your question:
Here’s the specifics of the plea deal reached with Epstein, which certainly suggests he was treated with kid gloves and raising suspicion of possible ties to the Intelligence agencies. From Grok:
I have to say that loss of trust is so much that many have been pushed into conspiracy theory territory.
I was annoyed by Q (many call Qanon) because it mixed in real revelations on the Russia collusion hoax with wild salacious conspiracies. Among those who believed Q the salacious tended to become the focus. In fact my view of Q is that it was probably a distraction/info op intended to derail the right from a solid focus on something real, and make it easy to paint them as conspiracy theorists.
Why not trust SDNY?
Because they’re a rabidly liberal partisan shop.
As for relying on Grok AI…it’s shown itself just a tad too often to be Artficial Bonkers.
MAGA take note…and then…CHOOSE WELL….
Seems THIS may well be the reason why the Democrats are hell bent on derailing Trump with the Epstein issue—not to mention anything and everything else they can throw at him—at least for starters, given the vast, intricate and multi-dimensional convolutions of Democratic Party corruption):
“Trump Admin Cooking On Major Criminal Conspiracy Case Against Russiagate Plotters: Report”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-admin-cooking-major-criminal-conspiracy-case-against-russiagate-plotters-report
Yes that was a shark tank that guiliani unfortunately reared
Andrew mccarthy was part of that crew thats why hes perpetually surprised
Not any more (I certainly hope).
I think he’s terribly disappointed, and very irate…but it did take him awhile…
Barry Meislin on July 14, 2025 at 5:33 pm said:
MAGA take note…and then…CHOOSE WELL….
This is a case where Trump stepped in it, and of course his choice of AG is part of the problem (Bondi went after George Zimmerman due to political pressure). My feelings towards Bondi are mixed . . . she’s probably the best AG since at least Reagan, but she has serious flaws.
On the other hand it doesn’t make sense to damage MAGA over Epstein. I don’t think many upset over this will vote Dem but how many will sit out the midterms?
It was Bondi who made this a big deal, and now says there’s nothing there.
Which time was she lying to us? Doesn’t matter. She lied. Clearly.
We know he supplied girls to others. Like the Prince. How many more? Now it’s case closed, and we shall never know?
Had no faith in her to start. From now on the assumption is that she’s lying.
Just watched Matt Walsh’s segment from yesterday on the Epstein/Bondi fiasco. Using footage with exact words from Bondi, starting in February, all I can say is, when this kind of thing manifest from my political adversaries (ad infinitum) it spoke volumes and does so here too. What a shame.
“He wants justice, but not Democrat style justice.”
AAAND, he doesn’t want to get stuck in the Epstein muck and quicksand.
There’s too much for him to do.
He may get stuck anyway…
@Robin K Juhl:We know he supplied girls to others. Like the Prince.
How do we actually know that? We know he was accused, by someone who accused a lot of people, and retracted some accusations, and who has herself been accused of procuring girls for Epstein.
There was a plea bargain with many parties in 2002. Apart from whatever side deals prince andrew struck with other parties
Iimagine vauxhall m1-6, the piscine dgse et al made their own arrangements
“Of all the things that concern me, Epstein having a list or not, is not on that list. I think Bondi is being carefully cautious and is also dedicated to not succumbing to political pressures to be political. Which is what I think Trump desires as well. He wants justice, but not Democrat style justice.” James Sisco
No, Bondi wasn’t carefully cautious at all. What this exposes is that we must look the other way, and not hold to account those that are politically useful to us in “fill in the blank” issue. This only presents a problem if you aren’t willing to do the same thing for your political adversaries. In other words hyprocisy must carry the day. This is the rubric we’ve been living under for a long time. So justice is compromised according to the fluid intentions of those in position of power. President Trump lamenting that there are people still talking about Epstein? Some people are trying to hold our team to account for their words and actions (or inaction), because in this case, the same thing we decry among the Democrats is manifest. Because something is deemed important the thing that was made a big issue 4 months ago is abandoned–no–declared a non-issue? Nothing to see over here! Can we walk and chew gum at the same time or not?
This was handled poorly by Bondi, and a political stunt that backfired.
Based on what Dershowitz has said, the documents that names names can’t be released without court action.
Yes, the whole thing stinks. President Trump had nothing to do with the sweetheart deal Epstein got in 2008 (and maybe based on the evidence at hand, it was the best outcome possible– though why wasn’t he charged in federal court after the state plea deal).
President Trump’s DOJ was prosecuting Epstein in 2019 when he died mysteriously in jail. None of this should reflect poorly on President Trump or his administration, and yet, here we are.
I don’t blame Trump for wanting to move on. I don’t blame people that want accountability for serious crimes against young girls/women.
@Brian E:Based on what Dershowitz has said, the documents that names names can’t be released without court action.
He would know the parts that he himself negotiated, of course, and why he wanted some of those names protected.
I’ll speculate here (idly and with no evidence of course) about why Trump/Bondi may have “overpromised”:
They came in expecting to release the Epstein files. When they looked at them they realized that the previous administration may have, ahem, “scrubbed” them removing most Democrats but leaving most or all of the Republicans. Admittedly this theory requires a leap of faith that the “Biden” administration was corrupt and dishonest.
FWIW, I mostly agree with those who say the issue is overrated, and that the “files” probably do not contain much legally smoking gun evidence and would mostly supply innuendo against a number of people who may have done nothing wrong themselves. But understand the frustration of those who were expecting some more resolution of this dark matter.
Robin K Juhl:
You don’t know anything of the sort. You know that a woman who named many names who were innocent – such as Dershowitz, who successfully sued her – named Andrew, and that lawyers settled as they often do for famous people and which is no admission of guilt whatsoever. You know that Andrew did have contact with Epstein and that there was a completely ordinary photo of the accuser with Andrew, much as anyone might take a photo with any celebrity met at a gathering.
The first video begins with the 2008 sweetheart deal. Vicky Ward stands by her published report that Alex Acosta told someone on the Trump transition team and was likely in the room when Acosta said the 2008 Epstein deal wouldn’t be a problem because Epstein belong to Intelligence.
Why Jeffrey Epstein “Belonged to Intelligence” DOESN’T Mean He Was an Intel Asset, with Vicky Ward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1nySQGwh_Y
Vicky Ward talks about the 2003 time period when she was doing an article for Vanity Fair about Epstein and how Epstein made veiled threats about her children and how Epstein got portions of her story about the first accounts of underage women deleted from her story.
Why Journalist Vicky Ward Was Terrified of Jeffrey Epstein Over Threats He Made Against Her Children
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpIo7kacSac
Vicky Ward talks about issues in the 80’s when he left Bear Sterns after “taking one for the team” over insider trading, the 90’s when he began accumulating his wealth and the 2000’s and his accumulation of power.
All We Know About the Strange Story of How Jeffrey Epstein Became Rich and Powerful, with Vicky Ward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmU0ub2F93E