The New Neo

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.