Why didn't they make a list up? I'm pretty sure anything they put out there, their supporters would have believed, even if they had to walk it back later.
I don't have any reason to believe that Epstein was running a honeypot, but he was probably delivering intel to the CIA. According to Evening Standard, he was bragging about it in 2003, and his first prosecutor (Acosta) said someone at the DoD reached out to him to ask Acosta to give Epstein a plea deal.
With the amount of connections he had, and the fact that his actual job with Intercontinental Assets Group was to travel all over the world and track down the assets of scores of powerful people, whose connections he had a habit of maintaining for the rest of his life.... There is no reason one can find without the benefit of hindsight why American intelligence services would refuse to accept his help, and they certainly accept help from people worse than Epstein in the course of doing their jobs.
My Trumpie buddy's take is that the Epstein blackmail files very much exist, but Trump is opting to hang on to them for his own benefit. He's so pissed that he has declared that he won't vote for Trump in 2026 unless he follows through and disbands the IRS and FBI.
So yeah, violating the Constitution and running for a third term is not disqualifying. Neither is keeping and using the supposed Epstein blackmail files. And in 2026, when Trump has failed to disband the FBI or IRS, my buddy will find a way to be okay with that, too.
Katrina left thousands of homes underwater for a month. Back then, people shelters wouldn't take dogs or cats. Government transport to shelters wouldn't take dogs or cats.
People were desperate for food and shelter, and desperate to just get out of the hot sun, but being told that they had to leave their pets behind (to die a slow horrible death).
Long story short, several dog rescue organizations, and a few celebrities, flew in and rescued thousands of dogs and cats.
Pam Bondi took in a dog named Master Tank from a rescue org when she worked in Tampa as an assistant D.A. She fostered Master Tank with the agreement that she had to give him back when/if the family emerged from the aftermath of the hurricane.
The family eventually tracked down Master Tank (it took them months) and requested the return of their dog. Pam Bondi refused, and fought them in court for 16 months, saying publicly that the dog was skinny and obviously neglected before she got him.
She defamed the family.
The family said that Master Tank had been in the middle of being treated for heartworms when Katrina hit, so of course he was skinny.
Bondi eventually "settled" with the family and returned Master Tank, saying that she was pleased with the result, because she had gained visitation rights and would visit him often.
This was her way of spinning that she knew the court would force her to abide by her original agreement. But she kept the dog for 16 months before she finally gave in. And she never visited Master Tank.
Check out Pam Bondi's wikipedia page. She has embarrassed Floridians like myself for decades.
My only point here is that Pam Bondi has proven for decades that she is not a decent or ethical person. I keep hoping that that something she does will blow up in her face, and she will suffer the consequences. But she is much like trump in her evil, calculating ability to spin her ugly desires into MAGA newspeak .
The Bulwark promised us no BS, no kabuki theater, no twisting of the facts to fit the narrative ... yet this story about Bondi "boasting" that she had the Epstein "list" on her desk is not exactly a misinterpretation of someones exact words, as much as a failure to allow that person room to err in the meaning of their words. Her exact words in answering the reporters question about an Epstein "client list" were that "it was on her desk." But if you continue to listen to the interview, she provides more context by sharing that she also had the JFK and MLK "files" on her desk.
I hate to give someone so vile the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I do not believe she meant to solidly confirm the existence of a client list as much as she was letting the reporter know that she now had all the papers and would be reviewing them soon. More like asserting "if it's in there I'll find it." We all occasionally make mistakes in the syntax of our communications. Out of fairness, we must extend this tolerance for errors to our enemies as well as our friends. Although it galls me to give her a break, our constant expectation of perfection from people - from politicians to pundits - is tedious and unrealistic.
By the way, even though I am asking the Bulwark not to blow Bondi's words out of proportion in this particular instance (because it is self-serving and beneath you), that does not negate my strong suspicion that there is a coverup going on with the Epstein papers. Their recent revelations that there is no "there there" reeks of falsity and misdirection. The assertion that there was no mention at all of men who may have taken advantage of Epstein's trafficking of young girls in the trove of papers the DOJ received (whether on a specific "list" or not) is feeble and must be investigated. And the missing minute on the video? It doesn't pass the smell test.
Bondi is 1) an attorney and 2) the Attorney General of the United States. She's trained to speak precisely and she's in a position where precision is a basic expectation.
This wasn't some off the cuff comment caught on a hot mike or overheard at a bar. She was speaking to the press in her official capacity. She said she had a "client list" on her desk. Taking her at her word is entirely reasonable.
She said she had a client list. Therefore it's completely fair to say that she was either bullshitting when she made the claim, or that she had (and therefore still has) a client list and that the Administration has decided not to release it.
This isn't like Clinton's supposed "deplorables gaffe" or Obama's "you didn't build that." Those quotes were clearly and objectively used out of context. It took some work to turn what they said into "gaffes." In this case it's the opposite. Bondi said what she said, and it requires a pretty charitable reading to clean it up.
The Bulwark folks aren't above the occasional uncharitable interpretation of a MAGA comment, but this isn't one of those times.
Occam's Razor here is that Trump is all over the documents and yet The Bulwark is weirdly reticent about making this point. The administration is not releasing the docs to protect the boss. One might wonder why they don't just redact the parts they don't like but that might look too suspicious. One might also wonder why Biden didn't release them -- Bill Clinton maybe, and what a shameful scandal if that's the case. Lastly, one might wonder why so many rich and powerful men are on this list. The blackmailing theory does not seem far-fetched at all. Look what Trump did to silence Stormy and the others we already know about.
Their brains are all so pickled - they are beyond retrieval if they can’t see what’s so plainly in front of them: Trump himself was probably the most frequent flier of all of Epstein’s clients. I think Bondi, Patel, and Bongino all knew he was a client before they threw in their lots on this administration, but they thought they’d find many others (with Clinton at the top of their wish lists) who were far worse and were just salivating at the thought of exposing them. What they found instead was the absolute opposite: their regret-shaped god is actually a genuine, solid-gold scumbag. Nothing the rest of us with functioning eyes, ears, and brains didn’t already know instinctively. Now they have to backpedal and gaslight everyone into believing the unbelievable: there was never a list, and the orange turd was never on it.
My guess is that Ghislaine Maxwell would have definitive information on various topics regarding l'Affaire Epstein. My guess is the 'investigation', having completed the Phase 1 'Review' will now move to the Phase 2 'Cover-Up'. Nothing to see here, move along.
Bondi says that “there is no incriminating client list.” Of course, this does not mean that no client list exists. It could mean that a list exists, but it is not in her judgement incriminating. Just saying.
They weren't clients, they were "pals" and, for the most part, I would think anyone in/on his contact list would be suspect...
But, in the MAGA world, everything is literal: Because there was not a "list" with "Client List" written at the top, there then is no client list. Conveniently, this means that Trump is free and clear.
I've not gotten death threats, but many years ago a piece he had written for the Weekly Standard was listed as something that I had written. Eventually it was straightened out.
Fascinating to listen to Alex Jones, one of the most repugnant human beings in civil society, talk about what he considers, "sickening". The lack of self awareness is as galling as it is appalling.
Hey! Get back here, goalposts! 🥅 --->
Why didn't they make a list up? I'm pretty sure anything they put out there, their supporters would have believed, even if they had to walk it back later.
I don't have any reason to believe that Epstein was running a honeypot, but he was probably delivering intel to the CIA. According to Evening Standard, he was bragging about it in 2003, and his first prosecutor (Acosta) said someone at the DoD reached out to him to ask Acosta to give Epstein a plea deal.
With the amount of connections he had, and the fact that his actual job with Intercontinental Assets Group was to travel all over the world and track down the assets of scores of powerful people, whose connections he had a habit of maintaining for the rest of his life.... There is no reason one can find without the benefit of hindsight why American intelligence services would refuse to accept his help, and they certainly accept help from people worse than Epstein in the course of doing their jobs.
My Trumpie buddy's take is that the Epstein blackmail files very much exist, but Trump is opting to hang on to them for his own benefit. He's so pissed that he has declared that he won't vote for Trump in 2026 unless he follows through and disbands the IRS and FBI.
So yeah, violating the Constitution and running for a third term is not disqualifying. Neither is keeping and using the supposed Epstein blackmail files. And in 2026, when Trump has failed to disband the FBI or IRS, my buddy will find a way to be okay with that, too.
MAGA is a cult.
Won’t vote for trump in 2026?? I thought the next presidential election was ‘28?
Details, details.
Trump flipped out today when asked about it at his cabinet meeting.
Do y'all remember this Pam Bondi story?
Hurricane Katrina, 2006.
Katrina left thousands of homes underwater for a month. Back then, people shelters wouldn't take dogs or cats. Government transport to shelters wouldn't take dogs or cats.
People were desperate for food and shelter, and desperate to just get out of the hot sun, but being told that they had to leave their pets behind (to die a slow horrible death).
Long story short, several dog rescue organizations, and a few celebrities, flew in and rescued thousands of dogs and cats.
Pam Bondi took in a dog named Master Tank from a rescue org when she worked in Tampa as an assistant D.A. She fostered Master Tank with the agreement that she had to give him back when/if the family emerged from the aftermath of the hurricane.
The family eventually tracked down Master Tank (it took them months) and requested the return of their dog. Pam Bondi refused, and fought them in court for 16 months, saying publicly that the dog was skinny and obviously neglected before she got him.
She defamed the family.
The family said that Master Tank had been in the middle of being treated for heartworms when Katrina hit, so of course he was skinny.
Bondi eventually "settled" with the family and returned Master Tank, saying that she was pleased with the result, because she had gained visitation rights and would visit him often.
This was her way of spinning that she knew the court would force her to abide by her original agreement. But she kept the dog for 16 months before she finally gave in. And she never visited Master Tank.
Check out Pam Bondi's wikipedia page. She has embarrassed Floridians like myself for decades.
My only point here is that Pam Bondi has proven for decades that she is not a decent or ethical person. I keep hoping that that something she does will blow up in her face, and she will suffer the consequences. But she is much like trump in her evil, calculating ability to spin her ugly desires into MAGA newspeak .
She’s evil! 👿
I'm shocked they didn't release a fake one with Tom Hanks, Bill Gates, etc., written in Sharpie.
I imagine the only reason they did not do that is because lawyers from the Biden administration have seen the evidence and can refute them.
The Bulwark promised us no BS, no kabuki theater, no twisting of the facts to fit the narrative ... yet this story about Bondi "boasting" that she had the Epstein "list" on her desk is not exactly a misinterpretation of someones exact words, as much as a failure to allow that person room to err in the meaning of their words. Her exact words in answering the reporters question about an Epstein "client list" were that "it was on her desk." But if you continue to listen to the interview, she provides more context by sharing that she also had the JFK and MLK "files" on her desk.
I hate to give someone so vile the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I do not believe she meant to solidly confirm the existence of a client list as much as she was letting the reporter know that she now had all the papers and would be reviewing them soon. More like asserting "if it's in there I'll find it." We all occasionally make mistakes in the syntax of our communications. Out of fairness, we must extend this tolerance for errors to our enemies as well as our friends. Although it galls me to give her a break, our constant expectation of perfection from people - from politicians to pundits - is tedious and unrealistic.
By the way, even though I am asking the Bulwark not to blow Bondi's words out of proportion in this particular instance (because it is self-serving and beneath you), that does not negate my strong suspicion that there is a coverup going on with the Epstein papers. Their recent revelations that there is no "there there" reeks of falsity and misdirection. The assertion that there was no mention at all of men who may have taken advantage of Epstein's trafficking of young girls in the trove of papers the DOJ received (whether on a specific "list" or not) is feeble and must be investigated. And the missing minute on the video? It doesn't pass the smell test.
Bondi is 1) an attorney and 2) the Attorney General of the United States. She's trained to speak precisely and she's in a position where precision is a basic expectation.
This wasn't some off the cuff comment caught on a hot mike or overheard at a bar. She was speaking to the press in her official capacity. She said she had a "client list" on her desk. Taking her at her word is entirely reasonable.
She said she had a client list. Therefore it's completely fair to say that she was either bullshitting when she made the claim, or that she had (and therefore still has) a client list and that the Administration has decided not to release it.
This isn't like Clinton's supposed "deplorables gaffe" or Obama's "you didn't build that." Those quotes were clearly and objectively used out of context. It took some work to turn what they said into "gaffes." In this case it's the opposite. Bondi said what she said, and it requires a pretty charitable reading to clean it up.
The Bulwark folks aren't above the occasional uncharitable interpretation of a MAGA comment, but this isn't one of those times.
Occam's Razor here is that Trump is all over the documents and yet The Bulwark is weirdly reticent about making this point. The administration is not releasing the docs to protect the boss. One might wonder why they don't just redact the parts they don't like but that might look too suspicious. One might also wonder why Biden didn't release them -- Bill Clinton maybe, and what a shameful scandal if that's the case. Lastly, one might wonder why so many rich and powerful men are on this list. The blackmailing theory does not seem far-fetched at all. Look what Trump did to silence Stormy and the others we already know about.
MAGA mush brain is real it seems.
Their brains are all so pickled - they are beyond retrieval if they can’t see what’s so plainly in front of them: Trump himself was probably the most frequent flier of all of Epstein’s clients. I think Bondi, Patel, and Bongino all knew he was a client before they threw in their lots on this administration, but they thought they’d find many others (with Clinton at the top of their wish lists) who were far worse and were just salivating at the thought of exposing them. What they found instead was the absolute opposite: their regret-shaped god is actually a genuine, solid-gold scumbag. Nothing the rest of us with functioning eyes, ears, and brains didn’t already know instinctively. Now they have to backpedal and gaslight everyone into believing the unbelievable: there was never a list, and the orange turd was never on it.
My guess is that Ghislaine Maxwell would have definitive information on various topics regarding l'Affaire Epstein. My guess is the 'investigation', having completed the Phase 1 'Review' will now move to the Phase 2 'Cover-Up'. Nothing to see here, move along.
Bondi says that “there is no incriminating client list.” Of course, this does not mean that no client list exists. It could mean that a list exists, but it is not in her judgement incriminating. Just saying.
They weren't clients, they were "pals" and, for the most part, I would think anyone in/on his contact list would be suspect...
But, in the MAGA world, everything is literal: Because there was not a "list" with "Client List" written at the top, there then is no client list. Conveniently, this means that Trump is free and clear.
I've not gotten death threats, but many years ago a piece he had written for the Weekly Standard was listed as something that I had written. Eventually it was straightened out.
Fascinating to listen to Alex Jones, one of the most repugnant human beings in civil society, talk about what he considers, "sickening". The lack of self awareness is as galling as it is appalling.
Why write about this sleazy matter. There is not a credible person in Trump world. Just trash.