“The cover-up is worse than the crime†is almost never true — of course the crime is worse — and when the crime is rape of underage girls, I’d say itÐÔÊӽ紫ý nearly impossible for the cover-up to be worse. But Attorney General Pam Bondi is challenging that presumption with her enraging refusal to release the names of the men who had sex with Jeffrey EpsteinÐÔÊӽ紫ý entourage of minors.
The single most disturbing fact about the Epstein case is that we know, and have known for the past two decades, that scores of prominent men — renowned, esteemed, allegedly men of character — have no problem being pedophiles.
But we still don’t know their names.
We’re now living under the fifth presidency since EpsteinÐÔÊӽ紫ý teen sex ring was busted in 2005. There have been three different prosecutions. At least a dozen girls have testified about their abuse. EpsteinÐÔÊӽ紫ý many properties have been raided and his records and papers carted away. There are flight logs, reams of witnesses, hard drives, photographs, videotapes.
By now, we should have the names of legions of perps. Some of them should have jumped off buildings already. But every time we’re about to get the names, the public is stonewalled.
To the astonishment of his voters, the stonewalling now continues under President Trump and his nitwit attorney general.
BondiÐÔÊӽ紫ý letter purporting to explain the cover-up is a collection of straw men, sanctimony and internal contradictions.
Her headline-making point is the Justice ÐÔÊӽ紫ýÐÔÊӽ紫ý “systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’“ Our easily duped media have continued the charade by repeatedly referring to EpsteinÐÔÊӽ紫ý “long-rumored ‘client list.’“
I’ve followed this case closely since it first broke two decades ago, and I’ve never heard that rumor. Bondi acts as if we’ve been expecting a leather-bound volume with the words “CLIENT LIST†in gold lettering.
To be clear, requests for the “client list†are shorthand for “All the names of the rich and powerful men who had sexual relations with teenage girls, courtesy of Jeffrey Epstein.â€
Elsewhere, BondiÐÔÊӽ紫ý memo boasts that the governmentÐÔÊӽ紫ý “systematic review†included a “large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors, and over 10,000 downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography.â€
Yeah, thatÐÔÊӽ紫ý the stuff we want.
After telling us that something no one ever thought existed does not, in fact, exist, BondiÐÔÊӽ紫ý showstopper is a stinking pile of sanctimony in the middle of a memo protectingÐÔÊӽ紫ý old men who had sex with teens. We will not, she snips, “permit the release of child pornography†— and you must be a sicko pervert for wanting to see it.
I admire the element of surprise. If you’d asked me, “What tone will Bondi take in refusing to release the names of child rapists?†I might have guessed, “sorrow,†“bureaucratic efficiency†or “embarrassment.†In a million years, I never would have said: “moral self-righteousness.â€
I guess the best defense is a good offense, but in this case, getting on her high horse about “child pornography†blew up the rest of BondiÐÔÊӽ紫ý argument.
Immediately after describing the evidence as child pornography, Bondi writes: “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.â€
Child porn is a crime, right? Having sex with kids is also a crime, and thatÐÔÊӽ紫ý pretty much the sine qua non of child porn. The “uncharged third parties†are on videotape having sex with kids — you know, the child porn that BondiÐÔÊӽ紫ý too horrified to release. This we know from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, where the evidence included videotapes that had “homemade labels†with “identifying information for third parties.†(The labels were shown to the jury but withheld from the public.)
First, Bondi says she has evidence of a crime in order to brag she will NOT release child pornography even if sheÐÔÊӽ紫ý hung by her toenails — but then she denies she has evidence of a crime.
She blasts squid ink over the evidence, suggesting sheÐÔÊӽ紫ý bound by the “court-ordered sealing†of a few labels in MaxwellÐÔÊӽ紫ý case to withhold the more than 10,000 videos in the DOJÐÔÊӽ紫ý possession: “Only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.â€
This is nothing but legal-sounding gobbledygook intended to fool the public. Who cares what “would have been aired publicly†at trial? This isn’t a trial. ItÐÔÊӽ紫ý the supposedly transparent Trump administration.
Elsewhere, Bondi suggests, but does not say, presumably because itÐÔÊӽ紫ý too stupid even for her, that sheÐÔÊӽ紫ý the one refusing to release the photographic evidence simply to protect the children. Not the pedophiles — whatever would give you that idea?
“One of our highest priorities,†she writes, “is combatting child exploitation,†and “it is the determination of the ÐÔÊӽ紫ý of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.â€
Has she heard of blurring? ItÐÔÊӽ紫ý been a standard photographic technique for more than a century — or about as long as we’ve been waiting for the names of EpsteinÐÔÊӽ紫ý pervy friends. (For short: “the client list.â€) Google Maps has been blurring faces and license plates in Street View since May 2008.
This ancient art can ensure that the images are neither pornographic nor revealing of the victims’ identity, while still giving us nice clear shots of the faces of the men involved.
ItÐÔÊӽ紫ý not that hard.
For her next internal contradiction, Bondi states: “There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions.â€
She has videos of EpsteinÐÔÊӽ紫ý friends having sex with underage girls — what she characterizes as child pornography. Epstein went to great lengths to obtain this compromising material — installing hidden cameras throughout his properties, curating the videotapes, labeling them with the identities of both the men and girls on the tapes, and storing them in a locked safe.
Is this like BondiÐÔÊӽ紫ý imaginary “client listâ€? Unless she finds a folder marked “BLACKMAIL,†she concludes there was no blackmail?
Why is Trump blowing up his base to protect child predators? What can it mean? I don’t believe Trump had sex with teen girls (or, for that matter, Stormy Daniels or that woman at Bergdorf Goodman), but absent the transparency he promised voters, people are going to come up with wild theories, and some of them may be true.
Firing Bondi isn’t going to get Trump out of this. No one cares if itÐÔÊӽ紫ý Bondi, Kash Patel, Brooke Rollins (when sheÐÔÊӽ紫ý not pushing a mass amnesty) or Trump himself whoÐÔÊӽ紫ý stonewalling us this time. Rage at the Epstein cover-up will not end until we have the names and compromising photos. A lot of photos.
(0) comments
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.