Analysis: 4 big questions about Trump and Epstein
'If you're a journalist and you're not asking questions about this case,' Vance said, 'you should be ashamed of yourself.'
Today, there are arguably more questions than ever – thanks in large part to the bizarre handling of it by the same administration Vance now serves in. Despite hyping the 'Epstein files,' the Trump Justice Department now says Epstein indeed committed suicide, and there was no 'client list.'
That doesn't mean there was some broad conspiracy involved. But the administration has done a great job seeding suspicion – particularly among its own base – that it's now part of the purported cover-up.
So let's ask some of the kinds of questions that Vance argued were so important four years ago.
Trump's strategy for dealing with the backlash basically amounts to: Move along, everyone.
'Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein!?' Trump said last week.
The president added in a social media post Sunday: 'Let's … not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.'
FBI Director Kash Patel echoed that line over the weekend, posting on X: 'The conspiracy theories just aren't true, never have been.'
But it would certainly seem to be news to many people around Trump that nobody cares about this and the conspiracy theories are baseless. Trump's team is stocked with people, including Patel, who previously cast the Epstein saga as a massive scandal-in-waiting that just needed some leaders willing to rip the lid off of it.
Back in February, for example, Attorney General Pam Bondi, hyped soon-to-be-released documents and suggested she had the so-called client list on her desk when asked about it in an interview. (She has since suggested she was referring to other documents.)
'What possible interest would the U.S. government have in keeping Epstein's clients secret? Oh…' Vance posted suggestively back in 2021.
'Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are,' Patel said in 2023.
'Listen, that Jeffrey Epstein story is a big deal,' now-Deputy FBI Director Dan Bongino said the same year. 'Please do not let that story go. Keep your eye on this.'
'Who's on those tapes?' Bongino added in February shortly before joining the administration. 'Who's in those black books? Why have they been hiding it?'
So to recap: The people most directly in charge of this matter – and now insisting there's no there there – are also the people who assured there was plenty to discover and suggested that things were being covered up.
So the question becomes: Are they admitting they were just wrong then?
(They don't seem to want to say that. But perhaps tellingly, Bongino told Fox News last month: 'I'm not paid for my opinions anymore. I work for the taxpayer now. I'm paid on evidence.')
And why is something they argued was of the utmost importance now not worth our time? This is a supposed scandal involving powerful people involved in sex-trafficking of minors, after all. How do they square Trump's comments now with their own past comments? And shouldn't they at least do more to put it to bed?
To be clear, this is not the same as asking whether the files show any wrongdoing by Trump.
But it is worth asking if he's in there – particularly given his administration's failure to live up to its promises of disclosure.
Trump associated with Epstein, after all, before the two had a falling out. Epstein claimed they had been close. Trump once called Epstein a 'terrific guy' and quipped about Epstein's affinity for younger women. Trump also weirdly wished Ghislaine Maxwell well on more than one occasion while she faced Epstein-related sex-trafficking charges.
'I'm not looking for anything bad for her,' Trump said at the time. 'I'm not looking bad for anybody.'
Elon Musk, as part of his dramatic falling out with the president, claimed last month that Trump was indeed in the files.
'Time to drop the really big bomb: (Donald Trump) is in the Epstein files,' Musk wrote on X. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public.'
Musk never detailed how he would have gained access to unreleased files, later deleting the post and expressing regret for how far he had gone in some of his anti-Trump posts. Many dismissed it as Musk lashing out, but this was a former top Trump adviser who had lots of access while heading the Department of Government Efficiency. Did he just make it up? Musk hasn't said that specifically.
It's also a question that's apparently real enough that Trump's own lawyer assured he checked on it.
Last week, David Schoen, who has represented both Trump and Epstein, said he asked Epstein shortly before his death whether he had information to hurt Trump, and Epstein said he did not.
'I specifically asked that!' Schoen posted on X.
Trump has also been less keen than others around him to release the documents. During a Fox News interview last year, he quickly agreed he would declassify documents on 9/11 and John F. Kennedy's assassination, but he paused before saying he would do the same with the Epstein documents.
He explained that 'you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there.'
Asked later by podcast host Lex Fridman why he hesitated, Trump repeatedly said he had not personally gone to Epstein's island.
'I don't think – I'm not involved,' Trump said. 'I never went to his island, fortunately, but a lot of people did.'
The big news last week was that the administration said Epstein did kill himself and that there was no client list. But it wasn't the only reason the true-believers were disappointed.
The administration also effectively closed the matter and said it wouldn't release anything else, despite having promised plenty more disclosures.
The administration made a show of releasing an initial batch of documents back in February. But the photo op with conservative influencers bombed when it turned out the documents were largely old news.
So the administration promised more was on the way.
'We will get everything,' Bondi told Fox News in early March. 'We will have it in our possession. We will redact it, of course, to protect grand jury information and confidential witnesses, but American people have a right to know.'
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt added in May: 'I know the Attorney General has committed to releasing those files. … When she has made a promise in the past, she has kept it and I'm certain that she will, in this case, as well.'
But the administration hasn't released anything of real significance since then.
Last week's Justice Department memo said that much of this information was 'subject to court-ordered sealing' and that 'only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.' It expressed a desire to 'not expose any additional third-parties to allegations of illegal wrongdoing.'
'Through this review, we found no basis to revisit the disclosure of those materials,' the memo said.
That's very different than what was promised. But why the change in tune? Why didn't they say before that their promises of disclosure were subject to so many caveats?
When Bondi sought to explain herself last week, this was one question that she for some reason let linger: whether Epstein had ties to intelligence.
'To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that,' the attorney general told reporters, before adding: 'We can get back to you on that.'
Why is this something they have to circle back on? Wouldn't this either be something that's in the documents or not?
This theory doesn't come out of nowhere. Such questions have been asked for a long time. Then-Trump Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, who had entered into a controversial non-prosecution agreement with Epstein while serving as a US attorney, talked around the question when it was posed to him in 2019. (Acosta resigned as labor secretary shortly after Epstein's federal indictment was unsealed.)
Bongino said back in 2023 that he was reliably told Epstein was an intelligence asset for a Middle Eastern country.
And on Monday, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett saw fit to deny Epstein was an Israeli asset.
'The accusation that Jeffrey Epstein somehow worked for Israel or the Mossad running a blackmail ring is categorically and totally false,' Bennett said.
Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah has pressed the case that Epstein might have benefitted from being an asset.
It's seemingly a question Bondi should have more of an answer for. But the lack of satisfactory answers seems to be a trend right now.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
30 minutes ago
- Fox News
Republican leading House Budget Committee looks ahead after passing Big Beautiful Bill
House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, was praised for the role he played in the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill. However, the congressman says this is the beginning, not the end, of spending reforms. "We will never be able to get a balanced budget or even put our country on a path to a balanced budget and a sustainable fiscal trajectory in one reconciliation bill," Arrington told Fox News Digital. "We're too far down the broken road of bad and irresponsible fiscal behavior. We're too deep in the debt hole for one bill to do it." Arrington, whom House Speaker Mike Johnson called the "the lead budget hawk in the House," said he is "obsessed" with tackling deficit spending, which he sees as the biggest threat to America's future. He believes that addressing the nation's situation in an effective way means creating the "conditions for growing the economy." "So, the pro-growth policies, the tax cuts, the work incentives, opening up our energy assets and deregulating the energy economy, all of those pro- growth policies will reignite economic growth. And that is the foundation for our country's fiscal health and just about everything else: our military prowess, our global leadership, our way of life," Arrington said. The Big Beautiful Bill's journey to President Donald Trump's desk was not pretty, as the legislation received criticism from both sides of the aisle and caused tension among Republicans. Elon Musk, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and others argued that it did not take adequate measures to cut government spending. Arrington said he respects Massie and Musk — as well as other critics — but believes that the risk of losing the "good things" in the bill was too high. In the end, the Texas lawmaker sees the tradeoff as "permanent pro-growth tax policy" in exchange for the extra spending in the legislation. "I think there's a big gap in information — and accurate information. Part of it is you've got the Congressional Budget Office putting out these big numbers… two and a half or three trillion dollars in additional deficit that would be added to the national debt over the 10-year budget window as a result of this bill. That is just patently false. It's completely inaccurate," Arrington said, adding that they fail to "consider economic growth and the revenue that will flow back into the treasury when you have pro-growth policies." Trump signed the bill on his self-imposed July 4 deadline, just one day after the House passed the final version of the $3.3 trillion legislation. Before signing the bill, the president said it would "fuel massive economic growth" and "lift up the hard-working citizens who make this country run." So, what's next on the budget chairman's agenda? Just one thing — or three, as he said to Fox News Digital, "spending cuts, spending cuts and spending cuts." "We didn't get into this mess overnight, we won't get out of it overnight, but we'll never get out if we don't start exercising the political will to do what we all say in our campaigns," Arrington told Fox News Digital. "I think we established a great model for restoring fiscal health, and we just have to continue to repeat it and do it in even more dramatic fashion in the future."
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russian rouble, stock market gain after Trump's statement on Russia
MOSCOW (Reuters) -The Russian rouble reversed losses against the dollar and rose against China's yuan after U.S. President Donald Trump warned he would impose "very severe tariffs" on Russia if no deal on a peaceful settlement is made in 50 days. As of 1605 GMT, the rouble was 0.2% weaker at 78.10 per U.S. dollar after hitting 78.75 during the day, according to LSEG data based on over-the-counter quotes. The rouble is up about 45% against the dollar since the start of the year. Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine on Monday and threatened to hit buyers of Russian exports with sanctions, expressing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin due to the lack of progress in ending the war in Ukraine. "Trump performed below market expectations," said analyst Artyom Nikolayev from Invest Era. "He gave 50 days during which the Russian leadership can come up with something and extend the negotiation track. Moreover, Trump likes to postpone and extend such deadlines." Against the Chinese yuan, the most traded foreign currency in Russia, the rouble strengthened 0.8% to 10.87 after weakening by over 1% on Friday. The Russian stock market rose 2.7% after Trump's statement, according to the Moscow Stock Exchange.
The Verge
34 minutes ago
- The Verge
The MAGA backlash over Epstein isn't dying down
On July 12th, the political world experienced an unprecedented phenomenon: President Donald Trump got ratioed on his own social media platform, and it was on a post about Jeffrey Epstein — someone who, according to Trump, 'nobody cares about.' Clearly, his followers on Truth Social disagreed. As of today, this post has 43.2k likes, 13.7k ReTruths, and 48K comments, nearly all of which express fury about the information — or lack thereof — that the Trump administration has provided about the well-connected billionaire, who died in prison shortly after being arrested for alleged sex trafficking of minors. Last week, after months of promises to release more information about the Epstein investigation, the Department of Justice and FBI released a joint memo, stating that there was no list of high-powered 'clients' who joined Epstein in his activities, no evidence that Epstein blackmailed anybody, and that Epstein did actually die by suicide. Even though Trump's Truth Social post was trying to address the attacks on Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was partly responsible for publishing the Epstein memo (and, according to conspiracy theorists, the reason why the supposed client list isn't being made public), his followers didn't care. 'We want the ELITE PEDOS exposed! You promised us that,' one user responded, in a post with 19.6K likes. 'Pam promised us that. Kash [Patel, FBI Director] promised us that. Now it's OUR fault bc we want that promise fulfilled and call Pam out every time she lies? What else has she lied to us about?' The like-to-comment ratio shows how thoroughly the Epstein files have jeopardized the MAGA base's relationship with Trump. Over the past several months, the administration has had mixed success in keeping the populist base in its corner, due to things like Trump's tariffs and the 'big, beautiful bill,' to the point that the possibility of a 'MAGA civil war' keeps emerging in the news cycle. Most times, those brewing fights get extinguished before they go further. But the backlash to the Epstein files is unusually fierce and may not be extinguished as easily, if at all. The source of the conflagration: the world of MAGA influencers, whose audiences implicitly trust them to carry out the 'America First' agenda. Their status and functions vary wildly: media moguls like Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, and Steve Bannon; solo talents like Laura Loomer, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes; political organizers like Charlie Kirk; content creators like Cattturd; and hundreds of others who've established lucrative careers by attacking the globalist elite online. They're normally pro-Trump, and many of them now have access to the White House. Some of them even brag about having Trump's cell phone number. But now they won't stop talking about how angry they are about the flimsiness of the Epstein files, which means their followers won't let go of it either. 'The real question is not 'was Jeffrey Epstein a weirdo who was abusing girls?' The real question is why was he doing this, on whose behalf, and where did the money come from,' Carlson said during a keynote speech at a Turning Point USA summit on July 11th. He then insinuated that Epstein was running a blackmail operation on behalf of a foreign government — possibly Israel, though he caveated with 'there's nothing antisemitic about saying that' and that 'every single person in Washington, DC,' suspected that Epstein was a Mossad asset. Bannon agreed with him at the same conference, while Loomer, who once got three members of the National Security Council fired, called for Bondi to be fired, accusing her of 'harming Trump's administration [and] embarrassing all of his staff and advisors.' Even the influencers that wield direct government power are starting to revolt. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene demanded that the administration reveal the truth about Epstein 'and the rich powerful elites in his circle.' And last week, several mainstream outlets reported that Dan Bongino, a right-wing podcaster who was appointed to serve as deputy director of the FBI, had threatened to resign unless Bondi was fired. According to Axios, Bongino was so upset about the rollout of the Epstein evidence — including a video taken of Epstein's cell phone on the day of his death, which had a full minute missing from it, fueling even more conspiracy theories — that he screamed at her in front of Trump and his senior advisors, and then took a day off from work. Trump's 10-year relationship with the MAGA base has been an endless cycle of breaking and making up: Trump does something that infuriates the base, they revolt, Trump smooths things over, and the base goes back to loving the president. In every case, he's always assisted by a network of online MAGA influencers who are effectively his proxies — enforcing message discipline when interacting with their audiences, amplifying his talking points, defending him from his haters, and making sure the base sticks with him no matter what. But the strength of an influencer, especially a MAGA influencer, is that they don't have to rely on elite-controlled media — cable and broadcast news, print journalism, etc. — to build their massive followings. In fact, they could use their internet platforms to hold those powerful elites accountable, touting themselves as 'independent' content creators, which works exceedingly well when they can present themselves as outsiders deliberately shut out of the system and therefore need subscribers to pay a monthly fee to support their mission. Unfortunately, they now have unprecedented access to the president, which makes them insiders with power — and their followers sure would love for them to use it to get to the bottom of things. It doesn't help that there's no 'deep state' to hide behind this time, and it may be the reason why QAnon — another powerful conspiracy theory that involved pedophile elites in Washington — hasn't revived itself. Trump could easily attack the career agents at the FBI and DOJ for investigating him during his first term, but upon his reelection, he purged those agencies and immediately chose MAGA influencer loyalists to run them. (Prior to becoming FBI director, Patel had a podcast, wrote a children's book about 'King Donald,' and opened his own merch store.) The Epstein files have scrambled MAGA influencers, who now have to decide what is more important to them: access and loyalty to Trump or maintaining their brand It's no wonder why the Epstein files have scrambled MAGA influencers, who now have to decide what is more important to them: access and loyalty to Trump or maintaining their brand. If they want to stay loyal to their followers and their brand reputation, they should be trying to get to the truth of Epstein's death. But if they were trying to do that — or at least, convincing their insatiable audience that they were working on it — it would jeopardize their relationship with the Trump administration, or worse, Trump himself. The cullings are already underway, if Alex Jones is to be believed. On July 13th, he alleged that Trumpworld surrogates had started reaching out to 'talk show hosts and journalists and influencers,' threatening to cut off their access if they kept going on about Epstein. 'You'll never be invited to a Trump event again. You'll never be invited to the White House. You'll never be any other stuff. You're not getting any conservative sponsorship, no campaign contribution, ads running next cycle if you do this. That's been going on,' Jones claimed. 'That, A, is not very moral, that's how the Democrats try to censor and control, and then B, it's gonna create a mega-Streisand effect, as I said seven, eight days ago. And that is exactly what all of this has done.' A few of the influencers, however, are circling the wagons again. 'Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm going to trust my friends in the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done,' Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said on his podcast yesterday, reiterating that he would support whatever the Trump administration concluded on the matter. Kirk, a key player in Trump's political machine, also distanced himself from Carlson's Epstein conspiracies, which were made at his youth group's conference. 'I think that there was plenty of, let's say, speeches that were directed towards this topic this last weekend. So we don't need to spend our valuable time on this program relitigating it,' Kirk said. Around that time, other influencers began attempting to deflect the Epstein flack Around that time, other influencers began attempting to deflect the Epstein flack: promising that the government was about to start a real investigation soon (Benny Johnson), attacking Carlson as 'not trustworthy' and 'obsessed [with] making everything about Jews' (Loomer), suggesting that maybe 'demons' were at work and not the government (Mike Cernovich), or hyping up a new discovery about Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA (Rep. Anna Paulina Luna). But a growing faction of influencers are going the other way with Carlson, Greene, and Jones: Candace Owens, who's attacking the former Israeli prime minster about the Mossad; Matt Walsh, who wants the 'evildoers [to] be dragged in front of us, weeping and begging for mercy'; white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who accused TPUSA world of 'appeasing' a base that wanted 'authentic opposition to organized Jewish influence'; and Tim Pool, who pointed out the strange new messaging coming out of the White House influencer pool, 'After speaking with my friends in government and also private island equity holdings I have decided that no one cares about Epstein anyway. I mean, like who? Lol who's Epstein amirite?'
