I want to know what's in the Epstein files. But there could be a price.
There was no client list, the DOJ had announced in a memo a day earlier. Further, it said, Epstein had not blackmailed anyone and there was nothing suspicious about his death, case closed.
Benz, like the rest of his MAGA cohort, was livid.
'Where's our WikiLeaks? Where's our Twitter Files?' Benz demanded.
It was a telling admission — and offered a kind of warning about what might ultimately come from the release of thousands of pages of records, documents, and audio and video recordings related to the Epstein investigation and indictment. There's currently a strange moment of agreement between MAGA influencers like Benz, Democratic lawmakers and much of the mainstream public over publishing the Epstein files, but what each faction wants from them — and what they'll do next should they be published as a bipartisan group of lawmakers are calling for, on a 'publicly accessible website' — will probably ignite a whole new wave of conspiracy-mongering.
For many on the far right and far left, it won't matter what's actually in those files. What will matter is what people want to find in them, and how fast they can spin it into content.
The most red-pilled in the MAGA base want proof of a secret world order: one run by powerful (and often, in these fever dreams, progressive, Jewish) elites who prey on — and in the internet's worst corners, literally feed on — children. In this version, Epstein wasn't just a predator, he was a secret agent in a global blackmail network controlled by billionaires, the media and the so-called deep state. At the Turning Point USA summit last week, after an earlier Q&A included MAGA activists openly criticizing Trump over the handling of the Epstein files, Steve Bannon appealed to these conspiracy theorists when he told an uncharacteristically riled-up crowd that the release would answer a 'very simple' question: 'Who governs this country? The American people or the deep state?'
Conspiracy theorists on the left, branded 'BlueAnon' by critics, have their own false fixations. Among them, an allegation — stemming from a now-dismissed lawsuit against the president — that he raped a girl procured by Epstein. (There is no evidence to support such a claim, and the story behind that 2016 allegation is more complicated.)
This is the crowd of bipartisan conspiracy consumers that MAGA influencers like Benz are speaking to. And it's an audience researchers say can never be satisfied.
Stephen Prochaska, a doctoral candidate who studies what's known in academia as collective sensemaking at the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public, told me how it works: Conspiracy theories in the digital age thrive on a process where communities collaborate to interpret ambiguous evidence and create narratives. Sometimes known as participatory misinformation, the goal isn't necessarily to uncover truths, but to create content that resonates with the community's existing beliefs and to transform complex, sometimes totally unrelated information into pertinent, digestible and often misleading lines that can move the story along.
To gut-check my unease with a public repository of the Epstein files, I called Joan Donovan, a researcher at Boston University who researches conspiracy theories and media manipulation.
'There will never be enough information to satiate the need for more clues for the next episode of this online conspiracy theory,' Donovan said.
And we've seen how that ends.
WikiLeaks published hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee in 2016 on a searchable website, which conspiracy consumers and opportunistic online creators mined to fuel a narrative that birthed 'Pizzagate,' the false belief that a pedophile ring was being run out of a Washington, D.C., pizza joint, and ultimately led to QAnon, a mass delusion that posited that these pedophiles ruled the world and that Donald Trump would stop them — a theory linked to multiple murders, kidnappings and various attempts to overthrow the government.
With the Twitter Files, internal documents were selectively framed to stoke an irrational panic over censorship that sparked harassment campaigns against researchers and congressional show trials. In 2022, Elon Musk handed cherry-picked emails and records from his newly acquired company to ideologically aligned writers, who twisted internal debates over content moderation into claims of widespread censorship. As The Atlantic's Charlie Warzel noted, the result was 'a drawn-out, continuously teased social-media spectacle framed as a series of smoking guns.' Ultimately, the Twitter Files led to the shuttering of academic institutions that tracked misinformation and to a flood of harassment and threats directed at researchers who studied the phenomenon.
Within both WikiLeaks and the Twitter Files, there was newsworthy content. They revealed a real plot against then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and the messy inner workings of a social media platform grappling with how to govern in an age of misinformation. But the actual facts got lost in a flood of conspiracy theories, fermented by a group project of people digging through documents, finding crumbs and spinning them into whatever story they wanted. Real people were hurt by these conspiracy theories, which traveled further and have remained in the public consciousness longer than any of the factual reporting.
Similarly the Epstein files could address real questions in the public interest. About the source of Epstein's wealth (Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has been investigating these financial records for the last three years). About the full scope of Epstein's social circle — made somewhat public by Gawker's 2015 publication of his little black book — and what they knew. About the 'poor judgment' that led to a sweetheart deal by federal prosecutors that treated Epstein's victims as an afterthought. About how, exactly, a man in federal custody managed to kill himself in a facility so plagued by security failures that it was eventually shut down.
For those late to the story: In 2008, Epstein struck a now-infamous nonprosecution agreement with then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta. With it, Epstein avoided federal charges and served just 13 months in a Florida jail on the charge of soliciting a minor for prostitution, with a work-release arrangement that allowed him to leave six days a week. More than a decade later, after dogged Miami Herald reporter Julie Brown renewed scrutiny in the case and fresh federal charges for sex trafficking and conspiracy followed, Epstein was arrested in New York. But before he could face trial, Epstein hanged himself in his Manhattan jail cell. It's likely Epstein would have been convicted; prosecutors secured a 20-year sentence for Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's longtime girlfriend and co-conspirator, on sex trafficking charges for her part in a kind of pyramid scheme in which Epstein allegedly paid minors to perform sexual massages and recruit ever-younger girls to do the same. (Maxwell's petition to vacate her sentence is currently pending before the Supreme Court.)
The facts of the case were already fertile ground for conspiracy theories, but Epstein's death supercharged them. Over that weekend, Twitter lit up with claims that Epstein had become the latest entry on the infamous 'Clinton Body Count' list — an evidence-free allegation amplified by Trump himself, who reposted speculation that Epstein was murdered because 'he had information on Bill Clinton.'
Now, six years later, we're in another frenzy over Epstein, this time sparked by the DOJ and FBI's 'case closed' memo and the administration's ham-fisted attempt to tamp things down. Trump has offered a dizzying set of reactions, including saying he didn't want the kind of supporters who fixate on Epstein or the files, which he now calls 'a big hoax that's perpetrated by the Democrats, and some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net.'
After a report Thursday in the Wall Street Journal detailing a cryptic 2003 birthday card to Epstein bearing Trump's name, the president is calling on the Justice Department to seek the unsealing of 'all pertinent' grand jury testimony in Epstein's sex trafficking case. (Earlier in the week, Trump had used the qualifier 'all credible' to describe the kind of files he'd be OK with Attorney General Pam Bondi releasing.)
But this won't quiet anyone down. Democrats, joined by a few Republicans who've built followings off conspiratorial clout-chasing, are still demanding a vote to publish the Epstein files.
And maybe, just maybe, the files contain disturbing, disqualifying or even criminal revelations about the people in Epstein's orbit. Maybe, as some Democrats, Musk and a growing chorus of once-MAGA faithful suggest, the files contain details that would ensnare the president.
Whatever the Epstein files end up being, as a journalist, I want them. But I also know what happens when a big, messy cache of information gets dropped into the middle of a post-fact attention economy. And I'm not excited. I'm nervous.
The details of the Epstein case have always attracted conspiracy theorists: a rich man, powerful friends, real crimes, a sweetheart deal and a suicide. But the files aren't just evidence, they're ammunition. Depending on which citizen researcher mines them or which influencers frame what they find, the files will be used in equal measure to 'prove' Trump's innocence or guilt in all things, to confirm a liberal cabal and a conservative cover-up. Who gets caught up in the theories that follow — or the real threats those stories might inspire — is impossible to predict. If the past is any predictor, it's not Epstein (he's dead) or Trump (he's Teflon) who will be caught up in the new round of conspiracy theories. It's regular, innocent people.
Prochaska, from the University of Washington, put it this way:
'What we think we're going to see may not be what we get.'
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump administration's lawsuit over Chicago's sanctuary city policies tossed by federal judge
A federal judge on Friday dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit challenging sanctuary city policies in Chicago and the state of Illinois. The Justice Department sued Illinois, Cook County and the city of Chicago — along with several state and local officials, including Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson — in February, arguing their sanctuary laws 'interfere' with Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) ability to arrest and deport illegal migrants. District Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, concluded that sanctuary policies — which prohibit local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities on immigration enforcement — are protected by the 10th Amendment. 6 Federal agents detain a protester attempting to block US ICE agents from entering a building housing an immigration court in Chicago, Ill. on June 16, 2025. REUTERS '[T]he Sanctuary Policies reflect Defendants' decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law — a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by [federal immigration laws],' Jenkins wrote in her 64-page ruling. 'Finding that these same Policy provisions constitute discrimination or impermissible regulation would provide an end-run around the Tenth Amendment,' the judge continued. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity — the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment.' Jenkins also determined that the Trump administration lacked standing to sue the 'individual defendants' named in the case, such as Pritzker and Cook. She dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, meaning the Trump administration may amend its complaint if it wishes to continue litigating the issue. In their lawsuit, the Trump administration singled out the Illinois Trust Act and Chicago's Welcoming City ordinance. 6 President Donald Trump speaks to reporters outside the White House on July 25, 2025. Ron Sachs/CNP / The Trust Act declares that 'State law does not currently grant State or local law enforcement the authority to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' while the Welcoming City ordinance emphatically states, 'No agency or agent shall: arrest, detain or continue to detain a person solely on the belief that the person is not present legally in the United States.' Pritzker and Johnson celebrated the judge's ruling. 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court,' the governor wrote on X. 'Their case challenging the bipartisan TRUST Act was dismissed — unlike the President, we follow the law and listen to the courts.' 6 Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker speaks after a meeting in the governor's office in Chicago on April 7, 2023. Getty Images Meanwhile, Johnson tweeted that the ruling 'affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety.' 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' the mayor added. 'Our city is safer when local law enforcement can focus on the needs of Chicagoans.' 6 Lindsay C. Jenkins, US district judge for the Northern District of Illinois nominee, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill on Oct. 12, 2022. REUTERS 6 Protesters hold up a sign opposing President Trump outside Trump Tower in Chicago during a rally on Jan. 20, 2025. AP The ruling is a setback to the Trump administration, which earlier this week sued New York City and Mayor Eric Adams over Gotham's sanctuary city policies — similarly arguing that rules limiting the NYPD's and other law enforcement agencies' cooperation with federal immigration enforcement are unconstitutional. The move came after two illegal migrants allegedly shot an off-duty Customs and Border Protection officer in the face in a Manhattan park. Attorney General Pam Bondi filed suit against Chicago and the state of Illinois on her first day on the job at DOJ. 6 Federal agents hold back a protester during an ICE exercise outside an immigration court in Chicago on June 16, 2025. REUTERS Bondi teased that the lawsuit would be the first of several going after sanctuary policies in Democrat-run states and cities. 'If you are a leader of a state or local jurisdiction that obstructs or impedes federal law enforcement, you will be next,' Bondi said in February. The DOJ has since filed lawsuits against New York City, Los Angeles, Newark, Jersey City, Paterson and Hoboken over sanctuary laws. The White House and DOJ did not immediately respond to The Post's requests for comment.

Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge dismisses Trump administration lawsuit against Chicago ‘sanctuary' laws
CHICAGO — A judge in Illinois dismissed a Trump administration lawsuit Friday that sought to disrupt limits Chicago imposes on cooperation between federal immigration agents and local police. The lawsuit, filed in February, alleged that so-called sanctuary laws in the nation's third-largest city 'thwart' federal efforts to enforce immigration laws. It argued that local laws run counter to federal laws by restricting 'local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials' and preventing immigration agents from identifying 'individuals who may be subject to removal.' Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the Northern District of Illinois granted the defendants' motion for dismissal. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said that he was pleased with the decision and that the city is safer when police focus on the needs of Chicagoans. 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety. The City cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda,' he said in a statement. Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat, welcomed the ruling, saying in a social media post, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security and did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The administration has filed a series of lawsuits targeting state or city policies it sees as interfering with immigration enforcement, including those in Los Angeles, New York City, Denver and Rochester, N.Y. It sued four New Jersey cities in May. Heavily Democratic Chicago has been a sanctuary city for decades and has beefed up its laws several times, including during President Trump's first term in 2017. That same year, then-Gov. Bruce Rauner, a Republican, signed more statewide sanctuary protections into law, putting him at odds with his party. There is no official definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities. The terms generally describe limits on local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE enforces U.S. immigration laws nationwide but sometimes seeks state and local help.


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Maxwell Gets Limited Immunity; Trump Not Ruling Out Pardon - CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Maxwell Gets Limited Immunity; Trump Not Ruling Out Pardon CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip 47 mins A curious twist in the Epstein saga, a look at what Ghislaine Maxwell received in order to talk to Donald Trump's Justice Department. Plus, from famous to infamous, Americans debate the controversial legacies of fallen stars.