What Did Pam Bondi Really Say? Likely Not What You've Been Told.

Words have meanings and reading your own biases into the words of others is a recipe for confusion spreading of misinformation to others.

Pam Bondi is accused across the media — particularly by a segment of the Ultra-MAGA right that never concedes being wrong — of having suggested/stated outright that there was, in fact, a Jeffrey Epstein “client list" on her desk waiting her review prior to it being made public. Her comment was made during a one-on-one TV interview with John Roberts of Fox News. The date of that interview was February 21. Bondi had been confirmed as Attorney General on February 4 -- 17 days earlier.

Roberts asked her:

"DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients? Will that really happen?"

I would note that "a list of clients" is not synonymous with a "client list," with the latter suggesting it was something created by Epstein himself, i.e., they would have been his “clients.”

Here is the verbatim text of her ENTIRE answer:

A. It is sitting on my desk right now for review. That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that, I'm reviewing the JFK files, the MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed because that was done at the directive of the President to all of these agencies.

Q. Have you seen anything that you said "Oh my gosh!"?

A. Not yet.

That’s it. That is the entirety of the exchange.

So much has been read into this answer beyond what she said that it is simply projection by those insisting there is a list and that she confirmed the existence of a list, and now claim the Trump Administration is covering up the existence of a list and those on it.

Let’s separate for the moment her answer in the interview from other efforts to keep up the Administration momentum in the first 30-45 days after relentless criticism from the legacy media reached full-throated levels. The most egregious episode connected to this issue was the farcical presentment of the “Epstein Binders” to a bunch of self-important social media “influencers” who were visiting the White House for a “meet & greet” on February 27. The binders were a PR stunt meant to 1) placate some of those voices who were asking after 10 days where the Epstein documents were that she had promised to release, and 2) to get buy-in from the influencers on the idea that the “new media” who had played a huge role in the outcome of the election could now transition to a counter-balance against the relentless criticism of the Administration by the legacy media infected with epidemic levels of TDS.

Because so much more was anticipated after 10 days — not to mention the FBI “whistleblower” claim in the immediate aftermath that a huge volume of Epstein material had been hidden from Patel and Bondi — the binder episode quickly turned into a fiasco and Bondi took the blame. Maybe she deserved it — maybe not. But heavy is the head that wears the crown.

Let’s return to what she said in the interview, and then — more importantly — what was said JOINTLY by the FBI and DOJ on Sunday July 6 in its written statement concerning the Epstein materials.

As I noted above, in her answer to Roberts she did not say there is "a client list" created by Epstein. Robert’s asked if a “list of clients” was going to be released, and she said “it” was sitting on her desk for her to review.

If she had already seen a “list” — that’s the claim made by those who argue she confirmed its existence — why would she need to still review “it” before releasing “it”?

If she was actually confirming its existence, then she had already reviewed “it” — that’s how she would have known a “list” existed — but she said she had not yet reviewed “it”.

Her critics claim — including a large number of hostile media outlets who are attempting to flame this fire in order to hurt the Administration — that she is purposely dissembling by claiming now that what she meant was the Epstein file was on her desk, and she was not confirming that an Epstein “client list” was on her desk.

As Bill Clinton would say, it all depends on what the meaning of “It” is in the answer she gave to Roberts.

The first clue that there was a problem with her answer was the suggestion that the Epstein materials were “on her desk” — unless those materials were contained in a multi-terabyte hard drive.

There is no question that Roberts’ was specific in mentioning a “list of clients.”

But there is also no question that Bondi’s answer made explicit reference to her being in the process of reviewing the “JFK files” and the “MLK files” as part of the same Presidential directive to release more information from all of them to the public.

I'm reviewing that, I'm reviewing the JFK files, the MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed….

Is there a serious suggestion made that her review of Epstein didn’t involve a review of the “file” — like JFK and MLK — but only a “list” and that her differentiation was intentional? So we have an “it” and we have a “that” which supposedly are explicit confirmations by her that a “list of clients” existed and was on her desk.

Was her answer simply imprecise because she had not yet reviewed the Epstein documents on her desk — however they might be characterized — or did she intend, after 17 days on the job, to confirm the existence of a “list of clients” while saying at the same time she was reviewing it in anticipation of release it?

The problem is that those wedded to this issue read into her answer what it was they WANTED her to be saying.

• Yes, there was an Epstein client list with the names of powerful and wealthy men — mostly liberal elites — who had been raping little girls on a private Caribbean Island in the company of one and other, with impunity because they protected by the Deep State, and made into intelligence assets for Mossad and the CIA via blackmail, for decades. [Do I have all that right?]

• The Trump Administration was going to bring the wrath of the DOJ down upon them at last — and that day of reckoning was only days away.

The problem is she never said that. She said a review was underway — and HER personal review had not yet started.

So let me now turn to the Announcement put on in the evening on Sunday, July 6. There is no question that the timing of the release the announcement was an attempt to deny the story of as much oxygen as possible because the Administration knew it would be received poorly by the Epstein Pedophile Island Conspiracy crowd.

The Announcement put out last week included the following statement:

This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.

Now, no "incriminating client list" is not the same as no "client list." It goes on to say there is no “credible” evidence he blackmailed others — but that is a concession that some “evidence” of that is contained in the files.

By saying it is not “credible,” DOJ is confirming that it investigated that “evidence” and found reasons to conclude it was not truthful or accurate.

The level of evidence required to “predicate” an investigation is quite low. The comment in the Announcement that the evidence found didn’t even reach that level is significant.

And the Announcement confirms there are third parties who are “uncharged.” But they are uncharged because of insufficient evidence of criminality by them.

Next, let’s consider the nature of the evidence that the Announcement says was reviewed in reaching the determination that it has already released everything from the Epstein file that can be released:

The files relating to Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors, and over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography…. Much of the material is subject to court-ordered sealing. Only a fraction of this material would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial, as the seal served only to protect victims and did 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 and will not permit the release of child pornography.

As I have said here and on social media, DOJ files in criminal investigations do not exist to satisfy public curiosity. The Esptein investigation is a classic example of why. There are thousands of victims who extend far beyond the minor girls who were personally abused by him. Every minor depicted in a pornographic image or video that Epstein accumulated is a victim, and every transfer or republication of an electronic file or hard copy is an new crime that re-victimizes that person. That material should never be made public, and never will be.

We know now that all of minor females who Epstein personally assaulted and abused are adult women in their 30s or 40s. The same would be true of minor females — if any — who had encounters with others besides Epstein. The vast majority have been interviewed by law enforcement, and many have told their stories either publicly or under oath in depositions as part of litigation that has gone on for nearly a decade. Those who have not spoken out publicly have made that choice deliberately. Material concerning them — even if it involves uncharged third parties — cannot be made public due to their privacy rights and the fact that much of that material is sealed by court order at their request.

The Announcement CONFIRMS that the materials sealed by court order does not expose third-parties to allegations of criminal activity. This means that any videos sealed by court-order do not involve identified third parties engaged in sex abuse of minors for which they could be prosecuted.

[T]his review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one thousand victims. Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history.

When investigators are writing their reports or creating other documents like spreadsheets while building their cases, they don’t do so with one eye on the prospect that what they are creating will be released to the public one day. In fact, there is usually a working presumption that investigatory materials will NEVER be released to the public — particularly in child porn and sex abuse cases. The demands of the investigation are that EVERY ugly allegation be set forth in detail and then investigated, even of the evidence behind the allegation is weak and later determined to be untrue. They don’t begin to write stuff down only after they determine the gathered evidence meets the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard.

[W]hile we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein and ensured examination of any evidence in the government’s possession, it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.

The last sentence includes the KEY point — a huge volume of information about the Epstein/Maxwell investigation has been public via one avenue or another for many years.

But what the Epstein Pedophile Island Chorus continuously brays about is that there must be more — their biases and the world view they have fashioned in their own heads must be confirmed, and the evidence confirming it has long been hidden by DOJ.

Now that they are confronted by members of their own tribe telling them “Your earnest long-held beliefs are, in fact, not true,” they refuse to accept that truth.

The Trump Administration DOJ is in the middle of a months long string of huge successes in federal courts around the country. The district judges who have been throwing hurdles and roadblocks in its way all play for the opposing team.

Notwithstanding that problem, the DOJ has secured Trump’s ability to fire Senate confirmed holdovers heading up “Independent Agencies;” the ability to fire huge numbers of the federal work force as part of a “right-sizing” of agency staffing, including pretty much anyone hired in the last year of the Biden Administration; the implementation in most respects of programs never before attempted to carry out massive numbers of deportations; to suspend or curtail huge amounts of grand funding pumped into the pipeline by the Biden Administration in its waning days; the elimination of USAID; a significant reshaping and refocusing of the enforcement priorities of DOJ and its component investigative agencies such as the FBI; and many other legal battles.

The idea that the already confirmed Attorney General who sits atop the Department racking up all these highly consequential wins should be toppled over an imprecise use of the word “it” in an off-handed response to a question she might not have anticipated 17 days into her tenure is ….

MORONIC.

Get a grip people.

After all, I have to come to grips with the fact that Matt Gaetz and I agree on this.