Seems to me the obvious explanation is that there is no client list (why would there be?) and Bondi lied when she said there was. MAGA simply got duped by professional liars telling then exactly what they wanted to hear. Par for the course.
As you and Aloha have said, I'm not sure what people even mean by "the list" or that it existed in that fabricated context.
I think most coverage misses the point (at least the one that matters to me). Maxwell and Epstein were (adequately or not) processed through the legal system for their terrible deeds. That's a good thing. Most rational people would like to see bad people doing terrible things held accountable, including the rich and powerful of whatever party or affiliation. I'm not sure how anyone would reasonably disagree with that.
But all the turmoil seems to be the upset among the deeply deluded/QAnon/Pizzagate/"there are lizard people"/Deep-State believing/"Gov't is run by a pedophile ring" crew. Trying to make a rational, deeply considered story regarding Epstein is pointless when, to me, that crew of delusion getting traction among national leaders is really the only on-topic story that matters at this point.
Also, again I don't know what we mean by the "list", but I would never take seriously the notion that Trump's wild commentary is simply detached frustration over the Epstein file somehow becoming a policy distraction. He only operates on self-interest. His deeply animated tone is an obvious tell (regardless of what the details actually are).
As for Bondi, parsing her words and meaning in response to John Roberts is a pointless exercise. She and her ilk don't speak in terms of honesty or accuracy. Her words only reflect a story she wants to push on any given day that need not have any direct relationship to what's actually happening. I have no idea if she was sloppy, lied, or mis-spoke. It doesn't matter. None of those descriptions would accurately portray the reality that her words are never intended to be accurate. That's never the point. The point is to push whatever story drives something to Trump's advantage.
"The MAGA base is absolutely not mainstream Republicanism/Conservatism, but it does very definitely have a "Trump personality aura." That's pervasive and it's toxic. Beside the incivility, dishonesty, aversion to facts, etc., part of the culture is the belief in conspiracy theories. 9/11 is a good example. Back in the 2000s, the outspoken Truthers were leftwing moonbats and Democrats. Now we have a ton of Truthers among the MAGA wingnut base. I don't know if they were mostly silent during the 2000s, were the leftwing moonbats, or what, but they're prevalent among the MAGAs that are ostensibly "Republicans" now. I find it all a total embarrassment. You apparently don't care.
The first rule of MAGA membership is total unquestioning loyalty to DJT."
@aloha-hoosier I think the first rule of MAGA is being easily deluded and emotionally exploited for whatever gain the deluders see fit.
As for Bondi, parsing her words and meaning in response to John Roberts is a pointless exercise. She and her ilk don’t speak in terms of honesty or accuracy. Her words only reflect a story she wants to push on any given day that need not have any direct relationship to what’s actually happening. I have no idea if she was sloppy, lied, or mis-spoke. It doesn’t matter. None of those descriptions would accurately portray the reality that her words are never intended to be accurate. That’s never the point. The point is to push whatever story drives something to Trump’s advantage.
I think this is why she needs to be held to account for those words. I don't know that she intentionally lied, but I do believe at a minimum she had a callous disregard for the truth. So this is as good a time as any to demand she produce the list. Make her admit to only trying to advance a narrative regardless of the truth.
I don't believe there is a "list" per se. But if she wants to capitalize on this horrible crime, she should face consequences.
She's carrying Trump's water. He will back her until she becomes a liability to him personally.
Read the FBI letter. I've quoted it twice in this thread. They convicted GM for procuring girls for Epstein.@co-hoosier how does the government convict G.M. of trafficking if they don't know who the girls were trafficked to?
As I've stated before, the game of semantics is unhelpful. As you've identified, reasonable people can be concerned with others getting away with predatory behavior with underage girls. A "list" can be an already in existence, physical sheet of paper(s) with names on it, or it can be one that could be created from the files, I think.Seems to me the obvious explanation is that there is no client list (why would there be?) and Bondi lied when she said there was. MAGA simply got duped by professional liars telling then exactly what they wanted to hear. Par for the course.
As you and Aloha have said, I'm not sure what people even mean by "the list" or that it existed in that fabricated context.
For example (AI):
- Prince Andrew: Accused by Johanna Sjoberg of sexual assault. Prince Andrew denies the allegations.
- Alan Dershowitz: Accused by an unnamed woman, Jane Doe #3, of sexual relations when she was a minor. Dershowitz denies ever meeting Jane Doe #3.
- Jean-Luc Brunel: A French model scout who died by suicide awaiting trial on charges that he raped underage girls. Accused by Giuffre of sexual abuse, and by Jane Doe #3 of trafficking her to him.
- Bill Clinton: Mentioned in the documents, though not accused of wrongdoing. Epstein reportedly told Sjoberg that "Clinton likes them young". Clinton has denied any unlawful involvement with Epstein.
- Donald Trump: Mentioned in the documents but not accused. Sjoberg testified about Epstein's plane landing in Atlantic City and visiting one of Trump's casinos.
- Stephen Hawking: His name appeared in an email from Epstein to Maxwell concerning Giuffre's allegations.
- Michael Jackson: Sjoberg testified to seeing the late singer at Epstein's residence.
- David Copperfield: Sjoberg testified to meeting the magician at Epstein's residence and that he was a friend of Epstein's.
- Bill Richardson: Giuffre alleges being forced to have sex with him, which he denies.
He’s starting to crack. Sad. And so much winning has been occuring.
The President no longer wants your support. He basically said screw you and you might as well be a Dem. That has to hurt.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5403672-trump-epstein-files-conspiracy-theories/
Update after President's remarks to reporters: He thinks you're "stupid" and "foolish" as well.
@thyrsis Dbm says the President is telling his first lie by denying the “Epstein List.”
Yes, I never thought there was a client/blackmail list. However, it’s very clear the President wants nothing further released. He’s desperate about it. Must be something in there he never wants to see the light of day.
1, No. I don’t think it is bad faith for government to refuse to create a document for no government purpose.
2. Probably to prevent unfairly stigmatizing innocent people.
3. Yes. A decision whether to seek indictments is discretionary. In a case as explosive as this, I’d advise the prosecutors that unless you have your ducks in a row, and a conviction is assured, don’t touch it.
We’re America First. Not Republicans first. Not Trump first. America First!!!
And you think President Trump is cracking . . .