Take a closer look at what the Justice Department memo says—and doesn’t say—about the sexual predator’s “client list.”
Philip Rotner
A HOST OF NERVOUS INDIVIDUALS—including President Donald J. Trump—must have breathed a sigh of relief over the weekend when the Department of Justice announced that “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted” into the activities of sexual predator and child molester Jeffrey Epstein.
The key takeaway from the announcement—the one that captured the headlines—was the assertion that a review of the Epstein files by the DOJ and the FBI “revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’”
The DOJ’s deliberately opaque phrasing about what was not in the Epstein files tells us absolutely nothing about what was. The three words that do all the work here—“incriminating,” “client,” and “list”—only raise more questions.
The key takeaway from the announcement—the one that captured the headlines—was the assertion that a review of the Epstein files by the DOJ and the FBI “revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’”
The DOJ’s deliberately opaque phrasing about what was not in the Epstein files tells us absolutely nothing about what was. The three words that do all the work here—“incriminating,” “client,” and “list”—only raise more questions.
- What, exactly, is an “incriminating ‘client list’”? Why are the words “client list” in quotation marks?
- What does the absence of an “incriminating ‘client list’” tell us about what is revealed in the Epstein files?
- Does it mean that Epstein’s clients, enablers, and party bros are indeed identified in the files, but not in the format of a “list”?
- Does it mean that there’s a list, but it doesn’t expressly identify those on it as “clients”?
- Does it mean that there’s a list of clients, but the Trump DOJ doesn’t interpret it as “incriminating”?
- If Epstein hooked up some of his party bros with underage (or drugged or coerced) girls but didn’t get paid money for doing so, are the bros—whose conduct may have crossed the line into criminality—“clients”?
- If their names are in a black book, a flight log, or a guest registry, is that a “list”? Is it a “client list”?
- Is it an “incriminating client list”?
When you get right down to it, does “no incriminating ‘client list’” mean anything at all, other than that there’s no single document with the words “INCRIMINATING ‘CLIENT LIST’” emblazoned on the cover?
To be sure, the fact that Trump has seeded the highest levels of our government with sycophants who have neither the inclination nor the courage to investigate him or his closest associates is old news. And getting answers to the questions raised by the DOJ announcement may not be the most urgent priority in a world of cruel mistreatment of noncitizens, the use of the levers of government to harass political enemies, the coddling of dictators, the betrayal of our closest allies, creeping autocracy, and so much more.
But the story is nonetheless important, in part because the current president of the United States may have played a role in it, in part because the questions it raises may never get answered—certainly not while Trump is in the White House and Pam Bondi and Kash Patel control the DOJ and the FBI—and in part because a too-credulous national press largely took the DOJ announcement far more seriously than it deserved.
But the story is nonetheless important, in part because the current president of the United States may have played a role in it, in part because the questions it raises may never get answered—certainly not while Trump is in the White House and Pam Bondi and Kash Patel control the DOJ and the FBI—and in part because a too-credulous national press largely took the DOJ announcement far more seriously than it deserved.
TRUMP’S FULL ROLE in the Epstein story is not publicly known. He infamously had truck with Epstein in the company of young women in full party mode, some of it preserved on cringeworthy video. Photos and news articles document a social relationship between Trump and Epstein over a lengthy period of time, including numerous flights by Trump on Epstein’s private jet. In 2002, New York magazine reported Trump booming from a speakerphone that “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. . . . He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
Legal experts said the documents related to a case involving disgraced financier and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein neither incriminate nor exonerate former President Donald Trump.
Trump is mentioned in six documents among the more than 200 released in January.
In one instance, a woman accused Trump and others of sexual wrongdoing, but the released records show she later retracted her accusations.
Falling out or not, there was more than enough on the record to make Trump nervous about what might come out of an honest and rigorous review of the Epstein files by competent, unbiased law enforcement agencies.
Whatever nervousness Trump may have felt about the Epstein files must have evaporated when he saw the headlines in the national press about the DOJ announcement. Major news outlets, including many not usually in the business of being Trump cheerleaders, delivered soothing balm to Trump by the gallon. Many of the headlines transformed the DOJ’s gobbledygook about “no incriminating ‘client list’” into “no client list,” and made that “news” sound significant:
- “DOJ says no evidence Jeffrey Epstein had a ‘client list’ or blackmailed associates” (NPR);
- “Exclusive: “DOJ, FBI conclude Epstein had no ‘client list,’ died by suicide” (Axios);
- “US justice department finds no Epstein ‘client list’” (BBC);
- “Justice Department review finds Jeffrey Epstein had no ‘client list’ and died by suicide” (CBS News);
- “Jeffrey Epstein had no ‘client list,’ died by suicide, DOJ and FBI conclude” (USA Today).
But again: Contrary to the headlines, the DOJ did not say that Epstein had no client list. And its weasel-worded statement that it found “no incriminating ‘client list’” is hardly assurance that the Epstein files contained no evidence of complicity by others.
The credulous headlines, in addition to lending an undeserved appearance of meaning and significance to the DOJ’s announcement, totally missed the point that the DOJ was intentionally employing unclear language to mislead readers and avoid addressing the substance of what the Epstein files revealed about his cronies and enablers.
THE PRESS WOULD HAVE BETTER SERVED the public by taking the DOJ’s statement that it found “no incriminating ‘client list’” with a grain of salt and instead devoting its headlines to the more substantive, meaningful information in the release. Especially noteworthy: The DOJ acknowledged that the Epstein files contained “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.” This strongly suggests the presence of substantial incriminating evidence that should be pursued by law enforcement—even if it doesn’t carry a banner saying “Incriminating ‘Client List.’” Or are we supposed to believe that none of those images and videos of victims incriminated the victimizers? And that there is no other documentary evidence regarding the identity of the Johns to whom Epstein trafficked his underage and/or coerced victims?
At least for now, Trump and any others who may be implicated by the Epstein files are getting a pass. Trump, of course, is absolutely entitled to a presumption of legal innocence. Despite the fact that a few moments of his nauseating behavior with Epstein were caught on camera, there’s no evidence in the public domain that Trump was complicit in any of Epstein’s crimes.
What we do know is that the Trump DOJ is now running the show, and it has declared “case closed.” The government has gone into a defensive crouch that seems designed to hide the truth behind a wall of misleading mumbo-jumbo that the national press has so far been unable to penetrate.
The credulous headlines, in addition to lending an undeserved appearance of meaning and significance to the DOJ’s announcement, totally missed the point that the DOJ was intentionally employing unclear language to mislead readers and avoid addressing the substance of what the Epstein files revealed about his cronies and enablers.
THE PRESS WOULD HAVE BETTER SERVED the public by taking the DOJ’s statement that it found “no incriminating ‘client list’” with a grain of salt and instead devoting its headlines to the more substantive, meaningful information in the release. Especially noteworthy: The DOJ acknowledged that the Epstein files contained “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.” This strongly suggests the presence of substantial incriminating evidence that should be pursued by law enforcement—even if it doesn’t carry a banner saying “Incriminating ‘Client List.’” Or are we supposed to believe that none of those images and videos of victims incriminated the victimizers? And that there is no other documentary evidence regarding the identity of the Johns to whom Epstein trafficked his underage and/or coerced victims?
At least for now, Trump and any others who may be implicated by the Epstein files are getting a pass. Trump, of course, is absolutely entitled to a presumption of legal innocence. Despite the fact that a few moments of his nauseating behavior with Epstein were caught on camera, there’s no evidence in the public domain that Trump was complicit in any of Epstein’s crimes.
What we do know is that the Trump DOJ is now running the show, and it has declared “case closed.” The government has gone into a defensive crouch that seems designed to hide the truth behind a wall of misleading mumbo-jumbo that the national press has so far been unable to penetrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment