Jeffrey Epstein - DOJ Report and Prison Video

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'm missing what you're conveying here -- which is likely a flaw in the receiver rather than the transmitter! Could you give an example?

Sure, when we call out all the news outlets that headline and speak about Elizondo, framed in some form, as otherwise leading, managing, or directing "AATIP". In most of these cases they are not intentionally presenting something false, they are obfuscating facts related to the debated claims. In each of these sections I'll post relevant threads below where it has been discussed or commented on from this frame.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-origins-of-aawsap.12484/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/luis-elizondos-claims-of-coming-ufo-disclosure.13238/
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/op...memorating-20th-anniversary-of-tic-tac.13758/

Plenty of cases with the New Jersey drone flap or whatever we wish to call it. Countless places reported on it in issued framing, equally, not projecting something false but obfuscating facts. This is even applicable to the CNN Star Wars video. They didn't knowingly project something false, they did have a bit of a journalism failure in not trying to find the original source which stated it was CGI. In turn, their amplification of only some details but not the others obfuscated the fact it was a CGI video.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ka...fying-planes-as-drones-over-new-jersey.13804/

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drones-over-new-jersey.13770/

This for example is speaking to exactly what I am, just framed differently.


WSJs recent reporting framing government deception as the cause of "UFO lore", despite none of their cases having a high gravity impact on "UFO lore" or even narrative artifacts in most discourse. This could maybe be projecting the false but I do not think that was the authors intent, so this would be another case where details were only provided in part, lacking further research in presentation, which in turn amplified and reinforced false claims, while also obfuscating real (already available) details that alter how the average person may perceive related to the content.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/ya...sible-for-some-military-belief-in-ufos.14260/

Here is an entire thread focused on journalistic integrity wrt the "Jellyfish" UAP video. Does mostly focus on Corbells lies (projection of the false) but there's some comments that relate to the obfuscation point also, and intersecting areas of general journalistic integrity.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/journalistic-integrity-around-the-jellyfish-ufo.13310/

If you want I can post more screens of specific comments in the threads but it'd get elongated. Also a bit iffy on screening a bunch of peoples comments for the point and them taking it the wrong way. The comment above about "maybe we should stop" is sarcastic I am of course for calling out these dynamics when they happen, same as we have elsewhere. I made that as a point in keeping our own behavior and decision making aligned because that itself when not is a vulnerability that can enable or reinforce one retaining false or misleading information, or participating in dynamics that project it to others.

 

[yoshy]

I don't know if it's automatic, ..., or is driven by customer complaints

Both of these. One of the issues content creators have is actually getting into contact with a human being at Google who can review the demonetization.

 

[yoshy]

I can see your point better now @Tezcatlipoca. Thank you for elaborating

 

[fizzBuzz]

DOJ/FBI drama over Epstein files:

Mary Margaret Olohan is a reporter for the Daily Wire. She's been posting on X about friction between the DOJ and FBI. She says Bongino will resign if Pam Bondi is not fired/resigns.

Source: https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1943758528772030565


Then she posts that Kash Patel wants Pam Bondi gone and he would consider leaving if Bongino leaves

Source: https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1943771065307849030


Then she posts a statement from her source saying Bongino wants more files released

Source: https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1943779634493239508


Then she posts a statement from the White House (is this just damage control?)

Source: https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1943784007017410690


Then she posts a statement from her source saying Patel and Bongino signed off on the released Epstein memo.

Source: https://x.com/MaryMargOlohan/status/1943789358123036849


According to Fox News (via TOI), this seems to be blown up a bit by Olohan and her sources

Fox News reported that Bondi has no intention of stepping down and she is proud of the department and its work. President Donald Trump too is proud of her work. Kash Patel, too, is happy with his job and no intention of leaving, the report said adding that Kash also agrees with Dan Bongino's sentiment that he is unfairly being blamed for the messy situation.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...ino-mulls-resigning/articleshow/122406187.cms

I don't think rumors of people maybe resigning carries much weight, but if either of the three would resign specifically because they feel some things should have been made public about the Epstein case, then, to me, that would be worth considering.

Thoughts?

 

[deirdre]

Thoughts?

my thought is why are you posting this here on MB? if you want "thoughts" on this 'housewives of washing dc' style in fighting, you should maybe find a conservative forum who might care. i'm a republican and i never even heard of Mary Margaret Olohan...so i personally have no thoughts on what click bait she is spreading on twitter.

 

[fizzBuzz]

my thought is why are you posting this here on MB? if you want "thoughts" on this 'housewives of washing dc' style in fighting, you should maybe find a conservative forum who might care. i'm a republican and i never even heard of Mary Margaret Olohan...so i personally have no thoughts on what click bait she is spreading on twitter.

I don't care what "conservatives" think, I care what rational thinkers think. This is all about the Epstein files and DOJ report. I don't blindly trust this woman, but I do think it's interesting and on topic. Bongino has not addressed the claims, however, Patel has made himself clear:

Source: https://x.com/Kash_Patel/status/1944101148903760317

 

[FatPhil]

I don't care what "conservatives" think, I care what rational thinkers think. This is all about the Epstein files and DOJ report.

"BREAKING: Source close to Dan Bongino tells me it's either him or Pam Bondi, and that he won't stay at FBI if she stays at DOJ."

No mention of the Epstein files there, looks more like inane soap opera.

"MORE: Source close to DOJ says Kash Patel also wants Pam Bondi gone, and that he'd consider leaving if Bongino leaves. Also that there are more frustrations with other documents Bondi hasn't released"

Next to no mention of the Epstein files there, only indirectly because it refers to others as others, looks more like inane soap opera.

"NEW: White House weighs in through @HFields47: "President Trump has assembled a highly qualified and experienced law and order team dedicated to protecting Americans, holding criminals accountable, and delivering justice to victims. This work is being carried out seamlessly and with unity. Any attempt to sow division within this team is baseless and distracts from the real progress being made in restoring public safety and pursuing justice for all.""

Definitely no mention of the Epstein files there, looks more like inane soap opera.

"NEW: Source close to DOJ leadership tells me "Deputy Attorney General Blanche, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino started drafting the released memo in early July and worked on it through July 4 weekend. After providing some edits, Kash and Dan signed off on the strategy and contents. Director Patel wrote that the memo was 'good with FBI.""

No mention of the Epstein files there, looks more like inane soap opera.

Does "all about" mean something different to you?

 

[fizzBuzz]

"BREAKING: Source close to Dan Bongino tells me it's either him or Pam Bondi, and that he won't stay at FBI if she stays at DOJ."

No mention of the Epstein files there, looks more like inane soap opera.

"MORE: Source close to DOJ says Kash Patel also wants Pam Bondi gone, and that he'd consider leaving if Bongino leaves. Also that there are more frustrations with other documents Bondi hasn't released"

Next to no mention of the Epstein files there, only indirectly because it refers to others as others, looks more like inane soap opera.

"NEW: White House weighs in through @HFields47: "President Trump has assembled a highly qualified and experienced law and order team dedicated to protecting Americans, holding criminals accountable, and delivering justice to victims. This work is being carried out seamlessly and with unity. Any attempt to sow division within this team is baseless and distracts from the real progress being made in restoring public safety and pursuing justice for all.""

Definitely no mention of the Epstein files there, looks more like inane soap opera.

"NEW: Source close to DOJ leadership tells me "Deputy Attorney General Blanche, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino started drafting the released memo in early July and worked on it through July 4 weekend. After providing some edits, Kash and Dan signed off on the strategy and contents. Director Patel wrote that the memo was 'good with FBI.""

No mention of the Epstein files there, looks more like inane soap opera.

Does "all about" mean something different to you?

[You missed]
"Bongino in particular, one source said, is frustrated that the DOJ, at the start of this week, declared the Epstein case effectively closed and determined that the accused sex trafficker died by suicide while awaiting trial, with few further details shared. He wants more documents unsealed, the source added."

Each of those X posts were replies to the previous post.

The "released memo" refers to the memo Mick posted here. [...]

 

[NoParty]

When you have 3 truth-challenged persons, who have no business holding the positions they do,
it's not surprising that a childish soap opera results, since none can speak intelligently or with integrity
("It's sitting on my desk right now") on an issue.
I agree with those that think the dopey spat doesn't really tell us much about the Epstein case.

 

[MapperGuy]

A client list, if it exists, is probably a compilation of information from multiple phone contact lists, notes on stray pieces of paper, plane passenger lists, notes of who is visiting his various residences when, and such.
Put together by the multiple investigators cataloging and summarizing the evidence as it was being collected and reviewed.

So when she says "client list" she is probably referring to a list assembled by the FBI, not something carefully maintained by Epstein.

 

[FatPhil]

[You missed]

Supporting a claim of "all about" requires supporting the "all", which isn't done by providing one small passing reference.

 

[deirdre]

I don't care what "conservatives" think, I care what rational thinkers think.

fair enough. i guess it's possible there are one or two members here who are rational when it comes to anything Trump related.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Supporting a claim of "all about" requires supporting the "all", which isn't done by providing one small passing reference.

ALL of those posts were replies/quote-reposts to the previous post, they were ALL to do with the Epstein case. On X, the way people handle "re:" or "in reference to" is by replying to or quote-reposting their own post. Not only does this provide context for the reader, it also creates a convenient chain of posts.

There wasn't "one small passing reference", there were two hard references:

"Epstein case... [Bongino] wants more documents unsealed"

and

"Deputy Attorney General Blanche, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino started drafting the released memo in early July and worked on it through July 4 weekend. After providing some edits, Kash and Dan signed off on the strategy and contents (of the released memo). Director Patel wrote that the memo (the released memo that Mick posted) was 'good with FBI.

The two hard references plus the replies/quote-reposts tells the reader this is all to do with the Epstein case.

 

[FatPhil]

ALL of those posts were replies/quote-reposts to the previous post, they were ALL to do with the Epstein case. On X, the way people handle "re:" or "in reference to" is by replying to or quote-reposting their own post. Not only does this provide context for the reader, it also creates a convenient chain of posts.

No, that's not what "about" means. And that was the word you used, and one of the words I specifically objected to. I'll grant that they are all "after", but they ceased to be *about* almost instantly. "In the context of" doesn't mean "about. Even "because of" doesn't mean "about".

 

[MonkeeSage]

Wired is reporting that metadata from the released video indicates it is composed of two clips and a longer approximately 3 minute section may have been removed from the first clip.

Newly uncovered metadata reveals that nearly three minutes of footage were cut from what the US Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation described as "full raw" surveillance video from the only functioning camera near Jeffrey Epstein's prison cell the night before he was found dead. The video was released last week as part of the Trump administration's commitment to fully investigate Epstein's 2019 death but instead has raised new questions about how the footage was edited and assembled.

WIRED previously reported that the video had been stitched together in Adobe Premiere Pro from two video files, contradicting the Justice Department's claim that it was "raw" footage. Now, further analysis shows that one of the source clips was approximately 2 minutes and 53 seconds longer than the segment included in the final video, indicating that footage appears to have been trimmed before release. It's unclear what, if anything, the minutes cut from the first clip showed.

The nearly three-minute discrepancy may be related to the widely reported one-minute gap—between 11:58:58 pm and 12:00:00 am—that attorney general Pam Bondi has attributed to a nightly system reset. The metadata confirms that the first video file, which showed footage from August 9, 2019, continued for several minutes beyond what appears in the final version of the video and was trimmed to the 11:58:58 pm mark, right before the jump to midnight. The cut to the first clip doesn't necessarily mean that there is additional time unaccounted for—the second clip picks up at midnight, which suggests the two would overlap—nor does it prove that the missing minute was cut from the video. [...]

In response to detailed questions about how the video was assembled, WIRED sent a request for comment to the Department of Justice at 7:40 am on Tuesday morning. Just two minutes later, Natalie Baldassarre, a public affairs officer for the DOJ, replied tersely: "Refer you to the FBI." The FBI declined WIRED's request for comment.

On Friday, WIRED published an analysis of metadata embedded in the video, confirmed by independent video forensics experts, which indicates that the file was assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ's website, where it was presented as "raw" footage.

WIRED's initial analysis found that those saves took place over a 23-minute span; however, further analysis of additional metadata shows the file was actually edited and saved several times over a period of more than three and a half hours on May 23, 2025. Specifically, the file was created at 4:48 pm and last modified at 8:16 pm ET that day. The metadata also references "MJCOLE~1," which is likely a shortened version of a longer username. While it likely begins with "MJCOLE," the full name cannot be determined from the metadata alone.

Both analyses found that the two clips, labeled "2025-05-22 16-35-21.mp4" and "2025-05-22 21-12-48.mp4," were stitched together. The first clip is 4 hours, 19 minutes, and 16 seconds long, but only the first 4 hours, 16 minutes, and 23.368 seconds appears in the published version, meaning nearly 2 minutes and 53 seconds were cut from the end. According to the metadata, the cut occurs just at 11:58:58 pm. The cut is milliseconds before the one-minute recording gap that Bondi said was caused by a quirk of the surveillance system. The second clip, "2025-05-22 21-12-48.mp4," picks up immediately afterward, continuing the footage from 12:00:00 am until 6:40:00 am.

The analysis was first provided to WIRED by a researcher who requested anonymity for privacy reasons. WIRED reviewed its findings with two independent video forensics experts, each with over 15 years of experience in Premiere and video production, who confirmed that the edit occurred just before the missing minute mark and that approximately three minutes of footage were cut from the original clip.

Source: https://www.wired.com/story/the-fbis-jeffrey-epstein-prison-video-had-nearly-3-minutes-cut-out/

 

[FatPhil]

Nothing shows a commitment to openness more than shutting things down:

Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday announced he was cutting short the week's legislative business and sending the House home early for the summer on Wednesday to avoid having to hold votes on releasing files related to the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

He made the move to deny Democrats the chance to try to force procedural votes on measures that would call on the Justice Department to make the information public. It reflected how deep divisions among Republicans on the matter have now paralyzed the House, as Republicans seek to avoid a politically perilous vote on a matter that is confounding President Trump and roiling their MAGA base.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/07/22/us/trump-news#mike-johnson-ends-house-session-epstein-vote

 

[JMartJr]

Nothing shows a commitment to openness more than shutting things down:

Speaker Mike Johnson on Tuesday announced he was cutting short the week's legislative business and sending the House home early for the summer on Wednesday to avoid having to hold votes on releasing files related to the accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

He made the move to deny Democrats the chance to try to force procedural votes on measures that would call on the Justice Department to make the information public. It reflected how deep divisions among Republicans on the matter have now paralyzed the House, as Republicans seek to avoid a politically perilous vote on a matter that is confounding President Trump and roiling their MAGA base.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/07/22/us/trump-news#mike-johnson-ends-house-session-epstein-vote

That may be a flawed strategy -- given the extent to which many of the MAGA faithful seem incensed by this issue, sending his members home to interact with them may wind up costing the Speaker some number of votes when they come back.

Of course, when the plane is in a tailspin, any change in vector can't hurt and might help, and buying time gives time for the Administration to find some way to solve their problem before Congress returns. But strategically, it seems a desperate move, and feeds the "why are you trying so hard to hide this if you've nothing to hide?" narrative.

 

[ChopFroggy]

Wired is reporting that metadata from the released video indicates it is composed of two clips and a longer approximately 3 minute section may have been removed from the first clip.

I've seen that repeated numerous times by late night shows and everywhere, but never really followed up by someone.

They say the 3 missing minutes are right at the end before the "1 missing minute". I find this odd, how would there be a visible 1 minute jump in the timeline, when they cut more then 3 minutes?

My theory is: at 23:59, the camera is turned off, someone earlier suggested a backup is made, good idea. Then at 0:00 a new file starts. Just before the first clip ends, you can see some gui popping up in the top right corner. So it looks like this was recorded externally from the playback device. And the recording kept going while they looked for the next segment. Right before the next file starts, they stop and restart the recording. Now they have 2 files, one having 3 minutes extra, them looking for the next file. They stitch that in Adobe premiere and all the missing stuff and metadata is explained.

In the video2, they also have "zoomed in" in the metadata. To me it looks like they recorded the video with some screen recorder (like OBS) and they selected the area they want to capture. Because of the two files, they didn't select exactly the same are. That's why the aspect ratio changes between the two parts. In Video2 they correct that aspect ratio, by zooming in.

Sure it is not a "raw" or "unedited" footage promised, but maybe that's as close as it gets. It looks like an old video system to me, I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't have a USB port, where you could simply copy the files over.

IDK if the video proves anything, but the metadata is IMO not the smoking gun I've seen people argue it would be.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Nothing shows a commitment to openness more than shutting things down:

Speaker Johnson corrected this today. (0:00 - 1:04)

Yesterday, some of you may have seen a false headline in the New York Times. And the headline was terribly misleading, it said "House Republicans are adjourning until September to avoid a vote on releasing the Epstein materials". I just want you to know, and everyone knows, that's an outright lie, it's not true. And they were forced to modify their headline and update it today.

... The published schedule of Congress was decided in December of 2024 and it's been published ever since. We are fulfilling the calendar and we are working... We have an August district work period that is very important to the function of Congress that has been recognized for all of memory.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhZm5JC-xzo


Here is a link to the House calendar if anyone is interested:
https://www.house.gov/legislative-activity

The rest of the video is talking about the Epstein files. He states:

No one in Congress is blocking Epstein documents

... What we are doing here, Republicans, are preventing Democrats from making a mockery of the rules committee process because we refuse to engage in their political charade.

... Democrats said nothing and did nothing, absolutely nothing about bringing transparency for the entire four years of Biden's presidency. But now, all of a sudden, they want to make the American people believe they actually care.

He was asked a question about "why wait to hold a vote on the Epstein files?", and I think this is the important thing people aren't considering: (7:38 - 7:53)

REPORTER: Why not more of a sense of urgency, why not hold the vote today?
JOHNSON: There's no point in having a vote today. The administration is already doing everything within their power to release them (Epstein files). They've gone to the grand jury, they've requested the courts to unseal the documents so that they can be released.

He also stated the following: (9:21 - 9:35)

... this information should have come out a long time ago. I've been an advocate of that, we all have. But that process is underway right now. Now, we've got to guard that, and protect that, and make sure it's happening. If it doesn't, then we'll take appropriate action when everybody returns here.

All of this makes complete sense to me. The media and social media are trying to rush the release of this stuff and the left are latching onto this and playing political games with it - like this:

Source: https://x.com/RepJeffries/status/1947695688361381911


As Johnson said, there's no reason to take a vote right now to force the administration to do something they're already trying to do.

REMINDER: The grand jury transcripts are under the control of the Judicial branch. The president does not have the power to just release these files. A federal judge has to approve the release of these files.

A judge would have to approve the release of the grand jury transcripts, and it's likely to be a lengthy process to decide what can become public and to make redactions to protect sensitive witness and victim information.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...ourt-to-unseal-epstein-grand-jury-transcripts

Is that all that's left to be released? My suspicion tells me yes, however, there probably are investigative files under the FBI and DOJ that will not be released because it's either pornography, child pornography, exposes victims, etc.

 

[FatPhil]

Speaker Johnson corrected this today. (0:00 - 1:04)

Yesterday, some of you may have seen a false headline in the New York Times. And the headline was terribly misleading, it said "House Republicans are adjourning until September to avoid a vote on releasing the Epstein materials". I just want you to know, and everyone knows, that's an outright lie, it's not true. And they were forced to modify their headline and update it today.

... The published schedule of Congress was decided in December of 2024 and it's been published ever since. We are fulfilling the calendar and we are working... We have an August district work period that is very important to the function of Congress that has been recognized for all of memory.

I do detect one lie in this context, namely the one coming from Johnson's mouth on monday night:

The House was scheduled to hold votes on Thursday before lawmakers departed for their five-week recess. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., even told reporters Monday night that he wouldn't send lawmakers home early this week.

But Republican leaders informed rank-and-file lawmakers on Tuesday that the final vote of the week would now be a day earlier, on Wednesday afternoon.

-- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-cancels-votes-fight-jeffrey-epstein-files-rcna220238

So the facts in evidence are that they are extraordinarily cutting their session short - which was the NYT claim - despite assurances that they wouldn't.

None of this should come as a surprise, it's one of Johnson's favourite plays - he did it this spring when in a similar sticky spot:

Johnson called the move "disappointing" and cut the House's legislative week short, sending lawmakers back to their districts two days early and canceling the remaining votes.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...hnson-shuts-down-votes-over-republican-mutiny

 

[fizzBuzz]

I do detect one lie in this context, namely the one coming from Johnson's mouth on monday night:

The House was scheduled to hold votes on Thursday before lawmakers departed for their five-week recess. Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., even told reporters Monday night that he wouldn't send lawmakers home early this week.

But Republican leaders informed rank-and-file lawmakers on Tuesday that the final vote of the week would now be a day earlier, on Wednesday afternoon.

-- https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-cancels-votes-fight-jeffrey-epstein-files-rcna220238

So the facts in evidence are that they are extraordinarily cutting their session short - which was the NYT claim - despite assurances that they wouldn't.

None of this should come as a surprise, it's one of Johnson's favourite plays - he did it this spring when in a similar sticky spot:

Johnson called the move "disappointing" and cut the House's legislative week short, sending lawmakers back to their districts two days early and canceling the remaining votes.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bi...hnson-shuts-down-votes-over-republican-mutiny

I think this is a little nit-picky. "Cutting the week short" doesn't seem to be unprecedented if they did it just this past spring.

According to Johnson, they were already scheduled to be out the month of August. I can't read the NYT article and I'm not paying for it. Does it imply that Johnson is closing the session until September specifically to avoid an Epstein vote? If so, that is dishonest reporting, according to Johnson - because he's just cutting the week short (like he did in Spring, as you noted). Plus, he's stated he is not trying to avoid an Epstein vote - he explained that earlier today. In other words, even if the session stayed open this week, next week, and all of August, they still wouldn't hold a vote because House Republicans are waiting to see if the grand jury transcripts are unsealed - if not, they'll hold a vote. I don't see what's wrong with this..

 

[MonkeeSage]

Speaker Johnson said on Monday he is not going to end the session early.

Then Johnson announced he would end the session one day before Rep. Massie could introduce a discharge petition to force a vote after Massie implied he had the support needed.

Massie has introduced a discharge petition in the House aimed at forcing a vote on full disclosure.

"It takes seven days for my bill to ripen. And, you know, guess what? The speaker is putting us on August recess on the sixth day. But this will just pause it. It will resume when we return in September. And that's when I can force a vote on this," he said.

Source: https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/thomas-massie-jeffrey-epstein-israel/2025/07/22/id/1219701/

Johnson all but confirmed that is why he cut the session short and is stalling in deference to Trump's wishes.

"My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing, and if further congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we'll look at that, but I don't think we're at that point right now, because we agree with the president"

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/21/politics/epstein-files-house-vote-gop-johnson-massie

 

[FatPhil]

I think this is a little nit-picky. "Cutting the week short" doesn't seem to be unprecedented if they did it just this past spring.

Who's focussing on it being "unprecedented"? I'm certainly not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/us/politics/mike-johnson-ends-house-session-epstein-vote.html - search in page doesn't find the word.
https://www.business-standard.com/w...n-releasing-epstein-files-125072201617_1.html - ditto
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-cancels-votes-fight-jeffrey-epstein-files-rcna220238 - ditto
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...hnson-house-leaves-early-epstein/85323000007/ - ditto
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/22/john-thune-mike-johnson-nominees-august-recess - ditto

All five of the first five search engine (startpage) hits for ``johnson cutting week short'' seem to support the notion that you are attempting to derail the argument.

Which, ironically, is not wholly unprecedented.

 

[fizzBuzz]

So the facts in evidence are that they are extraordinarily cutting their session short

Hmm. Let's see if that word was used to describe "cutting the week short"...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/us/politics/mike-johnson-ends-house-session-epstein-vote.html - I can't search this page.
https://www.business-standard.com/w...n-releasing-epstein-files-125072201617_1.html - search in page doesn't find the word.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-cancels-votes-fight-jeffrey-epstein-files-rcna220238 - ditto
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...hnson-house-leaves-early-epstein/85323000007/ - ditto
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/22/john-thune-mike-johnson-nominees-august-recess - ditto

All five of the first five search engine (startpage) hits for ``johnson cutting week short'' seem to support the notion that you are attempting to derail the argument.

Which, ironically, is not wholly unprecedented.

According to your logic here, and quite ironically I must add, it seems you are the one who derailed the argument.

 

[FatPhil]

Hmm. Let's see if that word was used to describe "cutting the week short"...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/us/politics/mike-johnson-ends-house-session-epstein-vote.html - I can't search this page.
https://www.business-standard.com/w...n-releasing-epstein-files-125072201617_1.html - search in page doesn't find the word.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-cancels-votes-fight-jeffrey-epstein-files-rcna220238 - ditto
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/...hnson-house-leaves-early-epstein/85323000007/ - ditto
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/22/john-thune-mike-johnson-nominees-august-recess - ditto


According to your logic here, and quite ironically I must add, it seems you are the one who derailed the argument.

Straw man.

I'm not claiming that people are finding the situation extraordinary. I'm simply saying that it is not what is ordinarily done. "Extraordinary" is a perfectly suitable word to describe that property.

Straw men are one of the most used derailment devices - and you're demonstably the one using it here. Please desist.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Straw man.

I'm not claiming that people are finding the situation extraordinary. I'm simply saying that it is not what is ordinarily done. "Extraordinary" is a perfectly suitable word to describe that property.

Straw men are one of the most used derailment devices - and you're demonstably the one using it here. Please desist.

I never claimed that people find it unprecedented..............

Do you care to respond to any of this?

According to Johnson, they were already scheduled to be out the month of August. I can't read the NYT article and I'm not paying for it. Does it imply that Johnson is closing the session until September specifically to avoid an Epstein vote? If so, that is dishonest reporting, according to Johnson - because he's just cutting the week short (like he did in Spring, as you noted). Plus, he's stated he is not trying to avoid an Epstein vote - he explained that earlier today. In other words, even if the session stayed open this week, next week, and all of August, they still wouldn't hold a vote because House Republicans are waiting to see if the grand jury transcripts are unsealed - if not, they'll hold a vote. I don't see what's wrong with this..

Because that's my ACTUAL point. If you don't like my usage of the word "unprecedented", fine, ignore it. That sentence of my post has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE POINT OF MY POST.

If you only care about individual words and not substance, then say so. Else, you just waste people's time.

 

[FatPhil]

I never claimed that people find it unprecedented..............

Then why did you say this:

"Cutting the week short" doesn't seem to be unprecedented if they did it just this past spring."

?

That sure looks like the gainsaying of the positive claim to me.

But keep pushing this line - eventually you will succeed in derailing the thread, I'm sure. The wronger you are, and the more responses are thereby invited, the more successful it will be.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Then why did you say this:

?

That sure looks like the gainsaying of the positive claim to me.

But keep pushing this line - eventually you will succeed in derailing the thread, I'm sure. The wronger you are, and the more responses are thereby invited, the more successful it will be.

I refuse to let you derail this thread with useless semantics.

So getting back on topic. Looks like a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Epstein files from the DOJ.

A House Oversight subcommittee voted Wednesday to subpoena the Department of Justice to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein. House Oversight Chair James Comer will be required to sign the subpoena before it can officially be issued, according to committee rules.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/23/politics/house-epstein-files-subpoena

Good. One step closer to "there's nothing to see here".

 

[NoParty]

Everyone knows that many Republicans are afraid of a vote that will come back to haunt them.

Speaker Johnson is being mocked for apparently/obviously trying to spare them such a vote.

But to be fair, say an asteroid arrives Sunday, obliterating Capitol Hill. Then his stalling looks pretty smart, yeah?

 

[fizzBuzz]

Everyone knows that many Republicans are afraid of a vote that will come back to haunt them.

Care to elaborate or are you just going to throw around unsubstantiated claims?

 

[MapperGuy]

As Johnson said, there's no reason to take a vote right now to force the administration to do something they're already trying to do.

Actually there is. TACO Trump almost daily changes deadlines and creates new ones. The likelihood that the administration will actually follow through is low, just as every deadline for the Russians to comply with something gets moved out or forgotten. Consistency is NOT something Trump is noted for, there is always some reason to change policies and deadlines.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Actually there is. TACO Trump almost daily changes deadlines and creates new ones. The likelihood that the administration will actually follow through is low, just as every deadline for the Russians to comply with something gets moved out or forgotten. Consistency is NOT something Trump is noted for, there is always some reason to change policies and deadlines.

The DOJ requested the Epstein grand jury transcripts be unsealed. A judge rejected that request.

A judge on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations of Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida, though a similar records request is pending in New York.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...eal-epstein-grand-jury-transcripts-in-florida

A DOJ rep has been meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell for questioning

Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell, after answering questions for six hours on Thursday, is meeting for a second day on Friday with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/deputy-ag-blanche-set-meet-2nd-day-ghislaine/story?id=124064062

So.. you can poke fun at the administration all you want, but they are making efforts in regards to the Epstein case.

 

[JMartJr]

The DOJ requested the Epstein grand jury transcripts be unsealed. A judge rejected that request.

One could note that the grand jury transcript was never likely to be released which anybody at DOJ or in the White House with any knowledge of legal procedures would know, is not the same thing as the DOJ files and other files in the hand of executive agencies, and was not what was requested/demanded by angry MAGA supporters.

Given all that, the suspicion that it was not a serious effort to release information, but rather an attempt to take some heat off of the administration by diverting blame to a judge for information not being released seems not unreasonable.

Of course, I do not KNOW if that is an accurate assessment of their goals, I was not in the room when decisions about this were made obviously, but IF that was the desired outcome it seems not to have been successful.

 

[fizzBuzz]

One could note that the grand jury transcript was never likely to be released which anybody at DOJ or in the White House with any knowledge of legal procedures would know, is not the same thing as the DOJ files and other files in the hand of executive agencies, and was not what was requested/demanded by angry MAGA supporters.

Given all that, the suspicion that it was not a serious effort to release information, but rather an attempt to take some heat off of the administration by diverting blame to a judge for information not being released seems not unreasonable.

Of course, I do not KNOW if that is an accurate assessment of their goals, I was not in the room when decisions about this were made obviously, but IF that was the desired outcome it seems not to have been successful.

But you're kind of assuming there are more files in the hands of DOJ that need to be released. The first tranche of documents were released in January of 2024. These same files were re-released earlier this year (on the silly, theatrical "binder day"). How do we know there are more files yet to be released? Obviously, ignoring things that can't be released (pornography, files that expose victims, etc).

One could note that the grand jury transcript was never likely to be released

I disagree. Florida released some grand jury transcripts in July, 2024 relating to the 2006 Florida investigation of Epstein.

Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed HB 117, which allows for the public release of grand jury documents, such as those related to the 2006 Florida investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Two victims of Epstein joined Governor DeSantis in Palm Beach to celebrate the justice that was being delivered.

https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/pres...-authorize-release-jeffrey-epstein-grand-jury

 

[RTM]

The whole thing is a farce; sycophants who are in the top levels of the FBI regularly talked about Epstein conspiracies/deep state before their non DEI era appointments. Since then we've been told there's nothing on the list, we shouldn't be talking about Epstein and that the list was created by Obama/Comey/Biden. And we're not even done with this trashy mess.

 

[JMartJr]

But you're kind of assuming there are more files in the hands of DOJ that need to be released.

I'm not -- but it has been reported that there are. Though of course that reporting could be in error.

My take on this is not based on being pro or anti Trump -- I am trying here to look at it all from the POV of a former political consultant, just looking at the mess they are in and how they got here.

The problem the then-campaign now-administration has made for themselves is that they bought into (or at least gave a "nudge nudge wink wink" to and thus fostered) conspiracy theorists out of QAnon and Q-adjacent "influencers" claiming that the releases of the Epstein files would implicate a pretty wide swath of famous, rich and important people. The Q-inspired part of the President's base is waiting for the promised release of "The Epstein Files" or "The Epstein List" which they fervently believe will implicate President Biden , or President Clinton, or Mrs. Clinton, or SOME damn body on the left, and they further believe (as assured by QAnon) that President Trump is on a holy mission to crush all these pedophiles in and adjacent to government. The time for President Trump to get out from under that would have been long before now -- but instead of disavowing conspiracy theories, he tried to ride them into power.

That worked, but now the bill is due. His conspiracy theorist base now wants what they believe they were promised, which he is now refusing to give them and is telling them was all a hoax by the left and they were stupid to believe it. (It is not explained why the Left would have made up a conspiracy that leaders on their side were involed in a massive pedophilia ring, which seems difficult to believe.) This is not a tactic that is likely to be effective with conspiracy theorists, as the deeply-held false beliefs of a conspiracy theorist are central to their self-image, to who they believe that they are and will not be given up lightly.

I don't know why they cannot release "The Epstein Files" or "The Epstein List." Perhaps, as you suggest, there is nothing more to release. Perhaps the problem is that there is plenty to release but it does not implicate the people the QAnon base have been told that it will, so it will look (to conspiracy theorists) like the administration is not releasing everything and is hiding The Truth and protecting the pedophiles. Perhaps the remaining files implicate somebody close to the President, or the President himself not necessarily in the pedophilia ring but in other criminal, or even just embarrassing, aspects of dealing with Mr. Epstein. But whatever reason, they have staked themselves out pretty strongly now on not releasing what their base demands.

This is a political nightmare (as somebody who has worked through several political nightmares during his career, though at lesser scale, I know one when I see one! And I sympathize with the lowly staff caught up in it all, it is not a pleasant experience.)

As for the senior people in the administration, including the President, my sympathy is much less, as they made a series of stupid, unforced errors to get to this point -- it is a largely self-made box they trapped themselves in, it must be doubly frustrating and enraging. I am profoundly glad it is not up to me to figure out how to get out of this -- I'm not sure it can be done.

 

[fizzBuzz]

The Q-inspired part of the President's base is waiting for the promised release of "The Epstein Files" or "The Epstein List" which they fervently believe will implicate President Biden , or President Clinton, or Mrs. Clinton, or SOME damn body on the left, and they further believe (as assured by QAnon) that President Trump is on a holy mission to crush all these pedophiles in and adjacent to government.

The people waiting for the "client list" is not limited to Q-inspired right or even MAGA supporters in general - a lot of very prominent figures on the left are pushing for this as well. It truly is a united front if you just scroll through an X feed. A lot of people on both the left and right think the current administration is covering up pedophiles... it's kind of insane. This is why Democrats want to hold a vote in Congress to have the files released.

To me, if the Epstein files incriminated ANYONE outside of Epstein and Maxwell, it would have come out in the last ~4 years by the previous administration. ESPECIALLY if the files incriminate Trump - which is what a lot of the left (on X) think. But so many people seem to be ignoring this.

 

[MapperGuy]

A DOJ rep has been meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell for questioning

First question I have: Doesl she have a lawyer representing her present? Or will these be a closed non-recorded threat sessions, DOJ persons only?

 

[fizzBuzz]

First question I have: Doesl she have a lawyer representing her present? Or will these be a closed non-recorded threat sessions, DOJ persons only?

Yes, her lawyer was present

Maxwell's appellate lawyer, David O. Markus, said after the meeting Maxwell "answered all the questions and answered them honestly."

Markus said there were "a lot of questions and we went all day and she answered every one of them."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj...xwell-set-thursday-sources/story?id=124021785

What I find most interesting is this part

Maxwell initiated the meeting, multiple sources told ABC News.

I don't really know what they mean by "initiated", but clarification would be nice.

 

[JMartJr]

The people waiting for the "client list" is not limited to Q-inspired right or even MAGA supporters in general - a lot of very prominent figures on the left are pushing for this as well. It truly is a united front if you just scroll through an X feed. A lot of people on both the left and right think the current administration is covering up pedophiles... it's kind of insane.

But President Trump's problem is not with the left, who already dislike him. His issue in this case is that this scandal is angering HIS base of support, and the difficult bit is it is an issue that is foundational to their identity, where he either has to give them what they feel they were promised (which may be impossible!) or convince them they were wrong all along, which as we know from other sorts of conspiracy theories is not easy to do.

This is why Democrats want to hold a vote in Congress to have the files released.

Note that the one time, to date and to my knowledge, there was any sort of vote on it was when a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena such files, three of five Republicans voted in the affirmative. These were good Trump loyalists, but they did not toe the line here.

The thing that strikes me is that everybody wants to release the info except the White House and the GOP Leadership -- the MAGA rank and file are revolting on this one. That is significant, and should be very worrying for the Administration.