fizzBuzz
Senior Member
You're beefing mighty hard over something that's just not that big of a deal, man. We probably all agree on the substance of the matter, that there never was a client list, so why hang on to this???
Jeffrey Epstein - DOJ Report and Prison Video
- Thread starter MonkeeSage
- Start date
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Because I care about language.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
I don't think we're meant to conclude that, though (from the time the original interview occurred). People misspeak, miscommunicate, aren't clear in these interviews all the time. I just don't see this as that big of a deal.
I think it's much more likely that either she just wasn't clear that day or she was under the impression there was a client list, only to find out there wasn't THAN she's lying and this is a cover-up of some sorts.
I must add: if you watch other interviews of her, this is kind of common. She's not very articulate.
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
I think you misunderstood my point some. When it comes to Bondi, I only said she did not lie, but at the most made a comment which was insinuative. It seems we agree here. I never said she did not use sloppy language, and how she worded it is very poor too, but very low gravity when it comes the people knowingly pumping the claim falsely.
I also never stated anything others haven't said? It is quite factual that the "client list" claim arose from social media and news reports, and that both cases were rooted in reference to the flight list or the Maxwell case list. If you wish I can link over 100 news articles and more than 10,000 social media comments referencing said articles that're now driving conspiratorial claims about the shadow government and elites preventing the list from being revealed, based also, off the exact verbiage and sequencing of it in the articles evidently allowing for widespread misperception, and in some cases it is intentional as with say Alex Jones.
Source: https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1942208219532628461
"The DOJ is running cover for the CIA and Mossad. NO ONE IS BUYING THIS!! Next the DOJ will say 'Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed.' This is over the top sickening."
Sure, Bondi misspoke, or there's even the potential she intentionally did that to pump the conspiracies herself. All the social media influencers and news outlets actually driving the content that people are seeing, that is in turn being discussed and used to reinforce the conspiracies, also share a part in the problem. That is also why I provided PBS as a more specific example because I actually like how they reported on it, but it's still structured in a way that's being shared and contributing to the conspiracies even though they recognize the list claim issue. It's not really any different than when say the New Jersey UFO craze happened and a lot of 'reputable' media even was contributing to the conspiracies. For specific example like when CNN shared the Star Wars CGI video and didn't even try to find the original post that stated it was CGI.
I'm sure you could agree we could go on about issues with Bondi for days in a variety of distinct topics, although given the context and presumption of that I don't really see the need to go as in-depth with Bondi, since, well, we largely agree on those specific points already it seems. My angle is that, for example, the overall discourse (don't mean here) happening now, isn't even framed about Bondi lying. It's about "the client list" being covered up. The only reason Bondi's prior statement is spearheading this is because others decided to focus on using that. Most outlets even, unlike say PBS or a few others, never even state the issues with the claims. There's a handful that recognize them as false or likely false also but never actually explain why like say PBS did last year, so it leaves a perceptive gap every time those rooted claims get brought up but the root not specifically referenced.
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Well, I watch it, and I get from it that she has not reviewed the Epstein case yet, so she doesn't have knowledge to confirm or deny that it exists.
We've seen something similar when conspiracy theorists use a study or statistics to answer a question that the study was not designed to answer.
The question posed to Bondi here was not, "does the client list exist", but "are you going to publish", with the existence of the list as a given. So that's the focus of her answer. The answer does not address the assumption that a "client list" is part of the Epstein case.
At this point, Bondi may well herself assume that the list exists, but she doesn't explicitly confirm that.
I don't think anyone (or at least most of the people) is interested in and is referring to an actual physical list of clients as a document, but rather to a list that links names to the perpetrators themselves. Of course, she plays with words, saying that no such (implicitly assumed) physical document made by Epstein was seized in order to conclude that there's nothing to see there. If she were answering in good faith, she would have made it absolutely clear what she meant by 'the list', because as a high-profile lawyer she must know very well the importance of chosen words.
deirdre
Senior Member
i dont know what knowledge she had ( or was given) at the time, but she was only in the job 15 days when CPAC happened -the day before the john roberts interview- where she allegedly "alluded" to the list (the word John Roberts used on Fox news). https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20250221_180000_America_Reports/start/720/end/780
although Roberts mentioned Senator Cruz, her interview with Cruz at CPAC was primarily about the drug cartels and border issues. I saw nothing about epstein or jfk stuff with Cruz.
It seems it was to Benny Johnson where she kinda alluded to a list (Benny alluded actually).
here is the Benny Johnson clip below. she says "i was briefed on that yesterday". yesterday would have been Feb 19th... 14 days after she got the job.
I personally find it hard to believe with all the more pressing issues, like the border/illegal immigration/child trafficking at the border/ not to mention Trumps obsession with going after his political rivals that weaponized the Justice Department against him... she would have personally looked at the old Epstein file the first 14 days on the job. (although it is possible she already knew there was no client list per se, but she didnt want to contradict Trump directly since she was so new to the job. Its also possible she had no idea if there was one or not)
Source: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DGUULgWtlcy/?hl=en
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
Even if she knew at the time of the Fox News interview that there was no client list, why would she have told us that? Even though the investigation may be complete, it's still a confidential case not ready for public release. In other words, people think there's a client list, she's going to let them think whatever they want to think and she's not going to confirm nor deny anything. This happens ALL THE TIME. That's why I think we (us outside the investigation - particularly the media and social media) are just overblowing this a bit.
I can see several much more likely reasons why the Fox News interview went the way it did rather than she's lying and covering stuff up. I'm using "cover up" as the alternative because this is what is ALL OVER social media - from the left and the right, it's kind of surprising. Even people I highly respect on the left are doing this, like Cenk Uygur. He's been going off on X about this: (and to be clear, to his credit, he's blaming both administrations)
She said it was on her desk.
Maybe she didn't mean the client list was on her desk, but that's what she said, and she could very easily have said "the case files are on my desk".
She confirmed there was a client list by saying it was on her desk.
Maybe she misspoke, but that's literally what she said.
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
I don't see it as confirmation there's a list because she also said "to review", which should be confirmation that she doesn't know what's in the case - as Mendel implied.
I just think this whole thing is overblown. Could this be a cover-up of some sorts? Maybe, but I think it's highly unlikely and I don't think the Pam Bondi interview would be the telltale sign for that.
deirdre
Senior Member
as a lawyer- her, not me- she would argue that that is not what she literally said. and she would win in a court. well, she would win in a fair and honest court.
is it skeevy when lawyers (and press secretaries, and politicians and spouses and metabunk members ) do that? yea.
Mendel
Senior Member.
And subsequently mentions other cases she's also reviewing. Which tells you which direction her thoughts were going.
Please do not disregard the context, that way bunk is born.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
There's the "little black book" phone directory that was published by Gawker 10 years ago in redacted form, then an unredacted one is on Archive.org.
Of course determining who was a "client" in all of it is the question.
https://archive.org/details/jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book-unredacted
Of course determining who was a "client" in all of it is the question.
https://archive.org/details/jeffrey-epsteins-little-black-book-unredacted
fizzBuzz
Senior Member
When did any administration present that carrot, though? Has the FBI or DOJ ever specifically mentioned a list of Epstein clients? I could be wrong, but I'm under the impression that "client list" is a construct created over time by the media, conspiracy theorists, social media, etc. and also something that was confused with Epstein's contact list.
RTM
Senior Member.
Back in February when the "Epstein materials" were being reviewed a bunch of podcasters were given binders to be waved around. The house Judiciary Committee's official twitter account had a post about releasing the Epstein files which was a Rick Roll, this was then deleted.
Call it what you will, but my take away of what people expect the Epstein files to be is something they can use as proof against someone they don't like.
I guess my main point is that the Epstein case has devolved into a farce, it's almost a Rorschach test where people expect to see someone they don't like. Ghilsaine Maxwell is still in jail and I'm assuming she is being questioned on a potential wider Epstein network.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/right-...d-the-epstein-files-but-downplay-revelations/
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/house-judiciary-gop-rickroll-epstein-files
Call it what you will, but my take away of what people expect the Epstein files to be is something they can use as proof against someone they don't like.
I guess my main point is that the Epstein case has devolved into a farce, it's almost a Rorschach test where people expect to see someone they don't like. Ghilsaine Maxwell is still in jail and I'm assuming she is being questioned on a potential wider Epstein network.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/right-...d-the-epstein-files-but-downplay-revelations/
https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/house-judiciary-gop-rickroll-epstein-files
Yeah honestly surprised by Mick's take. This is the kind of rigid reading a Ufologist might use when discussing government officials' statements. It's not about how "easily" she could have said something differently. It's about looking at the full context to see what she likely meant. Mentioning the JFK files makes it pretty clear she hadn't reviewed it and at most thought the list would be in there. Obviously she spoke very imprecisely and came off as uninformed which fuels suspicion.
My take?
I'm saying what she said, what she was responding to, and what the literal meaning of that exchange is. I posted the full video of the exchange. And I've noted she might not have meant it.
My take is that there's a disconnect between what was said then ("it is on my desk"), and what she later said (there is no client list)
"It's impossible to watch this and conclude she is not referring to a list of Epstein's clients". This seems like an unfounded take.
All of these examples of yours are properly using quotes around "client list" because the interviewer asked her about the "client list" and she responded with "It ...". Like @FatPhil said, that's how pronouns work. And that's also how journalism works so saying
is, in fact, objectively incorrect. You can even see this demonstrated in the second link (from House.gov) using "[Epstein's client list] is ..." because "it" refers to the "client list".
This one is particularly confusing because that's the textbook definition of how to use [ ] to replace a pronoun with its antecedent to clarify the subject.
https://www.unr.edu/writing-speakin...ets can also be used,the meaning of the quote.External Quote:
The Daily Beast article isn't even presenting a quote.
The single quotes around Sitting on My Desk indicate those are her actual words. The rest of the title is a summary of what the article will say, hence the lack of quotes around the sentence as a whole. The link from the Hill even shows her full quote "It's sitting ...". KOMO and the last Yahoo link don't put quotes around "client list" at all.
You would have a valid point if any of these articles wrote
but none of them did that.
While it's possible Bondi meant something like "The Epstein case file is sitting on my desk" and misspoke, all of the above are valid ways to present what she actually said in the context of the conversation. What else would "it" refer to other than the noun in the question she's answering? Criticizing the media in this case is bizarre.
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
I think the fact there's 10,000s of social media comments sharing these articles as "proof" that they're covering up the "client list" kind of points out the issue. I never debated proper linguistics, I pointed out framing enabling conspiracy theories. Many of these outlets, again, do not even identify the issue with the "client list" claims at all, they frame Bondi lying about it and add credence to the idea there's some cover up of the "client list" that's never organically been its own reference, but rather a reference to not client lists.
The average person is also not thinking of proper linguistics when reading a headline. That's kind of one of the major contributing factors to the intersection of critical thinking and media readership issues with at least audiences here in the US. Folks that are reading that way, that's great, and you are correct about proper linguistics. Unfortunately that is not how most people are reading it or else the predominate narrative sets about this entire incident wouldn't be about a cover up or lying about the "client list". Instead it's much more likely narrative sets related to Bondi potentially acting misleading in general would be.
Metabunk is a great community and I would hope most of the folks here recognize you're a cut above the average person and that places us in an ingroup that's not entirely comparable in behavior or thought in that context.
We're also completely fine debating from this exact angle when it's outlets doing the same thing but with regards too UAP or "whistleblowers", etc. Nearly the same thing just a different topic of focus.
Last edited:
Then just put the blame in the right place - on Bondi for being terrible at her job and misspeaking or lying, not on the media who reported accurately on the interview. Especially when Bondi keeps lying
External Quote:
RTM
Senior Member.
Video lacks description
Coffeezilla has a good mash up of various stages of the story. Patel and Bongino were seriously into the conspiracies prior to their appointments. Bondi seems to be indicating a lot of evidence. At best this seems to be people eager to believe in conspiracies floating around the internet.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbf6C5XWK7w
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gbf6C5XWK7w
Tezcatlipoca
Senior Member.
Well then we should also not make the same arguments when news does the same exact thing and pumps up UFO memes.
I already identified I held an issue with Bondi also but given we all pretty much shared agreement on that point I did not find it relevant to repeat what we all already share. Unfortunately, a majority of the discourse about it now is referencing current media reporting, not Bondi's interview. This is called "amplification", and in many cases leaves out critical details, which lead readers to misperceptions not directly rooted from Bondi's video itself. This is important in this context because "amplification" is the exact function that spreads these conspiracies. Without amplification they do not spread. Without amplification, none of this discussion would be happening currently, including our own.
Also, on another point. While I hold some distinctions for professional reasons, if we want to consider a "lie" as both the projection of something false and the obfuscation of something real jointly - the obfuscation would be what we're using to say Bondi was lying in re the "client list" (not talking about her other projections of false info in other interviews, etc).
So, what I am pointing out, is that most media is also obfuscating the reality of the "client list" claims, while also stating that Bondi lied about it. This has a very high likelihood of leading the average person to believe that Bondi lied about something real, in this context, the client list. Both Bondi and a lot of outlets and influencers are also obfuscating facts related to the "client list" claims. Bondi acted to originate it, and now a lot of outlets and influencers are amplifying the same thing they participated in creating through mostly obfuscating details (save the few who knowingly called the other materials "client lists" that'd be projection of false info - most wouldn't be in that category.)
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
Exactly.
This assumption was introduced into the interview by the fox interviewer. Suffice it to say, I don't think he was a good journalist in that interview.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Only if he'd have insisted on a yes/no answer, rather than - as he did, by letting her answer freely - giving her the opportunity to challenge the precepts the question was framed around.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Well, we have different opinions about leading questions, then.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
I think they're a great way to get an idiot to run off at the mouth.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Pandering to snowf**kes.
Mendel
Senior Member.
It's a longstanding "land of the free" issue.
Article: Airing indecent and obscene language puts stations at risk of FCC fines and possible loss of their license. It is your responsibility as a producer to carefully edit obscenities from your audio and to provide forewarning to stations of all content advisories in an upcoming episode.
Mendel
Senior Member.
The proper term is "conservative anti-pornography organization" (wikipedia).
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Which, if any, of the words mentioned is indecent and obscene?
YouTube has very poorly defined, inconsistently applied rules for demonetizing or hiding videos based on their content, including language. In a video where all of those words are said so often, it's just easier for content creators to bleep them all.
Ann K
Senior Member.
People usually put out YouTube videos to earn money-per-view, but offensive language can get them "demonetized", that is, YouTube cuts off the money stream for that video. I don't know if it's automatic, depends upon a body of censors, or is driven by customer complaints; nevertheless demonetization defeats the purpose of putting out the video in the first place.
Interviewer: asks question about client list
Bizarro world Bondi who is good at her job: "Well actually there's no client list per se. There's a multitude of documents blah blah blah"
Real world Bondi: "It is sitting on my desk right now."
If Bondi was good at her job, she could have cleared this whole thing up on the spot.
I'd know them if I could see them.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
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?
Similar threads
- Sticky
