Jeffrey Epstein - DOJ Report and Prison Video

[MonkeeSage]

Axios is reporting they obtained a memo from the Justice Department stating the death was a suicide, and releasing an 11 hour video recovered from cameras outside the area where Epstein was held.

President Trump's Justice Department and FBI have concluded they have no evidence that convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed powerful figures, kept a "client list" or was murdered, according to a memo detailing the findings obtained by Axios.

• The administration is releasing a video — in both raw and "enhanced" versions — that it says indicates no one entered the area of the Manhattan prison where Epstein was held the night he died in 2019.
• The video supports a medical examiner's finding that Epstein committed suicide, the two-page memo claims.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/07/07/jeffrey-epstein-suicide-client-list-trump-administration

Direct links to video files:
https://www.justice.gov/video-files/video1.mp4
https://www.justice.gov/video-files/video2.mp4

 

[Matt33]

The most interesting part is that there supposedly is no client list. "Any more" I'd like to add.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

The most interesting part is that there supposedly is no client list. "Any more" I'd like to add.

Could be a semantic thing going on. From my understanding the prior documents we know of in that regard aren't a "client list" (eg an actual list of clients; or alternatively accounting style documents related to client purchases or whatnot). Rather people very loosely used "client list" to refer to things that were absolutely not that; primarily the flight logs and the list of names from the old Ghisaline case. Even in loose form calling those a "client list" is wildly misleading and was never accurate anyways.
I don't believe there was ever an actual organic, standalone claim about a proper "client list" rather than the sequence above occuring multiple times based off different root (not client list) materials.

 

[Matt33]

Asked about wether the client list will be released by the DOJ, Pam Bondi said "it's sitting on my desk right now for review". I acknowledge that it just might be semantic. She lists several cases, JFK, MLK, that are being reviewed, and so she is referring to the Epstein case as a whole and not specifically to a client list. However that's not what the reporter asked, but not answering questions is not uncommon for members of the administration.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NbTF-csBsOA

 

[Mick West]

Full text of DOJ/FBI memo

U.S. Department of Justice
Federal Bureau of Investigation
__________________________________________________________________________
As part of our commitment to transparency, the Department of Justice and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation have conducted an exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to
Jeffrey Epstein. To ensure that the review was thorough, the FBI conducted digital searches of its
databases, hard drives, and network drives as well as physical searches of squad areas, locked
cabinets, desks, closets, and other areas where responsive material may have been stored. These
searches uncovered a significant amount of material, including more than 300 gigabytes of data
and physical evidence.

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. Teams of agents, analysts,
attorneys, and privacy and civil liberties experts combed through the digital and documentary
evidence with the aim of providing as much information as possible to the public while
simultaneously protecting victims. 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.

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.

Consistent with prior disclosures, this 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.

One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploitation and bringing justice to
victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.

To that end, while 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.

After a thorough investigation, FBI investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed
suicide in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on August 10, 2019.

This conclusion is consistent with previous findings, including the August 19, 2019 autopsy
findings of the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, the November 2019 position
of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York in connection with the
investigation of federal correctional officers responsible for guarding Epstein, and the June 2023
conclusions of DOJ's Office of the Inspector General.

The conclusion that Epstein died by suicide is further supported by video footage from the
common area of the Special Housing Unit (SHU) where Epstein was housed at the time of his
death. As DOJ's Inspector General explained in 2023, anyone entering or attempting to enter the
tier where Epstein's cell was located from the SHU common area would have been captured by
this footage. The FBI's independent review of this footage confirmed that from the time Epstein
was locked in his cell at around 10:40 pm on August 9, 2019, until around 6:30 am the next
morning, nobody entered any of the tiers in the SHU.

During this review, the FBI enhanced the relevant footage by increasing its contrast,
balancing the color, and improving its sharpness for greater clarity and viewability. The full raw
and enhanced videos are available at the following links: https://www.justice.gov/video-file1;
https://www.justice.gov/video-file2.

 

[Mick West]

Direct links to video files:
https://www.justice.gov/video-files/video1.mp4
https://www.justice.gov/video-files/video2.mp4

The video files are 20GB each. The "Enhanced" version is just brighter and contrast enhanced, not really any more useful than the original, as far as I can tell.

They are 1080P, I'm going to convert it to 480P and speed it up

 

[fizzBuzz]

I'm assuming the purpose of these long videos is to show no one entered his cell prior to his suicide? I've also seen people claim that he was allowed to commit suicide. This kind of seems like an unfalsifiable claim to me, so not even worth looking into, perhaps.

Hopefully, the conspiracy people put this one behind them.

 

[JMartJr]

Hopefully, the conspiracy people put this one behind them.

To the extent this will be read as "He harmed over 1,000 victims, nobody else was involved; case closed" that seems an unlikely outcome, even if we lived in a world where conspiracy theorists were in the habit of moving on!

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'm assuming the purpose of these long videos is to show no one entered his cell prior to his suicide? I've also seen people claim that he was allowed to commit suicide. This kind of seems like an unfalsifiable claim to me, so not even worth looking into, perhaps.

Hopefully, the conspiracy people put this one behind them.

This is always a trickier end too it also. I'd specifically frame this as a hypothesis that's weighed about the same as the mistakes-leading-to-its-possibility conclusion. There are some crimes, such as crimes against children and sex crimes (especially those against children) that will inherently make you "no good" to folks in prison (and of course most of society too but willingness to er, act on it differs).
In most federal prisons and in a lot of state prisons too, this means in non-PC/SNY these folks are generally "on sight", meaning you socially have to attack them. Even if not ordered you risk losing what is called "face" and that could also get you harmed given the specific context.
We do know he had a cellmate he shouldn't have had at all. Further, COs also hate these dudes, it's absolutely not uncommon to hear about these types being housed with folks or put in cell blocks where the COs know they'll be harmed. The COs can largely feign ignorance because there's no documentation that'd prove it really (unless they fucked up really bad and wrote it down for some reason), and can in some cases even use legal mumbo jumbo regarding classification legalities and etc. Add in the fact Epstein is basically cream of the shit crop in this regard, the closed-door reputation you'd get from it doing or enabling it, whether as an inmate or CO, would basically be like getting a Nobel Prize in prison social politics terms.

Major note even toying with that hypothesis though, it'd be much more like, some Capt and a handful of COs knowingly gave him a cellmate who was prone to violence against those types, not some grand plot or anything with a bunch of moving pieces. The cellmate likely would've had 0 contact with them about it and just be what they do anyways, whether that be direct (eg harming them physically) or indirect (eg giving them access to things such as say shoelaces and otherwise enabling their suicidal behaviors).

 

[Favious M]

So in video1, at 11:58:58 PM there's a jump in the footage to 12:00:00 AM and something about the video changes like it got stretched slightly differently

I imagine this will be a point that conspiracy theories still hang on.

What do we think might have happened here? On initial viewing it does look like a genuine edit to the footage. But I'm wondering if there's a simpler explanation, perhaps along the lines of a quirk in the CCTV system and it does this every day at midnight (which would be a wild issue for a prison CCTV system to have in itself)

 

[fizzBuzz]

So in video1, at 11:58:58 PM there's a jump in the footage to 12:00:00 AM and something about the video changes like it got stretched slightly differently

I imagine this will be a point that conspiracy theories still hang on.

What do we think might have happened here? On initial viewing it does look like a genuine edit to the footage. But I'm wondering if there's a simpler explanation, perhaps along the lines of a quirk in the surveillance system and it does this every day at midnight (which would be a wild issue for a prison surveillance system to have in itself)

From my limited experience in working with security cameras in the past, they are a constant nuisance. When I worked in IT about 15 years ago, part of my job was to make sure all the cameras were working. We had 7 sites and 20ish cameras at each site. Never.. and I mean NEVER, at one given time were they all working. And there would be random 30s, 1m, 5m, etc. holes like this. We tried our best to limit this, but it was definitely a thing. It was usually network communication issues that we had - glitchy routers/switches, sometimes overheating routers/switches, etc. We could have just had a bad setup, but that's my experience.

IT is not my thing tho. I was the software developer that got handed random IT responsibilities for "reasons" - so I'm definitely not an expert in security cameras.

 

[jdog]

Attorney Ken White of Popehat fame has repeatedly pointed out that people who think security at a federal prison would have been too strict to allow a high-profile inmate like Epstein kill himself have a poorly informed sense of what federal prisons are like. Most of this 2019 piece is behind a paywall, but he lays out 32 cases of neglect in custody: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-stories-jeffrey-epstein-prison-death/596029/

...Americans who believe in their justice system assert that it is obvious that he was murdered, and that jailers could not possibly be so incompetent, cruel, or indifferent as to let such a high-profile prisoner commit suicide.

Here, to help you evaluate that claim, are 32 short stories about in-custody deaths or near-deaths in America.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Do we know a rough time when the suicide actually occurred? Or is 10:40pm to 6:30am the narrowest window?

 

[Mick West]

Here's the jump in the original video

Missing 11:58:58 to 12:00:02 (1 min 4 seconds)

 

[MonkeeSage]

It looks like there is some kind of user interface in the top right before the jump (security camera playback software?) that is gone afterwards. Also the video aspect ratio slightly changes after the jump (gets wider) and UI disappears.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Attorney Ken White of Popehat fame has repeatedly pointed out that people who think security at a federal prison would have been too strict to allow a high-profile inmate like Epstein kill himself have a poorly informed sense of what federal prisons are like. Most of this 2019 piece is behind a paywall, but he lays out 32 cases of neglect in custody: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-stories-jeffrey-epstein-prison-death/596029/

Also worth reading this too, covers some of the related failures at MCC NY.
https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oi...-and-supervision-jeffrey-epstein-metropolitan

Multiple lapses in this. They either gave him more of those materials than was suppose too - or alternatively they did not remove his prior cellmates knowing the risk for an abnormally long period. As laid out in the report though this is a more systemic failure on part of the COs behavior and (not) following policy. At the absolute most they could've intentionally left it there, but that still would not comprise some grand plot idea so doesn't contribute to that either.

 

[Mick West]

It looks like there is some kind of user interface in the top right before the jump (security camera playback software?) that is gone afterwards. Also the video aspect ratio slightly changes after the jump (gets wider) and UI disappears.

I suspect it was a different video segment. They seem to have "exported" it by screen recording it, and might have changed the viewer when cueing up the next segment.

We do have uniterrupted footage from 12:00:02, for 6hr40m

 

[Chacra]

User Sonamdrukpa made some interesting observations in this Reddit thread


Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1lu8lj1/epstein_cctv_footage_missing_one_minute/n1w1ong/

This source used in this post is absolute garbage but yeah, you can see there's a minute missing from 11:59 - 12:00:

https://www.justice.gov/video-files/video2.mp4

Edit: the timestamp at the beginning is 7:40:00pm and the last timestamp is 6:40:00am, but the video is 10:52:23 in length, meaning there's almost 8 minutes missing, not just this one minute the article points out (assuming the video is playing at the correct speed). NOTE: The video is in fact playing fast, see below

Second edit:

Trying to figure out whether the playback speed is off, and I think it might be. The video has a 39,143 second length and should be 39,600 - 61 = 39,539 seconds if it were playing 1:1. If everything else is there that means the video is playing at ~101% speed, and it might be.

The video timer hits 8:40:00 at 59:23. That's 3,601s in 3,953s, which is ~101% speed, will need to look at some more time stamps later to confirm it stays consistent. So may just be that one minute missing.

Third edit:

u/Most_Road1974 has made a whole table of playback vs clock times here, 101% playback speed pretty well confirmed

Fourth edit: u/MobileArtist1371 also confirmed the speed with a different set of timestamps here

Fifth edit: Since this comment blew up but actually doesn't have much useful information y'all might instead want to look at this thread which has a deeper analysis of the video:

https://xcancel.com/adamscochran/status/1942113153245942233#m

It appears there may be more than just 1 minute missing and the video could have been manipulated to try and hide the missing time. I don't know how to go about validating missing frames or sped up playback.

The xcancel thread by Adam Cochran has a detailed timeline of persons visible on camera that appear to contradict written reports of events. Also some good detail about the physical layout of the prison wing in relation to the camera location and camera POV

 

[FatPhil]

https://xcancel.com/adamscochran/status/1942113153245942233#m

The xcancel thread by Adam Cochran has a detailed timeline of persons visible on camera that appear to contradict written reports of events. Also some good detail about the physical layout of the prison wing in relation to the camera location and camera POV

For those not in the know, xcancel is a privacy-protecting portal that lets you access X/Twitter, including feeds that you couldn't see unless you have an X account. Understandably, X don't like this state of affairs, so they like breaking their interfaces in order to scupper xcancel, thus sometimes breaking it. You can just replace "xcancel" in the URL with "x" or "twitter", and you'll get the original resource being referred to.

E.g. the above (which will now invoke forum embedding of the xitter post) is:

Source: https://twitter.com/adamscochran/status/1942113153245942233#m

 

[Ann K]

It appears there may be more than just 1 minute missing and the video could have been manipulated to try and hide the missing time. I don't know how to go about validating missing frames or sped up playback.

The very plausible suggestion has been made that the "missing" time, occurring right at about midnight, is just the time when one might expect a daily backup to take place, and the elapsed time is what it took to download the file to the archives and reset the system for the next day's data collection. "Could have been manipulated" is only speculation, and those who seek to infer a conspiracy theory from that are doing so out of ignorance.

 

[fizzBuzz]

The very plausible suggestion has been made that the "missing" time, occurring right at about midnight, is just the time when one might expect a daily backup to take place, and the elapsed time is what it took to download the file to the archives and reset the system for the next day's data collection. "Could have been manipulated" is only speculation, and those who seek to infer a conspiracy theory from that are doing so out of ignorance.

I agree. I think this is the most likely explanation, just because of the time that it occurred. It seems the investigation would have confirmed this (looking at multiple days) and they would have mentioned this in their press release to avoid speculation, but.. who knows.

 

[Mick West]

I agree. I think this is the most likely explanation, just because of the time that it occurred. It seems the investigation would have confirmed this (looking at multiple days) and they would have mentioned this in their press release to avoid speculation, but.. who knows.

Bondi has confirmed that they reset the video around midnight, and the same minute is missing from other days.

Source: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1942622185052594575

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Bondi has confirmed that they reset the video around midnight, and the same minute is missing from other days.

Source: https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1942622185052594575

Was about to post but it's still live and can't clip it. Will edit this when its posted so I can timestamp properly, but she referenced the "client list" bit too. This is a great example on audience vulnerabilities, media bias, malign framing, and a whole host of matters.

Bondi did correctly point out that she did not actually say the word "client list". Rather, she was asked about the "client list" by the Fox interviewer, and responded saying "it's sitting on my desk". Again, Bondi never said client list. All the media reporting the past few days explicitly putting "client list" in quotes while referencing her statement is objectively disinformation.
Then "client list" itself, her statement would corroborate my point on the confusion of materials. There is no actual "client list" - media and SM influencers kept using "client list" to refer to the flight log and the list of folks from the Ghisaline case. Some of the same media outlets that promoted this misleading claim about a "client list" based off objectively not-client-lists, are the ones going full speed ahead on claiming Bondi is now lying because she said the ""client list" was on her desk" which is not what she said.

 

[RTM]

They played right into the theatre, they gave podcasters/influencers binders to wave around (to quote Steven Greenstreet, like Willy Wonka tickets). These binders had "Phase 1" printed on it, and later in the day they released an internet meme.
I can accept the explanations that have now been given, but a very serious subject was treated like a piece of trashy reality tv. Then there is Bongino and Patel who had no problem promoting this prior to their appointments, so we now should believe them when they're in charge.
A lot more of this saga stinks than the absence of a list.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Was about to post but it's still live and can't clip it. Will edit this when its posted so I can timestamp properly, but she referenced the "client list" bit too. This is a great example on audience vulnerabilities, media bias, malign framing, and a whole host of matters.

Bondi did correctly point out that she did not actually say the word "client list". Rather, she was asked about the "client list" by the Fox interviewer, and responded saying "it's sitting on my desk". Again, Bondi never said client list. All the media reporting the past few days explicitly putting "client list" in quotes while referencing her statement is objectively disinformation.
Then "client list" itself, her statement would corroborate my point on the confusion of materials. There is no actual "client list" - media and SM influencers kept using "client list" to refer to the flight log and the list of folks from the Ghisaline case. Some of the same media outlets that promoted this misleading claim about a "client list" based off objectively not-client-lists, are the ones going feel speed ahead on claiming Bondi is now lying because she said the ""client list" was on her desk" which is not what she said.

I agree with all this. This is what happens when minimal information is floated out there and speculation runs wild for 6-8 years. People on the internet and the media repeatedly ask the same questions and assumed truths start to emerge and evolve. It's unfortunate, but I do think it's natural.

If there were any other perpetrators in this case beyond Epstein and Maxwell, it would have come out in the previous administration - that's how I see it. And its also sensible to me to see why the previous administration didn't release much. This case is probably littered with victim's names and identities, and it wasn't worth redacting all that to release information that everyone already knew. And the current administration may have realized the same thing.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

I agree with all this. This is what happens when minimal information is floated out there and speculation runs wild for 6-8 years. People on the internet and the media repeatedly ask the same questions and assumed truths start to emerge and evolve. It's unfortunate, but I do think it's natural.

If there were any other perpetrators in this case beyond Epstein and Maxwell, it would have come out in the previous administration - that's how I see it. And its also sensible to me to see why the previous administration didn't release much. This case is probably littered with victim's names and identities, and it wasn't worth redacting all that to release information that everyone already knew. And the current administration may have realized the same thing.

Yeah the average person isn't to be held to account for that issue, no fault of theirs at all. As for the major influencers and media companies though, or well, at least the ones that actually originated this and weren't got also, those should be held to account and not seen as natural (not that you were saying it from that angle!). For those folks that actually originated those false claims and deceptive framing, there's a huge sequence of deceptive behavior backing it that it's unrealistic to accidentally do, especially for years. Even if you did do it accidentally, the whole falsely framed quote thing to try and continue pushing it kind of just showcases ill intent and no interest in correcting the issue overall or even their own mistakes (note again for the actual knowing folks, not folks who also got caught by it).

 

[FatPhil]

Bondi did correctly point out that she did not actually say the word "client list". Rather, she was asked about the "client list" by the Fox interviewer, and responded saying "it's sitting on my desk". Again, Bondi never said client list. All the media reporting the past few days explicitly putting "client list" in quotes while referencing her statement is objectively disinformation.

That's not how pronouns work. The referent of "it" is "the client list". She referred to the client list even if she never uttered that noun phrase.

 

[fizzBuzz]

That's not how pronouns work. The referent of "it" is "the client list". She referred to the client list even if she never uttered that noun phrase.

What if, at the time, she thought it was a client list because that's all she's ever heard it referred to as, just like the rest of us, and she hadn't reviewed the case yet? When she reviewed the case, she learned there was no client list.

What if she didn't care what others referred to the file as, she knew it as the "Epstein case" or "Epstein files" and that's what she meant when she answered the question?

I just think you're nit-picking this for no good reason. It adds nothing to the conversation... unless, you think she's lying and there's some cover-up behind this. If so, provide the evidence.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

That's not how pronouns work. The referent of "it" is "the client list". She referred to the client list even if she never uttered that noun phrase.

Yes but it is not a quote. If you present it as a quote and insist she said the client list, as many are, that is incorrect, because that is not what she said. The people I'm narrowing on here are folks doing this that've consistently and intentionally misused "client list" to reference other materials also.

 

[FatPhil]

Yes but it is not a quote. If you present it as a quote and insist she said the client list, as many are, that is incorrect, because that is not what she said. The people I'm narrowing on here are folks doing this that've consistently and intentionally misused "client list" to reference other materials also.

It's odd how you're utterly obsessing about quotes, and yet you haven't yet supported your claim with anything that claims to be such a quote. I can't know if you're paraphrasing or not - bad boy, that's against the posting guidelines.

 

[FatPhil]

What if, at the time, she thought it was a client list because that's all she's ever heard it referred to as, just like the rest of us, and she hadn't reviewed the case yet? When she reviewed the case, she learned there was no client list.

What if she didn't care what others referred to the file as, she knew it as the "Epstein case" or "Epstein files" and that's what she meant when she answered the question?

I just think you're nit-picking this for no good reason. It adds nothing to the conversation... unless, you think she's lying and there's some cover-up behind this. If so, provide the evidence.

I'm being precise. Precision is better than the alternative.

And your "unless" is a classic false dichotomy fallacy.

 

[JMartJr]

Bondi has confirmed that they reset the video around midnight, and the same minute is missing from other days.

So to a conspiracy-belief-committed type person, that translates as "Ah-hah! They know in advance when the gap in the video coverage will always be!"

To me, a minute seems a bit tight for trying to fake a suicide and all, but then I am not a conspiracy-belief-committed type person...

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

It's odd how you're utterly obsessing about quotes, and yet you haven't yet supported your claim with anything that claims to be such a quote. I can't know if you're paraphrasing or not - bad boy, that's against the posting guidelines.

I'm not "utterly obsessing over quotes" - everyone discussed the supposed "client list" and I reasoned how the claim came to be and pointed out the exact sequences that're leading people to believe there is an actual "client list". There is no actual "client list" - people kept using the term "client list" to refer to anything but client lists. This prompts people to use the reference, including in interviews, where it is not at all accurate and induces misleading beliefs, which is the same exact frame that has been used to call out Bondi for "lying" by in some cases literally the same exact outlets that first started promoting the "client list" idea falsely.

You don't need to be patronizing either.

The client list was never a thing. People falsely used the reference "client list". Bondi never used the term "client list", so she is not lying by saying there is no client list and that she didn't say that. I am also willing to bet the average person is not thinking of proper linguistics when reading this like yourself after watching her say it and coming to the conclusion based off such. I near guarantee a majority of people are reading articles like this that say or frame that Bondi said it.

Just from those short few, LiveNOW from FOX ironically (not the other fox sites) frames it the best for public messaging because they identify "implied" rather than expecting the reader to use formal linguistics most Americans don't even know about nor were taught. House.gov is still a bad example imo but they get half a break for putting it in []'s rather than framing it as her statement.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Also on the above, I'll use PBS as an example. PBS in 2024 actually covered this exact issue with the references about it wrt the 2015 Maxwell case. I think PBS is mostly fine here and not troubled but a good example of how conspiracies are created and reinforced.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...be-released-soon-but-they-arent-a-client-list

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...t-doj-says-walking-back-theory-bondi-promoted

This is their article covering Bondi. Note, PBS has already written about the client list not existing.
Here, they lay out the following sequence as Bondi "walking back the theory" -
>Bondi is asked about a client list
>Bondi replies "It's sitting on my desk right now to review."
>Leavitt from WH and Gilmartin announce that there is no client list, but in fact Bondi was talking about the general files.
>Bondi herself says she was talking about the general files.

So, Bondi, DOJ itself through Gilmartin, and the WH through Leavit all insist there is no client list per DOJ. The only thing used as a predicate in this specific discussion is the potentially insinuative comment that Bondi made, which I would cede and say insinuative alone is fair. Otherwiise all direct statements refute the fact there was a "client list", to which PBS also has already agreed with, there is no client list.
PBS keeps aligned here in this article too referencing the lack of a client list at all which I like. The average person crossing the headline reposted on Twitter though is instead going to see "Epstein client list doesn't exist, DOJ says, walking back theory Bondi promoted", and if they're already prone or believe the client list is real, this will reinforce their belief despite PBS sticking to the fact it doesn't exist at all.

 

[JMartJr]

There is no actual "client list"

I'd quibble -- there is a difference between "we do not know of any client list" and "there is none." It may be fairer to say that claims that there IS one need to be backed up, and to cite the reasons you and others give to support the position that what Bondi said is not evidence (or at least not GOOD evidence) that one exists.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

I'd quibble -- there is a difference between "we do not know of any client list" and "there is none." It may be fairer to say that claims that there IS one need to be backed up, and to cite the reasons you and others give to support the position that what Bondi said is not evidence (or at least not GOOD evidence) that one exists.

I would mostly agree there out of properness.

I would point out though that the "client list" claims never organically surfaced by themselves. They all were patent references to the flight logs and the list from the Maxwell case - neither of which are a "client list". As far as the claims have made, there is no actual client list, because they're all predicated off specific materials that are not a client list. We have the "evidence" their claim is based off of already and it does not back their point outside the more conspiratorial references eg being on either inherently means you were a client.
Now, I would fully agree for cases where the "client list" has no root connection to a misreference to the flight logs or the Maxwell list but comes from elsewhere. I've personally not seen any claims there not rooting back to either of those two though.

 

[Giddierone]

Well this is awkward. While Bondi may have never used the words "client list" on record even conservative syndicated news (Sinclair) were putting those words in her mouth.

 

[Tezcatlipoca]

Well this is awkward. While Bondi may have never used the words "client list" on record even conservative syndicated news (Sinclair) were putting those words in her mouth.
View attachment 82299

This is one of the reasons I'm harping on it so much. All the people who falsely pumped up that idea with actual intent, mostly RW outlets - they are now getting to run around and frame Bondi as being responsible for the "lie" and why the content was never released, plus their secret cabal claims. The issue is some have been pumping this claim far before Bondi was even known to any of us or known to be Trumps selection for AG. The "client list" conspiracy narratives are no longer mostly contained to RW audiences, but now being shared by everyone too. Very few outlets are pointing out the issue with the "client list" claims overall which reinforces the very conspiracy itself and amplifies it to those new audiences.

Contrary to some claims also, you're not doing this specifically, but conservative media isn't as centralized or smart as people reference sometimes. For the most part they're not going to heavily discuss with Bondi herself, and it's also a set of narratives that's mostly (not entirely) been with RW or right leaning audiences. They also do dumb stuff all the time that doesn't seem to align very much. Major chance SBG reporting on it was because it was relevant to conservatives and something they were discussing.

 

[Giddierone]

The oldest "Epstein client list" remarks I could find quoted in newspapers all appear to originate from anonymous letter writers, likely overspill from Facebook and other social media.

 

[FatPhil]

I'm not "utterly obsessing over quotes" - everyone discussed the supposed "client list" and I reasoned how the claim came to be and pointed out the exact sequences that're leading people to believe there is an actual "client list". There is no actual "client list" - people kept using the term "client list" to refer to anything but client lists. This prompts people to use the reference, including in interviews, where it is not at all accurate and induces misleading beliefs, which is the same exact frame that has been used to call out Bondi for "lying" by in some cases literally the same exact outlets that first started promoting the "client list" idea falsely.

You don't need to be patronizing either.
View attachment 82290
View attachment 82291
View attachment 82292
View attachment 82293

The client list was never a thing. People falsely used the reference "client list". Bondi never used the term "client list", so she is not lying by saying there is no client list and that she didn't say that. I am also willing to bet the average person is not thinking of proper linguistics when reading this like yourself after watching her say it and coming to the conclusion based off such. I near guarantee a majority of people are reading articles like this that say or frame that Bondi said it.

Just from those short few, LiveNOW from FOX ironically (not the other fox sites) frames it the best for public messaging because they identify "implied" rather than expecting the reader to use formal linguistics most Americans don't even know about nor were taught. House.gov is still a bad example imo but they get half a break for putting it in []'s rather than framing it as her statement.

None of those are quotes that satisfy what I asked for. Not one. The placing of just the contentious phrase in quote marks is to signify something is "so-called". And that's by a nebulous other. After the first few I got a bit bored, but none of them even seemed to be placing those words in her mouth. So I completely disagree with your assertion, and I don't believe that the evidence you supply does anything apart from support my own point and counter yours. An alleged quote would also preferably be an entire sentence - as that is the complete expression of a thought. If you're chopping parts out of sentences, you're probably doing it to mislead.

Let's take the few example:
"During a Fox News Channel interview in february, Bondi suggested an alleged Epstein "client list" was sitting on her desk"
-> In no way does that imply those are her words, that's just a nebulous "so-called", it's what someone else is referring to the concept of it as. There's a really heavy clue in the antecedent "alleged" - someone has made that allegation, no-one's named, it's a nebulous allegation.

"On February 21, 2025, Pam Bondi told America Reports host John Roberts that "[Epstein's client list] is sitting on my desk right now to review".
-> That *explicitly* indicates "client list" are not Bondi's actual words, but are the referent her elided pronoun referred to.

"Fox News Peter Doocy corners Karoline Leavitt on Pam Bondi's broken Epstein 'client list' promise. 'So what happened to the Epstein client list that that ...'"
-> That's just another "so-called" usage. It's not a quote of Bondi, nor is it claiming to be a quote of Bondi.

"Attorney General Pam Bondi implied in a FOX News interview in February that Jeffrey Epstein had an alleged "client list" that was sitting on her desk".
-> "implied .... that" means "this is not a quote, this is my interpretation of what she said". And again the "alleged" before "client list" is again just says "(nebulous) people are calling it this". Again, not putting those actual words in Bondi's mouth.

That's 0 out of 4.

[...]

Let's be clear - I have no reason to believe the alleged "client list" is anything more than a spy thriller trope - it's just the secret booklet (almost certainly black) which would spell chaos were it ever to be discovered and made public - much loved by fabulists and conspiracy theorists. My beef is with language use. And specifically WRT Bondi, with sloppy language use - she either forgot or didn't understand the antecedent, neither of which is a good look. We're mostly in agreement on what's known as facts regarding the evidence. However, you are accusing others of saying things that they haven't said - which is oh-so-ironic given that you are accusing them of the same.