WOW! More evidence of the government deceiving us about Epstein!

THIS JUST IN!

It really is true that the systematic deception goes all the way up to the highest levels of our government! The FBI Director and Attorney General are in on the plot!

Kash Patel and Pam Bondi have been exposed as RADICALLY INFLATING their purported tally of Epstein “victims”!

In their notorious July 6, 2025 FBI/DOJ memo, which launched the ongoing political uproar we’re still very much in the midst of, these two senior government officials used deliberately vague, weasel-word language to claim that their comprehensive review of Epstein Files had confirmed “over one thousand victims” were “harmed” by Epstein.

But… what did that even mean? Why didn’t they say “sexually abused,” if that’s what they meant? Because the word “harm” could mean virtually anything. Psychic harm? Political harm? Physical harm? Metaphysical harm? Financial harm? Hallucinated harm? As we know, what the public has been led to fundamentally believe about Epstein is that he sexually abused, molested, raped, and/or “trafficked” an enormous number of vulnerable underage females. So the conspicuously vague weasel-wordage in the FBI/DOJ memo should’ve been seen as highly suspect.

AND NOW WE KNOW THE TRUTH!

They were using a “total [alleged] victim list” — “1,114 names” — that counted “victim families” as among those who were “harmed” by Epstein! WTF? Again, what the hell does that even mean? Are they saying Epstein raped the victims’ fathers and uncles? Are we including extended family here? Second-cousins?

WHAT. A. JOKE.

The federal promulgation of this eye-poppingly large “victim” tally last summer caused it to be roundly trumpeted by politicians, media outlets, and untold others, who ran around claiming that we now know for certain that Epstein brutally sex-trafficked OVER ONE THOUSAND helpless children. The resulting hysteria was of course 100% expected. Here is Speaker Mike Johnson citing the bogus number. Here is NBC’s Kristin Welker, host of Meet the Press, exercising laudable journalistic acumen by uncritically citing the number. Here is Congressman Ro Khanna citing an even bigger and phonier number (1,200). Here is Congresswoman Nancy Mace citing the fraudulent figure, just yesterday (February 9). I could go on.

But, but, but. Now we really know the basis for this hysteria-promoting numerical assertion. And it was essentially garbage. My personal theory is that FBI and DOJ officials smuggled it into their July 2025 memo as a sleight-of-hand political tactic, in order to stem what they anticipated would be the raging backlash over the real crux of their public findings: no large-scale “trafficking” ring, no “client list,” no blackmail operation, no predicate to charge any additional high-profile third parties, etc. So they wanted to blunt the anticipated (negative) reaction by also throwing out some weasel-word assertions about Epstein that would seem to underscore the magnitude of his purported crimes, as well as underscore the government’s profound revulsion to those purported crimes. In hopes that it wouldn’t just look like they were totally absolving Epstein.

But it was the worst of both worlds: while dispelling the core thrust of Epstein Mythology, they were also putting out a brand new, sensational claim that didn’t even make sense — and only intensified the very backlash they were trying to blunt. Because if there really were THAT many “victims,” how could Epstein (and Maxwell) have done it all alone? Surely there must be countless more uncharged co-conspirators! IT’S GOTTA BE A COVER-UP! These big-brained FBI/DOJ political geniuses directly fueled the speculative fire — with a bunch of pure claptrap, it turns out — and now here we are today.

As I’ve tried to explain for many months, their bizarrely inflated claim of “over 1,000 victims” should’ve been seen as highly dubious from the outset. First, it would presumably have to include alleged “victims” of Epstein who were, by their own admission, adults at the time of their claimed victimization. Yet the first thing the average member of the public thinks when they hear about Epstein is that he committed unspeakable crimes against a vast multitude of children. By and large, however, that’s not what we’re dealing with when it comes to so many of these purported “victims.” Even claims of purported criminality against non-adult “victims” only represent a relatively small portion of the overall accusations ever lodged against Epstein, especially after his 2019 death, upon which time US libel laws conveniently ceased to apply.

So the conflation of these alleged adult “victims” — who were coincidentally eligible for huge settlement payouts — with the much smaller sub-section of actually-underage “victims,” mostly from the Palm Beach area circa 2002-2005, produced volcanic eruptions of outrage — on the assumption that MORE THAN ONE THOUSAND children must’ve been heinously sex-trafficked. And yet no one other than Epstein and Maxwell have been held criminally responsible!

It was all one big government deception though. Eagerly aided by the ever-credulous media, of course. Whoops.

And this wasn’t the only horseshit weasel-word assertion in that now-notorious FBI/DOJ memo.

Patel, Bondi & co. also claimed that materials recovered from Epstein’s devices included a large quantity of “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.”

Another egregious conflation for the ages!

The FBI’s vaunted “Child Exploitation & Human Trafficking Task Force,” in conjunction with the NYPD, produced a nifty powerpoint-style presentation in 2025 summarizing their many years of prior Epstein-related investigation. Of the over one million images and videos seized from Epstein’s devices, they write, a small fraction were marked as “responsive” for the purposes of the secondary review initiated early last year after Trump came back to office. According to Maurene Comey — one of the lead prosecutors of Epstein and Maxwell (and Diddy) for “trafficking” offenses (Diddy was acquitted) — the criteria for what materials would be marked “responsive” was defined “to be as broad as possible” and so included, “among other things, any image or video depicting any female who appeared to be under the age of 30.” So I guess they were very concerned about potential 29-year-old child-sex abuse victims.

Following this review, it was found that 90% of the “responsive” images and videos constituted either adult pornography, adult “erotica” — whatever that is, exactly — or “age-difficult pornography and erotica” — presumably meaning that these FBI wizards found it “difficult” to determine whether the person depicted in the material was above or below the age of 18. Which, at the very least, would rule out legitimately “pedophilic” content, as no one in their right mind would have difficulty distinguishing that from adult content.

Astonishingly, Maurene Comey told Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, in an email dated March 11, 2025, that “there were no videos of any sexual abuse identified at any point in the investigation” — whether depicting children or adults. However, there were “approximately a dozen photographs containing CSAM found on one of Epstein's devices.” Sounds bad — and potentially proves all the Epstein pedo-blackmail theories correct! Right…? Oops: “Those images were identified by the case agent as CSAM that Epstein obtained over the Internet, not CSAM depicting any of Epstein’s victims or produced by Epstein.”

CSAM is the current government acronym for “child sexual abuse material,” and in recent years has replaced the term “child pornography,” which is perceived to be an antiquated relic, as no “child” is believed to ever be able to consent to appear in “pornography.” At least not until they hit their 18th birthday. Which is why it was so odd that the FBI/DOJ memo lumped together “illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography,” given the DOJ’s own internal guidelines requiring that the term “pornography” no longer be used in relation to material depicting anyone below the age of 18. So here we have another deliberate conflation by Kash and Pam: giving the public the impression that a staggering quantity of child sex-abuse imagery had been seized from Epstein’s hard-drives, as one would’ve surely expected of the most notorious “pedophile” in American history. But in reality, not even that small amount of “CSAM” they allegedly discovered was even produced by Epstein. So he self-generated none of it. Another FBI communication says there were “approximately 15-20 images of commercial CSAM” on the devices. (Why these government officials have to keep “approximating” stuff after all these years of intense investigation, who knows.)

CSAM can mean many different things. And let me just say: no people, I have no interest in procuring any CSAM myself. For Christ’s sake. So please STFU with that idiocy, because I know it’s the first thing a lot of people will want to say if I dare even address this subject. However, I’m not the one who decided Epstein’s possession of CSAM, or lack thereof, was suddenly the gravest issue of national importance. So here is how CSAM is defined by the federal government: “Any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a person less than 18 years old.” Federal prosecutors have previously charged people for possessing CSAM material that the government itself admitted depicted no nudity, and courts have upheld the convictions, ruling that “the federal child pornography statute” (back when that was the common nomenclature) “contains no nudity or discernibility requirement,” and thus “non-nude visual depictions” may in fact constitute child pornography, or now CSAM. More specifically, “visual depictions” of persons under age 18 wearing “bathing suits, leotards, underwear, or other abbreviated attire” may be legally classified as CSAM.

So… we don’t know what’s depicted in those approximately 15-20 CSAM images the government says it retrieved from Epstein’s devices. Maybe it’s genuinely child-exploitative material, maybe it’s not. Either way, the government itself concedes that the images depict no “sexual abuse” — and were not even produced by Epstein himself. Furthermore, at least one thing should be (painfully) clear by now: NOTHING that has ever been commonly claimed about this entire Epstein fiasco, without adequate corroborating evidence, should be taken at face value.

---