Tag: jeffrey epstein
Continuing Under Bondi And Patel, The Epstein Coverup Is The Crime

Continuing Under Bondi And Patel, The Epstein Coverup Is The Crime

Last week, independent journalist Jacqueline Sweet penned an “exclusive” report in the New York Post on the 37 missing pages tied to a woman making serious allegations against Donald Trump. Sweet is a solid reporter, with works published in Rolling Stone and The Guardian, and has consistently expressed skepticism – both online and personally to us – about the validity of the woman’s claims.

She has been getting access to material that is not public. In an earlier piece for the Guardian, based on information leaked to her, she revealed that the accuser had a criminal record – which the Department of Justice (DOJ) eventually confirmed by releasing the pages.

Now, someone with access to the full Epstein files has leaked again… but only Sweet and the Murdoch tabloid have gotten a look at the pages. As she wrote: “The 37 pages, which aren’t public but have been reviewed by The Post, include sickening claims that Epstein began abusing the woman during a visit to Hilton Head Island when the accuser was just 13 and forced her to perform oral sex on Trump.”

In her Guardian article, Sweet called the claims “outlandish.” Clearly she finds the witness not at all credible. And that’s fine.

But the decision to share “documents that are not public” with a Murdoch tabloid is curious. Maybe other editors weren’t interested? Or maybe the source doesn’t want them widely read quite yet?

We reported on some of these missing pages early – first, in fact – in a post titled “Protect Source,” the tag attached to the unnamed woman’s claims in the available files. We noticed gaps in the DOJ’s numbering system that indicated they were covering up some missing interviews. We reported the lurid allegations with caveats because the Epstein files contain many unproven claims and we resist the Pizzagate, Satanic-panic theorizing that has been re-emerging amidst the online DIY investigation frenzy.

This particular accusation, however, seemed to warrant closer scrutiny from members of Congress, primarily, we thought, because of the unusual “Protect Source” designation. The story of the missing pages drew mainstream attention from NPR to the New York Times. More than a month later, professional Never Trumpers and Epstein-ologists are still devoting tens of thousands of written and spoken words to the topic.

The impetus for this obsession is the belief that the files hold a silver bullet against Donald Trump: Somewhere, a grown woman who, as a teenager, was preyed upon by a younger Trump, will emerge and finally take him down.

I have some doubts about the woman’s Trump story myself, but the behavior of the DOJ is even more suspicious. First they withheld pages. Then they claimed they were duplicative – which they are not. Then someone leaked a few to Sweet and right-wing news site Breitbart.

The DOJ continues to withhold additional pages. Now they appear to be selectively dropping them to a single journalist and two Trump-friendly outlets.

The accuser’s description of Epstein’s MO certainly sounds familiar: lured to a vacation home, plied with booze, talked into bringing other 13-year-olds around. Plus she described Jeff’s snaggletooth, which he hides in most photographs. Sweet has insisted that there is no evidence Epstein was ever in South Carolina in the ‘80s, but of course the absence of a travel record means nothing. We have already uncovered evidence that he was in unexpected places in the ‘80s, like Kuala Lumpur.

He was still just a Coney Island thug then, on his way to becoming James Bondstein.

But let’s be real about our expectations.

First: Trump’s predatory inclinations are baked into his appeal. He survived E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit as well as dozens of women alleging that he was, at best, a sex pest and at worst, a sexual assaulter. Will a woman now in her late 50s or 60s with decades-old memories be the person who finally takes down the nearly 80-year-old Leader of the Free World? To paraphrase his infamous 2015 boast: he could probably live down an alleged rape on Fifth Avenue.

Second: Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director "K$H" Patel had their hands deep in the Epstein files early on. In March 2025, FBI agents were pulled away from crime-fighting to scour the files, ostensibly for the mythical “client list” that so obsessed the MAGAs (which in fact already existed publicly in Epstein’s black book), but additionally to “flag” mentions of Donald Trump. An FBI whistleblower told Sen. Dick Durbin, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that agents were working 48-hour shifts and given spreadsheets to fill out.

But the coverup started long before that – in Palm Beach, where prosecutors allowed Epstein’s white shoe powerhouse attorneys to send their own investigators into his mansion to remove evidence, including computers, never to be seen again.

It continued in 2019, when FBI agents inside Epstein’s New York mansion – apparently without the proper warrants – let longtime accountant Richard Kahn remove items from a safe, only to return later with a curated selection of whatever had been in it. FBI records of this are murky and deserve congressional attention. This episode is so suspicious and strange that we will devote an entire newsletter to it next week so stay tuned.

The coverup continues to this minute, with the Bondi DOJ still redacting the names of Epstein’s rich and powerful johns.

So: Eyes on the prize. The Epstein coverup IS the crime. And the closest thing we have to a silver bullet.

Nina Burleigh is a journalist, author, documentary producer, and adjunct professor at New York University's Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute. She has written eight books including her recently published novel, Zero Visibility Possible.

Katie Chenoweth is associate professor of French at Princeton University and an investigative researcher.

Reprinted with permission from American Freakshow

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Remains Cool And Calm During Bogus House Hearing On Epstein

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spent much of Thursday in a closed-door hearing about accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. It all amounted to a laughable circus led by noted moron James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who chairs the House Oversight Committee.

After Comer threatened Hillary and former President Bill Clinton with jail time if they didn’t testify, the couple agreed to appear before the committee. Of course, the GOP insisted on doing this behind closed doors because that’s the best way for the partisan lawmakers to control the narrative.

Ahead of the hearing, Hillary Clinton shared her opening statement, where she rightly called the committee out for so, so many things.

The Oversight Committee’s Epstein investigation is a sham. While the Clintons were subpoenaed and are required to sit for long closed-door sessions, many of the Department of Justice and FBI officials involved in the Epstein investigations and prosecution were allowed to simply submit written statements.

In her statement, Clinton excoriated the committee for refusing to hold public hearings or allow the media to attend, and for refusing to call people who figure prominently in the files, such as one Donald J. Trump.

Finally, she pointed out that if the Trump administration was earnestly committed to its supposed goal of stopping sex trafficking and addressing Epstein’s myriad crimes, it would get to the bottom of why the Department of Justice and FBI are withholding material that implicates Trump.

Oh, and then there’s the whole thing where she said she never met Epstein, never flew on his plane, and, presumably, never drew him a fun little naked-lady sketch as a birthday tribute, unlike how one Donald J. Trump seems to have done.

Once the hearing started, things almost immediately got very stupid. Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado snapped a photo of Hillary Clinton and sent it to right-wing YouTuber Benny Johnson, who posted it online, saying, “This is the first time Hillary has had to answer real questions about Epstein. Clinton does not look happy.”

Well, would you be happy being forced to testify about a person you say you’ve never met—all while Trump, a former close friend of Epstein, doesn’t have to answer for a thing?

Sure, the committee rules explicitly forbid taking pictures, and sure, Boebert was typically smug and sarcastic about it, because rules don’t apply to Republicans, but it was quite the move for a committee that refused to let Clinton testify in public.

Closed-door means closed-door, not forcing Hillary Clinton to testify in private while you dribble out shit to your favorite right-wing influencer.

Boebert’s antics led to the hearing being halted for a bit. It also led to Johnson whining that it’s totally cool that he posted the photo because Clinton was “trying to get out of answering questions about Epstein.”

And how exactly could Johnson tell that from just a photo? It sure sounds like Boebert or another GOP goblin leaked more than just a picture.

In a mid-afternoon statement, Democratic Rep. Robert Garcia of California demanded that a full, unedited transcript be released within 24 hours—which is unlikely. For one, it’s a heavy lift for such a long testimony, and for another, Republicans on the committee will want as much time as possible to mischaracterize or just straight-up lie about Hillary’s testimony.

Garcia also told the press that Clinton had not invoked the Fifth Amendment, setting her apart from, say, Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s co-conspirator. And of course, since the GOP will never call Trump to testify, he doesn’t even need to bother with deciding whether he would take the Fifth.

When things finally wrapped up well after 5 PM ET, Clinton spoke to the press, and it was clear that the hearing got both stupid and weird.

“It then got at the end quite unusual because I started being asked about UFOs and a series of questions about Pizzagate,” she said. “One of the most vile, bogus conspiracy theories that was propagated on the internet.”

Sure, why not.

GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, never one to miss an opportunity to be creepy and inappropriate, demanded that Clinton answer a question about whether she had any feelings about photographs showing Bill Clinton getting a back rub from a young woman or any other of his associations with Epstein. Hillary told Mace she wasn’t there to talk about her feelings.

Mace did, however, tell the press afterward that Clinton “took every question from every single member.”

Of course she did. Clinton sat for 11 hours of testimony over the farce that was the Benghazi Committee in 2015. She could do 6.5 hours of questioning on Epstein while standing on her head.

But you know who apparently didn’t seem to have any questions about Epstein? James Comer. Clinton confronted him during the hearing and pointed out that he hadn’t asked her a direct question about Epstein all day. Kind of a wuss move from the committee chair who threatened jail time if the Clintons wouldn’t appear.

Hillary is done, but Bill Clinton testifies on Friday, and let’s be honest: You can expect his questioning to be even stupider, weirder, and longer. Republicans are going to continue to protect Trump and other favored right-wingers, and they’re going to continue to try to make the Clintons the real villains. But in their dark little cramped hearts, Trump’s toadies all know that they’ve got nothing.

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Geoffrey Berman

Revealed: FBI Told NYPD To 'Stand Down' In  2019 Probe Of Jeffrey Epstein

Ryan Goodman, editor-in-chief of Just Security, uncovered a document in which the New York Police Department was told by the federal government to "stand down" on its investigation into Jeffrey Epstein.

In a video posted Monday, Goodman said that he found documents in which the FBI sent the instructions to the NYPD just five days after Epstein's arrest. Goodman said he found it surprising that the order also applied to the SVU (Special Victims Unit). Goodman explained that it's the key part of law enforcement "that is specially trained and equipped to investigate crimes against minors and crimes of such abuse."

The documents show that the existing district attorney of New York was overseeing an ongoing investigation into Epstein and was communicating with the victims. Some of those victims then began to speak out, including a 2019 interview with Savannah Guthrie on NBC.

Goodman said that authorities in Washington considered the DA reaching out to victims a "fire" that needed to be put out. All of this was during President Donald Trump's first administration.

"It's quite stunning because a large part of the allegations against Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and alleged co-conspirators happened in New York. That would be the epicenter of a lot of the crimes, of the trafficking of the young girls and women, the sexual abuse of the young girls and women happened in the townhouse of the Upper East Side in Manhattan," Goodman explained.

To close off such an investigation from those on the ground, he said, is "astonishing" as it would be the most productive avenue of getting at the other men involved in the crimes.

While the federal government may have assumed that the NYPD and DA stopped, they actually continued the probe through a "robust investigation," including speaking to the survivors through their attorneys. One part of that investigation focuses specifically on Leon Black, a private equity investor, whom Business Insider reported on last week. Black has never been charged.

The Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, Raúl Torrez, said last week that in 2019, it was also told to stand down.

The "investigation was closed in 2019 at the request of the U.S Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York," Torrez said. He wants them to be reopened. The U.S. attorney in 2019 was Geoffrey Berman, who was also actively investigating potential financial abuses related to Donald Trump's 2017 Presidential Inaugural Committee and pursuing investigations involving Michael Cohen from 2018 to 2019.

The documents show that on December 6, 2018, the New York Police Department, the Sputhern District of New York and the FBI Child Exploitation/Human Trafficking Task Force opened a case on Epstein.

On July 10, 2019 an Epstein survivor, Jennifer Araoz, was interviewed by Guthrie for NBC's Today Show. She said the recruiter knew she was 14. After the interview aired, Araoz submitted a New York State court filing seeking information from Epstein about a recruiter who allegedly worked with him to "recruit" her. Her lawsuit against Maxwell and an assistant was filed on Aug 14, 2019, just four days after Epstein was found dead. She then filed the suit against his estate.

The "stand down" directive came in 2019 on July 10 and 11. One month later, Epstein was dead.

By January 2020, emails showed that the FBI was discussing the NYPD's probe of Epstein.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet


Frédéric Martel

Bannon's Plot To Expose Gays In Church Outlived His Partnership With Epstein

Frédéric Martel, the author of the 2019 international bestseller, In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, told me over the weekend about the time he was invited to lunch by Steve Bannon, who asked him to come to Bannon’s palatial Paris hotel suite shortly after his book was published.

“I didn’t know why he asked me to come,” he said.

The meeting was arranged via one of Martel’s right-wing Catholic sources who was allied with Bannon. Martel, a journalist who covers the far right in Europe and is working on a new book focused on it, certainly had a professional interest in meeting Bannon.

“It was at the Hotel Bristol,” he explained to me by phone from Paris, “in a suite that costs 8,000 euros per night.” Per the exchange rate at that time, that would have been about $8950 per night. Forbes reports suites at the hotel begin at $3200 per night and go up to as high as $46,000 per night.

It was June of 2019. And he was surprised about what Bannon wanted from him.

“He said during the lunch that he wanted to make a movie about my book,” Martel explained, noting that he “wouldn’t have ever given that [permission] to Bannon.” But he offered Bannon a more polite truth. “I don’t have the rights to the book [for a film],” Martel said he told Bannon, as his publisher had already sold those rights.

That was the end of the discussion on the book, and Martel was perplexed because, as he explained, the book is “probably the most pro-Francis” book, and Bannon, a Catholic “traditionalist” connected to all of the most extreme radical right elements of the church, was working with his allies to take down Francis because of his progressive reforms and his criticism of populist right-wing governments, including Donald Trump’s.

In the Closet of the Vatican exposes the hypocrisy of a church hierarchy built up over many decades—including under the virulently homophobic Pope Benedict—which included many powerful closeted gay priests, monsignors, and cardinals who were publicly working against gay rights while privately leading lives counter to their pronouncements and harmful actions.

While exposing all of that might bring down some of the very people on the Catholic right Bannon was courting—many inside the church itself, among the clergy and the hierarchy—he clearly didn’t see the nuance. Bannon is all about chaos and destruction, and was laser-focused on hurting Francis’ leadership and influence. He asked his good friend Jeffrey Epstein for help in his project.

In the Epstein files there are thousands of text message exchanges between Bannon and Epstein, as Bannon sought the help of Epstein—a true globalist within the uber-wealthy elite—to promote his faux populist, supposedly anti-globalist movement across Europe.

As CNN reports:

Bannon had been highly critical of Francis whom he saw as an opponent to his “sovereigntist” vision, a brand of nationalist populism which swept through Europe in 2018 and 2019. The released documents from the DOJ appear to show that Epstein had been helping Bannon to build his movement.

Bannon, after being pushed out in 2017 as Trump’s national security adviser, was living in Rome, traveling to Paris, London, and throughout Europe, and asking Epstein to connect him to powerful people. Epstein offered the use of his jet and homes for Bannon’s travels, while Bannon offered media training and advice for Epstein to grotesquely help clean up the convicted pedophile’s reputation. And Bannon recorded many hours of interviews, 12 hours of which have been released among the files, for a documentary film he was making on Epstein, the aim of which no doubt was to promote a media makeover for Epstein.

Epstein’s jet, per the files, was unavailable when Bannon asked if he could use it to fly from Rome to Paris in one instance, but there is evidence in the files that Bannon stayed at a grand apartment where Epstein was living near the Arc de Triomphe in Paris on that trip. Epstein invited Bannon to stay in a March 29th, 2019 text; Bannon said he was “Enroute,” and then Epstein texted someone else the next morning: “Steve Bannon is here with me.”

Bannon’s spokesperson told The New York Times that Bannon didn’t stay there (and that he never stayed at Epstein’s homes or flew on his plane) and decided to stay at a hotel instead. But the Times noted the spokesperson didn’t provide a receipt. My question would have been, even if that’s so, who paid for the hotel—again, Bannon’s spokesperson didn’t show the Times any receipt—and was it in fact the lavish Hotel Bristol, the same place where he met Martel later in June? After all, per the files, Epstein did offer to pay for a charter flight for Bannon when Epstein said his jet was unavailable. (There’s no indication as to whether he did or didn’t pay for a charter flight.)

Around that same time, Bannon expressed to Epstein his interest in making Martel’s book into a film and having Epstein fund it as executive producer.

“Have you read ‘in the closet of the vatican’ yet,” Bannon wrote, to which Epstein appears to reply ‘yes,’ amid chats about getting Bannon connected to global players.

“You are now exec producer of ‘ITCOTV’ (In the closet of the Vatican),” Bannon continued. “Will take down [Pope] Francis.The Clintons, Xi, Francis, EU – come on brother.”

It’s not clear whether Epstein was taking seriously the idea of the film—which Martel had already told Bannon was not going to happen—but Epstein, on April 1, 2019, did email himself “in the closet of the vatican,” and later, in June of 2019, he sent Bannon an article headlined, “Pope Francis or Steve Bannon? Catholics must choose.”

The two were planning to meet in New York weeks later, on the first weekend of July. But on July 6, 2019, Epstein would be arrested on sex trafficking charges in New York. On August 10 he’d be found dead in his jail cell. And obviously no film was made.

Bannon continued in his war against the pope, but a split developed that very summer of Epstein’s arrest and death between Bannon and some of his far-right allies. Cardinal Raymond Burke, an angry American MAGA foe of Francis’ (whom Francis would eventually kick out of his massive Vatican apartment, in 2023), had collaborated with Bannon in an organization working against Francis, Dignitatis Humanae Institute, a Rome-based think tank that aimed to create a “populist academy” in a monastery in Trisulti, Italy.

But Burke broke with Bannon in June of 2019, after he learned that Bannon wanted to make a film out of Martel’s book. Martel had gone public about his lunch with Bannon, and it didn’t sit well with Burke, who is portrayed in an entire chapter as a scheming and unrepentant nemesis of Pope Francis.

Burke and many of his allies in the church had much to fear about any film outing prominent homophobic closet cases in the church, bringing the book to a much wider audience. Burke put out a statement, resigning from DHI, where he’d collaborated with Bannon:

I have been made aware of a June 24 LifeSiteNews online article…entitled ‘Steve Bannon hints at making film exposing homosexuality in the Vatican’…
I do not, in any way, agree with Mr. Bannon’s assessment of the book in question, Furthermore, I am not at all of the mind that the book should be made into a film.

But other Bannon compatriots would later appear to draw both on the information in Martel’s book and on his research methods. In “In the Closet of the Vatican,” Martel discusses gay dating and sex apps like Grindr, Scruff, and Tinder, and how prevalent users were in and around the Vatican, even carrying out his own experiments with his researchers, using Grindr and other apps.

“According to several priests, Grindr has become a very widespread phenomenon in seminaries and priests’ meetings,” Martel reports in the book.

It may be a coincidence, but two years later, in July of 2021, in a story I covered extensively, a right-wing Catholic site on Substack, The Pillar, used geolocation data from Grindr to force the resignation of Monsignor Jeffrey Burrill, the general secretary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

As I wrote at the time, the right-wing editors of The Pillar:

“obtained” geolocation data of Grindr interactions from his phone — even claiming to have located him in a bathhouse in Las Vegas at one point — over a period of time going back to 2018.
And then they went to the Catholic bishops with the information — dates and times of Burrill allegedly connecting with various men on Grindr, and locations, including the bathhouse. Soon after, the USCCB announced Burrill had resigned because of “impending media reports alleging possible improper behavior.”

There was much speculation about where The Pillar got its funding and also about who purchased the geolocation information for it—information that would cost a lot of money. Grindr had previously sold information to third parties for advertising purposes (and stopped after it was criticized), believing there was no identifying information. But as I explain in my piece of the time in depth, technology experts say there’s a way for that identifying information to be found, and there’s no guarantee that third parties don’t turn around and sell geolocation data to more nefarious entities.

Almost two years after The Pillar’s actions, in March of 2023, The Washington Post indeed revealed that it was wealthy Catholics on the far right, the people in the same circles as Bannon, who paid for the geolocation data that The Pillar had “obtained.” They also sent the information to Catholic bishops:

A group of conservative Colorado Catholics has spent millions of dollars to buy mobile app tracking data that identified priests who used gay dating and hookup apps and then shared it with bishops around the country.
The secretive effort was the work of a Denver nonprofit called Catholic Laity and Clergy for Renewal, whose trustees are philanthropists Mark Bauman, John Martin and Tim Reichert, according to public records, an audio recording of the nonprofit’s president discussing its mission and other documents…
…The Post has seen copies of two different reports presented to bishops. One is from the Renewal group to a diocese and the other is the one that the Pillar presented to the USCCB about Burrill. The information in both is mostly about Grindr, although the reports also say they have used data from other gay dating apps Growlr, Scruff and Jack’d, as well as OkCupid.

Reichert is a former GOP congressional candidate. Jayd Henricks, executive director of the group Reichert and his rich buddies founded and which bought the geolocation information it gave to The Pillar, had, like Bannon, been a fierce critic of Francis.

All of these men are aligned in efforts against church reforms, whether working together directly or not. Hendricks has written for the orthodox World Catholic Report, which has also written glowingly about Bannon and his “populist nationalism” effort in Europe, describing it as “renewed appreciation for the nation-state and national sovereignty—and growing suspicion of the managerial elites in Washington, London, and Brussels.”

It’s not a stretch to believe that the Colorado wealthy right-wing Catholics got their ideas on using Grindr to help bring down church leaders from the attention brought to “In the Closet of the Vatican.” Nor is it a stretch to believe that they even worked directly or indirectly with fellow traveler Bannon, who was very much focused on the book and who had by then lost the convicted pedophile billionaire he was hoping would bankroll weaponizing the ideas within the book in the way The Pillar outrageously did.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

This article appeared originally in The Signorile Report on Substack. Please consider subscribing.

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World