John Law (12:06)
All right, first up, let's start with what the left is saying. The left criticizes the DOJ's rollout, saying the release seems deliberately difficult to navigate. Some suggest the limited release downplays the Trump Epstein relationship. Others urge caution in reading too much into individual files. In New York magazine, Chaz Danner called the release a mess. Trump isn't the only term that fails to return any search results. No term does. There's a disclaimer about how some of the files may not be searchable, but for now, apparently none of the files are. It's unclear if that's because the search function can't keep up with the demand, or if the DOJ just shouldn't have added a search field before making sure searching was possible, danner wrote. If you do want to actually scan through what the DOJ has released, you'll need to click on specific court cases and then select PDFs named only with numbers. There's virtually no context. There are a lot of redactions. This one was expected, as the law allowed the Justice Department pretty wide latitude to make redactions, and not just to protect Epstein's victims. That flexibility undoubtedly meant that there would be tons of material kept from public view and a lot of frustration over what was left out. Still, if you start looking through the files, expect to see a lot of black boxes and no explanations as to why. In the Guardian, Sam Levine wrote the trickle release of Epstein files on a Friday signals moves to bury Trump's ties. By the time the department eventually did release thousands of pages of materials on Friday evening, not the hundreds of thousands Blanche promised, many of the documents had been heavily or completely redacted. Other than a few pictures, the materials made no mention of Trump, even though Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly told Trump earlier this year his name was in the files. Levine said the release underscores how the Trump administration is trying to balance both the demand to release the files, something encouraged in large part by the MAGA base while also obfuscating with a slow trickle of document dumps to prevent any embarrassment to Trump. While Trump barely made an appearance in Friday's release, Bill Clinton appears in several images. The Daily Wire, a Trump friendly site, obtained a photo of Clinton and Epstein on Thursday, a day before the release, Levine wrote. Several other celebrities appeared in the images released on Friday, including Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson, Richard Branson, Chris Tucker, David Copperfield and Kevin Spacey. Like Clinton, none has been accused of any crime in connection to Epstein. But their immediate appearance in the files benefits Trump, creating the impression that it was not unusual for famous men to hang out with Epstein. In Politico, Ankush Cardori shared rules for reading the Epstein files There's a difference between being liable for criminal conduct and engaging in embarrassing, even morally offensive conduct. The principal purpose of releasing the files was supposed to be to reveal the elites who participated in Epstein's crimes but evaded accountability. But already we are very far afield from that concept. You may detest former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers or find his sleazy behavior sleazy, but there is no reason to believe that he engaged in criminal misconduct, carteri said. That distinction is worth maintaining. You are free to harshly judge Summers, or anyone else for that matter, for being close with Epstein, particularly after his 2008 conviction. But being friends with a felon is not a crime. There is a potential risk of literal guilt by association that is important to avoid. This is not an idle matter or part of some effort to downplay what might be revealed in the days or weeks to come. This is about maintaining the integrity of the American legal system, cordori wrote. Trump has already pushed Attorney General Pam Bondi to launch criminal investigations into adversaries for their alleged dealings with Epstein, which she agreed to with alacrity. The government should not be prosecuting people or threatening to prosecute people who did not commit actual crimes. All right, that is it for what the left is saying. Which brings us to what the right is saying. The right says that Democrats attempts to link Epstein's crimes to Trump are looking increasingly far fetched. Some stress that association with Epstein does not prove wrongdoing. Others say the DOJ's handling of the release invites legitimate questions. In the Washington Examiner, Byron York asked, are Democrats getting desperate about Epstein? For months now, disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein has been the Democratic Party's go to subject for attacks on President Donald Trump. Democrats always return to Epstein, much as they did with Russia in the early years of Trump's first term, york wrote. To an extraordinary degree, Democrats have based their opposition to Trump on the hope that somehow, somewhere, they will find evidence of Trump involved in improper behavior related to Epstein. For all the talk about releasing the Epstein files, the fact is that a lot of the material in the Epstein case has already been made public. Why do we know what Giuffre said under oath about Trump? Because six years ago a court released her deposition in a lawsuit she had filed against Epstein's accomplice, Maxwell. There has been plenty of other litigation in the case, and many documents have been made public, york said. Maybe it will change. Maybe there will be some future discovery that will give Democrats the incriminating evidence they so desperately want. But it doesn't seem likely. And until then, Democrats appear to be happy to make things up, MPJ Media Matt Margolis wrote When it comes to the Epstein files, transparency triumphs over frenzy the Justice Department released thousands of pages of files on Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell late Friday, triggering a predictable online frenzy over a parade of famous faces appearing in the photos. Margolis said Each image comes with the same caveat, that appearing in a photo does not necessarily imply wrongdoing. However, that distinction did little to slow Democrats eager to weaponize the release against Trump. Despite the timing and contents pointing elsewhere, Epstein cultivated relationships with influential people in entertainment, tech, business and even royalty. For decades, Democrats tried to take innocuous photos of Trump and portray them as smoking guns, even though they weren't, margolis wrote. As the flood of Epstein files continues, clear eyes and a level head are essential. The political frenzy surrounding every new photo or document serves only those looking to score points. Not every image proves criminal activity in the free press, eli Lake said. The country descends into a new stage of the scandal. Angel Urenia, Clinton's deputy chief of staff, took to X on Friday to blast the Donald Trump administration. They can release as many grainy 20 year old photos as they want, he wrote. But this isn't about Bill Clinton. Never was, never will be, lake wrote. Urania has a point, sort of among the more than 13,000 photos, files, receipts, scans and other items released on Friday, only one photo of President Trump appears to have been released. Trump also had a relationship with Epstein, which he says he broke off around 2004. It strains credulity that the files do not include more photos of Trump. The files also compromised former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who gave public relations advice to Epstein in 2019. At the same time he was making a documentary about Epstein after the financier had been charged a second time for sex crimes. Yet giving indicted billionaires media Advice is also no crime. Lake said none of the files released yet prove the elaborate theory that has spread about Epstein that he was running a sex trafficking ring to blackmail America's power elite. Instead, the release has fed another round of innuendo while eroding long standing rules to keep the politics of personal destruction far away from our justice system. Alright, let's head over to Isaac for his take.
