By John Q. Hosedrinker 
While the public has scrutinized the extensive communication between Jeffrey Epstein and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, resulting in Summers’ professional downfall, another prominent figure, Steve Bannon, has seemingly avoided similar repercussions. Emails reveal that Bannon maintained a close relationship with Epstein, including assistance with travel arrangements and political advice. Bannon even collaborated with Epstein on a documentary aimed at improving his public image and fueled public interest in conspiracy theories about the elite and child abuse. Bannon’s involvement, however, has not yielded the same condemnation as Summers, despite the former’s actions being considered far more egregious.
Read the original article here
Steve Bannon Was Epstein’s Comeback Consultant. Where’s the Uproar?
Well, here’s a thought that seems to hang in the air – Steve Bannon, the self-proclaimed nationalist, the architect of Trump’s populist surge, apparently advised Jeffrey Epstein on how to rehabilitate his image. And where’s the explosion of outrage? It’s a question that echoes through the silence, a quiet murmur amidst the usual political noise. This isn’t exactly a surprise, is it? Bannon, with his openly fascist leanings and disdain for the constraints of a fair society, wouldn’t bat an eye at cozying up to a powerful pedophile. In his world, the ends justify the means, and the king – or in this case, the king’s consultant – can do as he pleases.
The truth is, Bannon has been considered a shady character for a long time. It’s hard to imagine this bombshell changing anyone’s pre-existing opinion of him. The right-wing circles likely see him as their shady guy, a willing participant in the rough and tumble of power, and this likely won’t change their perception. They might bring this information out if it serves their interests to distance themselves from him, but until then, it probably won’t even register on their radar.
Many people are already exhausted by the steady drumbeat of political scandals and revelations. The “uproar function,” as some put it, is simply worn out, or perhaps, selective. It’s a sad reality, but the constant stream of upsetting news can numb even the most engaged individuals. The fact is, he should be in jail, and the pardon he received from Trump is further evidence of the moral rot that has taken hold in the highest levels of power.
If anything, this revelation reinforces the cynicism that has become all too common. It feels like another piece of a corrupt puzzle falling into place. It’s almost as if you can predict who the next person to be linked to Epstein is going to be. Bannon working with Epstein is just an expected part of the landscape. And maybe that’s the problem.
Why isn’t there more outrage? Perhaps it’s a matter of prioritization. In a world of daily political skirmishes, some battles feel more urgent than others. Or perhaps the shock value has worn off. We know what Bannon is, and now we know something else about him. Does it change anything? Probably not. It simply confirms a pattern, a type of behavior that aligns with Bannon’s worldview and his track record.
The media coverage, when it exists, is often muted. You can bet that certain news outlets won’t touch the subject with a ten-foot pole, and that some of the podcast interviewers will conveniently ignore his past. The truth is, people are tired of the constant flow of bad news and political hypocrisy. What more can people do to be informed and upset?
It’s a testament to the insularity of the MAGA world that such a revelation might barely register. People who follow Bannon likely wouldn’t hear about his consulting work with Epstein from the sources they trust. It’s an inconvenient truth, a detail that doesn’t fit the narrative. And the silence continues.
This is a man with a track record of deceit and self-interest, who was also involved in the “We Build the Wall” scam. He pleaded guilty to one felony count of scheme to defraud, yet he avoided jail time. In other words, he’s exactly the kind of person who would be involved in such a situation. What else is new?