By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s department faced significant backlash after releasing a list of individuals mentioned in the Jeffrey Epstein files, which critics deemed an attempt to obstruct transparency. The list included historical figures like Marilyn Monroe and Janis Joplin, who died long before Epstein’s crimes, alongside contemporary political figures and already known associates. This inclusion of deceased individuals and the broad categorizations of “politically exposed persons” were criticized as a tactic to dilute the impact of the names of those actively involved with Epstein. Despite Bondi’s assertion that the Department of Justice fulfilled the Epstein Files Transparency Act, many, including lawmakers and commentators, accused the DOJ of “muddying the waters” and protecting powerful individuals by hiding relevant names among irrelevant ones.
Read the original article here
The recent controversy surrounding the inclusion of long-dead celebrities on Jeffrey Epstein’s email list, allegedly facilitated by Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody, has sparked widespread outrage and accusations of deliberate misinformation. The inclusion of figures like Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and Janis Joplin—individuals who passed away long before Epstein’s alleged criminal activities or even the advent of widespread email usage—has been met with disbelief and strong condemnation. This tactic appears to be a clumsy attempt to dilute the significance of the actual names on the list, particularly those of prominent individuals currently in the public eye.
The inclusion of these deceased celebrities is particularly egregious because it suggests a deliberate effort to “muddy the waters” and cast doubt on the legitimacy of the entire document. When names like Elvis Presley, who died in 1977, or Marilyn Monroe, who passed in 1962, appear on a list that should pertain to Epstein’s known associates and victims, it raises immediate red flags. The sheer absurdity of their inclusion, especially considering the timeline of Epstein’s notoriety and the existence of email, suggests a level of desperation to obscure the truth or to preemptively discredit any forthcoming revelations.
Many commenters believe this is a calculated move by Moody, who they feel is acting with bad faith. The implication is that she is attempting to pre-emptively taint the evidence by flooding it with fabricated or irrelevant entries. This, in turn, could be used as a defense mechanism should damning information about powerful individuals, including former President Trump, come to light. The strategy, as perceived by critics, is to cry “fake proof” over the entire list by demonstrating that demonstrably false information has been included.
The question of why an Attorney General would engage in such transparently dishonest tactics is a point of considerable discussion. Some view it as an act of obstruction of justice, questioning why she has not been removed from her position or disbarred given the perceived lack of integrity. The inclusion of names like Bruce Springsteen, a known critic, and Michelle Obama alongside deceased icons like Janis Joplin, seems to confirm this perception of a politically motivated and poorly executed attempt to discredit the release of the Epstein files.
The timing of this controversy, as the Department of Justice faces pressure to release all remaining Epstein-related documents, only amplifies the public’s suspicion. Victims and the public alike are watching this “charade unfold in real time,” demanding transparency. The delay in the legal requirement for such disclosures, coupled with this apparent attempt to contaminate the evidence, fuels the sentiment that the “predator class” and their enablers are openly flaunting their corruption. It’s a situation where, rather than facing accountability, individuals allegedly involved appear to be resorting to increasingly desperate measures.
The sheer audacity of presenting such demonstrably false information, like the inclusion of historical figures such as King George III and Queen Victoria due to tenuous connections within the email chain, points to a strategy of overwhelming the audience with sheer volume of irrelevant or nonsensical entries. This “Gish-galloping” tactic is designed to make it difficult for the public to discern what is real and what is fabricated, ultimately serving to protect those who are genuinely implicated. It is seen by many as a clear indicator that Moody is not acting in the interest of the American people but rather in service of a specific agenda.
The notion that Moody might have simply “asked people for names of rich and famous that wouldn’t have supported Trump and threw them on the list” highlights the perception that this is a politically motivated act. The desire to create a scandal or to deflect from genuine wrongdoing is palpable. The reactions expressed range from profanity-laden outrage to calls for impeachment, reflecting a deep sense of betrayal and a demand for accountability. The idea that the estates of these deceased celebrities might pursue legal action for reputational harm is a testament to the severity of the accusations.
Ultimately, the inclusion of long-dead celebrities on Epstein’s email list, as orchestrated by Ashley Moody, is viewed not as an innocent mistake or an oversight, but as a deliberate and transparent act of deception. It is seen as a desperate attempt to discredit the ongoing investigations and protect powerful individuals by overwhelming the narrative with falsehoods. The public’s response underscores a demand for truth and justice, and the current tactic employed is widely perceived as an insult to both the victims and the integrity of the legal process.