By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article discusses the controversial release of a list of names associated with Jeffrey Epstein, purportedly from former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. The list, which includes prominent figures like George Clooney, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, has been criticized for its inaccuracies and for allegedly omitting damaging information about Donald Trump and his associates. The author argues that this move, coupled with the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) failure to release all relevant Epstein files, appears to be a transparent attempt to appease the public and critics, ultimately backfiring by exposing attempts to shield certain individuals from scrutiny.
Read the original article here
The recent addition of legendary figures like Elvis Presley and Marilyn Monroe to the Jeffrey Epstein list has sparked widespread outrage and disbelief, with many seeing it as a blatant attempt to undermine the credibility of the entire disclosure. This move, spearheaded by Pam Bondi, has been met with a torrent of criticism, suggesting that it’s not just a blunder, but a deliberate act of trolling and a desperate measure to muddy the waters surrounding the ongoing Epstein revelations. The inclusion of individuals who have been deceased for decades, and thus are completely unavailable for any sort of testimony or involvement, points to a profound lack of seriousness and a blatant disregard for the gravity of the situation.
Critics are vocal in their assertion that this tactic is designed to make a mockery of the process, thereby obscuring the truth and protecting genuine individuals who might be implicated in the scandal. The argument is that by stuffing the list with absurdities, they are hoping to create enough noise and confusion to dismiss any serious findings as a joke, effectively absolving those who might be genuinely culpable. This is seen not as an act of incompetence, but as a calculated strategy to derail any pursuit of justice, making it impossible to distinguish fact from fiction.
The perception is that this is a deliberate attempt to discredit the entire document dump, with the hope that by making the list look ridiculous, any incriminating names associated with genuine wrongdoings will be overlooked or dismissed as part of the overall charade. The rationale behind this move, according to many, is to avoid accountability and to shield certain individuals by making the entire endeavor appear amateurish and untrustworthy.
Furthermore, the inclusion of names like Elvis and Marilyn is being interpreted as a form of “malicious compliance,” a way to fulfill the letter of a request without adhering to its spirit, while simultaneously creating an outcome that is designed to be disruptive and nonsensical. The argument is that the intention is to “redact only the survivors’ names” was not truly followed, and instead, the list was padded with preposterous entries to deflect from the actual content. This leads to the conclusion that the entire process is being treated with a dismissive, almost childish, level of pettiness, which is unbecoming of any serious investigation.
There’s a strong sentiment that this demonstrates a profound disrespect for the public, treating them as if they are easily fooled or as stupid as those making these decisions. The comparison to using a rudimentary AI like Grok, without proper oversight or fact-checking, is also being made, suggesting a level of incompetence that borders on the comical. This perceived lack of diligence, coupled with the blatant absurdity of the additions, fuels the anger and frustration of those seeking genuine transparency and accountability.
The outrage is amplified by the fact that individuals like Charlie Kirk, who are alive and present, are also reportedly on the list, while names like Trump are heavily redacted. This inconsistency further fuels the perception of a biased and politically motivated process, rather than a genuine effort to uncover the truth. The disparity between the perceived importance of certain names being hidden and the inclusion of historical figures being presented as new revelations highlights the perceived hypocrisy at play.
The calls for accountability are escalating, with many demanding that those responsible, particularly Pam Bondi, be fired and face consequences. The fact that politicians used to resign for far less significant errors or missteps, while now there seems to be no consequence for such blatant mismanagement, is a recurring theme. This lack of accountability is seen as a symptom of a broader systemic issue, where those in power feel they can act with impunity, making a mockery of justice and public trust. The current administration and its handling of the Epstein files are being described as a “farce” and a “joke,” with the hope that trials will soon bring some semblance of justice and closure. The overall sentiment is that this is a desperate and transparent attempt to manipulate public perception, and that the public is far more aware and discerning than those orchestrating this “joke” believe.