Decades from now, when historians finish poring through the millions of Epstein documents and 300+ gigabytes of data, the uproar of today, I suspect, will be lumped into the same category as the Satanic panic of the 1980s and the daycare sex-abuse hysteria of the 1990s: More hype than substance; more conspiratorial fearmongering than fact-based reporting.
Because, after both Republican and Democratic administrations reviewed them, there’s just not any there there. Instead of an avalanche of evidence about foreign espionage, blackmail schemes, and Jeffrey Epstein being the James Bond of pedophilia, a far gloomier image emerges:
Epstein wasn’t abusing children because a foreign government told him it was a good idea. He did it because he’s a disgusting, vile sociopath who enjoyed abusing young girls — as did his “friends.”
He’s not a puppeteer. He’s simply a pervert.
And he’s a pervert whose financial model demanded constant, high-level networking with wealthy businessmen, VIPs, and powerful dignitaries. Epstein leveraged his personal connections into business partners; that’s how he made money. I’m sure his parties and/or harem were part of his pitch.
Sex sells. That’s the sad reality.
Fun fact: Early in my career, I worked for a PR firm that had a prostitute on standby. When an important brand manager visited Tampa, he (and it was almost always a he) would go partying with the PR executives — and wouldn’t you know it, he’d just so happen to bump into a beautiful woman and have a fantastic time.
From the firm’s perspective, it was the cheapest, most cost-efficient way to protect a six-figure PR account: If the brand manager had fun, he’d be less likely to dump us for another firm.
I’m not saying it was right, honorable, or ethical. Obviously, it’s sleazy as hell. No, it wasn’t my decision — but I was aware of it and didn’t quit, which says something ugly about my moral character, too.
Nor is it a perfect parallel to the Epstein situation: For starters, this prostitute was an adult woman. Furthermore, nobody forced, intimidated, or coerced her; she happily did it for the money — and she could (and did) reject certain assignments.
But the common thread of leveraging sex to monetize relationships is 100% applicable. It happens a lot.
And that’s the biggest blessing of the Epstein Files: It took the repulsive practice of peddling flesh for financial favors out of the shadows. Today, the whole world knows the truth.
Sunlight really is the best disinfectant.
Which is also why the PR pushback of the Deep State is so fascinating: On Feb. 23, the New York Times ran a remarkable op-ed: “The Epstein Files Should Never Have Been Released.”
A few excerpts:
[W]e should recognize the release of millions of pages of the Epstein files as both a sign of institutional failure and a cause for concern. If our justice system were working properly, the public would never have such access.
[…]
The release of the files is also cause for concern because so much of the raw investigative material in them — untold layers of hearsay, unverified accusations and vague circumstantial connections — ought not be released for the public to pick over.
[…]
When materials collected in a criminal investigation get released in bulk for public consumption, the justification for the coercive and privacy-invading tools we give investigators gets a lot weaker. Institutions claiming to protect user or customer privacy might be more likely to resist valid uses of these tools. Witnesses who would otherwise speak to investigators about sensitive matters might start to rethink whether they want to provide grist for internet searches.
What’s especially fascinating is the author of the New York Times’ piece: Daniel Richman, whom the Times described as a “former federal prosecutor.” But that’s not why Richman is famous.
Daniel Richman is the Columbia Law School professor who leaked anti-Trump news stories on behalf of disgraced FBI Director James Comey to trigger a special counsel investigation.
From ABC News (June 13, 2017): Who Is James Comey’s Friend and Leaker Daniel Richman?
Daniel Richman is the Columbia Law School professor through whom former FBI Director James Comey shared details of his contemporaneous memos about meetings with President Donald Trump to the New York Times.
Speaking before the Senate Intelligence Committee on June 8, Comey said he wanted to get a record of his meetings with President Donald Trump “out into the public square” so he decided to ask a friend to share the content of his memo with a reporter.
“Didn’t do it myself, for a variety of reasons. But I asked him to, because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. And so I asked a close friend of mine to do it,” Comey told Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine). Collins asked who that was, and he responded, without providing a name, “A good friend of mine who’s a professor at Columbia Law School.” [emphasis added]
Those “variety of reasons” began and ended with a list of one: It would’ve exposed Comey to criminal prosecution for leaking classified information.
James Comey leaked CLASSIFIED INFORMATION to the media. That is so illegal!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 10, 2017
My PJ Media colleague and friend, Dave Manney, explored Richman’s twisted logic and elitist double-standard on secrecy:
Daniel Richman wants the public to regret the files even as they read them, calling the dump a spectacle that highlights the Justice Department’s lack of confidence.
I hate to tell him, but confidence died because the department slow-walked leads and cut sweetheart deals for decades. Americans didn’t ruin the system by demanding the truth. The people who protected Epstein and his ilk ruined it.
He’s right — but the bigger story isn’t just Richman’s pretzel-shaped logic. It’s the intent behind it.
Because Richman has proven himself to be a willing mouthpiece for the Deep State.
That’s how we all know his name. The New York Times might’ve described him as a “former federal prosecutor,” but that’s not why he’s famous. It’s his relationship with Comey that put him in the limelight.
Based on precedent, it’s reasonable to assume he’s still speaking for James Comey.
So why would the ex-FBI director — and hardline Trump critic — come out swinging AGAINST the release of the Epstein Files? After all, despite the hype and hoopla, none of the conspiracy theories about blackmail schemes, international espionage, and foreign governments were substantiated.
If anything, the millions of Epstein documents and/or 300-plus gigabytes of data vindicated the government’s approach: It was less an elaborate cover-up and more a rich guy gaming the legal system on his own.
Either way, Richman was clearly concerned with preserving the Deep State’s prosecutorial powers. As he wrote:
We give federal prosecutors and agents a broad range of information-gathering tools that private parties and even most government agencies aren’t allowed to use. At the heart of criminal enforcement authority is the power to invade privacy. Legally available tools include search warrants, wiretaps, grand jury subpoenas and administrative subpoenas. That is how criminal investigators gain access to our emails, our private conversations, and our phone, bank and medical records. In addition, we allow prosecutors and agents to use the threat of prosecution to gain the cooperation of witnesses.
[…]
The tools we give the government are justified not only by the importance of the criminal enforcement mission but by the care and professional judgment prosecutors and agents are required to exercise with the information they obtain with those tools.
So why publish this op-ed in the New York Times, where all the “right people” in the Deep State will see it?
The answer, I think, is threefold:
- Because the “Epstein conspiracy” was overhyped and underwhelming, it can now be used to argue AGAINST other disclosures: Since Epstein was much ado about nothing, we should trust the federal prosecutors on all other matters, too.
- Richman, Comey, and the Deep State probably have certain, ahem, “reasons” to dissuade us from reviewing other case files.
- Keeping secret documents under the lock-and-key of the Deep State is its source of power: If everything were out in the open, there’s nothing to leak.
And leaking documents is how Comey helped engineer the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate the Russia Collusion Hoax and more. It was the Deep State’s weapon that crippled Trump’s first term.
But in the FBI, the Deep State’s wheels were turning even before Mueller’s appointment.
In the hectic eight days after President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and top FBI officials viewed Trump as a leader who needed to be reined in, according to two sources describing the sentiment at the time.
They discussed a range of options, including the idea of Rosenstein wearing a wire while speaking with Trump, which Rosenstein later denied. Ultimately, then-acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe took the extraordinary step of opening an obstruction of justice investigation even before special counsel Robert Mueller was appointed, the sources said. The obstruction probe was an idea the FBI had previously considered, but it didn’t start until after Comey was fired. The justification went beyond Trump’s firing of Comey, according to the sources, and also included the President’s conversation with Comey in the Oval Office asking him to drop the investigation into his former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
[…]
A spokeswoman for McCabe did not provide comment for this story.
Frankly, I’m a helluva lot more concerned about this “conspiracy” than the Epstein one — because this one was real: At the highest levels of our government, rogue FBI agents and ex-officials manipulated the judicial process by leaking confidential information against the duly-elected president for political gain.
And now Daniel Richman, the same man whose leaking led to Mueller, is imploring us not to dig any further.
How suspicious is that?!
One Last Thing: 2026 is a critical year for America First: It began with Mayor Mamdani declaring war on “rugged individualism” and will reach a crescendo with the midterm elections. Nothing less than the fate of the America First movement teeters in the balance.
Never before have the political battlelines been so clearly defined. Win or lose, 2026 will transform our country.
We need your help to succeed!
As a PJ Media VIP member, you’ll receive exclusive access to our behind-the-paywall content, commentating privileges, and an ad-free experience. VIP Gold gets you the same level of “insider access” across our entire family of sites (PJ Media, Townhall, RedState, twitchy, Hot Air, and Bearing Arms). That means: More stories, more videos, more content, more fun, more conservatism, more EVERYTHING!
And if you CLICK HERE and use the promo code FIGHT you’ll receive a Trumpian 60% discount!
Thank you for your consideration.
