Philip Rotner: “The DOJ’s deliberately opaque phrasing about what was not in the Epstein files tells us absolutely nothing about what was. The three words that do all the work here—’incriminating,’ ‘client,’ and ‘list’—only raise more questions.”
“What, exactly is an ‘incriminating ‘client list’? Why are the words ‘client list” in quotation marks? What does the absence of an ‘incriminating ‘client list’’ tell us about what is revealed in the Epstein files? Does it mean that Epstein’s clients, enablers, and party bros are indeed identified in the files, but not in the format of a ‘list’? Does it mean that there’s a list, but it doesn’t expressly identify those on it as ‘clients’? Does it mean that there’s a list of clients, but the Trump DOJ doesn’t interpret it as ‘incriminating’? If Epstein hooked up some of his party bros with underage (or drugged or coerced) girls but didn’t get paid money for doing so, are the bros—whose conduct may have crossed the line into criminality—’clients’? If their names are in a black book, a flight log, or a guest registry, is that a ‘list’? Is it a ‘client list’? Is it an ‘incriminating client list’?”
Save to Favorites