I’m reflecting on the announcement that the release of the Epstein files will be a process rather than a single event.
That didn’t make some people very happy.
I can understand their reaction perfectly, from several angles. But I also understand Pam’s need to proceed with the utmost caution and circumspection, for a number of reasons.
Let me look at only two here – the protection of the innocent from wrongful accusation and too much exposure (all at once) of heinous crimes for the general public to handle. My experience in the refugee hearing room may be germane here.
The subject came up in a conversation recently and, when I said what I ‘m about to say to you, I dissolved in tears. (I’m again in tears.) (And again.)
As a refugee adjudicator in Canada, I spent eight years in a hearing room with lawyers and interpreters present, all recorded and subject to review by the Federal Court. I listened (often) to tales of rape, murder, genocide, female genital mutilation, etc.
I cannot even describe to you what people testified to, most of them collapsing in tears or dissociating altogether, and having to be led from the room like a person hypnotized. If I did, you’d never be able to get the images out of your mind, they are that searing. (1) I know the impact of hearing things that will cause you to doubt human decency.
And what we’re about to see and hear, in the ten days of broadcasts at some point in time, has the potential to be equally searing if the presentation and scope aren’t managed well.
We can’t just blurt the whole of Epstein’s lists out to the entire world without doing our due diligence first. If a person’s name is known to be on the flight logs or in his personal contact list, their life will change for the worse from that moment onwards. (2)
We need to ensure that the person named stands more than a very good chance [a common-sense rather than a legal standard; I don’t know the legal standard here] of being found guilty of what we’re accusing them of before releasing the documents.
So, yes, I can understand Pam Bondi wanting to release the material slowly and with great circumspection. There are emotional and legal consequences for the person named and the person releasing the documents.
It’s a very delicate task and she’s being scrutinized from several quarters. Can we not perhaps extend to her the benefit of the doubt?
***
It may be inevitable that the dark side will exploit any opening to hamstring and criticize the Trump Team. We see them daily protesting, demanding, criticizing, etc., warning of imminent catastrophe.
But can we, who are wise to their playbook, not extend to the Trump Team as a whole the benefit of the doubt?
It’s said the dark side will fight to the end before leaving. And the Trump Team have declared it’s their task to bring that end on asap. We can expect opposition. But do we need to follow its lead?
Can we divorce ourselves from the din, see below the strategems, and remain firm in our commitment to emerge from deep-state control?
Footnotes
(1) I keep saying, OK, OK, I’ll share one. The Rwandan man who emerged from hiding in the bushes to see his…. No, I should not do it. Once we hear, we cannot unhear.
We pay people to be honest witnesses to the truth so that not everyone needs to see or hear. We just need to accept what they tell us. (See “Every Society Needs Honest Witnesses to the Truth,”
(2) A second reason is that the mass of the general public probably could not tolerate a blurting out of “everything.” As things stand, without Epstein’s flight log and contacts book being exposed, a significant part of our accepted social scene has already flown to Gitmo, never to be seen again (except as a clone or masked actor). Even without Epstein’s evidence, the shock of realizing that this great an earthquake in society has already happened may challenge many people.