This And That 7/20/25: Military, Legal, The OTHER Epstein Files

Let’s get the military stuff out of the way. Andrei Martyanov is a knowledgeable military commentator—that doesn’t mean he’s always right. But my experience has been that I haven’t detected anything he’s said that has been off base. Here’s his capsule summary of where the US military stands. Andrei first quotes an RT article regarding the Patriot system, which cites a WSJ report:

US-made Patriot air defense systems, long hailed as a cornerstone of Western military aid to Ukraine, are now struggling to intercept advanced Russian ballistic missiles, the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday, citing sources. One unnamed Ukrainian official told the outlet that Russian ballistic missiles have become more maneuverable, allowing them to evade Patriot radar detection. He did not clarify what type of missiles he was referring to. Meanwhile, in light of the EU’s efforts to wean itself from the American military-industrial complex amid uncertainty regarding continued US support for Ukraine, a next-generation European alternative is seeking to dethrone the Patriots, the report says.

He then cites a Russian report from a year ago which, if true—and there are excellent reasons to accept the truth of the report—indicates that this is not a new development. Patriot never has been effective against Russian missiles:

Andrei then presents his general view—which he has advanced numerous times in the past, and which seems to be confirmed by recent military escapades on the part of the US military.

US hardware is a technological and functional failure in the modern war, across the board, with the exception of the American impressive ISR capabilities, which still failed to prevent the agony of NATO. …

…

The ONLY field in which the US retains a parity (apart from advantage in ISR) are submarine forces. US Navy's submarine force is still world-class in terms of platforms. In terms of fire-power--not anymore. But don't tell this to these two clowns: H.I. Sutton and Amick (aka Sub Brief). What do you expect--there are still some confused US officers who believe that Patriot shoots down Iskanders, Kinzhals and Zircons easily. The fact that they are unable to see through the murky streams of BS from 404 merely confirms what is becoming patently clear--a low professional level of the US military, whose defining feature throughout post-WW II decades has become ignorant arrogance.

I cite Andrei’s view because I recently wrote that the only thing that has allowed the US to get away with some of its risky behavior is precisely its submarine forces. Even land based ICBMs may not be sufficient, based on test launch failures.

Legal Stuff

I’ve recently expressed my distress at Tulsi’s reckless use of legal terms. Specifically, referring to the actions of Obama and his intel gang as a “treasonous conspiracy.” Bear in mind that Tulsi made these comments in the context of a prosecutive referral—a formal context in which loose talk should be avoided. Tulsi’s remarks have varied widely, ranging from “treasonous conspiracy” to “thwarting the will of the American people.” Treason, of course, is specifically defined in the US Constitution. In a recent post I provided the full text of that definition. It’s clear that treason doesn’t apply to this matter. By the same token, “thwarting the will of the American people” is a concept best left to closing arguments in a criminal trial. I’ve given my view that the concept of thwarting the will of the American people might be a legitimate concern in a trial charging a conspiracy to defraud the government. I won’t repeat myself here.

Unfortunately, some commenters have allowed themselves to get a bit carried away, riffing off the loose language employed by Tulsi and others. I urge commenters to seriously consider what they say when they express themselves regarding what are often complicated legal matters. The fact that serious injustices have been committed by prosecutors who certainly knew better is not a justification for “our side” to play fast and loose in our own turn.

The OTHER Epstein Files

I’ve stated in the recent past that I think Michael Tracey is misguided regarding the Epstein matter. Of course, that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have legit points to make. As a preface to Tracey’s views, I’ll briefly cite Danny Davis’ observations of yesterday. I’ve edited DD’s remarks to bring out what I believe is his meaning—at the least it’s my meaning:

If you know anything about Trump at all, you know that he's got a long history of that kind of stuff about lewd behavior. I mean, who can forget the Access Hollywood tape right before the 2016 election that came out that had him saying, well, some things that he said. You can Google that if you don't know. This kind of [behavior—lewd drawings] seems in line with that, and it doesn't seem [based on the way Trump has handled past allegations of this sort] like that would would have him upset, but you can see that he was spooked by something about the whole issue about releasing the files, [so] I don't think [what has him spooked is] was just [allegations of lewd talk or drawing]. So, one wonders if there's another shoe to drop with all of this and Trump is trying to to get past this [other shoe]. I'm sure you've all by now seen all the comments about the Pam Bondi saying in February that, ‘Yes, the client list is on my desk and I'm reviewing it right now.’ And then she walked that back a week or two ago and said, ‘Actually, no. I said the file was on my desk, but I didn't really say the list was on my desk.’ No one's buying that. So there's something fishy going on. There's smoke. The question is, is there fire, too? Because something just doesn't seem right. And of course, President Trump's base is all up in arms about this.

Steve Bannon gets to the heart of what Trump may be spooked about:

Grace Chong, MBI @gc22gc

BANNON: It’s not about just a pedophile ring. It’s about who governs us and that’s why Epstein’s not going away. For this to go away, you’re going to lose 10% of MAGA. If we lose 10%, we’re going to lose 40 seats, the presidency bc they’ve disheartened the hardest core populist nationalists.

https://x.com/i/status/1943689626134188284

10:11 AM · Jul 11, 2025

Actually, there are at least two ways to take what Bannon is saying, but I choose to take it in the way that I’ve been urging—that the pedophile ring, horrible as it may be (if it’s true; there are claims that most of the girls were not underage), may deflect attention from the the questions we need answers for: Who was Epstein, where did he get the money for the life he lived, how did he get entree to the world’s most powerful people, who did he really work for, what were their aims, who decided that Epstein should be dead, etc.? Everything about Epstein was creepy and horrible, none of it should be ignored, but we need to not allow the sensational stuff deflect our attention from what could be a bigger picture.

So, having mentioned Steve Bannon, that gets us back to Michael Tracey—a clever and engaging writer:

What is Steve Bannon hiding about Jeffrey Epstein?

Amidst the fever-pitched online clamor for disclosure of materials related to Jeffrey Epstein (which I agree with in spirit — release everything you’ve got!) it’s truly bizarre that so little attention has been paid to the fact that Steve Bannon is currently concealing what might be the greatest Epstein-related treasure trove of them all.

Bannon has long acknowledged that for over six years he’s been sitting on 15+ hours of priceless on-camera interviews he personally conducted with Epstein, just months before his arrest and death — the only TV-style interviews Epstein is ever known to have produced. ... Yet there exists a never-published jackpot of interviews with Epstein, on camera, answering explosive questions for 15+ hours — which Bannon has kept hidden since 2019. Why?

I sent a bunch of questions to Bannon. Despite being famously chatty with all flavors of journalists on all manner of subjects — including me, in the past — he hasn’t answered. My questions were as follows:

• Since he’s calling for transparency regarding Epstein, why doesn’t Steve simply release the raw uncut footage of the 15+ hours of interviews he’s confirmed he conducted with Epstein?

• Was Steve ever paid by Epstein for media consulting services?

• Did Steve ever seek payment from either Epstein himself, or Epstein’s estate?

• Did he ever speak to the FBI or other investigators regarding his knowledge of Epstein?

Bannon’s curious allergy to responding to inquiries about Epstein has been observed for several years. Jacob Shamsian of Business Insider does a laudable job staying on top of the story. This makes him a journalistic outlier, which is a bit odd. You’d think that especially today, given the tsunami of uproar around the purported “Epstein Files,” or lack thereof, journalists (whether “mainstream” or “alternative”) would be beating down Bannon’s door to demand that he finally release the long-awaited footage — or at least answer questions as to why he’s still concealing it from the public. But as Shamsian reports:

Bannon, who frequently speaks to journalists, did not respond to numerous voicemails, emails, and text messages from Business Insider over the course of several years requesting comment about his relationship with Epstein.

According to a curiously under-read chapter in Michael Wolff’s 2021 book, Too Famous, Bannon and Epstein were first “introduced” in December 2017, under circumstances that have yet to be fully elaborated, and which Bannon certainly has never seemed interested in expanding upon. One of their subsequent meetings took place on August 8, 2018, according to the New York Post, at Epstein’s opulent townhouse in Manhattan. Bannon also paid visits to Epstein’s luxury apartment in Paris. When they first met, the two fast-friends were said to have had the following exchange:

“You were the only person I was afraid of during the campaign,” said Bannon, laughing, when they met, meaning he believed Epstein knew dangerous secrets about Trump.

“As well you should have been,” replied Epstein.

Given Bannon’s laughter, maybe this exchange was all meant in good fun, but oftentimes humor can contain a kernel of truth.

In fairness to Bannon, I see nothing there to indicate that Bannon and Epstein were “two fast-friends”. It is interesting to note that Bannon left the Trump White House in August 2017 under acrimonious circumstances—roughly four months before first being introduced to Epstein.

So what are these 15+ hours of Bannon - Epstein interviews about?

Michael Tracey @mtracey

Here's the trailer from Bannon's never-released "documentary," confirming the existence of his Epstein interview footage. Recall, this isn't Bannon adversarially interviewing Epstein -- it's Bannon prepping Epstein for potential upcoming network TV interviews to rehab his image

https://x.com/i/status/1946439799683838164

12:19 AM · Jul 19, 2025

It appears that the interviews were conducted during 2018—the height of Trump’s first term—as part of a plan to somehow rehabilitate Epstein’s image, possibly via a 60 Minutes interview. Obviously that plan blew up when Epstein was arrested in 2019. Follow the link to Tracey’s substack for more detail on all that.

The bottom line that Tracey comes up with is this:

Presumably, therefore, Bannon has Epstein on video commenting at length about Trump. Might anything of interest have been said over the course of those 15+ hours? Are you kidding?

So much of the current consternation over Epstein exists in the realm of fevered speculation. Was he an intelligence asset? Was he blackmailing prominent third party individuals? How did he really acquire his vast wealth? Did he really commit suicide? I’ve tried to address all these questions, evaluating whether the available facts and evidence substantiate the many tantalizing theories people claim to so confidently believe.

But what’s fascinating is that something concrete, something uncontested, something not relegated to aimless speculation, is that Steve Bannon possesses more than 15 hours of interview footage with Jeffrey Epstein that he’s refused to release for over six years. Why is that?

My view remains that Epstein was an intel asset—that that’s the only way to explain all the rest, especially the vast amounts of money (with no obviously vast enough source) required to support his multi faceted operations, his access to the most powerful people in the world, his freedom to travel the globe under multiple passports, his ability to basically skate from serious legal trouble. Some very powerful people must have been getting value in return to support that type of operation, because it seems clear that Epstein never earned the money required through “investing.”

My assumption is that this intel operation was multi-national—Anglo-Zionist, not simply Mossad. Maybe we’ll find out. But I suspect that this prospect is what has Trump “spooked” (pun partially intended). Sex related scandals have never spooked Trump, so it has to be something else. The question is, Who told him he had to put a stop to this metastasizing scandal? Is the strategy to release the salacious GJ transcripts, to distract from the intel angle?