The TRUMP Deep State Report (Part III)
By Danny R. Johnson – Political News Editor
The “deep state,” an enduring subject of intrigue, gained renewed attention during Donald Trump’s first term presidency. Allegations of a hidden network undermining his administration became a rallying point for supporters and shaped political discourse. While critics often dismissed these claims as exaggerated, they highlighted tensions between secrecy and accountability in government. Trump is now the official head of the deep state, and its agenda is real and continues to influence current events. Trump’s efforts to hide evidence in the Epstein files highlight his influence over the deep state during his tenure thus far.
The Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation stated on July 6 that Epstein maintained no “client list” and died by suicide in his cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. These findings, which have been the focus of numerous conspiracy theories among some of the president’s supporters, have led to significant debate within the political sphere.
Trump’s supporters have demanded that Attorney General Pam Bondi resign, criticizing her for not acting on the Epstein case as promised. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino confronted Bondi about her unfulfilled promises regarding the case during a tense White House exchange. Bongino was absent from work since Friday and threatened to resign over the dispute.
Trump waded into the fray on Truth Social Saturday.
“What’s going on with my ‘boys’ and, in some cases, ‘gals?’ They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB,” Trump wrote. “One year ago, our Country was DEAD, now it’s the ‘HOTTEST’ Country anywhere in the World. Let’s keep it that way, and not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about.”
Bongino, previously a podcaster, is among those who have suggested the theory that Epstein was murdered and did not take his own life while awaiting sex trafficking charges. Former CNN White House Correspondent Jim Acosta has commented on President Donald Trump’s response following the release of the “Epstein files.”
“I have spent time around Donald Trump and observed him closely,” Acosta stated on MSNBC Sunday. “Based on my observations, he appears to be concerned about the Epstein files.” Acosta went on to note that the central issue arising is the extent of the president’s involvement in urging the Department of Justice and the FBI to close the case.
He asked whether the Justice Department’s memo was issued in response to a directive from the White House, possibly involving Susie Wiles, Stephen Miller, or Donald Trump. He referenced the commonly discussed question: What did the president know and when did that knowledge occur?
To understand Epstein and Trump’s interactions, we need to clarify what former Attorney General Bill Barr knew and when.
Attorney General Bill Barr and Possible Suppression of Evidence
The association between Trump’s former U.S. Attorney General William Barr and Jeffrey Epstein has been a subject of public intrigue and speculation. Epstein, a financier and convicted sex offender, gained infamy for his network of powerful connections and the circumstances surrounding his 2019 death in federal custody. William Barr, who served as Attorney General under President Donald Trump, played a key role in overseeing the Justice Department during this period and was involved in addressing the fallout from Epstein’s death.
Epstein’s Mysterious Death in Custody
Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in July 2019 on charges of sex trafficking minors. Shortly after his arrest, he was detained at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in New York City. On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found dead in his cell, with his death ruled a suicide by the New York City medical examiner. The circumstances surrounding his death, including lapses in surveillance and staffing at the MCC, led to widespread speculation about foul play and conspiracy theories.
As Attorney General, William Barr announced that the Justice Department would investigate the circumstances of Epstein’s death. Barr expressed outrage at the apparent failures within the MCC and vowed accountability. He stated, “We will get to the bottom of what happened, and there will be accountability.” Barr’s remarks were seen as an acknowledgment of the public outcry surrounding the case and the need for transparency in the investigation.
Role of the Justice Department
Under Barr’s leadership, the Justice Department initiated inquiries into the MCC’s operations and the events leading to Epstein’s death. Reports highlighted multiple failures, including broken surveillance cameras, guards falling asleep on duty, and discrepancies in recordkeeping. These issues fueled conspiracy theories, suggesting that Epstein’s death may have been orchestrated to silence him and prevent revelations about his powerful associates.
Barr publicly dismissed some of the more sensational conspiracy theories but acknowledged serious lapses in protocol. He emphasized that Epstein’s death should not deter ongoing investigations into his alleged crimes and network.
Public and Political Reactions
The Justice Department’s handling of Epstein’s death became a focal point of criticism, with Barr facing scrutiny from political opponents and the media. Critics questioned whether the investigation into Epstein’s death and network was sufficiently thorough, given the high-profile nature of the case and Epstein’s connections to influential figures such as his boss, Trump.
These criticisms were compounded by the broader discourse surrounding Barr’s tenure as Attorney General, which was marked by allegations of politicization and preferential treatment for allies of the Trump administration.
The relationship between William Barr and the Jeffrey Epstein case underscores the complexities of accountability and public trust in the Justice Department. While Barr’s role was primarily as an overseer of the investigation into Epstein’s death, the case highlighted systemic issues within federal detention facilities and the challenges of addressing high-profile criminal cases involving influential individuals.
Epstein’s death remains a pivotal moment in the ongoing conversation about wealth, influence, and justice. Barr’s handling of the situation serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency and rigorous oversight in upholding the integrity of the justice system.
Secrecy has been a hallmark of Donald Trump’s approach since his early days as a businessman. His empire, built on real estate and branding, necessitated a high degree of confidentiality to safeguard business strategies, negotiation tactics, and competitive advantages. Trump’s insistence on non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) became a key feature of his dealings with employees, partners, and contractors, ensuring control over information that could damage his reputation or reveal internal operations.
This culture of confidentiality extended to his personal life. Trump has consistently maintained tight control over narratives surrounding his relationships, financial status, and business successes or failures. This approach enabled him to craft and preserve an image of invulnerability, charisma, and wealth—elements critical to his brand.
During his presidency, Trump’s obsession with secrecy was, and still is, evident in his approach to government documents and classified information. Reports emerged of Trump personally tearing up documents that were legally required to be preserved under the Presidential Records Act. His administration faced criticism for a lack of transparency, including withholding information from Congress and the public on key policy decisions.
Post-presidency, Trump’s handling of classified materials became a focal point of legal scrutiny. The discovery of sensitive government documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate raised questions about his motivations for retaining them and the implications for national security. Critics argued that his actions reflected a deeper pattern of disregarding norms and rules governing the handling of sensitive information.
Conclusion
Given the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death and his association with various political and business figures, it raises a question: Does Attorney General Bondi have evidence related to Trump’s connections with Epstein? If she does, at what point might she disclose such proof if it exists? It’s widely accepted that Bondi won’t release any information without Trump’s review and approval.
The relationship between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein highlights the complexities of social and professional networks within elite circles. While their interactions were primarily social rather than based on significant partnerships, according to publicly available information, this connection draws attention to broader discussions about wealth, power, and accountability in society. The relationship also underscores the need for transparency and responsibility among influential figures. Since Epstein’s actions have negatively impacted the reputations of many associated with him, addressing systemic issues related to exploitation and privileged immunity remains essential.
Additionally, regardless of any future releases of Epstein files by Attorney General Bondi or FBI Director Patel, conspiracy theories about what Trump knew and did with Epstein are likely to persist.
