Release the Files, Not the Bullshit
Don Lemon Called It a Charade. The Papers Called It News.
Here’s the con you just watched
You ever notice how every time power gets cornered, the press suddenly forgets how to use its teeth? This week, the Department of Justice dropped Ghislaine Maxwell’s interviews with Todd Blanche. Not a neutral interviewer. Trump’s former defense lawyer, now the No. 2 at Justice. The New York Times framed it like new sunlight, even while admitting Maxwell has every incentive to say whatever helps her get out early. They wrote that the documents were “released late Friday,” and spotlighted that Maxwell “never saw President Trump engage in improper or illegal acts,” while noting victims objected to the whole stunt . Late. Friday. And yes, that denial led the coverage.
Meanwhile, Don Lemon had actual lawyers read the play in real time. Katie Fang called the interview “hens hanging out having cocktails… zero pushback by Todd Blanche.” Glenn Kirschner called it a “charade designed to protect Trump.” That is not me paraphrasing. That is what they said on-air .
Why the Friday drop matters
You drop something late Friday when you want quiet. Not clarity. The Times literally said “released late Friday.” That timing is a tell . It is not an accident. It is a tactic. If you wanted daylight you’d hold a briefing at noon, hand over the full files, and take questions. Instead, we got the cocktail-hour transcript and a chorus of headlines that centered Maxwell’s denial.
And yeah, I am pissed they pulled this stunt at the end of the week. You got survivors who carried their pain into courtrooms, and the government chooses the slot best known for burying truth under birthday dinners and kids’ soccer. That is disrespect. Period.
What the Times actually published
Let’s be precise. The NYT piece tells you Maxwell spoke with Todd Blanche and that she “never saw the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.” The story says there is “no hidden list of powerful clients” because, in her words, “There is no list.” It flags that she is seeking a break on her 20-year sentence and has a history of self-serving falsehoods. It still puts her denial in the bright lights and notes she was abruptly transferred to a minimum-security camp in Texas. The piece went live after the Friday dump .
All those details matter. They prove motive and choreography. They also prove this should not have been treated like a credible window into anything except how an administration tries to launder a narrative.
Don Lemon’s receipts vs. the papers’ stenography
Katie Fang: “This wasn’t an interview, it was like hens hanging out having cocktails… there was zero pushback by Todd Blanche.”
Glenn Kirschner: “This whole thing is a charade designed to exonerate and protect Donald Trump.”
Lemon’s segment did not pretend this was balanced. It named the tactic. Contrast that with the big papers that treated Maxwell’s denial like the lede instead of the punchline.
Here are several additional pull quotes from the segment:
Here are seven sharp pull-quotes from the segment:
Katie Fang (on DOJ’s approach): “We’re just going to take what she says as gospel. Thank you that we worshiped at the Church of Ghislaine Maxwell and then walk away with it…”
Glenn Kirschner (on Blanche’s questioning): “This is a meandering mess of a custodial interrogation… this is a horrible way to go about questioning a witness.”
Glenn Kirschner (on evidence vs. speculation): “We deal in fact. We deal in what we can prove. We don’t start asking witnesses to speculate about stuff.”
Katie Fang (on motives): “This was just performative. This was not meant to actually elicit the truth.”
Katie Fang (on accountability): “We know for a fact that this woman has lied in this meeting. Where are the charges against her? She lied.”
Inside the interview PDF: what Maxwell and Blanche actually say
If you want receipts, go to the transcript. Start with the “no list” canard and the Trump denial:
Maxwell: “I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting… I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way.”
Maxwell: “There is no list.”
Then Blanche tosses her softballs:
Blanche: “You never saw a black book, did you?”
Maxwell: “Absolutely… There is no list.”
That is not how you seek truth. That is how you script an alibi. Glenn Kirschner literally laughed at that leading question on-air and explained why real prosecutors do not do that .
Keep going. The PDF shows a pattern: minimize, deny, praise, and sanitize.
Praise for Trump: “President Trump was always very cordial and very kind to me… I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the president now. And I like him, and I’ve always liked him.”
Money questions: Blanche presses on multi-million dollar transfers. Maxwell shrugs: maybe helicopters, maybe entities she did not control, maybe investments he financed. She disputes that tens of millions were “hers,” despite bank records and the government’s evidence at trial showing $18.3 million in 1999, $5 million in 2002, $7.4 million in 2007 .
Sexual conduct: She draws a line between underage and adult conduct, claims she never saw non-consensual activity, and says of Epstein’s preferences: “He liked blowjobs… That would be consistent, as would masturbation.” She says she never saw intercourse and insists she never instructed women how to please him .
Flight logs and “the island”: She says Clinton “absolutely never went” to the island and calls a helicopter story “patently absurd,” adding she was never allowed to see the pilots’ logbooks or manifests. She says she was not responsible for the logs and “never even saw them” .
Scientists and prestige: She describes dinners with Harvard and MIT figures, says Epstein funded or cultivated ties rooted in “profound” interest in cognition and the brain, and name-checks the Santa Fe Institute and Murray Gell-Mann as relationships she helped broker .
Network maintenance: She ticks through names the public recognizes and places most contact away from sexual contexts: Elon Musk at a Sergey Brin birthday trip and the Oscars; Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey on an Africa flight; Naomi Campbell maybe at Palm Beach or the island; Larry Summers as a friend through business; Bobby Kennedy on a dinosaur-bone trip; Andrew and Chris Cuomo by way of family and TV; John Kerry through ocean work .
You see the pattern. She places herself in the room for status and logistics. She places bad behavior off-stage. She wraps Trump in politeness and admiration. And the government pushed this out on a Friday like it clears anybody.
Survivors erased while the government hands the mic to a convicted liar
The PDF and the coverage let Maxwell reframe events and swipe at credibility. Katie Fang called it out: how dare DOJ release transcripts where she calls victims liars. She reminded viewers Maxwell was federally indicted for perjury and that those counts were dropped after her conviction, which means you do not treat her as a reliable narrator now .
This is where I get heated. The women who testified under oath became collateral damage to a PR weekend. The press is supposed to protect truth tellers, not platform the person a jury found guilty of trafficking children.
Trump’s public line and the selective “transparency”
Trump said he supports “keeping it totally open,” then immediately waved Clinton and Larry Summers like shiny keys. Lemon rolled the clip. Trump said “I don’t want to bring that up” after bringing it up. That is not transparency. That is misdirection wrapped in grievance.
If openness is the goal, here is what real openness looks like: release the Epstein files. Not curated snippets. Not the cocktail-hour transcript. The files. Glenn Kirschner said it plainly: “Release these things publicly.” The whole thing is a cover-up start to finish when you cherry-pick and bury the rest .
Quick break to keep this voice independent
If this lands, do not just nod and move on. Keep this work independent. Eight dollars a month keeps the lights on and the pressure up. Free seven-day trial. Read the receipts, then decide.
What the papers should have done
The Times did one thing right: they acknowledged motive and the Friday timing. Then they put the denial in big letters anyway . That is not enough. Responsible coverage would have:
Led with the context: a convicted trafficker with a perjury history asked leading questions by a political appointee with a direct tie to the subject.
Centered victim testimony and evidence rather than a self-serving denial.
Treated the “no list” claim as what it is: an uncorroborated assertion from a convicted liar, not a finding .
Demanded the complete record. The actual files. Not curated denials.
I am not here to scold reporters doing their best under bad incentives. I am here to pull the camera back to the editors and owners who launder power when the truth gets inconvenient.
Deep-dive: five telltale patterns in the PDF
Pattern 1: Deny the architecture.
Blanche asks where the money came from and why. Maxwell answers with fog. Entities she did not control. Helicopters. Investments. She disputes that the tens of millions were “hers,” even as Blanche lists the 1999, 2002, 2007 numbers. That is not clarity. That is haze .
Pattern 2: Normalize constant sexual access while erasing age and coercion.
She describes ubiquitous massages, toplessness on the island, rubbing feet, and “invigorating” youth around Epstein, then draws a clean line: never saw non-consensual acts, never saw underage girls in a massage room, never saw intercourse. She concedes consistency with masturbation and oral sex preferences but walls off rape and minors. That is reputational triage, not fact finding .
Pattern 3: Reassign custody of evidence.
She says she never had logs, never saw manifests, never logged passengers, and was “never allowed” to see pilots’ books. That neatly relocates the receipts to other hands and keeps her clean when the question comes: who else was present, when, and where .
Pattern 4: Wrap Trump in manners.
“Cordial.” “Kind.” “I like him.” Admiration for his achievement. You are meant to file that next to “I never saw him do anything inappropriate” and walk away satisfied. Do not. That is the whole point of laundering. You substitute the vibe for the verification .
Pattern 5: Inflate intellect, underplay leverage.
She foregrounds Harvard, MIT, Santa Fe Institute, and scientists as proof that the orbit was smart, maybe even noble. She understates the leverage that money, proximity, and access created for a predator who preferred younger women and regular massages. Prestige is the oldest deodorant on earth .
The Softballs That Saved Trump
Let’s slow-walk how Blanche protected the serve and how the coverage — especially the Post — carried his water.
A) Leading questions that pre-baked the answer.
In the transcript, Blanche tosses the alley-oop: “Do you have a list…?” and “You never saw a black book, did you?” Maxwell: “No, there’s no list… Has never been a list.” That is not cross. That is coaching the witness【turn1file11†L33-L48】【turn1file3†L4-L12】. He keeps it gentle enough to say out loud “not trying to put words in your mouth,” while the entire exchange does exactly that【turn1file11†L15-L23】.
B) The vibe defense over verification.
He lets Maxwell wrap Trump in manners: “cordial,” “kind,” “I admire his extraordinary achievement.” That sits next to her denial like a scented candle over a backed-up drain【turn1file0†L23-L26】. There is zero documentary follow-up. No logs. No emails. No money trails. Just vibes.
C) When facts would hurt, everything turns foggy.
Blanche lists the money — $18.3 million in 1999, $5 million in 2002, $7.4 million in 2007 — and Maxwell shrugs it into helicopters, entities she “didn’t control,” business deals she “doesn’t recall.” Fog is the point. You don’t leave with facts. You leave with shrug【turn1file5†L1-L9】.
D) “No list” repeated like a spell.
The transcript hammers that line again and again: “There’s no list… Never a list… None I ever saw.” That is not a finding. That is a convicted liar’s refrain, prompted by the government’s No. 2 with questions shaped to get it on tape【turn1file8†L12-L20】.
E) Real prosecutors do not do this.
You do not spoon-feed an answer, then congratulate yourself for getting it on the record. You do not hand a convicted trafficker a denial and pretend it is corroboration. And if you are a newsroom with a backbone, you do not let that denial skate into your headline like it earned first billing.
F) This is where The Washington Post face-planted.
Ghislaine Maxwell tells Justice Dept. she never saw Trump act inappropriately
The Post’s job was not to play court stenographer for a Friday alibi. The Post’s job was to interrogate the technique: leading questions, kid-glove tone, zero evidentiary teeth. Instead they printed the denial like a valet ticket and sent readers to the weekend. That is how propaganda gets a press pass. That is how “there is no list” becomes a clickable instead of a challenge. If you are going to run that denial, the top third has to rip apart how Blanche framed it and why Maxwell is not credible. The paper of Katherine Graham knows better than to launder a script and call it sunlight.
G) The thing that should’ve been the headline.
Not Maxwell’s denial. Not “no list.” The headline is the method: Trump’s former defense lawyer, now Deputy AG, asking a convicted perjurer leading questions in a Friday dump that legacy outlets framed as newsworthy. That is the story.
The playbook the public keeps falling for
It goes like this.
Drop curated documents on a Friday.
Center a denial from a compromised source.
Let big outlets legitimize the framing with sober language.
Wave shiny names to stoke tribal blame.
Tell the public all the “real stuff” is coming, later.
Glenn Kirschner spelled it out. Katie Fang showed her work. Don Lemon put it on screen and said the quiet part out loud. The response from the papers should have been to interrogate the why and demand the rest. Not to polish the alibi and call it news .
What I want next, in plain English
Full release of the Epstein files. Not summaries. Not curated transcripts. The files.
Source documents for flights, money movements, visitor logs, phone and email traffic, and all prior proffers.
A commitment from the press that denials by convicted liars get treated as denials, not headlines, and that survivor testimony and documents lead coverage.
A press conference during daylight with questions, not a Friday email.
You deserve a press that respects your intelligence and your time. You did not get that this week.
Conclusion
You were fed PR as news. You watched a government hand a microphone to a convicted trafficker and call the clip “transparency.” You watched the biggest newsrooms accept the framing and file their stories before dinner.
If that sits wrong deep in your soul, that means your compass works. Keep it working.
Help me keep this straight. Help me keep this loud. Independent work does not survive on vibes. It survives on people who refuse to be handled.
👉 Become a paid subscriber:
Free seven-day trial. Read the archives. Keep the pressure on.
Because if we do not call this out now, the record will read like a transcript written by the liars and printed by the cowards.