An historical perspective on the Epstein Files and the Russia Hoax

It appears evident now that President Trump does not want the Epstein files released. This is the first time he has reneged on a campaign promise in his political career. Why would he do that? I think some reflection on history may give us some perspective on the Epstein files controversy. On October 10 1973 Vice President Spiro T Agnew resign his office after being indicted on bribery and corruption charges related to construction contracts he had been involved in while governor of Maryland. He later plead "nolo contendre" to charges of failing to report income on his taxes. This came at a particular bad time for then President Richard Nixon who was embroiled adverse publicity surrounding a break into the DNC headquarters in the Watergate building in Washington by some of his campaign operatives. While under grand jury investigation and with the specter of impeachment in the air Nixon sought to replace Agnew with a likeminded Republican so that if he did leave office he would have chosen his successor. Invoking the 25th Amendment Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford, the minority leader in the House of Representatives, to replace Agnew. Ford, though more liberal than Nixon, was a man of deep faith and impeccable character. Under the 25th Amendment a nominee for Vice President had to be confirmed by both Houses of Congress. During his confirmation hearings Ford assured both houses that he believed that if Nixon had committed any crimes, he should be held accountable for them and promised under no circumstances to pardon him. Gerald Ford was sworn in as Vice President on December 6, 1973. On August 9, 1974, nine months later Nixon resigned, and Ford became the 38th President of the United States without ever being elected to any federal office. Nixon had been named an "unindicted co-conspirator" by the grand jury investigating matters related to the burglary. Impeachment loomed over him, and after receiving news from Republican leadership in the Senate that a conviction in the Senate was likely, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, and Ford was sworn is as the 38th President the same day. On September 8, 1974 one day short of a month in office Gerald R. Ford pardoned Nixon of all crimes associate with his Presidency. Outcries arose from those who had voted to confirm Ford, from Nixons' supporters and his detractors. Members of Congress who had voted to confirm Ford felt he had lied, Nixons' supporters believed (probably correctly) that Nixon himself had committed no crimes and would be acquitted and exonerated if he went to trial. His detractors wanted him jailed for life. This was one of those rare moments where a President sets aside politics, even his own promises, and make a decision he feels is right for the country, even though it is unpopular. Ford had in many people's eyes allowed the Presidency to be forever disgraced and had failed to do justice to the Constitution and the American people. Most historians believe the Pardon of Nixon was the primary reason Ford lost in a close election in 1976 to Jimmy Carter. While most people at time were outraged by the pardon of Nixon, historians now almost universally agree it was the right thing to do. Why did Ford, who was a man of undeniable virtue and credibility, forsake his promise to Congress and his supporters and pardon Nixon? I think understanding that action may give us some insight in to the Trump administration's refusal to open the so called, Epstein files. While I realize that pardoning a sitting President is very different from withholding records about a convicted sex-trafficker from the public, I think there are sone corollaries in the two situations: First Ford argued that the office of the Presidency gave him a different perspective on Watergate than what the public knew. To put it another way. The President sees issues differently when he gets in office and faces the realities of governing than he does when he is campaigning. Ford though not elected, saw the issue differently once he occupied the oval office. The same is true of Trump and the Epstein files. The President has a unique perspective on issues that no one in the world shares. Although Candidate Trump clearly stated many times that the Epstein files needed to be released, he has now changed his mind. He now compares the story to a conspiracy equivalent to the "Russia Conspiracy hoax," which dominated his first term, lead to his impeachment and nearly brought down his Presidency. Did he change his mind because he was dishonest with his supporter or has the perspective of the Presidency given him a different view of the Epstein issue. Ford had lived through the nearly two years of incessant media vitriol toward Nixon. Both the broadcast and print media had been consumed by the story, almost nothing else was discussed. Nixon had been a controversial figure since entering politics and a long legal proceeding or a Nixon trial would have dominated the airwaves and newspapers for the remainder of Ford's short Presidential terms and would further divide the nation. Ford reasoned that as an unelected President who had followed one whom the public believed was corrupt, that he needed to end the vitriolic coverage, to restore integrity to the office and gain the public respect needed to govern. Since that could not be obtained at the ballot box, he felt a distraction like a trial of a sitting President would make it impossible for him to cast his vision for the county, and advocate for his agenda in the time left in his term. He would always govern under the shadow of Watergate, which would mean he would not be able to govern at all if the media was consumed with coverage of a former President on trial. One could argue that Trump finds himself in a similar position. If the Epstein files were to be released at this point in his second term. Unlike 1979 we now live in 24-hour news cycle that consist of soundbites and snapshots of issues, and the coverage of Epstein's many affairs would be pervasive. If prominent business and government leaders were indicted or disgraced in a scandal involving sex trafficking of thousands of underage women, the coverage would dominate the public media around the world. Although Trump is not unelected, he was the first President ever to be elected who had never held public office. He was impeached twice. Some view his unorthodox and iconoclastic style as showing a naïve inexperience, or a sinister desire to corrupt power, while other believe it will bring a renaissance to our republic. Trump has understood since entering politics how controlling the political message was perhaps the most important dimension of his politics and governance. Trump may well believe that revelations about Epstein and prominent figures would overwhelm his message and take attention off the issues for which he must gain public support. Ford understood that for him to succeed he, too, had to be in control of the message. Being the first and only unelected President he held the office without any popular consent. He understood he would not succeed if his whole term was eclipsed by a Watergate obsessed news cycle. Although Trump was elected twice, and the second time quite handily, due to the Russia hoax and first impeachment many view his first term as illegitimate. Accusations and suspicions still surround the 2020 election and his role in January 6 protests that followed it.  Trump is attempting to manage profoundly serious international affairs that could erupt into international conflict at any moment. It is essential that Trump be able to communicate his agenda and dominate the news cycle. In other words, he believes the story would so dominate the media, take so much attention in the courts and Congress that he would his agenda would get minimal attention? Trump would cease to be the story, and Trump has succeeded in politics by making himself the story. Like Ford considering Watergate potential trials, he believes there are other things more significant to his Presidency than this story.  The more I consider it, I think he is correct. Imagine the impact an accusation of trafficking children against a head of state that Trump was trying with whom he was negotiating might have. The concern here is not so much with the official themselves, but what if a government like Israel or Ukraine became destabilized by scandals that could not be proven, how might that affect Trump's efforts at peace? Yes, Epstein's victims deserve justice and the elite's stranglehold on power needs to be broken, but would the release of the Epstein files do that? It is very difficult to convict on some of these charges and some charges go back 20 - 30 years. Is there actual empirical or forensic evidence of any crimes. Epstein went to prison died there and now faces his Eternal Judge. His paramour, Ghillane Maxwell, is in prison for trafficking women to him, and many of the Epstein related documents are sealed pending her appeals. Additionally, we have already seen prominent official who were associated with Epstein be falsely accused and forced to defend their names in court. How many people's good name would be destroyed by unsubstantiated accusations? It is entirely possible that the complexities of the Epstein case might take so much media time and attention of the justice Department and various states that it might dominate public attention. And if the recent acquittal of rap star Sead Diddy Combs is any indication it is very difficult to convict on this kind of offense. So, imagine the impact on Trump's Presidency if after all most incessant attention given to these cases there were few if any convictions. After coming to office Ford realized that a prosecution of Nixon would be counterproductive to the cause of justice. At the time famous Watergate reporters Woodward and Berstein agreed with Ford, and today most historians do too. The public at the time and many of his supporters were incensed by his decision and have never forgiven him. The pardon probably cost him the 1976 election. This seems to me to be what Trump is rather ineloquently saying when he says, "are we still talking about this creep?" He seems to believe that prosecuting this case would lead to confusion and consternation and distract from the agenda. Is he right? But why are so few of his supporters willing to set this issue aside? One of the things that has complicated the situation has been the mixed messages and contradictory public statements of Attorney General Pam Bondi, her teasing the country with the hope of information was unprofessional and shows a level of incompetence that I suspect hamper her performance as Attorney General going. She has lost credibility with the press and public, many are calling for her firing or resignation, and it is doubtful she can recover. Trump understands the boondoggle she has created but firing her may not be in his interest in the short term. Trump had three attorneys-general in his first term, and his filling of the role in DOJ was complicated by his first nominee of Matt Gaetz, if Trumps is to succeed in rooting out the corruption, he must have a unified well-run DOJ. As much as I am unimpressed with Bondi, we don't' need another heated confirmation hearing now. The infighting between Bondi, FBI director Patel, and his deputy, Bongino, distracts from their investigations. The worst thing that could happen would be for anyone of them to leave their office. Bondi's days are numbered but today might not be the best time to release her. With the release yesterday from ONI of documents showing the so-called Russia hoax, which lead to an impeachment, and nearly brought down a presidency, was in fact a conspiracy to topple Trump, I have come to the conclusion that there are "bigger fish to fry." Trump has made decisions in the past that have been unpopular with his base: the killing of Sulamani and Bagdadi, the bombing of Syria in his first term, and Iraq in his second. Each of those decisions were decisive and effective and advance the so calle MAGA agenda. Trump has, so far, proven to make the right decision, and his rift with Musk is proof that he is not controlled by the opinions and demands of rich and powerful supporters and donors. Trump is not attempting to protect any person, nor is he loyal to a fault. I think Trump sees that keeping Bondi and delaying or maybe even passing by the Epstein question is what is best for the country at this moment. Most historians have looked back on the pardon of Nixon as best for the country. Did Nixon get away with crimes? Historians are divided, but the trials of Nixon did not distract from the challenges Ford faced. How different would the country have been if the American people had set aside their feelings of betrayals, and their contempt for Nixon and Watergate, and accepted that Ford did what he thought was right from his perspective in the oval office. How different history would have been had be been elected him rather than Carter. Sometimes we do have to trust those whom we elect, for now I have no reason not to trust Trump's judgement. It's proven right so far, I am willing reluctantly to accept that it may not be in the best interest of the country to release the Epstein files now; however, Trump and Bondi, must start delivering on their promise to bring justice and integrity to government and soon. I'm willing to put Epstein behind me if Trump learns the lessons of history. Ford went on to bring an end to the Vietnam War, restore the economy, manage the crisis in South Korea, deliver the nation through a Hong Kong flu pandemic, and oversee the prosecution of other Watergate perpetrators. My advice to Maga influencers is this. I believe the Charlie Kirk's and Meghan Kelleys of the World need to send Trump a message that we will back him on this but we must have results soon. Trump appears to be backing Bondi and has ordered her to seek the release of grand jury testimony concerning Epstein, which if release will, no doubt be heavily redacted. The release of the Russia hoax documents by Tulsi Gabbard cannot be ignored and does change the conversation. Bondi, Patel and Bongino must now act, expeditiously! We must see either a special prosecutor appointed or a grand jury convened soon. if she does not bring some legal actions soon, she must go. The need to know the identity of the J6 pipe bomber, the need to a remedy for those maliciously prosecuted as a result of J6 must be remedied before the midterms. There needs to be indictments and convictions of those who plotted to prevent Trump first election and then executed what could only be called a passive coup. Bondi must be more focused on doing her job, than she is on her FOX news appearances. If we start to see grand juries convened or special prosecutors appointed, then Trump's base may even forget Epstein. Although MAGA voters care deeply about Epstein victims many of the crimes took place so long ago that judicial remedies will offer them little more than satisfaction. But the crimes against the republic, like Watergate, threaten the character and continuity of our Republic. I can accept Bondi using her prosecutorial discretion to give priority to other matters, if I see resolution on those matters. Trump can now set the stage for future Republican victories in the midterms if he and Bondi deliver on his promises to bring the justice they promise us for the crimes of the last 16 years. If they fail to do so, within the next 60 days, many MAGA supporters will stay away from the poles, the Democrats will take control of the Congress and several state houses in the mid-terms, and the MAGA ship will sink. Make America Great Again will be just a catchy campaign slogan if Bondi fails to act expeditiously.