Loading ...I’ve previously counseled patience with the Epstein case. We don’t and shouldn’t know the plan. Let the man work!
THIS MORNING COFFEE AND COVID EPSTEIN ANALYSIS HAS NOW BEEN ADDED…SEE 4TH COMMENT
JEFF CHILDERS IS ON FIRE
I maintain he has been chosen by the Trumpians to receive inside information and to expose via his own analysis , what is really going in in the Epstein Epic Blockbuster as well as the Russiagate Blockbuster
I have been following Childers from his humble beginnings of the Coffee and Covid Blog and he just gets better and better all the time
This is a part time job.
He is a busy full time lawyer
He has to come up with his analysis in the morning before work …and he does it 7 days a week
He shares his incredible analysis for free 6 days a week and on Sunday his subscribers only.. get the blog
IMHO as Brilliant as he is there is no way he can zero in on the most important stories day after day without help from inside the Whitehouse
This mornings Piece is INCREDIBLE
We have explored Epstein “6 ways from sunday”…EVERYONE WHO IS ANYONE HAS AN OPINION
In my opinion Jeff Childers is the only opinion worth following at this point.
In case you missed this mornings Coffee and Covid …You better catch up HERE
https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/beginnings-saturday-july-26-2025?
PS …I will post tomorrow’s paywalled Analysis here at the Tent IN A COMMENT UNDER THIS POST …Because NO ONE ON THE PLANET IS BETTER INFORMED THAN THE GOLDTENT FAITHFUL !!!
WHAT A TIME TO BE ALIVE
Totally agree. No way is he a lone operator. He is a brilliant voice piece for someone (likely Whitehouse) Turn your friends onto him as a source of news and analysis, I have. (Thanks Fully)
His piece he did the other day on Tulsi and Trump going after the deep state was so informative. It really cut through all the various opinion out there so one can now know that this is a gladiator match. Trump and the deep state are now in the ring. Only one gets out alive.
I don’t understand how he’s able to do this. His energy and remarkable perspectives are impressive.
Sundance at CTH is similar. Posts regularly at 3-5 per day. They can read like legal briefings complete with legal excerpts, highlights, and citations. Some posts have been 20-25 pages in length, sprinkled with “Go Deep” if you want 20 pp more. Some of them can be refrains (older material revived when relevant again). But its always SO TIGHT. And on daily events, produced so quickly. Maybe they are both ALIENS.
Truly Amazing Guys and indispensable assets for us…Now add Josh and Clandestine as accessories and we have the A List
Republicans react! Not just any Republicans, but right-wing influencers. Yesterday, the New York Times ran its latest deplorable Epstein story below the headline, “Right-Wing Influencers Say Ghislaine Maxwell Is Key to Unlocking Epstein Case.” But it didn’t hit like they’d hoped.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/26/us/ghislaine-maxwell-trump-epstein.html
“Republicans React!” is the dumbest media trope there is. It is media sleight-of-hand intended to turn a story away from the underlying facts and toward the emotional response of the political right, framing every conservative concern as performative outrage rather than substantive critique.
Imagine— a top-of-fold Times story about what Charlie Kirk said about the truly historic questioning of the most important Epstein witness alive. It’s like covering Watergate by quoting what Nixon’s critics said on AM radio.
“Republicans pounce” is lazy propaganda. The low-effort maneuver lets journalists acknowledge a major development without interrogating its deeper meaning or unsettling implications. Especially when those implications might implicate the institutional elite or their political allies.
Instead of focusing on what Ghislaine Maxwell might have revealed, or the implications of the DOJ finally interviewing its best Epstein witness, the narrative spotlighted MAGA influencers “pouncing” or “seizing” on developments, as if the real story is the choreography of Republican indignation on Twitter.
Of the many problems with this sort of unambitious storytelling, one thing stands out: It doesn’t work anymore.
Gallup and Pew surveys show confidence in mainstream media at historic lows, particularly among independents and conservatives. Weird! Consider Gerard Butler’s anguished Wall Street Journal op-ed from March:
“The outrage about Trump is as furious,” Butler wrote, “as it is futile. No one cares anymore.” He’s right. The moral indignation that legacy media outlets once wielded like a sword now lands with the full force of a pool noodle. More, these tactics have become so overused that they have been turned on their heads and have become the smoke that proves a fire is burning.
In nearly every case where corporate media unleashed this trope, not only did the story turn out to have legs, but it has almost always spectacularly backfired on Democrats. “Republicans pounce on Hunter laptop leak.” Covid school closures fueled “right-wing outrage” and were only based on “Republican talking points.” After a transsexual boy raped a Loudon County girl in a high-school bathroom, media reported “right-wing mobilization around trans issues.” And “Republicans lash(ed) out” at the IRS Tea-Party targeting scandal.
Never forget that for two years or more, the Times’ default covid origins headline sneered, “Republicans promote baseless lab theory.”
Just like Pavlov’s bell made the dobermans salivate, “far-right conspiracy” now cues readers to pay closer attention. Media has created its very own dog whistle.
Cheap-fake chickens, welcome back to the roost.
But even after all that, the Times still fumbled its narrative hand grenade and accidentally blew a hole in its own containment wall. Trying desperately to frame the Ghislaine Maxwell interview as a fringe, right-wing sideshow, it inadvertently showcased how serious —and bipartisan— the interest really is.
Far from unhinged, the story’s quotes from figures like Benny Johnson (“This is what transparency looks like”) and Jack Posobiec (“Receipts and names”) are direct, measured, and honestly, were more journalistic than the story itself. Even Charlie Kirk’s so-called gotcha (“Can we trust Ghislaine Maxwell? Probably, but also probably not”) was a textbook example of cautious, rational skepticism.
It smelled more like panic. The Times tried to signal that the right was frothing over a non-story, but instead, it documented that conservatives are asking the exact same questions the press should’ve been asking all along. In trying to minimize Maxwell’s importance, they reinforced it. The story didn’t even come close to debunking the Epstein scandal.
The Times is still obsessing over Maxwell’s motives for testifying. As I noted yesterday, Maxwell’s credibility isn’t the issue. All witnesses, especially cooperators, are situated on a sliding scale of reliability, subject to corroboration and cross-examination. That’s not new.
What is new, and what actually matters, is that her interview signaled a beginning, not an end. It is new, improved launch pad for the real investigation that should’ve been launched years ago; before the cameras at MCC went dark, before the files were buried, and before the public was told to move along.
Instead of obsessing over whether Maxwell is trustworthy, the real questions are: Why now? And what comes next? The moronic press, reflexively trying to micromanage the narrative, completely missed the significance of the moment.
The first interview with Ghislaine Maxwell —ten hours over two days—almost certainly wasn’t about digging to the bottom of the Epstein conspiracy in a single sitting.
It was almost certainly a proffer session. A proffer session is an interview where the witness gets limited immunity, and the DOJ gets to test the waters: how much is she willing to give, how credible does she sound, and what can be verified or leveraged?
The DOJ’s internal guidance on proffer sessions is informally called the “Queen for a Day interview.” These are informal but highly structured opportunities for a potential cooperating witness to preview their testimony—not under oath, but typically under a proffer agreement that shields their statements from being used against them (unless they lie).
The DOJ uses these interviews to assess three things: credibility, scope of knowledge, and strategic value. Ghislaine’s ten-hour interview was a serious first step in a process that could lead to broader charges, corroborating witnesses, or plea negotiations.
All of this procedural background —the likely purpose of the interview, the mechanics of a proffer session, the strategic significance of Maxwell’s cooperation— could have been explained by any competent journalist if the goal were to inform readers.
But none of that critical background made any of the articles— because explaining the machinery might make readers expect more justice against more defendants. Instead, all reporters want to explain is what Jack Posobiec said.
As you already know, corporate media is worse than useless