Dems Spent All Last Week Focused On One Bogus Epstein Email: Now NYT Wonders Why ‘Conservative Media’ Seems to Care

The media on Wednesday: Just one out of a tranche of Jeffrey Epstein’s documents with a redacted victim’s name proves Donald Trump knew more than he says!

The media on Sunday: We stopped caring about that once the name was unredacted. Why does “conservative media” care so much?

I know; I was as shocked as everyone else in the conservative media sphere to open my New York Times this weekend and discover that we were still caring about the wrong thing. Silly us!

Suddenly, an that was supposed to be the key to all Epstein/Trump mythologies was completely irrelevant now that it turns out the doesn’t contain anything incriminating. But the Gray Lady has spoken: Moveth along, nothing to see here, Mr. Conservative G.O.P. Media.

So, for those of you who’ve been in a medically induced coma for the past week and are just waking up to this: On Wednesday, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released three s related to Epstein, including one that had Trump’s name and seemed to cast doubt on his story.

(Trump’s story regarding the infamous pervert, for those of you who’ve been in a medically induced coma since the late 2010s, is that, yes, he knew Jeffrey Epstein on the New York/Palm Beach before Epstein was a convicted sex criminal, but the two had a falling out in the early 2000s because Epstein was a creep.)

In 2011, Epstein ed his procurer/lover Ghislaine Maxwell, telling her, “I want you to realize that that dog that hasn’t barked is Trump.. [VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him.”

EPSTEIN BOMBSHELL: Newly released s show Jeffrey Epstein told Ghislaine Maxwell that Donald Trump “spent hours at my house,” “knew about the girls,” and “that dog that hasn’t barked is trump.” pic.twitter.com/8OQtdfQe1g

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) November 12, 2025

This, of course, makes Trump seem more involved with the Epstein scandal than he’s let on. Republicans on the Oversight Committee, however, immediately cautioned against any sort of mania over these s, saying that the redacted name was that of the late Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre.

Giuffre was an employee at Mar-a-Lago (which would explain why Trump would have spent time with her) and maintained until her death that Trump had engaged in no untoward behavior.

(Considering that she’s the Epstein victim who has implicated the former Prince Andrew at great length, that makes her being the name in that pretty exculpatory.)

Thus, Republicans on the Oversight Committee responded by releasing over 20,000 pages of Epstein content, including the unredacted that included Giuffre’s name.

This should have more or less defused the bombshell, except for the fact that the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) were already off and running with the new material — including the Democrats’ ill-conceived plot to try to make Trump look bad by noting that Jeffrey Epstein said in the documents that he thought Trump was “dangerous.”

Because, as we know, America likes to get its opinions in line with those of the 21st century’s most notorious pedophile:

BREAKING: Newly released s show Jeffrey Epstein thought Trump was one of the worst people he knew, with “not one decent cell in his body.”

He went on to describe Trump with one word:

“Dangerous.” pic.twitter.com/kMyRwkgk8i

— Democrats (@TheDemocrats) November 13, 2025

Anyhow, you’d think that over 20,000 pages of documents would be enough to keep the media feeding frenzy alive through the weekend. And it was, but over at The New York Times, there seemed to be a certain amount of consternation that 1) the only truly problematic that was found in the bunch turned out to be a total dud, and 2) that conservative media was actively pointing this out.

Leave it to the Times to somehow jiu-jitsu this into a Republicans Pounce!™ narrative at the same time that they have a special bar at the top of their page linking to all the non-story stories regarding the “Jeffrey Epstein Fallout.”

First, the Times’ Ken Bensinger lamented in a Friday article that conservatives didn’t care enough about the Epstein s, dismissing the release as a political stunt not worthy of commenting on:

For hours, Fox News made nary a mention of the tranche, whose contents suggested, among other things, that the president knew more about the abuses perpetrated by Mr. Epstein, a former friend, than he had admitted.

Prominent podcasters like Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly focused on H-1B visas, the government shutdown and a proposal for 50-year mortgages on their shows and social media, though Ms. Kelly did discuss the Epstein files on her podcast later in the day.

And the online troll account known as Catturd, which posts dozens of times every day to its nearly four million followers on X, spent the morning attacking Michelle Obama, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California and James Comey, the former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Yes, apparently, realizing that the selective release of three (3) s out of the “tranche” of documents likely meant this was cherry-picking of the highest order meant that conservative voices were, effectively, prematurely disinterested in making the Trump/Epstein narrative happen.

Then, when there was a realization that there was something to be interested in — the fact the Democrats were weaving fictive conspiracies by way of misleading redaction — Bensinger says that “right-wing media figures began coalescing around another approach: focusing on a single redacted name in the s.”

They argued that Democrats on the House Oversight Committee — who had released three s early on Wednesday — had created a false narrative by hiding the name of one of Mr. Epstein’s victims in one of the messages. The redaction, the theory went, was meant to cover up that the victim, Virginia Giuffre, previously said she had never witnessed Mr. Trump involved in sexual abuse of minors. … 

In the dependably administration-friendly world of conservative media, the question of how to address the president’s relationship with Mr. Epstein has proved particularly thorny. It has pitted abiding loyalty to Mr. Trump against growing demands from the MAGA base that the federal government release all its files related to the notorious predator.

Uh-huh. It had nothing to do with the fact that the dependably Trump-hating world of progressive media looked upon a single with a redacted name like it was, collectively, a cartoon character with eyes popping out like dinner plates and tongue on the floor.

Then, when it became apparent was no “there” there, it put its eyes back in, rolled up its tongue, and shifted to reserved innuendo and stories about the vague details contained in the wider tranche.

Oh, and it made the argument that “right-wing outlets have continued to make their argument that Democrats had deliberately cooked up a controversy and that there was, they said, nothing to see here” — that, too, as Mr. Bensinger put it.

In other words: They deliberately cooked up a controversy, lamented we didn’t pay attention at first, then lamented that we did once the actual story — that being the lack of one — became apparent. You don’t loathe these people enough.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.