When direct information is unavailable, as with the Epstein files, the most telling data is the administration's reaction. Their panic, stonewalling, and attempts to discredit the files reveal their perceived explosive nature. This method of "reading the space around the elephant" is a powerful analytical tool.
Related Insights
The Epstein files show how internal party challengers can leverage a single, highly-charged issue to confront a dominant leader like Trump. This tactic allows figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene to gain national visibility and reshape their political brand, potentially shifting from extremist to 'reasonable' in the public eye.
The chaotic nature of major foreign policy moves, such as the Venezuelan operation, could be strategic. By creating an overwhelming and confusing news cycle, the administration can deliberately divert media and public attention away from damaging domestic issues like the Epstein files.
The Epstein scandal's potential to implicate powerful figures has given it disproportionate political influence. The threat of damaging revelations acts as a hidden force shaping high-level government actions, from influencing congressional votes to orchestrating diversionary PR stunts, effectively making a deceased criminal a major political actor.
In analyzing a public scandal, Scott Galloway notes that the greatest damage in a crisis typically isn't the initial event but the subsequent "shrapnel": the attempts to cover up, excuse, or avoid accountability. An effective response requires acknowledging the problem, taking responsibility, and overcorrecting.
Even when transparency is mandated, there are levers to control the narrative. The allegation regarding the Epstein files is that they will be redacted to protect powerful figures, with "national security" used as a convenient and difficult-to-challenge justification for censorship.
A former CIA operative suggests that government secrecy is frequently a tool to hide administrative incompetence, premature announcements, or procedural errors, rather than to cover up nefarious, large-scale conspiracies. This perspective reframes public distrust from calculated malice to bureaucratic failure.
The human brain resists ambiguity and seeks closure. When a significant, factual event occurs but is followed by a lack of official information (often for legitimate investigative reasons), this creates an "open loop." People will naturally invent narratives to fill that void, giving rise to conspiracy theories.
When a government cuts off internet and phone lines during massive protests, as seen in Iran, it's a clear indicator they are trying to conceal the severity of their response from the world. This tactic undermines their own claims of control and reveals a deep fear of international scrutiny.
An administration has no incentive to fully resolve a major public scandal because its unresolved nature makes it a perfect "red herring." It can be used repeatedly to distract the public and media from current policy failures or other damaging news, making perpetual ambiguity more politically useful than transparency.
Biographer Ron Chernow learned more from John D. Rockefeller's intentionally vague letters than from direct revelations. The methods people use to conceal themselves—like writing as if every letter might be read by a prosecutor—are profoundly revealing of their personality, fears, and mindset.
