There is a certain institutional ignorance that is often quite convenient.
There are times when we don’t want to know too much. A person might take his car in for a checkup. When the mechanic comes out shaking his head, the owner doesn’t want to hear about all of the problems with his car. “Here’s my credit card number. Call me when I can pick up my car.”
I saw snippets of the interview of Kash Patel and Dan Bongino. Firstly, I have to compliment the Trump administration for their incredible transparency. High-ranking officials often give interviews or provide updates as to their activities. The president himself has spoken often with reporters in the Oval Office and on Air Force One. The current administration is the opposite of its predecessor with respect to access and the provision of information. The two heads of the FBI do not have to give interviews but they did so, and they spoke freely about their activities.
When the subject of Jeffrey Epstein was raised, both gentlemen said that the deceased had died by his own hand. “I’ve seen the report. It was a suicide.” “I know what a suicide looks like, and this was a suicide.” And it may well have been. The official coroner report said as much. Besides doubts that people held as the death of the infamous criminal seemed all too convenient, there are still some other facts that leave a question mark in the minds of many. A second autopsy authorized by Epstein’s brother concluded that the manner in which a neck bone was broken was inconsistent with death by suicide. Of course, security cameras where Epstein was held in Manhattan were not working. The required 30 minute checks for people on suicide watch were not made. A roommate was moved out of Epstein’s cell not long before the latter’s death. And of course, the two guards responsible for the jail wing fell asleep during the relevant timeframe.
I have no doubt that the FBI report makes it clear that it was a suicide. So when the FBI dynamic duo said that they had read the report and it said suicide, they were absolutely telling the truth. But let’s imagine that we go back several years and these two fellows see the first Bureau report on Covid. It would say that it came from pangolins sold at a wet market in Wuhan. It was only with more digging over a few years that the FBI and others concluded that the likely culprit for the virus was the conveniently located Wuhan Institute of Virology. My point is that the report was written by the same people in whose interest it was to say that Epstein had killed himself. Suggesting that it was murder would have required looking for suspects, some of them possibly associated with the very powerful people who do not want their names released by the Department of Justice. It would require understanding how the key cameras both went down at the same time and just when they were needed. How did the jailers fall asleep? Tired? Or maybe like the Sherlock Holmes story, The Adventure of Silver Blaze, where opium was added to the family curry to put people to sleep?
There are a lot of things that people may not want to know because knowing too much can either be demanding or troubling. We know almost nothing about the kid who tried to kill Donald Trump in a field in Pennsylvania. Also in that case, we have information that seems weird. Agents were under the shooter but could not be on the same roof that he used due to its slope? Or was it because it was too hot? And how does someone get to a presidential rally with a rangefinder in hand? And why was the shooter not neutralized until after he shot multiple rounds though numerous people and a police marksman had seen him on the roof prior to the shooting? And why don’t we know anything about him? And why was his body cremated and his house sterilized so quickly? Did he have five phones? With whom was he in communication? Again, either you can choose to pull a Sergeant Shultz and “know nothing” or actively investigate and potentially end up where you do not want to be.
This phenomenon is not unique to the Trump administration or even to the U.S. Oftentimes new leadership comes in and uncovers some very inconvenient truths. The options are to let the world know the same with potential damage and risk or simply to let things slide by because the alternative is too terrifying. While Donald Trump is a bulldozer in getting things done, it might be that he and his people have their limits as to certain topics and the potential implications of their complete disclosure. The Epstein list will include the names of rich and powerful people who are alive and still rich and powerful. Releasing the list could cause a political earthquake. What’s better: punt and keep the status quo or get the information out and potentially risk political and economic instability as members of Congress and titans of industry are exposed for their criminal past? Will Pam Bondi indict them? Will they be arrested?
When John Kennedy was running around and claiming that the U.S. was suffering from a “missile gap,” Eisenhower knew that Kennedy was wrong and that the U.S. actually had the nuclear advantage over the USSR. Ike said nothing. He possibly may have wished to protect the sources of his information or he may have wanted Nixon, his unloved vice president, to lose. Either way, not saying anything was preferable to the then president than coming clean.
Every new administration comes in promising the world. Then they inherit what their predecessor left behind. And in many cases they realize that while they promised to do X, doing so could cause a lot of problems. Patel and Bongino could have said that the file says that Epstein killed himself, but they want to look at that second autopsy so as to finally put the issue to bed for all Americans. They were more than happy to accept the report’s conclusion and call it a night rather than potentially opening a can of worms. The same may be true in other executive offices where fulfilling a campaign promise may be more troublesome than just continuing the previous administration’s trajectory.
Humans have an amazing capacity to not know what they don’t want to know. In the case of the autopen pardons, the administration can either just let it slide or invest large resources to get to the bottom of the subject and determine if there was illegality involved. It would seem that many Republicans have lost their appetite for DOGE savings. The people want DOGE cleaning up the budget; Republicans like to keep their pork; it helps get elected. The people want the truth and not convenience; our public servants would be wise to keep that in mind.
Editor’s Note: To celebrate the passage of the tremendous One Big, Beautiful Bill, we’re offering a fire sale on VIP memberships!
Join us in the fight against the radical left today and support our reporting as President Trump continues to usher in the Golden Age of America. Use promo code POTUS47 at checkout to get 74% off!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member