‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed …,’ how Elon Musk and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones reacted ANGRILY to Justice Department’s BIG U-turn
The US Department of Justice (DoJ) confirmed on Monday, July 7, that Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier convicted of sex trafficking, did not maintain a “client list” documenting individuals to whom underage girls were allegedly trafficked. This statement marks a significant reversal from earlier claims by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had fueled speculation among conservative influencers and conspiracy theorists by suggesting such a list existed. The DOJ also announced that no further files related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation would be released, dashing hopes of new revelations about the case.
What is the Big U-Turn on Epstein files
In a January 2025 Fox News interview, Bondi had claimed that a “client list” was “sitting on my desk” for review, a statement that amplified theories about high-profile individuals linked to Epstein’s crimes. These remarks aligned with narratives promoted during the Trump administration, which had suggested the existence of such a document. However, the DOJ’s latest acknowledgment debunks this theory, stating that no evidence of a formal client list has been found among Epstein’s records.
This is over-the-top sickening …, say critics
The announcement drew sharp criticism from conservative circles. Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones posted on Twitter, “Next, the DOJ will say ‘Actually, Jeffrey Epstein never even existed.’ This is over-the-top sickening.” Similarly, Elon Musk shared a meme featuring a clown applying makeup, seemingly mocking Bondi’s earlier claims and the DOJ’s retraction. The backlash highlights the persistent public fascination with Epstein’s case and the belief among some that powerful figures connected to him have evaded accountability. The DOJ disclosed that it possesses over 10,000 videos and images related to Epstein’s case, which officials described as containing child sex abuse material or “other pornography.” Bondi had previously cited the volume of evidence — claiming the FBI was reviewing “tens of thousands” of recordings involving Epstein “with children or child porn”— as a reason for delays in releasing additional materials. Sources familiar with the investigation, as reported by The New York Times in 2024, noted that much of this material was seized from Epstein’s properties, including his Manhattan townhouse and private island, Little Saint James. However, the DOJ clarified that these files do not include a client list or evidence directly implicating specific high-profile individuals beyond what has already been made public. The Epstein case, which has spanned decades, continues to captivate public attention due to his connections with influential figures, including politicians, business tycoons, and celebrities. The DOJ’s decision to withhold further documents has reignited debates about transparency. Legal experts, quoted in a 2024 Washington Post article, suggest that the department may be withholding materials to protect ongoing investigations or due to the sensitive nature of the content, which includes explicit imagery. Critics, however, argue that the lack of disclosure fuels distrust and speculation about a cover-up.
