by John Iadarola
The Damage Report
Jul 11, 2025 #TheDamageReport #JohnIadarola #TheYoungTurks
MAGA is reeling after Attorney General Pam Bondi backtracked on her previous statements about a certain "client list". The Damage Report's John Iadarola breaks it down.
Transcript
Donald Trump is falling apart as reporters, and even many of his own supporters, are refusing to stop asking questions about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein. The DOJ and FBI have now concluded there was no Jeffrey Epstein client list. What do you tell MAGA supporters who say they want anyone involved in Jeffrey Epstein's alleged crimes to be held accountable?
[Karoline Leavitt] This administration wants anyone who has ever committed a crime to be held accountable. And I would argue this administration has done more to lock up bad guys than certainly the previous administration. And the Trump administration is committed to truth, and to transparency. That's why the attorney general, and the FBI director pledged, at the president's direction, to do an exhaustive review of all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes and his death. And they put out a memo in conclusion of that review.
Marjorie Taylor Greene holds up censored photo of Hunter Biden and a prostitute. Foxnews.com
There was material they did not release because frankly it was incredibly graphic and it contained child pornography, which is not something that's appropriate for public consumption. But they committed to an exhaustive investigation. That's what they did, and they provided the results of that. That's transparency.
[Fox Reporter] Okay. So, the FBI looks at the circumstances surrounding the death of Jeffrey Epstein. According to the report, this systematic review revealed no incriminating client list. So, what happened to the Epstein client list that the attorney general said she had on her desk?
[Karoline Leavitt] Well, I think if you go back and look at what the attorney general said in that interview, which was on your network on Fox News ...
[Fox Reporter] I have the quote. John Roberts said, "DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?" And she said, "It's sitting on my desk right now to review."
[Karoline Leavitt] Yes. She was saying the entirety of all of the paperwork, all of the paper in relation to Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. That's what the attorney general was referring to, and I'll let her speak for that. But again, when it comes to the FBI and the Department of Justice, they are more than committed to ensuring that bad people are put behind bars. They have an operation going on right now called Summer Heat, which has our murder rate trending in the lowest direction in United States history. Their emphasis on violent crime and locking up violent criminals has led to the arrest of 14,000 violent criminals. That's a 62% increase from the same time period last year. So, this attorney general and the FBI director are committed to putting bad people behind bars where they belong. They promised an exhaustive review. That's what they did.
[Donald Trump] Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years. You're asking -- we have Texas, we have this, we have all of the things. And are people still talking about this guy, this creep? That is unbelievable. Do you want to waste the time on it? Do you feel like answering?
[Pam Bondi] I don't mind answering.
[Donald Trump] I mean, I can't believe you're asking a question on Epstein. At a time like this, where we're having some of the greatest success, and also tragedy, with what happened in Texas. It just seems like a desecration. But you go ahead.
[Pam Bondi] Sure. Sure. First, to back up on that, in February I did an interview on Fox and it's been getting a lot of attention, because I said I was asked a question about the client list, and my response was, it's sitting on my desk to be reviewed, meaning the file, along with the JFK, MLK files as well. That's what I meant by that. Also to the tens of thousands of video, they turned out to be child porn downloaded by that disgusting Jeffrey Epstein. Child porn is what they were. Never going to be released, never going to see the light of day. To him being an agent, I have no knowledge about that. We can get back to you on that. And the minute missing from the video. We released the video showing definitively -- the video was not conclusive, but the evidence prior to it was showing he committed suicide. And what was on that, there was a minute that was off the counter. And what we learned from Bureau of Prisons was every year, every night, they redo that video. It's old, from like 1999. So every night the video is reset, and every night should have the same minute missing. So we're looking for that video to release that as well, showing that a minute is missing every night. And that's it on Epstein.
[Don, Jr.] I'm fine with all the other lists, and as long as I'm not on the Epstein list, we're good, right? Speaking of which, how is it that my father can be convicted of 34 crimes, but no one on Epstein's list has even been brought to light? How, I'm trying to figure out how that's possible, right? But it's almost like they're trying to protect those pedophiles for some reason. I can't imagine why.
[Fox Reporter] The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?
[Pam Bondi] It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump. I'm reviewing that. I'm reviewing JFK files, MLK files. That's all in the process of being reviewed, because that was done at the directive of the president, from all of these agencies.
[Fox Reporter] So have you seen anything that you said, "Oh my gosh"?
[Pam Bondi] Not yet."
[Fox Reporter] Okay. Well, we'll check back with you.
[Steve Bannon] This is supposed to be about the most transparent administration ever.
[MAGA WORLD reporter] What on earth is going on? Was Pam Bondi set up by deep state FBI career officials? Is she stupid? Is she so click-thirsty that she got out over her skis trying to make news, being a Fox News star?
[Alex Jones] Pam Bondi, all of it. All those videos are saying, "Yeah, she's seen the videos. It's all coming out." And then now, it doesn't exist? I mean, what? What?
[Dan Bongino] The Jeffrey Epstein case, you do not know all the details of this thing, I promise. There are a lot of really obviously powerful people. This part, you know, but the specific names we may not.
[Alina Habba] There were so many individuals that were hidden and kept secret, and have not been held accountable.
[Pam Bondi] What you're going to see, hopefully tomorrow, is a lot of flight logs, a lot, a lot, of names, a lot, a lot of information.
[Fox Reporter] The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Will that really happen?
[Pam Bondi] It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump.
[Dan Bongino] I'm just telling you what we see in the file. I am, I just want to be crystal clear on this. I am not asking anyone to believe me. I'm telling you what's there, and what isn't. Right? There is nothing in the file at this point on the Epstein case. And there's going to be a disclosure on this coming shortly. We are working through some, there is video. That is something the public --
[Reporter] There's video of him killing himself?
[Dan Bongino] No, no, not the actual act, but the entire MCC bay. It was only one camera. There's video, that when you look at the video, and we will release -- that's what's taken a while on this -- we are working on cleaning it up to make sure you have an enhanced -- and we're going to give the original so you don't think there were any shenanigans -- you're going to see there's no one there but him. There's just nobody there. So, I say to people all the time, if you have a tip, let us know. But there's no DNA, there's no audio, there's no fingerprints, there's no suspects, there's no accomplices, there's no tips, there is nothing. If you have it, I'm happy to see it. There's video clear as day. He's the only person in there, and the only person coming out. You can see it.
"Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence" – A Shared Caution Among Thinkers
by chatgpt
7/12/25
The phrase "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is widely associated with the late astronomer Carl Sagan, who invoked it in discussions about scientific skepticism, especially regarding extraterrestrial life. Sagan used it to remind audiences that just because we haven't found evidence of alien life doesn’t mean it doesn't exist. In The Demon-Haunted World (1995), he emphasized, "Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true." Though not a direct citation of the phrase, it echoes its caution against assuming nonexistence without adequate investigation.
Another prominent male figure who employed this phrase is Donald Rumsfeld, former U.S. Secretary of Defense. During a 2002 Department of Defense briefing, he stated, "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or vice versa," when discussing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. His use of the phrase sparked controversy, as critics argued it was used to justify action without solid proof, highlighting the phrase’s susceptibility to political manipulation.
Among women, physicist and science communicator Dr. Lisa Randall has echoed similar sentiments in her work on dark matter and extra dimensions. In interviews and writings, she stresses that the current lack of direct detection of dark matter doesn’t invalidate its existence. While she may not quote the phrase verbatim, her arguments align with its epistemological caution.
Likewise, philosopher of science Dr. Susan Haack has addressed the principle in her writings on evidence and inquiry. In Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (1998), she explores how negative results must be contextualized, warning against the fallacy of assuming that no evidence implies nonexistence—a nuanced reinforcement of the quote's meaning.
Together, these thinkers—Sagan, Rumsfeld, Randall, and Haack—demonstrate how the phrase transcends disciplines, reminding us that absence of evidence is a weak foundation for firm conclusions.
***
In criminal trials, defense lawyers sometimes invoke the idea that *“absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”*—a maxim popularized by figures like Sagan and Rumsfeld—to argue that a lack of proof should create reasonable doubt. Let’s explore confirmed uses:
Usage in Criminal Defense Strategy
1. Clayton T. Robertson (Criminal Defense Lawyer)
Robertson, in a blog post about cross-examination, describes the tactic of identifying “negative cues”—raising doubt by pointing out what prosecution witnesses and experts *didn't* observe or testify about. He emphasizes that this method is used in *criminal defense cross-examination of officers and experts* ([evidenceattrial.com][1], [RobertsonLitigation][2]).
Legal Doctrine: “Missing Witness” & No‑Evidence Arguments
2. Missing-Witness Instruction in U.S. Courts
While not quoting the phrase directly, defense attorneys have sought—and courts have often rejected—jury instructions that allow drawing negative inferences from *relevant* witnesses not called by the defense. For example, **Griffin v. California** and related case law prevent prosecutors from arguing that a defendant's silence indicates guilt, but some defense lawyers push back, citing the defendant’s silence as rational explanation .
3. People v. Montgomery / People v. Green (California)
Courts discussed that a defendant’s *failure* to flee doesn't strongly support innocence—an early recognition that negative evidence can be ambiguous. This principle has influenced trial tactics, as defense counsel sometimes urge jurors not to assume guilt or innocence based on what wasn't shown .
Criminal Cases Applying the Principle
While explicit quoting in published opinions is rare, defense attorneys often indirectly rely on it:
Cross-examination tactics: Lawyers challenge prosecution experts by highlighting missing data—e.g. “You didn’t test this sample,” or “You didn’t ask about that in your report.”
Closing arguments: They remind jurors that a complete lack of evidence—say, a forensic test that wasn’t performed—does not resolve reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s favor.
Conclusion
Yes, criminal defense lawyers have used this argument, though typically they frame it strategically rather than quoting Sagan. Clayton Robertson acknowledged its use in cross-examining experts ([RobertsonLitigation][2], [Reddit][3]). Court rulings on missing-witness instructions and the weight of negative evidence show awareness of the concept, even as they impose limits on drawing adverse inferences ([law.justia.com][4]).
So while no blockbuster criminal case quote may echo Sagan verbatim, the epistemological principle is deeply woven into defense strategy and legal doctrine.
[1]: https://www.evidenceattrial.com/blog/dz ... hatgpt.com "D.Z. v. LAUSD: \"There is Zero Evidence (Becuase I Moved" [2]: https://www.robertsonlitigation.com/pos ... hatgpt.com "The Absence of Evidence Is Evidence" [3]: https://www.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurdere ... hatgpt.com "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ... Unless of course someone wants to argue Bobby or the police were involved in criminal acts, then that logic goes up in smoke." [4]: https://law.justia.com/cases/maryland/c ... hatgpt.com "Harris v. State :: 2018 :: Maryland Supreme Court Decisions :: Maryland Case Law :: Maryland Law :: U.S. Law :: Justia"
[John Iadarola] The fallout from this absolute PR disaster has been amazing to watch. Seeing all of his sycophants realizing in real time that there's a reason that Trump doesn't want the truth to come out. We all remember the little black book that Gawker published way back in 2015, right? As the walls close in, his enablers are finally being forced to reckon with what they've defended all these years. The spectacle isn't just about one man's corruption. It's a reminder of how easily power can warp reality itself when enough people are willing to look the other way. For many of his supporters, this is another chance to practice their unique brand of mental gymnastics. But for some, this could be the start of a realization that Trump isn't interested in justice or protecting children. He's interested in protecting himself and his wealthy friends. Here's hoping, anyway. [Music]