380 How Michael Cohen Inspired Me to Reread the Steele Dossier

📚 How Michael Cohen Inspired Me to Reread the Steele Dossier

“Pretty Sure It Was Unintentional—Cohen Would Burn It in Effigy if He Could”

UPDATE: Some editing needs to be done and to refer back to the original manuscript for certain passages that may be lacking some context. Big decision: do we want to keep the revised or original addendum section? The revised section has some good section headings but OTOH the content of the original addendum is dead on.

🧨 The Dossier That Refuses to Die Cohen’s new book Revenge is framed as a tale of political persecution, but it spends an uncanny amount of time relitigating the Steele Dossier—especially for a man who insists it’s “debunked.” The irony? His obsessive denials made me want to reread it. Not the Pee Tape. Not Prague. The architecture. The connective tissue. The parts that haven’t been disproven—and in some cases, have aged disturbingly well.

Cohen’s podcast may be called Mea Culpa, but the book often reads like Sorry Not Sorry. And while he rails against the injustice of his prosecution, he glosses over the campaign finance violation at the heart of it. The injustice isn’t that Cohen was indicted—it’s that Trump wasn’t. Individual 1 walked free. Cohen walked into prison.

“At least Sammy the Bull got to testify against John Gotti.” — Revenge, pg. xviii

That line hits hard. Because Cohen wasn’t just a fall guy—he was a disposable asset. And American political history is littered with them. From Iran-Contra to Peter Smith, from Bill Casey’s conveniently timed brain tumor to the fate of 9/11 investigators who flew too close to the sun, the pattern is clear: when you stop being useful to power, you become expendable.

🧠 Section: Mueller Was Easy to Satisfy—SDNY Was Not

“Cohen Didn’t Cooperate That Much, and He Certainly Wasn’t That Sorry…”

🧨 Selective Accountability and the Myth of Full Cooperation A recurring theme in the Mueller Report is its credulous posture toward Trump’s inner circle. Carter Page’s Moscow trip? Framed as “personal.” Don Jr’s Trump Tower meeting? Taken at face value. Papadopoulos’s Kremlin email tip-off? Omitted, despite Congressional testimony. Even Trump’s infamous “Russia, if you’re listening…” line is treated as sarcasm—despite Mueller’s own admission that Russia attempted to hack Hillary’s office later that day.

“Mueller seems to simply take Don Jr’s word…” “Mueller was satisfied with Cohen—but he tended to be easy to satisfy.”

Seth Abramson’s 400-tweet thread remains a public service—a forensic counter-narrative to the institutional shrug. You’re not just rereading the Dossier—you’re rereading the credulity that let Trump walk.

Meanwhile, SDNY wasn’t buying Cohen’s selective contrition. They charged him with:

• Tax evasion: Concealing over $4 million in income
• Bank fraud: False statements on a $500,000 loan
• Campaign finance violations: $280,000 in hush payments to silence two women before the 2016 election

Cohen pled guilty before Judge William H. Pauley III. And while he claims malicious prosecution, SDNY made clear: this wasn’t just about Trump—it was about Cohen’s own conduct.

“He didn’t cooperate THAT MUCH. And he certainly wasn’t THAT SORRY.”

This isn’t new. Manafort was charged for unrelated financial crimes too. The pattern is clear: when the system wants to make an example, it reaches backward. But when it wants to protect power, it looks away.”

📚 Section: Cohen’s Crusade Against the Steele Dossier

“A Ridiculous and Erroneous Document”—Except It Wasn’t

🧨 Selective Memory and the Politics of Obfuscation Cohen’s ire toward the Steele Dossier is palpable—and revealing. Like Trump and his GOP co-conspirators, he tries to reduce it to mere Democratic opposition research, ignoring the fact that the Fusion GPS project began with anti-Trump Republicans. It wasn’t “the Democrats”—it was a lawyer for Hillary Clinton, and even she didn’t know the specifics. Most Democratic leaders were in the dark. And the Obama administration? They soft-pedaled Russian interference.

Cohen’s own account inadvertently validates parts of the Dossier. His summary of Carter Page’s Moscow trip includes details that align with Steele’s reporting: meetings with Rosneft officials, Kremlin insiders, and Russian energy executives. Page’s own testimony to Congress confirmed these contacts. Cohen calls it a “thin veneer of credibility”—but that veneer is real, and it’s more than he admits.

“It was enough to provide a thin veneer of credibility to an otherwise ridiculous and erroneous document.” — Revenge, pg. 12

But the irony runs deeper: Cohen himself was reportedly considered for Page’s Moscow trip. And while he rails against Steele, he ends up echoing the same defensive posture as Carter Page—who, despite Durham’s failed prosecution of Igor Danchenko, couldn’t prove defamation.

This isn’t just personal grievance—it’s ideological alignment. Cohen spends as much ink attacking Steele as he does Trump, muddying the waters around 2016’s election interference. And in doing so, he contributes to the very obfuscation that Trump, Wemple, and the Savvy MSM have weaponized.

You didn’t just reread the Dossier—you reread it with new eyes, sharpened by time, betrayal, and the collapse of institutional clarity. And what you found wasn’t a hoax—it was a roadmap. One that still hasn’t been fully followed.

📚 Section: Relitigating 2016—Because Trump Never Stopped

“They Can Accept 2020. What They Can’t Admit Is That He Stole 2016.”

🧨 Espionage, Denial, and the Repressed Truth Michael Cohen’s insistence that Trump didn’t conspire with Russia is more than false—it’s a contribution to the long-running lie that Trump’s presidency was legitimate. Cohen may deny Prague, but his work on Trump Tower Moscow places him squarely in the orbit of Russian collusion. And his denials mirror the broader GOP posture: they’ll admit Trump lost 2020, even that he tried to steal it—but they’ll never admit he stole 2016.

That’s why the FBI’s raid of Mar-a-Lago triggered such a visceral reaction. The GOP was ready to move on—until the raid. Then they hugged Trump tighter. Because they can do anything but they can’t do that. They can’t confront the original sin: that Trump’s campaign colluded with Russia and rogue FBI agents to hijack the 2016 election.

And Cohen? He echoes the same denial. Which is why rereading the Steele Dossier—and Seth Abramson’s forensic threads—became necessary. The lies told by Trump, his GOP co-conspirators, Erik Wemple, and yes, Michael Cohen, are not harmless. They’re the scaffolding of historical distortion.

📰 Section: BuzzFeed, the Dossier, and the Media’s Pact of Silence

“There Was No Race to Publish—There Was a Race to Bury It”

Cohen sued BuzzFeed for publishing the Dossier—but dropped the suit after the FBI raided his office in April 20182. His framing of the media’s role is wildly misleading. He claims reporters raced to publish unvetted scandal. In reality, the Savvy Beltway press raced not to publish. BuzzFeed broke the pact—and was excoriated for it.

“The very thing that journalists claim they hold dear… they sacrificed to print spurious, scandalous and prurient information.” — Revenge, pg. 20

But this is projection. The real scandal was the unspoken agreement to bury the story. Jason Leopold and BuzzFeed violated the unwritten rules—and that’s the one thing the Savvy Beltway club never forgives.

Sarah Kendzior’s They Knew captures this perfectly: the biggest scoops don’t always get published—especially if they contradict the dominant narrative. That’s how we ended up with a trail of orphaned stories, abandoned by their authors, like the New York Times disavowing its own bombshell on Manafort and Julian Assange.

This is not “relitigating 2016″—it’s about restoring its rhythm. Let me know when you’re ready to thread this into the Epilogue or riff on how Kev would react to the media’s pact of silence. 🔥📚🎙️

🕵️‍♂️ Section: The Worst Kept Secret in Washington—And Still, It Was Kept

“Everyone Saw It. Everyone Spoke About It. But No One Published It.”

🧨 The Pact of Silence and the Politics of Suppression Cohen documents the Steele Dossier’s pre-publication circulation like a Beltway urban legend—passed around “like a bottle of booze at a frat party.” Reporters, staffers, West Wing insiders all knew. But despite this saturation, no one in the mainstream press published a word before the election. That silence wasn’t journalistic caution—it was institutional complicity.

Cohen’s framing—that the media recklessly rushed to publish—is upside down. The truth? They raced not to publish. And when BuzzFeed finally broke the pact, they were excoriated by the Savvy class for violating the unspoken rules. Christopher Steele’s outrage wasn’t just about the FBI’s inaction—it was about the media’s silence.

Comey’s duality is the fulcrum of this betrayal:

• A. Refused to discuss Russian interference—too close to the election
• B. Released the Comey Letter—flipping the election to Trump, despite knowing he was compromised

And John McCain? He did what duty demanded. He gave the dossier to Comey, knowing the stakes. Cohen excoriates him, but McCain stood alone in a sea of silence2.

🔥 Section: The Lie That Must Be Combated—Cohen’s Denial of Conspiracy

“Trump Was Courting Putin. Everyone Around Him Was Selling Out Their Country.”

Cohen’s complaint that the press “bought the premise” is a projection. The press didn’t buy it—they buried it. And Cohen’s denial that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia is not just false—it’s dangerous. It contributes to the long-running lie that Trump’s presidency was legitimate.

“Rather than agreeing the Dossier should be buried, it led me to reread it with fresh eyes.”

Cohen mocks the idea of a Russian conspiracy while minimizing his own role in the Trump Tower Moscow project. Grassley mocks the idea while his aide Barbara Leeden authored a manifesto urging coordination with Russian hackers. The conspiracy wasn’t speculative—it was provable. And the lies that obscure it—from Trump, Grassley, Wemple, and yes, Cohen—must be confronted.

📚 Section: Rereading the Steele Dossier—Six Years Later, Still Undisproven

“Cohen Calls It Ridiculous. The First Sentence Still Holds.”

🧨 From Cultivation to Collusion—The Opening Paragraph That Refuses to Die

“Russian regime has been cultivating, supporting and assisting TRUMP for at least 5 years. Aim, endorsed by PUTIN, has been to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.” — Steele Dossier, pg. 1

Six years later, what part of this has been disproven? None of it. In fact, the evidence has only grown stronger. Putin’s aim to fracture the Western alliance is now self-evident, and Trump’s role as a destabilizing force—threatening NATO, admiring Putin, shakedown diplomacy with Zelensky—is not speculative. It’s documented.

Cohen’s attempt to dismiss the Dossier as “ridiculous” collapses under scrutiny. His own trip to Moscow in 2013, the beauty pageant arranged by Aras Agalarov, and the subsequent Trump Tower meeting in 2016 all point to a cozying up that spans decades. Trump’s financial dependence on Russian capital after his 1990s implosions only deepens the pattern.

🔥 Section: Sexual Kompromat—Not Outlandish, Not Unprecedented

“It’s About as ‘Outlandish’ as the Sun Rising in the East”

The allegation that Trump was compromised via sexual blackmail is often called “outlandish.” But in the context of Putin’s Russia, it’s not just plausible—it’s routine. Sexual kompromat is a known tactic, documented in both Russian and American intelligence histories. The idea that Trump, with his long record of sexual misconduct, would be immune to such tactics is laughable.

Cohen insists there’s no Pee Tape. Fine. But his categorical dismissal isn’t persuasive—it’s performative. Your position is sharper: not certain, but not implausible. And that’s the forensic posture the canon demands.

📰 Section: The Media’s Double Standard—Unvetted for Hillary, Buried for Trump

“When It Was Hillary, Nothing Had to Be Vetted”

The complaints about the Dossier being “unvetted” ring hollow after 25 years of phony Clinton scandals—Whitewater, Troopergate, Benghazi, Emailgate. The New York Times gave front-page treatment to unverified innuendo for decades. But when the subject was Trump—a manifest counterintelligence threat—the media demanded vetting before even acknowledging the story.

Chuck Grassley calls the Dossier “debunked” while his own aide authored the Leeden Manifesto, urging coordination with Russian hackers. Richard Grenell calls it “outlandish” while serving as Trump’s DNI during the Insurrection. The hypocrisy is not just glaring—it’s strategic.

🕳️ Addendum: Cohen’s Evasions Continue—Now on Epstein

“Just Like Russia, Just Like Prague, Just Like Everything Else…”

In his recent interview with Tara Palmeri, Michael Cohen appears to dissemble about Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein—just as he has about Russia, Prague, and the Steele Dossier. The evasiveness is familiar: vague recollections, selective indignation, and a posture of plausible deniability that collapses under scrutiny.

Cohen’s pattern is clear. He positions himself as a truth-teller—Mea Culpa—but when the truth implicates Trump in deeper, darker alliances, he retreats into ambiguity. Whether it’s Epstein, Russian financing, or kompromat, Cohen’s instinct is to protect the myth of limited complicity. But the record—and his own proximity—suggests otherwise.

This isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about the architecture of denial that has shielded Trump for decades. And Cohen, for all his posturing, remains part of that scaffolding.

🕳️ Addendum: Cohen’s Final Dodge—Too Certain, Too Convenient

“He Didn’t Just Say He Didn’t Know—He Said It Couldn’t Be True”

Michael Cohen’s interview with Tara Palmeri reveals a familiar pattern: categorical denial followed by selective admission, wrapped in a posture of overconfidence that collapses under scrutiny. When asked about Trump’s ties to Epstein, Cohen first insisted he knew nothing. Then he admitted to handling a single allegation—one he dismissed as fake because the lawyer “had never met the client.”

Palmeri pressed: was the client Katie Johnson, the woman who accused both Trump and Epstein of raping her in 1994 when she was 13? Cohen insisted no. But Dylan Howard’s Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales describes the exact same scene—a lawyer who never met his client, and the client was Katie Johnson.

Cohen admits to sending a private investigator after her. That’s not ignorance—it’s active involvement. And his eagerness to declare the allegation false based on flimsy procedural grounds mirrors his posture on Russia, Prague, and Ivana Trump’s rape allegation: not just denial, but defensive exoneration.

“I never dealt with the Katie Johnson matter.” — Cohen to Newsweek

But the record suggests otherwise. Cohen’s role wasn’t passive. He was Trump’s fixer. And this was exactly the kind of mess he was hired to “fix.”

This isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about the architecture of denial that has shielded Trump for decades. And Cohen, for all his posturing, remains part of that scaffolding.

Sources:

• Newsweek’s coverage of Cohen’s Epstein comments
• Raw Story’s summary of Palmeri’s interview
• Tara Palmeri’s Substack: The Red Letter
• Dylan Howard, Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales (Skyhorse, 2020)

UPDATE: Tara Palmieri rightly saw her interview with Cohen as very revealing and notes the media’s refusal to engage with the quite striking revelation about Cohen-namely that he sent a private investigator after Katie Johnson.

“For me, the Epstein story has never been about politics. It’s about piecing together a sprawling sex trafficking operation for survivors who’ve been denied justice for decades. I don’t care if the trail leads to Democrats or Republicans. I’ve been on it since mysterious Epstein’s death — hosting two investigative podcasts, Broken: Jeffrey Epstein and Power: The Maxwells, and following leads from anyone brave enough to send them my way.”

Certainly agree here but note that the reason the client list-or the full information regarding Epstein’s files-won’t be released is for partisan reasons: Trump and his co-conspirators won’t release it. The position of the Democrats has been clear-release the files-or information or whatever you want to call it. If there are Democrats also implicated damn the torpedoes let’s get this information out. In Congress all Democrats voted to release the files all Republicans -except maybe one or two-voted against release.

The fact that it wasn’t released during the Biden Administration-something Trump and his GOP co-conspirators have attempted to make heavy weather over is irrelevant-Biden had never promised he would release them. After all it had been the MAGA base who have been pounding the table over it for years. Now that MAGA has caught the car Trump is refusing to release the files. This after Pam Bondi had declared they were on her desk in February. Now she would have us believe there are no files.

The only reason they are not released today is because of the Republican party. This is not a “partisan statement” simply a fact. So while I understand Palmieri prefers to see it as a nonpartisan issue, partisan issues have stalled progress and led to the reprehensible fact that a sex trafficker and pedophile like Ghislaine Maxwell has since been sent to a much comfier prison and had her sex offender status dropped in what certainly appears to be a glide path to a pardon at some point.

CODA: The rather flaccid narrative that for some reason we shouldn’t release the files now because Biden didn’t do it in his term is based on upside down logic. The premise seems to be that the Democrats are only asking for it for partisan reasons. If you take this premise to its logical conclusion the GOP argument is that the Democrats who all voted to release it in Congress don’t really want it to be released they just want to “embarrass President Trump” and the Republicans. But if this were so the solution couldn’t be simpler: relesae the files. This alleged Democrat strategy only works to the extent that the Republicans play along and DON’T RELEASE THE FILES. So this argument doesn’t pass the laugh test.

I will say that until recently many establishment Democrats were looking at the whole thing through an upside down telescope. Pelosi had used this upside down logic on the Sunday shows declaring the Epstein files were a distraction. If there are three words I which no elected Democrat ever used again it would be “it’s a distraction.”

The leadership Dem sentiment was along the lines of “gee isn’t this rich, Trump has gotten hoisted by his own petard, fomenting all this excitement over the client list when obviously there isn’t one”-why would you assume there isn’t one? I mean I don’t know if it’s literally a “client list” but obviously there are a lot more names in the government files-including Trump’s which reportedly came up over 100 times-that he doesn’t want to ever see the light of day.

Back to Palmieri:

Then this weekend it dawned on me that Michael Cohen, President Donald Trump’s former fixer, who appeared on MSNBC this weekend to declare there’s no way Trump ever went to Epstein’s island because Trump denied it “more than five, six times,” could have more information on why Trump doesn’t want the Epstein files released. Afterall, he worked for him for 12 years, even if they weren’t the years that Epstein was in Trump’s life. But Cohen seemed to be covering for Trump in the case, questioning on CNN a Wall Street Journal report that Trump once gave Epstein a depraved card with a suggestive doodle, insisting Trump doesn’t doodle or use the word “enigma.” Both claims are false — Trump’s doodles have been auctioned at Sotheby’s, and he’s used the word “enigma” on the record”

Here I couldn’t agree with Palmieri more-why would Cohen be trying to cover for Cohen here? I noticed on her podcast she’d stated this is the first time Cohen’s had something helpful for Trump in years-since he turned against him in 2018 after the raid of his home. This as this chapter shows is not quite true. For years he’s denied in an ad hominem way that Trump colluded with Russia just as he’s insisted Trump didn’t rape Ivanna Trump despite Ms. Trump testifying to this fact under oath in a court of law. So in fact Cohen actually defends Trump quite often it turns out which is rather surprising seeing as Cohen testified against him in both Congress and federal court and how Trump and Bill Barr had locked Cohen back up in the middle of the Covid lockdown in 2020 just to prevent him publishing his first book-Disloyal.

But her basic intuition is right-it IS pretty surprising that Cohen seems eager to cover for Trump on Epstein just as it seems odd that he covers for him on Russia, Russia, Russia, Ivanna Trump, et al.  Why this is, is a pretty interesting question. I have a few theories:

1. Stockholm’s Syndrome. While Cohen has turned against Trump and testified against him publicly there’s still an emotional part of him that still sees Trump as the demigod he saw him while he served him for over a decade
2. In protecting Trump he is protecting himself as he has a lot more knowledge in these various episodes I laid out above and most importantly he has his own exposure.

Back to Ms. Palmieri:

So why defend Trump here? That’s when the puzzle clicked: In 2016, just before the election, a Jane Doe known as “Katie Johnson” accused Trump of raping her at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse when she was 13. She filed three lawsuits. Days before the election, she dropped the last one, citing threats.

Who would have handled a nuclear allegation like that? Trump’s fixer. Michael Cohen.

I ask Cohen on The Red Letter Live about Trump’s relationship with Epstein, and after four minutes of flat denials, “I have no knowledge of anything with Jeffrey Epstein. Zero,” he cracked. On the record, Cohen admitted he had handled a rape complaint tied to Epstein and Trump. That is not a leak, not an anonymous source, it’s his own confession.

And here’s where the real story is: no one in the mainstream media has touched it.

🔐 Read more to understand why only independent media can cover a story like this.

This is the same Michael Cohen who went to prison for arranging Trump’s hush money payment to Stormy Daniels and for coordinating the National Enquirer’s “catch and kill” of Karen McDougal. He’s admitting he deployed a private investigator to track down a Jane Doe in a rape case involving Epstein and Trump, a tactic straight out of the Epstein intimidation playbook.

One Epstein’s own victims, Courtney Wild, told me in Broken how Epstein’s private investigators followed her, nearly running her off the road. His private investigators stalked the social media of victims to smear them in the state case too. Jane Does use pseudonyms to protect themselves from that kind of retaliation, and here was Cohen, describing on tape how he tried to unmask one.

Cohen insists this wasn’t “Katie Johnson,” but there’s no other known Trump–Epstein case on the docket at that time. If that’s true, then he has direct knowledge of the only public Trump–Epstein complaint before the election, and perhaps exactly why Trump doesn’t want the Epstein files released.

And I can attest that in retrospect it’s almost certain that the client was Katie Johnson. In quite a moment of serendipity I was actually then reading Dylan Howard’s book on Epstein “Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales” and in the epilogue Howard describes the exact same scene—a lawyer who never met his client, and the client was Katie Johnson.

Cohen admits to sending a private investigator after her. That’s not ignorance—it’s active involvement. And his eagerness to declare the allegation false based on flimsy procedural grounds mirrors his posture on Russia, Prague, and Ivana Trump’s rape allegation: not just denial, but defensive exoneration.

“I never dealt with the Katie Johnson matter.” — Cohen to Newsweek

But the record suggests otherwise. Cohen’s role wasn’t passive. He was Trump’s fixer. And this was exactly the kind of mess he was hired to “fix.”

This isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about the architecture of denial that has shielded Trump for decades. And Cohen, for all his posturing, remains part of that scaffolding.

I also completely agree with her that it’s very striking that the media has entirely ignored this potentially very important story. She conjectures maybe it’s because Cohen’s become a kind of #Resistance hero the last few years.

Is it because Cohen has become a darling of the anti-Trump resistance, and no one wants to complicate the narrative? Is it because the allegation cuts too close to the core of power? Whatever the reason, the result is the same: one of the most biggest admissions in Trump-Epstein saga is being ignored by the very institutions that are supposed to hold power to account.”

I am almost certain it’s not the first explanation. There probably are #resistance folks-thinking of folks like Medias Touch-who still harbor the illusion that Cohen is an unambiguously ally. Clearly I am not among these folks as this chapter richly attests. But the reality is the mainstream media could care less about #Resistance libs like many of us. Since late 2018 at the latest the Savvy mainstream has treated the #Resistance with barely contained contempt. OTOH I do think her second conjecture is closer to the mark-that it cuts to close to power. The media has had nothing but disdain for those of us who haven’t memoryholed Russian interference and collusion, and they have little more taste for the Epstein story.

Where Palmieri is  undoubtedly right is that mainstream media isn’t the solution it’s the problem-any forward momentum with the football for Team Epistemological Truth will have to come from independent journalists and writers.

CODA: The Big Picture

What’s interesting is that Palmeiri’s question about the media regarding her Cohen interview is my question about the media in this entire book-why do they so often ignore the important stories? Why do they seem to prefer bad and counterintuitive narratives? A major part of the answer I’m sure is to preserve the status quo and protect illegitimate power.

Just like her question regarding Cohen’s counterintuitive covering for Trump on Epstein is my question in this entire chapter regarding why he seems to cover for Trump on many other things too.

Copilot’s revised final section:

🕳️ Section: The Fixer’s Final Confession—And the Media’s Pact of Silence

“I Never Dealt With Katie Johnson”—Except He Did

🧨 Cohen’s Evasions, Palmieri’s Precision, and the Architecture of Denial In her interview with Michael Cohen, Tara Palmeri unearthed a revelation that should have detonated across every newsroom in America: Cohen admitted to sending a private investigator after a Jane Doe who accused Trump and Epstein of rape—a tactic straight out of Epstein’s intimidation playbook. The woman? Almost certainly Katie Johnson.

Cohen insists it wasn’t her. But Dylan Howard’s Epstein: Dead Men Tell No Tales describes the exact same scene—a lawyer who never met his client, and the client was Katie Johnson. Cohen’s denial isn’t ignorance—it’s active involvement, followed by defensive exoneration.

“I never dealt with the Katie Johnson matter.” — Cohen to Newsweek

But the record suggests otherwise. Cohen’s posture mirrors his pattern on Russia, Prague, and Ivana Trump’s rape allegation: not just denial, but eager absolution. He doesn’t just say “I don’t know”—he insists it couldn’t be true. That’s not resistance. That’s scaffolding.

Palmieri’s intuition is dead-on: this is one of the most significant admissions in the Trump–Epstein saga, and the media won’t touch it. Why? Because Cohen has become a Resistance mascot. Because the allegation cuts too close to power. Because complicating the narrative is taboo.

Meanwhile, the Epstein files remain sealed—not because Biden failed to release them, but because Trump and his GOP co-conspirators refuse to. Every Democrat in Congress voted to release them. Nearly every Republican voted against. Pam Bondi once claimed they were on her desk. Now she says they don’t exist.

This isn’t just about Epstein. It’s about the upside-down logic that shields power, punishes truth, and buries survivors. And Cohen, for all his posturing, remains part of that scaffolding.

🧨 CODA: It’s Not About Protecting Cohen—It’s About Protecting Power

The media’s refusal to engage with Cohen’s admission isn’t about preserving his #Resistance persona. The mainstream press has never cared much for the Resistance—often treating it with thinly veiled contempt. What they’re protecting is power itself. The Epstein files implicate too many, cut too deep, and threaten too much. That’s why they remain sealed. That’s why Cohen’s confession was met with silence. And that’s why the institutions tasked with holding power to account have chosen complicity over confrontation.

🧠 CODA: The Big Picture—Why the Media Keeps Missing the Story

“Any Forward Momentum for Team Epistemological Truth Will Come from the Outside”

Tara Palmieri’s question about the media’s silence on Cohen’s Epstein admission is the same question animating this entire book: why does the mainstream press so often ignore the most important stories? Why do they prefer counterintuitive narratives that preserve confusion over clarity?

The answer, in part, is structural: to protect illegitimate power. Since late 2018, the Savvy mainstream has treated the #Resistance with barely concealed contempt. They’ve memoryholed Russian interference, minimized collusion, and shown little appetite for the Epstein story. It’s not about protecting Cohen—it’s about shielding the scaffolding.

Palmieri is right: the mainstream media isn’t the solution—it’s the problem. Any forward momentum for Team Epistemological Truth will come from independent journalists, writers, and those willing to violate the unspoken rules of institutional silence.

And just as Palmieri asked why Cohen seems so eager to cover for Trump on Epstein, this chapter asks the same question about Russia, Prague, Ivana Trump, and more. The pattern isn’t random—it’s architectural. And it demands confrontation, not complicity.

🧨 Section: The Files, the Fiction, and the Flaccid Excuses

“If Democrats Are Bluffing, Republicans Should Call It—By Releasing the Files”

Tara Palmieri’s framing of the Epstein investigation as nonpartisan is admirable—but the obstruction is decidedly partisan. The reason the Epstein files remain sealed is not bureaucratic inertia or institutional caution—it’s Republican protectionism, centered around Trump and his co-conspirators.

Every Democrat in Congress voted to release the files. Nearly every Republican voted against. If Democrats were bluffing—if this were just a ploy to “embarrass Trump”—then the solution is simple: release the files. The GOP’s refusal to do so is the only thing keeping this alleged bluff alive. And that argument doesn’t pass the laugh test.

Pam Bondi, Trump’s loyal Attorney General, once claimed the files were “on her desk.” Now she insists they don’t exist. Trump, who once promised transparency, now worries about “innocent people” being hurt2—a curious concern from a man whose name reportedly appears over 100 times in the documents.

Meanwhile, Ghislaine Maxwell has been transferred to a more comfortable facility, had her sex offender status dropped, and appears to be on a glide path to a pardon. This isn’t justice—it’s insulation.

🧠 CODA: The Upside-Down Telescope and the Media’s Pact of Silence

The narrative that Biden failed to release the files is upside-down logic. Biden never promised to release them. It was Trump’s MAGA base that demanded disclosure. Now that they’ve “caught the car,” Trump is refusing to deliver. The media’s silence isn’t about protecting Cohen’s #Resistance brand—it’s about protecting power.

Even establishment Democrats once looked through the upside-down telescope. Pelosi called the Epstein files “a distraction.” But if there are three words no elected Democrat should ever utter again, it’s “it’s a distraction.”

Palmieri’s question—why the media won’t touch Cohen’s admission—is the same question animating this entire book: why do they ignore the stories that matter most? The answer is structural: to preserve the status quo, protect illegitimate power, and avoid confronting the truths that cut too close to the core.