I was on vacation while the whole Epstein thing exploded.
That being said, my assessment of the story is more or less unchanged.
First, there still is nothing that leads me to believe that there is some grand master "Epstein List" that contains names of people who conspired with Epstein for sex trafficking purposes or what not.
So as much as I hate to say it, Pam Bondi is probably technically correct in that respect.
The idea of an "Epstein List" is basically a myth perpetrated by mostly those on the right who want there to be some proof of massive amounts of Democratic politicians and left-leaning celebrities being in cohorts with Epstein and his worst offenses. There are dozens of fake "lists" floating online whose list of supposed "Epstein Island Visitors" contain entries as laughable as Seth Green, Meryl Streep, Miley Cyrus, Patton Oswalt, and Tom Hanks. Gullible right wing nut jobs ate up this bullshit like candy and propagated it as if there was the undisputed truth.
Bondi was basically placed between a rock and a hard place. Either she would have to come out and admit there was no actual "list" to speak of, or she could attempt to slap together some obviously transparent and idiotic "list" of her own that anyone with half a brain cell would be able to expose as fake. In the end, being risk adverse she chose the former and not the latter.
And the fact Bondi's very-reluctant admission shattered the far-right wing illusion of some massive list of Democrats and liberal celebrities who were conspiring with Epstein is the reason for the freakout by those on the right.
The concept of a "Epstein list" was basically a Ponzi scheme, inevitably destined to collapse. And it just did. So the right-wing is all upset.
So if there was no actual "list," what is there?
Well, there was a huge investigative file that looked into everything relating to Epstein's activities. And the thing about Epstein was that he was a huge narcissist who loved rubbing elbows with the rich, famous and powerful. So anyone he came in contact with could have found their names at various points in the file documents. This would include a lot of big names. Overwhelmingly, most of those peoples' names inclusion is 100% innocuous. There are probably a small few, however, who might not be.
So, just for example, back in the early 2000s--before Epstein's activities were known to the public--when the Clinton Foundation needed an airplane to travel to various countries and Epstein volunteered his plane, without the benefit of foresight they accepted it and that's something that could have brought in President Clinton's name to the entire file. Ultimately, it certainly is embarrassing, but not a shred of evidence of culpability in any crimes. But the right wing will insist otherwise simply because it fits their agenda. Nothing more and nothing less.
On the other hand, it appears that people like Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew might have a lot more involvement in Epstein's illicit activity, if the evidence turns out to be true. But even that hasn't been proven to support probable cause of a crime, let alone proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
So what to make of Donald Trump's freak out regarding the Epstein case?
Well, he certainly knew Epstein well enough to be photographed with him multiple times. And he once went on the record about how Epstein "liked them young," so an inference could be made that he at least may have had some knowledge about Epstein's sexual predilections.
Does that mean Trump was a culpable co-conspirator? I objectively cannot say and will not say. But I do think whatever mentions in the investigative files of Trump's name were certainly embarrassing enough to someone whose skin is as thin as Donald Trump to cause him to freak out. As a malignant narcissist Trump is very image sensitive, and the mere idea that he could be connected to Epstein--especially after the civil judgment in the Carroll case--would likely have caused him to freak out.
In the end, while the actions of Epstein were undoubtedly horrific and there stands a chance that at least some knew of his activities and may have even acted along with him, as a political scandal I still believe the Epstein story is fools gold, for both the left and right alike.
It will flare up every so often, as it did last week, but I don't see it as having any sort of lasting impact. People have way too short memories for that.
= new reply since forum marked as read
During the course of discussions here, H20Man brought up an interesting item outside the sex aspect which is that Epstein was a financial adviser to Trump of sorts and was advising him about that Florida home sale to a Russian that looks like an obvious oligarch money laundering scheme, so that could also be a concern of his wrt what is in the file.
FWIW Dersh and Virginia Giuffre reached a settlement of their mutual defamation cases in 2022, in which no money changing hands, and Giuffre stipulating that due to the stress she was under at the time, she "may" have gotten him confused with someone else.
The evidence in the Andrew case is sorta thin (and sadly tawdry in a way I don't want to go into here, suffice to say it does not flatter VG, but given she was only 17 and what she was going thru, hard to hold against her too much), but decently convincing. The thing about this one though is that Maxwell, Epstein and Andrew were CLOSE, and VG was close with Epstein and Maxwell. That one I think well could have happened, but because of the closeness of the parties, I don't know if it can be extrapolated from too much, like to conclude for sure that Epstein was doing this sort of 'sharing' on the regular, and/or with others of the victims. Also 17 is past age of consent in the UK, so what Andrew did was not technically illegal. According to her, though, Epstein paid her 10K for sleeping with Andrew, which is definitely NOT legal.
Anyways, that RWNJ conspiracy theory I saw so many tweets and other SM posts about 2021-2024 led me to research the actual evidence for 'the ring' existing years ago, in hopes of defending Biden admins seeming "inaction" about the supposed "client list" (and Clinton, and Richardson) and what I found (and argued with these idiots at the time) was basically what you just said. The evidence for a pedophile ring of rich and powerful was actually mostly a CT, not really backed by strong evidence at all.
A lot of people, on both sides of the aisle, are really attached to it, though 
Epstein's "clients" were all rich.
In America, we protect the rich.
They are even exempt from sins.
LOTS of rich people fucked kids. It's part of "privilege".
And parties are beholden to the rich.
I am sure Jeffrey promised them secrecy. Whatever else happened (blackmail, espionage) I dunno, and don't care unless it collapses the regime, because THE MAGATS BELIEVE IT WAS ONLY DEMOCRATS INVOLVED and they are being covered up.
There is nothing more poetic than a lie causing the end of the liars. Novels, myths, epic poems and operas are written on such themes.
In a post-truth world, where any old thing can and will be faked, this is the "truth".
"The files are loaded with dems trafficking kids for sex, drinking blood and so on, and they must not be covered up"
Have you noticed the moral values of magats? They are the same as the rich.
The rich only care about money, and the privilege it buys them.
Magats care only about their idiot myths, and one is being shattered.
Maxwell was convicted of 1 count of sex trafficking, involving 1 girl. And the client? Was Jeffery Epstein