Got up today to see a lot of Reeeeeeeeing out there in social media land. News Flash! Breaking! DOJ/FBI 'officially' declare there is no Epstein List!!!!

TLDR: Before even reacting to this 'Breaking News!", One's first step should be asking: Is this even real? How do I know?

You'll probably find a few stickied posts on this. One (not stickied any more) was a Posted Tweet that said "BREAKING: DOJ and FBI have concluded that Jeffery Epstein had no "client list," and committed suicide, per Axios"

Another, currently stickied, links to a 15 minute video by Benny Johnson, headed "BREAKING: Feds Officially Release Jeffery Epstein Tapes, Docs and Memo"

I'm not a particular fan of Johnson, and I admit, I don't really know his stuff and I am rather prejudiced against people out there that I consider to be "inflooencers". All I have are impressions gleaned from some regular markings one sees common to a lot of inflooencers these days on our side of the trench:

Sensationalist headlines, gaudy images designed to inspire reaction, and a certain approach to sharing information that tends to be less than objective or reasoned, and more about selling a narrative, or clicks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgpahvOQD9c

Anyway, this post is not intended as a critique of Benny Johnson per se. Rather, I think his video is a good spring board for considering this current Breaking News! (the Axios Article/Memo) and how people are or are not responding to it.

But before moving on, I will say that, from a body language perspective, the level of blinking activity that Johnson is engaged in during his opening spiel suggests he knows he's talking some sort of bullshite (whether his information is not real, or he is making assertions that he knows to be false, etc) but is pushing through it anyway... The blinking is a way for the body to counteract and suppress the impulses from the body that more naturally want to reveal that "I'm really talking crap here".

Also, as I began to listen to Johnson, I simply thought "This guy's entire career and fame/income relies on the existence of the Deep State Cabal". Make of that what you will.

I have no qualms at all about folks who research or share information making a living out of it. BUT, some people do this with integrity, their main focus is to empower you to think for yourself and NOT simply get sucked into the Next Big Thing, and others seem to be far more focused on gathering followers, getting clicks, and gaining inflooence (which translates in to fame and fortune).

So, while being critical of Johnson, let's put aside who or what he's really about. Discuss that on another day. But I do want to take a moment to look at how he is responding, consciously or not, to this.

Johnson's Reaction/Response to the 'Information' (Axios Article)

The video includes reading 'the memo', and said "I would read this on the FBI website, but its entirely crashed right now."

But is there an actual 'memo' on the FBI website? The 'memo' itself does not provide this. The ONLY copy or presence of this memo comes through the 'Exclusive" article by Alex Isenstadt on Axios.

Here's the actual address, currently crashed due to too many requests...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/25991994-final-draft-e/

You can find this address in the html coding for the Axios article published on the Axios website.

So its not even on the FBI 'website'. That's pretty lazy investigation by Johnson (and hi staff).

As Johnson reads through the memo, he comments.

"I can't believe what I'm reading...." Yeah. So think about this. I'll come back to it.

At the end, this is Benny Johnson's conclusion: "this is a cover up". "This is now the official line".

But did you catch it? What's completely wrong with this picture? Even admitting he cannot believe what he's reading, Johnson fails to even question: is it real?

Instead, he is ALL about the reaction, ALL about the reactivity. If you cannot believe it, then WHY are you engaging with it as if it is real, instead of questioning the source of the article, the nature of the 'memo'?

Where does this come from? Is it real? How Do I know?

BEFORE reacting in any way, and going down all those paths of Rrrreeeeeeeeeee!!!ing, or reacting, the first step should be

Where does this come from? Is it real? How Do I know? This goes for things we read here at GAW too. Anywhere, really. Always consider sauce.

ALL the Best Dishes Come with SAUCE

Let's look at the source.

Organization: Axios

Leftist, Centrist or Rightist?

Author: Alex Isenstadt

Here are some facts I found (unconfirmed)

Formerly National Political reporter at Politico. 8 years.

Graduated Haverford College in 2007, degree in political science.

Brief stint with Joe Biden's 2008 presidential campaign.

Has appeared as a guest on Major Networks such as CNN, Fox News, MSNBC.

First published Book: (2025) Revenge: The Inside Story of Trump’s Return to Power (2025)

https://muckrack.com/politicoalex

As seen in Axios, HuffPost, MSN (US), MSN Canada, The Washington Post, Yahoo News, Yahoo Finance, Die Welt, Pew Research Center, POLITICO, So What?, Substack, Vanity Fair, Flipboard, POLITICO Europe, Yahoo, RealClear Politics, Hachette Book Group (HBG), Las Vegas Sun, NewsBreak, POLITICO Pro, GOVERNING

The 'Memo'

https://imgur.com/a/ze7RAXo

Two Logos, No name, No Addressee (target audience), No authorizing person, no date.

Is it even real? Before accepting this as a real memo, we should ask, who wrote it? Who issued it? For who? (aka a 'press release' is something that will be targeted to the press)

If this IS in fact a memo, who is it for? And how did Mr. Isenstadt 'obtain' it?

Was it leaked? And if so, who would do that? Why?

Considering whose side of the narrative war Mr. Isenstadt appears to be on, why on earth should we just take his assertions at face value. I mean, at least he didn't use the 'anonymous sources at FBI/DOJ', but in reality, its all anonymous anyway, right?

Always Ask This First

In the midst of information war, narrative war, before reacting to anything, our first port of call should ALWAYS be, is this credible? Is this a credible source? Is it real? How did it arrive on MY screen (computer, phone, newspaper, TV)?

I just found it really interdasting that Mr. Benny Johnson, before even questioning if the memo is real or who the person sharing this information is, went off on a rant about how its a coverup, how it makes no sense, etc.

The Structure of the Memo

https://imgur.com/a/ze7RAXo

What's curious is that the memo draws on a lot of established, publicly available information but also injects a core assertion (narrative deployment?):

"This systematic review revealed no incriminating Client List. There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions...."

It's a common tactic for disinformation to be nestled in among valid or legitimate pieces of information. The legitimate or real information then provides a sense of reliability to the overall report.

The 'memo' also uses 'we' a lot, but there are no signatories or persons whose name is on this. That seems strange to me, personally.

But whether it is real or fake, the first thing to do is to ask. Question. Don't simply reaction. Reaction is what psyops are all about, good or bad.

Potential Impact

And, would the DOJ and FBI leak an 'official' memo or notification to a leftist journalist for release?

One thing to consider is, what impact this ARTICLE from a leftist Journalist and a 'supposed' (aka unverified, confirmed, unofficial 'memo') is having now and moving forward.

One, If DOJ and FBI, aka Kash, Bondi, etc, are actually working through the Epstein situation, this puts incredible pressure on them, and could very well form a MAJOR disruption to what they want to accomplish.

Two, the Black Pill Pharmacy just got millions of more customers. Ragebait much?

Three, a powerful and well-tried tactic of the Cabal and DS is "look here, don't look there!" So, could this extremely dodgy story be actually designed to redirect everyone's attention when something else is being done?

Suggestion

Leave the reeeees! to the brainwashed lefties. Def: 72 hour rule, probably a 7 day rule would be very good for this stuff. imo. Either way, always start out from this point: Is this real? Am I being targeted? What are my biases? Are they being exploited?

Addendum (5 hours later) I suspect the Narrative is hacing the desired effect. The swarms of now "anti-trump, Trump is corrupt, Trump serves the Jews, Bondi/Kash/Bongino are corrupt" shills and doomers and naysayers are flocking around on X.

Watch how your favorite influencer handles this. Reason? Logic? Or do they now dump Trump? This is how you really tell their worth.