Get ready for some fireworks, and not just in relation to Jeffrey Epstein either. Over the last couple of days, Attorney General Pam Bondi has repeatedly stated that she has begun reviewing documents in several infamous cases in preparation for full public release, as Donald Trump promised. Yesterday, Bondi specifically stated that Epstein's client list would soon get released after her review is complete:

JUST IN: Attorney General Pam Bondi says the Jeffrey Epstein client list is sitting on her desk right now.

Roberts: "The DOJ may be releasing the list of Epstein's clients?"

Bondi: "It's on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by Trump."pic.twitter.com/pSiBm2iEWm

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) February 21, 2025

Roberts said, “I saw your appearance at CPAC with Bannon and with Ted Cruz, and one of the things that you alluded to, and this is something Donald Trump has talked about, the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients. Will that really happen?

Bondi replied, “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.”

The Fox News host, curious about what is on the list, asked Bondi, “So have you seen anything there where you said, ‘Oh my gosh!'”

Bondie responded, “Not yet.”

Heck, I'm still waiting for Heidi Fleiss' client list. 

One point on which we can be assured is that Trump's name won't appear on the list. First, Trump wouldn't have raised the issue if it implicated himself. Even apart from that, in the context of the last few years of unrestricted bureaucratic lawfare against Trump, that would have been leaked well before now. 

Who else's name will be on that list? I'd guess that we probably already know some of the names, like the one that rhymes with Schmill Schlinton, etc. The flight logs on the Lolita Express have been public for a few years; the figures on those logs insist they flew with Epstein for charitable purposes and not to engage in sex trafficking, but perhaps the new list will come with evidence of the latter. However, suppose the lists had enough evidence to make those connections. In that case, it will raise tons of questions as to why the Department of Justice in both the Trump and Biden administrations didn't pursue charges (Epstein died in 2019 one month after being incarcerated).

That does raise another question: can the DoJ release names from the list that would tend to implicate people in Epstein's sex trafficking without the intent to prove charges? Generally speaking, prosecutors only do so while prosecuting at least one figure in the criminal activity. Epstein's dead, though, and Ghislaine Maxwell has already been convicted and is serving 20 years in federal prison. Unless Bondi plans to issue more indictments in a case that has gone well past the normal statute of limitation, it may prove difficult to release the data.. I'd expect at least a handful of John Doe lawsuits to prevent the release of Epstein's client list now that Bondi has made clear she intends to reveal the names.

Bondi addressed that question last November, but Kash Patel raised it again in the context of another high-profile case, this one still ongoing:

Bondi said during an interview with Fox News in November that anyone named in documents related to Epstein who is "still fighting to keep their names private, Sean, they have no legal basis to do so unless they're a child, a victim or a cooperating defendant."

Patel said in an interview in November that the way to restore trust in the government is "by giving the American people the truth. And that's what they feared about Donald Trump. He's going to come in there and might just give them the Epstein list, the 'Diddy list,' and everything else they're terrified of being exposed."

Sean "Diddy" Combs has not yet had a trial. At the moment, his trial for racketeering and sex trafficking will start on May 5th in a New York federal court. Prosecutors would not normally publicize evidence before trial except in indictments and other court filings, and premature release would prompt an immediate challenge from the defense alleging an attempt to influence the jury pool. We may get the Diddy List during the trial, although federal trials generally are not televised live. (This came up in the Maxwell trial coverage.)

So we will likely have to wait on the Diddy List, which one would expect might focus more attention on entertainment-industry figures than politicians. The Esptein List will likely be more interesting anyway, at least in the political sense. And it might get very interesting to see who starts offering pre-emptive explanations as the release draws near, and who objects the loudest to transparency.