Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

Rstybeach11

Subscribe to Rstybeach11's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Monday, February 16, 2026

The government promised transparency on the Epstein files, Congress passed a law, the President signed it, and the Justice Department responded by releasing a pile of blacked-out paperwork while telling the public to "trust us." The problem is, the only people who know what's missing are the same people who'd have every reason to hide it. read more


Comments

Tax dollars at work

Now let's slow this down and really chew it.

First, let's get something straight. This wasn't some accidental paperwork snafu or clerical oopsie. Congress explicitly ordered the Epstein records to be released. Not summarized. Not selectively redacted into legal Mad Libs. Released. The public was told, You're going to see what happened, who was involved, and how deep this thing went.

What they got instead was a stack of documents that look like they were edited by a Sharpie-happy raccoon.

Names gone. Connections erased. Timelines fuzzy. Accountability floating somewhere out there like Bigfoot: rumored, blurry, never quite caught on camera.

And then comes the punchline: the Department of Justice says, "We've complied."

That's it. That's the proof. Trust us.

Trust.
From the same institution that somehow lost track of a high-profile sex trafficker in federal custody.
Trust.
From the people who decide what you're allowed to see and what you're not allowed to even know exists.

Here's the trick: you cannot independently verify a cover-up when the people accused of covering it up are the sole custodians of the evidence. That's not paranoia, that's basic logic. That's kindergarten epistemology.

If the government releases documents and says, "That's everything," there is no referee. No outside audit. No neutral party counting pages and saying, "Yep, all here." The Justice Department grades its own homework and hands itself an A-minus for effort.

And notice how carefully everyone dances around the phrase cover-up. Journalists hesitate. Officials bristle. Because to prove a cover-up, you'd need access to the very material being withheld. It's a perfect loop. A bureaucratic ouroboros eating its own tail while asking you to applaud its transparency.

Meanwhile, the redactions aren't protecting victims; that excuse collapses fast. They're protecting reputations. Powerful ones. The kind that don't enjoy daylight. The kind that get nervous when names, dates, and flight logs start lining up like dominoes.

And here's the real damage. This isn't just about Epstein anymore. This is about institutional trust. When the government says "believe us" while actively limiting what can be believed, it trains the public to assume deception as the default setting.

That's how cynicism becomes rational.

So no, you don't need a secret memo labeled COVER-UP PLAN. You don't need a villain twirling a mustache in a DOJ conference room. All you need is power, opacity, and a system that says, "If you can't see it, you can't prove it."

And that's the quiet brilliance of the con.

Because in the end, the public is left holding a bag full of black ink, empty of answers, while being told this is what accountability looks like.

Which is funny.
Not ha-ha funny.
More like "Jesus Christ, are you kidding me?" funny.

And that's the way it is when the people in charge decide truth is need-to-know, and you don't need to know.

The Sordid Story of Trump, the Trump"Witkoff Family Business, and the UAE

Even if crypto makes your head hurt, you're going to be hearing a lot about this in the months to come.

The article excerpt accuses President Donald Trump and associate Steve Witkoff of using their cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial (WLF), launched in autumn 2024, as a front for foreign influence peddling and political payoffs.

Key Allegations
It claims WLF attracted massive UAE investments"starting with $500 million pre-inauguration and totaling at least $2.5 billion"tied to favors like pardoning Chinese-born felon Changpeng Zhao (ex-Binance CEO), granting UAE access to U.S. AI chips despite prior restrictions over China links, elevating UAE geopolitically, including them in the Stargate AI project, and preserving TikTok's U.S. operations. The piece portrays crypto's opacity as ideal for disguising such transactions, with Trump sons ostensibly running it to maintain "plausible deniability."

Comparison to Biden
The author, from **National Review**, contrasts this with extensive GOP probes into Biden family dealings (alleged $27 million from foreign influence, including China), which spurred an impeachment inquiry but yielded no Trump equivalent despite larger sums. It cites a recent **Wall Street Journal** report revealing UAE's Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed al Nahyan as a silent partner providing seed funds and expertise.

Promised Follow-Up
The post promises future installments demystifying crypto/stablecoins, recapping WLF's setup, Zhao's pardon rationale, UAE's Big Tech ambitions under Trump, and a timeline amid Democratic impeachment murmurs as midterms loom. It frames the scandal as dwarfing Biden controversies in scale.

www.nationalreview.com

Archived w/o paywall: archive.is

#41

That's an oversimplification:

The response "At the END of the equation, no money is left" is not accurate as a defining property of Ponzi schemes, and it also does not correctly describe what happens with Bitcoin or with markets generally. [en.wikipedia](en.wikipedia.org)

## What Happens In A Ponzi Scheme "At The End"

In a classic Ponzi scheme, most investors lose much or all of what they put in, but some early participants may keep profits or be forced to return them in clawback actions. When the scheme collapses, authorities usually seize whatever assets remain and distribute them; there is rarely "no money left" in the literal sense, but overall losses are large and unevenly distributed. [investorclaims](investorclaims.com)

## Why This Doesn't Map Onto Bitcoin

With Bitcoin, there is no central operator collecting and redistributing funds, and units continue to exist and be traded even after price crashes. People can still hold or use bitcoin after a downturn, so it is not the case that, at some terminal moment, all participants are left with literally nothing of value by definition. [fidelitydigitalassets](www.fidelitydigitalassets.com)

## The Claim As A Rhetorical Move

The statement "at the end ... no money is left" functions more as a **rhetorical** way of saying "many people may lose" than as a precise definition. It oversimplifies both how fraudulent schemes unwind and how speculative assets behave, so it does not stand as a correct definitional test for calling something a Ponzi scheme. [brandyaustinlaw](brandyaustinlaw.com)

"Crypto is a Ponzi scheme."

What is your definition of a Ponzi scheme?

Because you're not applying the actual defintion appropriately:

"Bitcoi7n is now and always has been a Ponzi scheme. Those at the top of the pyramid get rich; th4ose at the bo5ttom end up with nothing of value."

The quoted statement is an opinionated characterization and does **not** fit standard definitions of what Bitcoin is, nor of a Ponzi scheme in the legal/regulatory sense. [en.wikipedia](en.wikipedia.org)

## What "Bitcoin" Is, By Definition

Bitcoin is typically defined as a decentralized digital currency and payment system that operates on a peertopeer network using a public ledger called a blockchain. It has a protocol (rule set) governing issuance, transaction validation, and consensus, and those rules are transparent and not controlled by a central organizer promising returns. [coinbase](www.coinbase.com)

## What A Ponzi Scheme Is

Regulators such as the U.S. SEC define a **Ponzi** scheme as an investment fraud in which returns paid to existing investors come from funds contributed by new investors, not from legitimate profitgenerating activity. Hallmarks include a central operator, promises of high or guaranteed returns with little or no risk, and reliance on continuous new inflows to pay earlier participants. [kkc](kkc.com)

## Why The Statement Doesn't "Fit" The Definition

The statement calls Bitcoin "now and always ... a Ponzi scheme" and describes it as a pyramid where those at the top get rich and those at the bottom end up with nothing. That is a **valueladen claim** about outcomes and fairness, not a definitional description matching regulatory elements such as a central organizer promising investment returns funded directly by later investors. Whatever one's criticism of Bitcoin's volatility or wealth distribution, those criticisms do not, by themselves, satisfy the formal definition of a Ponzi scheme. [sec](www.sec.gov)

So maybe be a little more specific about your definition of Ponzi scheme next time and you possibly won't look so clueless.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy