Epstein Files Firestorm and Political Theater in Congress

My friends, yesterday’s hearing on the Epstein files was a case study in something we’ve grown far too accustomed to in Washington: political theater dressed up as responsible oversight.

Let me be clear from the start. I want justice for the victims. That’s the objective—not creating a narrative or hoping Democrats pay a political price.

The crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein were evil, wicked, and predatory. The victims deserve dignity. They deserve accountability for anyone who participated. And they deserve transparency from the institutions that failed them.

But what we witnessed in Congress wasn’t primarily about justice. It was about optics.

There’s a difference between oversight and spectacle. Oversight asks hard questions in pursuit of truth. Spectacle asks loaded questions in search of applause or viral content. And too much of what we’re seeing right now falls squarely in the second category.

One of the moments that stood out was the demand that Attorney General Pam Bondi turn and apologize again to the victims—not for what Epstein did, but for how the Department of Justice handled the document release. Now, if there were legitimate procedural errors, those should be addressed. If victims were harmed by unnecessary disclosures, that matters. But let’s not pretend that this sudden outrage from certain corners of Congress is rooted in long-standing concerns over justice for the victims.

Many of the loudest voices today were conspicuously quiet when their own party controlled the Department of Justice.

That’s not accountability. That’s opportunism.

We also have to talk about expectations.

For years, people have imagined the “Epstein Files” as some neatly organized vault of names, transactions, photos, and airtight evidence—almost like a customer log. When the public doesn’t see that kind of bombshell disclosure, suspicion grows. And I understand why. Trust in our institutions is already thin.

But suspicion is not proof. And in a constitutional republic, proof still matters.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: perception alone can damage trust, but abandoning due process destroys it completely. We can demand transparency while still respecting legal constraints. We can insist on accountability while still honoring the presumption of innocence. Those principles are not obstacles to justice—they are the foundation of it.

Victims are not served by viral clips. The American people are not served by grandstanding. And our constitutional system is not strengthened by reducing hearings to partisan combat.

Here’s what reasonable Americans want: Tell us what you have. Tell us what you don’t. Tell us what the law allows you to release. And if crimes were committed—prosecute them. Equally. Without regard to party, power, or position.

Justice is not about scoring points. It’s about upholding principles—especially when emotions are running high.

If we abandon equal justice under the law in moments like this, we won’t just lose a political argument. We’ll lose something far more important.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

🎭 Oversight vs. political spectacle
⚖️ Justice for victims must remain paramount
📂 The myth vs. reality of the “Epstein Files”
🏛️ Due process under emotional pressure
💰 Congressional hypocrisy and stock trading jabs
🇺🇸 Equal justice under the law—no exceptions

The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

The best marketing ideas come from marketers who live it.

That’s what this newsletter delivers.

The Marketing Millennials is a look inside what’s working right now for other marketers. No theory. No fluff. Just real insights and ideas you can actually use—from marketers who’ve been there, done that, and are sharing the playbook.

Every newsletter is written by Daniel Murray, a marketer obsessed with what goes into great marketing. Expect fresh takes, hot topics, and the kind of stuff you’ll want to steal for your next campaign.

Because marketing shouldn’t feel like guesswork. And you shouldn’t have to dig for the good stuff.

Sign Up Free

My friends, it feels like a lifetime ago, but when I played college football at a small school, we had to sign papers promising we hadn’t violated any NCAA rule. And back then, those rules covered just about everything. Asking a coach for 75 cents for a vending machine snack could land you both in trouble. My, oh my, how things have changed.

With NIL, the game — pun intended — is different. Not long ago, top players rushed to the NFL as fast as possible to get paid. Now many are fighting to stay as long as the system allows. Ole Miss quarterback Trinidad Chambliss was granted a sixth year by a state court, and Montana linebacker Solomon Tuliaupupu just received a ninth.
That’s Economics 101. When incentives change, behavior changes. Every single time.

The Founders intended congressional oversight to mean something very specific: disciplined questioning, a pursuit of facts, and a sober respect for the process. They knew it would never be perfect, but they also didn’t imagine the utter chaos and spectacle we are witnessing today.

Modern hearings are engineered for clips. Members of Congress receive five minutes to question a witness. In theory, that ensures fairness and equal time. In practice, it often encourages performance. A representative can spend four minutes delivering a monologue crafted for social media, leaving little room for meaningful response. The goal shifts from extracting truth to extracting a moment—a confrontation, a headline, a shareable video.

When oversight becomes spectacle, truth isn’t downgraded—it’s displaced. It’s no longer the objective. It’s collateral damage.

The Epstein controversy illustrates this tension vividly. The public understandably wants answers. Victims deserve justice. Transparency matters. But when hearings are structured around emotional crescendos rather than legitimate inquiry, they should be seen for what they are: political theater. Very, very bad political theater.

Today, the Democrat Party is actually incentivized to dramatize obstruction. They know the cameras are rolling. They know a well-timed exchange can raise money, drive engagement, or energize a base. And their willing accomplices in the mainstream media help them disseminate the propaganda.

The tragedy is that real accountability requires patience. It requires evidence thresholds, legal constraints, procedural discipline, and sometimes answers that are unsatisfying. That process is slow, sometimes technical, and rarely viral. But it is how justice is supposed to work.

When the loudest moments overshadow the most important questions—and their answers—the public is left angrier but not better informed. And when spectacle replaces substance, trust erodes further.

The deeper issue is not simply whether files are released or hearings grow heated. It is whether politicians and the people who vote for them still reward truth-seeking over performance. If they do not, then even legitimate oversight risks becoming just another episode in the ongoing political saga—compelling to watch, but disconnected from the pursuit of justice.