Viva Frei and Steve Bannon argue that the Epstein survivors’ recent press event was a political spectacle that undermined legitimate efforts for transparency. Survivors promised to release "lists” of abusers but failed to name anyone, making the event look like cheap theater. Both men blame Pam Bondi for mishandling the Epstein files rollout, which they believe has unnecessarily compromised Trump, weakened Rep. Thomas Massie’s bipartisan disclosure effort, and turned a push for justice into a partisan weapon.
Quick Clip:
VIVA FREI: Yesterday’s Epstein press event looked like political theater. Survivors promised "lists" but named no names.
It undercut Massie's righteous Epstein Files bill and handed ammo to the other side.@thevivafrei pic.twitter.com/4XVT2UtKTo
— Bannon’s WarRoom (@Bannons_WarRoom) September 4, 2025
Key Points of the Discussion
- Pam Bondi’s Role
- Bannon criticized former Florida AG Pam Bondi’s handling of the Epstein file rollout, calling it "a debacle.”
- He argued her poor performance has hurt Trump politically, embarrassed alternative media, and muddled what should have been a straightforward case for disclosure.
- He suggested Bondi should have been removed earlier, citing not only the Epstein issue but her failures in other prosecutions.
- The Survivors’ Press Event
- Survivors claimed they had lists of abusers but refused to name names, citing fear, NDAs, or legal risks.
- Frei and Bannon said this approach appeared contradictory—why make public threats of disclosure if too afraid to name names?
The result, they argued, looked like exploitation, self-promotion, or even potential extortion rather than a genuine quest for justice.
Political Weaponization
Both compared the event to the co-opting of the #MeToo movement, warning that it has been hijacked to serve partisan goals.
Instead of advancing transparency, the spectacle weakened Massie’s resolution calling for Epstein file disclosure, making it appear partisan.
Bannon warned this would allow Democrats and mainstream media to weaponize the issue against Trump, just as they have used selective leaks and redactions before.
Questions of Credibility
The men discussed confusion over alleged "lists” referenced by both Bondi and Alan Dershowitz.
Survivors’ reluctance to name alleged abusers, combined with past retracted or false claims, creates credibility problems.
The silencing of journalists at the event who pressed uncomfortable questions only fueled skepticism.
Impact on Victims and Public Perception
Frei stressed that the failure to name names diminishes legitimate survivors’ stories and risks painting the entire movement as opportunistic.
Bannon said that by avoiding specifics, the event resembled partisan theater rather than a pursuit of truth.
Both concluded it may alienate genuine victims and damage bipartisan support for full document release.
Assessment
Strategic Failure: What should have been a clear, bipartisan push for transparency has turned into confusion, spectacle, and political theater.
Damage to Trump & Allies: Bondi’s mishandling has created unnecessary political liabilities for Trump and embarrassed conservative media that supported the disclosure effort.
Undermining Victims’ Cause: Survivors’ refusal to provide concrete evidence—while promising future "lists”—undermines public confidence and risks making them appear manipulative rather than credible.
Opportunity Lost: Instead of strengthening Massie’s motion for full disclosure, the event weakened it, giving critics ammunition to dismiss the effort as partisan grandstanding.
Final Word
The Epstein survivors’ press event, coupled with Bondi’s poor handling of the file rollout, represents a serious setback for efforts to achieve transparency. Frei and Bannon warn it risks becoming a partisan weapon against Trump, while alienating genuine victims and eroding public trust. Without concrete disclosures—names, documents, and facts—the movement risks collapsing under its own theatrics.
For more context, watch this full segment:
