HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026304.jpg
1.29 MB
Extraction Summary
8
People
4
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Email
File Size:
1.29 MB
Summary
This document is an email exchange from August 3, 2018, between Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein sends Bannon a political analysis discussing the 2018 midterms, the political climate under President Trump, and the need for a 'back-up plan' or 'chaos' candidate for 2020. Bannon replies by asking Epstein for the source of the text, indicating the analysis may not be Epstein's original writing.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Steve Bannon | Email Sender |
Sent an email to Jeffrey E. asking 'Where is this from???' in response to a political analysis.
|
| jeffrey E. (Jeffrey Epstein) | Email Recipient/Original Sender |
Sent a political analysis to Steve Bannon from the email address jeevacation@gmail.com. The analysis discusses the 20...
|
| Donald Trump | U.S. President |
Mentioned as the 'most divisive American President' and a central figure in the political analysis concerning the 201...
|
| Brett Kavanaugh | Supreme Court Nominee |
Mentioned in the context of his Supreme Court nomination battle.
|
| Mueller | Special Counsel |
Mentioned in reference to the 'Mueller investigation' and the pressure it was putting on Donald Trump.
|
| Kochs | Political Donors |
Mentioned in the email subject line, quoting a 'TheHill' article where Steve Bannon allegedly blasts them as 'con art...
|
| Ryan | Politician (likely Paul Ryan) |
Mentioned in the email subject line, quoting a 'TheHill' article where Steve Bannon allegedly calls him a 'lame duck'.
|
| Kelly | Politician (likely John Kelly) |
Mentioned in the email subject line, quoting a 'TheHill' article where Steve Bannon allegedly calls him 'diminished'.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| TheHill |
News organization mentioned in the subject line of the email, likely the source of an article being discussed.
|
|
| White House |
Mentioned as the location a percentage of Americans believe Donald Trump should not be.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Mentioned in relation to Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
|
|
| HOUSE_OVERSIGHT |
Appears as part of the document identifier 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026304', suggesting the document is part of a collection ...
|
Timeline (4 events)
2016
The 2016 Presidential election is referenced as having a 'two front battlefield' and a failed system that produced 'terribly flawed candidates'.
United States
2020
The 2020 election is discussed as a potential opportunity for a 'chaos' candidate or a third-party candidate.
United States
Fall 2018
The Fall elections are described as a 'referendum on the most divisive American President in memory'.
United States
May 2018
A prior 'discussion' between Jeffrey E. and Steve Bannon is mentioned in the email.
Unknown
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned for its 'outsized' role in the U.S. presidential nominating process.
|
|
|
Mentioned for its 'outsized' role in the U.S. presidential nominating process.
|
Relationships (1)
They are engaged in an email exchange on August 3, 2018. Epstein sent Bannon a political analysis, and Bannon replied. The email mentions a prior 'discussion in May', indicating an ongoing dialogue about politics.
Key Quotes (4)
"Where is this from???"Source
— Steve Bannon
(Bannon's question to Jeffrey Epstein about the origin of the political analysis text he received.)
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026304.jpg
Quote #1
"keep close !"Source
— jeffrey E. (Jeffrey Epstein)
(A short message preceding the political analysis sent to Steve Bannon.)
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026304.jpg
Quote #2
"For the 48 percent of Americans who believe Donald Trump should not be in the White House, perhaps we too want our own "chaos" candidate in 2020?"Source
— jeffrey E. (Jeffrey Epstein)
(From the political analysis, speculating on the desires of anti-Trump voters for the 2020 election.)
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026304.jpg
Quote #3
"We need to build a back-up plan in the event the system fails again."Source
— jeffrey E. (Jeffrey Epstein)
(A concluding thought in the political analysis, suggesting a need for an alternative to the current two-party nominating process.)
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026304.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,919 characters)
Date: Friday, August 3 2018 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Exclusive: Bannon blasts 'con artist' Kochs, 'lame duck' Ryan, 'diminished' Kelly | TheHill
From: Steve Bannon <[REDACTED]>
To: jeffrey E. ;
Subject: Re: Exclusive: Bannon blasts 'con artist' Kochs, 'lame duck' Ryan, 'diminished' Kelly | TheHill
From: Steve Bannon <[REDACTED]>
To: jeffrey E. ;
Where is this from???
On Aug 3, 2018, at 8:17 AM, jeffrey E. wrote:
On Aug 3, 2018, at 8:17 AM, jeffrey E. wrote:
keep close !
This much we know - the Fall elections are shaping up to be a referendum on the most divisive
American President in memory. The battle for potential Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination this fall will only amplify the polarity of the political debate that is already deeply
overwrought on both sides. The rising tide of pressure on Donald Trump from the Mueller investigation
shows no sign of ebbing.
American President in memory. The battle for potential Supreme Court justice Brett Kavanaugh's
nomination this fall will only amplify the polarity of the political debate that is already deeply
overwrought on both sides. The rising tide of pressure on Donald Trump from the Mueller investigation
shows no sign of ebbing.
Unless the underlying political dynamics are disrupted, the outcomes of these unprecedented events will
still leave us with the same unsatisfactory two front battlefield of the 2016 Presidential election.
Watching these unrelenting, compounding events since our discussion in May, I am guessing we are all
asking the same question: now what? For the 48 percent of Americans who believe Donald Trump
should not be in the White House, perhaps we too want our own "chaos" candidate in 2020?
still leave us with the same unsatisfactory two front battlefield of the 2016 Presidential election.
Watching these unrelenting, compounding events since our discussion in May, I am guessing we are all
asking the same question: now what? For the 48 percent of Americans who believe Donald Trump
should not be in the White House, perhaps we too want our own "chaos" candidate in 2020?
Should Trump run again, this could be a "break glass" moment for the majority of Americans who don't
support him. Do we want to break the genteel precedents of two parties running their ceremonious and
seemingly illogical nominating process to select a candidate? (Why do Iowa and New Hampshire play
such outsized roles? What kind of small-d democratic process relies on superdelegates?) The system
failed in 2016, with both parties producing terribly flawed candidates in a race to the bottom. We need to
build a back-up plan in the event the system fails again.
support him. Do we want to break the genteel precedents of two parties running their ceremonious and
seemingly illogical nominating process to select a candidate? (Why do Iowa and New Hampshire play
such outsized roles? What kind of small-d democratic process relies on superdelegates?) The system
failed in 2016, with both parties producing terribly flawed candidates in a race to the bottom. We need to
build a back-up plan in the event the system fails again.
It's possible, of course, that we won't need a third-party candidate. Trump could decide not to run for
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026304
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document