🏅 Top traders

@traders there is ambiguity in this question, for which I apologize. The question, “Will any top officials leave the Trump administration over the Epstein case?” Is broader than the restatement in the description:

This market will resolve to "Yes" if, between July 12, 2025, and December 31, 2025, any top official within the Trump administration resigns, is dismissed, or is reassigned due to issues directly related to the closure of the investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case.

(emphasis added)

No one resigned as a result of the closure of the Epstein case. At the time this was a huge deal because reopening the Epstein case was a big campaign promise. In retrospect it was just the beginning.

Nevertheless, I also can find no evidence for the broader claim that any official resigned due to the Epstein case. The reports from soon after this market was created were cited as rumors and conjecture, even by credible sources.

@BlueDragon I'm a big fan of staying close to the spirit of the question as written.

Related: https://manifold.markets/MugaSofer/will-anyone-be-punished-for-failure?r=TXVnYVNvZmVy

Will anyone be punished for failure to fully release the Epstein files?

Rep. Thomas Massie has suggested that those involved in the unwarranted redaction of the Epstein Files are guilty of Obstruction of Justice under 18 U.S.C. § 1519. On its face, it seems like a strong argument (assuming that in fact not all the redactions fell under the narrow exceptions allowed by the Epstein Files Transparency Act.) The same logic would appear to apply to the failure to release the majority of the files by the legally-mandated deadline. But will anyone actually face any official penalty for any of this?

Okay so say an official resigns and there is speculation, reported in reputable news sources, that it's Epstein-related. What quality or quantity of speculation resolves "yes" vs "no"

@marvingardens

To be clear I am not resolving this market yet.

That said, quoting from the resolution criteria:

Public statements, credible news reports, or official records indicating that the departure was linked to the Epstein case will serve as evidence for resolution, even if the official reason contradicts it.

@BlueDragon right i mean that's exactly why i asked. that line is what i am investigating. say for instance that an nytimes article about a resignation includes language to the effect that some sources say it was epstein-related.

What quality or quantity of speculation resolves "yes" vs "no"

@marvingardens "indicating" is a vague bar because the news generally will make a "sources say" type statement. is the bar the nytimes feeling confident enough to put the headline "xyz resigns over epstein case"? or is a fourth-paragraph "however, some close to the white house say..." good enough?

@marvingardens ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@BlueDragon i don't get it, you don't know your resolution criteria?

@BlueDragon https://x.com/fbiddbongino/status/2001416238027935836?s=46&t=2saY5z5X8Pw3Jn-lIohsgw

@Mochi "resigns, is dismissed, or is reassigned due to issues directly related to the closure of the investigation into the Jeffrey Epstein case" is a very high bar to prove. Particularly, the closing of the investigation part.

@prismatic generally I agree it’s difficult to prove if the resignation is directly related to the investigation. But in this case the named official is mentioned in the resolution criteria as a potential candidate to resign due to Epstein case and this person ends up resigning. Moreover, many news reports mention Dan’s frustration towards Epstein case https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna249789

Personally I think the frustration towards the Epstein case was part of the reason for his resignation, whether the speculation is sufficient to resolve YES to this question is up to the creator.

@Mochi yeah I didn't bet on this market, but gl its rly up to the creator 💀

If the reason was related to Epstein case, I think it’s unlikely we will get confirmation through public comments or official statements. Most credible source we can get is news reports and subjective judgments and it’s entirely up to the creator 🫡

@Mochi thanks for this, your reasoning is sound, but the only reason Bongino is mentioned in the resolution is because someone asked me in the comments, and AI summarized it.

There are plenty of sources that describe Bongino’s tenure, how uncomfortable he was in the job, and how much he hated showing up to an office and wearing a suit. I think that means that if Bongino himself claimed he left because they closed the Epstein case, we’d have to question whether this was just an excuse.

When all is said and done, and by the time Bongino ACTUALLY left, there was much stronger evidence and public awareness of the connection between Trump and Epstein. He could have left over that, not the mere fact that the administration broke a campaign promise.

https://jmail.world/

Is bongino a top official

@BenM yes