I hope those who celebrate had a wonderful Christmas. Although I’m Hindu, Christmas has always been a part of my life — after my parents came here from India one of the ways they wanted to help me and my sister assimiliate was by doing the whole Santa/tree thing (plus let’s face it, we Hindus love lights). This year I didn’t get a tree since I was traveling for most of December and was worried that it would dry out, but I did cobble together enough to create a Charlie Brown vibe:
I’m pretty proud of that.
Meanwhile, I was able to unplug for the most part while traveling in Germany and Thailand. However, if there’s anything that can cut through the noise on an international trip, it’s the Epstein files. And man, does that situation keep getting worse for this adminsitration.
Look, I am not one to subscribe to conspiracy theories. But I’m not gonna lie, the administration’s handling of the Epstein files saga is turning me into one. However, one of the things I point out to my students in my disinformation class when we cover this topic is the difference between “conspiracy theories” and conspiracy theories. The former is a belief that people are secretly working together to produce a particular outcome. The latter is a belief that people are secretly working together to produce a particular outcome. Yes, those two sentences read the same. What I’m trying to say is that some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. The question is how to tell the difference.
I wrote about how psychologists recommend differentiating between conspiracy theories and real conspiracies in my deep dive into the Hunter Biden Laptop “scandal.” (I don’t recommend reading this piece too early unless you are ready to start day drinking, because it’s a real rabbit hole.) In particular, discerning between something that is genuinely hinky and something that is tinfoil-hat territory requires good old analytical and critical thinking. To wit, here are the three questions you need to ask yourself:
What is the evidence for your claim?
What is the source of evidence for this claim?
What is the reasoning that links your evidence back to the claim?
So let’s try it:
My claim is that the Epstein files contain information that is very, very bad for Trump and/or other powerful people, beyond what we already know, and could be possibly presidency-ending.
The evidence: The administration has been stonewalling, redacting, piecemeal-releasing, deleting from the DOJ website, and the generally engaging in a Watergate-level cover-up to prevent the American public from knowing the full extent of those implicated in the Epstein files — despite the fact that the attorney general claimed publicly last summer that there was basically no evidence of wrongdoing by anyone other than the people who have been charged.
The source(s): Let’s see…Trump’s crazy rants, the DOJ’s unexplained redactions, erratic release of information, random deletions, documents mentioning co-conspirators and the fact that the administration just “found” one million more documents.
My reasoning linking the evidence back to the claim: The Epstein files reveal that, at the very least, Trump has lied about material facts related to his relationship with Epstein, and since this has become an issue over which even members of his own party (and presumably their own constituents) are willing to break ranks, it’s clear he is afraid that whatever is in there poses a real threat to his presidency.
I feel like this passes the conspiracy theory smell test, don’t you? I mean it’s still hard for me to believe that with hundreds (thousands?) of FBI agents working on “cleaning up” these files since Trump took office, there could be something so incriminating or crazy that would not have been pursued under a prior adminstration or, by this point, leaked. But it’s frankly getting really difficult to find any other explanation for how badly the administration has botched this issue, particularly after using it as a campaign promise to rile up its own supporters into a frenzy.
I guess we stay tuned to see what comes out — I’ll be working on my yarn string bulletin board in the meantime.
IT’S HERE! THE COMPLICITY AND COURAGE SPEAKER SERIES FOR 2026!
I’m so excited to begin the new theme for my Substack in the New Year: Understanding what makes people complicit in bad behavior, and learning from the people who take a stand against it. The research I am doing for my book, Uncompromised: Activating Your Moral Compass in an Age of Complicity, shows that people are better able to resist pressure and stand up for their beleifs when they can reflect on their own values and see models of moral courage in action.
To this end, I’ll be writing free posts on these topics each month, in addition to my weekly Round Ups on the topics of complicity and courage. But for my paid subscribers, I’ll also be bringing in guest speakers: Each month I’ll have one person — like a psychologist, professor, leadership expert — explain the science and theory behind complicity and courage. And then I will also bring in a real-time moral rebel who can talk about what led them to take a stand — despite the personal and professional risks. I hope you will tune in!
Here’s who I have coming up for January:
Professor Catherine Sanderson, author of Why We Act: Turning Bystanders into Moral Rebels, Wednesday, January 14, 12-1 p.m. EST. Professor Sanderson’s
work covers the psychology of bystanders — the social and cognitive forces that keep people from stepping up, and how we can change them. I can’t wait to hear her takes on the current moment!
Alexander Vindman, author of the Why It Matters Substack and Here, Right Matters: An American Story (Date/Time TBA, we are still figuring out schedules!). I have been a huge fan of Alex Vindman ever since he came into the spotlight and testified in Trump’s first impeachment hearing. If you, like me, are inspired by his example and want to learn more about his story, please tune in.
And, we’ll be kicking off 2026 with a guest author for The Freedom Academy Book Club, as well:
Freedom Academy Book Club, Agents of Change: The Women Who Transformed the CIA by Christina Hillsberg (Date/Time TBA, we are nailing down a date in the last week of January 2026). Christina interviewed women from different eras of the CIA and paints a picture of what being a female spy in the agency was really like. Zoom link will be sent to paid subscribers three hours before the event.
Zoom links for guest speakers are sent three hours before the event, and the discussions will be recorded and posted for those who cannot make it live. I hope you can join us!
Join me and Renato in Alaska!
It’s Complicated is cruisin’! Come join me and Renato as we explore the stunning beauty of Alaska and discuss how we can work together to protect our democracy! It’s a small ship, and there will be lots of opportunities to talk to us both, plus we will have an opening and closing reception and dedicated democracy discussion tables throughout the cruise. You can find out more at this link, and fill out your info here to have an agent call you with more information. Stay tuned for our next happy hour/info session!
I wish you all the best for a wonderful New Year and look forward to seeing you in 2026!
‘Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number—
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you—
Ye are many—they are few.’
— The Masque of Anarchy by Percy Bysshe Shelley, stanza XXXVIII
That's such an interesting perspective; for the festive season; 1, What do we do when the truth is perceived as lies; 2, and when lies are perceived as truth. Asha; Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year my dear lady.
Very nice Charlie Brown vibe :-)