This prediction was committed to a SHA-256 hash at call time. Anyone can verify the call was not changed after the fact.
Will Steve Bannon be confirmed to have visited Epstein’s island? | No | 2026-06-30
fdc7e7f6
Verifying…
echo -n "Will Steve Bannon be confirmed to have visited Epstein’s island? | No | 2026-06-30" | shasum -a 256 | cut -c1-8Low-friction Yes trigger (any single document/testimony/photo) on a 97¢ consensus No with ~30 days left; no named decision-makers (DOJ, Congress, Bannon, witnesses) show incentive or ongoing process to surface island-specific evidence for Bannon after Jan 2026 releases that heavily documented his other Epstein ties but omitted any island visit. Recent behavior and base rates (zero confirmations despite millions of pages) align with No, but the friction rule defaults to reject on consensus low-friction holds.
Rules require public evidence (flight logs, photos, court records, sworn testimony, or Bannon's own confirmation) via consensus of credible reporting by 6/30/2026 11:59pm ET. Jan 2026 DOJ releases and all subsequent credible coverage detail Bannon-Epstein texts, interviews, and offers of plane/homes but contain zero confirmation of any Little St. James visit; no active probes or leaks indicate new material will surface in the final 30 days. Market opened post-Jan releases with Bannon at ~3% Yes and remains there, satisfying the consensus-No default with no rule-based path to Yes.
Smart money strongly aligned on No (5 whales, $10k stake vs 1 whale $36 on Yes; 0.99 conf). Volume $64k real and meaningful; Yes priced at 3¢ with no aggressive flow or price drift toward Yes in recent months. No credible news or sibling-bin signals of island-visit evidence emerging for Bannon despite Jan/Feb 2026 file dumps. Consensus hold microstructure is clean and unchallenged.
+2 more open picks · full 3-judge reasoning · Telegram premium channel.
Subscribe Now