In any criminal trial, the "files" are not just one thing or in one place.
It starts with an investigation by law enforcement. The investigating agency keeps a record of all the interviews that they conducted, the forensic evidence, clues, theories and anything else that leads them to a conclusion that an arrest is warranted. Keep in mind that this is just the investigation; no matter how convinced the cops are of the solidity of the evidence, it still remains that in this country the accused is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If the prosecutor believes that a case can be made and that a conviction is possible, a grand jury is convened.
Grand jury procedures vary from one jurisdiction to another, however, the one commonality is that the prosecution presents their evidence that there is probable cause to hold a trial. There is no opportunity for the accused to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. Therefore a grand jury indictment is not the same as a conviction and doesn't always result in a conviction. For this reason grand jury investigations and testimony are usually sealed, especially if no indictment is returned. It's also a misnomer to characterize a grand jury as investigatory, even though that's what they are referred to. Grand jurors are not actually investigators. They are regular citizens who are selected randomly and if they have any law enforcement or investigatory experience it's a coincidence. Theoretically they can interview witnesses and review evidence, and even call for additional witnesses and evidence to be presented, but in practice they simply vote on whether what the prosecutors presented made sense. See this article regarding unsealing grand jury records.
If a grand jury indicts someone, that means that the legal system moves on to a trial. Some of the same testimony that was presented to a grand jury can also be presented at trial, but the grand jury testimony itself remains sealed. The accused can now present their side, and perhaps even get the charges dismissed. Once a trial has commenced, everything in it (with very narrow exceptions) is public record. Prosecution and defense each have their say and a jury decides who has made their case. In the case of Epstein, we never got to this stage because he died in custody. There are no "Epstein Files" from the trail, because he was dead before there was a trial.
So what "Epstein Files" are there?
Epstein was indicted by a grand jury, so the transcripts from the grand jury exist. But the judge has ruled three times that the testimony will remain sealed. (Apparently the entire sealed transcript consists of testimony by one FBI agent.) What's left? The files from the DOJ investigation.
The files from the DOJ investigation will now supposedly be released. I don't know what they will find, but no matter how complete the information, there will be suspicion that we aren't seeing everything. And there surely will be controversy over what we do see means. We already know that Trump and Epstein were friends—there are dozens of photos and videos of them partying together. We know from the phone logs that many prominent people in politics and entertainment (including Bill Clinton) appear in the flight logs of Epstein's plane. Conclusions certainly have been drawn in all corners about this information. If there are ongoing investigations, what will we know about them? (AG Bondi has announced that she will comply with Trump's order to open investigations into the link between Epstein and Bill Clinton, among others) If Trump or other Republicans are implicated, will DOJ hide that information? If top Democrats were involved in criminality, wouldn't that information have already been shouted from the rooftops? Trump has no problem making unsubstantiated accusations against his perceived enemies. I predict that the release of the DOJ files relating to Epstein will be a huge disappointment. The FBI and DOJ, under both the Trump and Biden administrations have said that there is nothing in the files that warrants further investigation or prosecution, yet Trump has ordered AG Bondi to open investigations into prominent Democrats, including former president Bill Clinton.
Trump and his sycophants have been inconsistent in how they talked about the Epstein Files. As far back as in 2015 Trump suggested that Bill Clinton was involved in Epstein's sex trafficking. One of Trump's campaign in 2024 promises was that he would release the Epstein files, suggesting that his political enemies were part of it. (Federal court orders prohibited the files from the Epstein investigation from being made public, which is why it had not been released under Biden's term or Trump first term)
In early Trump’s second term he must have decided that he didn't need to pander to the tinfoil hat part of his base, and began to brush off questions about the Epstein files that he had promised to release the files. He even attacked his own supporters, insulting them:
“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this “bullshit” hook, line, and sinker, They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore! Thank you for your attention to this matter,”
Not only did Trump offend his own people, but Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that there really wasn't anything there, and that there was no client list after saying that one was on her desk. I'm not going to suggest that Democrats and other Trump opponents didn't also push for the release of the Epstein files, including the theoretical client list. Many people pointed to the multiple photos of Trump and Epstein together, just as Trump pointed to the multiple mentions of Bill Clinton in the records previously made public. But Trump is the one who continually brought it up and dangled the possibility of transparency for those who saw it as a major issue.
My prediction is that the portions of the files that we end up seeing will contain nothing concrete. There will be hints that various partisans will interpret in a way that will support their own preconceived ideas. If there really was clear evidence that Democrats were involved, does anyone believe that Trump wouldn't have already released that information? If there are Trump allies involved, does anyone believe that we'll ever see those parts of the files.
This was never about concern for the victims. It's always been a way for politicians to attack their opponents.
No comments:
Post a Comment