No indictments, no trials, no convictions beyond Maxwell and Epstein himself.
Ghislaine Maxwell was tried and convicted in 2021 for "conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor." See this statement by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York for the details leading to her conviction.
Epstein himself had been convicted of procuring a child for prostitution in in 2008, but only served 13 months, most of that on work release. He was arrested again in 2019 but died before being tried, likely for the same crimes for which Maxwell was convicted.
One of them is in prison and the other one is dead. Problem solved right?
Not really. Not at all. What about all the people who Epstein and Maxwell trafficked those girls to? Shouldn't they be subjected to investigation, indictment and trial? Well, yes. But what does that look like? What it doesn't look like is releasing to the public every note, every tip, every witness statement, every allegation, every theory. In this blog post by John Sipher he lays out the reasons why a mass info-dump is a bad idea.
"The bigger danger in an all-at-once “files” release isn’t
that we’ll learn something uncomfortable about famous people. It’s that we’ll
further damage the one thing a society cannot function without: credible trust
in the rule-of-law process, law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and the
professionalism that makes those institutions something other than weapons.
"If our standard for justice becomes “dump everything and let
the internet sort it out,” we are not strengthening accountability. We’re
degrading it into a spectacle."
The "release the Epstein files" cry has it's origins in the QAnon online conspiracy movement outlined in a NY Times article that I have transcribed in one of my blog posts. The QAnon followers were convinced that there was a vast network of pedophiles operating in the shadows and that Donald Trump was the messiah who would expose them all. Donald Trump. Trump latched on to them and in his campaign for re-election in 2020 curried favor with this crucial portion of his support by promising to release the Epstein files, suggesting that doing so would expose former President Clinton and other Democrats as pedophiles and rapists. Once he got into office, however, he conveniently forgot all about his pledge, at least he hoped that his supporters would forget about it as well. Democrats, spotting some hypocrisy, started demanding that the files be released.
The Epstein files were called a "Democrat Hoax" by Trump, despite his repeated calling for it. Attorney General Pam Bondi couldn't make up her mind about what was in them. The "Epstein client list" was on her desk, ready for review, then it didn't exist. The files didn't contain any information that warranted further investigation, then investigations were being opened into prominent Democrats. Before the giant data dump I wrote this about what possibly would be in these files. I predicted that there would be little if any new information. There's a lot of information, 3.5 million documents released so far, but what can be done with them?
This article by Alison O'Leary gives a pretty good synopsis of what is in the files that have been released and what they mean.
"The “Epstein Files” are not a monolith but a chaotic archive of a life spent weaponizing philanthropy and social connections to obscure predation."
"...the so‑called “Epstein Files” [are] not a single “client list,” but a mix of court filings, flight logs, contact books, investigative reports, civil case materials, and estate records released by the House Oversight Committee."
The search for an “Epstein Client List” is a search for a document that likely never existed in the form the public imagines. The forensic record reveals something perhaps more disturbing than a simple list of customers: it reveals a complex web of social capital, influence peddling, and moral indifference.
"Legally, the distinction between association and complicity remains the highest hurdle for any potential prosecution. Mere presence on a plane or in a contact book is not a crime, and the recently released emails, while damaging to reputations, often fall short of the evidentiary standards required for criminal indictment."
The release of the mountain of documents relating to Jeffrey Epstein's depredations is a lot of information, but it doesn't provide much in the way of conclusions. Of course we're all free to come to our own conclusions. Sadly though, I am not optimistic that the release of "The Epstein Files" has brought us any closer to putting anyone in front of a grand jury, let alone a trial, nor do I see it happening in the future. Not because terrible abuses didn't happen, not because there are revelations that make some of Epstein's guests look like candidates for the lowest circles of Hell, but because enough evidence to indict anyone other than Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell isn't there.
It's no stretch to believe that the increasingly misnamed Department of Justice, including the FBI, has been corrupted in service to Trump. Of course it's possible that evidence of Trump culpability exists, but has been suppressed or destroyed. But the NY Times recently reported about interviews with many current and former FBI agents, critical of the rot that has set into the agency. If there was evidence for further arrests and indictments, surely there is someone out there who knows about it. Maybe. I'm not optimistic.
I hope I'm wrong.
