The release of the files of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who died in 2019, was supposed to quell the controversy over whether he committed child sex crimes involving a host of rich and prominent men. But more than a month after the latest documents in the case were published, the opposite has happened, writes "Politico".
Various public figures in the United States have suffered professional and reputational damage as a result of their association with Epstein, even after he was convicted in 2008 of soliciting a minor for prostitution.
So far, however, the people named in the "Epstein" files who are alleged to have committed a crime have not been convincingly charged or denied knowing about Epstein's child trafficking for sexual exploitation.
In Europe, things are only slightly different. Law enforcement agencies in various countries across the continent have launched investigations into prominent political figures over their relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, but so far these investigations seem to relate mostly to alleged political wrongdoings - such as sharing confidential government information with Epstein or receiving gifts from him - rather than sex crimes.
Meanwhile, with the emergence of entirely new conspiracy theories, almost no one in America is happy - not the victims who were insulted by Attorney General Pam Bondi, not President Donald Trump, who essentially created this mess by fueling the Epstein conspiracies based on unverified allegations against him in documents that he vehemently denies, not the American public, most of which believes the government is still withholding information, and not the lawmakers who drafted and ultimately passed the law requiring disclosure, with the near-unanimous agreement of their colleagues in both houses of Congress. In early March, the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena Bondi, with five Republicans joining Democrats on the committee over the objections of Chairman James Comer (R-Kentucky).
Where there’s smoke, there’s often fire. But in this case, Americans should brace themselves for the very real prospect that there will be no more credible criminal prosecutions in the United States after the release of the Epstein files.
That’s because there’s no convincing evidence yet for the U.S. Department of Justice to charge anyone involved in the child sex trafficking of Jeffrey Epstein, nor does there appear to be any convincing evidence of an international child sex trafficking ring involving prominent men. That could change as more files are released, more redactions are removed, or perhaps if somehow compelling new evidence emerges, but that seems to be the case for now.
The public has obvious reason to be skeptical of the Trump Justice Department, but even if the department were to launch new prosecutions related to Epstein, it would be a remarkable turnaround. Since last July, the Justice Department has maintained that the government “has not discovered evidence that would lead to an investigation of unindicted third parties.” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch reiterated the Trump Justice Department’s position after the files were released in January, and department officials have maintained it ever since.
In recent years, there have been many theories about why prosecutors did not indict more people than Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell during the first Trump and Biden administrations. Maybe someone was corrupt, maybe someone was blackmailing someone, etc.
The answer seems much more banal: the prosecutors in charge of the case at the time of Epstein’s death concluded that they did not have enough evidence to charge anyone else.
In 2019, a few months after Epstein’s death, prosecutors prepared an analysis in an internal Justice Department memo for the then U.S. attorney in Manhattan. Much of it is redacted, but the unredacted portions make clear the serious evidentiary hurdles prosecutors faced in their work with the FBI.
The memo describes some of the victims' accounts of Epstein and Gillian Maxwell's crimes in detail and concludes that Epstein "created a vast network of underage victims" with the help of "employees and associates who facilitated the exploitation of minors."
Prosecutors are also examining a claim made by Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's most vocal accusers, that she and others were "rented out" to other men for sex, but prosecutors say they "have been unable to corroborate" those allegations. Giuffre had named several other women specifically, but prosecutors said her claim was "contradictory." with the recollections of one victim who "does not recall ever being told to have sex with men other than Epstein," and with the separate recollections of another victim who "did not describe ever being told to have sex with men other than Epstein."
The memo also states that "no other victim described being specifically instructed by Maxwell or Epstein to engage in sexual activity with other men."
The memo also points to several other problems that prosecutors have identified regarding the credibility of Giuffre's allegations. Among them are that she "participated in a continuous stream of public interviews regarding her allegations, many of which included sensational, if not demonstrably inaccurate, characterizations of her experiences"; that she wrote a "partially fabricated account" of her experiences with Epstein and Maxwell; that her own account in an interview with FBI agents was "internally inconsistent"; and that she "admitted lying about her work history on her resume, admitted burning handwritten notes she had made about her experiences with Epstein and Maxwell, and admitted inaccurately telling a reporter that she had been abused by Epstein for four years, when she had only been with him for about two years." Giuffre committed suicide last year. In a statement at the time, her family called her a "fierce warrior in the fight against sexual abuse and human trafficking for sexual exploitation".
The prosecutors' findings are consistent with what other media outlets have reported based on their review of the files so far.
The AP, for example, concluded that the FBI "has gathered ample evidence that Jeffrey Epstein sexually abused underage girls, but has found scant evidence that the well-connected financier ran a human trafficking ring for sexual exploitation that catered to powerful men.".
Law enforcement has not simply turned a blind eye to potential wrongdoing by men in Epstein's circle. As The Wall Street Journal noted, prosecutors investigated allegations of sexual assault made against billionaire Leon Black and former bank executive Jess Staley, and ultimately referred them to state law enforcement.
This is likely because the victims were adults at the time of the alleged crimes, and as the FBI explains on its website, when charges involve potential trafficking of adults for sexual exploitation, the government must prove that the victim engaged in "commercial sexual acts" as a result of fraud, force, or coercion. This evidence is not required when the case involves a minor.
This specific evidence appears to be lacking in these cases, and as a result, prosecutors apparently concluded that the most relevant possible crimes would be crimes such as rape, which are prosecuted at the state level, even though charges were never filed.
The New York Times noted some limitations in the prosecutors' work, including that they "did not look for other potential avenues, such as how Mr. Epstein moved his money through banks around the world." and that "they did not interview any of the men who were Mr. Epstein's primary financial backers".
Even if the Justice Department were to bring new charges - perhaps some Democrats, as President Donald Trump has suggested - the defense would have an argument based on the department's own previous claims that the case was not brought on the merits but was fabricated to satisfy the public's desire to see someone else go to prison for Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. The argument would be particularly strong if the evidence in the case was based on information that was already in the government's possession at the time of publication.
Meanwhile, serious questions remain about whether the Trump administration is withholding information from the documents about the president. That was the focus in Washington last summer, but it has sometimes been overtaken by a more provocative claim: that there is a broad, bipartisan “Epstein class” of people who, in the words of Congressman Ro Canna, traveled to “rape island, where rich and powerful men abused young girls with impunity,” and who would be exposed to the public once the documents are made public.
In response to questions from "Politico", the two co-authors of the legislation requiring the release of the "Epstein" files - Democratic Congressman Ro Canna and Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Massie's representative, pointed to a video in which the congressman said in the House of Representatives that the Justice Department should "investigate and prosecute" celebrities and former associates of Epstein, such as Black, Staley, and former Victoria's Secret CEO Leslie Wexner. The Justice Department appears to have investigated the allegations against the three men under federal law - and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office appears to have reviewed the sexual assault allegations against Black and Staley - although law enforcement may not have pursued them vigorously enough. Last month, in testimony before the House Oversight Committee, Wexner denied any knowledge of any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, Canna declined to name names, saying, "Any decision to indict must be based on a full review of all available evidence and through legal processes." In the House of Representatives last month, Canna named "six wealthy, powerful men" who he claimed the Justice Department was "covering up", but later admitted that four of those people had no connection to Epstein.
Regarding his recent claims that unnamed men who "raped girls" and "showed up at parties where girls - 15, 14 - were being taken naked", Canna explained that those names could not be provided because the records were too heavily redacted by the Justice Department. He also said that the victims' lawyers know many of the names, but if that's the case, it's not clear why they need the government's investigative materials to provide them.
Regarding the FBI email that alleged there were 10 potential accomplices to Epstein, Canna pointed out that "the question remains why these individuals were not charged or investigated further."
Canna also clarified what he meant by his statement that "there are many rich and powerful people who were involved with the pedophile". He explained that he was referring to the fact that many prominent people continued to associate with Epstein "even after he was convicted of sex crimes in 2008 - visiting his homes, attending gatherings, maintaining social relationships with him and doing business with him."