What Happened to the "Epstein File"?

excalibur

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2015
Messages
28,388
Reaction score
57,391
Points
2,290
Basically, this has been my take on the so-called Epstein file.

Almost everything has already been made public.

The author was an AUSA for 22 years.

I highly recommend that you read the entire article at the link below.




Maybe the better question is "What happened to the rest of the "Epstein File?"



Just about everything set forth herein is nothing more than “informed speculation.”
Some is objective factual information based on documents that have already been released for one purpose or another.
Some is objective factual information based on data that is regularly collected and retained in various government data bases as a routine matter.
A massive volume of records about Jeffrey Epstein have been released over the past decade or so. Numerous civil lawsuits involving hundreds of millions of dollars — and hundreds of victims —have been litigated and settled. Criminal prosecutions and trials, with the public release of some highly enlightening evidence, have been conducted both in the trial court and at the appellate level. Freedom of Information filings have been made and responded to — not always to the satisfaction of those seeking records, but in some measure information has made its way into the public arena.
The document from which the above screenshot was taken was the flight log of an Boeing 727, Tail No. N908JE, owned by Jeffrey Epstein and nicknamed the “Lolita Express.” Part of the flight logs were published by Gawker in 2015. Almost all the files were made part of the evidence in Gislaine Maxwell’s trial in 2021. As you can see, the flight log lists passengers on the flights. These are somewhat haphazard and I do not think there is any guarantee that they are meant to be 100% accurate. This one screen shot shows the names Bill Clinton, Ron Burkle, Ira Magaziner, and several others who are well known figures in business, entertainment, and/or politics. Some entries have only initials.
...
But — in its physical manifestation — what is the “Epstein Client List”?
Ghislaine Maxwell had a “little black book” that was marked and made an exhibit in her trial. Pages from the book were shown to the jury but not displayed publicly in the courtroom. In my opinion, her “little black book” is likely of no more use than the list of contacts in a smart phone. It only tells you the names that have been included by the user, but little else of substantive value. If you are trying to prove that the phone’s owner knew another person, having that person’s name in the contacts is circumstantial evidence of that fact. But it doesn’t tell you anything about what the two might have done together.
Similarly, the fact that someone was on Epstein’s plane to/from Little St. Martin tells you they flew to/from Little St. Martin. It tells you nothing about what happened there.
In my opinion, that is all an “Epstein Client List” is going to prove. The rest will be speculation and innuendo with a complete absence of evidence of anything illegal that happened while the listed individuals were there.
...
But the absence of any substantive evidence of criminal activity by well-known members of the supposed “elite” — given the millions and millions of dollars spent investigating and suing Epstein and his estate by both the government and private parties — is the “tell” that the “Epstein Client List” which the Conspiracy Theorists pound on the table and insist it must exist really is a figment of their over-active imaginations.





 
Last edited:
Basically, this has been my take on the so-called Epstein file.

Almost everything has already been made public.

The author was an AUSA for 22 years.

I highly recommend that you read the entire article at the link below.




Maybe the better question is "What happened to the rest of the "Epstein File?"




Just about everything set forth herein is nothing more than “informed speculation.”
Some is objective factual information based on documents that have already been released for one purpose or another.
Some is objective factual information based on data that is regularly collected and retained in various government data bases as a routine matter.
A massive volume of records about Jeffrey Epstein have been released over the past decade or so. Numerous civil lawsuits involving hundreds of millions of dollars — and hundreds of victims —have been litigated and settled. Criminal prosecutions and trials, with the public release of some highly enlightening evidence, have been conducted both in the trial court and at the appellate level. Freedom of Information filings have been made and responded to — not always to the satisfaction of those seeking records, but in some measure information has made its way into the public arena.
The document from which the above screenshot was taken was the flight log of an Boeing 727, Tail No. N908JE, owned by Jeffrey Epstein and nicknamed the “Lolita Express.” Part of the flight logs were published by Gawker in 2015. Almost all the files were made part of the evidence in Gislaine Maxwell’s trial in 2021. As you can see, the flight log lists passengers on the flights. These are somewhat haphazard and I do not think there is any guarantee that they are meant to be 100% accurate. This one screen shot shows the names Bill Clinton, Ron Burkle, Ira Magaziner, and several others who are well known figures in business, entertainment, and/or politics. Some entries have only initials.
...
But — in its physical manifestation — what is the “Epstein Client List”?
Ghislaine Maxwell had a “little black book” that was marked and made an exhibit in her trial. Pages from the book were shown to the jury but not displayed publicly in the courtroom. In my opinion, her “little black book” is likely of no more use than the list of contacts in a smart phone. It only tells you the names that have been included by the user, but little else of substantive value. If you are trying to prove that the phone’s owner knew another person, having that person’s name in the contacts is circumstantial evidence of that fact. But it doesn’t tell you anything about what the two might have done together.
Similarly, the fact that someone was on Epstein’s plane to/from Little St. Martin tells you they flew to/from Little St. Martin. It tells you nothing about what happened there.
In my opinion, that is all an “Epstein Client List” is going to prove. The rest will be speculation and innuendo with a complete absence of evidence of anything illegal that happened while the listed individuals were there.
...
But the absence of any substantive evidence of criminal activity by well-known members of the supposed “elite” — given the millions and millions of dollars spent investigating and suing Epstein and his estate by both the government and private parties — is the “tell” that the “Epstein Client List” which the Conspiracy Theorists pound on the table and insist it must exist really is a figment of their over-active imaginations.





There is no “file”

But there is a lot of evidence from witnesses,photos, court records etc.
 
1753473183362.webp
 
Blondi said it was on her desk....

Was she lying?

If you had done as I suggested in the OP and read the entire piece, you would have read this 👇🏻


If that the “list” that AG Bondi had available, but about which she likely didn’t have a contextual understanding of what it actually was or where it was sourced to? She was confirmed by the Senate on February 4. She gave her response to a press question about releasing the “Epstein Client List” on February 21 — only 17 days after starting on the job. What is it that she really knew about the “file on her desk” about Epstein when she answered the question?

The best explanation for the reversal of her/DOJ/FBI on the question of what to release — and the direct and definitive statement that Epstein kept no “client list” — is that the “list” that does exist is simply a list of visitors to Little Saint James Island, but about whom there is no separate corroborating evidence that they engaged in criminal activity while there.

In other words, no açtual conclusive evidence exists that they were “clients” of an illegal sex trafficking operation run by Epstein.
 
If you had done as I suggested in the OP and read the entire piece, you would have read this 👇🏻

If that the “list” that AG Bondi had available, but about which she likely didn’t have a contextual understanding of what it actually was or where it was sourced to? She was confirmed by the Senate on February 4. She gave her response to a press question about releasing the “Epstein Client List” on February 21 — only 17 days after starting on the job. What is it that she really knew about the “file on her desk” about Epstein when she answered the question?
The best explanation for the reversal of her/DOJ/FBI on the question of what to release — and the direct and definitive statement that Epstein kept no “client list” — is that the “list” that does exist is simply a list of visitors to Little Saint James Island, but about whom there is no separate corroborating evidence that they engaged in criminal activity while there.
In other words, no açtual conclusive evidence exists that they were “clients” of an illegal sex trafficking operation run by Epstein.
Blondi says there was a file....

Was she lying or not?
 
Pretty much what I thought. Lotta hype about something no one had access to until they were in the ring....including Trump.


David Schoen, a former lawyer for Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, said Attorney General Pam Bondi and other officials “jumped the gun a bit” in overhyping the Epstein files.

Schoen in an interview with BBC “Newsnight” Thursday said there is no Epstein “client list” that would highlight connections between the disgraced financier and wealthy individuals.

“If someone were to think that there’s actually a list — which Jeffrey Epstein wrote down the name of, you fill in the name of the famous, wealthy person with some young girl — that just doesn’t exist,” he said.

He also suggested that Bondi and other officials created a hyped environment about what might be included in the files that couldn’t be matched by what was released.

Schoen was careful to not blame President Trump for overhyping the files. He said he thought Trump had called on the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FBI to release anything big they found and that the others jumped the gun in how they described what was coming.

“I think what happened is, President Trump said he’s open to the idea, and it should be disclosed if there’s any such file that hasn’t been disclosed so far. But he didn’t know what was in it,” Schoen said.

“I think that maybe some of the others, the attorney general, director of the FBI, and so on, jumped the gun a bit. They were in favor, for good reasons, of disclosing and full transparency, but they didn’t know what they had yet,” he said.

“When they saw what they had, there was no ‘smoking gun’ and therefore they said there was nothing to release of any substance. And now you see this catch-up,” Schoen said.
_______________
Schoen is far from the first person to argue the files were overhyped.

Karl Rove, republican strategist, said Thursday, “There’s hell to pay when those who hyped the conspiracy have closed the books on the case.”
_______________
On June 5, Schoen posted on social platform X, “I was hired to lead Jeffrey Epstein’s defense as his criminal lawyer 9 days before he died. He sought my advice for months before that. I can say authoritatively, unequivocally, and definitively that he had no information to hurt President Trump. I specifically asked him!”


 
Basically, this has been my take on the so-called Epstein file.

Almost everything has already been made public.

The author was an AUSA for 22 years.

I highly recommend that you read the entire article at the link below.




Maybe the better question is "What happened to the rest of the "Epstein File?"




Just about everything set forth herein is nothing more than “informed speculation.”
Some is objective factual information based on documents that have already been released for one purpose or another.
Some is objective factual information based on data that is regularly collected and retained in various government data bases as a routine matter.
A massive volume of records about Jeffrey Epstein have been released over the past decade or so. Numerous civil lawsuits involving hundreds of millions of dollars — and hundreds of victims —have been litigated and settled. Criminal prosecutions and trials, with the public release of some highly enlightening evidence, have been conducted both in the trial court and at the appellate level. Freedom of Information filings have been made and responded to — not always to the satisfaction of those seeking records, but in some measure information has made its way into the public arena.
The document from which the above screenshot was taken was the flight log of an Boeing 727, Tail No. N908JE, owned by Jeffrey Epstein and nicknamed the “Lolita Express.” Part of the flight logs were published by Gawker in 2015. Almost all the files were made part of the evidence in Gislaine Maxwell’s trial in 2021. As you can see, the flight log lists passengers on the flights. These are somewhat haphazard and I do not think there is any guarantee that they are meant to be 100% accurate. This one screen shot shows the names Bill Clinton, Ron Burkle, Ira Magaziner, and several others who are well known figures in business, entertainment, and/or politics. Some entries have only initials.
...
But — in its physical manifestation — what is the “Epstein Client List”?
Ghislaine Maxwell had a “little black book” that was marked and made an exhibit in her trial. Pages from the book were shown to the jury but not displayed publicly in the courtroom. In my opinion, her “little black book” is likely of no more use than the list of contacts in a smart phone. It only tells you the names that have been included by the user, but little else of substantive value. If you are trying to prove that the phone’s owner knew another person, having that person’s name in the contacts is circumstantial evidence of that fact. But it doesn’t tell you anything about what the two might have done together.
Similarly, the fact that someone was on Epstein’s plane to/from Little St. Martin tells you they flew to/from Little St. Martin. It tells you nothing about what happened there.
In my opinion, that is all an “Epstein Client List” is going to prove. The rest will be speculation and innuendo with a complete absence of evidence of anything illegal that happened while the listed individuals were there.
...
But the absence of any substantive evidence of criminal activity by well-known members of the supposed “elite” — given the millions and millions of dollars spent investigating and suing Epstein and his estate by both the government and private parties — is the “tell” that the “Epstein Client List” which the Conspiracy Theorists pound on the table and insist it must exist really is a figment of their over-active imaginations.





Why would the AG claim she had “it” on her desk and now claim it never existed?
 
Why would the AG claim she had “it” on her desk and now claim it never existed?

He also suggested that Bondi and other officials created a hyped environment about what might be included in the files that couldn’t be matched by what was released.
 
15th post

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom