Why is Trump covering up the Epstein files while protecting pedophiles?

I respectfully disagree because of what we actually know about the case.

Based on what I've read up on the case (I encourage everyone to listen to the Journalist Julie Brown out of Miami Herald who knows this case better than anyone), Maureen Comey's SDNY team felt like the Maxwell case was extremely difficult to get a conviction on regardless of it being all out there and obvious because the case relied so heavily on victim testimony.

This was not a financial case where the money followed multiple accomplices. So they reported up to Garland and main justice that other convictions would be difficult, and the likelihood of a hung jury because of the evidence, and testimony could be seen as inconclusive due to the fact that it was 20 years old, and you might have victims not cooperating because it was so painful to keep rehashing.

Plus Maxwell if she turned on people wouldn't have been a credible witness. She has already destroyed her credibility.

Plus the AG at the time was Merrick Garland, and he was notoriously feckless, and weak. He was extremely careful, and ponderous. From what Julie Brown has said, Garland had to early on decide whether or not he would override AG Barr's decision to re-open the closed case on Epstein which would have been seen as TOO POLITICAL (ughh.... Garland was such a puss). Basically he was afraid of Barr getting angry at him for undermine his conclusions, and too afraid of FoxNews and the Republicans if he appointed a new special counsel.

That being said, based on what I've read up on I don't know if Garland, and co. really knew much more about the accomplices from a factual evidence standpoint other than what we already have seen come out in the court documents in Comey's SDNY case. Because the new evidence.... (AKA who else is in the files) relies on victims testimony about not just who flew on the plane, or was on the island (we already know that)... but knowing exactly what Bill Clinton, Trump, or Bill Gates, or whomever did to the girls.

Again... this is just based on what I know about it so maybe I'm missing something, but according to Julie Brown... the Epstein "files" is mostly victim testimony. If you want to know whats in the Epstein files you need to release that testimony, and you ultimately need those victims to testify in a court case in order to truly bring down someone like Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump.

 

And like always your typical "LOL" response. When you have nothing....

You want to prove you aren't a Trump supporter, stop compartmentalizing the facts to justify the best possible scenario for Trump, and the worst possible case for a Democrat, and instead just call a spade a spade.

Otherwise you are just another MAGA online activist whose online content is so lazy it might as well be done by AI.

 

I’m not sure what you’re disagreeing on here

Are u disagreeing that a ton of powerful people were involved and implicated?

They collected a sh*t ton of videotapes and pictures. They collected Epstein financial info which contained wire transfers totaling nearly $1 billion. The DOJ didn’t do some thorough investigation regarding who else was involved to bring others to justice. We’re supposed to believe that with all the evidence they gathered and with how extensive this pedophile operation was, there wasn’t enough there to open a case against anyone not named Epstein or Maxwell and bring it to trial?

Now we’re getting doctored jail footage of when Epstein “killed himself” and Maxwell being sent to a low security prison getaway resort. Now we’re getting what is essentially the biggest coverup of century.

 

What you’re saying is too narrow, so let’s expand on it.

The Biden administration has bent over backward to avoid exactly what you’re suggesting. Hardcore Democrats have often complained that the AG is spineless and too slow. If Trump’s name is in the "files" (it almost certainly is, though what that means varies by perspective), the AG under Biden is such a strict follower of process and ethics that he would never leak it or use it politically.

That makes your statement that follow that assumption invalid.

Here’s another angle.

The "files" either don’t exist, or don’t exist in the way Trump and the right have portrayed them for years. Only recently has the Trump camp realized they were wrong. But the story they pushed without evidence has already hardened into belief. Even if Trump admitted he was wrong, his base would not believe him. That leaves him stuck, with only a political exit as a possibility, and even that will be difficult. He lit the fire, and now there is no apparant way out.

From my perspective, there was never that "list" he portrayed. Just like there was never this apocalyptic level of chaos he described. It’s all marketing BS. And to be honest, it’s such good marketing BS that sometimes even I’m not so sure. Maybe there is that "list," and maybe he’s absolutely on it.

 

No I totally am with you on that. I'm just saying that people really don't quite understand the facts of the "why" in terms of why more accomplices of Epstein were not prosecuted. That was the part that I was like ohh... yeah lets first look at the case instead of going down that rabbit hole.

I get what you are saying about the videotapes, etc. that DOJ apparently has. But it is reported that the SDNY team that led the prosecution of Maxwell thought there was a good chance that convictions would be difficult to get moving forward if not unlikely because of the convictions (beyond a reasonable doubt) in court being so reliant on victim testimony.

That doesn't mean that I think Garland's DOJ SHOULD NOT have prosecuted anyways. I say Fck em, and still go for it. Garland was extremely weak IMO, and you don't let powerful people off the hook when you know they did sh$t like this just because you think a conviction is unlikely because of testimony.

But there's alot of people sort of assuming things that if you followed the facts of the case that we know make that assumption irrelevant.

But no your points here are accurate IMO.

 

Yeah if you look at the actual case, and not the right wing conspiracy theories it should never be portrayed as a "List".

What the DOJ has is alot of evidence that came out of multiple investigations, and 2 prosecutions. The accomplices are likely to be redacted in the court documents we see, but the evidence would shed light on who those people are. That evidence is mostly reliant on victim testimony for the purposes of bringing further indictments, and convictions.

Its not "The Epstein List"... its the Epstein Investigation Evidence, and prosecutorial future of the case.

I don't think Pam Bondi and Kash Patel should release "THE LIST"... they should appoint a unbias bi-partisan well respected special counsel to investigate, and prosecute, and Congress should appoint a bi-partisan Special Committee to independently investigate and issue a report.

This is the process that allowed us to understand what happened with the Russia intervention of 2016, and while many were unsatisfied on both sides, we do now have the evidence that gives both sides the ability to decide for themselves what happened, who committed crimes, and why others were not indicted.

Why Merrick Garland did not do that is beyond me, but I guess it was because of Maureen Comey and the SDNY's case being so reliant on witness testimony that it scared him off that the case would be viewed too much as heresay, and too political.

 

I can’t buy that 2nd paragraph…that just seems like a convenient excuse because there’s simply way too many powerful and influential people involved

much easier to just lock up Epstein who “kills himself” in prison and have Maxwell rot away in jail hoping the whole thing blows over

they didn’t put any effort into trying to charge and convict anyone else…subpoenas for phone records, computers, emails, financial info, etc of implicated people as well as bringing a bunch of them in for interviews…they didn’t do the work

this was an extensive pedophile operation, so I’m not buying that they can only muster up being almost completely reliant on witness testimony…that’s what they want us to believe, or that’s all they got because they didn’t even try

I’m not buying that weren’t capable of gathering enough evidence to bring even just 1 other person to trial and get a conviction

 

Oh I agree. As I stated later, I think Garland SHOULD HAVE still authorized them to continue to prosecute, or at worst appoint a special prosecutor who would have done all the things you mentioned.

I'm just saying that's what happened, and why they did not go further than Maxwell. Because the question keeps getting asked in a way that is meant to make a case that of course Trump cannot be in the Epstein files because of course Garland would have then prosecuted which couldn't be further from the truth.

Garland is weak and pathetic. He wasn't some pit bull prosecutor who couldn't wait to get his hands on Trump if only there was evidence of wrongdoing. Quite the opposite.

 

Why you little!!!

 

So those grand jury files the administration wants to release? They are not from an investigative grand jury. The only witnesses were two federal agents who summarized the case in about 2 hours. In ruling against the release, the judge said it would not be worth making an exception for grand jury secrecy when all of the info is already in the public realm. He also blasted the DOJ arguments.

An excerpt from a NYTimes article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/11/nyregion/jeffrey-epstein-ghislaine-maxwell-transcripts.html

 

Regardless of what you believe it's time to move. It's going nowhere. The only reason it's in the news is Trump running his mouth.