They knew what THEY did... but unless Epstein showed them the videos he made of the other pedophiles caught in the act of raping the young girls... Maxwell probably knew a lot more. I'm sure that some of the people that attended his parties and rode on his plane had only vague ideas what was really happening. If you attended more than one of his parties, went to his island, or took a ride on the "Lolita Express" more than once, you were likely a pedophile.

In the end, she was convicted of some lewd acts with, and one count of trafficking of, a minor, and her 'client' ... was Jeffery Epstein.

So, do we think Biden's DoJ was 'in on it', and didn't investigate and prosecute as thoroughly on the case as they should have? Is the supposed 'cabal of rich perverts' just SOOOOO powerful Garland's DoJ weren't able to do so? Which conspiracy theory am I meant to engage in to get around this particular inconvenient detail?

She was found guilty of recruiting and sex trafficking young girls that were sexually abused by Epstein.

Epstein was a convicted child sex offender. But he's dead.

This is not a conspiracy theory. Dozens of girls were raped by rich powerful men through Epstein.

She is scheduled to be released on 17 July 2037.

You're right, it's absolutely NOT a conspiracy theory that Maxwell and Epstein were abusing young girls. That is known fact

But: "Dozens of girls were raped by rich powerful men through Epstein." is an assertion that's far lower on the 'known fact' ladder. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I've dug pretty deep at this point, and if you look closely and objectively, there's some evidence he 'pimped out' Virginia Giuffre from 16-18 yo, but there's really not much on any other girls (except for abuse of them by Epstein and/or Maxwell). Which is bad enough don't get me wrong

Anyways, point being, what's the explanation why the 'incriminating client list' didn't come out during the Biden Administration, esp. once the Maxwell trial was over? Why were no serious legal moves made against any of those people? That's the part I struggle with. If I'm to pick up the 'coverup' banner, I'd need an explanation for the above. You're not obliged to care of my stand here, of course

She's got too much information on prominent men who have yet to be exposed as pedophiles who participated at Epstein's parties...even though some are suspected of being partakers who took off their underwear.

did as good a job as was possible in the Maxwell case. Obviously, they weren't in on it. I haven't seen a single person here suggest anything even close to such nonsense. I would hope that people would be familiar enough with our justice system -- even at the federal level -- is based upon what evidence can be introduced. It would hardly be the first case where very good people have evidence that they cannot introduce.

NOR DO I THINK THEY WERE!!! I absolutely think they did a great job. Which is actually my point here! I think if you're going to jump whole-hog on the "Bondi is covering shit up", then you kinda have to ask (if you're fair-minded), why didn't Garland release the client list, and if not, why not? Bondi is effectively doing the same thing, no?

For the purpose of this discussion, Occam's Razor suggests to me that the reason Maxwell was only ever charged with trafficking girls TO Epstein, and why both Biden and Trump's DoJ's have effectively (in former case, by the lack of certain actions) said there's no giant sex trafficking conspiracy, just a couple of sick perverts ... is *likely* to be because there was not a giant sex trafficking conspiracy. It is also more logical, if Bondi is engaged in such a conspiracy to cover that up, to have simply said nothing, never brought Epstein up again. Right?

Because it'll would be viewed as untoward, I won't go into the reasons why, IMHO, I believe the evidence for claims of 'dozens of girls' and 'dozens of rich/powerful men' is just not strong at all. If you want to know why I question this narrative, ask me, and I'll DM you.

Regardless, IMHO it's much more accurate to say it may be true, than to say you know it's true, and you know it's all being covered up.

several times in the past couple days, there is no "list." The files involving Epstein are in a position that they can't be released. This includes the administration's hopes they could release selective information.

to lots of rich and powerful men (AND who all know who one another are, as suggested by the OP here) is not substantiated by any strong evidence. And if as you say Bondi was never in a position to release the docs legally, then why is it simultaneously assumed she's just decided to not do so for some nefarious reason linked to the giant powerful pedo cabal? I mean, per you, we know why she's not, and it's because she can't. Right? What you're saying right here means there's LESS evidence for what many people are saying, rather than more, if you follow me?

I will respectfully disagree with you conclusion about there being less. I'm merely saying Bondi does not have access to it. And even with what she does, she couldn't release it. For it is photographs and video of adult men having sex with underaged girls. Any thought of that being released seems extremely unlikely.

If the written files are the issue, they do not belong to the DOJ, or to the United States alone. Not that the general public would have a clue as to what they are seeing. The reactions to the Steele dossier's raw intelligence being a case in point.

You believe with 100% certainty that there exists in the FBI's possession "photographs and video of adult men having sex with underaged girls", and you KNOW some of them are not Epstein (or Maxwell)? I'd ask how, but lets just assume you do know it for the sake of conversation.

So, you know that, but at the same time, you don't understand why I'd say if such video does exist, that Biden's DoJ was remiss in not pursuing this absolutely, dyed-in-the-wool, GOLD STANDARD evidence, when prosecuting Maxwell for trafficking? They stuck to only charging her with trafficking girls to Epstein ... WHY?

I'm sorry but I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place advocating for the idea the Bondi's apparent 'refusal to release the list/files/whatever' (which as you say, is not actually a decision she has the power to make) is *new proof* of anything. Because I feel like if it is, it also impugns (by lack of action) Biden's DoJ, and this is a big part of why I resist this idea, if that makes sense? These don't reconcile for me, and what you just said about the videos makes them reconcile even less.

My way out of that conundrum (may not be one to you, but it is to me) is to conclude we actually know zero more about this case now than we did a month ago. OTHER than that Trump clearly wants the world to 'move on, nothing to see here' type of thing. Which could be for a few reasons, only one of which is that there exists evidence he was availing himself of Epstein's 'on the younger side' girls. I would NOT BE SURPRISED if he was, to be clear, he was good friends with Epstein at one time, and it certainly seems in character for him, and he was sued in I think 2016 by an at-the-time 13 yo girl for raping her years before, with Epstein present?

So, totally possible, even likely, but we have no additional proof of that, or of any child-trafficking pedo cabal, than we did before Bondi opened her mouth. And if she couldn't release any files even if she wanted to, what she said recently means even less in that regard. Put another way, it would be more meaningful if she could have released them, but decided not to.

find the news reports from NYC on July 6, 2019, the day that Epstein was arrested. Law enforcement was seen carrying out enormous amounts of what some told reporters were photographs and videos that recorded people -- not limited to him -- in sexually compromsing situations. It's not a matter of what I "believe" -- a curious description on your part.

Epstein and/or Maxwell being in explicit videos with Epstein's victims, since you are the one making the assertion? I tried, and didn't find any. I also scanned his 2019 indictment, and it's only about his own abuse of minor girls. Similarly, so was Maxwell's prosecution.

Besides googling, I also asked ChatGPT this question: "In NYC on July 6, 2019 evidence was removed from Epstein's homes including explicit photos and videos. Did any person in authority claim at the time that there were explicit videos of people other than Epstein and/or Maxwell engaging in sex acts with any of Epstein's alleged victims?"

Then I asked if there's anything more casual, like LEO offhandedly claiming such a thing to a reporter that day or shortly after.



As I've been saying, many people's beliefs re: the evidence of a child prostitution ring to the rich and powerful is not as strong as they may recall.

Obviously there was no "official conffirmation." Are you serious?

" Law enforcement was seen carrying out enormous amounts of what some told reporters"

An LEO is an official source, however, see my follow-up question, clarifying if there was ANY news report AT ALL like what you stated. ChatGPT still says no.

Your original admonishment suggested I'd find this evidence if I just looked. So, I looked, and found nothing of the kind, official OR unofficial.

So again, I'm asking you to back your claim that you are SURE there are videos removed from Epstein's residence of 'adult men having sex with girls' that are not Epstein, because it is the basis for this continued discussion. You will (I'm 95% sure) find that it's actually your recollection that is faulty. Most people's is when it comes to this subject. That's my point. Along with my assertion that if there were such videos, Biden's DoJ would've pursued the people in them. Maybe I'm being stubborn because I don't WANT to believe they would not have, but I don't think that's it.

But there would probably have to be other evidence linking the person, such as names in a list, pictures, etc.

But they didn't do that. My guess is because she and Epstein did this for themselves. No broad ring of celebrities having sex with underage girls. It just so happened that Epstein had a lot of celebrity friends (or at least acquaintances) and he also had a thing for underage girls. The two can be mutually exclusive.

If Trump had won 2020 and the current date was 7/14/2021, and this same thing had happened? If there was no Biden Admin, and no prosecution of Maxwell, and Trump's AG had come out with this? OMFG, I would likely be in the boat with so many other DU'ers about how I interpreted this action! But it's not, so I struggle with adopting the view that Bondi is lying about the 'client list' to protect Trump and other sex criminals. Doing so logically requires that I explain (to myself at least), if such evidence exists, why the hell didn't we hear about it for 4 years, and why was Maxwell only charged with trafficking a couple girls to Epstein and nobody else?

To me in totality Occam's Razor suggests that while the evidence of Epstein and Maxwell's terrible deeds with minors are irrefutable, the evidence for a pedo cabal of rich perverts that they were 'supplying with product' is conversely much weaker than many people suppose. That latter part, specifically, is what I think is fairly labeled 'a conspiracy theory'.

But i would say that rarely happens. It would have been a huge risk for him. His friends were all about money. The money allowed him to live his life.

Likewise in my consideration is the fact that in 2022, Virginia Giuffre ( ) and Dershowitz dropped their mutual defamation cases against each other, with no money exchanged, with Giuffre essentially recanting her earlier testimony that she'd been forced to have sex with Dershowitz (about 6 times), with the explanation of 'I was under so much stress at the time, I may have gotten him confused with someone else'. Which is understandable, I'm not blaming her, but her claim of such involvement by Dersh was a big component of the original 'pimp to the rich and powerful' storyline. Then that basis became much more shaky, but almost nobody knows about that development. Or I imagine some have a CT about that, too

That would seem to be a group that Epstein would not be interested in. We do well to think of J. Edgar Hoover's files, which while including some celebrities, were rooted in his concerns about their political activities. The "beautiful people" were of far, far less importance to Hoover than having information on politicians' sex lives. Epstein's activities included a focus on politicians from around the globe.

on "celebrities" is misplaced. I'm reminded of when the Stelle dossier came out, and lots of people -- including on this forum -- were focused on the least likely and important part .... the bit about Russian prostitutes.

As I have correctly noted several times in the past 48 hours, Epstein documented two things of actual interest regarding the felon. First, early on, in part to earn the felon's trust, he showed him a way to avoid paying taxes. That's not really a big deal compared to his helping to document the felon's laundering Russian money, i.e. the Florida mansion that I discussed.

Biden appointed Merrick Garland -- that was the extent of his primary involvement with the DOJ. And we know what a failure Garland turned out to be.

And it's no surprise that primarily the same DOJ that screwed Hillary and slow-walked the Trump investigations ended up quickly pulling a "catch and kill" to do away with all things Epstein-related under Trump.

The dead Epstein. Not sure what we're complaining about here?

People usually prosecute the slam dunk evidence in cases and the Epstein angle was overwhelming.

Alan Dershowitz detonated a legal hand-grenade on live TV:

“I know for a fact Epstein documents are being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names, I know who’s suppressing them, but a judge’s order silences me. Hand

Link to tweet

?s=46&t=YZgyyp4w_z7vW3neKxa6cQ

From an account regarding this interview:

What he's likely referring to are his grievances re: Giuffre's accusations (which she recanted in 2022), and the fact that it was made difficult for him to defend himself against her claims because so much is/was under seal. He's also probably talking about her lawyer David Boies, who he accused at the time of the defamation cases (2019 iirc) of being the architect (more or less) of Giuffre's claims about the 'pedophile prostitution ring' when he took on her case and together they tried to sue some Victoria's Secret guy for hundreds of millions, and she made her claims about Dersh.

The conspiracy, if you will, that's under wraps is one in his own mind, wherein Giuffre and her attorney Boies concocted these "Epstein the Pimp" stories late in the game, and went after rich people associated with Epstein for money. Mark my words, there will always be SOME reason he can't personally spill the beans about some 'client list', whether there is one or not, whether he knows who's on it or not.

He thinks that if the 'truth were all out', the conclusion by everyone would be that Giuffre and Boies are liars and extortionists, and he is a choir boy. Not kidding. This is not new stuff coming from him, it's only the timing that is interesting.