The Epstein Case: Why I Believe We Are Getting The Truth

I know many, many people are deeply disappointed by the fact that the DOJ and FBI just announced that the Epstein case is essentially closed: that he killed himself, that there is no Epstein List, and that it’s pretty much the end of the process. I get it. Jeffrey Epstein was a total and complete piece of human debris, a predatory criminal who inflicted unspeakable harm on vulnerable underage girls, and he deserved far worse than he got.

But that doesn’t mean that the Trump administration is lying. It doesn’t mean all our questions are answered, or that evidence has been provided to answer them.

But here’s my deal: if Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, JD Vance and Donald Trump told me today that after looking at all the evidence, it turns out Epstein was a Mossad agent who trafficked young girls in order to blackmail prominent people, I’d believe them, because they saw the evidence. I haven’t.

But that’s not what they’re telling me.

So why do I believe them? Because they asked the same exact questions the rest of us did. They wanted the same exact answers.

So, here’s the deal: It’s our job to follow the evidence, or lack thereof, wherever it leads. I don’t have more evidence today that answers my questions than I did yesterday – except that I have the word of people I trust who do. I didn’t suddenly gain access to more information. But Dan, Kash, Pam, JD Vance, and Trump did.

Kash Patel and Dan Bongino were among the loudest voices demanding the truth about Epstein. They, like many of us, strongly suspected a cover-up in Epstein’s death and hoped for a bombshell revelation. These guys were never shills for the establishment – they built their reputations by challenging it.

Dan Bongino has been a stalwart defender of truth and transparency. He’s the guy who’s been on the front lines exposing the Russia hoax, the guy who’s been calling out the weaponization of federal agencies, the guy who’s been consistently right about institutional corruption. When someone like that tells you he’s reviewed the entire file and that Epstein killed himself, shouldn’t that carry some weight? Shouldn’t we extend the benefit of the doubt to people who have earned our trust through years of principled stands?

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

And Kash Patel – this is someone who worked inside the system, who saw the deep state machinations firsthand, who helped expose the FISA abuses and the corruption at the highest levels of government. These aren’t establishment apologists. These are people who have put their careers on the line to expose uncomfortable truths. So when they, along with JD Vance, Pam Bondi, and President Trump, who all operated under the exact same assumptions, tell us that the evidence doesn’t support the conspiracy theories we’ve been entertaining, maybe – just maybe – we should listen.

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show

Again, I understand the skepticism. After years of being lied to by the media, after seeing how institutions have been weaponized against conservatives, our default position has become one of suspicion. And that’s not entirely unreasonable. But here’s what should separate the rational from the irrational: to follow the evidence where it leads, even when it’s uncomfortable, and even or especially when it contradicts our preconceived notions.

And, again, if one day, legitimate evidence emerges that this was a coordinated cover-up and a genuine conspiracy orchestrated by this administration — I’ll be the first to come out and say I got it wrong and they lied. When new evidence emerges, I change my opinion.

That’s what it means to follow the facts.

I understand this is a tough pill to swallow. I really do. We were all making assumptions in similar ways about Jeffrey Epstein. But so were the members of the Trump administration until they saw what we haven’t seen.

For years, we’ve been operating under the collective belief that there were some mysteries to be solved here. The narrative was compelling; it made sense given the evil nature of the crimes at play.

But here’s the thing – and this is where we need to separate emotion from evidence – the facts are what the facts are. The FBI has concluded its investigation. The Justice Department has released its findings. Multiple independent investigations have all reached the same conclusion: Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, and there is no evidence of a client list.

So, let’s go back through this case and examine the legitimate questions – and there were legitimate questions. And then let’s discuss the possibilities rationally, knowing what we know.

Joe Schildhorn/Patrick McMullan via Getty Images

WHAT WERE THE ALLEGATIONS?

Ghislaine Maxwell: The Facts

She was convicted for her role in recruiting, grooming, and trafficking underage girls for the sexual abuse of Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein was identified as the main perpetrator.

So, Who Alleged the Involvement of Third Parties?

Virginia Giuffre: She claimed that Maxwell and Epstein told her to have sex with Epstein’s powerful friends and associates, including Prince Andrew, Senator George Mitchell, and Alan Dershowitz. She provided zero supporting evidence of these allegations about anyone but Epstein and Prince Andrew, who appeared in a photo with Giuffre and Maxwell in London. Prince Andrew settled a civil lawsuit and did not admit guilt. She had credibility problems: she apparently changed her details many times, including even her age when she met Epstein. She gave a deposition in 2016 in which she contradicted earlier statements about interactions with individuals, including her allegations that she had not been in a helicopter with Bill Clinton. She also dropped her claims against Dershowitz, saying she may have erred. Prosecutors didn’t even include her allegations in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell.

Emily Michot/Miami Herald/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Sarah Ransome: She alleged that Maxwell and Epstein trafficked girls to Epstein’s “colleagues” and powerful men, including Clinton, Trump, and Richard Branson. She provided no evidence to support the allegations. She sued Epstein and Maxwell, and settled out of court. She claimed that she was sexually trafficked when she was 22, that she was threatened, and her passport was removed.

Johanna Sjoberg: She testified about being present with Giuffre, Prince Andrew, and Maxwell, and said Prince Andrew acted inappropriately, but she didn’t allege that Maxwell trafficked her to third parties.

Why Did Epstein Settle His Original Criminal Case in 2008? 

Originally, he settled under a non-prosecution agreement, after facing a 53-page federal indictment for sexually abusing dozens of underage girls. Prosecutors instead pursued solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution. The non-prosecution agreement (NPA) didn’t just protect Epstein, it protected four named co-conspirators and any unnamed co-conspirators. He served only 13 months in county jail, much of it on work release.

Acosta and his team believed that Epstein registering as a sex offender was better than running through a trial that may have ended the way P. Diddy’s case did. He claimed that it would have put underage girls through trauma.

Multiple Department of Justice reviews found no evidence that Acosta’s decision was motivated by corruption, Epstein’s wealth, status, or associations. The DOJ concluded that Acosta exercised “poor judgment” but did not commit professional misconduct or act under improper influence.

Is There Any Evidence Epstein Was An Intelligence Asset?

Then-US Attorney Alexander Acosta allegedly claimed that he was told by higher officials that Epstein was “of importance to the government” and to “leave it alone.” Acosta apparently decided to resolve the case through a plea arrangement before the federal investigation had concluded. Acosta, when asked if Epstein “belonged to intelligence,” refused to comment, citing DOJ guidelines. He never publicly made this allegation. He actually said, “There has been reporting to that effect. And let me say, there’s been report to a lot of effects in this case. Not just now but over the years. And again, I would, I would hesitate to take this reporting as fact.”

Zero governments, U.S. or otherwise, have acknowledged Epstein as an intelligence asset.

Epstein’s properties were wired with hidden cameras, and witnesses reported surveillance footage monitored and stored.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, allegedly had ties to Israeli intelligence.

Epstein had an Austrian passport with a false name as well as a Saudi address, and worked with Adnan Khashoggi, a known arms dealer and intelligence asset. 

How Did Epstein Make His Money?

He started working at Bear Stearns in the 1970s and became a limited partner by 1980. He then founded a consulting firm called the International Assets Group/Intercontinental Assets Group, which claimed to recover stolen money for wealthy clients. He worked with Steven Hoffenberg at the Towers Financial Corporation, which later was exposed as a Ponzi scheme. It’s not clear how involved he was. He then founded the Financial Trust Company, which had essentially one client – Leslie Wexner, of Victoria’s Secret fame – which was the basis for his wealth. Wexner later accused Epstein of misappropriating vast sums of money for personal use. He also received $158M from Leon Black for tax and estate planning services.

Deutsche Bank was fined $150 million for compliance failures related to Epstein; JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank settled lawsuits alleging that they benefitted from his illegal activities.

Did Epstein Kill Himself?

The DOJ has run multiple investigations and found that Epstein killed himself.

The DOJ and Bureau of Prisons stated that the missing minute of tape is a recurring technical artifact: the video system resets at midnight every night.

The camera angle didn’t include Epstein’s cell because two other cameras malfunctioned. Available footage, according to the DOJ, would have covered anyone going in or out.

Again, I don’t know the answers to all the questions. But I know people who have far more access to evidence than I do. I know them personally. Maybe they’re all lying to me. Maybe they’re all in on it.

But here’s the thing: if they told me the opposite, I’d believe them. So, here’s what should happen next: a full report from the FBI and DOJ explaining just why they came to the conclusions they did. One that answers our questions as fully as possible – and explains what they don’t know, either. More transparency is a good thing.

But in the meantime, I’m not going to call all of these people liars or suggest they’re victims of an op or running one. Because I have no evidence for that.

And when the evidence changes, I change my position.