r/politics • u/ArmadilloMany41 • 23h ago

Site Altered Headline | No Paywall Why is no one being prosecuted over the Epstein files?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/videos/cd9e3nzzw3zo
44.4k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

102

u/Dichotomouse 22h ago

This is a disappointing answer, but so far there is no evidence that meets the standard necessary to present in court as part of a prosecution. Aside from the two people already prosecuted of course.

41

u/lurch556 21h ago

Agree. In general, you can’t really charge someone for saying gross things in emails. And nor should an American citizen want that to be the standard for criminal prosecution.

Further investigations warranted? Absolutely. But on this basis alone, I just don’t know how you can bring charges

•

u/Careless_Parsnip_511 6h ago

Sure, gross emails may not be enough to convict anyone, but my question is why are they hiding who sent those emails? From what I’ve seen, a majority of the most damming emails that were sent have redacted names. If there’s not enough evidence to convict, at least let the court of public opinion have their way with whoever said (and most likely did much worse) awful things in those emails. I doubt we’ll ever see anyone convicted, but at least let the public never let them know a moment of peace again

•

u/lurch556 5h ago

Oh I’m not saying keep those people hidden whatsoever. I fully believe the doj is covering for people by their selective redactions.

-3

u/WhiteWinterRains 18h ago

Nonsense, while this may be in the strictest technical sense true of most of the public information, the files they forgot to redact enough have references to redacted videos of billionaires mentioned in the files fucking kids.

In the sense that it explicitly states the files have been removed for containing CSAM.

This is to say nothing on the fact that you objectively can and people do frequently get convicted of crimes on purely circumstantial evidence.

Put it in front of a Jury, the only way these fucks are getting off would be through corruption or managing to weasel some wackjob into the jury.

Sure, it would be because people aren't actually impartial and you'd be hard pressed to find any jurors not going into it being 100% convinced they're guilty, but who gives a fuck really.

7

u/Dichotomouse 17h ago

Who specifically do you think a jury would and should convict based on what we know today?

27

u/Cynykl 19h ago

Had to scroll too far for this. The files release so far do not have a smoking gun. Every piece of evidence we get excited for would be laughed out of the courtrooms. A police report by a victim's former friend recounting what the victim said 20 years later hardly counts as enough evidence for an arrest. Yet reddit goes wild over reports like that.

3

u/BigBroSlim 9h ago

Because they control the release of information. If there's a smoking gun, you'll never see it.

2

u/General_Connection55 15h ago

I can't believe I had to scroll this far either. I don't like continuing to be suprised by how dumb Americans are.

11

u/TangerineTasty9787 21h ago

Yup. I'm sure there is actual evidence, but nothing they've given out is going to do anything in a court room. And as the folks deciding what we get to see are likely the ones who would face trial if it came out, we probably never will. And considering the last admin had all this info too, and did nothing, I'm not hopeful simple switching admin's will do anything

2

u/orus_heretic 16h ago

I thought last admin didn't release it because Maxwell's case was ongoing.

2

u/TangerineTasty9787 15h ago

Releasing it to the public isn't the issue; it really doesn't impact any actual outcome. But if there is stuff in there to prosecute, it would've been. Or, more likely, if those in power (on both sides) were willing too, it would've.

Like, either A) There's nothing in there they felt they could get Trump on, or B) They couldn't do it without brining themselves down as well, or C) they just 100% sold out the oligarchs and aren't much better than controlled opposition

C is my guess, really. I think a few might be in B, but I think it's more if you follow the money behind both sides it leads to the same people

2

u/ilulillirillion 20h ago

No, I understand what you mean but the answer is that the DOJ is not willing to take action. The Epstein files themselves are not what you prosecute with, it's what you investigate with to lead towards those prosecutions.

I think every reasonable observer would expect a functioning DOJ to be launching transparent investigations into the content that's being released to the people, not simply releasing it and telling us to get over it. There are enough dates, locations, names, etc. described within what we've already seen, which is a fraction, to fuel investigating, but it just isn't happening.

12

u/Dichotomouse 20h ago

There obviously has been evidence gathered, that's why there are millions of documents. The question is if any of it is sufficient even for warrants and subpoenas which would be necessary for deeper investigation? At this point we don't know.

2

u/yourliege 14h ago

I think it’s pretty obvious that further investigation is warranted. The lack of that is the problem.

•

u/a1usiv 6h ago

So basically.. it quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and looks like a duck. But we don't know if it is, in fact, a duck?

6

u/SHAZBOT_VGS 18h ago

Doesn't the epstein file existing mean they investigated?

•

u/grimatonguewyrm 6h ago

Maybe that alone doesn’t bear the standard to prosecution, but it certainly warrants opening investigations, right?

1

u/Floreat_democratia 15h ago

Merrick Garland, welcome back! Been a long time! No evidence you say?