Who was AG in 2019 and what interests were there in trying to keep a lid on everything?
Fuzzy memories and hard facts: An SC accuserâs claims against Epstein, Trump examined
https://www.postandcourier.com/news/epstein-victim-fbi-trump/article_21a2149f-f4a1-4351-9ac7-d12746f03a58.html
Fixed
[Joyce Alene][@JoyceWhiteVance]
[15h]Justice: 3 brothers (2 were among the countryâs most prominent real estate brokers) were convicted in SDNY of engaging in a yearslong conspiracy to sex traffic women and girls, some of whom were drugged before they were raped or sexually assaulted. nytimes.com/2026/03/09/nyregâŠ
[Michelle][@squirrel_nutzzz]
[14h]They were also associated with Epstein. âThe brothers appeared in the documents through a complaint from a woman who alleged she saw all three brothers at multiple parties hosted by Epstein at his New York residence when she was a teenage model.â
One of the reasons they have to be very careful releasing unredacted documents. It would be a travesty for one of these scum-buckets to get off on a technicality.
if youre a highflying real estate agent you dont need to traffic sex workers for financial reasons.
scum.
put em in prison⊠dont lock them up thoughâŠ
And a pretty convincing take here why this whole endeavour is leading nowhere ;
Exclusive: Foreign hacker in 2023 compromised Epstein files held by FBI, source and documents show
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/foreign-hacker-2023-compromised-epstein-files-held-by-fbi-source-documents-show-2026-03-11/
Sounds like a fictionâŠbut no.
https://xcancel.com/jsrailton/status/2031782626889994435
John Scott-Railton @jsrailton
7h
BREAKING: foreign hacker compromised Epstein files held by @FBI. Source describes it as cybercriminal. "included combing through certain files pertaining to the Epstein investigation.â Previously all we knew was: there was some sort of breach. By @razhael 1/
Mar 11, 2026 · 5:21 PM UTC
2/ Hacker stumbles across Epstein child abuse on FBI server. Is disgusted. Threatens to call FBI. FBI gets on video call to prove they are in fact the FBI.
3/ What an absolutely wild story. Full: reuters.com/world/us/foreignâŠ
Itâs a weird take. It leaves enough key factors for why there may not chargeable evidence that it brings into question the motivations of the writer/piece
We should acknowledge sex crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute and so it is entirely possible that investigators feel confidence of the existence of crimes but not confident on having the level of evidence necessary to get a conviction. But you cannot write this piece without serious focus on why some evidence is lacking.
- The 2007 conviction was part of a sprawling investigation including numerous coconspirators, but that broader investigation was closed as part of Epsteinâs plea deal. That deal was granted incorrectly the point that when knowledge of it came out it ended the prosecutors career (fit now only for a board seat Newsmax).
- That deal was negotiated by Dershowitz, someone himself heavily benefited from closing down additional investigations.
- Details of the deal were not known for over ten years until revealed by journalists, but which time the chances of getting a conviction from any resumed investigation are very slim.
- The DoJ (Maxwell) and State of NY (Epstein himself) picked up what they could and made cases based on what was already in the 2007 prosecution case, but the DoJ did nothing to expand itâŠa DoJ run by someone with unnerving questions about his involvement in the broader conspiracy and very tightly (inappropriately) connected to Trump and his interest. This means not even interviewing self-identified victims who had come forward and identified themselves.
People will point to Garland not doing anything as evidence there was nothing there, but Garland kind of had his hands full. There is also the reality that it is very against protocol to reopen an investigation closed under the previous administration without new evidence. Garland went to lengths to protect the DoJ as an institution given the political pressure it was under from his #1 priority. One of the ways we saw that was in a large range of cases he allowed cases he inherited to continue to their natural conclusion even when they were misaligned with his priorities. That is the flip side of the same coin to why they wouldnt have reopened the broader case.
I just dont see how this piece can be written without mentioning those things (and Im sure there are a long more similar angles Im just not remembering)
I canât find anything that might point to an agenda on behalf of the author. Any theories ?
No idea. I just dont know how you can write a âmaybe there just isnt evidence of crimesâ piece while ignoring really well known issues that got in the way of the various investigations.
Without me having to research it myself, did Dershowitz have a relationship with Epstein pre 2008 or was the 2008 timeframe the start of the relationship?
Yes. That is well documented with a close association going back a decade
All this sitting around in bathrobes too.
Looks fucking sleazy⊠