Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

snot

(11,207 posts)
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 07:42 PM Friday

Epstein: Some Loose Ends and Implications

Sorry if this is a bit of a rant, but I'm trying to summarize a few loose Epstein ends and spell out a few implications.

“Dr. Kristin Roman, a medical examiner for New York City who conducted the autopsy that Dr. Baden observed, at first did not classify the death as a suicide and listed the manner of death as ‘pending.’ A few days later, Dr. Sampson said she had reviewed additional evidence and changed the ruling to suicide.” — https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jeffrey-epstein-autopsy-a-closer-look-60-minutes-2020-01-05/ . What was Dr. Sampson’s “additional evidence”?

Sampson and Baden, who actually examined Epstein’s body, reached differing conclusions as to how he died, but they've agreed that in order to be sure, they would need to see the photo that should have been taken showing Epstein’s location and position when found. Is there any such photo, and if so, where is it? Granted that Epstein was cut down in case he was still alive, but once it became clear that he was dead, shouldn’t it pretty obviously have been treated as a suspicious death – if only to ward off “conspiracy theories,” goven the level of public interest in this case – with an effort made to document the scene, including the body, before it was moved any more than necessary?

The noose that allegedly killed Epstein was supposedly torn from a sheet or uniform; and more than one noose was found in his cell. There were extra sheets found in Epstein’s cell as well as an extra mattress (for which I've seen no explanation). More than one noose was also found in the cell, and there’s controversy over which, if any of them, was the one actually used in Epstein’s demise; that question shouldn’t have been hard to resolve, and the fact that it is, is odd in itself. Beyond that, was any effort made to confirm which if any of the sheets and clothing found in the cell the noose was actually fashioned from (see https://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-epsteins-suicide-new-details-revealed/story?id=100405667 )? If not, why not?

Where are the results of the DNA tests on the noose, which it was believed might help confirm whether anyone besides Epstein had used it in causing his death?

Is it true that Epstein was overheard berating himself for cowardice before his death (if so, that would seem to me to support suicide).

As far as I've seen, neither Biden’s nor Trump’s admins (and scarcely anyone defending either of them) has addressed Alex Acosta’s explanation for why Epstein received such a sweetheart deal the first time he was charged with trafficking minors – i.e., Acosta’s statement that he’d been told that Epstein was part of “intel” and to leave the case alone. Either Acosta was telling a truth that both Biden’s and Trump’s admins apparently prefer to pretend has never been mentioned or, if Acosta lied in order to excuse/cover up his own screw-up in failing to adequately prosecute a horrific sex criminal, why hasn’t either admin said so? Why has Acosta instead been rewarded with even more important positions?

It’s been 6 years since the FBI raided Epstein’s mansions on “Pedo Island,” in Manhattan, & elsewhere, reportedly taking possession of tons of videos and records; and one might have thought that, for multiple reasons, nearly the first thing they’d have done next is to look at those that might incriminate Epstein’s alleged “clients.” Not only might such evidence (1) make possible the prosecution of other sex criminals, but it might also (2) enable the feds to leverage additional suspects to testify against one another and perhaps reveal still other crimes and potential criminals, (3) thus perhaps aiding in the prosecution of Epstein and Maxwell AND (4) in securing convections against additional offenders and preventing further abuse; AND, arguably at least as importantly, such evidence might have revealed (5) which governmental officials or other important people might have been subjected to blackmail, possibly paid in political or other favors as well as cash (don’t we have a right to know which decisions made by our government were made for corrupt reasons?), (6) AND whether such blackmail served not only Epstein but also any domestic and/or foreign intel agencies, possibly leading to convictions for treason.

So I find it hard to imagine an innocent explanation for why, during that 6 year delay, we first heard little or nothing from the Biden admin about the progress of the investigation, certainly nothing that might actually incriminate anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell, and then were suddenly told by the Trump admin that there was nothing to see.

(The Trump admin’s various statements and tweets about the Epstein case have merely made any possible innocent explanations seem even more implausible. If the videos taken into evidence contained nothing but porn downloaded by Epstein from the internet, why were he and Maxwell charged with trafficking minors, and what was the point of all the cameras in Epstein’s mansions? If there there was “nothing to see” in the files, how can they be a “hoax”? If there were in fact either legit or hoaxed materials that might have been used against either Trump or other Republicans but not any Dems, why didn’t the Dems use them during Biden’s term? If the materials, whether legit or hoaxed, would tend to incriminate Dems but not any Republicans, are we really to believe that Trump wouldn’t use them somehow?)

(Nevermind the relatively mountainous testimony of some of the victims trafficked, and all the other suspicious deaths or disappearances of individuals involved in this case.)

The ONLY explanations that make any sense to me are that (1) at least some of BOTH Republicans and Dems – and/or their important patrons – were in fact involved in the abuse, leading to a Mexican stand-off; and/or (2) those in possession of the evidence incriminating Epstein’s various clients aren't prosecuting them because they want to be able to continue to use it to manipulate said clients, and they won’t be able to do that if all the beans are spilled. Meaning that either at least some Dems AND Republicans (or their patrons) either ARE sex offenders whose secret crimes may well have been used to induce them to act in betrayal of their proper constituencies, AND/OR both Dems AND Republicans are blackmailers who may have used the evidence to induce such betrayals and/or hope to continue to do so.

Note, I do not mean to smear all Dems or all Republicans. I just find it difficult to make sense of this history unless there are at least a few important rotten apples on both sides.


3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Epstein: Some Loose Ends and Implications (Original Post) snot Friday OP
What I have read is that there wasn't anything implicating the top two; Clinton and Trump chowder66 Friday #1
A few questions: snot Saturday #2
My response.... chowder66 Saturday #3

chowder66

(10,982 posts)
1. What I have read is that there wasn't anything implicating the top two; Clinton and Trump
Fri Jul 18, 2025, 08:04 PM
Friday

Neither one of them was implicated by Guiffre's lawsuit.

Anything else that hasn't been unsealed is because there are still active legal issues.
If there are other crimes that have been committed then those may be why some of the documents are still under wraps.

Some of the documents that might be able to be unsealed need to be redacted to protect the victims and there are quite a bit of legal issues that have to be met in order to release them.

I can't see why the Biden Admin or Democrats would have gotten involved in an outside case unless there was a 100% proven reason to.
There doesn't seem to be one.
The Dems didn't politicize an outside legal issue in any significant way. Why would they?
The Repubs DID politicize it up the whazoo!

I don't think there is something nefarious covering up for Democrats. Democrats call out their own and hold theirs accountable.

P.S. I haven't read a ton on this so please feel free to educate me. What I have posted is just my barely informed and superficial view on all of this.

snot

(11,207 posts)
2. A few questions:
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 11:39 AM
Saturday

No one disputes that Epstein hosted frequent sex parties that were attended by many powerful people including Democratic politicians and patrons. There were hundreds of victims, not one of whom has ever been found to have lied and perhaps the most prominent of whom – Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew and others as well as Epstein – is now dead (along with other Epstein-associates' "suicides," e.g., Jean Luc Brunel and Steven Hoffenberg; and Mark Middleton, a former special advisor to Pres. Clinton with ties to Epstein was found hanging from a noose with a shotgun blast through his chest). No one seriously believes that Epstein and Maxwell were the only abusers (if they were, why not be more discreet about it; why were their victims rolled out at parties like a dessert cart?)

As for whether any Democrats were involved, if Epstein was in fact operating a blackmail operation, wouldn't he have wanted to ensnare clients from across the political spectrum? Why did Pres. Clinton visit Epstein's island four times? How could he not have known of Epstein's predilections, as he claimed? And he wasn't the only Democrat associating with Epstein.

The key question for me re- the Democrats is, however, why did we hear almost nothing from them about the Epstein case during the four years of the Biden admin – especially if the only abusers were Republicans? Why not go ahead and prosecute them? Sure, we all want to protect the victims, but a number of them were already pursuing claims publicly (much of what info we do have was obtained through their law suits), and the names of other victims could have been redacted. Why didn't the DoJ at least follow the money to track down where Epstein's enormous wealth came from?

Why was Maxwell never offered a plea deal in exchange for her testimony, why was she never even questioned about any alleged "clients"? (See https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ghislaine-maxwell-wants-to-testify-before-congress-about-epstein-files-source-claims-she-would-welcome-the-chance-to-tell-the-truth/ar-AA1IzHmR .)

I believe that the more carefully you look into this matter, the more concerned you'll feel.

I'm afraid I don't believe that Dems have always called out their own – indeed, it seems to me that they've only done it vis a vis Dem politicians who are either too old and decrepit to be of political consequence or who are seen as too successfully progressive (e.g., Al Franken). (I see the Republicans as similar in this regard, calling out Republican politicians only if they're either politically inconsequential or they aren't toeing the establishment party line.)


chowder66

(10,982 posts)
3. My response....
Sat Jul 19, 2025, 04:36 PM
Saturday

Thank you for your thoughts and questions. I've looked into quite a bit today and I'll do my best to respond.

No one disputes that Epstein hosted frequent sex parties that were attended by many powerful people including Democratic politicians and patrons.

I really am not seeing what you're seeing. Which democratic politicians and where is the proof? There is so much out there and none seems to be backed up so I really don't know what you are referring to.

There were hundreds of victims, not one of whom has ever been found to have lied and perhaps the most prominent of whom – Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew and others as well as Epstein – is now dead (along with other Epstein-associates' "suicides," e.g., Jean Luc Brunel and Steven Hoffenberg; and Mark Middleton, a former special advisor to Pres. Clinton with ties to Epstein was found hanging from a noose with a shotgun blast through his chest).

I will not call victims liars but Giuffre did say she was mistaken about Dershowitz and she changed her story on the Clinton island visit accusation after she told several different stories. Trauma can cause memory issues, trauma inside of a chaotic lifestyle can cause even more, add alcohol and/or drugs and other peoples experiences similar to your own you are bound to get some things mixed up or flat out wrong.

Mark Middleton, killed himself. Yes, it was a dramatic suicide but his family revealed he had problems with depression. His suicide came 21 years after he worked with Bill Clinton. Epstein was a fairly big Democratic donor at the time and weasled his way into politics and celebrity circles.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/feb/23/facebook-posts/former-clinton-white-house-aide-wasnt-murdered/


No one seriously believes that Epstein and Maxwell were the only abusers (if they were, why not be more discreet about it; why were their victims rolled out at parties like a dessert cart?)

Of course not but no one is interested in Mr. Smith that lives in the penthouse on such and such Avenue who owns 5 hardware stores. The victims really keep getting lost in a lot of reporting because the focus is on the Big names. I understand the hoopla right now because the Republicans brought this on themselves but overall it keeps coming around to the famous names.

As for whether any Democrats were involved, if Epstein was in fact operating a blackmail operation, wouldn't he have wanted to ensnare clients from across the political spectrum? Why did Pres. Clinton visit Epstein's island four times? How could he not have known of Epstein's predilections, as he claimed? And he wasn't the only Democrat associating with Epstein.

There is no proof that Clinton visited the island and Giuffre backtracked on that saying she didn't actually see him there. She then said it was based on what Ghislaine said and she goes on to say the Ghislaine made shit up. I would not put it past Epstein to "try" to ensnare Clinton but from everything I have examined, it didn't work. His world was situated around modeling, travel, clubbing. I think people were more apolitical or moderate in his heydays.

The key question for me re- the Democrats is, however, why did we hear almost nothing from them about the Epstein case during the four years of the Biden admin – especially if the only abusers were Republicans?

I can't answer that but what comes to mind is that they were psycho-busy with putting out the fires from the previous administration. The legal process was grinding away, Epstein had died, Maxwell went to prison and there may have been other investigations in the works. I'm pretty sure it just wasn't their highest priority.

Why not go ahead and prosecute them?

You have to have proof. Not every victim is going to want to testify and Guiffree wasn't the only one. Some of the victims would not hold up under the pressure either.

Sure, we all want to protect the victims, but a number of them were already pursuing claims publicly (much of what info we do have was obtained through their law suits), and the names of other victims could have been redacted. Why didn't the DoJ at least follow the money to track down where Epstein's enormous wealth came from?

Ask Bill Barr. Ask Pam Bondi. It would be great to be able to hear what Maurene Comey knew but I doubt she would speak about it other than in general terms (because she will want to get another job someday).

Why was Maxwell never offered a plea deal in exchange for her testimony, why was she never even questioned about any alleged "clients"? (See https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ghislaine-maxwell-wants-to-testify-before-congress-about-epstein-files-source-claims-she-would-welcome-the-chance-to-tell-the-truth/ar-AA1IzHmR .)

Maxwell was not offered a plea deal because the prosecution felt they didn't need one. They felt they had enough to put her away and get a good sentence.

They most likely didn't want to complicate the proceedings which could have seen a much different outcome for Maxwell. They may have also not had enough evidence regarding other abusers. This is typical for big complicated cases. They did get some justice for the victims this way. I think this was on a lot of peoples minds after Epstein died.

I believe that the more carefully you look into this matter, the more concerned you'll feel.

Who says I'm not concerned? What I'm concerned about (at this time) is the glut of crap information flooding the news. People need to think about things and ask questions..... saying "Ok, that sounds salacious and therefore it must be true!" isn't doing anyone any favors. It just keeps the rumors spreading and the conspiracy peddlers cash positive.

I'm afraid I don't believe that Dems have always called out their own – indeed, it seems to me that they've only done it vis a vis Dem politicians who are either too old and decrepit to be of political consequence or who are seen as too successfully progressive (e.g., Al Franken). (I see the Republicans as similar in this regard, calling out Republican politicians only if they're either politically inconsequential or they aren't toeing the establishment party line.)

Democrats really are pretty good at holding our own accountable and I would think they would be a bit gun shy about going after anyone without proof (especially over this scandal) after the Al Franken fiasco. The only big name that I can recall that has any real evidence of wrong doing so far was Prince Andrew and even that got settled out of court.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Epstein: Some Loose Ends ...