The Epstein Files

1. 86

   My Esotericposted 11 days ago

   Now it is getting serious - too bad Virginia Giuffre still isn't alive to see it.
   
   "Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested after Epstein files revelations as King says ‘law must take its course’"
   
   https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/and … e-02-19-26

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Nathanvilleposted 11 days agoin reply to this

      Yes, it shows that no one is above the law in the UK; it’s a shame that the same can’t be said for some in the USA.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 11 days agoin reply to this

         Well, Nathanville, this is how they do it in Britain?
         
         I wish that we had as much integrity within own government…
         
         https://www.salon.com/2026/02/19/nobody … tein-ties/

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Nathanvilleposted 11 days agoin reply to this

            No great surprise there, given that Trump is referenced extensively throughout the unredacted Epstein documents—arguably one of the most far‑reaching cover‑ups in modern American history.
            
            As an aside, it’s worth noting that “misconduct in public office” isn’t a statute passed by any UK government or Parliament. It’s an old common‑law (unwritten law) offence dating back to medieval Britain in the 13th century, and it has been used only rarely by the courts since then.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 11 days agoin reply to this

               What was astonishing is that even the King of England, Charles III, did not make any exception for his brother in this affair and supported the idea that the law should take its course.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Nathanvilleposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                  To a Brit, the King’s position isn’t astonishing at all — I certainly don’t find it surprising. The monarchy survives on public trust, not political power, and King Charles knows that better than anyone.
                  
                  His first duty isn’t to Andrew; it’s to the integrity of the Crown. Distancing the institution from his brother isn’t some extraordinary act of principle — it’s basic damage limitation.
                  
                  If he’d tried to shield Andrew, it would have been catastrophic for the monarchy. A third of Brits already want the monarchy abolished, and any hint of protecting Andrew would have pushed that number far higher.
                  
                  King Charles is fighting for the survival of the institution, and the only way to do that is to be seen doing the right thing.

                  replyreport
            2. 86

               My Esotericposted 10 days agoin reply to this

               Did Trump know, and did nothing, of what Epstein was visiting on those girls and women? There is no doubt in my mind - as Virginian Giuffre said in here book, Nobody's Girl, that "Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what he was doing” and that "he didn’t hide it and that people watched"
               
               Did Trump join in? The most I can say is that in my opinion he is certainly capable of it - especially given some of the creepy things he as said about Ivanka when she was their ages.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Nathanvilleposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                  Yep, given the scale of the cover‑up it would certainly seem so — and as you said, Trump is most certainly capable of it. What strikes me most, though, is how differently this would play out under UK law.
                  
                  If the Epstein files were being released in Britain rather than the USA, there would almost certainly already be an Independent Public Inquiry. Under the Inquiries Act 2005 — introduced by the Labour Government — the government of the day is legally obliged to establish such an inquiry when matters of major public concern arise, especially where there is evidence of institutional failure or potential wrongdoing by people in positions of power.
                  
                  A good example is the Covid‑19 Inquiry. Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, was legally required to launch it under that Act, which he did on 28 June 2022. It has been long, detailed, and often uncomfortable for those involved, and it is now approaching its conclusion — the Inquiry is scheduled to end on 5 March 2026.
                  
                  Crucially, the Inquiry has exposed the failures of Boris Johnson’s government and the wider establishment under his control at the time. So far, it has highlighted:
                  
                  • poor preparedness
                  • chaotic leadership
                  • confused communication
                  • avoidable delays
                  • failures in procurement and care‑home protection
                  
                  And regarding Johnson personally, it has shown:
                  • delayed decisions
                  • confusion and indecision
                  • poor communication
                  • scientific advice not always followed
                  • missing records
                  • a government struggling to function under pressure
                  
                  The irony, of course, is that Johnson had a legal obligation to allow this level of scrutiny — because of a law introduced by a Labour (left-wing) government. That kind of statutory transparency simply doesn’t exist in the USA. If it did, Trump would almost certainly be facing similarly probing questions about what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did nothing.

                  replyreport
                  1. 84

                     Sharlee01posted 9 days agoin reply to this

                     Documented testimony shows Trump did report what he knew about Epstein and Maxwell to the police many years ago.
                     
                     I added this information because it's relevant due to its being documented and not just speculative.
                     
                     What actually exists (documented evidence)
                     
                     In newly released Epstein-case files, a 2019 FBI interview with former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter says Donald Trump called him during the original mid-2000s investigation.
                     
                     The call was described as occurring in July 2006, when police were investigating Jeffrey Epstein.
                     
                     Reiter told investigators Trump said:
                     “Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this.”
                     
                     Trump also reportedly warned police about Ghislaine Maxwell and urged them to focus on her.
                     
                     The same document said Trump was “one of the very first people to call” authorities when the investigation became known.
                     
                     So there is documented testimony from a police chief, preserved in FBI records, that Trump contacted police during the investigation.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        Nathanvilleposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                        Sharlee, thanks for taking the time to lay that out — it’s always helpful when we can anchor the discussion in what’s actually documented rather than speculation.
                        
                        You’re right that the newly released files include a 2019 FBI interview with former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, and that he told investigators Trump phoned him in 2006 and expressed approval of the Epstein investigation. That part is indeed in the record.
                        
                        Where I think we may be talking past each other slightly is in how far that testimony goes. The document doesn’t show Trump reporting Epstein, initiating the investigation, or providing new evidence. There’s no police report, no contemporaneous note, no phone record, and no indication he contacted authorities before the case was public. It all comes down to one person’s recollection recorded thirteen years after the event.
                        
                        And to be fair to everyone involved, even reliable people can misremember details over that kind of timespan — especially in high‑profile cases involving public figures who have, let’s say, given differing accounts over time. That’s why I’m sticking closely to what the document itself actually says, rather than reading more into it than the evidence supports.
                        
                        For context, Reiter himself has a solid reputation. He was the police chief who pushed hard for Epstein to be prosecuted and even clashed with the State Attorney’s office when he felt Epstein was being given special treatment. There’s nothing in his record to suggest dishonesty. But his 2019 interview is still just that: a single recollection, many years after the fact, without any supporting documentation from 2006.
                        
                        And just to be clear, even that interview doesn’t say Trump “reported” Epstein, was “one of the first to call,” or proactively “warned” police about Maxwell in the investigative sense. Those claims simply aren’t in any of the released material. The only documented source for any of this is Reiter’s long‑after‑the‑fact recollection — and even that doesn’t go as far as the narrative being built around it.
                        
                        So yes — the call he describes is documented. But the broader claims being attached to it aren’t supported by the evidence we actually have.

                        replyreport
                        1. 84

                           Sharlee01posted 8 days agoin reply to this

                           I see your points.   The document comes from an investigative interview/statement taken by prosecutors and investigators during a criminal investigation. In such situations, the person (Reiter) is typically interviewed by the prosecutors, and a report or recorded statement is created. Those interviews are usually conducted under penalty of lying to federal investigators (which can be a crime). Still, they are not the same thing as testimony under oath in court or a deposition.
                           
                           I found another interesting bit --- There is documentation indicating that Jeffrey Epstein was barred from Mar-a-Lago, and it does not originate as a media rumor.
                           
                           In 2011, attorney Bradley Edwards, who represented one of Epstein’s victims, filed a sworn affidavit in federal court in connection with civil litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein. In that filing, Edwards stated that he had been told that Donald Trump had Epstein removed from Mar-a-Lago and banned him from the club years before Epstein’s criminal case became public.
                           
                           Edwards later repeated this publicly in interviews and has said that Trump was the only high-profile individual who agreed to speak with his legal team and provide information during the early stages of the investigation.
                           
                           To be precise, however: there is no publicly released written “ban letter” or membership termination document from Mar-a-Lago that has surfaced. The documentation that exists is sworn testimony (the affidavit) and related witness statements, not a recovered club record or expulsion notice.

                           replyreport
                           1. 83

                              Ken Burgessposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                              It is typical of what we have seen so much of for more than a decade...
                              
                              Point the finger at Trump and repeat over and over again that he is guilty of the very crimes they (Democrats/Swamp) themselves are committing.
                              
                              It was President Clinton, not President Trump, that was a frequent flyer to Epstein Island.
                              
                              Our wonderful cable news is more interested in slandering than facts, ignoring who was deeply immersed with Epstein to continue to emphasize Trump...
                              
                              Trump is no angel... but to pursue the Epstein - Trump connection while ignoring or dismissing those who really were heavily involved with Epstein just proves that it's about shaping the public perception that Trump is guilty of the crimes done by others.

                              replyreport
                              1. 86

                                 My Esotericposted 8 days agoin reply to this

                                 I just don't understand what drives you to make things up! There is NO documented evidence that Clinton, either one, went to Epstein's island. The only people who suggest it are right-wing conspiracy theorists.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 83

                                    wildernessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                    You mean like the conspiracy theorists that exclaimed that Trump was dealing with Putin to fix our elections?  That kind of theorist, that declared Trump was doing what they were actually doing themselves?

                                    replyreport
                                 2. 83

                                    Ken Burgessposted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                    You know it's funny ...
                                    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/jef … logs-show/
                                    
                                    
                                    https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-ne … 78630.html

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 86

                                       My Esotericposted 6 days agoin reply to this

                                       Funny, I didn't know you think the WH is on Epstein's island.
                                       
                                       Funny, as I said, no documented evidence no matter how hard you try to make it up.

                                       report
                              2. 84

                                 Sharlee01posted 7 days agoin reply to this

                                 Ken,  From what I’ve personally seen so far of the Epstein files,  and I want to be clear that I’m only looking at what has actually been released, not speculating beyond it, I haven’t seen anything that indicates to me that Trump had much to do with Epstein beyond what was already publicly known. Even in the photos that have circulated, I haven’t seen anything involving Trump that appears inappropriate.
                                 
                                 On the other hand, some of the images involving Bill Clinton are different. There are photos that could reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate or at least raise legitimate questions about his proximity to young women connected to Epstein. I’ve shared some of those images, and interestingly, there’s been very little response.
                                 
                                 I’m simply going off what has been publicly presented. If more credible evidence emerges, then that should be evaluated fairly. But based on what’s currently available, I’m not seeing the level of connection some are implying.

                                 replyreport
2. 73

   IslandBitesposted 7 days ago

   U.K.'s ex-ambassador to the U.S. arrested after Epstein files release
   
   Peter Mandelson was arrested amid an intensifying scandal after the U.S. Department of Justice released millions of documents, some of which appear to show him leaking sensitive political and market information to Epstein.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Nathanvilleposted 6 days agoin reply to this

      What amuses me is that both Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor and Peter Mandelson have been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office — an ancient medieval common‑law (unwritten law) offence, traceable back to at least the 13th century, and rarely used in modern times. It is a serious offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
      
      But now that both have been arrested, we won’t hear much more for many months. Under British law, to prevent “trial by public opinion”, it is a criminal offence — contempt of court — for the media or anyone publishing information to release material that could create a substantial risk of serious prejudice if either were charged and the case went before a jury. Jurors must decide solely on the evidence presented in court, not on what appears in the media.

      replyreport
      1. 86

         Nathanvilleposted 6 days agoin reply to this

         As an interesting side line about laws - trial by combat, which became part of English law in 1066 was abolished in England in 1819.

         replyreport
      2. 86

         My Esotericposted 6 days agoin reply to this

         I just heard about that law. Not entirely sure what to think about it. On the one hand, it "seems" fair but on the other it opens the door to gov't abuse of civil rights.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Nathanvilleposted 6 days agoin reply to this

            If this law applied to ordinary people, then yes — it would raise obvious civil‑liberty concerns. But that isn’t the case. The offence of misconduct in public office is very narrowly defined and applies only to senior officials: ministers, top civil servants, police chiefs, judges, and, in rare cases, members of the Royal Family acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Government. Ordinary citizens can’t be charged with it, so the potential for government abuse simply isn’t there.

            replyreport
            1. 86

               My Esotericposted 6 days agoin reply to this

               Does the gag rule apply only to crimes like that? Not all arrests?

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Nathanvilleposted 5 days agoin reply to this

                  No, it’s not a “gagging rule” — and yes, it applies to all arrests in the UK.
                  Once someone is arrested and there’s a realistic chance the case could go before a jury, the contempt‑of‑court restrictions apply. The aim isn’t secrecy for its own sake, but to prevent anything being published that might create a substantial risk of prejudicing a future trial.
                  
                  Once the jury has delivered its verdict, everything becomes public.
                  At that point the media are free to report the full details — the evidence, the background, and anything said in court.
                  
                  And in high‑profile cases, since 2022 the judge’s sentencing remarks are broadcast live from the courtroom, delivered by the judge him/herself, on all the major UK news channels.
                  These broadcasts can run for an hour or more, with the judge summarising the facts, addressing each count separately, and explaining how the final sentence is reached.
                  
                  Sharlee actually explained the principle behind it better than I ever could — her post captures the reasoning very well.

                  replyreport
      3. 84

         Sharlee01posted 6 days agoin reply to this

         I actually agree with this, and I respect the reasoning behind it. The idea that a jury should decide a case based only on the evidence presented in court , not media coverage, makes a lot of sense to me. Once someone is arrested, the story often turns into speculation, and speculation can quickly become public judgment long before any facts are fully examined.
         
         It’s also one of the reasons I try very hard not to make firm judgments or predictions based on media reporting alone. In my view, much of modern media is driven by clicks and ratings, and stories can be shaped in ways that emphasize drama rather than patience. Skilled wording can influence how people interpret events, even when all the facts are not yet known. I find that unfair to everyone involved, especially when reputations can be damaged long before a court ever hears the case.
         
         I’m not saying journalists intentionally mislead in every case, but public opinion can form very quickly, and once it does it’s difficult to reverse, even if the evidence later points somewhere different. That’s why the British approach you described has value. It protects the accused, the integrity of the jury, and even the public from reacting to incomplete information.
         
         Because of that, I’ve learned to be cautious. I’d rather wait for verified evidence presented in court than rely on early reporting or commentary. History has shown how dangerous rumor and assumption can be, and legal systems work best when the verdict comes from facts, not headlines.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            Nathanvilleposted 5 days agoin reply to this

            Absolutely — I’m fully with you on this one, Sharlee

            replyreport
            1. 84

               Sharlee01posted 5 days agoin reply to this

               Hey, I’m old, and I’ve been burned more times than I can count for jumping in too quickly and making bold predictions about how something would turn out. I’ve learned the hard way that certainty can make you look foolish. Still, it isn’t always easy to sit back and take a wait-and-see attitude, especially when the issue in front of you feels blatantly clear.

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  Nathanvilleposted 4 days agoin reply to this

                  I get what you’re saying. I’ve always been the type who has to step back and think things through — usually over a coffee — before I’m comfortable saying anything definite. It’s just my nature to look at the evidence first and speak second.
                  
                  But there have been times when that measured approach has meant I’ve missed opportunities because I didn’t act more rashly, and afterwards I’ve kicked myself for being too cautious.
                  
                  And yes, “rash” is just my British way of saying acting quickly without overthinking it — I’m not sure if Americans use it quite the same way, but that’s what I mean by it.

                  replyreport