DEEP DIVE: Fact-Checking the Epstein Files - Trump, Clinton, Prince Andrew, Musk & Michael Jackson
Facts devoid of context aren't facts at all.
Trump was once falsely accused by a woman with mental health problems. Prince Andrew - a divorced adult male - appreciated the company of attractive adult females. Jeffrey Epstein liked to be photographed with famous people to whom he’d donated money or had helped to avoid paying more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay. These are just some of the shoulder-shrugging ‘revelations’ that have been highlighted from the millions of pages that have been released from the so-called ‘Epstein Files’ so far.
I’m still sifting through those pages; cross-checking photographs for their unredacted earlier versions, identifying unidentified witnesses, and cross-referencing accusations with what I’ve already unearthed by interviewing most of the key witnesses myself.
But it’s going to take some time. After all, not only does the recent unleashing of a tsunami of documents induce a monumental migraine (Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche defended missing the deadline to publish the files, saying they constituted "two Eiffel Towers" of paperwork), but the chaos is further compounded by the intentional and blatant misrepresentation of what those files actually show.
FACT: Those controlling the narrative all have motives, financial or political, to not tell you the truth.
The lawyers representing the accusers in the Epstein scandal are helping to mislead the public in order to pressure their current targets into paying out huge settlements rather than being smeared in the press. The likes of David Boies and Bradley Edwards, who represent some of Epstein’s most vocal accusers, have already personally made millions by weaponising the media into what could easily be described as blackmail: Highlight an unsubstantiated allegation against a wealthy individual or institution (e.g. Professor Alan Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and the banking giant JP Morgan); approach them with the allegation and leak certain aspects of it to the press; pressure them to cough up compensation rather than risk further negative press coverage and complete reputational destruction.
This is not just speculation. It’s their proven MO, as I’ll be revealing in an article later this week, accompanied by full evidence that will shock many of my readers.
Then there are the politicians. One would be foolish to believe for a moment that they actually care about justice or abuse victims. Whereas the lawyers’ motives are purely financial, the House Democrats (for whom it was revealed late last year David Boies and co are working, pro bono - because the files being released help pile pressure onto their current targets, not least of all the banks against which they have active ongoing lawsuits worth hundreds of millions of dollars) are simply playing politics. Put simply, they want the files to be spun into Trump-smearing salacious headlines to damage his party and influence upcoming elections - perhaps even have him impeached.
Then, of course, there are the journalists. Sadly, most of them care far less for ethics and facts than they do for producing clickbait and attacking the politicians whom, through their own political biases, they want to help pressure out of power.
What you’re seeing isn’t journalism. It is activism.
Thus, with their context intentionally omitted, identities of accusers removed (a ploy to prevent scrutiny and fact-checking, under the guise of ‘protecting victims’), and those behind the release and reporting of the files (the politicians, lawyers and journalists aforementioned, who each have their own agendas) granted a monopoly over how the public digest the vague information being fed to them, the information pool has become so murky that most members of the public are naturally left scratching their heads.
Over the coming days and weeks, in the run-up to the release of my book, NAKED LIES, covering my five-plus years of investigating the Epstein Scandal and interviewing key witnesses, I’ll be releasing more of my exclusive interviews, but also publishing a series of fact-checking pieces that explain what’s really in the Epstein Files and some context to the chaos.
As with my ongoing investigation into the blackmail and political bias that the scandal has been riddled with from day one, I’m doing this completely independently (and was even sacked from my job as the News Editor of the Kyiv Post for daring to expose the uncomfortable truth and unearth fresh evidence - some of which was recently included in Ghislaine Maxwell’s habeas corpus). Substack is now my only source of income, which honestly terrifies me.
So far, I haven’t managed to gain enough paid subscribers to keep my investigation funded, so I’d appreciate it immensely if you’d kindly consider becoming one for $4 per month by signing up below.
Now, without further delay, let’s dive into some of the highlights of the Epstein Files, add some context, and debunk some viral myths and misleading media headlines along the way.
We’ll start with a recap and then march forward into new territory.
Bill Clinton and Ghislaine Maxwell in a Swimming Pool
One of the first set of images to cause a stir show former US president Bill Clinton in a swimming pool alongside Ghislaine Maxwell, and in a hot tub with a woman whose face has been redacted. The photograph is undated in the released material and provides no contextual information regarding its location, purpose, or circumstances.
The image does not depict any illegal activity. There are no minors visible. There is no sexual conduct, coercion, or inappropriate interaction shown. The photograph records a moment of social proximity between adults. Some have falsely claimed that ‘the DoJ only redacted the faces of victims/’survivors’ - but this simply isn’t true. This fact is demonstrated throughout the releases, both in imagery and documents.
The Clinton image’s significance rests entirely on association rather than action. Its release confirms that Clinton and Maxwell were in one another’s company at some point in time, a fact that has been publicly acknowledged for years through flight logs and testimony. The photograph itself adds no evidence of wrongdoing.
Despite online viral online speculation and intentional disinformation claiming that the swimming pool was on Epstein’s island, it was in fact taken, as I’ve been able to confirm, at the Empire Hotel in Brunei.
“The White House hasn’t been hiding these files for months only to dump them late on a Friday to protect Bill Clinton,” a spokesperson for Clinton said in a statement on X.
“This is about shielding themselves from what comes next, or from what they’ll try and hide forever. So they can release as many grainy 20-plus-year-old photos as they want, but this isn’t about Bill Clinton. Never has, never will be,” the statement added.
“Even Susie Wiles said Donald Trump was wrong about Bill Clinton,” it said, referring to comments made by White House chief of staff to Vanity Fair in which Wiles acknowledged that Clinton had not been on Epstein’s Caribbean island despite repeated claims by Trump to the contrary.
In the statement, Clinton’s spokesperson Angel Ureña said: “There are two types of people here. The first group knew nothing and cut Epstein off before his crimes came to light. The second group continued relationships with him after. We’re in the first. No amount of stalling by people in the second group will change that. Everyone, especially MAGA, expects answers, not scapegoats.”
Clinton’s spokesperson reiterated what has been stated for years: Clinton cut off contact with Epstein well before Epstein’s 2008 conviction, had no knowledge of his alleged crimes at the time of their association, and never visited his island. None of the images released contradict that statement. They show social proximity, not criminal behaviour.
The same pattern repeats across the release. A painting of Bill Clinton in a dress hanging in Epstein’s home has been treated as scandalous, despite being an artwork whose existence has been known for years (the blue dress representing the infamous garment that came to symbolise the scandal concerning their affair).
Just for added context, the below satirical painting of President George Bush was created by the same artist (Petrina Ryan-Kleid) who painted the ‘blue dress Clinton’.
Jeffrey Epstein and Michael Jackson Standing Together Indoors
Another image shows Jeffrey Epstein standing alongside Michael Jackson. Both men are fully clothed. Jackson is wearing sunglasses. The setting appears informal, possibly residential, but is not identified in the released material. Some reports state that Jackson visited Epstein to discuss a real estate purchase.
The photograph does not depict illegal activity. There are no minors present. There is no indication of sexual conduct or exploitation. The image shows two public figures in the same space at the same time, with no accompanying documentation linking the encounter to criminal behaviour.
Again, it was posted without context to intentionally mislead the public. But here’s the context: The photograph was taken behind the scenes of a Democratic fundraising event in 2002 (an event that Epstein had donated money to).
And that leads us nicely onto the next image, also featuring the ‘King of Pop’.
Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton, Diana Ross, and multiple ‘mysterious children’
One of the most widely circulated examples of all is a photograph showing Michael Jackson standing alongside Bill Clinton and Diana Ross, with several children visible in the frame. In the version released today, the children’s faces are fully redacted. Presented without explanation and embedded inside an Epstein-branded archive, the image has been treated as ominous, as though it documents something sinister, with the insinuation being that the children were victims of Jeffrey Epstein.
But they were not.
The photograph, along with others taken at the same time, has in fact been public, unredacted, for many years. It was taken at event I touched upon above. Diana and her son, Evan Ross, performed Heal The World with Jackson at the aforementioned event intended to raise money for the Democratic Party.
The children are Michael Jackson’s and Diana Ross’s children. There is no connection to Epstein, no allegation attached to the image (other than, perhaps, he took the photo), and no suggestion in the original context that it depicted anything untoward. The sense of menace arises entirely from the act of redaction and the context in which the image has been reintroduced, not from the photograph itself.
Below is an image I found of that event. Note that Ross and her son Ivan are both wearing the same clothes as those they were wearing in the image from the Epstein files.
Interior Images from Epstein’s Private Island – The Dentist’s Chair
One of the most discussed images from the island shows a dentist’s chair.
The image is unsettling to many viewers due to its incongruity. However, the photograph itself shows an object, not an act. There is no person in the chair. No procedure is taking place. No illegal activity is depicted.
Sky News makes clear that while the presence of such an object raises questions, the image alone does not constitute evidence of abuse or criminal conduct.
Another interior photograph shows masks mounted on the walls of the same room.
Again, of course, the photograph does not show illegal activity. It depicts interior décor. There are no people present, no acts being committed, and no evidence of criminal behaviour.
The unease generated by the image is interpretive rather than evidentiary, and the media have tried to manipulate the public’s interpretation of what are, in reality, nothing more than (somewhat tacky) masks. One headline, for instance, written by the Daily Mirror, claimed that they are ‘death masks’ (casts made from the face of a dead body). But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that, though I’m a big fan of Laurel and Hardy and truly wish that Stan Laurel looked like this when he died, sadly, it’s seriously unlikely to have been the case…
Image of a Woman’s Body with Text from Lolita
One of the most widely circulated images referenced in the Sky News live feed shows a woman’s torso photographed close-up, with handwritten text from Vladimir Nabokov’s novel Lolita written across her skin. The woman’s face is not visible in the image, and no identifying information accompanies the photograph. Her age is not stated. The location, date, and circumstances under which the photograph was taken are not provided in the released materials.
I do, however, know the identity of this woman, and am just waiting on legal advice before I reveal it. I can confirm, however, that she was over the legal age of consent at the time the photograph was taken.
Screenshot of a Text Message Referencing “Girls”
The message is incomplete. No names, phone numbers, timestamps, or metadata are visible in the released version.
The screenshot does not, on its own, demonstrate illegal activity. Though it does appear that the sender could be suggesting escorts to Jeffrey Epstein (highly likely, and some of the women who he surrounded himself with, including Sarah Ransome, were indeed escorts), the message clearly provides the age of the woman referenced as being 18.
Epstein with Noam Chomsky
In other images, Epstein is shown sat on his plane with controversial public intellectual Noam Chomsky. The photographs appear to show the two men seated together in conversation.
The images do not show illegal activity. There are no minors present and no sexual or exploitative conduct shown. The photographs confirm acquaintance, not complicity.
But their relationship had already long been public knowledge anyway.
Another file shows that Chomsky had written a letter of support for Epstein with the salutation “to whom it may concern”. It is not dated, but it contains a typed signature with Chomsky’s name and citing his position as a University of Arizona laureate professor, a role he began in 2017, as first reported by the Massachusetts news outlet WBUR.
“I met Jeffrey Epstein half a dozen years ago,” read the letter. “We have been in regular contact since, with many long and often in-depth discussions about a very wide range of topics, including our own specialties and professional work, but a host of others where we have shared interests. It has been a most valuable experience for me.”
It is unclear whether Chomsky sent the letter to anyone. Nonetheless, it exalts Epstein for teaching Chomsky “about the intricacies of the global financial system” in a way “the business press and professional journals” had not been able to do. It boasted about how well connected Epstein was.
“Once, when we were discussing the Oslo agreements, Jeffrey picked up the phone and called the Norwegian diplomat who supervised them, leading to a lively interchange,” the letter read. The letter recounted how Epstein had arranged for Chomsky – a political activist, too – to meet with someone he had “studied carefully and written about”: the former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak.
Epstein had – “with limited success” – aided efforts from Chomsky’s second wife, Valeria, to introduce him “to the world of jazz and its wonders”, the letter continued.
It concluded, “The impact of Jeffrey’s limitless curiosity, extensive knowledge, penetrating insights and thoughtful appraisals is only heightened by his easy informality, without a trace of pretentiousness. He quickly became a highly valued friend and regular source of intellectual exchange and stimulation.”
Epstein with Steve Bannon
Another photograph shows Epstein with political figure Steve Bannon. The image appears informal, with both men dressed casually and sitting at Epstein’s desk in his New York townhouse.
The photograph does not depict illegal activity. There is no sexual conduct, no minors, and no indication of criminal behavior. The image documents contact between two individuals, nothing more.Bannon was one of Trump’s closest advisers in the run up to the 2016 election and in the early days of his first administration, but resigned from the White House in August 2017.
He has acknowledged he was making a film about Epstein prior to his death and reportedly has around 15 hours of footage that he promises to eventually release. Bannon grew close to Epstein and visited him multiple times, offering to help repair his public image.
Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell at Social Gatherings
Additional images show Epstein and Maxwell together at social events, at Balmoral, and on flights together. These appear to be both formal and semi-formal gatherings and private moments. No minors are present.
The ‘scrapbook’
Much shock and horror has also been exhibited online over scrapbook photographs. The newly released files include a curated photograph book or collage featuring Epstein and a young female whose face is redacted.
Without context, they do indeed appear sinister (even with context, they are nonetheless creepy).
But many of these images have appeared in the press before, sometimes decades ago. The woman, I can confirm, is Nadia Marcinko, born in Slovakia, who met Epstein as a teenager and remained closely associated with him for years.
Epstein helped her relocate to the United States, paid for her education, and supported her training as a pilot. She went on to fly aircraft, including Epstein’s, and managed aspects of his property portfolio.
Marcinko’s story has always complicated the dominant narrative. She has not described herself as a victim of sexual abuse by Epstein. In interviews over the years, she has characterised their relationship as consensual, albeit unequal and deeply entangled with power and dependence. She has spoken of control and influence but has not alleged rape or sexual assault.
Photograph of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Surrounded by Women in Windsor Castle
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (Prince Andrew) is shown lying across a group of women in a room identified as Windsor Castle. Ghislaine Maxwell appears standing at the edge of the frame, and the women’s identities have been redacted in the released version of the image.
The location was identified by comparing features in the background — such as a fireplace — with known interiors of Windsor Castle. The photographic release provides no date, no explanation of the context, and no metadata confirming circumstances surrounding the image.
It does not depict illegal activity. There are no identifiable minors in the photo, no sexual acts are visibly taking place, and the scene does not show coercion or exploitation. Basically, it’s clearly a snapshot of a posed photograph during an evening of fun.
The Maria Farmer FBI/Police Report from 1996
Among the thousands of pages and images now being publicly released from the Epstein files is a 1996 law-enforcement complaint made by Maria Farmer. This document, newly made available by the Department of Justice as part of the 2025 release, describes Farmer’s allegations that Jeffrey Epstein stole photographs she had taken of her younger sisters and threatened her over them.
Outlets such as CNN have claimed that this ‘vindicates’ Maria Farmer, who has long insisted that she made a police report about Epstein back in 1996. What they aren’t telling you, however, is that the document in fact proves that she lied.
For years and in multiple interviews, Farmer, who has a long list of contradictions and demonstrable lies relating to her allegations (more on that in a separate post), claimed that she had made a police report that accused Epstein and Maxwell of sexually assaulted her and her sister. But the report shows that she actually reported a theft of photographs and made no mention of Maxwell or sexual assault whatsoever.
Over the coming days and weeks, as well as releasing more exclusive interviews that I’ve conducted with key witnesses over the past five years for my upcoming book, Naked Lies, I’ll be posting more explainers to try to add some context and sanity to the politically-motivated Epstein file releases.
Redaction is meant to protect identities, preserve privacy, and prevent harm. But in the Epstein file release, it has also functioned as a powerful narrative tool. By removing context, faces, dates, and provenance from otherwise familiar images, the release does not merely withhold information — it reshapes meaning.
An image placed inside an Epstein-branded archive does not arrive neutrally. It arrives already charged. When identifying details are stripped away, viewers are invited to fill the vacuum with suspicion. Faces become anonymous. Children become symbolic. Association is silently transformed into implication.
This is particularly evident in the treatment of photographs that were already public, already contextualized, and already understood. When such images are reintroduced with heavy redaction and without explanation, they are not clarified; they are destabilized. The viewer is encouraged to see menace where none previously existed.
The effect is subtle but consequential. Redaction, in this context, does not simply obscure facts — it reframes innocence as ambiguity, and ambiguity as potential guilt. In a case as emotionally charged as Epstein’s, that reframing can distort public understanding, blur evidentiary standards, and reward insinuation over proof.
Transparency, properly understood, should illuminate. When it instead darkens familiar ground, it ceases to be neutral disclosure and becomes editorial intervention by omission.
Now for highlights from the pages released this week:
An Allegation against President Trump
A chart summarising serious accusations against Trump by an unidentified woman is currently going viral on social media, including being tweeted by CNN’s Jake Tapper.
What Tapper intentionally failed to include in his screenshots of the chart, however, is an important caveat: Not only did the accuser drop their allegations, not go the press, and not launch a lawsuit, but the chart itself reveals that the accuser was interviewed by officials and investigators, was found to lack any credibility, and found to have a history of mental health issues.
Think about this for a moment: Why would Tapper and others, who have a clear history of opposing Donald Trump, intentionally remove the following cell from the chart, if not solely to hide the context and mislead you?:
When asked about the claims, the White House directed reporters to the part of the DOJ announcement which described some documents as containing “untrue and sensationalist” allegations against the president.
Personally, I’ve been openly critical of some of Trump’s policies - something which I state here to simply show that I have no political bias. I just believe you deserve the truth. And the above example is not the first time that those controlling the Epstein Files narrative have misled you in order to smear Donald Trump.
This attempt at ‘character assassination by innuendo’ is clearly demonstrated by how the Democrats and media handled the release of some of Epstein’s emails. In one of them, Epstein had claimed that Trump was in his (Epstein’s) West Palm Beach home whilst ‘A VICTIM was present’. This generated salacious headlines across the world and wild speculation on social media. However, Democrats had simply redacted the name of the victim to hide the easily-verifiable fact that she, Virginia Giuffre, is well-documented as having confirmed that Trump did not engage in anything illegal or improper.
It’s also important to note that none of the accusers have ever claimed that Trump was involved in their alleged abuse - this in itself should tell you all you need to know.
Bill Gates and an alleged STI
Two emails from 18 July 2013 appear to have been drafted by Epstein but it’s unclear if they were ever sent to Gates. Both are sent from Epstein’s email account and back to the same account. No email account associated with Gates is visible and both emails are unsigned.
One email is written as a resignation letter from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and complains about having had to procure medicine for Gates “in order to deal with the consequences of sex with Russian girls”.
The other, which begins “dear Bill”, complains about Gates having ended a friendship and makes more claims about Gates having tried to hide a sexually transmitted infection, including from his then-wife, Melinda.
Both emails appear as though they may have been drafted by Epstein on behalf of someone else.
A spokesperson for Gates told the BBC: “These claims – from a proven, disgruntled liar – are absolutely absurd and completely false.”
They added: “The only thing these documents demonstrate is Epstein’s frustration that he did not have an ongoing relationship with Gates and the lengths he would go to entrap and defame.”
Prince Andrew
Also among the latest tranche of documents is an email exchange dated 27 September 2010 between Jeffrey Epstein and an account titled “The Duke”. The address itself is redacted.
Epstein writes that he is in London, adding: “What time woudl [sic] you like me and [redacted], we will also need/ have private time”.
“The Duke” replies: “I am just departing Scotland should be down by 1800. I’ll ring you when I get down if you can give me a number to ring. Alternatively we could have dinner at Buckingham Palace and lots of privacy. A”.
Epstein replies: “bp pleease [sic].”
The emails do not indicate any wrongdoing.
In another email exchange, Prince Andrew appears to be using an anonymous account to contact Ghislaine Maxwell, enquiring if she had managed to find him any ‘inappropriate friends’ to keep him company during a visit to Balmoral.
Andrew clearly makes no mention of, nor request for, underage girls in this email, thus the tongue-in-cheek correspondence exhibits nothing illegal.
What most outlets aren’t showing you is Ghislaine Maxwell’s reply:
One has to consider the following: The press has told us that Ghislaine Maxwell was helping to run a ‘global trafficking operation’ that included ‘thousands of victims’. It’s a lie, of course, easily debunked. And here we have clear evidence that not only did she have no access to ‘inappropriate friends’, but that the only company she could find for Prince Andrew was ‘appropriate’.
Another set of emails released yesterday suggest that Epstein offered to introduce someone using an account named “The Duke” to a 26-year-old Russian woman - the person responding to the offer signs off the email as “A”.
This is being spun by the media as having some sort of sinister context. But the context is already there in black and white: A man, a single divorcee, was offered to be introduced to an adult woman.
There is nothing wrong or immoral there.
Meanwhile, in photographs released in the files, Andrew is seen posing with a woman lying on the floor. Again, the identity of the woman has been redacted to allow for insinuation and speculation.
Another document, from 2020, is a formal request for assistance from US authorities asking to interview the former prince as they believed that “Prince Andrew may have been a witness to and/or participant in certain events of relevance to the ongoing investigation”.
They said documentary evidence “has revealed information suggesting that Prince Andrew had knowledge that Maxwell recruited females to engage in sex acts with Epstein and other men” and “there is evidence that Prince Andrew engaged in sexual conduct involving one of Epstein’s victims”.
The letter also said, however: “Prince Andrew is not presently a target of the investigation, and US authorities have not, to date, gathered evidence that he has committed any crime under US law.”
The ‘victim’ whom the letter claims Prince Andrew engaged in sexual conduct with is, of course, Virginia Giuffre. But if you listen to my podcast episode about Virginia, you’ll quickly learn that Giuffre was not a victim and that she had a history of making false allegations, including falsely claiming that she’d had sex with Andrew in New Mexico (before later admitting under oath that she’d made it up).
Peter Mandelson and the 10k
The files have revealed that Epstein sent £10,000 to Labour peer Peter Mandelson’s partner Reinaldo Avila da Silva in 2009. In an email to Epstein, da Silva sets out the costs of an osteopathy course, provides his bank details and thanks the financier for “anything you can help me with”.
Epstein replies a few hours later saying: “I will wire your loan amount immediately” and the following day da Silva writes: “Just a brief note to thank you for the money which arrived in my account this morning.”
Asked for a response, Lord Mandelson said he had been “very clear” about his relationship with Epstein in interviews with the BBC.
“I have nothing more to add,” said the Labour peer.
Musk Mail
The documents also include email correspondence between Epstein and tech billionaire Elon Musk.
Musk, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case, has previously said that Epstein had invited him to his island but he had declined.
The new emails show Musk had discussed travelling there on more than one occasion - including a proposed 2012 trip - in which he asked Epstein: “What day/night will be the wildest party on your island?”
The emails from November 2012 show Epstein asked how many people Musk would need transporting on a helicopter to the island and Musk replies that he it would only be himself and his then-wife, Talulah Riley.
An email from Musk to Epstein on Christmas in 2012 includes Musk inquiring whether the financier had any parties planned because he needs to “let loose”.
“I’ve been working to the edge of sanity this year and so, once my kids head home after Christmas, I really want to hit the party scene in St Barts or elsewhere and let loose,” he writes, adding that a “peaceful island experience” is the opposite of what he’s wanting.
In another batch of emails from the end of 2013, Musk and Epstein discuss a visit to the financier’s island and are working on logistics and dates.
There is no evidence that Musk ever did end up taking a trip to Epstein’s island.
Sarah Ferguson
Emails that appear to show correspondence between Sarah Ferguson and Jeffrey Epstein also feature in the latest document release.
One message, dated 4 April 2009 and signed “Love, Sarah, The red Head.!!”, begins: “Hello Jeffrey. I am landing in Palm Beach in a couple of hours. Is there any chance on my quick layover, that I can get to have a quick cup of tea...”
The exchange continues with discussion about potential ideas for Ferguson’s business venture, Mother’s Army. In the same email, the former Duchess of York addresses Epstein as “My dear spectacular and special friend Jeffrey. You are a legend, and I am so proud of you.”
At the time the email was sent, Epstein was still under house arrest.
A separate email exchange from August 2009 shows Ferguson contacting Epstein again about what she describes as “my Sarah Ferguson Brand”, and expressing gratitude to the billionaire “for being the brother I have always wished for”.
There is nothing in the emails themselves to suggest any criminal behaviour.
In photographs released in the Epstein files, Ferguson is shown photographed in the presence of other females associated with Epstein. None of the females shown were underage.
Maxwell’s 2020 mugshot
Reaction
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said at a news conference yesterday: "Today’s release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people and compliance with the act.”
He said the files don’t contain the names of specific men abusing women and that, if the department had those names, the men would be prosecuted.
He added: “I don’t think the public are going to uncover men within the Epstein files that abused women, unfortunately.”
Epstein accuser Lisa Phillips told BBC Newsnight: “I couldn’t believe he could keep a straight face when he said that. It’s heart wrenching to hear him say that when the whole Epstein saga is all about other men enabling and abusing.”
But whilst the BBC reported Phillips as an ‘Epstein survivor’, the reality, as my investigation unearthed, was that she wasn’t a victim in the slightest. In fact, having met Epstein whilst in her early twenties, she became a recruiter. One of the women whom she recruited was Rina Oh.
You can read my interview with Rina by clicking here.
That’s all I have time for today, folks. But I’ll be releasing another exclusive interview in the coming week, and will be posting more updates and fact-check articles covering the Epstein Files along the way.
Meanwhile, as well as having meetings to organise my book launch (paid subscribers will get a free eBook copy, but it will also be available in hardback and paperback - details on where you can buy one will be out soon), I’m navigating the legal journey of exposing serious fraud and blackmail relating to the Epstein scandal, based on a stack of evidence I’ve been able to unearth throughout my ongoing investigation. This includes witness tampering and coercion, extortion, blackmail of innocent individuals based on allegations that lawyers knew to be false, and false testimony given during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.
If you’d like to be a part of this, please subscribe below.
Have a great weekend!
Happy to be a new subscriber! You came highly recommended by House in Habit! Great article
So much information! I appreciate your extensive research. Thank you Jay!!