The Hidden Pact - Why You Can Only Understand the Jeffrey Epstein Case If You Reconstruct the First 2007 Proceeding - and the Fake Madness of 2026

Because numerous assumptions, misrepresentations, and far-reaching interpretations based on unverified material are currently circulating, we are once again making available excerpts from our investigations and articles of July 26, July 30, and November 12, 2025. Please therefore do not be surprised that older comments are already attached to this article. In them, we deal in detail with the claim that Trump “betrayed” Epstein to the police. The Epstein case can only be clarified if one consistently distinguishes between verifiable truth, demonstrable falsehoods, and mere narratives - and if one adheres strictly to the facts.

How we feel about Trump is no secret. We do not like him. However, that has no influence on our work. What is not substantiated is not claimed by us. The fact that we naturally have an internal opinion changes nothing about this principle. Our research into the alleged betrayal by Trump, as of November 12, relates exclusively to the Florida investigations and to some extent Ghislaine Maxwell. Anything beyond that would be speculation - and we do not participate in that. As is well known, new findings and information have led us to publish further follow-up articles.

What is currently being circulated by parts of the media and social networks as “new FBI documents” from February 2026 is in fact nothing new. The documents shown are an FBI FD-302 interview dated October 18, 2019. An FD-302 is not an investigative finding and not an official determination, but a summary of a witness statement by FBI agents. In this case, it records the statement of the then Police Chief of Palm Beach, Michael Reiter. These documents have been known for years. We, like many others, have not known them only since yesterday.

2020–2021: Portions of the 302 reports first surfaced in publicly accessible court filings and through Freedom of Information Act requests.

2021–2022: Additional waves of disclosures followed, in part after court rulings that compelled the FBI and the Department of Justice to release more material. Investigative journalists also obtained copies of these records.

Since 2023–2025: Media outlets, legal researchers, and investigative archives—particularly those focused on documenting the Epstein case—have since posted additional portions of these 302 reports online, making them publicly accessible.

In substance, it recounts that Trump described Ghislaine Maxwell as “Epstein’s operational force” and said one should focus on her. It also states that Trump was “one of the first to call” when it became known that Epstein was under investigation. A purported remark is quoted: “Thank God you’re stopping him - everybody knew he was doing it.” That is all it says. If the phone call in 2005/2006 ever took place, it would have had to appear in the investigative record at the time.

However, for precisely that reason, the FBI expressly doubted that the phone call between Trump and Michael Reiter ever took place. “We are not aware of any evidence that the president contacted law enforcement 20 years ago,” an official said. Michael Reiter himself contacted the FBI in 2019 to hand over two boxes of files that were still in his house. Whether the FBI ever received those boxes has never been confirmed. This information is not new; it was already publicly known in 2019 and was reported at the time. It also remains striking and in need of explanation that Reiter did not place the alleged phone call on record in the original 2005/2006 investigations or at least did not document it. That such information surfaced only more than a decade later, in 2019, raises questions about the traceability and credibility of the account. Those questions were already being asked at the time.

Very popular in AfD circles, and the platforms are being flooded with it. Unfortunately, better preparatory work by other media outlets would also have been helpful.

Anyone who stages these 2019-dated interview transcripts in February 2026 as a “new FBI protocol” and constructs from them the factual assertion that Trump betrayed or incriminated Epstein is engaging in fantasy. It is not a new revelation. It is the renewed recycling and twisting of documents known for years - with an interpretation that the wording does not support.

Whoever wants to understand the case of Jeffrey Epstein—whoever wants to grasp how a man facing dozens of witness statements, police photos, DNA evidence, victim lists, and search warrants could still evade a federal trial—must go back to the beginning. Not to Manhattan in 2019. Not to the cell where he died. But back to Florida. To the year 2007. To that first case, which today stands as a textbook example of institutional failure, political interference, and a systemic betrayal of victims. And which we have reconstructed in every detail. Because nothing about this deal was inevitable. Nothing about this agreement was legally necessary. It was the result of a power structure that eluded public scrutiny. We analyzed internal memos, correspondence, draft indictments, witness notes, and the original versions of the settlement documents. Anyone asking why Epstein remained free for so long will not find the answer in New York—but in Miami. In May 2006, the U.S. Attorney’s Office takes over the case. Months earlier, police in Palm Beach had searched Epstein’s mansion and found evidence of the systematic abuse of underage girls: appointment books, massage tables, surveillance equipment, and hundred-dollar bills in the drawers. When Marie Villafaña, Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, reviews the file, she recommends a federal indictment. In internal emails, she warns of the “networked structure” Epstein used to systematically recruit young girls from vulnerable backgrounds.

But as early as the fall of 2006, Epstein’s attorneys began working to undermine the case. They arranged informal meetings with senior prosecutors and visited Alexander Acosta, head of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, privately in his office. Names such as Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, Roy Black, and Alan Dershowitz appeared on visitor logs. The requests for meetings were persistent. The defense demanded that no federal indictment be filed. When that did not happen immediately, they introduced new terms: a state-level resolution that would grant criminal immunity to Epstein and those around him, along with complete confidentiality. During this period, a key piece of evidence disappeared: a computer containing Epstein’s appointment books, emails, and photographs. Police had failed to secure it during an initial visit before a search warrant was issued. That raised questions about the investigative work of the local police department, in which Michael Reiter was institutionally involved at the time. When Villafaña sought a new search warrant in the spring of 2007, the Justice Department declined to support the effort. The defense denied that the computer existed or contained evidence. No further action was taken to pursue it.

On June 1, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office proposes a plea deal: two years in state prison, a guilty plea to state charges, registration as a sex offender. The defense rejects the offer. On July 26, Acosta presents the final terms in an internal meeting: no federal indictment. Two years in a Florida state facility. No public disclosure of the deal. No notification to the victims. What follows is a legal disarmament process. The sentence is reduced without written justification to 20 months, then to 18 months. An internal email from Jeffrey Sloman, Acosta’s deputy, documents the development: “Epstein is willing to accept 20 months.” Then: “We are working on a solution that allows 18 months.” Who made the proposal remains unclear. There is no memo. No written decision. In parallel, the defense demands immunity for additional individuals. The agreement text includes a clause stating that the government “will not institute criminal charges against potential co-conspirators.” Specifically meant are: Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen, Lesley Groff, Adriana Ross, Nadia Marcinkova. All appear in the investigative files. None is ever charged - until many years later.

ChatGPT: Another element: the victims were deliberately not informed. Villafaña protested, citing the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which mandates that victims be notified of key prosecutorial decisions. Her warnings were ignored. Internal emails show that Sloman instructed her not to make contact. “Take no risks,” he said. They did not want to jeopardize the deal. On September 24, 2007, the Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed. Epstein would later not be transferred to a federal prison but instead to the Palm Beach County Jail. There, after just a few days, he was granted work release: twelve hours a day, from Monday through Sunday, he was allowed to go to his office. Visitor logs show that he was repeatedly visited there by young women. No one intervened. The public learned nothing about any of this. The entire agreement remained secret. It only partially surfaced in 2010. It was disclosed by court order in 2018. Political scrutiny did not begin until 2019. By that time, Epstein had been arrested again – and died in jail.

But the legal effect of the deal persisted. The clause on non-prosecution was worded in such a way that it remained unclear whether it bound other U.S. Attorney’s Offices. When the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York brought charges again in 2019, it spent months reviewing whether the old NPA limited its authority. Only after Epstein’s death did they state they did not consider themselves bound by it. In the meantime, victims filed suit, bringing legal action against the government. A federal court ruled in 2019 that their rights had been violated - but legally undoing the deal was nearly impossible. There was no leverage. Jane Doe 1 is now identified as Courtney Wild. Jane Doe 2 was never officially named in court documents, but several credible investigations suggest that she is a woman who has continued to withhold her name out of fear of retaliation. A federal court ruled in her favor in 2019 - but because Epstein was already dead, the agreement could no longer be legally reversed.

Alexander Acosta, by then serving as Secretary of Labor under Donald Trump, came under pressure in 2019. He defended his actions - arguing that he had secured the best possible outcome. The pressure became too great. He resigned. But a full investigation never took place. They are not in the spotlight, but their names are explicitly listed in the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Jeffrey Epstein: Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. Four women who, according to investigative files, witness statements, and journalistic reports, played a central role in the network of the convicted sex offender - and who to this day benefit from a grant of immunity that many legal experts describe as a disgrace to the U.S. justice system. Sarah Kellen, now known as Sarah Kellen Vickers, was for years considered Epstein’s assistant, coordinator, and shadow figure. “The way he likes it” - that is how, according to multiple witnesses, she instructed underage girls before their first encounter with Epstein. She booked flights, selected rooms, organized massages, and was often present in the room when the abuse occurred. Despite these statements, and despite being named in multiple lawsuits, she was never charged. Instead, she married NASCAR driver Brian Vickers and now lives a quiet life in the United States. The protection granted to her under the Non-Prosecution Agreement of September 24, 2007, remains effective to this day. Adriana Ross, a former model from Poland, worked at Epstein’s Palm Beach residence. Her role: scheduling massage appointments. Her task, according to the FBI: systematically deleting electronic files once the investigation began. She, too, was never held accountable. Ross, who has withdrawn from the public eye for years, is believed to be living in Europe today. Lesley Groff was Epstein’s longtime assistant in New York, responsible for his calendar, his contacts, and his financial transactions. She coordinated flights, spoke with potential “masseuses,” made payments - and according to internal statements, Epstein treated her almost like a family member. She was never indicted either, despite being named as a co-conspirator in several civil lawsuits in 2020. And then there is Nadia Marcinkova, described by Epstein himself as “his sex slave.” She is likely originally from Slovakia and was naturalized with his help. Several victims reported that she was brought to Florida as a minor and later actively participated in abuse. U.S. authorities categorized her partly as a victim, partly as a perpetrator. She was never charged. Today, she reportedly works as an air traffic controller in Florida - under the name Nadia Marcinko.

The fact that all these women were shielded from prosecution by a secret federal agreement has sparked disbelief in both legal and public discourse to this day. The Non-Prosecution Agreement not only tied the hands of investigators - it was also never disclosed to the victims. The immunity granted to Kellen, Ross, Groff, and Marcinkova remains a symbol of the decades-long disparity in the American legal system - where power, money, and influence outweighed truth and justice.

It is a document of historic gravity - a legal construct that continues to shake the very notion of what criminal prosecution is allowed to achieve in a democratic rule-of-law system - and what it is not. On September 24, 2007, Jeffrey Epstein signed what is known as a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida. The 7-page agreement, concluded under the supervision of U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, contained not only extraordinary concessions to Epstein himself - but also protective clauses for his alleged female co-conspirators. Already on the first page, it becomes clear what was really at stake: the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office accused Epstein, among other things, of having conspired with other known and unknown individuals to commit a conspiracy against the United States - with the goal of persuading underage girls to engage in prostitution across state lines. The wording reads: “… knowingly and willfully conspired with others […] to persuade, induce, or entice minor girls to engage in prostitution in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b).” Nevertheless, the entire federal investigation was dropped - in favor of a deal with the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office. The agreement explicitly stated that no charges would be filed against Epstein as long as he met certain conditions. One of those conditions was that Epstein would plead guilty on the state level to two relatively minor charges: solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor for prostitution. The resulting sentence: 18 months in jail, of which he served only 13 - partially on work release. Perhaps the most outrageous detail appears on page 5: the U.S. government explicitly agreed not to prosecute potential co-conspirators of Epstein - naming Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova. This is an extraordinary clause, one that is virtually without precedent in American law.

The agreement was negotiated behind closed doors. The U.S. Attorney’s Office even committed to notifying Epstein in advance if the agreement were ever to be disclosed - for instance through the Freedom of Information Act. The victims, who were underage girls at the time, were never informed of the deal’s existence - a clear violation of the United States’ Crime Victims’ Rights Act. In 2019, a federal court ruled that their rights had been violated, but the agreement could no longer be overturned legally. By that point, Epstein was already dead. Particularly serious is the clause stating that all active grand jury subpoenas would be suspended upon signing the agreement - including the obligation to preserve certain computer equipment and evidence. This protected Epstein and his associates from further scrutiny of their activities. Epstein was also allowed to self-surrender to begin his sentence - months after the sentencing had been handed down. The date of sentencing was postponed at his personal request. Prosecutors agreed to provide Epstein’s lawyers with a list of the victims. Epstein, in turn, was barred from contacting those individuals directly - except through a representative paid by him. This absurd mechanism ultimately granted Epstein a measure of control over communication with the victims. Finally, Epstein also waived his right to be indicted by a grand jury in the event of new charges. Even if the agreement were violated, a mere “notice” by the prosecution would suffice - yet another safeguard in favor of the accused.

Legally, this agreement represents a textbook example of a so-called Deferred Prosecution Agreement - with the distinction that it shielded not only the primary defendant, but also his entire alleged network. The document is a harrowing testament to how a group of powerful men and institutions were willing to use their influence to shield a sexual predator - at the expense of justice and the victims.

The Return of the Deal – Ghislaine Maxwell, the Non-Prosecution Agreement, and Perhaps the Most Dangerous Precedent in U.S. Legal History

As our investigation has revealed, Maxwell is now trying to jump on the same train. It was the most criticized agreement in recent American legal history – a secret arrangement between a billionaire sex offender and a U.S. Attorney’s Office, concluded in the shadow of justice. And now, nearly two decades later, Ghislaine Maxwell wants to make this deal her own lifeline. Jeffrey Epstein’s co-conspirator, convicted of trafficking minors, is asking the Supreme Court of the United States to overturn her conviction – citing an agreement she never signed, but which she believes protects her. Maxwell’s attorneys argue that the so-called Non-Prosecution Agreement Epstein reached in 2007 with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida grants her full immunity – even from later charges in New York. The deal included the clause that the U.S. government would not bring criminal charges against “potential co-conspirators,” naming several of Epstein’s assistants. Maxwell was not mentioned. And yet she now sees herself covered by that very wording. The case is now before the Supreme Court under docket number 24-1073. The question that now arises goes far beyond Maxwell herself: can a single U.S. Attorney, through a hidden deal, create nationwide protection for third parties – and thereby undermine the justice systems of entire states? The defense’s argument rests on a single word: “United States.” The agreement states that the United States would not bring charges against Epstein’s co-conspirators. Maxwell wants to interpret this as a general, nationwide assurance. But the Department of Justice strongly disagrees. The wording, it argues, clearly referred – in the context of the time – to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in South Florida, not to the entire federal government. What Maxwell is demanding goes far beyond a retrial. She is asking for a reinterpretation of what Non-Prosecution Agreements are even allowed to mean. If the Supreme Court were to grant her request, it would mean that in the future a regional U.S. Attorney could, in secret, shield not only a defendant but also his entire alleged network from prosecution across the country – without other U.S. Attorneys ever having to be informed. The Justice Department warns of the consequences. Such “global immunity clauses” would undermine all federal oversight and disrupt the balance between the 94 judicial districts. To acquit Maxwell on this basis now would turn the original mistake into a legally binding principle. Particularly perverse is the asymmetry: Epstein himself was indicted again in 2019 – by the very same office in New York that later brought Maxwell to justice. But if the Non-Prosecution Agreement really had the scope Maxwell now claims, she – and not Epstein – would have been immune to such charges. That a deal could offer greater protection to the co-conspirator than to the primary offender defies all logic. Another key point carries significant weight: Maxwell was never a party to this agreement. The NPA was signed between Epstein and the Florida U.S. Attorney’s Office – Maxwell was not involved. Under contract law, only those explicitly named as beneficiaries, or for whom the contracting parties clearly intended to provide protection, may derive rights from it. But at the time of the agreement’s conclusion, the U.S. Attorney’s Office did not even know the specifics of Maxwell’s role in the abuse system. She was not part of the investigation, not part of the negotiations – and never mentioned. Even if one were to assume that the clause was meant to shield co-conspirators – it remains too vague to confer enforceable rights to a third party like Maxwell. Several federal courts agree: the agreement is “not a global shield” – it carries no effect beyond its clearly defined scope – neither geographically nor personally. It is also questionable whether the case is even suitable to be heard by the Supreme Court. The lower courts – both the district and appellate levels – are in agreement: the deal does not protect Maxwell. And unlike in other cases where federal courts have reached conflicting rulings on the same legal question, there is no split here. According to the Justice Department, this is not a constitutional case – but an individual case, legally clear and long settled.

And yet the case now appears on the list of pending proceedings. The Supreme Court could set a precedent – and determine whether deals like Epstein’s can provide protection even when made in secret and never authorized by the main Department of Justice. It would be a dangerous precedent. The name Alexander Acosta has long become a symbol of judicial failure – and perhaps much more, as our investigation into the matter is still ongoing. The decision to spare Epstein in 2007 with a deal that effectively granted him impunity not only betrayed the victims but also shattered public trust in law enforcement. That a co-conspirator is now trying to exploit that very failure to save herself casts an even darker shadow over the scope of this agreement. This is not an ordinary appeal. It is an attempt to turn a failed piece of American legal history into a tool of self-liberation – into a ticket to freedom for a woman who, for years, was part of a system of abuse. The Supreme Court will have to decide whether the law will once again become an instrument of concealment – or whether it will finally, even if belatedly, fulfill its original function: justice. Anyone who wants to understand how Epstein was able to survive for so long, why his crimes were systematically ignored, why women had to fight for decades to obtain justice, will not find the answer in the final days of his life. The answer lies in the memos, meeting notes, and negotiation documents from 2007. Anyone who does not understand how this deal came to be will never understand how the justice system failed – and why certain circles are doing everything they can to keep it buried. We are reconstructing the entire case, and we will not let go – and we will not stop in the future.

Was darauf folgte:

The Dog That Didn’t Bark – New Epstein Emails Heavily Implicate Trump

They are inconspicuous lines, written years ago, yet they strike at the core of power. In emails obtained by us, Jeffrey Epstein writes that Donald Trump “spent hours at my house with one of the girls.” In another message, he says Trump “knew about the girls” and asked Ghislaine Maxwell “to stop.” Words that now, in the midst of Washington’s political paralysis, feel like a blow to the façade of denial. We have also obtained the official congressional letter, which appears further down in the article.

I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he’s never been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you – or, if it really looks like he could win, you can save him and create a debt. Of course, it’s also possible that, when asked, he’ll say: “Jeffrey is a great guy who’s been treated unfairly and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime.”

Am Dienstag, 15. Dezember 2015, um 23:52 Uhr, schrieb Jeffrey E. je*********@***il.com

On Tuesday, December 15, 2015, at 8:00 PM, Michael Wolff wrote:
I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you – either live on air or afterwards.

Trump, now in his second term as President of the United States, denies any connection to Epstein’s crimes. He calls the late financier a “creep,” dismissing all accusations as a “Democratic hoax.” But the new emails, selected from thousands of pages submitted to the House Oversight Committee, draw a different picture – one that goes far beyond the question of whether the two men were friends. They suggest that Epstein was convinced Trump knew more than he publicly admitted.

Original message
From: Jeffrey Epstein je*********@***il.com

To: Gmax
Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2011, 2:25:45 PM
Subject:

I want you to realize that the dog that hasn’t barked is Trump. [VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him – he has never once been mentioned. Police chief etc. I’m 75% there.

In a message from April 2011, Epstein wrote to Ghislaine Maxwell, who years later was convicted for aiding sexual abuse: “I want you to realize that the dog that hasn’t barked is Trump.” Then the line that is now being quoted in Washington as if it were evidence: “A victim spent hours with him at my house, he has never once been mentioned.” Maxwell replied briefly: “I’ve been thinking about that.”

[VICTIM] – Mar-a-Lago. [redacted]. Trump said he asked me to resign – never a member, never. Of course he knew about the girls, as he asked Ghislaine to stop.

Another email is from January 2019, only a few months before Epstein’s death in federal custody. Recipient: the author Michael Wolff. “Of course he knew about the girls,” Epstein wrote, “he asked Ghislaine to stop.” At that time Trump was already President for the first time, and public debate over Epstein had flared up again. Democrats call it an “explosive find.” Robert Garcia, chairman of the Oversight Committee, stated: “These emails raise glaring questions about what the White House is hiding and how close the relationship between Epstein and the President really was.”

No statement came from the White House. Silence – perhaps in the hope that the public has grown numb to the shadows of the past. But the timing of the release is not accidental. The House of Representatives is just returning from a forced recess to vote on ending the longest government shutdown in U.S. history. Few doubt that attention will now shift back to the Epstein matter.

The emails all date from after Epstein’s infamous 2008 deal in Florida, in which federal prosecutors agreed not to pursue sex trafficking charges. They are therefore not youthful memories but messages written by a man who already knew how much he had to lose. A message from December 2015 shows that Epstein and Wolff even discussed how Trump should respond to media questions. Wolff warned him that CNN was planning to ask Trump during a Republican debate about his relationship with Epstein. Epstein replied: “If we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” Wolff wrote back: “I’d do nothing. If he denies ever being on your plane or at your house, you have political capital in your hand – you can hang him later or save him.”

It is a letter that reads like an indictment. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has leveled heavy accusations against President Donald Trump in a six-page document. The letter, dated November 9, 2025, describes in detail how Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite sentenced to 20 years in prison for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking network, is being treated like a state guest in a federal prison in Texas – and how this preferential treatment may lead directly back to Trump’s Justice Department.

Raskin cites whistleblower reports claiming that Maxwell is living a life at the Federal Prison Camp Bryan that bears no resemblance to ordinary imprisonment: specially prepared meals, private visitation rooms with snacks and drinks, unrestricted computer access, dog play sessions, and personal exercise time outside regular hours. Her correspondence is handled by the warden herself, emails and documents transmitted without censorship. Anyone in the prison who complains is punished or reassigned.

Behind this luxurious treatment, according to Raskin, stands a dangerous entanglement of politics, justice, and personal interest. The whistleblower documents suggest that Maxwell is actively working on a pardon or commutation application, prepared in consultation with Trump’s associates. Raskin claims Warden Tanisha Hall herself helps her print and forward the documents - a direct violation of service regulations and an indication of political interference.

At the center of the accusations stands Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer and now Deputy Attorney General. He personally interviewed Maxwell in the summer of 2025, shortly before ordering her transfer to the privileged FPC Bryan – even though sex offenders are normally barred from that facility. After that meeting, Raskin says, Maxwell made official statements to the DOJ meant to exonerate Trump: she claimed she had never seen him in any inappropriate situation and knew nothing of his connection to underage girls. Raskin quotes from Maxwell’s own court file: she had “directly and repeatedly over many years recruited, transported, and coerced young girls into prostitution for Epstein” and showed no remorse. That she now enjoys “a status like in a Trump resort” behind bars, he writes, is an insult to her victims.

Raskin becomes particularly sharp when recalling Trump’s own words. When asked whether he would rule out a pardon for Maxwell, Trump replied: “I haven’t heard the name in so long. I’d have to look at it.” For Raskin this is not forgetfulness but calculation – a deliberate effort to create political leverage. He calls Trump’s behavior “mysterious amnesia” and recalls that the President displayed the same pattern during other scandals – such as the pardon of crypto billionaire Changpeng Zhao.

The congressman now demands written answers by November 24, 2025, to three specific questions: whether Trump or anyone in his administration discussed a pardon for Maxwell, whether orders were given for her preferential treatment, and whether Maxwell or her associates promised anything in return. Raskin warns in his letter that the actions of Blanche and other officials could amount to a “far-reaching violation of criminal law” – including bribery, witness tampering, and obstruction of justice.

The letter was copied to several top officials, including Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Blanche himself, and Warden Hall. What may appear at first glance to be a partisan clash carries far greater weight. If it is confirmed that Maxwell is indeed working on a pardon with knowledge or assistance from the Trump administration – and that she provided false statements about Trump’s contacts with Epstein in exchange – it would amount to nothing less than a new justice scandal at the heart of the U.S. government. Raskin ends his letter with a sentence that reads both as a warning to the President and a reminder to the public: “The time has come for all excuses and silence about the pardon of a convicted sex offend
„Die Zeit ist gekommen, dass alle Ausflüchte und Schweigen über die Begnadigung einer verurteilten Sexualstraftäterin enden. Wir fordern Antworten – jetzt.“

This correspondence – spare in words but cutting in significance – opens a window into the strange proximity of power, money, and guilt. It shows how Epstein, even after his first conviction, continued to enjoy access to the highest circles, and how naturally he regarded the future President as someone who knew. Trump, for his part, has repeatedly claimed in recent years that he expelled Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club after Epstein “poached spa attendants” there. Allegedly one of them was Virginia Giuffre, who later said Maxwell recruited her into Epstein’s sex ring while she was a teenager working at Mar-a-Lago. Yet in a 2019 email Epstein wrote mockingly: “Never a member, ever.”

On July 29, 2025 Donald Trump spoke to journalists on the return flight from Scotland aboard Air Force One - and made a statement that matches the decades-long relationship between him and Jeffrey Epstein with the results of the investigations of the last weeks. In brief, almost casual words he explained that in the early 2000s Epstein had "stolen" young women from the spa of his estate in Mar-a-Lago to draw them into his own now notorious network. Among these young women, Trump said, was also Virginia Giuffre - that woman who later became one of the central accusers, first as Jane Doe 1, in the proceedings around Epstein and who died by suicide in April 2025. Trump’s statement matches almost one to one with the timelines and documents that we possess.

Trump described that he had repeatedly warned Epstein not to poach employees from Mar-a-Lago, whether they worked in the spa or not. When Epstein ignored this warning and again took women from the spa he ultimately barred him from the estate. In his words there is a mixture of indignation and an attempt at distancing: "He stole them," said Trump, and at the same time emphasized that Giuffre had made no complaints against him or Mar-a-Lago.

What is remarkable is that these statements match the timelines and documents that we possess. Over years we have been able to reconstruct from witness statements, court files and internal documents a picture that supports exactly this sequence: that Epstein deliberately searched in Mar-a-Lago for young women who later appeared in his circle. Trump’s words fit seamlessly into this mosaic - not as a surprising confession but as an open confirmation of what our investigations have long established.

These words feel like a glimpse into a repressed era and give the sober, often dry documents a painful authenticity. That Trump now himself in front of live microphones says that Epstein had "stolen" Virginia Giuffre from his spa makes the tragedy more tangible - a young woman whose fate has long become a symbol of the destructive pull of power, abuse and complicity. For the public this is first-hand confirmation - a sentence that unites everything that for years remained hidden in the shadows of the files.

The story of their acquaintance is well known: both men moved in the same circles in the 1990s – New York, Palm Beach, private clubs, parties, camera flashes. In 2002 Trump said in an interview about Epstein: “He’s a terrific guy. It’s fun to be with him. People say he likes beautiful women as much as I do – many of them are quite young.” Later he claimed it was a “joke.” But in retrospect, it sounds like a foreshadowing of a truth no one wanted to hear. Maxwell is now serving a twenty-year prison sentence. According to a whistleblower cited by the Democrats, she has recently considered asking Trump for a pardon – a grotesque idea that nonetheless reveals how intertwined power and justice remain in this case.

Epstein himself took his life in his cell in August 2019 – officially. But his emails, his network, his guests, his flight logs, all of it lives on as a shadow archive. The release by the Oversight Committee brings only a fraction to light. Victims’ names have been redacted, the context remains incomplete. Yet the traces are unmistakable: a man who believed himself untouchable wrote about another man who still is.

In the corridors of the Capitol, the whispers have begun again. Whether the President who withholds the files is, in the end, part of those very files. And whether that “dog that didn’t bark” remained silent only because he knew why.