No end in sight – Epstein’s files and the open account

Three million more pages, plus thousands of videos and images – and then the sentence that this was supposed to be the final major release. That very contradiction hangs over everything. The US Department of Justice dumps a data avalanche onto the internet and at the same time tries to close the lid. Not because the truth is complete, but because the debate has become politically toxic.

“The instruction from (Trump) to the Department of Justice was to be as transparent as possible, to release the files and to establish the greatest possible transparency. And that is exactly what we have done.” (To be continued – editor’s note)

Todd Blanche, appearing as Deputy Attorney General, defended the release almost at a run against the suspicion that the material had been sorted, smoothed and strategically redacted. He emphasized that the White House had nothing to do with reviewing the documents, had exercised no oversight and had not told the Department what to look for or what to redact. This assurance is not incidental, it is the answer to a fear: that the files are indeed “released,” but in a form that is politically useful. The numbers themselves are brutal. Three million additional pages, around 2,000 videos, approximately 180,000 images. At the same time, the Department admits that originally about six million pages were considered “potentially relevant.” Then, it says, too much was collected, and in the end only half was released. This is exactly where the conflict begins: Democrats accuse the government of violating the law by cutting the scope in half. It is the core of a distrust that does not disappear through sheer volume, but through clear criteria – and those are precisely what are missing.

Congress had set a deadline, December 19. The documents arrive weeks later. In addition, Blanche announces that the Department will explain to Congress why redactions were made. And he lists reasons: personal data and medical information of victims, depictions of sexual violence against children, material involving death or violence. That is plausible. But it does not answer the question why, precisely in a case like this, the public gains the impression that not only protection, but also control, is taking place.

In the released documents there is also a second problem: a significant portion consists of unverified tips to investigators, tipster material, some of it baseless because data and timelines do not match, rumors, allegations without substantiated foundation. The Department knows that exactly this can generate new filth – and at the same time says that false information may be contained in the files. This places something into the open that cannot be cleanly resolved: names appear, but the context often remains suspended.

With the president, this becomes particularly delicate. In the documents there are thousands of records in which Donald Trump is mentioned. There is a summary that the Federal Bureau of Investigation prepared last summer, with more than a dozen tips that reached the agency concerning Epstein and Trump, including serious allegations. The decisive point is this: these tips contain no confirming evidence. Precisely for that reason, one may not turn them into facts. But just as important is this: the state collected it, structured it, bundled it in its own paper. This is not an internet rumor, this is state file work – just without visible consequences to the outside.

At the same time, other names emerge that the files do not treat as side issues. Howard Lutnick appears in the documents as someone who planned a trip to Epstein’s island in 2012, even though he had previously stated that he had severed relations with Epstein by around 2005 at the latest. The documents suggest that the trip may have taken place. Lutnick says he cannot comment on this before he has seen the documents. This is exactly the pattern now emerging everywhere: the files provide new details, but no one can or wants to explain them immediately – and the public is left with the space in between.

In the case of Bill Gates, documents show notes and drafts by Epstein from 2013 dealing with extramarital sex. It remains unclear whether Epstein ever sent these emails. The Gates Foundation rejects the allegations as completely absurd and false. Here, too, the same applies: the files show how Epstein worked – as someone who organized influence through knowledge, insinuation and potential leverage. Whether he deployed it is not always provable, but the system becomes visible.

Another element consists of emails that suggest a close relationship between Epstein and Richard Branson, likewise heavily framed around women. Added to this is a diagram of Epstein’s “inner circle”: employees, assistants, several girlfriends. Striking is the finding that has stuck like a thorn for years: of all these people, in the end only Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted for aiding the sex trafficking structure. The graphic also includes Epstein’s lawyer Darren Indyke and his accountant Richard Kahn – people who stabilize a system not with words, but with structures.

Then there is the Steve Tisch case. The documents outline an exchange in which Epstein apparently “brokered” women, including descriptions in vulgar language. In emails, Tisch asks in slang whether a woman is a sex worker. In one passage, Epstein asks for a phone number because he does not want a trail in the messages. Women in turn write to Epstein that they are meeting or have met Tisch. And Tisch invites Epstein as a guest to a New York Giants game. This is not a side note, it shows mechanics: contacts, selection, access, a person as an interface between power and availability.

Steve Tisch is co-owner of the New York Giants. His father purchased a 50 percent stake in the franchise in 1991, and after his death in 2005 Steve Tisch assumed this position and has since been chairman, executive vice president and co-owner of the team. He shares ownership with the Mara family, which also holds a significant stake.

Particularly weak is the 21-page FBI slide deck that the authorities themselves produced. It lists serious allegations against powerful men, including Trump, financier Leon Black and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. It does not state whether anything was verified. But it makes unmistakably clear that the authorities knew of these allegations and structured them together. And then comes a sentence that almost sounds cynical: there was no indication that these men were considered suspects. Knowledge that does not translate into responsibility is exactly what drives people crazy about this complex.

The reality in the Epstein file jungle – the only path to full clarification consists in continuing to research independently.

The slide deck also names Bill Clinton and Leslie Wexner as figures appearing in statements or contexts, not necessarily with abuse allegations. At the same time, it records: none of the known Epstein victims publicly accused Clinton of misconduct; Clinton’s spokesman said he knew nothing about Epstein’s crimes. With Wexner it becomes more complicated: a document from 2019 lists him as a possible co-conspirator, while at the same time noting “limited evidence.” Wexner’s lawyers state that he was not close to Epstein and had no knowledge of sexual misconduct; Wexner’s side emphasizes that he was not a target of the investigations. This is exactly what the pattern looks like: files provide hints, counterstatements follow, and in between stands the question of why so much could remain in the dark for so long.

Added to this is another element in the Epstein story that has not been unknown until now, but has hardly been illuminated: Sergey Brin is not just any billionaire, but the co-founder of Google, one of the most influential technology companies in the world. The files thus show not only private proximity, but a connection between Epstein’s network and a corporation that shapes global information flows. Contacts with executives, meetings on the island, communication with Ghislaine Maxwell – all of this did not occur in a vacuum, but against the backdrop of economic and political power. That Epstein at the same time networked bankers, investors and tech elites has been known for years, but is here for the first time underpinned with concrete documents. The question therefore is not whether Google as a company was involved, but how self-evidently central figures of the tech industry moved in an environment already marked by abuse allegations. It is precisely this normalization of proximity that gives the files their real explosiveness.

Even the redactions themselves become a scandal because they do not function cleanly. The Department of Justice has in the past justified delays with the protection of victims – and now, in an official paper, incompletely redacted victim names nonetheless appear. If the state claims to redact for protection, then that protection must work. If it does not, every justification appears like an excuse. And then there is the passage that can be read as a political sedative: a slide on “misconceptions” explains that investigators found no orgies or threesomes with two men, that victims were not held captive, that Epstein did not regularly prostitute them for money. This is meant to counter conspiracy myths. But it also feels like a language guideline that wants to make reality smaller. Anyone who understands the violence in this system knows: it does not take basement chains to break people. Power, dependency, pressure, selection, fear, silence are enough.

The government wants to “close” this case with this package. But it cannot as long as the central tension remains: the state publishes material on a massive scale, but delivers no comprehensible, verifiable, complete explanation of why certain things were redacted, withheld, halved, delayed, incorrectly anonymized. And it cannot expect the public to fall silent as long as the files show how closely Epstein reached into spheres of power, how often names flash up, how often tips were collected, and how rarely visible consequences followed.

If this is supposed to be the last major release, then this is not the end. It is only the moment when one officially says: we have delivered, now that is enough. The documents themselves tell a different story. They tell of a system that does not hinge on one person, but on the willingness of influential circles to accept proximity as long as it is convenient – and to claim distance as soon as it becomes costly.