Attorney Andrew Branca says it best:
one could believe what the Trump administration is explicitly telling us–they HAD good reason to EXPECT that a careful review of the Epstein “files” in the possession of the prior administration would lead to evidence of criminal conduct that could be prosecuted–but that the ACTUAL review of what is available to them does NOT amount to evidence of prosecutable criminal conduct.
That could be because the criminal conduct was much more limited than imagined–perhaps it was largely Epstein who was the actual monster, and he’s already facing the forever consequences of that conduct?
Or it could be because the monstrous conduct WAS widespread but that the EVIDENCE of that widespread criminality has been stripped from the “files” available to the current administration, due to no fault of Trump.
After all, Trump’s most vicious political enemies have been in possession of these “files” for years. If the conduct largely implicates those enemies, why would they NOT strip the evidence of their criminality from the files they knew would be available to Trump?
We can also be certain that if the “files” in the possession of Trump’s enemies had so much of a hint of Trump himself engaging in any of the alleged offenses against children, we would have learned of this notional evidence many, many years ago.
And yet we have not.
When there are hypothesis consistent with Trump acting in good faith, why does everyone who is purportedly a supporter of his administration so quick to jump to the conclusion that Trump is acting in bad faith?
I think that those files had a lot of high ranking people on them- from both political parties. I used to say that certain politicians like SCOTUS judges were acting oddly, as if someone had videos of them with Vietnamese prostitutes.
Blackmail only works if the information being used as leverage remains secret.