A lot of hay is being made about people whose names appear in “the Epstein files.” I have seen people screaming that, if someone’s name is on the list, they should be summarily tossed in prison for pedophilia. I think that is wrong on so many levels.
Simply knowing Jeffery Epstein is not evidence of illegal activity. Flying to his island on Epstein’s personal plane? Still not evidence that the person was breaking the law. Do you know what would be? Evidence of a person actually breaking the law by having sex with children.
The government, to the best of anyone’s knowledge, doesn’t have that evidence. Epstein maintained contact books listing hundreds of names—politicians, academics, celebrities, business leaders. Again, inclusion does not equal criminal involvement. Most names in Epstein-related documents appear because of:
- Flight logs
- Address books
- Deposition mentions
- Social contact
That is not the same thing as evidence of sexual conduct, criminal conduct, evidence of sex with minors. Even if they did have such evidence, there are some major issues with a case like this.
- Being in flight logs or address books ≠ evidence of criminal conduct.
- Epstein is dead → the central cooperating witness is gone, which is why he was killed to begin with, in my opinion.
- Most alleged conduct dates to 2000–2005, so many potential state-level charges likely expired under 2005-era statutes of limitations.
- Memories fade, witnesses die, evidence deteriorates.
High-profile people circulate in overlapping elite social networks. Presence alone proves proximity — not participation, knowledge, or criminal intent. Demanding punishment purely on that basis ignores:
- Presumption of innocence
- Burden of proof
- The need for specific criminal acts
This entire Epstein debacle has become a political football, with each party using it as a cudgel with which to beat the other team over the head. It’s political theater, nothing more. There are hundreds of names on those lists, a who’s who of the rich, powerful, and politically well connected. Everyone who was anyone- from Ronald Reagan, to Cher, Princess Diana, Steve Bannon, all three of the Clintons, and even the Pope appear in those lists. It’s unlikely that all of them committed crimes. At the same time, it’s unlikely that none of them committed crimes. The rub is separating out which is which, and that is not ever going to happen.
Each side can highlight names inconvenient to opponents, ignore names inconvenient to allies, imply guilt through association without meeting evidentiary standards. That creates an information environment where association is framed as implication, lack of charges is framed as cover-up, and legal nuance is discarded for outrage value. That’s political theater dynamics, not prosecutorial analysis.
0 Comments