If you’re an avid watcher of LN24International, you would have noticed that we had put a pin  on discussing the release of the latest Epstein File, which took place on the 30th of January, and this was despite having followed recent developments, and having discussed them in (I believe) 2 episodes in the last year. Well, this putting a pin on the discussion was for a number of critical reasons, among them being the fact that there are 3 million files, and it was not plausible therefore to assume the immediate credibility of the files themselves or of anyone who was discussing them. And so, while still having not read or been exposed to ALL of the 3 million files released, I think there is an important discussion to have about the upholding of principles of justice (post file release), and a number of strategic concerns about the release of the files themselves.

THE STRATEGIC CONCERNS: WAS IT CONSTRUCTIVE TO RELEASE THE FILES IN THIS FASHION?

And now onto our main discussion, in which we discuss “The January 30th Epstein Files; and the Ramifications on Global Politics”; and we ought to begin with the strategic considerations surrounding how the files were released. Now, if you recall, in 2025, the Epstein files were initially said to exist, then the DOJ said they did not, while FBI Director Kash Patel even testified that there weren’t any files or prosecutable material), but there are 3 million files that were released. I highlight this historical context to say that I suspect that this trajectory does not give the files legal weight in broad societal discussion; instead, the files seem largely to satisfy a demand to prove their existence and release (at best). In fact, this is proven by the fact that there is less constructive legal discussion about the contents of the files, WHILE every group has their respective conclusion on what the files entail. And so, when many people are cherry picking their highlights, the conversation surrounding the files is more about pulling information that provokes a reaction, and less so about accountability – with the exception of Mandelson in the UK.

Then the second strategic concern with the release of the files is that there are many files that were released at once – 3 million, as was announced. While this seems generous on the part of GOP and Democrat lawmakers, this presents an obvious analytical issue because there is far too much information relative to the amount of time that people are expected to make value judgements of what is said, lest the story loses its urgency. And I say this considering an analogy presented by an analyst in which he articulated that if you printed all the 3 million files (not including audio recordings), they would be 3X as tall as the Statue of Liberty. This is not how information is released if it meant to be read analytically. Which is why, it is questionable to think that a single individual looked through all that information, and found it in an orderly fashion, enough to present a constructive evaluation of the contents. And so, you have to begin to wonder if this was not done intentionally; in the same way lawyers of a company will try to bury their opponents in paperwork to avoid them finding critical information in reasonable time.

Then the third strategic concern is that some things are still redacted (in addition to the expected redactions (such as victim names and faces). This is why there was an ad of Epstein victims demanding that the government release more information, because they argue some of the redaction prevents critical enquiries; and I believe this is also why Elon Musk recently announced he would cover legal defense costs for anyone who speaks the truth about Epstein and gets sued over it.

And so, it is in light of these three considerations that I believe it is, therefore, questionable how productive this release of the Epstein files is: the files appear to have been dropped in a somewhat disorganised way, and one that has caused so much distortion of the facts. In fact, someone even questioned if the government (at large, including the Democrats who tried to make a big deal of releasing the files by claiming they contained compromat on president Trump) – if they intentionally waited to release the files at a time when AI has progressed so much, because deep fakes, fake emails, and AI edited images have featured in what people claim are in the files, and these lies shape discussions because not everyone is looking through 3 million files to confirm what someone else states. But, thankfully community notes on X have been helpful in this respect).

Ultimately, I raise these strategic concerns because the release of the Epstein files is not supposed to be an end in itself; it is supposed to be about unravelling the hidden crimes committed by Epstein and possible collaborators. It seems counterintuitive to release the files in a manner that sparks isolated discussions, cherry picking, and a fabrication of information. In a world where justice for those harmed is the primary consideration of the criminal justice system, it does not appear that how the files were released is in service of that. But, here’s more about the release of the files on January 30th; and additional calls for more files.

THE DISCONNECT BETWEEN EMPHATIC EVIDENCE & ACCUSATIONS IN THE EPSTEIN FILES

In one of our previous discussions on the Epstein files, we began to question the extent to which the narratives about Epstein matched what was emphatic evidence and not circumstantial evidence. And we said this while examining official documentation detailing Ghilaine Maxwell’s actions. In that discussion, and even in raising it up now, I do not make this point to absolve Epstein of paedophilic actions (his guilt in that respect is very much established), but I raise this point to highlight that the extent to which a paedophilic ring rested largely with Epstein seems incongruous with the emphatic evidence against him.

In more detail, and according to the allegations in the indictment, court documents, and evidence presented at trial against Ghislaine Maxwell, all published in a press briefing by the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York: From at least 1994, up to and including in or about 2004, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18.  The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that their victims were in fact minors.  As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein’s residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.

MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways.  For example, MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, their schools, and their families, and taking them to the movies or on shopping trips.  MAXWELL also acclimated victims to Epstein’s conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein’s behavior. Additionally, Epstein offered to help some victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein’s assistance.  As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them.  MAXWELL also normalized and facilitated sexual abuse for a victim by discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when the victim was undressed, and encouraging the victim to massage Epstein.

Additionally, in the earlier phase of the conspiracy, from at least approximately 1994 through approximately 2001, MAXWELL and Epstein identified vulnerable girls, typically from single-mother households and difficult financial circumstances.  This earlier phase required the defendant and Epstein to identify one girl at a time to target for grooming and abuse.  In the later phase, from approximately 2001 until at least approximately 2004, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, minor girls to visit Epstein’s Palm Beach Residence to engage in sex acts with Epstein, after which Epstein, MAXWELL, or another employee of Epstein’s would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash. MAXWELL and Epstein encouraged one or more of those victims to travel with Epstein with the intention that the victim engage in sex acts with Epstein. Moreover, and in order to maintain and increase his supply of victims, MAXWELL and Epstein also paid certain victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused by Epstein. In this way, MAXWELL and Epstein created a network of underage victims for Epstein to sexually exploit.

Now, what this information from official documents has in common with many of Jeffery Epstein’s victims who’ve spoken out is that the victims detailed that they were groomed and trafficked by Ghilaine Maxwell, and were abused by Epstein, or Maxwell on occasion. BUT, many state that this is an incomplete narrative because they ask that if Ghilaine Maxwell is in prison for trafficking minors, who was she trafficking them to? And this question insinuates that there had to be others outside of Epstein that Ghilaine was trafficking children to. In light of this, it was often the now late Virginia Giuffre who has mentioned others like Prince Andrew as being part of those who abused her alongside Epstein. Now, I will not dismiss the possibility of there being people that Ghilaine and Epstein abused minors with, but I will state that the discussions on potential co-conspirators or clients seem less consequential if these discussions are based on speculation and accusations than on emphatic evidence. 

On top of that, what this speculation has done is make the Epstein files discussions a bipartisan contest on which party has the most Epstein-linked paedophiles, as opposed to dealing with the facts that are provable and well evidenced, and using that to ask questions or formulate strategies that amount to formal legal recourse! And so, there evidently is a disconnect between the accusations in the status quo and what the files contain and emphatic evidence (at least thus far). So, why not start there? Why not start with what is known, and use that to galvanise policy and action toward direct accountability.

THE EPSTEIN VICTIMS FUND ALSO CREATED AN INCENTIVE TO CLAIM TO BE AN EPSTEIN VICTIM

In essence, accusations are still accusations until proved with emphatic evidence; and as such, it is difficult to make the assumption that the appearance of a person’s name in the Epstein files necessarily means that they are guilty, when some of the material revealed is not yet proven, and was not provable even for conviction of JE and GM, thus not featuring in their trials. That said, we know that: Epstein was convicted (multiple times), we know he was a sex offender, and so the accusations about those mentioned certainly could be true… but they are still accusations; and it cross a very dangerous line to assume that an accusation is the same thing as guilt, because it says much more about the erosion of principles of justice, than a collective passion to see JE’s collaborators arrested.

Furthermore, I think there is little consideration about the fact that the Epstein victim fund also might have created an incentive for one to claim to have been abused by Epstein. Here’s the consideration here: the Epstein Victim Fund (which paid out millions of dollars to victims) was created to provide a financial incentive for Epstein Victims to come out, but who can argue that it did NOT simultaneously create an incentive to falsely claim to be a victim? In fact, in a world where we saw the weaponisation of the #MeToo movement, I would not dismiss the possibility of that.

Now, I think this matters because the people falsely making a claim to be an Epstein victim would have had to make potentially outrageous claims in order to justify fitting the victim category, which in turn adds to the credibility problem of the Epstein files because then not every email from a victim to her lawyer would be accurate.

Similarly, the narrative about Epstein’s paedophile ring also created an incentive to name people, in a manner that did compromise the credibility of the victims. Virginia Guffree’s case is a textbook example. Virginia Guiffre (who has implicated others in what she implied was a child sex trafficking ring) has also been caught speaking factually INcorrect information, when making allegations about those involved in a trafficking ring. For instance, you’d recall that she filed a defamation lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz in a New York federal court in April 2019, alleging he made false and malicious statements about her after she claimed Epstein sex trafficked her to him. Giuffre claimed she was trafficked to Dershowitz at least six times, with the first time occurring when she was 16. Dershowitz has adamantly denied these accusations. HOWEVER, in November 2022, Giuffre dropped the allegations against Dershowitz, stating she may have made a mistake in identifying him due to the stressful and traumatic nature of her experiences with Epstein. That seems like a very dangerous and unlikely mistake to make about a person, considering the severity of the allegation. However, the point here is not to minimise the crimes of Jeferry Epstein, it is to say, we ought to form a narrative on his crimes that is based on careful consideration of what the facts reveal, so that we form an expectation of justice that is congruous. At no point should people be implicated in a trafficking ring based on the incorrect recollection of one person.

Again, this is not to say there wasn’t such a ring: we do not have all the files to come to that conclusion yet. HOWEVER, it is dangerous to push victims into a position where they might begin to think that their story and quest for justice only matters if it fulfils the subjective suspicions of people who have not seen the facts of the case. Even if it was only Epstein who abused the girls, there should still be enough concern about the concealment of his crimes, lest other victims potentially end up making statements of accusations that undermine their credibility.

Again, this is not to say there were no victims (there most certainly are; in fact their provable accusations are what aided the conviction of JE and GM) but this does not eradicate the point that there were incentive structures to be an Epstein victim. And what is dangerous about this (beyond diluting the credibility of some JE victims) is that for those who are indeed victims, it is also an indictment on the justice system when there exists pressure for victims to paddle unproven narratives from members of society in order to galvanise urgency for the state to deliver on promises of justice.

Cernovich, who was a key player in getting first files unsealed in 2017 (wrote on the 1st of February) along the same lines, stating that (quote): “The Epstein release is loaded with unfounded allegations from post-2020, when any mentally ill person could file a report. Way too much obvious nonsense is being pushed. Even CNN did this. Unfortunate as it means no one knows up from down.” And this is genuinely a concern, seeing as the files were supposed to aid formal legal resources, and not confuse the facts so that it is delayed even further.

THE ISSUE OF PAEDOPHILIC RINGS IS NOT SOLELY ADDRESSED THROUGH A FOCUS ON EPSTEIN

Now, I’d also like to emphasise that it is clear in the status quo that children still went missing, even after Epstein’s death. Be it in Ukraine, the US, and South American nations (among others), years after Epstein died, children went missing in disturbing numbers, tied to diabolical agendas. And so, evidently, Epstein is not the main chess piece in paedophilic rings.

Secondly, the extent of the government officials and intelligence networks involved in paedophilic or satanic child sacrifice rings, would all mean that Epstein’s actions were also enabled and protected by a pre-existing system. There are two things that I believe prove this. The first is based on a STARTLING statement made by Russian president Vladimir Putin when he once remarked that, “The West is run by Satanic paedophiles”. And at first, especially for a US citizen, it might be easy to dismiss this statement as a political jab of sorts, but, if we consider – even for a moment – that Putin, as a leader of a nation that is known to have good intelligence networks made these remarks based upon definite information, then we would be compelled not to dismiss his remarks. And upon investigation, he did not fabricate that claim, in fact it has very clear evidence in history.

For instance, local law enforcement in Florida, Texas, California, and Washington, DC, learned in the 1970s (which is before Maxwell and Epstein were trafficking minors) they learned that the CIA was operating a Satanic Cult that abducted children, traumatised them in cages, and then sold them as sex slaves abroad!

Then, the FBI was said to have taken control of the investigation. It then learnt that the cult is controlled by the CIA for “intelligence” objectives; and as a result, the FBI ceased its investigation and held onto the evidence for fifty years, or until the documents’ release was mandated by law. A direct quote from the FBI’s files stated that: “Specially trained Government Kidnappers with Top Clearance and protection in their assigned task of stealing children, torturing and sexually abusing them…involving them in satanically inspired sexual acts, bloody rituals, and murder of other children…”. In addition, and according to the declassified FBI files that can be found in the FBI records vault (that you’re seeing); the CIA child kidnapping ring would: kidnap Children From Preschools, lock them in cages at a farm in Virginia, traumatise them with satanic ritual abuse; and sell them overseas as sex slaves. 

BROLL PIC – TUNNELS

Furthermore, tunnels with chambers were dug up to preschool classrooms and were being used by CIA operatives to kidnap young children! BUT, “The investigation of The Finders had become an internal matter… and FBI Cointel directed against advising Washington of anything that transpired.” Amd so, “The Finders were involved in an organised child abuse scheme… and the FBI’s Foreign Counterintelligence Section conspired to cover up…”; so much so that nobody was ever held accountable. [PAUSE] Well, as a result of this information, many actually hold that the CIA and similar satanic paedophiles – who discovered their ability to evade accountability – were then the people behind Epstein island. And this is especially evidenced by the vast list of guests to the island, which included heads of state, royals, scientists and academics, and the so-called celebrities. This proves that the system that enabled Epstein predates him because of the government and intelligence involvement; but also it proves that Putin’s remarks were not Russian misinformation or conspiracy after all. 

Then second proof of a system predating Epstein that enabled and protected his crimes is the jarring sweet heart deal that he received in 2008. You’d recall that in 2008, In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein, secured one of the most controversial plea deals in modern American legal history. In essence, after a 13-month investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department (2005–2006) that identified at least 36 victims (some as young as 14), the case was referred to both state and federal authorities. By mid-2007, the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, then led by Alexander Acosta, had prepared a 53-page federal indictment charging Epstein with serious felony offenses that carried potential decades or life in prison.

Well, instead of proceeding to trial, Epstein’s legal team (which included Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, and others) negotiated directly with Acosta’s office. The result was a state-level guilty plea combined with an extraordinary federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2008. Under the deal, 4 things took place: (1) Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida state court to two relatively minor charges: specifically, solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor to engage in prostitution. (2) He received an 18-month county jail sentence, of which he served only 13 months, mostly on work release (he was allowed to leave jail six days a week, 12 hours a day, to go to an office). (3) The federal NPA granted Epstein, his co-conspirators (explicitly naming four individuals), and any “potential co-conspirators” blanket immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida for all offenses committed between 2001 and 2007 related to sexual abuse of minors and related crimes. This effectively shut down the ongoing FBI investigation (“Operation Leap Year”). (4) The agreement was kept secret from Epstein’s victims, violating their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). Victims were deliberately misled by prosecutors who told them the investigation was ongoing when the deal had already been finalized.

This NPA was highly unusual in multiple respects: its breadth (protecting unnamed co-conspirators), its secrecy, its leniency given the evidence (over 40 identified victims by 2008), and the fact that federal charges were dropped entirely in exchange for a state plea on reduced charges. Acosta later defended the deal by claiming he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and was “above his pay grade,” that the state was ready to offer an even lighter sentence, and that he believed some punishment was better than risking acquittal. Internal Justice Department reviews and subsequent reporting have heavily criticized these justifications. 

However, (and thankfully), the 2008 deal collapsed in public credibility after the 2018–2019 Miami Herald investigation by Julie K. Brown, leading to Epstein’s July 2019 federal arrest on new sex-trafficking charges in New York. Acosta resigned as Trump’s Labor Secretary days later. And in February 2021, a federal judge further ruled that Acosta’s office had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by concealing the agreement from victims. But, the 2008 NPA remains the clearest example of how wealth and connections enabled Epstein to evade serious federal accountability for over a decade. Now, as we proceed to the Trump allegation, here is what Trump did IN 2009 during this scandal, which incredibly undermined the US justice system.

Evidently, the 2008 deal represents not just a miscarriage of justice but an indictment on the justice system because it protected Epstein from accountability. This shows a degree of enablement and protection from formal institutions, which lends itself as proof that systems that protect paedophiles and people with large amounts of compromat long pre-date Epstein. And so, I suspect that it is almost a distortion of society’s view of the problem of missing and abused children to make Epstein central to the discussion. This is not to negate the importance of the revelations regarding his crimes, but clearly the problems have outlived him, and so he is not central as many would have us believe.

THE DEMOCRATS’ ALLEGATIONS AGAINST TRUMP WERE ALSO DISPROVED

Finally, let’s then address the Democrat’s allegation about incriminating evidence against president Trump in the Epstein files. First, Trump has conceded to having a previous relationship with Epstein. But, in addition, when Epstein was being looked into for sexual crimes, a journalist stated that Trump was the only high profile individual who was willing not only to sit down with him but also to not hold back on information (like we recently saw). And so, the fact that Trump is pictured with Epstein and has acknowledged a previous affiliation with him takes away any surprise factor. In fact, I would say that what is more concerning are the people trying to escape this affiliation with Epstein by all means possible.

Secondly, when allegations of Trump being on the Epstein list were circulating, one of Epstein’s lawyers, David Schoen stated, on the 6th of June, that he asked Epstein if he had anything on Trump, to which Epstein responded in the negative. And seeing that Epstein died in 2019 – before the presidential election – if he had anything on Trump, that would not only have meant he had information to blackmail a sitting US president (because that was during Trump’s first term), but he could have also looong leveraged it to get himself out of that position – before even his arrest was factor. In fact, as information has come to the fore, a Democrat politician had exchanges with Epstein trying to get compromat on Trump to no avail! But furthermore, leading to the November 2024 US presidential elections, we saw lawfare against Trump at an almost unprecedented scale. Can anyone validly say that the same people who weaponised the FBI, DOJ, and intelligence agencies would NOT use the Epstein list against Trump if they knew he was on it? Obama, Biden and Kamala Harris (who were in office 2 out of the three times that Trump was running for president would have 100 percent used that information to end Trump’s presidential campaign – especially Kamala Harris. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Then, finally, even the “smoking gun” emails that Democrats have been circulating actually exonerated Trump because of a diabolical reduction they made (which was not made by those who had the original emails (including Epstein’s team). The redaction was to remove Virginia Guiffree’s name because she has stated previously that Trump never abused her or knew about Epstein’s dealings – which is the opposite of what the Democrats are trying to claim.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso