FWIW: There Isn’t An ‘Epstein List’

Amid the enduring scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, anticipation has coalesced around the so-called Epstein list—a purported catalog of influential men who abused the financier’s victims. The public fervor, amplified by frustration, targets figures like Kash Patel and Pam Bondi for their perceived inaction. Yet, the deeper, more unsettling reality may be that such a list does not exist, not because these men are innocent, but because the investigation was intentionally limited in scope by prosecutor Maurene Comey. Whether acting under the subtle guidance of her father, former FBI Director James Comey, or the broader influence of President Biden’s administration, Maurene Comey’s prosecutorial strategy strategically sidestepped implicating powerful figures. Consequently, over 500 known victims were excluded from the public record, their abuses concealed under the veneer of procedural efficiency.

Understanding the absence of an “Epstein list” requires examining how carefully tailored investigations can obstruct justice. Epstein’s associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted on trafficking charges, yet only four victims were highlighted—each directly linked to Epstein’s personal predations. Consequently, there was never an official compilation by investigators and prosecutors of the powerful men who abused the many other young girls trafficked by Epstein. The broader network, connecting hundreds more victims to influential predators, was deliberately omitted from public scrutiny. This prosecutorial myopia is reminiscent of historical efforts to safeguard the reputations of powerful elites, sacrificing comprehensive justice for political expediency.

Maurene Comey’s selection of a limited victim scope appears strategic. By focusing exclusively on Epstein’s personal transgressions, her team effectively shielded the identities of powerful men who benefited from Epstein’s depraved enterprise. Such calculated limitation raises the uncomfortable possibility of undue influence. The FBI, under James Comey’s tenure, has faced longstanding criticism for politicized investigatory choices; thus, skepticism toward Maurene Comey’s motives is well-founded.

Criticism toward Kash Patel and Pam Bondi, therefore, misses the mark. They cannot release what doesn’t exist; the so-called Epstein list was never compiled by investigators and prosecutors, deliberately obscured by prosecutorial design. If justice for Epstein’s numerous other victims is to be achieved, we must redirect our outrage toward establishing a genuinely independent investigative body. Such an inquiry, ideally led by figures like Patel and Bondi—known for their dogged independence and skepticism toward entrenched governmental corruption—would necessarily involve trusted investigators insulated from “deep state” pressures or extortion attempts.

Historical analogies abound: consider the Church Committee of the 1970s, established in response to systemic abuses by U.S. intelligence agencies. Like that era’s entrenched bureaucracies, today’s governmental institutions often resist transparency. Consequently, an Epstein-focused investigation demands similar rigor, independence and immunity from administrative meddling.

The consequences of continued inaction extend beyond mere political corruption. The trafficking of vulnerable women by Epstein and Maxwell represents a profound moral atrocity. It is vital that legitimacy and trust be restored to institutions like the FBI and DOJ; yet, with the vast majority of Americans suspecting that influential men such as Bill Clinton, Bill Gates and Reid Hoffman have escaped accountability, such trust remains irreparably damaged. A genuine, transparent investigation could either clear their names if innocent or hold them accountable if guilty. Justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied; yet worse still is selective justice, where partial accountability masks deeper complicities.

Since the so-called “Epstein list” doesn’t exist, it is misguided to direct our frustration toward Bondi and Patel, who cannot release what was never compiled. Instead, our energies must encourage them to spearhead a large-scale, independent investigation into the powerful men who have thus far evaded justice. This fresh investigation must boldly challenge systemic corruption without capitulation to power or political allegiance. Genuine justice demands identification, prosecution and compensation from those who preyed upon Epstein’s hidden victims. These women, numbering in the hundreds, have faced enough betrayal; we must not compound their suffering through complacency or bureaucratic obfuscation.

The Epstein list, as widely imagined, will never surface—not because its subjects are fictitious, but because careful prosecutorial engineering ensured their anonymity. To rectify this grievous injustice, our collective energies must refocus. A comprehensive, independent investigation, untainted by partisan motives or governmental interference, must be our collective demand. Only then can Epstein’s many concealed victims receive the justice, acknowledgment and restitution they unquestionably deserve.

Sponsored by the John Milton Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to helping independent journalists overcome formidable challenges in today’s media landscape and bring crucial stories to you.

READ NEXT: Nuclear Shadows: Russia’s Arctic Strategy Exposes US Shortcomings