The release of the latest batch of the Epstein files has sparked a firestorm of online fury on social media, with US Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent appearance before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee adding fuel to the fire. Questions about how the Justice Department (DOJ) is handling the dossier remain unanswered. Why are the names of alleged offenders and associates redacted? How does that align with their goal to protect the victims? Why have numerous victims remained unquestioned? Where are the formal indictments? Are these inconsistencies part of a wider strategy, or must we prepare for the biggest cover-up in American history?

By Arthur Blok & Nadia Ahmad
With each development, the lows sunk to by the Epstein clan become more deplorable. With the exposure of every new name or every sinister practice, the world of Epstein more closely resembles a dystopian nightmare. The stomach-turning revelations in the latest files provide the world with a glimpse of shocking perversion and depravity among super-wealthy, prominent public figures.

Apart from the “deceased” Epstein, his handler, Ghislaine Maxwell, remains the only person who has been arrested for charges relating to this scandal. Despite a long list of names, redacted from public view but in the DOJ’s possession, there is yet to be a legitimate reckoning for the perpetrators or a semblance of justice for the victims. 

During the questioning last week, Bondi had numerous survivors of Epstein sitting behind her in the room. Despite requests by a lawmaker to stand and raise their hands, none of the present victims was able to meet with the Justice Department or deliver their testimonies. Bondi did not offer the victims the courtesy of an acknowledgement or an apology. She did not even get up and look at them.

The reasoning behind the engineered anonymity of Epstein’s associates by the DOJ remains unclear. The deliberate cover-up appears to be an attempt to protect powerful, well-connected individuals from legal consequences. This has led to the inevitable question: Is this evidence of an establishment cover-up, or a strategy that will surface at a later stage?

Recent remarks by President Donald Trump after the release of the second batch of files did not help in this regard. His statement that “it’s time for the country to get on to something else”, after the revelation of sinister practices at the pinnacle of society, appears insensitive and questionable. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has also made a similar statement, claiming it is time to “move on”.

Meanwhile, Maxwell invoked her Fifth Amendment right to avoid answering self-implicating questions under oath. Maxwell refused to answer questions during a video call at the federal prison camp in Texas, where she is incarcerated, serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking. Maxwell has claimed she will only answer the DOJ’s questions if she is guaranteed legal immunity by President Trump.

Scrutiny of Maxwell has been renewed with a new wave of criticism, as lawmakers investigate how Epstein was able to maintain his underage bordello for years undetected. The deposition of Maxwell occurred on the same day the DOJ allowed members of Congress to review unredacted files.

Later this month, multi-billionaire Leslie Wexner, the Clintons, and Richard Kahn Epstein’s former accountant will all be questioned by the Committee. Interesting developments regarding the Clintons, who are now insisting on testifying in “open court”, with Maxwell claiming she will vindicate former President Clinton.

This also comes after an unusual statement by President Trump, seemingly defending Bill Clinton, claiming he’s “bothered” by those going after him. According to a CNN analysis, Clinton travelled on Epstein’s private plane at least 16 times.

“Catch Me If You Can”: Hollywood Edition
In Hollywood, land of the ethically ambiguous, there have been interesting developments since the files' release. Tom Hanks fled hours after the release of the documents, Oprah Winfrey shut off Instagram comments and left in her private jet for an undisclosed location.

TV show host Ellen DeGeneres, who had left the U.S. weeks earlier, has been implicated as one of the most mentioned celebrities in the files. Interestingly, Hanks, Winfrey, and DeGeneres were also implicated in the Pizzagate theory, lending further credence to the speculation that the two Clinton-centric scandals are connected.

Bill Gates seems to have disappeared, with no known sightings. The FBI now wants to question the former Prince Andrew after concerning allegations referencing brutality and murder. Mountbatten-Windsor is still being protected by his brother, King Charles. 

Criticism of Trump appears to have died down in Hollywood. Whoopi Goldberg, who was herself mentioned in the files 21 times, as well as Jay-Z and Robert De Niro, appear to have redirected their Trump derangement syndrome.

A Cornucopia of Evidence
The DOJ has not made any new formal charges, and whether or not they will remain unclear. At this stage, the approach appears to be that the death of Epstein and the conviction of Maxwell should wipe the slate clean.

The DOJ claims there is insufficient evidence to charge third parties formally. Could the DOJ be redacting names and omitting files from release to maintain this narrative that they “lack sufficient evidence”? After clearing Epstein’s multiple residences, gaining access to his private communications, and holding his main associate behind bars, are we really to believe that there is a lack of evidence?

The latest release of the Epstein files proves that what the DOJ has in its possession is far more incriminating than the administration let on. After the release of images depicting children far younger than the 14–16-year-olds, the mainstream media containment apparatus initially pushed as the average age of the Epstein victims, as well as emails suggesting murder, torture, and cannibalisation verbatim,

While some have likened the Epstein scandal to Trump’s “Watergate”, Attorney General Bondi should be reminded that it was Nixon’s Attorney General John N. Mitchell who was formally convicted for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury, not Nixon himself.

Bondi’s infamous remarks last year that the Epstein files “do not exist” and that it was merely a compilation of “child pornography” are still fresh on our minds. Someone should remind the Attorney General, legally savvy as her predecessor, Mitchell, was.

Whether we will see more prominent figures on the Epstein scaffold is unlikely. What we might be seeing instead is that it may have been offered as a sacrifice to appease the masses. Does the establishment believe that the alleged death of Epstein and the incarceration of Maxwell will be enough to appease public fury?

One thing is evident: the issue is far from over. It has only just begun.