I haven’t posted much on this subject because I find it distastefully sordid. Now that a rarely nearly-unanimous Congress has passed a law calling for the federal government’s Epstein files to be made public, possibly with some redactions, I thought I’d comment on it.
Although at the time of this writing no court cases had been filed opposing the release of the files, I expect there to be some and I don’t know what the ultimate outcome of those will be. It is my understanding that some of the files are grand jury documents that aren’t supposed to be publicized.
Personally, I have no problem with the release of the files but I doubt they’ll be the “smoking gun” that Democrats seem to be longing for and if they are they’ll be a gun that fires in both directions. At his Substack Matt Taibbi writes:
The list of high-ranking politicians from both parties who traveled with or took money from Epstein — Donald Trump and Bill Clinton included (what was the latter’s “humanitarian” visit to Siberia with him about?) — boggles the mind. A character like Epstein can only thrive in a world where law enforcement and intelligence are fully intertwined with financial and sexual corruption, to the point where one has to entertain the idea that significant numbers of politicians are compromised, perhaps even in a form of systemic blackmail. That isn’t an easy thing to believe. In the words of the disgraced and disgraceful writer Michael Wolff, whose ostentatious presence at the middle of this story casts doubt on all of it, Epstein represents “the kind of insiderism that is mostly just a figment in outsiders’ fantasies.”
Since my “last delusions” about public figures were shattered more than a half century ago I won’t be at all surprised by anything that might emerge from those files. Or nothing for that matter.
I listened to Megan McArdle earlier give a pretty good take for why we shouldn’t release the Epstein files on the Central Air podcast. Basically, it’s that the impulse to release criminal investigation files is harmful given the generally untested and uncertain province of investigation materials. I would probably be more OK with them not being released than most people, but my sticking point is that Trump committed to their release and while I’m not sure it was ever an issue on which the campaign was fought or won, he should be held to account for it by those who want them released. (Megan’s retort is that she will not be bound by any dumb idea of Trump’s) Also, in terms of reputational damage, it’s already happening without the information in the files. Shrugs.
PD, I listened to that podcast too, and though it was a good argument. And yes, the media frenzy will collect a lot of scalps from people who did not diddle with kids or commit crimes, but the association with Epstein will probably be weaponized against them.
But I think the scale of conspiracy nonsense has grown to such an extent that the ship has sailed on that, so I support the release to clear the air, although the air never gets fully clean from conspiracy nutters.
I agree with Dave that there probably are no smoking guns – most of this info is many years old, has been gone through by DOJ’s from different administrations, and has not produced much in the way of new prosecutions.
It’s good that Congress gave specific authorization, but I don’t think anyone should trust that the current AG will exercise that discretion transparently or fairly.
Andy: I like that Megan freely conceded the strength of arguments against hers (this is the most plausible conspiracy to have occurred in my lifetime). Someone on the pod said that two different judges had looked at the stuff and didn’t see any problem with releasing it. I’m not sure if the “stuff” is all of the materials to be released or not, or the context the judges were operating in. But that would probably make me feel better.
I still agree strongly with her broader points about limiting the legal system to resolving disputes, not as vehicles for engaging broader social controversies.
Clinton is old news. If there is something in there that is bad for him who cares? However, I suspect what we will mostly find is that some people spent a lot of time with Epstein, especially Trump, but we already knew that. I suspect that some people might not have voted for him if they knew how much time they were spending together. It’s not entirely believable that Trump, and lots of other people, didnt know or should have known what was going on.
The one part that has never made sense to me was what Acosta did. He negotiated a secret deal and did not involve the victims. It was minimal punishment and granted him, as i understand it, future immunities not just for him but also for others who were involved. That’s a real sweetheart deal for a guy who abused 100s of women, but to top it off Acosta then gets rewarded with a cabinet position.
Steve