FBI concluded Jeffrey Epstein wasn't running a sex trafficking ring for powerful men, files show
Source: AP
By MICHAEL R. SISAK, DAVID B. CARUSO and LARRY NEUMEISTER
Updated 9:30 AM CST, February 8, 2026
NEW YORK (AP) — The FBI pored over Jeffrey Epstein’s bank records and emails. It searched his homes. It spent years interviewing his victims and examining his connections to some of the world’s most influential people.
But while investigators collected ample proof that Epstein sexually abused underage girls, they found scant evidence the well-connected financier led a sex trafficking ring serving powerful men, an Associated Press review of internal Justice Department records shows.
Videos and photos seized from Epstein’s homes in New York, Florida and the Virgin Islands didn’t depict victims being abused or implicate anyone else in his crimes, a prosecutor wrote in one 2025 memo.
An examination of Epstein’s financial records, including payments he made to entities linked to influential figures in academia, finance and global diplomacy, found no connection to criminal activity, said another internal memo in 2019.
Read more: https://apnews.com/article/jeffrey-epstein-client-list-sex-trafficking-049c96080a2ca2c12c84ac506437e50b
= new reply since forum marked as read
Asking for a country....
I could lay out the evidence that underpins this analysis (it doesn't 'prove' it, but suggests it), but it would annoy many people so I won't. I hope you'll believe me when I say it's honestly well-considered, and that I would be more than happy to jump on the bandwagon to believe what everyone else does, if the evidence ever truly warrants it.
A lot of the reasons behind this though I will say stem from the testimonies in Maxwell's 2022 trial, which I consider to offer the highest level of credibility, due to everyone being under oath in a closely-watched federal criminal trial
OTOH, I also strongly suspect he and Brunel were recruiting models and actresses (who were 18+) from all over the world to come and party at Epstein Island and elsewhere, and I'm sure a lot of what happened there is rightly called "sex trafficking", so I disagree with the headline, and think the word "minors" should be part of it.
I think he was trafficking young women, and privately abusing minor girls, rather than sharing them with his rich buddies, with the likely exception of Virginia Guiffre.
In the public imagination, IMHO, these two things (abusing minors, trafficking 18-25 year olds to his rich buddies) have become conflated into one storyline, but I don't think that version of the story is particularly accurate.
Let the flames begin.
Are there any female humans in your life? Have you exposed any of them to your 'theory'?
All I can say is, you must not have been paying much attention to detail.
You're making the distinction between the age of the girls when they were recruited for Epstein's "private stock" and when they were turned over to the other men who may be involved.
The distinction is that Epstein himself was only interested in girls under 18. Most of the recruits were around 15 or 16. Many were high school dropouts and runaways. Once they reached 18, he kept them in his "group" by giving them money or paying their tuition etc. But they were expected to be part of the scenery at his parties in one way or another, and they could say "no" whenever they wanted to. So Epstein wasn't actually pimping the girls per se, he was bringing them in as eye candy, and enabling the men to meet them and take it from there.
If that's what you are saying, I think I agree ... for the most part. A girl who worked for Epstein and stayed around for 2 or more years would have aged out anyway. At that point the older girls were encouraged to recruit younger girls for Epstein, or else they could be enterprising and find a sugar daddy on their own. Those girls who stayed were already buying into the whole thing, plus they had reached the age of consent in most cases.
Perhaps the feds are looking at it this with an extremely narrow definition of "rape," "consent," and "trafficking," in which case they can hold their noses and say nothing was there.
My own opinion is that Bill Barr probably removed anything that incriminated Chump as soon as he got his hands on Epstein's evidence. But there's so much to go through that he could have missed a lot too. Don't forget that Barr wanted to resign as soon as Chump lost the election in 2020. He'd already had over a year to paw through Epstein's documents, and he was probably disgusted as anyone would have been.
Because they didn't interview anyone!
It's easy to find nothing if you look for nothing.
At least, that's what the 30% MAGA supporters are saying and Faux News.
Sure, sure...
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.