photo: ap photoARRESTED AT LAST: A short-lived confident smile
After being in July 2019 Jeffrey Epstein arrested, and soon after committed suicide in prison, the trial that could have exposed the entire case never happened. Most of the evidence remained locked up and hidden for almost six years. His operations in Europe also remained unresolved.
Jean-Luc Brunel, an influential French fashion agent and longtime acquaintance of Epstein, was arrested in France in December 2020. He was detained in Paris as part of an investigation involving allegations of sexual violence and pimping of minors. He died there on February 19, 2022, before the start of the trial, and the prosecution announced that it was suicide. This practically closed one of the branches of the investigation, which, according to the testimonies of the women who accused him, could explain the overseas logistics and the broader connections of Epstein's network. The only person in this story who saw a full epilogue before the court remained Gillian Maxwell, Epstein's longtime partner. A jury found her guilty in December 2021, and in June 2022 she was sentenced to 20 years in prison for her role in recruiting, "grooming" and facilitating the abuse of minors.
Prior to his arrest, a search of Epstein's possessions turned up millions of paper documents and 300 gigabytes of data. All these data are potential evidence that can lead the investigation to accomplices, not only in the criminal enterprise of sexual exploitation of girls, but also in other, primarily politically sensitive operations. From 2019 to December 2025, most of these documents, known as the Epstein Dossier, were unavailable to the public. After the opening of the document and the release of a large amount of new information in early 2026, its importance is slowly crystallizing and putting Epstein back on the global stage. The importance is also reflected in the fact that on Monday, February 9, during the video-interrogation in front of Congress, Maxwell referred to the Fifth Amendment, and that her lawyer stated that Gillian Maxwell would provide answers to all questions if Trump makes a decision on her pardon.
SITTING ON A POWDER KEG
photo: ap photoBLACK ON DOCUMENTS: Who is protected - victims or criminals?
Citing various reasons for this, this powder keg sat on for almost six years. In the meantime, Trump used the existence of these documents in the election campaign, promising to publish them, then as a threat, and even a warning like the one when Musk announced last June that he was "dropping a real bomb" because Trump himself is in the files and that is why they were not published. Interestingly, the released documents contain emails from 2012 and 2013 in which it was Musk who offered to visit Epstein's (now) infamous Little St. James Island.
Biden's Department of Justice argued that it was not possible to release all the documents because they were related to the trial of Gillian Maxwell, and that the privacy of the victims should be protected by redacting the documents in accordance with the law. Upon Trump's return to the White House, James Comer and the House Oversight Committee in 2025 are launching an investigation that appears to be more aimed at proving that Biden protected the Democrats named in the dossier for four years - particularly Bill Clinton - than at securing justice for the victims. Even Trump was in no rush, although his campaign promise to release the documents brought him additional support from MAGA voters.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act was passed on November 25, 2025. It obliges the Ministry of Justice to publish all unclassified documentation it has about the case, with exceptions to protect the identity, safety and privacy of the victims. By January 30, 2026, a huge amount of documents were published on two occasions.
The first wave was published on December 19, 2025, which immediately raised suspicions that the case was allegedly being opened, but with the most important information hidden. Thousands of documents were published, but with many hidden parts. Media estimates were that at least 550 pages were completely blacked out, giving the impression that the public was being offered volume but not content. The second wave of publication, also the biggest reversal, happened at the beginning of 2026, when the Ministry of Justice announced that, in accordance with the act, it published over three and a half million new documents, emphasizing that the material goes gradually in waves because it is necessary to do checks and research before disclosing all information.
A few days after the announcement, the Ministry stumbled on the point that should be the basis of the entire process - the protection of victims. It became clear that the newsroom's work to protect the victims was poorly done, and photos and documents revealing their identities were found on the Internet. After warnings from lawyers and some media outlets that publicly available data may contain information identifying victims, the ministry temporarily withdrew about 9.500 documents in order to review them again. At the same time, under pressure from Congress, it agreed to allow its members to view the clean, "discovered" versions, but only on the Ministry's computers, with notice and without electronic copying.
Jamie Raskin and Thomas Massey, a Democrat and a Republican, exercised this right. On Monday, February 9, Raskin criticized the Department of Justice for making "mysterious redactions" of the documents, withholding the names of the abusers but allowing the identities of the victims to become public. Raskin stated that, in addition to Les Wexner, the founder of the company "Victoria's Secret", whose connection with Epstein is known, Trump is also among those whose names have been deleted. Massi said he has seen at least six cases of men whose names have been blacked out, and whose mere mention in the documents should lead to a criminal investigation.
"They broke the law by publishing the names of many victims, which is either spectacular incompetence and negligence on their part or, as many survivors believe, a deliberate threat to other survivors who are considering coming forward that they must be careful because they could be exposed and their personal information dragged through the mud," Raskin said.
All this indicates that available and verifiable information about what the public is most interested in - the identification of Epstein's possible accomplices from the top of politics - is currently scarce. Nevertheless, the published details expanded the map of people from Epstein's circle, but despite the need to protect the victims, they once again put them at risk.
There is a suspicion that artificial intelligence was clumsily used in the redaction process, and as an interesting example there is evidence that the verb do not blacked out in certain versions of the same documents, but not in others. Of course, one interpretation is that the algorithm was looking for a word Don T, that is, the name of President Trump. All in all, most of the available data still do not provide the much sought after answers. What it does offer is information that sheds new light on the events of the past and the fact that powerful individuals and authorities in the US have enabled more than two decades of sexual abuse of young women and minors.
photo: ap photoTHEY ARE OR THEY ARE NOT: Noam Chomsky,…
"YOUR FRIENDS STAY WITH YOU AND LOVE YOU"
With the release of the documents, the public has gained insight into the friendships and other relationships Epstein had with various profiles of people around the world over the last 15 years of his life. The flight log of Epstein's private plane and the names of the passengers are available online. It is important to emphasize that not all registered flights were to and from the notorious locations of Little St. James Island or the Zorro Ranch in New Mexico, and that the recorded passengers were not automatically Epstein's accomplices in the crimes. However, the documentation clearly indicates who he was in contact with, who went to dinner with whom, who asked for favors, and who maintained contact with Epstein even after 2008.
After the verdict, which unequivocally defined Epstein in public as a sexual predator, the circle of his friends and/or acquaintances did not decrease significantly. Many claim that they did not even know about the verdict, although the case received a lot of media attention. Unreserved support continued to be given by Prince Andrew and his wife at the time, Sarah Ferguson, and Lord Peter Mendelsohn, who sent him moral support in 2008 with the words: "Your friends stay by your side and love you."
photo: ap photo…Woody Allen with his wife…
Messages from Woody Allen and, in particular, his wife, Sun-Yi Previn, emphasize support, express displeasure with the "MeToo" movement, and condemn victims of other abusers who have spoken out, saying they are the ones manipulating them. Among those who supported him was, perhaps as the biggest surprise, and for some a disappointment, Noam Chomsky. He and his wife, Valeria, met Epstein in 2015, six years after his release from prison. In an address to the public on February 8, Valeria Chomsky said that they had no knowledge of Epstein's true nature, nor did they know that he had been convicted. For publishing a message full of understanding and for condemning those who attack him, she said that it was the result of Epstein's lies and manipulation of her and her husband. Many find this address unconvincing and wonder if it is really possible that Epstein was so infatuated with the Chomsky couple.
Another series of messages suggests that Epstein is already in the circle of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, ruler of Dubai and vice president and prime minister of the United Arab Emirates. Elon Musk is mentioned, as is Howard Lutnick, the current US Secretary of Commerce. Due to what appears from the published documents to be a deep connection with Epstein, a number of members of the Democratic Party are currently calling for his resignation. In parallel, published photos and accompanying material show Epstein's "intense" association with various famous people, including Chris Tucker, Michael Jackson, Diana Ross, David Copperfield, as well as Google co-founder Sergey Brin.
All of this is further complicated by the fact that some of the material was subsequently withdrawn and re-edited after publication due to fears that the files contained data that could identify the victims. This opened up the most sensitive doubt in this process - that in practice the powerful are primarily protected. In order to raise the visibility of this problem even more, some of Epstein's victims addressed the public on the day of the Super Bowl, the most watched sports event in the USA. In the shown advertisement, made in cooperation with the organization World without Exploitation, the victims say that it is "time for the truth" and call on citizens to stand by them and put pressure on the public prosecutor.
photo: ap photo…and Bill Clinton
EPSTIN, TRUMP, CLINTON
There are also those who were in contact with Epstein before the verdict in 2008, and today they emphasize that they have stopped that contact. Former US President Bill Clinton, whose name is mentioned in the flight log of 2002 and 2003, from which period photos with Epstein were published, claims that the flights were to Africa and that he had no contact with Epstein after his arrest in 2006.
In an interview for "Guardian", Ankush Kardori, "Politika" columnist and former federal prosecutor in the USA who writes about the relationship between politics and law, said that there is probably nothing to the great expectations of the Republicans that they will get something that would eliminate Bill and Hillary Clinton from politics. MAGA voters would most like to see evidence that the Clintons participated in the abuse. More about this will be known when they testify before the Board at the end of February. The Clintons are currently campaigning to have their testimony publicly broadcast live to avoid any manipulation by Republicans. Their demand for publicity is intended in the long term so that, if Trump testifies, his performance will also be public. For now, Comer claims he has no interest in Trump's testimony. The public doubts this, since Trump appears in about 5000 documents, and is mentioned about 38.000 times. He has already been found to be lying when he said he had not been in contact with Epstein since 2004, and at least three of the more than 20 women who have accused Trump of sexual abuse or exploitation are known victims of Epstein. Several others identified him as the person who, as Epstein's guest, behaved inappropriately toward them.
That Trump doesn't like being investigated is clear from his discussion with Kaitlan Collins, a CNN journalist, to whom Epstein replied, when asked about the dossier, "I think now is the time for the country to maybe turn to something else, now that nothing has come out about me, except that it was a conspiracy against me that originated literally from Epstein and other people."
After she asked him what he would say to survivors who didn't get justice, Trump called her "the worst reporter," who "never smiles because she knows she's not telling the truth." Otherwise, Trump has never given clear answers regarding his business and other relations with Epstein.
Cardori explains that if Congress was really serious about investigating, honoring the victims and identifying accomplices, these documents would not have just been dumped into the public domain. With that, in his opinion, reckless move, the victims were put in the worst position and in a situation where they may never get justice. Using the example of the Kennedy assassination, he points out that this move could very easily divert much-needed public attention from the real investigation to conspiracy theories. In his opinion, it would be better if, as before in very complex cases, Congress established a Commission that would seriously deal with the investigation, without the revanchism that is more than present in the work of the Committee.
SOMEONE HAS, ON OUR SIDE OF THE ATLANTIC, STILL A SHAME
The information from the published documents resonated in European countries. Because of Epstein's connections, Norway's Economic Crimes Unit launched a corruption investigation against former Prime Minister Torbjern Jagland, and former chairman of the committee that awards the Nobel Peace Prize. Due to the discovery that Epstein left 10 million dollars to the children of the famous diplomatic couple Mona Jull and Terje Red-Larsen in her will drawn up shortly before her death, Jull was suspended from the post of Norwegian ambassador to Jordan, and an investigation will probably be initiated.
In Sweden, Joanna Rubinstein, a UN official, resigned following revelations that she had visited Epstein's island of Little St. James in 2012. Miroslav Lajčak, known to us, resigned from the position of advisor to Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fitz on January 31, after correspondence with Epstein was published in which they joke about women while discussing Lajčak's meetings with Sergey Lavrov. That's when Lajcak suggested a meeting between Fitz and Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon. Lajčak denies everything and says that he "feels like an idiot", that he does not remember the messages and that he did not participate in criminal activities. Latvia, Lithuania and Poland have launched extensive official investigations into the documents of interest. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the team would investigate all documents for potential Polish victims and any links between Epstein and Russian intelligence.
Ian Hyslop, the well-known editor of the satirical newspaper "Private Eye", who wrote in 2011 about the money that Prince Andrew's family received from Epstein, said that "everyone pretends they had no idea", but that unlike the USA, "at least on this side of the Atlantic, we still feel shame."
In his country, Great Britain, the consequences are so far the loudest, although corruption and espionage are in the foreground these days, not the victims of the powerful. A member of the royal family, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was "dismissed" because of his involvement in the sex scandals with Epstein, lying and concealing the facts, and was left without possessions and jobs. New findings also indicate that he provided Epstein with confidential documents to which he had access as a special representative for international trade and investments. On Monday February 9, King Charles addressed the public, saying he was very concerned about everything and offered all his support and assistance to the police in their investigation.
Lord Peter Mendelsohn's case shed light on the extent of Jeffrey Epstein's influence peddling and corruption. When Mendelssohn was appointed British ambassador to the US at the end of 2024, it was known that he had a special relationship with Epstein. He stayed at Epstein's apartment while he was in prison and, during that period, arranged for Epstein's prisoners to meet with businessmen. After the media published some of the documents that revealed the details of their relationship, Prime Minister Starmer sacked him in September 2025. In January 2026, the public learned that Epstein had been paying Mendelsohn and his husband Reynaldo Ávila de Silva large sums of money and – more importantly – that Mendelsohn had paid Epstein live passed on classified government information about the state of the British economy during the crisis moments of 2009 and 2010, and probably more often. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown says it was "sensitive market information" and adds that he believes Mendelssohn "betrayed his country."
The revelations called into question the position of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who appointed Mendelsohn as ambassador after two rounds of complex vetting. Starmer announced that Mandelson had lied to him about Epstein, adding: "None of us knew the depth and darkness of that relationship." Critics add that a simple Google search would be enough to stop the process. Mendelsohn's possessions were searched, the investigation is ongoing, but it is not known if he will be arrested. Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's chief of staff, resigned on February 8, stating that the appointment of Mendelsohn as ambassador was his idea. A day later, Tim Allen, Starmer's director of communications, also resigned. The publication of all documents on the process of verification and appointment of Mendelssohn as ambassador was announced. These developments are partly a response to increasingly frequent calls for the Prime Minister to offer his resignation. Starmer has, for now, managed to get the support of his colleagues, and many think that it is because of the fear that his removal would open the already wide open door to the dangerous populist Nigel Farage.
The fact that someone's name appears in Epstein's correspondence, in the flight log or that someone is in a photo with him does not prove that that person personally participated in the crimes, but it does not erase his moral responsibility. After the Florida settlement, Epstein was no longer some anonymous rich man whose activities are unknown. The continuation of socializing, traveling, exchanging favors, all this gave him social legitimacy and created new opportunities for crimes. The moral culpability lies in the fact that Epstein was already compromised, and yet still retained access to the elite that protected him. Even without direct participation in it, knowledge of a serious crime must not remain private information, but a moral obligation to break the chain of silence that gives protection to violent people.
