Development: The US Justice System vs Sexual Crimes

The past weeks have been marked by some of the most contentious issues in the US government. Among them has been the Jeffery Epstein controversy. Now, I think what makes this controversy notable are three considerations: first, is that it is not only the extent of Epstein’s heinous sexual crimes that are of concern but the potential that they implicate key figures both in government and various sects of society – in a manner that questions the credibility of those in positions of leadership. Second, is that the Epstein controversy takes place against the broader context of an epidemic of child and sex trafficking in the US – which requires the government to find the root cause to those issues, in addition to reactionary measures aimed at finding the children who have already been trafficked, lest the problem continues at large, with the government only ever exploring minimal efforts to address it. Then finally, the Jeffery Epstein controversy is ultimately also about contending against moral decadence in the socio-political fabric of the West: for many who’ve debated this issue and the release of files, it is about removing the veil of uncertainty and addressing head-on the uncomfortable problem of paedophilia that many have tried to normalise or render too gory to address in the West, or even stifle to protect selfish interests. And so, today, we ought then to address a key development in how the US government and Justice System have responded to Sexual Crimes – and this development pertains to the fact that, today, Tuesday the 18th of November 2025, the House of Representatives will finally vote to release the Epstein files.

THE U.S. HOUSE SET TO VOTE TO RELEASE THE FULL EPSTEIN FILES

A key development in how the US government and Justice System have responded to Sexual Crimes – and (once again) this development pertains to the fact that, today, Tuesday the 18th of November 2025, the US House of Representatives will finally vote to release the Epstein files. I essence, the Epstein files refer to a series of documents, images and information related to the Department of Justice’s criminal probe into Epstein. Many of these Epstein files have been released by the DOJ and Congress. In addition, Republicans and Democrats on the House Oversight Committee have released batches of documents over the last few months.

Now, part of what added to the contention around the Epstein files is that Democrats released a slew of files in recent weeks that included emails sent by Epstein that they claim alleged that president Trump (quote) “knew about the girls.” However, even prior to this recent allegation from Democrats, in early July this year, the Department of Justice and the FBI concluded an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s activities, stating there is no ‘client list’ and that Epstein did not engage in blackmail. However, considering that Ghislaine Maxwell remains imprisoned for her role in sex trafficking with Epstein, despite those findings, that also led to significant public doubt, where many expressed skepticism about the official narrative regarding Epstein’s death and the absence of further prosecutions. And so, it is against this backdrop that the release of Epstein files has culminated in a vote in the House.

Now, in addition to this backdrop, I think the discussion on Epstein has in part been speculated on for so many years, that individual narratives fueled by individual agendas (that are at times void of facts), have influenced the discussion on Epstein. Similarly, because the Epstein files were a matter of speculation for so long, many (including those with access to some files) have used them as a tool of political or professional compromat – not necessarily because of what the files contain, but because the speculation about a person’s incriminating presence in them was enough to drum up controversy. Ultimately, I suspect that, seldom do people have an evaluation of the files that have been released AND victim testimonies to inform their thinking on the Epstein case. And so, the purpose of our discussion is NOT to speculate who is in the Epstein files and why – the DOJ, FBI, and US lawmakers are in a far more advantageous position to do that (although we will address the Democrat’s allegation against president Trump). RATHER, and as highlighted in the beginning of today’s discussion, there are 3 considerations:

First, is that what is of concern is not only the extent of Epstein’s heinous sexual crimes but the potential that they implicate key figures both in government and various sects of society – SPECIFICALLY in a manner that questions the credibility of those in positions of leadership. Second, is that the Epstein controversy takes place against the broader context of an epidemic of child and sex trafficking in the US – which requires the government to find the root cause to those issues, in addition to reactionary measures aimed at finding the children who have already been trafficked, lest the problem continues at large, with the government only ever exploring minimal efforts to address it. Then the final consideration is that, the Jeffery Epstein controversy is ultimately also about contending against moral decadence in the socio-political fabric of the West: for many who’ve debated this issue and the release of files, it is about removing the veil of uncertainty and addressing head-on the uncomfortable problem of paedophilia that many have tried to normalise or render too gory to address in the West, or even stifle to protect selfish interests. This is what underpins our discussion.

In one word: it is Justice. The big picture focus for the US government and justice system should be justice for the victims, which entails a correction of previous shortcomings in the administration of justice AND the promulgation of a truthful narrative about what the victims already know as empirical evidence, in addition to the arrest of Jeffery Epstein and and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

WHAT DO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS AND VICTIM TESTIMONIALS REVEAL ABOUT EPSTEIN’S CRIMES?

So, what do the official documents and victim testimonials reveal? Well, according to the allegations in the indictment, court documents, and evidence presented at trial against Ghislaine Maxwell, all published in a press briefing by the US Attorney’s Office of the Southern District of New York: From at least 1994, up to and including in or about 2004, GHISLAINE MAXWELL assisted, facilitated, and participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse of minor girls by, among other things, helping Epstein to recruit, groom, and ultimately abuse victims known to MAXWELL and Epstein to be under the age of 18.  The victims were as young as 14 years old when they were groomed and abused by MAXWELL and Epstein, both of whom knew that their victims were in fact minors.  As a part and in furtherance of their scheme to abuse minor victims, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and caused minor victims to travel to Epstein’s residences in different states, which MAXWELL knew and intended would result in their grooming for and subjection to sexual abuse.

MAXWELL enticed and groomed minor girls to be abused in multiple ways.  For example, MAXWELL attempted to befriend certain victims by asking them about their lives, their schools, and their families, and taking them to the movies or on shopping trips.  MAXWELL also acclimated victims to Epstein’s conduct simply by being present for victim interactions with Epstein, which put victims at ease by providing the assurance and comfort of an adult woman who seemingly approved of Epstein’s behavior.  Additionally, Epstein offered to help some victims by paying for travel and/or educational opportunities, and MAXWELL encouraged certain victims to accept Epstein’s assistance.  As a result, victims were made to feel indebted and believed that MAXWELL and Epstein were trying to help them.  MAXWELL also normalized and facilitated sexual abuse for a victim by discussing sexual topics, undressing in front of the victim, being present when the victim was undressed, and encouraging the victim to massage Epstein.

In the earlier phase of the conspiracy, from at least approximately 1994 through approximately 2001, MAXWELL and Epstein identified vulnerable girls, typically from single-mother households and difficult financial circumstances.  This earlier phase required the defendant and Epstein to identify one girl at a time to target for grooming and abuse.  In the later phase, from approximately 2001 until at least approximately 2004, MAXWELL and Epstein enticed and recruited, and caused to be enticed and recruited, minor girls to visit Epstein’s Palm Beach Residence to engage in sex acts with Epstein, after which Epstein, MAXWELL, or another employee of Epstein’s would give the victims hundreds of dollars in cash. MAXWELL and Epstein encouraged one or more of those victims to travel with Epstein with the intention that the victim engage in sex acts with Epstein. Moreover, and in order to maintain and increase his supply of victims, MAXWELL and Epstein also paid certain victims to recruit additional girls to be similarly abused by Epstein. In this way, MAXWELL and Epstein created a network of underage victims for Epstein to sexually exploit.

What this information from official documents has in common with many of Jeffery Epstein’s victims who’ve spoken out is that the victims were groomed and trafficked by Ghilaine Maxwell, and were abused by Epstein, or Maxwell on occasion. Now on the one hand, many state that this is an incomplete narrative because if Ghilaine Maxwell is in prison for trafficking minors, who was she trafficking them to? This question insinuates that there had to be others outside of Epstein that Ghilaine was trafficking children to. Often, it is Virginia Giuffre who has mentioned others like Prince Andrew among those who abused her.

However, on the other hand, I think this narrative is not necessarily INcomplete. The trafficking charges certainly still apply (and are still heinous) even if Ghilaine only trafficked the children for Epstein, as many of the girls’ testimonies entail. In addition, what Epstein’s lawyer’s press briefings have indicated is that Epstein abused the girls while they were minors, and then diabolically passed them on to his friends when they were adults. Which thus does not necessarily state that Epstein was trafficking children to certain clients, but does indicate that he ran a quasi-prostitution ring when those children had become legal adults.

Similarly, Virginia Guiffre (who has implicated others in what she implied was a child sex trafficking ring) has also been caught speaking factually INcorrect information, when making allegations about those involved in a trafficking ring. For instance, you’d recall that Virginia Giuffre filed a defamation lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz in a New York federal court in April 2019, alleging he made false and malicious statements about her after she claimed Epstein sex trafficked her to him. Giuffre claimed she was trafficked to Dershowitz at least six times, with the first time occurring when she was 16. Dershowitz has adamantly denied these accusations. HOWEVER, in November 2022, Giuffre dropped the allegations against Dershowitz, stating she may have made a mistake in identifying him due to the stressful and traumatic nature of her experiences with Epstein. That seems like a very dangerous and unlikely mistake to make about a person, considering the severity of the allegation. However, the point here is not to minimise the crimes of Jeferry Epstein, it is to say, we ought to form a narrative on his crimes that is based on careful consideration of what the facts reveal, so that we form an expectation of justice that is congruous. At no point should people be implicated in a trafficking ring based on the incorrect recollection of one person.

Now, this is not to say there wasn’t such a ring: we do not have all the files to come to that conclusion yet. HOWEVER, it is dangerous to push victims into a position where they might begin to think that their story and quest for justice only matters if it fulfils the subjective suspicions of people who have not seen the facts of the case. Even if it was only Epstein who abused the girls, there should still be enough concern about the concealment of his crimes, lest other victims potentially end up making statements of accusations that undermine their credibility.

THE NEED TO CORRECT MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE

The second point to address in light of the House’s vote on the Epstein files is that this development falls into the need to correct miscarriages of justice. You’d recall that in 2008, In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein, secured one of the most controversial plea deals in modern American legal history. In essence, after a 13-month investigation by the Palm Beach Police Department (2005–2006) that identified at least 36 victims (some as young as 14), the case was referred to both state and federal authorities. By mid-2007, the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, then led by Alexander Acosta, had prepared a 53-page federal indictment charging Epstein with serious felony offenses that carried potential decades or life in prison.

Well, instead of proceeding to trial, Epstein’s legal team (which included Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, Jay Lefkowitz, and others) negotiated directly with Acosta’s office. The result was a state-level guilty plea combined with an extraordinary federal non-prosecution agreement (NPA) signed on September 24, 2008. Under the deal, 4 things took place: (1) Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida state court to two relatively minor charges: specifically, solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of a minor to engage in prostitution. (2) He received an 18-month county jail sentence, of which he served only 13 months, mostly on work release (he was allowed to leave jail six days a week, 12 hours a day, to go to an office). (3) The federal NPA granted Epstein, his co-conspirators (explicitly naming four individuals), and any “potential co-conspirators” blanket immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida for all offenses committed between 2001 and 2007 related to sexual abuse of minors and related crimes. This effectively shut down the ongoing FBI investigation (“Operation Leap Year”). (4) The agreement was kept secret from Epstein’s victims, violating their rights under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA). Victims were deliberately misled by prosecutors who told them the investigation was ongoing when the deal had already been finalized.

This NPA was highly unusual in multiple respects: its breadth (protecting unnamed co-conspirators), its secrecy, its leniency given the evidence (over 40 identified victims by 2008), and the fact that federal charges were dropped entirely in exchange for a state plea on reduced charges. Acosta later defended the deal by claiming he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and was “above his pay grade,” that the state was ready to offer an even lighter sentence, and that he believed some punishment was better than risking acquittal. Internal Justice Department reviews and subsequent reporting have heavily criticized these justifications. 

However, (and thankfully), the 2008 deal collapsed in public credibility after the 2018–2019 Miami Herald investigation by Julie K. Brown, leading to Epstein’s July 2019 federal arrest on new sex-trafficking charges in New York. Acosta resigned as Trump’s Labor Secretary days later. And in February 2021, a federal judge further ruled that Acosta’s office had violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by concealing the agreement from victims. But, the 2008 NPA remains the clearest example of how wealth and connections enabled Epstein to evade serious federal accountability for over a decade. Now, as we proceed to the Trump allegation, here is what Trump did IN 2009 during this scandal, which incredibly undermined the US justice system.

The second issue on the miscarriage of justice pertains to the death of Jefrey Epstein. There is a reported full 11-hour video outside of Jeffrey Epstein’s cell that has been published on the DOJ’s website, showing no one entering the cell – and this is aimed at buttressing the claim that Esptein committed suicide. BUT, one of the points that were reported about Epstein’s death is that the cameras were down; and I also think that the guards had fallen asleep. 

So, where does this footage come from? Meanwhile, community notes on X indicate that “The video no longer exists on the backup system and has not since at least August 2019 as a result of technical errors.” And so, the question is: How is the DOJ, led by AG Pam Bondi, releasing CCTV footage of Epstein’s jail cell before he died, that allegedly did not exist due to technical errors?

BUT, Kash Patel, earlier said a couple of things on a podcast that I think I also worth highlighting in this discussion.

I am willing to believe that in this Trump administration, there is pressure (if not a collective sense of duty) to deliver on all that was promised. And that there are a significant number of people who are dedicated to the fulfilment of the agenda of making America great again. And so, I think previous administrations knew this (especially about Trump as an individual), and could have actually gotten rid of many documents and footage. I think we genuinely should also be willing to consider the fact that what the FBI under Kash Patel and the DOJ under Pam Bondi have – is possibly all they could get their hands on.

However, the US government in general appears to have a conflict of interest when it comes to sexual crimes, which undermines justice. In fact recently, we saw this wit the Sean Combs case.

WAS THE SEAN COMBS CASE INTENTIONALLY SABOTTAGED BY THE PROSECUTION?

After an eight-week trial, hip-hop mogul Sean Combs quietly celebrated in a Manhattan courtroom after a jury convicted him of two lesser counts of transportation to engage in prostitution – but spared him when it came to the most serious charge against him – sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, in a case that accused the impresario of coercing women into unwanted sex with male prostitutes – with the assistance of pliant employees. 

Prosecutor Maurene Comey argued that Combs was the head of a criminal enterprise who “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted,” noting that he had used violence, financial control, and threats to manipulate his girlfriends into physically taxing sessions of sexual acts with hired men while filmed it.

Combs’ attorneys then argued that the government’s evidence contradicted its case. They acknowledged that Combs had past issues with domestic violence and drug abuse, but that the accusation that he was a sex trafficker or a criminal ringleader was “badly exaggerated.” ANd the charge he was convicted of carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, vs. the potential life sentence he would have faced if convicted of the more serious charges.

Well, following this case, some observers are asking if the prosecutor, Maurene Comey (daughter of James Comey) sabotaged her own case. She was the prosecutor for Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell who managed not to name a single man who Epstein and Maxwell trafficked underage girls to. It seems like the processes of justice keep evading the most crucial aspects of these cases. And so, once again, the DOJ to improve how it addresses cases on sexual crimes, especially as it pertains to high profile individuals.

RESPONDING TO THE DEMOCRATS’ ALLEGATION AGAINST TRUMP

Finally, let’s then address the Democrat’s allegation about incriminating evidence against president Trump in the Epstein files. First, Trump has conceded to having a previous relationship with Epstein. But, in addition, when Epstein was being looked into for sexual crimes, a journalist stated that Trump was the only high profile individual who was willing not only to sit down with him but also to not hold back on information (like we recently saw). And so, the fact that Trump is pictured with Epstein and has acknowledged a previous affiliation with him takes away any surprise factor. In fact, I would say that what is more concerning are the people trying to escape this affiliation with Epstein by all means possible.

Secondly, when allegations of Trump being on the Epstein list were circulating, one of Epstein’s lawyers, David Schoen stated, on the 6th of June, that he asked Epstein if he had anything on Trump, to which Epstein responded in the negative. And seeing that Epstein died in 2019 – before the presidential election – if he had anything on Trump, that would not only have meant he had information to blackmail a sitting US president (because that was during Trump’s first term), but he could have also looong leveraged it to get himself out of that position – before even his arrest was factor. In fact, as information has come to the fore, a Democrat politician had exchanges with Epstein trying to get compriment on Trump to no avail! But furthermore, leading to the November 2024 US presidential elections, we saw lawfare against Trump at an almost unprecedented scale. Can anyone validly say that the same people who weaponised the FBI, DOJ, and intelligence agencies would NOT use the Epstein list against Trump if they knew he was on it? Obama, Biden and Kamala Harris (who were in office 2 out of the three times that Trump was running for president would have 100 percent used that information to end Trump’s presidential campaign – especially Kamala Harris. Let’s not kid ourselves.

Then, finally, even in the present, the “smoking gun” emails that Democrats have been circulating actually exonerate Trump because of a diabolical reduction they made (which was not made by those who had the original emails (including Epstein’s team). The redaction was to remove Virginia Guiffree’s name because she has stated previously that Trump never abused her or knew about Epstein’s dealings – which is the opposite of what the Democrats are trying to claim.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso