Bill Barr’s closed-door appearance before the House Oversight Committee was less an act of revelation and more of carefully dosed denial and damage control. While he acknowledged Epstein’s death resulted from a “perfect storm of screw-ups,” he denied awareness of missing surveillance footage or any so-called “client list” of associates. And despite widespread media focus on camera blind spots and unmonitored jail lapses, Barr insisted no evidence had emerged contradicting the official suicide determination

Critics argue that Barr’s testimony underscored the DOJ’s reluctance to fully own up to systemic failure. His assertion that he was “personally satisfied” with the outcome—and his resistance to acknowledging deeper institutional faults—fueled the notion that his role was protecting narrative more than uncovering truth. The hearing did little to quell concerns, instead leaving many in Congress and the public convinced there’s more yet to emerge.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:


Barr tells House he saw no evidence linking Trump to Epstein crimes: Comer | Fox News

The Department of Justice has long insisted that the Epstein saga was finished—“case closed.” Yet their own actions betray that claim. First it was silence and finality, but then came talk of unsealing grand jury documents and revisiting Ghislaine Maxwell. Congress issued subpoenas, and now the DOJ is handing over files that supposedly had no relevance. Every new disclosure undercuts the official line, showing that closure was less about truth and more about containment.

What we see now is a narrative unraveling. If the case was truly over, there would be no need for backtracking, no new files, no congressional tug-of-war for evidence. Instead, the DOJ’s tall tale of finality looks more like an attempt at control—managing perception while the cracks in their story keep widening. The truth they swore didn’t exist is still leaking out, and it’s becoming clear that “case closed” was never the ending. It was the cover-up.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

DOJ to begin turning over Jeffrey Epstein probe files: GOP chairman

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.

With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.

With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.

With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)

In his detailed 43‑page written opinion issued on January 12, 2022, Judge Kaplan firmly denied Prince Andrew’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Central to Andrew’s defense was a previously sealed 2009 settlement between Epstein and Giuffre, which his lawyers argued broadly released "any and all potential defendants" from liability. Judge Kaplan rejected this, calling the phrasing ambiguous and noting that it was unclear whether “potential defendants” truly included Andrew. He emphasized that only Epstein could clarify what he meant by that language, and without such clarity, the court could not extend the release to Andrew. Kaplan also rebuffed Andrew’s remaining attempts to dismiss, including claims regarding Giuffre’s residency and classification of her allegations under New York law. At this pre‑trial stage, he affirmed that all of Giuffre’s factual claims must be accepted as true and thus the case could proceed.

With dismissal refused, Judge Kaplan cleared the path for full discovery and, if necessary, a civil trial. He set a preliminary deposition schedule, signaling that both parties would be required to exchange documents and take sworn testimony—including from Prince Andrew. This decisively moved the case beyond preliminary legal wrangling and closer towards litigating its factual merits. Ultimately, though, in February 2022, the parties reached an out‑of‑court settlement, and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice, preventing refiling, once the settlement was finalized.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

21CV6702 JAN 11 2022 0900.pdf (uscourts.gov)

Virginia Roberts Giuffre's allegations against Bill Richardson and George Mitchell are part of her broader claims of being sexually abused and trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. Giuffre has stated that she was recruited by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell when she was 17 years old and subsequently coerced into a life of sex trafficking.

Bill Richardson:

Bill Richardson, a former Governor of New Mexico, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and Secretary of Energy, was named by Giuffre in legal documents. She alleged that Richardson was one of the high-profile individuals to whom Epstein trafficked her for sex. Richardson has categorically denied these allegations, stating that he has never met Giuffre and was unaware of Epstein's criminal activities. His spokesperson has emphasized that Richardson's interactions with Epstein were limited to legitimate political and charitable efforts.

George Mitchell:

George Mitchell, a former U.S. Senator and Senate Majority Leader, was also implicated by Giuffre. She claimed that Mitchell was among the influential men to whom Epstein trafficked her. Like Richardson, Mitchell has denied the allegations, asserting that he never met, spoke with, or had any contact with Giuffre. Mitchell has stated that his limited interactions with Epstein were in the context of fundraising and other public activities.

Broader Context:

Giuffre's accusations against Richardson and Mitchell are part of a series of allegations she has made against several prominent individuals. These allegations emerged as part of legal proceedings against Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre's claims have drawn significant media attention, particularly given the high-profile nature of the individuals she named, however Richardson and Mitchell remain sheltered.  


Despite Virginia Roberts Giuffre's serious allegations against Bill Richardson and George Mitchell, both men have largely avoided the intense scrutiny and accountability that some other figures connected to Jeffrey Epstein's network faced. This disparity in attention and accountability raises questions about the role of the media and political connections in shaping public perception and legal outcomes.

Bill Richardson and George Mitchell have consistently denied Giuffre's allegations, and there have been no formal charges or legal actions taken against them based on these claims. While both have faced some media coverage regarding the allegations, it has been relatively limited and quickly overshadowed by other news. Their denials and reputations as seasoned public servants might have contributed to the relatively muted response.

The media's handling of the allegations against Richardson and Mitchell contrasts sharply with how Alex Acosta, the former U.S. Attorney and Labor Secretary, was scrutinized. Acosta came under intense media and public pressure due to his role in negotiating a controversial plea deal with Epstein in 2008, which was widely criticized for being overly lenient. The deal allowed Epstein to serve a relatively short jail sentence and granted immunity to potential co-conspirators, effectively shielding many of his associates from prosecution.

Acosta's connection to Epstein and the perceived leniency of the plea deal led to widespread outrage, culminating in his resignation as Labor Secretary in 2019. The intense scrutiny of Acosta's actions highlighted the inconsistencies in how different figures connected to Epstein were treated by the media and the public.

Richardson and Mitchell's relatively protected status can be partly attributed to their longstanding relationships with influential figures and institutions. Both men have extensive political careers and connections within the legacy media, which may have contributed to the subdued coverage of the allegations against them. Media outlets, influenced by these connections, may have been less inclined to pursue aggressive investigations or critical reporting on Richardson and Mitchell compared to Acosta.

The disparity in scrutiny reflects broader issues of power and influence in both the media and the justice system. Prominent individuals with substantial political clout and media connections often navigate allegations differently than those with less influence. This disparity can lead to unequal accountability, where some individuals face significant consequences while others remain relatively unscathed.

While Richardson and Mitchell have not faced the same level of accountability, the ongoing legal battles and investigations into Epstein's network continue to reveal the complexity and reach of his operations. Ghislaine Maxwell's conviction and the attention on Epstein's other associates maintain a spotlight on the broader issue of sex trafficking and the complicity of powerful individuals.

However, without consistent and thorough scrutiny from both the media and the justice system, the full extent of accountability for all involved remains elusive. This situation underscores the importance of equal and unbiased investigative journalism and legal proceedings in addressing allegations of this nature.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

Bill Richardson and George Mitchell deny allegations by alleged Jeffrey Epstein victim | Daily Mail Online

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse have long maintained that Epstein’s circle of wealthy and powerful guests were not ignorant bystanders, but willful participants in a culture of silence that enabled his crimes. They argue that Epstein’s homes in New York, Palm Beach, and the Virgin Islands were not hidden dens of secrecy, but open arenas where underage girls were visible, being trafficked under the guise of “assistants” or “masseuses.” According to survivors, these guests—many of them business leaders, politicians, and celebrities—saw enough to know that something was deeply wrong. The pattern of young girls being shuttled in and out, the transactional nature of their presence, and the sheer regularity of it all made it impossible, survivors say, for anyone spending real time in Epstein’s world to miss what was happening.

This claim cuts to the heart of their outrage: that Epstein’s network wasn’t just built on his manipulations, but on the complicity of others who chose power and privilege over basic morality. Survivors have emphasized that Epstein was only able to thrive because those around him found it more convenient to look away—or worse, to participate. In their view, the illusion of ignorance served as a shield for the elite, letting them feign distance from the crimes while still reaping the benefits of Epstein’s connections. The survivors’ testimony paints a picture of a social ecosystem where silence was the unspoken rule, and where “not knowing” functioned as a deliberate strategy to protect reputations rather than as a plausible excuse.


to contact me:

[email protected]


source:

Epstein accusers say VIP visitors all knew what went on | Miami Herald

The third amended complaint filed in the Southern District of New York involves six plaintiffs—Jane Does 1 through 6—who have brought claims against Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn, acting as co-executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein, as well as the estate itself and other unnamed defendants. The case, docketed as No. 1:19-cv-07675-GBD, seeks a jury trial and continues the broader wave of litigation aimed at holding Epstein’s estate accountable for his long history of alleged sexual abuse and exploitation

The complaint underscores the plaintiffs’ pursuit of justice against Epstein’s estate following his death, placing responsibility on those managing his assets to provide restitution for the harm they allege they suffered. By naming “Roes 2–10,” the filing also leaves room for additional defendants who may later be identified as complicit in Epstein’s crimes or responsible for enabling his conduct. This legal action highlights the ongoing efforts by Epstein’s victims to find accountability in civil court, given that his death cut short criminal proceedings.


to contact me:

[email protected]



source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.521195.45.0.pdf

The silence surrounding Stacey Plaskett’s lawsuit by Epstein survivors exposes the staggering hypocrisy of both lawmakers and the legacy media. Politicians who pound the table about justice and accountability fall mute when the accusations land inside their own chamber. Journalists who dissect every lurid detail of Epstein’s life suddenly find no headlines when survivors point to a sitting member of Congress. This selective outrage isn’t oversight—it’s complicity. Survivors are abandoned the moment their stories threaten insiders, and the system shows once again that accountability is conditional, not principled.


That selective accountability corrodes credibility and turns justice into theater. By politicizing the scandal, lawmakers use survivors as pawns while letting the real villains—Epstein’s network of enablers—slip quietly back into the shadows. The result is a collapse of trust: citizens see investigations as performance, predators learn power protects power, and survivors are betrayed all over again. Epstein may be dead and Maxwell imprisoned, but the system that shielded them is alive and well—sustained by cowardice, silence, and the hypocrisy of institutions that pretend to defend justice while practicing selective blindness.



to contact  me:


[email protected]