The 'Epstein Files': What We Should (and should not) Focus On

Any continuing inquiry should seek real answers to who knew what and when.

If you had told me even six months ago that the criminal legacy of Jeffrey Epstein would become a unifying factor in America—one of the few topics about which people across a wide political spectrum would be interested in—I would not have believed it. But here we are. From far-right commentators to Democrats in Congress (and even some Republicans in Congress who have not stood up to President Donald Trump on any other issue), there seems to be a consensus that Trump and his attorney general, Pam Bondi, and his deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, are hiding something and that more transparency is necessary. The why and how we got here are not as important as where we go from here and what areas are important and worth our time in a world overloaded with important issues—like the assault on our democracy, the dismantling of the federal government, and possible war with Russia—on which to focus.

Though I deeply believe in the judicial system as a finder of facts and achieving something as close to “truth” as possible, as a prosecutor, I am wary of calls for further prosecutions at this time. Why? Because the standard for criminal prosecutions is extremely high, and rightfully so. The conduct at issue here spans the 1990s to 2005. It would be extremely difficult for any prosecutor, state or federal, to bring criminal charges against anyone given the age of the conduct. The Department of Justice is compromised, so no one should expect fair charges to come from it, and state prosecutors would face enormous hurdles with meeting discovery obligations without a cooperative federal prosecutor’s office (at least in New York). State prosecutors face additional hurdles of possible statutes of limitations and double jeopardy. Does that mean that prosecutors should not try to bring a prosecution if there is evidence against uncharged parties? Not necessarily, if they have the resources. But the public should not rely on the criminal process for answers here. We became over-reliant on the outcome of, for example, Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller’s investigation, the Jan. 6 prosecutions, and others. The bar for elected officials and public figures (anyone really) should be higher than “did they commit a crime”?

The criminal predatory conduct of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell is very well documented in several places, including Maxwell's 2021 trial; incredible and detailed reporting by Julie K. Brown, an investigative reporter with the Miami Herald; a Netflix 2020 documentary that includes recordings made by the Palm Beach Police of Epstein's victims and their stories, among other primary sources; and unsealed depositions and records from several civil lawsuits brought by victims. There is absolutely no reasonable question that Epstein and Maxwell operated a prolific sex trafficking operation in which they targeted and preyed on young women and girls sexually through physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. As the judge who sentenced Maxwell to 20 years’ imprisonment following her conviction on sex trafficking and other charges said, “[t]he evidence at trial established that Ms. Maxwell directly and repeatedly and over the course of many years participated in a horrific scheme to entice, transport, and traffic underage girls, some as young as 14, for sexual abuse by and with Jeffrey Epstein.” What remains largely unanswered is who knew what when, who helped enable Epstein and Maxwell, and who else, if anyone, was involved in the sexual conduct and the long, ongoing coverup. Any continuing inquiry of the Epstein saga must focus on and seek real answers to these questions.

These questions include why and how exactly was Epstein given what can only be called a ridiculously suspect deal when he was arrested and charged in Florida in 2006. He was allowed to plead to minor state charges pursuant to a non-prosecution agreement— despite that the Palm Beach Police believed he should be charged and held accountable for more. A 2020 DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report focused on whether the attorneys involved in the plea had committed specific violations of DOJ rules. It did not answer questions about how or why the deal was reached or why victims were kept in the dark about the deal until it was too late. In fact, one of the lead prosecutors involved in the case who resigned raised more questions about the report itself. She said she was “disappointed that [DOJ] has not released the full report so the victims and the public can have a fuller accounting of the depth of interference that led to the patently unjust outcome in the Epstein case.”

These questions must also examine Epstein's finances, including how he made his fortune and why he was so closely linked with men like Leslie Wexner and institutions like JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has undertaken this angle and others, on both sides of the aisle, should join him.

And, of course, the unanswered questions that have arisen just in the past few weeks are important: Why was the lead prosecutor on the one successful case against Epstein and Maxwell fired for no legitimate reason; why is Trump’s DOJ meeting with a convicted sex trafficker who now is being given preferential treatment? The Florida plea deal, the aborted FBI investigation in Florida, the seeming cover up now, and Epstein’s finances are all part and parcel of the same issues: how and why this man and his accomplice, Maxwell, and perhaps others, were able to abuse what is estimated to be 1,000 victims for so long without much secrecy and why the justice system failed the victims for so long—and continues to fail to this day.

In some ways, none of this is singular. We have seen this story again and again: Powerful men who abuse or exploit women and get away with it for decades because our society does not prioritize and does not credit victims, especially when they are young women, and people are more than willing to turn a blind eye at a minimum, or worse. We have seen this with Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar, Bill Cosby, Jerry Sandusky, sexual abuse in the military, sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, and many others. Congress has had hearings in the cases regarding Nassar and the military. State attorneys general investigated and issued public reports in the case of the Catholic Church. Detailed investigative reports and state criminal prosecutions were done in the Sandusky case, and deep investigative reporting was done in every one of these cases. There is precedent for Congress, state attorneys general, and even independent investigators doing this in an effective way that exposed not only the evils of the sexual abusers like Epstein and Maxwell, but also, as one survivor of Nassar’s abuse stated, an entire infrastructure that “enabled and [perpetuated] his abuse.”

The American public should not be fooled into thinking that the DOJ’s motion to release grand jury testimony is a real attempt at transparency. Those transcripts will have very little, if any, new information. The public cannot allow the Trump administration, the DOJ, and friendly press to rewrite the history of Ghislaine Maxwell, the one living person to have so far received accountability for the survivors, thanks to the Southern District of New York and the FBI. The transcript of Maxwell’s sentencing, by a respected federal judge, tells a story of someone who used her cunning exploitation of trust by young girls to facilitate pedophilia by Epstein and possibly others and to profit handsomely from it. She has been unrepentant and untruthful since her arrest. That she is already receiving preferential treatment without any indication (or realistic possibility) that she can provide anything of credible value to the mission of justice is despicable. A pardon would be unimaginable, especially for the victims who are being retraumatized by the very government that is supposed to protect them.

None of what has happened vis-à-vis Maxwell and the DOJ is a normal or acceptable use of the immense power of the DOJ. That power is being used by the president’s former criminal defense attorney, who has a continuing duty of loyalty to his client under the professional rules of responsibility but also a likely conflicting obligation to the rule of law and justice under his oath as the deputy attorney general. That, in short, is an improper use of that immense power and proof that the justice system is continuing to deny justice to the victims.

Mimi Rocah was the district attorney of Westchester County, New York, from 2021 to 2024 and was a federal prosecutor from 2001 to 2017.

---