There is no credible evidence that either of the Presidents you alluded to visited "the island". It's amazing to see conspiracy theories promulgated on HN.
There is no credible evidence that either of the Presidents you alluded to visited "the island". It's amazing to see conspiracy theories promulgated on HN.
There is lots of evidence that these two presidents were on the pedophile island many times, and one of their wives. That is well established.
There is no evidence released to the public directly linking those two men to specific sex acts by name. There is unnamed evidence released by the US DOJ specifically describing the assault I described in the prior comment. Again, none of this is theoretical, conspiracy, or conjecture. It’s in the documents released by the government that the government has confirmed as authentic.
No doubt you are aware that the claims about Clinton originated with the founder of the Epstein Mythos, Virginia Giuffre, who we know for a fact was a serial confabulator. While she was inarguably one of Epstein's victims, she also made several claims that were demonstrably untrue, she could not keep her own stories straight, the FBI concluded internally that she was totally unreliable and that she was even lying about what the FBI told her, other victims contradicted her, and she was herself forced to recant on several subjects, including admitting that her "autobiography" book was a work of fiction. If you doubt me, feel free to read the FBI memo about her.
In the case of both Clinton and Trump, there is no evidence that either of them visited Little St. James, and plenty of evidence otherwise - for example, Epstein even says so about Clinton in an email.
> It’s in the documents released by the government that the government has confirmed as authentic.
The documents are "authentic" in that yes, a real schizo did really tell the government he heard it secondhand 30 years ago that this happened and also that he discovered Hilary Clinton was behind the WTC bombing. (For some reason, people like you always leave that part of the bombshell revelations out.) I am for total transparency generally, but this whole saga has been a major disappointment for me in that the level of public discourse is so lazy and low that its clear that in a purely utilitarian way, it would have been better to not release it. Hopefully long-term the sacrifice of many people whose reputations are being destroyed over little or nothing is worth it. Every crank call about celebrities is being treated as gospel.
Its amazing for you to stick your head to your ass pedo protector
Remarkable that Epstein confined his pedophile activities to a single location.
No, wait:
Hmm ... would that be the same Palm Beach home that Trump visited a good many times back when he was best of chums with Jeffrey and sending him the nude outline sketches?> Remarkable that Epstein confined his pedophile activities to a single location
Correct, the vast majority of his criminal activity appeared to be in his Palm Beach home and in New York, where he recruited high dozens to hundreds of high school girls for his personal sexualized massages. It actually appears only a very small amount of his illicit activity ever took place on the island, which makes it all the more ironic that's what the conspiracy theorists focus on.
I was willing to be more than openmminded about the conspiracists' mass trafficking ring (ie, beyond the two people charged) angle, but the ironic thing is about the Epstein files is they revealed it was almost all smoke. Of course, in the conspirational mindset, all contradicting evidence is actually, secretly, when you apply the correct hermeutics, even more damning, or else evidence of a coverup.
> the ironic thing is about the Epstein files is they revealed it was almost all smoke.
and a few massive conspiracy shaped holes - eg: the references to missing content regarding Trump and a few other. Oh, and the shortfall between what has been released Vs what has been indexed, the black paging, and the hints from those that have seen but are sworn to not tell about that which they have seen but cannot recount.
Still, at least we seem to agree that PedoIsland is a misdirect when it comes to determining who did what to whom and where.
I can't see Pam Bondi coming clean here anytime soon.
> the hints from those that have seen but are sworn to not tell about that which they have seen but cannot recoun
The people who were victimized by anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell could come forward at any time, just as dozens of Epstein's victims have. They have some of the highest-powered civil lawyers in America, hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement funds available, and vast swaths of the country behind them.
That they haven't should tell you something.
It tells me that they are afraid of their safety and the safety of their families. They would risking backlash from a billionaire who loves intimidation tactics, who currently has the highest amount of power of any individual in the US, and who has nutty followers who would act on his behalf and let him pretend he was not at all happy about what they are doing.
The people who have come forward about Epstein's abuses have little to worry about because that man is dead and he's a perfect scapegoat for all the the other ultra-rich who took part in the abuses.
If you’re talking about Trump, you may remember that E Jean Carroll won a lawsuit against him. She’s walking the earth and continuing to live a public life.
And again, millions of dollars are available from settlement funds if Epstein was involved, there’s already some of the best lawyers in the country begging to represent you, and there’s people volunteering to pay for your security needs.
You’re also ignoring the many victims that came out before Epstein died.
This is just an excuse to perpetuate the conspiracy theories. It doesn’t hold water. And of course if anything was released from super secret “the files” they’re definitely still covering up, they’d become publicly known.
Surely you see how this line of reasoning is identical to that of any other conspiracy or moral panic.
> And of course if anything was released from super secret “the files” they’re definitely still covering up, they’d become publicly known.
They've been caught trying to do Trump related reactions at least three times now.
You misunderstand my point. I’m saying that if there are any credible accusations in “the files” beyond those well-documented ones against Epstein and Maxwell, then the accusers would be known publicly anyway when they’re disclosed.
The whole thing falls apart the moment you examine the actual evidence and think about it. It’s really disappointing that smart people on even this forum get wrapped up into this junk.
> You misunderstand my point. I’m saying that if there are any credible accusations in “the files” beyond those well-documented ones against Epstein and Maxwell, then the accusers would be known publicly anyway when they’re disclosed. The whole thing falls apart the moment you examine the actual evidence and think about it. It’s really disappointing that smart people on even this forum get wrapped up into this junk.
Did you know that Epstein's hard drives were removed by a private investigator, and that the FBI and DOJ never had them to begin with? They were removed before they were searched by law enforcement.
https://abcnews.com/US/house-oversight-panel-seeks-testimony...
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-safe-diamond...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/27/epstein-private-...
And? What does that have to do with the absence of witnesses of a sex trafficking ring involving anyone else?
This isn’t even news, it was a big deal back in the day and is covered extensively in the report about the DoJ’s conduct. Read the reports and consider the context; this is a nothingburger. But because the conspiracy theory has been started, everything that happens will be read as supporting it. Epstein had very good reasons for destroying evidence of his own deeds without any need for anyone else being involved. (The evidence the DoJ collected was very weak and they weren’t sure it would sustain a prosecution, which is partly why they were glad to go with a plea deal.) You’re coming in primed to believe there’s already a conspiracy about something else altogether.
> And? What does that have to do with the absence of witnesses of a sex trafficking ring involving anyone else?
Did you just ask, in a post about evidence being taken and keep from investigators, why there isn't evidence?
> This isn’t even news, it was a big deal back in the day and is covered extensively in the report about the DoJ’s conduct.
Then why is it news FROM TODAY/YESTERDAY?
---
In a March 19 deposition with the House Oversight Committee, Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime personal attorney, said he learned after Epstein's 2008 conviction that the hard drives were in the possession of Riley Kiraly, a private investigations firm.
"The Committee requests that you make yourself available for a transcribed interview to provide insight into the contents, removal, storage, and location of materials removed from Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home," the letter to Riley says.
source: https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-safe-diamond...
That computer and surveillance equipment was removed from Epstein's home and withheld from law enforcement throughout his Florida case has been public since 2020. That Riley Kiraly possessed the equipment was known to the lead prosecutor as well. [46;176]
You can CTRL-F "computer" and get 92 matches indicating their importance:
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....
It seems that the only "news" is the bit that you mentioned about Indyke/Riley. Indyke apparently was not involved in the Florida case. At least he isn't mentioned in the linked DOJ report among Epstein's counsel.
I don't know what it would take for it to be deemed necessary to seize the equipment that the prosecution failed to get almost 20 years ago.
> Did you just ask, in a post about evidence being taken and keep from investigators, why there isn't evidence?
The sibling commenter addressed the timeline, but you still seem to be missing the point: harddrive or no harddrive, there would have been witnesses - at least the victims- of the grand conspiracy theory involving other men. Instead, you're limited to Maria Farmer (26 when she was victimized by Epstein, rarely seen in public because she makes wild accusations about random people including the journalists interviewing her - she is currently convinced that Whitney Webb murdered a chef) and Virginia Giuffre (underage victim and confirmed fabulist, who also, for the record, said Trump did nothing wrong and endorsed his Presidency). There never was any evidence of the organized conspiracy of elites part of the Epstein story. Read the testimony! Again and again the women say there were no other men.
You're concluding that computer equipment Epstein had every reason to hide from law enforcement to cover up more concrete evidence of his solicitation of minors actually contains evidence of a totally different thing that nobody was claiming at the time - a grand sex trafficking conspiracy involving powerful billionaires and politicians. But there's no reason to think that's the case.
At the end of the day, if any of this happened, these women could come forward. They're entitled to millions in settlement money already (and you don't even have to go to court to get it - its an administrative process, not a judicial one; and it's big money, Annie Farmer alone got at least 1.5 million), and naming additional names would open the door to even more! They already have some of the best civil attorneys in the country! An unrelated case has already shown that you can win a civil suit against the most powerful man in the country, even with no evidence besides your testimony! That they have not, combined with the total lack of evidence, suggests they don't exist.
But because the mindset behind this is conspiratorial, it will always be "there IS evidence - it's just being covered up!". And no amount of releases will ever be enough - because they can't show it to be true, which just proves there's a coverup! It's never-ending.
> At the end of the day, if any of this happened, these women could come forward. They're entitled to millions in settlement money already (and you don't even have to go to court to get it - its an administrative process, not a judicial one; and it's big money, Annie Farmer alone got at least 1.5 million)
Many of these women did not want to go to court. They did not want to talk to media. They did not want to relieve the trauma of these events. Money is a huge motivator for some people but not all. Imagine decades after the event, you've settled down. Maybe you have a career or a family. Kids. Do you want to drag them through that? Have their spouse get asked questions at work or jokes made to their kids by other kids? Of course not.
When the DOJ leaked many of their names, that was a threat. That was a threat. I could also imagine many individuals involved in this wouldn't know the names of the abused. Why would they? Now they do, for many. That's enough to get pressure on people to shut the fuck up. Not all the names were released!
I'll leave you some notes:
--- Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epstein-survivors-felt-...
---
"Six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and two members of another accuser’s family said they felt "degraded" during Wednesday's contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing"
---
[Bondi] "She was specifically questioned about why released files were heavily redacted and why several survivors' names were not."
---
"At one point, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., asked Epstein survivors in the room to stand up and raise their hands if they hadn’t had the opportunity to meet with the Justice Department. Every single one raised their hand."
---
"Bensky has said she was 17 and a budding ballerina in 2004 when Epstein sexually abused her at his New York City mansion.
“I felt like such a ghost walking through Epstein’s mansion.
I felt like there were so many people who saw me.
There were so many people who should have spoken up," Bensky said."
---
Re: Conspiracy
I mean...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-name...
---
Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/flawed-epste...
"Despite the scale of disclosures, experts warned of serious compliance failures and botched redactions that exposed sensitive victim information, with harm often occurring before records were withdrawn. Accountability has been limited, with only one close associate under investigation. Under international human rights law, States are obligated to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women and girls, including acts committed by private actors."
"“The failure to safeguard their privacy puts them at risk of retaliation and stigma. The reluctance to fully disclose information or broaden investigations, has left many survivors feeling retraumatised...”
“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said.
“Resignations of implicated individuals alone are not an adequate substitute for criminal accountability,” the experts said. They welcomed steps by some governments to probe current and former officials and private individuals named in the files. They called on other states to do the same.
---
Final note: > there would have been witnesses
Yes, and they don't want to admit to being there because of the liability.
Can you name an Epstein victim that was not already public that was exposed by the DoJ's failure to properly redact? You keep repeating these narratives that are simply nonsense. Who was "leaked" by the DoJ that we didn't already know about?
Also, are you suggesting we should convict people and impeach them based on anonymous accusations? Do you believe in the Sixth Amendment? Surely you don't believe that we should be able to destroy notable figures based on anonymous denouncements? There is no universe where anything happens without people coming forward!
You're caught in a bind though, because the conspiracy relies on all these victims of other men existing, but mysteriously not coming forward, unlike the dozens of the victims who say only Epstein was involved, so you have to come up with fictitious reasons why they aren't materializing. What do you even want? Presumably, it's for these shadowy pedophiles to be taken down...but they can't be taken down without the victims coming forward, files or no files!
This is particularly ironic that, instead of endlessly litigating a conspiracy theory that's fairly well exhausted, there is open child prostitution going on right now (instead of 30 years ago) in LA on "the Blade", and we are doing approximately nothing about it, and not nearly enough people care. Imagine if all the energy of these conspiracy theorists was focused on stopping something actually happening now.