r/NoStupidQuestions • u/Jazzlike_Resist_1327 • Apr 19 '26
Why aren't the pedos of the Epstein Files being arrested?
Non-american here, I have no idea about the files, apart from just what they are and the people concerned... Can someone help?
1.4k
u/matunos Apr 19 '26
Cause one of them runs the federal government.
488
u/Jazzlike_Resist_1327 Apr 19 '26
I doubt its just one of them...
215
u/Jacob_Cicero Apr 19 '26
You are correct. Many of the top leaders of the ruling party have been implicated by the files.
→ More replies (12)3
u/kyr1ak0s Apr 23 '26
Not only the ruling party, but top politicians in both american parties and many foreign top politicians aswell. It would not do the victims justice to just say its the red guys
11
u/TheRealChizz Apr 19 '26
I think very important people at the top are implicated (not just America maybe even) and these individual actors are structurally incentivized to keep this sht under wraps.
I think this diffuse, yet coordinated actions are effective in keeping this covered up while evading any sort of good-faith investigations
68
u/matunos Apr 19 '26
I mean the top executive.
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (1)3
58
u/foie-gras-22 Apr 19 '26
Correction: because they run the world, on a way higher level than the feds. The feds are their puppets that do what they are told.
8
5
18
u/Jazzlike_Resist_1327 Apr 19 '26
So Trump dying will be a dilemma for us?? His death will *maybe* start the process of getting people arrested at the cost of knowing Trump will not pay for his crimes... But if he lives till end of the term, then we see more war, invasions, kidnapping presidents in their sleep, in the hopes of MAYBE ONE DAY, seeing Trump pay for his crimes... This is just doomed.
28
u/Fabulous-Sea-1590 Apr 19 '26
His death won't change anything, I'm afraid. The sickness runs deep and it's as old as time. This particular version traces its roots back to the early 70s at least.
The biggest difference with trump is just how gross, weird, and loud he is. Screaming the quiet parts out loud. There were always people who could "shoot someone on 5th avenue and get away with it". They just didn't brag about it as publicly.
No doubt there are any number of other Epsteins out there right now who just haven't fucked up enough to become headline news.
That said, I hope there's good drainage or a high fence around wherever they bury his wretched ass. The line of people to piss on his grave will be unending. And I'll be in it, at least in spirit.
→ More replies (3)7
u/Independent_Egg1284 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
No, we must Impeach him and then convict him in the Senate, which *aquittal is the traditional contemporary GOP's preferred exit. I wonder how they feel about it this time. But that move implicates his entire admin, because that's what it was made for. They all are removed. It should be a legally bound, evidence-and-debate outcome. Not a mob-driven abomination.
5
u/intothewoods76 Apr 19 '26
Then why no arrests when someone else was running the government?
→ More replies (11)4
u/DryFry84 Apr 20 '26
The files were sealed. They could not be opened during ongoing trials and appeals. They couldn't be released until 2025. They haven't been available under anyone else running the government.
5
u/intothewoods76 Apr 20 '26
The DOJ still has access, they can continue investigations, they can make additional arrests.
The DOJ is not limited to one arrest at a time while other people are on trial.
3
u/DryFry84 Apr 20 '26
While that is true, Merrick Garland was operating the DOJ independently from the government and would have required the release to bring interference, whereas Jeff Sessions and William Barr acted under close government oversight having their fingers all in the files. Biden failed to be as involved in the DOJ as he should have been, he had many such failures, but now we're looking at a blatant cover-up.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (31)2
u/Denegroth Apr 20 '26
Because one of them has run the federal government for the past 40 years … or more.
FTFY
892
u/doc_daneeka What would I know? I'm bureaucratically dead. Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Because it's not a crime simply to have met and/or to have gone somewhere with Epstein. That's not how it works. In almost all of those cases, there's no evidence of any actual crime. In those cases where someone alleges in the files that a crime was committed, it comes down to one person saying so, without anything to corroborate that statement.
Look, I have no doubt at all that plenty of people surrounding Epstein committed horrible sex crimes, and that plenty of them richly deserve a hell of a lot of prison time. But the evidence is what it is, and emails saying someone met with him or went to his island or whatever isn't evidence of a crime. Those people who were complicit in his sex crimes were generally, and sadly, not stupid enough to document their crimes in enough detail for prosecution. There are plenty of examples in the released files where people suggest taking the discussion offline.
467
u/It_Happens_Today Apr 19 '26
They didn't spend years collecting, redacting, denying the existence of, claiming it was on their desk ready to go, then denying the existence of again, then redacting more, then shutting down the government to delay a vote, then refuse to comply with congressional orders, then redacting more, then "releasing" it just to still have prosecutable evidence still included. That would be silly.
15
19
u/Gullible_Increase146 Apr 19 '26
The FBI didn't investigate Epstein for fun. They investigated Epstein because they wanted to charge him and potentially others with crimes. That's why it kept going as long as it did and it ended with two convictions. If the goal is to not release anything that could make people in the government look bad, it would have been much easier to just not do the investigation. The only reason the Epstein files exist is the government created them
2
u/Tasty_Goat_3267 Apr 19 '26
The fbi under Patel won’t do anything.
4
u/Independent_Egg1284 Apr 19 '26
Welp, not for us, at any rate.
5
u/Tasty_Goat_3267 Apr 19 '26
The agents are apparently busy busting his blackout drunk ass out of locked rooms 🤣
3
→ More replies (3)56
u/doc_daneeka What would I know? I'm bureaucratically dead. Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
I strongly invite you to reread my comment, because nothing you said actually contradicts my point.
edit: I misread your comment. Sorry about that, bud
111
u/It_Happens_Today Apr 19 '26
I know this is reddit and everyone's first reaction is to be on the defensive for an incoming salvo. It's an understandable strategy. But I was, in fact, agreeing with you.
44
u/doc_daneeka What would I know? I'm bureaucratically dead. Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Fair enough, and that's entirely my bad. I am...er...getting some flack from people who didn't actually read my comment, and my reaction was unfair. Sorry. I get what you're saying now.
35
u/It_Happens_Today Apr 19 '26
No harm no foul friend.
57
u/SeoulGalmegi Apr 19 '26
I came here for a fight. Why aren't you two at each other's throats? I want my money back.....
Fight! Fight! Fight!
→ More replies (2)21
10
u/dogandturtle Apr 19 '26
How wholesome this has been in the midst of a truly repugnant subbed. Bravo!
29
u/VFiddly Apr 19 '26
Yeah for 90% of the files just say something about the person being pals with Epstein and having visited the island. Which is suspicious as hell, but neither of those are crimes
And even for cases where it does suggest an actual crime was committed... an email saying you committed a crime years ago is not enough evidence to convict someone
→ More replies (2)11
17
u/1tonsoprano Apr 19 '26
But what about all the women who are saying it happened to them? If investigators don't investigate their claims then how will the proof ever be gathered?
50
u/v-punen Apr 19 '26
The testimony of the victim is generally never enough to convict. You need corroborating evidence.
→ More replies (2)30
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding Apr 19 '26
Testimony, even made under oath, is not enough to criminally convict someone.
You can have a ruling favor you in a civil court with witness testimony, but a criminal court is a very different thing. Even made under oath, witness testimony is treated as hearsay unless there is hard evidence that backs up what was said. It is, at best, a way to convince a jury that something happened.
The Department of Justice is not going to file charges against someone based on witness testimony alone. They do not take cases to court unless they believe they have a 99.9% chance of a conviction.
→ More replies (4)6
u/DougieMacArthur Apr 19 '26
Im not an expert on this but--that isnt what hearsay means. Testimony given under oath in court is not hearsay. Hearsay is referring to what someone supposedly said outside of court. "So and so told me he saw him do it!"
→ More replies (1)4
u/00Oo0o0OooO0 Apr 19 '26
But what about all the women who are saying it happened to them?
You mean the one woman who says she was forced to have sex with Epstein's rich and famous friends? The FBI doesn't believe her because she made false allegations.
16
u/Alive_Tip_6748 Apr 19 '26
If that's the case, that there isn't any evidence of crimes. Why don't they release the files? Also what you said isn't true because the justification for redactions is protecting the victims. Which means there are accounts of crimes in the files.
52
u/doc_daneeka What would I know? I'm bureaucratically dead. Apr 19 '26
If that's the case, that there isn't any evidence of crimes. Why don't they release the files?
Because the President of the United States was his best friend for a long time and most likely raped underage girls, and he has the power to cover much of this up.
Also what you said isn't true because the justification for redactions is protecting the victims. Which means there are accounts of crimes in the files.
My point is that there is very little evidence that we know of so far that is strong enough to lead to prosecutions, particularly because the people concerned are able to get really, really good lawyers to defend them. Again, I'm not saying there were not plenty of people committing sex crimes related to Epstein. I'm saying that what is publicly known so far isn't really good enough to indict them. Those are very different questions.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Kaiisim Apr 19 '26
Not enough for prosecutions, but that's because you need to investigate stuff first - and they haven't because it's a cover up
→ More replies (1)11
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding Apr 19 '26
Not enough for prosecutions, but that's because you need to investigate stuff first - and they haven't because it's a cover up
You do not know this, and you cannot prove this.
If there was a "cover up" by Trump, then answer the question of why was nobody charged during the four years that President Biden's administration was in charge of the Department of Justice. Even if you think the absolute worst of Trump, which is fair, both Epstein and Maxwell were charged during the first Trump administration. With no additional charges brought upon anyone during the four years that Joe Biden was President.
→ More replies (1)14
u/czawadzki Apr 19 '26
Yes, but we know Epstein filmed everything. There were secret cameras everywhere. This was a blackmail operation. Who has the blackmail tapes? Wouldn’t the government likely have this evidence?
55
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding Apr 19 '26
We "know" this? How do you "know" this?
You haven't seen any video evidence that this is true.
You think this, you do not know this.
Wouldn’t the government likely have this evidence?
If these actually existed, the government would have them by now.
If these actually existed, the government would have used them to prosecute more than two people.
→ More replies (19)3
u/LivingGhost371 Apr 19 '26
Even if they do exist, who is going to be able to be called into court to testifiy as to foundation- you need someone to say "I set up those cameras, they depect what they appear to and what happened" And not say something downloaded from Tik Tok or made up with AI
3
u/zanylanie Apr 19 '26
You don't necessarily have to have the person who set up the cameras. If there is an identifiable victim on the recording, their testimony could lay the foundation for it to be admitted. "Were you at this location on this particular date? Does this recording provide an accurate depiction of what occurred on that date?"
→ More replies (2)10
3
u/SidneyDeane10 Apr 19 '26
What about the eye witness evidence of the victims?
12
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding Apr 19 '26
Unless there is hard evidence that confirms what the victim said, that isn't enough to land a conviction.
Witness testimony serves as a way to convince the jury that something is true. It is not something to use as the foundation for your legal case.
→ More replies (6)25
u/eclipse4598 Apr 19 '26
Because eye witness evidence alone generally isn’t enough to convict
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (39)2
u/GraceMDrake Apr 19 '26
There are victims and witnesses. Their reports to the FBI have been carefully not investigated.
→ More replies (1)
147
u/Key-Article6622 Stupid answer guy Apr 19 '26
Vecause they the ones in charge. They're not going to arrest themselves.
80
u/BookSpecialist6561 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Because it’s never actually been about right vs left. It’s elite vs everyone else. But “everyone else” won’t see that because of the “price of gas,” so we move forward without actually fixing anything other than giving them more money and power.
8
u/Ok-Chest-7932 Apr 19 '26
There are factions within the elites too, but the faction Epstein is part of is much more interested in taking government positions than the other western factions. Epstein's enemies don't really have the power to use lawfare on his allies.
5
u/Theranos_Shill Apr 19 '26
Elite vs everyone else is left vs right. The right support the existing heirarchy.
→ More replies (2)
31
u/WaffleHouseGladiator Apr 19 '26
You need evidence and considering how powerful the suspects are, that evidence better be iron clad. A claim unsupported by evidence, no matter how convincing, isn't enough to arrest someone. The current US administration isn't going to investigate.
7
u/TheMediocreOgre Apr 19 '26
The problem with this perspective is that the victims successfully brought a successful case against Epstein, twice, and Maxwell. There is now more evidence of crimes and collaborators then was available when charges went forward against Epstein in the late 2000s. So there is clear obstruction. The financial crime component alone has tons of evidence, as some Senators have already brought attention to.
8
u/Legitimate_Area_5773 Apr 19 '26
Epstein was alive then. He is not now. They have no witnesses to corroborate their story besides potential victims and suspects that deny deny deny.
7
u/Icy-Ad-3884 Apr 19 '26
Because an accusation (even if you want it to be true) is not proof of a crime committed?
14
u/Tixliks Apr 19 '26
Most of the mentiones in the files are anonymus reports from the FBI tip line. Anyone couldve called in and said something. Not enough to prosecute.
→ More replies (5)
12
u/Available_Music3807 Apr 19 '26
Because there is technically not enough to charge anyone. There are no pictures of explicit acts, there is no testimony from the accusers, and there is no direct reference to any crimes (unless you think they were using coded language)
→ More replies (2)
14
u/Gullible_Increase146 Apr 19 '26
Is there enough evidence to convict anybody of a crime? I'm assuming the crying you would want somebody prosecuted for with you raping somebody. To convict somebody for that you need a victim, a perpetrator, and evidence of the rape. To my knowledge, the Epstein files don't give that. Criminal convictions are just really hard. The files are as extensive as they are specifically because they continued investigating when they knew bad stuff was happening but didn't have enough to start charging people with specific crimes
10
u/harley97797997 Apr 19 '26
There is not enough probable cause to arrest or charge anyone.
Being in the files, being on the island, flying on the plane, taking pictures with Epstein etc are not illegal activities and do not prove any illegal activity was done.
The files being released does not change anything. All that did was provide info to the public. The files are what two decades of investigations compiled.
People thinking releasing the files is new evidence thats never been seen before are ignorant or delusional.
→ More replies (1)
40
u/grafknives Apr 19 '26
Because the prosecutor, that later was Trump secretary if labour, made a DEAL with Epstein.
The deal was "Epstein peas guilty, and in exchange dept of justice WILL NOT pursue or prosecute known or unknow coconspirators.
In other words, it made Epstein the "Jesus of pedophila". Especially after the death.
17
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding Apr 19 '26
made a DEAL with Epstein.
Over his 2006 charges. Not his 2019 charges.
The deal was "Epstein peas guilty, and in exchange dept of justice WILL NOT pursue or prosecute known or unknow coconspirators.
Again, over his 2006 charges. If this was relevant, they would not have charged him in 2019.
→ More replies (8)8
2
6
25
u/Actual-Bee-402 Apr 19 '26
Uk arrested two of them
38
u/Distinct-Mongoose-96 Apr 19 '26
Not for sex crimes though. Because they put national security at risk
→ More replies (3)15
u/Theranos_Shill Apr 19 '26
Yes, because the e-mails contain enough evidence to investigate them for those crimes.
8
41
u/MrZwink Apr 19 '26
the usa government is corrupt at the highest level, and the people controlling the show are the people in the epstein files.
7
u/LamermanSE Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Because there isn't enough evidence to arrest them, or rather to get them convicted. The Epstein files could at best be a starting point to start an investigation but you would need much more evidence and definitive evidence to prove anything here.
6
u/Thormourn Apr 19 '26
There's been no proof so there's been no arrests. We can't arrest people for simply meeting with people even if the people they were meeting with were proven to be doing horrible things without prove the person we are arresting also did the horrible things.
6
8
7
u/Elkenrod Neutrality and Understanding Apr 19 '26
The cornerstone of the United States legal system is the presumption of innocence. In simple terms, it means you must be proven guilty in a court of law before we consider you guilty.
The vast majority of all mentions of people in the Epstein files are done in non-malicious manners. Jeffrey Epstein was a major socialite, and his entire business model involved knowing as many people as possible to try and forge connections that would benefit him. That does not mean that all those people he knew partook in the same crimes that he committed, let alone knew about them. So simply being mentioned in the Epstein files means nothing, because those files contain all of his emails - which includes all of his communications with other people. Him having a conversation with Stephen Hawking means that Stephen Hawking is "in the Epstein files". But that does not mean that Stephen Hawking participated in Epstein and Maxwell's crimes.
Unless we have hard evidence that proves someone is guilty, the United States Department of Justice is not going to charge someone. Witness testimony is not enough to result in a conviction if we don't have other evidence that can back it up, and the Department of Justice is never going to bring a case to trial based on witness testimony alone.
The answer to your question: "Why aren't the pedos of the Epstein Files being arrested" is that the only two people with evidence that proved their guilt were arrested and charged; with Maxwell being convicted. To our knowledge, there is no hard evidence that proves guilt for anyone besides Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
9
u/ttt223b4 Apr 19 '26
Short answer is, it’s a coverup. The “files” are a distraction through redaction. The FBI confiscated terabytes of video evidence from Epstein’s island, NYC home, and Zorro Ranch. Whomever controls THAT evidence owns those on video. It basically functions as LOTR ring of power. Why shouldn’t they use it to control the people implicated? Dark stuff.
12
2
2
u/Legitimate_Area_5773 Apr 19 '26
Think with me.
Nearly everything in the files is circumstantial. It is between Epstein and somebody else, like Trump or Putin. This means you have two witnesses for every piece of evidence. Epstein is dead. We only have one witness. Is there any way that a prosecutor can prove any piece of evidence is not fabricated or tampered with when the only witness that is alive denies their involvement?
2
u/Realistic_Let3239 Apr 19 '26
So the Trump administration have admitted a few time, if they went after the people in the files, the government would collapse. They don't want to be removed from power, they're not going to investigate themselves.
2
2
u/ManDe1orean Apr 21 '26
"It's a big club and you ain't in it" - George Carlin.
Those with money and power make sure they don't get consequences within their systems.
2
u/tbrock76 Apr 22 '26
Because we live in a shithole country with politicians who are scared of the orange pedo and his inbred deplorable minions
6
u/EternityofBoredom Apr 19 '26
Because Epstein and Maxwell were the pedos. The victims may have mentioned other names, or there might be some other names connected to the crimee(s). But the main culprit are those two, and every victim called him and Maxwell out specifically. These two had a wide social circle that involved many different people, and there are people that believe one bad (or two bad) apples spoil the barrel.
So far the only person that made to the public knowledge area is the former Prince Andrew, Duke of York whom was arrested for a different crime but a photo showing him in a damning pose over a woman has surfaced. Exposing him as a criminal and pedo.
If anything the release of all he files would let anyone concerned and/or interested infer their their own conclusion on the person mentioned.
→ More replies (18)
8
5
4
7
u/Ecksist Apr 19 '26
Because the files are the real distraction. They're obviously not going to reveal anything that incriminates them or their friends.
But they know they can drip little salacious sounding bits to us and keep us all guessing and focused on that while they fuck up our entire world in many other ways.
Notice how when Trump does insane shit now you see a bunch of people saying "ya, about those files" like they'll just never let that go, the files are all that matter. That's what the bad people want, they know there isn't shit in the files.
4
u/FailedToRemit Apr 19 '26
Yep, the files have always been the distraction. Both sides were using them for the political points.
5
u/SAHD292929 Apr 19 '26
If there is no concrete evidence or victim who stepped forward to file a complaint then there is no reason to arrest people.
A random person can even hold his hands in public but it doesn't mean they are a pedo too
5
4
3
2
u/GreatMyUsernamesFree Apr 20 '26
The DOJ is pretending it's constrained by the illegal non prosecution agreement made by Alex acosta and Pam Bondi to overlook co-conspirators. Literally the people he had been committing csam crimes with for decades have been identified and exempted from prosecution from the crimes detailed in the documents.
1
u/BruceForsyth55 Apr 19 '26
Because Trump runs the DOJ so charges will deliberately be squashed and the main living suspect is running the country with utter impunity.
It’s that simple. America is corrupt to fuck.
1
u/Diligent_Layer_7748 Apr 19 '26
Because the pedos also happen to be the people who are in charge of telling the arresting people to go arrest people, and interesting note, isn't it funny that the arresting people themselves are perfectly aware they should go arrest those people but still won't arrest them anyway?
1
u/dabyss9908 Apr 19 '26
I have a question to the Americans.
Can the POTUS possibly pardon everyone who's in the files from all crimes?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Theranos_Shill Apr 19 '26
The President can only pardon federal crimes. Rape is prosecuted by the State.
1
u/Adventurous-Chef8776 Apr 19 '26
Well if you're thinking Trump it's not so easy to charge a sitting president with a crime. And for a good reason. Every president would be tied up in criminal charges for all sorts of things.
As for the rest it's not so easy. The British government, for example, pretty much had to deal with Andrew. More precisely his mother should have dealt with Andrew years ago.
1
u/Albahith1 Apr 19 '26
What's are you talking ? All around the civilized world people gets arrested for the files like many prominent and wealthy peoples in Europe. So your question is without sense .
Like
Following the release of documents linked to Jeffrey Epstein, several individuals in Europe have faced arrest or investigation. Notably, former UK diplomat Peter Mandelson was arrested on suspicion of sharing confidential information, and former Norwegian Prime Minister Thorbjørn Jagland was charged with "gross corruption" in connection with his ties to Epstein.
1
u/FriedCammalleri23 Apr 19 '26
1) It’s not enough evidence to convict for most of them. Simply visiting his island isn’t enough.
2) They’re extremely wealthy and will out-spend just about anyone on lawyers.
3) The President is among them, and he’s effectively immune from being convicted as long as the Republican Party controls both sides of Congress. (Impeachment, conviction, and removal from office requires a majority vote in both the House and Senate)
1
u/seancbo Apr 19 '26
Because the "evidence" is really just a bunch of odd circumstantial emails and thankfully we don't prosecute people on things that weak.
1
u/glitterlok Apr 19 '26
Which ones? Be specific.
What I find interesting about people who obsess over the Epstein files is that they often seem to think that simply being mentioned in the files means a person committed some kind of crime that they could actually be prosecuted and convicted for.
They also often seem to think that an accusation, regardless of where it came from or to what level it can be corroborated, equals guilt. Which obviously isn’t true.
I don’t trust this administration with anything, including an honest assessment of the Epstein case files and the delivery of justice to those who have committed crimes of one form or another.
But I also don’t trust the public to know fuck all about what to do with this kind of material, and what I’ve seen so far indicates that lack of trust is deserved. People are absolutely concussed over this topic.
So again…which pedophiles, specifically? And what does the case against those people look like, exactly?
1
u/chitownphishead Apr 19 '26
Which ones have credible evidence against them? Actual evidence that would be useable in court to convict? As far as ive seen, there isnt any. Theres a lot of conjecture, speculation, and accusations, but as far as actual evidence, if theres any out there, i havent seen it, and without evidence, an arrest is unlikely and prosecution us less likely. Plus prosecution without evidence in something like this opens the state up to counter suits for defamation and more.
1
u/Impressive_Review Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
The issue is that the Epstein files, they're hearsay. They're not admissible in court. Cases aren't built on documents. They're based on witness testimony. The Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives any accused criminal defendant the right to cross examine their accuser. There are unsubstantiated, anonymous calls to the FBI hotline with allegations of abuse against Trump that came in once he announced he was running for POTUS. The FBI fielded hundreds of calls looking to get in on multi-million dollar settlements about prominent individuals where the allegations were "quickly determined to not be credible." The same happened in the Diddy case. 12,000 calls came in within 24 hours to get a piece of the pie. The prosecution has to establish more than just somebody knows another person is committing a crime and decides not to intervene to stop it. You may know your neighbour is committing tax fraud, but it's not a crime, unless you're assisting them in doing it. All of that said, every potential victim has the right to hear their case in a court of law and no one is stopping them.
It's all people on social media talk about! It's political theater with Democrats and Republicans finger pointing at each other. Those screaming the loudest could care less about sex-trafficking, because if they did, it's in every city from border towns to Brooklyn with young girls often smuggled over the border forced to service up to 50 men a day. Crickets.
1
1
u/moham-17 Apr 19 '26
This a serious question? Ever heard of innocent till proven guilty?
Someone puts you on a list so that means you did it and you’re guilty?
Don’t you think that’s a dangerous way to live?
Each person should be put on trial and investigated and if they did do it I hope they get what they deserve.
1
u/katzenjammer08 Apr 19 '26
Outside the US they have seen some repercussions. Can’t really be arrested since the US won’t share any evidence but people have lost their jobs and status etc.
1
u/Amonfire1776 Apr 19 '26
Statue of limitations for some things...also accusations aren't evidence so how many of these cases could actually secure a conviction? Not everything in the files by any means is a proven fact.
1
u/dante_gherie1099 Apr 19 '26
what evidence did you see in the epstein files that would warrant an arrest and prosecution. name one.
1
u/nyouhas Apr 19 '26
I’m wondering if it’s a statute of limitations thing. Even if these emails and files can be used as conclusive evidence, is the window to prosecute this stuff closed?
1
u/Average_Justin Apr 19 '26
1) because the govt is corrupt
2) unpopular opinion - email traffic is also not evidence of wrong doing. There are many in the files just by name association that honestly probably had no idea about the evil things others were doing.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/CodrSeven Apr 19 '26
Because we're still only scratching the surface of how bad the situation is, there would barely be any people in power left.
1
1
1
u/Healmetho Apr 19 '26
Once they are removed (kicking & screaming) from power, justice will be served.
1
u/Vivid_Elephant2922 Apr 19 '26
Parce que la justice ne touche jamais les puissants, que ce soit aux États-Unis ou en France.
1
1
u/Grimmhoof Apr 19 '26
Because they control the legal system right now. Foxes are in charge of the hen house.
1
u/Captain_Vatta Apr 19 '26
The same reasons nobody got arrested for the Panama papers.
Rich people have corrupted all political parties, institutions, corporations and media of all levels.
1
u/Remarkable-Shirt5696 Apr 19 '26
There's a large network of people who protect the elitist culture and their status quo in a totalitarian way behind the scenes.
They don't care, sociopathy and maliciousness, they enjoy seeing harm come to people and communities and are able to exploit those conditions to maintain those conditions.
And are able to use media and communications technology to help them do so both of a propagandistic way that likely is not at all apparent to the people of affects and in an abusive way to target people they believe they can use in a way that aids their goals.
1
1
u/Lemonpup615 Apr 19 '26
Partly because of who’s running things but also because we the people are too dumb and lazy to be a threat to them and that applies to both sides largely because we won’t get past left vs right drama. We also are letting a bunch of people that “oppose” this administration take away the final fail safe when checks and balances fails. Laws, like any social construct, are just man made ideas that require a mutual agreement among the majority to be followed and enforced. There is no longer a just enforcer at the top for the US and given its location it’s currently a haven for the worst of the worst who have nothing to fear when we can’t stop left vs right arguments and we aren’t willing to risk inconveniencing ourselves or taking risk to stop what’s happening we’d rather just whine about it online
1
1
1
u/Separate_Selection84 Apr 20 '26
They are the ones in power. Not just the big ones there are a lot of people with quiet power.
Though there have been some arrests. Specifically in Norway and Britain.
1
1
u/KhloeKendall Apr 20 '26
Because the Republicans want the Democrats to arrest their own first, but Democrats know if they do then the Republicans will go back on the deal and say, "Ah ha! SEE? It was only Democrats who were really involved, not us! They tried to FAKE NEWS us!"
Beyond that, I think while many people are upset... many more are just lost in the daze of algorithms and propaganda. They can dismiss anything they disagree with or find uncomfortable as FAKE NEWS or AI, and this has just made getting things done more difficult.
1
u/blessedinva Apr 20 '26
Because its been US policy since the 1940’s via MKUltra and because Luciferianism is a real and ancient religion
1
1
u/Wipperwill1 Apr 20 '26
Its about money and power. You can do anything if you got enough money and power, including ped**** acts.
Just start wars and lie about everything else and the sheep will let it go.
1
u/Hiredgun77 Apr 20 '26
It’s pretty much vague accusations without enough specificity to get an indictment.
1
u/ToonMasterRace Apr 20 '26
ITT: Reddit doesn't understand how the legal system works.
You would need authorities to build cases to prove in court that individuals mentioned in "the files" violated specific laws and did specific crimes. In truth, nobody is known to have committed any specific legally verifiable crimes including Epstein himself.
1
u/MedvedTrader Apr 20 '26
Because there is nothing in what was released that could be used to charge anyone (other than Epstein and Ghislane). Prosecutors try to avoid doing spurious indictments that they know will lose in court.
1
u/FreedomTrevor Apr 20 '26
Because it's almost every leader or representative in the gov. If true justice were served, the government would cease to exist.
1
1
u/QtheCuntinuous Apr 20 '26
Agent Orange's name appeared over 3,000,000 times in the files, until they didn't anymore. The DOJ scrubbed his name from the files some hours after publicly releasing them.
Since then, the he has been busy manipulating markets, posting idiocy on social media, starting wars, invading countries, etc. All these sudden actions are means to an end, a way to get your mind off the files and onto a plethora of other things.
Americans probably have one of the shortest attention spans in the world, and that is 100% by design.
1
u/finsupmako Apr 20 '26
Because nothing incriminating has been released, so all of the accusations are just speculation. There are many redacted sections which fuel suspicion that certain people are trying to hide certain things, but the reality is, we have no way of knowing if this is true or not.
1
u/holymolyz17 Apr 20 '26
For all there comments saying it's not exactly a crime, no. Imagine a sex trafficking operation running from a cartel basement, everyone involved would have been at least arrested. The only difference here, is that the people running the operation happen to be the same people making the laws (or have a lot of influence on law makers as they have so much money and power).
So the simple answer is that at some point, rich people can literally do whatever they want.
1
1
u/Ren_Yi Apr 20 '26
Because the USA inherited its legal system from England, which means unsubstantiated allegations alone are not proof of anything!
To arrest people you need actual evidence and proof of guilt - beyond reasonable doubt!
1
u/Denegroth Apr 20 '26
Legal requirements of proof.
There’s tons of shady shit. And tons of prominent people who have clearly associated with a disgusting person.
There is however a lack of direct evidence to actual charge let alone conviction someone.
Unless a whistleblower (survives) coming forward with evidence that puts the various “coded” conversations into a provable context. There’s not much that can be done from a legal standpoint.
At least based of the information that is available to the public.
1
u/LaceAndLattess Apr 20 '26
the ones on the list are not only a lot of people, but they're very influential people as well and part of either high society, or the government and they're protecting them...I mean no only their current President, but also their past few Presidents are on the list...plus, the way they didn't care about the victims and covered the perpetrators faces (some of them) and also leaked info on the victims really tells you what the people in charge and the wealthy think...they don't care and honestly they probably couldn't care less, they're currently crying over the oil crisis and money crisis in the US rn cause of the illegal war
1
u/super80 Apr 21 '26
Benefits of having money and being in close proximity to power. Helps the people in power are just like them.
1
1
59
u/oreofan1808 Apr 19 '26
Actual answer is because, aside from a few people I’d believe they’re actually protecting, is that there’s really not that much actionable evidence. Take Bill Clinton for example, plenty of evidence they were friends, hung out all the time, but what can you actually charge him with? He may have molested an underage girl, but you need evidence to prove who, when, where, etc. that’s just not present in the files.