The Department of Justice and the White House knows that there are millions of Epstein-related documents that are still in existence.
Part of the response so far has been to characterize the remaining documents as all being related to child porn. And the alleged child porn that Epstein had on his personal devices is irrelevant to what the public is seeking: documents and evidence about Epstein, where his wealth came from, who aided his criminal and espionage enterprise, who was being blackmailed, and who covered it up.
As the Gateway Pundit exclusively showed yesterday, though: plenty of public evidence could give the DOJ cause to file a criminal investigation into dead alleged child abusers linked to Epstein, to find the clients, uncover more evidence, and get prosecutions.
Trump supporters and long-time allies are expressing major frustration across the country at the way the Epstein affair, and issues like Iran and Ukraine, has been handled since January.
Worth noting is that it was the then-Bill Barr Department of Justice that had custody of Epstein when he died under extremely suspicious circumstances in the first place, with Barr, whose father had first employed Epstein, declaring that Epstein killed himself.
Let’s look at what the White House said this week about further evidence in the Epstein case:
A reporter asked, “Karoline, the DOJ and FBI have now concluded there was no Jeffrey Epstein client list. What do you tell MAGA supporters who say they want anyone involved in Epstein’s alleged crimes held accountable?”
Leavitt replied, “This administration wants anyone who has ever committed a crime to be accountable, and I would argue this administration has done more to lock up bad guys than certainly the previous administration.”
She continued, “The Trump administration is committed to truth and transparency. That’s why the Attorney General and the FBI Director pledged, at the president’s direction, to do an exhaustive review of all the files related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and his death. They put out a memo in conclusion of that review.”
“There was material they did not release because frankly it was incredibly graphic and contained child pornography, which is not something that is appropriate for public consumption,” she added. “But they committed to an exhaustive investigation. That’s what they did and they provided the results of that.”
“That’s transparency,” Leavitt said.
There is no evidence that an ‘exhaustive investigation’ has occurred to date.
The public wants to see prosecutions of powerful and elite politicians, businessmen, and others, who went to Epstein’s “Little St. John” island, engaged in sex with underage teens and children, and these criminals are apparently beyond the reach of the law.
Some online and news reports claim that Epstein’s legal immunity comes from his possible relationship to intelligence agencies, others, such as writer Whitney Webb, claim that it goes even further than that, reaching to a decades-long, bipartisan, global organized crime syndicate that utlilizes blackmail as its operating principle.
This public pressure is not about wanting to see videos of child abuse, it is about naming names and holding criminals to account regardless of their wealth or status. Online, some have noted that the Epstein case challenges a core American judicial concept of ‘equal justice under law’ regardless of how wealthy or important a defendant.
On February 27th, Attorney General Bondi released “Phase 1” of the Epstein files, which included 350 pages, and all but three of the pages had been previously released to the public.
Those 15 or so who participated in the release of the files, which appeared to be a select group of conservative influencers, were widely ridiculed for the photo op they staged after receiving the binders of information.
Cernovich in particular, received criticism online and said that this was just “Phase 1” and those who were complaining about the release were simply jealous that they were not invited. Cernovich, who along with the Gateway Pundit and the Miami Herald, spent considerable sums litigating to release Epstein files, dismissed February complaints about Bondi’s slowness in releasing the files by blaming ‘brains fried from porn.’
Pam Bondi has been AG for a couple of weeks. Massive litigation going on vs DOGE, criminal case reviews, pardons.
People yelling about Epstein files had their brains fried from porn, online gambling, and weed.
No one has a magic wand.
She’s on it, focus on the wins!
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) February 26, 2025
The DOJ knows where millions of pages of more Epstein-related files are at.
As some pointed out online, it is simply inconceivable that there are not more files to share, and more files to offer to the public.
Weirdest thing about the Epstein situation is that there must be something they could share. Maybe there’s no “client list,” but surely there’s some kind of dossier lying around. So share that.
Even if it was redacted and people protested that, it would at least be believable.…
— Justin Murphy (@jmrphy) July 9, 2025
It has been said that the FBI received tips, reports, and complaints about Epstein’s activities and crimes from 1996-2006, but the FBI did not open a case until July 24, 2006. These files have not been turned over.
On May 25, 2017, the publication Radar Online filed suit in the Southern District of new York for files related to the prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein, case number 1:2017‑cv‑03956. As part of that litigation, it emerged that at least 11,571 pages of documents were relevant and being withheld from release. Additionally, further along in the litigation, it emerged that there were “tens of thousands of pages of records” that were in the government’s possession as of July 2019.
Federal authorities, as part of the criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell in United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 1:20-cr-330-AJN reportedly turned over to Maxwell’s defense team, “millions of documents.” In some reports, up to three million documents are referenced. Documents, generally speaking in criminal cases, are not turned over unless they are exculpatory (showing innocence) or inculpatory (showing guilt), meaning that all of these documents were relevant to Maxwell’s defense in her criminal trial.
Maxwell’s defense team, as part of docket number 116 in the trial, submitted a letter to the judge where they asked for a special laptop for Maxwell while in jail, so that she could more easily and readily access these ‘millions of documents’ that were provided by the DOJ to the defense relevant to her criminal trial.
The relevant excerpt from page two of the letter is below:
If Ghislaine Maxwell and her defense attorneys were able to get millions of pages of documents related to the Epstein child sex trafficking ring, why can’t the public get access to more than 350 pages of already-released files?
There is also a wide variety of other evidence the Department of Justice could obtain, if they just made a phone call or sent an email.
They could, for example, 1) get additional follow-up statements from victims, those who witnessed these crimes, and those who aided Epstein, some of whom were given immunity agreements, 2) they could examine Epstein’s alleged insider-trading stock trades to identify financial crimes and possible other confederates of Epstein, 3) they could pull and check the “suspicious activity reports” generated by banks when large transfers over $10,000 are made by customers, and track where those payments were made, and where Epstein’s mysterious sources of cash came from, 4) they could examine Epstein’s tax returns and look for the sources of income, 5) they could review the estimated 15 hours of unreleased interviews made by Steve Bannon, to help Epstein prepare for testifying and for a documentary that was never released, 6) they could review the property records from Epstein’s many estates across the country, 7) they could review the Florida prosecution records where he was investigated in 2006 and took a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 from then-federal prosecutor Alex Acosta, 8) they could review the over 11,000 FBI records that were identified as part of an ongoing FOIA lawsuit involving the publication Radar Online.
So the idea that there is nothing left to release, or that the only thing left to release is child pornography, is completely false and wrong.
This evidence is certainly still in existence and still maintained due to the pending Maxwell appeals that are ongoing. As well, the Maxwell defense team clearly has these documents, even if they were destroyed by the deep state at the Department of Justice, as many online are speculating.
BREAKING: A Former CIA Officer has just come out and said the DEEP STATE “probably DESTROYED” the EPSTEIN FILES pic.twitter.com/7eFeYT53qy
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) July 8, 2025
These files are still around, and the cynicism about whether the files were destroyed might make sense given the murky history in the Epstein prosecution so far, but as long as active legal appeals are ongoing, these files are almost assuredly still around.
If the public stops demanding access to these files because they believe the deep state destroyed them, then it will take the pressure off of the Department to turn over what they clearly still have access to.
Legal filings show that immunity agreements were also given to Epstein’s likely co-conspirators, including Sarah Kellen, Adriana Ross, Lesley Groff, and Nadia Marcinkova, as noted in legal filings. These individuals could and should be interviewed and those who were not given immunity agreements, which number in the dozens according to this Politico piece, could be prosecuted or at least interviewed to find additional evidence.
The known victims, and their families, could also be interviewed or re-interviewed to determine what they know, and what additional evidence they might have relevant to a prosecution.
The public victims of Epstein’s abuse are:
The Department of Justice estimated that there are over 1,000 victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. There is no federal statute of limitations for prosecuting the sexual abuse of a child, under 18 U.S.C. 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2244.