The Last Article You’ll Need to Read on the Epstein List

By Arynne Wexler

Much of the Right has freaked out over the Trump administration’s claim that the late billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein did, in fact, kill himself and that there was, in fact, no “Epstein list” to release.

I get why some of them are mad. It’s fair to ask why Pam Bondi said she had the “list” on her desk months ago, only to walk that back now. At best, this was a dangerously premature declaration that Bondi had evidence far stronger than she actually had. For example, the “list” she was referencing may have been nothing but Epstein’s address book, which Gawker made public ten years ago.

Unfortunately, that “list” raises more questions than it answers, since some of the names on it aren’t even people, but corporate entities like Balliol College, Oxford, and as such, no one would confuse it for conclusive evidence. Or it could have been Epstein’s flight logs, which mention President Trump himself (albeit in the vaguest and least incriminating possible way), and which have also been available since before Trump took office. Both of those would qualify as “Epstein lists,” in that they were literally lists compiled by Jeffrey Epstein (or his staff). Neither one, however, would be enough to put anyone away in a court of law, which may be why Bondi is now walking her earlier claims back.

But you know what? Forget all of that. Let’s assume the worst case scenario. Let’s assume that Bondi and the administration gained access to something much more disturbing and explicit than either of these two publicly available lists. Let’s say they had photos, or even videos, of Epstein’s clients molesting their victims, and that it was clear who some or all of those clients were.

In short, say there is an actual verified list of powerful, high-profile predators that’s being kept secret from the general public by Trump’s DOJ. If that’s true, then what can we conclude from Bondi’s recent denials?

Sadly, they only mean one thing: Bondi – and Trump himself – think we can’t handle the truth. And they’re right.

Yes, you heard me. Assuming such evidence exists, the administration would be thoroughly justified in withholding it. Now granted, Trump shouldn’t have promised to release it before he knew what ‘it’ was. But if you ask me, breaking a campaign promise is a lesser sin than inciting a preventable, and likely global, mass hysteria. Which is exactly what would happen if that kind of evidence became public.

I’m going to talk to you like an adult for a minute. Because you are.

Here’s the thing about Jeffrey Epstein: he wasn’t just some small-time pimp. His address book was practically a “who’s who” of elites from all over the Western world. Everyone from Prince Andrew to Bill Clinton to President Trump himself was listed on it. Both David Koch (of the Koch brothers) and George Soros’ nephew were on it. In other words, this is not a list that has the potential to only embarrass one party, or even the leadership of only one country. Instead, I want you to imagine that every single voter in every single Western nation was given evidence that some or all of their leaders were diddling kids.

What do you think happens next?

At best, that information would only become a pointless political football. Liberals would shout at conservatives that Trump is a pedophile, conservatives would shout back that so is Bill Clinton, and everyone in the middle would have one more reason to hate American politics and mistrust everyone who practices it. At some point, some asshole libertarian (redundant, I know) might even say that if all the powerful people in America are pedos, then maybe it’s time to revisit the age of consent.

And that’s the best-case scenario.

The worst – and much more likely – case scenario is that chaos would ensue because every single political faction could point to someone they hated on the list. And we know how hard it is to convict someone for crimes like this; just look at Diddy’s trial. In the absence of convictions, it’s not hard to imagine vigilante justice taking form.

And that’s assuming we actually know all the participants. In actuality, it’s far more likely that the evidence we have is ambiguous, or that the identities of those involved is unclear. Releasing evidence like that wouldn’t provide closure; it would inflame suspicion. It would be the stuff of the Salem Witch Trials, or the Satanic Panic, where everyone is presumed guilty because we don’t know who’s innocent.

But ultimately, this is likely all hypothetical because the whole idea of a “list” is nonsensical. Epstein wasn’t some two-bit brothel madame noting down clients and the services they paid for. He was a deadly sophisticated operator who likely used layers upon layers of operational security. The only “list” involved probably only existed in Jeffrey Epstein’s head; he knew who owed him, and who he had blackmail on. Indeed, the whole idea of the “list” is a misinterpretation: a low IQ rendering of Epstein’s address book, which, again, is already public.

And here’s the really hard truth: there is absolutely no chance that people would absorb this information rationally in a world where political influencers exist. If you disagree, then I invite you to argue with a straight face that Hasan Piker, Dean Withers, Nick Fuentes, the Hodge Twins, Destiny, Jake Shields, Cenk Uygur, Candace Owens, or any other clickfarming Twitter freak would be capable of reacting to the Epstein list with anything but the dumbest, most polarizing bullshit you’ve ever heard.

If I seem impatient, it’s because I’m sick of talking about this. And you know why I’m sick of it? Because none of the people who are engaging in the rage bait agitprop actually care about the victims. If you doubt that, just search their handles and see how often they’ve mentioned any Epstein victim’s name. See if they’ve made any donations to anti-human trafficking organizations (I have). If they’re on the Right, see what they think of Andrew Tate, who is basically Jeffrey Epstein with half the IQ and twice the chronic logorrhea (and no, that’s not one of the STI’s he undoubtedly contracted).

Go ahead. Look. With rare exceptions, the evidence will all point to the same thing: these people aren’t mad because pedophiles allegedly went free. They’re mad because they won’t be able to make money dividing the country. They’re mad that they can’t keep you feeling angry, disempowered, and desperate to keep watching. Like they always do.

I will say what we aren’t supposed to: if the “list” exists, it’s not just a good thing that the Department of Justice kept it under wraps. It’s their responsibility to do so.

The only justice in the court of public opinion is that of the mob, and pitchforks are no substitute for proof.

And if the Epstein “list” exists and is actually full of irrefutable proof? Well, then the DOJ has information that will allow them to flip powerful pedophiles, infiltrate and expose their networks, and turn the few they do not openly prosecute into government informants. If you believe Alexander Acosta, that’s what Jeffrey Epstein himself was.

Such determinations are not the opposite of justice. They are part and parcel of the difficult quest to secure justice for the most people possible.

The influencer class might be angry that Pam Bondi has denied them their chance to pose with binders full of fake information yet again. But if they want to know how the sausage gets made, then they should first make sure they stop serving baloney to their followers.