| |||
| |||
Mimi Rocah and I dug into the Epstein Files to explain, in advance of Pam Bondi's appearance on Capitol Hill today, just how clear it is that there are leads that have never been investigated—and that it's wrong to claim there is no one to prosecute, when you haven't investigated first. |
In September 2025, FBI Director Kash Patel testified to Congress that there was “no credible information” that the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein trafficked underage girls to anyone besides himself. “There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday.”
On July 7, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi stated publicly, “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
Things changed in November of 2025. When Donald Trump “asked,” Bondi completely reversed course and agreed DOJ would investigate Democrats’ “connections to Epstein” (but not Trump’s). We never learned what changed in the available evidence between the time Bondi made her original statement and the opening of a new investigation into his selected targets.
Then, in early February, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche whether DOJ was investigating anybody for crimes related to Epstein. Blanche replied: “I can’t talk about any investigations, but I will say the following, which is that in July, the Department of Justice said that we had reviewed the files, the Epstein files, and there was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody.” Notice what he does not say — that there is nothing for DOJ to investigate; only that they cannot prosecute anybody. It’s hard to prosecute when you don’t investigate.
Blanche was asked again last week on Fox News if DOJ is investigating anyone for potential crimes relating to Epstein. Blanche gave the non-answer every man associated with Epstein wanted to hear: “The American people need to understand that it isn’t a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.”
Maybe it is a crime. Maybe it isn’t. You don’t know until you investigate. People whose definition of partying included paying for, transporting, grooming, or arranging sexual acts with minors (even if at a party) could certainly have violated the law. Blanche’s dismissive party-bro response is far from the reasonable tone one would expect a senior Justice Department official to use when talking about such serious possible crimes, and called into serious doubt whether this Justice Department takes the Epstein Files or their contents seriously.
With Bondi testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today, it is critical that legislators demand better answers. They may well be the survivors’ last hope for justice. While it is impossible to determine whether additional prosecutions are warranted based on what is publicly known at this point, there are obvious leads that our combined forty-five years of experience as prosecutors lead us to conclude must be pursued before Bondi and Blanche can be permitted to proclaim “case closed.”
Even without knowing what’s behind the redactions in the released files, there is plenty to investigate. As Julie K. Brown, the Miami Herald reporter, put it:
There is more than enough evidence that Epstein was operating a global network, with recruiters and scouts on his payroll, for almost a decade after he was given his walking papers from federal prosecutors in South Florida. It’s clear from his emails that he was also lending these girls to others, including world leaders and businessmen who are mentioned throughout the latest tranche of documents released by the Justice Department.
One thread prosecutors might pull involves a search term that crops up repeatedly in the files: “Brazilian.” It starts with an email that mentions a girl from Brazil — stating, “New Brazilian just arrived, sexy and cute, =19yo.” Good investigators would want to know more. Searching for that term, they would find an entire series of emails and other documents. Some of them seem coded (talking about Brazilian blowouts, e.g.), while others make explicit references to Brazilian “girls.”
For example:
Subject: Alarm - Brazilian blowout conditioner Babysitters
Subject: Alarm - Order Brazilian blowout shampoo and conditioner
Subject: Alert - Brazilian blowout conditioner
On January 30, 2013, there was also a heavily redacted calendar invite bearing a reminder about the” Brazilian blowout conditioner.”
Similarly, on April 25, there is both an email and a redacted calendar invite.
Subject: Alert - Brazilian blowout shampoo and straightening balm
An older email in the files, dated July 10, 2011, is addressed to Epstein. The sender, Peter Mandelson, is likely the British Ambassador to the U.S. under Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Mandelson was forced out of his role as ambassador after his relationship with Epstein came to light. The email we reviewed came in response to one from Epstein asking if Mandelson had formed “the Brazilian structure,” and if he was having fun. Mandelson responded that same day that he had formed it, was dissolving it, and that the “Party was ok.”
Then, there is an email between Epstein and Jean Luc Brunel from October 22, 2012. It simply states: “Brazilian have booked.”
Years later, in July of 2016, Ramsey Elkholy sent Epstein a lengthy email.
 |