Listen To This Story

The Jeffrey Epstein story ebbs and flows in the national conversation, sometimes seeming a bit less worthy of our attention compared to other urgent matters, only to revive as hot stuff with new developments. 

The latest in an endless series of things we need to know about is the posthumously published memoir of Virginia Roberts Giuffre, whose torment by Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell began in 2000 and ended in 2002. During that time, she was forced to perform unspeakable acts with the two of them, and others — she said she was “passed around like a platter of fruit.”  

To get her to comply and never reveal these horrors, all Epstein had to do was let her know he knew where her little brother went to school. (And he showed her a photo proving it.) 

I find this claim believable because someone I know recounted a story from one of his attorneys in a business-related lawsuit against Epstein. He described how during a phone conversation, Epstein mentioned having seen the attorney’s children crossing the street, and warned him to be extra careful so nothing would happen to them.

Back to Giuffre’s claims: Epstein also bragged that he “owned the Palm Beach police department.” (Manipulating Giuffre was easy: At the age of seven, she had already been molested by a family friend.) Giuffre sued Maxwell and Epstein and became an advocate for other survivors. She committed suicide in April, at the age of 41. 

Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice seems to be mentioned all over the place — The New York Times, The Washington Post, Vanity Fair, PBS, CBS, etc. — and it has got to be one of Donald Trump’s worst nightmares, assuming he can even fall asleep. 

Because it’s bound to make more and more people demand to see the Epstein files. And to see just how he — Trump — is mentioned. 

From the grave, Giuffre powerfully challenges the idea that all those famous people hanging out with Epstein had no inkling what he was up to:

Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what he was doing. Epstein not only didn’t hide what was happening, he took a certain glee in making people watch. And people did watch — scientists, fundraisers from the Ivy League and other heralded institutions, titans of industry. They watched and they didn’t care.

And this description from on what she had to put up with, and from what sort of men:

[C]hoking, beating and bloodying from a former prime minister, whom she refused to name because “I fear that this man will seek to hurt me if I say his name here.”

As you probably already know, she named, and sued, Prince Andrew. (Note: Giuffre observed no encounters with Donald Trump, but others say they have.)

Related: How Epstein Got Rich: Clue Buried in Lawsuit? – WhoWhatWhy

Whether you think the Jeffrey Epstein story matters or not, the Republicans certainly think it does. 

Their most recent effort, in a long series of efforts, to block release of the government’s files on the matter is to indefinitely avoid seating the newest member of the US House, Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ). That’s because she represents the final discharge petition signature needed to force a House vote on releasing those records.

The Grijalva stunt involves House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) claiming that, hey, there’s no reason for the delay and, um, I gotta go. 

The Password Is ‘Credible’

There’s another tactic in this endless waltz of dissembling, as noted by my colleague, Milicent Cranor: 

Whenever there’s talk about releasing evidence in the Epstein case, it’s always qualified by the word “credible.” In other words, sure, let’s see the evidence, but, well, no, not that evidence. Stuff like this:

He’s [been] dead for a long time. … I don’t understand what the interest or what the fascination is, I really don’t. And the credible information’s been given. … Whatever’s credible, she [Pam Bondi] can release. If a document is credible, if a document’s there that is credible, she can release. (Donald Trump)

There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. (FBI Director Kash Patel)

We have released all credible information [Response when asked if President Donald Trump’s name was in the Epstein file.] (FBI Director Kash Patel) 

He [Trump] has said in agreement with some of the leaders on Capitol Hill that if the attorney general and the Department of Justice come across any other credible evidence, they should provide that to the American people. (White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt)

After hearing that word again and again, Cranor began to obsess on its almost ecclesiastic power to end all meaningful discussion — rationality be damned. But, but… Who decides what is credible? And if the evidence depends on a witness, who decides whether that witness is credible?  

Of course this is one of those common situations where the would-be arbiters of quality are, ahem, highly interested parties. And if this decision is left to those who could, themselves, be considered “not credible” — then the Epstein case will never be closed.  

Now, we all fervently hope Attorney General Pam Bondi will rise above partisan interests, but to be safe, maybe let’s ask a truly neutral party how to think about “credible.” 

According to the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute:

A credible witness is a witness who comes across as competent and worthy of belief. Their testimony is assumed to be more than likely true due to their experience, knowledge, training, and sense of honesty. The judge and jurors will use these factors to determine whether they believe the witness is credible. 

Alexander Acosta, the former US attorney in Florida who gave Epstein a plea deal, recently told the Senate Oversight Committee that he had decided to let Epstein more or less skate in 2008. Despite the sworn statements that 40 minors gave to the FBI — which Acosta never read — he did not see sufficient evidence to move forward with prosecuting Epstein because, he said, there were weaknesses in the case (which remain unexplained).  

And because of his subjective evaluation, no jury in Florida ever heard those stories, and Epstein was able to merrily pursue his hobby.

But in 2019, when a jury in New York finally did hear those stories — and all the gut-wrenching specifics — it all sounded mighty credible to them. 

This is why we need to see — specifically — what is in those documents not deemed “credible” by the same people who deceive us every single day.