Second, we don’t even have a clear idea of who these “victims” purportedly are. The fateful DOJ/FBI
memo of July 6, 2025, which sparked what I’m lovingly calling the “Summer of Epstein,” claims that a review by the Trump Administration confirmed “over one thousand victims” were “harmed” by Epstein — but doesn’t spell out with any specificity what “harm” was allegedly inflicted on any given victim. “Each suffered unique trauma,” the memo claims. Huh?
If you read the memo carefully, conflations and weasel-wordage are rife. “The files relating to Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors,” the memo says. So they’ve had more than six years to forensically examine all this material, and they still can’t determine whether the “images and videos” seized from Epstein’s properties depict actual minors — or just persons who may “appear to be minors”? Like, can’t anyone in the FBI verify if the persons in question were actually minors? So we can know with a little more precision what’s supposed to constitute a “victim” here?
The memo also claims that the government recovered “over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography.” Comedian and Epstein mythology chronicler Tim Dillon
says he talked to JD Vance at a private dinner recently, and Vance told him that what’s being referred to in this clause is “commercial pornography,” meaning pornography that would have to be legal, because “commercial pornography” can only depict adults. In fact, the government can no longer refer to sexually explicit materials that depict minors as “pornography.” By
contemporary DOJ guidelines, any materials depicting minors would have to be referred to as “illegal child sex abuse material.” So why would they even mention the “other pornography” in this memo? If the “pornographic” material wouldn’t even be illegal? Are persons allegedly depicted in this “other pornography” also being considered “victims”?
“Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials,” the memo claims. And that’s probably true enough. But herein lies the problem. Are we to believe that any materials which may intersect with the identifying information of chronic fabricator
Virginia Giuffre, who spawned the whole child-sex trafficking ring and blackmail theory, must remain permanently withheld or redacted? Giuffre (we’re told) is deceased. So what privacy interests does this deceased person have in continuing to keep any records concealed? (Absurdly, Giuffre’s name was even redacted in the recently released
proffer interview transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell.) How about
Sarah Ransome, the adult escort who encountered Epstein at age 22, hallucinated the existence of non-existent sex tapes, and later claimed she was sex-trafficked? Are any records related to Ransome also destined to be permanently withheld from public scrutiny?
The full scope of these records is never going to be released if the privacy interests of “victims” are made eternally paramount. So, in effect, Khanna and Massie are giving the government an “out.”
