File 58 - How Virginia Giuffre Took On Epstein's Entire Network

Virginia Giuffre went from being a sixteen year old trafficking victim to the face of the fight for accountability. Her lawsuits forced the release of sealed documents, brought down Prince Andrew in civil court, and kept the Epstein case in the public eye long after his death. This episode traces her transformation from survivor to the most consequential advocate in the case.

Sources for this episode are available at: https://epsteinfiles.fm/?episode=ep58

About The Epstein Files

The Epstein Files is an AI-generated podcast analyzing the 3.5 million pages released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA). All claims are grounded in primary source documents.

Produced by Island Investigation

Transcript

0:36

3 million pages of evidence. Thousands of unsealed flight logs, millions of data points, names, themes and timelines connected. You are listening to the Epstein Files, the world's first AI native investigation into the case that traditional journalism simply could not handle. Welcome back to the Epstein Files. It's good to be here. You know, when you look at this entire sprawling case, the central mystery isn't just about one man's crimes. It's really about how a single voice, just one person managed to pierce through this, this wall of wealth and power and non disclosure agreements. That absolute fortress. Yeah, a fortress to expose a global trafficking ring. It really is a classic David and Goliath story. But you know, in this case, Goliath had private jets, he had intelligence connections and some of the best lawyers money could possibly buy. So today we're going to trace the ARC of Virginia Yeshuf. We'll look at her initial allegations. The defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell that just blew the lid off the entire case. That was the key, really. It was. And we'll get into the specific name she brought into the light and of course, that massive cache of documents that her legal battles forced into the public domain. And you can't overstate the importance of that document trail. I mean, it is really the backbone of what we know today. Without her civil litigation, most of this would probably still be buried in a safe somewhere in the Virgin Islands. Let's flow into the first piece of evidence then, a testimony that really redefined the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. You know, looking back at the early coverage of this case, say around 2008 or even 2010, the narrative was just so different. It was focused almost entirely on Epstein as this like lone wolf predator. Right, the eccentric billionaire. That was the tag they always used. Exactly. The eccentric billionaire acting on his own darker impulses. But Virginia Giuffre, she completely changed that narrative. She forced us all to look at the person who was standing right next to him the whole time. She did. She introduced a phrase that I think is absolutely critical to understanding the entire operation. She called them a toxic team. A toxic team, that's it. I mean, that implies a partnership, right? A business arrangement almost. It's so much more than an implication. It's. It's basically a legal definition of their dynamic. If you look at gifri's testimony from 2016, which was part of that defamation suit we mentioned, she is explicit. Okay. She states quite clearly that Ghislaine Maxwell brought me in for the purpose of being trafficked wow. Not just introduce me or was there when. No, brought me in for the purpose of it's active. This wasn't Maxwell just, you know, turning a blind eye or being some passive girlfriend living in the townhouse while bad things happen behind closed doors. This was active recruitment. That distinction is huge. It really is. Because for years Maxwell was painted, or let's be honest, she painted herself as just a socialite who happened to be around. Right. I was just his friend. But Gifrey's description of the day to day operations, it suggests something so much more calculated. It suggests management. Well, it shifts the liability entirely. I mean, think about it. If you're just a bystander, that's one thing. It's morally reprehensible, sure, but it's legally different. But if you are the fixer, if you are the mechanism by which the abuse is facilitated, well, now you're a co conspirator. And Giuffre was incredibly detailed about how this mechanism actually worked. This was not random chaos, it was a revolving door. Right. And the files mention this constant rotation of young women. There's the specific detail in the documents that really, it really stuck with me. Gifrey describes seeing European looking models just lounging by the pool at Epstein's Palm beach estate. And not just lounging. Right. No, that's the thing she mentioned. Some of them were riding Russian or Czechoslovakian motorcycles. I mean, it paints this very specific, almost cinematic picture of these women who were flown in specifically for Epstein's enjoyment. It does. It makes you realize the logistics that were involved here. This wasn't just know picking people up at the local mall. This was international importation. And that international aspect is so key to the legal definition of trafficking. I mean, think about the coordination required. You have to bring women from Eastern Europe to Palm Beach. You have to house them, provide vehicles for them, manage their schedules. That isn't a hobby. No, that is an enterprise. But let's unpack the recruitment method that Joffre describes, because it's just so insidious. It often started with a job offer, a legitimate sounding opportunity. Massage ruse. Precisely. The framing of abuse as sexual massages. It's a classic psychological manipulation tactic. You blur the lines between what is a professional service and what is sexual exploitation. Yeah. Giuffre describes how she was brought into this world thinking she was being hired for one thing. To learn massage, to travel, to assist him, only to realize the expectations were radically, radically different. And the person who was blurring those lines, at least initially, it wasn't the creepy Older man? No, it was the sophisticated woman. It was Maxwell. According to Shuffrey, Maxwell was the one normalizing all of this. She was the bridge. She was the one who made it all seem safe. And that's the role of the female accomplice in these types of rings, isn't it? It just lowers the guard of the victim. Absolutely, 100%. I mean, if a wealthy older man approaches a teenager at Mar a Lago or at a spa, the alarm bells start ringing. It's stranger danger, of course, but if a sophisticated, you know, British socialite, the daughter of a media tycoon, approaches her, it feels like a mentorship. It feels like an opportunity. It feels like you've been chosen for something special. And once they were in, they were just moved around like chess pieces on a board. We have to talk about the geography of this, because Giuffre's journey wasn't static. It wasn't in one place, not at all. The documents, they map out her movement from Palm beach to the Virgin Islands to New York to London, and of course, to the ranch in New Mexico, the Zorro ranch. That place, just based on the descriptions, it sounds terrifying. Giuffre talks about the sheer isolation there. She describes being there with Prince Andrew, of all people, for two days. And that isolation is a control mechanism. It's a classic tactic in New York or Palm Beach. You know, you might be able to run out the front door and find a police officer or a phone. There are people on the street. There's a chance. There's a chance. But in the middle of the New Mexico desert, at a private compound that's designed for privacy, sitting on thousands of acres, you are completely dependent on your captors. You rely on them for everything. Food, water, transport. It creates this profound sense of helplessness, total dependency. And, you know, looking at it from a legal perspective, this constant movement, it also really complicates the law enforcement side of things, doesn't it? Oh, I would imagine so. I mean, if a crime happens in Florida, but then it continues in the Virgin Islands, and then it moves to New Mexico, who has jurisdiction? That's the absolute nightmare of federal versus state prosecution. And frankly, it's one of the main reasons the toxic team got away with it for so long. They were jurisdictional nomads. It's a good way to put it. They moved the women across state lines and across international borders. Now, technically, crossing state lines for illegal sexual activity makes it a federal issue. That's where the man act comes into play. But it also allows local Law enforcement to say, well, the bulk of that happened in New York, not here. It fragments the entire investigation. So every jurisdiction just thinks it's someone else's problem. Exactly. And the fdi, their job is to connect those dots. But if the local police departments aren't talking to each other, the full picture just never forms. But Virginia Giuffre didn't let it stay fragmented, did she? She started connecting the dots herself. And this brings us to what I think is the real turning point in this entire saga. Section two of our roadmap, the Civil War, specifically the case of GIU Frey v. Maxwell. This is the catalyst. We absolutely have to understand that the criminal justice system for a very, very long time had failed these women, utterly failed them. The 2008 plea deal, which we'll get to that in detail later, it essentially just shut the door on criminal prosecution for a decade. The door was locked, it was bolted, and the key was thrown away. So Giuffre turned to the civil courts. She sued Ghislaine Maxwell for defamation in 2015. Now, for our listeners who might not be lawyers, can you explain why that specific legal maneuver was just so brilliant? I mean, why sue for defamation instead of, say, emotional distress or something else? It was a way to bypass the criminal blockage. It was a flanking maneuver. Maxwell had publicly and very loudly called Jeffre a liar. She denied all the allegations in the press. Right. She was very vocal. So Jeffrey sued her, saying, in effect, by calling me a liar, you are defaming me. You are damaging my reputation. Now, here is the absolute key. In a civil suit, you have the discovery process. Discovery. Okay? And that's where you get to ask for documents and evidence. You can demand documents. You can demand emails, flight logs, depositions. You can say, if you claim I'm lying about being on that plane, well, show me the flight logs. It forces the evidence into the open. So it wasn't just about getting money or even getting an apology. It was about getting the truth on the record. Exactly. It was a fact finding mission that was disguised as the defamation suit. It was a Trojan horse. And the Epstein files that we're all discussing today, those thousands upon thousands of pages that were unsealed, they largely exist because of this one specific legal battle. That's incredible to think about. If Jufir hadn't sued in 2015, those emails and those logs would likely never have seen the light of day. They'd still be private property. And when those documents started to finally unseal, it was like a dam breaking. We had that initial release in 2019, right before Epstein died, and then these massive dumps of documents more recently in 2024. The volume is just staggering. It is thousands of pages. Yeah. Over 150 names mentioned. It's overwhelming. But amidst that sheer volume, there are a few specific pieces of evidence that really, really stand out. We talked about the Toxic Team dynamic. Well, there is an email correspondence between Epstein and Maxwell revealed in these files that puts that dynamic into sharp relief. This is a January 2015 email. And this is right around the time the heat is really starting to turn up again. Due for some making noise, Epstein writes to Maxwell. He tells her she has, quote, done nothing wrong. And he doesn't stop there. He urges her to go outside, head high. Not as an escaping convict. Not as an escaping convict. I mean, that frank phrasing is. It's just chilling. It's unbelievably revealing. First, it completely contradicts Maxwell's public stance for years. She claims she hadn't had any contact with Epstein in a decade, that she had severed all ties. And here they are. Here they are, coordinating, supporting each other. But secondly, and maybe more importantly, it shows their mindset how so? What do you mean? They viewed themselves as besieged. They viewed the allegations not as, you know, crimes they committed, but as a PR problem to be managed. It wasn't, oh, my God, what did we do? It was, how do we look? How do we handle this? It sounds like a coach giving a pep talk to a player before a big game. Keep your head up, don't look guilty, walk tall. Precisely. It shows a continuing bond between them. It shows that the Toxic Team was still operating, at least emotionally and strategically, long after the abuse allegedly occurred. They were in the foxhole together. And speaking of strategy, the files also touch on this concept of insurance. You know, we hear this term thrown around in spy movies, but it actually appears here in the legal documents. It does. There are references, particularly involving Alan Dershowitz, who was one of Epstein's lawyers and was also accused by Giuffre, which he has always vehemently denied. Where the concept of an insurance file comes up. Right, the idea that Epstein had dirt on everyone, the ultimate blackmail. Bershowitz mentioned in interviews and in filings that Epstein had information that would prevent prosecution. The clear implication being that if Epstein went down, he would take a lot of powerful people with him. This is classic compromise. It's mutual assured destruction. If I burn, you burn with me. It's psychological warfare in these high stakes legal battles. It is not just about the law. It's about the threat of ruin, the threat of total exposure. And that fear, that fear of what was in Epstein's safe or on his servers, it likely kept many, many people silent for a very long time. It explains that ring of protection around him. Well, Virginia Giuffre wasn't afraid of the insurance. Name names. And that takes us to the most explosive part of these files. Section three, the high profile implications. And this is where the story spills out of the courtroom and really into the history books. Let's start with the royal in the room. Prince Andrew Giffre didn't just vaguely allude to him. She didn't say a powerful British man. She made very specific and very graphic allegations against him. She did. She alleged that she was forced to have sexual relations with him on three separate occasions. In London, in New York and on the island. But it's the details in the file that make it so sticky. The groping allegation at Maxwell's London mansion, the New Mexico trip, and that description of the puppet. The puppet. This was a photo, wasn't it? Or a description of a moment. It was Giuffre describing a moment where she was used essentially as a prop. She described herself as a puppet for these powerful men. And then there's that infamous photo that circulated, though its authenticity was, of course, debated by Andrew's camp of Andrew with his arm around Giuffre's waist, with Ghislaine Maxwell standing right behind them, grinning. It visually corroborated the entire toxic team dynamic of them bringing a young woman to a powerful man. It's that visual that is just so hard to shake. You have the prince grinning. You have Maxwell smiling, looking almost like a proud parent or a chaperone. And then you have Joffre, who just looks so young. And we do have to note, Buckingham palace called these allegations categorically untrue. Prince Andrew denied them. He did that absolutely disastrous interview with the BBC where he claimed he couldn't sweat and that he'd never met her. Despite the photograph, the no sweat defense. I mean, it became a meme. It became a cultural punchline, unfortunately for him. But despite all the denials, the scandal forced his retirement from public life. He was stripped of his military titles, and eventually he settled the civil lawsuit with Giuffre for an undisclosed sum, which was reported to be in the millions. Right, and you don't usually pay millions of dollars if there's absolutely no smoke to the fire. Legally speaking, a settlement is not an admission of guilt. He did not admit Liability. But practically the reputational damage was total. He paid to make it go away because he knew he couldn't win the public argument. And it wasn't just royalty, though. The files, they really weaponized American politics on both sides of the aisle. And this is where it gets really interesting, because you see people cherry picking the files to attack their political enemies. But the documents themselves, they don't seem to care about party lines. No, they really don't. This was equal opportunity exploitation. Eckstein didn't care about your politics. He cared about your power. Let's look at the Democrats. First, the Clinton connection. Bill Clinton. His name appears in the flight logs multiple times he flew on Epstein's plane, the Lolita Express. The files reference reports of Clinton wanting the true story to come out, but they also mention the swirling conspiracy theories about his level of involvement. But the files don't contain a specific accusation of sexual assault against Clinton by Jeffrey, do they? We need to be really precise about that here. That is correct. Not in the documents that we've reviewed for this deep dive. Driffre's core allegations were focused on her being traffic to other men. Clinton has always denied ever visiting the island, but his presence, his proximity to Epstein is undeniable. He was in the orbit. He was deep in the orbit. They traveled together. And for a former President of the United States, just being in the orbit of a known sex trafficker is a massive stain, regardless of any criminal culpability. It just raises serious questions about judgment. Exactly. Why were you hanging out with this guy? What did you see? What did you know? And then on the Republican side of the aisle, you have Donald Trump. Right? Trump and Epstein were fixtures of the Palm beach social scene in the 90s and early 2000s. The files and other reports remind us of that now infamous 2002 quote from Trump where he called Epstein a terrific guy and noted that he likes them on the younger side, which in hindsight is just a bone chilling quote on the younger side, to say the very least. It suggests it was something of an open secret among that crowd. But the files also highlight that they had a falling out. Trump later asserted that he kicked Epstein out of Mar a Lago. I think the story was something about Epstein hitting on a club member's daughter. That is the story. And the files do reflect that by the time of the 2008 prosecution, and certainly in the later years, Trump and Epstein were not friends. You could even say they were rivals or enemies. But again, the proximity was there in those early years, and Epstein collected people of Power. He did not check their voter registration cards. And that's such a key insight. It really wasn't about ideology. It was about access. It was about insulation. If you surround yourself with the most powerful people from both parties, presidents, princes, CEOs, Nobel winning scientists, you create a shield. You become too big to fail or too connected to jail. You create a situation where investigating you means you have to investigate everyone. Speaking of shields and things people don't understand, there was so much confusion regarding the client list. I feel like every time I went online during the document releases, people were just shouting, release the client list. But the files clarify that. It's. It's not that simple. It's a complete misnomer. It drives legal experts crazy. There is no single document titled client list. Epstein didn't keep a neat little spreadsheet on his computer labeled illegal clients. So what do we have then? What are people talking about? We have flight logs which show who flew on his plane. But, you know, flying on a plane isn't a crime in itself. We have black books, which are essentially address books showing who Epstein knew. Knowing him isn't a crime either. And then there are names that are mentioned in depositions, in witness testimony. But didn't Trump's Attorney General in Florida, Pam Bondi, say something about a list? I remember that this was a major, major point of contention. Bondi went on Fox News, I believe, and she claimed that she had a client list on her desk and that she was reviewing it. It sounded like a bombshell was imminent. Right. I'm reviewing it right now. It sounds like something big is about to happen. But then the Department of Justice later released a statement saying that no incriminating client list existed to be released. So what was that? I mean, was she lying? Was the DOJ covering it up? What's the explanation? And that's it. Right? It creates this massive vacuum for speculation. It could have been political posturing, implying you have dirt to keep people in line. Or it could just be a misunderstanding of what the documents actually were. Maybe she had the flight logs on her desk and just called it a client list. Or maybe there were legal redactions made to protect non indicted individuals. Because that's a legal reality. Right? You can't just release the names of people who haven't been charged with a crime just because they knew a bad guy. Exactly. Privacy laws still exist. You cannot legally destroy someone's reputation without due process. But that discrepancy between I have the list on my desk and there is no list, it just fuels the public perception that the system is hiding something, it fuels the conspiracy theories. And that leads us directly to the System's failure itself. Section 4. Because Virginia Giuffre wasn't just fighting Epstein and Maxwell. She was fighting the Department of Justice. She was fighting a system that from the outside seemed specifically designed to protect her abuser. We have to revisit that 2008 deal, the Sweetheart deal, as it's known. It's infamous. I mean, it is taught in law schools now as a prime example of a miscarriage of justice. It is the textbook definition of either corruption or gross incompetence, depending on how you view it. And the main architect was Alexander Acosta. Right. Who was the U.S. attorney in Miami at the time, and of course later went on to become Trump's Labor Secretary. He signed off on a non prosecution agreement. And this wasn't just Epstein gets a light sentence. It was much, much broader than that. So much broader. It granted immunity to any and all potential co conspirators. It essentially gave a get out of jail free card to anyone who might have helped Epstein in any way. Wow. That includes Maxwell. That includes the unnamed John Does. It was completely unprecedented. How does something like that even happen? You usually give immunity to the little guy to get the big guy, but here they gave immunity to the big guy and to everyone around him. Well, Acosta later claimed, under pressure, that he was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and that it was above his pay grade, which is a whole other rabbit hole, a huge one. But whether that's true or just an excuse, the result was that the victims were completely shut out. They weren't even notified of the plea deal, which is a direct violation of the Crime Victims Rights Act. So they thought the FBI was still actively investigating their cases while the ink was already dry on the deal. Correct. They were misled by their own government. And that betrayed Grail. You can see it in her testimony. It absolutely fueled Giuffre, lit a fire under her. She realized she could not rely on the prosecutors to do the right thing. She had to force their hand. She wasn't just fighting an abuser anymore. She was fighting the government's decision to let him walk away. In a way, she became the prosecutor that the government refused to be. And then, just when it seemed like justice might finally, finally happen. In 2019, Epstein is arrested. He's in federal jail, he's denied bail, he dies. The suicide and the files and the transcripts that we have, they discuss the deep skepticism around this. The broken cameras in his cell block the sleeping guards, the pathology reports mentioning burst capillaries in his eyes, which some experts argue points to homicide, specifically strangulation. Dr. Michael Baden, a very famous forensic pathologist, made that claim very publicly. He was hired by Epstein's brother. He argued the physical evidence didn't match a typical hanging. And look, we could do 10 deep dives on the theories surrounding his death. Oh, easily. But whether it was suicide or murder, the result for the victims was exactly the same. Justice denied. They didn't get their day in court against him. They were robbed of the trial. They robbed of the verdict. And that puts an immense amount of weight on the documents we're discussing, because without a trial against Epstein himself, these documents are the only real historical record of the crimes. They are the only testimony we have. It also put a lot more weight on the Maxwell trial, which we are going to get to. But before we do, we have to mention the specific feud between Jill Free and Alan Dershowitz. This wasn't just a side note in the case. It was a brutal, public legal brawl. It was ugly. It really was. Giuffre accused Dershowitz of being one of the powerful men she was trafficked to. In response, Dershowitz sued her for defamation, claiming she made the whole thing up. And then she sued him right back. It was a war of words and lawsuits playing out in the press. And it ended in a settlement where Joshua eventually dropped his claims against her. He maintained his innocence. He still does. But the fact that he stopped fighting it says something about the strength of Jeffrey's resolve. I mean, she went toe to toe with arguably the most famous defense attorney in America, a man who knows every legal trick in the book. And she didn't blink. She didn't. So Epstein is dead. The system has failed her and the other victims for years, but Jeffrey just keeps pushing. And finally, the turning point arrives. Section five, Maxwell's arrest and conviction. This is where the narrative finally shifts from civil suits and depositions to actual criminal accountability. The arrest of Kislee Maxwell, it was like a scene from a movie. She's hiding out in a secluded house in New Hampshire, tucked away in the woods. She bought the house for cash through an LLC to hide the ownership. Very deliberate. And the details that came out, like her wrapping her cell phones in tinfoil to try and block the signal. That is tradecraft. That is what you do when you're trying to evade surveillance. It speaks to that insurance mindset we talked about earlier. She knew they were probably coming for her. She was living like a fugitive. But they found her. And the charges weren't just aiding and abetting. It was conspiracy, sex trafficking, conspiracy. And this is such a crazy, crucial legal distinction. As our source Jennifer explained in the past, the conspiracy charge allows the net to be cast much wider. You don't have to be the one performing the sex act. You don't even have to be in the room when it happens. Right. If you helped set it up, if you recruited the victim, if you booked the flight, if you facilitated it in any way, you are part of the conspiracy. You're part of the machine. Exactly. You are the engine that makes the machine run. And the jury agreed. She was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison. 20 years for a socialite who lived a life of unimaginable luxury on private jets and yachts. That is a lifetime. It's a very significant sentence. And the judge's remarks, the victim impact statements during that sentencing, they were incredibly powerful. It was the moment the system finally publicly validated what Giuffre and the other women had been saying for decades. It was the system finally saying, we believe you. But. And there's always a but in this story, it seems. It brings up the unfinished business. The huge, lingering question, why are the men. That is the cry from the victims, from their advocates, and from the public. Maxwell is in prison. Epstein is dead. But the users of this trafficking ring, the powerful names that we see scattered throughout these thousands of pages of documents, they're largely untouched for the most part. No criminal charges, no trials. Prince Andrew settled a civil suit to make it go away. Others have faced no consequences at all. It feels like such a partial victory. The traffickers, or at least one of them, were punished. But the demand side of the equation, the powerful men who created the market for this abuse, they just walked away. And that is why these files matter so much. The white binders that were mentioned by former White house staff, the 33,000 pages released by the oversight committee, they serve as a form of public accountability. Where legal accountability has failed, it becomes the court of public opinion. It is. And look, that's messy and it's imperfect, but it's a lot better than silence. Which brings us to the legacy of this whistleblower. Section 6. Virginia Gifri started as a teenage victim in Palm Beach. She ended up reshaping how we talk about this kind of abuse. She really, truly did. Before Jeffrey, the media often referred to these girls as teen prostitutes. Right? Underage prostitutes. I remember that terminology very clearly. Which puts all the agency on the child. It criminalizes the victim. It suggests they were selling something, that they had a choice. Gevre, through her persistence, changed the narrative to trafficking. She made people understand that coercion, power dynamics and grooming completely negate consent. You cannot be a child prostitute. You are a trafficked child. That linguistic shift is just massive. And it happened to coincide with the rise of the MeToo movement. The cultural context is so important. Giffra was shouting into the void for years, and nobody was listening. But when the culture finally started to catch up, when society finally started listening to women, her story resonated in a way it couldn't have before. She became a symbol of persistence. But we have to acknowledge the price she paid. The cost of truth, it was immense. She was called a liar by the most powerful people on the planet, by princes and famous lawyers. She was sued, she was harassed. She had to move her family to Australia to try and find some semblance of peace. She gave up her anonymity forever. And yet she just kept showing up. She kept filing affidavits, she kept giving depositions, she kept giving interviews. The documents we have today are her vindication. They are not just dry legal filings. They are proof that she wasn't crazy. She wasn't making it up. She was telling the truth about a dark, hidden world that nobody wanted to believe actually existed. It was gaslighting on a global scale. Precisely. And she broke through it. So what does this all mean for us today? Why should the listener care about a case that seems to be technically closed with Maxwell in prison? Because it exposes the two tiered justice system in the starkest way possible. It shows that with enough money and enough connections, you can buy silence and immunity for a very, very long time. But it also shows that tenacity, one person who simply refuses to give up can eventually crack that system. It's a warning and an inspiration all at once. It is. And these files, they are still being mined. We are still learning things. The story is not over just because the cell door closed on Ghislaine Maxwell. Absolutely. And speaking of the story not being over, there is another side to this coin that we've only touched on. We established how Virginia's shoe roof from a victim in Palm beach to the architect of a legal strategy that exposed the entire Epstein network. We looked at the documents she fought to unseal and the powerful names she refused to protect. But there is a group of people in this story we haven't scrutinized enough yet. Next time, the prosecutors who pursued justice, who didn't, the career consequences accountability. The people who were supposed to protect the public in the first place. That's next time on the Epstein Files. You have just heard an analysis of the official record. Every claim, name and date mentioned in this episode is backed by primary source documents. You can view the original files for yourself at Epstein Files fm. If you value this data first approach to journalism. Please leave a five star review wherever you're listening right now. It helps keep this investigation visible. We'll see you in the next file.