
<p>Since the release of the files, Epstein stories have been spreading faster and farther afield than the Covid 19 virus. And it is not only the media that has gone into a feeding frenzy. So have the social media scribes and that portion of the public that salaciously dwells on scandal and conspiracy theories. The court of public opinion is in full session with all the dangers of false accusations, guilt by association and rushes to judgment – those things a court of law does not allow.</p>



<p>One of my obsessive critics is a good example of what is wrong when speculation and innuendoes are spread as facts. In response to an earlier commentary on the impact of the Epstein File releases, Frank Danger, as he likes to be known, offered up one of his characteristically frequent long boring rants. He said:</p>



<p><em>I’m sorry but are you (this writer) defending Epstein and the men he associated with? Why are you trying to uphold the reputation of men who consorted with a pedo who created over 1,000 victims, most of who want to see this information (sic). ;</em></p>



<p>As with those who wallow in rumors, gossip and scandal &#8212; and respond with hyperbolic mendacious rants &#8212; Frank Danger creates his own straw man reality. Nothing in the graph above is remotely true. I do not defend those criminally involved. However, many of those named were not “consorting” with Epstein, as Frank Danger unfairly implies. They all had different relationships with Epstein – but nothing criminal has been yet revealed about any of them.</p>



<p>Not sure where Frank Danger got the number of victims, but he is telling a fib when he says that most of 1000 victims “want to see this information” Virtually all the media reports about the victims offer up interviews with only a handful of victims. The vast majority of them have remained in the shadow &#8212; and many of them have said they did not want the files revealed. They did not want the bandage ripped off the wound.</p>



<p>My commentary was not a defense argument for any person engaged in Epstein’s criminal activities. They should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. We can all agree on that. In fact, that is exactly what happened. <em>L’Affaire</em> Epstein was investigated intensively over many years by two Departments of Justice – one under President Biden and one under President Trump. They both drew the same conclusion. There was no further evidence (not gossip) that would lead to additional indictments and conviction. That does not mean there are not others guilty, but courts of law demand hard evidence. That is why the court of public opinion is not a good conduit to justice. Quite the opposite. It is the judiciary of the mob.</p>



<p>For sure, lots of folks in the files do not look good. We may see them as reprobates. Their relationships with Epstein are embarrassing, to say the least. Many of those named have had close dealings with Epstein, but many seem to have been involved in normal or more casual dealings – business and social. Photos with Epstein mean nothing. He was a socialite who traveled in the company of the rich and famous.</p>



<p>The point of my earlier commentary was that the Justice Department should have maintained its tradition of not revealing information about folks who are not targets of criminal investigation. It is a policy that protects innocent parties from the kind of concocted scandal we are witnessing today. The longstanding prosecutorial policy is designed to shield innocent people from folks like Frank Danger, who engage in malicious gossip and slander to score political points.</p>



<p>Under American jurisprudence, people are to be assumed innocent of crimes until proven otherwise in a court of law. Frank Danger does the opposite. He presumes guilt and makes unfair and untrue accusations by speculation and innuendo.</p>



<p>Associating with Epstein is not a crime. Visiting his home or Island – of flying on his plane – are not crimes. Even being involved sexually with “Epstein’s women” is not a crime unless they are underage. Poor morals, perhaps, bad morals but not criminal. The crime of pedophilia occurs when the sex involves girls (or boys) who are underaged. That is the crime that can be – and should be &#8212; prosecuted when there is the evidence to sustain an indictment and trial.</p>



<p>For sure, some of the people named invite heightened suspicion – Prince Andrew and Bill Gates, as two examples. They were seen or photographed with Epstein’s underage girls. Unfortunately, suspicion is not evidence – even in those cases.</p>



<p>The Frank Danger types ignore American justice and common decency. They fall back on unwarranted certainty – often saying “everybody knows &#8230;. to bolster their unsubstantiated claims. They engage in scurrilous accusations without evidence – even in the face of determinations by multiple federal prosecutors that there is no sufficient evidence to bring additional indictments. If such evidence is found &#8230; good. Let the wheels of justice grind. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the guilty be punished.</p>



<p>But the fact of the matter is that not one of the scores of names being tossed around in the press has been proven to be complicit in any illegal activities associated with Epstein. At least not so far. We may see them as sleazebags in some cases, but that is not criminal. As one left-wing guest on MS NOW noted, ‘The Justice Department is not in the business of embarrassing people.” Well &#8230;. it is now.</p>



<p>My commentary was about devotion to <strong>the law</strong> – not the type of political vigilantism that folks like Frank Danger promote.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Epstein Files are Chum in the Water for Media Sharks and gossip mongers
