This framing collapses under scrutiny.
First, calling the so-called “Epstein files” a coherent body of adjudicated evidence is misleading. What exists is a mixed collection of investigative notes, civil filings, media reports, sealed depositions, and unproven allegations accumulated over many years, much of it never tested in court, much of it duplicative, and some of it demonstrably unreliable. Law-enforcement possession of material does not convert allegations into facts.
Second, the claim that cases were derailed by “Trump and his minions” through intimidation or witness tampering is asserted without proof. No court has made such a finding. No successful prosecution or judicial ruling has established that Donald Trump obstructed Epstein-related prosecutions. Assertions repeated online are not evidence.
Third, obstruction of justice is a specific criminal finding, not a rhetorical shortcut. Saying “it is reasonable to assume obstruction equals guilt” reverses the legal standard entirely. In law, guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; it is not inferred from accusation or motive narratives.
Finally, invoking Robert Mueller as authority is inaccurate. Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed obstruction of justice, nor did he charge him with it. His report explicitly declined to reach a prosecutorial judgment, and no obstruction charge resulted from his investigation.
None of this minimizes the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein or the suffering of victims. But conflating allegations, investigations, and political narratives into a presumption of guilt is not how justice works, and insisting otherwise weakens, rather than strengthens, legitimate accountability. |
