Jeffrey Epstein died by suicide, justice department and FBI review confirms
A memo said that a Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) review of the files – which has for years been teased as a treasure trove of information about a larger network of wrongdoing – concluded that no further charges are expected, as investigators 'did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties'.
The justice department also released hours of footage taken from Manhattan's metropolitan correctional center, showing that no one entered or left the area where Epstein was held during, before or after the time medical examiners concluded he took his life.
'As part of our commitment to transparency, the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have conducted an exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein,' the DOJ said.
It added that the review included 'digital searches of its databases, hard drives, and network drives as well as physical searches of squad areas, locked cabinets, desks, closets, and other areas where responsive material may have been stored'.
The department said it had uncovered 'a significant amount of material', including more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence that included 'a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors, and over ten thousand downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography'.
'Through this review, we found no basis to revisit the disclosure of those materials and will not permit the release of child pornography,' the memo said.
Nor, the statement continued, did the review uncover an incriminating 'client list' or find credible evidence that Epstein was involved in blackmailing prominent individuals.
No further charges are expected in connection with the investigations into Epstein, the memo said, as investigators 'did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties'.
The attorney general, Pam Bondi, had previously promised the public release of scores of records related to Epstein, but an earlier release of documents did nothing to advance the conspiracy narratives that have emerged since his death.
Soon after the memo was made public by Axios, and later by the independent journalist Jessica Reed Kraus on Substack, Elon Musk voiced his disappointment, posting an image to the social platform X of 'The Official Jeffrey Epstein Pedophile Arrest Counter,' set to '0000'.
'What's the time? Oh look, it's no-one-has-been-arrested-o'clock again,' Musk captioned the photo.
The billionaire CEO of Tesla, who is feuding with Donald Trump after his work to gut federal government spending through the 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) seemed to run counter to Trump's recent bill that will massively increase the deficit, has previously intimated that Epstein file releases promised by the justice department had been stalled because Trump himself was implicated.
'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files,' he wrote. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT.'
Trump dismissed Musk's claims to NBC News: 'That's called 'old news.' That's been old news. That has been talked about for years. Even Epstein's lawyer said I had nothing to do with it – it's old news,' he said.
The justice department also said its review of the files was consistent with prior disclosures on the case and its review confirmed that Epstein harmed over one thousand victims.
'Each suffered unique trauma. Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history.
'One of our highest priorities is combatting child exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
26 minutes ago
- CBS News
Long Beach man federally charged for allegedly sending money to ISIS
A Long Beach man faces federal charges for allegedly sending money to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. He was arrested on Friday after FBI investigators discovered what appeared to be a bomb inside of his home. Mark Lorenzo Villanueva, 28, faces 20 years in prison for attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization, according to a release from the U.S. Department of Justice. Prosecutors say that Villanueva, a lawful permanent resident from the Philippines, communicated with multiple people who claimed to be ISIS fighters via social media. During their conversations, Villanueva allegedly expressed desire to support ISIS, offering to send money to support their activities. Court documents also say that Villanueva told one of the self-identified ISIS fighters that he wanted to fight for them, saying, "It's an honor to fight and die for our faith. It's the best way to go to heaven. ... Someday soon, I'll be joining." Villanueva also allegedly told the other individual that he had a bomb and knives, according to the DOJ's release. When he was arrested on Friday morning, FIB investigators recovered what looked to be a bomb from his bedroom. A message sent by Villanueva in Feb. 2025, he offered to send one of the two ISIS fighters money, asking if it would "cover your equipment and weapons," the DOJ release said. He allegedly discussed sending the money through an intermediary, and Western Union records show that he sent a dozen different payments totaling $1,615 over five months to two intermediaries that accessed the funds from overseas. "Supporting a terrorist group, whether at home or abroad, is a serious risk to our national security," said U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli in a statement. "We will aggressively hunt down and prosecute anyone who provides support or comfort to our enemies." Villanueva was expected to make his initial court appearance on Friday afternoon.
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, is transferred to a prison camp in Texas
WASHINGTON — Jeffrey Epstein's former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, has been moved from a federal prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas as her criminal case generates renewed public attention. The federal Bureau of Prisons said Friday that Maxwell had been transferred to Bryan, Texas, but did not explain the circumstances. Her attorney, David Oscar Markus, also confirmed the move but declined to discuss the reasons for it. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of luring teenage girls to be sexually abused by the disgraced financier, and was sentenced to 20 years in prison. She had been held at a low-security prison in Tallahassee, Florida, until her transfer to the prison camp in Texas, where other inmates include Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes and Jen Shah of 'The Real Housewives of Salt Lake City.' Minimum-security federal prison camps house inmates the Bureau of Prisons considers to be the lowest security risk. Some don't even have fences. The prison camps were originally designed with low security to make operations easier and to allow inmates tasked with performing work at the prison, like landscaping and maintenance, to avoid repeatedly checking in and out of a main prison facility. Prosecutors have said Epstein's sex crimes could not have been done without Maxwell, but her lawyers have maintained that she was wrongly prosecuted and denied a fair trial, and have floated the idea of a pardon from President Donald Trump. They have also asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case. Maxwell's case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department's statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump's base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up. Since then, administration officials have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts. Maxwell, meanwhile, was interviewed at a Florida courthouse over two days last week by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said this week that they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution. In a letter Friday to Maxwell's lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell's appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September. Comer wrote that while Maxwell's testimony was 'vital' to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Effort to Overturn Birthright Citizenship Struggles in Court
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A three-judge panel in the Boston-based appeals court expressed deep skepticism about arguments from President Donald Trump's Department of Justice as the administration seeks to overturn birthright citizenship, according to Reuters. Why It Matters Trump's executive order, signed on Inauguration Day in January, seeks to restrict birthright citizenship and could potentially affect the rights of millions of U.S.-born children. The order directs U.S. agencies to refuse citizenship to children unless at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. The crux of the issue sits in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which will determine whether the constitutional guarantee of citizenship for children born on American soil to non-citizen or undocumented parents remains intact. The case has already gone before the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which last month ruled that the order is unconstitutional, upholding a lower-court decision that blocked nationwide enforcement. A stock photo of a new USA passport. A stock photo of a new USA passport. Stock Photo - Getty Images What To Know The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday grilled Justice Department lawyer Eric McArthur over the core arguments of the administration's position on birthright citizenship, who reiterated Trump's argument that the 14th Amendment was only meant to extend citizenship to the children of former slaves—not the children of immigrants in the country either temporarily or unlawfully. The judges, all appointed by Democratic presidents, pointed to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which guaranteed citizenship to any child born in the country to non-citizen parents. Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron mused that the judges "aren't free to disregard" the Supreme Court's previous ruling. Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued before the court that the Supreme Court has "repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens." While the Supreme Court in June ruled in favor of limiting nationwide injunctions, it allowed certain exceptions within the limits of a certified segment of people for class-action lawsuits to retain that power. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin of Massachusetts in July ruled that a previously granted nationwide injunction against Trump's order could stay in place, even in light of the new Supreme Court restrictions, because "no workable, narrower alternative" would give the plaintiffs relief. A New Hampshire court in the same month also acted within the new ruling to certify a nationwide class of plaintiffs, which included all children born on U.S. soil. The Trump administration has sought to appeal this ruling alongside Sorokin's. What People Are Saying Judge Patrick Bumatay, who dissented in the 9th Circuit's ruling, wrote: "We should approach any request for universal relief with good faith skepticism, mindful that the invocation of 'complete relief' isn't a backdoor to universal injunctions." Former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg via X, formerly Twitter, to Newsweek in July: "Easy decision. If President Trump wants to eliminate birthright citizenship, he needs to change the Constitution. But he can't repeal the language of the 14th Amendment via executive order." Representative Claudia Tenney, a New York Republican, posted to X on Wednesday: "Birthright citizenship was never meant to be a reward for breaking our immigration laws. The Constitutional Citizenship Clarification Act makes it clear: No citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, foreign spies, or terrorists." What Happens Next Legal experts and state attorneys general anticipate that the Supreme Court's possible review will provide a landmark ruling on the meaning of the 14th Amendment—a decision that may reshape the rights of children born on U.S. soil and the future of American immigration policy. This article includes reporting by the Associated Press.
