By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney Bradley Edwards, who has represented over 200 of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims, confirms the existence of a birthday book given to Epstein for his 50th birthday. Edwards stated that multiple victims he represents had knowledge of the book’s existence and were involved in its assembly. He believes the Epstein estate in Florida possesses the book and would readily comply with a congressional subpoena to release it. Edwards emphasizes the importance of transparency and believes the book’s contents could provide answers about Epstein’s associates.
Read the original article here
Bradley Edwards, attorney for Epstein survivors, says that the executors of Epstein’s estate are in possession of the birthday book containing Trump’s letter and would be willing to turn it over to authorities. The mere possibility of this happening is a significant development, stirring a whirlwind of speculation and, frankly, a lot of distrust in the current legal and political climate. The implication is clear: a tangible piece of evidence, potentially linking Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, could be in the hands of those who might be willing to cooperate with investigators. But the path forward seems far from straightforward.
The primary concern, as expressed in many discussions, revolves around the trustworthiness of the authorities themselves. The fear is palpable: that any evidence handed over to them might be lost, suppressed, or conveniently “disappear.” The history of this case, and the numerous unanswered questions surrounding Epstein’s death, fuel this distrust. It’s a sentiment that seems to echo through various opinions, with the consensus being that authorities are not the right avenue for this information.
The alternative, and the one that garners the most support, is to give the birthday book – and presumably its contents, like Trump’s letter – to the media. This approach is seen as a safeguard, a way to ensure that the information becomes public, making it more difficult to bury or disregard. The reasoning is simple: if the story is out there, in the public domain, it’s harder to control. This strategy is not only about transparency; it is about forcing accountability.
The list of media outlets suggested as recipients is extensive, spanning a wide range of national and international organizations. The goal is to disseminate the information widely, maximizing its impact and the chances of it being seen and reported. This includes major news organizations like the Associated Press, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, and NPR, to name a few. Some even suggest giving the evidence to international bodies such as the ICC or Interpol, in addition to the media.
The sentiment is that this is not a typical political situation. The stakes are higher than usual, and the normal rules don’t apply. Some believe that posting it online first would be most efficient way to reach the public. The concerns about potential obstruction or interference are very high. The underlying assumption is that anyone connected to this scandal is capable of protecting each other.
The comments reflect the frustration, the feeling that justice has been delayed or denied, and the deep-seated belief that there are forces working to protect the powerful. The idea that the evidence could just be “lost” or destroyed by authorities is a recurring theme, showcasing the mistrust in the authorities and the urgency of the situation. This isn’t just about exposing wrongdoing; it’s about forcing the truth to come out, whatever the cost.
The legal system, or the perceived shortcomings of it, is also under scrutiny. There’s a sense of inequality, a perception that the powerful are treated differently than ordinary citizens. The contrast between the potential consequences for individuals and the perceived lack of consequences for the figures involved in this case is striking. The implication here is that the existing legal infrastructure may not be adequate to address this level of alleged corruption and malfeasance.
The practical advice, in the face of these concerns, is clear: make copies, distribute widely, and don’t put all your faith in a single point of contact. The urgency is underscored by the fear that the opportunity for justice may be fleeting. If this information is suppressed, if the letter or the birthday book never sees the light of day, then the chance to expose the truth will be lost. The race is on to get the information out.
The focus is on speed, widespread distribution, and making sure the information doesn’t “disappear.” It reflects a crisis of confidence in the system, a profound sense that those in power cannot be trusted to act fairly or with integrity. The only way to force the truth out into the open, it seems, is to bypass the usual channels and go directly to the public, where it can no longer be controlled.