By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ahead of the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s case files, survivors and Democratic members of Congress are requesting an independent review to ensure the records haven’t been tampered with or concealed. They are specifically requesting the Justice Department’s inspector general conduct a formal review of the files’ “chain of custody” due to concerns that records may have been altered or removed. The impending release of these files by a December 19 deadline, stemming from the Epstein Files Transparency Act, follows pressure from both parties for greater transparency. The investigation of the records is set to address concerns regarding how many individuals have had custody over the materials ahead of the release and their handling.
Read the original article here
Epstein survivors and Senate Democrats are right to be concerned, and their call for an audit to investigate potential tampering of the Epstein files is more than justified, given the circumstances. It’s a sentiment that echoes the widespread suspicion that surrounds the handling of these sensitive documents, and frankly, it’s hard to imagine a scenario where some level of manipulation hasn’t taken place. The sheer volume of individuals implicated, the high-profile nature of the case, and the potential for political fallout make the possibility of tampering almost a certainty in the minds of many.
The idea that the files might have been altered isn’t just a hunch; it’s a logical conclusion based on what’s already known. We’ve heard whispers of substantial overtime pay for those tasked with redacting the files, implying a concerted effort to remove information, possibly at a significant scale. If significant amounts of redaction are already known, it creates a need for an audit to determine what specific information was removed and why, to protect the survivors and maintain the integrity of any remaining unredacted documentation. Given the climate, the focus on the removal of certain names and information seems logical, and a thorough audit is the only way to expose what has transpired, ensuring all relevant evidence is accessible.
The chorus of voices calling for transparency is amplified by the fact that those who may have the most to lose from the files’ exposure – high-profile figures, powerful individuals, and possibly even political rivals – have the means and the motive to influence the process. The potential for a cover-up is incredibly high, and it’s difficult to trust that the files have been handled with complete impartiality. The very nature of the case, involving allegations of criminal activity against high profile people, suggests that corruption may have infiltrated the system, and that those with power have every incentive to conceal their involvement.
The frustration expressed by many over the need for yet another investigation is palpable. There’s a feeling that we’re past the point of mere inquiry and that the truth is evident. The sentiment is that the question isn’t whether tampering occurred, but to what extent, and by whom. The fact that the call for an audit is met with cynicism, with concerns that the investigation itself might be compromised, speaks volumes about the lack of trust in institutions and the legal system. It is a sad state of affairs when we question whether those conducting an audit are themselves above reproach and capable of unbiased investigations.
Some point out the obvious conclusion: that if Trump, and potentially others in positions of power, are implicated in the files, the motivation to manipulate the evidence is amplified. They are well-positioned, and their actions must be scrutinized. The mere thought of having a foreign government with its own independent access to documents is another critical piece of context, because it raises the possibility that there are multiple versions of the truth out there, and one of them is being concealed from the public.
The concern extends beyond mere redaction. The files contain evidence, victim testimonies, and the work done on investigating the case. As a result, the concern goes beyond the removal of names. A real audit would involve comparing the redacted files against originals, to identify what information has been removed and to try to identify if additional files were removed. Such a broad scope would be complex, and would need to be thorough to have any impact.
The suggestion that the focus should be on how much has been tampered with, rather than whether it has occurred, is a sobering reminder of the gravity of the situation. It’s a recognition that the Epstein case is not just about the accused, but about the systems that enabled him and the potential cover-up that followed his death. The call for an audit by Epstein survivors and Senate Democrats is not just about uncovering the truth; it’s about justice, accountability, and the restoration of public trust. The outcome of such an audit could have far-reaching implications, not just for the individuals implicated, but for the very fabric of society.