By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that merely partying or emailing with Jeffrey Epstein does not constitute a crime, although prosecutions will occur if evidence of illegal activities exists. This sentiment echoes President Trump’s past remarks regarding his acquaintance with Epstein. The latest release of millions of files from the Justice Department has further illuminated Epstein’s network, revealing details such as potential paternity and correspondence involving prominent figures like Prince Andrew and Elon Musk. The extensive document dump has led to calls for testimony and scrutiny of various individuals’ past interactions with the convicted financier.
Read the original article here
The notion that attending a party hosted by Jeffrey Epstein, particularly after his conviction for pedophilia, is simply “not a crime” strikes a discordant note, especially when delivered by a Deputy Attorney General to a news audience. It feels less like a commitment to legal accuracy and more like an attempt to sanitize a deeply disturbing reality. The common-sense reaction to this statement is a resounding question: when did associating with the architect of a vast child torture, rape, and murder enterprise become so benign?
The critical distinction being blurred is between the act of “partying” and the environment in which those parties occurred. While the mere act of socializing might not be illegal in itself, the question arises: how many child assaults is one permitted to witness or remain silent about before it becomes a matter of legal concern? The focus seems to have shifted away from the horrific crimes that demonstrably took place repeatedly at these gatherings, involving minors, and towards a pedantic interpretation of what constitutes a criminal offense.
This defense, however it is framed, raises serious concerns about accountability and the potential for protecting powerful individuals. The underlying sentiment is that if the Deputy AG is so readily defending against the idea of criminality associated with attending these events, it suggests a deep reluctance to investigate thoroughly, especially when powerful figures, like Donald Trump, are perceived to be potentially implicated. The implication is that such statements are not about uncovering truth but about damage control.
The stark reality is that Jeffrey Epstein was a convicted pedophile and rapist, representing the worst aspects of societal depravity. To suggest that associating with him, especially in the context of his known activities, is merely a social engagement trivializes the profound harm inflicted upon his victims. The argument that “it’s not a crime to party” overlooks the very real possibility that these parties were not innocent social gatherings but platforms where criminal acts were facilitated and perhaps even orchestrated.
When powerful individuals are repeatedly linked to such abhorrent activities, and their associates offer explanations that skirt the gravity of the situation, it breeds confusion and distrust. The implication that the Deputy AG is defending a “client” from a “hoax” seems disingenuous when the evidence of Epstein’s crimes is so overwhelming. The question isn’t whether the party itself is illegal, but rather what illegal activities occurred *at* the party, and who participated in or condoned them.
The statement also rings hollow for those who believe that association with such a figure, especially after their conviction, should warrant scrutiny. The idea that anyone with “more than cursory contact” with Epstein after his conviction, particularly if they are wealthy, should be investigated under the fullest extent of the law, seems like a reasonable call for justice, not an unreasonable accusation. The apparent correlation between immense wealth and involvement in unspeakable sex crimes cannot be ignored.
Ultimately, the assertion that simply “partying” with Epstein is not a crime, while technically true in isolation, becomes a disingenuous deflection when considering the context. Where there is consistent association with a notorious pedophile and rapist, especially at events where abuse occurred, the assumption of complicity or, at the very least, extreme moral failing, becomes difficult to dismiss. The refusal to fully investigate such associations feels like a deliberate attempt to shield powerful individuals from accountability.
The narrative often presented in such situations follows a predictable pattern: initial denial, followed by downplaying the severity, then claiming limited involvement, and finally, asserting that any association was not illegal. This pattern, when applied to a figure like Epstein, feels like a coordinated effort to normalize what is undeniably immoral and potentially criminal. The suggestion that such actions are acceptable, even if not strictly illegal, erodes societal standards and allows for the continued protection of those who may have profited from or enabled Epstein’s crimes.
The distinction between “illegal” and “immoral” is often weaponized to excuse behavior that is both. In the case of associating with Epstein, especially if it involved witnessing or benefiting from the exploitation of minors, it is highly probable that such actions were both deeply immoral and potentially illegal, depending on the specific circumstances and evidence. The pushback against thorough investigation suggests a fear of what might be revealed, a fear that is entirely understandable given the monstrous nature of Epstein’s crimes.
The idea that these parties were just casual social events is challenged by the inherent secrecy surrounding Epstein’s associates and their activities. If these gatherings were as innocuous as some would have us believe, there would be no need for the current efforts to suppress information or deflect scrutiny. The fact that individuals involved have sought to conceal their connections suggests they understood the gravity of their associations and the potential consequences. The ongoing attempts to “cover up” by claiming it was merely “partying” reveal a profound lack of moral compass and a willingness to undermine justice in favor of protecting the powerful.