UK Demands Epstein Files, Exposing US Cover-Up

UK Demands Epstein Files, Exposing US Cover-Up

London’s top police official has made a bold request: he needs the original, unredacted Epstein files. These crucial documents are currently held by the U.S. Department of Justice, specifically in the possession of Pam Bondi. This demand highlights a growing international frustration with the U.S. government’s handling of evidence related to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

Global Accountability Blocked

Governments worldwide are seeking to hold individuals accountable for crimes connected to Epstein’s network. These individuals include former princes, members of parliament, and ambassadors. However, they cannot proceed without the evidence contained in the unredacted files. Meanwhile, critics argue that Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice are doing nothing to assist these efforts, or even to comply with U.S. law requiring the release of these files, such as the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

“Of course, there’s a big body of that evidence, the Epstein evidence in the United States in all those files, and at some stage, we’re going to need the unredacted evidence. We need the original copy. and where did it come from? and that’s going to be necessary if we get to the stage of court cases.”

– Sir Mark Rowley, Metropolitan Police Commissioner

International Investigations Continue

While the U.S. appears to be withholding information, other countries are actively investigating crimes linked to the Epstein files. Even the limited information released by Pam Bondi has spurred investigations. Countries around the world are looking into the crimes detailed in these documents. This stands in stark contrast to the perceived inaction within the United States, where critics accuse Bondi of actively covering up the matter.

Legal Avenues for Information Sharing

The question arises whether Pam Bondi can be compelled to release these files to foreign governments. While formal agreements called Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) exist to facilitate the exchange of information between countries, there’s no public indication that these have been formally activated in this case. Even if they were, these agreements don’t typically include penalties if a country, like the U.S., decides to violate them. This situation is compared to a broader pattern of the U.S. acting unilaterally and alienating allies, a behavior attributed by some to the current administration.

Media Distraction and Independent Reporting

Some observers suggest that major news outlets are being distracted by other events, potentially as a way to divert attention from the Epstein files. This allows for stories that might otherwise be ignored to fly under the radar. Independent media sources are seen as crucial for continuing to focus on these important issues that legacy media outlets may overlook. Subscribing to these independent channels is presented as a way to stay informed.

Can Democrats Use Foreign Evidence?

There’s a discussion about whether Democratic officials, seeking accountability, could use evidence obtained by foreign governments if the U.S. Department of Justice refuses to release it. Ordinarily, U.S. elected officials are not in a position to conduct business with foreign countries on behalf of the government. Foreign diplomacy is typically handled by the executive branch, like the State Department. The involvement of figures like Jared Kushner, who operates with significant influence without a formal government title, is also noted as unusual.

The “Ongoing Investigation” Excuse

A common reason for withholding evidence is an ongoing investigation. However, this excuse appears to be contradicted by past statements. In July of the previous year, Pam Bondi and Cash Patel issued a memo stating there was nothing to investigate in the Epstein files. With Ghislaine Maxwell imprisoned and Jeffrey Epstein deceased, and no other public investigations announced, the justification for withholding the files weakens. This has led to accusations that the real priority is not accountability, but protection of those implicated.

Obstruction of Justice Allegations

If Pam Bondi refuses to share the evidence after a formal request, it could be seen as obstructing justice. By withholding evidence that could help another country’s law enforcement hold significant wrongdoers accountable, she could be seen as covering up crimes and assisting criminals in evading justice. The example of former Prince Andrew, who settled a lawsuit with Virginia Giuffre, is cited as a potential indicator of the credibility of claims against him. His subsequent investigation in the UK, even for potentially compromising governmental information, underscores the international reach of these issues.

What’s Next?

The situation raises questions about what excuses Pam Bondi could possibly give for denying a foreign government the evidence needed to hold accomplices and co-conspirators of a child sex trafficking ring accountable. The argument is made that the only legitimate reason to withhold evidence is a pending criminal investigation. Since Bondi herself has stated there are no ongoing investigations, this excuse is no longer valid. The continued withholding of information suggests a deliberate effort to protect individuals involved in the Epstein scandal, rather than to pursue justice for the victims.

Source: “Explosive!” New Epstein update ROCKS Pam Bondi (YouTube)