Jeffrey Epstein and the system that protected him – opinion

Before anything else, I want to be unequivocal.

If Steve Bannon spoke kindly about me in a private message, that is his decision and his responsibility. It does not create association, proximity, shared company, or shared interests. Anyone attempting to imply otherwise is either dishonest or reckless.

In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting the prostitution of minors. For crimes that routinely lead to lengthy prison sentences for ordinary people, Epstein received a deal that looked like privilege in legal form. He was sentenced to 18 months but served roughly 13, much of it under extraordinary “work release” conditions – allowed to leave jail for up to 12 hours a day, six days a week, returning only to sleep. During this period, he continued to run his affairs and meet associates with minimal disruption.

The restrictions were so slight they barely qualify as punishment. Epstein was not meaningfully isolated, financially crippled, or socially cut off. In practical terms, the deal allowed him to continue operating largely as he always had.

Former US labor secretary Alexander Acosta has been reported as saying that Epstein was described to him as an “intelligence asset,” and that this arose in the context of Epstein’s extraordinary plea deal. That claim has never been properly explained or put to bed. It has been left hanging, managed through silence and distraction instead of scrutiny.

But those assurances carry limited weight. Barr presided over a Justice Department that lost critical footage, oversaw catastrophic custodial failures, and then issued confident conclusions based on an evidentiary record it admits is incomplete. Under those conditions, official denials do not resolve suspicion – they merely compete with it.

The honest position is not to accept official denials as closure, but to confront the likelihood that Epstein did not need to be a formal “asset” at all – that he functioned as a mercenary operator, trading access, leverage, and compromise across intelligence, political, and financial spheres where deniability was the point.

Elite immunity is not confined to one country.

Bill Gates met Epstein after his conviction and later admitted it was a mistake – an admission that came only after sustained public pressure. These episodes are not about proving guilt by association. They are about standards. When powerful men repeatedly associate with a convicted predator and suffer no lasting consequence, accountability becomes conditional.

Britain is no exception. As of February 2026, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has acknowledged that he was aware of Lord Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein before elevating him to a senior US-facing diplomatic role. That admission removes any claim of ignorance. The judgment was made knowingly, and responsibility rests at the very top.

Online discourse has tried to collapse Epstein into a crude slogan: that he was a “Zionist agent.” This caricature does not withstand scrutiny.

The released Epstein files contain repeated uses of the term “goy” or “goyim” – meaning non-Jews, often used in a derogatory sense – alongside behaviour that included antisemitic tropes and jokes. Epstein did not live or behave like someone ideologically committed to the Jewish state. In fact, much of his fascination pointed elsewhere.

He expressed admiration for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, showed interest in Islam, and reportedly possessed a cloth from the Kaaba itself. None of this proves allegiance to any intelligence service. But it does undermine the claim that Epstein was some kind of ideological Zionist operative.

Epstein himself claimed to have worked for members of the Rothschild family, one of the most powerful financial families in modern history. If Epstein was entrusted with money, access, or proximity by individuals connected to such immense wealth, that relationship deserves scrutiny – not deference. This is not collective blame, nor is it an attack on Israel or Jewish people. It is a demand for consistency. Power does not become exempt from questioning because it is historically sensitive.

Epstein was not driven by Zionism or any coherent ideology. He was driven by access, leverage, and self-interest – and attempts to turn his crimes into a vehicle for antisemitism only obscure the truth.

Jeffrey Epstein’s death was officially ruled a suicide. I do not believe that conclusion. With each document released, the official story feels less like an explanation and more like an alibi.

Cameras failed. Guards did not look. Logs were altered. Evidence disappeared. What should have been the most scrutinised custodial environment in the country became a corridor of shadows. Under those conditions, confidence from authority is not reassuring – it is provocative.

This is why even mainstream voices now reference phenomena like QAnon and Pizzagate. Not because those claims have been proven, but because institutional credibility has collapsed. When truth is rationed, suspicion multiplies. It is why figures like Bill Maher have openly asked, “Where’s the apology to QAnon?” – not as an endorsement of every claim, but as an acknowledgement that there is more here than empty smoke, and that official narratives have failed to extinguish it.

The documents themselves deepen the unease. Communications are littered with euphemism – repeated references to “pizza” and “jerky” that may prove meaningless on their own, but in a case soaked in abuse and secrecy, linger like residue. I am not claiming certainty about what lies beneath. But I am certain the truth has not finished surfacing – and it is unlikely to become comforting.

This story does not resolve. It deepens. Until accountability runs upward as easily as it runs down, it will linger – unresolved – reminding anyone willing to notice that some truths are buried not because they are unknowable, but because too many people benefit from keeping them that way.