Something is not right about the Epstein saga

[MJ]

[ARTICLE LINK]

February 20, 2026
Something is not right about the Epstein saga
Paul Craig Roberts

We have heard a lot about Virginia Giuffre, the poster girl of the Einstein sex-trafficking of under-age females. In 2009 Virginia Giuffre accepted $500,000 from Epstein to drop a lawsuit, the terms of which forbade claims against other “potential defendants.”

Thirteen years later in 2022 Giuffre received an estimated $16 million from Prince Andrew in an out-of-court settlement in which he admitted to no wrong. For some reason, she was not required to keep to the terms of the previous settlement in which she released other “potential defendants.” Little doubt her attorneys smelled a large fee from a charge against Prince Andrew. Public accusations in a lawsuit would embarrass the Royal family and result in a large out-of-court settlement whether the charge was true or false. It is possible that the charge is false, but that $16 million was too much to walk away from. As lawyers understand, many “settlements” are “extortions.”

The emphasis in the whore media is always that the women were under-aged. Below is a map of the age of female sexual consent in the 50 US states as of 2025. In 32 of the states, the age of female consent is 16 years old. In eight of the states the consent age is 17 years old, and in only 10 US states is the age of consent 18 years old. Unless Virginia Giuffre was a resident in one of these 10 states, she was not under-age. Keep in mind that the alleged under-aged sexual events occurred two or three decades ago when the age of female sexual consent was lower. Possibly at the time the events are said to have occurred, no state had 18 years as the age of female sexual consent. See this.

In other words, the media insistence on under-age sex might be a hoax, and what we may be really dealing with is prostitution. Do we really believe that the Virginia Giuffre we see in the photo smiling and looking pleased with herself standing together with Prince Andrew was kidnapped and brought to Epstein’s Island by force and coercion?  What about the hundreds or thousands of other under-age girls who were allegedly kidnapped and forced into sex-trafficking? Is this a credible accusation?

How exactly does one manage a kidnapping operation of this magnitude?

We can go further and inquire if the millions of pages of Epstein files and his income tax returns indicate income from the sex-trafficking of hundreds of children?  As I understand it from the reports from investigators of Epstein’s sources of income, his main source of income was devising tax evasion schemes for a few clients.

Still, we can go further. Virginia Giuffre’s large settlement payments must have inspired others, and as there were allegedly so many rich and distinguished man who visited the alleged sex Island–persons such as Bill Gates and former US President Bill Clinton–why have only Epstein and Prince Andrew been targeted?

A couple of large banks, Deutsche Bank and JP Morgan Chase, paid out $75 million and U$ 290 million to anonymous women (Jane Doe 1) for the unproven “crime” of providing Epstein with banking services that allegedly facilitated his sex- trafficking  business. This seems to be a nebulous charge, for which a legal basis is unclear. But in an  atmosphere of a witch hunt, it is understandable. See this.

In 2019 Time Magazine reported that a judge allowed 23 women who claimed to be Epstein victims to speak in his court before he dismissed charges against Epstein. About half did so anonymously. The women urged prosecutors to investigate potential co-conspirators. I am unsure what this means. This was before the release of the Epstein files and perhaps the women we’re looking for names of men to whom to address settlement demands.

Perhaps this sounds callous, but there is little that people will not do for money.


Apparently, a fund has been set up to indemnify Epstein victims. It is unclear how this fund will allocate payouts if the evidence consists of claims.

Now let us turn to Prince Andrew. If hundreds of girls are sex-trafficked, supposedly each to many men, how come Prince Andrew is the only man identified? Allegedly Epstein’s clients were the elite, but only one is identified. Moreover, the only evidence we have against Prince Andrew is that he paid to settle a claim, but people do this to avoid the cost and publicity of a lawsuit.  In other words, many false claims are settled because it is the cheapest way out.

All sorts of claims have been made about the sex-trafficking. Hillary Clinton is said to have raped under-aged boys. There are claims that babies were tortured, killed and eaten. As no evidence for these claims exist in the millions of pages of released files, claims have arisen that the Justice Department is withholding millions of pages that have the evidence. At least one commentator has asked, “where are the other 3 million files?”

In other words, the fact that there is no evidence of a massive sex- trafficking and satanic operation will be considered as proof that there was one and the elites are being protected by withholding the evidence.

If we look at this picture honestly, we have to ask ourselves if we are being gaslighted. The Salem Witch Trials lacked evidence, but that did not protect the innocent who were accused. How do we know that we are not experiencing another Salem Witch Trial?

How do we know that the Epstein saga is not a concoction to divert focus from the probability that Epstein was running a blackmail operation for Israel focused on elites who were in positions able to align American and European Middle East policy with Israel’s?  It is sufficiently likely to be the case to justify investigation whether the Epstein sex-trafficking saga is a concoction to hide the fact that US elites were blackmailed into supporting the destruction of Iraq, Libya and Syria during the first quarter of the 21st century in order to advance the Zionist agenda of a Greater Israel.

Recently, it was announced that former British Prince Andrew has been arrested on “suspicion of misconduct.” In the context of what has come before, “suspicion of misconduct” implies sex. But if we read on, we learn that Andrew is arrested on suspension that he might have shared with Epstein his work as a British trade negotiator.  Again, the story smells of gaslighting. What is the alleged sex-trafficker Epstein’s interest in British trade negotiations? Note specifically that the British government has NO evidence whatsoever that Andrew shared trade negotiating information with Epstein. The British government only has a “suspicion.” You are not supposed to arrest people on suspicion. You are supposed to have evidence that you can present to a judge and get a warrant. Perhaps British “justice” doesn’t work the way it is supposed to work in a free country, and people’s reputations can be ruined by being arrested on suspicion without evidence.  Clearly we are being gaslighted. The possibility that Israel can concoct such a cover story to hide its blackmail operation and have it accepted by the entirety of the Western media should scare us to death.