FBI Drops Bombshell on Epstein 'Trafficking' Network

After the bombshell release of the. Epstein [music] files these past few. weeks, one of the biggest takeaways now. is that the FBI reportedly could not. find any evidence that Jeffrey Epstein. trafficked girls to others, to the rich, to the powerful, to the elite. Now, many. of you might be saying, "What? How can. that be true? [music] Is that really. true?" Let's try to get to the bottom of. it. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law. and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. All right, before we jump into this, have you heard the breaking news? A. recent report from Forbes shows that.

employees who use AI at work, they are. earning 40% more than those who don't. Yeah, AI is changing employment and. right now it really matters because the. early adopter phase that's over. So the. question is simple. Are you going to. watch this shift or you going to win. from it? Outskill is the first ever AI. focused educational platform for AI. learning and they are hosting a two-day. AI mastermind training live this. Saturday and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00. p.m. Eastern. And right now is the. perfect time to join because you can get. in free for the next 48 hours. This.

16-hour AI training has already built 10. million plus AI professionals across all. industries. And by the way is rated 4.9. stars on Trustpilot. You're going to. learn to build AI agents that plan, write, and execute for you. Automate. workflows, connect tools like sheets and. emails to create systems, get a boost at. work with the hours that you save, and. you're going to learn to profit from. those skills. People from this training. have launched AI services that bring in. $2 to $3,000 a week. You're also going. to get the AI prompt bible, the AI. profit roadmap, a personal AI toolkit.

builder, and the 2026 AI survival. hackbook. This is a guide of upcoming AI. shifts and steps to take to be prepared. Now, seats are limited. Use the link in. the description to join. Plus, join our. WhatsApp community to stay updated. As. someone who's been following all aspects. of the Epstein saga, particularly the. latest release of the Epstein Files. pursuant to the Epstein Files. Transparency Act, the question I keep. asking is, could someone else have been. prosecuted? I mean, that's one of the.

big questions, right? Is there evidence. that Jeffrey Epstein was trafficking. girls to other powerful men? Well, according to the Associated Press's. review of the files, the FBI says no. And we looked into it, too. And based on. some of the files we found, it seems. that's true. That the FBI says there's. no evidence that the FBI, they looked at. the bank records, they looked at emails, they interviewed victims, they searched. Epstein's properties, and there is no. evidence that he trafficked girls to. other people. Even though, by the way, he was brought up on sex trafficking of.

minors charges. And then Galain Maxwell. was subsequently charged and convicted. in her own trial. She was convicted. essentially of trafficking victims to. just Jeffrey Epstein. She was sentenced. to 20 years in prison. And we know that. Epstein died before going to trial, but. it's always been it was just to him that. he wasn't farming out or lending out. girls or women to other people. Now, according to this new article from the. Associated Press, the FBI claims there. was no videos, no photos from his places. in New York, Florida, the Virgin. Islands, you know, Jeffrey Epstein's.

Island, nothing depicting any other. people abusing these girls, these. victims. Here's actually a good way to. describe it. There is this email to then. deputy director of the FBI Dan Bonino. The sender is redacted. We can't see. that, but this is dated March 20th, 2025. And it states, "The case agents. and a USA, that's assistant United. States attorneys, ensured that all. videos and images from the case file and. from Epstein's residences and devices. were reviewed for evidence of a crime. Those reviews revealed no evidence from.

any of the searches we conducted or any. of the files we reviewed that any videos. or other images exist of any victims in. this case being sexually abused. Nor did. those reviews reveal any evidence that. anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell. participated in the sexual abuse of. victims in this case. We are aware of. the theory circulated in the media and. online that Epstein video recorded the. abuse of his victim, including by other. men. But we have found no evidence to. support that theory. Indeed, had we.

found such videos, we certainly would. have used them as evidence in the. criminal cases we investigated and. prosecuted and would have pursued any. leads they generated. We did not, however, locate any such videos. Below, please find more details about the video. evidence gathered during this. investigation. During the searches of. Epstein's New York residence and USVI. residence in 2019, United States Virgin. Islands, the FBI searched for videos and. surveillance cameras. My understanding. from the case agent is that there were. no cameras found inside any bedrooms or.

living areas of either residence. I. understand that surveillance cameras. were located near the entrances of the. residences. I also understand that the. surveillance systems only retain video. for a limited period of days and that. the only recordings available were very. recent surveillance from 2019 and would. thus not have depicted anything relevant. to our investigation which focused on. the 1990s and early 2000s. Accordingly, those surveillance videos were not. seized because they were not responsive. to the warrants allowing the FBI to. seize only certain evidence from those. premises. The FBI had no legal authority.

to seize recent surveillance videos from. 2019 under the warrants issued by SDNY. and USBI courts. During the searches of. Epstein's residences in 2019, the FBI. seized a large number of CDs, some hard. copy photographs and at least one. videotape containing nude images of. females, some of whom appeared to. possibly be minors in their late teens. The case agents reviewed all of those. images and they were all made available. to Maxwell's council for review and. discovery. None of the images depicted.

sexual abuse and none depicted any males. with any of the nude females. Some of. these images included nude photographs. of victims who were the focus of. Maxwell's trial. And we mark some of. those photographs as sealed exhibits for. trial. The victims are alone in these. photos. Because those images contain. sensitive photos of victims of sexual. abuse, they have never been released. publicly. As I referenced in my email to. you this morning, the FBI and SDNY, Southern District of New York. prosecutors, the FBI and the SDNY.

undertook a full review of all. electronic devices seized from Epstein's. residences and incident to his arrest in. 2019. As part of that review, a team of. FBI agents, FBI analysts, SDNY AOSAs, and SDNY parallegals divided up the. review of over 1 million images and. videos that FBI Cart extracted from. Epstein's devices. The reviewers all. followed the same protocol for the. review, which involved at least one. member of the review team personally. reviewing each image and video extracted. from each device and determining whether.

the image or video was responsive to the. search warrants in the case. In an. effort to be as broad as possible, the. protocol directed reviewers to identify. as responsive, among other things, any. image or video depicting any female who. appeared to be under the age of 30. As a. result of that review, any image or. video on any of Epstein's devices. depicting any potential victim was. identified as responsive and saved. The. case agent collected and maintained a. copy of all images and videos identified. responsive through this search.

attached. Please find the index. detailing how many images and videos. were identified responsive to the. warrants and what designation they. received under the protective order in. the Maxwell case. Note that materials. designated highly confidential contained. nudity. Please also note that this index. does not include Epstein's iPhone and. six iPads which were reviewed on. Celbrite using the same protocol for. videos and images described above. Although that review identified many. images and videos that were responsive. to the warrants in our criminal. investigation, none depicted the sexual.

abuse of any victim and none revealed. any perpetrator or perpetrators of. sexual abuse other than Epstein and. Maxwell. The Palm Beach Police. Department video recorded interviews of. victims at the police station. Video. recorded parts of their search of. Epstein's Palm Beach residence and also. seized a small number of videos from. Epstein's Palm Beach residents. All of. those videos were transferred to the. FBI's custody, are part of the case. file, and were reviewed by the A USA and. case agents during our investigation. None of these videos depict the abuse of. any victims, or provide evidence.

suggesting anyone other than Epstein and. Maxwell participated in the abuse of. victims. SDNY introduced the video. recording of the search of Epstein's. Palm Beach residence as an exhibit at. trial. None of the videos identified. above contained potential SEAM, child. sexual abuse material. As noted above, there was no videos of any sexual abuse. identified at any point in the. investigation. There were, however, approximately a dozen photographs. containing SEAM found on one of. Epstein's devices. Those images were. identified by the case agent as CESAM.

that Epstein obtained over the internet, not CSAM depicting any of Epstein's. victims or produced by Epstein. A copy. of those images was maintained by the. case agent in the case file with the. other images and videos seized and. identified responsive during the review. of Epstein's devices detailed above. Okay, here's another memo. Quote, in. September 2019, FBI and SDNY met with. victim redacted. FBI and SDNY were able. to verify that Maxwell recruited her and. that she was being sexually abused by.

Epstein and Maxwell and that she. recruited other minors. FBI and SDNY. were not able to corroborate or verify. her reports of being lent out to other. men. Her statements regarding being. directed to have sex with other men was. inconsistent with statements made by. other victims and witnesses. In. particular, her statements regarding. being lent out to men with another. victim. The other victim denied this. occurring. Now, in the spirit of that, there is a July 10th, 2025 email titled, quote, "Response to director's call." So.

you wonder if this is FBI director Cash. Patel and all the names are redacted, but it says how many victims alleged. other men or women abused them. Approximately four to five victims. accused other adult men sexually abuse. them. There was not enough evidence to. federally charge these individuals. So. the cases were referred to local law. enforcement. Approximately four to five. victims accused other adult women to. have taken part in sexual abuse. threesome with the minor including. Epstein's girlfriend who was. approximately 18 to 20 years of age at. the time. The girlfriend was interviewed.

profered but it was determined there was. not enough evidence to charge. Now who. that girlfriend could be I can. speculate. I'm not going to say here. But let me add this. There's a 2019 memo. regarding co-conspirators or potential. co-conspirators. For example, French. model scout Jeanluke Bernell, who was. accused of abusing women out in Europe. He died by his own hand, by the way, while awaiting trial. Here's what the. memo says. Jeanluke Bernell, owner of MC. Model Agency, SDNY, is currently in. contact with his attorneys, and a.

subpoena has been served. There is. limited evidence regarding his. involvement. What about Les Wexner? We've talked about him before. The. retail guru behind Victoria's Secret, Ebroian Fitch. Apparently, Epstein. manages finances at one point. He's. always come up as a known associate. quote, "Lesie Wexner resides in Ohio. SDNY is currently in contact with his. attorneys and a subpoena has been. served. There is limited evidence. regarding his involvement." Now, all of. this may be very surprising and shocking. when you consider the breath of accusers. who have come forward against Epstein. and of course Epstein's connections to.

the rich and the powerful and especially. when we consider how many emails there. are where Epstein or Maxwell converse. with these individuals. And let me tell. you, some of them are incredibly. disgusting and creepy communications. We've covered it here on Sidebar. There. has been fallout, but it doesn't mean. that if you knew him or talked with him. or hung out with him that you were. necessarily involved in criminal. activity or even knew about criminal. activity or that there could be a. successful prosecution against you, there might not be enough evidence, but. obviously this conclusion by the FBI is.

very surprising. Now, to be clear, as. outlined by the AP, there was evidence. that the feds were potentially building. cases against alleged co-conspirators. The big issue is a lot of those. allegations couldn't be verified. And. that includes, and I'm not sure if that. memo I read before was referring to the. late Virginia Roberts Dufrey. It might. have been because despite claiming that. Epstein had coordinated her to be. engaged in sex acts with other men, including former Prince Andrew, the file. show investigators thought there was a.

credibility issue, even though they. believe she was a victim of Epstein. himself. They cite a memo that said no. other victim was described being. expressly directed by either Maxwell or. Epstein to engage in sexual activity. with other men. According to the AP, when investigators looked at Epstein's. bank records, there was no evidence. either. For example, yeah, they found. payments to all of these models, but. there wasn't evidence that he was. engaging in prostitution of girls or. women to other men. And then we have the. client list, right? This idea that. circulated that Epstein kept this little. black book of everyone he trafficked.

girls to, right? You look at the AP, they correctly note that this was. confusing because Attorney General Pam. Bondi told Fox News in February of 2025. when she just got into the position that. the client list was quote sitting on my. desk right now. But then it was only a. few months later in July when the FBI. and the DOJ issued a memo stating that. after they reviewed all of the Epste. materials, this systematic review. revealed no incriminating client list. And that is further amplified in a. December 30th, 2024 communication. All.

the names are redacted, but the memo. does address what's known as CACTU. This is the FBI's crimes against. children and human trafficking unit. Okay, I'll just call it the unit. So, it. goes like this. This is the email. Quote, the deputy asked whether our. investigation to date indicates the. client list often referred to in the. media does or does not exist. Here's the. response. This CACTU, this unit, spoke. to the case agent and confirmed no. client list existed. An address book was.

entered into evidence at trial, but it. is not a client list as depicted in the. media. The current status of the. investigation into Epstein is concluded. and the case is pending inactive. Now, the address book being something that. has been in the public for quite some. time. This is Epstein's contact list. Again, to be clear, doesn't mean that. those people were involved in criminal. activity of any kind. But obviously, this is a big conclusion. This is a big. development. This is something people. have been waiting for. I want to talk. about a little bit more. Can we believe. this? Is there something going on behind.

the scenes? Let's talk about it. Let me. bring in former federal prosecutor Reena. Paul. Uh Reena, thank you so much for. taking the time. Does this uh conclusion. from the FBI based on these. communications? Does this surprise you. that there's no evidence that anybody. else had been had been abusing girls. that Epstein hadn't trafficked any of. these victims to anybody else? Well, I think we should start by talking. about the this as an investigation, right? And to understand what has come.

out to think about it through the lens. of an investigation by the government. and the disclosures by the government as. conclusions rather than the raw. evidentiary material. So, we're starting. there. So, when you ask if it's. surprising, I mean, I think we have to. start with the question of what we are. actually seeing. >> Okay. And so based on what we're seeing. in these releases, and based on what. we're seeing in these internal. communications and emails where they. say, "We can't find any photos or videos. of women or girls being abused by.

anybody other than Maxwell and Epstein.". There are those who would say, "How is. that possible?" Unless it was all. rumors, unless of course Epstein never. uh kept the cameras in those rooms or he. never had any any any of excuse me, any. evidence of anybody. He wouldn't record. them. Let's just start there. >> Yeah. So, it it seems from what I've. reviewed that there was there's notes. uh of there being sexually explicit. material or CSAM as they call it in the.

DOJ. Right? So, there is definitely. digital evidence it seems from what has. been reported. And in considering what. that digital evidence can show, we have. to think like an investigator again. So, think about what may be on a hard drive, on a computer, on a phone, and what it. would mean to prove whether a certain. person engaged in a certain act, and. whether or not that would be a recorded. act or it would just be the recording of. an alleged victim that we would be. seeing with no connection to anybody.

else. >> No, of course. And there was a and as we. said, there's a difference, right? He. had apparently this material. it just. wasn't of anybody in his homes or in. general abusing these individuals and. and there could have been a whole case. built against him just by having uh this. materials. But again, people would say, is it surprising that Epstein didn't. maintain this kind of footage and. documentary evidence against other. people, unless of course no one else. engaged in any of the abuse of these. women or these girls. Because some.

people would say he was so rich, he was. so powerful, why wouldn't he keep. blackmail material and wouldn't it have. been in his possession and wouldn't have. been accessed by federal prosecutors and. authorities if they collected all this. evidence from their home? I mean, to be. clear, just to said it again, when they. looked at all the material, their. responsive requests were quite broad. They were looking basically for anything. from anybody that was under 30. So, I'm. going to just assume that taking that as. true, if it was there, they would have. found it and it would have been a part. of the criminal cases or it would have.

been part of this production release. So, now we have to say, maybe Epstein. never kept this and and if that's the. case, somebody as rich and powerful as. him with his kind of connections, allegations that he had ties to other. countries, what have you, I guess he's. not the black mailer that people. thought. >> Well, it would be it's impossible for us. to know, right? We're all speculating on. what on what we're seeing that is. released. But in thinking again like an. investigator, which is what when I'm. looking at materials, large volumes of. materials, and as someone who has done.

sex crimes investigations and and. routinely works on large investigations, you got to think about where evidence. would lie. And we are, you know, we're. we're basing what we're talking about on. the reporting of what's been reported in. media, what's been reported um by the. DOJ. And we're that is limited to what. has been found, right? Or reported to. have been found. So where would evidence. be stored if you were keeping it as. someone who didn't want it to be found?

Perhaps there are other places where it. could be found and it just wasn't found. What about the fact the financial. records don't detail any evidence of uh. him engaging in some sort of sex. trafficking ring? You know, I even. mentioned there was payments to models, but they couldn't be proven that he was. uh soliciting them for prostitution to. men. You know, the financial records can. sometimes tell a lot of a case. Apparently not here. >> Yeah, in many cases they can. It is not. my understanding though. I think you're. probably well more briefed on the on the. Maxwell case than me, but that during.

that case, money transactions form the. basis of that evidence. Rather, I think. that that was more of a grooming and. recruitment theory, right? And so the. question of financial records really. come more into play if there was money. that was being exchanged. That's first. And second is well, what are we talking. about when we're talking about financial. records? Again, thinking like an. investigator, we have to think about. what a financial record could show us. So just because there's a transaction. doesn't necessarily show us what we're. looking to find, right? So you have to. make sense of of what the payments are.

for. And financial records, we also have. to think about what the universe of. financial records could be. Are we. talking about bank records? Are we. talking about crypto records? Are we. talking about, you know, what kind of. currency and what kind of finances are. we talking about? Are we talking about. cash? Um and which would be more. traceable and investigable as a. government agency? And that's fair. And. when it came to Maxwell, it was about. the idea, right? They would bring these. girls in and then they would have them. recruit other girls. And that was kind. of the network that was being built up.

from a prosecutorial point of view, from. a legal point of view. Somebody's. looking at this and saying, "Wait a. minute. I'm looking at these filings and. they're identifying certain people or. they're redacting certain other people. and they say there's not enough evidence. to charge this person or limited. evidence regarding involvement." What. does that mean? So for a lay person, what does that mean? Because some people. would say, "Okay, but there's something. Shouldn't they go out and look for more? Shouldn't they begin more thorough. investigations?" It's not like they're. saying they're completely exonerated. It's just we don't have enough to charge.

or we don't have enough there that they. were involved. What does that mean? >> When you're talking about an. investigation, you have to do an. investigation by a standard. So, in the. criminal system, that standard is beyond. a reasonable doubt. That's a very high. standard. So conducting an investigation. in the criminal sector means can I find. evidence that certain person committed. certain crime and that's a very high. standard. Not enough evidence doesn't. mean no evidence and it just means not.

that the person who is reviewing the. evidence has made the decision that that. evidence does not support a specific. charge that they were seeking to charge. a specific person. By the way, why if. you have alleged victims say, "Hey, I. was lent out to other men. I was. trafficked." Why is that not enough when. they say there's maybe issues in the. credibility? They couldn't find. corroborating evidence. Explain to me. how that works in terms of investigating. claims like that. >> Yeah. So, it it certainly is enough for. an alleged victim to say what happened.

to them. That is a very important piece. of evidence when we talk about. investigating sex trafficking or sexual. cases. And often, as we all know, sexual. assault cases occur in a place where. there are two people that are in the. place. The person who is the alleged. victim and the person who's the alleged. perpetrator. And so the the words of. that alleged victim are always. important. Not the least of which is is. a question about consent, coercion, what. they experienced, all of that is. critical, particularly if a trafficking.

case involves, as we saw that it did in. the Diddy case, an element of coercion, right? So you need the person who was. experiencing it to explain that and what. they were experiencing. But that. testimony alone can definitely be enough. depending on what we're talking about. But we also have to talk about the. corroboration of what someone says. So, as an investigator, when you are. building a case around two people saying. different things, you look to evidence. that could corroborate one or the other. side of that of what they're saying and. trying to find out if there's certain. circumstantial evidence, as they would.

say, and as opposed to direct evidence, which is the person saying the thing, of. what to corroborate what the person is. saying. And it's complicated when it. said in one of the memos, "No other. victim has described being expressly. directed by either Maxwell or Epstein to. engage in sexual activity with other. men." That stood out to me. I mean, what. was your take on that? >> These are summaries and not the. underlying case file. So, what we're. we're let we are all left to make. conclusions off of summaries rather.

than, you know, there's a rule in the. law called the best evidence rule, you. know, when you want to look at the. original thing. So we're not looking at. the original evidence. We're looking at. the summary of somebody saying what the. evidence is and what they are. interpreting that evidence to be. So. because they're conclusions, that's one. aspect. The other piece is that by. definition from the reporting, there's. material that's not included. Well, we. know there's redactions, right? And. there's material that is not being. produced, the CESAM material for. example. So we're being asked to. interpret an incomplete record here, and.

it's hard to make conclusions based on. that. I'm going to put you in a very. difficult position, but I have to ask it. because everybody's going to wonder. They're going to say, "Oh, this is a. cover up." They're going to say that the. I can't believe these memos. I can't. believe these communications. They make. the argument. Maybe the people who wrote. them knew that it would be produced one. day, so they were creating a record to. say, "Hey, there's nothing here. There's. nothing here." Can we believe that these. memos, these communications, these case. summaries are accurate? >> I don't have an answer. I think.

>> that's an answer in and of itself. the. fact that you can't say of course Jesse. of course they're they're accurate. they're of course it would be what. what's your reservation. >> I mean I think we are we are all. speculating around information that is. being received from various sources. right so we're all drawing conclusions. about incidents that happened that none. of us looked into directly and we're not. seeing the totality of the evidence of. so it's really hard to Okay,

>> here's the thing, though. >> We can draw. >> for those materials that were not turned. over in the Epstein release, right? That. were part of an exception. It would. jeopardize an active investigation. It. would endanger national security, things. that were not part of these millions of. pages of documents that came out that. still was reviewed by federal. authorities. I would I be wrong in. saying they would have they came to that. conclusion assuming it's all accurate. They came to that conclusion by looking. at all that material that even wasn't. part of the public release, right?

There's not like somebody could say, "Well, they're making a conclusion based. on they not everything. I mean, what. about the stuff that would endanger. national security?" The feds still had. to look at that and make the point we. can't turn this over to endanger. national security. So I I mean I if. taking everything is true, they are in. their analysis, they are in their case. summary, they are in their conclusion. saying, "Yeah, we looked at all the. stuff. We can't even turn over to you. and we still don't see anything there.". Right. I'm I'm not wrong about that. Or. maybe I'm wrong about that. >> I think it's unusual to have such highly. sensitive evidence turned over to the.

public in the first place. Right. >> Right. Usually get such evidence as the. public through trials where someone goes. to trial and evidence comes out during. that trial. So this is very unusual and. in terms of the minations of the. decision making around who to charge and. what to charge those are also often. things we as the public don't have. access to. So we get the information. when a charge is brought right so we see. the indictment was brought and also. remember that that goes also through a. grand jury as well which is another.

secret proceeding. So it's very unusual. to be even commenting about and. speculating about what's you know what's. behind the scenes of an investigation. like this and we're sort of left to best. practices as investigators best. practices as people who have looked at. the law and ch are trying to charge in a. criminal system and what that what what. that means. Um and so yeah it's hard. it's very hard to draw conclusions. >> This is unusual that we're kind of. seeing the inner workings the thought. process of the feds and prosecutors. I.

mean, not to get political, but one of. the times that we saw this was the. Mueller report and Bill Bar and whether. or not the evidence there would just. support charges, right? It's rare to see. this. But it does bring me to what's. happening. I think starting today, it. was announced that members of Congress. can review the unredacted Epstein files. at the DOJ Monday through Friday. Are. they going to go in and say, "Wait a. minute. Wait a minute. I'm looking at. this and I'm disagreeing with the FBI. case summaries." I'm going this and say, "Wait a minute. I I see people. I see.

names. I think you could charge X, Y, and Z. You could investigate X, Y, and. Z. Is that something we should be. looking out for? I don't know. >> I don't know either. I mean, I think one. of the biggest pieces of this is that. the person at the center of it is no is. deceased. >> Yeah. >> And so there won't be charges against. brought against him because he's no. longer with us. So, you know, that's. also different than than cases that. we've seen that have similar um. evidence, you know, similar seeming.

evidence or similar seeming charges. >> It's such an interesting situation. Um. all right, I don't think it's going to. end the conversation. We'll continue to. follow it. Reena Paul, thank you so much. for taking the time. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> And that's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should. get your podcast. We're also up on NBC's. Peacock as [music] well. If you want to. follow me, X Instagram, my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber live, Monday through. Fridays, [music]. 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next.

time, everybody.