Over thirty years, four presidents changed, two parties were in power, but the system did not change. Epstein remained untouchable. Until immunity itself became a threat.
The Jeffrey Epstein case is one of those rare incidents that shatters the narrative Western democracy has created about itself. This is not merely a criminal file. It is a mirror in which the system openly exposes itself. The most disturbing aspect is this: it is not about an isolated transgression, but a criminal mechanism that lasted for approximately thirty years, known to everyone, yet everyone remained silent.
The known fact is that Epstein began this activity no later than the early 1990s. That is, in the post-Cold War era, a period when the US declared itself the “leader of the liberal world order.” And this system seamlessly navigated the 2000s, the post-9/11 security hysteria, the Patriot Act era, the phase of expanded FBI powers, mass electronic surveillance, and the complete control of banking transactions. Thirty years. Thousands of participants. Dozens of victims. But close to zero real intervention.
During this 30-year uninterrupted criminal period, how many presidents changed in the US? I emphasized it above. Among them were both Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton (1993–2001) – Democrat, George W. Bush (2001–2009) – Republican, Barack Obama (2009–2017) – Democrat, Donald Trump (2017–2021) – Republican. But none of them touched this man. They all knew. They all remained silent.
How can this be?
In the heart of America, in New York, Florida, the Caribbean islands, a network involving thousands of people exploited girls aged 13–16 for years, yet neither the police, nor the prosecution, nor the FBI, nor intelligence took serious action. This is no longer negligence. This is systemic immunity.
This immunity also has a legal face. The prosecutor who virtually acquitted Epstein in 2008 was named Alexander Acosta. As a federal prosecutor in Florida, he entered into a “secret agreement” with Epstein, saving him from actual imprisonment. As a result of this agreement, Epstein spent only a few months in a “lenient regime” prison, and the case was closed. The most scandalous point is this: the victims were not even informed of this agreement.
What happened next?
Alexander Acosta became the US Secretary of Labor during Donald Trump's presidency. This means that the person primarily responsible in the Epstein case was not punished by the system; on the contrary, he was promoted. Only after the Epstein case was reopened in 2019 and public pressure increased, Acosta was forced to resign. But it was already too late. The system had protected its man.
These facts clearly show one thing: the Epstein case was not a legal loophole, but a political and institutional choice. The “double standards” of Western democracy are precisely revealed here. The system that lectured others covered up what was within itself.
A more serious question is this: where was America's free press? Why did the media, which considers itself the conscience of the world, either not see this case, or saw it and remained silent? Why did NGOs, which campaign daily for children's and women's rights, not open the door to this file? The answer is simple. The problem was not a lack of information. The problem was that this case reached into the elite.
During which president's term was Epstein re-arrested?
To be objective, it must also be said: Epstein's actual federal arrest occurred during the Trump era. But Epstein's death also occurred during the same period. That is, the system did not let him live.
This also shows that the issue is not merely a problem solved by the president's will. This is a deep state + elite network + reputation protection instinct.
The Epstein case showed that in Western democracy, the law does not work the same for everyone. The system that lectures small countries on “democracy,” “transparency,” and “accountability” chooses to remain silent when it comes to its own elite. The media is silent, human rights defenders are silent, institutions are silent. Because speaking out is risky. Because speaking out exposes the system itself.
For this reason, the Epstein case is not merely a criminal case. It is a mirror of Western democracy. And in that mirror, not idealism, but double standards are visible. And the scene reflected in that mirror is not to many people's liking...
Elbay Hasanli,
Zurich
