I can’t stand indecision. When I ask someone, usually my kids, if they want a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch, and they reply with “sure,” I remind them that it is not a favor they’re doing for me, and “sure” is not an answer; it’s a reply. If you want one, the answer is “yes,” if you do not, the answer is “no.” It probably makes me a bit of a jerk, but they’ll be better off in the long run because they will be unambiguous in their answers and demand the same to their questions. Clarity and directness are very important in life.
That brings us to the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. There may be hundreds, there may be thousands, there may be dozens. We simply do not know. But there are a handful who have been very vocal in their demands that the “files” or whatever be released by the courts, Congress – if anyone has some, they want them released.
To what end? What could be in those papers that A) isn’t already known, or B) that the victims could not tell themselves?
I’ve always found it a bit odd that more details haven’t come to light in the years since Epstein was murdered by Hillary Clinton, er, I mean, hung himself. (I’m joking. I don’t really care how he died as much as I’m glad a monster like that is no longer using oxygen.)
But seriously, there are a few of the women who have told their stories, and we’re told there are untold numbers more who have yet to say anything. Why they haven’t spoken out is likely unique to each of them – some probably don’t the memories to come flooding back, and still others likely don’t want to be a part of the political circus their worst memories have become. Whatever the reason, it’s none of anyone’s business.
That being said, the women who attend press conferences, grant interviews, or produce videos demanding Congress vote to release documents are all free to tell their stories in as much detail as they wish. What are they waiting for?
I don’t know what’s in these papers, but what’s in the memories of these women should be more important, to be honest. If there are other perverted monsters out there, their name in paperwork would be good to know, but the direct testimony in public from their victims would be infinitely more powerful.
Whenever I bring this up, someone inevitably responds with “They have non-disclosure agreements” or “they fear for their lives.” OK, maybe. But let’s take a look at both of those.
First, they have NDAs. If they took money from rich perverts – and who could blame them, being young and feeling powerless against some wealthy, powerful monster – and could be sued for that money back (and then some) if they violate it. Does anyone really believe that?
Not the NDA part, if these payments were made, they would come with NDAs automatically, but what would be the reaction of someone if an NDA regarding how they raped children repeatedly was violated? Are they going to call their lawyer and demand they file suit against those women to get the millions they paid out back? How would that look?
It would look like guilt, without question.
So, what else could happen? Well, the story would be so high profile that a massive criminal investigation would start immediately, and it’s likely a trial would follow. All the money in the world would be hard-pressed to protect those monsters, based just on the word of the victims alone. If you are into child rape, I’d imagine that you’re into it and would have done it a lot if you found a source and a place to do it.
These men would be in prison before the sun set.
Then there is the “fear of powerful men” part.
Do you think there is anyone who’d believe some rich guy over a woman with details? I don’t. But the idea that those women would have to fear for their lives because these men are so powerful has a couple of fatal flaws, first one being they’re still alive.
If someone were so powerful as to have assassins on the payroll, and so amoral as to use them for whatever reason, don’t you think these women would be dead already? Which seems more likely, this rich Bond villain would allow a woman to walk free with millions of dollars and monitor her for the rest of her life so he can have her killed if she talked, or he’d simply kill her preemptively because what does the life of someone else matter to a person with killers at his command?
It's the second one, as the first one makes no sense. Yet, these women are out there holding press conferences and making videos without consequence. This strikes me as odd.
Then there is the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is sitting in prison for effectively the rest of her life, and she could easily cut a deal to get out by “naming names,” if there were names to name. And again, if you think she’s afraid of these men, the most protection she could ever have is naming them, as they’d be THE suspects if she were to die.
No one would willingly spend the rest of their life in prison when they held the keys to their own cage.
I hope these women come forward and name all the names of the men who did horrible things to them. But if they don’t or won’t, what are we supposed to make of that? The only thing holding them back is themselves. I could speculate as to why – and there are a lot of different ways and reasons to speculate – but I’ll defer and let their words or silence speak for itself, unless and until they break it.
Derek Hunter is the host of the Derek Hunter Show on WMAL in Washington, DC, and has a free daily podcast (subscribe!) and author of the book, Outrage, INC., which exposes how liberals use fear and hatred to manipulate the masses, and host of the weekly “Week in F*cking Review” podcast where the news is spoken about the way it deserves to be. Follow him on Twitter at @DerekAHunter.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member