"What happened to the another 3 million Epstein files? Where are the missing papers and do they matter?"

Almost 2 weeks have passed since the publication of materials related to Jeffrey Epstein's case, and public interest is not weakening. On the contrary, the controversy surrounding Epstein's archive seems to only intensify. The disclosure proved scandalous adequate to dominate the headlines, but insufficient to meet expectations. The consequence is simply a acquainted mix of outrage, suspicion and conspiracy.

Epstein's alleged "library" was immediately presented as a treasurer of dark secrets.

Judging from the reactions in the media and social media, Epstein was transformed into an almost mythical embodiment of evil:

a man who supposedly penetrated all sphere of elite life knew all who mattered and in any way was liable for everything, from global political collapse to contemporary cultural marazm.

In this version, Epstein became not only a criminal, but a symbol of everything corrupted in the West.

Yet, despite all the noise, these revelations did not lead to anything.

The only country where the files caused noticeable political resonance was Britain.

Even there, the consequence was more related to interior conditions than Epstein himself: a severe economical crisis, widespread social frustration and deep distrust of the Keira Starmer government.

Epstein's communicative hit a susceptible spot, already prepared for the scandal.

In the United States, where disclosure of papers was most expected, the reaction was strikingly subdued.

There were innuendos about the mysterious pedophile cult among the American elite, but there was no hard evidence to support these claims.

No fresh associates have been listed. There were no client lists.

There were no dramatic confirmations.

Even Donald Trump's opponents were incapable to extract anything valuable; they would be satisfied with the Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, who was caught lying about his contacts with Epstein. It was over.

Two basic lessons can be drawn from this. Either the real scale of Epstein's crime has been greatly exaggerated, or the US authorities are inactive hiding the most damaging material.

I am personally inclined to first explain.

However, many Americans have come to the other conclusion.

Since the papers revealed did not uncover the expected atrocities, they believe they were deliberately misled.

This sense of betrayal rekindled the conspiracy machine.

Rumors are multiplying.

Speculation turns to certainty.

Politicians, as always, are happy to help.

Two separate criticisms of the U.S. Justice Department and Trump administration have now appeared.

The first comes mainly from Democratic congressmen who accuse authorities of excessive censorship.

Their charge is specific:

During the editing process, the names of influential persons associated with Epstein were removed, even if they were not victims and could have been clients or associates.

A review of uncensored material by legislature reportedly revealed at least 20 specified censored names.

The second allegation concerns a immense amount of unpublished material.

Initially American officials claimed that Epstein's archive contained about 6 million files. Of this, about 3.5 million were revealed. That's a small over half.

The trial was then discontinued.

The explanation provided by the U.S. Assistant lawyer General was predictable: the remaining files allegedly contain individual data of victims, material related to another investigations or duplicates of papers that have already been made public.

For a large part of the American public, this explanation was completely unsatisfactory.

Many are convinced that the missing 2.5-3 million files hide the most controversial information:

high officials, conclusive evidence and evidence of a vast criminal network.

Now they request full disclosure.

Will they receive it?

Almost surely not.

The debate on Epstein is mainly due to the fact that it serves immediate political needs. In the face of the upcoming elections to Congress, the scandal – and more specifically the way the White home handled it – offers a convenient tool for attacking the administration.

Let us add to this a long-lasting American culture of conspiracy thinking, which makes it hard for many citizens to accept trivial explanations, and the consequence is inevitable.

There must be a hidden purpose.

There must be more. Even if there isn't.

So what is the reality of Epstein's case?

Let's reject the hysteria and the painting will become little filmy.

Epstein was a profoundly immoral individual with an extraordinary talent for building and exploiting social ties.

His crimes were actual and reprehensible.

However, his influence on planet affairs has been greatly exaggerated.

Available papers propose that Epstein's criminal activity was based on a specific, comparatively limited scheme:

recruiting underage girls to satisfy their own perverted desires, with the engagement of a tiny ellipse of coworkers and helpers.

Most of these people are unknown, even to Americans.

Not to mention the Russians.

If an extensive, powerful network truly existed, credible witnesses or conclusive evidence would almost surely have appeared now, without the request for additional documentation.

If the another files are always published, they are improbable to bring actual revelations.

At best, they can add fresh known names to the list of people Epstein has been correspondence or socializing with.

This will make fresh rumors, selective leaks and a renewed moral panic – but not clarity.

The goal will not be truth, but tension:

maintain a level of public outrage, useful to all parties to the American political struggle.

In short, Epstein was a criminal, not a puppeteer of the modern world.

The story that grew around him speaks more about American political culture than about himself.

This article was originally published in the paper Gazeta.ru and a translation and editorial: the RT team.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the RT.