logo
A timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, now 20 years old

A timeline of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, now 20 years old

Interest in the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking investigation has exploded over the past month even as President Donald Trump urged the public and media to move on from a saga he sees as ' pretty boring.'
Conspiracy theories and outrage have swirled around Epstein since 2006, when the financier first faced criminal charges related to sexual exploitation of underage girls. He killed himself after more charges were brought in 2019. Fascination with the case reached new heights after Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested she had an Epstein 'client list' on her desk but then didn't release documents with any new information.
Here is a timeline of the criminal cases against Epstein and his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for helping him abuse teenage girls.
___
March 2005: Police in Palm Beach, Florida, begin investigating Epstein after the family of a 14-year-old girl reports she was molested at his mansion. Multiple underage girls, many of them high school students, would later tell police Epstein hired them to give sexual massages.
May 2006: Palm Beach police officials sign paperwork to charge Epstein with multiple counts of unlawful sex with a minor, but the county's top prosecutor, State Attorney Barry Krischer, takes the unusual step of sending the case to a grand jury.
July 2006: Epstein is arrested after a grand jury indicts him on a single count of soliciting prostitution. The relatively minor charge draws almost immediate attention from critics, including Palm Beach police leaders, who assail Krischer publicly and accuse him of giving Epstein special treatment. The FBI begins an investigation.
2007: Federal prosecutors prepare an indictment against Epstein. But for a year, the money manager's lawyers engage in talks with the U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, about a plea bargain that would allow Epstein to avoid a federal prosecution. Epstein's lawyers decry his accusers as unreliable witnesses.
June 2008: Epstein pleads guilty to state charges: one count of solicitating prostitution and one count of soliciting prostitution from someone under the age of 18. He is sentenced to 18 months in jail. Under a secret arrangement, the U.S. attorney's office agrees not to prosecute Epstein for federal crimes. Epstein serves most of his sentence in a work-release program that allows him to leave jail during the day to go to his office, then return at night.
July 2009: Epstein is released from jail. For the next decade, multiple women who say they are Epstein's victims wage a legal fight to get his federal non-prosecution agreement voided, and hold him and others liable for the abuse. One of Epstein's accusers, Virginia Giuffre, says in her lawsuits that, starting when she was 17, Epstein and his girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, set up sexual encounters with royalty, politicians, academicians, businessmen and other rich and powerful men, including Britain's Prince Andrew. All of those men deny the allegations.
November 2018: The Miami Herald revisits the handling of Epstein's case in a series of stories focusing partly on the role of Acosta — who by this point is President Donald Trump's labor secretary — in arranging his unusual plea deal. The coverage renews public interest in the case.
July 6, 2019: Epstein is arrested on federal sex trafficking charges after federal prosecutors in New York conclude they aren't bound by the terms of the earlier non-prosecution deal. Days later, Acosta resigns as labor secretary amid public outrage over his role in the initial investigation.
Aug. 10, 2019: Guards find Epstein dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City. Investigators conclude he killed himself.
July 2, 2020: Federal prosecutors in New York charge Ghislaine Maxwell with sex crimes, saying she helped recruit the underage girls that Epstein sexually abused and sometimes participated in the abuse herself.
Dec. 30, 2021: After a monthlong trial, a jury convicts Maxwell of multiple charges, including sex trafficking, conspiracy and transportation of a minor for illegal sexual activity.
June 28, 2022: Maxwell is sentenced to 20 years in prison.
January 2024: Public interest in the Epstein case surges after a judge unseals thousands of pages of court records in a civil lawsuit involving one of his victims. Almost all of the information was already public and the dayslong document dump proves disappointing to people who hoped it would spill new secrets about wrongdoing by the rich and powerful. But it fuels demands for even more records to be made public.
2024: Trump, who was in office when Epstein was arrested, suggests during the presidential campaign that he'd seek to open the government's Epstein files.
February 2025: Attorney General Pam Bondi suggests in a Fox News Channel interview that an Epstein 'client list' is sitting on her desk. The Justice Department distributes binders marked 'declassified' to far-right influencers at the White House, but it quickly becomes clear much of the information had long been in the public domain.
July 7, 2025: The Justice Department says Epstein didn't maintain a 'client list' and it won't make any more files related to his sex trafficking investigation public.
July 17, 2025: The Wall Street Journal describes a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album for Epstein's 50th birthday. Trump denies writing the letter, calling it 'false, malicious, and defamatory.' The next day Trump sues the paper and media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
July 18, 2025: The Trump administration asks a federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts related to Epstein's case in an effort to put a political crisis to rest.
July 23, 2025: A judge rejects a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from the Epstein grand jury investigation in Florida but similar requests for grand jury transcripts in the cases against Epstein and Maxwell in New York remain pending. Meanwhile, a House Oversight subcommittee voted to subpoena the Justice Department for files. The full committee issued a subpoena for Maxwell to testify before committee officials in August.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy
Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Hands off — Trump's off-base attack on NYC's sanctuary immigration policy

Intentionally misstating New York City's sanctuary immigration policy as thwarting the prosecution of violent criminals, the Trump administration continued its war on local government by filing suit in federal court last week, one of a number of similar lawsuits across the country that conflate civil noncooperation with active criminal interference and attempt to conscript local officials into President Donald Trump's destructive crackdown. This should prove to Mayor Mayor Adams and other state and city leaders that no amount of appeasement is going to forestall the targeting from Trump. Adams met multiple times with immigration coordinator Tom Homan, insisting that the two men had 'the same goal,' making concessions like signing off on the opening up of an ICE office on Rikers Island years after a city sanctuary law had kicked them out. It's clear that Trump and Homan were not and probably could not be placated to the extent that they would leave Adams and New York City alone. The reality is that this is a totalizing project; Stephen Miller and the rest of the White House want to rid the country almost entirely of immigrants, with or without legal status, and regardless of where they are or what effect that will have on our economy and society. They've been routinely violating the law to do so. It's worth noting once more that Trump's is a political movement that often proclaimed itself a defender of state rights and local control, but apparently that only extended to allowing local officials to detain immigrants, pull books from school shelves, limit access to abortion, curb labor and environmental protections and drive LGBTQ people from public life. When it comes to a refusal to participate in federal operations that have so far involved masked and unidentified agents shoving people into unmarked vehicles — just the sort of thing that we would call authoritarianism and tyranny anywhere else — then states and localities get no say beyond being extensions of a central government. We're not particularly worried that any competent judge would accept these nonsensical claims. A day after the New York case was filed, a federal judge in Chicago dismissed the Trump lawsuit against that city's sanctuary immigration policy. We just want to remind readers that sanctuary is not immunity from prosecution, especially prosecution for violent crimes. What it is however is that when someone is treated at a city health clinic for TB or enrolls a child in school or reports a crime to the police as a victim or a witness, the person's civil immigration status is irrelevant. We want everyone in the city to get treated when sick, we want all children to be in school, we want all crime victims and witnesses to come forward to the cops. The idea of anti-commandeering — the notion that the federal government can't force state and local governments to carry out its own agenda and enforcement functions — has been foundational from the genesis of our country's federalized system. The right of jurisdictions to enact sanctuary provisions that block the use of local resources for this federal function has been litigated over and over again, and always found to be on solid legal footing. We are, however, more worried about the U.S. Supreme Court, which has in the past several months taken it upon itself to sign off on Trump's expansive power grabs. It has allowed among other things Trump to fire federal employees and independent agency members in direct contravention of statute, allowed the limiting of a nationwide order blocking Trump's attempt to overturn the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship provisions and allowed parents to impose religious beliefs on whole school curricula. If these questions get up to that high court level, we hope that the justices will exercise some of their independent power, as they did on other absolutely egregious instances like Trump's efforts to remove people without due process under the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. Anything else will destroy the trust of people in their own local officials and governments and strike at the very foundation of this country's system of government. _____

What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking
What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What's in the US-EU trade deal depends on who is doing the talking

President Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands Sunday over a trade agreement touted as being largely concluded, but days later, there are still plenty of disagreements about exactly what is in the pact. Perhaps nowhere is the divide more stark than in the summaries published by each side — one from the White House and another from the European Commission. They depart in at least five areas, both in terms of the deal and the firmness of the commitments. In just one example, the White House summary touts "historic structural reforms and strategic commitments," while the Europeans call the handshake deal "not legally binding," with more negotiations to come. Trump quipped Sunday that a deal would be "the end of it" and that it would be a number of years "before we have to even discuss it again." That is unlikely to be the case, which even Trump's aides acknowledge. The difference is likely to come to a head quickly as negotiations continue between the US and Europe over legally binding text and as trade watchers wait for a formal joint statement on the deal that the teams still hope to unveil this week. A range of areas of disagreement Clarity on at least one headline area is clear: an agreement for 15% tariffs on nearly all EU goods, including autos, semiconductors, and pharmaceuticals, that will be exempt from separate Trump plans there. But the divides are evident once you go deeper. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick acknowledged that a lot remains to be worked out when he told CNBC on Tuesday that "there's plenty of horse trading still to do," even as he argued that the "fundamentals" are set. Read more: What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet Trump has also already set a pattern of fuzzy initial details on his deals, including a recent pact with Japan, but a comparison of the two documents summarizing the Europe deal underlines differences on many of the key aspects. On the issue of new investments by Europe — $750 billion in US energy and additional corporate investments of $600 billion — the summary from the US side described them as firm commitments. The European language is much less solid, saying it "intends to procure" additional energy and that European companies "have expressed interest" in additional investments. More differences are seen on whether the deal will mean European markets are "totally open," as Trump has said. The European summary of provisions around fish says they will allow "limited quantities" and only "certain non-sensitive" agricultural products. Another highly touted part of the agreement from the US side is a provision for Europe to purchase military equipment. As Trump said on Sunday, "They're going to be purchasing hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment." That part isn't even mentioned in the European summary. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices

Editorial: Guns are the problem: Four are dead in New York because a gullible public laps up the same toxic myth about guns
Editorial: Guns are the problem: Four are dead in New York because a gullible public laps up the same toxic myth about guns

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Editorial: Guns are the problem: Four are dead in New York because a gullible public laps up the same toxic myth about guns

This time, the gun death came to New York. The same ridiculous fiction is being sold to a gullible public that was trotted out after Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Parkland, Buffalo and all the others: Guns don't kill people, people kill people. What's more pathetic than those who keep selling that myth is the ease with which so many Americans buy it. Four New Yorkers, Didarul Islam, Wesley LePatner, Aland Etienne and Julia Hyman, went to work in Midtown on a broiling hot Monday and were murdered. Mental illness didn't kill these four. CTE didn't kill these four. A supposed aggrievement in a suicide note didn't kill these four. A semiautomatic assault rifle, identified as either an AR-15 or an M4, killed these four and wounded a fifth, Craig Clementi. The motive of the dead assailant was not what destroyed four lives and ripped apart surviving families and friends. It was a high-powered rifle rapidly firing bullets. Absent the gun, and the victims would all be alive today. But there was a gun, a big gun, with lots of bullets and we are left with grief and the funerals for the four New Yorkers who were taken from us. But it wasn't only the gun, or the gunmakers, or the politicians who peddle the fatal myth. It's the people across our fraying nation who believe that there is somehow something patriotic about having the power to fire off 45 rounds a minute. The Second Amendment says nothing about unstable or sick people having weapons of war. How is that a constitutional right? New York has strong gun control laws, but we don't search people at the border bringing in guns from other states with more lax regulations. Only federal law can bring this insanity to an end, but politicians will decry the killing and do nothing. And tomorrow more people will die. And the day after that. Again. Again. Again. This time the gun death came to New York. Islam was a cop, a 36-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant, pulling in some extra money for his wife and two boys and another baby on the way in a few weeks on what is called paid detail where a private business pays for off-duty uniformed NYPD officers to provide additional security. His wife is now a widow, his two sons fatherless and his new baby is coming into a world without a dad, because of a gun. The gun then killed LePatner, an executive at the big financial firm Blackstone, who was in the lobby at 6:30 likely heading home to her own husband, teen daughter and seventh grader son. Besides being a business whiz, LePatner was a philanthropist helping her kids' school and other charitable causes. She was on the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Museum of Art for not even six months. Now her life is over at age 43, because of a gun. Also murdered in the lobby was Etienne, one of the building's private security officers, a member of 32BJ, the union that staffs New York's commercial buildings. He was just 46 and had two school-aged children. Etienne went to work on Monday and never came home, because of a gun. Clementi was struck with a bullet, but would survive and help cops identify the man wielding the gun. The killer then took an elevator to the 33rd floor and killed one more victim, Hyman, who only graduated college five years ago. Her whole life was ahead of her. No more. Because of a gun. Monday morning, as the city got back to work, Didarul Islam, Wesley LePatner, Aland Etienne and Julia Hyman all converged at 345 Park Ave, at 52nd St., between St. Bart's and the Seagram Building. They all had a purpose for being there. But as the day ended, the gun arrived. It also had a purpose. Its purpose was to kill people quickly. And only the gun fulfilled its purpose on Monday evening. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store