Anecdotal story: The Epstein case was earth-shattering? American Justice: “It’s okay, it’s over”
Observer.com – 2026-02-04 07:38 – The official account of Shanghai Observer Information Technology Co., Ltd
Attention [Text/Observer Network columnist Shen Yi]
Today we will talk about the Epstein case, which has recently attracted widespread attention due to the release of a new batch of materials.
Let’s start with a small episode. When I first saw the relevant news on “Russia Today”, I specially reminded the editor: Did you write a mistake? Is it “300 pages” or “3 million pages”? The editor confirmed that it is 3 million pages – this is only the document part, if you include photos, videos and other materials, the total amount is about 6 million pages. Someone gave me an analogy: 3 million pages of A4 paper stacked up, almost 3,000 meters high. This physical scale may help us feel the “volume” of this case.
The timeline of this case is long. The first investigation began in 2005 when Florida received a call and launched an investigation into Epstein. Three years later, in 2008, Epstein reached an agreement with the prosecution to plead guilty to two counts of “abetting underage prostitution” and was sentenced to 18 months in prison and actually serving 13 months. Almost a decade later, in July 2019, Epstein was arrested again on charges of “conspiracy to abduct and sexually assault underage women” and could face up to 45 years in prison. However, just about a month after his arrest, he died in a New York prison, officially identified as suicide.
Nearly three years later, in June 2022, Ghislaine Maxwell, an accomplice and Epstein’s ex-girlfriend, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for abducting and trafficking young girls for sex trafficking. From 2024 to the present, documents related to this case have begun to be lifted one after another. But please note a key message: the U.S. Attorney General has publicly made it clear that no new criminal proceedings will be initiated based on available evidence.
What does this mean? From a criminal point of view, two people were arrested in this case: the main culprit, Epstein, “committed suicide” in prison; Accomplice Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years. And what the public is most concerned about – those “clients” who are suspected of sexually assaulting minors – will not face criminal prosecution.
At the same time, a large number of civil lawsuits are underway. Epstein’s estate administration has paid about $125 million in damages, covering more than 200 women who have filed claims. This is a feature of the U.S. judicial system: civil compensation provides a relatively quick way to resolve the issue, avoiding lengthy criminal proceedings, but it also means that those “clients” are exempt from judicial prosecution. Even some institutions that did business with Epstein were held responsible, such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, which paid a $290 million settlement for maintaining business relationships with Epstein after his initial conviction.
When it comes to published documents, one thing must be clear: the more than 3 million pages of material currently available are only half of the total. These contents are a mixture of fish and dragons, containing a large number of unsubstantiated allegations. But a core problem that comes to light here is that for such cases, we usually expect the country’s legal system to investigate and prosecute on behalf of the public interest in order to achieve justice. However, the path shown in this case is: catch two “front desk figures” and then give the victim two paths – either go through a long and indefinite criminal procedure, or get money for a civil settlement.
From the perspective of objective communication effects, the recent developments are emotional. This way of publishing information is essentially a very American operation. The main purpose of justice is to protect the vulnerable and maintain the bottom line of social ethics, but to serve the clear, direct and even cruel logic of American politics and governance.
This is mainly reflected in two levels:
First, political transactions. Why did you choose to publish “materials” that are difficult to distinguish between true and false in this way on a large scale at this time? This in itself is a political calculation. For example, former US President Bill Clinton and his wife were subpoenaed by Congress for this. It is reasonable to imagine that these materials and the social discontent they inspire will become bargaining chips in bipartisan politics in the United States – whether it is the upcoming midterm congressional elections or looking ahead to the 2028 election, relevant political forces may negotiate and exchange interests privately around these materials.
Second, this is a typical American-style low-human rights governance logic: don’t you want the truth? I give you information, and it is a massive, mixed information that is true and false, completely overloading your information processing power. The public can only grasp a few words and fragmentary details, and carry out round after round of “carnival” catharsis in the field of public opinion. Ultimately, these emotions will not lead to the solution of the problem, but will only give rise to more labelled conspiracy theories, urban legends and disinformation, inducing different groups to fall into low-level mutual harm arguments.
A typical case is the photo of “mosaic in the middle of the chicken” that has been widely circulated in recent days. The facts are clear: the photo has a watermark in the lower right corner, and it is the only image with a watermark in the PDF file released by the Ministry of Justice. It itself is an art photo posted online by a male erotic performance artist based on the concept of vegetarianism, and the middle is coded based on the conventional treatment of “18 bans”. However, some people deliberately cut out the watermark on social media, showing only the middle part, and accompanied it with provocative questions, thus creating a wave of highly topical but completely factual curious discussions.
This is the embodiment of its governance logic: let the public quarrel and vent in fragmented information until fatigue. When someone asks, just calmly respond that “the evidence is insufficient, this is just an artistic photo”. When the heat of public opinion passes, the public’s attention will naturally be taken away by new hot spots. The whole process can be described as “lying flat and rotten”, and even the most basic whitewash is too lazy to do – the program is over, the documents are given to you, you can “discuss freely”, what else?
As for the deeper truth such as whether Epstein was associated with Israeli intelligence agencies, no one has pursued it. Because the process of “procedural justice” has been completed, it shows you the real operation of the American-style rule of law system.
From this, we can think of at least a few questions:
First of all, why are conspiracy theories and urban legends emerging in the United States?
The answer may be: all problems are institutional problems. The original intention of this system design was to “protect freedom”, and the essence was to protect the freedom of the proletariat. When you have enough assets or enter a certain circle, you can gain some kind of “extrajudicial privilege”. We have seen some European officials resign under pressure because they appear on relevant lists, which is a political solution, but by no means a service of justice. After this incident, the filter of “defenders of social fairness and justice” worn by the U.S. judicial system in the long-term expansion of soft power and ideological propaganda has been mostly damaged, if not completely broken. These people can be above the law, teach legal sanctions face-to-face, and also have special “procedural justice”.
Secondly, Who does the law serve in the US?
The answer is clear: for capital, for the rich. This creates an objective fact: rich people who commit sexual assault on minors on that island can go unpunished and pay civil compensation at most. This also explains why in European and American film and television works, crimes against the powerful can often only rely on “private remedies” and use violence to counter violence, but cannot resort to the law. Looking further, the “light criminal law” orientation of European and American legal circles is also related to this: the lighter the criminal law, the easier it is for the rich to settle the problem with money and obtain de facto extrajudicial privileges.
There is no doubt that from the perspective of legal value orientation, this system should not become an example for us to learn from and learn from, but should become a negative case, warning us that we must never allow such logic to erode our own judicial system.
Furthermore, what is the connection between the Epstein case and the concept of the “killing line” that has been widely discussed before?
In my opinion, the two together outline the dark side of the “lighthouse”. For ordinary people who cannot enter Epstein’s “Loli Island” circle of friends, they face great insecurity and anxiety under the “killing line” mechanism, struggling to survive. On the other hand, the powerful class is above the law with their wealth and power, like cloud gods or subspace demons, who can act recklessly.
For example: Could Epstein’s party be inseparable from drugs (“drugs” in the American context)? The pills are clearly present in some photos. But has anyone been able to track down the source and abuse of drugs? Nope. This in turn explains why the U.S. anti-drug system has never dared to really touch the demand side – the people at the bottom may fall into the trap of drug abuse due to pain and lack of medical insurance; When the upper elites use drugs to “cheer up”, even sexual assault of minors can be exempted from criminal responsibility, who has the motivation to manage their drug needs? As a result, we see a more complete dark picture of the “lighthouse”: the bottom is struggling under the “killing line”; The upper class enjoys extrajudicial life on “Loli Island”. This mechanism is deeply embedded in the power structures of Europe and the United States.
Epstein was essentially a power broker, running a large, fraternity-like network of power. Entering the list is somewhat like some kind of “vote” or circle certificate. An interesting detail is that the current US president has a bad relationship with former Federal Reserve Chairman Powell, who is not on the list that has been made public so far; But the new chairman he appointed “happened” to appear on the list.
In the face of doubts, Western media such as Sky News will throw out the standard “professionalism” rhetoric: “Being on the list does not mean breaking the law.” This kind of “correct nonsense” is speechless, and it can be called the prime minister’s sentence “I have never seen such a brazen person”. They do not pursue the investigation responsibility of the judicial system, but only emphasize “correct procedures”. What is the cost? Loss of credibility, social disorder, public disappointment, and tearing apart. But no one seems to care. In the eyes of policymakers, this may be their governance model: maintaining a cold, minimal order with low-level chaos and sacrificing government credibility. In their opinion, everything can be settled with money – “You want justice?” Tell me how much it costs a pound. ”
This kind of operation of constantly lowering the bottom line and carrying out “information pollution” has a long-term effect of confusing the public. In the future, when people discuss the Epstein case again, someone may point to the distorted art photo and say: “This one is fake, so all relevant accusations are false.” “They use the distortion of individual details to deny the existence of the overall problem. The strategy of this system is not to improve the level of governance, but to continuously lower public expectations. After the expectations were lowered, even if the current situation was bad, it seemed “okay” in comparison.
The result is the indifference, insensitivity and powerlessness of the American people that many observers have noticed. Because they have no real choice. If you choose this system, it is inevitable that you will encounter a result like the Epstein case. This also deconstructs the condescending “American civilization preaching” – your strength may be supported by advanced technology, but the price you pay for this may be the loss of humanity, the trampling on dignity and the complete deconstruction of morality – you have nothing to do with “civilization”.
Even the public prestige of those celebrities who appear on the list has collapsed, and no one really cares about maintaining the image of the United States as a “beacon of the free world”. Ironically, most of the people who are seriously discussing this case today are many Chinese.
The disappointment of the American people is deep, which also explains the behaviour of some “North American cowards” in the previous “Minnesota Incident” – Chinese netizens asked “why don’t you resist”, what they can get after resisting – the struggle without ideological programme, lack of organization and education, eventually either reduced to “bottom mutual harm” of “guns are stationery”, or evolved into a “Luigi” incident of individual revenge, which was quickly consumed by traffic and politicians and could not bring about systemic change. Everything falls into a chaotic cycle of low morality and even demoralization, like a whisper of subspace. For the American people, this is deep despair and powerlessness.
So, from the perspective of the Chinese people? I believe that any rational Chinese today will have a simple idea: fortunately, I was not born in the United States. Fortunately, this happened under their system. This strengthens our conclusion: only socialism can save China, and only the Communist Party of China can lead China. Without such political parties, systems and road design, no one can jump out of the ruts and dilemmas of the development model that the United States represents.
From the “big reconciliation” discussion of “drinking coffee and drinking human blood” at the beginning of 2023, to the concept of “killing line” at the end of the year providing us with a new perspective on American society, to the unfolding of the Epstein Papers in early 2024 – we are systematically seeing the back and dark side of this “lighthouse” from a level-up or even top-down perspective: from the “killing line” at the bottom to the “Loli Island” at the top, a complete map is gradually becoming clear.
Some people say that at this juncture of the change of the international system and the alternation of the old and new orders, such events give us a more comprehensive and sober understanding of the real logic of the world’s operation. There will be shocks and complex feelings, but in the end, we will be clearer, clearer, and firmer in recognizing the path under our feet and choosing the direction of development.
For China, this is a symbolic moment in the process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Cases from the outside world help us understand the world more deeply and clarify our own mission and direction. This is perhaps one of the biggest insights that can be gained from the Epstein case. At least, that’s true for me. I hope it can inspire everyone.
Chinese Language Text:
逸语道破：爱泼斯坦案惊天动地？美式司法：“没事，已经结束了”
2026-02-04 07:38上海观察者信息技术有限公司官方账号
关注
【文/观察者网专栏作者 沈逸】
今天我们聊聊最近因新一批材料公布，再度引发广泛关注的爱泼斯坦案。
开头先说个小插曲。我第一次在“今日俄罗斯”上看到相关消息时，还特地提醒小编：你是不是写错了？是“300页”还是“300万页”？小编确认说，就是300万页——这还只是文件部分，如果算上照片、视频等材料，总量大概在600万页左右。有人给我打了个比方：300万页A4纸摞起来，差不多有3000米高。这个物理尺度，或许能帮助我们感受一下这个案件的“体积”。
这个案子的时间线很长。第一次调查始于2005年，佛罗里达州接到报警并对爱泼斯坦展开调查。三年后的2008年，爱泼斯坦与检方达成协议，承认两项“教唆未成年卖淫罪”，最终被判18个月监禁，实际服刑13个月。差不多十年后，2019年7月，爱泼斯坦再次被捕，被控“合谋拐卖和性侵未成年女性”等罪名，最高可能面临45年监禁。然而，距此次被捕仅约一个月，他就在纽约的监狱中死亡，官方认定为自杀。
又过了近三年，2022年6月，同案犯、爱泼斯坦的前女友吉斯莱恩·马克斯韦尔因拐卖少女从事性交易等罪名，被判处20年监禁。而从2024年至今，与此案相关的文件开始陆续解禁。但请注意一个关键信息：美国司法部部长已公开明确表示，基于现有证据，不会再提起新的刑事诉讼。
这意味着什么？从刑事层面看，此案抓了两个人：主犯爱泼斯坦在狱中“自杀”身亡；从犯马克斯韦尔被判20年。而公众最关心的——那些涉嫌性侵未成年人的“客户”——将不会面临刑事起诉。
与此同时，大量的民事诉讼在进行。爱泼斯坦的遗产管理机构已支付约1.25亿美元的赔偿金，覆盖了200多名提起索赔的女性。这是美国司法体系的一个特点：民事赔偿提供了一条相对快速的解决通道，避免了漫长的刑事诉讼，但这也同时意味着，那些“客户”得以免于司法追究。甚至一些与爱泼斯坦有业务往来的机构也承担了责任，例如摩根大通银行，因在爱泼斯坦首次定罪后仍与其保持业务关系，支付了2.9亿美元的和解金。
谈到已公布的文件，有一点必须明确：目前公开的超过300万页材料，只是总量的一半。这些内容可谓鱼龙混杂，包含了大量未经证实的指控。但这里暴露出的一个核心问题是：对于此类案件，我们通常期望国家的法律体系代表公共利益进行调查、起诉，以伸张正义。而此案展现的路径却是：抓两个“前台人物”，然后给受害者两条路——要么走漫长无期的刑事诉讼，要么拿钱民事和解。
从客观传播效果看，最近的动态令人感慨。这种信息公布方式，本质上是一种非常美式的操作。司法在这里被彻底工具化，其主要目的并非保护弱势群体、维护社会伦理底线，而是服务于清晰、直接甚至残酷的美式政治与治理逻辑。
这主要体现在两个层面：
第一，政治交易。为何选在此时以此种方式大规模公布真假难辨的“材料”？这本身就是一种政治算计。例如，美国前总统克林顿夫妇因此接受国会传唤。你可以合理想象，这些材料及它们所激发的社会不满情绪，将在美国两党政治中成为交易筹码——无论是即将到来的国会中期选举，还是展望2028年大选，相关政治势力都可能围绕这些材料进行私下谈判与利益交换。
第二，这是一种典型的、美式低人权治理逻辑：你不是要真相吗？我给你信息，而且是海量的、真假混杂的信息，让你的信息处理能力彻底过载。公众只能抓住只言片语、零碎细节，在舆论场进行一轮又一轮的“狂欢式”宣泄。最终，这些情绪不会导向问题的解决，只会催生出更多标签化的阴谋论、都市传说和虚假信息，诱导不同群体陷入底层互害式的争论。
一个典型案例就是最近几天流传甚广的那张“鸡肉中间打马赛克”的照片。事实其实很清楚：那张照片右下角带有水印，是司法部公布的PDF文件中唯一自带水印的图片。它本身是一张发布在网上的、由一位男性情色行为艺术者基于素食主义理念创作的艺术照片，中间打码是基于“18禁”的常规处理。然而，有人在社交媒体上故意裁掉水印，仅出示中间部分，并配以诱导性问题，从而制造出一波极具话题性但完全偏离事实的猎奇讨论。
这就是其治理逻辑的体现：让公众在碎片化信息中争吵、宣泄，直到疲劳。当有人追问时，只需冷静回应“证据不足，这只是一张艺术照”。等舆论热度过去，公众注意力自然会被新的热点带走。整个过程可谓“躺平摆烂”，连最基本的粉饰都懒得做了——程序走完了，文件给你了，你们“自由讨论”吧，还要怎样？
至于爱泼斯坦是否与以色列情报机构有关联等更深层的真相，已无人追究。因为“程序正义”的流程已经走完，它向你展示的，正是美式法治体系的真实运行态势。
由此，我们至少可以想清几个问题：
首先，美国为何阴谋论、都市传说层出不穷？
答案或许就是：一切问题都是制度问题。这套制度设计的初衷是“保护自由”，实质是保护有产者的自由。当你拥有足够的资产或进入特定圈层，你就能获得某种“法外特权”。我们看到一些欧洲官员因出现在相关名单上而迫于压力辞职，这是一种政治解决，但绝非司法正义的伸张。经过此事，在长期软实力扩张、意识形态宣传里的美国司法体系所披着的“社会公平正义维护者”的滤镜，即便没有完全破碎，也已残损大半。这些人就是可以凌驾于法律之上，面授法律制裁，还特别地“程序正义”。
其次，美国的法律为谁服务？
答案很清晰：为资本，为有钱人。这造成一个客观事实：有钱人在那个岛上实施对未成年人的性侵害后，可以逍遥法外，最多支付民事赔偿了事。这也解释了为何在欧美影视作品中，针对权贵的罪行往往只能依靠“私力救济”、以暴制暴，而无法诉诸法律。进一步看，欧美法学界倾向的“轻刑法”取向，也与此有关：刑法越轻，有钱人就越容易用金钱摆平问题，获取事实上的法外特权。
毫无疑问，从法理价值取向上看，这套体系不应成为我们学习和借鉴的榜样，而应成为一个反面案例，警示我们绝不允许这类逻辑侵蚀自身的司法体系。
再者，爱泼斯坦案与此前引起广泛讨论的“斩杀线”概念有何关联？
在我看来，二者共同勾勒出了“灯塔”的阴暗面。对于无法进入爱泼斯坦“萝莉岛”朋友圈的普通民众而言，他们面临的是“斩杀线”机制下的巨大不安全感与焦虑，挣扎求存。而另一面，则是权贵阶层凭借财富与权力凌驾于法律之上，如同云端神明或亚空间恶魔，可以肆意妄为。
举个例子：爱泼斯坦的派对可能离得开毒品（美国语境下的“药物”）吗？一些照片中明显出现了药丸。但有人深入追查药物来源与滥用问题吗？没有。这反过来解释了为何美国禁毒体系始终不敢真正触碰需求端——底层民众可能因伤痛、医保缺失而落入药物滥用陷阱；而上层权贵在用毒品“助兴”时，连性侵未成年都可以免于刑责，谁又有动力去治理他们的毒品需求呢？于是，我们看到了一个更完整的“灯塔”阴暗图景：底层在“斩杀线”下挣扎；上层在“萝莉岛”上享受法外生活。这套机制深嵌于欧美权力结构之中。
爱泼斯坦本质上是一个权力掮客，经营着一个巨大的、具有兄弟会性质的权力网络。进入名单，某种程度上像是某种“投名状”或圈层凭证。一个有趣的细节是：本届美国总统与前任美联储主席鲍威尔关系不佳，而鲍威尔并未出现在目前已公开的名单上；但他任命的新主席，却“恰好”出现在了名单上。
面对质疑，西方媒体如英国天空新闻，会抛出标准的“职业主义”说辞：“在名单上并不代表违法。”这种“正确的废话”令人无言以对，堪称丞相那句“从未见过如此厚颜无耻之人”。他们不去追问司法系统应尽的调查责任，只强调“程序正确”。代价是什么？公信力丧失、社会失序、民众失望、群体撕裂。但似乎没人在乎。在决策者看来，这或许正是其治理模式：用底层混乱、牺牲政府公信力来维持一种冰冷的、最低限度的秩序。在他们看来，一切都可以用钱摆平——“你要正义？告诉我一斤多少钱。”
这种不断拉低底线、进行“信息污染”的操作，长期效果就是混淆视听。未来当人们再讨论爱泼斯坦案时，可能会有人指着那张被歪曲的艺术照说：“这张是假的，所以所有相关指控都是假的。”他们用个别细节的失真，来否定整体问题的存在。这套体系的策略不是提升治理水平，而是不断降低公众的预期。预期调低后，即使现状糟糕，在对比下也显得“还可以”了。
其结果，就是许多观察者注意到的美国民众表现出的冷漠、无感与无力。因为他们没有真正的选择。你选择了这套制度，遇到爱泼斯坦案这样的结果，就是必然。这也解构了那种居高临下的“美式文明说教”——你的强大或许有先进技术支撑，但为此付出的代价，可能是人性的沦丧、尊严的践踏与道德的彻底解构——你和“文明”没有半毛钱关系。
甚至，那些出现在名单上的社会名流，他们的公众声望也已崩塌，也不再有人真正在意去维护美国“自由世界灯塔”的形象。颇具讽刺意味的是，如今对此案进行严肃讨论的，反而多是很多中国人。
美国民众的失望是深层的，这也解释了此前“明尼苏达事件”中某种“北美懦夫”行为——中国网友问“你们为什么不反抗”，他们反抗之后能够得到什么——没有思想纲领、缺乏组织与教育的抗争，最终要么沦为“枪支是文具”的“底层互害”，要么演变为个体复仇的“路易吉”式事件，而后者又迅速被流量和政客消费，无法带来系统性改变。一切陷入一种低道德甚至去道德化的、如亚空间低语般的混沌循环。对美国民众而言，这是深刻的绝望与无力。
那么，站在中国民众的角度呢？我相信，今天任何一个理性的中国人，都会产生一个朴素的想法：还好我没有生在美国。幸好这种事是发生在他们那套制度下。这让我们更坚定了那个结论：只有社会主义才能救中国，只有中国共产党才能领导中国。没有这样的政党、制度和道路设计，没有人能跳出美国所代表的那种发展模式的窠臼与困境。
从2023年年初“大对账”讨论“喝咖啡喝出人血”，到年末“斩杀线”概念为我们提供审视美国社会的新视角，再到2024年初爱泼斯坦文件的摊开——我们正在以一种平视乃至俯视的视角，系统性地看清这个“灯塔”的背面与阴暗面：从底层的“斩杀线”到上层的“萝莉岛”，一幅完整的图谱逐渐清晰。
有人说，在这个国际体系变革、新旧秩序交替的节点，此类事件让我们对世界运行的真实逻辑有了更全面、更清醒的认识。冲击和复杂的感受固然会有，但最终，我们会更加清晰、明确、坚定地认清脚下的道路，选定发展方向。
对中国而言，这是中华民族伟大复兴进程中的一个象征性时刻。外部世界的案例，帮助我们更深刻地理解这个世界，明确自身的使命与方向。这或许是从爱泼斯坦案中能获得的最大感悟之一。至少，于我而言是如此。希望能对大家有所启发。
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 