Leaked FBI Document Reveals Epstein was FBI Informant

[annotator]

A 2008 internal file obtained through a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows Epstein was operating as an FBI informant before his now-infamous 2007 sweetheart plea deal.

“Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon,” a special agent whose name was redacted wrote on an internal cable dated Sept. 9, 2008, marked “ROUTINE.”

It added: “Case agent advised that no federal prosecution will occur in this matter as long as Epstein continues to uphold his agreement with the State of Florida.”

https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-fbi-source-leaked-document/

 

The article doesn't specify who the people were that Epstein was informing on.

[Will B Good]

4 minutes ago, annotator said:

A 2008 internal file obtained through a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows Epstein was operating as an FBI informant before his now-infamous 2007 sweetheart plea deal.

“Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon,” a special agent whose name was redacted wrote on an internal cable dated Sept. 9, 2008, marked “ROUTINE.”

It added: “Case agent advised that no federal prosecution will occur in this matter as long as Epstein continues to uphold his agreement with the State of Florida.”

https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-fbi-source-leaked-document/

 

The article doesn't specify who the people were that Epstein was informing on.

 

I could only see two reasons for Patel, Bongino and Bondi all losing their backbones .........something like the above or Trump was bang to rights re the Epstein files.....(or both?) 

[candide]

3 hours ago, annotator said:

A 2008 internal file obtained through a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows Epstein was operating as an FBI informant before his now-infamous 2007 sweetheart plea deal.

“Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon,” a special agent whose name was redacted wrote on an internal cable dated Sept. 9, 2008, marked “ROUTINE.”

It added: “Case agent advised that no federal prosecution will occur in this matter as long as Epstein continues to uphold his agreement with the State of Florida.”

https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-fbi-source-leaked-document/

 

The article doesn't specify who the people were that Epstein was informing on.

The article recalls an interesting aspect of the sweetheart deal:

 

"The agreement was infamous not only for its leniency but also for granting immunity to Epstein's alleged co-conspirators and for being concluded before all of his victims had even been interviewed or his electronics seized by authorities."

 

Why is Acosta not subponaed by the GOP House Committee?

[Slowhand225]

Thats not new by any stretch, it was brought up at the very beginning several times.

[Will B Good]

8 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

Thats not new by any stretch, it was brought up at the very beginning several times.

 

 

The leaked FBI document confirming Jeffrey Epstein’s role as an informant was published on August 5, 2025.

 

 

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, annotator said:

A 2008 internal file obtained through a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows Epstein was operating as an FBI informant before his now-infamous 2007 sweetheart plea deal.

“Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon,” a special agent whose name was redacted wrote on an internal cable dated Sept. 9, 2008, marked “ROUTINE.”

It added: “Case agent advised that no federal prosecution will occur in this matter as long as Epstein continues to uphold his agreement with the State of Florida.”

https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-fbi-source-leaked-document/

 

The article doesn't specify who the people were that Epstein was informing on.

 

"Sign up for your daily dose of dope"...yah, this looks like a very serious news source.

 

Lol.

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, Cameroni said:

 

"Sign up for your daily dose of dope"...yah, this looks like a very serious news source.

 

Lol.

 

It was a response to a freedom of information request.....nothing to do with a made-up news report, the type you are used to from Fox.

[Will B Good]

13 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

Thats not new by any stretch, it was brought up at the very beginning several times.

On August 5, 2025, RadarOnline published the internal FBI cable from 2008.

•  The document was released as a result of a FOIA lawsuit, meaning it was legally compelled and not leaked by a whistleblower or insider.

•  The memo explicitly states Epstein “provided information to the FBI as agreed upon,” and that no federal prosecution would occur as long as he upheld his agreement with Florida authorities.

[Slowhand225]

2 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

The leaked FBI document confirming Jeffrey Epstein’s role as an informant was published on August 5, 2025.

 

 

And they knew to look for it because its been talked about from the start,  you knew that though, right ?

[annotator]

2 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

And they knew to look for it because its been talked about from the start,  you knew that though, right ?

Then you shouldn't have any trouble providing the evidence. But you won't be able to because there isn't any. There was some chatter about Epstein being an agent for Israel. But no real evidence.

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, annotator said:

A 2008 internal file obtained through a successful Freedom of Information Act lawsuit shows Epstein was operating as an FBI informant before his now-infamous 2007 sweetheart plea deal.

“Epstein has also provided information to the FBI as agreed upon,” a special agent whose name was redacted wrote on an internal cable dated Sept. 9, 2008, marked “ROUTINE.”

It added: “Case agent advised that no federal prosecution will occur in this matter as long as Epstein continues to uphold his agreement with the State of Florida.”

https://radaronline.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-fbi-source-leaked-document/

 

The article doesn't specify who the people were that Epstein was informing on.

 

Can you engage your brain for just one second, if Epstein had been working for the FBI, do you not think he would have mentioned that in his defense?

 

Alan Dershowitz, who represented Epstein in the Florida case, told Business Insider that Epstein told him he didn't have ties to intelligence agencies. "He said 'absolutely no.' He said he wished he did, that it would've been very helpful" to get an even better deal, Dershowitz says. "If he had had any connection to any governmental agency whatsoever, I would be the first person to know about it."

 

The specific claim that Epstein was recording sexual acts involving his associates comes from statements that Sarah Ransome, one of Epstein's accusers, made in 2016. Ransome later admitted that she made it up. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-spy-epstein-files-intelligence-asset-trump-bondi-2025-7

[Will B Good]

5 minutes ago, Slowhand225 said:

And they knew to look for it because its been talked about from the start,  you knew that though, right ?

 

Nail on the head....talked about.

 

Much the same as Trump being a pedophile is talked about......but no one is getting convicted on talked about

[candide]

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

"Sign up for your daily dose of dope"...yah, this looks like a very serious news source.

 

Lol.

The article shows the document...

 

[annotator]

3 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Can you engage your brain for just one second, if Epstein had been working for the FBI, do you not think he would have mentioned that in his defense?

 

Alan Dershowitz, who represented Epstein in the Florida case, told Business Insider that Epstein told him he didn't have ties to intelligence agencies. "He said 'absolutely no.' He said he wished he did, that it would've been very helpful" to get an even better deal, Dershowitz says. "If he had had any connection to any governmental agency whatsoever, I would be the first person to know about it."

 

The specific claim that Epstein was recording sexual acts involving his associates comes from statements that Sarah Ransome, one of Epstein's accusers, made in 2016. Ransome later admitted that she made it up. 

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-spy-epstein-files-intelligence-asset-trump-bondi-2025-7

On the one hand a hard document. On the other Dershowitz' word. Hmmm....  And who says Epstein was being an informant about sex crimes? He had access to all kinds of information.

[gargamon]

[JakeC]

https://www.newsnationnow.com/cuomo-show/trump-jeffrey-epstein-investigation 

 

So he's saying Clinton didn't do anything wrong and for Trump, nothing incriminating...

[Cameroni]

6 minutes ago, annotator said:

On the one hand a hard document. On the other Dershowitz' word. Hmmm....  And who says Epstein was being an informant about sex crimes? He had access to all kinds of information.

 

Lol, the "agreement" refers to the plea deal he had.

 

"Information" just means the information he provided to the FBI in the course of the investigation..

 

This website just went on the FBI website, where this has all been publicly available for ages, as seen here:

 

https://vault.fbi.gov/jeffrey-epstein

 

Ask yourself this, IF Epstein had been working for the FBI, why would he not have mentioned that in his defense?

 

And why did he tell Dershowitz categorically he had no ties with any intelligence agency, when he was a client of Dershowitz? That he wished it were so as he'd get a great deal then?

[JakeC]

If I remember correctly, it was Alex Acosta who claimed that he was told to "leave it alone" and that it was "above his pay grade" and that Epstein "belonged to intelligence".

[Cameroni]

17 minutes ago, candide said:

The article shows the document...

 

 

Well, if you actually read the document you will see it does not prove that Epstein was an "FBI Informant". The deal referred to is the very well known plea deal. The information provided to the FBI obviously relates to information provided to the FBI in the course of the investigation, not in the case of Epstein working as an "FBI Informant".

 

Again, had Epstein been an FBI informant you can be sure that he would have broadcast that loud and clear in his defense. 

 

And we know from Dershowitz, his lawyer, that Epstein told him he has no ties to any intelligence agencies whatsoever.

 

There's a ton more documents like this btw on the FBI website, knock yourself out:

 

https://vault.fbi.gov/jeffrey-epstein

[Will B Good]

14 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

 

Lol, the "agreement" refers to the plea deal he had.

 

"Information" just means the information he provided to the FBI in the course of the investigation..

 

This website just went on the FBI website, where this has all been publicly available for ages, as seen here:

 

https://vault.fbi.gov/jeffrey-epstein

 

Ask yourself this, IF Epstein had been working for the FBI, why would he not have mentioned that in his defense?

 

And why did he tell Dershowitz categorically he had no ties with any intelligence agency, when he was a client of Dershowitz? That he wished it were so as he'd get a great deal then?

 

 

That being the case what on Earth possessed Costa to give him the sweetheart deal of sweetheart deals....just feeling generous.......covering up for someone for something else?

 

There had to be a very strong case for Costa to deliver this deal.

[JakeC]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epsteins-sick-story-played-out-for-years-in-plain-sight/

 

“Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?” Acosta had been asked. Acosta had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he’d had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He’d cut the non-prosecution deal with one of Epstein’s attorneys because he had “been told” to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave it alone,” he told his interviewers in the Trump transition, who evidently thought that was a sufficient answer and went ahead and hired Acosta. (The Labor Department had no comment when asked about this.)

[Cameroni]

30 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

That being the case what on Earth possessed Costa to give him the sweetheart deal of sweetheart deals....just feeling generous.......covering up for someone for something else?

 

There had to be a very strong case for Costa to deliver this deal.

 

It wasn't just Acosta, a number of people were involved in that decision, Acosta just became the focus of attention.

 

The main reason why the plea deal was so lenient was because the FBI was negligent and had not obtained all the information at the time the plea deal was made. Much of it came out after the plea deal.

 

The FBI was actually sued by the "survivors" who alleged, quite rightly, that the FBI did not do its job in this investigation. So the FBI itself wanted this case to go away quietly.

 

At the time I think Epstein was just viewed as someone who'd had sex with teenagers, a small number of whom were under age.  The whole sex trafficking and the wild and outlandish claims by "survivors", most of which were false, only came later. 

 

Plus Epstein was charismatic, rich, and well connected, that no doubt played a role, he had great lawyers.

 

One should not forget that most of the girls in this case willingly accepted Epstein's money and consented to sex with him, as well, and only a very tiny minority were actually 14 or 15. Most were over the age of consent.

[JakeC]

https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligence-work

[HappyExpat57]

Search Results for https://radaronline.com

Conspiracy, Entertainment

RadarOnline – Bias and Credibility

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information

 

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=https%3A%2F%2Fradaronline.com

 

I saw it on the internet so it must be true. Faaaaaaaaaaaawk.

[Cameroni]

9 minutes ago, JakeC said:

https://observer.com/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-spy-intelligence-work

 

That article is a bit strange. In the Acosta quote he clearly is refuting Ward's allegation that he gave Epstein a lenient deal because Epstein worked for intelligence ("going down a rabbit hole"), and yet the article claims Acosta did not deny it. Bizarre reporting.

 

Clearly, one of the main reasons the Epstein matter is being kept alive is that news outlets want this to be the case, because Epstein puts bums on seats, and the murkier and more contradictory and unclear the allegations, the more there is to write about, and the greater the audience will be.

 

Surprised to see the Observer succumbs to this too.

[JakeC]

It was an article from SIX YEARS AGO. So it's not something about which they have suddenly succumbed. Could it be that you have a fixed position from which you are unable to shift?

Remember that he first claimed that he was told that Epstein belonged to intelligence. You decided to skip that part altogether. Why is that? Doesn't suit your narrative?

[The Cyclist]

1 hour ago, annotator said:

On the one hand a hard document. On the other Dershowitz' word. Hmmm....  And who says Epstein was being an informant about sex crimes? He had access to all kinds of information.

 

 

Indeed

 

Quote

Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary are among high-profile figures to be sent legal summonses from a congressional committee investigating the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79l38vl3lwo

[annotator]

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

 

Indeed

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c79l38vl3lwo

I'm not sure how the two are related but I've got no problem with that.

[Cameroni]

11 minutes ago, JakeC said:

It was an article from SIX YEARS AGO. So it's not something about which they have suddenly succumbed. Could it be that you have a fixed position from which you are unable to shift?

 

Yes, indeed from six years ago, where they just announced that yet another acuser had come forward, in 2019, which underlines how these "survivors" have come out in regular waves over the years, and long after the plea deal that was made. So that deal never had the full information and was done prematurely  obviously.

 

The Observer appears to have given in to the urge to portray Epstein as having worked for intelligence, purely for sensationalist sales figures and purely based on the Daily Beast reporter Lucy Ward's allegation that Epstein was given the ple deal by Acosta because the latter was told that Epstein was working for the FBI. When Acosta publicly ridiculed this notion and states that much of the reporting is going down a silly "rabbit hole", the Observer reporter then claims this is not a firm denial and he basically assented to Ward''s allegation that Epstein worked for the FBI. Which is outright false, and again done because it sells  and puts bums on seats.

 

Lucy Ward from the Daily Beast has not provided one shred of credible evidence that Epstein was working for the FBI as an informant, and Acosta himself has denied that he made this statement and that Ward's report is nonsense ("going down a rabbit hole").

 

I'm in no way wedded to any "fixed position". If you have any credible info Epstein worked for the FBI, then kindly provide it, and happy to consider it.

 

As always, all I'm wedded to is the truth. And neither this website's document, nor Lucy Ward's allegation are credible proof Epstein worked as an informant for the FBI. Doesn't mean he didn't, of course, but in the absence of any real evidence for this, I'd be reticent to make the claim.

[The Cyclist]

Just now, annotator said:

I'm not sure how the two are related but I've got no problem with that.

 

Related, because Epstein probably had a lot of dirt on a lot of people.

 

And who knows if he left a file of that dirt, with someone.