Court orders release of THOUSANDS of records pertaining to political insider Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophilia

There is a scourge on this planet that has, in recent years, been bubbling far nearer to the surface of society than we were previously comfortable with.

I’m speaking, of course, about pedophilia.

Once believed to be a habit of only the severely mentally deranged basement dwellers or Catholic priests, new investigations into the incorrigible behavior has shed light on a far more sinister demographic partaking in the sexualization of children and teens:  The wealthy elite.

Jeffery Epstein is just such a man, with political influence dating back to the days of the Bill Clinton presidency, and a sickening new rap sheet that is set to become public in the coming days.

Some sealed court records in the lawsuit that accused politically connected financier Jeffrey Epstein and others of participating in an underage sex-trafficking ring must be made public, a federal appeals court said in a ruling issued Wednesday.

Declaring that a lower federal court erred by sealing many of the records, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit set a timetable for releasing material that focuses on Epstein, who’s had past friendships with Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Great Britain’s Prince Andrew.

Some of the records could be released within weeks, with others to follow after a judicial review and input from the parties in the case.

Epstein’s high profile lifestyle and heavy political connections have made him a magnet for these sort of accusations in the past, and the release of these filings will likely only add fuel to the fire.

Just how vile are Epstein’s alleged actions?

Epstein, 66, was accused in 2008 of luring more than 30 underage girls for sex acts at his Palm Beach, Florida, mansion and other locations in the United States and overseas. He allegedly enlisted girls to lure more victims.

The court is urging caution to viewers of the coming material, stating that these court filings are often prepared in advance of adjudication and should not be taken as the court’s findings in the case.