The article delves into the complexities of Jeffrey Epstein's case and why his name seems to destabilize European democracies while the power structure in the United States remains largely untouched. It suggests that the key difference lies in the institutional framework that governs investigations. In Europe, entities involved in the investigation do not hold the levers of power, whereas in the U.S., those needing investigation often influence or control the very systems designed to hold them accountable. This structural disparity creates a unique set of challenges for transparency and justice, raising questions about the efficacy of the investigations in relation to the political power dynamics at play.

Moreover, the article discusses the role of selective transparency as a mechanism for controlling information. With the Department of Justice in charge of releasing files related to Epstein, the government has significant power in determining what is made public, when, and in what context. This creates situations where information damaging to others is highlighted, while potentially harmful information for those in power is obscured. The example of Alexander Acosta, who as Florida's federal prosecutor accepted a controversial plea deal for Epstein in 2008, illustrates how political appointments can influence the course of justice. His later appointment as Secretary of Labor underlines the interconnectedness of power and accountability.

Ultimately, the article argues that understanding Epstein's case requires a critical look at how institutions operate within different political contexts. The challenges of achieving genuine accountability in the face of powerful interests highlight the ongoing struggle for justice in cases involving elites. It raises essential questions about reforming the systems that allow such discrepancies in the investigatory process, not just in the U.S. but globally, to ensure that transparency and justice are upheld regardless of an individual's power status.