Do you have a source for this? I'm trying to find a court filing I've read previously that mentioned Donald Trump but from what I can recall, Trump was never implicated as being part of it... He was mentioned in the filing as being present at Maralago when Epstein and Derschowitz were with the young girls and that he banned from Epstein from coming back after he tried to make a move on one of Trump's friends. It was also mentioned that Trump had several numbers listed in Epstein's blackbook and for these reasons, the Plaintiff's attorneys believed he should be called as a witness to testify, but they never made any allegations implicating Trump in the acts themselves. I've also seen a filing from last year claiming that Trump and Epstein had both raped minors but that was voluntarily withdrawn/dismissed in September 2016. The only evidence that was presented as proof for these claims were 2 affidavits from the alleged victims. Not saying they're not telling the truth, but if the only thing they have as proof is the affidavits of victims, there's not much grounds to prove their claims.

Let me be clear though, I'm not dismissing the possibility of Trump actually being involved in this, but it's going to take a little bit more evidence to convince me that he was. The seriousness of the allegations and the timing that of the filings against Trump seem as if they could have been politically motivated, but again, I'm not saying that they're entirely fabricated or unlikely. We just need more proof to make a real determination

I just looked at the case on PACER's website and the last thing that was filed was in September 2016, and it was an Order Granting Petitioner's Motion to Temporarily Seal Reply in Support of Motion to Compel... The order says that the Reply to the Motion to Compel should be placed under seal until any further order of the court. There are no scheduled hearings, but from what I can tell, the case is still open and waiting a response/decision from the judge. I could be misinterpreting this order but that's what I gathered from it.

The case isn't trying to determine whether someone should be convicted, and unfortunately I can't afford to view or download all of the documents from the case (it costs 10 cents per page just to view each filing and there's thousands of pages), but this case was initiated by Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in 2008 because they believed their rights were not protected under the CVRA (Crime Victims Rights Acts). Attorneys in the first filing claimed that the first to JDoe's weren't contacted about the plea deal, etc. That's why its against the US Government.