WASHINGTON — Rep. Thomas Massie threatened Monday to reveal more names of powerful men tied to Jeffrey Epstein’s sick antics — as the Justice Department claimed it’s still willing to prosecute the late pedophile’s friends following outrage over redactions in a Friday document release.
Massie (R-Ky.) was the lead co-sponsor of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required Attorney General Pam Bondi to release case files last week, albeit with massive redactions.
Massie told The Post that “right now the DOJ is violating the law to protect those individuals.”
“We will first pursue all options to force the DOJ to release those names, and several options remain,” said Massie, who alongside bill sponsor Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) is considering a legislative action to hold Justice Department leaders in contempt for not more fully releasing files.
“Reading the names into the Congressional Record is a viable backup plan,” Massie said.
Massie claimed in September that the FBI has a list of 20 powerful men who allegedly victimized young women and girls — naming just one, Barclays bank CEO Jes Staley, who quickly resigned his position — and describing others by profession.
The Constitution’s Speech or Debate Clause grants members of Congress legal immunity if they share information during their official duties — a privilege famously used by then-Sen. Mike Gravel (D-Alaska), when he released the “Pentagon Papers” on the Vietnam War in 1971.
Massie said, however, that he was only told Staley’s name and would need to be informed of the other alleged wrongdoers before taking such an action.
“To be clear, I do not have the names myself. They reside with the survivors and their lawyers,” he said.
At a September congressional hearing, Massie said, “documents in the FBI’s possession… detail at least 20 men, including Mr. Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays Bank, who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked victims to.”
“That list also includes at least 19 other individuals: one Hollywood producer worth a few hundred million dollars, one royal prince, one high-profile individual in the music industry, one prominent banker, one high-profile government official, one high-profile former politician, one owner of a car company in Italy, one rock star, one magician, and at least six billionaires, including a billionaire from Canada,” Massie said.
Bondi sought to quell the latest outcry over the Epstein case by insisting that any men who were eligible for prosecution would be held accountable.
“The Department of Justice previously stated we will bring charges against anyone involved in the trafficking and exploitation of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. We reaffirm this commitment, and ask any victim to please come forward with any information pertaining to any individuals who engaged in illicit activity at their expense,” Bondi tweeted Sunday.
“We have met with many victims and victims’ groups, and will continue to do so if more reach out. Please contact myself, [Deputy Attorney General Todd] Blanche, or the FBI and we will investigate immediately. We believe in the equal standard of justice in this country and will ensure that Justice is served.”
Bondi helped kick off a firestorm of interest in the case by suggesting in a February interview that she was reviewing an Epstein client list, before saying in a July memo that no client list exists and that “[w]e did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”
The Justice Department said in the memo that there are “over one thousand victims” — drawing incredulity that none of his powerful friends were involved in misconduct.
Epstein died in jail awaiting trial in 2019. The only person currently incarcerated in the case is Epstein’s girlfriend-turned-madam, Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence.
DOJ defends redactions as litigation proceeds
The Epstein Files Transparency Act, which mandated last week’s disclosure, allowed only limited instances of redactions and was signed by President Trump after he initially opposed the legislation, calling it a Democratic “hoax” designed to smear him for his own association with Epstein.
Blanche wrote in a Friday letter: “The Review Protocol… instructed attorneys to redact or withhold material that (1) contained personally identifiable information of victims; 2) depicted or contained child sexual abuse materials… (3) would jeopardize an active investigation or prosecution; (4) depicted images of death, physical abuse, or injury; and/or (5) properly classified national defense or foreign policy information.”
Blanche said files also were redacted to protect victims and due to “various privileges, including deliberative-process privilege, work-product privilege, and attorney-client privilege.”
Files in the cache were so heavily redacted that in many cases it was impossible to know what they contained — in one instance, 100 pages were entirely blanked out.
Other redactions do not appear to be consistent with the described standards for review — for example, Epstein’s own apparently naked rear end was covered with a black box in a pair of beach photos to shield his modesty, and an image previously published by The Post from Moroccan King Mohammed VI’s wedding in 2002 showed former President Bill Clinton’s face but covered Epstein’s own.
In addition to congressional pushback, there’s an ongoing legal struggle for the files.
The conservative transparency group Judicial Watch has two ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuits seeking documents — one against the Justice Department and FBI and another against the CIA.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, a friend of Trump’s, said the congressional transparency law had “loopholes big enough for a plane with Bill Clinton to fly to Epstein’s island” and that the group is hopeful it will receive a different, potentially less censored set of information.
The FOIA process requires officials to specify why each bit of information is being withheld and allows for judicial review. Fitton said he believes alleged Epstein co-conspirators could be named.
“The big issue is privacy. Privacy is not an automatic exemption. You weigh the public interest in understanding what the information and learning what the information is versus the privacy interest of the individual involved,” Fitton said.
“I think… the public interest is high enough to outweigh the privacy interest of the men who appear.”
Fitton’s organization regularly unearths non-public information and cover-ups, including the Biden White House’s concealment of dog attacks that severely injuredSecret Service officers, but he says that much of the success of his litigation depends on the Trump administration.
“If they take the position they can only process 500 pages a month, it could take a decade,” Fitton said. “The fact that we had to sue in court is troubling. Not one document has been released to us yet under FOIA.”
The post Thomas Massie teases ‘back up plan’ to out Jeffrey Epstein accomplices appeared first on New York Post.
