A friend of hers also reported the allegations about Trump to the FBI in 2019. The bureau cited her allegations in an email circulated within the agency and recently made public by the Justice Department. She asked that her friend be protected.

Of the details that The Post and Courier found supported by public records, none related directly to the alleged victim’s claims about Trump.

To identify key players in the woman’s account and attempt to evaluate her claims, the newspaper scoured court records, police reports and old newspaper clippings in multiple states. It also deployed a reporter to the West Coast to retrace her steps in a journey that began on a tony resort island along the South Carolina coast.

. . . At one point, her mother became aware that Epstein had nude photos of the teen from their sexual encounters and was demanding money to keep them hidden, the woman told the FBI. The victim said she had seen the photographs in his bedstand, leading to a violent encounter when he discovered her snooping.

She said his extortion demand caused her mother to steal funds from her real estate company.

[OP Note: interesting that Epstein was the same dirtbag asshole before he got all of Les Wexner’s money. At the time of this accuser’s account he was just extorting his landlord]

. . . She said the incident occurred when he was a leading developer with a new casino in Atlantic City. She said she was led to Trump in a “very tall building with huge rooms.” The future president instructed others to leave the room, she said, and allegedly told her, “Let me teach you how little girls are supposed to be.”

She said he unzipped his pants and forced her to perform a sex act. The alleged victim told the FBI she “bit the (expletive) out of it,” causing Trump to slap her across the face and curse at her.

It is unclear from the interview records how long she stayed in the New York area, but she had family connections in the state.

In her talks with the FBI, the woman also detailed calls to her mother at an assisted living facility on the West Coast, where both of them had settled. The Post and Courier verified that the mother used a private nursing care home as an address in her declining years. A death record matches the mother’s age and name, but Washington state does not publicly release other identifying details.

. . . After her time with Epstein, the alleged victim [accumulated a record of criminal charges, drug dependency and domestic turmoil. She had a daughter and was prosecuted for filing false claims for food stamp applications. The alleged victim avoided prison by completing a drug diversion program.

The alleged victim had a turbulent domestic life, with three marriages including one that lasted only a few weeks. Her mother shows up in court records as a witness in a violent domestic incident between her daughter and her first husband, who declined to speak when a reporter approached him at his door.

The alleged victim eventually returned to the East Coast and lived with relatives in Georgia, developing a romantic relationship with a terminally-ill man who was saving money for his funeral.

She stole an envelope filled with cash from him and spent a year in the county jail for it. Her public defender told The Post and Courier that she described her life to him as having been permanently scarred by her experience with Epstein.

Gettin’ academic on his @$%.

A more detailed version of Ari’s investigation into the suspicious death of Donnie’s BFF. He still omits that AG Bill Barr visited Epstein the day before this death in his cell and that Barr may have been the guy to forge Epstein’s “last postcard”. But for a MSM reporter, he’s not doing that bad.

Ari Melber's #EpsteinFiles reporting from a death timeline drawing on new documents and video, to deep dives on the financial and legal exposes.

0:00 Intro, Epstein revelations

1:40 Death timeline report

11:30 Epstein-linked Brunel, WSJ

23:00 Subscribe, 50 Cent

23:10 Follow the money - probe

More on the UK side of the decades long silence and the police not believing the women.

There's an unanswered question at the heart of the Epstein scandal - why have allegations against Epstein and Maxwell about their UK operation and activity never been fully investigated?

After the release of millions of documents from the Epstein Files and the arrest of the former Prince Andrew for alleged misconduct in public office, we ask the Metropolitan Police why alleged sexual crimes and trafficking allegations on British soil have never been investigated.

To understand a hole at the heart of the Epstein scandal, we look in detail at the story of Virginia Roberts Giuffre. Groomed by Ghislaine Maxwell at just 15, Roberts Giuffre claimed she was kept as a "sex slave" for three years.

We explore the evidence of her 2001 meeting with the Prince in London - a meeting the Met was told about as early as 2015 in a letter from her then lawyer, Paul Cassell. This document wasn't just about trafficking; it contained explicit allegations against Andrew, Maxwell and Epstein that went far beyond the narrow scope used by the Metropolitan Police in their public statements, including a wider blackmail operation targeting powerful men. Despite these specific claims of sexual abuse in the UK, the Met repeatedly insisted the matter was a US responsibility.

While some expected the release of millions of Epstein files to spark a wave of American justice, the reality has been a firestorm of criticism regarding the US Department of Justice’s handling of the case. Under the Trump administration, critical pages, including FBI summaries of sexual assault allegations involving Donald Trump and Epstein, were initially missing from the public release, sparking criticism and allegations of of cover-up. While many have championed ‘justice’ in the UK we ask whether Epstein’s victims have really seen it here in the UK.

Through years of correspondence and the latest file dumps, we explore why we think the Metropolitan Police’s "maths doesn't work" and that more Epstein victims came forward to the Metropolitan Police than they’ve ever admitted. With Virginia Roberts Giuffre having taken her own life in 2025, she will never see justice, but the questions for the British and American establishments authorities to deliver for the rest of the victims are only getting louder.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/44496089

Things might be moving ahead under the cover of the war.

The House Oversight Committee announced this week that it will seek to depose a prison guard who was on duty at the time of Jeffrey Epstein’s death. Member of the House Oversight Committee Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) joins The Weekend to discuss this plus further testimonies and investigations in the Epstein case.

cross-posted from: https://lemmus.org/post/20848939

Washington DC

A majority of likely American voters believe that Donald Trump launched the war on Iran at least in part to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein scandal that had engulfed his presidency, according to a new survey.

The survey found that a solid 52-40 majority of voters agreed with the statement, with the other 8% saying they were unsure as to his motivations. The findings will come as little surprise to a public that has morphed Trump’s codename for the war, Operation Epic Fury, into “Operation Epstein Fury.”

The above-linked EFTA file is a "Notice of Appeal and Petition to Review" filed against the Epstein estate in 2021.

Normally these things are drier than a fart in the Sahara -- and really, don't expect anything different now -- but it was just something that came up today when I was trying to find a transcript of the USVI probate court proceedings I read several months ago.

But what first caught my attention -- and I mean beyond the fact that they have moved many (most?) of the PUBLIC probate court records off the "Court Records" section of the main DoJ Epstein library -- is that these PUBLIC records are now all redacted.

Okay, fine. I've seen enough redacted instances of the word don't to know what they're doing.

But I'm looking through this and noticing they're redacting unrelated place names, and select individual names, that have nothing to do with anything but the filing itself, and are themselves not only public record, but in the news.

For example, in every mention of St. Thomas, the name Thomas is redacted.

In every mention of Denise George, the Attorney General of the USVI, the name George is redacted.

Yet a great many other proper names are NOT redacted. Denise, Carol, Shari, Daniel and Marc are just fine with the DoJ. Even Andrew is in there a few times, unredacted for all the world to see.

So out of curiosity and maybe a bit of spite, I found an unredacted version of this very public (and honestly quite boring) record and compared them side by side, and found a pretty clear pattern.

These are all the unique redactions. Do you see it too?

THOMAS
GEORGE
JACOBS
CHRISTOPHER
ALLEN
FERGUSON
ROYAL
WHITE
SMITH
FOSTER
RUSSELL
SINGER
GORDON
PARRIS

First, this is very clearly auto-redaction. No human did this, inasmuch as it makes zero sense to redact the partial name of the court where the filing was made, in every instance where it appears, for example. Or half an attorney's name, or half of the name of a public official. So I think it's safe to conclude as a hypothesis that these are machine redactions.

If that's true, then we're looking at a list of specific terms fed into a program to be redacted no matter where they appear, whether in whole or in part. We know this because partial and not whole names are redacted, and the same parts are consistently redacted.

So you'd expect to see victim names redacted, right? Or female names? No. Except for a handful, they are ALL male first names, or could be. No female first names were redacted.

But then there's Royal, lol. And Ferguson. (But not Andrew.)

Parris is best known as Parris Island, a military training center off the coast of South Carolina, but it could refer to a number of people (including at least one in politics) or places.

Singer and White also fall into this latter "could be anyone or anywhere" category, but these too are not self-evidently victim names, which are the only names, by law, that EFTA files are supposed to have redacted. They're just the partial names of rando attorneys attached to a mundane probate filing in the USVI.

Below are the actual page by page redactions, for anyone interested.

---

The REDACTED file (also linked above)

The UNREDACTED version (scroll down to get to the actual document)

The redactions, in bold by page:

Page 1

In the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St. Thomas and St. John

THOMAS

Page 2

(no redactions)

Page 3

DENISE N. GEORGE, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: /s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs
CAROL THOMAS-JACOBS, ESQUIRE
Chief Deputy Attorney General
Virgin Islands Department of Justice

St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00802

GEORGE
THOMAS
JACOBS

Page 4

CHRISTOPHER ALLEN KROBLIN , ESQ.
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Royal Palms Professional Building
9053 Estate Thomas, Suite 101
St. Thomas, V.I. 00802-3602

WHITE & CASE, LLP

By: /s/ Carol Thomas-Jacobs
CAROL THOMAS-JACOBS, ESQUIRE

CHRISTOPHER
ALLEN
FERGUSON
ROYAL
THOMAS
WHITE
JACOBS

Page 5

Division of St. Thomas and St. John

Ariel Smith, Esq., Chief of the Civil Division
Attorneys Ariel Smith and

THOMAS
SMITH

Page 6

In the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands
Division of St. Thomas and St. John

Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq.
Sean Foster, Esq.
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Christopher Kroblin, Esq.
Attorney Thomas-Jacobs
Attorney Foster's Joinder

THOMAS
JACOBS
FOSTER
FERGUSON
CHRISTOPHER

Page 7

Attorneys Ariel Smith and
Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq.
filed by Sean Foster, Esq.
KELLERHALS FERGUSON KROBLIN PLLC
Christopher Kroblin, Esq.

SMITH
THOMAS
JACOBS
FOSTER
FERGUSON
CHRISTOPHER

Page 8

Carol Thomas-Jacobs, Esq.

THOMAS
JACOBS

Page 9

Division of St. Thomas / St. John

THOMAS

Pages 10 and 11

(no redactions)

Page 12

Division of St. Thomas / St. John
John-Russell B. Pate,
Linda Jill Singer,
Carol Laura Thomas-Jacobs,
Ariel M. Smith
Gordon C. Rhea,
Christopher A. Kroblin,
Sean Foster, Esq.
Denise N. George, Esq.
Cheryl Parris, Court Clerk III

Not the biggest fan of Ari/MSNOW, but I'm surprised at how much MSM is questioning the suicide or exploring the murder / extraction narrative

MS NOW's Ari Melber delivers a special report on Jeffrey Epstein's death.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/61650048

Who Is She?

This concerns a woman from South Carolina who alleges:

• Jeffrey Epstein began sexually abusing her around age 13 (~1983-1985) in a condo at Sea Pines Plantation, Hilton Head Island, SC.
• He allegedly drugged her with alcohol/spiked drinks, raped her, took nude photos, used violence (hair-pulling, beatings), and pressured her to recruit other girls.
• Epstein later trafficked her (by car or plane) to New York or New Jersey on ~3-4 occasions for sexual encounters with powerful, wealthy men.
• She specifically told the FBI that Epstein introduced her to Donald Trump in a tall building with huge rooms. During that encounter:
  • Trump forced her head down to perform oral sex.
  • She bit him in resistance (“bit the shit out of it”).
  • Trump allegedly pulled her hair, punched/struck her in the head, said something like “Let me teach you how little girls are supposed to be,” and ordered her removed (“Get this little bitch the hell out of here”).
  • She mentioned two more contacts with Trump but did not detail them.
• She also described lifelong threatening phone calls (hang-ups, “we know where you are,” rude comments about her mother’s health), which she linked to Epstein and/or Trump’s circle.

Crucial additional detail from her civil lawsuit against Epstein’s estate:

• In the Third Amended Complaint (filed December 2019), she alleged that on one occasion, one of these prominent men forced her to perform oral sex, then forcibly slapped her in the face.
• The filing explicitly states that this same man then forcibly raped her, penetrating her both vaginally and anally.
• While Trump is not named in the lawsuit, the oral-sex + slap sequence matches the exact pattern she described to the FBI for the Trump encounter. Many readers and commentators connect these as describing the same incident.

Important facts everyone should know:

• She is a verified Epstein victim : interviewed four times by the FBI in 2019, received a private settlement payout from Epstein’s estate in 2021.
• The Trump-specific details (oral attempt, bite, strike) come directly from her FBI statements (now all public).
• The vaginal/anal rape allegation appears in the estate lawsuit tied to the man who slapped her after oral sex.
• No criminal charges were ever brought against Trump from this account.
• No court ever ruled on whether the allegations are true : the case settled privately.
• Caveats exist: Some details vary slightly between tellings, the FBI noted internal skepticism (“outlandish”/“non-credible” on parts), she has a later criminal record (fraud/theft in WA, 2023 felony in GA), and there is no independent 1980s evidence (photos, witnesses, logs) for the Trump encounter.

Easy Timeline : What Happened When

• 1983-1985 : Alleged Epstein abuse begins in Hilton Head, SC (age ~13). Babysitting ad → condo → drugs → rape → recruiting pressure.
• ~1985-1986 : Alleged NY/NJ trips with Epstein, including the Trump encounter (age ~13-15).
• July-October 2019 : She contacts FBI hotline → four interviews over months. Trump details emerge mainly in sessions 2 & 3.
• December 2019 : Listed as “Jane Doe 4” in civil lawsuit against Epstein’s estate (SDNY). Filing includes the oral + slap + vaginal/anal rape by “one of these prominent men.”
• December 13, 2021 : Lawsuit settled privately and dismissed “with prejudice.”
• February 24-27, 2026 : Media (NPR, CNN, NYT, Guardian) reports that three FBI interviews mentioning Trump were previously withheld/missing.
• March 6, 2026 : DOJ releases Interviews #2-4 + related tip records publicly.
• March 2026 onward : Congressional pressure continues for full transparency.

The Four FBI Interviews (All Public Now : Direct Links)

These are official FBI summaries of what she told agents (justice.gov Epstein files):

1. Interview #1 (July 24, 2019)
   Hilton Head setup: babysitting flyer, drinks/drugs, abuse, recruiting, fear identifying men in photos.
   EFTA01245620

2. Interview #2 (August 7, 2019)
   First direct Trump account: introduction in tall building, forced oral attempt, bite, strike/punch, removal. Mentions two more contacts.
   EFTA02858481

3. Interview #3 (August 20, 2019)
   Clarifies: hair-pull during punch, lifelong threat calls, mother’s SC prison history (possible blackmail context).
   EFTA02858491

4. Interview #4 (October 16, 2019)
   Short: she hesitates on more Trump detail (“What’s the point?”).
   EFTA02858495

Key Lawsuit Detail (Estate Filing : Jane Doe 4)

From the Third Amended Complaint (public on CourtListener):

“On one occasion, one of these prominent men forcibly slapped Jane Doe 4 in the face after she was forced to perform oral sex on him. This same man forcibly raped her, penetrating her both vaginally and anally.”

• The oral + slap matches the FBI’s Trump description exactly.
• The filing does not name the man, but the sequence strongly suggests it refers to the same incident she described to the FBI.

Counterpoints & Reasons for Skepticism (Balanced View)

While the multiple FBI interviews and estate settlement add weight to her Epstein link, several factors raise doubts about the full account, especially the Trump-specific claims:

• Slight variances in details: Location (NY vs NJ), transport (plane vs car), and other logistics change slightly across her retellings to the FBI : common in trauma recollections but can undermine credibility in legal settings.
• FBI internal skepticism ("outlandish"/"non-credible"): In 2026 reporting (e.g., Guardian review of the released docs), FBI notes flagged parts of her claims (and related tips) as “outlandish” or “non-credible.” Reasons include: contradictions with known Epstein timeline (e.g., no evidence Epstein was in Hilton Head in the early 1980s, no SC property ownership), lack of any corroboration for the Trump encounter, and no charges ever pursued despite four interviews. The FBI did not indict or refer for prosecution on these specifics : they often flag uncorroborated historical claims this way when evidence is thin.
• Her later criminal history: Documented fraud/theft convictions in Washington state and a 2023 felony elder exploitation in Georgia. In court, this could be used for impeachment (to question truthfulness), as defense attorneys routinely highlight post-abuse criminal records to argue motive or unreliability.
• Mark Epstein's denial of Hilton Head presence: Jeffrey's brother publicly stated in Feb 2026 (e.g., to Guardian/Newsweek) that Jeffrey never spent summers on Hilton Head and "I would have known." This directly contradicts the alleged starting point of her abuse/recruitment. Is Mark credible? Mixed: He's disputed aspects of his brother's crimes in past interviews (e.g., 2024: downplayed abuse as Jeffrey "just having a good time" with girls who were "too young," while acknowledging some involvement). But he's also criticized cover-ups, claimed Jeffrey had "dirt" on Trump/people, and pushed for transparency : so he's not a blanket denier, but his word on locations/timeline carries bias as family.
• No independent 1980s corroboration: No photos, witnesses, flight logs, property records, or contemporaneous documents confirm the Trump encounter or even Epstein's presence in Hilton Head that early (Epstein's known activities ramped up later, per public records). However, The Post and Courier (a South Carolina newspaper) independently verified several non-abuse elements of the woman's story using public records, archived government documents, and news accounts. This includes her family history and upbringing in the Hilton Head area during the early 1980s; legal issues involving her mother, such as a 1985 South Carolina Real Estate Commission suspension for escrow account mismanagement, aligning with her claim that Epstein blackmailed her mother (leading to prison time); and other timeline aspects, like her family's property purchases and addresses near Coligny Beach. These verifications lend credibility to her recollections of her personal circumstances but do not confirm the abuse allegations or the Trump incident. The newspaper explicitly stated the Trump claim "remains unproven," with the White House calling it "baseless accusations from decades ago backed by zero evidence or facts."

Adapted from Victim Profile - The South Carolina Witness

View all the other sexual assault allegations against Trump from minors

[…]

Kahn, and Epstein's long-serving lawyer Darren Indyke, are the sole executors of Epstein's estate, controlling all his wealth and possessions. 

Although hardly household names, the pair now hold control over compensation owed to survivors and the secrets contained in the documents still held by the Epstein estate - which, upon request, have been released to the House Oversight Committee.

As part of its investigation into Epstein's network, a congressional committee has subpoenaed - summoned - the pair to testify. Kahn is appearing on Wednesday, while Indyke is due to testify on Thursday 19 March.

[…]

The office of state Attorney General Raúl Torrez announced that the search was being done with the cooperation of the current ranch owners.

Torrez last month reopened an investigation of the ranch. New Mexico’s initial case was closed in 2019 at the request of federal prosecutors in New York, and state prosecutors say now that “revelations outlined in the previously sealed FBI files warrant further examination.”

Epstein purchased the sprawling Zorro Ranch in Stanley, New Mexico, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) south of Santa Fe, in 1993 from former Democratic Gov. Bruce King and built a hilltop mansion with a private runway.

The property was sold by Epstein’s estate in 2023 — with proceeds going toward creditors — to the family of Don Huffines, a candidate in Texas for state comptroller who won the Republican primary last week.

On the morning of 1 October 2009, Epstein wrote to Seckel: 'regarding cold fusion. i killed pons years ago.' When Seckel pressed him for details — 'How did you kill him?' — Epstein replied with specifics, writing that 'the origidnal senate funding came out of congress, and wayne owens senator from utah ,, i was there an argues against, it, had ot meet with the head of the mormon church.'

The target of Epstein's claimed intervention was Stanley Pons, the University of Utah electrochemist who, alongside Martin Fleischmann, announced in March 1989 that they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature. The announcement generated global headlines and the prospect of virtually limitless clean energy. Within months, mainstream physics institutions moved to discredit the findings, funding was withdrawn, and Pons eventually relocated to a French laboratory funded by Toyota.

Wayne Owens, the figure Epstein names, was a Democratic congressman representing Utah's 2nd district from 1987 to 1993 — Epstein refers to him as a 'senator,' though Owens served in the House. The congressional dimension of the cold fusion controversy is documented: the University of Utah sought $25 million (approximately £18.8 million) from Congress to fund further research, and the state legislature had separately appropriated $5 million (approximately £3.75 million). Brigham Young University, governed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was also entangled in the dispute through physicist Steven Jones, who had been conducting parallel cold fusion research. Epstein's reference to meeting the head of the Mormon Church aligns with BYU's institutional role in the congressional funding fight.

Jes Staley, Disney code names, wire transfers, and JPMorgan's private bank chief

Published on Mon, Mar 10, 2026 | Last updated Mon, Mar 10, 2026 UTC, 5,281 words | 21 min read | Revision: 4

The Transparency Files are a series of articles based on the publicly released Epstein Files.

---

[Trigger warning: this article details allegations of rape and sexual assault, including coded language used to refer to victims. Government documents quoted throughout.]

---

Jes Staley ran JPMorgan's private bank — the division that manages money for the world's wealthiest people. He shows up 10,132 times across 6,950 files in the Epstein corpus. 2,820 financial documents. $3.72 billion in associated financial amounts. 444 messages across dedicated email threads. Every major dataset: DS9 (4,592 mentions across 3,066 files), DS10 (3,698 mentions across 2,550 files), DS11 (1,817 mentions across 1,321 files), DS1-DS8 (25 mentions across 13 files).

This is not a peripheral figure. This is a structural component of the machine.

Staley's ego network: 10 strongest connections by document co-occurrence. Solid dark edges indicate strong links; dashed lines mark weaker associations. Edge thickness proportional to co-occurrence frequency.

Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays (2015-2021), formerly head of JPMorgan Private Bank. Photo: Government of India, GODL-India.

---

The Code

Document: EFTA02410253 (archive) Dataset: DS11 (Epstein's personal email archive) From: Jes Staley (JPMorgan corporate email) To: Jeffrey Epstein Date: Friday, July 9, 2010 – Saturday, July 10, 2010

The exchange:

Staley: "Maybe they're tracking u?? That was fun. Say hi to Snow White."

Epstein: "what character would you like next"

Staley: "Beauty and the Beast"

Epstein: "well one side is availble" (sic)

The "Snow White" email exchange, sent from Staley's JPMorgan corporate account (EFTA02410253 (archive), DS11)

Read it again. Staley names a specific woman using a Disney character. Epstein responds like he's running a menu. Staley picks his next character. Epstein checks availability — like stock.

The fourth message — "well one side is availble" — appears in EFTA00029432 (Removed by DOJ) (archive), the JPMorgan Chase production to SDNY (DS1-DS8, marked "Confidential Treatment Requested by JPMorgan Chase, JPM-SDNY-00000951"). Epstein sent it at 3:27 PM (15:27) on Saturday, July 10 — roughly an hour after Staley's "Beauty and the Beast." This message does not appear in the DS11 version, Epstein's personal email archive. The bank's compliance files preserved what Epstein's own records did not. Think about that.

And this went through JPMorgan's corporate infrastructure. Corporate servers. Corporate compliance filters. Every single one of those systems failed to flag a conversation where a senior executive was ordering women by Disney character name from a convicted sex offender.

Not Just Code Names

The Snow White exchange gets the attention because of the Disney euphemism. But it wasn't even the most direct communication between these two.

Document: EFTA00029430 (Removed by DOJ) (archive) Dataset: DS1-DS8 (JPMorgan-SDNY production, JPM-SDNY-00000928) Date: Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Staley: "Is she free tonight?"

Epstein: "call me"

Staley: "I'm w A"

No code names. No Disney characters. Just the CEO of JPMorgan's investment bank asking a convicted sex offender if an unnamed woman is available tonight. Three weeks before the Snow White exchange.

Then the pictures. The USVI complaint (EFTA00145666 (Removed by DOJ) (torrent)) documents that on Friday, December 5, 2009, Epstein emailed Staley a picture of a young woman. Staley's response: "don't tell me a French wine." Epstein replied: "always thoughts of alcohol." On Saturday, December 20, 2009, Epstein sent another email — blank except for a picture of a young woman. No commentary needed. No commentary given.

Same-Day Corroboration

Document: EFTA02410216 (archive) Dataset: DS11 From: "Selena P" To: Jeffrey Epstein Date: Saturday, July 10, 2010, 12:36 AM (00:36)

"the snow white was f..ed twice as soon as she put her costume))"

Same-day corroboration: "Selena P" reports the sexual assault of "the snow white" (EFTA02410216 (archive), DS11)

Hours later. Same night. Same code name. After midnight, a separate person reports to Epstein that "the snow white" was sexually assaulted the moment she put on her costume.

Staley asks to "say hi to Snow White" and requests his next "character." That same night, someone else tells Epstein the snow white was assaulted. This is not ambiguous. "Snow White" is a code name for a specific person in a specific role. And the role involves being raped.

This same-day corroboration has not been previously reported.

Who Is Selena P?

The article could stop here — a witness corroborated the assault. But the corpus tells a bigger story.

"Selena P" is a Svetlana — EFTA02408352 (archive) shows Epstein addressing her by her full name. There are 44 emails from her in DS11, spanning October 2009 through January 2011. She wasn't a bystander who witnessed an assault. She was an operative in the recruitment infrastructure.

The emails show it plainly:

Recruiting (EFTA02418005 (archive), Tuesday, October 12, 2010): Subject line: "kristina 21." The body: "my brothers recent girlfriend, but he is not jealous... he said great body." A photo attached. She was sourcing women through her brother's social circle, reducing them to a name, age, and body description — a catalogue entry.

Handler coaching (EFTA02427672 (archive), Sunday, March 28, 2010): Subject: "SOS!" Selena P is on a plane with an unnamed wealthy man who is pressuring her sexually. She texts Epstein for instructions: "what excuses can i make?" Epstein coaches her: "tell him if he thinks you are like the other girls, you are willing to go home now." "The other girls." A system.

Control (EFTA02414636 (archive), Monday, November 15, 2010): "thank you for letting me come back... i will do everything to win back the trust. i know that i failed the trust of the family cause of my crazy eating habits." Epstein's response: "You will have to apologize to the others re lying." She calls Epstein's circle "the family." She blames herself for "crazy eating habits" — the same body control documented in other victim accounts. Gratitude for being allowed back. Apology rituals. Institutional abuse language.

Selena P reported the Snow White assault. But she wasn't reporting a crime she'd witnessed. She was filing an operational update with her handler.

---

The Allegations

Three separate institutional pathways have documented accusations of sexual violence against Jes Staley. All three ended the same way.

Track 1: The SDNY Prosecution Memo (2019)

Document: EFTA02731082 (torrent) Dataset: DS12 Date: Thursday, December 19, 2019 Classification: Privileged Prosecution Memorandum (Attorney Work Product / Deliberative Process), Confidential, Subject to Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)

The SDNY prosecution memo — the same document that details allegations against Leon Black — contains two victim accounts naming Jes Staley.

The Staley–Epstein–Black web. Both Staley and Black are named in the same SDNY prosecution memo. Shared intermediaries — Darren Indyke, Lesley Groff, Ghislaine Maxwell — connect the financial and operational layers. Strong connections shown as dark solid lines; weaker links dashed.

First victim (in or around 2011-2012):

"Epstein instructed [victim] to provide a massage to Jes Staley in Epstein's New York residence... he forced [her] to touch his genitals and then raped [her]. Afterwards, [victim] complained to Epstein, who said he left it to [victim] and Staley to decide whether to engage in sex."

SDNY prosecution memo: victim account of rape by Jes Staley at Epstein's New York residence (EFTA02731082 (torrent), p.33, DS12)

A woman reports being raped, and Epstein's response is to call it a mutual decision. That's not a denial. That's a man who's done this so many times he has a script for the complaints.

Second victim:

"[Victim] recalled Epstein asking her to massage Leon Black and Jes Staley, both of whom engaged in sexual contact with her against her will during the massages. Moreover, according to [victim], when she complained to Epstein about the sexual contact, he laughed and told [her] that it was up to her whether to engage in sex during those massages."

Two victims. Two separate incidents. Same address: 9 East 71st Street. Same pattern: Epstein sends the victim to give a "massage" to a powerful man. The powerful man rapes her. And when both victims complained, Epstein gave them the same answer — it was their choice. The first victim was told it was "left to" her and Staley. The second time, Epstein laughed.

Footnote 61 of the prosecution memo:

"These productions include messages exchanged between Jes Staley and Epstein around the period when [victim] recalled being [rape]d by Staley"

The prosecutors matched the Staley-Epstein emails to the period of the rapes. They had the coded language and the assault evidence, and they knew both were happening at the same time.

Note: the word "raped" is partially obscured in the document — the OCR shows a gap followed by the letter d. In context, no other word fits. The bracketed reconstruction reflects the source material faithfully.

The internal DOJ reaction is in the corpus too. EFTA00029358 (Removed by DOJ) (archive) (DS1-DS8), an internal SDNY email from Sunday, December 14, 2019: "Don't know if you caught this but one of the non/minor Epstein victims alleges that Jes Staley (reads in memo as 'Jess Daily') raped her during a massage. P. 31." The OCR garbled his name. The humans reading it didn't.

Track 2: The FBI Guardian Complaint (2021)

Documents: EFTA00090717 (archive), EFTA00090718 (archive) Dataset: DS9 Form: FBI FD-71A Guardian Complaint Form + Incident Summary & Workflow Case ID: 50D-NY-3027571 (EPSTEIN, JEFFREY; CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING)

"Two women, one located in New York City and one located elsewhere, have made accusations against Jes Staley, the CEO of Barclays Bank, of violent rape. One of the women believes that she spoke to the FBI with these accusations previously."

FBI FD-71A Guardian Complaint Form: "Accusations of Rape and human trafficking" (EFTA00090717 (archive), DS9)

Filed by an attorney serving as outside counsel for the USVI Attorney General. The complaint also alleges that "Epstein's attorney and accountant were aware of the activities occurring and were helping in perpetuating the crimes being committed by covering them up."

The language is stronger than the prosecution memo: "violent rape." Two accusers, not one. And one of them had already told the FBI before.

The workflow log (EFTA00090718 (archive)) shows what happened next:

Date	Action	Unit
Wed, August 25, 2021 12:23 PM (12:23)	Incident created	Criminal Investigative Division
Wed, August 25, 2021 12:34 PM (12:34)	Submitted for opening	Health Care Fraud Unit
Fri, September 17, 2021 12:12 PM (12:12)	Transferred out of HCFU	New York Office
Fri, September 17, 2021 12:50 PM (12:50)	Assigned to NY-C19	NYO
Tue, September 21, 2021 1:53 PM (13:53)	Reassigned to NY-C20	NYO
Tue, September 21, 2021 2:55 PM (14:55)	Assigned for pre-assessment	NYO
Wed, October 13, 2021	Detective conferred with AUSA	NYO
Thu, October 14, 2021 1:56 PM (13:56)	Submitted from pre-assessment	NY-C20
Mon, October 18, 2021 1:06 PM (13:06)	Closed as "Information Only"	NY-C20

A violent rape complaint. Filed under a case classified "CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING." And the FBI routed it to the Health Care Fraud Unit — the team that investigates Medicare billing schemes. It ended up there because the USVI attorney happened to know an HCFU agent from an unrelated case. The complaint sat in that unit for 23 days before anyone noticed it didn't belong.

At the New York Office, it bounced through three squads in four days. The pre-assessment note reads: "I believe you already spoke to this FBI SSA about this allegation." They already knew. Their own records confirm prior contact from one of the victims.

On Wednesday, October 13, 2021, a detective conferred with an Assistant U.S. Attorney about the complaint. Five days later, on Monday, October 18, the complaint was closed as "Information Only." A federal prosecutor was consulted. The answer was still nothing.

Fourteen days later, on Monday, November 1, 2021, Staley resigned as CEO of Barclays.

Track 3: The Manhattan DA Investigation (2021-2023)

Documents: EFTA02731662 (torrent), EFTA02731737 (torrent) Dataset: DS12 Date range: Friday, October 29, 2021 – Tuesday, July 4, 2023

This is the accusation pathway that hasn't been reported at all.

A 20-page internal FBI/DANY email chain documents a new victim — approximately 37 years old in 2023, meaning she was recruited at around 17 in 2001 or 2002. The recruitment path: a female handler introduced her to Ghislaine Maxwell through what was presented as "an apprentice program." The handler drove her from Virginia to Epstein's townhouse in New York for "massages."

The victim identified Leon Black by name and described the assault in detail. She also described being trafficked to Palm Beach, St. Thomas, and New York.

The DANY assessment, documented in the chain:

"DANY do not doubt her allegations against JE and LB. They believe she was also abused by Staley."

Her civil attorney, Jeanne Christensen (via Adam Horowitz), was pursuing claims against "Black/Staley." The FBI's Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking unit was contacted. SDNY and DANY were "deconflicting" their investigations.

The chain spans nearly two years. The last entry is Tuesday, July 4, 2023. No charges followed.

Three separate investigation tracks. Three different victim groups. The SDNY prosecution memo (2019). The FBI Guardian complaint (2021). The Manhattan DA investigation (2021-2023). Every one of them documented. Every one of them closed without consequence or accountability.

---

This is the Epstein pattern. In 2005, Epstein got wind of the Palm Beach investigation before the search warrant was executed — that's in the corpus (EFTA02729219 (archive)): "After word of the investigation got back to Epstein, through his girls, police served a search warrant." Police Chief Michael Reiter ran an 11-month investigation, found probable cause for unlawful sex acts with a minor. State Attorney Barry Krischer fought the prosecution so hard that Reiter accused him in writing of giving the case "highly unusual" treatment (EFTA02729525 (archive)). When Reiter escalated to the feds, the result was Alex Acosta's 2008 non-prosecution agreement — a deal that shielded co-conspirators, was hidden from victims, and let Epstein serve 13 months with daily work release.

We can't prove from these documents that Staley knew about any of these complaints. Here's what we can prove: three separate accusation pathways were opened, all three were closed without criminal charges, and the subject resigned from Barclays 14 days after the Guardian complaint was closed. Not fired. Resigned. By all reporting, it was negotiated — he left on his own terms.

Today, as of this writing, he’s still a free man, yet to face any justice.

---

The Bank

Document: EFTA00145666 (Removed by DOJ) (torrent) Dataset: DS10 Document type: USVI v. JPMorgan Second Amended Complaint

Between 2008 and 2012, Staley and Epstein exchanged approximately 1,200 emails through JPMorgan's corporate email system. Not a personal Gmail account. Not encrypted messaging. These went through JPMorgan's servers, through JPMorgan's compliance filters, and sat on JPMorgan's systems. The "Snow White" exchange was one of them.

When human trafficking allegations against Epstein surfaced, JPMorgan "tasked Staley to discuss the human trafficking allegations with Epstein." Staley's report back to the bank: Epstein "replied there was no truth to the allegations, no evidence and was not expecting any problems." Case closed. The bank assigned the employee with the closest personal relationship to Epstein — the same man later named in rape allegations — to investigate whether Epstein was trafficking women. And took Epstein's word for it.

JPMorgan also processed wire transfers from Epstein-linked accounts to "a woman with an Eastern European surname":

Date	Amount	Recipient	Context
Thursday, January 8, 2009	$2,000	Woman with Eastern European surname	Timed to Staley visit to Palm Beach
Monday, August 31, 2009	$3,000	Same woman	Timed to Staley visit to London

The second wire has additional context the USVI complaint spells out: between August 27 and 29, Staley told Epstein he'd be in London in a week. Epstein asked if he "would need anything." Staley replied: "Yep." Three days later, Epstein wired $3,000 to the same woman. "Would you need anything?" "Yep." And then a wire transfer.

The bank also served as the venue for Epstein's direct intervention in JPMorgan's own investment operations. On Thursday, May 6, 2010, Epstein emailed Staley complaining about losing $6 million in two weeks on positions placed by the GIO group (Global Investment Opportunities). Staley's response: "I'm talking to them now" (EFTA02425565 (archive)). The CEO of JPMorgan's investment bank, personally intervening in an investment unit at a convicted sex offender's complaint about his portfolio.

The bank processed the wire transfers. The bank processed the 1,200 emails. The bank assigned the suspect to investigate his own client. The bank let a convicted sex offender direct its investment operations by phone. And the bank kept Epstein as a customer. JPMorgan later paid $365 million in settlements — $75 million to the USVI for trafficking claims, $290 million to Epstein's victims. That's what getting caught costs when you're a bank.

---

The Intimacy

What makes the Staley-Epstein relationship distinct in the corpus isn't just the allegations. It's the depth. These are not transactional emails between a banker and a client. They are love letters between men who know exactly what they're doing and do it anyway.

Document: EFTA00029429 (Removed by DOJ) (archive) Dataset: DS1-DS8 (JPMorgan-SDNY production, JPM-SDNY-00000550) Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009

Staley: "I realize the danger in sending this email. But it was great to be able, today, to give you, in New York City, a long heartfelt, hug. To my friend, Thanks. Jes"

Epstein: "We are going to have fun"

Staley names the risk. "I realize the danger." He knows this email, sent through JPMorgan's corporate system, is a liability. He knows Epstein is a convicted sex offender. He sends it anyway. Staley almost sounds like a user who’s grateful to his dealer, and believes his dealer is his best friend.

Document: EFTA00145666 (Removed by DOJ) (torrent) Dataset: DS10 (USVI complaint, quoting Staley's emails) Date: Sunday, November 1, 2009

"So when all hell breaks lo[o]se, and the world is crumbling, I will come here, and be at peace. Presently, I'm in the hot tub with a glass of white wine. This is an amazing place. Truly amazing. Next time, we're here together. I owe you much. And I deeply appreciate our friendship. I have few so profound."

He wrote this from Little St. James. Epstein's private island. The one where it all happened. One year after Epstein's conviction, while Epstein was still a client of Staley's bank. Not "I owe you much" for financial advice. "I have few so profound."

Document: EFTA00029435 (Removed by DOJ) (archive) Dataset: DS1-DS8 (JPMorgan-SDNY production, JPM-SDNY-00001262) Date: Friday, December 31, 2010, 12:53 AM (00:53)

"Happy new year. It nice to have u free. Much to come. Please know that I am an friend forever. You are very special. Knowing u, I will toast to the two of us, tomorrow night."

New Year's Eve 2010. "Nice to have u free." Two years after Epstein's conviction. The CEO of JPMorgan's investment bank, toasting a convicted sex offender's freedom. "I am a friend forever."

---

The Network

Document: EFTA02135031 (torrent) Dataset: DS10 Date: Tuesday, June 25, 2013

A logistics email to Epstein's Paris driver, Valdson Cotri:

"Jes Staley, friend of Jeffrey's will be coming to paris... Jeffrey has offered you to drive him wherever he needs to go during his stay."

This is from June 2013 — months after Staley left JPMorgan and after the bank terminated Epstein's accounts. Epstein still sent his personal driver to Paris for Staley. Not a car service. His driver. Unlimited availability. The personal relationship didn't just survive the institutional severance. It intensified.

Document: EFTA02403789 (archive) Dataset: DS11 Date: Monday, November 11, 2013

Lesley Groff, Epstein's executive assistant, to Epstein:

"Jes Staley has completed his transatlantic sailing trip! Rosa called to ask if you might be able to give Jes a ride back home from the carribean either tomorrow or Wed."

November 2013. Staley is in the Caribbean after a sailing trip. His assistant calls Epstein's assistant to ask for a ride home on the plane. Ten months after leaving JPMorgan, and Staley is still calling Epstein for transport.

Document: EFTA01755870 (torrent) Dataset: DS10 Date: Thu-Sun, September 26-29, 2013

Epstein to Olivier Colom at Edmond de Rothschild bank:

"you can meet with jes staley, advisor to ny fed. good friend."

A convicted sex offender introducing a Federal Reserve advisor to the Rothschilds. As a "good friend." The same email thread has Epstein pitching Larry Summers as a board candidate: "Larry is the smartest of the bunch. it would be very good for you." Epstein was brokering senior appointments at European private banks, using Staley's institutional credibility to open doors he couldn't walk through after his conviction.

Document: EFTA02661567 (archive) Dataset: DS11 Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2017

Epstein to Alexa Staley — Jes Staley's daughter:

"can you ask your father his opinion of veronique Weill she wants to join rothschild"

Alexa: "He thinks she is great and is a big fan of hers. Good recommendation for rothschild."

February 2017. Two years into Staley's tenure as Barclays CEO. Epstein is using Staley's daughter as a back-channel to obtain her father's opinions for personnel decisions at Rothschild. This isn't a relationship that faded after Staley left JPMorgan. It deepened. It pulled in family. In April 2015, Staley had forwarded Epstein a link to his daughter Alexa's talk at Bowdoin College with the note: "This is what you helped to make happen" (EFTA02501956 (archive)). Staley credited Epstein with enabling his daughter's career. And then his daughter became Epstein's intermediary.

Document: EFTA00029434 (Removed by DOJ) (archive) Dataset: DS1-DS8 (JPMorgan-SDNY production, JPM-SDNY-00001091) Date: Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Epstein to Staley:

"prince Andrew would like much more to represent casanov in china than tim collins"

Epstein relaying Prince Andrew's commercial preferences directly to the CEO of JPMorgan's investment bank. A convicted sex offender serving as go-between for the British royal family and Wall Street.

---

The Trusts

The institutional entanglement went beyond emails and favours. Staley was woven into Epstein's legal and financial architecture.

In January 2012, Epstein named Staley as trustee of his personal trusts alongside Darren Indyke and Andrew Farkas (EFTA01266357 (torrent)). SDNY prosecutors flagged this: "Also interesting to see that Staley appears to be an executor or backup executor from 2012-18" (EFTA00076006 (archive)). In the same email, the prosecutors noted something else: the trust structure was frozen from 2001 to October 2012 — "for the full time period covering the prior investigation and his state prosecution — which is itself somewhat interesting." They also flagged Larry Summers and Kathryn Ruemmler — Obama's White House Counsel — as notable names in the estate documents.

One significant detail: EFTA01266357 (torrent) states that "Jes Staley never executed the Amended and Restated Trust Agreement." He was named but never signed. Whether he declined, was never asked to sign, or simply let it lapse — the corpus doesn't say.

In May 2015, Staley was named trustee of the Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust alongside Darren Indyke and David Mitchell (EFTA00082266 (archive); EFTA01266357 (torrent)). By this point, Staley was about to become CEO of Barclays.

---

Event Confluence

Part 1: Three lanes — career, evidence, institutional response. The Snow White exchange happens in 2010. Institutional response: zero.

Part 2: The nine-year gap between the Snow White exchange (2010) and any institutional action (2019) is the quiet part.

Date	Event
1999	Staley becomes head of JPMorgan Private Bank
2004	Epstein introduces Staley to Glenn Dubin, accelerating Staley's career (EFTA00145666 (Removed by DOJ) (torrent))
2006	Epstein pleads guilty in Palm Beach
2008	Epstein convicted; Staley-Epstein corporate emails continue (2008-2012)
Thursday, January 8, 2009	$2,000 wire transfer timed to Staley visit (Palm Beach)
Monday, August 31, 2009	$3,000 wire transfer timed to Staley visit (London — "Yep")
Sunday, November 1, 2009	Staley emails from Little St. James: "I owe you much. I have few so profound."
Thursday, December 3, 2009	"I realize the danger in sending this email" (EFTA00029429 (Removed by DOJ) (archive))
Fri-Sat, December 5-20, 2009	Epstein sends Staley pictures of young women
Wednesday, June 16, 2010	"Is she free tonight?" (EFTA00029430 (Removed by DOJ) (archive))
Fri-Sat, July 9-10, 2010	"Snow White" exchange; same-day "Selena P" corroboration
Friday, December 31, 2010	"I am a friend forever. You are very special." (EFTA00029435 (Removed by DOJ) (archive))
January 2012	Epstein names Staley as trustee of personal trusts (never signed — EFTA01266357 (torrent))
2013	Staley leaves JPMorgan
Tuesday, June 25, 2013	Epstein sends his Paris driver for Staley (EFTA02135031 (torrent))
Monday, November 11, 2013	Epstein offered to fly Staley home from Caribbean (EFTA02403789 (archive))
May 2015	Staley named trustee of Jeffrey E. Epstein 2014 Trust alongside Darren Indyke and David Mitchell
2015	Staley appointed CEO of Barclays
Tuesday, February 7, 2017	Alexa Staley serves as back-channel to Epstein on Rothschild personnel (EFTA02661567 (archive))
Thursday, December 19, 2019	SDNY prosecution memo records rape allegations against Staley
2001-2023	DANY investigation: third victim (recruited ~17, 2001-2002) identified; "They believe she was also abused by Staley"
Wednesday, August 25, 2021	FBI Guardian complaint filed: two women accuse Staley of "violent rape"
Wednesday, October 13, 2021	Detective confers with AUSA about Guardian complaint
Monday, October 18, 2021	FBI closes Guardian complaint as "Information Only"
Monday, November 1, 2021	Staley resigns as Barclays CEO
2023	JPMorgan pays $365 million to settle trafficking claims

---

What's New Here

The "Snow White" exchange has been reported before. The Barclays resignation. The USVI complaint. The $365 million. All public.

Here's what hasn't been:

1. The same-day corroboration — EFTA02410216 (archive): "Selena P" reports "the snow white" was sexually assaulted the same night Staley used the code name. Not a coincidence. Not an ambiguous nickname. A documented code name with same-day evidence of sexual violence.

2. Selena P's operational role — 44 emails in DS11 reveal her as a recruiter sourcing women through her brother's social circle, a handler coached by Epstein in real time, and a subject of his control (body monitoring, apology rituals, "the family"). She wasn't a witness. She was an operative.

3. The prosecution memo's temporal link — Footnote 61 of EFTA02731082 (torrent) explicitly connects the Staley-Epstein emails to the period of the rapes. The prosecutors had the coded language and the assault evidence and knew they were contemporaneous.

4. The third investigation track — EFTA02731662 (torrent): a DANY/FBI investigation spanning 2021-2023, documenting a new victim recruited at approximately 17, with DANY concluding: "They believe she was also abused by Staley." Three institutional pathways, three victim groups, same outcome.

5. "Is she free tonight?" — EFTA00029430 (Removed by DOJ) (archive): more direct than the Snow White exchange. No code names. A sitting bank CEO asking a convicted sex offender about a woman's availability.

6. "I realize the danger" — EFTA00029429 (Removed by DOJ) (archive): Staley explicitly acknowledging the compromising nature of the relationship on JPMorgan's corporate email. He knew the risk. He proceeded.

7. The Alexa Staley back-channel — EFTA02661567 (archive) and EFTA02501956 (archive): the relationship extended to the next generation. Staley credited Epstein with his daughter's success; his daughter then served as Epstein's intermediary for Rothschild personnel decisions. As late as 2017.

8. The full corpus scale — 10,132 mentions across 6,950 files. 2,820 financial documents. The most documented banker in the entire Epstein Files.

9. The Guardian workflow — EFTA00090718 (archive): the FBI's internal trail on the 2021 rape complaint. 23 days misrouted to Health Care Fraud. An AUSA consulted. A note confirming they already knew. Closed as "Information Only" — 14 days before Staley walked away from Barclays. Same pattern as Palm Beach: complaints about powerful men enter the system. Nothing comes out.

Previously litigated but underreported:

10. The Rothschild introduction and Larry Summers pitch — EFTA01755870 (torrent): a convicted sex offender brokering senior appointments at European private banks, using Staley as his entry point.

11. The Paris chauffeur and Caribbean plane ride — EFTA02135031 (torrent), EFTA02403789 (archive): the logistical infrastructure Epstein provided continued after Staley left JPMorgan. Driver, plane, network. The personal relationship didn't end when the banking relationship did. It deepened.

---

Source Documents

All documents referenced are from the Epstein Files Transparency Act corpus, released by the U.S. Department of Justice on Friday, January 30, 2026.

EFTA Number	Description	Dataset
EFTA02410253 (archive)	Staley ↔ Epstein: "Snow White" exchange	DS11
EFTA02410216 (archive)	"Selena P" → Epstein: same-day assault report	DS11
EFTA02408352 (archive)	Epstein → "Svetlana": establishes Selena P's identity	DS11
EFTA02418005 (archive)	Selena P recruiting: "kristina 21"	DS11
EFTA02427672 (archive)	Selena P "SOS!" — Epstein coaching in real-time	DS11
EFTA02414636 (archive)	Selena P: control dynamics ("the family," eating, apology rituals)	DS11
EFTA00029430 (Removed by DOJ) (archive)	Staley → Epstein: "Is she free tonight?"	DS1-DS8
EFTA00029429 (Removed by DOJ) (archive)	Staley → Epstein: "I realize the danger"	DS1-DS8
EFTA00029435 (Removed by DOJ) (archive)	Staley → Epstein: "I am a friend forever"	DS1-DS8
EFTA00029434 (Removed by DOJ) (archive)	Epstein → Staley: Prince Andrew business channel	DS1-DS8
EFTA00029432 (Removed by DOJ) (archive)	Staley ↔ Epstein: Snow White exchange (JPMorgan-SDNY production, includes 4th message)	DS1-DS8
EFTA02731082 (torrent)	SDNY prosecution memo: rape allegations	DS12
EFTA02731662 (torrent)	FBI/DANY investigation: third accusation track (2021-2023)	DS12
EFTA00029358 (Removed by DOJ) (archive)	Internal SDNY email: staff flagging Staley rape allegation	DS1-DS8
EFTA00145666 (Removed by DOJ) (torrent)	USVI v. JPMorgan complaint	DS10
EFTA02425565 (archive)	Epstein complains about $6M losses; Staley: "I'm talking to them now"	DS11
EFTA02135031 (torrent)	Paris chauffeur assignment for Staley (June 2013)	DS10
EFTA02403789 (archive)	Caribbean plane ride request (November 2013)	DS11
EFTA01755870 (torrent)	Epstein → Rothschild: Staley and Summers introduction	DS10
EFTA02661567 (archive)	Alexa Staley as Epstein back-channel for Rothschild (2017)	DS11
EFTA02501956 (archive)	Staley → Epstein: "This is what you helped to make happen" (Alexa)	DS11
EFTA01266357 (torrent)	Trust agreement: Staley named but "never executed"	DS10
EFTA00082266 (archive)	Staley named trustee of Epstein's 2014 Trust	DS9
EFTA00076006 (archive)	SDNY prosecutors flag Staley as executor, Summers and Ruemmler as "notable"	DS9
EFTA00090717 (archive)	FBI Guardian complaint: "violent rape" accusations against Staley	DS9
EFTA00090718 (archive)	Guardian incident summary and workflow log (inc. AUSA conferral)	DS9
EFTA02729219 (archive)	Epstein received advance warning of Palm Beach investigation	DS11
EFTA02729525 (archive)	Reiter accuses Krischer of "highly unusual" treatment	DS11

---

Mirrors: Lemmy | Codeberg Pages | IPFS

Published on Mon, Mar 10, 2026 | Last updated Mon, Mar 10, 2026 UTC, 5,281 words | 21 min read | Revision: 4

The Transparency Files are a series of articles based on the publicly released Epstein Files.

Maxwell Frost, the first Gen Z member of Congress, is one of the Democrats making it his business to understand the depth of the coverup happening in regard to the Epstein files, the ongoing preferential redactions of names of doers while exposing victims, and the dog and pony show he has to go through once he gets behind closed doors at the DoJ to actually view the unredacted files — which, unsurprisingly, are still redacted.

Here Rep. Frost is interviewed by Heather Cox Richardson, a historian in her own right, and like all of her interviews it is incisive and deeply informative.

Being Gen Z, Rep. Frost went in to the special DoJ facility to see the unredacted-but-actually-still-redacted files with a better grasp of technology than many of his older peers, and thus was readily able to navigate the bizarre technological obstructions that had been put in Congress' way before the first member ever showed up to see the files.

Rep. Frost describes this at length, and the patterns he sees in the redactions, and the length to which the DoJ has tried to prevent anyone from being able to "connect the dots" and get the larger picture of the entire ring, not only of pedophilia but of influence peddling and criminal conspiracy to evade any kind of justice.

I will try to attach a cleaned transcript later this evening (for those of us who prefer to read) but in the meantime you should know that pretty much everything that he describes are illegal acts in and of themselves, even before you get to specific violations of EFTA, perjury under oath, etc.

Congress, the legislative branch of government, is co-equal with the judicial and the executive, and wherever he and his fellow legislators are being denied full access to anything they request, and whatever lies/distractions/untruths they are being served in furtherance of that denial of access, are already unconstitutional and illegal from the outset.

Invidious link

---

TRANSCRIPT

The Epstein Files Coverup With Representative Maxwell Frost
Heather Cox Richardson

Richardson: I am thrilled today to have with me Representative Maxwell Frost, who is a representative from Florida's 10th district [Orlando]. He has represented the district since 2023, and he is the co-chair of the House Democratic Policy and Communications Committee. But we're going to be talking about something a little bit different today than what is in the news. It's probably what should be in the news, but we'll talk a little bit about the Epstein files today. So, Representative Frost, thank you so much for being here this morning.

Frost: Of course. Thanks for having me on. It's good to be here.

Richardson: So, I really wanted to talk to you about the Epstein files, in part because they seem to have fallen off the the people's radar screen because of everything else that's going on, but also because you and your staff did something really unusual when it came to looking at the Epstein files that are available, the ones that are available at the Department of Justice. Can you walk us through that?

Frost: Yeah. Well, for people who don't know, just to take us a few steps back, right? Donald Trump ran on releasing the Epstein files, right? It was one of the central points points of his campaign. It's how he got a lot of different communities off the internet, especially a lot of young people who've been looking into this, involved in his campaign, and it's something he talked about time and time again.

Okay. Then he gets elected. We don't hear anything about the Epstein files anymore.

And people start bringing it up. "Why aren't you talking about it? Why haven't you released it?"

And then we start hearing different things from different people, right? Kash Patel under oath says, you know, "We have nothing that shows that Jeffrey Epstein did anything criminal." I mean, that's what he said, right?

Then you have Pam Bondi who invites right-wing influencers to the White House and gives them these folders that they say they are the Epstein files, but they really weren't, and it was just something that they did.

So then in Congress, we start looking into it even more and say, "No, we do need these files released." Number one, you ran on it. But number two, more and more we're finding out that there is an elite group of billionaires and politicians and elite people in this country and around the world who were a party to these crimes.

When we talk about a two-tier justice system, we see in this country that, depending on how much money you have in your bank account or what your connections are, you might or might not have to face accountability for your crimes. And obviously, human trafficking, pedophilia, sexual abuse, assault, rape, these are all the things that have happened within— connecting to the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein.

So, fast forward, we get the bill passed to release the files. Pam Bondi and Donald Trump are engaged in the greatest cover up that we've seen in terms of the Epstein files. And they released a good amount of the files, but not all of them. But still, there are millions of files out there.

So, my team and I, you know, we knew we wanted to go into the Department of Justice to view the unredacted files because, in case your viewers haven't seen them, if you go on the website and you look at these files, there are just entire pages that are just black. And it just shows that they're really not interested in transparency.

In fact, a lot of these documents are documents that have to do with Donald Trump, that they have completely redacted or, in many cases, they put them online, people found them and then they [the DoJ] ripped them back off. They took them off the internet so people can't see them anymore.

So we said, look, there are people around the world who have been really following this closely for years, people who have a deep understanding of what Jeffrey Epstein did, and who have really good questions informed by their own research and their own work that they've done. So we took to the internet and we went — really, predominantly we went on Reddit — and we asked people, we told people, "Hey, I'm Congressman Maxwell Frost. I'm going to the Department of Justice tomorrow to look at the unredacted Epstein files. What should I be looking for? What specific file number should I look at?"

And it blew up. Millions of hits. Thousands of people writing in, calling into my office, commenting, not just saying, "Check this file out," you know, just a random file, but saying "Check this file out because I think it's connected to this and that, and this and that, and check out this other file as well."

And it really helped us put together specific file numbers that we should view, which really helped me going into the Department of Justice. I've been there twice so far. I'll be going again in the coming weeks.

Richardson: Well, so I want to get into what it's like to look at those files, but first of all, I think that was just brilliant, the whole idea of crowdsourcing the Epstein files. Did you find that people tended to group in different places that there were certain things that people thought were more important than other things?

Frost: 100%. You know, there's different groups of people who have been focused on different parts of this. For instance, we had a lot of people that were from Florida that submitted things having to do with Florida-specific parts of the case. Mar-a-Lago, the jail he went to. A lot of people don't realize this, that when Jeffrey Epstein went to jail, he was actually allowed to do what's called work release, right? When he's able to leave jail for a few hours a day to go to work. And he actually— there was an organization set up that he went to go work at and he was actually going there to sexually abuse and— somebody while he was in jail through work release. So we had many people who would send us information having to do with that, having to do with local Florida politicians.

We also had a lot of people who wanted us to look into the Zorro Ranch, which has been a big deal, as you know, recently. So there's different folks who I think have really focused in on very different parts of this. And you know, it makes me think a lot about my own dad who, after the JFK assassination, joined a group of local people in his community, and people across the country, that would just look into it, right? Research, try to figure out more information. I mean, there's in my house that I grew up in, there's a bookcase full of JFK books, of what happened on that day, and it's a very similar thing with this. And something my dad always tells me is, "We had groups of people who would become experts on specific things, on specific people." And I think it's very similar with the Epstein files, and with the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein, there are people who are experts on very specific things.

And it's really helped to me to go into the Department of Justice and not just look at [specific] files — like "What files do you think I should look at?" — but also understand what you're seeing, because when you're in that room you're just viewing unredacted files. Unless you understand what you're seeing, it's hard to navigate, right? It's millions of files. And I think in many ways, they really focused on redacting specific ones that keep you from connecting dots.

Richardson: So, I want to ask about a couple of things there. I do want to point out that what it reminds me of is less JFK than those people who are currently even chasing down the identities of people who have been found dead, that are Jane Does or John Does, and are able by extraordinary amounts of work to bring those families some closure by discovering who those people were. And I always wondered why QAnon didn't do that. Now, instead, we have people actually getting their hands in the files and I'm— you know, I agree with you, when you hear "millions of files," that's the sort of thing that makes historians' hair catch on fire, because you can't just start at number one and start turning pages.

Frost: Exactly.

Richardson: Can you tell us literally what it's like to go look at these files? And then I'd like to talk a little bit about why the Department of Justice has redacted certain things, and why you think that might be the case.

Frost: Yeah. So I'll tell you exactly what it's like. So first off, 24 hours before you want to go, you make an appointment with the Department of Justice. You pull up to the building which is in the NoMa area of Washington DC, maybe like 10, 15 minutes away from Capitol Hill. You go in through the front door, someone's waiting for you, expecting you. Usually a career Department of Justice person, someone who's been there for a long time. They walk you in, very cordial. You go upstairs, you go to a room where you're then handed off to the political people from the Department of Justice.

So people should understand, you have people who work in the government who've been there for a long time, and then you have people who are political appointees who are new, who are probably more aligned with the Trump agenda.

So then you're kind of handed off to a political appointee. They walk you over to a locker where you lock up all your electronics, phone, everything like that. And then you go into this room.

Now, a lot of people think it might be some grand thing. It's not. And it's actually just like a white room with four computers, two on each side of two tables facing each other. That's it.

There's a table on the corner where two people from the DOJ sit and kind of watch you. And then there's a tech guy who comes in and he signs you in with a very specific sign-in credential, which we'll get to in a minute because they're spying on us. So every person, when you sit down at the computer, you have a very specific sign-in credential to their kind of law library of Epstein files, which is an online thing, right? It's on the computer. So you sit down.

I'll be honest, I'm pretty quick on my feet with technology, so I was able to understand how to navigate it very quickly. But I sat in there with some other members who it took a lot of time to understand how to use it, because every time you had a question, they would have to go and get the tech guy who's in a different office, and you have to walk through every time and answer a question.

You only get two hours in the room.

So, what I started doing is kind of giving people tech lessons before they showed up, and giving them the basics of what they need to know so they don't waste time waiting for somebody to come and show them different things.

I mean, one of the big ones I'll tell you is when you click on a file, you might assume, right, it's unredacted already. No, actually, you have to click a different button in the toolbox, which is not— like there's not a button that says unredact. It's like kind of a like a small button that you click, and then you can see the unredacted one. So most people waste the first 15-20 minutes just looking at redacted stuff. So it's stuff like that, that can help you understand how to navigate this platform that has the files.

But I've got to tell you, there are so many files that you click unredact and it's the same thing [still redacted].

And in fact, what I wanted to do is have them side by side, so I could really understand how redact— how unredacted are the files. And the tech person came in and told me, "You're not able to do that in this system, you're not able to have it side by side," which is crazy.

I actually found a way to do it anyway by using a specific keystroke, and by doing that I was able to kind of ascertain that files connected to Donald Trump were still redacted, by and large, files that had nothing to do with victim names. And everything to do with exposing clients were completely redacted as well.

I'll tell you, a lot of people have reached out to me and said, "Maxwell, how come you haven't gone to the floor and read out a client list?" I haven't seen a client list. I've seen a list of co-conspirators, which Ro Khanna went to the floor and he read those names out loud. I went to the floor last week and read some of what I [found] out loud. But a lot of the co-conspirators we already know, right? It's like public information. A lot of these names are already out there.

The thing that people want is the list of clients of people who were part of this by, you know, paying for it, essentially. And I have not seen something like that unredacted yet. [There are] files where I feel like it could be hidden in it. For instance, there's a diary from one of the victims that you could redact anything that would give away the name of the [victim]. But why are entire pages redacted? Entire pages of the diary are redacted. Most of it's redacted. And conceivably there's some information in there that'll help us.

So that's just a little bit about that.

Richardson: Wait, stop. So, are you saying that even the files that the Department of Justice is showing to Congresspeople, claiming that they are unredacted, are still redacted? You can't unredact them yourself.

Frost: 100%. Not all of them, but a lot of them. And it'll be a lot of the ones that you think, "Let's go see it." For instance, one of the charging documents that came from the department of— or came from the [U.S.] Attorney, Alex Acosta, in West Palm, which is probably one of the most important things we can see, [is] completely redacted to us members of Congress.

They said, "You can go in and view everything unredacted." It's a lie.

And in fact, I asked the Department of Justice, because I had a whole thing pulled up that had to do with Donald Trump, and I said, "Why is this redacted?" And they said, "We received it that way." I said, "What do you mean you received it that way?" They said, "Well, we at the Department of Justice received it from the FBI, and so conceivably they gave it to us redacted. We just unredacted the things that we had redacted to the public," which means Kash Patel's FBI, of course, has redacted things having to do with Donald Trump. And having to do with clients, conceivably his friends, which is exactly what he told Marjorie Taylor Greene on the phone. "Stop this because my friends will be in trouble."

Richardson: So, you know, I confess I'm a little bit gobsmacked here, because when you just said, "This is the biggest cover up in US history," or maybe I'm misquoting you on that, the fact— I would agree with that, the fact that the Department of Justice is keeping from Congress the files that implicate a number of important people, including perhaps and I would actually go beyond perhaps, the President of the United States, is earth-shattering for our democratic system.

Frost: It is. And I did say I do believe this cover up is the biggest one that we've seen from a president in our country's history. Because it doesn't have to just do with the cover up itself, or the political pressure he put on members of his own party, but also has to do with the fact that they invited us in to view these unredacted files. Which, by the way, we compelled them to do through law damn near unanimously.

They broke the law by waiting an additional month to release it.

Then they also broke the law by redacting the names of billionaires and politicians when we told them, "We only want victim names redacted."

But it's not even just all that, Heather. It's also the fact that they spied on us as we were viewing the documents, not just to see what we were looking at and say, "Look at that," but to then use that on the political side to harm us politically for looking into it.

And what I mean is, for people who don't know, Pam Bondi was testifying to the House Judiciary Committee, where she was pummeled for the cover up of the Epstein files. And many of you saw the photo, that she had this binder. Like she had one binder per Democratic member, and it was like a— I call it— it was like a burn book, right? It was a bunch of material for her to use to embarrass the member, to speak back to the member in her defiant, you know, tone.

And we all saw that thing. A photographer caught a photo of one of the pages, and the page was a complete search history of Representative Pramila Jayapal's visit to the DoJ to view the unredacted files. A complete violation of the checks and balances and separation of branches.

And I just think that this cover up is an impeachable offense for Pam Bondi, 110%.

But that is the reason I say it's the biggest cover up we've seen, because it's not just a cover up. It's a cover up; a spying operation on members of Congress; and then a political operation that uses the information they got from the official government to harm them politically, which also is against the law, by the way.

Richardson: So, I want to get into that in a second, but one of the things that really interests me about the operation surrounding Epstein is the money. When you listed off the different ways in which there appear to have been crimes in those files, what I didn't hear you say was money laundering, or some of the other ways in which a number of people could be involved with the exchange of money. We know that Senator Ron Wyden is trying desperately to get files out of the Treasury about the movement of money through the banks surrounding Epstein, money going out as well as money going in, because that speaks to this web you're talking about. Have you seen anything like that in the files, or is that something you're interested in?

Frost: It is something I'm interested in. I'll tell you, you know, the two hours go by very fast and it— it's sometimes you go in on a specific subject or two. I find going in on one or two things is better than a ton. But one of the next visits I'm going to do, I'm going to focus on the bank.

So, everyone knows the House Oversight Committee. This is something we've been looking into. When we first met with the lawyers of a lot of the survivors, they told us something— they said something very direct. They said, "Go for the estate. Subpoena the estate." They said, "Also subpoena the banks, because what you won't be able to find in the Epstein files that the Department of Justice has, you might be able to follow the money." And this is really important.

So, we did send out two subpoenas at J.P. Morgan and Deutsche Bank, which are two of the primary banking institutions that were used by Jeffrey Epstein and his co-conspirators. But there's more that we need. Venmo transactions, Zelle transactions, I mean that we could go down the list of ways that we think money was both laundered, and hidden, to pay for services. There's also— it's just so deep, right?

There's also the question of people unknowingly moving money for this operation. And truth be told, there's a lot of folks that are considered co-conspirators that didn't— that actually didn't know what was going on, but they were used by Epstein and the real co-conspirators, and people that were making things. We could talk about whether it's a maid, or a driver, or this and that, that were in this.

A lot of folks don't understand how big this operation was. It wasn't just the island. The island's a big part of it, but it's his home. It's Mar-a-Lago. It's all these different things that tie it together. Which is part of the reason that we have to get to the bottom of this. It's not just about justice for the survivors, but it's about making sure it never happens again. And the fact of the matter is the whole— there's many entities that were involved in this.

Richardson: Well, but that speaks to where you started today, and that's that it is certainly about the survivors, but it's also about the idea of a predatory class that's not accountable to the law. And that seems to be what you're uncovering, right?

Frost: 100%. I mean, that is the basis of this entire thing. Because if we go back to when there was the first indictment, or when Jeffrey Epstein was first arrested for these very crimes, he was given a sweetheart deal by Alex Acosta, who by the way is full of crap. We deposed him for hours and hours and hours. Apparently, he didn't know anything that was going on in his office. And he's also very defiant. He believes— he hates the word sweetheart deal. He thinks he got the best he could get. He also stated to us that he didn't bring the survivors on the witness stand because he "didn't feel like they were going to be very credible" is what he said.

That is when all of this should have ended. The guy should have been held accountable. Everything should have been uncovered. But the fact of the matter is the dude served the year in jail, left, and continued to offend. And that's when things blew up even more. And the fact of the matter is, if Jeffrey Epstein wasn't a billionaire that was backed by elites, not just in this nation, but across the entire world, he would have faced justice in that moment. I promise you that. And I think because he had those connections, he was able to continue to do this.

And that's this two-tier justice system of rich billionaire elites doing whatever the hell they want and breaking all the laws in the world. I mean, and it's the same case on everything. You want to talk about theft, the biggest theft is the wage theft and white collar crimes, and these billionaires who are getting away with all of this. And so, of course, they're going to get away with [it], whether it's stealing money, or stealing people and selling people, they're getting away with it. And that's part of the reason why this is so important and uncovering this, is it's about integrity in our justice system, from A to Z. And if we don't uncover this and we don't get to the bottom of it, it will happen again. It could be happening right now. And I think that's important for people to understand.

Richardson: Well, and I think that you've put your finger on it there, that it is about accountability, but in a way it's an indictment of the development of the American justice system, and the American economic system, really for the last 30 years anyway, that has permitted the development of this sort of elite predatory group that could literally buy and sell people, which is sort of the ultimate, right?

Frost: Yeah. And what happens too, Heather, is that it's also connected. Because as they consolidate power in our economy, and as they continue to own everything — from the things that we watch, the news that we consume, the buildings that we live in, the cars that we drive — when fewer and fewer people have the keys to society, it is more likely that even when they commit the most heinous of crimes, that they are bailed out and protected. Because they own the keys to society.

And that's part of the reason why fighting the massive wealth inequality we have in this country is so important, is because that [inequality], in and of itself, does corrupt our justice system. And it puts in considerations, to politicians and people like that, that should not exist. I mean, how much money you have in the bank, the companies you own, all of that should not be a consideration when we're talking about you facing justice.

But when you have Alex Acosta, the U.S. Attorney who gave [Epstein] the sweetheart deal, who then years later becomes the Secretary of Labor for Donald Trump, you really realize that it's one big club and none of us are part of it. And I think it's really important for us to uncover what this is all about.

Richardson: Well, so that does raise the question now. It seems very clear from looking in from the outside, that the Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is openly breaking the law. I believe this morning they said they're done, there will be no more Epstein files coming out. And— the— you know, that we're seeing stuff that is— is, you know — listen to me stammer, I just don't even know how to describe it.

What comes next? I mean, Bondi is due to testify before Congress under oath. [She] is sort of openly saying, "We're done. We're not going to follow any more the Epstein Transparency Act." What does it look like might happen to try and bring some of this to some sort of accountability?

Frost: Well, I believe Pam Bondi needs to be impeached. I think she has done multiple impeachable offenses, paramount of which is the cover up of this Epstein investigation, and her complete defiance of Congress. I think that is an impeachable offense.

Now, where do we go from here?

Well, first off, we've been trying to subpoena Pam Bondi on the oversight committee for damn near a year. We have not been able to do it. However, just a few days ago, as you just said, we were finally able to get a couple Republicans on, because— believe it or not, I think it's important for people to understand this, that part of the ways— and you're a historian — throughout history, authoritarians usually are not gifted legislators, and usually what they do doesn't have a ton of staying power, right? It's usually a legacy or something that you can work at undoing it and building back our democracy afterwards.

But the way that they rule has to do with people obeying in advance, and an opposition that believes there's nothing they can do. I mean, when the opposition says there's nothing we can do, you've given the authoritarian the real power that they want.

You know, I think about DEI. People would think there's probably a bunch of DEI laws Congress passed because all these companies are getting rid of it. Well, no. We passed zero laws having to do with that. There's zero law having to do with that. It is people obeying in advance, and giving power to the authoritarian before you've told them, "No, no, you're going to have to— you're going to have to do something about it."

So, the reason I bring this up is I know people feel hopeless in this moment, but do not buy into a politics of despair and feeling like there's nothing you can do because when we do that, we've lost half the battle already. And so, yes, we know we don't have the votes to subpoena. We knew we didn't have the vote to subpoena Kristi Noem. But Donald Trump— because of the way the country is falling apart, the economy is falling apart, wealth inequality is blowing up, politicians are starting in the Republican party to little by little defy Trump at different parts.

Now, is it because they woke up one morning and they felt like, "Let me be a good person?" No. It's because they're getting the polling numbers in their districts. They're getting the polling numbers and they're feeling like they might lose their job. So, we were able to get four Republicans to vote with us to subpoena Pam Bondi.

And that's really important, because having her in front of us testifying under oath, working at and covering on a national scale, this cover up is going to help us moving toward eventually impeaching her, which I think is something that will, knock on wood, hopefully if we're able to get in the majority, is something we need to move forward once we're in the majority. I think we could move it forward now as well, but I think in this hearing, looking at the way that the Republicans question her might help give us some insight as to whether or not we can move through impeachment and it be successful.

Look at what happened with Kristi Noem. She lost damn near— you know, a ton of Republicans in the Senate and in the House as well. And Trump— I think part of the reason Trump fired her is because he knew that impeachment was inevitable there. And so it just shows that we have to continue putting the pressure on. There's some Democrats who think that in this moment we need to lay low, be very risk adverse, and let them mess up, and people will run to our arms. I don't think that's true. I think in normal times, maybe that's true. We're not in normal times.

Richardson: Well, so what you're saying to people, it sounds like, is to keep the pressure on all of these issues, including the Epstein files.

Frost: 110%. And people, continue— definitely, know that all these issues are so deeply connected to a small group of billionaires and mega-corporations protecting themselves from the law, and trying to make as much money, and consolidate power. That is what the whole damn thing is about. From the Epstein files to the Big Beautiful Bill to everything.

Richardson: Well, I hope that you will come back at some point and talk to me about that, because that of course is the project near and dear to my heart, is the concentration of wealth and how one addresses that. But I want to thank you so much for being here. I feel like I've got so much better an idea of what's happening in that DoJ room, and what the files look like, and why it matters. So, thank you so much for coming, and good luck up there on the hill these days. It must be absolutely wild.

Frost: It's completely wild. But I'm really proud to be able to go to Congress and say I represent Orlando, Florida and be a loud progressive voice from the South. So, thanks for having me on. Thanks for all your work. Thanks everybody.

Richardson: They're lucky to have you. Thank you everyone for being here, and I'll talk to you soon.

The publication in question — Charleston, South Carolina-based The Post and Courier — was not able to verify the woman’s allegations against Trump. However, it was able to confirm details about her family history, her personal legal history, and other historical facts relating to her claims about Jeffrey Epstein.

Katie's video description was captured before Trump became President and matches perfectly with what's described by 100's of other underage girls.

Given Epstein’s history of secretly taping famous people taking sexual advantage of young women procured by Epstein, if the allegations in the Katie Johnson complaint are true, Trump has every reason to be concerned that tapes might exist which would prove Johnson’s allegations.

Attorney General (and Trump personal lawyer) Bob Barr made the highly unusual decision to un-recuse himself from the Epstein case and actually take direct control over the case, despite having previously announced he had a conflict of interest.

I would never have guessed that a billionaire could run a sex trafficking ring for decades with numerous people as accomplices and co-conspirators. But Epstein is already a convicted sexual predator and he continued the behavior even after his conviction.

These women who were sexually abused as girls deserve the complete truth. They deserve justice and it appears that Bill Barr and Donald Trump have the motivation to go to unimaginable lengths to prevent that from ever happening.

https://www.gq.com/story/jeffrey-epst...

WARNING: Extremely graphic

Here's Katie's case: Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump (5:16-cv-00797) https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/...

Katie Johnson lawsuit against Donald Trump & Jeffery Epstein for raping her in 1994 when she was 13 years old: https://storage.courtlistener.com/rec... What You Need to Know About the Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit — and the Accuser Who Claims He Raped Her When She Was 13 The plaintiff, known as Jane Doe in court papers, accuses Donald Trump of raping her during the summer of 1994 when she was 13 https://people.com/politics/donald-tr... Katie Johnson's full testimony of 2/11/16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnib-... Wait, ‘Katie Johnson’ actually exists? https://sacramento.newsreview.com/201...

At the time of his death, financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was worth close to $600 million. He owned one of the biggest and most luxurious houses in New York City, two islands, a New Mexico ranch, and an apartment in Paris—not to mention the artwork, cars, private jet, and investment accounts.

So how exactly did the son of a homemaker and a gardener who was both a talented student (especially in math) and a college dropout wind up so rich?

It may be a facile and incomplete answer, but, as a Bear Stearns senior executive who helped give Epstein his first job on Wall Street told The New York Times in 2025, “He was just a hell of a salesman.” Epstein’s charm, charisma, or whatever else it is called comes up repeatedly when people talk about their interactions with him across five decades.

Detailed Britannica article on Epstein's mysterious wealth accumulation. Might not be anything new or super ground breaking, but a good resource for anyone interested in understanding just one extremely convoluted piece of this puzzle.