Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, February 09, 2026

After getting the opportunity to view the unredacted files, Rep. Thomas Massie threatened to read the names on the House floor to secure justice for survivors.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

And they told Rep. Thomas Massie and me this was a hoax and conspiracy when we risked our reputations and careers to pursue the release of the files.

[image or embed]

-- Ro Khanna (@rokhanna.bsky.social) Feb 5, 2026 at 4:22 PM

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

As well he should.

#1 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-02-09 03:09 PM | Reply

... Massie Threatens to Go Nuclear & Reveal Epstein Client Names ...

Why were they redacted in the first place?

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 03:34 PM | Reply

The irrational raging MAGA desire to destroy the hated Clintons by exposing the former POTUS in the Epstein files has a baseball analog.

Year ago several players on an MLB team kept loudly pestering their manager in the dugout to complain to the umpire that the opposing pitcher was cheating by scuffing the baseball or applying a liniment on it.

After a while the manager couldn't take it anymore as the TV cameras kept zooming in on them, so he yelled at his team:

"Hey, fer Chrissake, pipe down you guys! What the hell do you think our pitcher is doing out there?!"


#3 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-02-09 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#2 ... Why were they redacted in the first place? ...

www.kptv.com

... However, there is also concern for what some are calling the over-redaction of important details, namely people believed to have aided Epstein.

In a 2014 email released in the files, a person writes to Epstein, "Thank you for a fun night ... your littlest girl was a little naughty."

The identity of the individual who wrote the message is redacted. ...


Why was the sender's name redacted?

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 04:07 PM | Reply

Talk's cheap.
Believe it when I see it.
Frankly, I'm coming to believe this country is too stupid and corrupt to survive.

#5 | Posted by morris at 2026-02-09 04:44 PM | Reply

This seems to be the only winning issue for Democrats.

So it would actually be beneficial for Republicans to completely release everything.

#6 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 07:01 PM | Reply

@#5 ... Talk's cheap. Believe it when I see it. ...

Look at the email cited in #4.

#7 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 07:38 PM | Reply

Massie is going to get himself assassinated.

Gotta hand it to the guy, he's got some brass balls.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2026-02-09 07:50 PM | Reply

@#8 ... Gotta hand it to the guy, he's got some brass balls. ...

I do not disagree.

That aside, Congress passed a law with only one dissenting vote about this.

Yet the Trump administration still seems to be avoiding following that law.

imo, this is looking more and more like a cover-up by the Trump administration.

Which begs the question ... what might the Trump administration be so focused upon covering up?


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 08:34 PM | Reply

Massie isn't alone.

House Oversight Democrat Rep. Stansbury exited a closed-door deposition involving Ghislaine Maxwell, issuing explosive accusations about a wider cover-up tied to the Epstein case.

"There are more than three dozen individuals directly associated with Donald Trump named in those files."

"The United States government is engaged in an active cover-up of the largest sex trafficking scandal and influence peddling scandal in the history of the United States and Donald Trump is right at the center of it."

www.reddit.com

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 09:00 PM | Reply

Nothing stops one of them from lying on the Floor. They could read off every member of Congress and they'd be protected by the Speech and Debate clause.

Can't trust any name given and any name withheld.

#11 | Posted by Petrous at 2026-02-09 09:17 PM | Reply

"Nothing stops one of them from lying on the Floor."

Nothing stops Trump from lying either.

I believe the one who isn't a convicted felon.
You believe the one who is a convicted felon.

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 09:52 PM | Reply

February 9, 2026
Rep. Jamie Raskin News Conference on Epstein Files
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, spoke to reporters after his own review of unredacted files held by the Justice Department related to its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein. He accused the Justice Department of making numerous "completely unnecessary" redactions that he said appeared to protect President Trump and former Victoria's Secret CEO Les Wexner, among others, and questioned whether the Epstein Files Transparency Act, signed into law in late 2025, was being fully followed by the Trump administration

"We need to be investigating the money. We need to be investigating the organizational hierarchy. There's no way you run a billion dollars international child trafficking ring with just two people committing crimes, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. No way. It doesn't work like that. So we need to figure out what other conspiracies were involved, what Our co-conspirators were involved, and I really do believe that listening to the survivors is going to be our pathway through this nightmare."

"Well, remember what Congress called for was a complete release of the files and just the redaction of the names of the victims. Now, unfortunately, the names of the victims were not redacted relating to more than 100 women in the case, so that is baffling and staggering that that would happen. But then there are Thousands and thousands of pages replete with redactions. There are entire pages and memos where you can't see anything. It's all blacked out and there are no names of victims in there. So it's just a very puzzling thing and the Department of Justice needs to explain it. The whole country should be able to read what this federal law compelled them to produce."

www.c-span.org

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 10:05 PM | Reply

Democratic Rep. Jamie Raskin spoke with reporters on Monday after viewing unredacted versions of the Epstein files, relaying that one document he saw appeared to suggest that Trump never asked Epstein to leave his Mar-a-Lago club like the president has claimed
people.com

"it was during the period of the 2009 investigation and Epstein's lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mar a Lago, but he was a guest at Mar a Lago and he had never been asked to leave and that was redacted"
From the C-SPAN link.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 10:21 PM | Reply

Republican Sen Lummis says she's changed her mind after new Epstein revelations today: "Initially my reaction to all this was, I don't care. I don't see what the big deal is. But now I see what the big deal is. The members of Congress who were pushing this were not wrong!"
www.youtube.com

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 10:33 PM | Reply

DOJ Deleted an Epstein Prosecution Memo About Possible Co-Conspirators. We Saved It.
An 86-page DOJ memo detailing possible Epstein co-conspirators vanished after reporters asked questions. But we saved a copy.

The memo, titled "Investigation into Potential Co-Conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein," had been publicly accessible as part of the massive tranche of Epstein-related documents recently released. Then, after reporters from the Miami Herald, including the renowned Julie K. Brown, began asking the DOJ specific questions about it, the document was suddenly gone.

But unfortunately for the Trump DOJ, we had already saved it.

And we're making it available so the public can read it for themselves. You can download it in its entirety by clicking here:
www.meidasplus.com

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 10:37 PM | Reply


@#14 ...appeared to suggest that Trump never asked Epstein to leave his Mar-a-Lago club like the president has claimed
people.com

"it was during the period of the 2009 investigation and Epstein's lawyers synopsized and quoted Trump as saying that that Jeffrey Epstein was not a member of his club at Mar a Lago, but he was a guest at Mar a Lago and he had never been asked to leave and that was redacted"
From the C-SPAN link. ...

Wait, what?

Pres Trump may have offered a different view in the past than the Epstein files seem to show?

But, that is so unlike Pres trump.

/s


#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 10:48 PM | Reply

@#13 ... Well, remember what Congress called for was a complete release of the files and just the redaction of the names of the victims. Now, unfortunately, the names of the victims were not redacted ...

Yet, the names of perpetrators seem to be redacted.

www.kptv.com

... In a 2014 email released in the files, a person writes to Epstein, "Thank you for a fun night ... your littlest girl was a little naughty."

The identity of the individual who wrote the message is redacted. ...



Why was that sender's name redacted?

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 10:56 PM | Reply

Trump Officials Redacted Epstein Files to Protect Prominent' Individuals, Lawmakers Allege

Members of Congress who on Monday were granted access to unredacted Justice Department files related to Jeffrey Epstein said they discovered evidence that at least six men had been concealed from public view without clear legal justification, renewing accusations that the Trump Administration had improperly shielded powerful figures from scrutiny
time.com

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 10:57 PM | Reply

@#16

From the #16 link ...

... The memo includes statements from 24 women who say they were abused by Epstein as minors and 14 who say they were abused as adults, along with additional references to assistants and recruiters. In many cases, investigators confirmed key elements of the women's accounts independently. The document also summarizes allegations made against a number of powerful men, based on tips, interviews, and investigative leads compiled over years. Much of the document is redacted.

The memo shows what investigators knew, what they looked at, and what they ultimately chose not to pursue. It provides a rare window into an investigation that spanned nearly two decades and three presidential administrations. It also stands in sharp contrast to repeated public statements from senior law enforcement officials claiming there was no credible evidence to pursue anyone else.

Read the document. Judge it for yourself. And ask the questions the DOJ still hasn't answered. ...


#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 11:01 PM | Reply

#11 | Posted by Petrous

Why are you so keen to run interference on this topic?

#21 | Posted by jpw at 2026-02-09 11:02 PM | Reply

 

@#18


#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 11:08 PM | Reply

Epstein Files Whistleblower Reveal Letter Naming DOJ Officials Who Protected Co-Conspirators

The latest wave of Epstein file releases has ignited fierce debate after a resurfaced whistleblower letter allegedly named senior US Justice Department officials linked to a controversial plea agreement.

Supporters call the documents a long buried roadmap exposing how powerful figures escaped scrutiny, while critics warn that many claims remain unverified. With lawmakers preparing to review unredacted files inside a secure DOJ reading room, questions over missing documents, protected associates and alleged legal manoeuvres have again pushed one of the most controversial criminal cases in modern history back into global headlines.
www.ibtimes.co.uk

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 11:19 PM | Reply

Chad Pergram
@ChadPergram

8h
After reviewing Epstein documents at DOJ, Raskin says there's evidence of victims as young as 9 years old

That's stinky's wheelhouse.

#24 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2026-02-09 11:25 PM | Reply

@#23 ... With lawmakers preparing to review unredacted files inside a secure DOJ reading room, ...

On the four computers the DoJ has provided.

How many lawmakers? How many computers? How many documents to view?

Why is the DoJ looking to slow-step all this?

What is Pres Trump's DoJ looking like it is trying to cover up?


#25 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 11:27 PM | Reply

"Did you have a chance to review tany of the unredacted files over at DOJ, the Epstein Files?"

"I did."

"You did?"

"Yeah, I just came from there."

"What can you tell us?"

"They're a bunch of sick fscks."
US Rep Becca Balint (D, VT)
www.reddit.com

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 11:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Bay Area congressman who viewed unredacted Epstein files says at least 6 men are implicated
www.sfchronicle.com

... Two members of Congress who pushed the federal government to publicly release its investigations into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein said they had identified at least six men who were likely incriminated in the well-connected financier's crimes, but declined to share the names. ...

Once again (see #18, and #22) I ask... why not say the names?


Who is (are?) the Trump DoJ protecting?

#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-09 11:42 PM | Reply

The United States has a Pedophile Occupied Government.

Hey, isn't that what QAnon used to say?
Why'd they go radio silent after the election...

#28 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 11:49 PM | Reply

"They're a bunch of sick fscks."
US Rep Becca Balint (D, VT)
www.reddit.com

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-09 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag: Ex-SC Jack Smith Must Be Furious


#29 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-02-10 12:01 AM | Reply

@#28

Like this?

Conspiracy of Silence (1994) Child pedophile rings in government, banned by congress from airing on Discover Channel (2015)
www.reddit.com

#30 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-10 12:17 AM | Reply

Citing demand, lawmaker claims DOJ denied some from viewing Epstein files
www.newsnationnow.com

... The Department of Justice on Monday denied some lawmakers from viewing the unredacted Jeffrey Epstein files following criticism that the administration has improperly shielded the identities of various people.

The DOJ claims too many lawmakers signed up for timeslots and the schedule is full, a lawmaker told NewsNation. ...


As I have said previously in #25...

On the four computers the DoJ has provided.

How many lawmakers? How many computers? How many documents to view?

Why is the DoJ looking to slow-step all this?

And in this comment I add... what is the DoJ seemingly trying to cover-up?



#31 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-10 12:59 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort