Sunday, February 22, 2026
Saturday, February 21, 2026
Friday, February 20, 2026
Thursday, February 19, 2026
Wednesday, February 18, 2026
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
When Both Sides Go Quiet
There is a political instinct that I’ve developed over the last few decade or so: when both parties are shouting, it’s business as usual. When both parties go quiet, pay attention, because something ugly is probably getting passed or covered up, and the American taxpayer is likely footing the bill of consequences.
Few public controversies in recent memory have generated as much bipartisan distrust as the handling of the Epstein files. Republicans accused Democrats of failing to pursue full transparency while President Biden was in office. Now Democrats accuse Republicans of withholding or slow-walking the release of the complete records. The blame shifts with political control, but the underlying fact pattern remains the same: both parties have figures of influence whose names have surfaced in connection with Epstein’s orbit.
That reality complicates the politics of accountability and fuels public suspicion that neither side is entirely comfortable with full disclosure.
What should have been a straightforward matter of transparency, identifying networks of power, influence, and possible criminal complicity, has instead unfolded as a slow humiliating drip of redactions, procedural delays, partial disclosures and cagey congressional testimony. Each release seems to raise more questions than it resolves. These questions revolve around sex trafficking, exploitation, abuse of minors, coercion and manipulation, elite complicity, obstruction of justice, etc.
But the deeper damage taking place now is not only about the crimes associated with Jeffrey Epstein. It is about institutional response. If only one political party had meaningful exposure to the scandal, the other would likely have been far more relentless in demanding transparency. But this is different. Despite Democrats harping on the files now, they were quiet in the years prior to Trump’s second term and, because Epstein’s connections span media, finance, academia, and politics, the discomfort still appears bipartisan.
And that is precisely what unsettles me.
When both political parties fail to press aggressively on something meaningful, especially something morally explosive, it often suggests that the issue cuts deeper than surface narratives allow. Bipartisan hesitation can signal overlapping vulnerability. Silence across the aisle is rarely accidental.
The horror here is not just what may have occurred in private circles of power, but the perception that the institutions tasked with accountability are reluctant to fully illuminate it. Justice delayed in cases involving elites feels less like procedural caution and more like reputational risk management. Whether or not that perception is entirely fair, it is corrosive.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs’ chief legal officer Kathryn Ruemmler announced her resignation after new emails with Epstein came to light, prompting internal pressure at the firm. British political figure Peter Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and Scotland Yard has opened a criminal investigation into his ties with Epstein. In Norway, parliament has launched an external inquiry into prominent diplomats for their connections to Epstein, and police are investigating corruption allegations against former prime minister Thorbjørn Jagland and others.
🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever
Across Europe, these disclosures have triggered formal probes, resignations, and institutional reviews that contrast sharply with the relative lack of accountability for high-profile figures in the United States, where calls for investigations and resignations have largely stalled. I mean, is Les Wexner really allowed to just walk around free at this point? How can that be possible? How are Kimbal Musk and Elon Musk allowed to remain on Tesla’s board? Why isn’t Bill Gates being hauled in front of congress?
I have long argued that Americans should apply the same “when both parties agree, the American public is getting screwed” scrutiny to monetary policy for a similar reason. It is one of the few areas where both major political parties display remarkable convergence. While they wage visible battles over cultural issues and tax rates, they tend to align on central banking frameworks, large scale liquidity interventions, and deficit tolerance. Like other cover-ups, that alignment deserves examination.
Monetary policy operates largely outside daily partisan warfare, yet it shapes purchasing power, asset prices, debt burdens, and wealth distribution. When balance sheets expand aggressively and markets are repeatedly stabilized during downturns, the effects are uneven. Asset holders often benefit first and most. Meanwhile, wage earners experience the lagging side effects such as inflationary pressure, higher living costs, and diminished purchasing power.
Supporters of Modern Monetary Theory argue that sovereign currency systems provide more fiscal flexibility than traditionally assumed. Critics counter that, in practice, repeated interventions risk entrenching a cycle in which gains are privatized and losses are socialized. When markets rise, the wealth effect accrues to those with substantial exposure. When markets falter, public backstops prevent collapse. The middle class absorbs the inflationary residue. And the wealth gap widens:
The structural similarity matters. When both parties avoid aggressive debate on a policy that materially burdens the average American, it raises the same instinctive question of what incentives are being protected. Monetary policy may not carry the visceral grotesqueness of the Epstein scandal, but it carries long term economic consequences that most Americans don’t know they are bearing, and don’t understand that they are being lied to about.
The comparison is not moral equivalence. It is structural parallel. In one case, alleged networks of power may be shielded by mutual hesitation. In the other, a financial architecture persists with limited democratic scrutiny because challenging it would destabilize shared political comfort. In both cases, bipartisan alignment dampens confrontation. Two forms of silence. Two different domains. Both revealing.
Foreign policy, particularly the authorization and funding of wars, has often followed a similar pattern. While domestic issues produce loud partisan divides, military interventions abroad frequently pass with overwhelming support from leadership in both parties. Public debate may flare at the margins, but institutional consensus tends to solidify quickly once action begins.
History shows that major military engagements, from post 9/11 authorizations to prolonged overseas conflicts, have often been backed by broad congressional majorities. The initial votes are decisive. The funding continues year after year. Only later, when costs mount and public opinion shifts, does meaningful dissent emerge. By then, strategic commitments and financial obligations are deeply entrenched.
Again, the pattern is not about moral equivalence between policy domains. It is about incentives. When both political parties converge quickly on matters involving immense money, immense power, or immense liability, scrutiny tends to narrow rather than widen. And when scrutiny narrows at the highest levels, the public’s role shifts from participant to spectator.
When both political parties fail to address something meaningful, when they close ranks instead of competing for exposure, the public should not assume the issue is trivial. More often, it suggests the truth behind the surface may be larger and more consequential than advertised.
Democracies depend not just on disagreement, but on adversarial pressure. When that pressure disappears, citizens are right to lean in, not tune out. When both sides go quiet, the story is rarely over. As the Epstein files are showing, it may simply run far deeper than we are being shown.
Now read:
- Today's Epstein’s Records Destroy Official Narratives
- Our Liquidity Addiction Continues
- Do DOJ Docs Show Epstein Death Notice A Day Early?
- The Hijacking Of Bitcoin: Epstein’s Hidden Network
- Why America’s Two-Party System Will Never Threaten the True Political Elites
Monday, February 16, 2026
Mega-Rich Building Fortresses
"And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
"And said to the mountains and rocks, 'Fall on us, and hide us from the face of Him that sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb':" Revelation 6:15-16.
America’s richest citizens are quietly transforming their estates into military-grade compounds equipped with underground bunkers, biometric security systems, moats, and private armed forces. The scale and urgency of this shift raises a question the mainstream press seems reluctant to ask: What exactly are they preparing for?
A mansion currently listed in Scottsdale for $15 million features 32 AI-powered cameras, a 100-foot moat surrounded by sour orange trees bearing four-inch spikes, and a safe room sealed by a 2,000-pound door. The property’s front door alone has 13 deadbolts. This is not an isolated example. According to data from Coldwell Banker Realty, roughly 45% of luxury homes sold in 2025 referenced privacy or security features, up from 38% in 2024.
The wealthy are spending between $100,000 and $1.5 million on security installations that include underground bunkers, laser-powered perimeter defense systems, and biometric access controls. Some are purchasing specially trained protection dogs for as much as $175,000. The message is unmistakable: traditional security measures no longer feel adequate, even for those living in America’s most exclusive neighborhoods.
What changed? The official narrative points to high-profile incidents like the 2024 assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson and celebrity home robberies. But this explanation feels insufficient when you consider the magnitude of the response. Los Angeles music producer Alex Grant added retina scanners, a guard house, and towering gates to his 24,000-square-foot mansion after confronting an armed intruder. Entrepreneur David Widerhorn constructed his Arizona compound with bullet-resistant glass, a hidden safe room featuring military-grade air filtration, and a cryptocurrency vault.
These are not simple home improvements. They represent a fundamental loss of faith in America’s civil institutions and public safety infrastructure. As one Wall Street Journal report noted, the shift reflects a belief among the affluent that traditional policing and communal safety mechanisms have failed, driving them toward privatized and customized security solutions.
The trend extends far beyond reinforced doors and surveillance cameras. A Virginia-based firm called SAFE (Strategically Armored & Fortified Environments) is currently developing Aerie, a $300 million underground sanctuary near Washington, D.C., scheduled to open this year. The facility features residences ranging from 2,000 to more than 20,000 square feet, all surrounded by fortified rock and protected by multiple layers of biometric security. Interactive walls and sophisticated lighting systems create the illusion of panoramic city views from deep underground. AI-powered medical suites provide intensive care capabilities and connect residents to specialists around the clock.
Naomi Corbi, who works with SAFE on ultra-secure residential design, offered a revealing explanation for the surge in demand. World events, she said, have moved beyond political theater to genuine geopolitical crisis. For those with access to elite-level intelligence, the existential implications are undeniable, and they’re acting accordingly.
That statement deserves careful attention. These are not paranoid conspiracy theorists hoarding canned goods in rural basements. These are people with unprecedented access to information, financial resources, and connections at the highest levels of government and industry. When Mark Zuckerberg spends an estimated $70 million on a Hawaiian compound featuring a 5,000-square-foot underground bunker, or purchases property for $150 to $200 million on Miami’s ultra-exclusive Indian Creek Island alongside Jeff Bezos and Carl Icahn, what information is driving those decisions?
The migration patterns themselves tell a story. Tech billionaires are fleeing California’s proposed 5% wealth tax for Florida’s zero-income-tax environment, but they’re not simply seeking favorable tax treatment. They’re selecting locations that offer strategic advantages: private docks, isolation from urban centers, and the ability to create self-sufficient compounds insulated from civil unrest.
Google co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin have been acquiring multimillion-dollar properties in South Florida, with Page alone spending $188 million on Coconut Grove mansions.
Florida’s Stone Creek Ranch in Delray Beach has emerged as one of the most sought-after addresses for the wealthy, not because of beaches or shopping, but because it provides 24/7 armed protection by ex-military professionals. Every prospective buyer undergoes rigorous background checks before being permitted to purchase. Actor Mark Wahlberg recently spent $37 million there. The compound resembles a private military installation more than a luxury residential community.
Meanwhile, Ron Hubbard, founder and CEO of Atlas Survival Shelters, who has built underground hideouts for Kim Kardashian, the Tate brothers, and other high-profile figures, believes civil unrest will be the primary driver of demand for these facilities. He predicts that underground construction will become the standard model for housing in the coming years.
The amenities inside these bunkers reveal just how seriously the elite are taking potential long-term scenarios. SAFE president Al Corbi, who helped secure the 27-floor private residence in Mumbai for billionaire industrialist Mukesh Ambani, emphasizes that clients now demand entertainment features like bowling alleys, home theaters, and wine cellars underground. Some bunkers include escape tunnels that double as go-kart tracks. The philosophy, as Corbi explains it, is that if you’re going to survive underground, you should be comfortable while doing so.
These facilities are designed for extended occupation, not temporary shelter. They feature independent food production through vertical farming technology, advanced water purification systems, backup power generation, and air filtration capable of protecting against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Some include full medical operating theaters. The European project known as The Oppidum, with prices starting at $60 million, continuously upgrades its technology to harness the latest advancements in energy storage, building management systems, and security elements.
The broader implications are profound. When the people with the most resources, the best information, and the deepest institutional connections begin building fortified compounds designed for long-term survival scenarios, it suggests they see threats the general public has not been adequately warned about. This could include anything from economic collapse and social breakdown to more catastrophic scenarios involving warfare, pandemics, or infrastructure failure.
The timeline matters too. These projects are accelerating now, in early 2026, with facilities like Aerie preparing to open demonstration experiences this year. The urgency is palpable. These are not five-year plans being casually developed. These are crash programs being implemented with significant capital and serious intent.
For ordinary Americans facing inflation, supply chain disruptions, and increasing social disorder, the message from the elite is clear through their actions: the systems we’ve been told to trust are not systems they trust for their own families. They are building parallel infrastructure designed to function independently when public institutions fail. They are hiring private security forces when public law enforcement proves inadequate. They are creating self-sufficient compounds when supply chains become unreliable.
The question remains: What do they know that the rest of us don’t? The answer may be simpler than elaborate conspiracy theories would suggest. They know that complex systems are fragile. They know that social order can deteriorate quickly. They know that wealth makes you a target when resources become scarce. And they know that when crisis comes, government protection will be stretched thin or entirely absent for all but the most essential personnel.
The wealthy are not hoping for catastrophe. They are simply refusing to be vulnerable to it. The rest of us would be wise to pay attention to what their actions reveal about the future they see coming. When those with the most to lose start building moats and bunkers, it might be time to ask what we should be doing to protect our own families from whatever storm they’re preparing for.
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Friday, February 13, 2026
Thursday, February 12, 2026
Wednesday, February 11, 2026
Epstein’s Island And The Gateway To The Psychology Of Evil
Conspiracy theorists are almost always right. We have been proved right time and time again and we will continue to be right about many things that the corporate media used to call “fringe.” For those out there who are like me; people who have been trying to warn the public about these threats for 20 years or more, I just want to say: We have won a resounding victory. We brought the dark secrets of the elites into the mainstream and there’s nothing that can stop this train now.
However, the fight is far from over and don’t expect anyone to give you any awards or even recognition. It’s the nature of our work, and frankly, the best thing that can happen in the long run is that researchers and analysts like us eventually become obsolete. In the meantime, the infowar to save civilization continues.
One issue I have spearheaded in my career (along with a handful of other liberty writers) is delving into the psychology and ideology of the globalists. I find their existence to be fascinating. Revolting to be sure, but also fascinating.
The theory which I have held for two decades is that the globalists are first and foremost an occult network of organized psychopaths. Meaning, they seek out people with psychopathic traits (latent or otherwise) in order to recruit and grow their numbers. The common assumption in the general public is that psychopaths are supposed to operate in isolation; that they do not work together because they are too self absorbed to organize.
History shows us that this is simply not so.
From the Mafia, to violent drug cartels, to religious cults, to authoritarian governments, we have seen psychopaths congregate together and cooperate in the worst moments of our timeline. They do it for mutual gain, but I believe there is an agenda that goes well beyond that. It’s a far reaching conspiracy which the recent release of the Epstein Files seems to support.
To be clear, I think the information presented so far in the files barely scratches the surface of the evil we are dealing with. I also think it’s important to point out that people being “named” in the Epstein Files is meaningless without context.
Some public figures like Donald Trump or Elon Musk are “named” as interacting with Epstein but there is zero evidence that they participated in anything nefarious (Epstein approached ANYONE with power or influence and tried to recruit them). Furthermore, anonymous FBI tips from random weirdos do not make a criminal case. Others are named in the files and the context suggests that they have done some pretty disgusting things.
The files represent enough evidence to justify a massive international investigation, they do not represent proof of crimes that would hold up in a court of law (at least, not so far).
We may actually never see indictments of any Epstein Island regulars. As I noted in my article “Governmental Self-Preservation: Why We’ll Never See The Real Epstein List”, published last year, I do think there are many people in the Trump Administration that want to see the Epstein case lead to arrests. However, I also predicted that the revelations within the files could trigger even darker discoveries that might cause total collapse.
The people handling this info are faced with a conundrum: Pursue the light of truth, dump it all on the internet and risk full blown societal chaos, or, drip feed info to the public and try to keep the system from imploding. Forget about aliens from outer space – The disclosure of concrete proof that a luciferian cult of baby eating bankers, CEOs, politicians and bureaucrats controls the planet is the real Black Swan event.
One cannot have a meaningful discussion about the nature of power in modern civilization (post-industrial revolution) without accepting the cold hard reality that most of the key events in our recent history have been manipulated by a hidden consortium of elites. We also can’t have any legitimate debate about how to solve the problem without accepting the fact that “evil” is an undeniable constant.
It’s the common denominator, the key to the equation.
Evil is a tangible and autonomous entity that the wields influence over human society, often using people with inherent weaknesses of the soul as vessels for achieving its machinations. Yes, that sounds rather biblical, but I would argue that our religious ancestors might have had a much better grasp on the nature of evil than we do today given our futurist propensity to deny anything we can’t immediately explain with science.
The Epstein Files suggests an evil that’s beyond reckoning for many people who have never been exposed to research on globalism, and even those who have been exposed might find themselves shocked by the discoveries.
To summarize, Jeffery Epstein was not the top of the pyramid. He was also not some self serving flim-flam man selling sex and depravity just to gain access to the halls of power. Rather, Epstein was a middle-man, a drug dealer selling dopamine experiences as a reward for members of the cabal (while collecting blackmail materials). But the cabal is far bigger than what we see in the Epstein files and it supersedes any one nation or government.
There are strange mentions of “cloning”, baby farming for black market sales, and the creation of a “superior race” in the files. In other words, the interests of Epstein and his associates went well beyond sexual fetishes.
Some of the Epstein emails openly discuss sexual abuse and torture of victims brought to the island. The victimization of teens is less protected and easier to prove. Then, there’s the creepier elements of the files. Coded language is rampant within the Epstein emails, using food as symbols for clearly illicit contraband.
From the Pizzagate information (the John Podesta emails) released by Wikileaks in 2016, we can see that food code words are common for the globalists and seem to be tied to the abuse of young children. Pizza symbolism has been common within pedophilia networks for many years leading up to the exposure of Pizzagate, and it’s also common within the pages of the Epstein Files (the word “pizza” is used as code at least 900 times in the emails).
The use of “beef jerky” in the Epstein emails (also mentioned hundreds of times) is specifically disconcerting, including talk of keeping the “jerky on ice”, a strange obsession with jerky portion weights, lab testing of “jerky” to prevent sickness, etc. Whatever they are talking about, it’s not beef jerky. You have to ask yourself, what kind of edible product would be so criminal that it has to be hidden behind elaborate code-speak?
The obvious conclusion would be that “jerky” is code for human meat. Some might argue that there’s no benefits to eating human meat so why would the elites do it? These critics are operating from a logical perspective and not an occultist perspective. One cannot separate Epstein Island from occultism and still understand what happened there.
For the elites who link themselves back to the pagan practices of ancient Babylonian times, from the era of Molech worshipers (Bohemian Grove) and beyond, the ritual of cannibalism is integral to their religion. They believe that human sacrifice gives them power and this is a common thread within most pagan systems including satanism.
Luciferianism/satanism is an integral element of globalism. The evidence of its practice within globalist circles is immense and cannot be ignored. Some skeptics would denote a separation between “satanism” and “luciferianism”, but for all intents and purposes they are intertwined belief systems.
Satanists are occupied with the pursuit of pleasure at the expense of morality, while luciferians are occupied with the pursuit of power and godhood at the expense of morality. For adherents of both practices, their motto is “Do What Thou Wilt.”
As I outlined in my article “Luciferianism: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System”, published in 2019, global elitists derive their spiritual ecstasy from the worship of the material and the corruption of the pure. They seek to deconstruct creation and human nature, to prove that all people are as depraved as they are and that morality is an artificial limitation on power and pleasure.
Their system is rife with psychopathic indicators and I assert that luciferienism is a religion designed specifically to affirm the destructive tendencies of psychopaths and narcopaths. But what are these tendencies?
Psychopaths lack any sense of empathy and function only as parasites who feed on the rest of humanity. This is actually one of the reasons I’m fascinated by them. Not because they are particularly interesting as individuals, but because their existence seems to be a dangerous anomaly. They are less than 1% of the total human population but they cause the vast majority of human tragedies.
The average person has the capacity for evil, there’s no doubt. People can be driven to all kinds of horrors depending on their circumstances. But, the majority of us have a mechanism called “conscience” which stops us from committing evil most of the time. It also causes us to feel guilt when we know we have acted in a destructive manner.
If the majority of the population did not have a universal experience of conscience and morality, we would have gone extinct as a species thousands of years ago.
Globalists (psychopaths) do not have this mechanism. In fact, they view conscience as a hindrance, a trait of the weak and the easily victimized. They are a predatory class of human. I would even suggest that they are not human at all, but a mutation or a cancerous intrusion.
When psychopaths achieve overt material wealth they then have easy access to the resources they need to satisfy their impulses at will. At this stage in the evolution of a psychopath they have a tendency to become bored. They begin to chase increasing depravity and darkness in search of a greater dopamine fix. The more degenerate and taboo the activity, the more exciting it is.
But these are nothing but individual motivations and personal addictions. What are the ambitions and drives of the organized cabal?
Part of the allure of occultism is the glee some people feel when they believe they are “superior” to their common man. Occult groups sell their members on the notion that they will be set apart as “elite” when they join with the keepers of secrets.
When we read the numerous emails tied to Epstein as well as his island and his ranch in New Mexico, the people who correspond with him seem childish and giddy. They snicker like adolescent brats when they engage in codes and riddles. They’re committing atrocities beyond the comprehension of the average man, and they feel joy because they’re basking in the “cloak and dagger” of it all.
I think this might be a hard thing to reconcile for many people in the conspiracy field, but the cabal is not made up of darkly brilliant minds imposing cold and calculating will. Rather, it is mostly made up of egomaniacal narcissists giggling like retards as they revel in their delusions of grandeur. If you saw how these people behave behind the scenes, you would probably feel embarrassed for them and feel like an idiot for imagining them to be cunning or untouchable masterminds.
Without their money and the collective protection of their coven, they are tiny people without merit living a meaningless existence. That said, make no mistake – It’s the putrid sociopathy of their childishness that makes them exceedingly dangerous. To be infantile while rejoicing in the blood of innocence requires a diabolical and demonic mind.
From my research Epstein’s Island might have been tame in comparison to some of the other meeting places of the elites. His island was not the end destination but a gateway for initiates. I believe the island was a test, a venue where evil is concentrated and people with apprehensions are filtered away.
The worst of the worst likely moved on to even more vile nesting grounds hidden in plain site around the world. The reason the Epstein Files matter is because they open the door to a wider investigation of the globalist networks and their horrific playgrounds.
I suggest that we need to bring back the concept of “witch hunters”; people who are able to think like occultists while using modern investigative methods in order to track down these networks and erase them from the Earth. If government officials refuse to do this, then vigilantism is inevitable.
Unfortunately, it’s no mistake that globalist NGOs have flooded the west with third world migrants and mobilized armies of far left insurgents in the past few years. After the pandemic they know that the public is reaching information saturation and that their agenda is coming to light. They will seek to overthrow conservative movements, exploit useful idiots to destroy their enemies and cause general mayhem in order to sabotage any organized resistance.
Tuesday, February 10, 2026
Massie Exposes Les Wexner As Epstein Co-Conspirator, Opening Door To Criminal Charges Against Kash Patel
Although President Donald J. Trump has amplified his attacks against Kentucky representative Thomas Massie on the basis of deluded claims that he is a radical, un-American liberal who is hellbent on sabotaging his administration, it is the congressman’s continued crusade to expose the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein that shows the actual threat he poses to Trump. The latest development in the Epstein Files fallout has clearly proven that the Trump administration’s best attempts to continue to cover up the crimes of Epstein and his accomplices are no match for Massie’s vigilance. After granting members of Congress access to view unredacted versions of the Epstein Files in response to the pressure mounted by Massie, the revelations therein have shown the lengths that the Trump Department of Justice (”DOJ”) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (”FBI”) have taken to continue the Epstein cover-up, going as far as to break federal law in an increasingly futile attempt to keep the truth from the American public.
The enhanced political pressure from Massie and California representative Ro Khanna following their success in passing The Epstein Files Transparency Act resulted in the Trump DOJ deciding to allow members of Congress to view unredacted files beginning on Monday morning. Members of Congress have been given limited access to view unredacted versions of the Epstein Files on computers at DOJ offices, provided they give 24 hours’ notice, though they will not be given access to the physical documents themselves. The DOJ has limited access to members of Congress alone, excluding any members of their staff. Although members of Congress will be able to take notes on any files they view, the DOJ has prohibited them from bringing any electronic devices into their review sessions. Unredacted documents made accessible to members of Congress are also limited to the trove of over 3 million files that have been released to the public, far short of the full scope of the more than 6 million files the DOJ has said it has in its possession.
Despite being given such limited access, the revelations included in what has been made available have led to a monumental shift that disproves the Trump administration’s narrative that the action it has been taken on the Epstein Files has been made with the aim of providing full transparency. According to representatives Massie and Khanna, they have identified at least six individuals incriminated in Epstein’s crimes, two of whom the FBI has officially labeled as co-conspirators, in the limited time allocated to them on the first day of being able to review the unredacted files whose identities have been obfuscated by the Trump administration despite their apparent complicity. Of those officially acknowledged as a co-conspirator is high-profile Epstein associate and billionaire Les Wexner, whose confirmation as such opens the door to criminal charges being brough against against high-ranking members of the Trump administration.
While Wexner’s role in facilitating the crimes of Epstein has been well-established for years, the revelation that the FBI officially acknowledged him as a co-conspirator by 2019 dismantles the narrative woven by the Trump administration that it has not withheld the identities of any of the notorious pedophile’s accomplices. In September 2025, Patel ostensibly did just that when he testified before Congress regarding Epstein. During his testimony, Patel was asked “Who did Epstein traffic these young women to?” by Louisiana Senator John N. Kennedy. Patel responded, “Himself.” There is no credible information—none—that he trafficked to other individuals.” The revelation that the FBI had confirmed that Wexner was a co-conspirator of Epstein by 2019 suggests that Patel lied to Congress during his testimony. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, knowingly and willingly making a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement to Congress is a felony punishable by a prison sentence of up to five years.
In response to Massie exposing the FBI’s documented admission of Wexner as a co-conspirator years before Patel testified to Congress that the agency he helms had no credible information of others involved in Epstein’s criminal network, the DOJ went on the defensive in a feeble attempt to minimize the seriousness of this revelation. US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche offered an explanation to Massie for the sweeping redactions made by the DOJ in violation of The Epstein Files Transparency Act. Blanche stated that one particular document highlighted by Massie, which had 18 of the 20 names included in it redacted, was so heavily censored because it included “numerous victim names.” However, the newly released version of the document without the prohibited redactions withheld only 2 of the 20 names, meaning that the DOJ illegally redacted 16 before being forced to publish its revised version.
Despite the brief time Massie was given to review unredacted versions of the Epstein Files released to the public, he was able to uncover the name of another potential co-conspirator implicated in one of the most disturbing documents to be released to the public. In the Epstein Files release EFTA00774231, a redacted sender emailed Epstein on April 24th, 2009, writing, “where are you? are you ok , I loved the torture video.” Outrage over the gruesome content of the email alluding to a snuff film justifying the claims that the crimes of the Epstein network went far beyond human trafficking and child sexual abuse resounded throughout the public discourse after its revelation. That anger was amplified by the DOJ’s decision to redact the identity of the email’s author, as there was no indication it was the name of one of Epstein’s victims, whom the DOJ would be allowed to conceal in compliance with The Epstein Files Transparency Act. After viewing the unredacted version of the email, Massie announced that the disclosure revealed that Emirati business magnate Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem was the person who sent the email discussing the torture video to Epstein.
Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, an Emirati businessman who is the chairman and chief executive officer of DP World and the chairman of the Ports, Customs & Free Zone Corporation, is referenced in 336 of the more than 3 million Epstein files currently available to the public. The files concerning Bin Sulayem reveal a years-long relationship between the two. In the Epstein Files release EFTA01155800, Epstein states that his relationship with Bin Sulayem began in 2002 in a letter of recommendation written regarding a property the Emirati businessman sought to lease in New York City.
Numerous other emails between Epstein and Bin Sulayem contain images withheld by the DOJ, exchanges regarding each party’s travel plans, dinner invitations, and numerous correspondences including Boris Nikolic, the biotech venture capitalist and Bill Gates adviser who was named as an executor of Epstein’s estate in his last will and testament amended just before his supposed death on August 10th, 2019. The earliest evidence of Epstein introducing Nikolic to Bin Sulayem is documented in Epstein Files release EFTA00897104, an email sent by Epstein to Bin Sulayem on October 11th, 2010. Epstein copies Nikolic on the email, the body of which reads “Boris, Nov 29 30.” An email written to Epstein at 6:50:20 pm on November 29th, 2010, by Nikolic, disclosed as Epstein Files release EFTA02415345, confirms that he and Bin Sulayem met on the date referenced in the October 2010 email.
Files documenting the notorious pedophile’s close relationship with Bin Sulayem also reveal communication with other members of Epstein’s innermost circle throughout their near decades-long relationship. In a June 27th, 2011 email exchange with a respondent named “Sarah K.,” presumably Sarah Kellen—who was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in Epstein’s 2008 non-prosecution agreement tendered by the former Trump Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta during his tenure as the US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida under the Bush administration—Bin Sulayem coordinates the receipt of a package sent to him from Epstein. Bin Sulayem also held similar discussions when coordinating visits with and receiving shipments from Epstein with another unindicted co-conspirator named in the non-prosecution agreement, Lesley Groff.
Bin Sulayem’s ingratiation into Epstein’s network also confirms that Epstein introduced him to former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. This is confirmed in the Epstein Files release EFTA02600899, in which Bin Sulayem invites Barak to visit him for dinner to discuss business opportunities during his stay in Tel Aviv at a penthouse located at 1 Rothschild Boulevard.
In iMessages with Epstein on August 15th, 2015, Bin Sulayem coordinates a visit during a trip to New Mexico, where Epstein’s infamous Zorro Ranch, the site where he was alleged to have run a black market baby farm, was located. The Emirati business magnate admits he was traveling with his wife, three children, and their nanny when coordinating his visit with Epstein before sending him links to various pornographic websites. Epstein’s responses are sparse, solely confirming that he has sent a car to transport Bin Sulayem to meet with him. Bin Sulayem also refers to an email he sent Epstein from a private email address, which is redacted by the DOJ.
As in the case of other file redactions, US Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded to Massie’s revelation that Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem was the sender of the torture video email to Epstein by defending the DOJ’s decision to redact it. Blanche stated the redaction complied with The Epstein Files Transparency Act, as it was made due to the message only including Bin Sulayem’s email address, and as personally identifiable information, that information was required to be withheld. However, that explanation proved to be a Pyrrhic victory against Massie, as it also served as a tacit admission that Bin Sulayem was indeed the author of the email discussing the torture video with Epstein.
Reactions from other members of Congress who were able to review unredacted versions of the Epstein Files on Monday signify the seismic shift taking place against the Trump administration. Colorado Republican congressional representative Lauren Boebert spoke with a reporter when leaving the DOJ offices after viewing the unredacted Epstein files. Boebert, who has been a strong ally of Trump’s during her tenure in Congress, appeared visibly angry during the interview. She expressed her belief that the Trump DOJ has knowingly redacted the names of accomplices of Epstein in violation of The Epstein Files Transparency Act. “I think that there are folks who are definitely implicated and co-conspirators, and, you know, I don’t think everyone there that was talking about underage girls being trafficked are victims.” When asked a follow-up question regarding the potential of clemency for convicted Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell, Boebert’s frustration showed as she vociferously rejected the premise, stating, “I think Ghislaine Maxwell should get more time, and she should definitely be in a harsher prison.” It’s absolutely disgusting.”
In November, President Trump attempted to persuade Representative Boebert to remove her name from the discharge petition that ultimately led to the passage of The Epstein Files Transparency Act. Trump similarly took that tactic against other key allies of his in Congress, including Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina and then-Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. That futile effort to continue to insulate the co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein resulted in an irreconcilable schism with Greene, which led to her resignation from Congress. Following the announcement of her resignation, Greene revealed that Trump attempted to persuade her to vote against releasing the Epstein Files because their disclosure would harm friends of the president who would be implicated in them.
Marjorie Taylor Greene details her last conversation with Trump.
— Koach Key 🪼 (@KoachKey) January 31, 2026
The conversation that Trump “Prioritized the men who abused and raped young girls…because those men are his friends”.
This conversation is damning.
It has merit.
After all, Trump threw out one of his closest… pic.twitter.com/Qyb8k4ZSzx
The continued effort to protect the co-conspirators of Jeffrey Epstein has only further undermined President Trump’s legitimacy, as revelations of the extent of the cover-up he continues to perpetrate not only risks alienating crucial political allies but also, in doing so, furthers political momentum gaining traction against the president that could lead to action taken against key administration officials such as the impeachment of Attorney General Pam Bondi and potential criminal charges being brought against FBI Director Kash Patel. With its political foundation being shaken to its core in the fallout from how it has handled the release of the Epstein Files, it appears that it is only a matter of time before the house of cards that the Trump administration has turned itself into because of its unyielding commitment to protecting the pedophile elite comes crashing down.
Monday, February 9, 2026
Sunday, February 8, 2026
Saturday, February 7, 2026
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)