We have massive breaking news in the past several hours. I’ve spent the day reading through the 23,000 pages released by the House Oversight Committee, and simply put: I’m disgusted by what I’ve read. I’m even more disgusted that it took this long for any of it to see daylight.
Many of you have reached out asking if I’m safe, if I have security, if I’m okay—and I want you to know: yes, I am safe, and I’m not going anywhere. This story is far too important to walk away from. What’s unfolding is bigger than Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell; it’s about every person who enabled, protected, or profited from their crimes. I will not be intimidated, and I will not stop—not now, not ever. If you believe in accountability and truth, subscribe and help keep this work alive, because the only thing more dangerous than corruption is silence.
Subscribe
The political ground is already shifting. In just the last few hours, Republicans have begun breaking from Donald Trump in ways we have not seen before. Three have publicly said they will vote to support the Epstein Files discharge petition when it reaches the House floor: Warren Davidson, Eli Crane, and Don Bacon.
That lineup is striking—not just because Bacon is a well-known moderate while Crane hails from the far-right, but because it signals that this controversy is transcending familiar GOP factional lines. The center and the hard right do not agree on much; they agree on this: more must come out.
While the politics are moving quickly, the documents themselves are the true earthquake. After spending long hours with the Oversight release, it’s clear to me that the public has only seen the tip of the iceberg. There are threads in these pages that—if pulled—could expose how influence, money, and access intertwine with media, foreign governments, and the highest rungs of business and politics.
Below are some of the most consequential revelations, as reflected in the documents. They deserve rigorous, public scrutiny and—crucially—swift congressional action to secure, authenticate, and release the underlying records in full. The bottom line is unmistakable: these materials demand transparency.
1) An email tying Epstein to a 2019 London moment with Prince Andrew and Donald Trump
In an internal message dated June 3, 2019, just weeks before Epstein’s arrest, he wrote: “Prince Andrew and Trump today. Tooo funny. Recall Prince Andrew’s accuser came out of Mar-a-Lago.” That was the very day Trump, then on a state visit to the UK, met with Prince Andrew in London. The timing and tone are chilling. Epstein appears to be clocking the optics—and the risks—of a public encounter between two men whose names recur throughout his orbit. It’s hard to miss the subtext: Virginia Giuffre, who has said she was recruited while working at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, has long been at the center of the Prince Andrew saga. This email reads less like idle gossip and more like an operator narrating a live vulnerability.
2) Claims he advised the Russian government on dealing with Trump
In separate emails, Epstein says he had been advising Russian officials on how to handle Donald Trump—a stunning assertion in its own right and an illustration of how he traded on (or tried to inflate) his perceived access. Whether bravado or fact, the mere claim underscores a pattern: Epstein positioned himself as a back-channel fixer in foreign affairs, leveraging names that carried weight in Washington, London, and beyond. Congress needs to determine what, if anything, material came of these boasts—and who, if anyone, on either side engaged with him.
3) A victim’s line: “i dont want to come early to find trump in your house”
Victim correspondence in the files includes an unpunctuated, terrified-sounding message: “i dont want to come early to find trump in your house.” Read plainly, it suggests fear of encountering Trump at Epstein’s residence. Standing alone, a single line is not a verdict. But in context—amid other testimony and corroborating evidence—it is a flashing red light that investigators must pursue. Identify the date, verify the device and account used, and take sworn statements from the sender about the circumstances that prompted the warning.
Another email from a “Paul Krassner” to Jeffrey Epstein with the subject line “Trump” discussed a “pedophile party.”
4) A media backchannel: a journalist tips Epstein off
Another email shows then–New York Times journalist Landon Thomas alerting Epstein to follow-up reporting by journalist and former NYPD detective John Connolly. Reporters talk to sources, including unsavory ones—that’s not new. What’s new is the apparent direction of travel: a heads-up to Epstein about another journalist’s work. At minimum, it demands clarity: was this routine source management, a misguided attempt to curry favor, or something deeper? Transparency from the outlets involved is both necessary and overdue.
These documents don’t just revive old scandals; they map a network of access and influence that appears to have stretched across parties, borders, and industries. They implicate the credibility of our institutions—political, legal, media, and financial. And they expose how the rich and connected can float above consequence for years, shielded by secrecy and selective disclosure.
That is why the emerging Republican support for the discharge petition is meaningful. Warren Davidson, Eli Crane, and Don Bacon do not share a factional home in today’s GOP. Their alignment suggests a growing recognition that sunlight is a precondition for trust—and that protecting anyone’s political fortunes is a poor excuse for withholding the truth.
5) A Private Warning: Epstein’s May 2017 Email to Larry Summers
Among the more jarring entries in the newly released correspondence is a short, almost casual message sent by Jeffrey Epstein to former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers in May 2017. The email appears to capture Epstein’s candid and condescending assessment of then-President Donald Trump, revealing how he viewed Trump’s intellect, temperament, and the fragility of his inner circle.
Epstein wrote:
“Your world does not understand how dumb he really is. he will blame everyone around him. for bad results.
gary cohn in good place. as is jared. all others, not long for this world..”
The tone is derisive, even dismissive—a financier sneering at the very power he once courted. At the time, Trump had been in office for just four months. Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic adviser, and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, were seen as stabilizing influences amid a chaotic early administration. Epstein’s note suggests he considered those two “safe,” while predicting the downfall of nearly everyone else in Trump’s orbit—a prediction that, in retrospect, proved disturbingly prescient as early aides resigned or were forced out within the year.
What Congress must do next
Individuals named in these files—whether politicians, business leaders, or journalists—are entitled to respond. Some will deny, others will say emails were mischaracterized, spoofed, or taken out of context. That’s exactly why the raw data and forensic methods must be made public. The goal is not trial by rumor; it’s accountability through verifiable evidence.
We’ve waited years for even this partial window. The longer Congress hesitates, the greater the chance that servers are wiped, accounts are closed, memories fade, and the public resigns itself to never knowing. That cannot be the outcome—not for the victims, not for the country.
The stakes are simple: either we believe that no one is above the law, or we don’t. The new Epstein files make that choice unavoidable. It is time to bring the full record into the light—no exceptions, no sacred cows, and no more delays.