TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

"It goes to the heart of there being two Americas. One America for the rich and powerful." "What force is there? What corrupt forces are there that can stranglehold the United States government from preventing Epstein from abusing young girls, from preventing a full disclosure of what Epstein was doing, from preventing the American public from learning about other rich and powerful men who raped and abused these young girls." "They're forgotten Americans in this country." "There are documents there because the victim's lawyers have seen those documents." "We've released 33,000 documents." "97% of already is in the public domain." "The president could say release the files." "This is a moral test." "We need two more Republican votes."

Congressman Massey argues the Epstein case exposes “two Americas—one America for the rich and powerful”—where Epstein allegedly “was raping 13 and 14 year olds” and survivors were told by police that nothing could be done. He asks what “force” or “corrupt forces” could prevent disclosure and notes questions about foreign governments, the CIA, and the FBI being involved, urging release of the files. He says credible people have raised these issues and that the victim's lawyers have seen the files. Donors have pressured him; he says, “we need two more Republican votes” to push for release. Victims may publish their own list if needed; they have immunity to name in the House. Files are stored at DOJ, FBI, CIA, and Treasury; 33,000 documents exist with most already public, while 3% is new but not consequential. The aim is relentless pursuit of justice, not politics.

Congressman Thomas Massie discusses the Epstein Files Transparency Act and what to expect from the December 19, public release of materials. Key framework and deadlines - The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed on November 19. Materials are due in a publicly searchable format by December 19. - The act is a law, not a subpoena, and has no expiration date. It directs the attorney general to produce three sets of files from three locations: the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI, and US Attorneys, including grand jury material from investigations and trials. How to know if all materials have been released - Longtime case reporters and victim’s attorneys indicate there are at least 20 names of men accused of sex crimes in FBI files, specifically in the FD-302 forms that memorialize witness testimony. - If the December 19 production contains no names of any male accused of sex crimes or sex trafficking, that would indicate documents have not been fully released. Legal novelty and enforcement - Unlike prior Congress subpoenas that can be delayed or run out the clock, the act imposes a binding legal obligation with no congressional expiration. - If the attorney general is noncompliant, the next attorney general could be obligated to release the files the moment they hold the seat, and there are penalties described in the act (not detailed here). - The act ensures that even if a new administration changes hands (e.g., post-Trump), compliance is enforceable. Impact on grand jury material and redactions - The act prompted movement in grand jury material rulings: after passage, three federal judges (SD Florida, SDNY) ordered that grand jury material be produced to the DOJ, with redactions to protect victims’ identities as required by the act. - Judges indicated they would redact identifying information of victims, aligning with the act’s protections. Contemporary statements and implications - Pam Bondi had claimed substantial material on her desk and later said there was no material besides child sexual abuse material; Massie notes that other material exists and Bondi will need to produce it, potentially requiring her to address prior statements. - Cash Patel testified before the Senate that there is no evidence implicating anyone other than Epstein; Massie questions him in a House Judiciary hearing about three-zero-two forms, suggesting they may contain corroborating evidence implicating others. - If other men are implicated, the evidence would come from victim statements and corroborating witnesses in FBI files, including 302 forms. Upcoming and media appearances - Congress adjourns a day early, so the document release may be observed on Saturday. Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna plan to discuss findings on Face the Nation on Sunday. Ongoing investigations - Bondi announced new federal investigations near the time the bill passed. A bicameral, bipartisan letter seeks a sit-down to discuss what new material justified these investigations. - The act requires that any claims of ongoing investigations affecting release be limited to material that would impact that specific investigation, with temporary redactions as allowed by the law. Massie concludes by promising updates on Friday’s release and compliance with the act, and thanks the audience.

I hope my colleagues are watching this press conference. "What if this was your sister? What if this was your daughter?" "the Washington establishment is asking the American public to believe something that is not believable." "They're asking you to believe that two individuals created hundreds of victims and they acted alone and that the DOJ has no idea of who else might have been involved, that nobody else did anything that rose to a criminal enterprise." "This is not a hoax. This is real." "There are real survivors. There are real victims to this criminal enterprise." "Be one of the next two who sponsors this discharge petition." "If you've looked at the pages released, they're heavily redacted; 97% is already in the public domain." "This is a litmus test. Can we drain the swamp?" "Hopefully, today, we'll get two more signatures on the discharge petition. That's all we need."

Massey says Republicans fear Trump but privately agree with him: “They’re terrified of president Trump’s political machine.” He notes survivors at yesterday’s press conference were asked if they support Massey’s legislation and “they all raised their hand.” He aims for 218 signatures to force a vote; if not, the Speaker’s actions could allow a rule change to bypass him, though that would still be a record vote on Epstein files. Three women have co-sponsored this resolution: Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, and Nancy Mace. The press conference was described as “the biggest press conference on Capitol Hill in the last five years.” Massey cites heavy intimidation of supporters, fundraising drying up in DC, and $20,000,000 of negative ads from three billionaires, including John Paulson. He cites DOJ insiders: a video claiming “they’ll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files.” He recounts Epstein’s ties to intelligence, Maxwell’s light sentence, and calls for releasing thousands of files, noting survivors’ lists and speech-or-debate immunity as tools to read them publicly. He recalls a vivid SCIF story of Project Phoenix and Nest Egg, illustrating secret budget details.

Speaker 1 says that the real information about the Epstein files has not come out and that “there were only four Republicans, four of us that’s really fought to get them released,” who “signed the discharge petition, went against the White House,” and were “threatened,” with Donald Trump calling him a traitor and saying his friends would be hurt. He questions why anyone would vote for Republicans if the administration doesn’t release all the information, framing it as a line in the sand for many people. Speaker 0 asks why they think the Epstein files are being hidden. Speaker 1 responds that it’s because the hidden information would protect “some of the most rich, powerful people,” arguing that Epstein was “definitely some sort of part of the intelligence state” who was “working with Israel” and with the “former prime minister of Israel.” He asserts that these are “the dirty parts of government and the powers that be that they don’t want the American people to know about.” He concludes that, sadly, he doesn’t think the files will come out. Speaker 0 presses on whether Trump is in the Epstein files. Speaker 1 speculates that if someone is “living under blackmail” or “living under threat” and told not to release information, that fear could influence actions. He suggests that someone might be warned by threats to prevent disclosure, giving a hypothetical example: after standing on a rally stage, you could be shot in the ear and warned that “next time we won’t miss,” or that the bullet might be for someone you care about. He says he is “speculating,” but notes he has “a strong enough reason to speculate like that.”

The unredacted Epstein files have been shown on Capitol Hill, with Ro Khanna and Thomas Massey beginning to view them. The discussion centers on why large portions of the documents were redacted by the DOJ and why Pam Bondi may not have complied with the Epstein Transparency Act. An ad aired during the Super Bowl urging transparency and truth about the victims and the case is referenced. Ghislain Maxwell, Epstein’s associate, appeared before Congress and pleaded the fifth when asked direct questions. Ro Khanna summarized his view of Maxwell’s deposition: after listening to her refusal to answer questions about the men who raped underage girls, she should be sent back to maximum security rather than stay in a country club setting. The conversation then returns to why the DOJ did not release the names of clients and coconspirators, with Massey highlighting the failure to release those names as a core issue. Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene appeared on Redacted to speak about the Epstein files. She emphasized the victims’ desire for transparency and the public’s right to know the truth, noting the files illustrate violence and possible murder, far beyond what initial perceptions suggested. Greene stated that the release of the files has shown the American people more than many can handle, and she argued that the DOJ is breaking the law by redacting certain names and deleting or redacting information in ways that protect the powerful. She also asserted that the files reveal a vast cover-up involving rich and powerful elites, and she tied the issue to a broader theory of an international deep state. Greene claimed that the problem is not just with individuals like Pam Bondi, but that “the man at the top is Donald Trump,” who she said initially opposed releasing the files and labeled the release a “democrat hoax.” She argued that Bondi works for Trump and that the FBI and other agencies operate under the president’s authority, making independent action difficult. She asserted that the president’s stance has influenced the pace and scope of disclosures, and that those who press for release face political backlash. She also described her confrontation with the two-party system as a “political industrial complex” that punishes dissidents, detailing how Massey and others have faced political and professional retaliation. Greene reflected on the personal cost of pushing for disclosure, recounting the pressure and the “knife in the back” she has felt from colleagues across the aisle. She described the political environment as a “blood sport” in which those pushing for transparency are isolated, while the system rewards conformity. She criticized neocon Republicans and asserted that governance is driven by fear and fundraising rather than principled action. She indicated that, for her, the Epstein issue underscores broader frustrations with Washington and the perceived inability of independent actors to enact change within a two-party framework. Regarding potential remedies, the discussion touched on the possibility of an independent counsel. Greene suggested that the American people themselves are the independent counsel, explaining that trust in politicians to appoint such counsel is limited. She expressed skepticism that the Epstein files will yield accountability, noting that the president warned that “his friends would get hurt.” She stated she does not expect significant resignations or indictments of major figures, including those connected to Israel, but underscored the desire for full transparency and justice for the victims. When asked about listing the names seen in the documents, Greene clarified that the list is held by the women involved and that reading it publicly could expose them to costly lawsuits; she did not have the list herself.

- Kibbe on Liberty hosts Congressman Thomas Massey for part one of a mega episode focusing on the FBI-identified pipe bomber in the January 6 events and the anomalies in the official narrative; Massey argues he does not believe one loner acted alone. - Massey discusses prior coverage and context, noting a Steve Baker interview that documented inconsistencies in the official narrative. He points to fallout from that interview: a Capitol Hill Police official, who was third in command, resigned the day after the interview; another whistleblower contacted Massey about that officer, suggesting misconduct unrelated to the pipe bomb but part of a larger pattern of investigations. - Massey argues that the FBI’s announcement of a suspect came about a week after that interview and after reporting by The Blaze, and suggests the timing is suspicious. He says this coincidence is surprising and potentially a red flag, given that the investigation had been deemed inconclusive or dormant for years. - Massey emphasizes his own context: his staffer on the Hill watched hours of video to identify who found the second pipe bomb; he asserts that the individuals who found the second bomb should be considered suspects, and that the FBI admitted this to him. He recounts efforts with Kevin McCarthy to release video showing how the second pipe bomb was found, noting that those who found it were very lucky to locate it quickly. - He describes other connections and leads: his staffer now works for Kash Patel; Massey has spoken with a counter-surveillance officer who found the pipe bomb and with the officer’s handler, a Capitol Hill Police member who had previously worked for the ATF and later for Metro Police and Capitol Hill Police. He also mentions conversing with the assistant FBI director in charge of the Washington field office, in a transcribed interview with Jim Jordan about why cell phone data wasn’t used to geolocate the suspect (the provider allegedly corrupted data, which the judiciary committee and Barry Loudermilk’s committee disputed). - Massey references a 100-page report from Barry Loudermilk’s committee on the pipe bomb investigation, noting leads the FBI did not follow. He mentions a lead about an individual in Falls Church, Virginia (a former military man now in government service) whose metro card was used on January 5 and January 6; this person’s childhood friend allegedly used the metro card to approach the RNC/Capitol Hill Club area and take photographs near the pipe bomb sites. Massey asserts this person of interest, plus a neighbor who shared a wall with him, could be connected to others the FBI has not fully explored. - He contends that the arrest appears to derail other investigations and interviews that were being planned. He asserts that a “pro-Trump” motive has not been established for the suspect, contrasting the media’s framing with details such as the suspect’s My Little Pony interest and parental political donations. - Massey criticizes the prosecutor in the case, Jocelyn Ballantine, and recounts concerns about her track record (including involvement in the Flynn case, the Proud Boys case, and alleged attempts to obtain confessions implicating Trump). He questions why she remains at the DOJ. - They discuss broader concerns about FBI politicization and surveillance: Massey references reporters and contact with Kash Patel’s team to argue for cleaning house at the FBI, but notes Ballantine remains in place. He describes eight senators discovering they had been spied on, leading to a legislative push: in the last continuing resolution, lawmakers added a half-million-dollar payout and standing to sue the government for surveillance abuses, a provision he characterizes as carving exemptions out of the law; he says this was supported by most lawmakers, who voted for the CR due to Trump concerns. - They debate possible explanations for the pipe bomber case: the possibility that the FBI identified the suspect and cleared him, prompting no arrest due to exonerating information; or the possibility of a false narrative crafted by others to preserve the January 6 prosecution framework; or the involvement of a patsy or rogue actor. - Massey reiterates his three things he said on Twitter: the bomber was a lone wolf (which he disputes); the FBI was unwittingly incompetent for four years (which he says he questions and calls a cover-up); and it was not a Trump supporter. He stresses the need for more transcribed interviews and explanations from the FBI and ongoing oversight to uncover the full truth. - The discussion shifts toward Epstein files coverage and the broader goal of maintaining public pressure for transparency. They indicate a plan to release a separate bonus episode focusing on Epstein files.

Well, there's 33,000 pages that have been released. they've basically released everything except for the victim information, which, obviously, we don't release that. One thing to note that today when we're actually talking to some of the victims, one of the women stated that at 14 when Epstein started to victimize her, that she has no recollection of some of the stuff that was done to her. She's hoping to find that out so that she can actually bring to her therapist and continue the healing process in regards to the damage and the trauma that was caused to her. there's a lot of very wealthy bad people. It's actually scary to hear some of the stuff that was brought forward. the only way to collectively attack this is as a group and as a whole, meaning that Democrats and Republicans have to work work together and back up on more subpoenas because I think this is gonna be pretty hairy. Is there more information beyond these 33,000 pages? Well, there's gonna be names. The attorneys kept emphasizing we need to follow-up on the names. These girls are not just making this up. These are some of the wealthiest people probably in the world, and we'll start They told us not to because they don't want those people to start basically burning files. So I think this is going criminal investigation for sure. I know that some of the delay was due to redacting victim information, and so we'll see where it goes.

Congressman Massey says the Epstein files touch "two Americas. One America for the rich and powerful." Epstein allegedly "raping 13 and 14 year olds" boasted of knowing presidents and leaders, yet survivors were told "nothing could be done." He asks for the full release of the files, noting "there are people who have raised that issue who are very credible" and questioning possible involvement by foreign governments or intelligence services. He cites donor pressure and says he has faced "private messages saying this is gonna cost you financial support." Victims fear for safety and have seen the files through their lawyers; they are prepared to release their own list if needed. The files are stored at DOJ, FBI, CIA, and Treasury; "we want the release of all of them." He seeks two more Republican votes and calls this "a moral test" for the country.

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein spoke at a Capitol Hill press conference, urging release of case files and documents. Thomas Massey, sponsor of a discharge petition to force a House vote on releasing the documents, says he doesn’t believe you’re implicated, but many of your friends and donors may; he says that’s why the justice department is redacting them and slow walking the release. "Are is the justice department protecting any friends or donors, sir?" The president replies: "This is a democrat hoax that never ends." He notes thousands of pages have been given and says the Epstein issue is to get people to talk about Epstein instead of the nation’s success. "I ended seven wars." He concludes: "we were subpoenaed to give files, and we’ve given thousands of pages of files" and asserts we should talk about the country’s greatness and the "most successful eight months of any president ever."

Massey says Republicans fear Trump privately but are terrified of his political machine, which he says leads to covering up for pedophiles. He notes survivors were asked if they support Massey's legislation and all raised their hands. He calls the press conference the biggest on Capitol Hill. He cites female co-sponsors: Greene, Boebert, and Mace. His aim is to obtain two eighteen signatures to force a vote; the Speaker's placebo resolution would provide political cover, while Massey's bill remains. He alleges the DOJ released thousands of pages but redact names, and Epstein had ties to government intelligence with Maxwell getting a light sentence. He recalls a SCIF tour revealing Project Phoenix and Nest Egg. He says three billionaires have spent $2,000,000 in negative ads against him. What is your price? Because if your price is not your life, then you are for sale.

Congressman Massey is pushing for the full release of the Epstein files, believing their existence is confirmed by statements from figures like the FBI director. He introduced a discharge petition to force a vote on the matter, but the Speaker scheduled an early recess, which will pause the petition until September. Massey believes the files could be embarrassing for powerful individuals and may implicate foreign intelligence, possibly Israel, based on court documents. He questions why his colleagues are reluctant to release the files and accuses the Speaker of trying to stall the process. While acknowledging some Democrats may be insincere, Massey is willing to work with them to get the files released. He admits that Ro Khanna didn't push as hard for the release under the Biden administration, but Massey thought competent people were working on it. He emphasizes that he is the only one who has introduced the petition.

I was the second cosponsor on Thomas Massey's resolution. After reading the entire resolution, I think it's a it's very good. It's it's well written. It protects the victims, and it it provides the transparency that the country deserves and most importantly, the survivors deserve. I will be proudly signing the discharge petition. 'transparency on all levels.' 'this shouldn't have been a battle, and unfortunately, it has been one.' 'a cabal of powerful, rich people as well as the government cover this up and not prosecute these monsters.' 'these are some of the most courageous women I've ever met.' 'So there's information in many different places, and it'll require quite a pursuit.' 'I haven't talked to anybody from the White House trying to undercut it.' 'No. I haven't been asked to not sign.' 'I sat by him in our meeting and listened to his compassion for these survivors.'

Bigger than I think anyone anticipated. We are going to be requesting the SARS reports from treasury and following up on that. There are some very rich and powerful people that need to go to jail. It is very much so possibility that Jeffrey Epstein was a intelligence asset working for our adversaries, but also to, the questions that we have is how much did our own government know about it? More to follow; you'll be hearing from the chairman momentarily. I applaud the victims from coming forward because we heard from a woman who is as young as 14 years old when she was victimized multiple times by Jeffrey Epstein. “Have you signed a discharge petition, nasty discharge petition?” The files will probably be released prior. I don't know why Comer hasn't. I've been a huge advocate even when I was the only one in congress calling for the release of this file. How much did they call from with this victim today? We want those files released, the victims want information to be out there but they don't want their personal information. The attorney general stated that there's victim information that you have to make sure that's private being that some of the victims also too are as young as 14, that's child child pornography.

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein spoke at a Capitol Hill press conference urging the release of case files. Thomas Massey sponsors a discharge petition to force a House vote on releasing the documents, saying he doesn't believe you're implicated, but many of your friends and donors may be, and that the justice department is redacting them and slow walking the release. "Are is the justice department protecting any friends or donors, sir?" The president replies: "So this is a Democrat hoax that never ends." He adds: "reminds me a little of the Kennedy situation." "Thousands of pages of documents have been given." "it's really a democrat hoax because they're trying to get people to talk about something that's totally irrelevant to the success that we've had as a nation since I've been president." He says: "DC, it's a totally safe zone." "All run by Democrats or for the most part run by Democrats." "I ended seven wars." He notes: "I understand that we were subpoenaed to give files, and I understand we've given thousands of pages of files." He concludes: "it's enough" to focus on "the greatness of our country" and the claim of "the most successful eight months of any president ever."

Speaker 0 (John) explains that the other side “got tired of me winning, so he joined our side,” and asserts he has no animosity toward him, only regret that it became personal for some people, not for him, because it’s always about the survivors. He describes a reversal: after months of fighting, the speaker, the attorney general, the FBI director, the president, and the vice president could save everyone if they’d done the right thing four months ago. He questions whether Congressman Greene truly supports the release now, suggesting he’s only backing it because the president told him to support it, and attributes this to Mike Johnson. Speaker 1 asks if John believes the president’s current stance, given weeks of opposition and now support. John says he is concerned the president is opening a flurry of investigations and fears they may use those investigations as a predicate for not releasing the files. He believes they will try to use a legal provision allowing withholding materials if they are the subject of an ongoing investigation and would harm that investigation. Speaker 2 notes that the focus is on President Trump: he initially blocked the release and now has the power to release the full files anyway. Speaker 0 summarizes that for four months the president thought secrecy was best, but someone convinced him the releases are better; if serious, they should release them now. Speaker 1 asks why John thinks the president has resisted for so long. John contends the files implicate billionaires and friends of Trump and his donors, plus Epstein’s ties to intelligence agencies, which is why there’s effort to stop the release. He predicts attempts to stop it will occur elsewhere and that this will backfire. Speaker 1 asks if the president will sign the bill; John says he thinks he will sign and would like to be at the signing party, joking about being invited to sign his own bill. John addresses personal attacks: the president attacked his wife, calling Margie Taylor Greene a traitor. John says the attack was a new low for him, but he laughs it off; his wife joked about inviting Trump to their wedding, and she blames him for not inviting him, which she says led to the anger. John remains optimistic the bill will pass tomorrow, with a veto-proof majority, and thinks the speaker will begrudgingly support it. Speaker 1 asks about the public breakup with Marjorie Taylor Greene over the Epstein files. John says Greene represents the base—the populist movement that brought Trump to the White House—and when Trump told supporters they are no longer his supporters if they want the Epstein files released, Trump lost many supporters, but Greene did not, and she remains in favor of seeking justice for the survivors. Speaker 1 asks if Trump has lost touch with the MAGA base. John believes Trump has strayed on fiscal responsibility, starting wars overseas and regime change, and on releasing the death steam files, away from the campaign promises that defined the MAGA base.

Speaker 1 questions why House Republicans haven't released Jeffrey Epstein's Black Book, which is under the FBI director's control, to expose alleged pedophiles. When asked if he would declassify the Epstein files, Speaker 1 says he would, but expresses concern about potentially affecting people's lives if the information is phony. Speaker 0 says the issue is bigger than Epstein, 9/11, JFK, or RFK, and asks who is on the Epstein tapes and in the black books, questioning why this information has been hidden. Speaker 3 mentions Donald Trump has discussed the DOJ potentially releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients. Speaker 2 claims that the release is under review, following a directive by President Trump, stating that everything will come out to the public because Americans have a right to know.

In the discussion, Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie were shown viewing the unredacted Epstein files on Capitol Hill, including material that had been previously redacted by the DOJ. The hosts question why large portions of the files were redacted and accuse Pam Bondi’s team of noncompliance with the Epstein Transparency Act. They suggest the move to foreground Bondi is a signal of political maneuvering to manage the release of the documents. Speaker 1 presents a Super Bowl ad urging the DOJ to release what the law requires, followed by a note that Epstein’s associate and alleged child sex trafficking figure Ghislain (Ghislaine) Maxwell appeared before Congress and invoked the Fifth Amendment when asked about the men who allegedly abused underage girls. Ro Khanna’s reaction is shared: Maxwell should not be in a cushy setting and should be sent back to maximum security. Speaker 2 emphasizes that, of the files released, the names of clients and coconspirators in the sex trafficking ring have not been disclosed, while victims’ names have been released. This is framed as either over-redaction or omission, with a claim that government names should not be redacted under the Transparency Act. Speaker 0 introduces Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who explains her perspective. She notes the urgency of transparency and states that victims deserve the truth, accusing the DOJ of failing to comply with the Epstein Transparency Act and calling out a persistent “battle” over the release of files even after the 2025 law. Speaker 3 (Greene) describes the impact of the disclosures, noting that the files reveal “violence, possibly murder,” and that survivors’ testimonies are harrowing. She recounts facing personal and political backlash for pushing disclosure, arguing that the administration and many Republicans have shifted their positions since the revelations. She asserts that the released files show that “the DOJ breaking the law” through redactions of names of former presidents, secretaries of state, and government officials, while leaving victim information exposed. Speaker 4 asks Greene about the possibility that the information might point to a broader, deeper network. Greene responds by stating that the files include FBI forms about Epstein, implying a level of official involvement, and asserts that the Trump administration has not released the information; she claims President Trump referred to the Epstein issue as a “Democrat hoax” and that Pam Bondi, who works for Trump, controls the release. Greene suggests the “independent counsel” would be the American people themselves, explaining distrust toward political figures and the two-party system. She shares that she would not vote to support foreign aid or a central bank digital currency, and notes the chilling effect of the retaliation she and Massey have faced from party structures, including loss of campaign staff and suggestions of political blacklisting. Speaker 0 asks about potential accountability or a special counsel and whether there might be more significant revelations. Greene predicts limited accountability, arguing that the president has influence over DOJ and other agencies, and that the people are the true independent counsel. She laments the “uni-party” dynamic and predicts continued resistance to releasing the full Epstein files. Towards the end, Greene reiterates that she does not plan to run for higher office and reflects on the broader political environment, emphasizing that the public’s demand for transparency could drive change. The dialogue closes with Greene expressing willingness to return and discuss further.