A prominent Democrat has accused the Trump administration of ending a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators, claiming it was a “shameful and gigantic cover-up”. The investigation, which reportedly involved interviews with nearly 50 women, was allegedly targeting a network of individuals involved in Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. Despite these testimonies identifying over 20 co-conspirators, the investigation was abruptly halted, and case files were transferred to the Justice Department’s headquarters. The Democrat is now requesting information on the investigative steps taken since then.
Read More
Rep. Jamie Raskin has sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi questioning the Trump Administration’s decision to abruptly end a criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s co-conspirators. The investigation, which was active until January 2025, involved nearly 50 survivors who provided detailed information to the SDNY prosecutors and FBI agents, identifying at least 20 co-conspirators. However, the DOJ and FBI closed the case in July 2025, citing a lack of evidence against uncharged third parties, despite the survivors’ credible testimonies and the previous reliance on their information to convict Ghislaine Maxwell. As a result, the House Judiciary Committee is seeking documents related to the investigation and considering reforms to the Crime Victims Rights Act.
Read More
According to Michael Wolff, a White House insider has referred to Donald Trump’s new ballroom project as the “Epstein Ballroom.” Wolff shared that the insider, whom he’s known for a long time, revealed that the name had come up multiple times within the White House, suggesting an awareness of Epstein’s continued presence in the Trump world. Wolff believes this indicates both a sense of irony and self-awareness among some White House staff, who recognize the preposterous nature of the situation. While the ballroom is set to be officially named after Trump, the nickname reflects a more cynical view of the project’s association.
Read More
FOIA Files has released a new installment based on 18,000 emails obtained from Jeffrey Epstein’s personal Yahoo account. This investigation revealed details about a money laundering investigation that ran concurrently with the federal sex crimes probe, a matter largely kept secret for nearly twenty years. Key findings of the investigation will be discussed on the podcast “Disclosure.” Notably, the Department of Justice and FBI previously declined to release any portion of the extensive “Epstein files” due to concerns of inappropriateness.
Read More
In light of King Charles’ recent decision to strip Andrew of his title, several Democrat members of the US House Oversight Committee have renewed their calls for Andrew to testify about his association with Jeffrey Epstein. These calls for testimony come from members who believe Andrew possesses crucial information and should cooperate with the investigation. The members believe Andrew’s testimony would not only help survivors but also prevent future occurrences of similar offenses. Despite the challenges of compelling testimony from someone outside the US, the committee members have indicated they would be willing to formally subpoena Andrew if he were to enter the United States.
Read More
Newly released emails reveal that Prince Andrew expressed a desire to “catch up in person” with Jeffrey Epstein in 2010, months after the financier’s release from prison. The correspondence, part of unsealed court documents from a 2023 legal battle, shows Epstein suggesting a meeting in London, and Andrew responding that he would try to visit New York later that year. The emails were forwarded to Jes Staley, who was later banned from a senior finance role due to misleading regulators about his relationship with Epstein. Additionally, Virginia Giuffre’s family is calling for further investigation into Andrew’s alleged actions.
Read More
JPMorgan Alerted U.S. to Epstein Transfers Involving Wall St. Figures (Gift Article)
So, let’s dive into this tangled web, shall we? The basic premise is this: JPMorgan Chase, one of the world’s largest financial institutions, alerted the U.S. government to suspicious financial transfers involving Jeffrey Epstein. It’s a headline that grabs your attention, because Epstein, of course, was the subject of heinous crimes. It immediately raises questions of complicity, cover-ups, and the potential involvement of powerful individuals. But here’s the kicker: JPMorgan, despite these alerts, continued to do business with Epstein for years. Now, that’s not exactly the actions of a concerned party, is it?… Continue reading
In 2019, JPMorgan Chase alerted the Trump administration to over $1 billion in potentially suspicious transactions linked to Jeffrey Epstein, as revealed in recently unsealed court documents. The report flagged over 4,700 transactions and highlighted figures like Leon Black, Glenn Dubin, Alan Dershowitz, and trusts linked to Leslie Wexner, though the nature of the transactions remains unclear. Notably, the report mentioned wire transfers to Russian banks and sensitivities surrounding Epstein’s relationships with former U.S. presidents. JPMorgan stated they made repeated efforts to alert regulators to concerns surrounding Epstein by filing suspicious activity reports, despite working with him for over a decade.
Read More
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell suggests that the ongoing government shutdown is strategically employed to suppress the release of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. According to O’Donnell, Trump is intentionally avoiding negotiations to end the shutdown. This is because the shutdown effectively halts the processing and potential public disclosure of the Epstein files. The focus of the argument is tied to the scandal surrounding Prince Andrew and his ties to Epstein.
Read More
Following the encounter, the individual pleaded with Epstein to prevent their return to a specific person. Despite the desperate pleas and kneeling, Epstein remained unmoved. He offered no assurances, citing the politician’s harsh treatment with a detached acknowledgment. Epstein’s actions suggest either fear or a debt owed to the politician.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood