Thomas Massie: Epstein Conspiracy Is 'Bigger Than Watergate' — The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie

Name: Thomas Massie: Epstein Conspiracy Is 'Bigger Than Watergate' — The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie
Uploaded: 2026-02-11
Duration: 25 min 29 s
Description: Nick Gillespie sits down with Massie on the Epstein discharge petition fight. Massie lays out why this is the biggest cover-up of his time in Congress and what he thinks the redacted names will reveal.

Feb 11, 2026 · 25:29 reason-tv epstein deep-state

Nick Gillespie sits down with Massie on the Epstein discharge petition fight. Massie lays out why this is the biggest cover-up of his time in Congress and what he thinks the redacted names will reveal.

Original by The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie on YouTube ↗ · Is this yours? Claim credit →

Chapters

Transcript

Click any timestamp to jump to that moment.

Congressman Thomas Massie, thank you for coming on the Reason interview. >> Well, great to be on. Thanks for having me. >> I don't think it's an exaggeration to
say that you put your political career on the line to get these out with the Epstein Files Transparency Act you co-authored with Ro Kana. You've been
under relentless attack from President Trump ever since and you're facing a serious primary challenge with a lot of financial backing because of it. Did you
expect this might happen? And if so, why did you decide this issue was important enough that it would be worth the cost?
>> Well, I'm glad you set it up that way because I always find it laughable when people say, "I'm just doing this for the politics." Look, I'm getting the crap beat out of me politically for doing
this by, you know, the most popular politician in my state, who is President Trump. Obviously, it'd be a whole lot
easier politically to get reelected if I just did what he wanted and ignored the Epstein files and called them a hoax, but I'm not willing to do that. You
know, I've met with the survivors. This is personal to me now. And so, you you know, it's true that my political career
is on the line, my political life, but um my own health and well-being could very well be too. I've upset a lot of billionaires who obviously aren't of
high moral character and have done some really shady stuff. >> Was there something that pulled you in? Like what first pulled you into this and
and made you decide this is something I do need to, you know, stake my career on? >> Well, I saw Pam Bondi hand out the
binders to the influencers >> and um we found out that was a nothing burger. And then I actually got to meet Pam Bondi in person
at the Department of Justice. We went over and had dinner, the judiciary committee that I'm on. And my girlfriend at the time, who's now my wife, said I
should ask her when phase 2 will come out. And I asked Pam Bondi that in person, very politely. And she basically said there's nothing but child porn
left. Nothing. It's disgusting and nobody would want to see it. And at that point I realized they that the Trump administration had undertaken a cover up
and that they had no intention of releasing these files. And that frankly that's what got my interest up about this. And then later this summer Roana
offered an amendment in the rules committee because it's so hard to get a bill to the floor. He tried it as an amendment to an existing bill and he brought it to the rules committee for
their permission and an interesting thing happened. Every Democrat voted for the Democrat amendment, but one Republican did as well. And I thought,
wow, if I could get every Democrat on the floor of the House and a smattering of Republicans, I might be able to succeed with the discharge petition,
which is one of the hardest ways to pass a bill. you're basically going over the speaker's head and you have to convince a majority of Congress that you know
better than the speaker on that given topic. And so [clears throat] I got three other colleagues on the Republican
side. Interestingly, all women, Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Green, and Lauren Boowbert, they are heroes as well. They've all paid a big price for
undertaking this. And in some ways, Marjgery's political career ended because of this, >> but it's more of a symptom than it was
the cause. I think it's a symptom that MAGA is splitting because members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, are continuously being forced
to choose between the president's promises and what the president is doing right now in real time. And they're diverging.
And I mean obviously a lot more material has come out since those binders were trotted out. So that that just seems to
uh vindicate the purpose of the bill. Um and it's also becoming more apparent why people didn't want that material to come
out. Um, you and a handful of other Congress members visited the DOJ building to view the unredacted Epstein files on Monday and you emerged calling
for the unredaction of the names of six men and those names have since become public. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch tweeted that one of the documents
that you were looking at had numerous victim names and they unredacted Les Winser's name from the document. This is of course the former owner of Victoria's
Secret, a well-known um funer of Epstein, a client of Epstein, possibly his biggest client. Um and Blanch says
his name already appears in the file thousands of times. DOJ is hiding nothing. Um what is your response to
that? Because he's pointing out that Wexter Wexner was long known known to be Epstein's biggest client and appears in documents thousands of times. But why
was the redaction of his name in that particular instance troubling to you? >> Well, you know, that that tweet that he did is self-conlicting. I mean, he's
he's admitting that they did cover up Les Wexner's name and he's uncovering it at the same time.
>> Mhm. >> He, you know, he his defense is that, oh, well, Les Wexner's name appears a thousand times in these documents.
Well, guess what? my name appears in them at least a dozen times. It just because your name appears in the documents doesn't mean that you're a
co-conspirator. But the interesting thing about this redaction is it's an actual FBI document that lists the co-conspirators and lists
Wexner as a co-conspirator to child sex trafficking. We're not talking about prostitution or just sex trafficking. child sex trafficking.
We all know Wexner had money and maybe it you might say, well, this might have been tax evasion and they were conspiring to do some business deal in
the Virgin Islands or something like that. No, he's a co-conspirator in this document according to the FBI. [clears throat] So, this is significant.
It's the most significant appearance of Wexter's name. And this gets to the point people say, "Well, Massie, why
don't you run to the floor? Why didn't you run to the floor and say his name? You had it in your head. Look, this is a game of chess. It's not a game of
checkers. So, and please quit chewing on the checkers." The goal here is to get that document released that shows that the FBI
considered him a co-conspirator >> because this is in direct conflict with Cash Patel's testimony to me personally
in the judiciary committee and to Senator Kennedy in the Senate where he said that Epstein trafficked to no one
and that um they had no evidence of any co-conspirators. Well, this is the FBI's own document. So, the question is,
um, what evidence did you have that led you to believe he was a co-conspirator? Why was that not in this document dump? And what was the decision like when you
decided not to pursue Wexner? Because the FC files transparency act requires the DOJ to publish publicly all internal
memos, emails, notes, everything about decisions to prosecute or not prosecute. Okay. So, that's what you're hoping to get now is what was the decision-making
process that got that led to him being listed as a co-conspirator in a child sex trafficking case? Because there, you know, you could make the argument that
he was never actually charged as a co-conspirator. So, is there some reason to disbelieve that the FBI investigated and just didn't find the evidence? Well,
if there is reason to believe that, it needs to be in the files because the Epstein Files Transparency Act requires them to publish >> internal
communications about decisions whether to prosecute and investigate. >> So, um, you know, in addition to those other redacted co-conspirator names,
there are some other troubling redactions I've come across that I want to raise here. The these are correspondents of one is someone saying
age 11 and there's some sort of photo attached to it. Another one says thank you for a fun night. Your little your littlest girl was a little naughty.
Another one says new Brazilian just arrived. Sexy and cute about 9 years old. And all of the senders here are
redacted. So we don't know who was sending these emails to Epstein. Um, and then there's this issue of what are called the 302, the FBI 302 files, which
my understanding is these are interviews that the FBI conducted with either witnesses or uh alleged victims. And then this is the summary of those
interviews. And this is what some of these look like. These for our audio only listeners, this page is just a giant black box. So this
is not exactly government transparency at its finest. What um is your like you know
what is your best understanding of the DOJ's rationale for these kinds of redactions and are they in legal compliance with the Epstein Files
Transparency Act? >> Well, they're sloppy redactions. Um I looked at I think I looked at all three of those emails in the unredacted
files. I looked at at least a couple of them and they were from a woman at a modeling agency.
Um, and Madame Wiselle modeling agency and I won't say the name of the woman. I think [clears throat] the presumption is
among the DOJ at least in their sloppy reductions if you're a woman you couldn't possibly be a co-conspirator. And the problem with that is they
released the names of victims in their document dump who are clearly women and girls at the time underageed. Now, one of the emails that troubled me
was the you may remember it said, "Thanks for the torture video. I really enjoyed it." >> So, I went and looked at that one. Turns out it wasn't a woman. They had just
redacted the email address. So I I took that email address, threw it into the search engine in the DOJ computer and found that this was in fact a man who
had sent who in the email alludes to sending the torture video and it I can't Saul it was his name um last name
and he's from the United Arab Emirates and was an associate of Jeffrey Epstein's and so I forced the DOJ to admit it and his first name or title was
Sultan. Um, I forced the DOJ to admit that that was the man that had sent that email. So, that's troubling. Now, the
302 file that you showed, [clears throat] I've looked at a lot of those. And as it turns out, when you go over and click unredact on that big black box,
oftentimes what you get is a bunch of white boxes >> where the file the DOJ claims was redacted before they came into
possession of it. >> And then sometimes you click on the redactions and they don't go away. And the DOJ claims the same thing. This wasn't redacted by us. Here's the
problem. The Epstein Files Transparency Act that Roana and I wrote requires them to uh requires not just the DOJ to
release everything in its possession, but the FBI and the US attorneys. So, if those documents, those 302s came from the FBI, which they did, and if the FBI
still has the originals, which they do, then the FBI has to release those to the DOJ. The attorney general is tasked with
the document production, but the FBI and US attorneys are also obligated with producing those documents to the DOJ. So, we have a problem there that's
pervasive in these files. There's been some AP reporting on a supposed DOJ memo that pours cold water on the idea that
Epstein was running a large trafficking operation involving a bunch of powerful men. There's one purported victim that is well known, Virginia Guprey, who says
EMP Epstein, you know, shared her, pimped her out to people like Prince [snorts] Andrew, with whom she's famously pictured. But the memo that the
AP reported on reads, "No other victim has described being expressly directed by either Maxwell or Epstein to engage
in sexual activity with other men." From what you've seen in these unredacted files, have you seen anything approximating an actual client list or
something like it that indicates to you that Epstein really was sort of recruiting and then providing girls either underage or not to rich, powerful
men and then possibly blackmailing them. Well, there's a man named Leon Black who is uh accused by a victim in these
documents and [clears throat] there were people in the state of New York who were trying to elevate this case. The the woman was bleeding as a
result of the assault by Leon Black. um sexual assault. And this is a claim that the I believe
it was a county in New York, a DA, assistant DA tried to elevate to the DOJ and it looks like the DOJ drugged her
feet on that. So, first of all, that assertion to me seems wrong on its face by and then second of all,
[clears throat] there's a um there's an FBI document that re that describes almost 100 victims by name that's in
these files. I had redacted them and looked at the it's probably between 80 and 100 victims. >> It's five columns of names that are 18
long to 19 long. So it's almost a hundred names and then they associate those names with the high-profile people
who those people claim abused them. And then finally third problem with this that statement is the 302s are that you
showed us that are redacted is where that information would be. M >> so if you show me a redacted 302 and say look there's nothing in the 302 that
says that any of these victims ever claimed that Epstein trafficked them. Well no duh there's it's redacted. How
can we know? [snorts] Um, you have called for Commerce Secretary Howard Letic to resign when you called for that
when his name first showed up in the files and he's now admitting he visited Epstein's Island in 2012 even though in a previous interview he he very loudly
and proudly declared that he had cut off all contact back in 2005. Um, but he says he was accompanied by his wife and
kids and nothing illegal or unoured happened on the island. Um, he didn't he made this statement to the media, not to Congress. So, he didn't perjure himself
in that way. Uh, why do you still want him to resign though? >> Well, he's standing behind the president. He's clearly one of the
president's closest cabinet members. You see him in a lot of these frames where the president's getting on Air Force One. or Marine One or just in a press
conference in the Oval Office, there's Harold Lutnik behind the president and twice when they've talked about the Epstein files, he chuckled as as if this
was a big hoax. He it is such a blatant lie that he put out. The lie is close in time. By the way, as far as I can tell, this lie was told around about October.
So, we're just a few weeks away from the lie. The documents come out in November. Then the more documents come out here recently and he's had to backtrack on
that. Something important happened between 2005 when he lied and said he distanced himself and 2011, 2012 and
beyond when not only did he go to the island, he had phone calls with Jeffrey Epstein. They were involved in businesses together. The thing that happened between 2005 when he when
Lutnik said he thought it the man was disgusting and never had anything to do with him ever again is in 2008 Jeffrey Epstein
became a convicted sex offender. So that's the problem that you have. It's it's that he was associating and in
business with [clears throat] a known convicted sex offender and he lied about it. And as you say, it's not perjury, but it's it goes to the confidence that
the American people have in somebody like that in the cabinet. Would he have been confirmed by the Senate if we had known that he was lying and going and
had gone to Jeffrey Epstein's island and was in business with Jeffrey Epstein? I don't think he would have been. And so therefore, he should no longer be a cabinet member. You've got three
highlevel people in Britain who've either resigned, been kicked out, or lost their titles of nobility. We need the same kind of accountability here in
our own government. >> Let me ask you about one of the main criticisms of the approach you've taken here, which is that a lot of material
has been sort of rushed out is the criticism. So there's some collateral damage, not only to the victims, some of whose names and personal information
were made public against their wishes, but also just potentially smearing innocent people with a big guilt by association game. Um, there's one
example highlighted by Robbie Suave, one of our writers here at Reason of this uh man, this hedge fund manager, uh, Glenn Durban, who was pictured with some
minors. These turned out to be his kids. he was just on vacation with them. So, there's material like this that comes out that just that that that was the
worry. Even even with with Trump, there's there's allegations against Trump, but it's like anyone can call a tip line and make an allegation against Trump and it might end up in the files.
Um, do the critics of this sort of release it all in a big flood approach have a point that it's risks turning into a bit of a of a wish hunch where
people are getting a trial by the angry mob instead of a court of law. >> I haven't seen a single person in the United States suffer any consequences
from this. >> So, first of all, if somebody were going to bring a suit, they'd have to show that they were harmed. And nobody has
standing for that claim. I'm using those terms metaphorically, not literally. Um, and also, if you were associating with
Jeffrey Epstein after 2008, you were associating with the known convicted sex offender who had wild parties.
He's not the most savory character. We found from the audio with Ahood Barack, he was kind of a fixer. And I'm I'm sorry if that hurts your
reputation. Maybe you should have thought of that before you associated with a convicted sex offender. And out of the first claim, which you know the
victims are upset about this or that you've hurt the victims, the victims aren't upset with me. They're upset with the DOJ. They've been utterly incompetent. Incompetent to the point
that it almost seems like you'd have to be doing this on purpose to be this incompetent. Let me tell you what I'm going to show Pam Bondi today in a
hearing here in a little bit. The victim's lawyers sent the DOJ an email. It's titled victim's names
in back in June. He sent it to her not so she could publish it, but so that they could make sure they didn't release any of these names. They could use those
names as a search. She released the entire freaking document >> with 31 of those victim's names on it.
And we know they touched the document because they redacted one victim's name from a list of 32 victims and published an email that was titled victim's names.
>> Is this sloppiness or malice in your telling or you're that's what you're trying to figure out today? >> There's there's this concept called
criminal negligence. >> Okay. It's criminal. I don't know what the motive was. Maybe it was negligence. Maybe it was intentional. But it's it's
criminal. She's broken the law. And so that's a problem. Now, do you think the lawyer is mad at me for that happening?
You think the victims are mad at me for that happening? No. That's her own damn fault. And she's in violation of the law when she did it.
Okay. Contrast that with a document that was titled co-conspirators of EP Epstein's
sex trafficking conspiracy and they redacted that one. They redacted the co-conspirators from it.
>> Um, let me ask you two big picture questions to wrap this up because I know you've got to get back to work. One is how do you think the information coming
out now should change how we look at US politics in power because we know a lot more than we knew let's say 6 months
ago. Um how has it changed how you look at politics and power and how would you suggest kind of people adjust their way
of looking at Washington DC? Um, I'm trying not to become apathetic and subscribe to the memes that say you're
not going to vote your way out of this, but I want to point out that you voted for four different administrations and they're all part of the cover up.
>> So, this goes back to the, you know, the light sentence in 2007. That was the original DOJ, the original attorney general, the original US attorney who
cut this deal with Epstein, which we still don't know why they cut the deal. And so this is bigger than Watergate. If if Watergate changed your perception of
government, this should definitely do the same. This is bigger than I ran Contra because those only happened within one administration.
Um this spans four administrations and even more an even higher number of attorneys general and it's disgusting. And what you should know is it's a big
club and you're not in it. And if somebody campaigns on something like releasing the files and they get in office
and they change their view 180 degrees, maybe they have failed in their mission to drain the swamp. Maybe they've become
part of the swamp. And last question, your, you know, your next challenge is the midterms, but after that, I suspect the conversations
about the future of the GOP post Trump will begin in earnest and this qu this cloud of the Epstein release is going to
be hanging over that. Um, what are the possible trajectories that you see for the party from here and what are you
hoping for? The question a few years from now is where were you on the Epstein issue? Just like before this
Epstein thing, I think the question for me was where were you during CO? Were you in favor of the lockdowns and the mandates and the free money? Were
you silent or were you opposed to these things? And the same thing goes on Epstein. if were you were you for
releasing the files or were you calling it a hoax or were you just too chicken to come out and say anything? And I think unfortunately a lot of the
politicians right now who are being considered the future of the GOP are either in the category of agreeing that it's a hoax or just keeping their mouth
shut because they don't have the [clears throat] courage and the political will to do the right thing. And so I don't think you should trust
those people later. And it's the same goes for the news sources and the influencers on the internet. If a year ago they were for releasing the files
and now they don't even want to talk about it that the files are released, then you know they're part of the problem. They're not going to be part of any solution going forward. If you can't
take up for kids who are being sex trafficked, who will you take up for? Congressman Thomas Massie, thank you
very much for talking with us today on the recent interview. >> Thank you.