Massie names Epstein ‘coconspirators,’ discusses new Epstein files legislation

Massie Names Epstein Coconspirators on House Floor

Provpnadvice.com – When Massie names Epstein coconspirators discusses a follow-up transparency bill, the performance is calculated. One year after the original Epstein Files Transparency Act cleared the White House, the Kentucky congressman returned to the House chamber Monday and read aloud more than a dozen names of individuals he characterized as alleged co-conspirators of the late financier, demanding that each be investigated and prosecuted. The stunt was both a continuation of his years-long push to pry open government records tied to the convicted sex offender and a public escalation designed to force congressional action on a second bill.

The Discharge Petition and the Fight for a Vote

The legislative vehicle behind Monday’s floor speech is the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, introduced by the Kentucky lawmaker alongside Representative Ro Khanna of California. Unlike its predecessor, which compelled federal agencies to release documents already in their possession, the second act would shift the battlefield to state courts. It would grant state attorneys general direct access to related files so they can pursue prosecutions under state criminal statutes, and it would lower procedural barriers for survivors seeking their own records through civil litigation.

“I also began collecting 218 signatures for the discharge petition to force a vote on Epstein Files Transparency Act II,” the representative wrote in a Monday-night post on X.

A discharge petition requires 218 signatures from House members to pull a stalled bill out of committee and place it on the floor for a vote. By announcing he had started gathering those signatures, the congressman signaled that he considers the measure stuck in committee and intends to bypass that bottleneck. The threshold underscores how narrowly a simple majority in a 435-member chamber can override committee gatekeeping.

The Names Read Aloud

Among the individuals called out were Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Prince Andrew of Britain, and Les Wexner, the billionaire who built a retail empire through L Brands, parent company of Bath & Body Works and Victoria’s Secret. Both men have long been associated with the financier’s orbit, though neither has been criminally charged.

Mountbatten-Windsor’s connection became public in 2019, when Virginia Giuffre — a longtime accuser — alleged that the former prince sexually abused her after the financier trafficked her. Mountbatten-Windsor has publicly denied ever meeting Giuffre. The dispute became a major international story and contributed to the former prince’s withdrawal from royal duties.

Wexner, by contrast, had a documented professional relationship with the financier. He employed him as a personal financial manager during the 1990s and into the early 2000s. In a February deposition before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Wexner stated that he had no firsthand knowledge of the financier’s criminal conduct. That testimony drew scrutiny because of the depth and duration of their business arrangement.

What Remains Sealed

The first transparency act, signed roughly a year before Monday’s speech, compelled the Department of Justice and other agencies to produce documents connected to the investigations. Some files were released, but the congressman argued on the floor that the government still holds more than three million documents that have not been made public.

“And the government continues to withhold over three million files. That’s why we’ve introduced the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, to bring the fight to the state courts, accountability to the Department of Justice and closure for survivors. We want perpetrators of these crimes to be investigated and prosecuted.”

The gap between what was released and what remains sealed has fueled criticism from survivors’ advocates, who argue that federal agencies have interpreted the original statute narrowly. The congressman’s framing positions the second act not as a repeat of the first but as a structural workaround: if federal agencies will not voluntarily hand over records, state prosecutors should be able to obtain them through their own legal processes.

Why the Timing Matters

The case has remained a persistent flashpoint in American politics since the financier’s 2019 death in a federal jail cell, which was ruled a suicide but which many observers questioned. Subsequent document releases, including emails and photographs that surfaced in 2025, repeatedly reignited public interest and prompted fresh calls for accountability. Monday’s floor speech and the discharge-petition announcement represent the latest chapter in that ongoing pressure campaign.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the Epstein Files Transparency Act II actually do? It would authorize state attorneys general to subpoena and review records tied to the financier’s investigations, enabling state-level criminal prosecutions. It would also reduce procedural hurdles for survivors pursuing civil discovery of their own files.

What is a discharge petition, and why does it matter here? A discharge petition is the mechanism by which 218 House members can force a bill out of committee for a floor vote. The Kentucky congressman’s announcement that he began collecting signatures signals he views committee as a bottleneck and intends to circumvent it.

How many documents remain unreleased? The congressman cited a figure of more than three million files still held by federal agencies. Independent verification of that number has not been published, but survivors’ advocates have long argued the original statute was interpreted too narrowly.

Were any of the named individuals charged? As of the Monday floor speech, neither Mountbatten-Windsor nor Wexner had been criminally charged. Both have denied wrongdoing, and no federal indictment naming either has been made public.