Republican Rebel Calls Out Keystone Kash Over Epstein Files Bombshell
Thomas Massie says unredacted documents show evidence of other sex traffickers after Patel told Congress there was none.

ANGELA WEISS/AFP via Getty Images
Republican Rep. Thomas Massie has called out FBI Director Kash Patel after newly released Justice Department documents called his testimony on Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking conspiracy into question.
“Kash Patel testified to Congress that FBI had no evidence of other sex traffickers,” Massie wrote in an X post late Monday night. “This is FBI’s own 2019 document listing [Leslie] Wexner as coconspirator in child sex trafficking.” Wexner’s name had initially been redacted in the document but was unredacted after Massie publicly questioned the decision to keep the identity of the “well known retired CEO” under wraps.
It is unclear if Patel, dubbed ‘Keystone Kash’ after the cops of silent movie fame for his bungled handling of several high-profile investigations, knew of that particular document’s existence when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 16.

Massie accuses the Justice Department of redacting conspirators' names from the Epstein Files.
X/Thomas Massie
“There is no credible information, none, if there were I would bring the case yesterday, that he trafficked to other individuals, and the information we have, again, is limited,” Patel said at that time.
Wexner, the billionaire founder of L Brands, which owns Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works, was allegedly one of Epstein’s most powerful patrons and financial benefactors.
He denies enabling Epstein by giving him money, access, and legitimacy over the course of their decades-long friendship. He has also denied allegations that he turned a blind eye or failed to act on Epstein’s sexual abuse of children and young women.
Get the best of The Beast delivered right to your inbox
By clicking “SUBSCRIBE” you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Massie also questioned the Justice Department’s rationale for redacting Wexner’s name and then acting “as if they were justified in redacting” it “because the document contains victim names.”
“Tonight they learned you can redact victim names while still publishing the other names, per our law,” he quipped on X.
He also addressed an email from the Epstein Files, widely circulated on social media, in which the disgraced financier said he “loved the torture video” he’d been sent by a redacted sender.
Information contained elsewhere in the files since appears to have identified that person as Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the Emirati businessman and CEO of global ports company DP World.

Trump, a close friend of Epstein's for years, was forced in November to sign a law releasing the documents.
Davidoff Studios Photography/Getty Images
“Our law requires VICTIM’s information to be redacted, not information of men who sent Epstein torture porn!” Massie wrote.
The Kentucky congressman, along with his Democratic counterpart Ro Khanna and Republican former colleague Marjorie Taylor Greene, spearheaded efforts last year to force the Donald Trump administration to release millions of Justice Department files on Epstein’s crimes.

Wexner, allegedly a longtime benefactor of Epstein's, is labelled a suspected "co-conspirator" in the latest Justice Department release.
WWD
Trump, himself once a close friend of Epstein’s, resisted that pressure until November, when he finally signed a bipartisan law requiring full release of those documents by a Dec. 19 deadline, subject only to redactions for the sake of protecting victims’ identities.
The DoJ mustered only a limited release by that date, and has yet to provide a similarly mandated rationale for its redactions, which critics say have in many cases been made to protect the disgraced financier’s associates rather than survivors of his crimes.

Emirati businessman bin Sulayem has been identified as the person who allegedly exchanged emails with Epstein about a "torture video."
Riccardo Savi/Getty Images for Concordia Summi
As of Jan. 31, the department has now published three million documents, accounting for roughly half of the estimated materials in its possession. Officials say the remaining files remain subject to review and that they have no plans to release more at this time.
Massie has since gone on the offensive over both the legal justifications for withholding that information and the basis of redactions made to the files that have already been made public.

Massie and Khanna were permitted to review unredacted versions of the Epstein Files on Monday.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
He and Khanna met with DoJ officials on Monday, when they were granted access to view unredacted versions of key files in a secure reading room.
They now claim to have identified at least six men whose names had been removed from public copies of those documents despite being “likely incriminated” by their contents.
The Daily Beast has contacted the FBI, along with Wexner’s and bin Sulayem’s representatives for comment on this story.
“The Assistant U.S. Attorney told Mr. Wexner’s legal counsel in 2019 that Mr. Wexner was neither a co-conspirator nor target in any respect,” a legal representative for the billionaire said. “Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.”
Unlock a year of full access to The Looker and The Daily Beast for $35.
Monthly
$1
First month then $5.99/month
Annual
$35
First year then $59.99/year
Premium
$79
First year then $119.99/year
*Substack access provided by the next business day, using your subscription email. Choosing the Premium plan constitutes your permission to share your subscription email with Substack and your agreement to Substack’s Privacy Policy.
Looks like you already have a subscription!
You're all set!
Thanks for subscribing.
Register below to read this article for free or subscribe
to unlock unlimited access to The Looker and The Daily Beast.
Monthly
$1
First month then $5.99/month
Annual
$35
First year then $59.99/year
Premium
$79
First year then $119.99/year
*Substack access provided by the next business day, using your subscription email. Choosing the Premium plan constitutes your permission to share your subscription email with Substack and your agreement to Substack’s Privacy Policy.
Already have an account? Sign In
Looks like you already have a subscription!
You're all set!
Thanks for subscribing.
Sign in
Login dialog


ADVERTISEMENT
Sign in or create an account
Login dialog
Loading comments…
ADVERTISEMENT