The Vanishing Pages: Did the DOJ Withhold Trump-Linked Epstein Records? (2/24/26)

Teala Davies filed a lawsuit against the Jeffrey Epstein estate alleging that Epstein began sexually abusing her in 2002 when she was just 17 years old. The suit claims Epstein trafficked her to multiple locations—including New York, Florida, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and France—where she was repeatedly raped and abused over a period of years. Davies also alleged that Epstein used his private jet to transport her for these acts and that the abuse left her with lasting psychological damage. Her lawsuit seeks damages for sexual battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and related harms directly tied to Epstein’s trafficking network.to contact me:[email protected]:DisplayFile.aspx (vicourts.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Michael Thomas was a veteran correctional officer employed by the Federal Bureau of Prisons at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan — a federal detention facility — where Jeffrey Epstein was being held in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Thomas had been with the Bureau of Prisons since about 2007 and, on the night of Epstein’s death (August 9–10, 2019), was assigned to an overnight shift alongside another officer, Tova Noel, responsible for conducting required 30-minute inmate checks and institutional counts in the SHU. Because Epstein’s cellmate had been moved and not replaced, Epstein was alone in his cell, making regular monitoring all the more crucial under bureau policy.Thomas became a focal figure in the official investigations into Epstein’s death because surveillance footage and institutional records showed that neither he nor Noel conducted the required rounds or counts through the night before Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell early on August 10. Prosecutors subsequently charged both officers with conspiracy and falsifying records for signing count slips that falsely indicated they had completed rounds they had not performed. Thomas and Noel later entered deferred prosecution agreements in which they admitted falsifying records and avoided prison time, instead receiving supervisory release and community service. Investigators concluded that chronic staffing shortages and procedural failures at the jail contributed to the circumstances that allowed Epstein to remain unmonitored for hours before his death, which was officially ruled a suicide by hanging.to contact me:[email protected]:EFTA00113577.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A new NPR investigation has revealed that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) appears to have withheld and even removed dozens of pages from the public database of documents released under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that relate to **sexual abuse allegations involving President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. According to NPR, records tied to FBI interviews and notes from conversations with a woman who claims Trump sexually abused her as a minor are absent from the public archive, even though evidence suggests those pages were catalogued and should have been released. Some materials where Trump’s name is mentioned were temporarily taken down and re-uploaded, and others remain unreleased, raising serious questions about whether the DOJ is fully complying with the law requiring transparency about the investigation.Critics argue that this selective release and redaction undermines public trust in the Justice Department’s handling of the Epstein files and appears to protect Trump from scrutiny despite his extensive mentions in the records — Trump’s name appears in tens of thousands of documents in the Epstein archive. Observers say the DOJ’s actions, combined with Trump’s repeated denials of wrongdoing and claims of “total exoneration,” have shielded him from accountability even as other figures tied to Epstein — such as Peter Mandelson — face arrest and legal exposure abroad. This has fueled criticism that the DOJ is more interested in managing political optics than in complete transparency or justice for survivors, weakening confidence in how elite connections to Epstein are investigated.to contact me:[email protected]:DOJ removed, withheld Epstein files related to accusations about Trump : NPRBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Former British cabinet minister and former ambassador to the United States Peter Mandelson, widely known as Lord Mandelson, was arrested on February 23, 2026, by the Metropolitan Police on suspicion of misconduct in public office as part of an investigation linked to revelations in the newly released Jeffrey Epstein files. Authorities allege that while serving as a senior UK government minister in 2009–2010, Mandelson may have passed sensitive UK government information to Epstein and maintained a relationship with him even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction. The arrest follows searches of his homes in London and Wiltshire and emerged amid growing public and political scrutiny over Mandelson’s ties to Epstein, which had already cost him his ambassadorial post and led to his resignation from the House of Lords and the Labour Party.After being taken into custody and questioned by police, Mandelson was released on bail pending further investigation, with the Metropolitan Police confirming that he must return for further enquiries as the case continues. Under UK law, misconduct in public office is a serious criminal offence, and Mandelson denies any wrongdoing. His arrest and bail come as the government faces intense pressure over its earlier decision to appoint him ambassador despite known concerns about his Epstein connections, and as lawmakers and critics demand further transparency and accountability in the unfolding investigation.to contact me:[email protected]:Former UK ambassador Peter Mandelson released on bail | AP NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Newly released documents from the Epstein Files Transparency Act trove reveal that Jeffrey Epstein was the subject of a previously undisclosed U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) investigation, according to a heavily redacted 2015 memo included in the government’s files. The 69-page memorandum, marked “law enforcement sensitive,” shows Epstein was one of 15 people targeted in a probe focused on “suspicious money transfers” that federal agents believed were tied to illicit drug trafficking and prostitution activities in both the U.S. Virgin Islands and New York City, raising questions about whether Epstein’s criminal conduct may have extended beyond his well-known sex trafficking offenses. The document, drafted after the DEA requested information from a multi-agency Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, suggests a significant investigation that spanned five years from 2010 to 2015, although many details and the identities of other targets remain redacted.The existence of this DEA inquiry adds a new dimension to the public understanding of Epstein’s activities and how thoroughly federal authorities were examining various aspects of his operations. While the later, better-known 2019 prosecution focused on sex trafficking and did not publicly include drug trafficking charges, the DEA memo indicates that investigators had been pursuing a potentially broader case years earlier. The revelations have prompted renewed scrutiny from lawmakers and law enforcement observers about what the newly released records might yet reveal about Epstein’s financial networks and whether narcotics trafficking played any role in his criminal enterprise.to contact me:[email protected]:Newly unearthed DEA document from Epstein files raises question: Did Epstein facilitate drug trafficking? - CBS NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Despite repeatedly telling the public and lawmakers that he had cut ties with Epstein and had minimal contact with him, newly released documents from the Epstein files reveal a very different picture. Lutnick claimed in interviews that after a 2005 meeting with Epstein he found him “disgusting” and avoided further interaction, but evidence shows he actually continued engaging with Epstein for years afterward. Emails show Lutnick coordinated a lunch on Epstein’s private island in 2012 with his family, had drinks with him around 2011, and even invited Epstein to a 2015 fundraiser—activities that directly contradict his earlier statements that he had no relationship and spent “zero time” with Epstein. When pressed before Congress, Lutnick tried to minimize these contacts as limited and innocuous, but the contrast between his rhetoric and the documentary evidence has made his public statements look disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.The repercussions have been significant: bipartisan calls for his resignation have emerged, and prominent lawmakers—including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Thomas Massie—have said Lutnick misled the American people about his interactions with a convicted sex offender. His attempts to spin the timeline and severity of his relationship with Epstein have only intensified scrutiny, with critics saying a senior federal official should not have to be prodded by document leaks to correct basic factual errors in his public claims. Lutnick’s credibility and judgment have been sharply questioned, and his failure to be transparent about the extent of his ties with Epstein has become a major liability for both his personal reputation and the administration he serve.to contact me:[email protected]:New Details From Epstein Files Reveal Lutnick Had Years-Long Business Tie With Sex Offender – Mother JonesBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In September 2025, Peter Mandelson — then the United Kingdom’s Ambassador to the United States — was dismissed (effectively recalled and fired) by Prime Minister Keir Starmer after revelations about his longstanding social relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein surfaced. Emails published earlier that year showed Mandelson had maintained contact with Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction and had expressed supportive sentiments toward him, which diplomats said was far deeper than what had been known at the time of his appointment. Those communications raised questions about his judgment and suitability for the high-profile diplomatic post, prompting Starmer to remove him from the position immediately.In February 2026, the scandal escalated when authorities arrested Mandelson on 23 February on suspicion of misconduct in public office. This followed the release of internal documents and emails from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Epstein files suggesting he may have shared sensitive government information with Epstein during his time in government in 2009–10. As part of the fallout, Mandelson resigned from the House of Lords and the Labour Party, and British police executed search warrants at his residences as part of a criminal investigation. His arrest reflects widening legal and political consequences from the Epstein file revelations that have also embroiled other high-profile figures.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Recent disclosures from congressional investigations and documents tied to the Epstein estate have exposed a far deeper and more personal relationship between Kathryn Ruemmler and Jeffrey Epstein than previously acknowledged, raising serious questions about her judgment and fitness to serve as general counsel of Goldman Sachs. Emails and schedules show she met with Epstein dozens of times between 2014 and 2019 — long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor — and that their communication ranged from career advice and personal travel planning to repeated informal exchanges, which some insiders view as far beyond the scope of mere professional interaction. She was even named as a backup executor in an early version of Epstein’s will, a detail that triggered internal alarm at Goldman once it became public, and suggests a level of trust and intimacy that many observers find profoundly inappropriate given Epstein’s crimes. The revelations directly undermine her role on Goldman’s Reputational Risk Committee, where she helps decide which clients and relationships could endanger the firm’s ethical standing.Even after Goldman’s leadership publicly defended Ruemmler and denied any formal plans to replace her, the controversy has not dissipated; critics argue that the firm’s insistence on keeping her in a top legal and governance role reflects a troubling tolerance for ethical ambiguity when it benefits powerful insiders. Some executives reportedly view Ruemmler as a potential liability whose past associations were not fully disclosed or understood at the time of her hiring, and whose continued presence on ethics-related committees sends a poor message about the bank’s commitment to accountability and moral judgment. The fact that these revelations emerged only through released documents and not proactive disclosure further fuels skepticism about transparency at the highest levels of Goldman Sachs, intensifying scrutiny from investors, lawmakers, and corporate governance watchdogs.to contact me:[email protected]:New court doc asserts former Obama WH counsel advised Jeffrey Epstein during critical reputational and legal battles | CNN PoliticsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prince Andrew’s downfall has accelerated sharply in the wake of fresh allegations tied to Jeffrey Epstein and the explosive release of Virginia Giuffre’s memoir, Nobody’s Girl. The book recounts new details about Andrew’s alleged sexual encounters with Giuffre while she was being trafficked as a minor by Epstein. These revelations reignited public outrage and renewed scrutiny over Andrew’s long-denied relationship with both Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Buckingham Palace has reportedly been forced into damage control, with King Charles III supporting Andrew’s decision to give up his “Duke of York” title and remaining royal honors. The palace has publicly stated that the new allegations must be fully investigated, signaling growing institutional distance from Andrew as pressure mounts for full transparency and accountability.Adding to his disgrace, newly surfaced claims allege that Andrew attempted to orchestrate an online smear campaign against Giuffre to salvage his reputation. According to The Guardian’s coverage of the memoir, the prince and his aides tried to hire internet trolls to harass Giuffre online and even sought access to her private information, including her Social Security number. Reports indicate that the Metropolitan Police have opened an inquiry into whether Andrew misused his royal security detail or other public resources during this smear campaign. Parliamentarians are also reportedly pushing to strip him of any remaining titles and privileges, as his reputation continues to collapse under the weight of new evidence and public disgust over his conduct.to contact me:[email protected]:Prince Andrew tried to hire 'internet trolls' to 'hassle' his sex accuser Virginia Giuffre, her posthumous memoir reveals | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Ghislaine Maxwell was placed in solitary confinement after giving a jailhouse interview without authorization while awaiting sentencing, according to reporting at the time. Federal prison officials said the interview violated Bureau of Prisons rules governing inmate communications with the media. As a result, Maxwell was moved to segregated housing, commonly referred to as solitary confinement, where inmates are typically isolated for most of the day and have limited contact with others. The disciplinary action followed her participation in the interview, which had been conducted by phone and later broadcast publicly.Her legal team criticized the decision, arguing that the punishment was excessive and punitive, particularly given the intense public scrutiny surrounding her case. They maintained that Maxwell had not posed a security threat and suggested that the move reflected the heightened sensitivity around her prosecution and conviction in connection with Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation. Prison authorities, however, defended the action as a routine enforcement of institutional rules, stating that all inmates are subject to the same restrictions regarding unauthorized media contact.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.