Name: 10 NEW Shocking Revelations From The Epstein Files Release
Uploaded: 2026-02-04T17:02:08.000Z
Duration: 17 min 34 s
Description: Thousands of YouTube videos with English-Chinese subtitles! Now you can learn to understand native speakers, expand your vocabulary, and improve your pronunciation...

The files also include a diary from a woman who says she gave birth to Epstein's child around 2002.

And today we're examining the newest Epstein files release and the uncomfortable questions it raises about accountability.

Today's release marks the end of a very comprehensive document identification and review process to ensure transparency to the American people.

In a letter to Congress, Blanchard Attorney General Pam Bondi acknowledged approximately 200,000 pages have been redacted or withheld based on various privileges.

If you thought the Epstein case had already given up its secrets, the January 30, 2026 release proved otherwise.

The Department of Justice published over 3 million responsive pages in a single tranche, bringing the total disclosed under federal transparency law to nearly 3.5 million pages.

That includes investigative records, internal correspondence, scheduling material, and

metadata from multiple agencies, along with more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

These messages from 2013 show Epstein connecting New York Giants co owner Steve Tisch with various women.

In one exchange, Tish asked about a woman only identified as M.

Writing, curious to know about M Pro or civilian.

The sheer scale changes how the case is understood.

This is no longer just a criminal dossier.

It's a sprawling administrative archive that documents how law enforcement, prosecutors, and institutions interacted with Epstein for decades.

Can you assure the American public that President Trump, like every other prominent person whose name came up in relation to the Epstein files, that all documents, photos, and

anything relevant to him connected to the case are being released?

We complied with the statute, we complied with the act, and there is no.

We didn't protect or not protect anybody.

Legal compliance achieved, but full transparency is still elusive.

There are a small number of documents, as I said on Friday, that we're waiting for a judge to say we can.

We're allowed to release because of a protective order, but this review is over.

I mean, we reviewed over 6 million pieces of paper, thousands of videos, thousands, tens of thousands of images, and.

Which is what the statute required us to do.

The Justice Department insists it has complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act.

But critics argue that legal compliance is not the same thing as meaningful transparency.

While the documents are technically searchable and downloadable, their volume, inconsistent formatting, and

lack of narrative context make real analysis daunting.

Lawmakers and watchdog groups have accused the DOJ of creating quote, obfuscation by scale where overwhelming quantity substitutes for clarity.

Leadership on the Hill, Congressman Massie, Senator Schumer, are quick to complain there is no way they have spent any time looking at the materials we produce because I know the materials we produce.

By Saturday, they're already complaining about what we did.

Others point out that millions of pages were deemed responsive, yet not all were released, raising questions about what standards were used and who decided.

The result is a disclosure that satisfies the letter of the law while still frustrating the public's demand for straightforward answers.

And our doors are open if they want to come and review any of the materials that we produced.

Redaction Breakdown exposed victims your release on Friday has already received a response from the victims from Jeffrey Epstein's victims.

It says survivors are having their names and identifying information exposed.

One of the most damaging aspects of the rollout had nothing to do with powerful names and everything to do with victims.

Despite assurances of rigorous review, redaction failures allowed documents to go live containing names, contact information and financial details linked to survivors.

The federal agency had to remove the documents from its site yesterday because some reveal the names of victims.

Attorneys for survivors say the Justice Department failed to redact the identities of at least 31 people who were victimized as children.

Some of those victims now say they're being harassed through private messaging.

The the DOJ was forced to pull thousands of files offline to correct the errors, but

Victim advocates condemned the mishandling, arguing that transparency should never come at the cost of re traumatizing survivors.

Beyond the human toll the episode shattered confidence in the release process itself.

The files may have inadvertently included victim identifying information due to various factors including technical or human error.

Multiple survivors calling for the takedown writing the DOJ committed what may be the single most egregious violation of victim privacy in one day in United States history.

The files are crowded with global power brokers.

I have to acknowledge the elephant in the room at this moment your ex husband Bill is named in the newest tranche of Epstein files and there are a new alleged details about his past behavior.

And I want to give you the opportunity to respond in whatever way you want to.

As soon as researchers and journalists began digging in, one thing became clear.

The files repeatedly reference figures from finance, technology, politics and royalty appearing in emails, calendars, invitations and internal notes.

Importantly, in inclusion does not equal guilt.

The doj has been explicit that many names appear incidentally or through third party claims.

Another person that has come out in these new documents is Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.

He and his family, it looks like, spent time on the island with Epstein.

Also, he appears to have had a lunch with Epstein.

Someone wrote back on the behalf of Epstein and said it was nice to see him.

To Howard Letnick, Lutnick's response was, I spent zero time with him.

Still, the density of influential figures paints a disturbing picture of access.

He was circulating through elite networks with ease.

The real shock isn't that powerful names appear.

It's how normalized Epstein's presence seemed to be in rooms where influence is exercised.

And what's striking about all of this is once again, we have seen over and over very high profile, powerful men who, who have continued to say that they had no relationship, no connection to Jeffrey Epstein.

But clearly with these millions of files that we continue to see released, they tell a very, very different story.

Epstein actively courted access to top political power players.

The DOJ also posted, then temporarily removed, without explanation, a spreadsheet of complaints made to the FBI, including unverified allegations about both President Trump and former President Bill Clinton.

Per the document, the FBI determined some of those claims were found to be not credible.

The documents reinforce a long suspected pattern.

Epstein actively pursued proximity to political power.

Emails and scheduling records show repeated efforts to arrange introductions, maintain relationships, and

present himself as useful to decision makers.

The files also show that Epstein repeatedly took the fifth during a 2016 deposition.

When asked more than a dozen questions about former President Clinton.

Among them several about whether Mr. Clinton visited Epstein's private island and flew in his private plane.

Epstein cultivated the appearance of relevance, positioning himself as a connector, donor, or source of insight.

When someone appears adjacent to presidents, ministers, or senior officials, often enough institutions begin to treat them cautiously, sometimes deferentially.

The the files don't prove a single political conspiracy.

What they do show is how sustained access can discourage scrutiny.

Epstein's greatest shield wasn't secrecy.

It was the assumption that someone so connected must already be vetted when they go ahead.