Congress finally got shoved into the DOJ’s little paper‑scented panic room to look at the unredacted Epstein files, and the reactions coming out of that chamber are the closest thing to bipartisan unity this country has seen since we all agreed that dial‑up internet sucked. These lawmakers walked in expecting a political chew toy and walked out looking like they’d just read the Book of Revelation backwards. Sen. Cynthia Lummis — who literally said she didn’t understand “what the big deal is” before she went in — emerged with the thousand‑yard stare of someone who just realized the big deal is that the government has been sitting on a decades‑long ledger of depravity, power, and institutional cowardice. Her exact words: “Now I see what the big deal is.” That’s not a political statement. That’s a confession of shock.
And then there’s the unnamed lawmaker who didn’t bother with euphemisms, didn’t bother with decorum, didn’t bother with the usual congressional throat‑clearing. They came out of the room and said, flatly, “There’s a bunch of sick f*cks.” When Congress — the same Congress that has seen classified torture photos, war briefings, and intelligence dossiers — calls something “sick,” you know the files aren’t just bad. They’re radioactive.
But the real fury isn’t just about what’s in the files. It’s about what wasn’t in the public release — and what was. Because the DOJ, in its infinite wisdom, decided to redact the names of six powerful men who were not minors, not victims, not protected witnesses, not legally shielded by any statute — just powerful. Just connected. Just the kind of men institutions instinctively protect. Rep. Ro Khanna and Rep. Thomas Massie — a Democrat and a libertarian Republican who agree on almost nothing except that the government lies too much — both came out swinging. Khanna said the redactions were unjustified. Massie said the DOJ may have violated the very law he helped write. Both of them are openly threatening to reveal the names themselves if DOJ doesn’t fix it. When Congress starts talking about going rogue, it means the bureaucracy has overplayed its hand.
And then there’s the flip side — the part that should make every decent person’s stomach turn. Because while the DOJ was busy shielding the identities of powerful men, they somehow had no problem leaving victims’ names, victims’ photos, and victims’ identifying details unredacted in the public release. Women who were minors at the time. Women who were trafficked. Women who were coerced. Women who were abused. Women who have already spent years trying to rebuild their lives. Their names were left exposed while the men who harmed them were tucked behind black bars like precious little Fabergé eggs. Lawmakers are furious about this — not in the performative way, not in the “we’ll hold a hearing and forget about it” way, but in the “this is dangerous and indefensible” way. Because it is dangerous. It puts these women at risk of harassment, doxxing, retaliation, retraumatization. It tells every survivor in America exactly what the system thinks of them: you are disposable, but the men who hurt you are not.
And the lawmakers are saying it out loud. They’re saying the redactions protected the wrong people. They’re saying the DOJ inverted the moral universe. They’re saying the public release was a grotesque act of institutional self‑preservation disguised as transparency. They’re saying the DOJ hid names that should have been exposed and exposed names that should have been protected. They’re saying the redactions were not about privacy — they were about power.
Meanwhile, the DOJ is standing there insisting they “followed procedure,” which is bureaucrat‑speak for “we did what we always do: protect the powerful and hope no one notices.” But Congress noticed. Congress is pissed. Congress is talking about legislative fixes, contempt threats, and forcing the DOJ to unmask the six men whose names were blacked out for no legal reason. And the more they talk, the clearer it becomes that the unredacted files contain details that make the public release look like a sanitized brochure. They can’t say what they saw — no electronics, no copies, no leaks — but their faces say enough. Their quotes say enough. Their bipartisan disgust says enough.
And all of this is happening while Pam Bondi is testifying, trying to explain why the DOJ handled the release like a drunk intern with a Sharpie. She’s walking into a buzzsaw. Both sides want answers. Both sides smell a cover‑up. Both sides are done pretending this is normal.
Because here’s the truth: if this is what Congress saw in the unredacted files — if this is the level of shock, revulsion, and bipartisan fury — then the public has only seen the tip of the iceberg. The DOJ let Congress see the real thing, and Congress came out looking like they’d just stared into the abyss. And the abyss stared back with names, dates, flights, photos, patterns, networks, and the unmistakable stench of a system that protected predators while exposing their victims.
Add comment
Comments