Tag Archives: Professional Idiots

Feb 22 2026

The FBI Mission and the “Library on Congress”


Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance

In roughly the past fifty years, the term “continuity of government” has been used with increased frequency describing how the United States of America, a constitutional republican system of government, contains internal mechanisms to protect the executive branch in the event of crisis, attack or disruption of leadership by adversaries.

The term ‘continuity of government‘ became much more common in the aftermath of 9-11-01 and the thunder shock of an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC.

Within the very brief discussion period that led up to the 10-26-01 Patriot Act [pdf here], literally a structural reform of the entire domestic terrorist apparatus that created the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), a bill only debated for a few weeks, the baseline was the enhanced ‘continuity of government‘ in the event of an emergency.

As we have exhaustively outlined on these pages, the outcome of the Patriot Act was to create a system where every American was now viewed by our federal government through the prism of the citizen being a potential terrorist threat.

The federal government aligned all of our institutions and national security systems accordingly.

DHS was created to monitor American behavior, the TSA was created to scan American travelers, and the FBI was enhanced with resources to conduct surveillance despite our Fourth Amendment protections within our Constitution.  Instead of the U.S. Govt protecting U.S. citizens from foreign threats, the Patriot Act changed the mission of government to protect itself from potential citizen threats.

In essence, We the People became the suspects, and all of the constitutional viewpoints within the FBI and Dept of Justice were modified to create monitoring systems.

The legislative branch was considered part of a this newly protected elite class of Americans, and the judicial branch deferred all scrutiny to the executive as long as they claimed, ‘national security.’  The secret FISA court system would grant the agents surveillance power over U.S. citizens.

As the foundation of this new surveillance state was just being finalized, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Eric Holder then entered government via the 2008 election and weaponized this system to target their domestic political opposition.

However, there is also a second element to this ‘continuity of government’ that flows with the first premise.

The continuity of a very specific outlook by government.

The continuity of a very specific construct of government.

The continuity of a view within government of how government should operate. This is part of the continuity of government not discussed.

You can argue it was the viewpoint of a very specific type of government “continuity” that led to the opposition against Donald Trump by Democrats and Republicans.

Trump would be a disruptive influence if introduced into a continuation mission that did not like change.  This ‘continuity’ mindset then established the justification for every institution and element of the bureaucracy, including almost all layers of the people who run them, to oppose Donald Trump.

By the time the 2016 election arrived, We the People had already been defined by the Patriot Act outcome as a threat to government.  If we the people did not select the right kind of candidate who would be approved by the continuity system, then our selection would be rejected by all of the operators of that administrative system.   That’s what happened.

Every move by the U.S. federal government, from 2016 to now, has been contrast against the backdrop of a new awakening and visible understanding.

We the People are the threat, and those who control the DC power centers that determine the continuity of government, will not accept any modification or diminishment of their mission.  This is how they justify their conduct in very real terms, including through application of law.  This is also why the people who operate these systems are very visible with their conduct and do not have any reservations about showing their omnipotent mindset.

From their perspective, they are doing what they do, running government how they run government, maintaining the continuity the system was designed to protect, and we are what they consider futile and irrelevant voices.

Both the Republican and Democrat leadership hold this same view.  This “continuity of government” is the core of their UniParty alignment.

Here is where this understanding gets really interesting.

In order to maintain this system, there has to be an internal monitoring system, a surveillance system to protect itself against any adversary.  A domestic surveillance state has to exist as an outcome of the logical sequence.

Within this total surveillance state, the FBI is the federal agency – a national police force with a mission to run monitoring operations.

Everyone is monitored, and in case anyone would raise objection to being monitored, the corporate media provide protection against criticism by saying the agencies doing the monitoring need to be independent.

As we plunge deeper and deeper into this weaponized surveillance state, if you engage in any conduct to avoid monitoring, you run the risk of being caught in the DHS surveillance sweep.  You run the risk of becoming a DHS subject of interest, just like candidate Donald Trump – only smaller.  If you choose to fight against accepting the weaponized surveillance state, you will be considered a DHS subject of interest – just like the J6 detainees.

When the FBI was fighting against the release of the FD-1023 report, outlining the Confidential Human Source (CHS) that gave evidence to the FBI against Joe Biden, people missed something.

The DOJ/FBI reluctance to admit the FD-1023 report existed was not just about Joe Biden, it was also about a surveillance process this reporting would reveal.

The confidential human source (CHS) was a person giving information to the FBI for their files.  This is the library on congress.  There are hundreds of thousands of these FD-1023 forms created, as CHS’s undercover agent employees (UAE’s) and a myriad of resources, are deployed in this surveillance system.

It’s the breadth of this surveillance system that leads to the FBI saying, “The safeguards the FBI placed on the production of this information are necessary to protect the safety of confidential sources and the integrity of sensitive investigations. Today’s release of the 1023 [form] – at a minimum – unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source.”

As noted by the Federalist Margot Cleveland, “During Wednesday’s hours-long hearing, IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler both told lawmakers they had never seen the FD-1023. Significantly, Ziegler then stated: “There’s things that are contained on that document that could further corroborate other information that we might be having an issue corroborating because it could be regarding a foreign official. So, if we have information regarding that in a document or a witness, we can further corroborate later evidence.”

The reason the IRS agents were not aware of the CHS reports to the FBI, is because keeping the FD-1023 report hidden did not have as much to do with protecting Biden as it does with protecting this surveillance apparatus.

Who are all of these CHS’s and UAEs like Igor Danchenko, Patrick Byrne, Azra Turk, Carter Page, Joseph Mifsud, Ray Epps, 1% Watchdog, etc. etc. etc?  There is a massive surveillance apparatus underway monitoring everyone, including an assembly of files against sitting members of congress and political leadership.

Keep in mind, the FD-1023 reports are not blackmail, they are reports of conduct and action.

Blackmail and/or leverage is an outcome of knowing information.  The massive assembly of FD-1023 reports are the source information.

This was a big part of the reason why FBI Director Christopher Wray initially denied there was an FD-1023 report.

In the bigger of the big pictures, this Joe/Hunter Biden story was the tip of an iceberg showing how the FBI is a domestic surveillance operation assembling files on everyone; that includes members of Congress and key political leadership that could advance to power.  Why is all of this surveillance taking place?…

….Because it is a very specific type of Continuity of Government that must be maintained.

Don’t look at the Potemkin village we call Washington DC.

Look for the people behind the construct.

Look for the people who are using these files.

Feb 22 2026

Alan Dershowitz, If Epstein was a CIA or Mossad Asset He Never Would Have Gone to Jail


Posted originally on CTH on February 21, 2026 | Sundance

This is a little surprising to hear in someone’s outside voice.  According to Jeffrey Epstein’s former lawyer, Alan Dershowitz, if his client had told him he worked for Israeli intelligence or the CIA Dershowitz could have gotten him off the charges with no jail time.

Essentially, Dershowitz is saying any sex criminals or pedophiles that work for intelligence agencies would never receive any prison sentences.  WATCH (prompted):

As remarkable as it sounds, Alan Dershowitz is actually confirming what many people suspect.  If a U.S. or Israeli intelligence asset commits a crime, they can leverage their position to get out of any criminal accountability.

Good grief. I’m not sure Dershowitz realizes we can hear what he is saying.

Feb 21 2026

Supreme Court Rule 6-3 Against President Trump’s IEEPA Tariff Authority – The “Regulate” Opinion


Posted originally on CTH on February 20, 2026 | Sundance

The frustrating issue with the Supreme Court ruling [SEE HERE] is not simply the legal logic applied, which essentially boils down to actionable definitions surrounding the word “regulate,” but also the high court’s seeming blindness to the “emergency” part of the reason IEEPA was used.

Economic security is national security, and the hollowing out of our ability to independently sustain our national economic system posed a real and substantive threat to our nation.  The court never evaluated the ‘urgency’ behind the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as used by President Donald Trump.

Instead, the court began their legal analysis by seeking to define the word “regulate” as it applies to IEEPA.  Part II–B, concluding: (a) IEEPA authorizes the President to “investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.” §1702(a)(1)(B) under the Act.

The majority of the court decided presidential ability to levy countervailing duties is not part of the ability to “regulate” importation.

In the opinion of the court, the President can block imports, nullify imports and prohibit imports, but the president cannot “regulate” imports through the use of tariffs.  This is the representative logic of a John Roberts court, the voice of Bush Inc.

It is what it is – and many of us saw this nonsense as a likely outcome, but it is still frustrating to see such a detached parseltongue approach to legal opinions when the national security of our nation is at stake.  These are the judicial minds who will watch the nation burn to the ground, just so they can remain in power ruling over the ashes.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch joined the court’s three liberals in the majority.  Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

(Via Politico) – […] “The President asserts the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope. In light of the breadth, history, and constitutional context of that asserted authority, he must identify clear congressional authorization to exercise it,” Roberts wrote, declaring that the 1977 law Trump cited to justify the import duties “falls short” of the Congressional approval that would be needed.

The ruling wipes out the 10 percent tariff Trump imposed on nearly every country in the world, as well as specific, higher tariffs on some of the top U.S. trading partners, including Canada, Mexico, China, the European Union, Japan and South Korea.

Several of those countries have entered trade agreements with the U.S. — and before the ruling indicated that they would continue to honor those agreements.

That is because the victory for the 12 Democratic-run states and small businesses that challenged Trump’s tariffs is expected to be short lived. The White House has signaled it will attempt to use other authorities to keep similar duties in place.

“We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years or longer,” U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told POLITICO in December. “You can be sure that when we came to the president the beginning of the term, we had a lot of different options”

“My message is tariffs are going to be a part of the policy landscape going forward,” Greer said. (read more)

Justice Thomas agrees with CTH prior position on the issue.  IEEPA grants the president the authority to regulate imports, and tariffs are a tool for regulation.

Despite this decision the tariffs will remain in place, perhaps using various authorities which have not been challenged as noted in the Kavanaugh dissent:

That said, with respect to tariffs in particular, the Court’s decision might not prevent Presidents from imposing most if not all of these same sorts of tariffs under other statutory authorities. For example, Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 permits the President to impose a “temporary import surcharge” to “deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits.” 19 U. S. C. §2132(a). Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides that, if the International Trade Commission determines an article is being imported in such quantities that it is “a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article,” the President may take “appropriate and feasible action,” including imposing a “duty.” §§2251(a), 2253(a)(3)(A). Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through a subordinate officer to “impose duties” if he determines that “an act, policy, or practice of a foreign country” is “unjustifiable and burdens or restricts United States commerce.” §§2411(a)(c). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 permits the President to impose tariffs when he finds that “any foreign country places any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States.” §1338(d). And Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 authorizes the President to, after receiving a report from the Secretary of Commerce, “adjust the imports of [an] article and its derivatives so that such imports will not threaten to impair the national security.” §1862(c)(1)(a).

So the Court’s decision is not likely to greatly restrict Presidential tariff authority going forward. (pg, 63 dissent)

Feb 19 2026

Two-Hour Meeting in Geneva Between U.S., Ukraine and Russia Negotiators Ends with Not much Progress


Posted originally on CTH on February 18, 2026 | Sundance

The U.S. mediating team met with Ukraine and Russia negotiators for the second day in Geneva, Switzerland.  Unfortunately, despite the high praise and customary diplomatic niceties spoken, there was not much progress.

There was, however, a rather remarkable accusation hurled by Russian media about uninvited British officials going to Geneva in order to conduct surveillance of the negotiations. Apparently, this is part of UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s efforts to retain maximum involvement and influence.

STEVE WITKOFF – “Today, at President Trump’s direction, the United States moderated a third set of trilateral discussions with Ukraine and Russia. Thank you to the Swiss Confederation for being gracious hosts for today’s meetings.

President Trump’s success in bringing both sides of this war together has brought about meaningful progress, and we are proud to work under his leadership to stop the killing in this terrible conflict. Both parties agreed to update their respective leaders and continue working towards a deal.” (source)

RUSTEM UMEROV (UKRAINE) – “In Geneva, the second day of trilateral negotiations has begun.

Consultations are taking place in working groups by areas within the political and military tracks. We are working on clarifying the parameters and mechanisms of the decisions discussed yesterday.

We are focused on substantive work. We will provide additional information on the results.” (source)

VIDEO BELOW Between Piers Morgan and Volodymyr Zelenskyy:

CHAPTERS:

00:00 Introduction and monologue
02:14 President Zelensky on the latest developments in Ukraine
08:13 Zelensky on breaking news over the trilateral meeting in Geneva
10:30 Zelensky: ‘We need European representatives’
14:50 Would Ukraine ever concede any territory for the Russians?
20:40 Zelensky’s view over Russia’s red lines involving NATO
25:55 Bill Clinton on dealing with Putin
35:19 Zelensky: “I don’t need all this historical shit!”
37:12 Would Zelensky authorise forces to kill Putin?
41:40 Zelensky on his relationship with America
46:57 Piers asks Zelensky is he trusts President Trump
50:04 Zelensky on the possibility of having free and fair elections following a 2-month ceasefire
53:54 Zelensky being voted the world’s favourite leader
01:03:00 Zelensky on Russia in the Winter Paralympics: “I don’t want to say it’s about money but it’s a dirty decision”
01:07:05 Zelensky on his relationship with his family
01:11:00 Piers’ monologue following his interview with President Zelensky

Feb 19 2026

Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt Answers Questions about Potential Military Attacks in Iran and Ongoing Ukraine Peace Negotiations


Posted originally on CTH on February 18, 2026 | Sundance 

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt gives the ¹official statements from the White House on a variety of topics and matters of great interest.  The video below is prompted to the beginning of the media question segment.

Around the 10:00 minute mark Leavitt notes the likelihood of President Trump taking military action against Iran. WATCH:

¹There is a tremendous amount of false or manipulated information from media sources, allies and critics of the administration. We are at a critical juncture where it is a best practice to listen directly to President Trump or his specifically assigned spokespeople.

Feb 17 2026

Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein


Posted originally on CTH on February 16, 2026 | Sundance 

Through the years I didn’t really have much of an opinion of Steve Bannon, I approached any story of interest that surrounded him by simply looking at the factual details of the current event in question.

CTH well understood that Bannon, and subsequently his expressed opinion and objective, was simply an outcome of his position – downstream from the billionaire of the moment who paid him.

In essence, Steve Bannon always seemed to be, much like Kellyanne Conway, an advocate for whoever was financing him. From Robert/Rebekah Mercer at Breitbart forward to any endeavor thereafter, it always just appeared the same.

That said, with the release of the Epstein files, the relationship between Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein is something CTH did not expect. {HERE} Bannon and Epstein were very close and talked to each other about seemingly everything.

I can never unsee what I have read.  Nor will CTH ever entertain the possibility that Bannon was ever a good element within the MAGA effort.  There is a solid argument to be made that the Bannon War Room was funded, or organized in the funding mechanisms, by Jeffrey Epstein. {HERE}

The files of messages between them contain some shocking stuff happening in the background while Steve Bannon was in very close proximity to candidate and President Trump.  The level of disdain Bannon had for Donald Trump’s family and for Donald Trump himself is really something CTH did not expect to see. {examples: HERE and HERE}

I am left to wonder now how much of the vitriol against Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump, ie. “Javanka hatred”, actually originated from the Braintrust behind Bannon and the assembly of people in his immediate orbit. {HERE}

Initially, I saw some Twitter accounts attempt to defend Steve Bannon by saying Epstein did all the talking in their text exchanges and Bannon was less communicative. However, that only applied to the first batches of files reviewed.  As a few days went along and people started citing files, reading them gives a much more fulsome picture of the relationship.

Steve Bannon may have been focused on the financial gains and perhaps networks of people in his association with Epstein; but he certainly got deep into it and expressed extreme praise for Epstein, even going so far as to call him a god. {LINK} These were two men in a very close friendship. There is no political or ideological distance between Bannon and Epstein.

The level of expressed skullduggery that has been going on for years in the background is very unsettling to accept, and I say that as a person who doesn’t customarily get shocked by duplicity.

This is not about division; this is about something more akin to betrayal.

While putting on a MAGA face for the War Room broadcasts, in the background Bannon was actually plotting and advising of ways to eliminate Donald Trump from republican politics.  This is Brutus level disloyalty, even accepting the guy has no moral compass other than his bank account.  I can never unsee what has been seen.

There’s also some weird stuff in the exchanges about contextual things from years past.  As an example, in one set of text messages Bannon and Epstein were discussing Patrick Byrne who is now part of the Emerald Robinson/Mike Flynn network.  Bannon notes in 2018 that Byrne told him he was working for the CIA, and apparently Bannon did not believe him. {SOURCE}

[SOURCE]

This is the same November, 2018, message exchange where Epstein is advising Steve Bannon on how to set up a media network to maximize privacy, structure the financing and eliminate the problems with transparency.  This is the origin of what would less than a year later become Bannon’s War Room on Real Voice America.

Did Jeffrey Epstein provide the seed capital to assist the start-up of Bannon’s War Room?  That question isn’t clear, but sheesh, the creepy irony of the possibility is really over-the-top.

I guess in the big scheme of things, considering all of the potential creepy stuff that is far more consequential to the Epstein file release, the relationship with Steve Bannon is not at the top of the issues of concern.  However, the reality of seeing this relationship and reading how much they both hated MAGA is just so darn deflating.

Trust lost can never be reestablished.

Ugh.  All of it. Just, ugh.

Now we reevaluate everyone who openly, frequently and willingly associated themselves with Steve Bannon on that “War Room” platform. Including: Julie Kelly, Mike Davis, Jack Posobiec, Lara Logan, John Solomon, Laura Loomer, Harmeet Dhillon and so many more.  Did they know about this Bannon-Epstein network?

Feb 14 2026

The Subject was Kushner – More Details Surface About Subject of Intel Gossip Underneath Ridiculous Whistleblower Claim Against DNI


Posted originally on CTH on February 13, 2026 | Sundance

It’s a strange time within the Intelligence Community. You can tell it’s all in flux when you see the New York Times giving a version of the story that is positive toward DNI Tulsi Gabbard, and the Wall Street Journal continuing with debunked/fake information still trying to get DNI Tulsi Gabbard removed.

The New York Times version appears to be the most truthful, factual and cited. It also makes the most sense.

In essence, two foreign nationals were having a phone call about Iran and discussing Jared Kushner’s role and influence in the policy of Trump toward Iran. The phone call was intercepted by a foreign intelligence agency, who then relayed their interpretation of the discussion to the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

NEW YORK TIMES – […] It was a discussion last year between two foreign nationals about Iran, not an unusual topic for American spies to study. But an intercept of that communication, collected by a foreign spy service and given to the United States.

[…] Mr. Kushner’s name was redacted in the original report from the National Security Agency, but people reading it, including the whistle-blower, were able to determine that the reference was to him.

[…] The foreign nationals, they said, were commenting on Mr. Kushner’s influence with the Trump administration. At a time last year when Mr. Kushner’s role in Middle East peace talks was less public than it is now, the foreign officials were recorded saying that he was the person to speak to in order to influence the talks.

[…] The intercept also included what officials described as “gossip” or speculation about Mr. Kushner that was not supported by other intelligence.

[…] The whistle-blower report was based on a telephone intercept provided to the N.S.A. from a foreign intelligence service. Intercepts are notoriously difficult to interpret. 

[…] The whistle-blower, an intelligence official whose identity has not been publicly disclosed, said Ms. Gabbard’s actions improperly limited who could see the report.

[…] Some administration critics, who have reviewed the report and have considered the underlying intelligence to be significant, also agreed that Ms. Gabbard did not act improperly by restricting distribution of the report. (more)

Democrats (administration critics) agreed that DNI Gabbard did not act improperly.

If it was possible to tell the identity of the U.S. person (aka Kushner) simply by reading the intel report, and this report is simply gossip by two other people talking about a U.S. person, then yes, duh – the report should be secured and not spread.

This story becomes more of a nothingburger each time new information is leaked.

Feb 13 2026

Kathryn Ruemmler Out at Goldman Sachs as Scale of Relationship with Epstein Gains Attention


Posted originally on CTH on February 13, 2026 | Sundance 

Former White House legal counsel/fixer to Barack Obama, and former personal lawyer/fixer of Susan Rice, Kathryn Ruemmler was Chief Legal Counsel for Goldman Sachs for the past six years.

Throughout those jobs and networked professional relationships, Kathryn Ruemmler was also a personal friend and advisor to Jeffrey Epstein.

Yesterday it was reported that Kathryn Ruemmler has resigned from Goldman Sachs.

NEW YORK – Goldman Sachs’s top lawyer, Kathryn Ruemmler, resigned on Thursday in the wake of the Justice Department’s release of emails and other material that revealed her extensive relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier.

Ms. Ruemmler and representatives for Goldman said for years that she had a strictly professional relationship with Mr. Epstein, a convicted sex offender. But emails, text messages and photographs released late last month upended that narrative, leading to Ms. Ruemmler’s sudden resignation, which surprised many inside the firm.

Before joining Goldman in 2020, Ms. Ruemmler was a counselor, confidante and friend to Mr. Epstein, the documents showed. She advised him on how to respond to tough questions about his sex crimes, discussed her dating life, advised him on how to avoid unflattering media scrutiny and addressed him as “sweetie” and “Uncle Jeffrey.”

Mr. Epstein, in turn, provided career advice on her move to Goldman, introduced her to well-known businesspeople and showered her with gifts of spa treatments, high-end travel and Hermes luxury items. In total, Ms. Ruemmler was mentioned in more than 10,000 of the documents released by the Justice Department.

Ms. Ruemmler, in addition to being Goldman’s general counsel since 2021, was a partner and vice chair of its reputational risk committee. She earlier served as White House counsel under President Obama and was a white-collar defense lawyer at Latham & Watkins. (read more)

Feb 11 2026

Thirty Years Later Thomas Massie Discovers Victoria’s Secret Founder Les Wexner Was Business Associate of Jeffrey Epstein


Posted originally on CTH on February 11, 2026 | Sundance

I said Monday on Twitter: “Seriously. Correct me if I’m wrong. For more than a decade we have known that billionaire Les Wexner from Victoria’s Secret was the originating money man behind Jeffrey Epstein.

This should not be some kind of revelation, as it was widely discussed by those who researched Epstein over a decade ago. Wexner’s money was the originating capital for what would later become Epstein’s influence empire.

Additionally, and again, stop me if this old news is incorrect, well over a decade ago it became openly known that the “PINK” brand of Victoria’s Secret was specifically created due to the sexuality of young girls becoming part of the marketing influence of Epstein.

Wexner created the original VS girls, and the influence of Epstein (underage sexual perversions) then led to the adding of the VS “PINK” sub-brand.

Are we supposed to understand this is all new information? Honest question. No snark. I’m just confused by this sudden newness of it. We been knew.”

The above VH1 segment was from 2007; however, even ten years prior to that it was commonly known that Les Wexner from Victoria’s Secret was the source of most of Jeffrey Epstein’s start-up finances. The resulting social network was fraught with sexual weirdos, and the VS brand alignment just fit with the club.

Suddenly, Representative Thomas Massie, a Sea Island asset if ever there was one, is proclaiming the Epstein file information outlining the relationship with Wexner is new information, stunning in scope and worthy of extraordinary time to explore.  It’s all weird.

VIA NBC – […] The newly released version of the 2019 document shows eight people are listed as co-conspirators, including four whose names are not redacted: Wexner, the former CEO of Victoria’s Secret, Lesley Groff, Epstein’s longtime secretary, the late modeling agent Jean-Luc Brunel, and Ghislaine Maxwell, the only person who was charged in connection with Epstein. She was convicted of sex trafficking charges and is serving a 20-year prison sentence.

Four other names on the document are still redacted. It’s unclear who those people are but prosecutors have said that Epstein used women he preyed on as recruiters. A separate document dated August 2019 indicated that some of the others were victims as well, and had been cooperating with investigators.

A Wexner legal representative said in a statement to NBC News Tuesday that “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. Mr. Wexner cooperated fully by providing background information on Epstein and was never contacted again.”

Wexner had a long relationship with Epstein that dated back to the 1980s, and hired him to manage his personal finances. He’s said he cut ties to Epstein after he was accused of sexually abusing minors in Florida. It was after that Wexner said he “discovered that he had misappropriated vast sums of money from me and my family.”

Wexner’s name was also mentioned in a July 2019 FBI email about possible co-conspirators that was made public as part of the DOJ release. Another August 2019 FBI email said there was “limited evidence regarding his involvement.”

He is scheduled to be deposed by the House Oversight Committee next week. (more)

The first time I heard the information about Wexner and Epstein was sometime in the mid 1990’s.  It was well known.

There is a lot of horrible, creepy and perverted stuff in the Epstein file releases that is factually new information.  However, the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Les Wexner is not new. Perverse, yes -as it was even then; but not new.  There were even documentaries about it, one of them I think was called “Angels and Demons“.

.

Maybe it wasn’t as widely known as I thought?

Feb 11 2026

Steve Bannon Text Messages About Trump Included in the Epstein File Release


Posted originally on CTH on February 10, 2026 | Sundance

Apparently, Steve Bannon and Jeffrey Epstein had a considerable relationship together.  Bannon is cited frequently in the 3 million+ Epstein files that were released by the DOJ.

Unfortunately, part of the document production includes text messages between Steve Bannon and an unknown individual.  Within a segment of the text messages Bannon calls Jared Kusher “the idiot son-in-law,” and frames himself as more important that President Donald Trump who Bannon sees as “transitory.”

[DOJ Source File]

STEVE BANNON (SB) – “To do that shows that [Trump] is center of gravity of this movement and not me — will never do — they are transitory figures — the dc game is to succumb to that — it’s why I never did before joining campaign — I could have been the trump whisperer years ago — avoided on purpose”

This rather elevated sense of self-importance likely explains why Bannon was the source for Michael Wolf via leaks, and why President Trump seems to have kept distance from Mr. Bannon.  However, people who walk the deep weeds of U.S. politics will also remember when Steve Bannon was the editor of Breitbart and together with financial owner Robert Mercer in 2015/2016 was backing Ted Cruz in the run-up to the 2016 election.

Both Steve Bannon and Kellyanne Conway were original political consultants and financial beneficiaries connected to the failed Ted Cruz presidential effort, before they abandoned the Cruz Crew and jumped aboard the MAGA movement.

The Cruz Crew has essentially morphed into the Ron DeSantis coalition and this superiority attitude expressed by Bannon is one of the key characteristics of the group we affectionately call the “alligator emojis.”

Perhaps the best two words to describe the brilliant political strategies of Steve Bannon are ‘Roy – Moore’.

I digress.

Trust your instincts folks, and always remember…. It’s ALWAYS about the money!