'GOP is not pleased': Republicans furious over Dems' new Epstein file drop
Source: Raw Story
September 26, 2025 4:49PM ET
Rep. James Comer's (R-KY) spokesperson lambasted Democrats on Friday after they released just six pages of the recently released cache of documents from the estate of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Republicans have been largely mum on the matter, with the House Oversight and Reform Committee chairman making only a polite request to the Department of Justice for the investigation documents.
Among the items obtained by the Epstein estate, however, were schedules and flight logs, which showed names including those of tech billionaires Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.
In an email to Huffington Post congressional reporter Jen Bendery, Comer's spokesperson ranted, "They are intentionally withholding documents that contain names of Democrat officials, and the information they released today is old news." The House Oversight Republicans have their own social media accounts where the documents could be posted.
Read more: https://www.rawstory.com/epstein-files-2674045873/
sinkingfeeling
(56,988 posts)Dulcinea
(9,554 posts)That is all.
AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)Epstein knew tons of very powerful people, and flew them around all the time, and loaned his plane out as well. We've seen all this stuff. It's time for some ACTUAL evidence IMHO
Both have been questioned, testified, and supplied records, but both deny witnessing sexual abuse during flights. There is no public record of a pilot stating they saw or knew of molestation occurring on the plane
SheilaAnn
(10,613 posts)AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)Perhaps you'd like more details, from their 2021 testimony at the Ghislaine Maxwell trial, as witnesses for the prosecution?
Both said they typically stayed in the cockpit for most of the flight but occasionally went into the cabin, and that Epstein never warned them to stay out of certain areas nor indicated they shouldnt interact with guests.
They both testified they did not witness sexual acts or see any evidence of sexual activity or paraphernalia (e.g., used condoms, sex toys) during or after flights, nor did they notice any child passengers who were not with a parent
Clarification:
Both pilots noted seeing young women, but distinguished them from preteen or very young looking children.
Theres documented evidence (flight logs, testimony, depositions) that Giuffre was in fact a minor on many Epstein flights, but the pilots themselves did not recognize her as such based on appearance or conduct.
paleotn
(21,353 posts)Plus, flying rich people can be a sweet gig compared to commercial airline milk runs. Why upset the apple cart. Rich people do tend to talk.
AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)They testified, under penalty of perjury and FOR THE PROSECUTION against Maxwell in an extremely high-profile criminal trial. 4 victims were at the trial to testify. Virgina Giuffre, who was well known to: 1) talk freely, 2) name names, and 3) have flown on their jet *dozens* of times was still alive at the time. And yet no victims, not even VG, accused them of lying on this point.
I'm sorry but I'm a very analytical person and TTBOMK the publicly available evidence that the plane rides were big sex parties for a powerful cabal of rich pedos stands to this day at exactly none, therefore I do not conclude things not in evidence
FakeNoose
(39,874 posts)Bill Clinton himself has explained why he flew on Epstein's plane several times. He was going somewhere (often a transcontinental trip) for a fundraising speech or meeting, and Jeffrey happened to be going in the same general direction, so he offered Bill a free ride. Bill accepted the offer. He was always accompanied by secret service, and sometimes Hillary was also with him. Nothing naughty happened on any of the trips that involved Bill Clinton, and we know that for a fact. (It's been confirmed by the secret service guys.)
Any women who happened to be on Epstein's plane weren't necessarily there for sexual reasons. Also we can't assume that the men on those flights were aware that the sexual abuse was taking place on Epstein's property. I'm sure that some of the men did know, but not all of them. I'm guessing at least some of them would have been appalled, if they had known.
This is why the passenger lists on Epstein's plane are not proof of anything.
AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)You are getting the gist of what my actual point here is in making this argument.
Which is partly to defend Clinton and other Dems who WILL be on the flight lists if I'm honest, but also that I want to finally see some actual evidence of this supposed all-powerful pedo cabal that Epstein was supposedly supplying multiple underage girls to.
At this point in time, I consider such an organization to be little more than conjecture, based almost entirely on what Virginia Giuffre said while suing Maxwell for defamation in civil court in 2015 for millions of dollars.
I'm not saying it's NOT true, at all, I'm just still waiting on the evidence, and the lack of such at this late point makes me doubt there ever was any such a cabal or 'ring' as what people imagine, here and elsewhere. I'm sorry to everyone who finds it offensive that I don't 'toe the party line' about it, but my brain operates on evidence by nature, it's how I'm wired
BidenRocks
(2,669 posts)TTBOMK?
IDKWTFYATA!
Yet another problem.
My Spanish is better than young speak and forever acronyms.
KWIM?
AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)Pretend TTBOMK is not there. Now do you understand what that sentence is saying?
FYI (for your information), TTBOMK means "to the best of my knowledge". Didn't think that one was cryptic, though I knew SFA would be seen as such. And yes, I know what you mean.
Now that I'm sure you know WTF I'm talking about, do you have a retort, perchance?
BidenRocks
(2,669 posts)Because I need to Google and use the dictionary of slang just to communicate in understandable English.
I'm 70 and obsolete.
I will start my long walk now.
AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)I just thought the sentence was pretty clear regardless of whether you know what abbreviation meant or not, but granted I'm operating from the position of knowing what I meant
Also, I'd have been more polite if you hadn't replied "I don't know what the fuck you are talking about", just for future reference
IbogaProject
(5,524 posts)They are trying to equate flying to foreign destinations on philantrophic missions with their own flights to pedo-island.
AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)Note that 4 victims testified in Maxwell's case. None of them, nor Virginia Giuffre (the single source and progenitor of the entire 'pedophile cabal' mythos, who for some reason chose not to testify against GM, even though she'd sued the pants off of her in CIVIL court in 2015), ever disputed these pilots testimony, at least not in public.
I submit to you it's unlikely they would be lying, with 4 of the victims right there, plus VG still alive at the time and claiming she was abused by Epstein, knowing as well that she flew on their plane in the *dozens* of times.
We know awful shit went down, of course, but there is ZERO evidence it went down on Epstein's plane
IbogaProject
(5,524 posts)I meant to comment on the thread itself and the GOP desparately trying to deflect.
paleotn
(21,353 posts)Killing the Repukes by death from a thousand seemingly innocuous cuts. But no matter. Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
thesquanderer
(12,875 posts)LoveTheDU
(138 posts)AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)It means "sweet f*** all" which in turn means like none or nothing.
Evolve Dammit
(21,399 posts)Evolve Dammit
(21,399 posts)AZJonnie
(2,601 posts)Look, we know horrible shit went down with JE&GM, all I'm saying is being on the flight logs is nowhere near enough evidence to make accusations against any particular individual.
Individuals like Bill Clinton, for example
Evolve Dammit
(21,399 posts)Skittles
(169,091 posts)NO AMERICAN PATRIOT IS PLEASED WITH THE GOP SUCKING UP TO THAT FASCIST POS TRUMP
Champp
(2,409 posts)How sick is the soul of the Republican Party that they are so perversely dedicated to protecting child rapists?
durablend
(8,846 posts)MLWR
(734 posts)They put a pedophile in office, not once but twice. And believe me, no one cares if they are "furious" that it's finally coming into the light of day.
Martin68
(26,884 posts)JPK
(914 posts)What kind of aircraft was it?
BumRushDaShow
(164,773 posts)Per this - https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epsteins-jet-spotted-in-middle-east-2019-8
Plane looked like this -

(source - https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jeffrey-epstein-high-society-contacts.html)
He supposedly had an earlier smaller plane from the Hawker series -

Per -
Link to tweet
·
Dec 2, 2021
@KlasfeldReports
·
Follow
Replying to @KlasfeldReports
Asked if he saw "females" by the pool, he replied "hundreds of times."
Asked what percentage of the time they were topless, he said about 75% to 80% of the time.
Adam Klasfeld
@KlasfeldReports
·
Follow
Asked how many times he flew on Epstein's plane, Alessi initially responded "none" then corrects himself.
He did take a ride on Epstein's first plane, the Hawker.
That's this one.
Image
2:04 PM · Dec 2, 2021
Evolve Dammit
(21,399 posts)BumRushDaShow
(164,773 posts)AF2 is either of the 747s that Vance gets in.
But 45 used it (as a chartered plane) for campaign travel when his clunker died - Donald Trump used Jeffrey Epsteins former jet for campaign appearances
Evolve Dammit
(21,399 posts)BumRushDaShow
(164,773 posts)Evolve Dammit
(21,399 posts)dsc
(53,301 posts)there is a very easy solution, release all the files.
chouchou
(2,702 posts).....Probably air-raid horns would be blasted all over the country this morning.
travelingthrulife
(4,174 posts)Botany
(76,159 posts)They cant deny the reality of what is in the documents so they have to lie and
say that the Democratic officials are hiding democrat (cant even say the right
name.
) people who are on those documents too. Now had did Comey
and or his staff even know that DEMOCRATIC people were in those Epstein documents?
Protecting Child Rapists = the GOP.
Old Crank
(6,568 posts)Or is he too poor?
hatrack
(64,104 posts)aeromanKC
(3,789 posts)We all know there are some Dem names in there as well. Whatever. Release the Epstein files in their entirety.
LW1977
(1,611 posts)Upset about exposing pederasts? Really? What are they hiding?
Justice matters.
(9,236 posts)You know who.
sakabatou
(45,657 posts)Oh wait, they want to protect the sickos.
usonian
(23,044 posts)
llmart
(17,240 posts)republianmushroom
(22,122 posts)...intentionally withholding documents that contain names of Democrat officials,...is to release 'ALL" Epstein files, unredacted. If you got the balls Comer.
Wiz Imp
(8,561 posts)As the article states: "The House Oversight Republicans have their own social media accounts where the documents could be posted". There is nothing stopping Republicans from posting documents if they think it will serve some purpose. It's pretty obvious, they don't have anything or they would release/post it.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(132,063 posts)You weren't supposed to tell
Kid Berwyn
(22,614 posts)
paleotn
(21,353 posts)I say, let them die.
Aristus
(71,488 posts)n/t
ificandream
(11,617 posts)They're obviously figuring that the flash bulbs won't go off in the heads of the dumber-than-dirt magas. Which is likely true.
czarjak
(13,413 posts)Thought so.
sop
(17,204 posts)Everyone will bend before the will of Donald Trump. (Loose translation)
paleotn
(21,353 posts)Emile
(40,110 posts)he is.
turbinetree
(26,861 posts)Hekate
(100,131 posts)GOD is not pleased
RussBLib
(10,396 posts)...is that so hard? Why is that so hard? Likely there will be many more Republicans than Dems. Just a hunch.