Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is ramping up pressure on the FBI and IRS to release unredacted records related to Jeffrey Epstein, insisting the public deserves full transparency regarding his associates and financial dealings.

In a letter addressed to newly appointed FBI Director Kash Patel and acting IRS Commissioner Douglas O’Donnell, Blackburn, 72, demanded the agencies provide “complete, unredacted records” regarding Epstein, including flight logs, surveillance footage, and financial documents.

“This critical information identifying every individual who could have participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s abhorrent conduct is long overdue,” Blackburn wrote. “The survivors of Mr. Epstein’s horrific crimes want transparency and accountability, and they—and the American people—deserve nothing less.”

Epstein, a disgraced financier with high-profile connections, was arrested in July 2019 on federal child sex trafficking charges. He was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell a month later, with the official ruling being suicide. His death has fueled years of speculation and demands for answers regarding his extensive network of associates.

Demands for Full Disclosure

Blackburn is specifically seeking the unredacted flight logs from Epstein’s private jet and helicopter, along with his convicted associate Ghislaine Maxwell’s records, including the infamous “little black book.” Additionally, she is calling for the release of surveillance footage from Epstein’s Palm Beach residence, which was allegedly a hub for his illicit activities.

While redacted versions of these documents have previously surfaced online or been included in lawsuits, Blackburn argues that the full versions must be made public. “Since Mr. Epstein’s death in 2019, there is still much about this tragic case that is not known—including the names of his associates that are listed in the flight logs of his private jet and in Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘little black book,’” she wrote.

Beyond the FBI, Blackburn is also pressing the IRS for records detailing Epstein and Maxwell’s financial dealings. She is requesting “any and all” documents revealing individuals and entities that had financial relationships with them.

FBI Director Patel’s Pledge

During his confirmation hearing last month, Patel assured Blackburn that he would “absolutely” work with her to bring more transparency to Epstein’s case files. However, it remains unclear how far he will go in releasing sensitive documents, particularly given past concerns over revealing the names of individuals who met with Epstein but were not implicated in criminal activity.

Blackburn has been a consistent advocate for obtaining these records. She previously urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to subpoena the files and pressed former FBI Director Christopher Wray on the issue. In December 2023, Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that his team would “figure out if there’s more information we can provide” on Epstein, but no follow-up information was ever released.

“Director Wray never provided any such follow-up information,” Blackburn noted in her letter to Patel. “Over a year has elapsed since then, and we still do not have all of the necessary information regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.”

The demand for transparency on Epstein’s network is gaining momentum. Last week, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi revealed that Epstein’s client list is “sitting on my desk” as it undergoes review for potential release.

As the pressure mounts, Patel and O’Donnell now face a crucial decision: whether to follow through on their promises of transparency or continue withholding key documents that could shed light on one of the most notorious criminal cases of the century. The American people, as Blackburn asserts, are watching—and waiting.

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) expressed doubts about Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-La.) ability to retain the gavel, stating that he remains undecided on whether he can support Johnson in the upcoming Friday floor vote, despite the endorsement from President-elect Trump.

“I remain undecided, as do a number of my colleagues, because we saw so many of the failures last year that we are concerned about that might limit or inhibit our ability to advance the president’s agenda,” Roy said during an appearance on “Varney & Co.” on Fox Business.

Roy went on to clarify that Johnson does not currently have enough support to secure the position of Speaker.

“Right now, I don’t believe he has the votes on Friday,” Roy said.

Several Republicans, including Reps. Andy Harris (Md.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), and Victoria Spartz (Ind.), are withholding their support for Johnson, despite Trump’s endorsement. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has signaled he will vote for someone other than Johnson, indicated that Trump’s backing hasn’t changed his stance.

With only one Republican defection allowed in the January 3 Speaker election, assuming all members are present and voting, Johnson’s chances of retaining the gavel are precarious. The House’s incoming 215 Democrats are all expected to vote for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), and Republicans are anticipated to have 219 members in attendance that day.

Roy mentioned alternatives to Johnson, including Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee.

“People say, well, Chip, who would you choose otherwise? Mike’s a friend and maybe he can answer the call and deliver an agenda and a plan. Byron Donalds is a good man and a good friend. I nominated him two years ago. Jim Jordan’s a good man and a good friend. There are other members of leadership in the conference who could do the job,” Roy said.

While Jordan has shown support for Johnson following Trump’s endorsement, and Donalds expressed his support for Johnson in December, Roy remains firm in his concerns about Johnson’s leadership.

Despite respecting Trump’s endorsement of Johnson and considering him a friend, Roy highlighted several actions by Johnson over the past year that have raised alarm, particularly the short-term spending deal that went through multiple iterations before being passed just before Christmas.

“We violated the 72-hour rule twice, which means we didn’t have time to read a bill. We had to have Elon [Musk] and Vivek [Ramaswamy] and the president and JD [Vance] come in to kill a 1,500-page monstrosity, cut it down to 100 pages. It still spent $110 billion unpaid for,” Roy said.

He added that the spending deal before Christmas is indicative of the challenges that lie ahead, emphasizing the need for a change in how the conference organizes to effectively deliver for the American people.

“The failure before Christmas, I cannot overstate, it’s a glimpse to come if we don’t organize the conference to be able to deliver for the American people. We are not going to be able to bend on the things that matter. We must cut spending if you want inflation to go down and for people to afford to live in this country.”

SOURCE: THE HILL

In a fiery call to action, newly appointed California Senator Adam Schiff (D) urged his colleagues in the Senate on Sunday to reject Kash Patel’s nomination for FBI director. This latest salvo in Schiff’s long-standing feud with Patel underscores their deeply entrenched political rivalry, which dates back to explosive revelations about surveillance abuses during the Obama administration.

Patel, a former Trump administration official, first clashed with Schiff in 2017 when he played a key role in exposing alleged misconduct by members of the outgoing Obama administration. Specifically, Patel helped uncover the misuse of intelligence tools to “unmask” the identities of Americans caught on foreign wiretaps—a controversial practice. This revelation led to widespread criticism of the prosecution of Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, over debunked allegations of collusion with Russia.

As ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, Schiff vehemently opposed Patel’s findings. He authored a memo attempting to justify the FBI’s surveillance of Carter Page, a former Trump campaign aide. However, a subsequent Department of Justice Inspector General report discredited Schiff’s defense, validating Republican concerns about FBI overreach in its use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

Patel’s connection to Trump made him a recurring target during Schiff’s leadership of high-profile investigations. During Trump’s first impeachment inquiry, which Schiff spearheaded, Democrats floated unsubstantiated claims that Patel had acted as a secret “back channel” to Russia. Schiff’s impeachment report even cited phone records between Patel and Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, though no evidence of wrongdoing emerged.

Schiff’s pursuit of Patel continued with the January 6 Committee, where he again sought to tie Patel to nefarious activities. The committee ultimately found no wrongdoing, only releasing Patel’s closed-door testimony after considerable delay—a move critics argued was politically motivated.

The Biden administration’s nomination of Patel to lead the FBI has reignited tensions. Schiff contends that Patel’s past criticisms of the media and government officials signal an intent to pursue partisan prosecutions. Patel, however, has consistently maintained that individuals who broke the law in efforts to undermine the Trump presidency—whether in government or media—should face accountability.

For his part, Patel has accused Schiff of abusing his power as a member of Congress, citing Schiff’s role in perpetuating the now-debunked Russia collusion narrative and his mishandling of evidence collected during the January 6 Committee investigation. Patel has also criticized Schiff for violating defendants’ rights by failing to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence.

Schiff’s opposition to Patel coincides with broader scrutiny of the Biden administration. As of Monday morning, Schiff had yet to address President Joe Biden’s controversial pardon of his son, Hunter Biden. Critics argue that Schiff’s refusal to question Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, weakens his prior claims that Trump’s request for a Ukraine investigation was baseless.

The Senate faces a pivotal decision on Patel’s nomination, one that could reshape the FBI’s leadership and direction. While Schiff’s opposition reflects ongoing partisan battles, it also underscores broader divisions in Washington over accountability and the rule of law. Whether Patel’s nomination proceeds or stalls, the debate surrounding his candidacy highlights the enduring polarization in American politics.