Thomas Massie Reads Fourteen Alleged Epstein Co Conspirator Names on the House Floor
Snapshot
On August 31, 2026, Representative Thomas Massie used a speech on the floor of the United States House of Representatives to identify fourteen people whom he described as Jeffrey Epstein “co-conspirators.”
Massie called for the people he named to be investigated and, where supported by evidence, prosecuted. He also announced the opening of a discharge petition intended to force a vote on H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II.
The names Massie read were Jes Staley, Leon Black, Les Wexner, David Copperfield, Lapo Elkann, Tom Pritzker, Glenn Dubin, Frédéric Fekkai, Edoardo Teodorani Fabbri, Jean Luc Brunel, Daniel Siad, Ramsey Elkholy, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, and Lesley Groff.
Massie’s statement was a congressional accusation and demand for investigation. It was not a criminal indictment, judicial finding, or jury verdict against the people he named.
Watch Thomas Massie’s House Floor Speech
The video above is a public recording of Massie’s House floor remarks published by PBS NewsHour.
Massie also posted the video through his official congressional account, writing that he had named several alleged Epstein co-conspirators who should be investigated and prosecuted.
What Massie Said
Massie began by saying that one year had passed since the President signed the original Epstein Files Transparency Act.
He accused the federal government of continuing to withhold more than three million Epstein related records. He then connected the disclosure dispute to the absence of criminal accountability for people who may have helped Epstein commit, conceal, finance, or facilitate his crimes.
Massie told the House:
“We want perpetrators of these crimes to be investigated and prosecuted.”
He proceeded to read fourteen names. He concluded by suggesting that publicly identifying them might pressure the Department of Justice to act.
Massie did not use his limited floor time to explain the evidence involving each person. The public record must therefore be examined separately to determine why each name may have appeared in his list.
The Fourteen Names Massie Read
Massie identified the following people:
- Jes Staley
- Leon Black
- Les Wexner
- David Copperfield
- Lapo Elkann
- Tom Pritzker
- Glenn Dubin
- Frédéric Fekkai
- Edoardo Teodorani Fabbri
- Jean Luc Brunel
- Daniel Siad
- Ramsey Elkholy
- Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew
- Lesley Groff
The spelling of Edoardo Teodorani Fabbri’s name has varied in early transcripts and reports of the speech. Massie’s pronunciation is difficult to transcribe precisely, but the available Epstein records identify Edoardo Teodorani Fabbri.
No person should be treated as criminally responsible solely because Massie named them.
What Appearing in the Epstein Files Means
The people Massie identified do not all occupy the same position in the Epstein record.
Some were employees or assistants. Some had business or financial relationships with Epstein. Some appeared in emails, schedules, address books, photographs, flight information, or witness testimony. Some faced direct allegations. Others were investigated, questioned, subpoenaed, or identified as possible witnesses.
Those categories cannot be collapsed into a single label.
A person can appear in an Epstein record because that person:
- Communicated with Epstein
- Attended a meeting or social event
- Conducted business with Epstein
- Appeared in an address book or calendar
- Travelled on an aircraft
- Was discussed by another person
- Was identified as a possible witness
- Was accused in a civil filing or witness statement
- Was considered a possible co-conspirator by investigators
- Was charged with an offense
Only the final category represents a formal criminal prosecution. Even a criminal charge does not establish guilt unless it produces a conviction or guilty plea.
Researchers can examine the underlying files through the Epstein Data full text document search, which indexes the Justice Department’s Epstein Files Transparency Act production.
Why the Word “Co Conspirator” Requires Caution
A criminal conspiracy ordinarily requires an agreement to commit an unlawful act and some legally sufficient connection between the accused person and that agreement.
Massie used “co-conspirator” as a broad description during a political speech. He was demanding investigation and prosecution, not announcing the result of a completed prosecution.
A name can also appear on an internal investigative list of possible co-conspirators without producing criminal charges. Investigators frequently develop lists of subjects, associates, witnesses, and potential conspirators while evaluating evidence.
That designation proves that investigators considered the person relevant. It does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person joined a criminal conspiracy.
According to a contemporaneous legal report on Massie’s speech, none of the fourteen people he named had been convicted in the United States of participating in Epstein’s trafficking conspiracy. Several have denied wrongdoing.
Jean Luc Brunel faced criminal charges in France but died in custody in 2022 before a trial could determine those allegations.
Jes Staley
Jes Staley was a senior JPMorgan executive who maintained a close relationship with Epstein while the bank provided financial services to him.
The relationship became a major subject of civil litigation involving JPMorgan Chase, survivors, and the Government of the United States Virgin Islands. Filed evidence included communications between Staley and Epstein, testimony about their relationship, and questions about what the bank knew concerning Epstein.
Staley denied knowing about or participating in Epstein’s crimes.
The released congressional interviews and litigation evidence can be researched through the Epstein Data deposition archive and the Epstein Data document search.
Massie’s statement did not establish that Staley committed a criminal offense.
Leon Black
Leon Black paid Epstein substantial sums for tax, estate planning, and related professional services after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
The financial relationship has been examined through private investigations, congressional inquiries, civil proceedings, and records reviewed by the Senate Finance Committee.
Black has said the payments concerned legitimate financial work and has denied participating in Epstein’s criminal conduct.
The Senate Finance Committee’s investigation into Epstein’s financial relationships provides government documentation concerning the questions raised about the payments.
The underlying released records can also be searched through Epstein Data.
Les Wexner
Les Wexner employed Epstein as a financial adviser and granted him unusually extensive authority over his finances, including power of attorney.
Epstein’s relationship with Wexner contributed substantially to Epstein’s wealth, property holdings, business credibility, and access to influential people.
Released investigative documents reportedly identified Wexner as a possible co-conspirator while also describing the available evidence against him as limited. Wexner’s representatives have said prosecutors informed his lawyers that he was not considered a target and have denied that he knew about Epstein’s abuse.
Wexner later testified before Congress and described Epstein as a con man who deceived and stole from him.
The distinction is important. The records establish a significant financial and professional relationship. They do not establish that Wexner was convicted of participating in Epstein’s crimes.
Relevant documents can be located through the Epstein Data search database by searching for “Les Wexner,” “Leslie Wexner,” and the term “co-conspirator.”
David Copperfield
David Copperfield appeared in witness testimony, photographs, social records, and investigative material concerning Epstein.
Released FBI material showed that investigators considered whether Copperfield possessed information relevant to Epstein’s conduct. Johanna Sjoberg also testified that she met Copperfield at an Epstein residence and recalled a conversation concerning whether girls were aware that other girls were being paid to find recruits.
Copperfield has denied wrongdoing and has not been convicted of an Epstein related offense.
A person’s presence at an Epstein residence or appearance in a witness account does not by itself establish participation in trafficking. The evidentiary question is whether additional records demonstrate knowledge, assistance, concealment, or criminal conduct.
Researchers can compare Copperfield references through the Epstein Data full text search.
Lapo Elkann, Tom Pritzker, Glenn Dubin, Frédéric Fekkai, Edoardo Teodorani Fabbri, Daniel Siad, and Ramsey Elkholy
These names appear in different parts of Epstein’s correspondence, social records, travel evidence, financial material, investigative files, or witness accounts.
Their documentary histories are not interchangeable.
Glenn Dubin, for example, had a long social and financial relationship with Epstein. Witness testimony and civil filings have also contained allegations involving members of the Dubin household. Dubin has denied wrongdoing.
Tom Pritzker, Lapo Elkann, Frédéric Fekkai, Edoardo Teodorani Fabbri, Daniel Siad, and Ramsey Elkholy appear in varying kinds of Epstein related material. A communication, meeting, social reference, or travel record does not prove that the person knew about Epstein’s abuse.
Massie did not identify a particular document or criminal act for each of these people during his speech. Their inclusion should therefore be reported as Massie’s allegation and demand for investigation, not as an established finding.
The safest method is to search each complete name through the Epstein Data document database, open the original record, identify the document type, and determine whether it contains direct evidence, hearsay, attorney argument, or an ordinary social reference.
Jean Luc Brunel
Jean Luc Brunel was a French modeling agent who maintained a long relationship with Epstein.
Multiple women accused Brunel of sexual abuse or of helping obtain young women for Epstein. Brunel denied wrongdoing.
French authorities arrested Brunel in 2020. He faced allegations involving sexual crimes and trafficking related conduct but died in custody in February 2022 before the case reached trial.
Brunel was therefore not convicted in that proceeding.
His inclusion in Massie’s list differs from the inclusion of people who were merely social or business contacts. Brunel faced formal criminal proceedings and extensive allegations, but his death prevented a trial verdict.
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, was accused by Virginia Giuffre of sexual assault after she said Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell trafficked her to him.
Andrew denied Giuffre’s allegations.
Giuffre filed a civil lawsuit against Andrew in the Southern District of New York. The court rejected Andrew’s motion to dismiss, but the parties settled before trial. The settlement contained no admission of liability.
Johanna Sjoberg also alleged in sworn testimony that Andrew touched her breast during a gathering at Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse. The release of that testimony documented the allegation but did not produce a judicial finding.
Relevant receipts include EFTA00212332, EFTA00269896, and EFTA00269967. These records establish that allegations concerning Andrew appeared in testimony and investigative files. They do not constitute criminal convictions.
The complete civil case is recorded in the Giuffre v. Prince Andrew federal docket.
Lesley Groff
Lesley Groff worked as one of Epstein’s longtime executive assistants.
Released records document that Groff managed portions of Epstein’s schedule, communications, travel, and massage appointments. Investigators considered her a potential co-conspirator, and she received a grand jury subpoena after Epstein’s 2019 arrest.
Groff has denied knowing that Epstein was sexually abusing girls or that any massage appointments she arranged involved criminal activity. She was not criminally charged.
Groff later testified before the House Oversight Committee. The official Lesley Groff congressional transcript preserves her answers and the questions posed by committee investigators.
The transcript documents her testimony. It does not require the public to accept every answer as true, nor does it establish that Massie’s characterization was correct.
The underlying communications, scheduling records, investigative memoranda, and travel material can be searched through Epstein Data.
What Massie’s Speech Establishes
The video establishes that:
- Massie read fourteen names during an official House floor speech.
- He described the people as Epstein co-conspirators.
- He asked for investigations and prosecutions.
- He accused the federal government of withholding millions of Epstein related records.
- He connected the names to his effort to pass the Epstein Files Transparency Act II.
- He began seeking signatures for a discharge petition intended to force a House vote.
The speech also created a permanent public record of Massie’s allegations.
What the Speech Does Not Establish
The speech does not establish that:
- Every person named committed a crime.
- Every person joined a criminal conspiracy.
- Every person knew that Epstein was abusing or trafficking girls.
- Every appearance in an Epstein document is incriminating.
- Every internal investigative designation was supported by admissible evidence.
- The Department of Justice possesses prosecutable evidence against every person named.
- A congressional statement is equivalent to an indictment.
- Congressional immunity converts an accusation into a proven fact.
- Every person on the list had the same relationship with Epstein.
- Every relevant record has been released to the public.
The Epstein Files Transparency Act II
H.R. 9694, the Epstein Files Transparency Act II, was introduced by Representative Teresa Leger Fernández with Massie and Representative Ro Khanna.
Massie’s official announcement for H.R. 9694 states that the bill would give survivors, state attorneys general, and Congress standing to challenge the Department of Justice in court over failures to comply with the original transparency law.
The proposal would strengthen disclosure enforcement by:
- Allowing designated parties to sue over withheld or improperly redacted records
- Requiring the government to justify redactions
- Limiting the government’s ability to rely on broad privilege claims
- Creating consequences for intentional concealment or false explanations
- Expanding access for survivors and state law enforcement authorities
The purpose is not merely to publish famous names. It is to make the government explain why particular records remain unavailable and to create a mechanism for challenging those decisions.
Rye Howard Stone’s Sleuthsletter provides a detailed independent explanation of the second transparency bill and its enforcement provisions.
Why Massie Is Using a Discharge Petition
House leadership ordinarily controls which bills receive floor consideration.
A discharge petition allows representatives to bypass committee or leadership inaction if at least 218 House members sign it. Once the required number of signatures is obtained, supporters can attempt to force the measure onto the floor.
Massie used the speech to announce that he had begun collecting signatures for the H.R. 9694 discharge petition.
The existence of a petition does not guarantee passage. It creates a public test of whether enough representatives are prepared to force a vote.
Why a Second Transparency Law Was Proposed
The original Epstein Files Transparency Act became law in November 2025 after overwhelming congressional approval.
The law resulted in the publication of millions of pages, images, videos, emails, investigative records, and court materials. However, disputes quickly emerged over missing records, inconsistent redactions, survivor information, duplicate documents, privileged material, and the government’s explanation of what remained withheld.
American Freakshow’s “Pam Bondi’s Swan Song” documents the political and administrative history of the original disclosure law, subsequent Justice Department releases, and congressional challenges to the department’s handling of the records.
The article provides essential context for Massie’s return to the House floor. His speech concerned not only the fourteen names but also whether the executive branch had complied with the transparency law Congress enacted.
The Difference Between Exposure and Accountability
Publishing a name is not the same as building a criminal case.
A prosecution requires evidence establishing the elements of a particular offense, jurisdiction, admissibility, and compliance with the statute of limitations. Prosecutors must also be able to identify witnesses and documents capable of surviving defense challenges.
The released Epstein records may nevertheless justify additional investigation.
Evidence can support investigative scrutiny without proving guilt. Examples include:
- Financial transfers that require explanation
- Communications coordinating travel or meetings
- Records arranging massages or recruiting young women
- Statements by survivors or witnesses
- Efforts to conceal, destroy, or withhold evidence
- Continued assistance after Epstein’s conduct became publicly known
- Contradictions between sworn testimony and contemporaneous records
Each person must be evaluated through the evidence connected specifically to that person.
Speech or Debate Protection
Members of Congress receive broad constitutional protection for statements made during legislative activity, including speeches on the House floor.
This protection allows representatives to discuss sensitive allegations without facing the same legal exposure that might apply outside Congress.
The protection serves an important oversight function. It also creates a responsibility to distinguish between an allegation, an investigative lead, and a proven crime.
Massie’s constitutional protection concerns his ability to make the statement. It does not determine whether the statement is true.
Survivor Centered Assessment
The central question is not whether the files contain enough famous names to generate headlines.
The central question is whether the available evidence can identify people who abused victims, recruited them, transported them, arranged access, supplied money, concealed conduct, obstructed investigations, or knowingly enabled Epstein to continue.
Survivors have waited decades for a complete accounting of how Epstein’s operation functioned and why so few people faced criminal consequences.
Massie’s speech increases pressure on the Justice Department. Its long term value will depend on whether that pressure produces evidence based investigations, lawful prosecutions, responsible disclosures, and protection for survivors whose private information remains inside the files.
Investigative Assessment
Massie’s floor speech is historically significant because a member of Congress publicly identified fourteen people and demanded that the Justice Department evaluate them for possible criminal responsibility.
It should not be represented as a verified list of convicted co-conspirators.
The evidentiary records involving the fourteen names vary dramatically. Brunel faced criminal charges in France. Andrew faced direct allegations and civil litigation. Groff was an Epstein employee considered by investigators as a possible co-conspirator. Staley, Black, and Wexner had documented financial or professional relationships with Epstein. Other names appear in social, travel, business, correspondence, or investigative records whose significance requires individual examination.
The correct next step is document by document analysis.
Massie supplied the names. The Epstein Data archive supplies the searchable receipts. Courts, investigators, witnesses, and properly constituted juries remain responsible for determining what those receipts prove.
Key Takeaways
- Thomas Massie read fourteen names during an August 31, 2026 House floor speech.
- He called the people Epstein co-conspirators and asked for investigations and prosecutions.
- His statement was a congressional accusation, not a criminal judgment.
- The people named had different relationships with Epstein and cannot be placed into a single evidentiary category.
- Several have denied wrongdoing.
- Jean Luc Brunel was charged in France but died before trial.
- Andrew settled Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit without admitting liability.
- Lesley Groff was investigated as a possible co-conspirator but was not criminally charged.
- Massie opened a discharge petition for the Epstein Files Transparency Act II.
- The second bill would allow survivors, state authorities, and Congress to challenge improper withholding or redaction of Epstein records.
- A name in an Epstein document does not prove criminal conduct.
- Every claim should be traced to an original court, government, or EFTA record.
Main Sleuth Reporting Sources
- Sayer Ji: Massie Just Read the List the Justice Department Was Supposed to Write
- Rye Howard Stone: Sleuthsletter
- American Freakshow: Pam Bondi’s Swan Song
Primary Video and Government Sources
- PBS NewsHour video of Massie’s House floor speech
- Thomas Massie’s original post and video
- Massie announcement for H.R. 9694
- Lesley Groff congressional interview transcript
- Giuffre v. Prince Andrew federal docket
- Senate Finance Committee Epstein investigation
Primary Epstein Data Receipts
- Epstein Data full text document search
- Epstein Data congressional deposition archive
- Epstein Data survivor testimony archive
- EFTA00212332, testimony related material involving Johanna Sjoberg and Andrew Mountbatten Windsor
- EFTA00269896, an investigative witness account containing an allegation involving Andrew
- EFTA00269967, additional investigative material containing allegations involving Andrew