Skip to content
Thomas Massie@RepThomasMassie · Feb 10, 2026

🧵 In response to my posts on X today, DOJ 1) unredacted an FBI file that LABELS two individuals as co-conspirators 2)…

4 tweets1 min read♥ 81.2Koriginal

Summary

A journalist's X posts prompted the DOJ to unredact FBI files revealing co-conspirators in sex trafficking cases, including naming Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem as the sender of a torture video to Epstein, contradicting prior FBI testimony to Congress about evidence of other traffickers.

Summarized by ThreadOut AI from the full thread. May miss nuance — read the thread below.

  1. #1

    đź§µ In response to my posts on X today, DOJ 1) unredacted an FBI file that LABELS two individuals as co-conspirators 2) unredacted a file that lists several men who might be implicated 3) tacitly admitted that Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem was the sender of the torture video

  2. #2

    🧵1) This is significant because Kash Patel testified to Congress that FBI had no evidence of other sex traffickers. This is FBI’s own 2019 document listing Wexner as coconspirator in child sex trafficking. It wasn’t unredacted until tonight.

    Attorney General Todd Blanche@AGToddBlanche · Feb 10, 2026

    The document you cite has numerous victim names. We have just unredacted Les Wexner's name from this document, but his name already appears in the files thousands of times. DOJ is hiding nothing.

  3. #3

    🧵2) Here DOJ acts as if they were justified in redacting the men’s names simply because the document contains victims names. Tonight they learned you can redact victim names while still publishing the other names, per our law.

    Attorney General Todd Blanche@AGToddBlanche · Feb 10, 2026

    The document you cite has numerous victim names. We have just unredacted all non-victim names from this document. The DOJ is committed to transparency.

  4. #4

    🧵3) until tonight no one knew who sent the torture video to Epstein. I went to DOJ, unredacted the email, and reverse searched the email to discover it was a Sultans. Our law requires VICTIM’s information to be redacted, not information of men who sent Epstein torture porn!

    Attorney General Todd Blanche@AGToddBlanche · Feb 10, 2026

    You looked at the document. You know it’s an email address that was redacted. The law requires redactions for personally identifiable information, including if in an email address. And you know that the Sultan’s name is available unredacted in the files. See EFTA00666117. Be honest, and stop grandstanding.