Congressman Slams Pundit Over “Epstein Brain Worm” Accusation Amidst Document Release Controversy
A heated exchange has erupted online, with Republican Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) launching a scathing critique of former Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, accusing her of suffering from an “Epstein brain worm” following a social media post that appeared to misinterpret his stance on the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s associated documents. The dispute highlights ongoing tensions surrounding the transparency of the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) handling of these sensitive files.
The public spat kicked off on Monday when Van Susteren, now a commentator for the right-leaning Newsmax channel, shared a screenshot of a Daily Mail headline. The headline pointed to Massie’s labelling of the Trump administration as the “Epstein administration” and mentioned Attorney General Pam Bondi being “slammed for releasing list of celebrity names.” Van Susteren questioned Massie’s actions, posting on X (formerly Twitter), “This is bizarre. Republican Rep Massie called for ALL the Epstein files to be released and now complains when she does?”
Later that evening, Massie, a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump, responded directly to Van Susteren’s post, vehemently accusing her of misrepresenting the core of the issue.
“It’s like you all have an Epstein brain worm,” Massie retorted. “She needs to release more names, not fewer names. Specifically she’s withholding and over-redacting FD-302 forms and other documents that name coconspirators. Did you even watch the hearing before making this post?”
The Nuance of the “Celebrity List”
The crux of the disagreement lies in the nature of the list of names that Van Susteren referenced. This list, reportedly provided to Congress in a letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi, is not a compilation of alleged co-conspirators in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Instead, it reportedly includes every famous individual or public figure mentioned in any capacity within the Epstein files, irrespective of their alleged involvement, or even if they ever encountered Epstein. Many of the names are of individuals who have long since passed away.
According to reports from Sky News, this broad list purportedly includes figures such as Mick Jagger, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, George Clooney, Beyoncé, Cher, and Janis Joplin. Massie and other members of Congress have voiced strong objections, accusing Bondi and the DOJ of improperly redacting the names of individuals implicated in wrongdoing, while allegedly only being authorised to redact the names of victims.
Broader Concerns Over DOJ Transparency
The controversy extends beyond this specific exchange, with broader concerns being raised about the DOJ’s approach to the Epstein files. Representative Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who has partnered with Massie on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, has also criticised the DOJ’s actions, stating that the new list serves to “muddy the waters.”
“The DOJ is once again purposefully muddying the waters on who was a predator and who was mentioned in an email,” Khanna stated in a press release. He elaborated on the absurdity of the list’s composition, pointing out the inclusion of figures like Janis Joplin, who died when Epstein was a minor, alongside individuals like Larry Nassar, a convicted sex offender.
“To have Janis Joplin, who died when Epstein was 17, in the same list as Larry Nassar, who went to prison for the sexual abuse of hundreds of young women and child pornography, with no clarification of how either was mentioned in the files is absurd,” Khanna continued. “Release the full files. Stop protecting predators. Redact only the survivor’s names.”
This ongoing debate underscores a public demand for complete transparency regarding the Epstein network and its alleged enablers. The push for the release of unredacted documents, particularly FD-302 forms which are interview reports, is driven by a desire to identify all individuals involved in or complicit with Epstein’s criminal activities. The current approach by the DOJ, as criticised by lawmakers, is seen by many as an attempt to obscure rather than illuminate the full scope of the scandal. The implications of these withheld documents and the ongoing redaction practices continue to be a significant point of contention for those seeking accountability and justice.
