# Bill Gates, Epstein and the Blackmail That Never Landed but Still Haunts the Story

> On June 23, 2026, the House Oversight Committee released the full transcript of Bill Gates's closed-door testimony, co-founder of Microsoft, recorded on

- Author: Maxime Marquette
- Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co)
- Section: Profile
- Published: 2026-07-06
- Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/bill-gates-epstein-et-le-chantage-qui-n-a-jamais-abouti-mais-qui-hante-toujours-

## Introduction: a testimony that refuses to fade in early July 2026

### A transcript that revives a debate that never really closed

On **June 23, 2026**, the **House Oversight Committee** released the full transcript of **Bill Gates**'s closed-door testimony, co-founder of **Microsoft**, recorded on **June 10, 2026** in **Washington**. More than a week later, in early July, this document is still fueling discussion about the accountability of public figures who kept ties with **Jeffrey Epstein** after his **2008** conviction.

This is no coincidence of timing. The release of this transcript is part of a much broader committee investigation, led by Republican Representative **James Comer**, which has already heard from about fifteen figures connected in one way or another to **Epstein**'s circle, including **Bill Clinton** and **Hillary Clinton** in February **2026**.

### What Gates admits, and what he continues to deny

Before committee members, **Bill Gates** made a striking admission: **"I was never blackmailed, but, you know, looking at those emails, it seems like Mr. Epstein's brainstorming was headed in that direction."** A single sentence that sums up the ambiguity of this whole affair: no blackmail actually carried out, but serious evidence of a manipulation attempt by a man already convicted of sex offenses.

Gates also stated plainly: **"I never witnessed any criminal acts committed by Epstein"** and **"I never harmed anyone."** He also specified that he had never set foot on Epstein's island, at his ranch or at his Florida property — locations tied in court documents to the exploitation of young victims.

*I'll say this upfront: demanding transparency doesn't mean presuming guilt. Bill Gates has not been accused of any crime by Epstein's victims, and that fact deserves repeating just as often as the gray areas of this relationship. But transparency also requires that we not look away from uncomfortable questions: why did a man surrounded by so many advisers keep associating with a convicted sex offender for years after his release from prison?*

## How the relationship began: the promise of philanthropic fortune

### An introduction through a close collaborator in 2011

According to Gates's written statement submitted to the committee, his relationship with **Epstein** began in **2011**, through **Boris Nikolic**, a trusted scientific adviser in his professional and philanthropic work. Epstein claimed he could mobilize **billions of dollars** for global health causes, sourced from wealthy individuals for whom he provided tax and estate services.

Gates acknowledges being aware of **Epstein**'s **"prior legal troubles"** at that time, without fully grasping the scope of the crimes he had committed. **"I accepted that framing without applying the vigilance I should have,"** he admitted to lawmakers.

### Limited meetings, then more extensive discussions

The interactions started modestly: three meetings in **2011**, two in **2012**, focused on the goals of Gates's philanthropic work. Discussions intensified in **2013** and **2014**, touching on potential donation structures, such as donor-advised funds, and on how to recruit people **Epstein** claimed were interested in contributing substantially.

Gates says he made clear from the outset that **Epstein****"would never play any role"** in this philanthropic work and would receive no compensation. In **2014**, after Epstein assembled a group of supposed potential donors, Gates realized these discussions were leading to a **complete dead end**: no one in that group was actually interested in committing any money.

*This story of "fundraising that never went anywhere" reveals a broader blindness among philanthropic elites: the promise of billions was enough, for years, to open doors for a man whose criminal reputation was already public knowledge. It should make us reckon with the calculated naivety, or the greed dressed up as good intentions, that let Epstein keep his network intact long after his 2008 conviction.*

## The Palm Beach flight and the gray areas of their meetings

### Only one flight, never repeated, according to Gates

Gates confirmed flying **only once** with **Epstein**, from **New York to Palm Beach**, but insisted he had never visited Epstein's private island, his ranch or his Florida residence, all locations at the heart of the sexual exploitation allegations documented by U.S. federal prosecutors.

During his testimony, when asked about members of **Epstein**'s staff, Gates acknowledged a troubling moment: he admitted he had potentially **"been in the presence of victims,"** after Democratic Representative **Robert Garcia** reminded him that some of Epstein's employees were themselves abuse victims. Gates responded: **"That's a very good point,"** admitting he had crossed paths with female staff members of Epstein's at the end of a meeting aboard one of the financier's planes.

### A $2 million donation examined, then dismissed

A **$2 million donation** made to the **Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)**, at one point linked to **Epstein** in media coverage, was the subject of an internal investigation by the institution, which concluded that the donation had no direct connection to the disgraced financier. This less spectacular point nonetheless illustrates how difficult it is to untangle real financial connections from rumors amplified by the scale of the Epstein scandal.

Gates's appearance comes against a backdrop in which the **Department of Justice** released, last year, more than **three million documents** tied to the **Epstein** investigation, several of which explicitly referenced Gates's communications and ties to the financier, forcing the committee to formally summon him.

*A single flight, no visits to the island: these are reassuring factual details, but they should never be used to minimize the central question — the moral judgment of a man who knew exactly who he was dealing with. Geographic proximity isn't the only measure of moral complicity; the duration and persistence of the relationship matter just as much.*

## The blackmail attempt: what Epstein's emails really reveal

### Emails addressed to himself, never sent to Gates directly

The explosive core of this transcript concerns the **three extramarital affairs** Gates has acknowledged having during his marriage. According to his testimony, **Epstein** learned of two of these affairs through **Boris Nikolic**, and began using that information as **leverage** to try to rekindle a relationship Gates was actively trying to end after **2014**.

Gates specified that these emails were **never sent directly** to him, but appeared instead to be drafts **Epstein** wrote to himself, or meant to advise a third party on how to carry out a blackmail attempt. **"It appears that in several instances, he was either rehearsing how he himself, or advising someone else, on how to blackmail me,"** Gates explained.

### Veiled threats rather than direct ultimatums

According to the transcript, **Epstein** allegedly sent **Boris Nikolic** to **Seattle** to negotiate the terms of his departure from Gates's private office, an episode during which Nikolic reportedly began making **"veiled threats"** by email. Gates summarized the situation this way: **"There was never a direct threat of any kind. There was always this veiled language like 'we should stay friends,' which made me wonder what Dr. Nikolic had told him."**

Asked about two email drafts made public by the **Department of Justice**, which vaguely referenced Gates's affairs and suggested he might have contracted a **sexually transmitted infection**, Gates categorically denied the latter claim: **"I never had an STD,"** while conceding it was **"possible"** he had voiced that concern to Nikolic at some point.

*This distinction between "blackmail brainstorming" and "blackmail actually carried out" is not a minor legal detail — it's the whole crux of this affair. Epstein built his influence over decades by collecting compromising information on powerful people, whether or not he ever used it. The mere fact that he seriously considered blackmailing one of the richest men in the world says a great deal about the scale of the system he had built.*

## The Justice Department's finding: no evidence of widespread blackmail

### An official conclusion that doesn't put all doubts to rest

It's essential to note, in keeping with the demand for factual transparency: the **Department of Justice** announced last year it had found **"no credible evidence"** that **Epstein** blackmailed prominent figures. This official conclusion partly contradicts the darkest theories that circulated about the scale of Epstein's alleged blackmail operation.

But this **DOJ** conclusion doesn't render the revelations from Gates's testimony moot: the emails exist, were authenticated as part of the investigation, and do show intent to manipulate, even if it never resulted in successful extortion. Gates himself offered a nuance: **"If those emails, containing both truths and falsehoods, had been sent, you could say there was an attempted blackmail that never succeeded."**

### No accusations against Gates from Epstein's victims

It bears repeating with the same rigor: **no Epstein victim** has made a direct accusation against **Bill Gates**. His relationship with the disgraced financier, however long and morally questionable, has not led to any legal proceedings or any allegation of involvement in the sex crimes **Epstein** committed.

This distinction, essential on a factual level, should nonetheless never serve as an excuse to avoid legitimate questions about the judgment of a man who kept up professional ties with a convicted sex offender for nearly six years after his release from prison in **2009**.

*I refuse to give in to easy conspiracy theorizing, but I equally refuse to settle for a de facto dismissal that sweeps the whole question under the rug. The absence of evidence of widespread blackmail doesn't erase the reality of an individual case documented by authenticated emails. Transparency requires holding both truths at once, without artificially pitting them against each other.*

## Lesley Groff, the other testimony that sheds light on the Epstein system

### "A master manipulator and liar"

The same week, the committee also released the testimony transcript of **Lesley Groff**, Epstein's longtime assistant, dated **June 9, 2026**. Groff offered a striking description of her former employer: **"Mr. Epstein was, in hindsight, a master manipulator and liar who kept his public image separate from his hidden life as an abuser."**

She added, in a line that struck observers: **"For 18 years, I worked for Dr. Jekyll, but I was never allowed to see the real Mr. Hyde."** A powerful image summing up **Epstein**'s capacity for concealment, able to maintain radically different fronts depending on who he was dealing with.

### Massage appointments presented as legitimate

Groff specified that she regularly organized what she believed were **legitimate massage appointments** for **Epstein**, never witnessing, in her own words, illegal conduct on his part. This testimony complements Gates's by illustrating just how much Epstein compartmentalized his network, revealing his true nature only to an extremely tight circle.

This compartmentalized architecture partly explains why so many influential figures were able to associate with **Epstein** for years without, by their own account, ever being directly confronted with evidence of his crimes — an explanation that doesn't erase each individual's own responsibility for choosing to look away.

*Lesley Groff's testimony strikes me as almost more troubling than Gates's, because it shows the full machinery of the Epstein system: a facade of legitimacy carefully maintained by employees who were themselves kept in the dark. It's a reminder that evil never shows up with a sign around its neck — it shows up with a smile, a reputation as a philanthropist, and carefully arranged appointments.*

## The bigger picture: other figures under the committee's scrutiny

### Leon Black and Bank of America, other related cases

Gates's testimony is just one fragment of a much larger investigation. Financier **Leon Black**, former head of Apollo Global Management, has also been summoned by the committee as part of this same investigation into **Epstein**'s networks, illustrating the breadth of the net Congress is currently casting over finance-world figures who associated with the disgraced financier.

Separately, **Bank of America** reached a settlement in March **2026** with **Epstein** victims who accused the bank of facilitating some of his fraudulent financial activities for years without questioning the nature of these suspicious transactions.

### A committee that promises to keep working

Committee chairman **James Comer** said he hopes acting Attorney General **Todd Blanche** will also agree to appear and answer lawmakers' questions. No precise timeline has been given for when this investigation will conclude, as it continues to hear from new witnesses as revelations emerge from declassified documents.

This ongoing nature of the investigation illustrates a fundamental principle: transparency takes time, patience, and the acceptance that not every answer will come from a single testimony, however widely covered.

*I applaud this persistence from the committee, which refuses to close the file after a handful of headline-grabbing testimonies. This is exactly the kind of patient, methodical work transparency demands, even if it's less dramatic than headlines about a billionaire's alleged blackmail.*

## What Gates says about his own responsibility

### "I should never have met Epstein"

In his opening statement prepared for the committee, Gates was unambiguous: **"I should never have met Epstein in the first place. Based on what I know now, I understand that even if he had delivered the donors he promised, it would not have justified associating with him."** A rare admission from a public figure of this stature, going beyond mere face-saving regret.

He added that he now understands, in hindsight, that **Epstein****"was trying to build an image of legitimacy around himself"** by leaning precisely on relationships with people like him. A belated but publicly owned clarity, delivered before members of **Congress**.

### Public support for the full release of the Epstein files

Gates also voiced support for the **full release of the Epstein files**, saying he sincerely hopes **"the survivors of Epstein's crimes can get the justice they deserve."** This position aligns with the law passed in November 2025 under the Trump administration, requiring the **Department of Justice** to make public all documents related to the Epstein investigation.

This public support, while it doesn't dispel every gray area surrounding his relationship with **Epstein**, marks a gesture of transparency that stands in contrast to the concealment adopted by other figures summoned before the same committee.

*I believe we should acknowledge, without excessive indulgence, when a public figure chooses transparency over the usual strategic silence of crisis PR. Gates could have hidden behind lawyers and vague statements. He chose, at least outwardly, to answer the most embarrassing questions directly over six hours of testimony. That's not absolution, but it deserves to be noted with the same rigor applied to the criticism.*

## Why this case goes beyond Bill Gates alone

### A symptom of a broader problem among global elites

The Gates-**Epstein** affair illustrates a wider and more disturbing phenomenon: how a man convicted of sex offenses managed, for nearly a decade after his release, to keep presenting himself as a credible intermediary for global philanthropy, science and high finance. This isn't just the story of one man — it's the story of a system of collective complacency toward wealth and power.

The figures who kept associating with **Epstein** after **2008** share, to varying degrees, collective responsibility for extending his social legitimacy. Every meeting, every dinner, every photo alongside Epstein helped maintain a facade of respectability his crimes plainly did not deserve.

### The lesson for the future: vigilance should never stop at prestige

This case should serve as a lasting lesson: neither wealth, nor intelligence, nor academic or technological prestige protects against seriously flawed judgment when it comes to evaluating who to associate with. **Bill Gates**, one of the most brilliant and influential men of his era, himself admitted to lacking basic vigilance.

If such a lapse in judgment could happen to a figure surrounded by so many advisers, lawyers and reputation experts, it's a reminder of just how effective **Epstein**'s manipulation strategy was, systematically exploiting the lure of philanthropic funding to infiltrate the most closed circles of global power.

*This might be the single most important lesson of this entire affair: prestige immunizes no one against moral blindness. Bill Gates had every resource in the world to properly find out who Jeffrey Epstein was before associating with him. He didn't, or not enough. And it's this normalization of reasonable doubt in the name of opportunity that should worry us far beyond the Gates case alone.*

## The gray areas transparency still hasn't cleared up

### Documents still confidential despite the disclosure law

Despite the release of more than three million documents, a significant portion of the files tied to the **Epstein** investigation remain **confidential**, citing reasons of victim protection or ongoing legal proceedings. This persistent gray area feeds legitimate public distrust, with many wondering what these unreleased documents might still reveal.

In keeping with the demand for factual rigor, honesty is required here: we cannot say with certainty what these still-sealed documents contain, nor claim they would fundamentally change the current understanding of the case. The uncertainty itself must be named, rather than filled in with speculation.

### The still-unclear role of Boris Nikolic in the whole story

The figure of **Boris Nikolic**, Gates's former scientific adviser who served as an intermediary with **Epstein**, remains himself surrounded by unresolved questions. His exact role in passing along sensitive information to Epstein, and the precise nature of his own exchanges with the financier, have not been fully detailed in the transcript made public so far.

This specific gray area illustrates the limits of what current transparency actually allows us to establish: certain links in the chain of manipulation orchestrated by **Epstein** remain, at this stage, incompletely documented in the public record.

*I would rather honestly admit what I don't know than fill those gaps with appealing but unfounded assumptions. That's precisely the discipline that separates rigorous opinion journalism from lazy conspiracy theorizing, and it's a discipline I hold myself to even when it frustrates readers hungry for complete answers.*

## The impact on Gates's reputation and philanthropic legacy

### A foundation that keeps operating despite the controversy

Despite this ongoing controversy, the **Gates Foundation** continues to operate globally, funding public health, education and development programs in dozens of countries. To date, this affair has not led to any major operational consequences for the philanthropic organization, although it has undeniably tarnished the personal image of its founder.

This relative separation between the man and the institution he created raises an interesting ethical question in its own right: can we, and should we, separate moral judgment of an individual's personal choices from evaluating the real impact of his philanthropic work on millions of beneficiaries worldwide?

*I don't have a definitive answer to that ethical question, and I would be wary of anyone who claimed to. One can acknowledge the real impact of the Gates Foundation on global health while refusing to let that impact serve as a moral shield automatically absolving its founder's questionable personal choices. Both judgments can, and should, coexist separately.*

### A public image lastingly marked by this association

Whatever the legal or political fallout of this affair, it's already certain that the association between **Bill Gates**'s name and **Jeffrey Epstein**'s will remain permanently etched in the collective memory, alongside other figures whose reputations were irreparably damaged by their ties to the disgraced financier.

This may be the most tangible and lasting consequence of this affair: beyond the unresolved legal questions, it's the judgment of history and public opinion that, for **Bill Gates** as for others, will continue to weigh on this episode for years to come.

*I think this might be the fairest punishment in a system where criminal justice doesn't always find grounds to prosecute: the lasting judgment of public opinion, informed by verified facts rather than rumor. Bill Gates will have to live with this association for the rest of his public life, and that is, in a way, the price of his own past lack of discernment.*

## The Clinton precedent and the model for appearing before the committee

### A well-established procedure before Gates's hearing

**Bill Gates**'s appearance is not an isolated case. In February **2026**, former President **Bill Clinton** and former Secretary of State **Hillary Clinton** had already testified before the same committee as part of this investigation into **Epstein**'s networks. This series of appearances outlines a consistent working method by **Congress**: systematically summon any figure whose name appears significantly in the declassified documents.

This methodical approach, even if slow and at times frustrating for a public hungry for immediate revelations, has the advantage of building a coherent documentary record, testimony after testimony, rather than relying on partial leaks or unverified accusations circulating on social media.

*I much prefer the methodical slowness of a committee that publishes full transcripts to the blistering speed of a viral rumor on social media. It's frustrating in the short term, but it's the only way to build a truth that withstands the test of time and any future legal challenges.*

### Standards of accountability that apply even to the most powerful

The fact that figures as influential as the **Clintons** or **Bill Gates** agreed to appear, even voluntarily and behind closed doors, sends an important signal: in principle, no fortune or political status allows anyone to fully escape congressional scrutiny once their name appears repeatedly in a federal investigation of this scale.

It remains to be seen whether this demand for accountability will extend to other, less cooperative figures, or whether some will manage to permanently avoid a formal appearance despite equally well-documented ties to **Epstein**.

*I find it reassuring, in an American political landscape often torn apart by partisanship, that this investigation seems for now to spare no one based on their political camp. Clinton, an emblematic Democrat, and Gates, a more politically neutral figure, have both been subjected to the same exercise in accountability. That's exactly what a credible investigation should look like.*

## The media battle over how to interpret the testimony

### Two opposing readings of the same document

Since the transcript was released on **June 23, 2026**, two media camps have clashed over how to interpret it. On one side, some commentators point out that **Bill Gates** cooperated voluntarily, answered every question and never invoked his right to remain silent, which speaks in favor of his good faith. On the other, more critical voices note that belated cooperation, years after the first revelations about his ties to **Epstein**, doesn't erase the gray areas surrounding his original motives for cultivating that relationship.

This polarization reflects a broader problem in how the **Epstein** case is covered in the media: the temptation to reduce every new revelation to a binary verdict, guilty or innocent, when the documentary reality is often more nuanced and demands a careful reading of the full context rather than isolated excerpts shared on social media.

### The role of social media in distorting the narrative

On social platforms, truncated excerpts of the transcript quickly circulated, often stripped of their context, fueling extreme interpretations on both ends: either a total, premature exoneration of **Bill Gates**, or, conversely, guilt by association that goes far beyond what the document actually reveals.

This viral distortion illustrates why the full release of transcripts by the **House Oversight Committee**, rather than mere summaries or partial leaks, remains essential to letting the public form an informed opinion rather than being at the mercy of slanted interpretations.

I'll note, once again, that social media is incapable of nuance on a case like this. **Bill Gates** is neither a saint martyred by a witch hunt, nor a guilty man hiding behind his fortune. He is a man who made a deplorable choice of company and now has to live with the reputational consequences of that choice.

## What Bill Gates's inner circle and institutions have chosen to say, or not say

### The Gates Foundation facing its own internal questions

The **Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation**, one of the most powerful philanthropic organizations on the planet, having distributed tens of billions of dollars since its founding, has issued only cautious, measured comments since the transcript's release. Neither **Melinda French Gates** nor the foundation's current leadership has made a detailed public statement about the historical ties between **Bill Gates** and **Jeffrey Epstein**, preferring to point back to the remarks made directly before the congressional committee.

This institutional silence, while legally understandable during an ongoing investigation, inevitably fuels questions about the actual scope of the internal vetting the foundation carried out when the first reports of meetings with **Epstein** began circulating publicly, years before the current legal revelations.

### Boris Nikolic's murky role in bringing them together

**Boris Nikolic**, **Bill Gates**'s longtime scientific and medical adviser, remains a central yet largely under-examined figure in this affair. He is said to have facilitated the initial contacts between **Gates** and **Epstein** in **2011**, at a time when **Epstein** was actively positioning himself as an influential intermediary to the world's great technology and science fortunes.

**Nikolic** has not, to date, testified publicly before the **Oversight Committee**, a notable absence that raises a simple but essential question: why hasn't the intermediary of the relationship been subjected to the same exercise in transparency as the main protagonists, starting with **Bill Gates**?

*Boris Nikolic's absence from the public debate deeply bothers me. You cannot demand total transparency from Bill Gates while leaving in the shadows the man who literally orchestrated the meeting with Jeffrey Epstein. If the committee truly wants to get to the bottom of this story, it needs to summon every intermediary, not just the names that sell best in the headlines.*

## Conclusion: transparency as the only acceptable response

### What this transcript really teaches us

**Bill Gates**'s testimony before the House **Oversight Committee** offers a rare textbook case: a leading public figure who publicly acknowledges, with documents to back it up, having been the target of a manipulation attempt through blackmail by a convicted sex offender, while firmly denying any involvement in the crimes themselves. It's an essential nuance, one that should neither be ignored nor used as a blanket excuse.

This affair reminds us, once again, that factual transparency — releasing the documents, hearing witnesses under oath, publishing full transcripts — remains the only real antidote to the conspiracy theories and disinformation that thrive on silence and concealment.

### An investigation that must run its full course

As long as the **Oversight Committee** continues its work with the same rigor, hearing new witnesses and releasing new documents, the public will retain the tools needed to judge for itself the responsibility of each figure involved, without depending on the unverified theories that have surrounded the **Epstein** affair for far too long.

This demand for methodical, patient, documented truth is what **Epstein**'s victims deserve, far more than any sensationalist speculation about what these files might, or might not, contain.

**By Maxime Marquette, columnist**

## Columnist's transparency note

### Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

### Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here.

**Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

**Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**.

### Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.

## Sources

### Primary sources

- Politico — Bill Gates denied association with Epstein's crimes in closed-door testimony — June 23, 2026

- CNBC — Bill Gates testimony on Jeffrey Epstein ties released by House oversight panel — June 23, 2026

- House Oversight Committee — Oversight Committee Releases Gates and Groff Transcripts — June 23, 2026

### Secondary sources

- Reuters — Bill Gates to face US lawmakers' probe on Epstein case handling — June 10, 2026

- ABC News — Bill Gates to face questions from House Oversight panel on Epstein relationship

- Business Insider — Leon Black subpoenaed for Jeffrey Epstein congressional interview — June 2026

- Reuters — Bank of America settles Epstein accusers' lawsuit — March 16, 2026

- GatesNotes — Remarks to the House Oversight Committee (Bill Gates's full statement) — June 30, 2026

---

Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/bill-gates-epstein-et-le-chantage-qui-n-a-jamais-abouti-mais-qui-hante-toujours-