# Six Redacted Names From the Epstein Files Revealed on the House Floor > Introduction: a public reading that shakes Washington - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Note - Published: 2026-07-04 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/six-noms-caviardes-des-dossiers-epstein-reveles-a-la-chambre ## Introduction: a public reading that shakes Washington ### An unusual move on the House floor On **February 10, 2026**, Democratic Representative **Ro Khanna** took to the **floor** of the House of Representatives to publicly read six names of men whose identities had initially been redacted from the files of the late sex offender **Jeffrey Epstein**, according to information reported by **CBS News**. This **gesture**, rare in its public and direct nature, was meant to call out what Khanna described as a **cover-up** by the Justice Department of the names of "rich and powerful" people without apparent **justification**, during the release of a large batch of **documents** on the Epstein case. ### A discovery made the day before at DOJ offices According to Khanna's account, this discovery dates back to the previous Monday, when he went to a **Justice Department office** together with Republican Representative **Thomas Massie** of **Kentucky**, to review unredacted versions of the Epstein files. The two lawmakers, one Democrat and one Republican, said they spent part of the afternoon reviewing the **documents** before spotting the six previously masked names, a bipartisan effort worth noting in a political climate that is usually deeply polarized. *I find it significant that this revelation stems from bipartisan collaboration between a progressive Democrat and a libertarian Republican, suggesting that the demand for transparency on this file goes beyond Washington's usual partisan divides.* ## Who are the six men named by Khanna ### Leslie Wexner, the mogul behind Victoria's Secret The best-known **name** among the six is **Leslie Wexner**, a **billionaire** who led the parent company of **Victoria's Secret** and who had hired Epstein to manage part of his personal **fortune** for several years, according to details reported by **CBS News**. An **FBI** document from **2019**, cited by Khanna during his public reading, refers to Wexner as a "**co-conspirator**" in the investigation, though this designation in an investigative document does not in itself constitute a formal criminal charge brought before a court. ### Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem and the four other names The second notable **name** is **Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem**, the former **executive** of the Dubai-based Emirati **logistics** company **DP World**, whose identity also appeared among the redacted passages of the **documents** reviewed by Khanna and Massie. The four other names revealed are **Salvatore Nuara**, **Zurab Mikeladze**, **Leonic Leonov** and **Nicola Caputo**, individuals far less known to the general public whose precise role in the **documents** remains, to this day, incompletely explained. *I choose to name these six people exactly as Khanna did on the House floor, since this is already public information widely reported elsewhere, while stressing that their mere mention in these documents alone proves no criminal guilt whatsoever.* ## What the Justice Department said in response ### Names called "completely random" The Justice Department responded by stating that several of the six named men were "completely random" and had no established link to Epstein, according to the official response reported by **CBS News**, which introduces a notable contradiction with Khanna's interpretation of the importance of these revelations. This response from the **DOJ** raises a legitimate question: if some of the redacted names indeed belong to people with no connection to the case, the initial decision to mask them rather than simply exclude them from the released **documents** remains, to date, insufficiently explained by the authorities. ### A partial un-redaction carried out that evening Late Monday night, after Massie had identified the three **documents** containing the six names, the Justice Department carried out a partial **lifting** of the **redaction** on those specific files, allowing them to be more broadly reviewed by lawmakers and, eventually, by the public. This swift response from the **DOJ**, coming just hours after the two representatives' discovery, suggests the administration chose to handle the situation through **transparency** rather than prolonged resistance, a choice that deserves to be recognized positively. *I note with some relief that the Justice Department chose the path of swift transparency rather than prolonged concealment, even though the question of why these names were redacted in the first place remains without a clear and satisfying answer.* ## No evidence of wrongdoing presented ### A crucial distinction between mention and guilt It is essential to stress, as **CBS News** explicitly reports, that the **documents** reviewed by Khanna and Massie do not appear to directly implicate most of these six men in any **criminal** act, and that Khanna himself made no specific allegation of wrongdoing against them in his public statement. This factual **nuance** is of critical importance: the mere appearance of a **name** in an investigative file, even in a case as widely covered as the Epstein affair, in no way constitutes **proof** of participation in crimes, and any confusion between the two would amount to damaging misinformation. ### The particular case of the "co-conspirator" designation The only documentary element going beyond a mere mention is the **2019** **FBI** document designating Wexner as a "**co-conspirator**," a label that comes from an internal investigative assessment and not from a formal **indictment** validated by a court or a **grand jury**. This **distinction** between an investigative designation and a formal **judicial** **charge** must be rigorously maintained in any responsible journalistic treatment of this case, in order to avoid prematurely attributing guilt that has not been established through a **complete** **judicial process**. *I want to stress this fundamental legal distinction between an investigative mention and a conviction, because it is precisely this kind of nuance that too often gets lost in the sensationalist media treatment of the Epstein case, to the detriment of factual rigor.* ## The broader context of the Epstein files ### A transparency saga stretching back years This February 10, 2026 revelation fits into a broader, long-running saga concerning the **transparency** of the files related to **Jeffrey Epstein**, a case that has drawn constant demands for full **disclosure** from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as from the general public, ever since Epstein's death in custody in **2019**. The bipartisan pressure for fuller **disclosure** of the **documents** reflects a legitimate and widely shared concern over the **accountability** of wealthy or influential people who may have been connected, closely or distantly, to Epstein's network. ### A demand for rigor amid unfounded theories It should be noted that the Epstein case has also generated, over the years, a considerable amount of unfounded conspiracy theories and unverified speculation circulating on social media, a phenomenon that complicates rigorous factual coverage of any real development in this case. Given this reality, responsible journalistic treatment of this case demands sticking strictly to documented, sourced facts, never giving in to the temptation to amplify uncorroborated allegations, however tempting that might be in terms of audience. *I categorically refuse to add any unsourced speculation to this case; my role here is limited to reporting what was said publicly on the House floor and confirmed by reliable journalistic sources, nothing more.* ## A demand for transparency that must continue ### Calls for full disclosure of the remaining files This partial revelation inevitably renews calls from several lawmakers, including Khanna and Massie themselves, for a much more complete and systematic **disclosure** of all the **documents** related to the Epstein case still held by the Justice Department. These calls rest on the argument that public trust in judicial institutions depends directly on their ability to treat powerful individuals and ordinary citizens equally, without apparent gray areas or favorable treatment. ### What this case does not yet allow us to claim At this stage, there is no public **proof** establishing that the Justice Department deliberately protected these six individuals because of their social status or wealth; the official **explanation** citing "random" names remains, for lack of anything better, the currently available **version**, even though it leaves several questions without a satisfying answer. Any claim going beyond these established facts would amount to speculation, and I choose not to venture there, in keeping with the demand for factual **rigor** that must take precedence in a case as sensitive as this one. *I will close this piece by reaffirming that the transparency demanded here is not a journalistic luxury, but a fundamental democratic necessity: when the names of rich and powerful people are concealed without a clear explanation, the public's legitimate doubt deserves a rigorous institutional response, not reassuring slogans.* ## Political reactions in Washington ### Republican and Democratic voices alike demand answers In the wake of Khanna's revelation, several lawmakers from both parties publicly demanded further explanations from the Justice Department regarding the criteria used to decide which names should be redacted in the released **documents** on the Epstein case. This cross-partisan demand for **clarification** shows just how much the issue of **judicial** **transparency** in this particular case cuts across the usual ideological divides that generally split the US Congress on almost every other issue. ### Thomas Massie's particular role in this effort Republican Representative **Thomas Massie**, known for his libertarian positions and his frequent independence from his own party's official line, played an active role in this discovery alongside Khanna, strengthening the bipartisan credibility of the effort. This **collaboration** between two lawmakers with very different ideological profiles shows that the demand for **transparency** on this specific case draws support that crosses traditional partisan lines, a rare and notable fact in today's American political climate. *I find it reassuring to see Massie and Khanna, who otherwise disagree on almost everything ideologically, unite on this particular issue; it suggests that certain demands for institutional transparency still occasionally transcend the partisan logic that otherwise dominates Washington.* ## The impact on public trust in federal justice ### Growing skepticism toward institutions This case, like several other recent episodes tied to the Epstein files, is fueling growing **skepticism** among American citizens about the ability of federal institutions to treat wealthy individuals and ordinary citizens equally in sensitive judicial proceedings. This **skepticism**, fed by years of partial revelations and delays in the **disclosure** of **documents**, poses a real challenge to the institutional legitimacy of the American **judicial** system as a whole. ### An opportunity to rebuild trust through transparency Paradoxically, this same case also offers the Justice Department a concrete opportunity to rebuild some of that eroded trust, by responding clearly and fully to the questions raised by Khanna and Massie rather than settling for partial explanations. How the administration handles requests for further **disclosure** in the coming weeks will serve as a revealing **test** of its genuine willingness to be **transparent** about this highly sensitive case. *I believe the Justice Department now has a chance to turn a potentially embarrassing moment into a demonstration of institutional good faith, provided it answers the legitimate questions raised rather than hiding behind minimal explanations.* ## Conclusion: transparency, the only acceptable answer ### A bipartisan precedent worth commending Beyond the six names revealed, this episode illustrates the value of a rare bipartisan **collaboration** between two lawmakers with opposing political views, united by a shared demand for **transparency** on a matter of major public interest. This kind of cooperation, though a one-off, offers a welcome counterexample to the usual polarization of the US Congress, showing that a shared public interest can still transcend partisan lines on certain specific cases. ### A journalistic vigilance that must continue This case will no doubt continue to evolve in the months ahead, as more **documents** are potentially made public, and it is up to journalists to maintain constant factual **rigor**, always clearly distinguishing established facts from the interpretations or unverified theories that circulate abundantly on this topic. It is this **rigor**, not sensationalist amplification, that will best serve the legitimate demand for truth and **accountability** called for by Epstein's victims and the American public as a whole. *I will close this piece with the same conviction it opened with: transparency is never a gift generously granted by institutions, it is an obligation that must be constantly demanded, document by document, name by name, until public trust is fully restored.* **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 - [The Guardian — Six men named in Epstein files unredacted, February 10, 2026](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/10/six-men-epstein-files-unredacted) - [CNN — Epstein files unredacted names, February 10, 2026](https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/10/politics/epstein-files-unredacted-names) - [BBC News — Epstein files names revealed, February 10, 2026](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5gzepnw4lo) ### Secondary sources - [CBS News — Rep. Khanna names 6 men he says were redacted from Epstein files, February 13, 2026](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massie-khanna-epstein-files-6-men/) - [Wikipedia — Epstein files](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epstein_files) - [Wikipedia — List of people named in the Epstein files](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_named_in_the_Epstein_files) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/six-noms-caviardes-des-dossiers-epstein-reveles-a-la-chambre