Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) is asking Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to help her secure a subpoena for additional documents revealing disgraced former billionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s associates.
Her request came on the same day, Jan. 3, that a federal judge was set to unseal the identities of 157 people named in Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit against Mr. Epstein’s former friend and alleged trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. In a letter to Mr. Durbin, Ms. Blackburn requested subpoenas for the FBI and Mr. Epstein’s estate to obtain Ms. Maxwell’s notorious “little black book,” as well as unredacted flight logs.
Ms. Blackburn has been one of the more prominent voices demanding information on Mr. Epstein in recent months. In November, she attempted to subpoena Mr. Epstein’s flight logs in an amendment for Democrats’ other subpoenas of a billionaire and conservative activist linked to the Supreme Court. Republicans, led by ranking member Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), invoked a rule that ended discussion on amendments for the subpoenas.
Mr. Durbin separately told a Fox News reporter on Dec. 5: “I don’t know anything about his flight logs. I know who Epstein was but I certainly don’t know anything about the issue.”
In her Jan. 3 letter, Ms. Blackburn accused Mr. Durbin of stonewalling her but said he had a “change of heart.” She pointed to a Dec. 14 subcommittee hearing in which Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) read a note from Mr. Durbin.
“I also have a note here from chairman Durbin, making clear his intention and willingness to work with Senator Blackburn on a bipartisan basis to obtain records relevant to the Jeffrey Epstein case,” Mr. Ossoff said.
A spokesperson for Mr. Durbin told The Epoch Times that he was “happy to work with Senator Blackburn on a bipartisan basis to obtain any relevant Epstein records.”
Shedding Light on Epstein’s Associates
Secrecy has shrouded the activities and identities of Mr. Epstein’s associates, prompting speculation about how the nation’s business, political, and academic elite might have participated in Mr. Epstein’s sex trafficking activities.The Jan. 3 unsealing is shaping up to be one of the most significant revelations in the Epstein-Maxwell saga.
Mr. Epstein himself was found dead in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center on Aug. 19. His death was ruled a suicide but prompted widespread suspicion given his ties to elite individuals and the circumstances surrounding his death. In 2008, he was convicted of soliciting a prostitute and procuring a child for prostitution.
Ms. Blackburn’s letter noted that while “redacted portions of Epstein’s flight logs and Maxwell’s ‘little black book’ have been released in various lawsuits, the American people have the right to know who flew on Epstein’s plane and who potentially participated in his international sex trafficking ring.”
“That is why the Judiciary Committee’s very first act when the Senate resumes business next week should be to authorize a subpoena of Jeffrey Epstein’s estate and the FBI to obtain the complete and unredacted Epstein flight logs and Ghislaine Maxwell’s ‘little black book.’”
The “little black book” also reportedly contains information about alleged victims. A singular footnote in Ms. Blackburn’s letter stated that the “only names we should be protecting are those of the women and children who Jeffrey Epstein and his associates trafficked and abused. Where a minor victim is involved--and where other victims so wish--these names should remain private.”
A Jan. 3 order in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York noted that it had received requests by two Does to remain under seal. Judge Loretta Preska had allowed 14 days following her Dec. 18 order to allow appeals by individuals whose names were redacted.
For those two Does, the Jan. 3 order said that for Doe 107, “the Court granted an extension of time until January 22, 2024, to submit support for her assertion that unsealing would cause her physical harm.”
It added that the “second inquiry was submitted by Doe 110 and is currently under review by the Court. With the exception of the documents relating to these Does, the parties have informed the Court that they will begin filing the unsealed records outlined in this Court’s December 18 Order later today. The Court will render its determination on the documents relating to Does 107 and 110 in due course.”
