Epstein Files Ignite Elite Panic: Labour Collapses, Clintons Face Congress

Paul Riverbank, 2/10/2026Epstein files unmask elites, shake Labour and Clintons—secrets crack as political fallout grows.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, addressing mounting pressure from Congress, announced the reopening of several long-shrouded files. He described the DOJ as “committed to transparency”—a statement unlikely to tamp down the furor, but a notable shift after lawmakers like Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna insisted the Department had leaned too heavily on its redaction pen. Politicians and the public alike were watching. In past releases, nearly every co-conspirator’s identity remained veiled. Now, just two names stay hidden. One new name emerged from the shadows: Les Wexner, a powerful figure whose links to Epstein had been whispered about for years. Often referenced—Blanche claimed thousands of times, in fact—Wexner’s status as a “co-conspirator” is now plain for all to see, alongside regulars like Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, and Leslie Groff.

The process hasn’t been without friction. Massie publicly sparred with Blanche over the continued anonymity of a “Sultan,” recipient of a chilling email involving a so-called “torture video.” Blanche insisted the law dictated those redactions, but then noted—almost offhandedly—that the Sultan’s name actually does appear unredacted elsewhere in the files. It was, frankly, an exchange that said as much about institutional confusion as it did about legal protocol, all playing out under the impatient glare of Congress.

Meanwhile, events unfolding in London rivaled the American spectacle. Late Monday, Keir Starmer found himself at the eye of a political squall after two of his closest advisers abruptly exited Downing Street. First, Tim Allan, his communications director, submitted his resignation. Hours earlier, Morgan McSweeney—who’d led Labour’s transformation away from its Corbynite past—also departed. Both pointed, in varying tones, to the government’s handling of the Epstein revelations as a precipitating factor.

The root of their crisis? Lord Peter Mandelson, who just weeks ago was dispatched as Britain’s new ambassador to Washington, found his name at the heart of a fresh document dump from the US DOJ. The records show Mandelson in close correspondence with Epstein during the 2008 financial crash, allegedly swapping confidential market information in exchange for a $75,000 transfer. The most damaging line in those emails—Mandelson referring to Epstein as his “best pal”—landed like a thunderclap in Westminster.

Within hours, Prime Minister’s Questions devolved into something of a spectacle as Starmer tried, with mixed success, to distance himself from Mandelson’s now-exposed connections. Curiously, Starmer blamed MI5 and MI6 for the oversight, though some in his own party muttered that pushing responsibility onto the security services merely underscored No. 10’s lack of control. In the end, it was McSweeney who fell on his sword, accepting blame in the hope—perhaps vain—that it would draw a line under the affair. Any sense of closure for Starmer seems premature. McSweeney was more than an aide; he was the architect of Labour’s recent resurgence, and his absence leaves Starmer exposed just as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK movement gathers steam.

Over on Capitol Hill, the appetite for accountability sharpens. Next week will see Ghislaine Maxwell, dialing in from federal prison, face questioning by the House Oversight Committee. Committee Chair James Comer has prepared for Maxwell’s likely refusal to answer substantive questions, but the symbolism is unavoidable. It marks an escalation in Congress’s inquiry, which recently widened to include fresh scrutiny of Bill and Hillary Clinton. With the Clintons slated to appear voluntarily, a potentially bruising contempt process remains on ice—at least for now.

Each passing day pulls back the curtain a little further. But impatience spurs fresh speculation: are these revelations finally exposing the extent of Epstein’s network, or are vital details still cloaked behind the DOJ’s stubborn redactions? For survivors and officials alike, the true scope of the scandal remains a haunting question—one that, despite new sunlight, feels far from resolved.

The walls of secrecy around Jeffrey Epstein’s legacy cracked a little wider this week, sending ripples through political circles on both sides of the Atlantic. For weeks, conjecture swirled about the names the Justice Department refused to unmask in the documents tied to Epstein’s criminal web. On Monday evening, the debate took a dramatic turn.Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, addressing mounting pressure from Congress, announced the reopening of several long-shrouded files. He described the DOJ as “committed to transparency”—a statement unlikely to tamp down the furor, but a notable shift after lawmakers like Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna insisted the Department had leaned too heavily on its redaction pen. Politicians and the public alike were watching. In past releases, nearly every co-conspirator’s identity remained veiled. Now, just two names stay hidden. One new name emerged from the shadows: Les Wexner, a powerful figure whose links to Epstein had been whispered about for years. Often referenced—Blanche claimed thousands of times, in fact—Wexner’s status as a “co-conspirator” is now plain for all to see, alongside regulars like Ghislaine Maxwell, Jean-Luc Brunel, and Leslie Groff.The process hasn’t been without friction. Massie publicly sparred with Blanche over the continued anonymity of a “Sultan,” recipient of a chilling email involving a so-called “torture video.” Blanche insisted the law dictated those redactions, but then noted—almost offhandedly—that the Sultan’s name actually does appear unredacted elsewhere in the files. It was, frankly, an exchange that said as much about institutional confusion as it did about legal protocol, all playing out under the impatient glare of Congress.Meanwhile, events unfolding in London rivaled the American spectacle. Late Monday, Keir Starmer found himself at the eye of a political squall after two of his closest advisers abruptly exited Downing Street. First, Tim Allan, his communications director, submitted his resignation. Hours earlier, Morgan McSweeney—who’d led Labour’s transformation away from its Corbynite past—also departed. Both pointed, in varying tones, to the government’s handling of the Epstein revelations as a precipitating factor.The root of their crisis? Lord Peter Mandelson, who just weeks ago was dispatched as Britain’s new ambassador to Washington, found his name at the heart of a fresh document dump from the US DOJ. The records show Mandelson in close correspondence with Epstein during the 2008 financial crash, allegedly swapping confidential market information in exchange for a $75,000 transfer. The most damaging line in those emails—Mandelson referring to Epstein as his “best pal”—landed like a thunderclap in Westminster.Within hours, Prime Minister’s Questions devolved into something of a spectacle as Starmer tried, with mixed success, to distance himself from Mandelson’s now-exposed connections. Curiously, Starmer blamed MI5 and MI6 for the oversight, though some in his own party muttered that pushing responsibility onto the security services merely underscored No. 10’s lack of control. In the end, it was McSweeney who fell on his sword, accepting blame in the hope—perhaps vain—that it would draw a line under the affair. Any sense of closure for Starmer seems premature. McSweeney was more than an aide; he was the architect of Labour’s recent resurgence, and his absence leaves Starmer exposed just as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK movement gathers steam.Over on Capitol Hill, the appetite for accountability sharpens. Next week will see Ghislaine Maxwell, dialing in from federal prison, face questioning by the House Oversight Committee. Committee Chair James Comer has prepared for Maxwell’s likely refusal to answer substantive questions, but the symbolism is unavoidable. It marks an escalation in Congress’s inquiry, which recently widened to include fresh scrutiny of Bill and Hillary Clinton. With the Clintons slated to appear voluntarily, a potentially bruising contempt process remains on ice—at least for now.Each passing day pulls back the curtain a little further. But impatience spurs fresh speculation: are these revelations finally exposing the extent of Epstein’s network, or are vital details still cloaked behind the DOJ’s stubborn redactions? For survivors and officials alike, the true scope of the scandal remains a haunting question—one that, despite new sunlight, feels far from resolved.