THE FOURTEEN NAMES
What Thomas Massie Said — and What the Public Record Actually Shows
When Rep. Thomas Massie stood on the House floor on August 31 and named fourteen people he described as Jeffrey Epstein “co-conspirators,” he did something politically explosive. He also created an evidentiary problem, because those fourteen names do not all belong in the same category.
Some were deeply embedded in Epstein’s financial or social world. Some have been directly accused by victims. Some appear in records involving recruitment or introductions of young women. One was actually charged in France. Another was specifically identified as a potential co-conspirator in Epstein’s notorious non-prosecution agreement. Others, based on what the public can currently see, have considerably more ambiguous connections.
Massie said these people should be investigated and potentially prosecuted. That is an allegation by a member of Congress, not a judicial finding. So the useful question is not, “Are all fourteen guilty?” It is, “What does the public record actually show about each one?”
Jes Staley
Jes Staley was one of the most powerful bankers in the world, eventually becoming CEO of Barclays after holding senior positions at JPMorgan Chase. His relationship with Epstein was extensive, involving repeated visits, travel and years of communication.
Recent congressional testimony revealed that Staley visited Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse many times and traveled to Epstein’s private island. He also admitted sharing confidential JPMorgan information with Epstein, including internal information concerning the Federal Reserve, bank transactions and client matters. Staley has maintained that he did not know Epstein was continuing to abuse girls and women.
That does not prove Staley participated in sex trafficking, but it establishes something far more substantial than his name appearing in an address book.
Assessment: Serious scrutiny warranted.
Leon Black
Leon Black, billionaire co-founder of Apollo Global Management, had a major financial relationship with Epstein and paid him enormous sums for tax, estate and financial advice. Their relationship continued well after Epstein’s 2008 conviction, which raises an obvious question: why would an extraordinarily sophisticated financier continue entrusting such sensitive and lucrative work to a convicted sex offender?
Black has also faced sexual-assault allegations, which he has denied. Extraordinary financial intimacy with Epstein does not itself prove participation in trafficking, but it puts Black in a very different category from someone who simply attended a dinner or appeared in a contact book.
Assessment: Serious allegations and unusually deep financial relationship, but no Epstein-related criminal conviction.
Les Wexner
Few relationships are more important to understanding Jeffrey Epstein’s rise than Les Wexner’s. The billionaire founder of L Brands gave Epstein extraordinary access to his finances, including power of attorney, and Epstein managed substantial portions of Wexner’s wealth and property.
That relationship helped transform Epstein from a relatively obscure financier into someone with money, mansions, prestige and access to elite society. Wexner says Epstein deceived him and misappropriated money from him, and he denies knowing about Epstein’s sexual crimes.
A previously unreleased FBI document reportedly identified Wexner as a “co-conspirator,” while Wexner’s representatives have said prosecutors told his attorneys he was neither a target nor a co-conspirator. That contradiction alone deserves clarification.
Assessment: An extraordinarily important enabling relationship; criminal knowledge remains unproven publicly.
David Copperfield
David Copperfield’s appearance in the Epstein story has often been treated as another celebrity association, but the record deserves more care than that. Testimony connected to Epstein’s victims places Copperfield in Epstein’s social environment and includes an allegation that he asked one young woman whether she knew girls were being paid to recruit other girls.
Copperfield has denied knowing about Epstein’s criminal operation and has denied separate allegations of sexual misconduct. Testimony describing troubling conversations deserves investigation, but it does not automatically establish participation in trafficking.
Assessment: Significant questions, but Massie’s “co-conspirator” description currently exceeds what has been publicly proved.
Lapo Elkann
Italian businessman Lapo Elkann appears in Epstein-related material, but that alone tells us very little. One of the worst habits surrounding the Epstein files has been treating every person appearing in an email, photograph, telephone book or flight record as though the record itself proves sexual wrongdoing.
Based on the presently available public evidence, Elkann’s connection appears substantially weaker than those involving Staley, Brunel, Andrew or Groff. If Massie possesses evidence establishing something more serious, that is precisely why the underlying files should be released.
Assessment: Association documented; evidence of participation in trafficking presently weak.
Tom Pritzker
Hyatt chairman Thomas Pritzker occupies a different category because Virginia Giuffre testified that she believed Epstein sent her to Pritzker on one occasion. That is a direct allegation from one of Epstein’s best-known accusers.
Epstein also maintained relationships within Pritzker’s financial and social world, and Pritzker has acknowledged that maintaining contact with Epstein and Maxwell reflected terrible judgment. A victim allegation is not a conviction, but it is considerably more important than simply appearing in Epstein’s contact list.
Assessment: Direct victim allegation plus documented association. Serious enough to warrant investigation; not adjudicated.
Glenn Dubin
Billionaire hedge-fund manager Glenn Dubin and his wife, Eva Andersson-Dubin, were longtime associates of Epstein. Virginia Giuffre alleged that Epstein directed her to have sex with Dubin, an allegation Dubin has strongly denied.
A direct accusation by a trafficking victim is not the same thing as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It also should not be dismissed as meaningless simply because no prosecution followed.
Assessment: Serious victim allegation; no Epstein-related criminal conviction.
Frédéric Fekkai
Celebrity hairstylist and businessman Frédéric Fekkai appears in Epstein flight records and other material surrounding Epstein and Maxwell. More significantly, allegations involving Fekkai have surfaced through testimony and congressional review of Epstein-related material.
He has denied wrongdoing. That makes his situation substantially different from somebody whose sole connection is being photographed at a social event, although the public record still does not establish beyond dispute that he participated in Epstein’s trafficking enterprise.
Assessment: Meaningful documentary and testimonial basis for investigation; criminal involvement not established.
Edoardo Teodorani
Edoardo Teodorani appears in Epstein-related records, but at present the publicly visible evidence tying him directly to trafficking appears much thinner than that involving several other names on Massie’s list.
That illustrates exactly why releasing names without releasing evidence creates problems. If the Justice Department possesses significant evidence regarding Teodorani, Congress and investigators should see it. If it does not, his name should not simply become permanently fused with the words “Epstein co-conspirator” through repetition.
Assessment: Association exists; public evidence of criminal participation remains limited.
Jean-Luc Brunel
Jean-Luc Brunel does not belong in the “merely associated with Epstein” category. The French modeling agent was accused by numerous women of sexual misconduct and of helping procure young women and girls for Epstein.
French authorities eventually arrested Brunel and charged him with offenses including rape of minors. He died in a Paris jail in 2022 before trial, so he cannot accurately be described as having been convicted of those charges.
Still, there was enough evidence for authorities to arrest and formally prosecute him. That puts Brunel miles away from somebody whose name merely appears in Epstein correspondence.
Assessment: One of the strongest documented cases connecting a person on Massie’s list to Epstein’s recruitment network.
Daniel Siad
Daniel Siad operated within the modeling industry and maintained correspondence with Epstein over many years involving models and young women. Material released from Epstein records indicates discussions of introductions and photographs.
Siad died near Paris in July 2026. His death does not settle anything, and the record does not establish criminal guilt, but the modeling industry was one of the mechanisms through which Epstein and people around him gained access to young women. Communications involving recruiting and introductions therefore deserve considerably more scrutiny than an ordinary social relationship.
Assessment: Documented activity involving introductions of young women; criminal knowledge or intent was never adjudicated.
Ramsey Elkholy
Ramsey Elkholy’s connection is particularly interesting because the documentary trail is extensive. More than one hundred emails reportedly span roughly a decade and include discussions concerning women, models and introductions to Epstein.
Elkholy has acknowledged communications while denying criminal wrongdoing, and he has said some of what he wrote was exaggerated or intended to impress Epstein. That defense may be true, but it also illustrates why investigators need the complete record.
When communications repeatedly concern introducing women to a known sexual predator, the legitimate question becomes not simply whether introductions occurred, but what the intermediary knew about why Epstein wanted them.
Assessment: Substantial documentary basis for investigation; knowledge of trafficking remains the crucial unresolved question.
Prince Andrew
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly Prince Andrew, occupies perhaps the most familiar category on Massie’s list. Virginia Giuffre alleged that Epstein and Maxwell trafficked her to Andrew while she was seventeen.
Andrew denied the accusation. Giuffre later sued him in the United States, and Andrew settled the lawsuit in 2022 without admitting liability. His friendship with Epstein is extensively documented, including his continued association with Epstein after Epstein’s 2008 conviction.
A civil settlement does not equal criminal guilt, but this is not guilt by association either. There was a specific accuser, a specific allegation and extensive evidence establishing Andrew’s relationship with Epstein.
Assessment: One of the strongest direct victim allegations connected with Epstein’s network, although never criminally adjudicated.
Lesley Groff
Lesley Groff was not merely an acquaintance. She worked for Epstein for years as an executive assistant and was among the individuals explicitly covered as a potential co-conspirator by Epstein’s extraordinary 2007 federal non-prosecution agreement.
That agreement did not simply give Epstein himself an extraordinarily favorable deal. It extended protection to potential co-conspirators, and Groff’s inclusion demonstrates that federal investigators were examining her role long before today’s political controversy.
Groff has denied knowingly participating in trafficking. Even so, her position inside Epstein’s organization makes her one of the more consequential names on Massie’s list because the Epstein story was never only about wealthy men. It was also about the infrastructure around him: scheduling, recruiting, transportation, introductions, money and access.
Assessment: Significant documentary basis for scrutiny; one of the most consequential names Massie mentioned.
Look at the list again and the central problem becomes obvious. These are not fourteen equivalent cases. Brunel is not Elkann. Andrew is not Teodorani. Groff is not someone who happened to attend a party with Epstein, and Staley’s years of visits, financial dealings and confidential communications are not equivalent to appearing once in a telephone directory.
Flattening all those differences actually weakens the Epstein case. The strongest criticism of the Justice Department does not require exaggeration because Congress already knows that substantial portions of the record have been withheld or redacted. Massie and other lawmakers are arguing that the government still possesses evidence the public has not been permitted to evaluate.
That is why the proper response to Massie’s fourteen names is neither “They are all guilty” nor “Nothing has been proved, so ignore them.” The proper response is much simpler: show us what you have.
Some of these names already sit beside disturbing evidence. Others sit beside serious allegations, unanswered questions or comparatively thin association. The Justice Department possesses records that could help distinguish among them, which is exactly why those distinctions should be made by evidence rather than secrecy, prosecution rather than rumor, and courts rather than social-media memes.
The Epstein scandal was never simply about who knew Jeffrey Epstein. Thousands of people may have crossed paths with him. The darker and far more important question is who knew what he was doing, who helped him do it, who benefited from it, and whether powerful institutions protected anyone afterward.
That is the list America still does not have.
