EXCLUSIVE: The Universe of Those with Access to the Epstein Files Keeps Expanding

According to new sources, photos and testimony of the survivors of the Epstein/Maxwell sex trafficking ring were available to even more people in the government than previously thought.

I published my first sourced piece about the review of the Epstein files fewer than 48 hours ago, and since that time, multiple additional sources have come forward to confirm the reporting - many thanking me for giving a voice to the chaotic and traumatic nature of the hurried review of the Epstein files.

Two sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, confirmed the existence of training videos instructing personnel on the process of tagging mentions of Trump, and that the videos were actually embedded in a PowerPoint deck (or decks) that lived on the shared drive. Several others confirmed the existence of the excel spreadsheet containing the document number and page number in the Epstein files where Donald Trump’s name appears.

In addition to those confirmations, descriptions of the general operational security surrounding the Epstein files has been described as “abysmal” and “horrific.” As of now, I have been told that at least four components across two agencies in multiple locations had or may still have access to the files.

And not only that, but none of the individual documents, known as “serials”, were labeled in a way that would warn those with access about their contents. That meant that serials including illicit photos and videos, graphic testimony, and even handwritten notes could be viewed by anyone with access. And since access wasn’t limited across the components at multiple agencies, many personnel were subjected to traumatic material without warning.

Personally, as an SA survivor, I can’t fathom going in blind and being exposed to traumatic images of victims without warning - let alone knowing that the information about the survivors was available to large swaths of analysts with no real security protocols in place. “Opsec-wise, I think it was wild that just anyone could open the photos of victims,” one person said.

In fact, the process was so rushed, that had the files been released as they were, the privacy of the survivors would have most certainly been compromised, according to a person who read the proposed redactions and spoke on the condition of anonymity. That was the key concern shared by all the sources I’ve spoken to, and the catalyst for many of the objections that led to the ever-changing directives about what to flag for redaction.

As far as why the personnel were reviewing the files and what would be released, there appeared to be a lack of trust in the reasons. Another analyst I spoke to confirmed that the instructions about what to flag for redaction were constantly changing, and they added that they didn’t feel leadership was being honest with them about why. At first, the goal seemed to be to release the names of some public figures mentioned in the files, but when that changed and they were instructed to flag those names for redaction, they were told it was because they didn’t want to “take anyone by surprise.”

I want to thank everyone who has reached out, and encourage others with any additional or clarifying information to do the same. I really want to emphasize that the honor and integrity of the sources I’ve spoken with are unmatched - and the main objectives shared by all are to protect the privacy of the victims, adhere to the law, and uphold the oaths they took.

~AG

As always, my content is free, but I hope you’ll consider becoming a paid subscriber to support independent media if you have the means.