Lawmakers From Both Parties Confront White House Over Epstein Files, January 6 Narrative, and Venezuela Policy

WASHINGTON — A series of on-camera exchanges between members of Congress and an independent media outlet has ignited a fresh wave of political scrutiny in Washington, as lawmakers from both parties raised alarms over delayed disclosures related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, the White House’s evolving account of the January 6 attack, and the administration’s handling of Venezuela.

The interviews, conducted on Capitol Hill by reporter Pablo Manriquez following the opening of a new Washington bureau by the Midas Touch Network, quickly went viral across social media platforms, amplifying congressional criticism and sharpening partisan and intraparty tensions.

At the center of the controversy is a bipartisan discharge petition aimed at compelling the release of documents related to Epstein, the financier whose death in federal custody in 2019 left unresolved questions about his political connections and the scope of federal investigations into his activities.

Massie Raises Legal Concerns Over Redactions

Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky and a sponsor of the discharge petition, accused the Department of Justice of missing statutory deadlines and improperly withholding information from Congress.

“If this were a private law firm with even a fraction of the Department of Justice’s resources, this would have been completed by now,” Mr. Massie said. He noted that the law requires not only the release of records but also detailed justifications for any redactions, including a list of public officials referenced in the files.

Mr. Massie argued that the administration is improperly invoking the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act standards to shield internal deliberations, despite language in the statute that explicitly bars withholding records to prevent embarrassment.

“The biggest problem isn’t the missed deadlines,” he said. “It’s what they’re redacting.”

Unlike typical congressional subpoenas, Mr. Massie emphasized, the law compelling disclosure does not expire at the end of a congressional session, potentially exposing federal officials to ongoing legal jeopardy.

Democrats Cite Distraction and Narrative Control

Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, suggested that recent foreign policy actions — particularly the administration’s aggressive posture toward Venezuela — may be intended to divert public attention from the Epstein disclosures.

“The timing certainly suggests an effort to distract people,” Mr. Raskin said, adding that the White House appears “desperate” to keep the files from becoming public.

Other Democrats focused on a separate but related issue: the administration’s portrayal of the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol. In recent statements and official materials, the White House has cast law enforcement as partially responsible for the violence, a claim that drew swift condemnation.

January 6 Still a Political Fault Line

Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas said the administration was attempting to “rewrite history” by reframing the events of January 6 and portraying incarcerated rioters as victims.

“The American people are smart,” Ms. Crockett said. “They’re paying attention, and they’re fed up.”

Several lawmakers who were present during the attack echoed that sentiment. Representative Jim Costa of California called January 6 “the saddest day” of his two decades in Congress, accusing President Trump of sending a violent mob to overturn a free and fair election.

Representative Ted Lieu of California was more blunt, calling the White House’s position “batshit crazy” and questioning Republican claims of being “back the blue” while criticizing Capitol Police officers who defended lawmakers that day.

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi described the administration’s statements as part of a broader “aversion to fact,” warning that the spread of misinformation from official channels carries serious consequences for democratic trust.

Intramural Republican Tensions Emerge

The interviews also revealed growing strains within the Republican Party, particularly over foreign policy and executive power.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky criticized what he described as the administration’s drift toward interventionism, singling out Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina for advocating regime change in Cuba and Venezuela.

“It’s the quintessential political maneuvering,” Mr. Paul said, accusing Mr. Graham of pulling the MAGA movement toward policies traditionally opposed by its base.

Mr. Paul also expressed concern over reports that oil companies were briefed on military action in Venezuela before Congress was notified, calling it a “bizarre notion of the hierarchy of a democracy” and likening it to “gunboat diplomacy of the 19th century.”

Other Republicans appeared less certain. Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma both said they were unaware of any such advance notification and stressed the need for greater congressional oversight.

Boebert Addresses Veto Speculation

Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado addressed speculation that President Trump vetoed her rural water infrastructure legislation in retaliation for her support of the Epstein disclosure effort.

Ms. Boebert said she was unsure of the president’s motivations but defended the project as a long-promised, bipartisan federal commitment dating back to the Kennedy administration. She argued that the legislation would not significantly burden taxpayers and primarily involved extending repayment terms for rural water users.

The Rise of Independent Media on Capitol Hill

The rapid spread of the interviews underscores the growing influence of independent, digital-first media organizations in shaping political narratives. Clips from the exchanges circulated widely on X, YouTube, and TikTok, often reaching audiences comparable to those of traditional cable news segments.

Political analysts say the trend reflects both declining public trust in legacy institutions and lawmakers’ increasing willingness to speak candidly when addressing outlets they perceive as less constrained by conventional formats.

For now, the White House has not issued a comprehensive response to the lawmakers’ criticisms regarding the Epstein files or the alleged delays in compliance with the disclosure law.

But as congressional pressure mounts — and as viral moments continue to drive public attention — the administration faces a narrowing window to contain controversies that cut across legal accountability, historical memory, and the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.