Next week, members of the U.S. Congress will face a defining test: whether to vote to release the Epstein files or not. This is not a partisan battle between Democrats and Republicans. It is a question of truth, accountability, and whether the powerful will finally be held to the same standard as everyone else. No one is above the law.

The vote is shaping up to be one of the most consequential transparency battles in recent Congressional memory. This is not only about the legacy of Jeffrey Epstein; it’s about the rights of his victims and survivors. For decades, Epstein operated with impunity, shielded by wealth, connections, and institutions that looked the other way. His network of associates has long been protected from scrutiny. That protection must now come to an end.

On Tuesday, November 18, 2025, the House of Representatives is expected to vote. If passed, the Department of Justice would have 30 days to release the files. The Senate’s position remains uncertain, meaning the measure could stall even if the House approves it. Any member of Congress who votes against releasing the international pedophilia files is voting against the survivors, against justice, against truth, and against morality.

Lawmakers are divided. Some argue that releasing the files could expose sensitive information or compromise ongoing investigations. Others warn that unredacted disclosures might unfairly implicate individuals. Yet every delay, every redaction, every excuse is a clear sign of complicity with the merciless individuals that brought this filth to America’s shores.

This vote is not just about sealed documents. It is about whether the American public has the right to know the full extent of one of the most disturbing scandals in modern history. The files are not mere paperwork; they are evidence of how power can be abused, how justice can be delayed, and how accountability can be evaded. To keep them hidden now would be to repeat the very failures that allowed Epstein to thrive.

Transparency is not optional; it is the only path forward. Congress must recognize that this vote is not about protecting reputations; it is about restoring trust. If lawmakers choose secrecy, they will confirm the public’s worst suspicions: that the powerful protect their own, even at the expense of justice for Epstein’s victims/survivors, many of whom were children when they were violated.

The Epstein files are more than a scandal. They are a mirror that Epstein’s co-conspirators and enablers will finally have to face. What Congress chooses to reveal, or conceal will reflect the integrity of the institution itself. Next week’s vote is not just about Epstein; it is about whether democracy can withstand the weight of truth.

Jeffrey Epstein did not build an ordinary social circle; he spun a web. It was a network designed to attract power, prestige, and influence, while concealing exploitation at its core. Like flies drawn to a spider’s silk, politicians, celebrities, financiers, and academics found themselves caught. The more they struggled to deny or distance themselves, the deeper they became entangled.

The image of the wealthy and powerful being caught “like a fly in a spider’s web” captures the essence of his entanglement with Jeffrey Epstein. What began as a social connection became a trap of scandal, denial, and consequence. The harder he tried to wriggle free, the deeper they became submerged in the sticky strands of public scrutiny and moral accountability.

Epstein’s network was designed to ensnare. Wealth, influence, and access were the threads that drew powerful figures close. The so-called friendship initially seemed to offer prestige. But once Epstein’s crimes came to light, every meeting, every photograph, every denial became another strand tightening around them.

As Epstein’s victims struggle in the web, like a fly, each movement to escape only made the web more visible and the entanglement more complete.

The metaphor reminds me that webs are not accidental; they are constructed. Epstein’s web was built on exploitation, secrecy, and power. Those who entered it, knowingly or not, faced a choice: break free early with honesty, or remain entangled by silence and denial. The participants’ stories show how privilege can blind one to danger until it is too late.

In the end, the spider’s web is not just about Epstein. It is about how power can ensnare, how denial can tighten bonds, and how truth, once ignored, becomes impossible to escape. The lesson is clear: when faced with exploitation, denial is not safety, it is the strand that binds.

Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes were not just about one man; it was a web spun from secrecy, privilege, and power. And as time moves forward, more and more names will be revealed. The reckoning is not finished; it is still unfolding.

As I said before, Epstein’s web was built to ensnare, but time is the force that breaks webs apart. As victims/survivors speak, as documents surface, as institutions are pressed to disclose, the reckoning deepens. The lesson is clear: truth delayed is not truth denied. Eventually, the strands give way, and those who thought themselves untouchable find themselves exposed.

Congress must realize that the revelations will continue, but they must lead somewhere. Exposure without accountability is just noise. Justice must be the final result because without it, the web remains intact, and history risks repeating itself.\

©Mansour Id-Deen

Before we get started, I want to remind the global community generally and the U.S. population specifically that Jeffrey Epstein’s international predator and child sex trafficking ring sexualized, terrorized, and traumatized not their child, but somebody else’s child.

Let’s not look the other way and become complicit in the hundreds, if not thousands, of children, some under 10 years old, who have been victimized. We cannot allow this to be normalized.

With the rapidly changing news cycles and the fast-moving headlines, it is amazing that Jeffrey Epstein’s criminal enterprise has remained on the front pages for months, even years. With each new revelation, it feels like a fresh wound opened because of the horror of what was done to vulnerable young girls, and in some cases, boys. What makes these stories even more disturbing is that many perpetrators are parents themselves.

We cannot allow the persistence of these stories to be just media noise. They are an emotional reminder that the world continues to fail to protect our children. Children belong to all of us in the moral sense. Protecting only our own children is not enough. Epstein’s crimes remind us that protecting our children is not just a private responsibility; it requires collective action.

Every headline regarding abuse of children carries a haunting truth: the victim(s) are not nameless, faceless statistics. All children are somebody else’s child, who are most of the time loved, cherished, and entrusted to a society that should have protected them. Yet, too often, that trust is betrayed.

Paradoxically, many of the perpetrators nurture their own children while inflicting pain on others. Question: How do you think they reconcile this contradiction? The answer is unsettling: they don’t. Instead, they compartmentalize, rationalize, or deny.

Parenthood should awaken empathy, but in these cases, empathy is silenced. Their own children are seen as extensions of themselves, while others’ children are dehumanized, treated as objects rather than human beings. Every child deserves equal dignity, not just one’s own. Due to our digitally connected world, harm to any child diminishes the collective well-being of all humans.

True character is revealed in how we treat the vulnerable. Therefore, repeat abusers demonstrate not a level of reconciliation but corruption. They live in moral dissonance, silencing conscience to preserve self-image. The phrase “somebody else’s child” should remind us that there is no true separation. The measure of our humanity is not how fiercely we defend our own, but how faithfully we protect somebody else’s child. In moral terms, Jeffrey Epstein’s affiliations highlight how power and privilege are used to shield wrongdoing, raising additional questions about complicity, accountability, and the ethical choices of those who associated with him.

Many powerful individuals who were also predators claim they were unaware of Epstein’s crimes. Morally, the question is whether ignorance is an excuse when signs of exploitation were/are clearly visible. Epstein’s network shows how wealth and influence insulate individuals from accountability. The moral failing lies not only in direct abuse but in enabling silence.

The final episode of the Epstein tragedy is coming real soon. Survivors of Epstein’s abuse recently appeared on Capitol Hill, urging Congress to force the DOJ to release the files. They argue that withholding them protects powerful individuals who were complicit in Epstein’s crimes. Newly elected Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva is expected to be sworn in tomorrow, and she is expected to play a decisive role in advancing the release of Jeffrey Epstein’s files. Her vote will tip the balance in the House toward forcing the Justice Department to disclose more documents.

Epstein’s survivors and advocates have long demanded the release of these files, arguing that accountability requires full disclosure. Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva’s vote will cause the files to be released, hence exposing more details about Epstein’s ties to politicians, financiers, and institutions that enabled him. One can only wonder how the perpetrators will feel when their names are revealed in “In The Jeffrey Epstein Files”.

How will the perpetrators feel when they find themselves caught up because of something, “That You’ve Already Done?” I am sure they will ask themselves, How did I get here? Until society embraces that truth, the cycle of harm will continue. There are ways all of us can contribute to the total dismantling of America and a Global nightmare.

Below are four ways all of us can contribute:

Listen to survivors’ voices and amplify their stories.

• Support organizations that fight exploitation and protect children.
• Speak up when silence would make you complicit.
• Remember: every child is our collective responsibility.

Because in the end, there is no “somebody else’s child.” There are only children, and they all deserve protection, safety, dignity, peace, and love.

J. Edgar Hoover was the first Director of the FBI. He led the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) from 1924 until he died in 1972. Hoover engaged in a controversial practice of keeping dossiers on political leaders and other influential figures for decades. Hoover used secret FBI files to maintain power, to protect his position, and shape national policy.

Moreover, Hoover kept secret files on presidents, senators, judges, and other powerful figures. These files often contained personal indiscretions, political vulnerabilities, or unverified rumors. He also maintained unauthorized surveillance records and other politically sensitive materials.

Hoover served under eight U.S. presidents, from Calvin Coolidge to Richard Nixon. He often shared political intelligence with presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson to curry favor. Hoover’s operations involved illegal wiretaps, infiltration, and smear campaigns, all justified under the guise of national security.

From 1956 to 1971, Hoover launched COINTELPRO to infiltrate, discredit, and disrupt groups he deemed subversive. Some of these groups include: Civil rights organizations, domestic political organizations, Anti-war activists, and so-called Leftist political groups. The current administration has dramatically expanded surveillance capabilities, drawing comparisons to COINTELPRO through its targeting of political opponents, activists, and marginalized communities.

This administration has dismantled barriers between federal databases. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has gained access to sensitive personal data like Social Security numbers, medical histories, tax records, immigration status, Federal employee databases, welfare records, and banking information; hence, they are raising alarms about privacy and cybersecurity. With help from private tech firms, this administration can now build comprehensive profiles of individuals tracking purchases, movements, communications, and even protest attendance.

This level of integration makes it easier to monitor dissent and political activity, even without direct surveillance. The parallels to COINTELPRO are striking: both eras involve targeting political enemies, monitoring marginalized groups, and using surveillance to shape public discourse. While technology has evolved, the core tactics of disruption, disinformation, and intimidation remain alarmingly familiar.

In closing, organizations such as the ACLU and Electronic Frontier Foundation have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of these surveillance programs. Congressional Democrats have called for investigations into politicized intelligence gathering, citing parallels to Hoover’s FBI. As we move forward, protecting our freedoms in America starts with knowing your rights, actively participating in democracy, and holding government accountable through civic engagement, legal action, and public advocacy. Understanding your constitutional protections is the first line of defense.

Question to the American People – Did you know that Congress has a constitutional duty to oversee matters of war and peace through its exclusive powers to declare war, fund military operations, and regulate armed forces?

Please find below a detailed outline of Congress’s constitutional obligations in this domain:

Constitutional Foundations

• Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: Grants Congress the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.” This clause ensures that the decision to initiate war rests with the legislative branch.
• Power of the Purse: Congress controls military funding, giving it leverage over the executive’s military actions. Without appropriations, military operations cannot be sustained.
• Regulation of Armed Forces: Congress is empowered to “raise and support Armies,” “provide and maintain a Navy,” and “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” This gives it authority over the structure and conduct of the military.

Oversight and Checks on Executive Power

• War Powers Resolution of 1973: Enacted to check presidential authority, it requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying armed forces and limits military engagement to 60 days without Congressional authorization.
• Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF): Congress can authorize military action without a formal declaration of war, as seen in post-9/11 operations. However, this has raised concerns about executive overreach.
• Investigative and Hearings Power: Congressional committees, especially Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, conduct hearings and investigations to scrutinize military actions and foreign policy decisions.
• America is killing in international waters without authorization or due process.

In watching the recent U.S. Senate and House of Representatives’ oversight briefing of both the Attorney General and the FBI director, the tension in the room was impossible to ignore. The disrespect exhibited by the executive branch representatives was un-American and arguably unconstitutional.

My fellow Americans, the time for silence and inaction is over. Reach out to your employees in Congress, yes, your employees, and remind them of their sacred duty. That is to make laws that serve the people. They were hired by our vote, and they answer to the American people. Let your voice be heard. The People’s House Must Reclaim Its Rightful Power. Therefore, we must let our power be felt.

• U.S. House of Representatives: Call the House switchboard at (202) 225-3121
• U.S. Senate: Call the Senate switchboard at (202) 224-3121