The slapdash process that resulted in the exposure of the so-called Epstein documents delivered no justice to that monster’s victims.
Since January, the New York Times has tracked at least 35 political advertisements that feature the name “Epstein,” including “many” that deploy the loaded phrase “Epstein class.” But Times reporter Lisa Lerer might have found the most audacious attempt yet to leverage Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes for political gain this year. It has taken the form of a spot that indirectly accuses Colorado Representative Jeff Crank of failing the convicted pedophile’s victims, and it comes from the family of the late Virginia Giuffre:
New ad from the DCCC & Jessica Killin in #CO05 features family members of the late Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre.
"Our own congressman, Jeff Crank, refused to meet with us. Then, when he had the chance to … release the Epstein files, he repeatedly voted to cover them up." pic.twitter.com/x3iFikJyDB
— Andrew Solender (@AndrewSolender) October 5, 2026
The ad features Giuffre’s brother, Sky Roberts, and his wife, Amanda, accusing Crank of refusing to meet with Giuffre’s surviving relatives and of “covering up” documents relating to Epstein’s activities by voting against their release.
Nothing in Lerer’s dispatch would lead the reader to conclude that the spot was an example of anything other than sharp-elbowed politics. Indeed, the family’s actions are presented as wholly courageous. “They were driven by Ms. Giuffre’s death and a desire to continue her fight to expose Mr. Epstein,” as the advertisement’s subjects say of themselves. “With the ad, Democrats are seeking an edge in a race that has grown increasing [sic] competitive, as the national environment has turned against Republican incumbents,” the reporter concludes.
What an oddly colorless write-up of such a fraught subject. Surely, there was space to note the extent of the campaign that Crank’s opponent, Jessica Killin, and her allies have waged against the incumbent representative. Although he “identifies as an independent,” Lerer notes, Giuffre’s brother and his family have been featured in anti-Crank campaign literature over the past year — part of an extensive, multi-platform messaging campaign designed to shame Crank over his objections to the blanket release of raw intelligence collected by law enforcement.
So, what were Crank’s objections? He had two. First, he explained, he will not “sign discharge petitions on anything” because doing so would override his own party’s leadership. That maneuver essentially “hands control of Congress to the minority party.” Beyond Crank’s procedural qualms, he believed he also had a profound moral obligation to oppose the summary release of all Epstein-related documents.
“I support the release of all documents that shed light on what occurred, while protecting the identity of the victims,” Crank said in a statement. “I have endorsed the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into this matter, which has released thousands of additional documents, holds subpoena power, acquires bank records, and more.” The representative repeatedly assured his constituents that he “doesn’t want victims to suffer through harm all over again and doesn’t want the files released until all of their information is redacted,” KOAA reported.
In the end, amid an overwhelming vote to release the documents, Crank joined the majority despite his objections. But the representative was right all along. Ultimately, the slapdash process that resulted in the exposure of the so-called Epstein documents delivered no justice to that monster’s victims. Indeed, it created new victims.
“Nude photos and the names of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims were published as part of the release of almost three million documents relating to the convicted pedophile,” The Telegraph reported in January. Hundreds of unredacted names were exposed in a cache of files the public had been led to believe contained only the identities of accomplices and accessories.
The victims themselves revolted, as did the innocents whose names only appeared in the documents because they were caught up in the FBI’s dragnet (there’s a reason why raw investigative products are regarded as sensitive). The documents were only released to fuel a feeding frenzy, and the release had its intended effect. Attention-seeking lawmakers smeared entirely private citizens who were unlucky enough to be christened “Jeffrey Epstein” at birth. Dozens of Americans — unknowns and celebrities alike — found themselves named alongside Epstein despite never having been accused or even investigated in connection with a crime.
It was nothing less than an act of extreme negligence and an abrogation of one of the federal government’s foremost responsibilities to its law-abiding citizens. And yet, to read the Times account, the Killin campaign’s maneuver is notable as an example of savvy politics, and it implies that the Giuffre family’s cause is righteous. Crank is guilty only of deferring to his elementary conception of good governance. Democrats would see him punished for that.
The Times shouldn’t have had to work too hard to find at least one voice who objected to the Killin campaign’s strategy. It seems even that modest exertion was too much to ask.