Rep. Thomas Massie didn't mince words Sunday. The Kentucky Republican went on CNN's "Inside Politics" and called for Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to step down — not testify, not explain, not sit for more questions. Resign.

The reason: Lutnick's name surfaced in Epstein-related documents released by the Justice Department, and the timeline he's offered publicly doesn't square with what those files show.

The Gap Between the Story and the Files

According to The Hill, Lutnick has maintained that he and his wife decided around 2005 to cut ties with Jeffrey Epstein. In a podcast episode released in October, he described an encounter with Epstein that year — one he said made him never want to be in the same room as Epstein again.

That's the clean version. The documents tell a different one.

An email from November 2012 — seven years after the supposed clean break, and four years after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes — came from a person identifying themselves as Epstein's assistant. The message indicated Epstein was looking to meet with Lutnick.

That's a wide gap between "cut ties in 2005" and "Epstein's people are still emailing you in 2012." CNN host Manu Raju laid the contradiction out plainly before asking Massie whether Lutnick should come before Congress:

"The latest release shows that there was some correspondence after that, even after Epstein pleaded guilty to sex crimes in 2008. What questions do you have about Lutnick's ties to Epstein, and should he come before Congress and testify?"

Massie didn't take the bait of a drawn-out congressional hearing process. His answer was immediate:

"No, he should just resign. I mean, there are three people in Great Britain that have resigned in politics. The ambassador from Great Britain to the United States, the prince lost his title for less than what we've seen Howard Lutnick lie about."

He went further:

"Look, Howard Lutnick clearly went to the island if we believe what's in these files. He was in business with Jeffrey Epstein. And this was many years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted. You know, lightly sentenced, but was convicted for sexual crimes."

Why This Matters for Conservatives

The Epstein saga has been, from the beginning, a test of whether the political class would protect its own or demand a full accounting. Conservatives drove the push for transparency on these files. They were right to. You don't get to demand accountability for one side and then look away when the names get uncomfortable.

Massie has been co-leading that transparency push alongside Rep. Ro Khanna, a California Democrat. That bipartisan pairing exists for one reason: the Epstein files don't respect party lines, and the pressure to release them shouldn't either.

If the standard is that anyone entangled with Epstein after his crimes became public needs to answer for it — and that is the right standard — then the standard applies uniformly. British officials have resigned. A prince lost his title. Massie's point is straightforward: why would the bar be lower for an American cabinet secretary?

The Silence From Commerce

The Hill reached out to the Commerce Department for comment. None was included in their reporting. That silence isn't necessarily damning on its own — press shops operate on their own timelines. But when the public story you've told is contradicted by documents your own government released, the clock for a credible response ticks faster than normal.

The core question isn't complicated. Lutnick said the relationship ended in 2005. The files show contact in 2012. Either the files are wrong, or the story Lutnick told the public is. One of those things needs to give.

Accountability Isn't Optional

Conservatives spent years — rightly — hammering the left for shielding powerful people from the consequences of their Epstein connections. The demand was simple: release the files, name the names, let the chips fall. That demand doesn't come with an asterisk for allies.

Massie understands this. He's taken heat recently for bucking his party on other fronts, and this won't make him more popular in certain circles. But the principle is clean: if the files show what Massie says they show, resignation isn't an overreaction. It's the minimum.

The files are out. The timeline doesn't hold. And no amount of silence from the Commerce Department changes what's on the page.