Melanie Stansbury's Press Office Finally Got Back To Me About John J. Kelly & Jeffrey Epstein. Here's What They Said.

New Mexico Congressional Representative Melanie Stansbury holds redacted page from the Epstein files. Behind her, left, NM State Rep. Andrea Romero.

Melanie Stansbury’s press office finally wrote back to me.

For those who missed the earlier piece: on May 11, I emailed RepStansburyPress@mail.house.gov with a formal press inquiry. I identified myself as the publisher of THE PUGILIST — currently ranked among the top political newsletters on Substack, with 48,000 subscribers and 72,000 Facebook followers, a combined readership of 120,000 — and I asked the congresswoman direct questions about findings I had uncovered in the DOJ Epstein files. Specifically, I asked about a legal document granting John J. Kelly limited power of attorney for Jeffrey Epstein for the purchase of Zorro Ranch in 1993 — the same year Kelly was appointed US Attorney for the District of New Mexico by Bill Clinton. Kelly served two terms. He never investigated Epstein. The first known victim reports about Epstein and Zorro Ranch reached the FBI in 1996, during his tenure. John J. Kelly is still a beloved and prominent figure in New Mexico politics, serving RIGHT NOW as a mayoral appointee to the City of Albuquerque’s Ethics Board, under Mayor Tim Keller. Albuquerque is the largest city in the state, and sits in Rep. Stansbury’s district.

Stansbury sits on the House Oversight Committee investigating the systemic failures nationally that led to Epstein and his associates never properly being investigated. She has publicly pledged to follow every thread. She has championed New Mexico’s Truth Commission. She stated, in her own words, that the cover-up goes “all the way to the top.”

John J. Kelly is a prominent figure in New Mexico’s Democratic Party establishment — the same party whose congressional seat Stansbury now holds. Kelly himself was the Democratic nominee for that exact seat in 2000.

My questions were simple: Was she aware of Kelly’s role as Epstein’s personal POA? What is the nature of her personal or professional relationship with him? Has he donated to her campaigns, helped her fundraise, or has she supported his causes or candidacies? And given her stated commitment to following every thread — does she intend to examine the conduct of the US Attorney who held jurisdiction over Zorro Ranch during the entire founding period of Epstein’s operation there, and who never opened a federal investigation despite victim reports reaching the FBI on his watch?

Stansbury’s office did not respond for three days. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t have thought much of a delay of even a week or two. But this wasn’t an ordinary three days.

What happened in those three days is something I reported in a previous piece, published here at THE PUGILIST. Shortly after I sent my inquiry, Brandon Padilla — Stansbury’s campaign manager, and simultaneously Senior Advisor for Deb Haaland for New Mexico — placed a phone call to a prominent elected official who is a longtime friend of mine. The tone of that call, according to my friend, was unprofessional and threatening. The message was clear: tell Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez to spin her stories “the right way.”

Lurky lurky.

I published what happened. THE PUGILIST’s 120,000 readers found out. Public pressure, it seems, has a way of unsticking things. Which is why the founding fathers chose journalism as the only profession specifically named in the constitution as essential to a functional democracy.

On May 14, Stansbury’s press office responded. Here is that response, in full:

---

The email claims Stansbury had “no prior knowledge of John Kelly’s involvement in this case” — which is a carefully limited statement. It says nothing about her relationship with Kelly, whether he has supported her campaigns, or whether she intends to investigate him.

What it does do is pivot, swiftly and smoothly, to blaming Department of Justice, and celebrating the Truth Commission — the very same Truth Commission whose chair, New Mexico State Representative Andrea Romero, called my reporting on Kelly and others too “filled with inaccuracies” to be worth “wasting resources” pursuing.

So which is it? Are New Mexico’s leaders grateful for the information, committed to following every lead (even about Kelly) and determined to hold all people accountable regardless of political party, as Stansbury’s email says? Or do they believe my stories and the leads they provide too riddled with supposed errors to be taken seriously or to waste resources on, as Rep. Andrea Romero wrote in an email to one of my readers?

If Stansbury is going to sing the praises of the Truth Commission while its chair seeks to assassinate my character and mischaracterize my reporting as inaccurate (they still have not told me what facts I got wrong), it certainly sends a mixed message.

Anyway.

I wrote back to Stansbury the same day. Here is what I asked:

I asked Stansbury’s office to explain why Brandon Padilla — her campaign manager — called my friend, a city councilor and elected official, after I had submitted my press inquiry. I asked who authorized that call. I asked whether this is standard practice for her communications operation. I told them directly: do not bother denying the call, because there are phone records and a sworn affidavit.

I also asked whether Stansbury did, in fact, have a conversation with Rayellen Smith in which she asked Smith to assemble a team of volunteers from Indivisible Albuquerque — a partisan Democratic organization — to read the Epstein files on behalf of the Truth Commission investigation. If so, I asked, how does that square with the bipartisan, professionally rigorous standard that an investigation of this gravity demands? And if Stansbury did not make that request, is she aware that Smith told the group’s members that she did?

And I returned to Kelly — asking whether Stansbury is comfortable with the fact that, as we speak, Kelly serves on the City of Albuquerque’s ethics board as a mayoral appointee. I noted that I had posed the same question to Mayor Tim Keller, also without response.

Today, May 18, Stansbury’s office replied again. Here is that response:

Let’s take it point by point.

On the Padilla call, the office writes: “The Congresswoman was made aware, after the fact, of a brief personal call reaching out to a mutual friend in the community. This call was not made on behalf of our office.”

Several things are worth noting here.

Brandon Padilla is not named anywhere in this response. Not once. Stansbury’s own campaign manager — a man who holds two simultaneous senior political roles in New Mexico Democratic politics — is described only as an unnamed individual making a “personal” call to a “mutual friend.” The call was, in fact, a threat intended to silence me, made to an elected official, and they know it. The message sent by the call was twofold — intended both to rein me in, and to let the elected official know that the party she belongs to is pressuring her to do their dirty work regarding me. The “or else” is inferred. All of this is reduced in the response to a “personal call” to a “mutual friend in the community.”

The phrase “not made on behalf of our office” is doing significant legal and political work. It does not say the call was inappropriate. It does not say Padilla was wrong to make it. It does not repudiate what was said. It simply asserts institutional distance — and notably, it says the Congresswoman learned of it “after the fact,” which raises its own question: upon learning that her campaign manager had called an elected official in her own party, calling upon the official to pressure a journalist they had, as of then, refused to communicate directly with, who was covering child trafficking accountability that pointed to several people in their same party, what did Stansbury do about it?

The response does not say.

On the Rayellen Smith and Indivisible Albuquerque question, the office writes that “individuals affiliated with Indivisible separately reached out in their personal capacity to express interest in supporting public engagement in the Epstein files.” This is a reframe, not an answer. My question was specific: did Stansbury ask Smith to do this, and is she aware that Smith told the group’s members that she did?

The response addresses neither of those questions directly.

I am aware that by questioning elected officials I am opening myself up to attacks from their party loyalists, regardless of party affiliation, and I know many of you, my readers, were stunned by the threats and attempts at character assassination. Thank you for your concern about me.

Please know, the attacks I’m enduring are part of the job of being an investigative journalist. Powerful people do not go gently into accountability, and they are quick to rally their minions to blame the messenger. I am physically, emotionally, psychologically, legally and logistically prepared for whatever they try to bring. And I am okay with being a midnight lightning rod, because it is during those flashes of electricity when they seek to strike me that the rest of the world gets illuminated in the darkness of the storm.

Thank you for watching, eyes wide open, and helping to hold our elected representatives accountable to we, the people. It’s because of your pressure that they responded to me at all.

And while the response was incomplete and inadequate, it DID do something that has never happened before. It got a public acknowledgment that John J Kelly, one of the most powerful men who appears to have covered for Jeffrey Epstein in New Mexico for many years, is being looked at now.

That would never have happened without THE PUGILIST breaking that news, nor without you, the readers, realizing it mattered.

Alisa

---

I offer all my posts freely. They are never paywalled. But your support is necessary and appreciated. Please like, comment and share my work if it moves you. And don’t forget to subscribe, paid if you’re able. You may also leave a one-time or recurring tip in any amount. Thank you. A.