Congress, Politics, Torts

Cover-Up or Frame-Up? How the Democratic Epstein Releases are a Classic Example of False Light

Many years ago, as a law student, I had the honor of working with the great prosecutor William J. Kunkle Jr., who put away John Wayne Gacy. I was a young intern at the litigation firm of Phelan, Pope & John and loved listening to Bill’s stories about his famous cases. I even had to take a couple of calls from Gacy from prison when Bill was out. (I was asked to write down everything that he would say in the routine calls. On one call, Gacy told me, “Tell Bill he was wrong. I was not guilty of homicide. I was guilty of running an indoor funeral parlor without a license.”). One story of Bill’s came to mind last night when Democrats released their latest tranche of “bombshell” photos from the Epstein files to suggest that Trump is implicated in the scandal.

Bill told me how he would stage the trial room to maximize impact on the jury. In the Gacy trial, he was allowed to create an exhibit showing the pictures of the victims. He knew that defense counsel would not want the faces staring at the jury throughout the trial. So he made the exhibit so large that it would be difficult to move and waited for the defense to insist that the pictures themselves be removed. When they did so, they found that each picture was attached to the board by Bill with large red tape. Throughout the trial, the jurors stared at each name with a large red X beneath it. It was better than the pictures themselves.

Bill’s story came to mind yesterday when the Democrats released the photos from the Epstein files.

The White House accused Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of spreading a “false narrative” with photos. It is more of an effort to create “false light,” a term from tort law where true photos are presented in a misleading and harmful way.

The photos of Trump show women with their faces obscured as “possible” victims of human trafficking with underaged girls. (The New York Post posted the unredacted picture, which actually came from an entirely unrelated event in Hawaii and was previously published with all of the faces shown).

Even a photo with a single woman on what appears to be a plane is blacked out. There is no context offered, but the blacked-out faces suggest that these women have to be protected as possible victims.

It has the same effect as Kunkle’s Xs.

However, the real question of false light is the inclusion with the other photos selected for release. The Democrats included pictures of sex toys, novelty condom boxes with Trump’s face (saying “I’m Huuuge”) and even Epstein in a bathtub.

The combination is meant to make the other photos seem more sinister, even though we have no information on where they were taken or who the women are in the images. Just Xs.

Trump is not alone in the framing of such photos. The release included a previously public photo of Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz simply meeting with Epstein, who is wearing a Harvard sweatshirt. There is no information on when or where it was taken. (Epstein was a major donor to Harvard, and Dershowitz was a Harvard professor as well as someone who served as counsel to Epstein).

The Democrats have long despised Dershowitz, a liberal who broke ranks with the party and represented Trump in his impeachment. Now, he is included with the photos of condoms and Epstein in a bath.

In torts, litigants can bring cases for “false light” when photos may be true images but are presented in a misleading way.

While some states have rejected false light claims in favor of using defamation actions exclusively, other states recognize both claims.

Under a false light claim, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications.

California produced an important case that is particularly illustrative in this circumstance. In Gill v. Curtis Publ’g Co., 239 P.2d 630 (Cal. 1952), the court considered a “Ladies Home Journal” article that was highly critical of couples who claimed to be cases of “love at first sight.” The article suggested that such impulses were more sexual than serious. The magazine included a photo of a couple, with the caption, “[p]ublicized as glamorous, desirable, ‘love at first sight’ is a bad risk.” The couple was unaware that the photo was used and never consented to its inclusion in the magazine. They prevailed in an action for false light given the suggestion that they were one of these sexualized, “wrong” attractions.

The standard California jury instruction asks the jury if “the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position” and whether “there is clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] knew the disclosure would create a false impression … or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.”

Likewise, in Solano v. Playgirl, Inc., 292 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2002), the court found false light in the use of an actor’s photo on the cover of Playgirl magazine. In combination with the headlines, the plaintiffs argued that the magazine created the false impression that nude photos of the actor were featured inside the magazine.

Congress is protected from such lawsuits, and even without those protections, it is unlikely that this case would be viable as a tort action. However, the underlying concept is still relevant. The Democrats were suggesting that there was a cover-up of Trump’s (and others’) involvement in these crimes. They have not produced such evidence. They can, however, release images in a way that suggests such untoward or even illegal conduct.

If Dershowitz’s picture were just re-released on its own, it would hardly be notable. However, in the company of condom boxes and bathtub shots, it can feed a news cycle of eagerly awaiting and enabling media.

In the end, the photo dump is unlikely to change any minds or move the needle in polls. Some will see a cover-up and others will see a frame-up.

The difference with the Gacy trial is that most of the jury has already left the room, leaving only the Xs behind.

N.B.: This column was updated to link to the unredacted photos.

244 thoughts on “Cover-Up or Frame-Up? How the Democratic Epstein Releases are a Classic Example of False Light”

  1. False light has been the conservative go-to going back at least to Ronnie Reagan. Not as President, but as rat to the anti-communist witch hunt by Senator McCarthy. Back then the conservatives did not believe in free speech. They believed in lock-step flag-worship. It turns out, down deep, they still do.

    Reply

    2. lol. No. We have Johnson’s great society. We have Roosevelt teaming up with Stalin (and whitewashing his being Hitler’s ally to start WWII). We have Woodrow Wilson who pushed for repressive new legislation and even penalize criticism of the president, harkening back to the discredited repression of the Democratic-​Republicans during the John Adams administration. Congress responded with the Espionage Act of 1917. Expressions of opposition to or even dissatisfaction with the war led to prosecutions and prison terms under the supposedly great liberal crusader.

      And, of course, the greatest Democratic lie — the Civil War was about ‘states rights.’ No, it never was. It was about keeping rich slaveholders in slaves.

      And so it goes, decade after decade.

      Reply

  3. Democrats are masters of propaganda, just like their fellow Socialist Joseph Goebbels, and their media lackeys are all too happy to play along.

    Reply

  4. False light? I can’t believe I’m hearing about this legal remedy for the first time. I think “deceitful infowarfare” would make for a better catch-all phrase. Many times, duping the public for political advantage doesn’t involve defaming someone — it’s just meant to “opinion shape”. Why those instances can’t be sued, but those that denigrate a person can leaves me confused — like some kind of moral confusion. The fact that you’re setting out to deceive or dupe the public at larger (or some segment of it) is the major vice….the tort. We don’t need further qualification. Any member of the public should be able to bring a lawsuit against the infowarrior and all media amplifiers.

    The Founders agreed that moral clarity would be essential to keeping our Republic.

    Reply

      2. Dumbocraps accused others what they’re actually guilty of.

        “Jersey City police sergeant charged with sex assault, endangering welfare of a child” – ABC7 Eyewitness News (WABC-TV New York)

        https://ballotpedia.org/Andrew_LaBruno

        “New details in case against former state rep Cecil Brockman, his alleged teen victim” – ABC 11 (WTVD North Carolina)

        https://ballotpedia.org/Cecil_Brockman

        Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t cast stones.

        Reply

  6. Why People Believe The Worst With Trump

    A rally on affordability in Pennsylvania on 9 December devolved into a racist tirade when Donald Trump said to the crowd: “We only take people from sh_thole countries. Why can’t we have some people from Norway, Sweden, just a few? … From Denmark. Do you mind sending us a few people? Send us some nice people. But we always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime.”

    Referring to the US representative Ilhan Omar’s hijab as a “little turban”, Trump continued: “She should get the hell out. Throw her the hell out.” His supporters erupted in chants of: “Send her back.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/dec/13/ethnic-cleansing-racism-us-trump-ilhan-omar-somalia
    …………………………………………….

    This was Wednesday in Pennsylvania. Trump’s rally promised to address the affordability crisis. But Trump couldn’t stop himself from launching into this racist tirade.

    A man who talks trash on a routine basis, while threatening opponents and intimidating allies, is what’s commonly known as an ‘arrogant bully’.

    Therefore millions PRESUME that a man who talks this way is probably threatening women. And when we learn he had a longtime friendship with a convicted pedophile, people assume the worst. Why wouldn’t they?

    Democrats understand that people make these leaps of judgment. So Donald Trump is vulnerable. It goes to show that chronic trash-talking is really not that smart. People will think you ‘are’ just trash.

    Reply

      1. This used to be a good site with good discussion of many political and constitutional issues and then the liberal trolls showed up and ruined everything, like they always do. Business Insider, Daily Wire, Yahoo, the list goes on and on. It is pathetic and disgusting.

        Reply

        1. And yet here you are. Seems you have a thing for trolls. You can always not come here.
          As for discussion, well, you’re joking right? There’s nothing here to learn from, just miscreants spouting stupidity and hate.
          I never realized how stupid and crude Americans are.
          This blog is a joke and Turley is a fool for hosting it.
          Its all about his marketing himself.
          Want serious journalism and reporting, The Federalist and National Review are the best.
          Let the conservative lowlife have this blog.

          Reply

    2. “. . . launching into this racist tirade.”

      Look in the mirror. It is those who smear race everywhere who are the racists.

      Reply

    3. Why do you assume it’s racist? It’s more truthful that Trump is referring to the orderliness and lawfulness of life in the countries he was comparing. It’s this simple: Which would you prefer to vacation in (or live in)?….Somalia or Norway? Got nothing to do with race, everything to do with culture, mores and standards.

      That’s a taboo topic for progressive Dems — pulling out the race card is a coward’s way out.

      Reply

Leave a Reply to pbincaCancel reply