Below is my column in The Hill on the fallout from the release of the Epstein files from grand-jury and congressional investigations. As various figures are hounded over embarrassing emails, we need to ask about the implications of such a wholesale release. One can be in favor of transparency without dismissing the impact on third parties who are not accused of any criminal conduct.
Here is the column:
There are few characters more repellent than the late Jeffrey Epstein. His life left a line of human wreckage and misery. Those associated with Epstein have also faced public backlash and recriminations throughout the years.
Recently, however, the Epstein scandal took a new turn. Due to unprecedented access to once-sealed material, the public is now combing through emails, appointment books, and photos with a voracious interest in his private associations and contacts. Most of these people are not accused of any criminal conduct, mind you — just notorious association.
The result has been the humiliation and condemnation of various individuals revealed in the files.
The question is whether we should consider the implications of such transparency and how it can expose those who are not accused of any crime.
During our colonial period, public shaming was a common form of punishment. Back then, bilboes, brands, and branks were some of the devices used to punish the notorious amongst us.
That has been the fate of notable figures whose names have popped up in the new disclosures, ranging from former Obama White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler to former Harvard President Larry Summers to Sweden’s Princess Sofia.
The irregular intervention of Congress negated core protections afforded to collateral figures scooped up in criminal investigations. That includes some material previously protected under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
At the same time, members are releasing material subpoenaed from other sources in earlier congressional investigations. This includes a picture of Donald Trump, from before he became president, that was released by Democratic members this week. The picture with six women has the faces of the women dramatically blocked out as “potential” victims of Epstein.
The implication and the intent of the picture’s release are equally obvious: to suggest that Trump was cavorting with possible victims of human trafficking with Epstein. Another photo shows Trump sitting with a woman with her face blacked out. These pictures were released with other images of sex toys from the Epstein files, and a novelty box of Trump condoms that say “I’m huuuuge.”
Another previously public picture shows Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz simply talking to Epstein, who is wearing a Harvard sweater. Epstein was a donor to Harvard, and the photo could have been taken anywhere. However, it was released (again) alongside images of sex toys, Epstein in a bathtub, and a blacked-out picture of “possible victims.”
The releases have proven devastating for some. Summers left his teaching position at Harvard and a leading economics association after his communications to Epstein were made public. They included Summers allegedly seeking advice on how to seduce a young research associate as well as other communications that are sexist and offensive toward women.
Ruemmler has been publicly ridiculed for communications described as “chummy” with Epstein. Ruemmler, once considered for Attorney General, had downplayed her connection to Epstein. However, the communications show a more familiar association, including one stating, “I’ll be here all week — you may get sick of me.”
In another email, Ruemmler responds to a Daily Beast article about Epstein’s crimes by saying, “Good lord. A novella of rehashed crap.”
With Princess Sofia, the emails show that the former model and reality TV starlet met with Epstein. The Swedish government has tried to control the outcry, stressing that “these meetings took place in social settings, such as at a restaurant and a movie premiere.”
The problem is that context rarely matters in such stories. The Trump photo is a good example. The point is to make it look like the Democrats are protecting the identities of victims literally embraced by Trump from an Epstein harem of underage girls. The same tactic was used just a few weeks earlier when the Democrats released an email related to Trump with the name of a possible victim redacted. The White House objected that the name was that of Virginia Giuffre whose name was already public. Giuffre, who died by suicide recently, had previously said Trump was not involved in her abuse. The redactions were used strategically to suggest that this was another, previously undisclosed victim implicating Trump.
Under the common law, there is a tort called “false light” that includes pictures that may be true but are presented in a false light. This latest tranche is a blinding array of alleged false light imagery.
A torrent of material is now coming from the courts and Congress in the name of transparency. It is hard to argue against transparency. Indeed, some of us have argued for greater transparency on issues like the investigation into Epstein’s suicide. There are also established grounds for the release of sealed information. The question, rather, is the wholesale release of such information.
Yet it is unpopular to raise such concerns when the appetite of the public is so high. It is even more difficult when the underlying emails, from figures such as Summers, are so disgraceful and repulsive.
Historically, this material has been protected because investigations scoop up a wide swath of individuals and evidence that are later found immaterial or collateral to the underlying crimes. It is often the rawest of evidence without satisfying standards of evidence or relevancy in an actual trial.
The public appetite for such releases can become insatiable. How about the Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby cases? Now that Congress has enacted special legislation to force the release of the Epstein files, there will likely be a greater expectation that other controversies demand equal transparency.
When House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) called for greater review of the Epstein material and the need for redactions, Democrats accused him and others of covering up the Epstein files. It worked. Congress rushed to pass the legislation compelling the release of the material.
Despite their denials, everyone loves gotcha stories exposing celebrities. It does not matter that the conduct being exposed might be entirely legal and unrelated to any underlying crime. The result is guilt by association, without the context of what that association amounted to in a given case.
The question now is whether the new transparency could erode longstanding protections for grand jury and sealed material in these investigations. Those protections could prove to be the most lasting legacy of Jeffrey Epstein.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” He previously represented a grand jury in the Rocky Flat case over the exceptions to grand jury secrecy.
FWIW, Larry Summers was reportedly seeking advice on seducing a woman in her late 30’s, not a young research associate.
Another component here is the fact that many different portions of government have been caught in recent years redacting, and in some case outright refusing to release, information simply because it was embarrassing to them or did not support their preferred narrative. Is it any wonder then when the populace becomes cynical about the government saying “trust us”?
I can see both sides. I spent two years on a grand jury. Yes, much of what happens there should not be public, which is why grand juries do not decide guilt or innocence. At the same time when the government lies repeatedly they cannot be given the benefit of the doubt. We are living through a time when that is the case.
Lawyers lying and getting nothing but a slap on the wrist, Judges displaying blatant bias and facing no repercussions, bureaucrats enforcing rules that don’t exist, politicians taking kickbacks and payoffs and getting to shrug and walk away. That is the world we live in. Those with power no longer get to claim moral authority.
You write as if this is taking place in a high school with several kids graffiti shaming a fellow student.
It is not individuals doing this. It is the media doing this to tar Trump. These outlets are owned by someone and can be sued. Win or lose, you can cost them a bundle which is modern American political justice at its best.
Ruemmler has been publicly ridiculed for communications described as “chummy” with Epstein. Ruemmler, once considered for Attorney General, had downplayed her connection to Epstein.
That would be Kathryn Ruemmler, a Washington DC Bar Association lawyer. Who got her start as a lawyer happy to prosecute innocent people by going after Arthur Andersen LLP to add an extra scalp to what she was primarily focused on. One of the largest auditing and accounting firms in the world; when she was done they were innocent – but bankrupt, and tens of thousands of people lost their job so Ruemmler could advance her political career.
Professor Turley never heard of that while portraying her as a victim? Something more recent in Ruemmler’s history, perhaps?
Ruemmler went on to be Obama’s White House counsel and fixer. Same Kathryn Ruemmler who cleared Obama sending Jack Smith from his DoJ to falsely indict his most feared potential opponent in his campaign for reelection, Governor Bob McDonnell.
This is the Kathryn Ruemmler that knew of Obama’s involvement with Clinton in the fictional and felonious “Trump Russia Dossier”. Same Kathryn Ruemmler who was party to Obama sending his Attorney Generals and FBI Directors to repeatedly perjure themselves before Judge Boasberg’s FISA courts.
In a fair world, Ruemmler would have been disbarred and still in prison for the number of times she has used her position as a political Democrat lawyer to victimize innocent people.
I share Turley’s expressed concern to the damage this could do to Grand Juries as a result.
But to also share his sorrow and belief that his fellow Washington DC Bar Association member Kathryn Ruemmler is being unfairly smeared?
That woman is pure evil, and the very embodiment of why so many people like Shakespeare’s line “first of all we kill the lawyers”.
Whatever lower opinion people have of Ruemmler now isn’t nearly enough. Her and George X are equally amoral and dispicable. The only difference is she’s intelligent and George X is at best one of Jerry’s Kids off the short bus.
Her (sic) is amoral and dispicable (sic).
With that I wholeheartedly agree!
George X are despicable – but the people who lie and abuse power are far more despicable that ordinary left witn nut internet liars.
Dear Prof Turley,
The context is Epstein frolicked and hobnobbed with some of the most wealthy, famous and powerful people on the planet while abusing thousands of poor underaged girls around the world.
Let me be clear: I wouldn’t give the furry crack of a rat’s behind who among these rich, famous and powerful ‘clients’ are painted in a false light due to their association with Epstein. Release the Files and the truth will set them free. .. it’s the law.
*While I hope these traumatized, powerless girls/women get their ‘day in court’.. . I am much more concerned about the possibility Epstein was a ‘spy’!
dgsnowden – nothing has prevented Epstains victims from getting their day in court.
Nothing prevents them from subpoenaing from Epstains estate or even the alleged perpetrators all the records that exist.
I have zero problems with the Victims financially destroying the Epstain estate and those who abused them.
I have no problems with DOJ prosecuting their living abusers.
But the DOJ since 2008 and Acosta has not been able to put together a prosecutable case.
Holder, Lynch, Sessions, Barr, Garland, and Bondi have all been unable to prosecute.
The government speaks throuhg prosecutions – not by violating the 4th amendment.
I have no problems with the House Democrats subpeonas of the Epstain estate – and their release of documents – though that has been a huge fizzle.
If they keep it up people might beleive Epstain was innocent.
BTW I do not think there is any credible evidence that Epstain abused thousands of underage girls I beleive this is a few dozen.
That is still incredibly bad.
Epstain is hopefully rotting in h311. And anyone perving 13yr olds should be rotting with him.
But absent evidence their prosecution is up to god.
The estate has lawyers with which to endlessly delay any cases brought against the estate. They get compensated for this defense. Going to court means they will see an end to that compensation so they will do everything they can to stop any legal action from getting there.
At any time Epstein had dozens of girls at his properties. He could easily cycle through a hundred a year; over ten years that is a thousand girls, and over 3-4 decades of this yields several thousand.
In addition to the lawyers of the estate, the lawyers for the other abusers are ready to bury accusers in endless lawsuits and aid in delaying going to court.
The real problem is the good chance than more than a couple of them have no problem arranging a murder.
Looks like Professor Turley may have something handy to distract from all the bad news Trump is getting. Hunter Biden has been disbarred in Connecticut. What is sure to follow is a nice big red meaty article about Hunter Biden and the corruption that….never was. We’ll see.
Trump’s poll numbers are up.
Hunter has been pardoned. Further he has nothing left to sell but his art and that sucks.
No one cares about Hunter
John Say,
“Trump’s poll numbers are up.”
Another lie? Already? Funny you don’t cite any evidence.
Trump has been going underwater in nearly every measure, even in red states. Trump’s approval rating is underwater. 54% percent of Americans disapprove of Trump. His handling of the economy is even worse.
“Hunter has been pardoned. Further he has nothing left to sell but his art and that sucks.
No one cares about Hunter”
Turley does. Finding out that he’s been disbarred will provide the Professor with a much needed distraction. Maybe not for you, but certainly for the gullible MAGAs on the blog.
Rabble:
Meanwhile, what can we compare those numbers against? Oh, how about… Democrat approval?
Hmm, I see from your trusted source, Google AI Overview, that Democrat approval is somewhere around 34%. Higher than earlier in the year, but still worse than Trump. For those playing at home, that means an approximate 66% disprove of the Democrat party!
Meanwhile, only 29% of polled Democrats are proud of their party, as compared to a Pew poll from October of 54% for Republicans!
Huh, seems animosity in government overall is down, but one side is still much more favorable than the other.
What you have is a lie by omission, or obfuscation, X. You present only one small bit of the actual full story, because it makes you look smart.
““Trump’s poll numbers are up.”
Another lie? Already? Funny you don’t cite any evidence.”
12/7/2025 – 43%
12/12/2025 – 47%
Rassmussen – the only daily tracking poll.
“Trump has been going underwater”
As has every president in the 21st century at this point in their term.
Trump’s approval is higher than Bush’s and Obama’s at this point in their 2nd term,
and higher than Biden’;s at this point in his first.
Significantly higher.
Trump has been below 50% since late october.
He MIGHT even continue to trend SLOWLY down for much of the rest of his presidency – but that is NORMAL.
No president in the 21st century has been “above water” for more than 1/8 of their term.
As to issues – Trump is still WAY above Democrats on most issues.
“Turley does. Finding out that he’s been disbarred will provide the Professor with a much needed distraction. ”
I doubt it will rate a footnote for Turley or maybe a mention in an article on something else.
It is near certain that I get more information from the MAGAverse than you.
They have not noticed. They do not cae.
Hunter will likely get mentioned on this blog on occasion – in the same way the Collusion delusion is.
Comments such as – John Eastman was NOT disbarred, but Hunter Biden was.
Or when you rant idiotically about disbarring Halligan or Bondi
Rassmussen has been known to hold a huge, strong right tilt towards Republicans.
According to The Economist, Trump has always remained below Trump through the typical post-election drop off both in his first term and the second. In the second term Trump is below his first term disappointment.
https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker
Another, also not flattering view:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/trump-approval-ratings-nate-silver-bulletin
Going up from a record low isn’t something to brag about, particularly when he is still below where Biden was in the same time frame in his Presidency.
all the bad news Trump is getting?
Another lie? Already? Funny you don’t cite any evidence.