Last year, I wrote a column expressing concerns over the move to release the Epstein files en masse, including grand jury material. The files include a wide range of tangential figures and unsupported allegations common to criminal investigations. Politicians eager to capitalize on the scandal would likely show little concern for the underlying facts in “outing” names and repeating unproven allegations.
That fear was realized this week with the chest-pounding speech of Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Cal.) on the House floor in which he took credit for outing six “wealthy, powerful men” who he suggested were actively shielded by the DOJ from public exposure. After the DOJ unredacted the names at his request, he read them on the floor. It turns out that four have nothing to do with Epstein.
Had Khanna made these comments outside of the House floor, he would be looking at four defamation lawsuits. However, Khanna knew the men could not sue him because of the immunity afforded to him under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause.
Khanna has been clearly positioning himself for a 2028 presidential run by pandering to the far left of his party. That includes his support for a wealth tax that has already reportedly led to a trillion dollars leaving the state and could harm his own Silicon Valley constituents.
The Epstein files offer an easy platform for another “Spartacus moment” for politicians, who portray themselves as public avengers. That was evident on the House floor as Khanna took credit for exposing these six men. It would turn out to be another Rep. Jasmine Crockett disaster where a gotcha moment became a spectacular face-planting.
Khanna portrayed himself and Rep. Thomas Massie (R., KY) as ferreting out the names of the “wealthy, powerful men” whom the Trump Administration has fought to conceal. The Justice Department had previously agreed to let any members review the unredacted material.
I have spoken with members who were part of the conference on the petition to force the release of these documents. They have told me that Massie, Khanna, and Marjorie Taylor Greene opposed repeated efforts to amend the petition to allow for greater resources and protection in the review of the millions of documents to avoid this danger.
In the conference, their colleagues specifically raised the danger of the release of entirely innocent names like the ones released by Khanna on the floor. They dismissed the danger and refused to amend the petition to avoid this type of error. (Indeed, in the hearing with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Rep. Brad Knott, R-N.C., makes reference to that failed effort to give the staff and resources to avoid the release of names with no connection to the underling criminal conduct).
The media, again, eagerly spread the false claim of six men “likely incriminated” in the Epstein scandal.
Khanna congratulated himself and his colleague for discovering the cover-up:
“Why did it take Thomas Massie and me going to the Justice Department to get these six men’s identities to become public? And if we found six men that they were hiding in two hours, imagine how many men they are covering up for in those 3 million files.”
There is another possible explanation. Four of these men have little or nothing to do with Epstein.
One of the names was previously connected to Epstein in public files. That is Les Wexner. Another, Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, was the head of a Dubai logistics company called DP World.
However, the other four were just photos used in a photo lineup. In other words, they were just random individuals used by the police to fill out a lineup. The Justice Department responded to Khanna’s public demonstration by declaring that
“Rep Ro Khanna and Rep Thomas Massie forced the unmasking of completely random people selected years ago for an FBI lineup – men and women. These individuals have NOTHING to do with Epstein or Maxwell,” the spokesperson told the Guardian…”
What is curious is that Khanna blamed the Justice Department for his going to the floor to out the men as suspected wealthy and powerful predators. However, Massie admitted that he previously raised the possibility that the men were just used randomly in a line up. Both seemed to put the onus on the Justice Department to protect them from their own folly.
Khanna took no responsibility for his aggrandizing performance on the floor. He blamed the Justice Department in failing “to provide any explanation for their arbitrary redactions in violation of the law and then unredacted them without explaining the context that Massie and I had asked for.”
There is a reason why Khanna did not feel any need to wait to check on these names. It is the same reason why Crockett failed to do so. They are protected under the Speech and Debate Clause, giving them immunity for statements made on the House floor.
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, they must show actual knowledge or reckless disregard of the alleged falsity. Obviously, truth remains a defense. Under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases, the Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.”
However, some of these men are not public figures and could sue under the lower standard of reasonableness. Yet, they are still barred from doing so by Khanna’s immunity.
These men could also sue for false light. I have previously discussed such claims in relation to the Epstein files.
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.
Once again, Khanna’s self-described courageous moment in disclosing these six names was done carefully to avoid any threat to himself. He was careful to make the comments on the House floor, knowing that he cannot be sued under his constitutional immunity.
These four men are left with little recourse in the face of absolute immunity and the utter lack of decency by a member. Ironically, in denouncing how “wealthy powerful men” are protected in a two-tiered legal system, Khanna pulled the ultimate powerplay — defaming four individuals with little concern of accountability. Ironically, Khanna succeeded in showing the ultimate example of the impunity enjoyed by “wealthy, powerful men.”
Khanna needs to be exposed for enriching himself while a public servant
This is why the Founding Fathers endorsed Dueling.
This behavior should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the shameless antics of Khanna: he is a low-life PHONY. A FAKE. A FRAUD and generally an imbecile. He does not deserve his position in life by any stretch of the imagination.
I think you meant to write “Trump” but because you have TDS you inserted Ro Khanna’s name. Repeatedly.
Well, well, well…Professor Turley, running cover for the Israeli asset and his Zionist cronies, eh? You do that quite a bit. Why is that? Anyway, Ian Carroll and team built an AI model to analyze the Epstein files. Supposedly it’s currently in Beta mode. https://app.thewebb.io The pedo perps who committed these sick crimes in the name of advancing Zionist interested need to be prosecuted. Israel needs to be “defunded.”
For the reason that the admin of this site is working, no uncertainty very quickly it will be renowned, due to its quality contents.
Here’s what I think about Khanna and Massie with the Epstein files.
They are a distraction from the present issues of today to reflect on criminal abuses made in the past in yet another much to do about crimes that will never be prosecuted in a court of law.
ENTERTAINMENT
Our country has bigger fish to fry at the moment with the monumental task of deporting 30 Million illegal aliens, fighting for the value of the dollar on the world stage, keeping our enemies in check and making our country safe and stable for OUR citizens. If not go dig up some bodies, get a piece of jerky and test it, DNA testing, video… go get some proof that is hard evidence. Unfortunately, emails and hearsay are not going anywhere.
It’s just another Chit show, Trump is right again!
Trump campaigned on full disclosure and transparency on the Epstein files. He LIED. He promised, in interviews, to allow full disclosure of everything other than the names of the survivors and victims. He LIED. This is the largest child sex trafficking scandal in recent history, and it directly involves Trump, members of Congress, and very wealthy and powerful men around the world, including royalty. MTG recently commented that Trump told her that he’d stop disclosure of the names of the men involved, because it would hurt his “friends”. So, despite the Epstein Transparency Act, Pammie Jo and Kashyip Patel have done everything possible to deflect, distract and lie about complete disclosure of the co-conspirators, all while allowing release of nude photos of underage girls, failing to redact their names and redacting the names of the wealthy and powerful, including that Emeriti Sheikh who was excited about the “torture video” and who is working a deal right now with Trump. Yeah, that’s why MAGA media is trying to downplay the Epstein Scandal. We don’t know what’s all in there about Trump, other than he, Melania and MAL are mentioned several thousand times. Trump has tried to lie about his involvement with Epstein-it’s not working.
The American people DO CARE about these women who were abused as children. The American people WANT transparency. The American people are fed up with the wealthy and well-connected getting away with committing crimes, especially this one that involves abuse of children. That’s why most Americans wanted the Epstein Transparency Act to be signed into law. That law requires disclosure of the men who committed these crimes against children. Now, we expect the “Department of Justice” tp actually DO justice–comply with federal law and at least disclose the names and let the American people judge how important the information is.
And, NO–rounding up mostly peaceful migrants who came here to work and make a better life for themselves is not “bigger fish to fry”. Most Americans oppose what ICE is doing. Trump has done NONE of the things you claim–he has alienated our trading partners and allies, he hasn’t “kept our enemies in check”, and he has destabilized our economy and justice systems seeking revenge on his perceived enemies. No amount of lying about the economy being better is working–polls show that Americans KNOW they were better off under Biden and that Biden was a better president.
You say that “emails and hearsay are not going anywhere”. You are wrong. The survivors want and deserve vindication, which can only happen with disclosure and accountability, and the American people support them. They want the world to know who the people are who hurt them when they were young and vulnerable and easily manipulated into having their innocence stolen, and so do the majority of the American people of all political persuasions. There are hundreds of them–maybe thousands of them, some as young as 9 years old. At least in Europe and elsewhere, some of these men have paid the price–Prince Andrew has been stripped of his royal title and perks. Trump is doing everything possible tp prevent disclosure and accountability from happening here. Lutnick boldface lied about his involvement with Epstein, yet he is still Commerce Secretary. The list goes on. Trump has never been “right” about anything.
Baloney.
More like phony baloney …
Silly
Keith Ellison’s name IS in the Epstein List as published in the London Daily Mail. I sent a noticeable amount of time in the wee hours this morning reading it.
Pope John Paul II and Her Majesty ate there too. I’m not not any of my friends.
Khanna can’t be sued for this, but his opponents can bash it over his head in the 2028 campaign. And he will have A LOT of opponents for the Democratic nomination. The contest is wide open, with no real front-runner (I mean, Kamala Harris, really??)
….and the Impunity of “Wealthy, Powerful PEOPLE”
Women fit this category too. Nancy Pigalosi the first one that comes to mind.
I don’t care anymore. 😏 the promise mention is a worth a read.
. ^^^^ Hutchinson v. Proxmire mentioned NOT promise
The left ran for legalized Marijuana as 1st on their list.
You censor, Darren. It’s true, the United States doesn’t like immigration because it’s costly. It’s true, the US doesn’t like crime. It’s costly. All the awful things you’ve ever thought are true. It had to be proved. ☺
🌲
Khanna & Massie are both serial grandstanders & frauds.
Whilst he claims to be for prohibiting members of Congress and their families from trading stocks, his own certifiable actions shows he has no problem likely becoming involved in insider trading himself.
For instance, From 2020-2025, Khanna’s trades show consistently high frequency, with spikes like 4,753 in one recent year and ongoing batches into December 2025 (e.g., multiple $1K-$50K buys).
A New York Times analysis flagged 149 potential conflicts from trades in companies under committee scrutiny. Total trades exceed 14,000 since late 2020 per trackers, mostly purchases in tech/finance like Alphabet, Microsoft.
Matter of fact, Khanna ranks among Congress’s top traders, with Capitol Trades listing over 12,000 pages of disclosures (thousands of trades) since late 2020, totaling $263 million in volume.
If you actually look at the history of his wife/families trading, you’ll notice very little, if any, trading before he entered Congress in 2016.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
And?
If I go to China, will I be Chinese?
If I go to India, will I be Indian?
If George Washington goes to India, will he be Mahatma Gandhi?
Under Hutchinson v. Proxmire, 443 U.S. 111 the floor of the Congress is narrowly defined. Senator Proxmire was held responsible for defamation in newsletters and press releases.
. Worth reading…
Slander and libel are unconstitutional violations of the manifest freedoms of speech and press.
No judge or court has any power to amend the Constitution.
___________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;….
This is not true. The constitution nowhere specifies that the speech must take place on the floor of Congress, and the courts, including in Hutchinson, have clearly held that it need not take place there. For instance staff members have the same immunity as their employers, even though obviously they can’t speak on the floor of either house.
Hutchinson says that what matters is NOT the location but whether the speech is part of the legislative process. Communication with other congressmen or their staffers, no matter where it takes place, is part of that process. Informing the general public is not, because the general public don’t vote on legislation. But by the court’s own reasoning, if a member or staffer communicated with the public and asked them to lobby their congressmen to vote for or against some measure, then that press release or tweet would be a legislative act, and thus protected.
Also, once something has been said on the floor of Congress, everyone has the right to report on it. The first amendment protects the right to report on what happens in Congress. So even Khanna’s tweet would be protected. As Proxmire would have been had he first said what he did in the senate, and then informed the public of what he had said.
It would not surprise me if these “Six Wealthy Men” choose to make six wealthy donations to Mr Khanna’s political foes in his next election cycle.
Four of them aren’t wealthy, and probably won’t be throwing money as a futile gesture against the man who defamed them.
Ro Khanna, the fraud that keeps on giving…
Sounds like a boxed Rice dinner, “Ro Khanna that San Francisco Treat”, cooks in minutes and goes well with Chicken.
Come on, we all know that these two guys are doing it for the victims s/.
No. They’re doing it for the DNC AND Gavin Newsum and Kamala.