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.”
Washington warned that liberty depends on the character and habits of the people. Garfield said Congress reflects the character the people tolerate. Reagan reminded us freedom is only one generation away from extinction.
Different centuries. Same warning.
Maybe the deeper issue isn’t just what gets said on the House or Senate floor. Maybe it’s what kind of civic culture keeps sending performers instead of statesmen.
We’ve been getting this warning every hundred years. We probably shouldn’t wait another sixty to take it seriously.
I bet Washington’s slaves thought highly of that opinion.
And Ro’s low IQ RINO friends like Madge Green and Hillbilly Massie just go along for the ride like an oblivious Jethro. Idiots.
MTG and Massie are not RINOs. They are MORE MAGA than Trump.
Nor should republicans want a party that agrees on everything.
Come on Man. Dems don’t need NO STINKIN FACTS when it comes to Bad White Boyzzzzz!!!! They are all the same to Ro!
It is no surprise that a Democrat would engage in this type of conduct. The average Dem cares only about power and the next election. He or she has little concern for constituents or the state represented. This is obvious each week when the Dems define a new “term” to apply to opposing political figures especcially if one of them is president of the United States. I can’t think of a single thing Democrats have offered to positiveliy improve life in our country other than demeaning the reputation of someone with differing political views.
Why anyone would give even a single word uttered by a democrat and credibility at this time is beyond comprehension. When was the last time that anything uttered by a democrat had any proximity to truth? There is a function on my Corel graphics software labeled “invert” which will switch a black and white image into its negative values so that all that was white is now black and all black is now white. I think such a function would be so helpful in that when a democrat says something, we just switch on the function and what was spoken by a democrat is inverted from their lies to the truth.
I’m fine with legislative immunity. It protects the institution.
But if you can say something on the floor that would normally get you sued, and the person harmed can’t go to court, there should at least be a rule requiring a public correction on that same floor.
Same platform. Same volume. Clear the name.
Immunity without restoration feels one sided.
There also has to be some constraint to your then repeating defamation in social media or to the press.
And there should be ethics committee discipline for defamation on the floor
Agreed that ethics discipline has a role. But relying solely on internal discipline can be inconsistent, since members are judging their own colleagues. That’s why I think restoration should not depend on discretionary ethics action. If a statement made under immunity is shown to be false, the correction should be automatic.
Discipline is one question. Clearing the innocent party’s name is another. Same platform. Same visibility. Restore the record.
Massie said he asked DoJ for an explanation of the redaction and raised the possibility that the four were in a lineup. Why didn’t DoJ answer?
Does Massie have that in writing? Delivered to whom, date and time? What’s the wait time, 24 hours? No caution? No expectation of restraint?
Because DOJ can not perform an incredibly complex task at internet speed.
Massie wrote the law, and the law is badly written – though there is no way to fix its unconstitutionality.
He and Khana are responsible here.
I generally like Massie. But that does not make him always right.
Trump is not always right either.
Trump should not have gone after MTG and he should not be going after Massie.
Every name in the files should already have been researched and cross-linked as a simple matter of course.
Filter out dictionary words, punctuation, digits, symbols and what is left is mostly going to be names from which an index of which names appear in which files is compiled. That takes all of 20 minutes by a data analyst for all the Trump-Epstein files in FBI possession.
Then search those names which appear least – 1, 2 mentions – for surrounding context. 1000 names per agent per week to read the surrounding context and create a link from the name to a summary.
Work up the name frequency list and, in 30 days, with 100 agents assigned it’s likely that 80% of the barely involved people have summaries. Another month and the remaining 20% have a fair amount of context.
When an interaction is between two people, they share the same context link. Back to the data analyst and a method of counting shared links will show connections between people. More connections, flag for more intense investigation.
The FBI should have all of this already created for any volume of files for any area of investigation and would have been part of the file intake process.
Stop making excuses when the FBI has been told to foot drag and muddy the waters.
I wonder if these wealthy individuals might be able to arrange some physical mishap for Mr. Khanna? I sure as hell would!
Cast the Trump administration in the worst possible way(s) and if there happens to be some innocent collateral damage, that’s just the cost of “getting Trump”.
Maybe I am giving the DOJ too much credit but one would wonder if the DOJ simply released those photos knowing someone would likely scoop them up and run with them with no due diligence performed. If they did then I congratulate the DOJ. When you drop a little bait in the water, you never really know what might latch on. If the pool is full of fairly stupid bottom dwelling scum suckers, then one might assume the scum suckers never thought they were the target and not the photos. It’s kind of fun to watch them flop around on the ground or wiggle on the hook.
That occurred to me, too. Watching idiots step on a rake is always hilarious.
“one would wonder if the DOJ simply released those photos knowing someone would likely scoop them up and run with them with no due diligence performed”
That seems to be what they have done with the list (see my later post)
That would be obstruction of justice on the part of the FBI.
Professor Turley writes, “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.”
My money is on just plain stupid.
Can the immunity for the house floor be challenged when the information is so slanderous and is known to be false and unconsionable; the evidence in part may be that Ro Khana ONLY mentioned it on the house floor, showing some knowledge, but using the floor to attack these men with impunity.
No
It is also going to be hard to challenge if the defamation is NOT on the floor of congress – the protection is broad,
but it is not unlimited.
I think repeating it OUTSIDE of congress AFTER it has been proven slanderous, is likely unprotected.
Some years ago I took notice of Khanna who sounded like a more intellectually honest, more moderate Dem. But in the last few years he clearly jumped the shark, and I now see him as just another far left opportunist.
Khanna didn’t jump the shark; apparently he is a shark.
The shark as the ever present and awake carnivorous consumer producing nothing except bits of meat dropped from its mouth for the lowly Remora to eat in the food chain. The shark eating other non-productive carnivorous creatures thinning out the oceans populations.
Khanna is no shark.
#MassieKhanna2026 its our only hope to take back our country from the evil invaders.
you mean the wealth men who fund the Democrats?
no bigger hypocrite than a Democrat
I hate Hypocrites!
However, Khanna is NOT immune from House censure, is he?
House censure is nothing but a slap on the wrist and could take years to accomplish. Meanwhile he climbs up the political ladder.
As if, badge of honor for the riff-raff. Like Walz, leading the troops of whistling granny zombies.
I do understand they care. It’s h€ll if men are marrying men 😉. Yay, Ro Khanna for the slander!
Why would 4 wealthy men appear in a police lineup?
Yes, but the suggestion is it was a compsite picture. Explanation would help.
Turley– “the utter lack of decency by a member [of Congress].
That seems to be a problem with a number of them.
Californian House Rep. Ro Khanna up for re-election
Rep. Ro Khanna
California CA-17 House 2026
Representative for California’s 17th District
Khanna is the representative for California’s 17th congressional district (view map) and is a Democrat. He has served since Jan. 3, 2017.
Khanna is next up for reelection in 2026 and serves until Jan. 3, 2027. He is 49 years old.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ro_khanna/412684