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.”
Dear Prof Turley,
All’s well that ends well. It appears, pending further review, the ‘four random line-up’ men in the redacted release of DoJ Epstein files had nothing to do with Epstein. .. which begs the question why were they ‘redacted’ in the first place?
Apparently, they, at least, have been exonerated. Like Joe Rogan, Jon Stewart and Vladimir Putin, who were also listed in the files .. . I’m sure they’re happy to have their names cleared!
Evidently, Epstein knew a lot of wealthy, powerful men.
As I understand the Epstein Transparency Act, the law requires the release of all DoJ Epstein files, including DoJ deliberations, going back to the beginning time, sans ‘victims’ identity. .. if that means anything.
note. Assuming the DoJ has a list of ‘victims’, it shouldn’t be too difficult to devise a program to redact their identities and release all of DoJ’s Epstein files as required by law.. . I bet Elon’s GROK could do it in his spare time.
*in any case, random people listed in the DoJ Epstein files shouldn’t be worried about their *release* as required by law . .. on the contrary, “Ironically, Khanna succeeded in showing the ultimate example of the impunity enjoyed by “wealthy, powerful men.””
“which begs the question why were they ‘redacted’ in the first place?”
A pesky thing called the 4th amendment.
Why were the names of the victims not redacted?
Is that the Fourth Amendment also?
Do you really think that was deliberate ?
I don’t understand. The truth, as they say, has set them free.
*fwiw, the Epstein Transparency Act is ‘the law’ .. . and, afaik, has not been ruled ‘unconstitutional’.
The Epstain Transparency Act was blatantly unconstitutional from the start – but we had no Jack Welsh to stand up before politicians sharpening their knices are Hard MAGA demanded what they expected would be the death knell for the deep state and left wing nuts glommed onto the Epstain files as their latest ultra long shot to “get Trump”.
What have you gotten from this ?
A long long long list of guilt by association.
A few people who clearly engaged in yucky conduct,
But for the most part no means of distinguishing between actual pedos and just the rich friends of a rich person or the less rich freinds of a rich person, or people who wanted something from epstain – besides kiddie sex – because esptain did not become a billionaire by functioning as pimp for the powerful. He did so by delivering to other rich and powerful people what they wanted. His ties to Mosad and even CIA are more strongly established than ever explaining why he was so hard to prosecute.
You can like or dislike Epstain – but being a pimp for the powerful was NOT the primary reason people associated with him.
“esptain did not become a billionaire by functioning as pimp for the powerful.”
That’s exactly how. He extorted those he pimped for. That’s where the money came from. It’s why audio/visual recordings were made and, apparently, disposed of, to ensure a supply of money.
Given the reactions in other nations, it’s clear they don’t have the same tolerance for the sexual violation of minors that the Republican in America appear to.
This is a bizarre fantasy, that has never had a shred of evidence for it.
Epstain was into many things – including arms dealing. But mostly he was a power broker.
Sexual services were part of the game – they were NOT his revenue stream.
That does not make what he was doing moral.
“He extorted those he pimped for. That’s where the money came from.”
Which begs what to me is a very crucial question. Was the objective of is extortion merely personal enrichment? It seems to me that he was already fairly wealthy before enticing other influencers into depraved behavior became normal for him. Or was he working on a broader agenda, with broader beneficiaries?
It appears, pending further review, the ‘four random line-up’ men in the redacted release of DoJ Epstein files had nothing to do with Epstein. .. which begs the question why were they ‘redacted’ in the first place?
Huh?! That makes no sense. You seem not to understand the word “redacted”! If you don’t understand a word, don’t try to use it in conversation; you’ll only embarrass yourself.
Trump is a kiddy diddler and we need all the files so the MAGAs will finally believe it.
If DOJ had anything on Trump – Biden and Obama would have released is – Biden especially.
if DOJ had anything on Trump – Republicans would have killed the Epstain Transparency Act.
And if they could not have – Trump would have cited the 4th amendment and vetoed it.
Those on the Far right – who have been pushing this long before the loony left embraced it, will never beleive everything has been released.
Those of you on the looney left are free to join them.
Biden would not have released it because it was clear that any, true, accusation against Trump was merely riling up Trump’s base. They would, and did, ignore Trump’s criminal dealings and that Trump had been closely associated with Epstein for years. They would, as Trump did, call every accusation a hoax.
Russia released documents related to Hillary’s server just days after Trump made a public request for Russia to do so. Trump campaign leaders were meeting with Russians and the Russians were making calls to the Trump campaign. Trump’s son said that the Trump organization was getting all the funding they needed from Russians.
“Biden would not have released it because it was clear that any, true, accusation against Trump was merely riling up Trump’s base. ”
Trumps “base” is at best 30% of the electorate.
Further, I know Democrats fail to grasp this but actually PROVEABLE allegations would have destroyed Trumps support – even amoung his base.
Absolutely the lawfare against Trump backfired – because Democrats failed to make a credible case.
Getting a conviction in far left Manhattan with a biased judge and based on crimes that were not even charged,
is not the same as convincing even moderates in this country.
It too far more than Trump’s base to win in 2024.
Any provable consequential crime would have tanked Trump.
“They would, and did, ignore Trump’s criminal dealings”
Because political allegations are not crimes.
The left made myriads of baseless allegations of crimes about Trump.
You cried wolf too many times – that is your problem.
You burned your credibility – not with Trump’s base – they never decided an election
but with moderates.
When you lie all the time people stop beleiving you.
“Trump had been closely associated with Epstein for years.”
Again you have not proven even that.
You have no evidence of a link between Trump and epstin more significant than any other public figure in NY in the late 20th century.
No trips to Epstain island, some pictures at Public Events and or society parties, and what was it a bit racy a birthday card.
“They would, as Trump did, call every accusation a hoax.”
Correct – do you have an accusation that is more than guilt by association ?
Regardless, you failed to convince MODERATES – you had no hope of convincing anyone but left wing nut true beleivers.
“Russia released documents related to Hillary’s server just days after Trump made a public request for Russia to do so.”
Still false.
First Trump asked Russia to release documents from CLINTONS basement bathroom email server – proving she violated the espionage act.
The emails released were from the DNC server proving that the DNC sabotaged the Sanders campaign.
Next while the DNC was hacked by someone using Russian hacking tools – those tools are avaible to pretty much every hacker in the world.
And almost all fancybear and cozybear hack come from somewhere OTHER than russia.
Next Crowdstrike – the only people to review the servers testified before the senate that it is NEVER possible to know the source of a hack.
VIPS proved the “hack” was actually a leak – an inside job, the files were transfered by USB and could not have been transfered over any trans atlantic links.
Finally the claim that the hack was by Guicifer 2.0 fell apart when he could not provide Mueller any evidence of having fils that were not public BEFORE the DNC hack
There is a reason this collusion delusion stuff is a hoax.
You can not even keep your claims straight.
“Trump campaign leaders were meeting with Russians”
Nope – no evidence at all.
There were attempts to honeypot very minor Trump officials by people associated with US and British intelligence,
but not russia.
“the Russians were making calls to the Trump campaign.”
Nope – the alpha bank stuff was another hoax that did not hold up.
“Trump’s son said that the Trump organization was getting all the funding they needed from Russians.”
Nope.
And you wonder why no one beleives you ?
“Trump is a kiddy diddler and we need all the files so the MAGAs will finally believe it.”
They will gouge their eyes out before they believe it.
Provide proof and we will so.
Real proof, not hoaxes like the steele dossier.
You burned your trust with the american people – it is not just MAGA that does not beleive you – or Harris would have won.
“ 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.”
There is a reason alright. Trump’s DOJ was stalling the release of the files to redact any mention of him or his closest “friends”.
Plus Trump’s DOJ is not the most competent it has ever been, especially under Bondi.
Let’s not forget that it was MAGA that wanted the files released. It was MAGA that wants to hold the billionaires and the influential who rubbed elbows with Epstein. MAGA brought this mess upon Trump after pandering to them incessantly to keep their strident support
They wanted it. MTG wanted it. Kash Patel wanted it. Blanche, Bingino, Massie, Elon, etc.
“There is a reason alright. Trump’s DOJ was stalling the release of the files to redact any mention of him or his closest “friends”.”
Releasing 3million documents to comply with a law that provided only 30 days an no resources to properly vet those document is not stalling.
Except to a wing nut such as yourself.
“Plus Trump’s DOJ is not the most competent it has ever been, especially under Bondi.”
He managende to get 3M documents released in an impossibly short time with no additional resources with only a few mistakes.
That seems extremely competent.
Do you think Obama or Biden could have ?
Has there ever been a public release of anything this large ? Or over this short a time ?
“Let’s not forget that it was MAGA that wanted the files released. It was MAGA that wants to hold the billionaires and the influential who rubbed elbows with Epstein.”
Absolutely – how does if feel to be a full fledged member of the Qanon conspiracy ?
Wel I guess you can not be a full member – they have been right about pizza gate and the deep state which was the ACTUAL MAGA target – no billionaires. And you were wrong about that. Ties between Epstain and the Mossad and CIA have been established.
“MAGA brought this mess upon Trump after pandering to them incessantly to keep their strident support”
But there is little in the Epstain files “about Trump” except:
Evidence of building animus between Epstain and Trump since early 2000’s
Evidence that Trump reported Epstain to the police in the early 2000’s
Evidence that – particularly after being elected in 2016 left wing nuts made anonymous tips to DOJ regarding Trump that never proved credible.
Pretty close to a repeat of the collusion delusion nonsense.
You are free to hope that some future release will prove different – just as you can hope the pee tape will magically materialize or the secret zoonotic link between Covid and the wet markets will finally be found.
But these things are not happening.
And sane people know it.
“They wanted it. MTG wanted it. Kash Patel wanted it. Blanche, Bingino, Massie, Elon, etc.”
Yup – long before you.
And THEY got alot of what they wanted.
Qanon is now MORE credible.
deep state links to Epstain are established.
some deep state pedofiles have been exposed.
myriads of prominent democrats and antitrump voices have been tied to epstain.
Yes, there are a handful of republicans – to, but not all that many,
and with very few exceptions all you have accomplished is to WEAKEN the significance of associating with Epstain.
While inarguably SOME people had relationships with Epstain that had something to do with sex trafficking,
those numbers are few, Epstain was rich because he was a deep state power broker. He could get things done for people and governments.
We have always tolerated a bit of wandering outside the law among those who can be counted on to do the country favors.
You want to stop that – fine I am all for that.
But you were never getting Trump and you should have known that.
And you were always going to tie more of your own to epstain than those you hate.
Once again, Johnathan did a masterful job unpacking the elements of speech about Khanna’s Floor performance. I’d like to focus on the place in the suitcase where Rep. Brad Knott, R-S.C. brought up the mismatch between the millions of pages scope and time of task of the discharge petition, and efforts to harness the resources General Bondi needed to get it executed. This is a head on collision between Management 101 and gotcha politics. Every one of us as voters, managers or managees knows that it is wrong to be set up for failure. It is a cardinal sin to assign by-name responsibility without conferring sufficient authority to execute the responsibility assigned. Failure is for the account of the assignor, not the assignee. Both politiical parties need to heed that we hold the power of damnation for the sin of setting up for failure at the ballot box. It’s a kitchen table issue that we see in our daily lives.
Bloated isn’t “masterful.”
“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.”
These are called “delaying tactics.” Ask for infinite resources and claim it’s not enough.
More time, more money, no results.
This effort can be massively automated; think of the amount of material the NSA scans every single day, this is a drop in that bucket.
What came out of the DoJ on this is a smokescreen.
Mike,
absolutely.
But given this was unconstitutional from the start – why would wee expect anything lawful.
John, you keep saying that these revelations violate the 4th amendment, but I don’t see how. The 4th amendment addresses searches and seizures, not the publication of information.
You can not search and seize things willy nilly because they are private.
Most investigative records are NOT public because just getting a warrant to search and seize private information does not suddenly convert it to public information
I makes it possible for law enforement to use, and for prosecutors to use in a trial.
But until it is entered into evidence are a trial it is not public record.
We do not government using criminal processes to find legal but embarrassing information and then publicly shame us when they can not prosecute.
There is not one word in the fourth amendment about privacy, or about publication. You’re just inserting that into the amendment. The amendment simply has nothing to say about what may or may not be published. It has nothing to say about what is “a matter of public record”. Once the government has legitimately seized a document there’s nothing in the fourth amendment that would prevent it from publishing it. There are privacy laws that Congress has made, but those don’t override subsequent legislation that conflicts with them.
Really. It gets old, but the modern left is incapable of honesty. Stuff like this, or Obama and Hillary now saying immigration enforcement is necessary – they will literally tell any lie to gain power even when events of mere weeks contradict them (VA, MN). As always, their hubris and disregard for our intelligence is the biggest slap. Never voting dem again.
Obama was enforcing immigration laws, back when similar numbers of people were taken into custody by agents in blue windbreakers and not by paramilitary roid ragers. Number of American citizens shot by ICE in the face or in the back under Obama – 0.
James, just to be clear – Obama and Hillary were always SAYING immigration enforcement was necescary – in fact Obama was deporting up to 480,000 illegals a year – more than Trump in his first term and over half what Trump has manage in 2025.
Obama was nicknamed in immigrant law circles “the deporter in cheif”
What was different is Obama did not close the border therefore more got in than were deported.
Under Trump 47 we are losing NET 2M illegal immigrants/yr. More than Half through self deportation
@John
Yes, I know, please don’t be pedantic. They are counter to the party as it is currently constituted (and people should really be paying attention to that) and that they are saying it doesn’t mean they mean it. Again, look no further than the recent election in VA to witness their chicanery, it is gaslighting and narrative building to reclaim power and nothing more, after which, boot stomping resumes as though there was no pause. Anyone that still believes in a ‘moderate’ dem party is whistling in the dark or hasn’t paid attention to anything for at least 30 years.
Honestly: whatever a person may think of him personally: Trump is the first POTUS we have had in some time that doesn’t talk out of both sides of his mouth, and it infuriates the machine, even if what he says is at times is decidedly gauche.
James, not being pedantic.
One of the most critical things today is credibility.
The left has burned their own credibility.
They have done so by constant lies.
They have also done so by lying about their own past.
I heard Trump in the early 80’s at my brothers graduation from Lehigh University.
He is saying mostly the same tings today as then.
Biden, Obama, Pelosi, Schumer and a long long long list of democrats say the exact oposit of what they said in the past without any explanation or even admission that they have changed.
I CAUTIOUSLY Trust Tulsi Gabbard because she has ALWAYS shown integrity and when she has changed her views she has OWNED and EXPLAINED the change.
The american people are slowly learning an incredibly important lesson in credibility.
I can live with people I disagree with it power. I can trust them – maybe not to do what I want, but to do what they promised atleast.
But when people lie constantly – they should never have any public power. You can not trust liars.
That is not pedantic.
“Honestly: whatever a person may think of him personally: Trump is the first POTUS we have had in some time that doesn’t talk out of both sides of his mouth, and it infuriates the machine, even if what he says is at times is decidedly gauche.”
Correct, credibility is important.
0bama never deported that many. He was counting every time someone was turned back at the border as a “deportation”.
ICE and the Border Patrol probably did shoot people on his watch, just as all law enforcement agencies occasionally have to. But the big difference is that under 0bama ICE and Border Patrol agents never had to face violent thugs attacking them and trying to kill or injure them, so they never had to defend themselves from such people. That reduces the number of times they had to shoot someone, but probably not to zero.
Daniel 2:19-44 accurately predicted the 4 major “kingdoms” that would arise after Babylon when the 4th; described as divided rule with a disunited population, will be destroyed by god’s eternal kingdom, which will rule the earth. 200k daily abortions,sickness, war, & death ends at this event.-Rev.21:3-5!
Part of the law required that the Justice Department explain the categories of persons redacted, which did not include line-up participants. As for the outing of people with innocent relationships with Epstein, let them explain them. Donald Trump told the Palm Beach police chief in 2006 that “everybody” in New York and Palm Beach knew all about him, though he told the world for twenty years he didn’t know at the time.
So you are justifying unconstitutional conduct by obvious flaws int he law ?
Releasing the photos of people who were only used to fill a lineup with similar features to the subject is a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
People like YOU and several congressmen excopriatete Bondi at a hearing where she honestly was not at the top of her game – but YOURS were despicable, and even more so in hindsight.
You accused Bondi and DOJ of incompetence or malfeasance for redactions that turn out to be CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED.
And you do so despite having to do an impossible job, in an impossible timeframe with zero resources.
Sorry EB – despite her uncharacteristically unfocussed appearance before the house,
Bondi won this round – it is YOU with egg on your face.
There was nothing unconstitutional in Ro Khanna’s conduct though he could and should apologize to the men who were just used for a line-up. Redactions are nowhere in the Constitution, the Epstein Transparency Act was clear about what could and couldn’t be redacted. The DOJ gave us names and naked photos of victims and hid men who were clearly not victims. Let every name that wasn’t a victim be published and those with a good explanation like Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and line-up participants will soon be disassociated with Epstein.
EB – quit microparsing Trump’s words.
This is another round you lost. While it is probable that there were more reports to police than Just Trump,
It is clear that Trump was atleast partly responsible for Epstains 2008 prosecution.
But it is DOJ and LF law enforcement that gave Epstain the sweet heart deal – not Trump.
Further you do not report someone as a pimp to police if you are one of his johns.
You provided the most damning evidence that Trump has NEVER done anything inappropriate with underaged girls – because you ALWAYS draw attention to yourself when you report something to police. Even if the police do not look into you – which they likely will,
The defense ABSOLUTELY will target you.
And we have a CLEAR basis for all subsequent mentions of Trump by Epstain and why Epstain would lie.
Epstain blamed Trump for his 2008 imprisonment.
How is it possible to credit Trump for causing Epstein to be prosecuted in 2008 (the call to the Sheriff seems to be after his arrest) and accept his statements for 20 years that he knew nothing about Epstein’s activities? All we know for sure about Trump is that he lies about everything, And that there was a call to the FBI tip line about him getting oral sex from a 13 to 14-year-old girl. The call would have to be investigated to know whether it was true or not but the report to the FBI did happen.
He said that everyone knew in general that Epstein and Maxwell were up to no good. He did NOT say that everyone knew all about their crimes, because at that time NO one knew about them. You can’t know what you don’t know.
You’re minimizing what he said. He also Maxwell was the key and that she was a monster. In what way has Maxwell ever been accused of being a monster but for her recruitment and treatment of girls? Believe if you want that Trump didn’t screw young girls, he’s more of a silicone man IMHO, but to pretend he didn’t know is ridiculous.
If the Constitution shields members of Congress from liability for slander of private citizens on the House or Senate floor, maybe it’s time for a proposed constitutional amendment to void that protection. Even if it doesn’t get past Congress, at least it will expose for all to see the scoundrels who oppose it.
Another amendment? You believe that’s possible in 2026?
Vincente, amending the Constitution over this would do more harm than good. The Clause protects Congress from retaliation by the other branches.
This is better handled through rulemaking. Each chamber can set its own rules. If a floor statement is proven false, require a formal correction on the same floor, under similar conditions and with the same visibility.
Keep the shield. Restore the name.
Amending the constitution is impossible without massive bipartisan support. You need two thirds of each house; that already requires both parties to be cooperating. Then you need majorities in both houses of 38 different legislatures. Again, that’s not possible without both parties’ cooperation.
The big question that doesn’t add up here?
Over 30 years, where are the Florida police reports and Florida prosecutors? There were no reports of abuse by Florida authorities?
There should be tons of police reports and files from the State of Florida over 30 years.
I missed it. What is the big question?
There should be, but it’s amazing what wealth can buy.
Why would there be? How would they have known about it?
Something about the sheer number of “pages” of Epstein documents stinks. Millions released, millions held back. It looks like they’re trying to bury a buch of needles in a giant haystack.
Some powerful people and small nations are being actively protected. The rot is disgusting.
3 million pages stinks? Not enough, and it looks like they held millions. Got anything to substantiate that?
Your opinion stinks of conspiracy theory nonsense.
Anon is incoherent.
I said millions of pages released(including videos and pictures)
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-publishes-35-million-responsive-pages-compliance-epstein-files
I said millions of pages held back.
https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/how-many-jeffrey-epstein-files-unreleased-8-february-2026-7cd258
IN MY OPINION what stinks is the sheer volume. I doubt it takes that much data to document the crimes.
IN MY OPINION the mountain of documents could be a means to obscure the pertinent information.
At a minimum it buys time for bad actors to clean up or go AWOL.
At worst, the most important information is broken across multiple, non-adjacent documents and is not ever properly assembled.
IN MY OPINION there are some wealthy and powerful players being actively protected, including Mossad/Israel.
You are entitled to whatever personal opinion you like, however lame.
The volumen of documents is because a multi decade investigation into a figure like epstain with many allegations against him and others is going to produce millions of documents – 99% of which are meaningless.
The Esptain Transparency act REQUIRED releasing EVERYTHING – that is NOT DOJ trying to hide a needle in a haystack
Regardless this is the moder crowdsorce and AI era. In hours the internet can find obscure video of any politician saying the oposite of what they did 5 minuts ago – do you really think that you can hide a needle in a public haystack today ?
Whatever is in the documents released – we will all know of quickly – if we care.
If there is anything truly explosive – we will know whether we want to or not.
If there is anything that can be spun by either side and explosive – we will know whether we want to or not
“IN MY OPINION there are some wealthy and powerful players being actively protected, including Mossad/Israel.”
How about Putin or Russia.” We have many unfortunate players already accused of actions that compromised the US and benefited Russia. Maybe you never heard of Putin and Russia.
It is my understnading that Putin and Russia are conspicuously absent from the epstain files – but if you know differently please share.
John, there are many indirect links to the most powerful people in the US. Do you think indirect links that cannot be easily monitored are the only way for interaction to occur? Are our security personnel doing the best job possible?
My use of Putin / Russia is not to push those entities to the top or bottom of the list, but to demonstrate the world is a lot wider than others believe.
Anonymous says:
3 million pages stinks? Not enough, and it looks like they held millions. Got anything to substantiate that?
Your opinion stinks of conspiracy theory nonsense.
Thank you, Anonymous for stating the absolute idiocy in the complaints over the Epstein documents. Regardless of how Trump’s Justice Department handles this, they are getting killed by both Right and Left press. And also, the politicians of course!
Don’t release documents overnight? The Justice Department must be hiding something (Bondi protecting Trump)!
Kick millions of pages out the backdoor? Justice is being reckless with people’s lives!
Careful redactions? DoJ must be saving billionaires from embarrassment! (Trump did it!)
And the best part? President Biden’s Justice Department had all of these files for years, locked in a secret room and marked for destruction! As usual, the Democrats don’t seem to remember that part!
Yes, review of the documents is important, and the FBI/Justice should be going thru them looking for real life crime and evil doers. The victims deserve that much!
But everything else is just trying to find dirt on political opponents and I’m getting pretty tired of hearing about it. We have very serious issues that need addressing and some of the politicians can’t seem to get past Epstein!
They sloppily released 3M because that is the best they could do in the time available.
It is my understanding that that are atleast a million- possibly as many a 3M left,
but not because they are being held back but because they have not been redacted yet.
If you wish to beleive there is a conspiracy then you have to beleive that DOJ has the resources to review twice as many documents in the time it had AND that if it held back anything damning to Trump – it would not have leaked.
To release 3M documents means thousands of lawyers – not Blanche, and Bondi and Pirro, but carreer lawyers – mostly democrats and you have to beleive they went though 6M documents sorted out all that were harmful to Trump and no one leaked anything.
Sorry, didn’t happen.
The bedrock principles that define the American Justice system are:
Speedy trials as soon as humanly possible after a crime is alleged. That principle is based on the flaws of human memory. Maybe you remember fine details from what you did last month, but delayed justice years and decades later no only corrodes human memory.
Delayed confrontation and delayed indictments also allow unscrupulous prosecutors or witnesses to game the system. Prosecutors or witnesses can simply wait for material witnesses to die so they can create a better narrative.
Not minimizing harm to any victim, but why wait years or decades to confront suspects? That alone can result in huge injustices.
Good point
There is little doubt from the documents released so far why this has been so hard to prosecute.
Epstain was NOT just heavily involved with the rich and powerful but with govenrments and intelligence agencies.
Everyone with any power at all had reason to protect Epstain. because things he was doing that had nothing to do with sex trafficking – either would be embarrasing if exposed or where of sufficient use to them to not want him exposed.
Except on a massively larger scale this is little different from the police protecting a mafia capo turned informant.
it is heavily rumored that there were leaks that allowed the US to so easily capture Maduro – and that VP rodriguez might have sold him out.
To save her own skin – she was allegedly also involved in all the crimes.
The US uses and protects bad people all the time – when they are useful to us.
An awfull lot of Nazi’s came to the US where they worked for NASA or DOD.
There were 3 distinct interests in play in releasing the FBI’s info from the Epstein investigations.
1) The public and the survivors. They wanted those who broke federal law in engaging with sex traffickers identified.
In fairness to others who merely hung out socially with Epstein, only those ID’s as sexual predators in sworn affidavits from the victims were of interest.
2) The solacious, gossip-hungry media. They just wanted dirt on anyone for any reason. Protecting the innocent was not a major consideration.
3) Partisan politicians. They wanted dirt on the opposite party, and silence protecting the image of their party.
4) The guilty men who participated in stuff they thought they would get away with, and desperately wished to remain anonymous.
A good DOJ would have only chosen to serve 1) the public and the survivors who were denied justice. They would have only released names that were formally accused in sworn affidavits and depositions, along with the details of each accusation.
It’s that simple. But, Trump wouldn’t allow that. He’s not a public servant, and everyone knows he only serves the public when it aligns with his own personal gain.
Here’s the problem:
1) Congress passed a law demanding the immediate release of the files.
2) DoJ immediately began processing and redacting the victim names in the literally MILLIONS of documents.
3) Because that process takes time, the politicians and media immediately declared that Trump was hiding the documents and refusing to release them.
4) DoJ switches into warp speed to release the documents as quickly as possible leading to major errors in the redaction.
5) Politicians and media excoriate Trump for failing to redact the documents properly.
This is no different than the demands that ICE wear body cams. The Democrats demand ICE wear body cams, ICE agrees, then the Democrats demand that ICE not wear body cams because the body cams were showing the democrats’ brownshirts in a bad light.
“then the Democrats demand that ICE not wear body cams because the body cams were showing the democrats’ brownshirts in a bad light.”
Things that didn’t happen.
Yes, that did happen, exactly as John described it. The Dems have now turned on a dime and are opposed to bodycams.
Excellent, concise, and good analogy.
What is a good DOJ? If there was a good DOJ nowadays, who would comprise it, drawn from the current population of politicians and bureaucrats?
Annoymous – while your summer of interests is correct – it is not close to complete.
There are numerous other interests you missed – such at the deep state and interntional intelligence aparatus that want ANY ties – even good ones between thme and epstain burried and that is only ONE additional interests.
As to your claim regarding Trump – that is stupid.
Massie and Khana wrote the Esptain disclusre act – not Trump and DOJ
The act is fascially unconstitutional – 2 democrat judges were thwarting the release of DOJ epstain documents CORRECTLY on 4th amendment grounds. But they caved after the laws was passed – and no one was going to be the face on an appeal to the supreme court.
The responsibility for what was released and how falls entirely on congress.
It doesn’t matter that they got caught. Their supporters and most independents will never hear about it. They’re just scrolling through headlines. The point of this is to repeatedly say “Trump is hiding names in the Epstein files” over and over. It doesn’t matter if it’s true. Just keep repeating it. Take every opportunity to say Trump and Epstein together. “Trump’s name found in the Epstein files!” (forget that the mention is Trump talking to a Sheriff about how evil Epstein and Co are and thanking them for the prosecutions)
Sure, they’ll get caught lying once again, but it will be relegated to the 10th paragraph somewhere and no one will read about it. The mass of people will absorb the lie, and soon everyone will simply believe that Trump was one of Epstein’s clients and facts be damned.
Absent a photo of Trump in flagrante delecto with an underage girl,
the attacks on Trump will ultimately strengthen not weaken him.
We keep talking about the victimes, but the only way to actually prosecute is for the victims to come forward.
The files merely provide evidence to lend credibility to their allegations.
They do not for the most part form the basis for a standalone allegation of criminal conduct for ANYONE.
This has always been the problem.
The problem here goes deep into the conflict between “laws will be blindly and neutrally enforced” and giving exclusive power to prosecute. What if the prosecutor picks winners and losers? What if he lets criminal behavior off the hook?
We don’t federally have a check and balance on biased non-prosecution. In the 2008 federal Epstein investigation, there were affidavits sworn under oath as 1st hand accounts of sex trafficking underage girls. With agreement that these now grown-up women will testify in court, what more does the prosecutor need to put the case before a jury?
The age of the girls at the time of the offense is easy to prove. The identity of the perps is also not a matter of question. Let the defense wage their bs infowarfare in court. Let the jury decide who is telling the truth.
But Alex Acosta, working together with Alan Dershowitz and 2 other Epstein lawyers, came up with a “narrative” that jurors wouldn’t choose to believe the women’s recall of events…so why bother? This is the prosecutor and defendant conspiring to take justice out if the hands of a jury, and arrogate to themselves the definition of justice. In this case,
that meant those who clearly played significant roles in Epstein’s sex trafficking racket (Jean Luc Brunel, Ghislaine Maxwell) got off the hook, and all the men who “partied” (sexually interacted with underage girls) were given a pass.
Many states have a backstop against corrupt non-prosecution by local D.A.s — a State Prosecutor may step in and run the case from a more neutral vantage. Federally, we need such a backstop. One suggestion is to have the victims of the crime petition a Judge to appoint a non-conflicted Federal Prosecutor. Just having that backup system would deter most of the “discretionary” non-prosecution calls that are an insult to the victims of a federal crime.
First – Derschowitz did what Defense lawyers do – got the best possible outcome for their clients.
Start blaming defense attorneys for what they advocate for and you will end up with tyranny fast.
I have NEVER here attacked DEFENSE attorneys of any kind or even partisan PRIVATE attorneys going after Trump or Govenrment.
Prosecutors have a duty to justice. All other attorneys must do anything that serves their clients within the bounds of the rules professional conduct – and those need to give lawyers great freedom – EXCEPT prosecutors.
The scales of justice MUST favor the individual – not the govenrment.
“Better 10 guilty go free …
Blackstone.
But Prosuctors have a duty to do justice,
and Judges must do so IMPARTIALLY.
When either are biased they should recuse or they are fair game.
With respect to 2008 – it is an obvious travesty, and I am not trying to excuse it.
But it is also not surprising. It is increasingly clear epstain did not become a billionaire by pimping underage girls.
he was a billionare because he delivered to powerful, people interests, countries and intelligence agencies what they wanted.
Epstain got a sweet heart deal not because Gates and Clinton would be esposed as Pedo’s
But because nations clandestine activities might first be exposed and 2nd be hampered in the future.
Is that a good thing – no.
But do not pretend that protecting epstain was the exclusive domain of other wealthy pedos.
Epstain got a sweetheart deal because he was well connected completely independent of his sexual trafficking.
Chest pounding is what dominant Gorillas do to intimidate other Gorillas who would try to mate with female Gorillas. Pitched battles very seldom occur but what matters is the intimidation. The leader of the pack syndrome is alive and well in this man’s mind. He will protect his bananas from the marrow of his bones. The primitive remains but there’s no problem with all the rich guys in California who contribute to his campaign fund. The “they’re gonna put you all back in chains” and the rich are evil tactic has worked before so why not bring it out of the moth balls as a last resort. This reveals that they think the minorities are so stupid they will fall for it again. Some will fall for it again but thankfully the numbers are growing smaller in the nation Alas the King Kong jungle known as California still remains.
Gorillas? Wrong website. NatGeo is at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/
It applies within Darwin and Lamarck. One day they’ll realize it wasn’t an incline but a decline. 😏
So, Khanna and Massie demand to see unredacted files. DOJ provides them. They run to the floor to announce these six people without additional evidence, support, context of wrong doing. Then blames the DOJ for not providing the additional evidence, support, context of wrong doing? And doing it all the while under protection of the Speech and Debate Clause?
Oh look\, a new narrative about the epstein file. Of course this guy knows all about the files.
It is called the facts – not a narrative.
This is unsurprisingly the mess that occurs when you rush through an unconstitutional but popular law with an impossible scope and timeline.
Politicians are evil. To them agenda is more important than Truth. Decency is dead, a victim of political opportunism. The Law is a joke. A shield for the most corrupt among us. No longer are the practitioners of vile behavior accountable. Judges are the tyrants d’jour. It’s time to exercise the power granted us in the Declaration of Independence! It’s time for We The People to right the ship.
Before we jump to “all politicians are evil,” maybe we should ask a harder question.
What kind of incentives keep selecting these personalities?
What kind of civic culture rewards outrage over restraint?
Congress doesn’t create itself. It reflects what gets rewarded.
If we want something different, we probably need to look upstream.
Hard question? That’s not hard and has no bearing on the above article.
You should write children’s books.
Calling it irrelevant doesn’t make it so. Members respond to what gets rewarded. If spectacle gets rewarded, spectacle increases.
That’s systems thinking. Institutions reflect incentives. Incentives reflect culture. And culture reflects the citizens who select and reward these representatives in the first place.
That’s upstream.
Calling it irrelevant does it in fact make it so. Backing up, your hard question is irrelevant to the discussion. You’re playing word games, not with facts.
It’s not word games. It’s cause and effect. If certain behavior keeps appearing on the House floor, it’s fair to ask what incentives keep rewarding it. That’s not abstract. It’s how complex systems work.
You can focus on the incident. I’m looking at what keeps producing it.
. It just doesn’t work anymore when the pool is a selection of rabble elected by people without a capacity to self govern, rabble. The rabble is happy with rabble Khanna. Khanna should speak to his guru about ethics. 😏
I get the temptation. Six months ago I probably would’ve said the same thing. Calling everyone rabble feels accurate in the moment. It just doesn’t solve anything.
If the electorate lacks the capacity for self-government, that’s not a reason to give up on the system. It’s a signal that formation matters. Contempt freezes the problem. Building capacity fixes it.
. The problem is the rabble don’t want to build a capacity to self govern. They want to be rulers over rabble.
Perhaps 20% may want self government and have a capacity to learn and do that. That could be a region within the US boundaries. The rabble would just attack it.
It’s quite hopeless. Nice idea otherwise.
I can empathize with the despair. I have felt it too. I have spent nearly two decades studying civics. For a long time I thought more constitutional literacy would fix this. Programs like iCivics and Hillsdale do important work, but they mostly address knowledge.
What changed for me was not becoming smarter. It was applying a different lens. I was formally trained in systems thinking and process design, looking at outputs, inputs, incentives, and feedback loops. When I stepped back and viewed civic behavior the same way, it became clear these moments are not random. They are produced.
If the output keeps repeating, something upstream in the system is driving it. Knowledge alone does not produce self-governance. There is a gap in formation, in building citizens capable of disciplined engagement and self rule. When that infrastructure is thin, decline feels permanent. That explains the despair. It does not make it destiny.
Self-govern? As in anarchism? The pinnacle of Libertarianism where everyone does the “right” thing as long as that thing is exactly what the Libertarians want them to do to the advantage of the Libertarians?
Around 80,000,000, outraged by what they saw on Fox News voted to elect a guy who spouts rage on a nearly continuous basis. That should provide a sufficient research target.
If outrage on one network explains everything, then outrage on other networks must be irrelevant. I don’t believe it’s that simple.
Media ecosystems on all sides amplify anger because anger drives engagement. Engagement drives revenue and political energy.
That’s a systems issue, not a single-channel issue. If we only blame one outlet or one candidate, we miss the broader incentive structure that rewards rage across the spectrum.
“Politicians are evil.”
Some more than others.
Further most thinking in terms of good and evil except in the very narrowest of senses leads you in the wrong directions.
the road to h311 is paved with good intentions.
Every despot in history claimed to be a saviour from some great evil.
“To them agenda is more important than Truth.”
Some agendas are good some are not
“Decency is dead”
That happened long ago.
“a victim of political opportunism.”
Again long ago.
“The Law is a joke.”
Too often.
“A shield for the most corrupt among us. No longer are the practitioners of vile behavior accountable.”
That is more complex – the protections that ordinary people MUST have from a powerful govenrment will always prove even more beneficial to the rich and poweful. That is unaviodable. do not jump to tyranny to get the rich and powerfu
Regardless, whatever the law is – there will ALWAYS be people trying to game it.
That is a cost to the rule of law.
“Judges are the tyrants d’jour.”
Because they are acting outside the law.
” It’s time to exercise the power granted us in the Declaration of Independence! It’s time for We The People to right the ship.”
You do that at the voting booth.
Only after that has NOT worked for a long time,
do you take up arms.
I agree with much of what you’re saying. Thinking in pure good and evil categories usually leads to bad policy. And you’re right that protections meant to shield ordinary citizens from government power will often benefit the wealthy and powerful even more. That’s a cost of having strong structural safeguards.
And yes, there will always be people trying to game the law. That is the price of the rule of law.
Where I think the conversation still needs to go is upstream. If incentives consistently reward gaming, spectacle, and escalation, we should not be surprised when more of it appears. Voting matters. But voting alone does not build the civic habits required for self government. That takes formation over time.
If we want better outcomes within the rule of law, the culture producing the voters has to matter.
Massie and Genghis Khanna have the same motivation – 2028. I used to like Massie but not anymore.
I still like Massie – but everyone makes mistakes. This was a predictable mistake.
Massie is in the libertarian wing of the GOP. The Esptain files act clearly violates the 4th amendment,
and clearly was going to be a disassterous snowball of unintended consequences.
As a libertarian Massie should have understood that.
There are lots of thing I do not like about Trump that does not mean I would vote for Harris.
California, the worst managed state with the highest taxes, has its fair share of presidential hopefuls. Briefly, the problems are…
A. Ro Khanna is not likable and appears disingenuous. Not good for him.
B. Gavin Newsom is likeable but incompetent. Not good for us.
C. Kamala Harris is neither likeable nor competent. Not good for either.
Worst managed? Now, how do you know that to be a fact? Resident? Didn’t think so. Too much rightist propaganda pal.
Lived in CA for more than 20 years. Newsom is not even remotely likeable. He is a sleazy, phony, corrupt, POS.
Of course, you are correct. But you know him. Others in the USA do not – yet.
Likable? WTF does that have to do with getting elected? Sleazy, phony, corrupt, POS…. your vocabulary gives us insight into a brain with limited capacity.
I too wonder how can you possibly make that claim and support it with just high taxes? 50 states, each has a advantages and disadvantages. Based on just taxes… get a grip friend.
Take a look at the states with the lowest taxes, the ones that are awash with poverty and siphoning Federal funds provided by, among others, California.
California does not provide any federal funds. It receives funds from the federal government; it does not pay anything in to the federal government.
California residents, like the residents of all states, pay federal taxes. The states don’t pay anything. And there is not the slightest reason why anyone should expect that the federal government should spend any particular amount in any given state, let alone that that amount should bear some relation to the amount of taxes collected from people in that state. It’s a bizarre idea.
Poverty is mostly a matter of demographics; the best a state can do about it is to lower taxes and spending, so people have an opportunity to better themselves, but not everyone will take advantage of that opportunity.
Due to California’s rigged elections, he has nothing to fear