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.”
While the four men may not have a legal to justice, they do have a political path. Rep. Ro Khanna has just made some die hard and potentially very capable enemies. A proverb in Matthew’s gospel quoted as “all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” and a more modern proverb from Arthur Block “friends come and go but enemies accumulate.” both seem apropos to Rep Khanna’s situation. I will look forward to Rep Khanna’s demise.
In what way are they “potentially very capable”? What do you think makes them more capable than most people, which is not much?
These 4 people should be represented and bring a lawsuit against Khanna and Massie to overturn this “Immunity”.
Why would they bring a lawsuit against Khanna and Massie? Apparently, these four people have been exonerated. .. The truth has set them free.
It was the DoJ who had their names ‘redacted’. .. and, according to Turley, under a cloud of suspicion.
*the Epstein Transparency Act requires the release of all DoJ Epstein Files, including DoJ deliberations, except for the ‘victims’ identities. .. how difficult can that be?
Why are the alleged victims redacted?
Because the law says so.
Redacting their names did NOT put them under any suspicion. It was Khanna who exposed their names and created the suspicion against them.
Congressional immunity can’t be overturned, no matter how outrageous the congressman’s speech. But it only applies to speech that is part of the legislative process. It doesn’t have to be on the floor of the House, but it does have to be a “legislative act”. It’s hard to see how a tweet aimed at the general public is a legislative act.
Ro Khanna, you owe innocent people an apology. You forced the names to come out and you were wrong. You forced the DOJ to unredact the name when they did to protect innocent people. Now their reputations are ruined thanks to you and you get off scott free. The gall of you when the mistake is discovered, you blame the very Department not doing their job when they did their job in first place.
And people wonder why politicians are not trusted.
Ro Khanna could give a rats a$$. He’s a democRAT.
The Framers of the Constitution believed the vast majority of government employees – including presidents – were very good people.
The Founding Fathers also strongly believed that bureaucratic-systems (bureaucracy) many times created the most evil outcomes.
The goal was to counter-balance these genuinely evil outcomes (from otherwise good people in a bureaucratic-system) was constitutional “checks & balances”.
The Framers didn’t view any government agency as the “good guys”. The premise was competing duties – one branch (executive,legislative,judicial) or level of government (local,state,federal) simply exercised their own authority.
For example: the Executive Branch had to obtain a Judicial Branch search warrant to enter anyone’s home, vehicle or body (ie: DHS can’t legally search anyone’s home with approval by the co-equal Judicial Branch).
In many of these disputes there are no “good guys” or “bad guys” – they all crave illegal authority and illegal power under our U.S. Constitution.
The poor government subordinates (forced to follow illegal orders) deserve much sympathy being used as pawns in these illegal power plays.
I agree with much of this.
The Framers did not assume angels. They assumed ambition would counteract ambition. Checks and balances were designed to manage power, not to certify virtue. And you’re right that systems can produce harmful outcomes even when individuals inside them believe they are acting with good intentions.
Where I would add something is this: checks and balances constrain institutions, but they do not form citizens. The Constitution distributes power to prevent concentration. It does not manufacture the civic character required to operate within those limits responsibly.
If bureaucratic systems can magnify harm, then culture can magnify responsibility. The long term stability of checks and balances depends on the formation of the people selecting and operating those systems. Structure matters. Culture matters too.
OT
I always thought that these lines by Houseman could almost apply to at least some lawyers:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/57275/epitaph-on-an-army-of-mercenaries
The denouement yet:
Kathy Ruemmler, Brad Karp, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, Leon Black, Joi Ito, Les Wexner, Peter Mandelson, Morgan McSweeney, Miroslav Lajčák, Mona Juul, Jack Lang, Alexander Acosta, Casey Wasserman, Sarah Ferguson (Duchess of York), Prince Andrew (Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor), Larry Summers et al.
Particularly this part:
“What God abandoned, these defended,
And saved the sum of things for pay.”
Anyone who has defense work will understand.
I am certain the erudite, noble, and manifestly “American” Ro Khanna seeks only the truth in all things.
He upholds and defends the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the fundamental law of the American Founders, Framers, and Forefathers (not his, of course), and seeks their truth.
Undoubtedly Ro Khanna similarly upholds and defends the fully constitutional statutory law of the American Founders, Framers, and Forefathers, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802, nearly four score years in full force and effect, which were never formally abrogated but by unconstitutional kinetic military force.
To wit,
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I should think Ro will be needing an airline ticket forthwith.
OT – NEWSFLASH
THERE IS A GOD!
OBONGO “START/STOP” IDIOCY IN VEHICLES TERMINATED
_________________________________________________________________
“EPA to phase out controversial start-stop car technology”
(TNND) — The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced plans to phase out the controversial start-stop technology in vehicles, a feature that has divided drivers. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin tweeted on Monday, “Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy.” He added, “EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it.” The start-stop feature, introduced to conserve fuel and reduce pollution by shutting off the engine at red lights, has faced criticism for potentially taxing car batteries and engines more quickly. According to the New York Post, the “off-cycle CO2 reducing” technology was first proposed in 2012 by President Obama but was not implemented until five years later when fuel economy standards changed. Automakers have been receiving carbon credits for producing vehicles with start-stop technology. If the technology is phased out, those credits would be eliminated. Recent reports indicate that 65% of vehicles included the technology in new models by 2023. This decision by the EPA aligns with President Trump’s executive order aimed at “unleashing prosperity through deregulation,” which directs the EPA and other agencies to eliminate at least 10 regulations for every new one proposed.
– KOMONEWS
In other major news, Obama says aliens and Sasquatch are real! When asked his/her opinion, Michele Obama responded, goomigoogoo.
Aliens are real, some are illegal, so Obama deported them, but Biden didn’t.
In the United States “Guilt-by-Association” is illegal under the First Amendment – whether you are peaceful protester or a billionaire.
The DOJ has nearly a 100-year track record of destroying and defaming innocent Americans by violating the First Amendment.
DOJ’s most destructive weapon in “Non-Confrontational Blacklisting” – the goal is NOT arrest or indictment, but lifetime punishment bypassing judges and juries (ie: DHS official in Maine telling a legal protester she was being covertly blacklisted as a domestic terrorist). This illegal practice harms innocent Americans for life – without indictment, without judge, without jury and without an official guilty verdict.
Guilt-by-Association is wrong no matter how much money you have.
And these “protesters” have ONLY “…the right of the people to peaceably assemble.” They have a right to assemble in a location approved by local government and no right even to move from that site as an assembly. Nothing else. Read the —-ing law. They have no right to cause a public nuisance or disturbance of any kind. The sensational and histrionic nightly news videos may not be shown because the activities may not be legally conducted. The criminals involved have no constitutional right to cause the disturbances in the videos the MSM puts up as brainwashing, propaganda, and indoctrination.
________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble,….
They have a right to assemble in a location approved by local government and no right even to move from that site as an assembly.
That is not true. People have the right to peaceably assemble in any public location, so long as they don’t block traffic and obey all the laws that apply equally to everyone, such as noise limits. No permit is or can be required for this.
“They have a right to assemble in a location approved by local government and no right even to move from that site as an assembly.”
The location you mentioned is not restricted and was, therefore, previously approved by local government, and they need a permit for a parade; they cannot move as an assembly.
More to the point, they have a right “peaceably to assemble” ONLY and nothing else, not to interfere with police or traffic, cause bodily injury or property damage, or perpetrate nuisances, etc.
The location you mentioned is not restricted and was, therefore, previously approved by local government,
I didn’t mention any location. You’re making things up. No approval of any kind is ever necessary.
they need a permit for a parade; they cannot move as an assembly.
That is completely untrue. Anywhere each individual has the right to go, he has the right to go in company. A parade on a sidewalk needs no permit of any kind.
More to the point, they have a right “peaceably to assemble” ONLY and nothing else, not to interfere with police or traffic, cause bodily injury or property damage, or perpetrate nuisances, etc.
Of course. No one claims they have such a right.
Of course, you mentioned a location; read it.
Peaceably to assemble is static and does not allow movement, which would constitute a parade requiring a permit.
A five- or fifty-thousand-person accumulation is not “company” that is pre-approved for a sidewalk.
In certain situations, no approval is necessary because approval was already considered and approved by local government by omission.
The sole relevant constitutional right is “the right of the people peaceably to assemble” ONLY.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people peaceably to assemble,….
You are simply a liar. I did not mention any location at all. I wrote the truth, that the right to protest applies in any public location. No permit is necessary, so long as people are obeying the ordinary laws that apply to everyone at all times, such as not blocking traffic.
And there is absolutely no limit on the numbers of people who can walk together on the street. You are just lying and making things up. Wherever one person can go a thousand or ten thousand can go. No one has the right to stop them.
And nowhere is the right to assemble described as static. You just made that up because you’re a lying liar who lies.
Actually, permits can be reuired but are “must issue”, and permit fees must be deminimus.
Permits allow handling protests on a first come first served basis.
Police do not typically arrest unpermitted counter protestors – see charlotesville 2017,
But they ARE supposed to separate the groups and all things being eual it is the unpermitted counter protestors that are supposed to get charged.
Regardless, the presumption is that a public forumn for protesting is not an unlimited resource and government van have TRULY neutral laws such as first come first served permits to resolve competition for a limited resource
Actually, permits can be reuired but are “must issue”, and permit fees must be deminimus.
No, permits cannot be required for protests that don’t block traffic or otherwise break any generally applicable law. Permits are only required when protesters wish to have the road blocked off for their use.
“A permit is often required when a demonstration is likely to disrupt the normal flow of daily life.
Cities commonly require permits for the following activities:
Marches or parades that move onto public streets and block vehicle traffic
Large rallies in public parks or plazas that require coordination to manage space
Events that use sound amplification devices like loudspeakers or megaphones
The setup of temporary structures such as stages, tents, or large installations”
These are all examples of events that block traffic, or violate noise regulations and the like. That is why they require a permit. If you don’t need the street blocked off, or any space reserved for you, but you merely show up en masse and march up and down on the sidewalk, or occupy part of it while leaving plenty of room for people to pass, and you’re keeping the noise within the usual limits, then no permit can be required.
As far as I remember, speech expression and assembly rules vary by city. In New York City, they are limited by the locality, the specific site, the time of day, and the amount of space used. These limits are not always strictly enforced, so peaceful assemblies may occasionally exceed the stated rules. In city parks, gatherings of more than 20 people generally require a permit, even if the group occupies less than half the available space.
SCOTUS upholds permit requirement is they are neutral, cost is diminimus and they can not be gamed to engaged in viewpoint discrimination.
Thank you for that addition. It is the most important criteria.
Or occupy public forums like parks
BTW you can not block sidewalks either.
https://legalclarity.org/why-the-supreme-court-upholds-protest-permit-laws/
As I said, you can’t block traffic. Not in the road and not on the sidewalk. But you can march on the sidewalk, because that’s what it’s for. Walking. If a thousand people choose to walk on a particular sidewalk all at the same time, no one can stop them.
> https://legalclarity.org/why-the-supreme-court-upholds-protest-permit-laws/
That refers only to protests that require things like blocking off streets. Protests that don’t block traffic and don’t exceed noise regulations can’t require a permit.
In the United States “Guilt-by-Association” is illegal under the First Amendment
Huh? Where in the first amendment does it say that?!
The DOJ has nearly a 100-year track record of destroying and defaming innocent Americans by violating the First Amendment.
In what way?
telling a legal protester she was being covertly blacklisted as a domestic terrorist). This illegal practice
Blacklisted how? And in what way is it illegal?
How sad, Turley, that you are trying to defend Bondi and Patel’s blatant violation of The Epstein Files Transparency Act that provides that names of individuals who are NOT victims or survivors cannot be redacted on the grounds that it could be embarrassing. Yet, such names were redacted, but the names, and even images, some of them of nude, when they were underage, WERE NOT all redacted–another violation of the Act. Some of these victims had never before come out publicly–but where is Turley’s sympathy–as a paid member of MAGA media? No sympathy for the girls who were trafficked and had their innocence stolen–Turley’s sympathy is with the wealthy and powerful men, some of whom Turley describes as “entirely innocent”. But how do we know that? Are we to accept the word of Bondi and Patel? Was their involvement even investigated? The American people have zero confidence in the veracity of the DOJ and FBI because they LIE all of the time. AND, the sympathy of the American people is with the victims and survivors.
Turley has the gall, as a MAGA media voice to attack Rep. Ro Khanna, who has championed on behalf of the survivors, going so far as to accuse him of an “aggrandizing performance”- an apt description of Bondi’s performance before the Congressional Oversight Committee in which she pulled out her oppo research notebook and viciously attacked Democrats who were asking her valid questions about the coverup of the Epstein files–in violation of Federal law. AND, BTW, in every broadcast on non-MAGA media that I’ve heard, there has always been a disclaimer that merely being mentioned in the Epstein files is not proof of any criminality. However, you do have to wonder about the “torture video” mentioned by Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, an Emerati who is doing business deals with Trump–according to “Forbes”:
“January 11, 2017, nine days before he became president the first time, Donald Trump revealed how he planned to handle his multibillion-dollar business while in the White House. He would not sell his assets. Nor would he give them to his heirs. Nor create a blind trust, nor empower an independent executive. But there was one line he promised to never cross—there would be no new foreign business deals. “Over the weekend,” the president-elect explained at a press conference inside Trump Tower, “I was offered $2 billion to do a deal in Dubai—a number of deals. And I turned it down.”
Eight years later, the United Arab Emirates, home to the metropolises of Dubai and Abu Dhabi, has become a hub for the Trump Organization’s international expansion. With first sons Don Jr. and Eric serving as emissaries, the president and his family have entered into at least nine agreements with ties to the gulf nation—some involving government entities in the country, many stemming from business relationships developed there. Together, the ventures, which include five licensing agreements and three cryptocurrency deals, will provide an estimated $500 million in 2025—and about $50 million annually for years into the future.”
Turley and other MAGA media don’t have anything to say about this blatant and obvious conflict of interest.
I guess Turley and MAGA media couldn’t come up with anything else with which to attack Khanna, so they accuse him of “grandstanding” but we all know they sure looked hard. So, that tells me he’s as clean as it gets. Now, they’re using Turley to try to intimidate him into not outing the names of those who were not victims or survivors by implying he could be sued civilly–but Rep. Khanna isn’t a coward. Neither he, nor Massie, is going to stop pushing for the full release of the Epstein files, no matter how hard MAGAverse tries to scare them off.
There has never been any indication that Rep. Khanna has any presidential aspirations, but there IS strong evidence that Noem has such aspirations–yet, MAGAverse has nothing to say about her cosplaying as a cowgirl while lying about the murder victims in Minneapolis, calling them “domestic terrorists” and accusing them of attacking ICE agents. MAGA media has nothing to say about Trump’s private army of ignoramus, gun-toting masked thugs who kill American citizens and abuse them, all funded by the taxpayers. So, Democrats cut off funding, because the majority of Americans do NOT support their tactics.
Here’s a good point for discussing why MAGA media exists. The concept started with Nixon and Watergate. There were Republicans, and their wealthy donors, who believed that Nixon’s presidency could have been saved if there had been “alternative media” to call mainstream media liars, to attack Woodward and Bernstein in every possible way by accusing them of all sorts of ulterior motives and to push back against Nixon’s criminality and that of the members of his campaign and administration who were ultimately convicted of crimes. Of course, that would have involved lying, but they thought they could have pulled it off. They weren’t going to let this happen again when they were positioned to get what they want now–massive tax breaks, massive subsidies, deregulation of their industries, elimination of consumer and environmental protections, regulations that handicap their competitors, and all sorts of perks. So, now, we have pretend “journalists” with MAGA media calling themselves “news” with various names, but which are really nothing but pundits, paid to defend Trump, his policies and Republicans. They attack mainstream media and Democrat politicians–just like Turley does, and never have much to say about Trump and his fascist authoritarian tactics, and the damage he has done to our relationships with the EU, NATO and Canada.
DOJ didn’t create 3 million pages overnight. Why didn’t DOJ redact as they were written? Why wait until they had 3 million pages making it really hard to redact later?
In our form of government, all taxpayer funded documents will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act – why weren’t they redacted as they were created years ago?
Congress should pass a law to redact when a page is created to be released under FOIA.
Because the documents were never intended for anyone but prosecutors and investigators who would be guilty of crimes if they made them public outside a court room.
. Can the accused, the slandered sue the DOJ for defamation or harm to reputation by release of their names? Wasserman for loss of livelihood?
They might be able to sue the federal govenrment, following the law would be a defense, they could sue claiming the law is fascially invalid – which it is.
In our form of government, all taxpayer funded documents will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act
No, they are not. Without the recent special-purpose law, NOTHING in this file was subject to FOIA. Those creating it had no reason to suppose it would ever be released. And of course the names couldn’t be redacted for internal use, since the prosecutors would need to know every name.
If Khanna is protected from being sued for defamation by the Speech and Debate Clause because he named them on the House floor, does that protection still apply when he refers to them in a tweet, even if he does not include their names in it, when that tweet is obviously referring people back to what he said on the floor? So can his tweets constitute defamation? He is not protected by that clause when he defames someone outside the House, whether by tweet or when talking to the press or anywhere else.
Tweets are generally not part of the legislative process, so would not be protected. But reporting on what is said in Congress is privileged.
The protection afforded to Congress critters under the Speech and Debate Clause (and to attorney speech in trial-related matters) is a double-edged sword. À la Thomas Sowell, when evaluating the trustworthiness of any source of information, the most basic question to ask is what price will be paid if that information is wrong. If the answer is nothing, absolutely no price at all, then that is the precise value of any statement from that source.
Good point,
I agree completely,
and I would probably limit defamation claims FAR MORE than Times Vs. Sullivan.
The credibility of people who make claims should be based on the support them produce and their reputation for truthfullness.
Defamation laws are unconstitutional violations of the 1st Amendment.
______________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press….
I agree, SCOTUS does not and has not for 250 years,
We must live with what we have.
No, defamation laws are not unconstitutional, because they don’t abridge the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech has NEVER included defamation. Therefore laws against it don’t abridge that freedom.
Of course they do – they punish you for saying publicly saying false things about other people.
That restricts free speech.
The consequences for “defaming” another should be left to the “free market”,
Nor should any source be deemed credible because – if they were lying they would be sued.
We should judge the credibility of what others tell us by what we know about them.
Of course they do – they punish you for saying publicly saying false things about other people.
That restricts free speech.
It restricts speech. It does not abridge the freedom of speech. The freedom of speech does not and has NEVER EVER meant that one can say absolutely anything one likes. The freedom of speech doesn’t include defamation, so laws against defamation don’t abridge it.
Fraud is speech too, but laws against fraud have never been thought to abridge the freedom of speech, because the freedom never included fraud. Ditto for true threats and actual incitement; the freedom has never included these things, so laws against them don’t abridge it. Compelled speech generally abridges the freedom of speech, but compelled testimony in court doesn’t, and neither do laws against perjury.
It’s exactly the same as the right to keep and bear arms, which does not mean that absolutely everyone can have whatever arms they like, whenever and wherever they like. The RKBA doesn’t include violent criminals having arms, so restrictions on this aren’t an infringement.
Likewise the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects does not include resisting a proper warrant issued by a judge on probable cause, so laws enforcing such warrants don’t violate that right.
When enacted, defamation laws abridge the freedom of speech and press.
Perhaps your expectation is the defamation laws will never be enforced.
Your position equates to the crazy idea that laws against bank robbery don’t abridge bank robbery.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;….
When enacted, defamation laws abridge the freedom of speech and press.
No, they don’t. And of course they are enforced. The whole point of making them is to enforce them.
Your position equates to the crazy idea that laws against bank robbery don’t abridge bank robbery.
Now you’re just babbling. There is no such thing as a right to rob banks. And only rights can be abridged.
On almost any topic the issue is “degree” of abuses and criminality. Yes officials of both parties do it but it’s really about the span and number of abuses.
Bottom Line: any reforms that benefit regular Americans would end unconstitutional abuses by both parties. For rare exceptions, that is what judges and juries were designed for – to compensate for loopholes in the letter of any law.
The solution is to not prosecute most government officials (of either party) but end the unconstitutional practice in the future.
For example: the Bush war crimes have resulted in “0” accountability, neither party will indict the other party.
I may share some of your desire for bad actors to face consequences,
BUT
“that is what judges and juries were designed for – to compensate for loopholes in the letter of any law.”
Is false, dangerous and an invitation to the rule of man, not the rule of law.
I agree that degree matters. And I agree that reforms should benefit regular Americans, not just shift power between parties. Where I part ways is on the idea that simply choosing not to prosecute officials solves the deeper problem. Accountability mechanisms exist for a reason. But even accountability, by itself, does not change the incentives that produce repeated behavior.
If the same types of abuses recur across administrations, that suggests something structural. Either the incentives remain, or the culture tolerates them. Judges and juries can address specific violations. They do not build the civic habits that prevent those violations from recurring.
If we want fewer abuses in the future, we have to look upstream at the environment that selects, rewards, and protects the people making those decisions.
YES, of course.
Half of the population like what they see.
The blame for this situation goes beyond Khanna and Massie, and to some extent implicates many of the rest of us (I don’t exempt myself) who were demanding that all of the data collected be released, out of a fundamental distrust of government to produce an honest, unbiased result from the Epstein investigations. Now, I contend that the lack of trust was and is well justified. But we need to remember that systemic issues require systemic solutions. There is no patch for those issues that can even provide actual instant gratification, let alone instant fixes.
Pam Bondi’s DOJ has released a comprehensive list of all government and well-known people who have been named in any document, at any stage of the Epstein investigation. That’s what we wanted, right? I skimmed through the list, and it is *so* much of a grab bag as to be fundamentally useless. For example, the list includes, Pam Bondi. The list also includes (wait for it) Jeffrey Epstein, himself. I got a real chuckle out of my next example. The Epstein list includes Janis Joplin! Epstein was born in 1953. Joplin died of an overdose in 1970, when Epstein was 17. So unless Joplin somehow initiated the adolescent Epstein into the world of kinky sex, the inclusion of her name on the list is way, way beyond ludicrous.
Now, is Bondi playing some game by releasing such a long list? Maybe, but what she did is compliant with what was demanded: a release of completely uncurated data. She was going to be blasted whatever she did, and she knew it. So she probably thought. “OK, let them chew on this for a while”. The only people who are going to be happy with this list are the lawyers and PR people. All of the people listed will go into a CYA public relations frenzy, and those two groups are going to make out like the bandits they arguably are.
What Do Monica Lewinsky, Maggie Thatcher, Elvis, Cher, Bill Cosby, & The Pope Have In Common?
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/what-do-monica-lewinsky-maggie-thatcher-elvis-cher-bill-cosby-pope-have-common
BTW, the names of the four men who were erroneously named by Khanna do NOT seem to be on this list. I won’t repeat those name here. I think the omission of them by Turley and some other sources I looked may be a well-intentioned attempt to spare those individuals further harassment, but it is profoundly silly, since Khanna read them into the record on the house floor, and Google is only to happy to provide them. Nevertheless I will respect those efforts, if you are so motivated, you can find them for yourselves with little trouble.
The responsibility for how the law is written and whether the law is constitutional – rests with those who write the law.
Massie and Khana.
Bondi’ should to the best of DOJ’s ability enforce the letter of an impossible and unconstitutional law.
. These pages weren’t all generated under AG Bondi, were they? These are older pages? Are the pages categorized by date? Authenticity, are some photos and other composites and fraud?
Different issue, and the law does not care.
Great piece. Absolutely, en masse release is problematic. No doubt. But that’s not what happened.
What happened was a curated release of redactions designed to victimize victims by exposure and hide perpetrators along with hiding those who had nothing to do with Epstein, mixing perpetrators with bystanders to ensure this result.
Bondi protected Trump and protected Epstein and continues to do so. The FBI is capable of properly redacting files, but was told to focus on removing “Trump” and “Don T” en masse, so much so that the word “don’t” was redacted due to the overlap in letters.
The “defamation” Turley is concerned about was almost instantly evaporated by the light of the media that Turley often decries. Should Ro Khanna have avoided a spring trap hidden in the black ink of the Trump administration? Sure. But the result is less a problem than when police name a “person of interest” who turns out later to have had nothing to do with a crime, but the media is unwilling or unable to bring the public’s attention to that fact.
The turbulence of this release is because Trump is front and center to Epstein and Trump was OK using the closed files as a cudgel against others. Now open, Trump is going to lose that cudgel.
Forced by Congress to release the files, and they, in turn, forced by the American people, Trump shows his disdain for everyone by generating this maelstrom of garbage. Someplace in this are actual FBI analyses of the evidence and those do not appear to have been released. There should be a document of every name in the files and their relationship to Epstein and those have not been released un-redacted. Maybe those were the fully blacked-out documents.
The Republicans went to impeach Clinton for lying about a consensual sex act that had the major harm of embarrassment, but for Trump and his close and extensive ties to a sex trafficker? Crickets.
Won’t someone think of the children this time?
President Trump was exonerated by the latest dump. Believing that Trump is still a molester but Bondi covered up his name is fantasy. You just don’t want to admit the truths. You will never believe anything even if the truth is right in front of you.
. . . well Trump was named over 1,000,000 times (Sarcasm)
I thought it was 1,000,000,000,000 times
“Great piece. Absolutely, en masse release is problematic. No doubt. But that’s not what happened.”
But it is what happened.
You are an idiot if you think DOJ could “currate” 3 million documents carefully with no additional resources is a bit more than a month with holidays involved.
How many lawyers do you think it took to review 3M doccuments ?
Do you think Bondi, Blanch, Halligan, Pirro and a handful of others did 3M documents themselves ?
You are an idiot if you do not grasp that the world was done almost entirely by you “carreer government lawyers” 90% of whom were democrat.
Even the beleif that the documents not yet released were carefully selected – as opposed to not released because they have not been reviewed yet, is stupid.
You think DOJ had time to make a first pass looking for all the “easy” documents that did not mention protected figures,
and AFTER that started a rush job ?
Logic is NOT your Forte.
This is the predictable unintended consequences of a badly written, and unconstitutional law.
What happened was a curated release of redactions designed to victimize victims by exposure and hide perpetrators along with hiding those who had nothing to do with Epstein, mixing perpetrators with bystanders to ensure this result.
This makes no sense. You don’t seem to understand the word “redaction”.
The Republicans went to impeach Clinton for lying about a consensual sex act that had the major harm of embarrassment,
No, they impeached him for perjury, which is a felony for which other people go to prison. The NY Times found eight people who were at that very time sitting in federal prison for doing exactly what Clinton did. If he truly believed that what he did was okay, then he had a duty to pardon those eight people. Needless to say he didn’t.
It is time for a Constitutional amendment to modify the immunity of Congress and make it a limited right so that they can be held liable when they make salacious claims they have reason to know to be false. This is how Harry Reid was able to defame Bush and Cheney on the floor of the Senate without consequence. The politicians do this all the time!
Lawrence, I don’t support weakening the Speech and Debate Clause. It exists for structural reasons and should remain intact.
But its abuse can be addressed through rulemaking. Both chambers have authority to set their own rules. If a floor statement is proven false in a way that would normally qualify as defamation or false light, the member should be required to issue a formal correction on the same floor. Same visibility. Same emphasis. Clear the record.
That applies equally to every member, regardless of party. It preserves separation of powers while restoring balance for the person harmed. If members oppose even that level of internal accountability, they should explain their reasoning to the public.
Great response, Olly!
Thank you Catherine!
Excellent idea. If only the do-nothings in Congress would adopt it.
That’s exactly the point. If Congress won’t adopt internal accountability, then the responsibility shifts back to the voters to demand it. Rules don’t appear on their own. They are adopted when there is enough civic pressure to make them necessary.
Which brings us back to the upstream issue. The quality of representation reflects the expectations of the electorate.
. Then Ro Khanna must be a man of the people?
They’ve rejected the ideas of virtue, reason and government by the people. The last phase of the transformation was the invasion.
So many – right and left, make demands regarding epstain and have expectations that can never be met.
There is no doubt that Epstain was protected while alive – that some of those in these files and probably many not were part of that protection.
That the original epstain deal was a travesty.
That of all the presidents in the 21st century only Trump went after Epstain and that even he has only done so half heartedly.
Regardless,
if going after Epstain would have done significant damage to Democrats with minimal harm to republicans – Bush and Trump would have done so.
if going after Epstain would have done significant damage to Republicans with minimal harm to Democrats – Obama would have done so.
if going after Epstain would have done significant damage to Trump no matter what the consequences to Democrats – Biden would have done so.
It was predictable from the start that the Epstain files were unlikely to provide clearly damning evidence of misconduct by anyone.
If it would have – they would have been prosecuted by someone.
It has also been a mistake to presume that only DOJ could go after Epstain, state and local prosecutors in many places could have too.
It remains predictable that there is one critical bit of evidence needed to differentiate the innocent from the guilty and that has always been true and we did not need this massive unconstitutional document dump to do so.
What has ALWAYS been the critical missing element has been the testimony of the victims.
Virginia Gufrie is responsible for exposing prince andrew and to a lessor extent the whole Epstain trafficking circle.
There are suposed to be a thousand other victims, but without them naming names, there was never going to be enough to prosecute anyone.
There is also not enough for people to truly know who is guilty or innocent.
We already have many left and right who are sure their favorite political enemy is proven to be a pervert, while none of their friends have been touched.
Left wing nuts had ZERO interest in Epstain – until after Trump was elected.
Leading the charge to get Epstain documents released were the most Rabid MAGA supporters as well a Qanon conspiracy theorists,
Who are the big winners in this – as Bill Mahr pointed out – Pizza Gate was real, and there was a deep state cabal of pedofiles and perverts.
And of all the people named in the Epstein files the one most likely to be a pervert is Bill Clinton.
We have violate the 4th amendment to release investigative material and grand jury material without prosecuting a crime.
And we have done so to accomplish little.
Post the 2024 Election – left wing nuts who still believe that Trump colluded with Russia, the Hunter Biden laptop is Russian disinformation, and that the pee tape is real, latched on to the belief that Trump was a child predator and the Epstein files would prove it.
Many hard core MAGA supporters are disappointed in Trump’s lack of vigor in releasing the Epstain files.
This has harmed his poll numbers – but anyone who beleives those people are voting democrat are nuts.
Nor has the release really accomplished anything – except hopefully given us the sense not to do something this stupid again.
Prosecutors speak through indictments and in court. Not by document dumps exposing people they were not able to prosecute or who were just questioned in an investigation. That is the reqirement of the 4th amendment.
The Government is not a “name and shame” institution.
The hard core MAGA qanon people are not going to believe that everything has been released – no matter what.
The hard core left is never going to believe everything has been released – no matter what.
Right wing nuts had ZERO interest in Epstein – except that before Trump was elected, Trump campaigned on releasing the files. They the right wing nuts wanted them to be released and, when Congress voted, the right wing nuts in Congress suddenly were very interested in the documents Trump had made a promise before he was elected to release.
“Right wing nuts had ZERO interest in Epstein”
Total complete BS.
Epstain, Pizzagate, deep state rings of perverts and pedos are probably the single most consequential “conspiracy theory”
in the qanon universe and date back atleast as far as 2017 and probably even before the 2016 election.
Trump promised to release the Epstain files because a significant part of MAGA wanted it.
Trump did not initiate this, democrats did not initiate this, the far left did not initiate this,
NONE of the above touched this until AFTER the 2020 election.
But what was purportedly one of the most looney branches of MAGA wanted this YEARS before anyone else.
And THEY have been proven RIGHT
A Bill Mahr said – Everyone Owes Qanon a huge appology.
. The effort is to ruin the Jewish money men. It’s not about “victims”. It’s all the Jewish moneybags names. Their lives are jeopardized.
Last I checked, Gates, Bezos, Summers, were not jewish.
Few of those in the Epstain files are.
A Bill Mahr said – Everyone Owes Qanon a huge appology.
No, they don’t. Maher is sometimes not an idiot, but often he is one.
No they are absolutely owed an aplogy. Much of this socalled extreme right conspiracy theory have proven to be true. It may have taken 8 years to establish that – but it is still indisputably true.
I strongly suspect that Qanon was someone inside DOJ/SDNY and that the likely the only place to know all of what Qanon had to have known could be.
I did not buy the Qanon stuff at the time – but that does not change the fact that it has proven true.
None of it has proven to be true.
There were no children, there were no satanic rituals, no cannibalism, there was no ring, there certainly weren’t secret basements or tunnels in DC, and there was no pizza! None of the bizarre accusations that made up “Pizzagate” have been substantiated. It’s all the same idiotic theory that it always was.
There is a deep state and global elite conpsiracy to get Trump atleast some of whom are sex trafickers and likely pedos who used fake Pizza orders to communicate sexual orders.
I world further note the original pizzagate conspiracy theory in 2016 and the later Qanon one are differently.
The original was confined to the DNC.
Qanon’s version much more closely reflects the Epstain circle.
Like most conspiracy theories there are numerous embellishments
But the fact is that what has surfaced with the Epstain documents strongly resembles the Qanon claims.
The resemblance is too strong to be a coincidence, which is Why I beleive the information must have come from the epstain files,
which likely means someone in DOJ pre-2020 with access tot he epstain files.
Of course, QAnon preceded any release of the Epstein files by many years. Does that have any influence regarding what you are thinking?
If the democRATS had anything to associate Trump with Epstein, it would have been released during the Biden administration.
Who are the big winners in this – as Bill Mahr pointed out – Pizza Gate was real, and there was a deep state cabal of pedofiles and perverts.
Maher is often an idiot — witness his latest attack on Doug Burgum that exposed his own profound ignorance of basic third-grade science. Pizzagate was NOT real, and there is no evidence of such a cabal. The whole idea that Epstein had clients, let alone a list of such, that he was running some sort of prostitution business and/or blackmail operation, has never had any foundation in reality. And as far as I know there were no children on his island, only teenagers. Pizzagate is about children.
“Maher is often an idiot”
And arrogant.
“Pizzagate was NOT real, and there is no evidence of such a cabal.”
Yup, all kinds of references to pizza orders in the epstain files that are almost certainly code for reuests for specific sexual fetishs.
“The whole idea that Epstein had clients, let alone a list of such, that he was running some sort of prostitution business and/or blackmail operation, has never had any foundation in reality.”
What does clients mean ? Obviously he had clients – he made money.
Epstain was a world class “fixer” – not a Micheal Cohen, but somebody that extremely wealthy people and intelligence agencies and even nations come to to accomplish something or camoflage something and Epstain made lots of money doing that. It is unlikely that Sex was the primary source of his revenue. More of a side service that he provided for SOME clients. We do not know which ones.
Was their a sex client list ? Appears there is not even an overall clients list.
What alos appears true in the epstain files is that there is ALOT that is suggestive of crimes, but nothing that absent something like a victims testimony proves a crime.
It also does not appear the Epstain was CLEARLY and DELIBERATELY black mailing people.
Nor keeping black mail materials.
He did not have to. He made money from people who benefited from his services and discretion.
If he started threatening anyone word would get arround and business would dry up.
At the same time these were powerful people and powerful governments, and they were not going to let anything get exposed.
I do not beleive Epstain was murdered. But I do beleive some of the people he was dealing with could have murdered him
I also think Epstains sexual accitives were protected by people who had nothing to do with that niche of Epstains bussiness.
Do you think the CIA or Mossad wanted any investigation into epstain ?
“And as far as I know there were no children on his island, only teenagers.”
I beleive that is true – but pruportedly there are atleast 1000 victims – many of whom have never been named
Victims atleast as young as 13 – that is a crime, that is pedophila.
“Pizzagate is about children.”
Pizzagate is about reuests for sexual servises encoded as pizza orders.
Aside from the underage aspect the rest of Epstains sexual “business” may not even be prostitution.
All favors for friends, who earlier or later or both did favors for Epstain.
I doubt anyone can find Pepperoni is extra and will cost you $5000.
Well Professor,
Rho might have stepped into it in this one, depending. on. the. judge. Caveat, everything. depends. on. the. judge. Now and we are never going back to all judges being more or less equal, and more or less ensconced in their lane.
Rho can say what he “wished” on the house floor, but… what he is going to court on is he cannot X.
A real court, an actual real court, would not accept this defense: “I said it on the house floor, so then I could legally run to X a few minutes later, hold a press conference and say I am protected.”
This BTW, this pattern is a long is EXACTLY how the intel agencies work, and how Russia Russia Russia got started. Mr. Izikofffff wrote a Yahoo, yes not a NY Times piece, but a Yahoo online piece that was the predicate for the beginning of the Russia Hoax. “Sources say…” Run to the FISA, “Sources say, it was in a Yahoo article by a credible writer…” give us a warrant. Get a reporter to “report” then talk about the report as true. Tried and Tested. Rho used it.
So Rho, went to the house floor and proclaimed himself a savior of the victims, having only picked up this pitchfork in 2026!!! [Never mentioned it prior, never raged at Team Joe, was unconcerned.] The reason he did that, wasn’t because it was an important part of Government Business, like outing Ukrainian Impeachment Hoaxer Team of… Turley, Yovanovich, Vindman and all the other Ukrainian Nationals wanting war, but “standing up for victims is the most laudable thing one can ever do, especially in front of a camera.
See what we did there? Rho could have determined your impeachment testimony as not only condoning the effort of the Ukranian Nationals to impeach trump because was never going to support the war they needed, but participated in it because you yourself wanted war. Thereby smearing you into loss of job and tv spots.
Ah, but you could sue, if you got. the. right. judge.
Rho’s mistake was going on X, he will be sued, he’ll have to pay for a defense, and the. right. judge. will dismiss it because it was too messy for a DEI hire to deal with. That’s the world we live in professor, you’re living in the old world, a world so far gone you won’t know it existed next year when the AI’s take over “the law” for almost all small cases. Yes, mark the words down, the AI’s are coming for both your job and the law, and it will be sold as such: The Science of AI is neutral, unbiased, and perfect and man is flawed, emotional and lacking the ability to know all the angles.
Enjoy. It will be fun, trust me. ; )
How does your theory work? It’s well established that once something is said in Congress a newspaper is allowed to report on it. So if you and I could post on X about it, why can’t the congressman himself? Where in the constitution can you base such an illogical exception?
Except that Khanna posted the information on X himself and Massey made comments on CNN.
what he said on the floor is protected, but the issue is not clear if he’s protected by posting a copy of that speech on Twitter with commentary
Again, how can your theory work? If someone else can report on what Khanna said on the floor, then how can he not be allowed to do exactly the same? How can congressmen be more restricted in their speech than literally anyone else?
Where is the Joseph Welsh to say to Ro Khanna and others “have you no decency sir”? This is just another witch hunt except McCarthy was actually rooting out commies that had infiltrated our government.
Thank you for the apt MacCarthy analogy.
Epstains victims are entitled to justice – but it has ALWAYS been true that only THEY can get that justice.
They must come forward and identify those who violated them. Then their accustations cn be tested against evidence such as in the files to determine the credibility of those accusations.
Anything else is just a witch hunt.
And if they will not, then so be it.
it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
William Blackstone.
John, yes the victims know the names and it is up to them to name them.
For crying out loud the lawfare dems pushed a lady with seemingly no credibility to accuse Trump of ra*ing her in a public store without even saying what year it was. They did the same to Kavanaugh and almost the same to Clarence Thomas. Notice a pattern here? I see on FB many liberals claiming Trump attacked underage girls when there isn’t one scintilla of evidence.
Let the victims name their attackers. End of story.
Rape and sexual abuse claims are among the most difficult to deal with.
They are heinous crimes almost no assault save Murder is more vile.
They are also crimes that often leave no evidence, That frequently are little more than two people making competing claims.
Many people make false accusations and are believed.
Many people make true accusations and are not.
Far too often these can not easily be sorted out.
Honestly the number of false accusations is SMALL.
But it is not zero,
and it increases dramatically when money and/or politics are involved.
The number of false accusations is NOT small. Accusations of rape and sexual assault are in fact very likely to be false, much more likely than any other kind of accusation.
“The number of false accusations is NOT small.
Sorry, the correct statement should be the PERCENT of false accusations is small.
“Accusations of rape and sexual assault are in fact very likely to be false”
If you pick an accusation at random – the odds are very small it is false.
But if Politics and/or significant money is involved those odds go up alot/
“much more likely than any other kind of accusation.”
False accusations of crimes are generally unlikely,
I am not sure that sexual assault is the most common false accusation.
I suspect that domestic violence is the most common false allegation,
That again does not mean most DV allegations are false just that
DV allegations often arise in bitter divorces and custody disputes
and there are incentives for false reports.
No, the PERCENTAGE is high. Claims that it is low ALL rely on sources that simply assume that it is low. Remember a few years ago when the left was trying to convince us that university campuses were the most dangerous places on earth, far more dangerous than even the most crime-ridden inner-city neighborhoods?! When we were told that something like a quarter of all college women are raped in the course of their four years at college, which if true would be enough to justify banning women from attending college altogether? At that time I saw a statistic reported that more than 40% of all reports of sexual crimes are fabricated. I don’t remember the source.
“Epstains victims are entitled to justice – but it has ALWAYS been true that only THEY can get that justice.”
True, as far as it goes. However, if (and I mean “if” – I don’t know the answer) Epstein was primarily creating blackmail opportunities that would allow him to advance the interests of a foreign power at the expense of the interests of the US, the number of potential “victims” increases rather dramatically, doesn’t it?
“if Epstein was primarily creating blackmail opportunities”
absolutely. Assuming you mean things like video taping.
And if true we would have the blackmail tapes long ago and somebodies DOJ would have gone to town prosecuting.
But all epstain needed to blackmail people – politely, you generally do not blackmail princes and billionaire impolitely,
was the beleif on the part of the target that they could be exposed.
Gufrie got a very large settlement based on limited evidence of contact and her word alone – as well as a disasterous interview by Prince Andrew.
Further Epstain did NOT need to threaten people with jail, just public allegations would be damaging enough.
It is likely that IF epstain was blackmailing people – and so far we have no evidence he ever did so in a recorded form – emails, texts, …
The only evidence he would need was access to the “victims” and the same stuff being dumped.
“that would allow him to advance the interests of a foreign power at the expense of the interests of the US”
It is far more likely he was advancing the interests of foreign powers ALIGNED with US interests.
I am not aware of anyone tying epstain to Russia or China.
That would be very dangerous for him – that would vitiate deep state protection.
There has never been a shred of evidence that he was running a blackmail operation, even on his own behalf let alone on that of a foreign government. That has always been a bizarre fantasy.
Nor has there ever been any evidence that he was pimping his girls out, or that he had any “clients”, let alone that he kept a list of them.
Ro Khanna is a filthy liar and a creep. Shame on him for trying to ruin the lives of innocent victims of his arrogance. Let Khanna make his claims on television, next time, so he can’t hide like a coward behind a Congressional shield.