Four men in unredacted files named by Ro Khanna have no ties to Epstein
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Ro Khanna publicly named six men on the House floor as “likely incriminated” in the Jeffrey Epstein files. However, four of the men turned out to have no apparent connection to Epstein beyond appearing in an old photo lineup, meaning he effectively labeled innocent uninvolved people as tied to a sex‑trafficking case without any basis.
Khanna went to the House floor and read out the names of six “wealthy, powerful men” he said were “likely incriminated” in unredacted Epstein documents, framing them as being hidden by the Justice Department. The Justice Department later clarified that four of those men were only in a years‑old photographic lineup created by SDNY prosecutors, with no other apparent ties to Epstein in the millions of pages of records. The Guardian notes that these four men do not appear elsewhere in the files and were not identified by victims as participants in abuse, undercutting Khanna’s claim that they were being protected as implicated figures. Additionally, Khanna seems to have completely made up that these four men were wealthy and powerful (one at least is apparently a mechanic). By using a speech on the House floor (and the speech or Debate Clause protections) to say their names in this context, Khanna associated those four men with Epstein’s crimes in a way that they cannot easily challenge legally, despite the lack of substantive evidence in the documents.
What sort of repercussions should Ro Khanna (and by association Thomas Massie, who was also involved in implicating the innocent men) face for using a speech on the House floor to falsely implicate innocent men Epstein's crimes?
The Guardian seems to have broken the story but other sources are no covering it:
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Ro Khanna publicly named six men on the House floor as “likely incriminated” in the Jeffrey Epstein files. However, four of the men turned out to have no apparent connection to Epstein beyond appearing in an old photo lineup, meaning he effectively labeled innocent uninvolved people as tied to a sex‑trafficking case without any basis.
Khanna went to the House floor and read out the names of six “wealthy, powerful men” he said were “likely incriminated” in unredacted Epstein documents, framing them as being hidden by the Justice Department. The Justice Department later clarified that four of those men were only in a years‑old photographic lineup created by SDNY prosecutors, with no other apparent ties to Epstein in the millions of pages of records. The Guardian notes that these four men do not appear elsewhere in the files and were not identified by victims as participants in abuse, undercutting Khanna’s claim that they were being protected as implicated figures. Additionally, Khanna seems to have completely made up that these four men were wealthy and powerful (one at least is apparently a mechanic). By using a speech on the House floor (and the speech or Debate Clause protections) to say their names in this context, Khanna associated those four men with Epstein’s crimes in a way that they cannot easily challenge legally, despite the lack of substantive evidence in the documents.
What sort of repercussions should Ro Khanna (and by association Thomas Massie, who was also involved in implicating the innocent men) face for using a speech on the House floor to falsely implicate innocent men Epstein's crimes?
The Guardian seems to have broken the story but other sources are no covering it:
Four men in unredacted files named by Ro Khanna have no ties to Epstein
This looks less like justice and more like strategy.
Ro Khanna publicly named six men on the House floor as “likely incriminated” in the Jeffrey Epstein files. However, four of the men turned out to have no apparent connection to Epstein beyond appearing in an old photo lineup, meaning he effectively labeled innocent uninvolved people as tied to a sex‑trafficking case without any basis.
Khanna went to the House floor and read out the names of six “wealthy, powerful men” he said were “likely incriminated” in unredacted Epstein documents, framing them as being hidden by the Justice Department. The Justice Department later clarified that four of those men were only in a years‑old photographic lineup created by SDNY prosecutors, with no other apparent ties to Epstein in the millions of pages of records. The Guardian notes that these four men do not appear elsewhere in the files and were not identified by victims as participants in abuse, undercutting Khanna’s claim that they were being protected as implicated figures. Additionally, Khanna seems to have completely made up that these four men were wealthy and powerful (one at least is apparently a mechanic). By using a speech on the House floor (and the speech or Debate Clause protections) to say their names in this context, Khanna associated those four men with Epstein’s crimes in a way that they cannot easily challenge legally, despite the lack of substantive evidence in the documents.
What sort of repercussions should Ro Khanna (and by association Thomas Massie, who was also involved in implicating the innocent men) face for using a speech on the House floor to falsely implicate innocent men Epstein's crimes?
The Guardian seems to have broken the story but other sources are no covering it:
0 Comments
0 Shares
35 Views
0 Reviews
