Why Khanna can do it
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
(Scott Johnson) In a new column at his own site, Professor Jonathan Turley takes up the case of Rep. Ro Khanna and his “outing” the names of six men — four of whom had no connection to Epstein whatsoever — found in the Epstein files made public under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that Khanna himself “wrote” with Rep. Thomas Massie.
Proressor Turley reports that he has spoken with members who were part of the conference on the petition to force the release of these documents and that they told him 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.
He adds that media eagerly spread the false claim of all six men named by Khanna as “likely incriminated” in the Epstein scandal. He observes that Khanna congratulated himself and Massie on overcoming the alleged cover-up of their names. And then when Khanna’s recklessness was exposed:
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 [Rep. Jasmine] Crockett failed to do so [in a simiar case]. They are protected under the Speech and Debate Clause, giving them immunity for statements made on the House floor.
Professor Turley concludes:
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.”
Professor Turley’s column makes several points that add to those John and I made here yesterday and is well worth reading in full.
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
(Scott Johnson) In a new column at his own site, Professor Jonathan Turley takes up the case of Rep. Ro Khanna and his “outing” the names of six men — four of whom had no connection to Epstein whatsoever — found in the Epstein files made public under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that Khanna himself “wrote” with Rep. Thomas Massie.
Proressor Turley reports that he has spoken with members who were part of the conference on the petition to force the release of these documents and that they told him 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.
He adds that media eagerly spread the false claim of all six men named by Khanna as “likely incriminated” in the Epstein scandal. He observes that Khanna congratulated himself and Massie on overcoming the alleged cover-up of their names. And then when Khanna’s recklessness was exposed:
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 [Rep. Jasmine] Crockett failed to do so [in a simiar case]. They are protected under the Speech and Debate Clause, giving them immunity for statements made on the House floor.
Professor Turley concludes:
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.”
Professor Turley’s column makes several points that add to those John and I made here yesterday and is well worth reading in full.
Why Khanna can do it
Be honest—this is ridiculous.
(Scott Johnson) In a new column at his own site, Professor Jonathan Turley takes up the case of Rep. Ro Khanna and his “outing” the names of six men — four of whom had no connection to Epstein whatsoever — found in the Epstein files made public under the Epstein Files Transparency Act that Khanna himself “wrote” with Rep. Thomas Massie.
Proressor Turley reports that he has spoken with members who were part of the conference on the petition to force the release of these documents and that they told him 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.
He adds that media eagerly spread the false claim of all six men named by Khanna as “likely incriminated” in the Epstein scandal. He observes that Khanna congratulated himself and Massie on overcoming the alleged cover-up of their names. And then when Khanna’s recklessness was exposed:
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 [Rep. Jasmine] Crockett failed to do so [in a simiar case]. They are protected under the Speech and Debate Clause, giving them immunity for statements made on the House floor.
Professor Turley concludes:
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.”
Professor Turley’s column makes several points that add to those John and I made here yesterday and is well worth reading in full.
0 Comments
0 Shares
32 Views
0 Reviews
