Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Johnson (LA-04)
WASHINGTON — This morning, at the weekly House Republican Leadership press conference, Speaker Johnson discussed House Republicans’ efforts to deliver maximum transparency regarding the Epstein files and ensure justice for victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s heinous crimes. Speaker Johnson also addressed the Democrats’ newfound interest in the Epstein files, despite sitting on this information for the entirety of the Biden Administration.
“The truth is, the biggest proponents of this discharge petition were never actually interested in transparency or ensuring justice or protecting victims of this unspeakable tragedy, the Epstein evils. And how do we know that? Because the Democrats had every one of the Epstein files in their possession for the four long years of the Biden Administration,” Speaker Johnson said. “The Biden Department of Justice had the files the entire time, and not a single one of the people who were so loud and animated right now ever said anything about it for all those four years.”
Watch Speaker Johnson’s full remarks here.
On Democrats’ newfound interest in the Epstein files:
For four long years under the previous administration of the Biden-Harris Administration, Democrats insisted there was no border crisis. Remember, they told you that that wasn’t a problem at all. They dismissed inflation as transitory. That’s what they told us. They told the American people not to believe what we could all see with our own eyes, that there was an obvious mental and physical decline on the part of President Biden individually. And now, seemingly overnight, these same cast of characters, they’ve taken a sudden and urgent interest in the Epstein investigation. Suddenly, it’s all in the name of transparency. That’s what they’re trying to tell us. But the truth is, the biggest proponents of this discharge petition were never actually interested in transparency or ensuring justice or protecting victims of this unspeakable tragedy, the Epstein evils. And how do we know that? Because the Democrats had every one of the Epstein files in their possession for the four long years of the Biden Administration. The Biden Department of Justice had the files the entire time, and not a single one of the people who were so loud and animated right now ever said anything about it for all those four years.
None of them held press conferences. None of them demanded the release of the documents. And under Biden’s DOJ, when they prosecuted just Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, not a single one of these Democrats or any of the proponents of the discharge ever made any noise about that at all. So, it’s fair for the American people to ask the question, why now? Why suddenly are they so interested? They have such an urgent interest in the Jeffrey Epstein matter. The truth is simple and straightforward and obvious for anyone who is willing to look at it objectively. Clearly, this is a political exercise for Democrats and a few others, sadly, and it is as deceitful and dishonest as their pointless stunt to shut down the government. Same ideology behind this. Democrats are trying to use the Epstein matter as a political weapon to distract from their own party’s failures.
On House Republicans’ efforts to deliver maximum transparency:
This was an unspeakable tragedy, and we have great compassion for the victims. I’m heartened – I met with the victims, our House Oversight Committee members met with the victims, and they deserve justice. It has been too long delayed. Not just justice for what they were made to endure, but also, we need answers on why it took so long for the Department of Justice itself to do that job under previous leadership. Republicans meanwhile are working in earnest to deliver transparency to the American people. And we’re working to do that in a responsible manner that does no further harm to these innocent people and the victims who have been wrapped into this. There are few key facts here that everybody needs to understand.
First, I mentioned the House Oversight Committee doing its work. That is a bipartisan effort. They are already producing far more than the discharge petition even anticipates. Chairman Comer is our Chair of Oversight. Some of the biggest bulldogs in Congress serve on that committee. You all know, and I’ve mentioned this so many times, they have been on the Republican and Democrat side. They’re deeply dug in. They’ve been working around the clock. They worked even through the government shutdown, and there were tranches of documents that were released even over that period. So far, by last count, it’s over 65,000 documents, Epstein files documents, that are now out in the public for everyone to review. That includes tens of thousands of pages from the Epstein Estate. And that includes Epstein’s flight logs, his personal financial records and ledgers, his daily calendars, and so much more. And none of that is even written or included in the discharge petition. So, in other words, the Oversight Committee is doing far more than the discharge even anticipates. And the most valuable information thus far has come from the Epstein Estate files. That was produced because of the work of the Oversight Committee that is doing that in a professional, robust manner, using the full subpoena authority of the US Congress.
On the serious concerns with the poorly drafted discharge petition:
As drafted, the discharge petition fails to fully protect victim privacy. I’m going to read you an excerpt out of our legal document we put together to explain all this. Congress should give the Attorney General broader authority to redact all the victim information. The discharge doesn’t do that. This would prevent the release of information that could be used to unmask victims who have chosen to remain anonymous.
Now, you have some very brave women who have come forward and put their names and faces out there and done press conferences and explain that justice is overdue. And our hearts go out to them. And they are heroes. But you have as many as 1,000 women by some of the accounts who may be caught up in this. And the vast majority of them have not come forward, probably for obvious reasons. They don’t want to be unmasked. But the discharge petition doesn’t have adequate protections. It risks re-victimizing those who were trafficked and exploited. And the courts have recognized this concern. By the way, I’ll read you a quick excerpt. On August 20 of this year, Judge Richard Berman from the Southern District of New York, issued an order denying the DOJ’s request to release Epstein Grand Jury materials, noting “names and identifying information of victims appear in the subject materials.”
Judge Berman then quoted a letter related to the victim’s concerns, which stated, “The following transparency cannot come at the expense of the very people whom the justice system is sworn to protect.” And importantly, the judge quoted a letter from one of the victims in the proceeding. She’s named as Jane Doe 2. She said, this is one of the victims, “I beg the court to make sure it is of the utmost priority that in any sort of release, all and every detail that could possibly reveal our identities be redacted.” The victims of Epstein’s evils deserve that protection, and the discharge does not currently provide it.
Number two — The discharge petition could create new victims, okay? Because it requires the DOJ to release information, even in cases where the DOJ or the FBI has already reviewed it and determined it is not credible. It is false information. Doing this and requiring this to come out could ruin the reputations of completely innocent people, such as those who have may just have known Epstein, but knew nothing of his crimes or whose names he exploited. Think of this innocent people whose names he exploited and used to try to get close to his intended victims. Their names may be in these files, and they had nothing to do with this. And so, by just haphazardly releasing it, you’re going to destroy their reputations, releasing information containing the names of innocent people, subjecting those innocent people to a guilt by association. It would create an entirely new group of victims who have no means to clear their names. That’s a concern of Congress. And it should be.
Number three — The discharge in its current form fails to prohibit the release of child sexual abuse materials. That is a term of art. It’s called CSAM. It’s defined in the US code. The discharge is so haphazardly written because remember, it’s just a political exercise for these guys. They don’t seem to care about this, but they cited the wrong section of the US code. So, when they say we don’t want child pornography to come out, child sexual abuse materials, of course, we don’t want that released. They wrote this thing so quickly that they cited the wrong section. So, you know what that means? It means that it doesn’t really bestow any real legal authority on the Attorney General to redact those materials. And that would compel the DOJ to release that stuff into the public. Every single person in this room knows that’s wrong and you should stand against it. But that’s what the discharge says.
Number four — It jeopardizes the future federal investigations of the United States. Why? Because the discharge only allows the Attorney General to redact limited portions of records that could publicly identify individuals who were promised confidentiality. In this scenario, you’re talking about whistleblowers. You’re talking about confidential informants who came forward and gave information and evidence in exchange for agreeing to have their identities not revealed, violating confidentiality. Imagine the chilling effect that that would have on future investigations. Who’s going want to come forward if they think Congress can take a political exercise and reveal their identities? Who’s going to come talk to prosecutors? It’s very dangerous. It would deter future whistleblowers and informants. And the release of that could also publicly reveal the identity, by the way, of undercover law enforcement officers who are working in future operations. Dangerous stuff, and they seem not to care. And by the way, I’m going to remind you again, we went to the authors. We asked the authors of discharge to change this, and they said, “jump in the Potomac.”
Number five — National security concerns. The discharge requires the Attorney General to release within 30 days, “classified information to the maximum extent possible.” This ignores the principle that declassification should always rest and always has rested with the agency that originated the intelligence. Why? So that they can protect their critical sources and methods. It is incredibly dangerous to demand that officials or employees of the DOJ declassify materials that originated in other agencies and intelligence agencies.
###