Dem
47
GOP
53
Yesterday, 427 members of Congress voted to demand the Epstein materials from the Trump administration. One member voted against. And so, the bill sponsored by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) will soon be on its way to the White House. Donald Trump has said he'll sign it, and you can count on him to do so. After all, he is a man of impeccable integrity who would never go back on his word.
The person who kept the vote from being unanimous was Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA). He quickly took to eX-Twitter to explain himself:
I have been a principled "NO" on this bill from the beginning. What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America. As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc. If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt. Not by my vote. The Oversight Committee is conducting a thorough investigation that has already released well over 60,000 pages of documents from the Epstein case. That effort will continue in a manner that provides all due protections for innocent Americans. If the Senate amends the bill to properly address privacy of victims and other Americans, who are named but not criminally implicated, then I will vote for that bill when it comes back to the House.
Maybe that is the God's honest truth. That said, Higgins is a politician who built his entire career on his image as a law-and-order former cop, but who has a track record of playing fast and loose with both laws and order, at least on occasion. We are at least somewhat suspicious that either: (1) He saw an opportunity to be the "one guy" who stood with Trump, in hopes of securing whatever rewards that might bring, or (2) He is trying to take the lead in the messaging that we suspect is forthcoming from the GOP (more on that in a moment).
The Senate vote, meanwhile, was by unanimous consent, at the request/instigation of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Technically, that kept any of the members of the upper chamber from having to formally go on record with their votes. Oh, and this whole thing has acquired such an aura of inevitability that the Senate's approval came before they actually had the final House bill in hand. Whenever Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) finishes the paperwork, then it will go to the Senate for a rubber stamp or an official seal or a gold star or whatever happens when a bill is formally passed, and then it's on to the White House.
Yesterday, we offered up our theories as to why Donald Trump (and Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, for that matter) surrendered so thoroughly, and changed course so dramatically. Would anyone like to see some reader theories? We thought you might:
A.F. in Seattle, WA, writes: I read your list of theories as to why Trump has decided to publicly call for the release of the Epstein files, now that it's basically inevitable that they'd be coming out in any case. As far as I can tell, Trump is pulling from his own Ukraine playbook. Recall that in September of 2019, when it became clear that a transcript of Trump's extortionate call with Zelenskyy—the existence of which was revealed to Congressional Democrats by a sloppily-covered-up whistleblower report—was going to be made public one way or another, Trump actually chose to release the transcript himself. That allowed him to do his usual gaslighting routine of pretending it was a "perfect phone call," which certainly many of his followers continue to believe. There was no real plan beyond that—he wasn't actually able to alter the transcript or stop its release (and, indeed, it led directly to his first impeachment).
J.D.M. in Portland, OR, writes: The list of potential explanations missed the most probable explanation: The Orange Menace is psychologically incapable of admitting defeat (see January 6th, long trail of actively denied quality-problem candidates, etc.), so the only option remaining is to say it was all his idea in the first place. You yourselves have observed many times The Orange Menace can't even manage a game of mental checkers, let alone any-dimensional chess. "Avoid looking like a loser today, lie about tomorrow" perfectly fits his MO.
J.B. in Bend, OR, writes: Before the election last year, a friend of mine (Trump supporter) said "I'm not a big Trump guy, but what bothers me about Harris is that she has no backbone." I immediately observed that Trump always backs down when he's confronted. To which my friend wrinkled his brow and said "you think so?" And I replied: "Always."
Well, here we are just over a year later and the epithet "TACO" has been proven correct over and over again.
You offered several possible reasons why Trump suddenly changed his position on the House vote to release the files, but the most obvious one is that he knew he was going to lose (bigly) and he backed down just like he always does.
C.D. in Lexington, KY, writes: You mentioned several good reasons why Trump pivoted to releasing the Epstein files. My pet theory (with, admittedly, no basis in fact) is that it was simply a delaying game all along.
If he can delay until he's out of office or dead and people stop caring—great! If not, the longer he delays, the more he can hand-wave away anything that comes up (text, pictures, video) as an AI creation. People are already starting to believe less of what they read and see because AI-generated content is so common, and there's no reason to think that trend won't continue.
D.E. in Lancaster, PA, writes: He's in the "Fu** It" phase—Trump got some really bad terminal news from the doctors regarding his health. Since he believes the universe will cease to exist after he dies, he's basically saying "I don't care. What's the worst they can do? I'll be dead before they can even take me to trial. And I have my old insurrection plans lying around somewhere that I can dust off before they can impeach me. I'm going to take every single one of them down before I go, too!" A cornered animal always acts very erratically.
K.B. in Philadelphia, PA, writes: When I heard that Trump had said "It is really a Democrat problem. The Democrats were Epstein's friends, all of them," I thought that he was playing the victim card again. I offer my Theory 7 to the six published on Tuesday: When Trump instructs DOJ to redact victim names from the Epstein files, he'll have them be as broad as possible in removing the names and context for Republicans involved with Epstein while being equally careful to preserve the names and context of Democrats involved.
Such creative redactions won't survive, of course, if another source of the material is available, such as from the Epstein estate or Congressional committees that already have a large tranche of documents.
D.H. in Mashpee, MA, writes: It seems that another—and more likely—possibility for Trump's switch on releasing the Epstein files: He's already directed his Justice Department to investigate Democrats mentioned in the files. Now, he could say that he'd like to release the files, but, unfortunately, he can't because an active investigation is underway (which could take as long as he wants the Justice Department to take). Et voila! Every Republican is off the hook, just like magic.
K.H. in Ypsilanti, MI, writes: Another possibility on why Trump did a 180 on the Epstein files bill. He said that if it passes, the House Oversight Committee can have any files "they're legally entitled to." This strongly suggests he's going to try to withhold some files as being exempted by privacy, national security, fair trial, etc. considerations despite the congressional legislation and will continue to fight it out in court, where he's had great success in running out the clock on things.
C.F. in Waltham, MA, writes: None of your theories can be correct, because they all involve Trump actually releasing some form of the Epstein files which he can tell AG Pam Bondi to do right now, and get to any of the goals you list far more quickly. My theory is much simpler: Have all Republicans sign on to the vote (including Trump) so no Republican is part of the PPP (Pedophile Protection Program) and then have Pam Bondi reject it on the basis that it is now an "ongoing investigation" (announced, at least for Democrats, last week) and could prevent the arrest and conviction of the pedophiles in the papers. She is blamed (not Trump) and they are now doing something noble to make sure that actual criminals can be indicted and sent to jail.
E.C.F. in Somerville, MA, writes: "I can't release some of the Epstein Files because they're part of an ongoing investigation" is the new "I can't release my taxes because they're under audit."
We think that the last several letters probably have the right of it, at least in large part. It is inconceivable that the Trump White House is going to release material that is detrimental, or even potentially detrimental, to Trump. There is going to be SOME scheme to keep the information hidden. Perhaps Bondi will claim there is an investigation going on, and she can only release 5% of the material. Perhaps, once the files are turned over to the Republican members of Congress (which is what the Massie bill actually calls for), they will follow some version of the argument made by Clay Higgins, and will declare that they simply must redact vast amounts of information so as to protect the innocent.
The question is whether such ultimately empty gestures are actually enough to calm the storm and to satisfy the MAGA crowd. Recall that this matter already got so far out of hand that it not only caused Congressional Republicans to defy Trump, but to do so almost unanimously. The administration has not been able to slay this beast with half-measures and sleight-of-hand so far; it's hard to see why that would change now. (Z)