The Epstein Files

Senate has passed by unanimous consent (as predicted here (sort of) two hours ago.)

Goes to Trump, who is on record having said he would sign such a bill.

Of course, his word is worth nothing.

But the pressure on him and Bondi is now immense.

They'll be single handedly (or double-handedly) standing up against the representatives of (99.8%) the American people.

Or they're sure it's been really thoroughly scrubbed!
 
Last edited:

Congress to send bill to Trump to force disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein files​

The House overcame a months-long impasse, and the Senate moved quickly to dispatch with the issue.

Updated
November 18, 2025 at 3:47 p.m. ESTtoday at 3:47 p.m. EST



Congress was poised Tuesday to send a bill to President Donald Trump to force the Justice Department to release files related to deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, overcoming a months-long impasse in the House and quickly dispatching with the issue in the Senate.

Hours after the bill passed the House on a 427-1 vote, the Senate agreed to deem the legislation passed as soon as it arrives from the House. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) offered a motion that received unanimous consent and will require no further action by the chamber.



The House vote was the remarkable culmination of a bipartisan crusade by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) and Ro Khanna (D-California) that until Sunday had met fierce resistance from President Donald Trump, who repeatedly insisted that the focus on the Epstein files was a “hoax” promoted by Democrats.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-Louisiana) said he had asked Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) to amend the bill — which Johnson called a “political stunt” by Democrats — to include addition altections for Epstein victims mentioned in the files who want to remain anonymous.

“There are serious deficiencies in the legislation that I have noted at length,” Johnson said during a floor speech. But Thune said he did not see the need to amend it after it passed the House overwhelmingly.
“When a bill comes out of the House 427 to 1 and the president said he’s going to sign it, I’m not sure that amending it is in the cards,” Thune told reporters.

Republicans across the ideological spectrum joined Democrats in voting for the bill.
The lone no vote in the House came from Rep. Clay Higgins (R-Louisiana), who argued in a social media post that the bill as written “reveals and injures thousands of innocent people — witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.”
As it became increasingly clear he could lose the House vote, Trump reversed course Sunday, urging Republicans in a social media post to support the bill, which would compel officials at the Justice Department to release all unclassified records, documents, communications and investigative materials relating to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein in its possession. Trump said Monday that he would sign the bill if it reaches his desk.

The Justice Department has not said how it would respond to congressional requests to release the Epstein files, but Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputies have previously said that they cannot release materials related to ongoing investigations. Trump called on the Justice Department on Friday to examine the relationships between Epstein and several prominent Democrats, including former president Bill Clinton, and Bondi quickly tapped federal prosecutors in Manhattan to take on the job.

“The real test will be will the Department of Justice release the files, or will it all remain tied up in investigations?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) said at Tuesday’s news conference with Epstein accusers.
The House vote was the result of a discharge petition — a mechanism by which House lawmakers can circumvent the normal legislative process to compel votes. The petition received the 218th signature needed to force a vote on the Epstein files last week after newly sworn-in Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Arizona) joined the effort, which included all 214 Democrats in the chamber and four Republicans: Reps. Lauren Boebert (Colorado), Nancy Mace (South Carolina), Massie and Greene.


Trump faces heat from MAGA base on ‘America First’ agenda, Epstein


Massie and Khanna introduced the petition in July. Their press for greater transparency surrounding the Epstein case included two news conferences with Epstein’s victims, one in early September and the second one on Tuesday. As they did in September, several of the Epstein accusers who spoke Tuesday implored the full release of the Justice Department files and insisted that it should be a nonpolitical issue.
This time, however, many of their remarks about Trump and his handling of the matter were much more pointed. Haley Robson, an accuser who said she was a Republican, accused Trump of stonewalling the release of the files.

Trump and White House lieutenants for months tried to convince congressional Republicans to back away from the Epstein inquiry. In a bid to thwart a floor vote, Trump personally whipped votes against the discharge petition in both private and public, according to two people familiar with the effort who spoke on the condition of anonymity to detail private conversations.

Trump has the authority to direct the Justice Department to release the documents in its possession, as he previously has with documents related to the government investigations into the assassinations of the Kennedys and Martin Luther King Jr. Trump has not explained why he has not taken that step, and the White House did not respond to questions about why the release is contingent on a vote from Congress.

“If the president is serious about what he’s saying, he’s got the power to release the Epstein file right now,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) said on the House floor Tuesday before the vote. “Nobody’s stopping him. It’s within his possession. It’s within his control. He can release the whole thing, and he can redact the names of the victims and others, who are innocent.”
Schumer, meanwhile, warned Trump against selectively releasing files if the bill is passed.

“If the president tries to manipulate his way into releasing just some of the Epstein files while deliberately hiding others, the public will see right through it — and their frustration, their distrust in Donald Trump will grow even worse,” Schumer said on the Senate floor.
The president has said that he knew Epstein socially in Palm Beach and that they had a falling-out in the mid-2000s. Trump’s name appears repeatedly in previously released documents from Epstein’s estate, but Trump has maintained that he had “no idea” about Epstein’s criminal behavior, and the documents have produced no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump.

The House vote is one of two efforts underway to force more disclosure of the Epstein files.

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Kentucky) subpoenaed the Justice Department after one of the panel’s subcommittees voted to compel the department to release the files.
Comer has since broadened his probe into Epstein’s investigation by subpoenaing Epstein’s estate in August. The estate’s attorneys released the “birthday book,” which featured dedications from Epstein’s high-profile associates collected and given to him by his ex-partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence in federal prison for sex trafficking.
The House released another tranche of files last week from Epstein’s estate that included additional emails mentioning Trump.
 
Senate has passed by unanimous consent (as predicted here (sort of) two hours ago.)

Goes to Trump, who is on record having said he would sign such a bill.
A procedural question here: if it passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, does that mean it passes the two-thirds majority requisite to not be vetoed?

Of course, I imagine (assuming I know how it is all working!) that a veto would be symbolic as the Senate would just take a regular vote, and gauging the House’s passing, would easily override said veto.
 
:popcorn:

If Trump vetoes it, it goes back to both chambers for an override vote. Maybe Congresscritters can work out some rationale for why they voted for the bill and won't vote for the override of the veto, but I can't imagine what that would be.
 
A guy named Clay Higgins, from Louisiana.
 
My question is who voted against it in the house?
The sole Republican who voted against releasing Epstein files

Republican Representative Clay Higgins of Louisiana, a fervent supporter of Trump, was the only member to vote against the bill's passage
  • “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,” he wrote in a post on X after the vote. “It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America.”
  • He continued, “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.”
 
:popcorn:

If Trump vetoes it, it goes back to both chambers for an override vote. Maybe Congresscritters can work out some rationale for why they voted for the bill and won't vote for the override of the veto, but I can't imagine what that would be.

Publicly crossing Donald Trump? :hide:

Would be a flex for Trump to veto it now for lulz just to see what would happen.


Who was the 1 Congress person who voted no anyway?
 
Last edited:
If Trump vetoes it, it goes back to both chambers for an override vote. Maybe Congresscritters can work out some rationale for why they voted for the bill and won't vote for the override of the veto, but I can't imagine what that would be.
The question was entirely procedural on my part, not in any way speculating what would happen—it’s interesting though that despite passing by a veto-proof majority, it would still need to be voted on a second time in the House.
 
I would assume that the idea is that, having been informed of the president's veto and presumably been informed of why, congress should be given time to reconsider, in case some of them now find themselves swayed by the president's reasoning on why the bill is a bad idea.
 
The Republican Party is ripping the Trump Band-Aid off.

I'm thinking about two things. First, the speed and unanimity with which the Senate took its vote. Johnson had cued things up for them to continue the slow-walking: "here are some things that the House bill is missing, that the Senate should make sure it carefully deliberates before they take their vote." The Senate wanted no part of that. They knew already that they were going to vote and how they were going to vote. That bespeaks behind-the-scenes conversations, and something in those conversations that drives toward unanimity, and a positive display of unanimity.

I put that together with Samson's post 121, which talks about how Congresspeople have contacts in the FBI. The Congresscritters have been hearing about the content of the files. What else could make these people who have been lickspittle-subservient through all of Trump's years in office suddenly turn on him en masse?

Edit: oh, maybe three things. Massie said this yesterday: “Right now, it’s OK to cover up for pedophiles, because the president will take up for you if you’re in the red districts — that’s the deal,” Massie told reporters last week. “But that deal only works as long as he’s popular or president. … If they’re thinking about the right thing to do, that’s pretty obvious: You vote for it.” There's a lot in that.

Trump's presidency might not make it to the end of this year.
 
Last edited:
Well, of course, I have to check that my reasoning isn't impacted by my hopes.

But I'm trying to makes sense of the quick, unanimous vote, and "oh, Trump has some other way of blocking it, so we can safely do this" doesn't cut it for me: 1) because they've always been perfectly happy to act in his interest themselves, whatever other shifts he might have available, and they're passing on an opportunity to do that and 2) because they know that a (nearly) unanimous vote from both chambers will make it tremendously hard for him to 1) veto or 2) hold up some other bogus grounds for not releasing, like "active investigation."

They are positively doing something to him with the form that this vote took. And they have banded together to do it.

And when you think that they might know that they'll soon have to get themselves on the right side of a pedophilia scandal, it makes sense of why they would do that.

I'm open to anyone telling me how it is that my reasoning is flawed.

Something brought us from barely having the votes for a discharge petition to both chambers of Congress voting (nearly) unanimously to release the files.

Edit: Frankly, I myself need to unpack everything Massie was saying in that quote a post back:

1) [Astonishing that he would say as much] There have been people protecting pedophiles on the thought that Trump would take up for them [I don't know that idiom] in red districts.

2) Those "people" are of course Republicans because only for Republicans would Trump take up for you in red districts.

3) People have been calculating how long they should bother protecting pedophiles on that bargain, because Trump won't be around to take up for them forever. Then when you add in

4) Trump would have no particular interest in protecting random pedophiles, would only do so if he himself were among the pedophiles in question.

1+2+3+4 = Republicans have been knowingly protecting Trump-as-pedophile on the bargain that he will take up for them, but have been calculating when it won't be in their interests to do so anymore, and have reached the conclusion that now is that moment.
 
Last edited:
I try not to follow the circus that is American politics, but it's all around us, so what can you do.

This feels suspicious to me. Weren't they all against this just recently? Suddenly virtually almost everybody votes for it? Hmm..
 
I haven't been following this much, either.

But if the House passed it 427-1, and the Senate passed it by unanimous consent, then it doesn't really matter it Trumps signs it or vetoes it. The votes to override it are clearly there.

But what changed? This would have seemed like an easy campaign promise to deliver on in January or February. Does the "Trump knew about the girls" part make it sound more salacious about Trump than it really is, and now he's willing to throw other Republicans (maybe that representative from Louisiana) under the bus to show it? Or... is it the other way around, as Gori the Grey is suggesting? The other Republicans need to show that they aren't the ones implicated?

The whole caginess about it is what makes it interesting. I don't think that everyone who ever e-mailed him is part of it, some probably are caught up in it by happenstance. But there's been a defensiveness about it which has suddenly vanished. Why?

----

Side note, one of my area's prominent local officials is named Jeff Epstein. By all accounts, a stand-up guy and a great member of the community. But I can't imagine being Jeff Epstein right now. It's like being named Michael Bolton in Office Space but 1000 times worse. I'm honestly surprised the guy hasn't changed his name. But he just got a new position which is effectively a promotion, so he must have some really strong references.
 
If it is shown that Trump engaged in sex with underage girls, as was alleged in the 2016 case brought against Epstein and Trump together, would he be pressured to step down or get impeached?
 
What was it with Nixon - slowly, then quickly, he was forced to head for the exits?

If, hypothetically speaking, that were the case, Trump could quickly become a major GOP liability, and he could be forced to follow in Nixon's footsteps.

Key word "could". I think the "becomes a liability" part is key. There has to be a recognition that there is a liability for that to occur.

The fascinating part to me is, did Trump campaign on releasing the files expecting he never really would if elected? Or did he campaign on it in earnest, and has been pressured by various others not to endorse doing so until recently?

Someone is going to be implicated. It's just a matter of who.

And I'm not really sure that Trump being implicated is the best case outcome. Is President Vance - a relatively non-controversial, non-term-limited, young President Vance - a net improvement? Is a Ukraine-sketical, European-skeptical Vance an improvement over a President Trump who seems to have belatedly realized that he was being played by Putin? Does Vance have more qualms about what is right and what is wrong than Trump does, or is there only a possibility that he might have more qualms because he has not yet been in a position to display how few qualms he has?

On the whole, I think that if Trump is implicated, it will sink the GOP ship in 2026, and probably 2028, by association (which is also why 427-1 and unanimous suggests me may well not be implicated). But I'm not sure that having Vance be the successor is necessarily salvation.
 
Vance does not have Trump's celebrity status and much less of a hold on hardcore MAGA. A big loss in 2026 will force him to compromise or be a "loser." His Christian Nationalism may be a problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom