All but one congressman in the House and the Senate voted in favor of The Epstein Files Transparency Act. The bill directs the Attorney General to release the documents under her control related to Jeffrey Epstein. It is now to be submitted to President Trump, who has said he will sign the bill when it gets to his desk..
The lone dissenter was (Republican) Louisiana Rep. Clay Higgins. Higgins posted this statement explaining his position on X (emphasis in original):
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.
Higgins’s statement elicited a torrent of personal abuse on X. The argument against his position was of the ad hominem variety.
Higgins’s post now comes with a community note disputing it (the refrence to Massie is to Rep. Thomas Massie): “Rep. Higgins’ claim misrepresents H.R.4405. The bill includes redactions for victims & uninvolved individuals. Massie explained victims can’t release names due to lawsuits forcing them into homelessness, and the petition was not yet eligible three months ago.”
Let’s go to the text of the bill: H.R. 4405 and S.2557. Section 2(b)(1) of the bill sets forth “prohibited grounds for withholding.” It’s short and sweet:
No record shall be withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.
That’s all, folks. There is no section 2(b)(2).
Section 2(c) of the bill sets forth “permitted withholdings.” It reads:
(1) The Attorney general may withhold or redact the segregable portions of records that—
(A) contain personally identifiable information of victims or victims’ personal and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
(B) depict or contain child sexual abuse materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252–2252A;
(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;
(D) depict or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury of any person; or
(E) contain information specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order.
(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.
(3) To the extent that any covered information would otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that classified information to the maximum extent possible.
(A) If the Attorney General makes a determination that covered information may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security, the Attorney General shall release an unclassified summary for each of the redacted or withheld classified information.
(4) All decisions to classify any covered information after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress, including the date of classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and an unclassified summary of the justification.
The community note to the contrary notwithstanding, no “permitted withholding” provision pertains to the protection of “uninvolved individuals.” I doubt the Attorney General is in a position to make a determination of who is or isn’t “involved” in cases without any adjudication. The whole point of the exercise seems to be to prevent such discretion from being exercised.
Maybe I am missing something. Maybe Higgins has a point. Maybe Higgins is a political variant of Huckleberry Finn’s Colonel Sherburn, although Higgins’s dissent was to no effect — except perhaps provoking me to look into it. Colonel Sherburn actually backed the crowd off.
Maybe Higgins’s point doesn’t matter “at this point in time,” as the Watergate witnesses used to put it. It’s what happens when trust in the authorities has been dissipated and the cry of victims is irresistible.
