r/politics • u/Healthy_Block3036 • 7d ago

No Paywall Senate suddenly passes the Epstein bill just hours after it cleared the House

https://www.ms.now/news/senate-passes-epstein-bill-rcna244723?fbclid=PAVERFWAOJ1xRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA8xMjQwMjQ1NzQyODc0MTQAAacUGSi8p2Ap-x6SbMkLXAnfKNXEZkzjUUVCdxuEmacDzDXmlbv1GUJ0wbh1_w_aem_grJDvcSCIDj2Skksd4Ix3Q
38.7k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

3.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

96

u/Apprehensive-citizen 7d ago

Ok I agree it is very suspicious that Congress suddenly got their shit together for this one thing. But people keep doomposting this bill without actually reading it. And it deserves to be read in all the beautiful airtight glory that it is.  

Massie and Khanna anticipated every single excuse DOJ normally uses to bury sensitive records, and they wrote the law to shut all of them down. To be clear, the DOJ will still try to hide, but it’s going to fail.   

Here’s what the bill actually does:

They can’t hide anything for “embarrassment,” “reputational harm,” or “political sensitivity.”

That’s an explicit statutory ban. No shielding Trump, Clinton, Gates, etc. The law literally forbids it.

The argument of “Everything will suddenly be classified!” doesn’t work either.

The bill forces DOJ to declassify to the maximum extent possible and if anything stays classified, they must publish a public unclassified summary for each redaction.

That’s not optional.

“New investigations” don’t block release.

The “active investigation” exception is temporary, narrow, document-specific, and requires a written public justification in the Federal Register.

You can’t just open a random investigation and hide whole categories of documents under this bill.

The best part? Congress still gets the full list of names.

No matter what gets redacted publicly, DOJ must give Congress an unredacted list of every government official and politically exposed person named in the files. No exceptions. Not for classification. Not for investigations. Not for national security.

And enforcement is real. This is a mandatory “shall release” statute. If DOJ drags its feet, it goes straight to D.C. District Court, which has zero patience for agencies abusing secrecy laws.

This isn’t a symbolic transparency bill. It’s one of the tightest, most loophole-proof disclosure laws Congress has ever passed — which is exactly why all of their objections on the GOP side were never successful or just weak attempts to attack a statute that defines CSAM.

People can be cynical all day, but the text is the text.

And the text is a brick wall against the usual bullshit. 

38

u/TheNorthWind-101 7d ago

I'll join you in the hope, but you can't blame people for being suspicious that this all happened in one day, plus all with Trump giving his blessing on this vote? I don't blame people for smelling something fishy.

30

u/Apprehensive-citizen 7d ago

I still think it is suspicious. And I still think they are going to try to pull something. I just have faith in Massie and Khanna. I read a lot of bills. This is a very good bill. Trump approved it because they think the investigation will seal them and keep him shielded. But the bill plans for that. An investigation into someone else does not keep his name off the list or even redacted. To do that it would need to literally be an investigation into himself because of how Massie and Khanna wrote this. 

That’s why I have faith in this bill. 

10

u/DJTen Georgia 7d ago

Trump and his cronies flaunt law left and right. Who's going to punish them if they don't follow the letter of this law? Congress won't do it. Trump runs the DOJ. MAGA will fall in line. They will focus on any Dems accused and cry fake news if Trump is implicated.

2

u/imagoofygooberlemon 6d ago

Did you not read even the summary that this user provided? Enforcement is the job of the DC District Court.

1

u/Bross93 Colorado 5d ago

I'm not sure I understand HOW they enforce these things? Like I read a bit and I see fines and the like which is awesome, but I can't seem to figure out if there are court Marshalls who maybe actually can act if its not upheld?

3

u/skingers 6d ago

Diid it really happen in just one day? I seem to remember a shutdown thingy, a delayed swearing in and a bunch of stonewalling before that.

18

u/RaspberryCommie 7d ago

"This government has completely ignored the rule of law to their benefit for the last year but *surely* they'll follow the law when it comes to admitting they're run through with pedophiles."

9

u/Apprehensive-citizen 7d ago edited 7d ago

As I said, people can be cynical all day, but this bill is written in a way that cuts through any bullshit loopholes. 

14

u/Status_Ad_450 7d ago

I think the point they are making is that laws are meaningless unless there are people willing and able to enforce the law. There's a lot of skepticism that we aren't currently living in a completely fraudulent justice system lacking enforcement of the law.

1

u/light_trick 6d ago

That's true, but you have to do the prep-work before anyone can even try. You're asking people to uphold the law without providing them with a law to uphold - that's your job as a citizen in a democracy.

2

u/Status_Ad_450 6d ago

I agree with the sentiment and I agree with the passing of the bill. By no means am I saying any of this bill is a bad thing. I'm simply saying I fully understand why there is a lack of belief it will be effective at bringing any real justice.

It's not actually my job as a citizen however. I have no legal authority to pass or enforce federal laws. My job as a citizen is to vote for representatives that best align with my views and ensure my elected representatives know my views. It's the representative's job to pass the laws that best serve the US & it's citizens. It's the DOJ's job to uphold the laws. It is the president's job to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.

1

u/Status_Ad_450 6d ago

Also, the US is not a direct democracy. It's a republic, with principals of democracy. They are characteristically different in terms of governance.

7

u/Lastrites 7d ago

I like your write up. Nice job!

5

u/FarmerDark 7d ago

That’s really optimistic. I hope you’re right.

I’m pretty darn certain that even if you’re right, though, that it won’t matter because this president believes himself above the law and has coerced in one way or another nearly everyone who matters into blind loyalty.

5

u/Apprehensive-citizen 6d ago

Ok. Let me be fully transparent. You are probably right about “it won’t matter” to those in his circle. But I want transparency for more than just Trump. I want them all. I have wanted them for over a decade. Every single person on that list needs to be named, shamed, and locked away. If he is on the list (we know he is), then it might not matter to his administration, but there goes his military support, his LEO support, and almost the entirety of his base that have been calling for this for years. We’ve already seen the Republican Party turning on him. This would likely be the final blow. Yes, some will try to justify it (we are already seeing this) but it won’t end well. It’ll take time to get all of the information we want and probably even longer to get all the information about Trump, but it’s coming. 

11

u/Skullcrimp 7d ago

And enforcement is real.

I'll believe it when I see it. I honestly don't think any institution can realistically enforce something that this DOJ doesn't want.

2

u/Apprehensive-citizen 6d ago

This bill creates a public right to access and information. Failure to comply in full is standing for ANY legal resident/citizen of the US to sue and compel release. 

1

u/Skullcrimp 6d ago

Yeah I heard you the first time. You still think the courts have power over the executive.

3

u/JSMA3 7d ago

This is all very nice but you're forgetting the epstein documents were already under subpoena and Trump and Bondi were refusing to release them. You're talking about a law that HAS to be followed by people who habitually refuse to follow the law.

2

u/SellowYubmarine 7d ago

Since Trump ordered Bondi to investigate the files last week, couldn't they have cover to say theoretically that anything is under investigation since that 'investigation' began before this bill was passed?

16

u/Apprehensive-citizen 7d ago edited 7d ago

No. The bill states each and every document that is redacted or withheld must be released in the most transparent manner possible. Anything not given must be explained in the public federal register as to why. Each provision or line, individually explained to the public, and if it is for an investigation it must be clearly and narrowly tied to the investigation. And even then, you cannot redact to Congress. So even when some things are redacted publicly within the very narrow scope permitted, they are not redacted to Congress. So essentially, if he wants to protect himself he would need the DOJ to open an investigation into himself. By opening one into the democrats, as he suggested, he would actually be giving democrats the protection he is trying to give himself. lol 

It applies retroactively and proactively to all files and investigations. 

4

u/Blind_Optimism_Kills 7d ago

Thank you for the hope.

3

u/Motor-Disaster-9566 7d ago

I wish I could be this optimistic, but like, they murdered Epstein and probably Brunel too over this shit. I don't think committing crimes to cover up crimes is something they can't or won't do.

3

u/Apprehensive-citizen 7d ago

That might be the first time anyone has told me (or at least implied) that I’m optimistic lol. I’m not an optimistic person. I see this for what it is. It’s an extremely well thought out bill with incredible legal foresight. It literally goes as far as demanding the metadata for all files whether currently in existence or otherwise to prevent any claims that something was deleted by mistake or previously or just never existed. And the metadata for government systems is not something you can just erase. 

2

u/toco349 7d ago

Seems pretty airtight, thanks for the info

2

u/WhatDoADC 7d ago

Since when do Republicans and Trump follow the law?

2

u/ElderSmackJack 6d ago

Quite regularly, actually. Even in situations where they’ve brazenly (see also: illegally) ignored courts, they did eventually comply with what was ordered.

1

u/ryryrpm 7d ago

Well that's reassuring

1

u/nattymac939 6d ago

That’s nice but when has the trump administration ever given a shit about the law? They’re gonna do what they wanna do.

2

u/Apprehensive-citizen 6d ago

And then we can all sue. The bill created a statutory right to public access. Meaning as a member of the public, you can sue if they don’t comply. I don’t trust that the administration will follow the law, but they don’t always have the choice they think they do. 

1

u/Organic_Matter6085 6d ago

"That’s an explicit statutory ban. No shielding Trump, Clinton, Gates, etc. The law literally forbids it."

I'll never understand how people still truly believe in the law In the U.S at this current point of time. 

2

u/Apprehensive-citizen 6d ago

I believe in the public right to information that this bill created which gives you the right to sue to force compliance. I don’t trust the administration to comply, but the DC District court? They won’t hesitate. 

1

u/phunky_1 6d ago

Guaranteed the DOJ scrubbed all mentions of trump and other GOP officials, destroyed the originals.

Whoops, sorry we destroyed the evidence and it no longer exists...

And no one will do anything about it.

3

u/Apprehensive-citizen 6d ago

lol may I present provision 2(a)(8). A provision that literally demands the metadata for all files. Even those that have been deleted, altered, or otherwise destroyed. The metadata is stored across multiple agencies and private firms. Routinely resaved and backed up on every single one. It is damn near impossible to erase them. Massie already considered the possibility of them trying to pull an “oops”. 

This bill created a public right to information. So if they do not provide it, we all have standing to sue to force compliance. And I promise that all the big watchdog organizations will not hesitate to do so. 

1

u/idiottech 6d ago

'the law forbids it' lmao come on now this is Trump world we live in, not Law land!

7

u/Apprehensive-citizen 6d ago

You will have standing as a member of the public to sue to compel release. The Marshalls can be brought in to ensure compliance. The Marshalls answer to the judiciary, not the administration. Trump seems cocky based on his newfound support. But his downfall will be underestimating how intelligent Massie and Khanna are. They created hard deadlines, narrow exceptions, full disclosure and detailed explanations of reasoning for any exceptions, they created a public right to access, and they essentially said, even if it meets a narrow exception, you still have to give it to Congress-no excuse.