The only no vote came from Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican who is a fervent supporter of Trump. He also chairs a subcommittee that initiated a subpoena on the Justice Department for the Epstein files.
this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2025
481 points (99.6% liked)
politics
26404 readers
2227 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not surprising given his viscous performance 3 months ago trying to prevent a motion to release the files from even being brought forth in the House Oversight Committee.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1snbEmwVK8
Actually only 1 no vote is quite surprising.
He also chairs a subcommittee
One of the big things we need fixed is that shit just being based on seniority.
When the person from the controlling party with the longest time on that specific committee is defacto chair, people will never relinquish a committee seat. They'll hold one they don't actually care about for decades blocking others because some day they might get chair and get bonus "donations" from whatever industry you're supposed to reign in.
He must have misread the legislation. Stupid mundane details.
Rep. Clay Higgins
I guarantee you he's Eskimo Brothers with Roy Moore
But Trump said he wanted them released! (Presumably because they've been scrubbed of everyone except Democrats) Why is he going against Dear Leader?
Guaranteed this gets hung up in Senate, on Trump's desk or because of the DOJ's 'investigation' and they try to never release it.
I'd like to buy the "blocked by on-going investigation" square, please. It's so obvious.
That was basically his excuse with his tax returns right? I wouldn't be shocked in the least if this is his next move
Yeah but he was lying about that completely, there was no "audit". He didn't want people to know how much of a tax cheat he is. Now he has the power (he shouldn't but sadly does) to start an actual DOJ investigation. We'll see.
Supposedly the bill is specifically about removing this excuse, because it's been used in the past with other prominent cases too.
I think it's more likely that they'll just release all the files except for those which mention Trump and his allies, or edit out such references and pass it off as the genuine article.
Redacted. Yeah. Bondi will bookend it with “no collusion” so all the MAGA troglodytes can chatter how innocent the demented rapist fraud is.
load more comments
(2 replies)
If you've seen what was in the last batch of Epstein emails/texts, it shouldn't be a surprise. That's the shit they leaked? What are they holding back? My god, how many Obama staffers was Epstein buddies with? How many Israeli MPs? Put the whole of Lower Manhattan and half the Hamptons on the god damned sex offender registry. Dude was everywhere.
The man is absolutely radioactive. Never even mind the Republicans, there's zero chance Chuck Schumer wants anything else getting released. Epstein could bring down everyone in DC over 70.
Epstein could bring down everyone in DC over 70.
Stop I can only get so erect.
So did they.
Hence the Viagra.
there’s zero chance Chuck Schumer wants anything else getting released
His voting says otherwise. What utter bullshit. You can literally say anything about him and then just demand people accept as true. Sound familiar?
My god, how many Obama staffers was Epstein buddies with?
Why the fuck would Republicans want to hold that back?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ken Klippenstein agrees, but for a different reason. He's examined the bill's language and thinks transparency was doomed from the start:
I thought the same but amazingly the Senate passed it easily. Trump says he'll sign it. We'll see.
He will. The wording of the language is that they release anything unclassified... So then Bondi classifies everything.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Feels like its the DOJ stopping it due to on going investigations. Its the easiest way for them to show they made a "good faith" effort to get stuff out but showing nothing.
They'll be doctored like hell, I'm sure of it.
They release all the files, except those that concern "national security".
Guess what people at the FBI did over the last months? Classify Epstein files...
I think the LA times wrote a piece about this in the past day or two, the doctoring was done when Trump took office and had the Justice Department redact all references to him "as a private citizen" which is some bullshit. But look at what's already come through, thousands of pages with hundreds of references to Trump, unredacted and incriminating, I wonder if the idiots he hired to scour through the files actually did it, or just cashed their checks and ran like the rest of Elon's DOGE bullshit.
It's safe to assume anything redacted is Trump. They have the burden of proof to say it's not.
"It's not Trump."
"Okay, prove it!"
"UM... oh look, a squirrel!"
If only it were that easy. A conversation with one of them would go something more like this:
"It's not Trump."
"Okay, prove it!"
"I don't need to because THIS IS AMERICA, and it's INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY."
"Like the people arrested by ICE?"
"THEY WERE CRIMINALS!"
"Even the 93% without criminal records?"
"THAT'S FAKE NEWS, LIBTARD"
The list:
Don(REDACTED)
(REDACTED)ump
D(REDACTED)
Sleepy Joe
President Tr(REDACTED)
Bubba
Tru(REDACTED)
The Libs
(REDACTED)ald Trump
Crooked Hillary
Barack HUSSEIN Obama
(REDACTED)mp
Eric Trump
The thing is, enough people have seen the files, including Biden era prosecutors, Trump 1 prosecutors, victims, former and current FBI, etc. who can testify to the fact that evidence has been altered.
But only after they’ve been scrubbed of any mention of “allies”.
The latest batch of released files has included some of the laziest and most haphazard redactions I've seen since Bush was on his way out in '08. These Congresscritters aren't wasting staff time on cleaning up their info-dumps. It's all just going out the door every Friday.
The good news is that this admin is really bad at redactions.
I highly recommend Heather Cox Richardson’s near-daily coverage of current politics, and The Files.
From a historian’s perspective, she seems to think that Trump’s sudden reversal after fighting tooth and nail to avoid this release is because he realizes he’s lost control of the House republicans on this issue as their voters are also frothing at the mouth to get these files released. And, that if he’s so afraid of what’s in the FBI’s complete set after the horror of what has already been released, what the hell is actually in there? She also seems to think that if the bill gets to his desk, he’ll all but have to release them, but personally I don’t see him ever caving to that. He could release them by executive order today if he actually wanted the files released.
Here’s my take: I find it pretty incredible that people don’t seem to understand the depths of Trumps depravity when he extorted our allies, sicked a hillbilly mob on the capital, used The Office of the President to hawk merch, and openly mocked American democracy, but grooming underage girls is where we all collectively draw the line. The mountains of evidence of his extreme criminality, his appointment of white and Christian nationalists, and his alliances with America’s sworn enemies melting down our government? Water off a duck’s back apparently.
I’m all for whatever it takes to dismantle the Trump regime, but I seriously doubt undoctored evidence ever sees the light of day. And if it does, he will be dead long before he ever sees justice for it. But, if it FINALLY sours voters enough to not vote for him in the next election, I’ll take it.
load more comments
(1 replies)
After all this time, how do we knew what is authentic or complete?
It will be pretty obvious. If Trump is implicated, it's authentic.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Why do they HATE Trump? Even though Trump is NOT in the Epstein Files and Didnt KNOW the guy and Releasing them would PROVE that Trump Doesn't have Sex with Children?
Narrator: And yet in spite of it all, those file never were released so the far right pedo class could be protected
The latest traunch of emails has already clipped the wings of Larry Summers, Michael Wolff, Peggy Siegal, and Kathryn Ruemmler. I don't think its a coincidence that Prince Andrew was getting the heave-ho weeks in advance.
The Epstein Files are leaking like a sieve. By the time we get a full accounting, I'm curious to know what'll even be left to reveal.
Other news we’re following:
- Trump dismisses 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi: The U.S. president gave a warm welcome to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salmanof Saudi Arabia, his first visit since the Washington Post reporter was killed by Saudi agents. When the crown prince was asked about Khashoggi, Trump interjected, saying, “Things happen.”
Jesus fucking Chr- *deep breath*
He is not going to sign this, lol.
If we know anything about Trump by this point, is that he'll say things and do the opposite. He's not signing this, guys.
load more comments
(6 replies)
My guess is that they decided that since it wasn't going away they might as well get it fully into the news cycle now and the year until midterms will be enough time for it to fade away or be thoroughly MAGAtized so that it won't be a voting issue.
Those files are going to have more blackout on them then the Roswell documents.
If a criminal gets the evidence before anyone else gets the evidence, then no one is getting the actual evidence.
The House AND the Senate passed it already? Damn wasn't expecting that.
Now, what is the definition of “files”. One file? Two? Redacted? Who decides the redactions?
Total bullshit
view more: next ›