Social Media Reacts To Only Rep Against Releasing Epstein Files

Only one member of Congress voted against releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files on Tuesday, and his reasoning was quite the topic on social media.

Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.) was the one “no” vote amidst 427 “yes” votes on a bill that would force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the deceased child sex predator.

Considering the overwhelming support given to the bill, people naturally had thoughts why Higgins decided to be the contrarian.

He attempted to explain his reasoning in a long social media post after the passage of The Epstein Files Transparency Act.

Higgins began by saying he’s been “a principled ‘NO’ on this bill from the beginning,” and that “what was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today.”

According to the congressman, the bill “abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America,” and “reveals and injures thousands of innocent people – witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc.”

Higgins claimed that “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.”

However, Higgins said that 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.”

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,…

— Rep. Clay Higgins (@RepClayHiggins) November 18, 2025

Although some people did agree with Higgins’ reasoning for the no vote, the vast majority of people thought he was just trying to protect people in power from being held accountable.

Why would a victim be hurt by the disclosure of the crimes that were perpetrated against them? Why would witnesses that in good faith provided evidence to incarcarate criminals be ashamed of their good work?

By “other people” do you mean perpetrators?

How will innocent people…

— The Juan Destroyer of Narratives. (@JuanMVP) November 18, 2025

Higgins’ excuse: “protecting victims and innocents.”
Reality: the bill keeps redactions for actual victims and anyone genuinely at risk.

It only ends the DOJ’s endless slow-walk that has shielded uncharged elites for decades.

427-1 voted to force the release.
Clay alone said…

— ICE T (@FleaMcdermott) November 18, 2025

The DOJ already scrubs every file before release, they redact innocent names and anything not credible. That’s standard protocol, not optional.

The discharge petition doesn’t blow any of that up. It just stops the foot-dragging and forces the real evidence out.

So no, it won’t…

— Stop Autocrats 🇺🇸 (@justicenow_alan) November 18, 2025

The victims themselves have been pleading for the release of those files. Their voices should count the most. Of course the files should be made public. Only then can justice come.

— Akash Maniam (@ManiamAkash) November 18, 2025

Except all of these items are covered… in the bill?

— Joel Cardwell (@joelcardwellX) November 18, 2025

It’s called free speech, truth, and transparency. Predators with powerful friends don’t get a pass, no matter how loudly you insist the rules don’t apply to the ruling class. Your message fails. Releasing the Epstein files is not a criminal conviction. The media and the public…

— The Spiritual Shift (@spiritualshift_) November 18, 2025

It’s been nearly 6 1/2 years, and not a single one of Epstein’s clients/guests have been publicly charged.

The system has already failed the victims – it’s time to expose the elite that have been protected all of this time.

— Libertarian Party of Mississippi (@LPMississippi) November 18, 2025

Of course, one person trolled Higgins by wondering if he had an ulterior motive for voting no.



Source link

Leave a Reply