# Epstein Files =\> Trump Impeachment & Conviction? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Tags:** trump\ **Created:** [November 10, 2025, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733 "2025-11-10T17:42:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/401 "2025-11-19T17:26:20Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > Can you cite the law you’re referring to? 'Cause I can’t find any law that makes it illegal to “embarrass the President in front of the world”. Ask and þee shall receive. [Here ya go](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaH_7AvueiE). > [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > Could a member of the House read those classified documents from the House floor under the protection of the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 6)? Probably not. > They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place. My understanding is that case law establishes that intent has a lot to do with interpreting this clause and that it is limited to legislative acts. Also, it seems to be interpreted as a separation of powers issue viz, the executive branch cannot intimidate the legislative branch through enforcing the law but the executive branch can act if a crime truly has been committed. So I suspect that if a legislator truly violated the law through speech or debate like threatening the President’s life or inciting insurrection, then they lose their protection under the clause. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/402 "2025-11-19T17:45:06Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > So I suspect that if a legislator truly violated the law through speech or debate like threatening the President’s life or inciting insurrection, then they lose their protection under the clause. How would reading from the unredacted Epstein files threaten the president’s life or incite insurrection? If Congress passes a law (release the Epstein files with no redactions to prevent embarrassment, etc.), then the DOJ doesn’t follow the law as written (Bondi redacts/classifies portions to protect Trump, etc), why couldn’t members of Congress then read from an unredacted version of the files from the House floor? Why wouldn’t Art 1, Sec 6 of the Constitution protect them from prosecution? ---
**Author:** ![Frazzled](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/frazzled/32/3368_2.png) [@Frazzled](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frazzled)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/403 "2025-11-19T17:46:30Z")
I think it’s likely that we’ll have a lot of big names being implicated in this data dump. Bill Clinton is almost certainly going to be implicated. It might be that Trump is hoping that right wing news outlets will focus exclusively on Democrats. He’ll also likely try to lessen the impact of his involvement by having so many others being talked about at the same time. He might just be doing the tried and true “I’m going down so I’m going to bring the rest of you suckers down with me” ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/404 "2025-11-19T17:48:52Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > How would reading from the unredacted Epstein files threaten the president’s life or incite insurrection? Those were just examples of unprotected crimes a legislator could be guilty of in their speech. If it is illegal to publicly release unredacted criminal files then that would the crime we are talking about. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/405 "2025-11-19T17:49:23Z")
I suspect there are a lot of powerful men having a sit-down with their loved ones over the next couple days starting with the words, “Ok, so this isn’t going to be good…” ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/406 "2025-11-19T17:52:25Z")
I’m not talking in general terms for an explanation of Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution. I’m asking about this specific law that was just passed by Congress, regarding these specific files the DOJ has on Epstein’s associates, in a case where the AG orders her department to redact names in violation of the recently-passed law. If the DOJ redacts names to prevent embarrassing certain individuals (namely Trump), could a member of Congress take an unredacted version and read those names that were “classified” without being prosecuted? I imagine other copies exist that aren’t going to have those redactions. ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/407 "2025-11-19T17:54:54Z")
@Happy_Lendervedder @Saint_Cad I’m not sure we have an _answer_, but we _do_ have more than one Representative opining about the _possibility_: > **[Where things stand with the Epstein files as victims push for their release](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/jeffrey-epstein-files-release-status-congress-bill-victims-trump-rcna229102)** > > The House will likely have enough support to pass a bill forcing the release of the Epstein files at the end of next month, but the Senate is an open question. > [@](#): > > [Marjorie Taylor, R-GA] Greene said she would read that list on the House floor if the accusers want that. > > “I’m not afraid to name names,” Greene said. “And so if they want to give me a list, I will walk in that Capitol on the House floor and I’ll say every damn name that abused these women. I can do that for them, and I’d be proud to do it.” > > [Thomas, R-KY] Massie later said he would be willing to join Greene in that effort, citing the speech-and-debate clause of the Constitution, which protects members of Congress from civil suits and criminal prosecution for actions performed in their legislative capacity. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/408 "2025-11-19T17:57:55Z")
> [@Frazzled](#): > > It might be that Trump is hoping that right wing news outlets will focus exclusively on Democrats. Are the right wing news outlets even mentioning this at all? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/409 "2025-11-19T18:01:05Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > . I’m asking about this specific law that was just passed by Congress, regarding these specific files the DOJ has on Epstein’s associates, in a case where the AG orders her department to redact names in violation of the recently-passed law. And I covered that. The clause is interpreted as a separation of powers. IF the court interprets the speech as violating that separation by undermining the AG then the legislator may not have immunity. > [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > could a member of Congress take an unredacted version and read those names that were “classified” without being prosecuted? We have to assume releasing unredacted information in files is a crime otherwise your question is moot. It is still an open legal question but bottom line is that the protection afforded in the Speech and Debate Clause is not absolute. As for what Massie said about legislative acts, he is correct but under what context would that be a legislative act as in germane to a motion on the floor? And I think the Court would include intent. Was it really speech and debate or was it meant to violate the AG’s order? Similar to what I pointed out, if a House member pulls out a gun and threatens to shoot any legislator that votes for the bill, is that protected under S&DC? I don’t believe so, so not everything said on the floor is protected. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/410 "2025-11-19T18:01:41Z")
Well, that’s what I was looking for! Thank you for that. At least some members of Congress are also thinking ahead on this and planning on using the protections of the speech and debate clause to make sure this law is carried out as written. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/411 "2025-11-19T18:02:56Z")
This just in (gift link): > # Despite congressional action, quick release of Epstein files is in doubt > > The Justice Department has said little about its plans, and the new disclosure legislation contains major loopholes. > > [https://wapo.st/4o31SpO](https://wapo.st/4o31SpO) TL;DR. It’s this: > The legislation that Congress agreed to pass Tuesday gives the Justice Department a few exceptions under which it can refuse to release material. Among them: if release “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution.” > > On Friday, Trump ordered Bondi to launch a [new federal investigation](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/14/trump-justice-epstein-democrats/) related to Epstein… No big surprise. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/412 "2025-11-19T18:08:06Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > At least some members of Congress are also thinking ahead on this and planning on using the protections of the speech and debate clause to make sure this law is carried out as written. Let’s say _testing_ the protection of S&D Clause. Curious question, is it your position that anything a legislator says on the floor is protected? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/413 "2025-11-19T18:11:21Z")
I am not a woman nor have I ever been sexually assaulted so maybe I’m talking through ignorance, but if my identity as a rape victim were currently unknown and the DOJ redacted my name in releasing the files, I would be majorly pissed if politicians released it as part of their grandstanding. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/414 "2025-11-19T18:16:47Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Curious question, is it your position that anything a legislator says on the floor is protected? No, and I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the ins and outs of Constitutional law, hence my question here. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/415 "2025-11-19T18:18:12Z")
> [@Happy\_Lendervedder](#): > > No, and I am not a lawyer so I don’t know the ins and outs of Constitutional law, hence my question here. So are you open to the idea that releasing redacted information may not be protected? Like revealing national intelligence isn’t? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/416 "2025-11-19T18:20:42Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > > The legislation that Congress agreed to pass Tuesday gives the Justice Department a few exceptions under which it can refuse to release material. Among them: if release “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution.” > > > > On Friday, Trump ordered Bondi to launch a [new federal investigation](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/11/14/trump-justice-epstein-democrats/) related to Epstein… > > No big surprise. The irony is that Trump said that the DOJ needs to investigate all of the Democrats in the Epstein files. So if Democrats are under DOJ investigation then the only names that can be released are… ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Lendervedder](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_lendervedder/32/8488_2.png) [@Happy\_Lendervedder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Lendervedder)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/417 "2025-11-19T18:24:15Z")
Dude, I was legitimately asking a question. Am I not allowed to do that without my intentions being questioned? Again, thanks for the general information on the Constitution, but I suppose my actual question has been answered, considering that actual members of Congress are considering the very thing i was asking about. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/418 "2025-11-19T19:23:14Z")
As someone who has had to sit through basic classified information training, it is made very clear that someone with classification authority (as delegated by the appropriate agency and pursuant to the classification guide) is not allowed to classify something to avoid embarrassment or similar issues. Not that that would stop anyone in the Trump administration. ---
**Author:** ![OldOlds](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a3d4f5/32.png) [@OldOlds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldOlds)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/419 "2025-11-19T19:25:02Z")
So there’s this: > **[Mike Johnson voted for the Epstein bill - he’s now mad the Senate approved it](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/epstein-files-release-mike-johnson-senate-b2868239.html)** > > Ahead of the House vote to release the Epstein files, Johnson oozed confidence that the Senate would amend the bill Which states that Johnson expected the Senate would either water it down or not hold a vote at all. On the one hand I so want that to be true, but on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that Johnson and Thune wouldn’t have coordinated their game plan. Is it possible that Thune secretly wants Trump over with (seriously asking, because I don’t know if he’s a True Believer, a Scared Primary Candidate, or what)? ---
**Author:** ![DavidNRockies](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidnrockies/32/6279_2.png) [@DavidNRockies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DavidNRockies)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2025, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733/420 "2025-11-19T19:28:31Z")
> “The safest thing to do is vote _against_ a bill that passes or vote _for_ a bill that fails.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/epstein-files-trump-impeachment-conviction/1024733.md?page=22)