By John Q. Hosedrinker 
According to Congressman Ro Khanna, only a minuscule portion of the documents recently released by the Department of Justice to the House Oversight Committee were actually new. Khanna stated that a mere 3% of the provided materials were previously unseen, representing less than 1% of the complete Epstein files. The congressman shared these details during an interview on The Weekend program. This limited release raises further questions about the government’s transparency regarding the Epstein investigation.
Read the original article here
Rep. Khanna slammed the “stonewalling” tactics of the Trump Justice Department, a sentiment that understandably boils over when considering the sheer scope of the Epstein case and the lingering questions surrounding it.
The core of the issue, as Rep. Khanna brought to light during his appearance on “The Weekend,” is the meager release of information from the vast trove of Epstein files. He revealed that a paltry 3% of the newly-released documents provided to the House Oversight Committee were actually *new* – and, even more damning, this 3% amounts to less than 1% of the total Epstein files. This suggests a deliberate attempt to conceal information, a stark contrast to the transparency one would expect in a case of such public interest and importance.
The implications of such a limited release are significant. It raises serious concerns about a cover-up, suggesting that powerful figures might be protected from scrutiny. If the government is withholding information, it naturally prompts questions about who and what are being shielded, and why. It’s an assertion that demands further inquiry and scrutiny from the public and the media.
Moreover, the notion of the full files being released seems highly unlikely, especially while certain individuals maintain influence or power within the government. The selective release of information, or even the outright denial of access to the full extent of the files, inevitably fuels speculation and distrust. It creates an environment where rumors and conspiracy theories can flourish, further eroding public faith in the institutions meant to serve justice.
The context in which this is happening is further complicated by reports of connections between certain individuals and the Epstein case. Allegations of redactions, the names of those implicated being censored, and the potential involvement of figures previously in positions of power only intensify the need for complete transparency.
Furthermore, the defense presented by some – the assertion that the investigation is moving forward or that the information being withheld isn’t relevant – doesn’t hold much water. For a case as controversial as this, there is a profound public interest in the full picture. A full accounting of the evidence is necessary to ensure accountability and to allow justice to be served.
The withholding of the Epstein files only reinforces the perception of a system rigged to protect the powerful, and there is a risk of letting the victims down. Complete transparency and full disclosure of the files are essential to ensure that those who may have been involved are held accountable.