Khanna says Democrats pushed for Epstein files' release since 2019
In an interview on ABC News's 'This Week,' Khanna pushed back on the suggestion that his party only began calling for the documents to be released recently — now that the issue is politically fraught for President Trump.
'Why are Democrats suddenly interested in the Epstein case?' ABC News's Jonathan Karl asked the California Democrat. 'I mean, did you ask the Biden Justice Department to release these files?'
'It's not a sudden interest. Actually, the former chair, Elijah Cummings, had an investigation starting in 2019,' Khanna said, referring to the late civil rights activist and Maryland Democratic House member, who chaired the House Oversight and Reform Committee at the time.
'And I have tweeted out supporting that, back in 2019,' Khanna added. 'We have been pushing for transparency. During the Biden administration, both in 2021 and 2024, the court ordered release of documents.'
Khanna acknowledged the heightened scrutiny on the case in recent months.
'But Donald Trump raised the stakes,' Khanna said. 'And he did it in a way in the campaign that was justified. He said, look, when I get there, I'm going to release the files. Pam Bondi says there's a client list. Then she says, no, it's just a file. She's going to release them.'
'I didn't criticize them at all those first few months,' Khanna continued. 'But when they refused to release the files — when they said there's nothing more to see — that's when we said transparency demands the full release of the files.'
Khanna has been a leading Democrat in Congress calling for Epstein files to be released, and he is co-sponsoring a bill with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) that would force the release of the files.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What is gerrymandering? How a centuries-old political tactic sparked a redistricting firestorm in Texas.
Republicans are threatening to remove Democrats from office or even have them arrested. Democrats have declared 'we are at war' and pledged to go 'nuclear' in response. All of this over maps. How can something so seemingly basic spark such intense rhetoric? That's because, thanks to a process known as gerrymandering, political fights over maps can become high-stakes contests over power, how it's wielded and how far the parties are willing to go to protect it. The current standoff over gerrymandering centers around Texas, where the state's Republican majority is hoping to approve new maps that redraw the congressional districts to secure their party up to five additional seats in Congress if the maps are in place by next year's midterm elections. Dozens of Democratic legislators have fled the state to prevent the legislature from considering the maps. So far the tactic has worked, but it's unclear how long they can hold out or what authority Republicans have to overcome their holdout. What is gerrymandering? Every 10 years, the Census determines how the 435 seats in the House of Representatives are divided among the states. That decision is made at the federal level, but it's the states themselves that choose how to carve up their territory into their allotted number of districts. In most cases, district maps are approved by the state legislature, which creates an obvious incentive for the party in power to manipulate the maps to their advantage. That's what gerrymandering is: the process of drawing maps in a way that concentrates one party's power while diluting the power of the opposition. Gerrymandering is nothing new. In fact, it has been around longer than either of today's major political parties. The term was coined all the way back in 1812 after Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry approved congressional maps that included a winding district that critics said looked like a mythical salamander. Gerry plus salamander became gerrymander, even though Gerry himself found the map to be 'highly disagreeable.' Click the arrows to cycle through different gerrymandering scenarios to see how it works in practice. How does gerrymandering work? Voters for the two parties aren't spread out evenly across the states. They tend to cluster together with others who hold similar political views. Democratic voters are concentrated in big cities, while Republicans usually dominate rural areas. This creates the opportunity for lawmakers to draw lines that tactically distribute their voter base across districts so they can win as many seats as possible. There are two primary techniques that are used in gerrymandering: cracking and packing. Cracking splits a dense area of one party's voters into small pieces that are spread out across several districts where they are outnumbered by their political opposition. In Utah, for example, the lines are drawn so the state's lone Democratic stronghold of Salt Lake City is cracked into four pieces that are each part of larger, mostly rural districts. The other gerrymandering strategy is called packing, which is when maps cram as many of one party's voters as possible into a small number of districts so seats elsewhere in the state are safe. Is gerrymandering legal? Yes, but with some important caveats. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution barring legislators from designing their state's districts to give themselves a partisan advantage. Gerrymanders based on race — maps designed to weaken the voting power of a specific minority group — are unconstitutional, however. The distinction between the two types of gerrymandering can be fuzzy because minorities, particularly Black voters, tend to vote for Democrats. In those cases, the court has found that a gerrymander can still be constitutional as long as it was created with a clear intent to dilute minority votes. Other than the rules against racial gerrymandering, which could change as soon as the next Supreme Court term, the only other nationwide mandate for congressional map drawing is that districts must have roughly the same population. Many states also set additional guidelines for their maps, including the principle that districts should be as geographically compact as possible and that all parts of a district have to be connected. How did gerrymandering become such a big deal? There have been complaints about gerrymandering for centuries, but nothing in the past compares with the intensity of the fight over district lines over the past decade and a half. Things began to escalate after the 2010 Census, when Republicans across the country mounted a coordinated effort to use redistricting to increase GOP control over both state and federal legislatures. The campaign utilized sophisticated mapping technology that had not been available during previous redistricting cycles. The new maps were credited with helping Republicans maintain a strong majority in the House of Representatives in 2012 despite receiving 1.4 million fewer votes than Democrats in House races nationwide. Republicans kept control of the House during the next two election cycles, in part because of partisan maps that helped them secure more than a dozen seats than they would have otherwise won, according to analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice. Though Democrats were largely caught off guard in 2012, blue states passed their own gerrymanders following the 2020 Census. As a result, the GOP's districting advantage had been largely erased by the 2022 midterms, according to the Associated Press. Even in the context of recent gerrymandering, Analysts say the scope and timing of Texas Republicans' redistricting effort stands out. States usually redraw their districts every 10 years, after the new census determines where House districts will be apportioned. The Texas GOP has opted to create new maps just five years after the state's last round of redistricting, with the goal of having them in place ahead of the midterms. Republicans currently control 25 of Texas's 38 congressional districts. The new map would put them in position to hold 30 House seats after next year, which would give them 80% of the state's representation in Congress in a state where President Trump secured 56% of the vote in last year's presidential race, according to the official tally from the Texas Secretary of State. That plan is on hold, however, until the standoff with Democrats who have fled the state is resolved. Democratic governors in California, New York and Illinois have pledged to gerrymander their own states if the new Texas map does go into effect, but experts say they would face serious hurdles if they do try to go tit-for-tat with the GOP on redistricting. The outcome of the current redistricting fight could have a huge impact on President Trump's final two years in the White House. Democrats need to flip only a handful of seats to gain a majority in the House, which would give them veto power over any legislation Trump wanted to pass and the authority to launch high-profile investigations into his actions in office. If Republicans keep control, Trump would enjoy two more years of a Congress that is steadfastly aligned behind his vision for the country.
NBC News
27 minutes ago
- NBC News
Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin urges fellow Democrats to 'go nuclear' in redistricting fight
BENTON HARBOR, Mich. — Sen. Elissa Slotkin, a rising Democratic star from Michigan, told NBC News that Democrats should 'go nuclear' to counter Republicans' push in Texas and other red states to redraw the congressional maps in their favor. The first-term senator, who was tapped to deliver the Democratic rebuttal to President Donald Trump's joint address to Congress this year, said Democrats have to fight fire with fire. 'I'm going to urge and encourage blue states like a California or Chicago or Illinois to do the same thing. I don't want to do that. I want the country to have a completely nonpartisan drawing of the lines based on the census. But if they're going to do that and go nuclear, so am I,' she said in an exclusive interview after her first and only town hall of the congressional August recess on Monday night. Slotkin argued that Democrats should go on the 'offensive' against Trump and congressional Republicans' agenda more broadly. If Republicans want her vote on a spending bill to avert a government shutdown at the end of September, for example, Slotkin said they will need to roll back health care cuts signed into law as part of Trump's megabill last month. 'If my vote is wanted, right, then we got to negotiate. And then the thing I'm going to negotiate for is returning some of that health care to the people I represent,' she told NBC News, noting that she voted against a Republican spending bill in March as well. The top Democrat in the Senate, Chuck Schumer of New York, faced intense backlash from the base after he allowed a key procedural vote on that bill to move forward. Slotkin said Democrats are ready for a new generation of leadership, noting that at 49 years old, she's 'like a spring chicken in the Senate.' She referred to older leaders, at one point, as 'warmed over leftovers' and said younger voters relate to members who get 'technology and the changing economy' and don't 'use a flip phone.' Slotkin brought up the issue during the town hall as well. 'Let's be honest, even here tonight, right? It is a very hard thing to bring our young people into the conversation, because they're disillusioned, they feel left out, they feel like these people don't represent me,' she told the crowd, which was overwhelmingly composed of White seniors and older voters, although it was held at a Boys and Girls Club in predominantly-Black Benton Harbor. The club, which is located in Republican Rep. Bill Huizenga's district, has lobbied her to protect its federal funding, Slotkin said. One Democrat who appears to have a grasp on the demographic the rest of the party seems to be struggling with, Slotkin said, is Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor in New York City. Slotkin said she disagrees with Mamdani on many issues, but that his upset victory over former Gov. Andrew Cuomo was 'like a blinking red light.' 'It's hard to miss the message of that election, which I think was very similar, frankly, to the election we had in November. Cost of living is still the biggest issue for people that I talk to,' she said. 'It's not maybe the internet's biggest issue, Twitter's biggest issue. It is the issue that 80% of my constituents will talk to me about in the street.' Slotkin said it's not about progressive versus moderate. Like Mamdani, Trump defeated Kamala Harris in 2024 after making lowering costs central to his campaign. 'He was going to put more money into your pocket and his yard signs, his digital ads, his TV ads, they were all centered around that,' she said. 'For Democrats, it was hard to know exactly what our priorities were.' 'We had a lot of issues we cared deeply about, but sometimes, when you care about everything, no one knows what your priorities are,' she continued. 'So my strong belief is that our priority has to be the economy.' The Democratic Party is divided on a central question right now, Slotkin said: 'Is Donald Trump an existential threat to democracy in his second term, or is Donald Trump's second term bad, but, like his first term, survivable if we just wait it out? And I just want you to know, from your senator, as someone who sits in that room on your behalf, I am in camp number one, he is an existential threat to democracy.' Asked about Gaza, Slotkin, a former CIA analyst who is pro-Israel, said she would have voted in favor of blocking certain offensive weapons sales to Israel last week. She missed the votes, brought by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., which failed but attracted the support of more than half of Senate Democrats. 'It's a very dangerous thing if we have support for our relationships abroad be completely partisan,' Slotkin said, adding that she 'was glad' that Trump sent his Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff to Gaza. 'I think that's an important step to, like, see what's on the ground and just bring this thing, all hostages out, end the humanitarian blockade. Like, get it done.'
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Lawmakers push efforts to ban ICE from wearing masks at Boston legislative summit
ICE officials say agents have been wearing masks to avoid publicly exposing their identities and personal information. Advertisement In a statement to the Globe, a senior official with the Department of Homeland Security said that ICE officers are facing an 830 percent increase in the number of assaults against them, and condemned efforts to prohibit officers from wearing masks. 'These are repulsive messaging bills that stoke dangerous anti-ICE rhetoric for cheap political points and fundraising emails,' the official said. 'Sanctuary politicians are trying to outlaw officers wearing masks to protect themselves from being doxxed and targeted.' In early July, Advertisement 'With transparency, identification, and reason there should be no need for disguises when performing their duties to the communities they serve,' Hawkins said on Tuesday. Lawmakers said such legislation is meant to promote accountability for all law enforcement, and would also reduce the chances of law enforcement officers being impersonated. New York State Senator Patricia Fahy, a Democrat who is sponsoring a similar legislation in New York, said the practice of federal immigration agents arresting and detaining people while wearing masks, plainclothes, and using unmarked cars 'should shock the collective conscience.' 'A dangerous line is being crossed here,' Fahy said. 'Immigration enforcement is really turning into more of a paramilitary type secret police.' A number of Republican lawmakers 'It's meant for the intimidation of the officer and their families,' said Representative Scott Sharp, a Kentucky Republican and retired law enforcement officer. 'I can't see any other reason to do it.' Representative Bob Lewis, a Kansas Republican, echoed the sentiment. '[ICE agents] are acting in an official capacity, not personal,' Lewis said. 'They are doing their jobs.' Amy Carnevale, the chair of the Massachusetts Republican Party said in a statement that the Massachusetts bill put immigration officers' lives at risk. Advertisement 'Far-left activists have doxxed and assaulted ICE officials and agents in the field,' she said. In Massachusetts, mask-wearing ICE officers provoked public outcry earlier this year, when agents wearing face coverings whisked Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk off a Somerville street in broad daylight in March — 'I didn't think that they were the police because I had never seen police approach and take someone away like this,' Öztürk wrote. Federal officials have said in various public statements that immigration agents When DHS officers conduct operations, they 'clearly identify themselves as law enforcement, while wearing masks to protect themselves' from gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13, the DHS official said, as well as from others who have committed crimes. 'The men and women of ICE put their lives on the line every day to arrest violent criminal illegal aliens to protect and defend the lives of American citizens,' the statement said. ICE's acting director, Todd Lyons, has strongly 'I'm sorry if people are offended by them wearing masks, but I'm not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line and their family on the line because people don't like what immigration enforcement is,' Lyons said during a June press conference in Boston, where the agency announced that federal officials Advertisement During a trial last month in Boston federal court regarding a lawsuit brought by higher education organizations over the Trump administration's policies of arresting and detaining noncitizen students and pro-Palestinian activists, Patrick Cunningham, an assistant special agent in charge at the Homeland Security Investigations office in Boston, which is part of ICE, told the court there was no specific policy on masking that he was aware of within the agency. He said it was up to the 'personal choice' of each agents as to whether or not they want to wear face coverings. 'They might wear them because they want to protect their identity,' Cunningham said, particularly in the 'age of camera phones, and the ability of people to identify those agents.' Giulia McDonnell Nieto del Rio can be reached at
