I don’t think the law is unconstitutional. But you want to take it to unconstitutional territory by insisting an accusation by an Epstein victim about a third party is about Epstein. Your posts show that you see the dispute as a Trump issue instead of as a legal issue. Assume the target of the third party accusation is Joe Blow from North Platte Nebraska.
@co-hoosier Michigan State Athletics was believed to be not investigating rapes by athletes circa 2014. ESPN filed FOIA with MSU, police, prosecutors. It went to trial, MSU got the documents. You can read one of the stories at the link below, here is the money paragraph:
Michigan State University police told prosecutors that they had probable cause that Spartans sophomore basketball player Brock Washington raped the woman on Jan. 19 while she was too intoxicated to consent, according to a police report and emails obtained by ESPN via a public records request to the Ingham County prosecutor's office. Police referred the case to county prosecutors, who declined to file charges this month.
One would assume if this were a constitutional violation, ESPN would not have gotten the documents.
Below is the Michigan Court of Appeals decision, and the money paragraph:
The disclosure of the names of the student-athletes who were identified as suspects in the reports serves the public understanding of the operation of the University's police department. ESPN seeks the information to learn whether policing standards are consistent and uniform at a public institution of higher learning. The disclosure of the names is necessary to this purpose. In order to determine whether the student-athletes were treated differently from the general student population or from each other on the basis of the student-athlete's participation in a particular sport or the renown of the student-athlete, it is necessary to know the student-athlete's name and the nature of the allegations involved in the investigation. Only then can ESPN compare and contrast the information within the requested reports to both other incident reports and other cases disclosed via news media. Further, ESPN requires the student-athletes' names in order to facilitate further investigation into whether other governmental agencies agreed with the University's handling of a particular student-athlete's case. Consequently, even if revealing the names of the student-athletes in the context of the reports amounts to the revelation of information of a personal nature, that revelation is not unwarranted. MCL 15.243(1)(a). Under the circumstances, the public's interest in government accountability must prevail “over an individual's, or a group of individuals', expectation of privacy.” Practical Pol Consulting, 287 Mich.App at 464.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mi-court-of-appeals/1711190.htm
I would think if there were constitutional concerns it would have come up? Surely a state isn't allowed to toss aside the constitution.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mi-court-of-appeals/1711190.htm
If Joe Blow procured the girl from Epstein, it would be "about" Epstein.I don’t think the law is unconstitutional. But you want to take it to unconstitutional territory by insisting an accusation by an Epstein victim about a third party is about Epstein. Your posts show that you see the dispute as a Trump issue instead of as a legal issue. Assume the target of the third party accusation is Joe Blow from North Platte Nebraska.
Cite something.I’m 100% correct. There is no way congress can write a law demanding the Attorney Generalof the United States release unsubstantiated allegations of a crime without those allegations being tested in the ways I mentioned.
Otherwise, how can you be "100% correct" and not just offering your best guess as to how a constitutional challenge would come out?
I agree Trump grabs too much credit. But his self-aggrandizement is a two-edged sword. He is also the most hated president and the hatred has left deep and disfiguring scars on many of our important institutions.
That is both the funniest and dumbest post on this board.
Trump has done more damage to our institutions than anything that can be attributed to the people who hate him
The procurement is about Epstein. I don’t dispute that. Subsequent illegal activity with her isn’t.
I will say it appears many of the trafficked victims say they have never been interviewed by the Feds. New Mexico wanted years ago to raid an Epstein residence in NM but the FBI said no, they would. It still has never happened, the NM legislature recently passed a bill asking the NM LEO to search the compound.
I have no idea if it is a massive coverup or just gross incompetence. I know CO has disagreed on hearings, but I think the public has a right to know. So for him, how can you explain away the above two considerations?
The MSU article was a court saying an investigation into preferential treatment to athletes was warranted. I am not sure how Epstein doesn't fall under that.
Sadly, it is happening that since we have had no real investigation, men are be targeted with no fair investigation. Undoubtedly there are men being convicted in the court of public opinion that would have been exonerated and men being ignored that may have been convicted.
Of course it is.The procurement is about Epstein. I don’t dispute that. Subsequent illegal activity with her isn’t.
Epstein's criminal liability was directly tied to what the purpose and actual effect of the procurement was. In other words, had Trump asked Epstein to get a 13-year-old girl for him (I"m not saying he did or did not, or that the reports are accurate), and Trump then took her to King's Island to ride a roller coaster, Epstein's crimes would be charged differently and any sentence would have been different than if Trump proceeded to rape the girl. Had Trump killed her, Epstein would be potentially liable for felony murder, in another example.
100% agree with this.I will say it appears many of the trafficked victims say they have never been interviewed by the Feds. New Mexico wanted years ago to raid an Epstein residence in NM but the FBI said no, they would. It still has never happened, the NM legislature recently passed a bill asking the NM LEO to search the compound.
I have no idea if it is a massive coverup or just gross incompetence. I know CO has disagreed on hearings, but I think the public has a right to know. So for him, how can you explain away the above two considerations?
The MSU article was a court saying an investigation into preferential treatment to athletes was warranted. I am not sure how Epstein doesn't fall under that.
Sadly, it is happening that since we have had no real investigation, men are be targeted with no fair investigation. Undoubtedly there are men being convicted in the court of public opinion that would have been exonerated and men being ignored that may have been convicted.
I don’t think the law is unconstitutional. But you want to take it to unconstitutional territory by insisting an accusation by an Epstein victim about a third party is about Epstein. Your posts show that you see the dispute as a Trump issue instead of as a legal issue. Assume the target of the third party accusation is Joe Blow from North Platte Nebraska.
You said "Congress can't force the DOJ" etc etc. How can you make such a statement if you're not claiming the law is invalid?
I take issue with your criticism of my posts. My posts have had nothing to do with Trump. They have only been about the clear and obvious interpretation of the law. That interpretation would be the same for Joe Blow, too.
Apologize for the length of the following, but here is Claude fleshing out CoH's argument (in 2 seconds, @co-hoosier !):
A: This is a genuinely interesting constitutional question, and your friend is raising a real concern — but I think the argument is ultimately more complicated than a simple "unconstitutional" conclusion suggests. Let me walk through the competing considerations.
The Core Argument Your Friend Is Making
The strongest version of this argument invokes a few constitutional principles:
Due Process / Stigma-Plus. The Supreme Court recognized in Paul v. Davis (1976) that government dissemination of damaging information about a person can implicate liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause — but only when it's coupled with some other tangible legal consequence (the "stigma-plus" doctrine). Pure reputational harm from government disclosure alone doesn't trigger constitutional protection under Paul v. Davis, which actually cuts against your friend's argument.
Fifth Amendment. Uncharged allegations aren't findings of guilt. Compelled government disclosure of investigative material implicating unnamed third parties doesn't by itself violate the Fifth Amendment, because the government isn't adjudicating guilt — it's releasing records. The person isn't being "deprived" of liberty or property through the release alone.
First Amendment (Petition Clause / Right of Access). Ironically, this cuts the other way — there are strong arguments that the public has a constitutional interest in access to government investigative files of this significance.
Where Your Friend Has the Better of the Argument
The strongest constitutional footing would be a substantive due process or privacy argument. The Court has recognized in cases like Whalen v. Roe (1977) a constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding governmental disclosure of personal matters. If DOJ files contain sensitive personal information about third parties — particularly allegations that were investigated and not charged, suggesting insufficient evidence — there's a reasonable argument that compelled disclosure by Congress implicates this privacy interest.
There's also a separation of powers angle that's underexplored: if Congress legislates the release of active or closed prosecutorial files over executive branch objection, it raises questions about interference with Article II prosecutorial discretion. But that's the executive's argument to make, not the third party's.
Why the Argument Is Probably Weaker Than It Sounds
Courts have generally been very reluctant to find that government disclosure of investigative information — as opposed to formal adjudication — violates a third party's constitutional rights. The remedies that third parties have sought in analogous contexts (like challenging grand jury disclosures or seeking to suppress DOJ press releases) have mostly failed. Congressional power to investigate and disclose is broad, and the constitutional hook for a third party to enjoin the release of files about someone else's criminal investigation is genuinely thin.
The more viable argument for such a person would actually be statutory — privacy statutes like the Privacy Act, or equitable arguments about sealing — rather than constitutional. Courts prefer to resolve these on narrower grounds.
Bottom Line
Your friend is identifying a real tension, and if the disclosed material were used as a predicate for some further governmental action against a third party without process, the constitutional claim would strengthen considerably. But as a freestanding argument that disclosure alone is unconstitutional? It's an uphill battle. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence on governmental stigma and privacy has been fairly stingy about recognizing cognizable constitutional injuries from disclosure without more. A court faced with this would more likely craft a narrow remedy — redaction, in camera review, judicial screening — than invalidate the statute wholesale.
A new batch of docs from the Epstein files will soon be released. Bondi has been subpoenaed to testify about Justice's handling of the Epstein investigations and the mishandling of the documents.
"AG Bondi claims the DOJ has released all of the Epstein files. The record is clear: they have not. The Epstein case is one of the greatest cover-ups in American history. His global sex trafficking network is larger than what is being revealed.
“Three million documents have been released, and we still don’t have the full truth. Videos are missing. Audio is missing. Logs are missing. There are millions more documents out there. We want to know why the DOJ is more focused on shielding the powerful than delivering justice." -Nancy Mace.
Looks like the war in Iran won't be ending anytime soon.