The only 'no' vote on releasing Epstein files

[FlyersFan]

The one and only person who voted no on releasing the Epstein files, Clay Higgins. Why? : conspiracy (reddit.com)

TV news reports that his reason was that they haven't redacted the victims names yet and he doesn't want to be part of causing them more harm.  So while I disagree with his 'no' vote, I can understand the reasoning.

[BeTheGoddess]

I think with this guy, he will flip on anyone who doesn't put Israel first.

That goes into a much larger topic, but US christians send shitloads of $$$ to Israel often guised as "keeping the holy land free". Megachurches paid for a loot of death and displacement without knowing where it was going.

Back to this guy; Cop, Three Percenter, other things I wont say. I'm going to follow the story with this guy because he wont go away quietly.

[Vermilion]

I had no idea who he was until today,, the support of  David  Duke was a pretty big red flag... white flag... confed... yeah

He seems like a guy who will flip on Trump if the need arise.

“Duke won’t get the vote. Pat (Buchanan) will. Pat represents much of the same positions… (anti-immigration, states’ rights, anti-DEI) Regardless of the fact that David’s a homeboy (local)and all that, the boy’s a Nazi, and that’s a real problem.” -Clay Higgins

[quintessentone]

That goes into a much larger topic, but US christians send shitloads of $$$ to Israel often guised as "keeping the holy land free". Megachurches paid for a loot of death and displacement without knowing where it was going.

Back to this guy; Cop, Three Percenter, other things I wont say. I'm going to follow the story with this guy because he wont go away quietly.

On the other hand, is this guy jockeying for Trump's approval for something down the pipe? Maybe to replace Greene?

[Vermilion]

That goes into a much larger topic, but US christians send shitloads of $$$ to Israel often guised as "keeping the holy land free". Megachurches paid for a loot of death and displacement without knowing where it was going.

Back to this guy; Cop, Three Percenter, other things I wont say. I'm going to follow the story with this guy because he wont go away quietly.

If you think he’s had any dealings with Epstein, you should dig deeper.

You should keep an eye on him as it doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere…

2020- Higgins was reelected with 67.76% of the vote
2022- Higgins was reelected with 64.3% of the vote
2024- Higgins was reelected with 70.6% of the vote

[BeTheGoddess]

On the other hand, is this guy jockeying for Trump's approval for something down the pipe? Maybe to replace Greene?

I dont think so, Trump is not be in the top job much longer, so anything he offers with EOs coulld only ;ast his tenure.

I think he wants Vance out too.

[quintessentone]

If you think he’s had any dealings with Epstein, you should dig deeper.

You should keep an eye on him as it doesn’t look like he’s going anywhere…

2020- Higgins was reelected with 67.76% of the vote
2022- Higgins was reelected with 64.3% of the vote
2024- Higgins was reelected with 70.6% of the vote

The voters of Louisiana may forget about this before he campaigns for his next reelection, maybe not.

[Vermilion]

TV news reports that his reason was that they haven't redacted the victims names yet and he doesn't want to be part of causing them more harm.  So while I disagree with his 'no' vote, I can understand the reasoning.

Higgins makes a rational argument.
Regarding his quote….
“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. Not by my vote.”

There are good reasons for not releasing raw information that federal agents write down.
They write down everything, and then conduct the investigation to determine what is true and what is false.
Many allegations made by third parties have ulterior motives that aren't necessarily obvious in the initial reporting.
That's why some investigations are closed out without charges being filed.
But that won't stop innocent people from being dragged thru the mud by innuendo and false smears. (We’ve all seen that)

During their investigation, the FBI writes down everything, what doesn't get written down is an Agent's assessment of the information being presented.

So if a witness is clearly erroneous or just making up stuff or crazy, as it the case with many, many people who make complaints, the complaint itself is written down and stored.
The Agent's thoughts on what the complainant is saying is usually NOT.

So if somebody comes in and says this person abused me at Epstein's Island, the Agent may immediately know it is false based on his knowledge of the case, but all he writes down is the allegation.
So when that is released, guess what the public gets?

Higgins is right here and has the spine to stand his ground.

[DontTreadOnMe]

So I guess hes on the list, why else would he vote NO?

 
The only 'no' vote on releasing Epstein files (msn.com)

I don't know who this guy is or why he voted against.
Maybe he wanted his 15 minutes of fame??

But if we are to believe this Epstein Pedo Ring is only for the elites, this guy ain't one of them.
Money, connections, power are three ingredients this guy is missing.

[DBCowboy]

Higgins makes a rational argument.
Regarding his quote….
“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. Not by my vote.”

There are good reasons for not releasing raw information that federal agents write down.
They write down everything, and then conduct the investigation to determine what is true and what is false.
Many allegations made by third parties have ulterior motives that aren't necessarily obvious in the initial reporting.
That's why some investigations are closed out without charges being filed.
But that won't stop innocent people from being dragged thru the mud by innuendo and false smears. (We’ve all seen that)

During their investigation, the FBI writes down everything, what doesn't get written down is an Agent's assessment of the information being presented.

So if a witness is clearly erroneous or just making up stuff or crazy, as it the case with many, many people who make complaints, the complaint itself is written down and stored.
The Agent's thoughts on what the complainant is saying is usually NOT.

So if somebody comes in and says this person abused me at Epstein's Island, the Agent may immediately know it is false based on his knowledge of the case, but all he writes down is the allegation.
So when that is released, guess what the public gets?

Higgins is right here and has the spine to stand his ground.

This tbh