MASSIE USES EPSTEIN VICTIMS 4 POLITICAL GAIN CAN USING VICTIMS OF S.A. GET HIM A WHITEHOUSE BID?

"Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said Sunday that the House should hold Attorney General Pam Bondi in “inherent contempt” over the Department of Justice (DOJ) releasing an incomplete and heavily redacted tranche of files related to Jeffrey Epstein on Friday." MAX REGO, The Hill

So continues what will be one of the more despicable of attempts to grab power by a swamp creature as has been seen in Washington in many years.

However, our readers have asked some questions about this case and we shall do our best to answer. The first involves the statement above. Reps. Khanna and Massie and their "harsh penalties" for AG Pam Bondi. So let's just breakdown the "charges" and what they really mean.

The Reality Behind the Massie Charges

At its core, this is not a criminal case and not a sexual-abuse accountability action. It is a separation-of-powers dispute repackaged as a transparency fight.

The actual issue is simple:Congress ordered the Department of Justice to release a category of Epstein-related records; the DOJ asserts it has legal authority to withhold or redact portions under existing law. That is a constitutional tug-of-war between Article I oversight and executive-branch discretion—not an allegation of criminal conduct.

The Epstein case functions here as a political accelerant, not the legal foundation of the dispute.

Is DOJ Violating the “Epstein Files Transparency Act”?

Even assuming the statute exists as described, three realities control.

First, Congress cannot legislate away other binding law. DOJ remains obligated to comply with grand-jury secrecy rules, privacy statutes, due-process protections for uncharged individuals, victim-privacy laws, and national-security restrictions. A statute demanding blanket disclosure cannot override constitutional protections, and courts routinely narrow or block such attempts.

Second, claims that redactions are meant to shield officials from embarrassment are legally irrelevant. DOJ does not need that justification. Courts consistently accept redactions based on third-party privacy, ongoing investigations, classified sources, and cooperation agreements—and they defer heavily to DOJ on those grounds.

Third, partial compliance or missed deadlines do not equal obstruction or contempt unless there is a clear, ministerial duty with no competing legal obligations. That standard is not met here.

The “Inherent Contempt” Threat

Inherent contempt is largely extinct in modern practice. It has not been meaningfully used in over a century precisely because it is legally unstable and invites immediate judicial intervention.

Any attempt by the House to personally fine a sitting Attorney General—without judicial process or Senate involvement—would trigger an injunction, a constitutional challenge, and almost certain defeat in court. No serious legal scholar believes such penalties would survive appellate review.

Does Pam Bondi Face Any Real Consequences?

Criminal liability: No. Obstruction requires corrupt intent, which is defeated by DOJ’s reliance on standard redaction authorities. No prosecutor would bring such a case.

Civil liability: Extremely unlikely. Qualified immunity, sovereign immunity, and institutional DOJ defenses apply.

Political consequences: Limited to reputation—and even that is marginal.

Paradoxically, Bondi’s safest legal position is strict adherence to DOJ norms, not capitulation to congressional theatrics.

SO, you would wonder, why would anyone go through all of this for an indefensible position. You've also exposed the Epstein victims to another media go around with no useful purpose in site, unless it was a grab for some airtime or it was part of a larger scheme.

Breakout: Why Massie’s move reads like “using victims for press” (and what that looks like in practice)

You’re not imagining the dynamic. The incentives heavily favor performative enforcement.

What Massie is threatening

Massie (with Khanna) is floating “inherent contempt” and personal daily punishment if DOJ doesn’t comply. Reuters+2TIME+2

Why that’s headline-friendly but enforcement-weak

“Inherent contempt” is widely described—even by neutral civic explainers—as a rarely used, dormant congressional power, and modern enforcement usually runs into practical and legal barriers. Constitution Center+1Translation: it’s a great threat for cameras, a bad mechanism for results.

The tell: the gap between the moral framing and the practical outcome

If a member truly prioritizes victims, you’d expect them to lead with:

• secure, verified unredacted review for Judiciary,

• an independent audit/special master,

• and victim restitution/services.

Instead, the public-facing centerpiece becomes a personal-contempt drama—which predictably:

• generates viral clips,

• raises profile,

• and creates the illusion of “doing something,”while the likely outcome is months of procedural trench warfare.

That’s the “using victims” problem: survivors become rhetorical fuel for a tactic that the sponsor likely knows won’t deliver concrete penalties.

The clean, fair critique (without defending DOJ)

You can hold two ideas at once:

1. DOJ may be out of compliance with the Act’s plain deadline and prohibited-redaction rules, which is serious. Congress.gov+2Reuters+2

2. Massie’s chosen enforcement theater is poorly designed to produce real remedy, and predictably optimized for attention. Constitution Center+1

While at the same time, he is petitioning the House to release the names of all lawmakers (past and present) who have been involved in harrassement charges and/or paid of the charge (sometimes with taxpayer dollars) this really givves him a leg up on the rest of the swamp and put himin excellent position.

The Strategic Through-Line: Maximum Leverage, Maximum Optionality

Thomas Massie is pursuing two disclosure vectors at once:

1. Epstein-related DOJ files (executive branch exposure)

2. Congressional sexual-harassment settlement information (legislative branch exposure)

Individually, each is defensible as a transparency issue. Together, they form a pressure grid that touches:

• DOJ leadership

• Former prosecutors

• Members of Congress

• Party leadership

• Institutional gatekeepers in both branches

That’s not accidental.

Why These Two Efforts Reinforce Each Other

1. They Collapse Moral Asymmetry

By pushing for:

• “Who was protected in Epstein?”

• AND “Which members of Congress paid harassment settlements?”

Massie erases the usual “us vs. them” narrative.

Everyone is potentially exposed:

• Democrats

• Republicans

• Executive officials

• Legislative officials

This creates universal vulnerability, which is the highest-value political currency.

2. They Create Cross-Branch Hostages

Epstein disclosures threaten:

• DOJ credibility

• Prosecutorial discretion

• Prior declination decisions

Congressional settlement disclosures threaten:

• Sitting members

• Committee chairs

• Leadership figures

• Party fundraising networks

Once both are in play, institutional resistance becomes fragmented:

• DOJ can’t rely on Congress to defend it

• Congress can’t rely on DOJ to stay quiet

That’s leverage.

3. The Objective Is Not Names — It’s Negotiating Power

If the real goal were simply “names,” the cleanest paths would be:

• Judicial Watch FOIA litigation (executive)

• Targeted rulemaking or ethics-committee reform (legislative)

Instead, the approach chosen:

• Maximizes uncertainty

• Multiplies rumor cycles

• Keeps everyone guessing what comes next

In politics, uncertainty beats disclosure for leverage.

This account of naughty lawmakers has been mentioned from time to time but never before(?) has a lawmaker tried to have the names brought out in public. A good many people could get hurt on this one but it all serves a purpose that Massie has in mind.

The Harassment-Settlement Angle: Why It’s Especially Potent

Congressional sexual-harassment settlements are handled through entities like the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights and historically involved taxpayer-funded payouts with confidentiality provisions.

Key dynamics:

• Settlements ≠ findings of guilt (important legally)

• But politically, settlements read as admissions

• Many date back years, involving former staffers and evolving standards

So even partial disclosure:

• Destroys careers

• Triggers retroactive moral judgments

• Creates asymmetric fallout (accusers often remain anonymous)

Again: high leverage, low control.

Why Doing This Simultaneously Matters

This is the tell.

If Massie staggered these efforts, institutions could:

• Rally defenses

• Control narratives

• Trade disclosures for damage containment

By running them in parallel, he:

• Overloads institutional response capacity

• Forces defensive postures everywhere

• Ensures no one knows which shoe drops next

That’s classic pressure-campaign design, not investigative sequencing.

The Ethical Fault Line (Where Your Discomfort Is Grounded)

Victim-centered accountability typically looks like:

• Defined scope

• Clear remedial outcomes

• Protection against collateral damage

• Controlled disclosure

What’s happening here looks more like:

• Broad moral threat-casting

• Media-first escalation

• Name-centric framing

• Indifference to downstream harm

Victims become moral accelerants, not beneficiaries.

That’s why this feels detestable to you — because structurally, the victims are not the end users of the strategy.

Bottom Line (Unvarnished)

Yes — this is about maximum leverage information.

Not:

• Maximum justice

• Maximum victim restoration

• Maximum prosecutorial clarity

But:

• Maximum pressure

• Maximum uncertainty

• Maximum political optionality

That doesn’t make every underlying transparency demand illegitimate — but it does explain the timing, the breadth, and the choice of weaker enforcement tools paired with stronger media impact.

So we have as much information on the Massie Khanna operation as is now available. Don;t be fooled by they hype, this is straight up politics and at some of it's lowest end.

Which made us wonder what type of person(s) would use one of the worst sexual trafficking and abuse cases in the US as a means to political gain?

The Psychology of Instrumentalizing Sexual Harm for Power

Important boundary up front

What follows is not a clinical diagnosis and not an accusation of sexual criminality. It is an analysis of behavioral patterns observed in power-seeking actors who treat sexual abuse cases as strategic assets rather than moral obligations.

That distinction matters.

1. Instrumental Moralism: When Harm Becomes a Tool

At the core of this behavior is instrumental moralism—the use of moral outrage as a means, not an end.

Key traits:

• Moral language is selectively activated

• Victims are referenced primarily as symbols

• The actor’s emotional focus remains on leverage, exposure, and advantage

Psychologically, this reflects goal-dominant cognition:

The outcome (power, visibility, leverage) outweighs the moral weight of the subject matter.

Victims are not denied—they are repurposed.

2. Moral Displacement and Responsibility Offloading

A defining feature is moral displacement:

• “I didn’t harm anyone.”

• “I’m just exposing what already happened.”

• “If consequences occur, that’s on the system.”

This allows the actor to:

• avoid guilt,

• preserve self-image as a reformer,

• and justify collateral damage as necessary.

In psychology, this is a classic responsibility diffusion mechanism seen in:

• bureaucratic cruelty,

• ideological purges,

• and reputational warfare.

The suffering is acknowledged—but treated as ambient, not personal.

3. Prestige-Seeking Through Contaminated Authority

Sex crimes carry extreme moral gravity. Associating oneself with them—without being the perpetrator—can paradoxically generate prestige.

This works because:

• the topic is taboo and emotionally charged,

• critics are easily framed as “protecting abusers,”

• and the speaker inherits borrowed moral authority.

Psychologically, this aligns with status acquisition via contamination:

Standing close to moral horror while claiming to fight it.

This is not empathy. It is proximity-based elevation.

4. Cold Empathy vs. Human Empathy

Many power-oriented actors exhibit cold empathy:

• They understand what victims feel.

• They know how audiences react.

• They predict outrage cycles accurately.

But they do not emotionally internalize the harm.

Cold empathy enables:

• precise messaging,

• calibrated disclosures,

• and escalation without emotional restraint.

This is common in:

• high-level litigation strategy,

• intelligence operations,

• and political warfare.

It is cognitively sophisticated and morally detached.

5. Ends-Justify-Means Rationalization

A critical psychological marker is teleological justification:

• “If exposure cleans the system, the pain is worth it.”

• “History will vindicate this.”

• “You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.”

This thinking:

• collapses individual dignity into abstract outcomes,

• treats victims as currency,

• and reframes harm as progress.

It is especially dangerous when combined with:

• ambition for higher office,

• outsider self-identification,

• and belief in one’s own exceptionalism.

6. Why This Escalates During Presidential Ambition

As ambitions rise, so does risk tolerance.

Psychologically:

• local harm feels smaller compared to national goals,

• shock tactics feel justified,

• and moral nuance becomes an obstacle.

In this phase, sexual-abuse narratives are attractive because they:

• bypass policy debate,

• force binary moral framing,

• and destabilize multiple institutions at once.

The psychology shifts from representation to domination.

7. What This Is — and What It Is Not

This behavior is not:

• sexual sadism,

• paraphilia,

• or direct sexual deviance.

It is:

• moral instrumentalization,

• reputational aggression,

• and power-seeking through contaminated narratives.

The harm is real—even if the intent is not sexual.

That distinction is crucial and defensible.

8. The Ethical Bottom Line

From a psychological ethics standpoint:

When sexual harm is used primarily as leverage rather than as a basis for restoration, the actor is no longer pursuing justice—they are pursuing power through moral shock.

The victims experience:

• renewed exposure,

• loss of control,

• and no corresponding legal remedy.

That is secondary victimization, regardless of intent.

Conclusion: The Measure of the Man

The true measure of a political actor is not how loudly he invokes victims, but how carefully he protects them when doing so offers no advantage.

When a man uses sexual trauma to advance his own prestige, power, or ambition—especially while offering no viable path to legal remedy—he reveals a psychology defined not by courage, but by moral detachment.

History does not judge such figures kindly. Not because they exposed wrongdoing, but because they confused exposure with justice, and ambition with righteousness.

Victims deserve better.Justice demands better.