There’s a rhetorical technique commonly used by conspiracy theorists, termed “just asking questions.” Do Haitians eat cats in Ohio? Do Jews use the blood of goyish children in rituals? When challenged, the conspiracy theorist can claim he isn’t saying the claim is true, he just wants an open discussion. Aren’t you an open-minded rationalist willing to change your mind if evidence is provided? You see that tactic frequently in the hysteria over Jeffrey Epstein. “I just want an investigation! The American people deserve answers!” This ignores all the investigations already done, because the “questions” are not about getting answers, they’re about legitimizing the conspiracy theory. A true rationalist asks questions in order to gather evidence and get closer to the truth, the fake rationalist does so as a substitute for the evidence he is unable to provide. Which Epstein associates committed what crimes on the basis of what evidence? “We need transparency, we need an investigation, release the files!”
Some Epstein theorists do attempt to name names. Ro Khanna spoke in Congress and gave six names he said were “wealthy, powerful” men “likely incriminated” in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Four turned out to be ordinary people, not wealthy or powerful, nor connected to Epstein. One is an IT manager, another is a mechanic. Now, I have a question for Democrats, not one of those disingenuous rhetorical questions, a real question I’d really like an answer to. Do you see a problem here?
There’s the moral aspect; libeling private citizens on the floor of Congress is generally frowned upon in polite society. But more than that, the fact that Khanna was dumb enough to make such a claim. It’s not like he meant for it to blow up in his face. He was given a document that he thought implicated the four men, and rather than do the tiny bit of homework that would have revealed the truth, he ran to Congress and made the accusation public. This is a man who’s a Yale-educated lawyer. At age 49, he’s too young for his behavior to be explained by Biden-type senility. Yet he behaved with the standards of evidence typical of a brain-rotted QAnon conspiracy theorist.
It matters because, my Democratic friends, someday you’ll take back the Presidency. You hope it will be in 2028. You’ll get control over the DOJ. What will you do with it? Another Democratic Congressman, Ted Lieu, said that Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden years, “dropped the ball” on the Epstein case. Do you agree with that?
Look, Democrats, I know you hate Trump. I hate him too. He’s had an incredibly destructive impact on American politics, and I can understand why you want to give him a taste of the conspiratorial bile he’s inflicted on everyone else. Yet Khanna and Lieu aren’t restricting themselves to Trump or Trump-aligned figures like Steve Bannon. Khanna had no reason to believe those four names had anything to do with MAGA. Lieu asked Pam Bondi why she has not prosecuted Prince Andrew, who isn’t connected to MAGA. In January 2029, Trump may be dead, in exile, or ruled immune from prosecution. Epstein is dead and Maxwell is in prison. How will you satisfy those in your own coalition who want to see prosecutions?
There’s a problem with building a coalition around irrational beliefs, a problem summed up by Kurt Vonnegut: “we are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” There are unintelligent true believers and smart cynics at the top who exploit them, along with a third group, smart people who so rot their brains with conspiratorial ideas they start to believe them.
What was going through Khanna’s mind as he read those names before Congress? Only he knows, but we can speculate. Law school taught him about standards of evidence, due process, the presumption of innocence, the credibility of witnesses; all that was all the back of his mind, but something else was in the front of mind. Years of hearing activists tell him that false accusations of rape almost never happen. He had a document in his hand. Confirmation bias convinced him that it accused four men of sex crimes against women. That meant they were probably guilty, and after all, he did say they were likely incriminated, not 100% certain to be guilty. What more are they, men of the privileged class, owed? And when it turns out they are innocent, well, in the vanishingly rare cases when false accusations do happen, the worst thing to do is learn to be more skeptical of future accusations. Mistakes are made, life goes on, you don’t need to question your epistemology.
This is the mindset of the medieval witch-hunter, in the form of a Congressman with an iPhone. Makes you realize all the progress we’ve made since the Enlightenment is more fragile than we like to think.
This post thus far has been pure lamentation, so here’s something actionable. The U.S. Constitution forbids bills of attainder, where a legislature declares someone guilty of a crime and imposes punishment. The Epstein Files release bill was arguably a bill of attainder, and should have been struck down on that basis. It wasn’t a general “transparency” measure, it applied only to the Epstein case. You could argue it doesn’t qualify because it doesn’t impose a punishment. Yet those who pushed for it openly proclaimed that it was about imposing “accountability.” In our constitutional system, the legislature does not impose accountability on specific individuals; its job is to outline prohibited conduct, with the executive and judicial branches deciding who should be punished. The courts could have found the law was motivated by an intent to punish and thus qualifies as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The courts today can announce that future such bills will not be tolerated.
You could argue that this is judicial activism. I think that if there’s any place where judicial activism is justified, it’s here. Even the staunchest advocates of democracy recognize that some things should not be put to a vote. We do not allow legislatures to pass bills of attainder. We don’t recognize an absolute right to serve on a jury; if a judge thinks someone is biased, he can remove them. We don’t always respect a jury’s decision that someone is guilty; a judge can throw the verdict out. The U.S. Constitution did not outline exactly what a bill of attainder meant. Courts should exercise their discretion to decide if something fits the spirit of a bill of attainder, which this clearly does.
A tweet from liberal commentator Matt Yglesias. I’ve been told by those sympathetic to him that he’s “joking.” I’m sure they would extend the same grace to those who “joke” about how Biden stole the 2020 election.
Over the long term, what is needed is a cross-partisan consensus that conspiratorial behavior and rhetoric is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to espouse conspiracy theories, to legitimize them via “just asking questions,” or “joke” about believing them. It should also be unacceptable to deny agency to conspiracy theorists within your tribe, saying their beliefs are somehow the fault of the other side’s malfeasance. Even in these dark times, there are some reasons for hope. Amidst all the hysteria, the center-left Washington Post editorial board condemned the Epstein files release. There is a cross-partisan coalition pushing this crap, and there can be a cross-partisan coalition pushing against it.
There’s a rhetorical technique commonly used by conspiracy theorists, termed “just asking questions.” Do Haitians eat cats in Ohio? Do Jews use the blood of goyish children in rituals? When challenged, the conspiracy theorist can claim he isn’t saying the claim is true, he just wants an open discussion. Aren’t you an open-minded rationalist willing to change your mind if evidence is provided? You see that tactic frequently in the hysteria over Jeffrey Epstein. “I just want an investigation! The American people deserve answers!” This ignores all the investigations already done, because the “questions” are not about getting answers, they’re about legitimizing the conspiracy theory. A true rationalist asks questions in order to gather evidence and get closer to the truth, the fake rationalist does so as a substitute for the evidence he is unable to provide. Which Epstein associates committed what crimes on the basis of what evidence? “We need transparency, we need an investigation, release the files!”
Some Epstein theorists do attempt to name names. Ro Khanna spoke in Congress and gave six names he said were “wealthy, powerful” men “likely incriminated” in Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes. Four turned out to be ordinary people, not wealthy or powerful, nor connected to Epstein. One is an IT manager, another is a mechanic. Now, I have a question for Democrats, not one of those disingenuous rhetorical questions, a real question I’d really like an answer to. Do you see a problem here?
There’s the moral aspect; libeling private citizens on the floor of Congress is generally frowned upon in polite society. But more than that, the fact that Khanna was dumb enough to make such a claim. It’s not like he meant for it to blow up in his face. He was given a document that he thought implicated the four men, and rather than do the tiny bit of homework that would have revealed the truth, he ran to Congress and made the accusation public. This is a man who’s a Yale-educated lawyer. At age 49, he’s too young for his behavior to be explained by Biden-type senility. Yet he behaved with the standards of evidence typical of a brain-rotted QAnon conspiracy theorist.
It matters because, my Democratic friends, someday you’ll take back the Presidency. You hope it will be in 2028. You’ll get control over the DOJ. What will you do with it? Another Democratic Congressman, Ted Lieu, said that Merrick Garland, the attorney general during the Biden years, “dropped the ball” on the Epstein case. Do you agree with that?
Look, Democrats, I know you hate Trump. I hate him too. He’s had an incredibly destructive impact on American politics, and I can understand why you want to give him a taste of the conspiratorial bile he’s inflicted on everyone else. Yet Khanna and Lieu aren’t restricting themselves to Trump or Trump-aligned figures like Steve Bannon. Khanna had no reason to believe those four names had anything to do with MAGA. Lieu asked Pam Bondi why she has not prosecuted Prince Andrew, who isn’t connected to MAGA. In January 2029, Trump may be dead, in exile, or ruled immune from prosecution. Epstein is dead and Maxwell is in prison. How will you satisfy those in your own coalition who want to see prosecutions?
There’s a problem with building a coalition around irrational beliefs, a problem summed up by Kurt Vonnegut: “we are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be.” There are unintelligent true believers and smart cynics at the top who exploit them, along with a third group, smart people who so rot their brains with conspiratorial ideas they start to believe them.
What was going through Khanna’s mind as he read those names before Congress? Only he knows, but we can speculate. Law school taught him about standards of evidence, due process, the presumption of innocence, the credibility of witnesses; all that was all the back of his mind, but something else was in the front of mind. Years of hearing activists tell him that false accusations of rape almost never happen. He had a document in his hand. Confirmation bias convinced him that it accused four men of sex crimes against women. That meant they were probably guilty, and after all, he did say they were likely incriminated, not 100% certain to be guilty. What more are they, men of the privileged class, owed? And when it turns out they are innocent, well, in the vanishingly rare cases when false accusations do happen, the worst thing to do is learn to be more skeptical of future accusations. Mistakes are made, life goes on, you don’t need to question your epistemology.
As bad as Khanna is, his Republican comrade Thomas Massie is even worse. Here he proclaims that nothing other than arrests should satisfy his voters:
This is the mindset of the medieval witch-hunter, in the form of a Congressman with an iPhone. Makes you realize all the progress we’ve made since the Enlightenment is more fragile than we like to think.
This post thus far has been pure lamentation, so here’s something actionable. The U.S. Constitution forbids bills of attainder, where a legislature declares someone guilty of a crime and imposes punishment. The Epstein Files release bill was arguably a bill of attainder, and should have been struck down on that basis. It wasn’t a general “transparency” measure, it applied only to the Epstein case. You could argue it doesn’t qualify because it doesn’t impose a punishment. Yet those who pushed for it openly proclaimed that it was about imposing “accountability.” In our constitutional system, the legislature does not impose accountability on specific individuals; its job is to outline prohibited conduct, with the executive and judicial branches deciding who should be punished. The courts could have found the law was motivated by an intent to punish and thus qualifies as an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The courts today can announce that future such bills will not be tolerated.
You could argue that this is judicial activism. I think that if there’s any place where judicial activism is justified, it’s here. Even the staunchest advocates of democracy recognize that some things should not be put to a vote. We do not allow legislatures to pass bills of attainder. We don’t recognize an absolute right to serve on a jury; if a judge thinks someone is biased, he can remove them. We don’t always respect a jury’s decision that someone is guilty; a judge can throw the verdict out. The U.S. Constitution did not outline exactly what a bill of attainder meant. Courts should exercise their discretion to decide if something fits the spirit of a bill of attainder, which this clearly does.
Over the long term, what is needed is a cross-partisan consensus that conspiratorial behavior and rhetoric is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to espouse conspiracy theories, to legitimize them via “just asking questions,” or “joke” about believing them. It should also be unacceptable to deny agency to conspiracy theorists within your tribe, saying their beliefs are somehow the fault of the other side’s malfeasance. Even in these dark times, there are some reasons for hope. Amidst all the hysteria, the center-left Washington Post editorial board condemned the Epstein files release. There is a cross-partisan coalition pushing this crap, and there can be a cross-partisan coalition pushing against it.