Desk Note| The Epstein Files Mess: When Transparency Runs Over Due Process
A quick desk note on why this week's fiasco should concern everyone, regardless of where you stand politically.
We are getting in real time a crash course in how not to handle sensitive government disclosures, and how the rush to get a viral moment can destroy innocent lives.
Let me break down what happened.
Last week, Representatives Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) viewed unredacted Epstein documents in a SCIF made available by the Department of Justice. Almost immediately after emerging, they ran to the press. Six names, they announced, had been improperly redacted. Six individuals who were “likely incriminated.” The story went viral. The pressure mounted.
The DOJ, now accused of protecting pedophiles (because that’s the accusation du jour), caved and unredacted the names.
And then? Well, here’s where it gets ugly.
Four of those six people had absolutely nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. They were random individuals whose photos appeared in an FBI photo lineup, the kind assembled for victims to identify perpetrators. A lineup that also happened to include Ghislaine Maxwell’s face alongside women with similar features, and Epstein’s alongside men who vaguely resembled him.
One of those four men? Salvatore Nuarte, a guy from Queens who didn’t even know his name had been dragged through the mud on the House floor until a Guardian reporter called him. Another, an IT manager named Leonid Leonov (whose name was misspelled as “Leonic” in the files), told reporters he doesn’t even have a “second or third degree connection” to Epstein. Never worked for him. Never knew him. Nothing. Both men acknowledged past unrelated NYPD arrests, which likely explains how their photos ended up in law enforcement databases, and subsequently in an FBI photo array.
And yet there they were, names read aloud on the floor of Congress by Representative Khanna, protected from defamation liability by the Speech or Debate Clause.
The other two names? Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, an Emirati billionaire who appeared over 4,700 times in the files and has since resigned as CEO of DP World. And Leslie Wexner, the retail magnate whose lawyers say he was only ever viewed as a source of information, not a target. Those two were already referenced throughout the documents without redaction. The “bombshell” wasn’t really a bombshell.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche responded directly to Khanna on X. “The problem,” Blanche wrote, “is that you didn’t come to us. You immediately ran to X and to the House floor and made false accusations about four men while we were checking the facts.”
And here’s the kicker. After the photo lineup explanation came out, Massie went on CNN and said—dismissively—that unless these men were part of a lineup, there was no reason for them to be redacted.
Um, perdoname?
He acknowledged that being part of a lineup would be a valid reason for redaction. Which means the question occurred to him. So why didn’t he pick up the phone and ask the DOJ before going on television? Why didn’t he and Khanna approach the Department directly—without the cameras—to get that basic question answered before publicly naming four random men as Epstein associates?
Instead, they ran to the press. They accused the DOJ of hiding names. They got their clip.
And now? Everyone’s pointing fingers. Massie and Khanna blame the DOJ for not providing context sooner. The DOJ is calling them out for continuing to run to reporters without bothering to verify the details first. Meanwhile, Salvatore Nuarte is wondering how he’s supposed to clear his name.
When Nuarte called Khanna’s office after learning what happened, the communications director emailed him back—and blamed the DOJ. “The Department of Justice has not been transparent in what the list was or why they redacted and unredacted your name,” she wrote. No apology. No accountability. Just deflection.
They didn’t wait for verification. They didn’t ask the DOJ to explain the redactions. They got their clip.
