Letters

It’s a good thing that Congressman Nick LaLota wasn’t conducting a town hall when he penned “Position Unchanged” [Letters, December 4] claiming that he was always all for releasing the Epstein files. Otherwise, it might have been hard to keep a straight face while stating, “It is wrong to claim that President Donald Trump has resisted transparency.”

LaLota did, in fact, vote “yes” on a bill to force the Justice Department to release the files — but that was after he declined to join other lawmakers in the discharge petition that forced the vote.

LaLota also reportedly remained concerned that the release of information could jeopardize ongoing investigations. These concerns seem misplaced, since there is no evidence of ongoing investigations and ample evidence that prior investigations did not lead to appropriate punishments or cast the necessary wide net.

The turning point seems to have been when Trump reversed himself after pressuring Republican representatives to vote against discharge, stating on Truth Social after it was approved: “House Republicans should vote to Release the Epstein files … move on from this Democratic Hoax.”

Repeatedly citing concerns about victims “reliving their trauma” to amplify anxiety about releasing child sex trafficking ring files is the real hoax here. The victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his circle of traffickers and abusers have worked tirelessly to demand a window into why the government failed them. They have gone on national television and told their stories to crowds outside the White House. They have willingly confronted past traumas at great risk, in the hope that justice will be served and future children protected.

LaLota should not hide behind the faulty notion that the discharge petition was but “one procedural option.” That is disingenuous. A discharge petition was used in this case to force a bill stalled in committee (the Epstein Files Transparency Act) so that Speaker Mike Johnson was finally forced to schedule a floor vote, and Republicans faced overwhelming pressure from the public to stop protecting predators.

Signing on to that effort should have been a no-brainer considering the stakes, the victims’ wishes, and the need to make sure there are no future sweetheart deals that give offenders daytime jail furloughs and co-conspirators immunity when they rape children.

Finally, LaLota points to Democratic contributions of a critic to claim he’s not a “neutral observer” — but this is an issue that transcends politics. One need not be partisan to observe that the people in power have failed to stand up with outrage and urgency to demand that our system of justice do better. The backward-looking finger pointing to past presidents who didn’t do enough, or private citizens who didn’t speak sooner, doesn’t absolve those who represent all of us now.

Willa Bernstein

Southampton