.@SpeakerJohnson is making false claims about my discharge petition that seeks to force a House vote on full release of the Epstein files. Let's set the record straight with this thread...🧵

Claim: “[the bill] requires the DOJ to release grand jury testimony. They are prohibited by law from doing so." Verdict: FALSE - the bill does not require DOJ to release grand jury testimony, nor does it attempt to override Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).

Claim: Johnson has a competing resolution that is “well drafted, thoughtfully drafted” to deliver transparency and accountability. Verdict: FALSE - the competing legislation (H.Res.589) is non-binding. It has no force of law, meaning it cannot require any release of any files.

What is true - My legislation: 1. Protects victims. 2. Blocks release of CSAM. 3. Requires the DOJ to release investigative materials rather than ask a judge to unseal grand jury records.

(cont.) 4. Does not interfere with ongoing prosecutions or investigations BUT requires the release of covered documents once prosecutions and investigations are complete. 5. Prohibits any document from being withheld on the basis of embarrassment to any government official.

In contrast -@SpeakerJohnson's legislation includes highly problematic language designed to protect the rich and elite (see H.RES.589, section 1(c)(G)) over the victims of sex trafficking. His language blocks release of any file deemed "demonstrably false or unauthenticated."

This language enables the government to suppress whistleblower documents, leaked materials, and non-government records, giving federal agencies the authority to block information that contradicts the official narrative. It’s an attempt to shield the powerful from accountability.

Who determines what is “false”? Is a statement deemed false if it contradicts a government narrative? What if it is disputed but not disproven?

The government could label whistleblower documents, leaked materials, or non-government records as “unauthenticated” to suppress them simply because they lack official verification.

Conclusion: Our legislation is well drafted, legally binding, and protects victims. The Speaker’s placebo resolution is not legally binding and includes intentional loopholes to prevent the files from being released. End 🧵.