House Democrats just released another batch of carefully selected photos with the sole purpose of creating the false impression that President Donald Trump was connected to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes.
One photo of Trump shows him surrounded by women whose faces are blacked out, clearly implying these were human trafficking victims or underage girls. The problem with the implications is that the original, unredacted photo published by the New York Post shows that they were all adult Hawaiian Tropic models at a Mar-a-Lago event in the late '90s. Nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Another image shows Trump with a woman on what appears to be a plane, her face redacted without any context about who she is, when it was taken, or where it was taken.
The visual effect in both photos was deliberate: blacked-out faces encourage viewers to ascribe guilt or victim status to unnamed individuals without any evidence.
ICYMI: Joe Biden Is Getting a Brutal Lesson on How Irrelevant He Is
But what really made the Democrats’ smear cross a potential legal line was that these photos were released along with pictures of sex toys, novelty condom boxes featuring Trump's face and the phrase "I'm Huuuge," and a shot of Jeffrey Epstein lounging in a bathtub. This curated combination is designed to make otherwise innocent photos appear lurid and incriminating. Many Democrats and left-wing influencers either fell for it or participated in an astroturfing campaign on social media, treating the images as proof of wrongdoing.
The White House is pushing back, calling it a "false narrative," but legal expert Jonathan Turley has a more precise term for what's happening here: "false light."
In torts, litigants can bring cases for “false light” when photos may be true images but are presented in a misleading way.
While some states have rejected false light claims in favor of using defamation actions exclusively, other states recognize both claims.
Under a false light claim, a person can sue when a publication or image implies something that is both highly offensive and untrue. Where defamation deals with false statements, false light deals with false implications.
Turley explains that some states reject false light in favor of relying exclusively on defamation, but others, including California, recognize both causes of action. Under California law, a false light claim turns on whether “the false light created by the disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person in [name of plaintiff]’s position” and whether there is “clear and convincing evidence that [the defendant] knew the disclosure would create a false impression … or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.”
So, the question on everyone’s minds at this point must be: Can President Trump sue?
While this situation clearly fits a false light case, Turley points out a rather large snag. “Congress is protected from such lawsuits, and even without those protections, it is unlikely that this case would be viable as a tort action,” he explains. “However, the underlying concept is still relevant. The Democrats were suggesting that there was a cover-up of Trump’s (and others’) involvement in these crimes. They have not produced such evidence. They can, however, release images in a way that suggests such untoward or even illegal conduct.”
So, in this case, the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution shields legislators from liability for their official acts. Even without those protections, a false light claim arising from this particular photo release would likely be difficult to sustain.
Trump could, in theory, still attempt a lawsuit, but it would probably fail on those grounds. That seems extremely unfair, and I’d like to believe Trump’s lawyers are still looking for an avenue to hold the Oversight Democrats accountable for a patently false smear. So, we’ll have to wait and see. Perhaps the best option is referring the matter to the House Ethics Committee, though whether that body would take action against the Oversight Democrats is another question entirely.
Editors Note: Want to support fearless journalism that exposes the Left and their bogus Epstein smears while telling the stories the media won’t? PJ Media delivers the truth and holds the powerful accountable.
Become a VIP member today—your support fuels our mission and unlocks exclusive content, podcasts, an ad-free experience, and more. Use code FIGHT for 60% off. Join now and stand for America-first journalism!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member