Four of the six men that Rep. Ro Khanna dramatically identified on the House floor as "wealthy, powerful men that the DoJ hid" in the Jeffrey Epstein files have absolutely nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. They were ordinary people whose mugshots ended up in an FBI photo lineup — and now their names are permanently linked to one of the most notorious sex trafficking cases in American history.
The Department of Justice confirmed that the four men appeared in a single document across all the Epstein files: a photo lineup assembled by the Southern District of New York for investigative purposes. That's it. No allegations. No connections. No involvement whatsoever.
A spokesperson from the office of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche didn't mince words:
"Rep Ro Khanna and Rep Thomas Massie forced the unmasking of completely random people selected years ago for an FBI lineup – men and women. These individuals have NOTHING to do with Epstein or Maxwell."
Two of the men — Salvatore Nuarte and Leonid Leonov, both of Queens, New York — spoke publicly about the damage. Neither had any idea why their names were in those files. Neither had ever met, worked for, or had any connection to Epstein.
Leonov, an IT manager in Queens, put it as plainly as anyone could:
"I don't even have a second or third degree connection to him. Never worked for him, nothing."
Nuarte, also of Queens, called Khanna's office after learning his name had been read on the House floor. His question cuts to the core of this mess:
"But how can I clear my name?"
Good question. When a sitting member of Congress reads your name in the context of Jeffrey Epstein — on the House floor, no less — the stain doesn't wash out with a DOJ clarification three days later. Google doesn't forget. Neither does social media.
Both men acknowledged prior unrelated arrests by the NYPD, which is almost certainly how their photos ended up in the lineup to begin with. The Guardian's analysis found that 11 of the 20 people on the full list appeared to represent a cross-section of New Yorkers with ties to the city, many with misdemeanor NYPD arrests. Five of the men had similar hair, age, and coloring to Epstein. Five of the women resembled Ghislaine Maxwell. It was, by all appearances, exactly what the DOJ said it was — a standard investigative photo array.
The other two men Khanna named without Epstein connections — Zurab Mikeladze and Nicola Caputo — could not be reached for comment. Rep. Thomas Massie later clarified on X that Caputo was not the Italian politician who shares the name. Small comfort.
The remaining two of Khanna's six names tell a different story entirely. Leslie Wexner, the billionaire retail magnate, is referenced nearly 200 times across the Epstein files. Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the Emirati billionaire and former CEO of DP World, appears over 4,700 times.
Bin Sulayem was identified as the recipient of an email in which Epstein wrote that he "loved the torture video." DP World announced its resignation as CEO on Friday.
Wexner's legal representative offered a carefully worded statement: in 2019, the assistant US attorney told Wexner's legal counsel that Wexner was viewed as a source of information about Epstein and was not a target. He cooperated fully, provided background information, and was never contacted again.
These are legitimate subjects of public scrutiny. Thousands of references in the files warrant questions — serious questions asked by serious people with actual evidence. That's precisely what makes Khanna's handling of the other four names so reckless.
There's a version of this story where Khanna is the crusading transparency hawk, fearlessly pulling back the curtain on DOJ stonewalling. He and Massie co-spearheaded the Epstein Files Transparency Act. They pushed the Justice Department to unredact names. Massie claimed credit on X for forcing the removal of redactions on a file listing 20 names, birthdays, and photos.
The impulse toward transparency is right. The execution was catastrophic.
Reading six names on the House floor — lumping photo-lineup filler together with men referenced thousands of times in the actual files — is not transparency. It's a shotgun blast. You don't get to destroy four innocent people's reputations and then call it accountability because two of the names were legitimate.
Khanna's communications director, Sarah Drory, emailed Nuarte after he reached out:
"The Department of Justice has not been transparent in what the list was or why they redacted and unredacted your name. We will make sure to be absolutely factual and truthful once we have these facts and certainly not fuel any misimpression DoJ has created."
The promise to "not fuel any misimpression" arrived after Khanna had already fueled the misimpression from the House floor. The horse was out of the barn, down the road, and in the next county.
Khanna himself posted on X:
"I wish DoJ had provided that explanation earlier instead of redacting then unredacting their names. They have failed to protect survivors, created confusion for innocent men, and have protected rich and powerful abusers. We must have full transparency and the truth."
Note the pivot. The DOJ "created confusion for innocent men" — not Khanna, who read their names aloud and called them wealthy, powerful men the DOJ was hiding. The man who pulled the trigger is blaming the gun manufacturer.
This is what happens when congressional oversight becomes content creation. Khanna didn't wait for the DOJ to explain the document. He didn't cross-reference the names against the rest of the files. He didn't notice that four of his six names appeared in exactly one document, while the other two appeared hundreds or thousands of times. He treated a photo lineup like a client list and broadcast it to the nation.
The file containing the 20 names and photos appears on the Justice Department's website four separate times with varying redactions. Two of the redacted lines, according to Massie, were victims. The photos of Epstein, Maxwell, and two victims were sourced differently from the rest — from Palm Beach and what appear to be passport photos — while the others came from NYPD records. The document practically announced what it was to anyone who looked carefully before speaking.
Massie, to his credit, has been critical of the DOJ's handling of redactions, noting that victims' names appeared unredacted while some names of potentially powerful Epstein associates remained hidden. That's a legitimate grievance — and one that doesn't require naming random Queens residents as Epstein associates to make.
Conservatives have every reason to demand full disclosure of the Epstein files. The public deserves to know which powerful figures were connected to a convicted sex trafficker and whether the justice system protected them. That cause is weakened — not strengthened — when lawmakers treat unvetted documents like ammunition for floor speeches.
Salvatore Nuarte is still wondering how to clear his name. Leonid Leonov didn't even know his name had been mentioned until a reporter called. Two other men couldn't be reached at all.
Four lives were disrupted because a congressman wanted a moment at the microphone. The DOJ's opacity on the Epstein files remains a scandal. But so does this.
