ReportWire

Tag: Epstein

  • Clintons Refuse To Testify In House Epstein Probe As Republicans Threaten Contempt Proceedings – KXL

    [ad_1]

    FILE – Former President Bill Clinton, left, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton listen as Vice President Kamala Harris delivers a eulogy for U.S. Rep.†Sheila Jackson Lee, Aug. 1, 2024, in Houston. (AP Photo/LM Otero, File)

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are refusing to testify to Congress about Jeffrey Epstein.

    The Clintons in a letter Tuesday said they will not comply with a House subpoena to testify.

    The Democrats slam a Republican-controlled committee’s efforts as “legally invalid.”

    Republican lawmakers in response say they will launch contempt of Congress proceedings against the Clintons next week.

    In a letter released on social media, the Clintons denounce the contempt push as being “literally designed to result in” their imprisonment.

    The Republican push to hold the Clintons in contempt could result in prosecution from the Justice Department.

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • Claims about Trump in Epstein files are ‘untrue,’ the Justice Department says

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Tips provided to federal investigators about Donald Trump’s alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s schemes with young women and girls are “sensationalist” and “untrue,” the Justice Department said on Tuesday, after a new tranche of files released from the probe featured multiple references to the president.

    The documents include a limousine driver reportedly overhearing Trump discussing a man named Jeffrey “abusing” a girl, and an alleged victim accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. It is unclear whether the FBI followed up on the tips. The alleged rape victim died from a gunshot wound to the head after reporting the incident.

    Nowhere in the newly released files do federal law enforcement agents or prosecutors indicate that Trump was suspected of wrongdoing, or that Trump — whose friendship with Epstein lasted through the mid-2000s — was investigated himself.

    But one unidentified federal prosecutor noted in a 2020 email that Trump had flown on Epstein’s private jet “many more times than previously has been reported,” including over a time period when Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s top confidante who would ultimately be convicted on five federal counts of sex trafficking and abuse, was being investigated for criminal activity.

    The Justice Department released an unusual statement unequivocally defending the president.

    “Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the Justice Department statement read. “To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

    “Nevertheless, out of our commitment to the law and transparency, the DOJ is releasing these documents with the legally required protections for Epstein’s victims,” the department added.

    The Justice Department files were released with heavy redactions after bipartisan lawmakers in Congress passed a new law compelling it to do so, despite Trump lobbying Republicans aggressively over the summer and fall to oppose the bill. The president ultimately signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law after the legislation passed with veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

    One newly released file containing a letter purportedly from Epstein — a notorious child sex offender who died in jail while awaiting federal trial on sex-trafficking charges — drew widespread attention online, but was held up by the Justice Department as an example of faulty or misleading information contained in the files.

    The letter appeared to be sent by Epstein to Larry Nassar, another convicted sex offender, shortly before Epstein’s death. The letter’s author suggested that Nassar would learn after receiving the note that Epstein had “taken the ‘short route’ home,” possibly referring to his suicide. It was postmarked from Virginia on Aug. 13, 2019, despite Epstein’s death in a Manhattan jail three days prior.

    “Our president shares our love of young, nubile girls,” the letter reads. “When a young beauty walked by he loved to ‘grab snatch,’ whereas we ended up snatching grub in the mess halls of the system. Life is unfair.”

    The Justice Department said that the FBI had confirmed that the letter is “FAKE” after it made the rounds on Tuesday.

    “This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual,” the department posted on social media. “Nevertheless, the DOJ will continue to release all material required by law.”

    The department has faced bipartisan scrutiny since failing to release all of the Epstein files in its possession by Dec. 19, the legal deadline for it to do so, and for redacting material on the vast majority of the documents.

    Justice Department officials said they were following the law by protecting victims with the redactions. The Epstein Files Transparency Act also directs the department not to redact images or references to prominent or political figures, and to provide an explanation for each and every redaction in writing.

    The latest release, just days before the Christmas holiday, includes roughly 30,000 documents, the department said. Hundreds of thousands more are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

    Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a statement in response to the Tuesday release accusing the Justice Department of a “cover-up,” writing on social media, “the new DOJ documents raise serious questions about the relationship between Epstein and Donald Trump.”

    Documents from Epstein’s private estate released by the oversight committee earlier this fall had already cast a spotlight on that relationship, revealing Epstein had written in emails to associates that Trump “knew about the girls.”

    The latest documents release also includes an email from an individual identified as “A,” claiming to stay at Balmoral Castle, a royal residence in Scotland, asking Maxwell if she had found him “some new inappropriate friends.” Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, has come under intense scrutiny over his ties to Epstein in recent years.

    Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Monday, Trump said the continuing Epstein scandal amounts to a “distraction” from Republican successes, and expressed disapproval over the release of images in the files that reveal associates of Epstein.

    “I believe they gave over 100,000 pages of documents, and there’s tremendous backlash,” Trump told reporters. “It’s an interesting question, because a lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people that really had nothing to do with Epstein. But they’re in a picture with him because he was at a party, and you ruin a reputation of somebody. So a lot of people are very angry that this continues.”

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • At least 16 files have disappeared from the DOJ webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein

    [ad_1]

    At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakersThe missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.Scant new insight in the initial disclosuresSome of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.The gaps go further.The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountabilityAmong the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.”I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked contextFederal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.”For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.”I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.”There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.

    NEW YORK (AP) —

    At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.

    Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakers

    The missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

    The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”

    Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

    The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.

    Scant new insight in the initial disclosures

    Some of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.

    Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.

    The gaps go further.

    The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountability

    Among the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.

    The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.

    There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.

    Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

    That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.

    “I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.

    Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked context

    Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.

    The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.

    Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.

    Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.

    Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.

    The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.

    Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.

    One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.

    Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.

    “For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”

    The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.

    Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.

    He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.

    “I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.

    “There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.

    Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • At least 16 files have disappeared from the DOJ webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein

    [ad_1]

    At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakersThe missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.Scant new insight in the initial disclosuresSome of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.The gaps go further.The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountabilityAmong the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.”I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked contextFederal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.”For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.”I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.”There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.

    NEW YORK (AP) —

    At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.

    Related video above: Justice Department’s partial release of Epstein files frustrates lawmakers

    The missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

    The Justice Department didn’t answer questions Saturday about why the files disappeared but said in a post on X that “photos and other materials will continue being reviewed and redacted consistent with the law in an abundance of caution as we receive additional information.”

    Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

    The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.

    Scant new insight in the initial disclosures

    Some of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.

    Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.

    The gaps go further.

    The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountability

    Among the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.

    The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.

    There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton, but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.

    Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

    That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress, who fought to pass the law forcing the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.

    “I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.

    Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked context

    Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.

    The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages of records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.

    Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases, or Freedom of Information Act requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.

    Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.

    Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions, and no explanation was given for why any of them were together.

    The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007, yet never charged him.

    Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.

    One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.

    Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.

    “For every girl that I brought to the table, he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are underage, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”

    The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.

    Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.

    He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.

    “I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.

    “There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.

    Associated Press journalists Ali Swenson, Christopher L. Keller, Aaron Kessler and Mike Catalini contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawmakers weigh impeachment articles for Bondi over Epstein file omissions

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Lawmakers unhappy with Justice Department decisions to heavily redact or withhold documents from a legally mandated release of files related to Jeffrey Epstein threatened Saturday to launch impeachment proceedings against those responsible, including Pam Bondi, the U.S. attorney general.

    Democrats and Republicans alike criticized the omissions, while Democrats also accused the Justice Department of intentionally scrubbing the release of at least one image of President Trump, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggesting it could portend “one of the biggest coverups in American history.”

    Trump administration officials have said the release fully complied with the law, and that its redactions were crafted only to protect victims of Epstein, a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender accused of abusing hundreds of women and girls before his death in 2019.

    Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont), an author of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of the investigative trove, blasted Bondi in a social media video, accusing her of denying the existence of many of the records for months, only to push out “an incomplete release with too many redactions” in response to — and in violation of — the new law.

    Khanna said he and the bill’s co-sponsor, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), were “exploring all options” for responding and forcing more disclosures, including by pursuing “the impeachment of people at Justice,” asking courts to hold officials blocking the release in contempt, and “referring for prosecution those who are obstructing justice.”

    “We will work with the survivors to demand the full release of these files,” Khanna said.

    He later added in a CNN interview that he and Massie were drafting articles of impeachment against Bondi, though they had not decided whether to bring them forward.

    Massie, in his own social media post, said Khanna was correct in rejecting the Friday release as insufficient, saying that it “grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law.”

    The lawmakers’ view that the Justice Department’s document dump failed to comply with the law echoed similar complaints across the political spectrum Saturday, as the full scope of redactions and other withholdings came into focus.

    The frustration had already sharply escalated late Friday, after Fox News Digital reported that the names and identifiers of not just victims but of “politically exposed individuals and government officials” had been redacted from the records — which would violate the law, and which Justice Department officials denied.

    Among the critics was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who cited the Fox reporting in an exasperated post late Friday to X.

    “The whole point was NOT to protect the ‘politically exposed individuals and government officials.’ That’s exactly what MAGA has always wanted, that’s what drain the swamp actually means. It means expose them all, the rich powerful elites who are corrupt and commit crimes, NOT redact their names and protect them,” Greene wrote.

    Senior Justice Department officials later called in to Fox News to dispute the report. But the removal of a file published in the Friday evening release, capturing a desk in Epstein’s home with a drawer filled of photos of Trump, reinforced bipartisan concerns that references to the president had been illegally withheld.

    In a release of documents from the Epstein family estate by the House Oversight Committee this fall, Trump’s name was featured over 1,000 times — more than any other public figure.

    “If they’re taking this down, just imagine how much more they’re trying to hide,” Schumer wrote on X. “This could be one of the biggest coverups in American history.”

    Several victims also said the release was insufficient. “It’s really kind of another slap in the face,” Alicia Arden, who went to the police to report that Epstein had abused her in 1997, told CNN. “I wanted all the files to come out, like they said that they were going to.”

    Trump, who signed the act into law after having worked to block it from getting a vote, was conspicuously quiet on the matter. In a long speech in North Carolina on Friday night, he did not mention it.

    However, White House officials and Justice Department leaders rejected the notion that the release was incomplete or out of compliance with the law, or that the names of politicians had been redacted.

    “The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law — full stop,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche. “Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim.”

    Other Republicans defended the administration. Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), chair of the House Oversight Committee, said the administration “is delivering unprecedented transparency in the Epstein case and will continue releasing documents.”

    Epstein died in a Manhattan jail awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. He’d been convicted in 2008 of procuring a child for prostitution in Florida, but served only 13 months in custody in what many condemned as a sweetheart plea deal for a well-connected and rich defendant.

    Epstein’s acts of abuse have attracted massive attention, including among many within Trump’s political base, in part because of unanswered questions surrounding which of his many powerful friends may have also been implicated in crimes against children. Some of those questions have swirled around Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years before the two had what the president has described as a falling out.

    Evidence has emerged in recent months that suggests Trump may have had knowledge of Epstein’s crimes during their friendship.

    Epstein wrote in a 2019 email, released by the House Oversight Committee, that Trump “knew about the girls.” In a 2011 email to Ghislaine Maxwell, who was convicted of conspiring with Epstein to help him sexually abuse girls, Epstein wrote that “the dog that hasn’t barked is trump. [Victim] spent hours at my house with him … he has never once been mentioned.”

    Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

    The records released Friday contained few if any major new revelations, but did include a complaint against Epstein filed with the FBI back in 1996 — which the FBI did little with, substantiating long-standing fears among Epstein’s victims that his crimes could have been stopped years earlier.

    Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), one of the president’s most consistent critics, wrote on X that Bondi should appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to explain under oath the extensive redactions and omissions, which he called a “willful violation of the law.”

    “The Trump Justice Department has had months to keep their promise to release all of the Epstein Files,” Schiff wrote. “Epstein’s survivors and the American people need answers now.”

    [ad_2]

    Kevin Rector, Michael Wilner

    Source link

  • Justice Department Begins Releasing Long-Awaited Files Tied To Epstein Sex Trafficking Investigation – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department released thousands of files Friday from its investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein even as it acknowledged that its documents disclosure about the wealthy financier, known for his connections to President Donald Trump and other influential people, was incomplete.

    The records arrived with public anticipation that they could offer the most detailed look yet at nearly two decades worth of government investigations into Epstein’s sexual abuse of young women and underage girls. But it remained unclear how much substantive new information was included in the photos, call logs, grand jury testimony and interview transcripts, or how much if any additional insight might be gleaned about Epstein’s relationships with rich and powerful contacts.

    The files were being released in accordance with a congressionally set deadline of Friday, but the Justice Department signaled that it would not fully meet that mark, with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche telling Fox News Channel that he expected the department to release “several hundred thousand” records Friday and then several hundred thousand more in the coming weeks.

    Their release has long been demanded by a public hungry to learn whether any of Epstein’s rich and powerful associates knew about — or participated in — the abuse. Epstein’s accusers have also long sought answers about why federal authorities shut down their initial investigation into the allegations in 2008.

    Bowing to political pressure from fellow Republicans, Trump on Nov. 19 signed a bill giving the Justice Department 30 days to release most of its files and communications related to Epstein, including information about the investigation into his death in a federal jail. The law’s passage was a remarkable display of bipartisanship that overcame months of opposition from Trump and Republican leadership.

    What the law allows
    That law allows for redactions about the victims or ongoing investigations but makes clear no records shall be withheld or redacted due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.”

    Attorney General Pam Bondi said on Nov. 14 that she had ordered a top federal prosecutor to investigate Epstein’s ties to Trump’s political foes, including former President Bill Clinton. Bondi acted after Trump pressed for such an inquiry, though he did not explain what supposed crimes he wanted the Justice Department to investigate. None of the men Trump mentioned in a social media post demanding the investigation has been accused of sexual misconduct by any of Epstein’s victims.

    In July, Trump dismissed some of his own supporters as “weaklings” for falling for “the Jeffrey Epstein hoax.” But both Trump and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., failed to prevent the legislation from coming to a vote.

    Trump did a U-turn on the files once it became clear that congressional action was inevitable. He insisted that the Epstein matter had become a distraction to the Republican agenda and that releasing the records was the best way to move on.

    The Epstein investigations
    Police in Palm Beach, Florida, began investigating Epstein in 2005 after the family of a 14-year-old girl reported she had been molested at his mansion. The FBI joined the investigation, and authorities gathered testimony from multiple underage girls who said they had been hired to give Epstein sexual massages.

    Ultimately, though, prosecutors gave Epstein a deal that allowed him to avoid federal prosecution. He pleaded guilty to state prostitution charges involving someone under age 18 and was sentenced to 18 months in jail.

    Epstein’s accusers then spent years in civil litigation trying to get that plea deal set aside. One of those women, Virginia Giuffre, accused Epstein of arranging for her to have sexual encounters, starting at age 17, with numerous other men, including billionaires, famous academics, U.S. politicians and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, then known as Britain’s Prince Andrew.

    All of those men denied the allegations. Prosecutors never brought charges in connection with Giuffre’s claims, but her account fueled conspiracy theories about supposed government plots to protect the powerful. Giuffre died by suicide at her farm in Western Australia in April at age 41.

    Federal prosecutors in New York brought new sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail a month after his arrest. Prosecutors then charged Epstein’s longtime confidant, British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, with recruiting underage girls for Epstein to abuse.

    Maxwell was convicted in late 2021 and is serving a 20-year prison sentence, though she was moved from a low-security federal prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas after she was interviewed over the summer by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Her lawyers argued that she never should have been tried or convicted.

    The Justice Department in July said it had not found any information that could support prosecuting anyone else.

    Lots of Epstein records were already public
    After nearly two decades of court action and prying by reporters, a voluminous number of records related to Epstein is already public, including flight logs, address books, email correspondence, police reports, grand jury records, courtroom testimony and transcripts of depositions of his accusers, his staffers and others.

    Yet, the public’s appetite for more records has been insatiable, particularly for anything related to Epstein’s associations with famous people including Trump, Mountbatten-Windsor and Clinton.

    Trump was friends with Epstein for years before the two had a falling out. Neither he nor Clinton has ever been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and the mere inclusion of someone’s name in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise.

    Mountbatten-Windsor denied ever having sex with Giuffre, but King Charles III stripped him of his royal titles this year after Giuffre’s memoir was published after she died.

    [ad_2]

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • These images of Trump, Epstein with young women aren’t real

    [ad_1]

    Social media users shared purported photos of President Donald Trump and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein with young women, but these images weren’t released by the House Committee on Oversight.

    The images, which resemble Polaroid photos, appear to show Trump hugging a young woman wearing only underwear and another with her wearing a bathrobe. Other photos show Epstein laying down and posing with a young woman in a white outfit. 

    “The Epstein photo dump has been released,” says the Dec. 12 X post.

    Another X post reads, “Not AI, not photoshopped, just an old photo taken from the Epstein archives. There’s a special place in Hell.”

    Other users on Instagram, Facebook and Threads also shared the photos as early as Dec. 9. 

    (Screenshot from X post.)

    But there are signs these photos were, in fact, generated using artificial intelligence tools.

    • In the image on the top left, the young woman appears to be missing an arm.

    • In that same image, Trump’s nose looks different from other old images of him, and part of his face is missing.

    • Epstein’s arm in the top right image is darker than the rest of his body.

    • In the bottom right image, Epstein is missing an eye.

    • In a fuller version of the images posted on Threads, some of Trump’s fingers are missing in the bottom left image.

    PolitiFact found no credible news reports about these images. Instead, we found other fact-checkers saying they are fake.

    We also didn’t find them in released documents from Epstein’s estate by members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Both the committee and, separately, its Democratic minority members have released thousands of photos and documents from Epstein’s estate since September. The Justice Department began releasing more documents Dec. 19 to comply with the deadline set in a law Trump signed.

    While these images aren’t real,Trump has appeared in other Epstein related photos, including some published by Oversight Committee Democrats on Dec. 12; Trump has not been connected to Epstein’s crimes.

    Since these images aren’t real, we rate this claim Pants on Fire!

    RELATED: Fact-checking falsehoods about Epstein’s client list, island and involvement with Trump

    RELATED: ‘We have nothing to hide.’ How Donald Trump shifted on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about the upcoming Epstein files release

    [ad_1]

    A new federal law requires the Justice Department to release by Friday a massive trove of investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.The release of the Epstein files, detailing the probes into the disgraced multimillionaire and sex offender who died in 2019, has attracted significant attention. The public has been captivated by Epstein’s lavish lifestyle, claims of underage sex trafficking, and his ties to President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, celebrities and foreign dignitaries.Veto-proof majorities in Congress passed a law last month requiring the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein-related files in its custody. Trump fought hard to stop the law but signed it after being outmaneuvered by a bipartisan groundswell of support from lawmakers and the public.However, it’s unclear exactly which records will be made public and how much of the material will be new. Over the 20-year saga surrounding Epstein’s sex crimes, thousands of files have already been disclosed through civil litigation and public records requests.Here’s what you need to know about the files:Why is this happening now?The law, called the Epstein Files Transparency Act, is only three pages long and spells out in simple language what the Justice Department must release and what it can withhold.The federal government is required to release “searchable and downloadable” copies of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” related to Epstein and Maxwell that are in the possession of the Justice Department or FBI.The law explicitly calls for the release of travel logs, materials about Epstein’s associates, any related immunity deals, relevant corporate records, all internal Justice Department communications about the investigations, and documents about Epstein’s 2019 death.What’s in DOJ’s Epstein files?CNN has reported that there’s more than 300 gigabytes of data that lives within the FBI’s primary electronic case management system, called Sentinel. This includes videos, photographs, audio recordings and written records.The FBI conducted two probes into Epstein. The first began in 2006 after sex abuse allegations emerged in Florida. That led to a non-prosecution deal in which Epstein avoided federal charges. Much of the same conduct was also scrutinized by the Palm Beach Police Department, leading to Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea on state charges. He would serve just 13 months in a Florida jail for state prostitution charges, though he was allowed to spend nearly half of that time on “work release” at his office.The second FBI investigation led to Epstein’s federal sex trafficking indictment in 2019. The bulk of the “Epstein files” comes from that New York-based second FBI probe, though there are also materials from the first investigation in Miami, CNN previously reported.What has DOJ said it may release?The Justice Department has described in court filings the types of documents in its possession that it believes must be publicly released under the new law. However, the department warned that the list is “not entirely comprehensive” of what may be released.The list says materials obtained from search warrants, and FBI affidavits supporting search warrants, will be released. The FBI notably raided Epstein’s homes in Florida, New York, and the private island that he owned in the US Virgin Islands, known as Little Saint James.The list also mentions memos from FBI interviews with witnesses. CNN has reported that there are at least hundreds of pages of these memos, known as “302s.”The list also includes financial records, bank records, travel logs from commercial and private flights, materials subpoenaed from Internet providers like Google, what’s referred to as “school records,” information from law firms representing victims, arrest reports, depositions from related civil lawsuits, immigration records, documents from the Palm Beach Police Department and forensic reports from seized dozens of Epstein’s electronic devices.Federal judges have also paved the way for the Justice Department to release grand jury materials from the Epstein indictment, the Maxwell trial and the related probe in Florida.But the grand jury files might not be all that illuminating. One of the judges wrote that nearly all of the grand jury material from the Maxwell case “was already a matter of public record” and that its disclosure “would not reveal new information of any consequence.”What might be redacted?The law says records can’t be “withheld, delayed, or redacted” due to concerns about “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” And it explicitly says this applies to “any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”However, under the law, Attorney General Pam Bondi can “withhold or redact” portions of records that fall under five categories, as long as she publicly explains every redaction.Those categories are: records that contain personally identifiable information about Epstein’s victims, materials depicting child sexual abuse, materials depicting physical abuse, any records that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation,” or any classified documents that must stay secret to protect “national defense or foreign policy.”CNN reported that the FBI recovered thousands of nude and seminude photographs of young women at Epstein’s property in Manhattan. Those images will not be made public.What won’t be in the release?There are limits for what we’ll see. The Justice Department’s in-house files about the Epstein case only represent a portion of what exists in the entire Epstein-related universe.For instance, the House Oversight Committee’s recent releases contained documents obtained from Epstein’s estate, including some materials that the FBI later said it had never seen before. Lawmakers are also pursuing bank records that might not be in the Justice Department’s existing cache of materials.Naturally, this means there could be more disclosures even after the Justice Department’s highly anticipated document drop.What are experts looking for?Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, a top expert on the Epstein saga, said she is keeping an eye out for drafts of un-filed indictments, tips from the public that the FBI received about Epstein, and internal emails and texts from the investigators who worked on the cases.Others, including some Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns about the possibility that the Trump administration will overzealously withhold or redact materials – particularly documents that make Trump look bad – due to the ongoing Trump-backed probe into Epstein’s associates.Last month, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to several well-known Democrats, including former President Clinton. That probe is ongoing, though the Justice Department said back in July that its exhaustive review of the Epstein and Maxwell case files did not uncover enough evidence to charge any of their associates.What have the victims said?Some of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims have been wary of the Justice Department releasing grand jury and other materials, for fear of being named publicly. But others have supported the unsealing, if proper redactions are made to conceal names and identifying information.One victim who testified during Maxwell’s trial supported the release provided such redactions are made. In a letter to the federal judge who presided over the case, the victim also voiced concern that the Justice Department might not release everything they have.Others have been far more critical of the releases. When Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a large tranche of documents from Epstein’s estate in November, a group of victims quickly lamented that names and other personal information was not redacted.“Transparency cannot come at the expense of the privacy, safety, and protection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking victims,” lawyers for the victims wrote in a letter to the judge in the Maxwell case, adding that they “already suffered repeatedly, both at the hands of their abusers as well as by the actions of the media and inactions on the Government.”The judge who presided over Maxwell’s case, Paul Engelmayer, also criticized the Justice Department’s handling of victims during the months-long debate over whether to release more of the files. He said in one ruling that the Justice Department, “although paying lip service to Maxwell’s and Epstein’s victims, has not treated them with the solicitude they deserve.”The Justice Department has said in court filings that, in anticipation of the release, it has coordinated closely with known victims and was trying to reach lawyers for more victims. However, CNN reported Tuesday that some Epstein survivors haven’t received any outreach from the Justice Department ahead of the files’ release.What has already been released?A deluge of files, memos, transcripts and other documents surrounding the Epstein saga have already been released through Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial, public records requests over the years, Justice Department reports, and numerous civil lawsuits.Such documents released by the Justice Department include their findings from an internal investigation into the 2008 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which the DOJ now says was wholly improper, as well as the department’s inspector general’s report on Epstein’s suicide at a federal prison in Manhattan.Earlier this year, Trump appointees at the Justice Department and FBI released a batch of declassified Epstein files investigators had gathered. The information from those files, however, was largely already public and the Trump administration has been heavily criticized by supporters and detractors for the bungled release ever since.The Justice Department released hundreds of pages from its controversial sit-down interview with Maxwell earlier this year, where she defended her actions and even criticized some of the victims.More recently, members of the House Oversight Committee released multiple tranches of files and photographs from Epstein’s estate.CNN’s Kara Scannell contributed to this report.

    A new federal law requires the Justice Department to release by Friday a massive trove of investigative documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.

    The release of the Epstein files, detailing the probes into the disgraced multimillionaire and sex offender who died in 2019, has attracted significant attention. The public has been captivated by Epstein’s lavish lifestyle, claims of underage sex trafficking, and his ties to President Donald Trump, former President Bill Clinton, celebrities and foreign dignitaries.

    Veto-proof majorities in Congress passed a law last month requiring the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein-related files in its custody. Trump fought hard to stop the law but signed it after being outmaneuvered by a bipartisan groundswell of support from lawmakers and the public.

    However, it’s unclear exactly which records will be made public and how much of the material will be new. Over the 20-year saga surrounding Epstein’s sex crimes, thousands of files have already been disclosed through civil litigation and public records requests.

    Here’s what you need to know about the files:

    Why is this happening now?

    The law, called the Epstein Files Transparency Act, is only three pages long and spells out in simple language what the Justice Department must release and what it can withhold.

    The federal government is required to release “searchable and downloadable” copies of “all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials” related to Epstein and Maxwell that are in the possession of the Justice Department or FBI.

    The law explicitly calls for the release of travel logs, materials about Epstein’s associates, any related immunity deals, relevant corporate records, all internal Justice Department communications about the investigations, and documents about Epstein’s 2019 death.

    What’s in DOJ’s Epstein files?

    CNN has reported that there’s more than 300 gigabytes of data that lives within the FBI’s primary electronic case management system, called Sentinel. This includes videos, photographs, audio recordings and written records.

    The FBI conducted two probes into Epstein. The first began in 2006 after sex abuse allegations emerged in Florida. That led to a non-prosecution deal in which Epstein avoided federal charges. Much of the same conduct was also scrutinized by the Palm Beach Police Department, leading to Epstein’s 2008 guilty plea on state charges. He would serve just 13 months in a Florida jail for state prostitution charges, though he was allowed to spend nearly half of that time on “work release” at his office.

    The second FBI investigation led to Epstein’s federal sex trafficking indictment in 2019. The bulk of the “Epstein files” comes from that New York-based second FBI probe, though there are also materials from the first investigation in Miami, CNN previously reported.

    What has DOJ said it may release?

    The Justice Department has described in court filings the types of documents in its possession that it believes must be publicly released under the new law. However, the department warned that the list is “not entirely comprehensive” of what may be released.

    The list says materials obtained from search warrants, and FBI affidavits supporting search warrants, will be released. The FBI notably raided Epstein’s homes in Florida, New York, and the private island that he owned in the US Virgin Islands, known as Little Saint James.

    The list also mentions memos from FBI interviews with witnesses. CNN has reported that there are at least hundreds of pages of these memos, known as “302s.”

    The list also includes financial records, bank records, travel logs from commercial and private flights, materials subpoenaed from Internet providers like Google, what’s referred to as “school records,” information from law firms representing victims, arrest reports, depositions from related civil lawsuits, immigration records, documents from the Palm Beach Police Department and forensic reports from seized dozens of Epstein’s electronic devices.

    Federal judges have also paved the way for the Justice Department to release grand jury materials from the Epstein indictment, the Maxwell trial and the related probe in Florida.

    But the grand jury files might not be all that illuminating. One of the judges wrote that nearly all of the grand jury material from the Maxwell case “was already a matter of public record” and that its disclosure “would not reveal new information of any consequence.”

    What might be redacted?

    The law says records can’t be “withheld, delayed, or redacted” due to concerns about “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” And it explicitly says this applies to “any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    However, under the law, Attorney General Pam Bondi can “withhold or redact” portions of records that fall under five categories, as long as she publicly explains every redaction.

    Those categories are: records that contain personally identifiable information about Epstein’s victims, materials depicting child sexual abuse, materials depicting physical abuse, any records that “would jeopardize an active federal investigation,” or any classified documents that must stay secret to protect “national defense or foreign policy.”

    CNN reported that the FBI recovered thousands of nude and seminude photographs of young women at Epstein’s property in Manhattan. Those images will not be made public.

    What won’t be in the release?

    There are limits for what we’ll see. The Justice Department’s in-house files about the Epstein case only represent a portion of what exists in the entire Epstein-related universe.

    For instance, the House Oversight Committee’s recent releases contained documents obtained from Epstein’s estate, including some materials that the FBI later said it had never seen before. Lawmakers are also pursuing bank records that might not be in the Justice Department’s existing cache of materials.

    Naturally, this means there could be more disclosures even after the Justice Department’s highly anticipated document drop.

    What are experts looking for?

    Miami Herald reporter Julie K. Brown, a top expert on the Epstein saga, said she is keeping an eye out for drafts of un-filed indictments, tips from the public that the FBI received about Epstein, and internal emails and texts from the investigators who worked on the cases.

    Others, including some Democratic lawmakers, have raised concerns about the possibility that the Trump administration will overzealously withhold or redact materials – particularly documents that make Trump look bad – due to the ongoing Trump-backed probe into Epstein’s associates.

    Last month, Trump directed the Justice Department to investigate Epstein’s ties to several well-known Democrats, including former President Clinton. That probe is ongoing, though the Justice Department said back in July that its exhaustive review of the Epstein and Maxwell case files did not uncover enough evidence to charge any of their associates.

    What have the victims said?

    Some of Epstein and Maxwell’s victims have been wary of the Justice Department releasing grand jury and other materials, for fear of being named publicly. But others have supported the unsealing, if proper redactions are made to conceal names and identifying information.

    One victim who testified during Maxwell’s trial supported the release provided such redactions are made. In a letter to the federal judge who presided over the case, the victim also voiced concern that the Justice Department might not release everything they have.

    Others have been far more critical of the releases. When Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a large tranche of documents from Epstein’s estate in November, a group of victims quickly lamented that names and other personal information was not redacted.

    “Transparency cannot come at the expense of the privacy, safety, and protection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking victims,” lawyers for the victims wrote in a letter to the judge in the Maxwell case, adding that they “already suffered repeatedly, both at the hands of their abusers as well as by the actions of the media and inactions on the Government.”

    The judge who presided over Maxwell’s case, Paul Engelmayer, also criticized the Justice Department’s handling of victims during the months-long debate over whether to release more of the files. He said in one ruling that the Justice Department, “although paying lip service to Maxwell’s and Epstein’s victims, has not treated them with the solicitude they deserve.”

    The Justice Department has said in court filings that, in anticipation of the release, it has coordinated closely with known victims and was trying to reach lawyers for more victims. However, CNN reported Tuesday that some Epstein survivors haven’t received any outreach from the Justice Department ahead of the files’ release.

    What has already been released?

    A deluge of files, memos, transcripts and other documents surrounding the Epstein saga have already been released through Maxwell’s 2021 criminal trial, public records requests over the years, Justice Department reports, and numerous civil lawsuits.

    Such documents released by the Justice Department include their findings from an internal investigation into the 2008 non-prosecution agreement with Epstein, which the DOJ now says was wholly improper, as well as the department’s inspector general’s report on Epstein’s suicide at a federal prison in Manhattan.

    Earlier this year, Trump appointees at the Justice Department and FBI released a batch of declassified Epstein files investigators had gathered. The information from those files, however, was largely already public and the Trump administration has been heavily criticized by supporters and detractors for the bungled release ever since.

    The Justice Department released hundreds of pages from its controversial sit-down interview with Maxwell earlier this year, where she defended her actions and even criticized some of the victims.

    More recently, members of the House Oversight Committee released multiple tranches of files and photographs from Epstein’s estate.

    CNN’s Kara Scannell contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What Does Cannabis Rescheduling Mean

    [ad_1]

    What does cannabis rescheduling mean for patients, doctors, retailers and small businesses as the President weighs federal action.

    The last few days have been a rollercoaster for the cannabis industry with a press release was released on Friday saying the President is going to use an executive order on cannabis.  The market soared and then crashed and then rebounded now he has he commented he is considering it when directly asked a question. When the President says he’s “considering” rescheduling cannabis, that’s not the same as legalizing it — but it could still be the single biggest federal shift for the industry in decades. But what does cannabis rescheduling mean? The act would change marijuana’s place on the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) from Schedule I — the category reserved for drugs the law says have no accepted medical use and high potential for abuse — to a lower schedule, most often discussed as Schedule III. The practical effects would be immediate for researchers and investors, consequential for doctors and patients, and potentially life-changing for thousands of mom-and-pop retailers drowning under today’s tax rules.

    RELATED: Mike Johnson And Marijuana

    Moving cannabis out of Schedule I would remove a major administrative barrier to clinical research. Researchers say rescheduling would simplify access to plant material for federally-funded studies and could speed trials on cannabinoids for pain, epilepsy and other conditions — because Schedule III substances are treated more like prescription medicines that can be studied with fewer legal hurdles. That said, rescheduling is not an FDA approval: doctors would still lack the uniform, FDA-style prescribing framework that exists for most pharmaceuticals, and states would continue to control patient access under their own medical cannabis rules. In short: more and better science is likely, but a medical-practice revolution would depend on follow-up regulatory and clinical work.

    Photo by Aaron Kittredge via Pexels

    Rescheduling would not erase state laws or create a nationwide retail market overnight. Consumers in states with legal sales would still use the existing retail channels, and in states where cannabis is illegal, possession and sale could remain crimes under state law. But at the federal level, rescheduling could unlock easier banking access and attract mainstream investment: Schedule III status reduces the shadow-banking risk that currently forces many operators to run primarily in cash and stay out of regular capital markets. That improved access to banking and capital could make stores safer and give established local operators better options for growth.

    For many small cannabis retailers the single most consequential change would be tax relief. Under current law, Internal Revenue Code Section 280E prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses — meaning rent, payroll, advertising and professional fees are largely nondeductible. As a result, effective federal tax rates for some retailers have been extraordinarily high. If cannabis were reclassified to Schedule III, 280E would no longer apply — allowing businesses to deduct ordinary expenses like any other small business. That could free up cash flow, lower effective tax rates dramatically, and determine whether many family-run shops survive or shutter.

    RELATED: Marijuana Use And Guy’s Member

    An administrative rescheduling (for example by executive order or DEA action) could be challenged in court or limited by Congress. Some lawmakers argue a President cannot unilaterally rewrite statute; others note that Congress could respond, creating new limits or tax rules. And rescheduling alone will not erase criminal records automatically — separate policy steps would be required to address convictions and resentencing. So while rescheduling is a powerful and pragmatic lever — speeding research, unlocking banking, and ending the worst tax penalties — it is not a one-click path to full legalization or automatic amnesty.

    If the President moves ahead, which is still up in the air, rescheduling would be a structural shift: better science, easier finance and crucial tax relief for operators — especially small, mom and pop retailers. But legalization, standardized medical prescribing and answers about criminal records would still require follow-on legislative and regulatory work. For mom-and-pop shops, rescheduling could mean the difference between surviving another year and finally having breathing room to compete.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • White House defends Chief of Staff Susie Wiles after tell-all

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Trump’s chief of staff is defending herself after granting an extraordinarily candid series of interviews with Vanity Fair in which she offers stinging judgments of the president and blunt assessments about his administration’s shortcomings.

    The profile of Susie Wiles, Trump’s reserved, influential top aide since he resumed office, caused a scandal in Washington and prompted a crisis response from the White House that involved nearly every single figure in Trump’s orbit issuing a public defense.

    In 11 interviews conducted over lunches and meetings in the West Wing, Wiles described early failures and drug use by billionaire Elon Musk during his time in government and mistakes by Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi in her public handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Wiles also acknowledged that Trump had launched a retribution campaign against his perceived political enemies.

    “I don’t think he wakes up thinking about retribution,” Wiles told Chris Whipple, the Vanity Fair writer who has written extensively on past chiefs of staff, “but when there’s an opportunity, he will go for it.”

    Wiles also cited missteps in the administration’s immigration crackdown, contradicted a claim Trump makes about financier and convicted sex offender Epstein and former President Clinton and described Vice President JD Vance as a “conspiracy theorist.”

    Within hours of the Vanity Fair tell-all’s publication Tuesday, Wiles and key members of Trump’s inner circle mounted a robust defense of her tenure, calling the story a “hit piece” that left out exculpatory context.

    “The article published early this morning is a disingenuously framed hit piece on me and the finest President, White House staff, and Cabinet in history,” Wiles said in a post on X, her first in more than a year. “Significant context was disregarded and much of what I, and others, said about the team and the President was left out of the story.”

    The profile was reported with the knowledge and participation of other senior staff, and illustrated with a photograph of Wiles and some of Trump’s closest aides, including Vance, Bondi and advisor Stephen Miller.

    The profile revealed much about a chief of staff who has kept a discreet profile in the West Wing, continuing her management philosophy carried through the 2024 election when she served as Trump’s last campaign manager: She let Trump be Trump. “Sir, remember that I am the chief of staff, not the chief of you,” she recalled telling the president.

    Trump has publicly emphasized how much he values Wiles as a trusted aide. He did so at a rally last week where he referred to her as “Susie Trump.” In an interview with Whipple, she talked about having difficult conversations with Trump on a daily basis, but that she picks her battles.

    “So no, I’m not an enabler. I’m also not a bitch. I try to be thoughtful about what I even engage in,” Wiles said. “I guess time will tell whether I’ve been effective.”

    Despite her passive style, Wiles shared concern over Trump’s initial approach to tariff policy, calling the levies “more painful than I had expected.” She had urged him, unsuccessfully, to get his retribution campaign out of the way within his first 90 days in office, in order to enable the administration to move on to more important matters. And she had opposed Trump’s blanket pardon of Jan. 6 defendants, including those convicted of violent crimes.

    Wiles also acknowledged the administration needs to “look harder at our process for deportation,” adding that in at least one instance mistakes were made when Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested and deported two mothers and their American children to Honduras. One of the children was being treated for Stage 4 cancer.

    “I can’t understand how you make that mistake, but somebody did,” she said.

    In foreign policy, Wiles defended the administration’s attack on alleged drug boats in the Caribbean Sea and said the president “wants to keep on blowing up boats up until [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro cries uncle,” suggesting the goal is to seek a change of governments.

    As Trump has talked about potential land strikes in Venezuela, Wiles acknowledged that such a move would require congressional authorization.

    “If he were to authorize some activity on land, then it’s war, then [we’d need] Congress,” she said.

    In one exchange with Whipple, she characterized Trump, who abstains from liquor, as having an “alcoholic’s personality,” explaining that “high-functioning alcoholics, or alcoholics in general, their personalities are exaggerated when they drink.”

    He “operates [with] a view that there’s nothing he can’t do. Nothing, zero, nothing,” she said.

    But Trump, in an interview with the New York Post, defended Wiles and her comments, saying that he would indeed be an alcoholic if he drank alcohol.

    “She’s done a fantastic job,” Trump said. “I think from what I hear, the facts were wrong, and it was a very misguided interviewer — purposely misguided.”

    Wiles also blamed the persistence of the Epstein saga on members of Trump’s Cabinet, noting that the president’s chosen FBI director, Kash Patel, had advocated for the release of all Justice Department files related to the investigation for many years. Despite Trump’s claims that Clinton visited Epstein’s private island, Wiles acknowledged, Trump is “wrong about that.”

    Wiles added that Bondi had “completely whiffed” on how she handled the Epstein files, an issue that has created a rift within MAGA.

    “First she gave them binders full of nothingness. And then she said that the witness list, or the client list, was on her desk. There is no client list, and it sure as hell wasn’t on her desk,” Wiles said.

    Wiles added that she has read the investigative files about Epstein and acknowledged that Trump is mentioned in them, but said “he’s not in the file doing anything awful.”

    Vance, who she said had been a “conspiracy theorist for a decade,” said he had joked with Wiles about conspiracies in private before offering her praise.

    “I’ve never seen Susie Wiles say something to the president and then go and counteract him or subvert his will behind the scenes. And that’s what you want in a staffer,” Vance told reporters. “I’ve never seen her be disloyal to the president of the United States and that makes her the best White House chief of staff that the president could ask for.”

    Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget whom Wiles described to Whipple as a “right-wing absolute zealot,” said in a social media post that she is an “exceptional chief of staff.” Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the “entire administration is grateful for her steady leadership and united fully behind her.”

    Wiles told Vanity Fair that she would be happy to stay in the role for as long as the president wanted her to stay, noting that she has time to devote to the job, being divorced and with her kids out of the house.

    Trump had a troubled relationship with his chiefs of staff in his first term, cycling through four in four years. His longest-serving chief of staff, former Gen. John F. Kelly, served a year and a half.

    [ad_2]

    Michael Wilner, Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Cannabis Faces Headwinds Despite Rumors

    [ad_1]

    Cannabis faces headwinds despite rumors of White House action, as congressional opposition threatens meaningful federal reform.

    Last week, the cannabis market soared after rumors the President would take action on cannabis. Stocks rose as it seemed the administration was listening to the public with public opinion decisively in favor of reform. Thousands of mom and pop business are hoping it is is true, but cannabis faces headwinds despite rumors. The President faces determined opposition in Congress — most notably from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and several influential lawmakers who remain firmly resistant to change. Congress has been more resistant to orders from the president, which has emboldened some of marijuana’s opponents.

    RELATED: Mike Johnson And Marijuana

    Cannabis reform has become one of the rare issues where public sentiment is clear. Polls consistently show strong bipartisan support for legal medical marijuana, broad backing for adult-use legalization, and overwhelming agreement cannabis should no longer be treated as a serious criminal offense. Many voters view reform as both a social justice issue and an economic opportunity, particularly as states continue to collect billions in cannabis tax revenue. The administration is being bombarded with issues from affordability to Epstein, this would be seen as a popular win with little downside in the public eye.

    Despite this momentum, federal action remains complicated. Speaker Mike Johnson has been vocal about his opposition to marijuana legalization, framing cannabis as a public health and social risk rather than a regulated consumer product. His position matters. As Speaker, Johnson has significant control over which bills reach the House floor, making it difficult for cannabis legislation to advance even when bipartisan support exists.

    Other congressional foes echo similar concerns, often citing public safety, youth access, or workplace issues. While some Republicans support limited reforms such as medical marijuana protections or banking access for cannabis businesses, broader legalization efforts frequently stall due to leadership resistance. This dynamic has created a familiar pattern: bipartisan cannabis bills introduced with optimism, only to languish in committee or fail to receive a vote.

    For the President, this resistance narrows the available paths forward. Comprehensive legalization would require congressional approval, making it a steep uphill battle in the current political climate. However, executive actions remain an option. These include directing federal agencies to review cannabis scheduling, expanding pardons for federal marijuana offenses, or clarifying enforcement priorities. Such steps would not legalize cannabis nationwide, but they could meaningfully reshape how federal law treats marijuana.

    RELATED: Marijuana Use And Guy’s Member

    Advocates argue incremental progress is still progress. Rescheduling cannabis, for example, could improve access to medical research, ease tax burdens on state-legal businesses, and signal a shift away from decades of punitive policy. Critics, however, warns executive action alone risks being temporary or vulnerable to future administrations.

    As election season approaches, cannabis reform may once again become a talking point — especially among younger voters and communities disproportionately affected by past enforcement. Yet the reality remains presidential interest does not automatically translate into policy success. Congressional leadership, committee chairs, and internal party politics still hold substantial power over the outcome.

    While there is growing talk the President may move on cannabis, he faces entrenched opposition from Speaker Mike Johnson and other congressional leaders who remain skeptical of reform. Action will depend on the adminstration’s needs regarding public opinion. The clash between shifting public opinion, the President’s needs and legislative resistance will likely define the next chapter of federal cannabis policy — whether the chapter brings meaningful change or more political stalemate.

    [ad_2]

    Terry Hacienda

    Source link

  • Democrats release Epstein estate photos ahead of key Justice Department deadline

    [ad_1]

    Democrats serving on the House Oversight Committee released dozens of photos on Friday from the estate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including some of President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton. Some of the photos show Trump alongside women whose faces were blacked out. No additional context for the redactions was provided in the initial press release. “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats are “selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”Trump told reporters Friday that he had not seen the photos and downplayed their significance.“He was all over Palm Beach. He has photos with everybody. I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have photos with him, so that’s no big deal. I know nothing about it,” Trump said. Neither Trump nor Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing by Epstein’s known victims.Garcia didn’t specifically say whether the women whose faces were redacted in the photos were victims of abuse. He told reporters, “Our commitment from day one has been to redact any photo, any information that could lead to any sort of harm to any of the victims.”Garcia said that the photos were released in the interest of transparency. He said the panel is in the process of reviewing the rest of the 95,000 photos received from Epstein’s estate on Thursday evening, and the public should expect more pictures to come out. Republicans on the House Oversight Committee defended Trump and took aim at the Clintons. Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, issued a statement warning that they will initiate proceedings to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January. Comer said it has been more than four months since they were subpoenaed as part of the committee’s Epstein probe. Friday’s developments are renewing focus on the yearslong controversy ahead of next week’s Dec. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to release another trove of documents related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation and his death behind bars in 2019. The release of those files was required by Congress in a near-unanimous vote last month. The DOJ has promised maximum transparency, but some fear the documents will be overly redacted.More from the Washington Bureau:

    WASHINGTON —

    Democrats serving on the House Oversight Committee released dozens of photos on Friday from the estate of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, including some of President Donald Trump and former President Bill Clinton.

    Some of the photos show Trump alongside women whose faces were blacked out. No additional context for the redactions was provided in the initial press release.

    “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, said in a statement.

    White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said Democrats are “selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.”

    Trump told reporters Friday that he had not seen the photos and downplayed their significance.

    “He was all over Palm Beach. He has photos with everybody. I mean, there are hundreds and hundreds of people that have photos with him, so that’s no big deal. I know nothing about it,” Trump said.

    Neither Trump nor Clinton has been accused of wrongdoing by Epstein’s known victims.

    Garcia didn’t specifically say whether the women whose faces were redacted in the photos were victims of abuse. He told reporters, “Our commitment from day one has been to redact any photo, any information that could lead to any sort of harm to any of the victims.”

    Garcia said that the photos were released in the interest of transparency. He said the panel is in the process of reviewing the rest of the 95,000 photos received from Epstein’s estate on Thursday evening, and the public should expect more pictures to come out.

    Republicans on the House Oversight Committee defended Trump and took aim at the Clintons.

    Rep. James Comer, who chairs the committee, issued a statement warning that they will initiate proceedings to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they fail to appear for their depositions next week or schedule a date for early January. Comer said it has been more than four months since they were subpoenaed as part of the committee’s Epstein probe.

    Friday’s developments are renewing focus on the yearslong controversy ahead of next week’s Dec. 19 deadline for the Justice Department to release another trove of documents related to Epstein’s sex trafficking investigation and his death behind bars in 2019. The release of those files was required by Congress in a near-unanimous vote last month. The DOJ has promised maximum transparency, but some fear the documents will be overly redacted.

    More from the Washington Bureau:


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Powerful men in politics and media shown in new Epstein estate images

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — House Democrats on Friday released 19 photographs from Jeffrey Epstein’s private email server showing a collection of powerful men in politics, media and Hollywood in the convicted sex offender’s orbit.

    The photographs — which were released without information on the timing, location or context of the events portrayed — do not reveal any wrongdoing or show sexual acts but offer more detail about Epstein’s well-known associations with prominent men.

    The 19 images selected and released by Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee are a small slice of more than 95,000 photographs the committee received on Thursday from Epstein’s private estate, Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat in the committee, told reporters on Friday.

    Garcia, of Long Beach, added that the release of the images is an exercise in transparency, and said it serves as an example of why Democrats want to keep the pressure on the Trump administration to release its Epstein files ahead of a Dec. 19 deadline mandated by a law passed by Congress in November.

    “I think people should be able to make judgments on their own as to what they see in these photos,” Garcia said. “For us this is about transparency.”

    Most of the images Democrats released on Friday further illustrate Epstein’s already well-known relationships with prominent men, many of whom have over the years faced questions about their ties to Epstein, who died by suicide in federal prison in 2019.

    Some of the photos show Stephen K. Bannon, a former Trump advisor, meeting with Epstein at an office; tech billionaire and philanthropist Bill Gates standing by what appears to be Epstein’s private jet; former President Clinton with Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell; Epstein with filmmaker Woody Allen on a movie set; and, before he became president, Donald Trump with six unidentified women.

    Other images show stand-alone images of sex toys and, in what appears to be an attempt at racy humor, a bowl filled with what a sign identifies as the “Trump condom” — condom packages emblazoned with a caricature of Trump and the words “I’M HUUUGE!”

    An image released by a House committee shows former president Bill Clinton, center, with Jeffrey Epstein, right, and Ghislaine Maxwell, second from right.

    (House Oversight Committee )

    Trump has denied any involvement or knowledge of Epstein’s sex-trafficking operations, but thousands of emails released last month have suggested the president may have known more about Epstein’s abuse than he had acknowledged.

    Epstein was a convicted sex offender who is believed to have abused more than 200 women and girls. His longtime associate, Maxwell, is serving a 20-year sentence for her role in a sex-trafficking scheme to groom and sexually abuse underage girls with Epstein.

    The 95,000 photographs released this week were turned over to the House committee in response to a set of subpoenas issued for records related to Epstein’s estate.

    Garcia said Democrats on the panel are reviewing the full set of photos and will continue to release them to the public in the days and weeks ahead.

    “These disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world,” Garcia said. “We will not rest until the American people get the truth. The Department of Justice must release all of the files, NOW.”

    One of the images released by a House committee shows Stephen K. Bannon with Jeffrey Epstein in an office.

    One of the images released by a House committee shows Stephen K. Bannon, left, with Jeffrey Epstein.

    (House Oversight Committee )

    Trump had tried to thwart the release of what have become commonly known as the “Epstein files” for several months but reversed course in November under growing pressure from his party.

    The president then signed legislation that requires the Department of Justice to release its investigative files related to Epstein by Dec. 19. But his past resistance has led to skepticism among some lawmakers on Capitol Hill who question whether the Justice Department may try to conceal information.

    “The real test will be, will the Department of Justice release the files or will it all remain tied up in investigations?” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said in November. .

    Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) told reporters on Friday that if the Justice Department does not release its files by Dec. 19 it would be considered a crime.

    “This is a new law with criminal implications if they don’t follow it,” Massie said.

    Massie said he was “encouraged” by the Justice Department’s requests to unseal court records tied to the grand jury investigations into Epstein and Maxwell. Two judges granted the requests this week.

    The Kentucky Republican said the Justice Department is required to release more than just the grand jury investigations, but also files that were not released to a grand jury.

    “The FBI and DOJ probably have evidence that they chose not to take to the grand jury, because the evidence they are in possession of would implicate other people, not just Epstein or Maxwell,” Massie said. “What we want to see are the facts and evidence that the FBI and DOJ have never given to the grand jury.”

    [ad_2]

    Ana Ceballos

    Source link

  • Montana’s ‘Pedophile bonfire’ to burn MAGA merch isn’t real

    [ad_1]

    A Montana town’s “pedophile bonfire” sounds like a headline-making event, but it isn’t in the state’s local news. There is a good reason for that: It isn’t real.

    After the House Oversight Committee’s Nov. 12 release of about 20,000 pages of documents involving convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, social media users speculated about the files’ mentions of President Donald Trump. It was in that context that social media users spread news of disappointed former Trump supporters staging a fiery small-town demonstration..

    “BREAKING: A Montana town that voted 89% for Donald Trump a year ago is holding a ‘Pedophile Bonfire’ event in their public park tonight for anyone who wants to come burn their Trump flags and MAGA hats,” read a Nov. 15 X post by left-leaning commentator Brian Krassenstein. It attracted 918.2K views as of Nov. 21.

    Other liberal influencers and groups shared the same claim on Facebook and Instagram. 

    But this faux memorabilia-burning demonstration news originated Nov. 13 from a satirical X account and website called The Halfway Post, which describes itself as posting “halfway true comedy and satire.” 

    There are no credible news reports from Montana, which supported Trump in 2024, about such a bonfire. 

    Although we found some social media videos and news stories showing people burning MAGA hats in response to the Trump administration’s handling of the Epstein files in recent months and weeks, we did not find news of a bonfire.

    We rate the claim that a Montana town held a “pedophile bonfire” in a public park in November to burn Trump merchandise Pants on Fire!

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Congress Acts Swiftly To Force Release Of Epstein Files, Sending Bill To Trump – KXL

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Both the House and Senate acted decisively Tuesday to pass a bill to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a remarkable display of approval for an effort that had struggled for months to overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

    When a small, bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills reach the House floor, it appeared a longshot effort — especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.”

    But both Trump and Johnson failed in their efforts to prevent the vote. Now the president has bowed to the growing momentum behind the bill and even said he will sign it. Just hours after the House passed the bill, the Senate agreed to pass the bill with unanimous consent once it is sent to the Senate.

    The bill passed the House 427-1, with the only no vote coming from Rep. Clay Higgins, a Louisiana Republican who is a fervent supporter of Trump. He said in a statement that he opposed the bill because it could release information on innocent people mentioned in the federal investigation.

    The decisive, bipartisan work in Congress Tuesday further showed the pressure mounting on lawmakers and the Trump administration to meet long-held demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.

    “These women have fought the most horrific fight that no woman should have to fight. And they did it by banding together and never giving up,” said Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as she stood with some of the abuse survivors outside the Capitol Tuesday morning.

    “That’s what we did by fighting so hard against the most powerful people in the world, even the president of the United States, in order to make this vote happen today,” added Greene, a Georgia Republican and longtime Trump loyalist.

    The bill’s passage would be a pivotal moment in a yearslong push by the survivors for accountability for Epstein’s abuse and reckoning over how law enforcement officials failed to act under multiple presidential administrations.

    A separate investigation conducted by the House Oversight Committee has released thousands of pages of emails and other documents from Epstein’s estate, showing his connections to global leaders, Wall Street powerbrokers, influential political figures and Trump himself. In the United Kingdom, King Charles III stripped his disgraced brother Prince Andrew of his remaining titles and evicted him from his royal residence after pressure to act over his relationship with Epstein.

    The bill forces the release within 30 days of all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. It would allow the Justice Department to redact information about Epstein’s victims or continuing federal investigations, but not information due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.”

    Trump’s reversal on the Epstein files
    Trump has said he cut ties with Epstein years ago, but tried for months to move past the demands for disclosure.

    Still, many in the Republican base have continued to demand the release of the files. Adding to that pressure, survivors of Epstein’s abuse rallied outside the Capitol Tuesday morning. Bundled in jackets against the November chill and holding photos of themselves as teenagers, they recounted their stories of abuse.

    “We are exhausted from surviving the trauma and then surviving the politics that swirl around it,” said one of the survivors.

    Another, Jena-Lisa Jones, said she had voted for Trump and had a message for the president: “I beg you Donald Trump, please stop making this political.”

    The group of women also met with Johnson and rallied outside the Capitol in September, but have had to wait months for the vote.

    That’s because Johnson kept the House closed for legislative business for nearly two months and refused to swear-in Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva of Arizona during the government shutdown. After winning a special election on Sept. 23, Grijalva had pledged to provide the crucial 218th vote to the petition for the Epstein files bill. But only after she was sworn into office last week could she sign her name to the discharge petition to give it majority support in the 435-member House.

    It quickly became obvious the bill would pass, and both Johnson and Trump began to fold. Trump on Sunday said Republicans should vote for the bill.

    Yet Greene told reporters that Trump’s decision to fight the bill had betrayed his Make America Great Again political movement.

    “Watching this turn into a fight has ripped MAGA apart,” she said.

    How Johnson is handling the bill
    Rather than waiting until next week for the discharge position to officially take effect, Johnson held the vote under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority.

    But Johnson also spent a morning news conference listing off problems that he sees with the legislation. He argued that the bill could have unintended consequences by disclosing parts of federal investigations that are usually kept private, including information on victims.

    “This is a raw and obvious political exercise,” Johnson said.

    Still, he voted for the bill. “None of us want to go on record and in any way be accused of not being for maximum transparency,” he explained.

    Meanwhile, House Democrats celebrated the vote as a rare win. House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries described it as “a complete and total surrender.”

    Senate plans to act quickly
    Even as the bill cleared his chamber, Johnson pressed for the Senate to amend the bill to protect the information of “victims and whistleblowers.” But Senate Majority Leader John Thune showed little interest in that notion, saying he doubted that “amending it is going to be in the cards.”

    Thune said he would quickly assess senators’ views on the bill to see if there were any objections. He said the bill could be brought forward in the Senate as soon as Tuesday evening and almost certainly by the end of the week.

    Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer also indicated he would attempt to pass the bill Tuesday.

    “The American people have waited long enough,” he said.

    Meanwhile, the bipartisan pair who sponsored the bill, Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., warned senators against doing anything that would “muck it up,” saying they would face the same public uproar that forced both Trump and Johnson to back down.

    “We’ve needlessly dragged this out for four months,” Massie said, adding that those raising problems with the bill “are afraid that people will be embarrassed. Well, that’s the whole point here.”

    [ad_2]

    Jon Eric Smith

    Source link

  • House expected to vote on bill forcing release of Jeffrey Epstein case files

    [ad_1]

    The House is expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the culmination of a monthslong effort that has overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.When a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills see the House floor, it appeared a long-shot effort, especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.” But both Trump and Johnson failed in their efforts to prevent the vote.Now the president has bowed to the growing momentum behind the bill and even said Republicans should vote for it. His blessing all but ensures that the House will pass the bill with an overwhelming margin, putting further pressure on the Senate to take it up.Trump on Monday said he would sign the bill if it passes both chambers of Congress, adding, “Let the Senate look at it.”Tuesday’s vote also provides a further boost to the demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.A separate investigation conducted by the House Oversight Committee has released thousands of pages of emails and other documents from Epstein’s estate, showing his connections to global leaders, Wall Street powerbrokers, influential political figures and Trump himself.Trump’s reversal on the Epstein filesTrump has said he cut ties with Epstein years ago, but tried for months to move past the demands for disclosure. On Monday, he told reporters that Epstein was connected to more Democrats and that he didn’t want the Epstein files to “detract from the great success of the Republican Party.”Still, many in the Republican base have continued to demand the release of the files. Adding to that pressure, several survivors of Epstein’s abuse will appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to push for release of the files. They also met with Johnson and rallied outside the Capitol in September, but have had to wait two months for the vote.That’s because Johnson kept the House closed for legislative business for nearly two months and also refused to swear-in Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva of Arizona during the government shutdown. After winning a special election on Sept. 23, Grijalva had pledged to provide the crucial 218th vote to the petition for the Epstein files bill. But only after she was sworn into office last week could she sign her name to the discharge petition to give it majority support in the 435-member House.It quickly became apparent the bill would pass, and both Johnson and Trump began to fold. Trump on Sunday said Republicans should vote for the bill.Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who sponsored the bill alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said Trump “got tired of me winning. He wanted to join.”How Johnson is handling the billRather than waiting until next week for the discharge position to officially take effect, Johnson is moving to hold the vote this week. He indicated the legislation will be brought to the House floor under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority.“I think it’s going to be an important vote to continue to show the transparency that we’ve delivered,” House Republican leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Monday night.House Democrats celebrated the vote as a rare win for the minority.“It’s a complete and total surrender, because as Democrats we made clear from the very beginning, the survivors and the American people deserve full and complete transparency as it relates to the lives that were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.What will the Senate do?Still, it’s not clear how the Senate will handle the bill.Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has previously been circumspect when asked about the legislation and instead said he trusted the Justice Department to release information on the Epstein investigation.But what the Justice Department has released so far under Trump was mostly already public. The bill would go further, forcing the release within 30 days of all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or continuing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted, but not information due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”Johnson also suggested that he would like to see the Senate amend the bill to protect the information of “victims and whistleblowers.”But Massie said the Senate should take into account the public clamor that forced both Trump and Johnson to back down.“If it’s anything but a genuine effort to make it better and stronger, it’ll backfire on the senators if they muck it up,” Massie said.___Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    The House is expected to vote Tuesday on legislation to force the Justice Department to publicly release its files on the late financier Jeffrey Epstein, the culmination of a monthslong effort that has overcome opposition from President Donald Trump and Republican leadership.

    When a small bipartisan group of House lawmakers introduced a petition in July to maneuver around House Speaker Mike Johnson’s control of which bills see the House floor, it appeared a long-shot effort, especially as Trump urged his supporters to dismiss the matter as a “hoax.” But both Trump and Johnson failed in their efforts to prevent the vote.

    Now the president has bowed to the growing momentum behind the bill and even said Republicans should vote for it. His blessing all but ensures that the House will pass the bill with an overwhelming margin, putting further pressure on the Senate to take it up.

    Trump on Monday said he would sign the bill if it passes both chambers of Congress, adding, “Let the Senate look at it.”

    Tuesday’s vote also provides a further boost to the demands that the Justice Department release its case files on Epstein, a well-connected financier who killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges he sexually abused and trafficked underage girls.

    A separate investigation conducted by the House Oversight Committee has released thousands of pages of emails and other documents from Epstein’s estate, showing his connections to global leaders, Wall Street powerbrokers, influential political figures and Trump himself.

    Trump’s reversal on the Epstein files

    Trump has said he cut ties with Epstein years ago, but tried for months to move past the demands for disclosure. On Monday, he told reporters that Epstein was connected to more Democrats and that he didn’t want the Epstein files to “detract from the great success of the Republican Party.”

    Still, many in the Republican base have continued to demand the release of the files. Adding to that pressure, several survivors of Epstein’s abuse will appear on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to push for release of the files. They also met with Johnson and rallied outside the Capitol in September, but have had to wait two months for the vote.

    That’s because Johnson kept the House closed for legislative business for nearly two months and also refused to swear-in Democratic Rep. Adelita Grijalva of Arizona during the government shutdown. After winning a special election on Sept. 23, Grijalva had pledged to provide the crucial 218th vote to the petition for the Epstein files bill. But only after she was sworn into office last week could she sign her name to the discharge petition to give it majority support in the 435-member House.

    It quickly became apparent the bill would pass, and both Johnson and Trump began to fold. Trump on Sunday said Republicans should vote for the bill.

    Rep. Thomas Massie, the Kentucky Republican who sponsored the bill alongside Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, said Trump “got tired of me winning. He wanted to join.”

    How Johnson is handling the bill

    Rather than waiting until next week for the discharge position to officially take effect, Johnson is moving to hold the vote this week. He indicated the legislation will be brought to the House floor under a procedure that requires a two-thirds majority.

    “I think it’s going to be an important vote to continue to show the transparency that we’ve delivered,” House Republican leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said Monday night.

    House Democrats celebrated the vote as a rare win for the minority.

    “It’s a complete and total surrender, because as Democrats we made clear from the very beginning, the survivors and the American people deserve full and complete transparency as it relates to the lives that were ruined by Jeffrey Epstein,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries.

    What will the Senate do?

    Still, it’s not clear how the Senate will handle the bill.

    Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has previously been circumspect when asked about the legislation and instead said he trusted the Justice Department to release information on the Epstein investigation.

    But what the Justice Department has released so far under Trump was mostly already public. The bill would go further, forcing the release within 30 days of all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or continuing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted, but not information due to “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure, or foreign dignitary.”

    Johnson also suggested that he would like to see the Senate amend the bill to protect the information of “victims and whistleblowers.”

    But Massie said the Senate should take into account the public clamor that forced both Trump and Johnson to back down.

    “If it’s anything but a genuine effort to make it better and stronger, it’ll backfire on the senators if they muck it up,” Massie said.

    ___

    Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Matt Brown contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump says House Republicans should vote to release Epstein files

    [ad_1]

    President Donald Trump said House Republicans should vote to release the files in the Jeffrey Epstein case, a startling reversal after previously fighting the proposal as a growing number of those in his own party supported it.“We have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on social media late Sunday after landing at Joint Base Andrews following a weekend in Florida.Video above: Congressman: ‘Let’s just release’ Epstein filesTrump’s statement followed a fierce fight within the GOP over the files, including an increasingly nasty split with Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who had long been one of his fiercest supporters.The president’s shift is an implicit acknowledgement that supporters of the measure have enough votes to pass it the House, although it has an unclear future in the Senate.It is a rare example of Trump backtracking because of opposition within the GOP. In his return to office and in his second term as president, Trump has largely consolidated power in the Republican Party.“I DON’T CARE!” Trump wrote in his social media post. “All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT.”Lawmakers who support the bill have been predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for it, bucking the GOP leadership and the president.In his opposition to the proposal, Trump even reached out to two of the Republican lawmakers who signed it. One, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, met last week with administration officials in the White House Situation Room to discuss it.The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted.“There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.”Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a discharge petition in July to force a vote on their bill. That is a rarely successful tool that allows a majority of members to bypass House leadership and force a floor vote.Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had panned the discharge petition effort and sent members home early for their August recess when the GOP’s legislative agenda was upended in the clamoring for an Epstein vote. Democrats also contend the seating of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., was stalled to delay her becoming the 218th member to sign the petition and gain the threshold needed to force a vote. She became the 218th signature moments after taking the oath of office last week.Video below: Epstein emails falloutMassie said Johnson, Trump and others who have been critical of his efforts would be “taking a big loss this week.”“I’m not tired of winning yet, but we are winning,” Massie said. The view from GOP leadershipJohnson seems to expect the House will decisively back the Epstein bill.“We’ll just get this done and move it on. There’s nothing to hide,” adding that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been releasing “far more information than the discharge petition, their little gambit.”The vote comes at a time when new documents are raising fresh questions about Epstein and his associates, including a 2019 email that Epstein wrote to a journalist that said Trump “knew about the girls.” The White House has accused Democrats of selectively leaking the emails to smear the Republican president.Johnson said Trump “has nothing to hide from this.”“They’re doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not,” Johnson said.Trump’s association with Epstein is well-established and the president’s name was included in records that his own Justice Department released in February as part of an effort to satisfy public interest in information from the sex-trafficking investigation.Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and the mere inclusion of someone’s name in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise. Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial, also had many prominent acquaintances in political and celebrity circles besides Trump.Khanna voiced more modest expectations on the vote count than Massie. Still, Khanna said he was hoping for 40 or more Republicans to join the effort.“I don’t even know how involved Trump was,” Khanna said. “There are a lot of other people involved who have to be held accountable.”Khanna also asked Trump to meet with those who were abused. Some will be at the Capitol on Tuesday for a news conference, he said.Massie said Republican lawmakers who fear losing Trump’s endorsement because of how they vote will have a mark on their record, if they vote “no,” that could hurt their political prospects in the long term.“The record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump’s presidency,” Massie said.A MAGA splitOn the Republican side, three Republicans joined with Massie in signing the discharge petition: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Boebert.Trump publicly called it quits with Greene last week and said he would endorse a challenger against her in 2026 “if the right person runs.”Greene attributed the fallout with Trump as “unfortunately, it has all come down to the Epstein files.” She said the country deserves transparency on the issue and that Trump’s criticism of her is confusing because the women she has talked to say he did nothing wrong.”I have no idea what’s in the files. I can’t even guess. But that is the questions everyone is asking, is, why fight this so hard?” Greene said.Trump’s feud with Greene escalated over the weekend, with Trump sending out one last social media post about her while still sitting in his helicopter on the White House lawn when he arrived home late Sunday, writing “The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!”Even if the bill passes the House, there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will go along. Massie said he just hopes Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., “will do the right thing.”“The pressure is going to be there if we get a big vote in the House,” Massie said, who thinks “we could have a deluge of Republicans.”Massie appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Johnson was on “Fox News Sunday,” Khanna spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Greene was interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union.”Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

    WASHINGTON —

    President Donald Trump said House Republicans should vote to release the files in the Jeffrey Epstein case, a startling reversal after previously fighting the proposal as a growing number of those in his own party supported it.

    “We have nothing to hide, and it’s time to move on from this Democrat Hoax perpetrated by Radical Left Lunatics in order to deflect from the Great Success of the Republican Party,” Trump wrote on social media late Sunday after landing at Joint Base Andrews following a weekend in Florida.

    Video above: Congressman: ‘Let’s just release’ Epstein files

    Trump’s statement followed a fierce fight within the GOP over the files, including an increasingly nasty split with Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who had long been one of his fiercest supporters.

    The president’s shift is an implicit acknowledgement that supporters of the measure have enough votes to pass it the House, although it has an unclear future in the Senate.

    It is a rare example of Trump backtracking because of opposition within the GOP. In his return to office and in his second term as president, Trump has largely consolidated power in the Republican Party.

    “I DON’T CARE!” Trump wrote in his social media post. “All I do care about is that Republicans get BACK ON POINT.”

    Lawmakers who support the bill have been predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for it, bucking the GOP leadership and the president.

    In his opposition to the proposal, Trump even reached out to two of the Republican lawmakers who signed it. One, Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert, met last week with administration officials in the White House Situation Room to discuss it.

    The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted.

    “There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.”

    Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., introduced a discharge petition in July to force a vote on their bill. That is a rarely successful tool that allows a majority of members to bypass House leadership and force a floor vote.

    Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., had panned the discharge petition effort and sent members home early for their August recess when the GOP’s legislative agenda was upended in the clamoring for an Epstein vote. Democrats also contend the seating of Rep. Adelita Grijalva, D-Ariz., was stalled to delay her becoming the 218th member to sign the petition and gain the threshold needed to force a vote. She became the 218th signature moments after taking the oath of office last week.

    Video below: Epstein emails fallout

    Massie said Johnson, Trump and others who have been critical of his efforts would be “taking a big loss this week.”

    “I’m not tired of winning yet, but we are winning,” Massie said.

    The view from GOP leadership

    Johnson seems to expect the House will decisively back the Epstein bill.

    “We’ll just get this done and move it on. There’s nothing to hide,” adding that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been releasing “far more information than the discharge petition, their little gambit.”

    The vote comes at a time when new documents are raising fresh questions about Epstein and his associates, including a 2019 email that Epstein wrote to a journalist that said Trump “knew about the girls.” The White House has accused Democrats of selectively leaking the emails to smear the Republican president.

    Johnson said Trump “has nothing to hide from this.”

    “They’re doing this to go after President Trump on this theory that he has something to do with it. He does not,” Johnson said.

    Trump’s association with Epstein is well-established and the president’s name was included in records that his own Justice Department released in February as part of an effort to satisfy public interest in information from the sex-trafficking investigation.

    Pablo Martinez Monsivais

    Protest art representing President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein is seen outside the entrance to Bustboys and Poets restaurant in the U Street neighborhood of Washington, Thursday, Nov., 13, 2025.

    Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and the mere inclusion of someone’s name in files from the investigation does not imply otherwise. Epstein, who killed himself in jail in 2019 while awaiting trial, also had many prominent acquaintances in political and celebrity circles besides Trump.

    Khanna voiced more modest expectations on the vote count than Massie. Still, Khanna said he was hoping for 40 or more Republicans to join the effort.

    “I don’t even know how involved Trump was,” Khanna said. “There are a lot of other people involved who have to be held accountable.”

    Khanna also asked Trump to meet with those who were abused. Some will be at the Capitol on Tuesday for a news conference, he said.

    Massie said Republican lawmakers who fear losing Trump’s endorsement because of how they vote will have a mark on their record, if they vote “no,” that could hurt their political prospects in the long term.

    “The record of this vote will last longer than Donald Trump’s presidency,” Massie said.

    A MAGA split

    On the Republican side, three Republicans joined with Massie in signing the discharge petition: Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Nancy Mace of South Carolina and Boebert.

    Trump publicly called it quits with Greene last week and said he would endorse a challenger against her in 2026 “if the right person runs.”

    Greene attributed the fallout with Trump as “unfortunately, it has all come down to the Epstein files.” She said the country deserves transparency on the issue and that Trump’s criticism of her is confusing because the women she has talked to say he did nothing wrong.

    “I have no idea what’s in the files. I can’t even guess. But that is the questions everyone is asking, is, why fight this so hard?” Greene said.

    Trump’s feud with Greene escalated over the weekend, with Trump sending out one last social media post about her while still sitting in his helicopter on the White House lawn when he arrived home late Sunday, writing “The fact is, nobody cares about this Traitor to our Country!”

    Even if the bill passes the House, there is no guarantee that Senate Republicans will go along. Massie said he just hopes Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., “will do the right thing.”

    “The pressure is going to be there if we get a big vote in the House,” Massie said, who thinks “we could have a deluge of Republicans.”

    Massie appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” Johnson was on “Fox News Sunday,” Khanna spoke on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and Greene was interviewed on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

    Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Fact vs. Fiction: Did Epstein’s Brother Ask If Putin Had Photos of Trump “Blowing Bubba”?

    [ad_1]

    Claim via Social Media

    Viral social media posts in November 2025 claimed that Mark Epstein, brother of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, sent his brother an email asking him to “ask Steve Bannon if Putin has the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.”

    Explanation

    This claim is true — the email exchange is authentic and confirmed by Snopes, which independently reviewed the files released by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The message, labeled “HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030719,” was part of over 23,000 documents made public on November 12, 2025.

    In the thread dated March 2018, Mark asked Jeffrey, “Ask him if Putin has the photos of Trump blowing Bubba?” Jeffrey replied, “and I thought—I had tsuris,” using the Yiddish term for “trouble” or “distress” (Merriam-Webster). The “Bannon” mentioned was then-former White House strategist Steve Bannon, and “Putin” referred to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    It remains unclear who “Bubba” refers to—some speculate Bill Clinton, but neither Clinton’s name nor any corroborating details appear in the emails. The exchange may have been tongue-in-cheek, as the brothers also joked about remaking the 2015 comedy film Get Hard.

    Conclusion

    Fact or Fiction? Fact. The email exchange between Mark and Jeffrey Epstein is real, verified within the official congressional document release. However, the intent and the identity of “Bubba” remain speculative.

    Read More

    Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

    MBFC Ad-Free 

    or

    MBFC Donation

     

    Subscribe With Email

    Join 21.2K other subscribers

    [ad_2]

    Media Bias Fact Check

    Source link

  • At Trump’s urging, Bondi says US will investigate Epstein’s ties to Clinton and other political foes

    [ad_1]

    Acceding to President Donald Trump’s demands, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday that she has ordered a top federal prosecutor to investigate sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Trump political foes, including former President Bill Clinton.Bondi posted on X that she was assigning Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton to lead the probe, capping an eventful week in which congressional Republicans released nearly 23,000 pages of documents from Epstein’s estate and House Democrats seized on emails mentioning Trump.Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years, didn’t explain what supposed crimes he wanted the Justice Department to investigate. None of the men he mentioned in a social media post demanding the probe has been accused of sexual misconduct by any of Epstein’s victims.Hours before Bondi’s announcement, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he would ask her, the Justice Department, and the FBI to investigate Epstein’s “involvement and relationship” with Clinton and others, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and LinkedIn founder and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.Trump, calling the matter “the Epstein Hoax, involving Democrats, not Republicans,” said the investigation should also include financial giant JPMorgan Chase, which provided banking services to Epstein, and “many other people and institutions.”“This is another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats,” the Republican president wrote, referring to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian interference in Trump’s 2016 election victory over Bill Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.Asked later Friday whether he should be ordering up such investigations, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One: “I’m the chief law enforcement officer of the country. I’m allowed to do it.”In a July memo regarding the Epstein investigation, the FBI said, “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”The president’s demand for an investigation — and Bondi’s quick acquiescence — is the latest example of the erosion of the Justice Department’s traditional independence from the White House since Trump took office.It is also an extraordinary attempt at deflection. For decades, Trump himself has been scrutinized for his closeness to Epstein — though like the people he now wants investigated, he has not been accused of sexual misconduct by Epstein’s victims.None of Trump’s proposed targets were accused of sex crimesA JPMorgan Chase spokesperson, Patricia Wexler, said the company regretted associating with Epstein “but did not help him commit his heinous acts.”“The government had damning information about his crimes and failed to share it with us or other banks,” she said. The company agreed previously to pay millions of dollars to Epstein’s victims, who had sued arguing that the bank ignored red flags about criminal activity.Clinton has acknowledged traveling on Epstein’s private jet but has said through a spokesperson that he had no knowledge of the late financier’s crimes. He also has never been accused of misconduct by Epstein’s known victims.Clinton’s deputy chief of staff Angel Ureña posted on X Friday: “These emails prove Bill Clinton did nothing and knew nothing. The rest is noise meant to distract from election losses, backfiring shutdowns, and who knows what else.”Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl, but was spared a long jail term when the U.S. attorney in Florida agreed not to prosecute him over allegations that he had paid many other children for sexual acts. After serving about a year in jail and a work release program, Epstein resumed his business and social life until federal prosecutors in New York revived the case in 2019. Epstein killed himself while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Summers and Hoffman had nothing to do with either case, but both were friendly with Epstein and exchanged emails with him. Those messages were among the documents released this week, along with other correspondence Epstein had with friends and business associates in the years before his death.Nothing in the messages suggested any wrongdoing on the men’s part, other than associating with someone who had been accused of sex crimes against children.Summers, who served in Clinton’s cabinet and is a former Harvard University president, previously said in a statement that he has “great regrets in my life” and that “my association with Jeffrey Epstein was a major error of judgement.”On social media Friday night, Hoffman called for Trump to release all the Epstein files, saying they will show that “the calls for baseless investigations of me are nothing more than political persecution and slander.” He added, “I was never a client of Epstein’s and never had any engagement with him other than fundraising for MIT.” Hoffman bankrolled writer E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse and defamation lawsuit against Trump.After Epstein’s sex trafficking arrest in 2019, Hoffman said he’d only had a few interactions with Epstein, all related to his fundraising for MIT’s Media Lab. He nevertheless apologized, saying that “by agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice.”Bondi, in her post, praised Clayton as “one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country” and said the Justice Department “will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people.”Trump called Clayton “a great man, a great attorney,” though he said Bondi chose him for the job.Clayton, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, took over in April as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York — the same office that indicted Epstein and won a sex trafficking conviction against Epstein’s longtime confidante, Ghislaine Maxwell, in 2021.Trump changes course on Epstein filesTrump suggested while campaigning last year that he’d seek to open up the government’s case files on Epstein, but changed course in recent months, blaming Democrats and painting the matter as a “hoax” amid questions about what knowledge he may have had about Epstein’s yearslong exploitation of underage girls.On Wednesday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released three Epstein email exchanges that referenced Trump, including one from 2019 in which Epstein said the president “knew about the girls” and asked Maxwell to stop.White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt accused Democrats of having “selectively leaked emails” to smear Trump.Soon after, Republicans on the committee disclosed a far bigger trove of Epstein’s email correspondence, including messages he sent to longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon and to Britain’s former Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Andrew settled a lawsuit out of court with one of Epstein’s victims, who said she had been paid to have sex with the prince.The House is speeding toward a vote next week to force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein.“I don’t care about it, release or not,” Trump said Friday. “If you’re going to do it, then you have to go into Epstein’s friends,” he added, naming Clinton and Hoffman.Still, he said: “This is a Democrat hoax. And a couple, a few Republicans have gone along with it because they’re weak and ineffective.”__Bedayn reported from Denver. Associated Press writer Chris Megerian aboard Air Force One contributed to this report.

    NEW YORK —

    Acceding to President Donald Trump’s demands, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said Friday that she has ordered a top federal prosecutor to investigate sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s ties to Trump political foes, including former President Bill Clinton.

    Bondi posted on X that she was assigning Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton to lead the probe, capping an eventful week in which congressional Republicans released nearly 23,000 pages of documents from Epstein’s estate and House Democrats seized on emails mentioning Trump.

    Trump, who was friends with Epstein for years, didn’t explain what supposed crimes he wanted the Justice Department to investigate. None of the men he mentioned in a social media post demanding the probe has been accused of sexual misconduct by any of Epstein’s victims.

    Hours before Bondi’s announcement, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that he would ask her, the Justice Department, and the FBI to investigate Epstein’s “involvement and relationship” with Clinton and others, including former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and LinkedIn founder and Democratic donor Reid Hoffman.

    Trump, calling the matter “the Epstein Hoax, involving Democrats, not Republicans,” said the investigation should also include financial giant JPMorgan Chase, which provided banking services to Epstein, and “many other people and institutions.”

    “This is another Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, with all arrows pointing to the Democrats,” the Republican president wrote, referring to special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of alleged Russian interference in Trump’s 2016 election victory over Bill Clinton’s wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    Asked later Friday whether he should be ordering up such investigations, Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One: “I’m the chief law enforcement officer of the country. I’m allowed to do it.”

    In a July memo regarding the Epstein investigation, the FBI said, “We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

    The president’s demand for an investigation — and Bondi’s quick acquiescence — is the latest example of the erosion of the Justice Department’s traditional independence from the White House since Trump took office.

    It is also an extraordinary attempt at deflection. For decades, Trump himself has been scrutinized for his closeness to Epstein — though like the people he now wants investigated, he has not been accused of sexual misconduct by Epstein’s victims.

    None of Trump’s proposed targets were accused of sex crimes

    A JPMorgan Chase spokesperson, Patricia Wexler, said the company regretted associating with Epstein “but did not help him commit his heinous acts.”

    “The government had damning information about his crimes and failed to share it with us or other banks,” she said. The company agreed previously to pay millions of dollars to Epstein’s victims, who had sued arguing that the bank ignored red flags about criminal activity.

    Clinton has acknowledged traveling on Epstein’s private jet but has said through a spokesperson that he had no knowledge of the late financier’s crimes. He also has never been accused of misconduct by Epstein’s known victims.

    Clinton’s deputy chief of staff Angel Ureña posted on X Friday: “These emails prove Bill Clinton did nothing and knew nothing. The rest is noise meant to distract from election losses, backfiring shutdowns, and who knows what else.”

    Epstein pleaded guilty in Florida in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl, but was spared a long jail term when the U.S. attorney in Florida agreed not to prosecute him over allegations that he had paid many other children for sexual acts. After serving about a year in jail and a work release program, Epstein resumed his business and social life until federal prosecutors in New York revived the case in 2019. Epstein killed himself while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

    Summers and Hoffman had nothing to do with either case, but both were friendly with Epstein and exchanged emails with him. Those messages were among the documents released this week, along with other correspondence Epstein had with friends and business associates in the years before his death.

    Nothing in the messages suggested any wrongdoing on the men’s part, other than associating with someone who had been accused of sex crimes against children.

    Summers, who served in Clinton’s cabinet and is a former Harvard University president, previously said in a statement that he has “great regrets in my life” and that “my association with Jeffrey Epstein was a major error of judgement.”

    On social media Friday night, Hoffman called for Trump to release all the Epstein files, saying they will show that “the calls for baseless investigations of me are nothing more than political persecution and slander.” He added, “I was never a client of Epstein’s and never had any engagement with him other than fundraising for MIT.” Hoffman bankrolled writer E. Jean Carroll’s sexual abuse and defamation lawsuit against Trump.

    After Epstein’s sex trafficking arrest in 2019, Hoffman said he’d only had a few interactions with Epstein, all related to his fundraising for MIT’s Media Lab. He nevertheless apologized, saying that “by agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice.”

    Bondi, in her post, praised Clayton as “one of the most capable and trusted prosecutors in the country” and said the Justice Department “will pursue this with urgency and integrity to deliver answers to the American people.”

    Trump called Clayton “a great man, a great attorney,” though he said Bondi chose him for the job.

    Clayton, the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission during Trump’s first term, took over in April as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York — the same office that indicted Epstein and won a sex trafficking conviction against Epstein’s longtime confidante, Ghislaine Maxwell, in 2021.

    Trump changes course on Epstein files

    Trump suggested while campaigning last year that he’d seek to open up the government’s case files on Epstein, but changed course in recent months, blaming Democrats and painting the matter as a “hoax” amid questions about what knowledge he may have had about Epstein’s yearslong exploitation of underage girls.

    On Wednesday, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released three Epstein email exchanges that referenced Trump, including one from 2019 in which Epstein said the president “knew about the girls” and asked Maxwell to stop.

    White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt accused Democrats of having “selectively leaked emails” to smear Trump.

    Soon after, Republicans on the committee disclosed a far bigger trove of Epstein’s email correspondence, including messages he sent to longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon and to Britain’s former Prince Andrew, now known as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Andrew settled a lawsuit out of court with one of Epstein’s victims, who said she had been paid to have sex with the prince.

    The House is speeding toward a vote next week to force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein.

    “I don’t care about it, release or not,” Trump said Friday. “If you’re going to do it, then you have to go into Epstein’s friends,” he added, naming Clinton and Hoffman.

    Still, he said: “This is a Democrat hoax. And a couple, a few Republicans have gone along with it because they’re weak and ineffective.”

    __

    Bedayn reported from Denver. Associated Press writer Chris Megerian aboard Air Force One contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bondi Responds To Trump’s Epstein Post – KXL

    [ad_1]

    (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)

    WASHINGTON, DC – It appears U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi is taking up President Trump’s request to investigate ties between Jeffrey Epstein, Democrats, and other prominent figures.

    Earlier today, Trump posted he’s asking the Justice Department to investigate ties between Epstein and Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, J.P. Morgan and others. The request came just after it was revealed by Democrats that Trump’s name appears in emails connected to the current Epstein probe.  Those emails emails from Epstein to his associate Ghislaine Maxwell as well as a journalist reportedly reference Trump, claiming in one that he “knew about the girls.” Friday, Bondi posted a response to Trump in which she thanked the President and goes on to name a prosecutor who will “take the lead.”

    The House of Representatives is set to vote on the release of the full Epstein files in the coming days. House Speaker Mike Johnson is required to put the bill on the floor after a discharge petition related to the matter reached the 218 signatures needed. This follows the release of

    More about:

    [ad_2]

    Tim Lantz

    Source link