Who's on the Epstein client list? Someone who may know is asking Supreme Court for relief.
Maxwell, who was convicted of trafficking a minor to engage in sex acts with Epstein, may know if Epstein had clients who were involved in a sex-trafficking ring and if he kept a so-called "black book" listing their names.
The Justice Department said this month, in reference to Epstein's case, that no such list exists in its records. In a memo released July 7, the department said a "systematic review" of documents related to Epstein "revealed no incriminating 'client list,'" and that "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."
Government lawyers urged the Supreme Court on July 14 to reject Maxwell's appeal of her 2021 sex-trafficking conviction. Maxwell is arguing that a 2007 plea deal for Jeffrey Epstein meant prosecutors shouldn't have been able to go after her.
The 2007 agreement, which many who are familiar with the case regard as an overly lenient deal for Epstein following accusations of child sexual abuse, included a provision protecting potential Epstein co-conspirators from criminal charges. Epstein was allowed to plead guilty to two state prostitution offenses and received a sentence of just 18 months.
However, the government says the prosecution against Maxwell didn't run afoul of that deal because the deal only applied to prosecutions in the Southern District of Florida. Maxwell was prosecuted in the Southern District of New York, where she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
The Supreme Court is now set to decide whether to review Maxwell's case or outright reject her latest appeal.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Ghislaine Maxwell seeks appeal, leniency from Supreme Court
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
26 minutes ago
- Fox News
Republican leading House Budget Committee looks ahead after passing Big Beautiful Bill
House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, was praised for the role he played in the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill. However, the congressman says this is the beginning, not the end, of spending reforms. "We will never be able to get a balanced budget or even put our country on a path to a balanced budget and a sustainable fiscal trajectory in one reconciliation bill," Arrington told Fox News Digital. "We're too far down the broken road of bad and irresponsible fiscal behavior. We're too deep in the debt hole for one bill to do it." Arrington, whom House Speaker Mike Johnson called the "the lead budget hawk in the House," said he is "obsessed" with tackling deficit spending, which he sees as the biggest threat to America's future. He believes that addressing the nation's situation in an effective way means creating the "conditions for growing the economy." "So, the pro-growth policies, the tax cuts, the work incentives, opening up our energy assets and deregulating the energy economy, all of those pro- growth policies will reignite economic growth. And that is the foundation for our country's fiscal health and just about everything else: our military prowess, our global leadership, our way of life," Arrington said. The Big Beautiful Bill's journey to President Donald Trump's desk was not pretty, as the legislation received criticism from both sides of the aisle and caused tension among Republicans. Elon Musk, Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and others argued that it did not take adequate measures to cut government spending. Arrington said he respects Massie and Musk — as well as other critics — but believes that the risk of losing the "good things" in the bill was too high. In the end, the Texas lawmaker sees the tradeoff as "permanent pro-growth tax policy" in exchange for the extra spending in the legislation. "I think there's a big gap in information — and accurate information. Part of it is you've got the Congressional Budget Office putting out these big numbers… two and a half or three trillion dollars in additional deficit that would be added to the national debt over the 10-year budget window as a result of this bill. That is just patently false. It's completely inaccurate," Arrington said, adding that they fail to "consider economic growth and the revenue that will flow back into the treasury when you have pro-growth policies." Trump signed the bill on his self-imposed July 4 deadline, just one day after the House passed the final version of the $3.3 trillion legislation. Before signing the bill, the president said it would "fuel massive economic growth" and "lift up the hard-working citizens who make this country run." So, what's next on the budget chairman's agenda? Just one thing — or three, as he said to Fox News Digital, "spending cuts, spending cuts and spending cuts." "We didn't get into this mess overnight, we won't get out of it overnight, but we'll never get out if we don't start exercising the political will to do what we all say in our campaigns," Arrington told Fox News Digital. "I think we established a great model for restoring fiscal health, and we just have to continue to repeat it and do it in even more dramatic fashion in the future."
The Verge
30 minutes ago
- The Verge
The MAGA backlash over Epstein isn't dying down
On July 12th, the political world experienced an unprecedented phenomenon: President Donald Trump got ratioed on his own social media platform, and it was on a post about Jeffrey Epstein — someone who, according to Trump, 'nobody cares about.' Clearly, his followers on Truth Social disagreed. As of today, this post has 43.2k likes, 13.7k ReTruths, and 48K comments, nearly all of which express fury about the information — or lack thereof — that the Trump administration has provided about the well-connected billionaire, who died in prison shortly after being arrested for alleged sex trafficking of minors. Last week, after months of promises to release more information about the Epstein investigation, the Department of Justice and FBI released a joint memo, stating that there was no list of high-powered 'clients' who joined Epstein in his activities, no evidence that Epstein blackmailed anybody, and that Epstein did actually die by suicide. Even though Trump's Truth Social post was trying to address the attacks on Attorney General Pam Bondi, who was partly responsible for publishing the Epstein memo (and, according to conspiracy theorists, the reason why the supposed client list isn't being made public), his followers didn't care. 'We want the ELITE PEDOS exposed! You promised us that,' one user responded, in a post with 19.6K likes. 'Pam promised us that. Kash [Patel, FBI Director] promised us that. Now it's OUR fault bc we want that promise fulfilled and call Pam out every time she lies? What else has she lied to us about?' The like-to-comment ratio shows how thoroughly the Epstein files have jeopardized the MAGA base's relationship with Trump. Over the past several months, the administration has had mixed success in keeping the populist base in its corner, due to things like Trump's tariffs and the 'big, beautiful bill,' to the point that the possibility of a 'MAGA civil war' keeps emerging in the news cycle. Most times, those brewing fights get extinguished before they go further. But the backlash to the Epstein files is unusually fierce and may not be extinguished as easily, if at all. The source of the conflagration: the world of MAGA influencers, whose audiences implicitly trust them to carry out the 'America First' agenda. Their status and functions vary wildly: media moguls like Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones, and Steve Bannon; solo talents like Laura Loomer, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes; political organizers like Charlie Kirk; content creators like Cattturd; and hundreds of others who've established lucrative careers by attacking the globalist elite online. They're normally pro-Trump, and many of them now have access to the White House. Some of them even brag about having Trump's cell phone number. But now they won't stop talking about how angry they are about the flimsiness of the Epstein files, which means their followers won't let go of it either. 'The real question is not 'was Jeffrey Epstein a weirdo who was abusing girls?' The real question is why was he doing this, on whose behalf, and where did the money come from,' Carlson said during a keynote speech at a Turning Point USA summit on July 11th. He then insinuated that Epstein was running a blackmail operation on behalf of a foreign government — possibly Israel, though he caveated with 'there's nothing antisemitic about saying that' and that 'every single person in Washington, DC,' suspected that Epstein was a Mossad asset. Bannon agreed with him at the same conference, while Loomer, who once got three members of the National Security Council fired, called for Bondi to be fired, accusing her of 'harming Trump's administration [and] embarrassing all of his staff and advisors.' Even the influencers that wield direct government power are starting to revolt. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene demanded that the administration reveal the truth about Epstein 'and the rich powerful elites in his circle.' And last week, several mainstream outlets reported that Dan Bongino, a right-wing podcaster who was appointed to serve as deputy director of the FBI, had threatened to resign unless Bondi was fired. According to Axios, Bongino was so upset about the rollout of the Epstein evidence — including a video taken of Epstein's cell phone on the day of his death, which had a full minute missing from it, fueling even more conspiracy theories — that he screamed at her in front of Trump and his senior advisors, and then took a day off from work. Trump's 10-year relationship with the MAGA base has been an endless cycle of breaking and making up: Trump does something that infuriates the base, they revolt, Trump smooths things over, and the base goes back to loving the president. In every case, he's always assisted by a network of online MAGA influencers who are effectively his proxies — enforcing message discipline when interacting with their audiences, amplifying his talking points, defending him from his haters, and making sure the base sticks with him no matter what. But the strength of an influencer, especially a MAGA influencer, is that they don't have to rely on elite-controlled media — cable and broadcast news, print journalism, etc. — to build their massive followings. In fact, they could use their internet platforms to hold those powerful elites accountable, touting themselves as 'independent' content creators, which works exceedingly well when they can present themselves as outsiders deliberately shut out of the system and therefore need subscribers to pay a monthly fee to support their mission. Unfortunately, they now have unprecedented access to the president, which makes them insiders with power — and their followers sure would love for them to use it to get to the bottom of things. It doesn't help that there's no 'deep state' to hide behind this time, and it may be the reason why QAnon — another powerful conspiracy theory that involved pedophile elites in Washington — hasn't revived itself. Trump could easily attack the career agents at the FBI and DOJ for investigating him during his first term, but upon his reelection, he purged those agencies and immediately chose MAGA influencer loyalists to run them. (Prior to becoming FBI director, Patel had a podcast, wrote a children's book about 'King Donald,' and opened his own merch store.) The Epstein files have scrambled MAGA influencers, who now have to decide what is more important to them: access and loyalty to Trump or maintaining their brand It's no wonder why the Epstein files have scrambled MAGA influencers, who now have to decide what is more important to them: access and loyalty to Trump or maintaining their brand. If they want to stay loyal to their followers and their brand reputation, they should be trying to get to the truth of Epstein's death. But if they were trying to do that — or at least, convincing their insatiable audience that they were working on it — it would jeopardize their relationship with the Trump administration, or worse, Trump himself. The cullings are already underway, if Alex Jones is to be believed. On July 13th, he alleged that Trumpworld surrogates had started reaching out to 'talk show hosts and journalists and influencers,' threatening to cut off their access if they kept going on about Epstein. 'You'll never be invited to a Trump event again. You'll never be invited to the White House. You'll never be any other stuff. You're not getting any conservative sponsorship, no campaign contribution, ads running next cycle if you do this. That's been going on,' Jones claimed. 'That, A, is not very moral, that's how the Democrats try to censor and control, and then B, it's gonna create a mega-Streisand effect, as I said seven, eight days ago. And that is exactly what all of this has done.' A few of the influencers, however, are circling the wagons again. 'Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm going to trust my friends in the administration. I'm going to trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done,' Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk said on his podcast yesterday, reiterating that he would support whatever the Trump administration concluded on the matter. Kirk, a key player in Trump's political machine, also distanced himself from Carlson's Epstein conspiracies, which were made at his youth group's conference. 'I think that there was plenty of, let's say, speeches that were directed towards this topic this last weekend. So we don't need to spend our valuable time on this program relitigating it,' Kirk said. Around that time, other influencers began attempting to deflect the Epstein flack Around that time, other influencers began attempting to deflect the Epstein flack: promising that the government was about to start a real investigation soon (Benny Johnson), attacking Carlson as 'not trustworthy' and 'obsessed [with] making everything about Jews' (Loomer), suggesting that maybe 'demons' were at work and not the government (Mike Cernovich), or hyping up a new discovery about Lee Harvey Oswald and the CIA (Rep. Anna Paulina Luna). But a growing faction of influencers are going the other way with Carlson, Greene, and Jones: Candace Owens, who's attacking the former Israeli prime minster about the Mossad; Matt Walsh, who wants the 'evildoers [to] be dragged in front of us, weeping and begging for mercy'; white nationalist Nick Fuentes, who accused TPUSA world of 'appeasing' a base that wanted 'authentic opposition to organized Jewish influence'; and Tim Pool, who pointed out the strange new messaging coming out of the White House influencer pool, 'After speaking with my friends in government and also private island equity holdings I have decided that no one cares about Epstein anyway. I mean, like who? Lol who's Epstein amirite?'
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi abruptly fires Justice Department's top ethics chief in four-sentence letter
Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired the ethics director at the Department of Justice in a four-sentence letter that misspells his name, marking the latest departure from the agency during a mass exodus of career prosecutors under Donald Trump's administration. A letter to 'Jospeh Tirrell' sent on July 11 and seen by The Independent notes his termination is 'effective immediately' but does not state a reason why he was abruptly fired. Joseph Tirrell, who had served as the director of the Justice Department's ethics office since 2023, was responsible for reviewing financial disclosures and other matters related to the attorney general's office and other top law enforcement officials. He led a team of roughly 30 people to ensure government lawyers and other officials adhered to ethical guidelines. 'My public service is not over, and my career as a federal civil servant is not finished,' he wrote Monday on LinkedIn. 'I took the oath at 18 as a midshipman to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States.' I have taken that oath at least five more times since then. That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.' Tirrell's firing follows Bondi's purge of roughly 20 Justice Department employees involved in former Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into the former president. Tirrell had reportedly approved Smith's receipt of $140,000 in pro bono legal fees from the firm Covington & Burling before his resignation. It is unclear whether Tirrell's firing is related. Pam Bondi abruptly fired the director of the Justice Department's ethics office on July 11 as career prosecutors quit the agency in droves (AFP via Getty Images) Shortly after taking office, the president dismissed the government's top ethics watchdog, sparking a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. That independent Office of Government Ethics would regularly consult with Tirrell's team. Tirrell's sudden firing also 'shines a bright spotlight back on her own glaring ethical conflicts and how she's handled major DOJ decisions involving her former clients, including the government of Qatar and Pfizer, according to Jon Golinger with democratic advocacy group Public Citizen. 'The question this drastic firing raises is: are there even worse ethics problems Bondi is trying to hide?' Career prosecutors are also quitting the agency in droves since Trump's election. More than 100 lawyers at the Justice Department's federal programs bench, which defends the president's policy actions in court, have left their positions in recent months. Roughly 250 attorneys at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division — accounting for 70 percent of the lawyers there – also quit the agency within the first few months of the Trump administration. The latest shakeups at the Justice Department also arrive as the administration fumbles for answers about investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, as MAGA loyalists turn on the president, Bondi and other top law enforcement officials over the administration's failure to release more information about the sex offender and his alleged client list. The Justice Department last week said Epstein, who was facing charges of sex trafficking, did not leave behind such a list, though Bondi in February suggested it was on her desk. She later said she was referring to the overall case. But the Justice Department ultimately concluded that public disclosure of such materials would be inappropriate and remain under seal by a federal judge, frustrating the president's supporters and conspiracy theorists who have linked the Epstein case to allegations of a wider corruption and sex abuse scandal involving minors and powerful figures. The Independent has requested comment from the Justice Department.
