Trump's party-splitting Epstein dilemma: Letters to the Editor — July 21, 2025
Take a breath, and consider these facts: The Biden administration had access to whatever Jeffrey Epstein documents existed for the entire time that it was in office (''Epstein hoax' not welcome in MAGA,' July 17).
Don't you think that the team that invented 'lawfare' would have exposed anything reflecting negatively on President Trump or any Republicans?
Epstein had a successful, high-level career in finance before anyone was aware of his sick perversion. He interacted with many well-known and well-heeled individuals in legitimate interactions.
Given these facts, how could you release any names in Epstein's notes without context? If you met him with a group of people at a function, and he made a note of it, you'd be smeared by association.
Thomas Smith
Sarasota, Fla.
Although I'm a lifelong Republican, I'm switching my voter registration, and I'll be supporting Democrats in the midterms; we all should.
There's no excuse for not prosecuting pedophiles in the Epstein case, and there's even less excuse for attacking one's own supporters for thinking so.
Harry Knopp
Ripley, WV
I honestly believe there is a major coverup. A high-profile inmate conveniently committed suicide and how convenient that all of a sudden there is no list.
Prince Andrew was caught and booted out. Clinton was on the plane with Jeffrey Epstein several times and his prior actions speak volumes.
Why don't they ask his partner, Ghislaine Maxwell? You're trying to say she doesn't know anything about who else was involved?
I am just surprised Maxwell hasn't committed suicide while in jail. She has to have knowledge of this. Bring her before the Department of Justice.
Robert Caprio
Nutley, NJ
The current controversy about releasing the Epstein files fails to consider the difficult choices related to First Amendment protections.
While transparency is the current catchword, there are many instances where the public's right to know is secondary to a person's right to privacy and freedom from governmental interference.
I want to assure your readers that I have many doubts about Epstein's death, and great curiosity about the alleged client list. But, at the same time, the fact that someone traveled with Epstein or stayed at his resort is not, in itself, a criminal act.
On balance, I opt for not releasing any alleged list that may be in the possession of the DOJ.
Sidney Baumgarten
North Brunswick, NJ
Usually, the easiest way to stop a rumor is to provide the public with access to the available information, unless there are issues with the information or names in it that could bias an audience or suggest guilt.
Unfortunately, our president believes that the only truth is what he tells us, not what is factual.
Alan Swartz
Verona, NJ
I bleed MAGA red, so I'm not sure who Miranda Devine is referring to when she writes that Trump's base wants the truth about Epstein ('MAGA base wants truth on Epstein,' July 17).
I couldn't care less. Sure, I feel terrible for Epstein's victims and there are plenty of sick, depraved individuals out there who need to be arrested and thrown in jail. But Republicans have far greater things to worry about than a dead creep who hung out with Bill Clinton.
If the Epstein scandal was so important to the Dems, why weren't they more transparent when they had the chance?
Republicans need to stick together, support Trump and make sure as few Democrats as possible get elected to prevent them from wrecking our country. That's what the president's base wants.
Michael D'Auria
Bronxville
The extremely wealthy have had privileges from the beginning of time. Kings, past presidents and dictators have mistresses without censure or open complaint; yet when a group of wealthy people cavort within their group it becomes a cause célèbre.
Paul Alexander
Ontario, Canada
Want to weigh in on today's stories? Send your thoughts (along with your full name and city of residence) to letters@nypost.com. Letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy, and style.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Elon Musk fires back at Trump's claim that his companies will still enjoy subsidies
President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he won't touch the federal subsidies Elon Musk's companies are enjoying because he wants Musk to continue to prosper. Musk, however, begs to differ. "The 'subsidies' he's talking about simply do not exist," Musk wrote in an X post on the same day. The Trump administration has already scrapped or slapped expiry dates on every clean energy incentive "while leaving massive oil & gas subsidies untouched," Musk wrote in his post. Musk's EV company, Tesla, is already feeling the pinch. Tesla said during its earnings call on Wednesday that removing the $7,500 EV credit under Trump's " One Big Beautiful Bill" would affect its US sales. Vaibhav Taneja, the company's chief financial officer, said the "abrupt change" meant the company has a " limited supply of vehicles in the US this quarter." SpaceX, on its part, wins federal contracts on merit, Musk said in his X post on Thursday. Musk said his rocket company is "doing a better job for less money. Rerouting SpaceX's work to "other aerospace companies would leave astronauts stranded and taxpayers on the hook for twice as much," he added. The White House, Tesla, and SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. Threats and market jitters Musk had been a prominent backer of Trump during last year's presidential campaign and enjoyed a close relationship with Trump. Musk spent at least $277 million supporting Trump and other GOP candidates in the 2024 elections. Shortly after Trump's victory in November, he headed the White House DOGE office and led the administration's cost-cutting efforts. That was until last month, when Musk and Trump began to turn on each other. Their relationship started to break down on June 5, when Musk attacked Trump's signature tax bill in an X post, calling it a "MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK." He also claimed credit for Trump's victory in last year's election. "Such ingratitude," Musk wrote. Hours later, Trump threatened to cancel Musk's government contracts in a Truth Social post, saying it would be the "easiest way to save money in our Budget." That drew a tit-for-tat response from Musk, who said he would decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which is used in NASA missions, before walking it back. Musk expressed regret over what he had said about Trump a few days later. Some of his posts about Trump "went too far," Musk said. The détente, however, didn't last. On July 1, Trump said DOGE should take a "good, hard, look" at Musk's companies after Musk said he would start a new political party and defeat GOP politicians who voted for Trump's tax bill. "Elon may get more subsidy than any human being in history, by far, and without subsidies, Elon would probably have to close up shop and head back home to South Africa," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "No more Rocket launches, Satellites, or Electric Car Production, and our Country would save a FORTUNE," he added. Musk dared Trump to follow through on his threat: "I am literally saying CUT IT ALL. Now." The markets were not as confident as Musk. Tesla's stock fell by 5% after Trump's post on July 1. Tesla's shares are down by over 24% year to date. Musk's business empire has received at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits over the last 20 years, per an analysis published by The Washington Post in February. On Wednesday, Musk told investors on Tesla's earnings call that the company is entering a "weird transition period where we will lose a lot of incentives in the US." "Does that mean like we could have a few rough quarters? Yeah, we probably could have a few rough quarters," Musk said.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RNC Chair Whatley to run for North Carolina Senate seat with Trump's support
Republican National Committee (RNC) Chair Michael Whatley is planning to run for Senate in North Carolina to succeed retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R), a source familiar confirmed to The Hill. The source said Whatley will run with President Trump's blessing for the seat, confirming Politico, which first reported the news. The development comes after former RNC co-Chair Lara Trump, the president's daughter-in-law, was openly considering a bid for the seat. Politico reported she has decided against a run. Whatley's candidacy tees up one of the marquee Senate races of the midterms, as former Gov. Roy Cooper (D) reportedly plans to jump in next week. Cook Political Report currently rates the seat as a 'toss-up.' Two people familiar with the decision told Politico that President Trump believes Whatley is in a strong position to face Cooper, a popular former two-term governor seen as Democrats' best chance of winning the seat. They said Lara Trump will declare her support for Whatley and will appear with him soon, with a public announcement coming in the next week to 10 days. While Whatley has never run for elected office before, he does have background in North Carolina politics. He is a former chief of staff for former Sen. Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.) and served as chair of the North Carolina GOP for almost five years before being tapped by President Trump to become RNC chair. A GOP operative told The Hill that Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the chair of Senate Republicans' campaign arm, met with Whatley about a potential Senate bid, and the organization has been floating him as a possible replacement for Tillis since January. They said internal and public polling indicate a pro-Trump Republican would be in the strongest position for the party to hold the seat. The decision from Tillis, a two-term incumbent viewed as somewhat more moderate and less closely tied to the president, to retire at the end of his term scrambled the field for the seat, which already was shaping up to be one of the most watched races of 2026. His seat and the one held by Sen. Susan Collins (R) in Maine are seen as the two best chances for Democrats to pick up seats next year. But on the Republican side, Lara Trump appeared to have the 'right of first refusal,' as one strategist put it, as she considered whether to run for the seat. She had previously considered a Senate run in 2022, as well as contending to be picked to fill Secretary of State Marco Rubio's Florida Senate seat last year, but she ultimately decided against both, not closing the door to a run entirely. Lara Trump announced she would not seek the North Carolina seat in a post on the social platform X later Thursday, saying she made the decision after 'much consideration and heartfelt discussions' with her family, friends and supporters. 'I am deeply grateful for the encouragement and support I have received from the people of my home state whom I love so much,' she said. 'While I am not running in this election, my passion for Making America Great Again burns brightly, and I look forward to the future, wherever that leads.' But with her passing on a Senate bid again, Whatley would be the big name in the race for the GOP, coming off of the party's success in the 2024 presidential election. A few other possible candidates have been rumored to be considering bids, but receiving the president's backing would certainly be a major boost for Whatley, if any other candidates compete. Whatley winning the nomination would confirm what Tillis's retirement made all but certain: Next year's GOP candidate will be more closely tied to Trump than Tillis is. It would likely set up a match between Whatley and Cooper in the general election. Axios reported Cooper is set to launch his Senate campaign next week, giving Democrats in the state and nationwide their desired candidate. Democrats have seen much more success in recent years in gubernatorial races in North Carolina than federal races, having not won a Senate seat there since 2008. But the party is hopeful it can finally get over the hurdle with Cooper. Senate Democrats' campaign arm touted Lara Trump's decision against running, saying the GOP is 'facing the latest in a string of embarrassing recruitment failures as they lose their 'first choice' candidate.' 'While Republicans descend further into chaos in North Carolina, Democrats will flip this seat in 2026,' spokesperson Maeve Coyle said. Brett Samuels contributed. Updated at 12:03 p.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hamilton Spectator
38 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
A Columbia genocide scholar says she may leave over university's new definition of antisemitism
NEW YORK (AP) — For years, Marianne Hirsch, a prominent genocide scholar at Columbia University, has used Hannah Arendt's book about the trial of a Nazi war criminal, 'Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil,' to spark discussion among her students about the Holocaust and its lingering traumas. But after Columbia's recent adoption of a new definition of antisemitism , which casts certain criticism of Israel as hate speech, Hirsch fears she may face official sanction for even mentioning the landmark text by Arendt, a philosopher who criticized Israel's founding. For the first time since she started teaching five decades ago, Hirsch, the daughter of two Holocaust survivors, is now thinking of leaving the classroom altogether. 'A university that treats criticism of Israel as antisemitic and threatens sanctions for those who disobey is no longer a place of open inquiry,' she told The Associated Press. 'I just don't see how I can teach about genocide in that environment.' Hirsch is not alone. At universities across the country, academics have raised alarm about growing efforts to define antisemitism on terms pushed by the Trump administration, often under the threat of federal funding cuts. Promoted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, the definition lists 11 examples of antisemitic conduct, such as applying 'double standards' to Israel, comparing the country's policies to Nazism or describing its existence as 'a racist endeavor.' Ahead of a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration announced Wednesday, Columbia agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition and its examples into its disciplinary process. It has been endorsed in some form by Harvard, Yale and dozens of other universities. While supporters say the semantic shift is necessary to combat evolving forms of Jewish hate, civil liberties groups warn it will further suppress pro-Palestinian speech already under attack by President Donald Trump. For Hirsch, the restrictions on drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and questioning Israel's founding amount to 'clear censorship,' which she fears will chill discussions in the classroom and open her and other faculty up to spurious lawsuits. 'We learn by making analogies,' Hirsch said. 'Now the university is saying that's off-limits. How can you have a university course where ideas are not up for discussion or interpretation?' A spokesperson for Columbia didn't respond to an emailed request for comment. The 'weaponization' of an educational framework When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he 'never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.' At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said. In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its 'weaponization' against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews. 'People who believe they're combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,' he said. 'But when used in this context, it's really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.' Stern said he delivered that warning to Columbia's leaders last fall after being invited to address them by Claire Shipman, then a co-chair of the board of trustees and the university's current interim president. The conversation seemed productive, Stern said. But in March, shortly after the Trump administration said it would withhold $400 million in federal funding to Columbia over concerns about antisemitism, the university announced it would adopt the IHRA definition for 'training and educational' purposes. Then last week, days before announcing a deal with the Trump administration to restore that funding, Shipman said the university would extend the IHRA definition for disciplinary purposes, deploying its examples when assessing 'discriminatory intent.' 'The formal incorporation of this definition will strengthen our response to and our community's understanding of modern antisemitism,' Shipman wrote. Stern, who now serves as director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, called the move 'appalling,' predicting it would spur a new wave of litigation against the university while further curtailing pro-Palestinian speech. Already, the university's disciplinary body has faced backlash for investigating students who criticized Israel in op-eds and other venues, often at the behest of pro-Israel groups. 'With this new edict on IHRA, you're going to have more outside groups looking at what professors are teaching, what's in the syllabus, filing complaints and applying public pressure to get people fired,' he said. 'That will undoubtedly harm the university.' Calls to 'self-terminate' Beyond adopting the IHRA definition, Columbia has also agreed to place its Middle East studies department under new supervision, overhaul its rules for protests and coordinate antisemitism trainings with groups like the Anti-Defamation League. Earlier this week, the university suspended or expelled nearly 80 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Kenneth Marcus, chair of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, said Columbia's actions were an overdue step to protect Jewish students from harassment. He dismissed faculty concerns about the IHRA definition, which he said would 'provide clarity, transparency and standardization' to the university's effort to root out antisemitism. 'There are undoubtedly some Columbia professors who will feel they cannot continue teaching under the new regime,' Marcus said. 'To the extent that they self-terminate, it may be sad for them personally, but it may not be so bad for the students at Columbia University.' But Hirsch, the Columbia professor, said she was committed to continuing her long-standing study of genocides and their aftermath. Part of that work, she said, will involve talking to students about Israel's 'ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide' in Gaza, where more than 58,000 Palestinians have died, over half of them women and children, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. 'With this capitulation to Trump, it may now be impossible to do that inside Columbia,' Hirsch said. 'If that's the case, I'll continue my work outside the university's gates.' Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
