Family of Epstein accuser Giuffre urge Trump to keep Maxwell in prison
Photo:
AFP
The family of deceased
Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre
is urging US President Donald Trump not to grant clemency to Ghislaine Maxwell, the British socialite serving a 20-year prison sentence for helping Epstein abuse underage girls.
Giuffre's family also said it was "shocking" to hear Trump say this week that Epstein had poached Giuffre from the Mar-a-Lago club, where she worked at the spa in 2000.
The family said Trump's comment raised questions about whether he was aware of
Epstein's sexual abuse
at the time.
Trump has not been accused of wrongdoing.
Giuffre said she
was a victim of Epstein's sex trafficking
from 2000 to 2002, starting when she was 16.
She died by suicide in April at age 41.
Prince Andrew, Virginia Giuffre, and Ghislaine Maxwell posing for a photo in 2001 when Giuffre was 17.
Photo:
HANDOUT / AFP
Trump has given some of his most expansive public comments yet about his falling out with Epstein.
The family's statement comes as Trump has faced pressure to make public documents from the federal investigations into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges, and his longtime girlfriend Maxwell, who was convicted of sex trafficking in 2021.
Deputy US Attorney-General Todd Blanche, Trump's former personal lawyer, last week
met with Maxwell
.
Maxwell's lawyer David Markus has called on Trump to grant her relief, but Trump has said he has not thought about whether to pardon her.
"The government and the President should never consider giving Ghislaine Maxwell any leniency," Giuffre's family said in the statement.
"Maxwell destroyed many young lives."
A senior Trump administration official said no leniency for Maxwell was being given or discussed.
Ghislaine Maxwell pictured with her partner at the time, sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
Photo:
AFP / US District Court for the southern district of New York
"That's just false," the official said.
Markus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump and Epstein socialised in the 1990s and 2000s, before what Trump has called a falling out.
Speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Tuesday, Trump said he told Epstein to "stay the hell out" of Mar-a-Lago after finding out Epstein was poaching Trump's workers, including Giuffre.
"He stole her," Trump said.
In their statement, Giuffre's family said Maxwell recruited her from Mar-a-Lago in 2000.
An aerial view of Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
Photo:
Joe Raedle / Getty Images / AFP
The family said that was years before Epstein and Trump had their falling out, pointing to a 2002 New York magazine article in which the president was quoted calling Epstein a "terrific guy" who liked women "on the younger side".
"It makes us ask if he was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal actions," Giuffre's family said, referring to Trump's Air Force One comments.
Asked by a reporter on Thursday if he knew why Epstein was taking his employees, Trump said he did not.
"I didn't really know really why, but I said if he's taking anybody from Mar-a-Lago, if he's hiring or whatever he's doing, I didn't like it and we threw him out," Trump said.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Trump had been responding to a reporter's question about Giuffre and did not bring her up.
"President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees," Leavitt said.
At Maxwell's trial in 2021, Juan Alessi, the former manager of Epstein's Palm Beach home, testified that he drove with Maxwell to meet Ms Giuffre at nearby Mar-a-Lago.
He said he then saw Giuffre at Epstein's home for the first time that evening, and saw her at the home many times thereafter.
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
24 minutes ago
- RNZ News
Trump trade tariff decision came 'blunt and late', Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said the 15 percent trade tariff is "not what he wanted". Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The decision by US President Donald Trumo to hit New Zealand exporters with a 15 percent tariff came "blunt and late", the Prime Minster says. Speaking to Morning Report, Christopher Luxon said the tariff, which had been expected to be at 10 percent, being at a higher percentage was "not what New Zealand wanted". "We disagree with tariffs," Luxon said, "the president is pretty fixed on his views and unlikely to change." "The decision came pretty blunt and late." Despite this, top diplomat Vangelis Vitalis was flying to Washington in the wake of the announcement, with Trade Minister Todd McClay intending to visit in coming days too. Luxon said prior to the announcement New Zealand had "really constructive" conversations with the US about trade, and the decision had been made close to the announcement. Despite the higher tariff, Luxon said the government had "played it well". "We continue to register our disappointment about the decision, we've also done it since April." He believed New Zealand exporters were "nimble and agile" and there was still huge demand for New Zealand products and services globally. But the opposition, said the 15 percent tariff was a "slap in the face" for exporters. Labour's trade spokesperson Damien O'Connor told Morning Report , it was a major fail for the government and noted other leaders managed to cut deals that kept tariffs at lower rates. "This is a disadvantage relative to our competitors," he said. "There is a strong demand for our beef in the US, but this will start to squeeze the market." O'Connor said New Zealand would be competing head-to-head with other countries like Australia, Argentina and Uruguay who all had 10 percent tariffs. "That's going to be tough... That's going to hurt." Kate Acland, chairperson of Beef and Lamb New Zealand agreed competing countries having a lower tariff rate would hurt New Zealand. "I think the key is we're on a different rate to many of our competitors," she told Morning Report , "this is more than $300 million additional hit if it can't be passed on to the consumers." "It will have an impact, this is quite significant." Acland said New Zealand was "one of the good guys" who played by the rules when it came to trade, but perhaps the reason for the higher tariff was that it didn't have much to bring to the negotiating table. "There's quite a queue to negotiate over there, I think the strategy was right, it'd hard to know what we could have done. Kate Acland, chairperson of Beef and Lamb New Zealand said the US needed New Zealand meat exports. Photo: © Clare Toia-Bailey / "Going over there now is the right thing to do." Acland said there was a global shortage of protein, particularly beef, so the US did need New Zealand meat exports. "They need that lean beef so we do have a good story to tell there on the beef side. She believed exporters would be okay, but it did put them at disadvantage. Felicity Roxburgh, director of the International Business Forum agreed New Zealand was now at a disadvantage. She told Morning Report , exporters had done a really good job t absorbing the cost so far, but only time would tell what the impact of 15 percent would be. "We can't invent new markets overnight as an exporter it takes time to invest... There not endless headroom to pass the price to consumers." She said she welcomed Vitalis heading to Washington to try and press New Zealand's case. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
3 hours ago
- RNZ News
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
By Aaron Blake , CNN US President Donald Trump. Photo: AFP Analysis - Back in March, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: "Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth." Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove "improper ideology" - an ominous phrase, if there ever was one - from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's "legacy content." The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about "Limits of Presidential Power." And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down - including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian said in a statement that it was "not asked by any administration" or government official to remove content and that an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. Last week, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics . This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that "we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today." To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it "kind of impetuous" to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. "It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for," said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump "just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up." Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked - both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one. - CNN
NZ Herald
3 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Fact-checking under fire as tech giants cut support amid misinformation surge
In reviewing many of the some 3000 fact checks I have written or edited, there is a clear dividing line: June 2015, the month Donald Trump rode down the Trump Tower escalator and announced he was running for President. 'Businessman Donald Trump is a fact-checker's dream ... and nightmare,' I wrote in the fact-check of his announcement speech. How little did I realise that would be true. Trump decreed that mainstream news organisations were 'the enemy of the people', undermining faith in traditional reporting, and insisted to his followers that he was the best source of information. In ending its work with fact-checkers, Meta chief executive Mark Zuckerberg falsely claimed that fact-checkers censored free speech by being 'too politically biased', echoing Trump administration arguments. The Washington Post did not participate in the Meta programme, but any Facebook user had the option to opt out of having posts fact-checked. Many fact-checkers would liken their work to nutritional labels on snack foods – providing more information about online content. People are free to ignore the warnings, just as people can ignore nutritional labels. Meanwhile, although the European Union enacted a law, the Digital Services Act, to ensure online platforms combat misinformation (such as by relying on fact-checkers), European fact-checkers are concerned that enforcement of the law could be weakened as part of trade negotiations with the Trump administration – which opposes such regulation. Indeed, the Trump administration has also pressured Brazil to end its regulation of online platforms. The issue is sensitive in Brazil because the January 8, 2023 attack on the Brazilian Congress was inspired by clips spread across social media platforms of the January 6 attack on the US Capitol by Trump supporters one year earlier. Brazilian officials insisted they will not back down in the face of Trump's threats, saying regulating social media platforms is a consumer safety issue, like driving laws. 'Self-regulation has proven a failure,' Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes said. 'Your freedom does not mean to be free to go the wrong way and crash into another car and kill another driver,' Cármen Lúcia, the president of Brazil's Superior Electoral Court, told the fact-checking conference. Before Trump entered politics, I found that many politicians spun or dissembled but most tried to keep their claims tethered to the truth. Our fact checks covered a range of topics, such as the accuracy of government statistics on students dying from alcohol or exaggerated claims about sex trafficking, which led lawmakers to stop using them. President Barack Obama told the occasional whopper – 'If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan' – but it was the rare politician, such as Minnesota Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann, who constantly spouted Pinocchio-laden nonsense. Obama's Vice-President, Joe Biden, also had a reputation for mangling the truth: in 2011, Biden touted an Obama-era jobs bill by claiming the number of rapes in Flint, Michigan, had – depending on the hour of the day – doubled, tripled or even quadrupled because the number of police had been reduced. There was no evidence to support any of his statistics. But Bachmann and Biden were outliers. In the 2012 presidential campaign between Obama and Mitt Romney, the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, the two candidates were neck-and-neck in their average Pinocchio rating. Indeed, they had the lowest average number of Pinocchios of the major 2012 presidential candidates. They also took fact checks seriously. Both candidates dropped talking points after a negative fact-check rating. An Obama administration official explained to me how, when faced with a choice of figures, the administration took the more modest number in hopes of avoiding Pinocchios. I heard from a campaign source that during debate prep, Obama, to his great annoyance, was told he couldn't use a statistic because it had gotten Pinocchios. Obama's campaign manager even sent a lengthy letter to the Post editor complaining that my Pinocchio ratings were undermining his attacks on Romney's business record. The expectation that politicians would stick close to the truth began to erode with Trump's emergence. He claimed that thousands of Muslims in New Jersey had celebrated the 9/11 attacks – and doubled down even after my fact check proved this was a fantasy. He invented statistics – that the unemployment rate, then pegged at 4.9%, was really 42% – and kept repeating them, no matter how many times he was fact-checked. In 2016, Trump's opponents still cared about the facts. Florida Governor Jeb Bush's campaign had a wall where they posted positive fact checks. Ohio Governor John Kasich dropped a talking point simply in response to my question for a possible fact check. Hillary Clinton's staff worked hard to find policy experts to vouch for her statistics. (Her comments on her private email server were less defensible.) But Trump didn't care. He kept rising in the polls and eventually won the presidency. Other politicians took notice and followed his lead. Besides Trump, something else changed the nature of truth in the mid-2010s: the rise of social media. The Fact Checker was launched in 2007, one year after the creation of Twitter and when Facebook had only 50 million users. By 2012, Facebook had 1 billion followers; it reached nearly 1.6 billion in 2015. Trump adroitly used Twitter – where he had 2.76 million followers at the start of 2015 – and other social media to spread his message. Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States was the most-talked-about moment on Facebook among the 2016 candidates in all of 2015, according to Facebook data. Social media helped fuel the rise of Trump – and made it easier for false claims to circulate. Russian operatives in 2016 used fake accounts on social media to spread disinformation and create divisive content – tactics that led companies such as Meta to begin to use fact-checkers to identify misleading content. But the political forces that benefited from false information – such as Trump and his allies – led a backlash against such efforts, saying it was a form of censorship. Now tech companies are scaling back their efforts to combat misinformation. In Trump's second term, even venerable institutions such as the State Department – which I covered for nine years – spout falsehoods to attack efforts to combat disinformation. 'In Europe, thousands are being convicted for the crime of criticising their own governments,' the department said in an X, formerly Twitter post on July 22. 'This Orwellian message won't fool the United States. Censorship is not freedom.' (The post was in response to a French Government post promoting the Digital Services Act.) When I asked the State Department for evidence of the claim that 'thousands' had been convicted, the department twice asked for more time to respond – and then declined to comment. Many on the left and right argue that fact-checking is merely another form of opinion journalism, disguised behind a veneer of objectivity. But research found that the three main American fact-checkers – The Fact Checker, PolitiFact and – reached the same conclusion on similar statements at least 95% of the time. Of course, some might say this only shows we are all biased in the same way. During Trump's first term, The Fact Checker team documented that he made more than 30,000 false or misleading claims. Week after week, I would write fact checks unpacking his latest misstatements, and Trump generally earned Four Pinocchios – the rating for a whopper. But I sense that the country has gotten so used to Trump exaggerating the truth that it no longer seems surprising. I chose not to repeat the exercise in his second term. Even as he racked up Pinocchios, Trump mentioned them almost 20 times during his first administration. He either complained about receiving Pinocchios or cited them when I awarded Pinocchios to one of his political foes, such as then California Representative Adam Schiff. During the 2024 campaign, Trump sometimes mentioned Pinocchios, such as in a campaign stop in Waunakee, Wisconsin, in October. 'I have to be very careful when I talk because the fake news, if I say something wrong, a little wrong, if I'm 3% off ... they'll give me Pinocchios,' he told a rally. 'You know the Pinocchio? The Washington Post, they give you Pinocchios. If you say something perfectly, they give you a Pinocchio.' But since Trump took office for a second time in January, he hasn't mentioned Pinocchios again. In an era where false claims are the norm, it's much easier to ignore the fact-checkers.
