Wall Street Journal booted from White House press trip to Scotland after Epstein report
The reporters' removal, first reported by Politico, also follows the president's $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the newspaper and the journalists who wrote the story, as well as right-wing media mogul Rupert Murdoch and parent companies News Corp and Dow Jones.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement shared with The Independent that neither the newspaper nor 'any other news outlet are not guaranteed special access to cover President Trump in the Oval Office, aboard Air Force One, and in his private workspaces.'
'Due to the Wall Street Journal 's fake and defamatory conduct, they will not be one of the thirteen outlets on board,' she said. 'Every news organization in the entire world wishes to cover President Trump, and the White House has taken significant steps to include as many voices as possible.'
The Independent has requested comment from the WSJ and White House Correspondents Association.
Trump's lawsuit filed in federal court in Miami on July 18 claims the newspaper, its parent companies, executives and journalists falsely smeared the president by accusing him of writing a sexually suggestive birthday card to Epstein in 2003.
The birthday greeting is described by the newspaper as including a sexually suggestive drawing and a birthday wish that says 'may every day be another wonderful secret.'
A letter reportedly bearing Trump's name, which the WSJ report claims was reviewed by the newspaper, contains several lines of typewritten text framed by a drawing of a naked woman. His signature is a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair, according to the report.
The defendants 'failed to attach the letter, failed to attach the alleged drawing, failed to show proof that President Trump authored or signed any such letter, and failed to explain how this purported letter was obtained,' according to Trump's lawsuit.
'The reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing exists,' the complaint claims.
This is a developing story
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
How a junior trader paid for the banking crisis – while the big bosses never joined him in the dock
The wheels of British justice are appallingly slow. Back in 2016, I wrote that the conviction of Tom Hayes, the bank trader jailed for conspiring to manipulate the Libor interest rate, was unsafe. Today, finally, the Supreme Court has agreed to quash his conviction. The case of Carlo Palombo, the other trader who had his conviction quashed today, was not linked to Hayes. Palombo received four years in 2019. When ex-Citi and UBS banker Hayes was found guilty in 2015, he was sentenced to 14 years, an astonishing long term for a white-collar criminal in this country. That was reduced to 11 years on appeal, but as I remarked at the time, you get less for killing someone. There is no doubt he was being made an example of. There was considerable public anger at the way bankers had walked scot-free from the financial crisis – still is – and Hayes was seen as discouraging others. He was portrayed as being at the centre of a web, setting the benchmark rate used for millions of personal loans; he was therefore the worst of the worst, an arch-villain who profited from ordinary folks; he, everyone seemed to agree, deserved every moment spent inside. But in his case, there literally were no others. A year later, in a blow to the Serious Fraud Office, which brought the prosecutions, six brokers were acquitted of conspiring with him to fix the interbank rate. On their acquittals, in his cell at HMP Lowdham Grange, Hayes could be forgiven for raging against the iniquity of a system that saw his life ruined. Particularly, as in the professional hierarchy, Hayes was a junior. We were supposed to believe that others never condoned what he did. It simply never rang true that he was able to act without anyone above him at the bank knowing and agreeing. That unease only increased with details emerging about his personality. He was a bit of a geek, as many are in his area of work. He learned by heart the Highway Code from cover to cover when he was learning to drive. It was one of the traits that earned him his nicknames of 'Rain Man' and 'Kid Asperger's'. But, as he explained, it also meant he was ideally suited to futures trading. 'The success of getting it right, the success of finding market inefficiencies, the success of identifying opportunities and then when you get it right, it's like solving that equation,' Hayes said in court. 'It's make money, lose money, and it's just so pure.' Symptomatic of an underlying condition, he was also open and personable, not sophisticated at keeping something secret. Indeed, that was his defence, that what he did was common; he was encouraged to do what he did and he did not believe he was acting dishonestly. It would have been more reassuring if his bank bosses had joined him in the dock. But they never did. Nevertheless, the promise of the subsequent trial of his alleged co-conspirators did provide some comfort. Then they were acquitted. Hayes said he was delighted with the outcome. He was 'thrilled that the brokers can return to their families and their lives' but was 'bewildered' that he was left 'in a situation where he [was] convicted of conspiring with nobody'. Originally, there were 22 names on the draft indictment, including the six found innocent. At Hayes' trial, most of the evidence presented against him was in relation to those six – hence the Serious Fraud Office's decision to pursue only them. Most of the other names were thought to be peripheral. Hayes said he had never met or even spoken to them; there were some he'd been in touch with via email or other messaging, but just a few times. Ahead of Hayes' trial, the judge, Mr Justice Cooke, decided to separate his hearing from that of the brokers and his alleged co-conspirators. Their statements were not allowed to be submitted in Hayes' trial. Presumably, if they had been, given the jury's conclusion in their trial, this may have assisted his defence. Critically, his jury was unaware of evidence relating to whether or not an agreement between the co-defendants was ever reached. After their acquittals, David Green, then head of the SFO, said: 'The key issue in this trial was whether these defendants were party to a dishonest agreement with Tom Hayes. By their verdicts, the jury have said that they could not be sure that this was the case.' It was an odd use of words from Green. He was trying to justify the prosecution by saying that in the end, the jury could not be certain, so therefore they acquitted. Where, though, does the jury say that? Equally, the jury could surely have been certain there was no agreement – Green simply did not know. In Hayes' earlier trial, however, without the evidence from his alleged co-conspirators, the jury was certain there was a conspiracy. Later, with those not guilty verdicts, that did not seem right or fair. During his closing speech to the jury at Hayes' trial, Mukul Chawla QC for the prosecution was keen to point out that Hayes was the first but would not be the last. Again this was a reference to the six. But look what happened. In light of their acquittals and the non-submission of their statements in his trial, Hayes deserved a fair hearing. Shamefully, it took nine further years for that day to arrive.
The Independent
22 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's golfing weekend in Scotland is an even bigger headache than his state visit
Donald Trump's golfing trip to Scotland this weekend has started to look like a few days of welcome relief for the US president. From Downing Street's perspective, however, it may all look a bit different. At home, Trump is embroiled in linked controversies that seem to have come out of the blue. Having seen off most of the legal challenges to the orders he issued in his first days back in office, he now faces a quasi-rebellion from his hitherto loyal and largely unquestioning base over a case that has little obvious bearing on high politics at all. These die-hard Trumpists were disappointed by official findings that the accused child-trafficker and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein, did indeed die by suicide in prison and that there is, and was, no secret client list. They had shared a conspiracy theory that Epstein was part of a shadowy elite, that he had been killed to keep him quiet, and that after Trump came to power, the truth would emerge. Now, Trump is himself being accused of an establishment cover-up, and is confronting a social media storm that even this master of the medium is struggling to control. Trump has also launched lawsuits against the Wall Street Journal, its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch, and two journalists, denying a report of links between Trump and Epstein, including a bawdy birthday greeting allegedly sent by Trump. The prospect of a court confrontation between the two titans is tantalising. Trump has also ordered files relating to the Epstein case to be published, and both his attorney general and Congress want to question Ghislaine Maxwell – the only person convicted in connection with the case so far. It may be surmised that they hope to tempt Maxwell with a reduction in her 20-year sentence and persuade her to offer some 'helpful' evidence. With only a year until the start of the midterm congressional election campaign, Trump needs to keep his base intact. No wonder four days in the wilds of Scotland – the homeland of his late mother and two Trump-owned golf courses, including a new resort on the Menie Estate, outside Aberdeen – might look like a welcome distraction. His foes on this side of the Atlantic are already tuning up – wags have put up a spoof sign at his golf course near Aberdeen that says 'twinned with Epstein Island' – and elaborate police and security operations are in train. When Trump last visited his Scottish businesses two years ago, he was not president. Now, even on a private visit, he requires presidential-level security, at least some of which must be supplied and paid for by the host country. The timing of this trip, less than one month before Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK, adds risk. Any infelicities, real or perceived, on either side now are in danger of negatively colouring the later visit, the invitation for which was conveyed by Keir Starmer during his trip to the White House soon after Trump's inauguration. Since then, content, timing and tone have all been in contention. The recent state visit by France's President Macron, with its especially high pageantry, address to parliament, and prominent deployment of the Prince and Princess of Wales, seemed top-of-the-line. Like the Macrons, the Trumps will stay at Windsor Castle, but this occasion has been timed to exclude the possibility of a parliamentary address and the visit to Balmoral that Trump angled for. Nor, the Palace has made clear, will the King be meeting Trump during his golfing weekend. The private and state visits are wisely being kept distinct. At government level, in contrast, a different choice has been made. The prime minister is expected to hold talks with Trump, potentially on every current issue, from trade tariffs to Ukraine, in or near Aberdeen, and possibly at Trump's golf course. There will also be a meeting with Scotland's first minister, John Swinney, who has decided that it is his duty 'to engage, to protect and to promote the interests of the people of Scotland', despite vocal opposition from other groups. Now, it could be said that Starmer, in particular, was damned if he did and damned if he didn't. Given that the decision has been taken, however, the aim must be to limit any damage. Anything that smacks of paying tribute must be avoided, and that includes meeting Trump at his golf course and any announcement about awarding the 2028 British Open to the now Trump-owned Turnberry, as the president would reportedly like. By meeting Trump in Scotland, Starmer risks not only becoming the focus of protests himself but also party to the negative blowback from British public opinion. As much can go wrong as go right. The prime minister should have followed the Palace and left all official encounters for the main event, where the protocol is clear and risks of all kinds are minimised. After all, there are fewer than four weeks to wait.
The Guardian
22 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Donald Trump visit to Scotland expected to be met with wave of protest
Protest organisers anticipate a wave of resistance to Donald Trump from Ayrshire to Aberdeenshire this weekend as Scots take to the streets to express 'widespread anger' at what they termed the US president's increasingly extreme policies. The US president is expected to arrive in Scotland on Friday for a five-day private visit to his luxury golf resorts at Turnberry in Ayrshire and Menie in Aberdeenshire. While it is not a formal trip, Keir Starmer will hold talks in Scotland with Trump on Monday. No press conference is scheduled, but the media are expected to attend the start of the discussions – opening the possibility for another freewheeling question and answer session by the president. There is no expectation the protests will bring disorder or disruption, the assistant chief constable Emma Bond, Police Scotland's gold command for the operation, insisted at a pre-visit briefing on Tuesday. But the Scottish Police Federation, which represents rank-and-file officers, said the scale of the policing operation would stretch resources and could double the time taken for a police officer to attend an incident elsewhere. The Stop Trump Coalition is organising events in Aberdeen in the city centre and outside the US embassy in Edinburgh on Saturday at midday – similar gatherings during Trump's visit to Scotland in 2018 attracted thousands of protesters. Along with the two main city gatherings, protests are expected around Turnberry and Menie, where Trump is expected to open a new 18-hole golf course named in honour of his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, who was born on the Isle of Lewis. Starmer is likely to travel to Scotland on Monday morning or late on Sunday, after attending the women's Euro final in Switzerland, in which England are playing, although if the White House dinner on Sunday night goes ahead, he might have to change his plans. Downing Street has given little information about the trip and Starmer's role in it, saying that normal protocols do not apply because it is officially a private visit. The White House has already said that a pool of 12 US journalists will be present at the talks with Starmer, and the expectation is that the UK media will aim to be represented as well. While most initial greetings between world leaders are brief and uneventful, Trump has a habit of answering a number of questions shouted out to him, often creating news. Before the last time Trump and Starmer met, at the G7 summit in Alberta, the US president answered questions on subjects including the possibility of tariffs on UK steel, Ukraine, and his stated affection for the prime minister. Connor Dylan, the organiser of the anti-Trump protests in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, said: 'The vast majority of people in Scotland were already opposed to everything Trump stood for when he first visited as president. As we've learned more and more about him and the way he governs, that attitude has only hardened. 'His politics – and those of the people around him – have only become more extreme since then, with once fringe ideas like mass deportations now part of mainstream American politics and being effectively exported to the UK and other European countries by far-right allies.' A fellow organiser, Alena Ivanova, said she had heard from people across the country who planned to protest: 'There's a widespread anger and determination to come out from people across Scotland and calling on our elected leaders not to give Trump the acknowledgement and welcome he wants.' While Police Scotland has pledged a 'positive and engaged approach' to lawful protests, Ch Supt Rob Hay, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents said the visit would require a 'significant operation across the country over many days' which would 'undoubtedly stretch all our resources from local policing divisions to specialist and support functions such as contact, command and control'.
