How Four Democrats Who Saved the Party Before Would Do It Again
Patrick Healy: I caught some heat this winter from Democrats when I raised the idea that the party is in deeper trouble with voters than its leaders are admitting — perhaps even the kind of existential trouble that the party had in the 1970s and 1980s, when it lost four out of five presidential races to Republicans. Back then, many Americans saw the party as too liberal, untrustworthy on inflation and spending, and out of touch — culturally and economically — with middle-class and working-class Americans. The Democrats needed a big reset. And that's what happened after they lost the presidency again in 1988, with the rise and victory of Bill Clinton in 1992. The four of you played key roles in pushing for that reset and advising Clinton. I want to discuss how the Democrats got their groove back and what lessons there are for the party today.
Let's start with this question: How would you describe the Democrats after the 1988 election, when George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis, and how would you compare that to the state of the Democratic Party today?
William A. Galston: People weren't buying what we were selling. Losing to Donald Trump the second time is a sign, I'm afraid, of exactly the same thing. Voters don't want what we're offering. We need a new offer.
Healy: Why weren't Americans wanting what Democrats were selling?
Al From: Democrats stood for weakness at home and in the world, big government and special interest groups, special pleadings.
Elaine Kamarck: We had cultural issues hanging over us, as we do today. And the problem is that because culture evokes emotion, if you are on the wrong side of a cultural issue, nobody hears your economics. Doesn't matter how many CHIPS programs you have or how much money you've put into education — nobody hears it.
Galston: I think a lot of ordinary Americans are asking themselves: Do the Democrats know how to draw lines anymore, or are they just pushed into extremes? You saw one of those issues figure pretty centrally in the 2024 election, when Republicans said Kamala Harris is for 'they/them' and Donald Trump is for you. That ad contained one of the most devastating tag lines in the history of American political advertising. And a lot of Democrats are pretending that that ad didn't make any difference.
Kamarck: Look, over 41 percent of Trump's ad spending was on anti-trans ads over about two weeks in October.
From: All you had to do was watch an N.F.L. game. You saw that ad.
Healy: Bill and Al brought up identity politics, 'special pleadings' — this notion that the Democratic Party becomes captive to certain groups or to a wing of the party.
Will Marshall: Everything was mediated through the desires and demands of 100 worthy interest groups. What we said was: Look, we were not winning these elections for a reason. So the first thing is to let the public know you've heard their message. Then: What are the new ideas?
Kamarck: Let me give you a perfect example. Bill Clinton's most frequently run commercial was 'End welfare as we know it.' It was a bumper sticker and it did two things simultaneously. It spoke to the people in the country and said: Yeah, we heard you, we got it — this welfare system rewards people for staying home, rewards people for having more children when they don't have any support for the children, this welfare system is a mess. But then he said 'as we know it' — so in other words, he wasn't doing a Reagan imitation, he was not throwing the whole thing out. He was saying: Let's change it. That was such a brilliant combination, and I think we need that again.
Galston: I was Walter Mondale's policy director during his 1984 presidential campaign. I got to see from the inside how honorable the New Deal tradition was — and how exhausted it was. In order to have a future, Democrats had to accept the fact that appeals about Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman no longer spoke to the present and could not chart a path to the future. I think that created an opening for a movement dedicated to a new kind of politics and a new set of ideas.
Healy: Why was it difficult to get the Democratic Party establishment to open up to reform, innovation, new ideas?
Kamarck: I'll speak to two issues: welfare. The African American community was, and rightfully so, hypersensitive to racism. Hypersensitive to a group of white people, as we are, saying this had to change. Now, we did focus groups on this. African Americans saw the same problems as white Americans did with welfare. So there was that hypersensitivity, which we still have with us in the party. And as somebody who's on the Democratic National Committee, I live it every, every time I'm at a D.N.C. meeting.
The second thing was the government itself. Ronald Reagan started the big critique of government. Bill Clinton was the one who famously said 'The era of big government is over.' F.D.R. created the modern government — that was sort of deep in the Democrats' DNA. They didn't want to let go of it. So a movement that would say: Hey, you know, we can do government differently, we can cut the cost, we can streamline it, et cetera, which is what reinventing government was. People were suspicious and nervous about it. It went against our roots.
Healy: Bill, why were Democrats so concerned about looking at their own problems? You had the 1980 loss. You had the '84 loss. Then '88. You had a big idea back then called the politics of evasion. Why was that such a part of what was going on in the party then?
Galston: Well, just in simple human terms, change is hard. It's one of the hardest things in the world. Changing ourselves as individuals with habits and vices is enormously difficult. Institutions aren't all that different.
Here I will be blunt, but I'll try not to be harsh. In every political party there are people who would rather be the majority in a minority party. Not a minority in the majority party. It is a question of power within the party. Giving up power that you've accrued over decades is enormously difficult. To which I would add there are, to steal a phrase from Elaine's old boss, inconvenient truths. And rather than acknowledge these inconvenient truths, you'd rather tell yourself stories. We called them myths. Joan Didion famously said, 'We tell ourselves stories in order to live.' Parties are like that, too.
Healy: How did Democrats manage to let go of such a foundational part of their DNA? Is it simply just losing three elections in a row, Elaine?
Kamarck: Clinton did a lot for that. Because Clinton stuck to reinventing government. He actually did it. I think a lot of people in the party thought that was a good campaign line and he wasn't going to really do it. And then we started cutting jobs. So in eight years we cut 426,000 jobs from the federal government. We did all sorts of modernization and cutting regulations, and I think people realized that it wasn't the end of the world, OK? The government still functioned — in fact, functioned better in some places because of the changes that we did.
So I think it took getting a president actually doing what he said he would do, and having it work out all right. Which, by the way, in the current situation, we have a president who's doing what he said he was going to do, but it may not work out all right.
From: Government ought to be the agent of our common endeavors and to help people and to help ourselves. But it's got to work. And if it doesn't work, then we're going to be ineffective politically.
Marshall: We got a lot of mileage out of just the simple idea that there was a brain-dead politics of left and right that we had to get beyond, and that we needed generational change. Something fresh. Ending welfare as we know it. National service. Public school choice. Reinventing government. All that generated energy and excitement, and it helped that we had a next-generation team with Clinton and Al Gore. To redefine a failing party you need to capture imagination, and it's got to be with a new offer, and it's got to be with creative ideas.
Galston: I just want to add a couple of points that I think are pertinent to our current circumstances. You don't have to be Frederick Douglass to believe that power never concedes without a struggle. Change is always a fight. You may win it, but that means somebody else has to lose. The party as a whole will never say, Huh, and fall in love. That's lesson No. 1. Second, the party redefines itself. Party reform may begin in Congress, but it can never end there, right? It ends when a leader, hoping to speak for the country as a whole, stands for the nomination, stands for the general election and enacts a new set of ideas.
Kamarck: Let me add one little angle here that I think is missing. You can't rebuild a party if you lose the base of the party. OK? So the question was: How did Bill Clinton manage to revolutionize the party but hold its base? And his secret weapon there, frankly, was Hillary. Hillary Clinton was deeply in the liberal wing of the party. She was one of the most important people in the Children's Defense Fund. The Children's Defense Fund didn't agree with anything we were doing right on welfare reform or family policy or anything like that. They were against us, but she was there and very active and very much a part of that campaign. While Bill Clinton was out there redefining, Hillary was reassuring. She was saying: Look, this guy's heart is in the right place, and we need to do a couple of changes.
From: His civil rights record was really important in that.
Galston: What drives history, I think, is individuals meeting their moment. And it's a very interesting speculation. Suppose that we had done all of these things but there had been no Bill Clinton, because he was a politician with extraordinary gifts. He is the single most persuasive human being that I've ever met. I do wonder, if we'd done everything right but hadn't had a leader like Bill Clinton, what would've happened?
From: It wouldn't have happened without Bill Clinton or a comparable talent.
Healy: Which idea was the most crucial, do you think, for Bill Clinton winning the primary and ultimately the general election in 1992?
Kamarck: It was welfare reform. Welfare reform cut to the cultural issue and allowed people to look at everything else.
From: It was clearly welfare reform. But it was another Progressive Policy Institute idea that made welfare reform possible, which was the expanded earned-income tax credit, so that we could make the argument that nobody who worked full-time in America should be poor. And the earned-income tax credit made that credible.
Marshall: Well, you're asking me to choose among my children. Welfare reform said, this is a different kind of Democrat. But let me just mention two others. First was reinventing government. The second one's national service. People hadn't been used to hearing the idea that you should serve something larger than yourself for quite a while, going back to Jack Kennedy. This idea was explicitly aimed to help us solve a particular political problem: the politics of entitlement. Any group that came along that demanded government benefits because they were oppressed or discriminated against could get them. People just hated this. It was at the root of the tax-and-spend disease that they also didn't like. So no more something for nothing.
Healy: Bill, what was the key?
Galston: Well, I am not going to break with the consensus. I do think it was welfare reform. Welfare reform was to the 1992 election what the 'they/them' Trump ad was to the 2024 election. But I want to add something. It speaks volumes that Bill Clinton, having run and to a substantial extent won on ending welfare as we know it, could not persuade the party to lead with it or to do anything about it for the first two years of his presidency. It wasn't until mid-1996 that he finally got it done.
Healy: What should today's Democratic Party learn from welfare reform?
Galston: I think people are going to have to take a deep breath and be willing to say things that previously were regarded as unsayable.
Healy: Elaine, what are some of those things today that are regarded as unsayable among Democrats but might actually resonate with Americans?
Kamarck: Well, I think that the new emergent issue is the transgender rights issue. And I think there the party needs to look for a way of doing both things that Clinton did with welfare. On the one hand, saying we get it to the public — you think this is very strange, you think this is frightening, you think that people, maybe children, are going to be hurt. We understand your worries. And yet at the same time they have to say: Look, there are people out there who are really hurting because they're born gender dysphoric. You cannot abandon your base. You can't stick a needle in the eye of your base. But you also have to say to the broader public: We understand your fears.
Marshall: Through four years of President Joe Biden, we spoke to white college graduates incessantly on almost every dimension: economic, cultural, foreign policy. We stopped talking to the 62 percent of the electorate that doesn't have a college degree. I think this is the hardest cultural challenge for the party right now. We don't know how to address their economic aspirations in a way that doesn't sort of throw government benefits at them. We're terrified if we do we'll somehow be crossing the line, becoming racist or nativist or xenophobic. We are now in this class configuration that was mercilessly revealed by this election. We have lost the knack of hearing, listening, going to working-class people and speaking the language that they understand. So you see the party retracting geographically, demographically. We're a shrunken party now.
From: You know, there's just something about having paid for two daughters to go through college — my view is that it's just wrong to ask the three-fifths of the country that doesn't have a college degree to pay for the tuition of those who do. If they would've just said: OK, we'll give a certain amount of forgiveness, but in exchange you have to spend a year or two in national service. It goes to that free lunch. And the problem is now the free lunch is often for this very small, highly educated class. I mean, it's us, too, but it sure doesn't represent a majority of the country.
Healy: I think about when Bill Clinton talked about shared sacrifice and national service in a sense of: We're all in this together. We're all giving and we're all receiving. What are the things now that Democrats need to speak about to voters who might be skeptical or don't see the party as credible?
Kamarck: Well, the first thing is immigration. I mean, we were simply on the wrong side of this issue. The country was being overrun and the interest groups — who did not have the backing of their members — were saying something that was easily translatable into open borders. So Democrats have to get right on immigration. They've got to figure out the cultural issue. And then inflation — they just didn't get it because, again, it goes to the class bias.
I think this is why the Democrats are so completely screwed up. We are now the party of well-to-do people. Look at that billion dollars Kamala Harris raised. Why? Because there's lots of upper-middle-class people in the Democratic Party. And so when you're upper-middle-class, you miss the impact of inflation. Because you are not the person who's going through the grocery store counting up in your head or on a piece of paper the cost of what's going into your cart.
Healy: How do you figure out how to talk about immigration or cultural values or inflation in a way that feels authentic to what regular people are experiencing? How do you figure that out as a party?
Kamarck: It's a product of politicians out there on the stump. And one of the things we learned in the 1980s was that the Washington-based politicians were much further away from this reality of what was happening to the party than were the governors and the county commissioners. Look at the Andy Beshears of the world. Look at the people winning in red states and say: What are they saying? How do they talk?
Galston: Let's take inflation as an object lesson for the party. Why do you think we got this bout of inflation? The Democratic message was price gouging by corporations. But that's not what the majority of the people say when you ask them that question. They say government overspending. If we're going to look at hard truths and try a 21st-century version of fiscal restraint — not slash and burn but some sense of limits, some sense that the Democratic Party knows how to draw the line — that's what people believe, and we never spoke to that. We never even tried to speak to that. And if we don't speak to that in the next four years, we may end up with the same result.
From: I mean, if people think that overpriming the pump causes inflation, you've got to slow down the pump.
Healy: What are some of the concrete lessons from your experience from 1988 to 1992 that apply to today? That the party should consider, that leaders should consider?
Marshall: The first message is change is possible. We're a minority party now. We've lost territory. We're not competitive in broad swaths of the country. We've lost 37 points with non-white working class voters since 2012, since Barack Obama's last election. If we can't reorient our economic thinking in general around everyday struggles of working people, we're not going to reach them.
Kamarck: I'll be short and simple. Don't be afraid of an intraparty fight. Don't be afraid of a fight because it's the fight that breaks through to the public and says: Oh, that party's still alive. They're not as brain-dead as I thought they were.
Healy: What do you think the most useful or productive fight would be over for the Democrats?
Kamarck: I think we've got to start with the cultural issues. 'Pregnant people'? 'Pregnant people'? Give me a break. I never heard of a pregnant people. When you start doing this hyper-, hyper-politically-correct language, people think you're crazy. You start with that and no one will hear the economic issues, the economic plan, no matter how good it is.
Galston: Without a fight, you get no change. But let's look at what preceded our fight. There was a statement of principles in 1990: the New Orleans declaration. There was the creation of themes: opportunity, responsibility, community. There was a development of compelling ideas, thanks to Will and the P.P.I. There was a master of persuasive communications and there was an ability to understand the public mood, getting the mood right. And 2024 was not the year for the politics of joy any more than 1968 was, when Hubert Humphrey, who invented the phrase 'the politics of joy,' tried to practice it in one of the least joyful years in American history.
Healy: Why didn't people buy it, Bill?
Galston: Why didn't people buy it? They weren't in a good mood. They weren't joyful. It looked like denial. It looked like you were tone-deaf.
From: We need ideas that break the mold. That's what welfare reform and national service did. They were defining ideas. On the cultural issues, identity politics — we all believe in diversity, but the way you get diversity is by having an agenda that attracts all kinds of people. And finally, you've got to find a leader, and it'll take a while to find that leader.
Healy: What leaders do you see as at least having promise? Who's open to having that intraparty debate that Elaine talked about, or the kinds of ideas that Will was getting at?
Galston: Well, let me just give you an example. One thing that really cut through the muck was Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania rebuilding that highway in 12 days. OK? Eleven days. What that said to a skeptical public is we can make government work. It doesn't need to take 10 years to get a permit. We need to think about a government that works efficiently and effectively for the people and can accomplish jobs in real time.
Marshall: Josh Shapiro would've been my first choice for the same reasons that Bill's articulated. Josh Stein in North Carolina's a good guy.
Healy: The new governor there.
Marshall: He just fought the Republican legislature successfully. They're trying to do the big expansion of universal vouchers and privatize public education. Those Democrats governing in red states are people we should be looking at because they know how to compete in difficult environments. I'm very taken by the Colorado Democrats. In 2004 this state was red, very substantially red. And there was an amazingly conscious effort, sort of like a mini Democratic Leadership Council effort in Colorado, all the big interest groups, but also a lot of change-oriented thinkers got together, and donors, and they turned a red state blue and yielded a bumper crop of really pragmatic, thoughtful people. Senator Michael Bennet. Jared Polis is one of the best governors in the country.
From: I like people who are willing to step out and say things that everybody knows are true. I think Gavin Newsom's been doing a good job. He has a disadvantage of being from California. Rahm Emanuel has been terrific. Josh Shapiro. Gov. Wes Moore of Maryland. I love Elissa Slotkin. Basically, to me, it comes back to one word. And that's courage. Because if you say the things you need to say to begin to change the party, you're going to get a big backlash. As Bill Galston said, change is never easy.
Kamarck: I like the idea of Democratic governors from red states because they have lived this and they've got sensitivities. One of the problems I think we have is that as the party has shrunk back to its base, we've got a lot of New York and California thinkers. They may think they're trying to get the mood of the country, but they've grown up politically in places that are just far left of the center that I think we're trying to capture. I think Josh Shapiro's great. Andy Beshear is great. I have a soft spot for Wes Moore — this is a man who has the cool of Barack Obama and the warmth of Bill Clinton. I've never seen this combination in one person.
Healy: In the end, how did the Democratic Leadership Council help get the Democratic Party establishment and leaders to be open in ways that they weren't through a lot of the 1980s? What's one lesson that you want Democrats today to take away from that?
Kamarck: We won the primaries, right? We won the primaries. Think about how different this 2024 election might've been had Joe Biden stepped down from the presidency at the end of 2022, allowed for a wide open 2023-24 primary with all these different people that we've mentioned — the new generation running. Imagine if, first of all, if Harris had won the primary, she would've been in a much better position. She would've looked like her own person. The primaries are where you test these things. And that's where it'll happen in 2027.
From: We won the war of ideas, but most importantly, we had a candidate who beat him in the primaries.
Marshall: We have to aim higher. We have to aim at building a bigger majority. There are a lot of Democrats who are tempted today to say: Well, look what's happening to Trump. He's underwater on his tariffs. He's underwater on his mauling of government. People are not happy about abandoning Ukraine. I heard this argument the other night with a bunch of Democrats — we shouldn't be debating each other. We should be keeping the spotlight intensely on our opponent in hopes of eking out a 49.3 percent victory next time that leaves us in this Ping-Ponging back-and-forth situation in American politics. A virtual tie that we've been in since 2012. We've got to break out of this syndrome, and it's in everybody's interest that we understand that we have a big job of reaching working-class voters. And that's just going to require a completely different orientation of our ideas and our political strategies.
Galston: F.D.R. sparked a revolution inside the Democratic Party that lasted for three generations. Ronald Reagan sparked a revolution inside the Republican Party that lasted for two generations. We gained, at best, an incomplete victory. After Bill Clinton, it became clear that the party had accepted only some of the change that he stood for. And so I agree with Will — we have to think bigger this time, a larger and more enduring majority. And whoever will carry the torch for the next generation of Democrats will have to be even bolder than we were.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Resurfaced clip shows Epstein pleading the Fifth when asked if he was with Trump around underage girls
A resurfaced clip shows sex offender Jeffrey Epstein pleading the Fifth when he was asked during a deposition if he ever socialized with underage girls around Donald Trump. The video clip, unearthed by left-leaning outlet MeidasTouch, shows Epstein responding to questions during a March 2010 deposition. The disgraced financier was questioned by an attorney of an alleged victim, Vice News previously reported. In the clip, the attorney asks: 'Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?' Epstein replied: 'Though l'd like to answer that question, at least today l'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and 14th Amendment rights, sir.' Trump has never been accused of any crime in connection with the Epstein investigation and has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Pleading the Fifth refers to invoking the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not self-incriminate. Epstein once pleaded the Fifth over 1,000 times in a deposition, which addressed his relationships with Virginia Giuffre, Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton, along with subjects including his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, and his New York mansion. It is unclear whether that deposition, details of which were published in a trove of documents in January 2024, is the same 2010 deposition in which he was questioned about Trump. In the 2010 clip, the attorney also asked: 'Have you ever had a personal relationship with Donald Trump?' Epstein asked what the attorney meant by a 'personal relationship.' The attorney rephrased, asking: 'Have you socialized with him?' 'Yes, sir,' Epstein responded. The attorney questioning Epstein is not identified in the clip. A deposition involves an individual giving sworn testimony outside of court, and can involve the names of dozens of people, but it does not mean they are implicated in any crimes. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told The Independent that the clip is "nothing more than out-of-context frame grabs of innocuous videos and pictures of widely attended events to disgustingly infer something nefarious." "The fact is that The President kicked him out of his club for being a creep," Cheung said. "This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about.' Epstein and Trump were known to socialize in New York and Palm Beach. The President had called Epstein a 'terrific guy' in a 2002 interview with New York Magazine but the pair had a falling out around 2004, The New York Times reports. Trump then barred Epstein from his Mar-a-Lago club 'for being a creep,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. In 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution charges and was sentenced to 18 months in a minimum-security facility in Palm Beach County. In 2019, Epstein was arrested on federal sex trafficking charges. He died by suicide in a New York City jail cell about a month after his arrest. His associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, is the only person who has been charged in connection with the Epstein case. The disgraced British socialite is serving a 20-year sentence in a Florida federal prison for her role in helping Epstein recruit, groom, and abuse young girls. The Trump administration has come under increasing pressure, from both Democrats and MAGA allies, to release more information since the Justice Department and FBI released a joint memo on July 6 indicating there would be no further disclosures in the Epstein investigation. The memo said there was no 'client list' containing names of Epstein's alleged high-profile associates. However, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi had insinuated that the same 'client list' was on her desk in February amid a tranche of Epstein files. The memo also confirmed Epstein died by suicide, pouring cold water on years of conspiracy theories around his death. The agencies released security footage taken from outside Epstein's cell in the hours leading up to his death to bolster their findings. But some have argued the footage was altered and has a 'missing minute.' The president has tried to quell the outrage, directing Bondi to make attempts to unseal grand jury testimony related to the Epstein investigation. Two judges in Florida and New York denied those requests this week on legal grounds. On Thursday, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche met with Maxwell. Her attorney, David Markus, told reporters she 'never declined to answer' questions and did not invoke any privileges during the meeting. A federal judge rejected a separate request from Maxwell's attorneys to release grand jury transcripts Wednesday. House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer also subpoenaed Maxwell Wednesday as a growing number of lawmakers seek more information on the Epstein files. On Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi had told Trump in May that his name appears in the Epstein Files. The president denied to reporters earlier this month that his name was in the files. Appearing in the files does not indicate that an individual has committed any wrongdoing. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung called the WSJ report 'fake news.' Last week, the WSJ also reported on an alleged 50th birthday card that Trump sent to Epstein. The WSJ described the 2003 note as including a drawing of a naked woman and Trump's signature made to look like her pubic hair. The report alleges Trump ended the note with a birthday wish for Epstein: 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denied the card existed, telling the WSJ: 'I never wrote a picture in my life.' The president has sued the newspaper, its parent companies and owner, Rupert Murdoch, for $10 billion. A spokesperson for Dow Jones, the paper's publisher, said the company has 'full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting.'
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US, Mexico reach agreement on reducing sewage flows across border and into San Diego
By Daniel Trotta (Reuters) -The United States and Mexico on Thursday reached an agreement aimed at finding a permanent solution to a decades-long sewage crisis, in which Mexican sewage has flowed into the Tijuana River and across the U.S. border, emptying into the Pacific Ocean near San Diego. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin and Mexican Environment Minister Alicia Barcena signed a memorandum of understanding in Mexico City, in which Mexico agreed to expedite the expenditure of $93 million worth of improvements to the Tijuana sewage system and commit to several projects to account for future population growth and maintenance. Some of the Mexican projects would now be completed four years ahead of schedule, the EPA said. The U.S. in turn committed to releasing funds that would complete the expansion of a sewage treatment plant by the end of August. The plant is on the U.S. side of the border but treats sewage pumped in from Mexico. "This is a huge win for millions of Americans and Mexicans who have been calling on us to end this decades-old crisis," Zeldin said in a statement. Though both countries have long cooperated on water and sewage issues, the Tijuana sewage crisis, exacerbated by rapid growth in the border city and an underfunding of infrastructure projects, has often been a sore point. The deal comes amid other cross-border tensions on matters including immigration, drug-trafficking and gun-running. "I want to emphasize that what we are really doing is trying to solve, once and for all, the problem of wastewater in the Tijuana River. And I believe we are also doing it jointly, with both countries making commitments," Barcena told a joint press conference with Zeldin. Millions of gallons of treated and untreated sewage from Tijuana's overburdened system makes its way daily into the Tijuana River and reaches the ocean in the San Diego suburb of Imperial Beach, which has posted "Keep out of Water" signs on its beach for much of the past four years, depriving surfers of waves and Imperial Beach of crucial summer tourism revenue. The International Boundary and Water Commission, a body governed by U.S.-Mexican treaty agreements, has measured up to 50 million gallons per day (2,200 liters per second) of sewage-contaminated water from the Tijuana River toward Imperial Beach. Around half was raw sewage with the remainder a mix of treated sewage, groundwater and potable water from Tijuana's leaky pipes, IBWC officials have said. The IBWC operates the sewage treatment plant north of the border, which will increase its capacity to 35 million gallons per day, up from 25 million gallons per day, the EPA said. Every extra gallon treated is a gallon kept out of the ocean. Barcena said Mexico also committed to doubling the capacity of the San Antonio de los Buenos sewage treatment plant, which was recently repaired after years of delay. Before the recent repairs, the plant 6 miles (10 km) south of the border had been spewing at least 23 million gallons of sewage per day (1,000 liters per second) into the Pacific Ocean, whose prevailing currents flow north much of the year, further fouling San Diego waters.
