Trump's Epstein Grand Jury Smokescreen Immediately Called Out as BS
Facing scrutiny over his relationship with the disgraced financier and fury from his base over the administration's failure to release new information in the case, Trump announced in a social media post that he had asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to 'produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval.'
Bondi—who has been facing calls from MAGA to resign over her failure to produce new Epstein revelations—responded minutes later, writing in a social media post, 'President Trump—we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts.'
It wasn't clear if she was referring to Epstein's 2006 prosecution in Florida, which ended in a plea deal, or his 2019 prosecution in New York, where he was indicted and died by suicide in jail while awaiting trial for sex trafficking charges.
Democratic lawmakers and legal experts alike, however, quickly poked holes in Bondi's pledge. Federal law generally prohibits releasing grand jury transcripts, and the nature of the proceedings themselves would have been limited in scope.
'Nice try @AGPam Bondi,' Rep. Daniel Goldman, a Democrat from New York, wrote in a post on X. 'What about videos, photographs and other recordings? What about FBI 302's (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?'
That's where any evidence about Trump and other high-profile associates would be, whereas the grand jury testimony would only be related to Epstein and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, the former prosecutor added.
During a grand jury hearing, the prosecutor isn't trying to secure a guilty verdict—they just need to convince a jury that there's enough evidence to try the case. Instead of proving the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, prosecutors just have to show there are reasonable grounds to believe a crime was committed, a standard known as probable cause.
Democratic Reps. Ro Kanna of California and Jamie Raskin of Maryland expressed similar concerns, with Raskin—who is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee—telling CNN that congressional Democrats are also interested in Epstein's emails, correspondence, phone calls, and other evidence.
'Everybody can see through it—it's slicing the baloney extremely fine,' Raskin said during an appearance on Laura Coates Live.
Kanna also pointed out during a House Rules Committee meeting on Thursday night, where Republicans voted down a Democratic-led measure to advance the release of the Epstein documents, that courts usually don't release grand jury testimony.
Even if Bondi immediately requests the transcripts to be made public, it could be a long time before any information is released—if ever.
Under the federal rules of criminal procedure, grand jury proceedings are secret unless the court authorizes disclosure based on a limited set of statutory exceptions.
Barb McQuade, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, wrote in a social media post that Trump's order was a 'meaningless trick' because a court cannot violate federal Rule 6(e) prohibiting public disclosure.
University of Alabama law professor and MSNBC analyst Joyce Vance wrote in a Substack post that the reason grand jury proceedings are kept secret is to protect the integrity of the investigation, prevent witness intimidation, and protect the reputations of people who are not indicted.
To get the material disclosed, the requesting party needs to convince the court that the need for the information outweighs the interest in keeping it secret.
'All of the possible impediments to releasing grand jury material may well be the point for Trump,' Vance wrote. 'He can say, yet again, that he tried and the courts stood in his way. Even a delay, while lawyers brief the matter and a judge schedules a hearing, could work in Trump's favor if the fickle public loses interest in the issue and moves on, and he lives to fight another day, yet again.'
If the administration were serious about releasing the files, it could have put the process in motion a long time ago, Politico reporter Kyle Cheney pointed out in a social media post.
The Daily Beast has reached out to the White House and the Department of Justice for comment.
'If there was a 'smoking gun' on Epstein, why didn't the Dems, who controlled the 'files' for four years, and had Garland and Comey in charge, use it? BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING!!!' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Friday.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows States Trying To Ban ICE Agents Wearing Masks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A growing coalition of Democratic-led states is pushing legislation that would prohibit federal agents from wearing face coverings during immigration enforcement operations. California, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have introduced bills that would require federal officers to display visible identification—with limited exceptions for safety or undercover purposes—as part of a progressive effort to increase transparency and limit the agency's expanded powers under the Trump administration. Why It Matters Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has come under increased criticism for deploying agents in plain clothes and face coverings during operations, a tactic officials say is necessary to protect agents and their families from threats. The agency's approach has drawn heightened scrutiny amid the Trump administration's aggressive push to deport millions of undocumented migrants, placing ICE at the center of a highly visible crackdown on immigration. What To Know At the federal level, House Democrats have introduced the No Anonymity in Immigration Enforcement Act, which would require ICE agents conducting enforcement operations within the United States to display clear identification—with limited exceptions for public safety threats. Exceptions would be permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is an imminent threat to the agent's life or risk of serious bodily harm or when protective gear is necessary for health or safety reasons. In any case where an exception is used, a supervisor must review and document the incident within 48 hours to assess whether it was justified and determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. Senate Democrats have introduced the VISIBLE Act, which mandates that agents from ICE and Customs and Border Protection wear legible identification showing their names and agency affiliations. It would also prohibit the use of most face coverings during operations. Democratic Senators Alex Padilla of California and Cory Booker of New Jersey introduced the bill, saying the measure seeks to increase transparency and accountability in federal immigration enforcement. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons defended agents' continued use of face coverings, even as the agency faces mounting criticism for obscuring personnel identities during enforcement actions. "I've said it publicly before, I'm not a proponent of the masks. However, if that's a tool that the men and women of ICE to keep themselves and their family safe, then I will allow it," Lyons said on CBS's Face the Nation. Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a news release: "I am deeply concerned about the prospect of ICE agents continuing to go about immigration raids in plainclothes, masks, and without identifiers that indicate what agency they're representing. The rules governing law enforcement should extend to federal immigration agents." Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Federal agents in a hallway awaiting individuals exiting hearings at an immigration court in New York. Andrea Renault/STAR MAX/IPx At the state level, California is leading the way with its No Secret Police Act, introduced in June by Democratic state Senators Scott Wiener and Jesse Arreguín. Senate Bill 627 would prohibit all law enforcement officers operating in the state, including federal agents, from covering their faces during enforcement actions unless in specific, limited circumstances such as SWAT deployments, medical masking or undercover work. The California Senate Public Safety Committee advanced the bill last week, but it faces a legal gauntlet, particularly over whether a state can dictate how federal officers dress. In New York, Democratic Assemblymember Tony Simone introduced the Mandating End of Lawless Tactics (MELT) Act earlier this week. The MELT Act mirrors California's SB 627 by banning masks for state, local and federal officers, and it would require law enforcement officers to clearly display their names or badge numbers and ban most mask use during public duties. Violations would constitute misdemeanors. In Massachusetts, Democratic state Representative Jim Hawkins filed a similar bill on July 9, focused specifically on ICE personnel. He argues that ICE's use of face coverings in routine operations blurs the line between law enforcement and intimidation. In Pennsylvania, Democratic state Representatives Paul Friel and Rick Krajewski are preparing to introduce the Officer Visibility Act in early August. The bill would ban face coverings during public enforcement operations unless medically required or part of a covert investigation. What People Are Saying Tom Decker, a former director of ICE's New York field office, told Newsweek: "President Trump and his administration are doing exactly what he promised in his campaign, strengthening our borders and removing public safety threats from our communities, to include aliens in violation of our immigration laws." Representative Laura Friedman of California said in a statement shared with Newsweek: "I'll keep fighting to pass commonsense legislation, like the No Masks for ICE Act, to keep our communities safe." Scott Mechkowski, a retired ICE agent who worked for the agency between the mid-1990s and 2019, previously told Newsweek: "I think everyone knows the reasons for the masks. Every agent knows they would be doxxed [publicly identified] as would their families." John Sandweg, who served as acting director of ICE under former President Barack Obama from August 2013 to February 2014, previously told Newsweek: "If you're getting arrested by an officer or agent in a mask, especially if at that point they've not yet identified themselves as a federal officer, it creates a risk of bystanders thinking, rushing in to help, which could create the risk of violence or harm caused to the bystanders." Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, previously told Newsweek: "ICE officers are being doxed, physically assaulted, and attacked—in some cases, their families are even being threatened. Instead of spending their time further demonizing heroic ICE officers, Democrat politicians should dial back the rhetoric and tell their supporters to stop attacking law enforcement." Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told CBS: "It's for the safety of those individuals or the work that they're doing as far as protecting their identity so they can continue to do investigative work."
Chicago Tribune
16 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
How US adults feel about legal abortion 3 years after Roe was overturned, according to AP-NORC poll
Three years after the Supreme Court opened the door to state abortion bans, most U.S. adults say abortion should be legal — views that look similar to before the landmark ruling. The new findings from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll show that about two-thirds of U.S. adults think abortion should be legal in all or most cases. About half believe abortion should be available in their state if someone does not want to be pregnant for any reason. That level of support for abortion is down slightly from what an AP-NORC poll showed last year, when it seemed that support for legal abortion might be rising. The June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and opened the door to state bans on abortion led to major policy changes. Most states have either moved to protect abortion access or restrict it. Twelve are now enforcing bans on abortion at every stage of pregnancy, and four more do so after about six weeks' gestation, which is often before women realize they're pregnant. In the aftermath of the ruling, AP-NORC polling suggested that support for legal abortion access might be increasing. Last year, an AP-NORC poll conducted in June found that 7 in 10 U.S. adults said it should be available in all or most cases, up slightly from 65% in May 2022, just before the decision that overruled the constitutional right to abortion, and 57% in June 2021. The new poll is closer to Americans' views before the Supreme Court ruled. Now, 64% of adults support legal abortion in most or all cases. More than half the adults in states with the most stringent bans are in that group. Similarly, about half now say abortion should be available in their state when someone doesn't want to continue their pregnancy for any reason — about the same as in June 2021 but down from about 6 in 10 who said that in 2024. Adults in the strictest states are just as likely as others to say abortion should be available in their state to women who want to end pregnancies for any reason. Democrats support abortion access far more than Republicans do. Support for legal abortion has dropped slightly among members of both parties since June 2024, but nearly 9 in 10 Democrats and roughly 4 in 10 Republicans say abortion should be legal in at least most instances. Seeing what's happened in the aftermath of the ruling has strengthened the abortion rights position of Wilaysha White, a 25-year-old Ohio mom. She has some regrets about the abortion she had when she was homeless. 'I don't think you should be able to get an abortion anytime,' said White, who calls herself a 'semi-Republican.' But she said that hearing about situations — including when a Georgia woman was arrested after a miscarriage and initially charged with concealing a death — is a bigger concern. 'Seeing women being sick and life or death, they're not being put first — that's just scary,' she said. 'I'd rather have it be legal across the board than have that.' Julie Reynolds' strong anti-abortion stance has been cemented for decades and hasn't shifted since Roe was overturned. 'It's a moral issue,' said the 66-year-old Arizona woman, who works part time as a bank teller. She said her view is shaped partly by having obtained an abortion herself when she was in her 20s. 'I would not want a woman to go through that,' she said. 'I live with that every day. I took a life.' The vast majority of U.S. adults — at least 8 in 10 — continue to say their state should allow legal abortion if a fetal abnormality would prevent the child from surviving outside the womb, if the patient's health is seriously endangered by the pregnancy, or if the person became pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Consistent with AP-NORC's June 2024 poll, about 7 in 10 U.S. adults 'strongly' or 'somewhat' favor protecting access to abortions for patients who are experiencing miscarriages or other pregnancy-related emergencies. In states that have banned or restricted abortion, such medical exceptions have been sharply in focus. This is a major concern for Nicole Jones, a 32-year-old Florida resident. Jones and her husband would like to have children soon. But she said she's worried about access to abortion if there's a fetal abnormality or a condition that would threaten her life in pregnancy since they live in a state that bans most abortions after the first six weeks of gestation. 'What if we needed something?' she asked. 'We'd have to travel out of state or risk my life because of this ban.' There's less consensus on whether states that allow abortion should protect access for women who live in places with bans. Just over half support protecting a patient's right to obtain an abortion in another state and shielding those who provide abortions from fines or prison time. In both cases, relatively few adults — about 2 in 10 — oppose the measures and about 1 in 4 are neutral. More Americans also favor than oppose legal protections for doctors who prescribe and mail abortion pills to patients in states with bans. About 4 in 10 'somewhat' or 'strongly' favor those protections, and roughly 3 in 10 oppose them. Such telehealth prescriptions are a key reason that the number of abortions nationally has risen even as travel for abortion has declined slightly.
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come
After commending Columbia University for "agreeing to do what is right," President Trump indicates his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping any time soon. WASHINGTON – After announcing a $220 million deal with Columbia University to restore its federal funding, President Donald Trump indicated his pressure campaign to reshape prestigious colleges isn't stopping anytime soon. Not long after the settlement was reached, he wrote on his social media platform that similar agreements with "Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming." Columbia, a selective and wealthy Ivy League school in New York City, on July 23 agreed to pay more than $220 million in fines over several years to the government for allegedly violating federal civil rights laws. Last year, the campus became the epicenter of student protests related to the Israel-Hamas war. At the time, the tense environment drew nationwide concern over a spike in antisemitic and anti-Muslim incidents. The heightened scrutiny also focused the ire of many conservative politicians, who have long accused higher education more broadly of being too left-leaning. Read more: How Columbia University became the epicenter of disagreement over the Israel-Hamas war Trump's criticisms of the campus, however, have extended far beyond its compliance with antidiscrimination protections. In March, he demanded that the school overhaul its hiring, admissions and teaching practices. Columbia's president, Claire Shipman, said the university would appoint an independent monitor to oversee the campus in conjunction with federal officials, and to ensure administrators are abiding by the terms of the deal. The 22-page agreement contains sweeping concessions from the college, including handing over admissions data to the independent monitor, new faculty appointments, conducting reviews of some academic departments and more greatly scrutinizing foreign student enrollment. In return, the Trump administration promised to reroute more than $400 million in paused federal funding, largely for research, back to the college. In an interview on CNN the morning after the arrangement was announced, Shipman indicated billions more dollars were at stake. "It's not just money for Columbia," she said. "This is about science. It's about curing cancer, cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity." The unprecedented agreement came weeks after the administration struck a separate accord with the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, another member of the Ivy League, to unfreeze $175 million in return for apologizing to swimmers who competed against a transgender athlete years ago. "I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right," Trump wrote. "I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!" Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
