Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
Even if a court fully approves his request to release grand jury testimony about the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender, that probably won't be enough, Trump said on social media.
'Nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request,' the president wrote. 'It will always be more, more, more. MAGA!'
More: $10 billion lawsuit. More documents coming. Here's the latest on Trump and Epstein.
Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients.
The Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Attorney General Pam Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed.
That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base.
"No one believes there is not a client list," Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, a close Trump ally, posted on X July 8.
On July 18, federal prosecutors asked a federal court in Manhattan to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019.
'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump wrote on social media.
Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who filed legislation to release all the government's Epstein records, wrote in social media post that Trump's move indicates the pressure campaign is 'working.'
'But we want all the files,' Massie added.
It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files.
'What about videos, photographs and other recordings?' Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. 'What about FBI… (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?'
Contributing: Zac Anderson, Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison.
This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump: Epstein grand jury records unlikely to satisfy critics
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China, US to extend tariff pause at Sweden talks by another 90 days, SCMP reports
(Reuters) -Beijing and Washington are expected to extend their tariff truce by another three months at trade talks in Stockholm beginning on Monday, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter. During the expected 90-day extension, the U.S. and China will agree not to introduce new tariffs or take other actions that could further escalate the trade war, the report said. While the earlier discussions in Geneva and London focused on "de-escalation", the latest meeting the Chinese delegation will also press Trump's trade team on fentanyl-related tariffs, the report further said, citing three sources familiar with the matter. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The third round of U.S.-China talks is set to be held in Stockholm on Monday to tackle longstanding economic disputes at the centre of the countries' trade war.
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PETA sues Maine Lobster Festival saying the steaming of 16,000 live crustaceans is torture
Animal rights group PETA has filed a lawsuit against the Maine Lobster Festival, claiming the event organizers are torturing lobsters by steaming them to eat. The lawsuit, filed July 24 in Knox County Superior Court, claims the festival and the city of Rockland, where the event is held, are acting in violation of Maine law prohibiting the torture and torment of animals, the Penobscot Bay Pilot reported. PETA is asking the court to deem the festival a 'public nuisance' and ban organizers from steaming lobsters on public land, WMTW reported. PETA argues in the suit that the festival is 'one of the most egregious violations of Maine's animal protection statutes occurring anywhere on public land in the state: the systematic torture of approximately 16,000 live, sentient animals at the Maine Lobster Festival held annually at Harbor Park in Rockland, Maine.' The group's attorneys argued that PETA also filed the lawsuit on behalf of Rockland residents who lose access to walkways, public kayaking and canoeing, intertidal lands, and related civic spaces during the festival. "These individuals cannot access public trust resources without encountering and accepting intolerable conditions: the illegal public torture and killing of thousands of individual sentient lobsters via live steaming." In the suit, PETA argues that because lobsters are sentient beings, they are able to feel pain, and should be protected under Maine law, which requires any method used to kill a sentient creature must cause instantaneous death. PETA argues that the lobsters remain neurologically active and can feel the pain, suffering for several minutes when they are steamed. Meanwhile, event organizers say they're going by the books. An event organizer told WMTW they use 'traditional, lawful and widely accepted cooking methods' when steaming lobsters, and that there is no scientific evidence the crustaceans can feel pain. A hearing has not yet been scheduled for PETA's request for an injunction to stop the steaming of the lobsters. The annual event begins July 30, and runs through August 3.
Yahoo
5 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can a county fire a sheriff behind closed doors? Advocacy group threatens to sue for access
An open government advocacy group is threatening to sue a California county that is preparing to discuss firing its elected sheriff behind closed doors. San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus, who serves one of the wealthiest communities in the country, has faced calls for her removal since an explosive November report from a retired judge found that she likely violated the county's policy on nepotism and conflicting relationships. The report alleged that, by 2024, Corpus had 'relinquished control' of the department to a subordinate. That led to a ballot measure last year that voters passed to empower the county Board of Supervisors to remove her from office, which they voted to do in June. Corpus appealed, leading to the scheduled August evidentiary hearing. As part of the removal proceedings, Corpus' legal team asked that the removal hearing take place behind closed doors. 'The county should decline,' wrote First Amendment Coalition attorney Aaron Field in a letter to the county Board of Supervisors. 'Barring the press and public from the removal hearing as Sheriff Corpus has requested would violate the First Amendment right of access to public proceedings, undermine a panoply of compelling public interests in administering the removal hearing transparently and needlessly shut San Mateo citizens out of a key phase of a process.' The hearing is scheduled to begin Aug. 18 and is expected to last about 10 days. CalMatters originally filed a request to open the June removal hearing to the public, a request that was denied. The First Amendment Coalition is making the same request for the August removal hearing. Corpus' removal — and her fight against it, including unsuccessfully filing for a restraining order to stop the proceedings — has roiled her department and the community for nearly a year. Several cities in her county have given her administration no-confidence votes, and the unions representing both her deputies and her sergeants have called for her removal. A San Mateo County spokesperson said the county had received the First Amendment Coalition's letter and would announce a decision soon. 'The county has consistently expressed its view that this should be a fully transparent process, including having the August appeal hearing for her removal from office be open,' said San Mateo County spokesperson Effie Milionis Verducci. 'However, the sheriff has blocked it.' The sheriff's department is still in turmoil, most recently when Corpus put a San Mateo County sheriff's sergeant on leave. That sergeant had testified extensively in a second county investigation into Corpus. The union representing San Mateo County Sheriff's sergeants objected, alleging the sergeant was put on leave as retaliation for his testimony. Corpus denied that her actions had anything to do with the report in a statement posted to the sheriff's office website. 'His temporary administrative leave is entirely unrelated to any comments or cooperation he may have provided in the Keker report,' Corpus said in the statement. Duara writes for CalMatters, where the article first appeared. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
