MAGA comes to Trump's defense on Epstein after WSJ turmoil
The Journal reported on Thursday about an alleged letter the president sent to Epstein in 2003 for his 50th birthday. The letter, a copy of which was not featured in the piece, reportedly has text framed by the outline of a naked woman and features the line 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.'
Trump has denied writing the letter. The president sued the Journal the next day in federal court in the Southern District of Florida's Miami division, demanding billions of dollars in damages.
'This lawsuit is filed not only on behalf of your favorite President, ME, but also in order to continue standing up for ALL Americans who will no longer tolerate the abusive wrongdoings of the Fake News Media,' the president said on Truth Social.
Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, who last week called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to review the Epstein files, said on his 'War Room' show Friday, 'In fact, we made the recommendations that are the best for President Trump in this movement, which is President Trump is best when it's attack, attack, attack. This is the deep state. This is the ruling class in America. They're trying to use it to destroy President Trump.'
On the podcast, Bannon asked MAGA podcaster and influencer Jack Posobiec, 'Where are we in all of this, sir?'
'We're so back. Look. Everyone is firing on all cylinders. The MAGA movement is completely united behind this fight right now,' Posobiec said.
Conservative commentator and host Megyn Kelly, who has called out Trump supporters who deferred to the administration's posture on the Epstein controversy, said the Journal article on Thursday was the 'dumbest attempted hit piece I've ever read.'
Tech billionaire Elon Musk, whose relationship with Trump soured in recent months amid a public fallout, said the 'letter sounds bogus.'
Hours after the Journal article was published, Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday night to release relevant grand jury testimony in the Epstein case.
The order from Trump was welcomed by MAGA as parts of the base have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the administration following last week's release of an unnamed joint DOJ and FBI memo, stating that Epstein did not keep the so-called 'client list' and that he died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial.
After Trump issued the order to Bondi on Thursday night, Turning Point USA founder and conservative activist Charlie Kirk wrote on X that it was a 'major move. Let's go!'
The DOJ followed through on Friday, filing a pair of nearly identical motions to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, requesting to unseal the grand jury transcripts. The DOJ said it would shield the names of potential victims and 'personal identifying information' prior to releasing the transcript. The release of grand jury transcripts is rare due to sensitive information, but not impossible.
Right-wing activist Laura Loomer, an ardent supporter of Trump, slammed the former Chairman of News Corp Rubert Murdoch and argued that the president should 'cut him off' forever. News Corp owns the Journal.
'Rupert Murdoch should never be allowed to have access to Donald Trump ever again. He's a slime ball. He's a liar and he obviously tried to weaponize his News Corp to, and his media platform, very wealthy, multi-billion-dollar media platform, to assassinate the character of President Trump, because he was not successful in assassinating President Trump's 2024 presidential election,' Loomer said Friday while on Bannon's 'War Room' show.
Trump bashed GOP voters earlier this week for being overly focused on the Epstein case and told his supporters that they should move on to other issues. The president also wondered why the Democratic Party lawmakers did not call for the release of the Epstein files while they controlled the White House and had the majority in the Senate.
'If there was a 'smoking gun' on Epstein, why didn't the Dems, who controlled the 'files' for four years, and had [former Attorney General Merrick] Garland and [ex-prosecutor Maureen] Comey in charge, use it,' Trump said Friday on Truth Social, adding 'BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING!!!'
Even if the administration releases all of the grand jury testimony, Trump said on Saturday that even those disclosures will not be enough to please the 'troublemakers and radical left lunatics.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Coca-Cola to launch Coke with cane sugar in the US after Trump post
Coca-Cola has laid out plans to launch a product made with US cane sugar this year, days after Donald Trump claimed the company had agreed to replace high-fructose corn syrup. The announcement came Tuesday in Coca-Cola's earnings report. It confirmed a 16 July post on Trump's Truth Social platform in which the president said Coca-Cola 'agreed' to use 'REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States'. 'This will be a very good move by them – You'll see,' Trump's post said. 'It's just better!' The drink maker's Mexican Coke is made with cane sugar and already sold in the US. Tuesday's announcement from Coca-Cola came as food and drink companies have rolled out plans to make changes amid US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's Make America healthy again (Maha) campaign. However, experts say that drinks made with cane sugar instead of corn syrup aren't healthier. Eva Greenthal, senior policy scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a non-profit consumer advocacy group, previously told CNN: 'Excess consumption of sugar from any source harms health. To make the US food supply healthier, the Trump administration should focus on less sugar, not different sugar.' Coca-Cola chairperson and chief executive officer James Quincey said Tuesday's announcement was meant to 'reflect consumer interest in differentiated experiences'. 'We appreciate the president's enthusiasm for our Coca-Cola brand,' Quincey said in a conference call with investors. 'This addition is designed to complement our strong core portfolio and offer more choice across occasions and preferences.' The Associated Press and Reuters contributed Sign in to access your portfolio
UPI
27 minutes ago
- UPI
Tariffs, uncertainty 'paralyzing' for farmers
July 22 (UPI) -- President Donald Trump's tariff negotiations have the agriculture industry facing uncertainty and soybean farmers are among those most affected. The price of soybeans continues to decline while the cost of growing rises. The United States has lost its footing in the global soybean market, due in part to Trump's tariff policies during his first term. Current trade negotiations have some in the industry asking for assurances. "When there's uncertainty in the market it's paralyzing," Caleb Ragland, president of the American Soybean Association and ninth-generation farmer, told UPI. "It tends to make people, when in doubt, do nothing. Don't buy, don't invest." Soybeans are the largest single agriculture commodity exported by the United States. China is the biggest buyer of U.S. soybeans but the share of the crop it purchases has declined significantly since Trump placed tariffs on the country in 2018, according to the University of Illinois' Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics. Prior to that, about a third of its soybeans were imported from the United States. Tariffs caused China to look elsewhere for soybean imports, dragging down the price of U.S. soybeans. Brazil has been the beneficiary of this change, upping its share of the Chinese soybean market from about 45% to about 70% and raising its prices. The United States accounts for about a 20%-25% share of Chinese soybean imports. One reason that China is crucial to the soybean market is that it raises more pigs than any other country. The soybean is a key source of protein in livestock feed. The largest soybean producing states are Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. China has routinely had about a 3% tariff on U.S. soybean imports. The effective tariff is now 23% in response to tariffs imposed by Trump earlier this year. "We lost our number one market for ag exports overnight," Joseph Glauber, senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute, told UPI. Glauber is the former chief economist for the USDA. He served in the role for 22 of his 30 years with the USDA. Among his responsibilities was operating as the chief ag negotiator. "When I was the chief negotiator, that was in the context of WTO negotiations, which are really textual -- arguing over wording in documents," Glauber said. "What the Trump administration has been talking about are these framework documents with no details. It's a very different thing to think about. These things aren't very longterm, unlike the [North American Free Trade Agreement]. Those are long-running agreements." Tariffs have always been a negotiating tool, Glauber said, but for decades the United States has worked to reduce tariffs. Multilateral and bilateral trade agreements, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization, created mechanisms for trade partners to resolve disputes and maintain relationships. At times, tariffs would be increased, but within the guardrails of long-standing and long-term agreements. "The Trump administration destroyed that," Glauber said of the World Trade Organization. In 2019, Trump blocked the appointment of members to the World Trade Organization's appellate body, rendering it unable to settle trade disputes. The United States' proactive approach to fostering trade has largely hit a standstill since Trump first entered office in 2017, Glauber said. Former President Joe Biden did not raise tariffs but he also did not eliminate tariffs on China that were implemented by the Trump administration. As U.S. exports like soybeans lose demand, the prices farmers can sell them for also decreases. Soybeans hit record prices during the former President Barack Obama's second term before hitting a lull throughout Trump's first term. Prices rose again under former President Joe Biden, peaking at $16.88 per bushel in June 2022. The price has steadily declined since, falling to around $10 per bushel in July, down about 40%. The Chicago Board of Trade is a key marker that farmers across the United States monitor to evaluate their risks and offer a benchmark for crop prices. Farmers will measure the prices offered above or below those futures prices reported by the Chicago Board of Trade at their local elevators to determine when to sell. If a crop is sold to a grain elevator at a certain price, the seller locks that price in. For example, if a crop is sold in July at the October future price, they will receive that price in October. If prices are higher, they will have missed out on potential profit. If it is lower, they will be protected from that lower price. Ragland farms soybeans, corn and wheat on his family farm in Magnolia, Ky. Farming is the sole source of income for him, his wife Leanne and their three sons. This year's crop marks his 21st grown on his own farm. Soybeans are planted in the spring and harvested in the fall, beginning in the end of August through September. The next two months will be critical for farmers like Ragland, as there will be more clarity about the true economic impact of Trump's trade policies on the ag industry. "It's been speculation up to this point and anticipation by the market but we have not truly been in the middle of actively sending the lion's share of our crop since all this tariff announcement has been made and all the back and forth that has happened with it," Ragland said. "If we don't have some surety in our markets here in the next 30, 45 days, it is going to lead to more significant price drops, we believe. There is very, very weak demand right now from what we hear for exports due to all the uncertainty in the market." The agriculture community is experiencing economic hardships across the board and tariffs are a part of that. Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings, used to reorganize a farm operation in order to repay debts, were up sharply in the first quarter of 2025. In the first quarter of the year there were nearly twice as many Chapter 12 bankruptcy filings than in the first quarter of 2024, the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture reported last week. Farmers may be the first to feel the sting of a downturn in grain prices but they are not alone. Implement dealers, equipment manufacturers and businesses in rural communities are also affected. "They say $1 made in agriculture usually floats around six to eight times in the local community," Ragland said. "That means small businesses and stores and everything else in rural communities are hurting as well. All of this has a very detrimental effect on rural America." "I would also note a lot of these areas we're talking about are the ones that were very large supporters of President Trump," Ragland continued. "We want to respectfully appeal to the administration that we need surety, we need certainty, we need trade deals to be made now and not potentially in the future because the farm economy is in a very difficult spot." According to Ragland, commodity prices are not meeting the cost of production as they are currently. Inflation has aggravated the financial position of farmers like him as fertilizer prices, insurance premiums and equipment costs have risen. The effects Ragland and other producers are dealing with not only disrupt their current crop. It also makes planning for the future more difficult. "The plans I have for this crop here in 2025, a lot of those plans started taking place a year or two ago," Ragland said. "We rotate crops. Sometimes there's fertilizer applied that would be utilized a year or two in the future by the crops. The wheat that we just harvested in June was planted in October of 2024. The seed I planted to grow that crop had to be planned ahead for in the fall of 2023. It's a long-term process, the decisions we have to make."
The Hill
29 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's WSJ lawsuit is as dangerous as it is unprecedented
President Trump made history on Friday when he became the first president to sue a newspaper for an article that exposed something he did not want brought to light. In so doing, he again used the Oval Office as a platform to settle scores and to carry out a personal vendetta rather than to serve the public interest. Trump's unprecedented step came in the context of his heightened sensitivity about anything having to do with Jeffrey Epstein, the infamous deceased child sexual abuser. On July 17, The Wall Street Journal triggered the suit when it published an article that claimed Trump had sent Epstein a 'lewd' birthday card in 2003 when the latter turned 50 years old. Trump reacted almost immediately, filing suit the next day seeking $10 billion in damages. But he has his eyes on something even bigger than that suit — namely the possibility of weakening the Constitution's protection of press freedom. His lawsuit alleges that the Journal's article was an attempt to 'inextricably link President Trump to Epstein' and that the Journal 'falsely claim[ed] that the salacious language of the letter is contained within a hand-drawn naked woman, which was created with a heavy marker.' The president claims that the newspaper '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.' His lawsuit charges that with 'malicious intent … Defendants concocted this story to malign President Trump's character and integrity and deceptively portray him in a false light.' Those allegations tee up the constitutional battle that the president wants to wage. Trump's suit against the Journal has already reaped benefits, redirecting Epstein-related ire from the MAGA base away from him. His supporters now have a familiar target: the press and its alleged persecution of the president. In addition, it is an important step in Trump's long-running desire to get the United States Supreme Court to reverse decades of precedent and make it easier for public figures to win libel and defamation suits against newspapers and other media outlets. Like other strongman leaders, if he can't control the media directly, he wants to coerce and intimidate it. Relaxing its legal protection is one way to accomplish that goal. In the 2016 campaign, Trump promised: 'One of the things I'm going to do if I win, I'm going to open up our libel law so when they (the press) write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.' He has failed so far to deliver on that promise. But as we know, he is not easily dissuaded. Newspapers, radio or television stations that have the audacity not to do the president's bidding must be made to pay a price, with the hope that others will seek to avoid that fate by censoring themselves. Trump's quick and unprecedented resort to the courts sends a clear message to any media outlet that crosses him. He may be feeling good, but the rest of us should not be. As Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1786: 'Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.' He went on to note that 'To the sacrifice, of time, labor, fortune, a public servant must count upon adding that of peace of mind and even reputation. And all this is preferable to European bondage. ' Almost 200 years later, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black reiterated Jefferson's sentiment. 'The Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection it must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy,' he explained. 'The press was to serve the governed, not the governors.' Turmp wants exactly the opposite. Seven years before Black wrote those lines, the Supreme Court, in another classic defense of press freedom, made it very hard for public figures to win defamation suits against news outlets of the kind Trump filed on Friday. 'To sustain a claim of defamation or libel,' the court said, 'the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant knew that a statement was false or was reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating whether it was accurate.' Justice William Brennan explained that America's 'profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open' meant 'that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.' Echoing Jefferson, he added, 'Injury to official reputation affords no more warrant for repressing speech that would otherwise be free than does factual error.' Since 1964, public figures have found it nearly impossible to succeed in cases like the one Trump filed on Friday. Whether he or the Journal loses in the lower courts, the president may be hoping that his case will make its way to the Supreme Court so it can again come to his rescue and do his bidding. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have already indicated their belief that the court's 1964 decision and its actual malice standard should be overruled. So, keep an eye on what happens to Trump's suit against The Wall Street Journal. The Journal's fate will be important in shaping the fate of the freedom of all Americans.
