Tag Archives: Bill Clinton

Washington Post: Smithsonian removes Trump from impeachment exhibit in American history museum

Posted on by
Reply

The Smithsonian said it restored the display to an earlier version, which notes that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal.”

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in July removed references to President Donald Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit display. A person familiar with the exhibit plans, who was not authorized to discuss them publicly, said the change came about as part of a content review that the Smithsonian agreed to undertake following pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director.

After this story published, the Smithsonian said in a statement that “a future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.”

A temporary label including content about Trump’s impeachments had been on display since September 2021 at the Washington museum, a Smithsonian spokesperson told The Washington Post, adding that it was intended to be a short-term addition to address current events. Now, the exhibit notes that “only three presidents have seriously faced removal.”

In addition to describing Trump’s two impeachments, the temporary label — which read “Case under redesign (history happens)” — also offered information about the impeachments of presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, as well as Richard M. Nixon, who would have faced impeachment had he not resigned. The Post viewed a photograph of the temporary signage.

Now that display has returned to the way it appeared in 2008, according to the Smithsonian spokesperson.

“In reviewing our legacy content recently, it became clear that the ‘Limits of Presidential Power’ section in The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden exhibition needed to be addressed,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The section of this exhibition covers Congress, The Supreme Court, Impeachment, and Public Opinion. Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance.”

The change coincides with broader concerns about political interference at the Smithsonian and how the institution charged with preserving American history could be shaped by the Trump administration’s efforts to exert more control over its work.

“The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden” opened in 2000 and was curated by a team that included then-museum director Spencer Crew, curator Harry Rubenstein and historian Lonnie G. Bunch III, who now leads the institute as secretary.

The impeachment case includes a photograph of the prosecutors in Andrew Johnson’s 1868 case, copies of the investigative report that launched Bill Clinton’s impeachment hearings in 1999 and a damaged filing cabinet from the Watergate scandal that would prompt Nixon to resign in 1974.

The online companion for the display briefly mentions Trump’s impeachments, but does not provide any further information about the cases. And a search of the history museum’s collection for “impeachment” yields 125 results for Johnson, Nixon and Clinton — and a single “Impeach Trump” button from a 2017 environmental protest.

The Smithsonian spokesperson said that a large gallery like “The American Presidency” requires a “significant amount of time and funding to update and renew.” Elsewhere in the exhibition, however, visitors can find more recent items, including commemorative pins from Trump and Joe Biden’s inaugurations in 2017 and 2021 and a large wall display featuring every U.S. president.

In January 2020, following Trump’s first impeachment, a political history curator at the American History Museum told The Post that he was on a quest to acquire the right objects to tell the story of Trump’s first impeachment. At the time, he could not predict when the display would be updated, but he said work was underway to change labels and add items.

The Smithsonian that month also announced its plans to update the impeachment section, reaffirming its commitment to actively engage “with the history, spirit and complexity of the United States’ democratic experiment by collecting, documenting and sharing the American political system, including presidential history.”

Trump is the only president in history to have been impeached twice. In 2019, he was charged by the House with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress for his attempts to withhold military aid meant for Ukraine and pressure its government to investigate his political rival Biden. He was acquitted by the Senate in 2020. Then, just over a year later, Trump was impeached again, for incitement of insurrection following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack. He was acquitted a second time, after leaving office.

Since returning to the White House in January for his second term, Trump has attempted to exert influence over prominent cultural institutions, including by taking over the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, making drastic changes at the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and imposing budget cuts on the National Park Service.

In March, Trump signed an executive order to eliminate “anti-American ideology” across the Smithsonian museums and “restore the Smithsonian Institution to its rightful place as a symbol of inspiration and American greatness.”

Months later, Trump attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery, for being a “highly partisan” person — though he had no authority to do so. The White House later provided a list of 17 instances it said supported the president’s claims about her, including the caption for the museum’s presidential portrait of Trump mentioning his two impeachments and “incitement of insurrection” for the events of Jan. 6.

In response, the Smithsonian’s Board of Regents reasserted in June that only the institution’s secretary could fire museum directors, but also announced it would scrutinize content across its museum for partisan bias. “As directed by the Board of Regents, we will undertake an assessment of the Institution, evaluating the need for any changes to policies, procedures, or personnel, and I will share our findings and recommendations with the Board,” Bunch wrote in an email to Smithsonian employees. Shortly after, Sajet announced her departure, explaining to staff that she was leaving because her presence had become a distraction from the Smithsonian’s mission.

Last week, the celebrated painter Amy Sherald pulled an upcoming exhibit from the Portrait Gallery, citing concerns that the museum considered removing her painting of a transgender woman posing as the Statue of Liberty.

“While no single person is to blame, it’s clear that institutional fear shaped by a broader climate of political hostility toward trans lives played a role,” Sherald said in a statement.

History maybe temporarily hidden or rewritten, but the disgrace of King Donald will be back with a vengeance in due time, and probably with a much larger display!

Smithsonian removes Trump from impeachment exhibit in American history museum
A temporary placard, on display since 2021, described the president’s historic impeachments. Officials said the exhibit was restored to an earlier version following a review of legacy content.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/2025/07/31/trump-impeachment-smithsonian

Smithsonian removes Trump from impeachment exhibit in American history museum

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/smithsonian-removes-trump-from-impeachment-exhibit-in-american-history-museum/ar-AA1JGees

Law & Crime: ‘This discrepancy is not insignificant’: Judge alleges Trump admin misled SCOTUS about injunction over federal layoffs

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration provided incorrect information to the U.S. Supreme Court in a recent high-profile case about firing federal employees, according to a federal judge sitting in San Francisco.

On Monday, in a terse, two-page filing, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Bill Clinton appointee, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the U.S. Department of Justice substantially mischaracterized the reach of a preliminary injunction the lower court issued in response to one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

That injunction, issued in late May, came on the heels of a temporary restraining order issued in early May. Later that same month, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court order, rejecting the government’s request to stay the injunction.

Then, in early June, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a 147-page application for an emergency stay with the nation’s high court.

In that application, Sauer described Illston’s injunction in the following terms: “In fact, this Office has been informed by OPM that about 40 [reductions in force] in 17 agencies were in progress and are currently enjoined.”

Now, Illston says Sauer protested a bit too much.

The district court judge, in her Monday statement, alleges the fourth-highest ranking DOJ official got both sets of numbers wrong.

“Petitioners provided this information to argue that the preliminary injunction was causing them irreparable harm,” Illston writes. “Now that petitioners have filed their RIF list, it is apparent that the figure presented to the Supreme Court included numerous agencies that are not defendants in this case and therefore were not enjoined by the District Court.”

The document goes on to list seven “non-defendant” agencies and nine RIFs which were incorrectly included in the government’s representations before the justices in its June stay application.

Illston then crunches the numbers – using bold to highlight the math.

Based on this list, petitioners’ application to the Supreme Court should have stated that the injunction paused 31 RIFs in 10 agencies, not 40 RIFs in 17 agencies. This discrepancy is not insignificant. In this Court’s view, this further underscores the Court’s previous finding that any deliberative process privilege, if it exists at all, is overridden by ‘the need for accurate fact-finding in this litigation[.]'”

While the Supreme Court stayed the injunction itself, other business in the litigation has been moving forward at the district court level.

The underlying lawsuit, filed by a coalition of labor unions, nonprofit groups, and municipalities, challenges the 45th and 47th president’s Feb. 11 executive order, “Implementing The President’s ‘Department Of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.” The order, on its own terms, purports to “commence” a “critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy” by “eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity.” In real terms, Trump’s plans ask agency heads to quickly “initiate large-scale reductions in force,” or massive layoffs, in service of a goal to restructure the government.

The plaintiffs, for their part, have continued to push for discovery regarding the extent of the government’s RIFs and reorganization plans. The defendants, in turn, have sought various reprieves from both the district court and the court of appeals.

On July 18, Illston issued a discovery order which directed the government to provide the requested information. The order provided a win for the plaintiffs on the basic request as well as a win for the government – which requested to file some information under seal.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions’: Jackson upbraids SCOTUS colleagues for ‘again’ issuing a ‘reckless’ ruling in Trump’s favor on emergency docket

That discovery order is the first instance in which the “40 RIFs in 17 agencies” assertion was called into question by the court.

“Defendants made this assertion to the Supreme Court to highlight the urgency of their stay request and the extent of irreparable injury facing the government,” Illston observed. “Yet defendants now back-track, telling this Court that, actually, ‘those RIFs have not been finalized, many were in an early stage, and some are not now going forward.'”

The court ordered the DOJ to clear things up as follows:

Defendants must file with the Court, not under seal, a list of the RIFs referenced in the Supreme Court stay application. Defendants may note which RIFs, if any, agencies have decided not to move forward, or provide any other details they wish.

On July 21, the DOJ filed a petition for a writ of mandamus – a request for a court to force another government entity to do what it says – with the 9th Circuit. That petition complains Illston’s discovery order “directs the government to produce voluminous privileged documents to plaintiffs’ counsel and the district court.” The petition goes on to ask the appellate court to both pause and kibosh completely the elements of the discovery order which require the filing of the documents under seal.

On July 22, the panel issued a stay on the sealed production order.

On July 28, the 9th Circuit directed the parties to respond and reply to the mandamus request by Aug. 1 and Aug. 8, respectively. The panel also said the district court “may address the petition if it so desires.”

In her filing, Illston said she “appreciates the invitation to address” the government’s mandamus petition.

As it turns out, even after the government filed its requests to stay Illston’s more invasive discovery orders, the Trump administration provided the information the lower court directed them to file “not under seal.”

“Since the Discovery Order issued, petitioners produced the list of the reductions in force (RIFs) that petitioners represented to the Supreme Court were in progress and were halted by the District Court’s May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction,” Illston explains.

Now, that information is being used against the Trump administration to allege the DOJ overstated its case before the nation’s highest court.

Judge alleges Trump admin misled SCOTUS about injunction over federal layoffs
“Petitioners provided this information to argue that the preliminary injunction was causing them irreparable harm.”
‘This discrepancy is not insignificant’: Judge alleges Trump admin misled SCOTUS about injunction over federal layoffs

Inquisitr: Jeffrey Epstein Had ‘Dirt’ on Donald Trump—Late Convict’s Brother Accuses President of ‘Blatant Lies’

Posted on by
Reply

Mark Epstein spills the beans on his brother having “dirt” on some big-profile people.

As Donald Trump continues to face the Jeffrey Epstein files crisis, new evidence and claims are coming to light, shining the spotlight on his personal relationship with the convicted s-x offender. Despite his campaign promises otherwise, the President has not taken any efforts to release the documents related to Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, under his administration, the Department of Justice and the FBI firmly denied Epstein ever having a “client list.” The agencies also emphasized that there would not be any future public disclosures regarding him.

This announcement also sparked a civil war amongst Trump’s own MAGA base, many of whom are not happy about the government trying to “cover up” the Epstein files. Now, Jeffrey’s brother, Mark Epstein, made a bombshell revelation, claiming that the s-x offender had some “dirt” on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

“In the 2016 election, we were talking about the election and Jeffrey told me that if he said what he knew about the candidates, they would have to cancel the election,” Mark said during BBC Newsnight. This claim has created a new stir despite both Bill Clinton, Hillary’s husband, and Donald Trump denying having any knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities.

During the tell-all BBC interview, Mark was asked if he thought his brother “knew things about powerful people.” Epstein told interviewer Matt Chorley, “Absolutely. I believe so, yes. Jeffrey mentioned he had dirt on people. He didn’t tell me what he knew. But he led me to believe that he had dirt on people.”

However, Mark clarified that he does not have “any evidence” that places the POTUS in the category of crimes Epstein was accused of. “I can neither confirm nor deny that. I wasn’t there, I didn’t hang out with them in those days,” he said.

While he couldn’t link Trump to his brother’s crimes, Mark made sure to speak up about the friendship they shared. He claimed that the POTUS was “very close” to Epstein and even “used to fly in each other’s plane.”

“Donald Trump was in Jeffrey’s office many times and there’s witnesses that could point that, could testify that they saw Trump in Jeffrey’s office. So, I don’t know why he said he never was in Jeffrey’s office. That was a just blatant lie. I couldn’t believe he actually said that because it’s so provable that he was there,” Mark said.

However, according to CNN, Trump’s White House has denied these claims.

Jeffrey Epstein Had ‘Dirt’ on Donald Trump—Late Convict’s Brother Accuses President of ‘Blatant Lies’
Mark Epstein has some new bombshell claims about his brother Jeffrey Epstein. According to him, the convicted s-x offender had some dirt on Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Alternet: Trump DOJ sitting on ‘more than 100,000 pages’ of unreleased Epstein materials: NY Times

Posted on by
Reply

A new report is shedding light on the truly massive trove of evidence the Department of Justice (DOJ) has amassed on Jeffrey Epstein — most of which has yet to see the light of day.

The New York Times reported Thursday on what went on behind the scenes during an extensive review of the Epstein files that the DOJ conducted for several months earlier this year. According to the Times, DOJ staff combed through “more than 100,000 pages of documents” pertaining to the 2019 federal investigation into the convicted pedophile.

DOJ attorneys reviewed the trove of evidence four times between February and April, and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche instructed staff to flag any mention of President Donald Trump, along with any other prominent public figures, “including former President Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew.” Then in May, Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed to Trump that his name was in the Epstein documents, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week.

The Times reported that senior Trump administration officials like Blanche, Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino have maintained there is no evidence implicating anyone outside of Epstein in the evidence. However, Trump’s MAGA base has continued to harp on the issue, believing that a full release of the evidence may reveal the names of previously unknown co-conspirators and associates of Epstein.

ABC News reported earlier this month on the FBI’s indexing of the Epstein evidence, and what has yet to be made public. This reportedly includes “40 computers and electronic devices, 26 storage drives, more than 70 CDs and six recording devices,” which “hold more than 300 gigabytes of data.”

“The evidence also includes approximately 60 pieces of physical evidence, including photographs, travel logs, employee lists, more than $17,000 in cash, five massage tables, blueprints of Epstein’s island and Manhattan home, four busts of female body parts, a pair of women’s cowboy boots and one stuffed dog,” the ABC report continued.

The network further reported that the FBI is sitting on logbooks of visitors to Epstein’s “Little Saint James” island — which housed his private compound — along with a log of boat trips to and from the island. The famed “client list” may also be among those items, as ABC reported that the FBI had a “document with names” among its Epstein-related evidence.

Trump DOJ sitting on ‘more than 100,000 pages’ of unreleased Epstein materials: NY Times

https://www.alternet.org/trump-doj-epstein-materials

Daily Beast: Epstein Victim Twice Urged FBI to Investigate Trump

Posted on by
Reply

The disgraced financier’s former employee recalled an alleged incident in which Trump stared at her bare legs.

Disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein’s first accuser says she warned the Federal Bureau of Investigation on two occasions to look into Donald Trump’s conduct as an associate of the disgraced sex offender.

In an interview with The New York Times, Maria Farmer, who in 1996 was the first to report Epstein’s sexual offenses, recalled a 1995 encounter with Trump after she was summoned to see Epstein at his luxurious Manhattan offices.

Farmer, who was preparing to do some work for Epstein, said she was wearing running shorts when she turned up at the building to find Trump in a suit. Farmer told the Times that she started feeling scared as Trump allegedly stared at her bare legs, but Epstein came into the room and broke the tension. Farmer said Epstein reportedly said to Trump, “No, no. She’s not here for you.”

The incident left Farmer shaken, with her alleging that she could hear Trump tell Epstein in the other room that he thought she was a teenager, the Times reported.

The next year, Farmer told the FBI that she was sexually assaulted by Epstein and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year prison sentence, and warned that the two had “committed multiple serious sex crimes” against her and other girls, including her then-15-year-old sister, Annie.

Although Farmer, now in her mid-fifties, said she has not seen Trump engage in any inappropriate behavior and has had no other uncomfortable encounters with the MAGA figurehead, the incident was enough for her to tell the FBI to look into the people in Epstein’s orbit, including Trump.

According to Farmer, she was alarmed by what she saw working at Epstein’s mansion, including his pursuit of young girls and using them to gain favor with prominent people, including the likes of Alan Dershowitz and former President Bill Clinton.

Farmer also spoke to the Sixth Precinct of the New York Police Department in 1996, police records show, the Times reported.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung denied Farmer’s claims in a statement, saying, “The president was never in his office.” He added, “The fact is that the president kicked him out of his club for being a creep.”

Farmer filed a lawsuit against the federal government on May 29 on the grounds that it failed to protect her and other victims of Epstein and Maxwell. Farmer said she warned of Epstein’s associates again in a 2006 FBI interview, but nothing came of it, the Times reported.

Epstein was indicted in 2006, later pleading guilty to two felony charges, including soliciting a minor. Then in 2019, he was charged again and accused of trafficking dozens of girls as young as 14 years old. He was found dead in his jail cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York, in what was said to have been a suicide.

As Trump looks to bury his alleged connections to Epstein in the press—filing a $10 billion lawsuit over a Wall Street Journal report on a lewd drawing he allegedly sent Epstein for his 50th birthday—Farmer’s testimony has picked up new steam as MAGA demands that the Trump administration unseal all Epstein files.

Previously, Trump referred to Epstein as a “terrific guy” in a 2002 New York magazine article, with one of Epstein’s exes also describing Trump as Epstein’s “bro.”

Yet in a lengthy Truth Social post on July 16, Trump ripped some of his followers for believing what he called the “Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.”

“Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullshit,’ hook, line, and sinker. They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years,” he wrote. “Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support any more!”

Epstein Victim Twice Named Trump to Law Enforcement
The disgraced financier’s former employee recalled an alleged incident in which Trump stared at her bare legs.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/epstein-victim-twice-named-trump-to-law-enforcement

Alternet: Trump just made a big mistake — and he has no one to blame but himself | Opinion

Posted on by
Reply

The Epstein scandal is the best thing to happen to the cause of freedom and democracy in a very long time. I don’t remember the last occasion when liberals could hope to break the grip that Donald Trump has had, not only on the Republicans but on the Washington press corps. With this story, there’s finally daylight between him and his base. MAGA is facing a crisis of faith and with that, there’s hope.

Which is why I was genuinely stunned yesterday to see former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismiss the Epstein scandal as just another distraction. “Whether it’s Jeffrey Epstein or Alcatraz, it’s all off the subject of what they’re doing with this budget that’s harmful to meeting the kitchen-table needs of the American people,” she said.

MSNBC’s James Downie put it well: “The public is pissed about Epstein in no small part because he was a rich guy who got away with heinous crimes, because he deliberately cultivated rich friends,” he said. “That’s an inequality story. The only way it could be closer to ‘kitchen-table issues’ is if the files were tucked in a goddamn pocketbook!”

Aside from that, she’s missing the bigger picture. The Epstein scandal has grown so fast that Trump now risks forfeiting the one thing that made him invincible in the eyes of many – that made it possible for him to credibly claim that he could shoot someone and never lose a supporter. That one thing is him being the exception to the rule.

In this case, the except to the rule of Epstein.

Fact is, the president was intimately involved with the disgraced financier and child-sex trafficker. (You can read about their history in today’s Times.) But the MAGA faithful never believed it, or if they did, they didn’t believe Trump deserved the same level of scrutiny. Why?

Because the cult of MAGA is animated by a conspiracy theory, one that holds that Trump was sent by God to fulfill a prophecy, as a hero who saves America from a secret cabal of powerful (Jewish) pedophiles who traffic young girls for sex to untouchable elites. In MAGA lore, Epstein came to represent this shadowy, malevolent confederacy. The idea was that Trump would get reelected in 2024 and bring them all to justice.

So even if there was concern about old pictures and videos of Trump palling around with Epstein, Trump couldn’t be that bad, because QAnon – the conspiracy theory’s name – said that Trump was MAGA’s champion. Enemies like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and George Soros were guilty and deserving of death, but Trump? He was the exception to that rule, the exception that would make America great again.

As long as MAGA believed in him as their savior, there was little he could do to lose their trust. He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue. He could lead a paramilitary takeover of the US government. He could literally betray some supporters with the understanding that their sacrifice was for the greater good of saving little girls from monsters.

But then Trump made a mistake. He took MAGA’s faith for granted. He and US Attorney General Pam Bondi believed they would go wherever he told them to, even if the US Department of Justice concluded that there was no list of Epstein clients and there was no blackmail ring. They pulled back the curtain to reveal that Trump is not only a mere man, but a con man. And if MAGA believed him, well, that’s on them.

Up to that point, it really didn’t matter how much reporting there was about the actual relationship between Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, because MAGA could explain away those facts as part of the QAnon prophecy. The (Jewish) media is part of the evil conspiracy against America, so naturally they are going to try to bring its savior down. Now that Trump has triggered a crisis of faith, things are different.

You can see the difference in Trump’s reaction to the latest by the Wall Street Journal. It reported Thursday that he gave Epstein a “bawdy” note on his 50th birthday in which he drew the outline of a naked woman. He signed his name at the bottom as if the signature were her public hair. He included imaginary dialogue in which Trump says, “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.” Trump concluded with saying: “Happy birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.”

If you’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is what MAGA has been doing for the last decade, there’s nothing to see here. But if you’re unwilling – if, in fact, you feel betrayed by a leader who said he’d reveal the secrets of America’s enemies but instead chose to protect those secrets – this might look like what it seems to be: Two grown men joking about their fondness for sex with underage girls.

It used to be that Trump could gut it out knowing that the rightwing media apparatus was behind him all the way. They could altogether shout down legitimate mainstream reporting. But the rightwing media apparatus – which includes men like Steven Bannon, Tim Pool, Tucker Carlson and Benny Johnson – made itself as powerful as it is by advancing Trump, in one way or another, as the leader of the cult of MAGA. In their view, he was never supposed to put himself in league with the Jewish conspiracy, yet that’s what he did, and now that he’s done so, these rightwing media personalities can’t accept it.

Therefore, Trump is in a position he has never been in. He must earn back trust from the MAGA faithful, trust that he used to safely assume was his. That’s why he ordered the attorney general to seek the release of grand jury testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein case. But in doing so, he opened space for more questions by the press corps, more demands by the rightwing media personalities, and more opportunities for his most loyal supporters to second-guess the purity of his intentions.

That’s not a distraction. That’s the whole ball game. Fortunately, many Democrats are taking advantage of it. They’re calling for the release of more documents, raising awareness of Trump’s hypocrisy and in general, they’re sewing doubt by hyping the idea that he’s hiding something. Nothing else has cracked Teflon Trump, but this might.

Pelosi ought to know better.

https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/trump-maga-epstein-2673383670

Newsweek: Pam Bondi’s DOJ to make Ghislaine Maxwell decision after Epstein backlash

Posted on by
Reply

Pam Bondi’s leadership of the Department of Justice may come under further Jeffrey Epstein-related scrutiny over an appeal by Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell.

The British socialite, and former friend of Prince Andrew, was sentenced to 20 years in jail in June 2022 for her role in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation, but has appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Trump administration’s response to that case is due July 14 at a particularly pressured time for Bondi, who as attorney general leads the DOJ.

Why It Matters

Bondi has facing severe criticism from within President Donald Trump‘s MAGA base after a report by the DOJ and FBI last week stated there was no Epstein client list and no evidence the New York financier blackmailed prominent public figures.

This has sparked accusations of a cover-up as Bondi appeared to suggest in February the alleged document was sitting on her desk. The White House later sought to clarify that she was referring to Epstein files more generally.

Newsweek has contacted the DOJ for comment by email out of office hours.

What to Know

Epstein is thought to have abused hundreds of girls and was awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges when he died in his jail cell in 2019.

The case has long featured allegations that he forced his victims to have sex with his powerful friends, but none have ever been charged. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have been linked to Epstein but both men, and Prince Andrew, strenuously deny knowledge of his crimes.

Trump administration figures suggested new details and even new cases would emerge after a review ordered by the President into the Epstein files this year.

However, a memo by the DOJ and FBI last week indicated there would be no new cases and stated there was no evidence of a blackmail plot by Epstein.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,” said the memo.

“We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

This sparked furious responses from MAGA commentators and tears from alt-right radio host Alex Jones, exerting extra pressure on the DOJ, run by Bondi as attorney general, over how to handle Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal following her criminal conviction for sex trafficking.

Ghislaine Maxwell’s Appeal

Maxwell’s lawyers argue she should never have been put on trial due to a plea deal between Jeffrey Epstein and Florida prosecutors in 2008.

A filing by her team, seen by Newsweek, reads: “Despite the existence of a non-prosecution agreement promising in plain language that the United States would not prosecute any co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein, the United States in fact prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell as a co-conspirator of Jeffrey Epstein.

“Only because the United States did so in the Second Circuit and not elsewhere, her motion to dismiss the indictment was denied, her trial proceeded, and she is now serving a 20-year sentence.

“In light of the disparity in how the circuit courts interpret the enforceability of a promise made by the ‘United States,’ Maxwell’s motion to dismiss would have been granted if she had been charged in at least four other circuits (plus the Eleventh, where Epstein’s agreement was entered into).

“This inconsistency in the law by which the same promise by the United States means different things in different places should be addressed by this Court.”

D. John Sauer, Donald Trump’s pick for Solicitor General, has already twice applied to extend the deadline for the administration’s response to Maxwell’s appeal, leading to the current July 14 deadline.

A letter from Sauer to the court, seen by Newsweek, read: “The government’s response is now due, after one extension, on June 13, 2025.

“We respectfully request, under Rule 30.4 of the Rules of this Court, a further extension of time to and including July 14, 2025, within which to file the government’s response.

“This extension is necessary because the attorneys with principal responsibility for

preparation of the government’s response have been heavily engaged with the press of previously assigned matters with proximate due dates.”

What People Are Saying

Conservative media personality Megyn Kelly was among those to heap pressure on Bondi over backlash during an appearance at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit over the weekend. “It’s starting to create a real hornet’s nest within the administration and I’ve got to be honest I blame Pam Bondi. I’ll tell you why: incompetence,” she said.

“She is the reason that things are unravelling around this story right now, that virtually all the Republican Party cares about. It’s also true that [FBI Deputy Director] Dan Bongino and [FBI Director] Kash Patel had questions about Epstein before they took office before they went to the FBI,” she continued.

“But once they joined the FBI they said nothing. They kept their mouths shut about Epstein. You have not seen them, except for one joint appearace with Dan and Kash on Fox, running all over the media looking for attention on this, yes, clickbaity story.

“Who have you seen?” Kelly asked. “Pam Bondi. She has never missed an opportunity to go on television and dangle sweet nothings that might be coming your way, try to lead you to believe that she’s got it, it’s on her desk, it’s coming, ‘tomorrow you’re going to see something on Epstein.'”

Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social on Saturday: “What’s going on with my ‘boys’ and, in some cases, ‘gals?’ They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one Team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and ‘selfish people’ are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it’s Epstein, over and over again.”

What Happens Next

The Government will now either file its reply, which should lay out how it intends to contest the case, or seek a third extension. Either way, there should be a filing to the Supreme Court case outlining which option has been chosen.

There must be many more besides Prince Andrew who took advantage of Epstein’s many underage victims. The must ALL be exposed.

Pam Bondi’s DOJ to make Ghislaine Maxwell decision after Epstein backlash
Ghislaine Maxwell filed a Supreme Court appeal arguing she should be covered by Jeffrey Epstein’s controversial plea deal.

https://www.newsweek.com/pam-bondi-doj-ghislaine-maxwell-jeffrey-epstein-files-2098469

Showbiz 411: Trump Epstein Fake Out: Says He Might Revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship (Which He Knows He Can’t Do)

Posted on by
Reply

There’s nothing to quote, it’s all in the title. Our pathetic King Donald is making a royal ass of himself in front of 340 million Americans and assorted billions elsewhere.

Trump Epstein Fake Out: Says He Might Revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship (Which He Knows He Can’t Do) – Showbiz411
Trump is falling apart over Jeffrey Epstein. The presidency is falling apart as the FBI’s quacky leaders Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are threatening to quit over Pam Bondi’s announcement that no Epstein files exist. They existed a short time ago, of course, when binders were waved around reading “Epstein Files.” MAGA is furious because […]
Trump Epstein Fake Out: Says He Might Revoke Rosie O’Donnell’s Citizenship (Which He Knows He Can’t Do)

New York Times: ‘Egregious.’ ‘Brazen.’ ‘Lawless. ’How 48 JudgesDescribe Trump’s Actions, In Their Own Words

Posted on by
Reply

Many Americans in positions of power, including corporate executives and members of Congress, seem too afraid of President Trump to stand up to his anti-democratic behavior. Federal judges have shown themselves to be exceptions. “Judges from across the ideological spectrum are ruling against administration policies at remarkable rates,” said Adam Bonica, a political scientist at Stanford University.

These rulings have halted Mr. Trump’s vengeful attempts to destroy law firms, forestalled some of his budget cuts and kept him from deporting additional immigrants. Yes, the Supreme Court has often been more deferential to the president. Still, it has let stand many lower-court rulings and has itself constrained Mr. Trump in some cases.

The bipartisan alarm from federal judges offers a roadmap for others to respond to Mr. Trump’s often illegal behavior. His actions deserve to be called out in plain language for what they really are. And people in positions of influence should do what they can to stand up for American values, as many judges have done.

Here, we’ve compiled quotations from judges’ recent rulings and bench comments.

…

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Appointed by Ronald Reagan

On the refusal to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador:

“This is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone.”

Leonie M. Brinkema, Eastern District of Virginia

Appointed by Bill Clinton

On an ICE official’s inconsistent affidavit:

“This is a terrible, terrible affidavit. If this were before me in a criminal case and you were asking to get a warrant issued on this, I’d throw you out of my chambers.”

James E. Boasberg, District of Columbia District

Appointed by Barack Obama

On a judge’s order blocking deportations:

“In an egregious case of cherry-picking, defendants selectively quote only a fragment of the court’s response here to mischaracterize its position.”

Click on the links below to read what the other 45 judges had to say regarding King Donald’s legal prowess:

Opinion | ‘Egregious.’ ‘Brazen.’ ‘Lawless.’ How 48 Judges Describe Trump’s Actions, in Their Own Words
Dozens of judges, appointed by presidents of both parties, have stood up to the administration’s lawlessness.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/07/12/opinion/editorials/federal-judges-quotes-trump-administration.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V08.A1qs.Bu0IZMlwJ46a&smid=url-share