Alternet: ‘Proudly ignorant’ Trump blasted for rewriting a history he doesn’t understand

From universities to museums, President Donald Trump is making a concerted effort to purge institutions of what MAGA Republicans call a “woke” version of U.S. history.

But historians and Trump opponents are pushing back, stressing that discussing the darker side of U.S. history is not bashing the United States but rather, is an effort to learn from mistakes of the past and avoid repeating them. Presidential historian Jon Meacham, a frequent guest on MSNBC, often describes frank discussions as part of the journey toward a “more perfect union.”

In an opinion column published by The Guardian on September 4, Sidney Blumenthal — a former adviser to ex-President Bill Clinton and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — argues that Trump is trying to whitewash U.S. history even though he has a painfully limited knowledge of it.

“Of all the presidents, Donald Trump — the man who would remake the Smithsonian and alter its presentation of ‘how bad slavery was,’ as he put it — is surely the most ignorant of American history itself,” Blumenthal laments. “What Trump doesn’t know fills the Library of Congress, whose chief librarian he has fired, along with driving out the heads of the National Archives and the National Portrait Gallery, as well as dissolving programs of the National Endowment for the Humanities and defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which as a result, has paused the acclaimed ‘American Experience’ documentary series.”

The former Clintons adviser adds, “Trump claims he is tearing down the entire federal support for history in order to reveal the true story.”

A Trump White House aide, Blumenthal notes, bragged that one of Trump’s goals is to “get the woke out of the Smithsonian.”

“But this gospel of positive-thinking twaddle aside, Trump, proudly ignorant though he is, has for years articulated a vision of American history,” Blumenthal warns. “That vision does not emphasize the strides the nation has made through tumultuous struggle since the abolition of slavery. Instead, it honors those who defended slavery, committed treason to preserve it and claim it to be a worthy American ‘heritage.’ Trump has repeatedly sought to shield the Confederate statues and symbols erected as tribute to the ‘lost cause’ myth.”

Blumenthal continues, “He has expressed and unqualified admiration for Robert E. Lee as a quintessential American hero almost always coupled with belittling remarks about (President Abraham) Lincoln. His view of history squarely aligns him with neo-Confederates, not least those who carried the Confederate flag at the U.S. Capitol during the insurrection on 6 January 2021 and whom he subsequently pardoned. Trump’s version of history is not, however, simply reactionary nostalgia, or treacly kitsch for the restoration of ‘Uncle Herschel,’ the ‘Old-Timer’ to the Cracker Barrel logo. His use of the culture war is a key element to advance his policy agenda.”

https://www.alternet.org/trump-sidney-blumenthal-smithsonian

Associated Press: Appeals court blocks Trump administration from ending legal protections for 600,000 Venezuelans

A federal appeals court on Friday blocked the Trump administration’s plans to end protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela who have had permission to live and work in the United States.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a lower court ruling that maintained temporary protected status for Venezuelans while the case proceeded through court.

An email to the Department of Homeland Security for comment was not immediately returned.

The 9th Circuit judges found that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had no authority to vacate or set aside a prior extension of temporary protected status because the governing statute written by Congress does not permit it. Then-President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration had extended temporary protected status for people from Venezuela.

“In enacting the TPS statute, Congress designed a system of temporary status that was predictable, dependable, and insulated from electoral politics,” Judge Kim Wardlaw, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, wrote for panel. The other two judges on the panel were also nominated by Democratic presidents.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of San Francisco found in March that plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that President Donald Trump’s Republican administration overstepped its authority in terminating the protections and were motivated by racial animus in doing so. Chen ordered a freeze on the terminations, but the Supreme Court reversed him without explanation, which is common in emergency appeals.

It is unclear what effect Friday’s ruling will have on the estimated 350,000 Venezuelans in the group of 600,000 whose protections expired in April. Their lawyers say some have already been fired from jobs, detained in immigration jails, separated from their U.S. citizen children and even deported. Protections for the remaining 250,000 Venezuelans are set to expire Sept. 10.

Congress authorized temporary protected status, or TPS, as part of the Immigration Act of 1990. It allows the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to grant legal immigration status to people fleeing countries experiencing civil strife, environmental disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions” that prevent a safe return to that home country.

In ending the protections, Noem said that conditions in Venezuela had improved and that it was not in the U.S. national interest to allow migrants from there to stay on for what is a temporary program.

Millions of Venezuelans have fled political unrest, mass unemployment and hunger. Their country is mired in a prolonged crisis brought on by years of hyperinflation, political corruption, economic mismanagement and an ineffectual government.

Attorneys for the U.S. government argued the Homeland Security secretary’s clear and broad authority to make determinations related to the TPS program were not subject to judicial review. They also denied that Noem’s actions were motivated by racial animus.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-trump-temporary-status-venezuelans-7c70b2d301c43663a6f506af527637a4

Associated Press: Trump’s rhetoric about DC echoes a history of racist narratives about urban crime

President Donald Trump has taken control of D.C.’s law enforcement and ordered National Guard troops to deploy onto the streets of the nation’s capital, arguing the extraordinary moves are necessary to curb an urgent public safety crisis.

Even as district officials questioned the claims underlying his emergency declaration, the Republican president promised a “historic action to rescue our nation’s capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse.” His rhetoric echoed that used by conservatives going back decades who have denounced cities, especially those with majority non-white populations or led by progressives, as lawless or crime-ridden and in need of outside intervention.

“This is liberation day in D.C., and we’re going to take our capital back,” Trump promised Monday.

As D.C. the National Guard arrived at their headquarters Tuesday, for many residents, the prospect of federal troops surging into neighborhoods represented an alarming violation of local agency. To some, it echoes uncomfortable historical chapters when politicians used language to paint historically or predominantly Black cities and neighborhoods with racist narratives to shape public opinion and justify aggressive police action.

April Goggans, a longtime D.C. resident and grassroots organizer, said she was not surprised by Trump’s actions. Communities had been preparing for a potential federal crackdown in D.C. since the summer of 2020, when Trump deployed troops during racial justice protests after the murder of George Floyd.

“We have to be vigilant,” said Goggans, who has coordinated local protests for nearly a decade. She worries about what a surge in law enforcement could mean for residents’ freedoms.

“Regardless of where you fall on the political scale, understand that this could be you, your children, your grandmother, your co-worker who are brutalized or have certain rights violated,” she said.

Other residents reacted with mixed feelings to Trump’s executive order. Crime and homelessness has been a top concern for residents in recent years, but opinions on how to solve the issue vary. And very few residents take Trump’s catastrophic view of life in D.C.

“I think Trump’s trying to help people, some people,” said Melvin Brown, a D.C. resident. “But as far as (him) trying to get (the) homeless out of this city, that ain’t going to work.”

“It’s like a band-aid to a gunshot wound,” said Melissa Velasquez, a commuter into D.C. “I feel like there’s been an increase of racial profiling and stuff, and so it’s concerning for individuals who are worried about how they might be perceived as they go about their day-to-day lives.”

Uncertainty raises alarms

According to White House officials, troops will be deployed to protect federal assets and facilitate a safe environment for law enforcement to make arrests. The Trump administration believes the highly visible presence of law enforcement will deter violent crime. It is unclear how the administration defines providing a safe environment for law enforcement to conduct arrests, raising alarm bells for some advocates.

“The president foreshadowed that if these heavy-handed tactics take root here, they will be rolled out to other majority-Black and Brown cities, like Chicago, Oakland and Baltimore, across the country,” said Monica Hopkins, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s D.C. chapter.

“We’ve seen before how federal control of the D.C. National Guard and police can lead to abuse, intimidation and civil rights violations — from military helicopters swooping over peaceful racial justice protesters in 2020 to the unchecked conduct of federal officers who remain shielded from full accountability,” Hopkins said.

A history of denigrating language

Conservatives have for generations used denigrating language to describe the condition of major cities and called for greater law enforcement, often in response to changing demographics in those cities driven by nonwhite populations relocating in search of work or safety from racial discrimination and state violence. Republicans have called for greater police crackdowns in cities since at least the 1965 Watts Riots in Los Angeles.

President Richard Nixon won the White House in 1968 after campaigning on a “law and order” agenda to appeal to white voters in northern cities alongside overtures to white Southerners as part of his “Southern Strategy.” Ronald Reagan similarly won both his presidential elections after campaigning heavily on law and order politics. Politicians, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former President Bill Clinton have cited the need to tamp down crime as a reason to seize power from liberal cities for decades.

D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump’s takeover of local police “unsettling” but not without precedent. Bowser kept a mostly measured tone during a Monday news conference but decried Trump’s reasoning as a “so-called emergency,” saying residents “know that access to our democracy is tenuous.”

Trump threatened to “take over” and “beautify” D.C. on the campaign trail and claimed it was “a nightmare of murder and crime.” He also argued the city was “horribly run” and said his team intended “to take it away from the mayor.” Trump on Monday repeated old comments about some of the nation’s largest cities, including Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, Oakland and his hometown of New York City. All are currently run by Black mayors.

“You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is. We have other cities in a very bad, New York is a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don’t even mention that anymore. They’re so far gone. We’re not going to let it happen,” he said.

Civil rights advocates see the rhetoric as part of a broader political strategy.

“It’s a playbook he’s used in the past,” said Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Trump’s rhetoric “paints a picture that crime is out of control, even when it is not true, then blames the policies of Democratic lawmakers that are reform- and public safety-minded, and then claims that you have to step in and violate people’s rights or demand that reforms be reversed,” Wiley said.

She added that the playbook has special potency in D.C. because local law enforcement can be directly placed under federal control, a power Trump invoked in his announcement.

Leaders call the order an unjustified distraction

Trump’s actions in Washington and comments about other major cities sent shock waves across the country, as other leaders prepare to respond to potential federal action.

Democratic Maryland Gov. Wes Moore said in a statement that Trump’s plan “lacks seriousness and is deeply dangerous” and pointed to a 30-year-low crime rate in Baltimore as a reason the administration should consult local leaders rather than antagonize them. In Oakland, Mayor Barbara Lee called Trump’s characterization of the city “fearmongering.”

The administration already faced a major flashpoint between local control and federal power earlier in the summer, when Trump deployed National Guard troops to quell protests and support immigration enforcement operations in LA despite opposition from California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass.

Civil rights leaders have denounced Trump’s action in D.C. as an unjustified distraction.

“This president campaigned on ‘law and order,’ but he is the president of chaos and corruption,” said NAACP President Derrick Johnson. “There’s no emergency in D.C., so why would he deploy the National Guard? To distract us from his alleged inclusion in the Epstein files? To rid the city of unhoused people? D.C. has the right to govern itself. It doesn’t need this federal coup.”

https://apnews.com/article/trump-washington-dc-takeover-race-39388597bad7e70085079888fe7fb57b

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

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 CongressThe Supreme CourtImpeachment, 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!

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


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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Daily Beast: Epstein Victim Twice Urged FBI to Investigate Trump

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 TimesMaria 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 statementsaying, “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!”

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