A judge hated by Donald Trump was just assigned a major case seeking to get the Trump administration to release files related to Jeffrey Epstein, according to analysts.
Commentator Brian Tyler Cohen published a video over the weekend featuring former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner. The video, called “Trump gets what he DESERVES in court over Epstein,” the two media analysts discuss Trump drawing Judge Chutkan in the Epstein case brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
In an article called “Judge Detested by Trump Will Oversee Epstein Files Case,” The New Republic recently pointed out Chutkan’s history of upsetting Trump when she presided over his criminal trial in D.C.
Kirschner said he is “sure” that the Trump lawyers are “less than thrilled” that she’s the judge.
Tag Archives: Jeffrey Epstein
Atlanta Black Star News: ‘Inherently Unreliable’: Trump’s Attempt to Clear His Name Backfires As a Blatant Lie from Maxwell’s Past Resurfaces and Destroys Her Credibility
From the rally stage last year, Donald Trump hyped the Epstein files as proof of a Democratic coverup to protect pedophiles who never faced justice.
Now, as public scrutiny lands squarely on the president, he’s calling the whole thing a “hoax.”
It’s a striking turn for Trump, who once amplified conspiracy theories about Jeffrey Epstein’s black book and teased his base with promises of transparency. But with the recent disclosure that Trump’s name appears in the unsealed Epstein documents, and his administration suddenly going soft on convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, critics say Trump is no longer just dodging questions—he’s actively working to bury the answers.
The latest red flag? Trump’s own deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche — formerly one of his personal lawyers — conducted a nine-hour interview with Maxwell over two days last month. According to sources familiar with the meetings, Maxwell told Blanche that Trump had “never done anything in her presence that would have caused concern.”
But not everyone on social media was buying it.
“Shocking. You’re telling me Trump’s former lawyer turned Deputy AG ‘interviewed’ Ghislaine Maxwell while she is desperate for a pardon and Trump is publicly suggesting he might give her one, and she said she didn’t witness him commit any crimes? The fix is in,” the group Republicans Against Trump posted on X.
Blanche confirmed that Maxwell “didn’t hold anything back” and was asked about “one hundred different people.” But Trump’s insistence that the interview was “totally above board” hasn’t left anyone feeling convinced.
Making matters worse, days after the interview, Maxwell was quietly transferred from a low-security prison in Florida to the Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas — one of the most lenient facilities in the country, described by former corrections officials as a “country club.”
“Someone gave special preference to Maxwell that, to my knowledge, no other inmate currently in the Federal Bureau of Prisons has received,” said Robert Hood, former warden of the Florence supermax prison, who spoke with The Washington Post. “Inmates, if they have a sex offense, are not going to a place like that, period. It’s truly unheard of.”
Critics now see the nine-hour sit-down between Maxwell and Trump’s handpicked former lawyer as a quid pro quo in motion. As one observer put it: “Trump’s old lawyer, now Deputy AG, has a cozy nine-hour chat with Ghislaine Maxwell, who’s practically begging for a pardon, and—surprise, surprise—she swears Trump never did anything sketchy around her.”
Maxwell, the convicted accomplice of Epstein, was sentenced in 2022 to 20 years for trafficking and abusing underage girls. Federal prison guidelines state that sex offenders — particularly those with sentences higher than 10 years — should not be housed in minimum-security facilities like Bryan. Yet that’s exactly where she now resides, complete with arts and crafts, a dog-training program, and unfenced dormitories in a residential neighborhood 100 miles from Houston.
Even Trump feigned surprise: “I didn’t know about it at all, no. I read about it just like you did. It’s not a very uncommon thing,” he said when asked if he approved the transfer.
But according to multiple sources, the prison move followed her voluntary sit-down with Blanche — part of what ABC News described as an effort to defuse growing criticism that the Justice Department was shielding information about Epstein’s network.
That criticism intensified after Attorney General Pam Bondi declared the DOJ found no client list, no blackmail material, and no justification for further investigation — despite admitting Epstein harmed more than 1,000 victims.
Trump’s followers were among the loudest voices demanding answers. In 2019, his top advisers circulated theories about Epstein’s connections to powerful Democrats. Trump himself fueled suspicion when he publicly wondered if Epstein had been murdered. Yet now, as those same followers demand full disclosure, Trump’s tone has shifted dramatically.
“I want to release everything. I just don’t want people to get hurt,” Trump told Newsmax last week. “We’d like to release everything, but we don’t want people to get hurt that shouldn’t be hurt.”
Who those “people” are, Trump wouldn’t say. But the about-face has many asking whether Trump is trying to protect himself — or someone close to him.
The president’s name does appear in Epstein’s files. His associations with both Epstein and Maxwell have long been documented, including photos of the trio together. Still, Maxwell told Blanche that Trump “never did anything concerning” during the years they were acquainted.
The transcript of the conversation has not yet been released, although the DOJ is considering making it public — possibly as early as this week. An audio recording also exists, but there’s no confirmation yet that it will be shared.
Critics questioned how much credibility Maxwell’s claims carry, especially given her own legal jeopardy — and her history of lying under oath. She was previously found to have perjured herself at least twice in depositions related to Epstein’s abuse, casting further doubt on her recent claims that Trump “never did anything.”
Prosecutors said she lied when claiming she wasn’t aware of Epstein’s efforts to recruit underage girls, denied knowing anyone under 18 had ever been on his properties, and falsely stated she had never engaged in sexual activity with other women or seen sex toys at his residences.
Joyce Alene, the first US attorney nominated by Obama posted on X,
“Trump could give Ghislaine Maxwell a pardon on his last day in office, in exchange for favorable testimony now (SCOTUS has already said he can’t be prosecuted for it). She knows he’s her only chance for release. That means any “new” testimony she offers is inherently unreliable unless backed by evidence.”
She followed that up with more context for anyone who wasn’t clear, “And favorable could mean a lot of things here: exonerating him, testifying about other people that MAGA has long believed were involved with Epstein. She can’t be trusted because Trump can’t be trusted–the pardon power is his to wield for his personal benefit and she knows that.”
New York Times best selling author Seth Abramson jumped in the mix to respond to Alene, “Everyone must remember this. Anything Ghislaine Maxwell says at this point is without value because we cannot know what she was paid to induce any new Perjury (she has been charged with it twice in the past) until the final day of the second Trump term…should there ever be one.”
She’s currently appealing her conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court, and her attorney, David Markus, has said she “would welcome any relief.”
Her lawyers are also fighting the government’s request to unseal grand jury records from her and Epstein’s cases, arguing that releasing them would violate her due process rights and feed “public curiosity” at the expense of fairness.
“Jeffrey Epstein is dead,” the attorneys wrote. “Ghislaine Maxwell is not. Whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy.”
Yet some victims argue the public has a right to know. Annie Farmer, who testified at Maxwell’s trial, supports releasing the grand jury material with identifying details redacted.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has said it wants to unseal the records precisely because of public interest, arguing transparency is essential—even while making clear that only law enforcement personnel testified before the grand juries.
Trump was forced to address the growing scandal on Wednesday as outrage over his administration’s handling of the Epstein case spiraled beyond control — even among his own supporters.
The political firestorm was consuming the White House. With some of his most loyal backers demanding transparency, Trump is instead digging in — denouncing the entire controversy as a “hoax” and attacking Republicans who disagree with him as “weaklings.”
In a Truth Social post Wednesday morning, the president lashed out at his critics, comparing the uproar over the Epstein files to past scandals like the Russia election interference investigation and Hunter Biden’s laptop.
“These Scams and Hoaxes are all the Democrats are good at—it’s all they have,” Trump wrote. “Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bullsh-t,’ hook, line, and sinker.”
Trump didn’t stop there.
“I don’t want their support anymore!” he added. “Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats’ work… I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax.”
Later, he doubled down during a press spray at the White House, brushing off the Epstein controversy as a “waste of time.”
“They’re wasting their time with a guy who obviously had some very serious problems, who died three, four years ago,” he said. “I’d rather talk about the success we have with the economy, the best we’ve ever had… Instead, they want to talk about the Epstein hoax. The sad part is, it’s people doing the Democrats’ work. They’re stupid people.”
When pressed Thursday on whether Trump had asked Bondi to appoint a special prosecutor in the Epstein case, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded bluntly:
“The president would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case. That’s how he feels.”
The defensive posture highlights deepening divisions inside the GOP — and even within Trump’s inner circle — over how the administration has handled the fallout.
FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino reportedly clashed with Bondi over her decision to block the release of additional Epstein-related documents. Several high-profile conservatives have since called for Bondi’s resignation.
Trump, however, has defended Bondi, saying she has “handled it very well.”
Alternet: There’s a very simple reason why Trump will never release the Epstein files | Opinion
Let’s get right to it, because time is not on our side, America: Donald Trump won’t order the release of the Epstein files because he is prominently featured in them.
Bare minimum, he associated with pedophiles.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Why isn’t this the end of the road for this monster?
Why isn’t this the only thread that is being pulled on right now with urgency by our bought-off and/or incompetent mainstream media?
Or did I just answer my own question?
Why isn’t every American calling (202) 224-3121 (that’s the U.S. Capitol switchboard) and demanding that Trump release the Epstein files like he said he would on the campaign trail?
Thank God, identifying and stomping out pedophiles is not yet a partisan issue in America.
An unheard of 82 percent of Americans — including 76 percent of Republicans — want these files released immediately. And while Democrats are doing what they procedurally can to get at the files, it will take time that we should all have decided by now that we do not have.
Shouldn’t Americans know, and just as soon as possible, the full details of their president’s relationship with a man who raped children? And shouldn’t THAT finally end the long, national nightmare we have endured for 10 years, while this dirty old man breaks everything in his blurry sight?
・We know without a shadow of a doubt that the man is a grotesque racist.
・We know without a shadow of a doubt he is a convicted felon, who assaults women.
・We know without a shadow of a doubt he cheats on his taxes even more than he has cheated on all his wives.
・We know without a shadow of a doubt he is a nuclear-powered liar, who is simply incapable of telling the truth, and lied 30,573 times the first time he tried to sink this country.
・We know without a shadow of a doubt he invited Russia to help him win the 2016 election, and then refused to call them on it in Helsinki.
・We know without a shadow of a doubt he is using the White House as his own personal ATM, and by many estimates has already pocketed billions of our dollars in crypto and airplanes, while taking endless vacations to his golf properties all over the world on our dime.
・We know without a shadow of a doubt he stalked girls in the dressing rooms of Miss Teen USA beauty competitions, because “(He’s) seen it all before, and (he’s) the owner of the pageant. And therefore (he’s) inspecting it.”
These are his words.
HIS WORDS.
And now we know that the shadow of doubt concerning his real relationship with Epstein and his victims is receding into the light, because this is where we are right now, good people:
Given Trump’s new-found executive powers granted to him by our corrupt Supreme Court that are fit for a king, we can be assured that if there wasn’t any damning evidence in these melting files that point to grotesque behavior with stolen children — or even better for him, there were names of his political enemies mentioned in the thing — he would have ordered these files replace the Bible in all these Christo-fascist churches as must-read material for his gurgling and snorting cult. In other words: It would be EVERYWHERE right now. There would be endless celebratory, back-patting press conferences, and Trump would order that it be read slowly, and with emphasis, on the CBS Evening News, which he recently acquired to add to his budding propaganda kingdom. You couldn’t escape it.
Except he’s doing none of this, is he?
Instead, he’s turning that certain color of rust orange, as he bends over at the waist, barrel-butt out, his 6-foot tie scraping his fat ankles, while his little, chubby hands do that weird accordion thing as he lashes out at anybody within his odious vicinity.
He’s posting INSANE distractions on his SOCIAL media channels THAT are ODDly capitalized and carrY the grammatical WAIT of a 4-year-OLD who has Trapped himself in a DOOR jam.
They have quietly moved the disgusting Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s ex-girlfriend and co-conspirator, to a cushy federal prison in Texas. WHY?
Trump has no answers, which is why we need to keep asking this question:
WHY WON’T YOU JUST SHUT UP AND RELEASE THE DAMN FILES LIKE YOU SAID YOU WOULD?
Meantime, the stink has somehow gotten even worse, because there is breaking news that it has taken only six months for Trump to destroy the solid economy Joe Biden helped meticulously build after inheriting Trump’s mess in 2021 following the attempted insurrection.
Trump inherited the strongest economy in the entire world, and has screwed it up in record time. Job growth has stalled again, and is at a 16-year low — or the last time a Democrat was fixing a battered economy left in shambles by a Republican.
Prices are rising, not falling.
Why did anybody think it would be any different this time around?
Here’a another fact that never gets enough attention: Democrats make economies and Republicans break them. Go ahead, look that up.
I could stand to hear a helluva lot more about this, too, because while billionaires are being rewarded like never before in America, the rest of us are getting royally screwed.
The numbers back this up.
Right now, though, I want to know why our president is providing safe haven for pedophiles.
Based on what we know, you’d have to be a damn fool not to believe the worst.
https://www.alternet.org/alternet-exclusives/trump-epstein-files-2673859787
Raw Story: Trump may have accidentally ‘admitted knowledge of a grotesque crime’: legal expert
A legal expert was taken aback Thursday night after watching President Donald Trump admit he knew of a “grotesque crime” when he talked about his falling out with Jeffrey Epstein.
Ryan Goodman, founding co-editor-in-chief of the legal and policy website Just Security, joined Erin Burnett on CNN’s “OutFront” to weigh in on Trump’s shocking remarks regarding his relationship with Epstein, who died in prison while awaiting trial on sex trafficking allegations.
Burnett noted the White House has offered multiple explanations about the falling out, including over a real estate deal. Trump, however, has instead said their friendship blew up because Epstein hired his spa workers — a claim that, she said, “doesn’t add up, because the hiring-away was two years before Trump was continuing to say wonderful things about Epstein—and seven years before he kicked him out of the club.
“Now they’re saying, and Trump has used this word before, that Epstein was a ‘creep,’ and that the White House says, quote, ‘Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees.’ I mean, does any of this add up legally?
Goodman was floored by the remarks.
“So I think they’ve gotten themselves in more trouble by these references, that the reason for it was that he was a creep or that he was a creep to the —
“It’s hard to say he’s a creep if you said you didn’t know what he was doing,” Burnett interjected.
“Exactly,” replied Goodman. “So if he kicked him out because of sexual predation toward the employees, then it means he had knowledge.”
Goodman said Trump’s timeline “doesn’t make sense.” A Trump Organization attorney has said Epstein was booted from Mar-a-Lago in 2007 due to an arrest a year earlier in Florida. Now, the White House is claiming he took that action over what he knew.
“A year after the arrest for pedophilia. Seven years after Virginia Giuffre is hired—is stolen—seven years after that?” asked Burnett.
“Seven years after that. So it’s not a good look for them, at the least. And that’s about, in some sense, moral culpability, not legal culpability. There would have to be more for that. But it does seem as though he’s admitting to knowledge of a grotesque crime against minors. That’s the problem.”
When Burnett asked whether any recourse is possible for Trump over what he knew at the time, Goodman poured cold water on the idea.
“If it’s just knowledge, there’s only one situation in which there would actually be legal obligations. And that’s if somebody is a mandatory reporter. But to be a mandatory reporter, they’d have to be like a schoolteacher or a medical doctor,” he said.
“Not a rich friend?” Burnett clarified.
“No, not just a friend or anything like that. And that would also be under state law. And there would probably also be a statute of limitations problem for that particular offense. But otherwise, that would chalk up to moral culpability.”
Ron Wyden: FOLLOW THE MONEY: Epstein’s Crimes, Sleazy Banks, and the Trump Conspiracy to Cover It Up
CNBC: Trump was told his name was in Jeffrey Epstein files before DOJ withheld documents: WSJ
- President Donald Trump was told in May by Attorney General Pam Bondi that his name appeared multiple times in Department of Justice documents about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, The Wall Street Journal reported.
- Trump’s meeting with [Bimbo #3] Bondi at the White House as reported by the Journal occurred weeks before the DOJ said it would not release the Epstein files to the public, despite the attorney general’s earlier promises to do so.
- Trump has directed [Bimbo #3] Bondi to seek the unsealing of transcripts for grand jury proceedings related to federal probes of Epstein and his convicted procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Attorney General Pam [Bimbo #3] Bondi told President Donald Trump at a meeting in May that his name appeared multiple times in Department of Justice documents about sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.
The May date reported by the Journal was weeks before the DOJ‘s July 7 announcement that it would not release the Epstein files despite earlier promises by the attorney general, who leads the DOJ, and others in the president’s orbit that the material would be disclosed to the public.
The DOJ said Wednesday in a statement that Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche discussed the Epstein files with Trump as part of their “routine briefing” but did not specify the timing of the briefing.
The Journal reported that the president was also told at the meeting that “many other high-profile figures were also named” in the Epstein files and that the “files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past.”
Being mentioned in the Epstein records is not a sign of wrongdoing, the Journal noted.
The DOJ’s decision not to release the Epstein files sparked backlash from Trump’s MAGA supporters, who have obsessed over conspiracies related to the Epstein case for years.
In the face of that criticism from his political base, Trump last week directed [Bimbo #3] Bondi to seek the unsealing of transcripts for grand jury proceedings related to federal probes of Epstein and his convicted procurer, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Trump had been friends with Epstein for years, but the two men fell out long before Epstein killed himself in jail in August 2019, weeks after being arrested on federal child sex trafficking charges. Epstein also had many other wealthy, high-profile friends, including Britain’s Prince Andrew.
Reached for comment on the Journal’s new reporting, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told CNBC, “The fact is that The President kicked [Epstein] out of his [Mar-a-Lago] club for being a creep.”
“This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about,” Cheung said.
In a joint statement Wednesday on the Journal’s reporting, Bondi and Blanche said, “The DOJ and FBI reviewed the Epstein Files and reached the conclusion set out in the July 6 memo. Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution, and we have filed a motion in court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts.”
“As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings,” Blanche and [Bimbo #3] Bondi said.
Trump was asked last week by an ABC News journalist if [Bimbo #3] Bondi had told him “your name appeared in the files.”
“No, no,” Trump replied. “She’s given us just a very quick briefing, and in terms of the credibility of the different things that they’ve seen.”
Trump went on to say he believed that “these files were made up by” former FBI director James Comey and by the administrations of former Democratic Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
The DOJ last week fired Manhattan federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, the daughter of James Comey, whose past cases had included the federal prosecutions of Epstein and Maxwell.
The Journal last week published an article reporting that Trump in 2003 sent Epstein a “bawdy” letter to mark his 50th birthday, at Maxwell’s request.
The letter “contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker,” the Journal reported.
“A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly ‘Donald’ below her waist, mimicking pubic hair,” according to the newspaper.
“The letter concludes: ‘Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,'” the Journal wrote.
Trump has angrily denied writing the letter.
“This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he said Thursday. “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”
On Friday, the president filed a defamation lawsuit related to the story against media mogul Rupert Murdoch; News Corp, which Murdoch’s family controls; News Corp’s CEO, Robert Thomson; the Journal’s publisher, Dow Jones & Co.; and the two reporters who wrote the article, which was published Thursday evening. News Corp owns the Journal.
Trump’s lawsuit seeks at least $10 billion in damages.
A Dow Jones spokesperson told CNBC: “We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/23/trump-jeffrey-epstein-files-wsj.html
Guardian: Ex-CIA agent hits back at Tulsi Gabbard after she accused Obama of ‘treasonous conspiracy’ against Trump
Susan Miller says US intelligence chief’s allegations were based on misrepresentations of discoveries made by her team about Russian actions
A former CIA officer who helped lead the intelligence assessments over alleged Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election has said Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, is ignorant of the practices of espionage after she accused Barack Obama and his national security team of “treasonous conspiracy” against Donald Trump.
“Ignorant” pretty much describes any of King Donald’s incompetent suck-ups.
Susan Miller, the agency’s head of counter-intelligence at the time of the election, told the Guardian that Gabbard’s allegations were based on false statements and basic misrepresentations of discoveries made by Miller’s team about Russian actions, which she insisted were based on multiple trusted and verified sources.
Gabbard has accused Obama and his former national security officials of “manufacturing” intelligence to make it appear that Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, had intervened on Trump’s side when they knew it was untrue. The goal, she insisted, was to make Trump’s election win appear illegitimate, thus laying the basis of a “years-long coup against him”.
She has passed the matter to Pam [Bimbo#3] Bondi, the attorney general, who last week announced a justice department “strike force” into the affair. However, reports have suggested that Bondi was caught off-guard by Gabbard’s request that her department examine the matter.
Gabbard has called for criminal prosecutions against numerous officials involved, including Obama himself.
Obama last week denounced the allegations as “outrageous and ridiculous”, and part of an attempt to distract attention from the Jeffrey Epstein files, in which Trump’s name reportedly appears.
Until Wednesday, none of the other high-level officials named in Gabbard’s recent report – including James Clapper, her predecessor as national intelligence director; John Brennan, the former CIA director; or the ex-FBI director James Comey – had responded publicly to her allegations. Clapper and Brennan broke their silence for the first time on Wednesday with a jointly written op-ed article in the New York Times in which they called Gabbard’s allegations “patently false” and accused her of “rewrit[ing] history”.
In an interview, Miller – who is not named in the national intelligence director’s public narrative – questioned Gabbard’s grasp of intelligence matters.
Gabbard, who has never worked on the House intelligence committee while she was a member of Congress, has criticized the “tradecraft” of agents who compiled the assessment of Russia’s election activities.
“Has she ever met a Russian agent?” asked Miller, a 39-year agency veteran who served tours as CIA chief of station abroad. “Has she ever given diamonds to a Russian who’s giving us, you know? Has she ever walked on the streets of Moscow to do a dead drop? Has she ever handled an agent?
“No. She’s never done any of that. She clearly doesn’t understand this.”
Miller told the Guardian she was speaking out because Gabbard’s claims besmirched her work and and that of her team of up to eight members who worked on the Russia case.
“My reputation and my team’s reputation is on the line,” she said. “Tulsi comes out and doesn’t use my name, doesn’t use the names of the people in my team, but basically says this was all wrong and made up, et cetera.”
Miller and her former team members have recently hired lawyers to defend themselves against charges that could put them in jail.
Miller has hired Mark Zaid, a prominent Washington defense attorney, to represent her.
The scenario reprises a situation she faced in 2017, when – still a serving officer – Miller hired a $1,500-an-hour lawyer to represent her after being told she might face criminal charges for her part in authoring the same intelligence report now being scrutinized by Gabbard.
Investigators interviewed her for up to eight hours as part of a trawl to ferret out possible law-breaking under Obama that eventually that culminated in Bill Barr, the attorney general in Trump’s first administration, appointing a special counsel, John Durham, to conduct an inquiry into the FBI’s investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia.
“They were asking things like: ‘Who told you to write this and who told you to come to these conclusions?’” Miller recalled.
“I told them: ‘Nobody did. If anybody had told us to come to certain conclusions, all of us would have quit. There’s no way, all none of us ever had a reputation for falsifying anything, before anything or after.’”
No charges were brought against her, but nor was she told the case was closed.
Durham’s 2023 report concluded that the FBI should never have launched its full investigation, called “Crossfire Hurricane” into the alleged Trump-Russia links. But his four-year investigation was something of a disappointment to Trump and his supporters, bringing just three criminal prosecutions, resulting in a single conviction – of an FBI lawyer who admitted to altering an email to support a surveillance application.
It is this ground that is now being re-covered by Gabbard in what may be a Trump-inspired bid for “retribution” against political enemies who he has accused of subjecting him to a political witch-hunt.
But the crusade, Miller says, is underpinned by false premise – that the Russia interference findings were a “hoax”, a description long embraced by Trump and repeated by Gabbard in her 18 July report.
“It is not a hoax,” she said. “This was based on real intelligence. It’s reporting we were getting from verified agents and from other verified streams of intelligence.
“It was so clear [the Russians] were doing that, that it was never in issue back in 2016. It’s only an issue now because Tulsi wants it to be.”
Briefing journalists at the White House last week, Gabbard cited a 2020 House of Representatives intelligence committee report – supported only by its Republican members – asserting that Putin’s goal in the election was to “undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate”.
Miller dismissed that. “The information led us to the correct conclusion that [the interference] was in Trump’s favor – the Republican party and Trump’s favor,” she said. Indeed, Putin himself – standing alongside Trump at a news conference during a summit meeting in Helsinki in 2018 – confirmed to journalists that he had wanted his US counterpart to win.
Rebuffing suggestions that she or her team may be guilty of pro-Democrat bias, she said she was a registered Republican voter. Her team consisted of Republicans, Democrats and “centrists”, she said.
Gabbard has claimed that agents were pressured – at Obama’s instigation – into fabricating intelligence in the weeks after Trump’s victory, allegedly to raise questions about its electoral legitimacy and weaken his presidency.
“BS [bullshit]. That’s not true,” said Miller. “This had to do with our sources and what they were finding. It had nothing to do with Obama telling us to do this. We found it, and we’re like, what do we do with this?”
At the core of Gabbard’s critique are two assertions that Miller says conflates separate issues.
One is based on media reports of briefings from Obama administration officials a month after Trump’s victory, including one claiming that Russia used “cyber products” to influence “the outcome of the election”. Gabbard writes that this is contradicted by Obama’s admission that there was no “evidence of [voting] machines being tampered with” to alter the vote tally, meaning that the eventual assessment finding of Russian interference must be false.
Miller dismisses that as a red herring, since the CIA’s assessment – ultimately endorsed by other intelligence agencies – was never based on assumptions of election machine hacking.
“That’s not where [the Russians] were trying to do it,” she said. “They were trying to do it through covert action of press pieces, internet pieces, things like that. The DNC [Democratic National Committee] hack [when Russian hackers also penetrated the emails of Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta, and passed them to WikiLeaks] … is [also] part of it.
“That’s why we came out with the conclusion that 100% the Russians tried to influence the election on Trump’s part, [but] 100%, unless we polled every voter, we can’t tell if it worked. If we’d known anything about election machines, it would have been a very different thing.”
Miller also denied Gabbard’s claim that the intelligence community’s “high level of confidence” in Russian interference had been bolstered by “‘further information” that turned out to be an unverified dossier written by Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer, which suggested possible collusion between Russia and Trump.
“We never used the Steele dossier in our report,” she said. The dossier – which included salacious allegations about Trump and Russian sex workers – created a media sensation when it was published without permission in January 2017 days before Trump’s inauguration.
Miller said it was only included in an annex to the intelligence assessment released in the same month on the insistence of Comey, the FBI director, who had told his CIA counterpart, Brennan, that the bureau would not sign off on the rest of the report if it was excluded.
“We never saw it until our report was 99.99% finished and about to go to print. We didn’t care about it or really understand it or where it had come from. It was too poorly written and non-understandable.
“But we were told it had to be included or the FBI wouldn’t endorse our report. So it was put in as an addendum with a huge cover sheet on it, written by me and a team member, which said something like: ‘We are attaching this document, the Steele dossier, to this report at the request of the FBI director; it is unevaluated and not corroborated by CIA at this time.’”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/30/tulsi-gabbard-obama-russian-intelligence
Mirror: Trump interrupted by panicking UK Prime Minister for making ‘false’ allegation
The leaders of the UK and US got into a small disagreement about estate taxes as Trump and Starmer met to discuss tariffs
President Donald Trump was swiftly interrupted by Keir Starmer as the UK Prime Minister attempted to correct him about inheritance taxes on farmers.
The pair met in Scotland on Monday to discuss tariffs, Gaza, and other topics. During a press conference, the president slammed inheritance taxes on farmers, claiming farmers in the US had been driven to suicide by high taxes on their farmhouses and estates. Trump, who made a massive Epstein files radio blunder, bragged about removing those taxes, and suggested Starmer do the same.
“We were losing a lot of farms to the banks because a loving mother and father would die and left their farm to their children or their child…but they had a 50% tax to pay, so the land would get valued and at a high number because some of the farms were valuable but they…couldn’t quantify it,” Trump said, which comes amid alarming fears over the president’s health due to an injury being spotted.
“And they go out and borrow money to pay the estate tax or the death taxes it’s called. And they’d overextend and they’d lose the farm and they commit suicide in many cases.”
Starmer interrupted the president as he took aim at Trump’s figures.
“No, no, no, our levels are nowhere near 50 percent, they’re not. We’ve just introduced where it’s paid over many years, let’s get an extra 2 percent a year over 10 years, so it’s not at those levels by any stretch of the imagination,” Starmer said.
“But the other thing that we’ve done, as you know, is make sure that we’ve got a pathway for farmers that actually increases their year-on-year income, which is the most important thing.”
Trump also had some advice to offer to his British counterpart on winning reelection – cutting taxes and going after illegal immigration. The two leaders are conducting discussions at Trump’s Turnberry golf course in Scotland, where they’ve covered a broad spectrum of topics.
Trump’s guidance comes as Farage’s Reform UK maintains a solid advantage over Labour in polling data, according to The Independent.
When questioned about the race between Keir and Farage, Trump responded: “I don’t know the politics of it, I don’t know where they stand. I would say one’s slightly liberal, not that liberal, slightly, and the other one’s slightly conservative, but they’re both good men.”
Trump also reflected on how his unprecedented second state visit, scheduled for later this year, has never been done and reminisced about his last state visit in 2019 during his first term.
“It was one of the most beautiful evenings I’ve ever seen,” Trump said of his first visit. As he spoke about the pomp and ceremony of the evening, he said to Starmer, “Nobody does it like you people.”
Starmer, too, pointed out how the nation had never invited a U.S. president for a second state visit. “You can imagine just how special that’s going to be,” Starmer said.
It comes after a Trump family member revealed the latest chilling symptom of his cognitive decline and revealed he is “far gone”.

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/trump-interrupted-panicking-uk-prime-1295386
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.
Raw Story: ‘Bad situation’: Expert warns Trump in legal jeopardy with ‘significant’ Epstein admission
A legal expert warned President Donald Trump on Tuesday that he may have put himself in legal jeopardy by admitting he knew one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims.
Trump told reporters earlier on Tuesday that Epstein “stole” Virginia Giuffre from him when she was employed at Mar-a-Lago. That claim could backfire on Trump because it shows that he knew one of the central victims in the prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell, according to Ryan Goodman, a law professor at New York University.
Goodman pointed to Maxwell’s 2022 sentencing, where the judge enhanced her sentence to 20 years because of Giuffre’s testimony.
“It’s that much of a significant statement,” Goodman told Erin Burnett on CNN’s “OutFront.” “If he had said he was aware of it from the court documents, then he’s ok in that regard. But I think that’s a very potentially bad situation for him to be in.”
Trump has fiercely tried to distance himself from the Epstein files saga, which has consumed his presidency for the last three weeks. However, his attempts appear to be falling short.
For example, multiple outlets have published previously unreported ties between the two men. The Wall Street Journal published a letter that Trump allegedly sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday. The New York Times has published details from one of Epstein’s accusers, and CNN has published previously unseen photos of the two men together at different events in the 1990s.
Trump’s comments come at a time when Maxwell has agreed to testify before Congress. Trump’s Justice Department has met with Maxwell and her lawyer multiple times, and some experts have suggested that Trump may pardon Maxwell in exchange for damaging testimony against Trump’s political rivals.