Why Trump Can't Shake Jeffrey Epstein
There's an old joke: A conspiracy theorist dies and goes to heaven.
When he arrives, God says, 'Welcome. You can ask me one question. Anything you want.' The man says, 'I need to know: Who really shot J.F.K.?' God says, 'Lee Harvey Oswald shot him, and he acted alone.'
The man pauses and then says, 'Wow. This goes even higher than I thought.'
On July 7, the F.B.I. and the Department of Justice released a memo detailing the findings of 'an exhaustive review of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein.' This systematic review of more than 300 gigabytes of material, they said: 'revealed no incriminating 'client list.' There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.'
It went on to say: 'After a thorough investigation, F.B.I. investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on Aug. 10, 2019.'
The memo also explained why further files will not be released. Information related to Epstein's victims is: 'intertwined throughout the materials.' It said: 'One of our highest priorities is combating child exploitation and bringing justice to victims. Perpetuating unfounded theories about Epstein serves neither of those ends.'
So case closed.
No, I'm just kidding. MAGA is tearing itself apart over this. Much of the MAGA-verse thinks Attorney General Pam Bondi is lying and is calling for her head. New theories are spinning out: Maybe Donald Trump is on that list. Maybe Donald Trump or his administration is being blackmailed by the intelligence services. Maybe Donald Trump is now himself using that list for blackmail.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Denise Richards' Estranged Husband Aaron Phypers Claims She Was Cheating on Him, Alleges Actress Physically Abused Him
NEED TO KNOW Denise Richards' estranged husband Aaron Phypers has accused the actress of cheating on him and being physically abusive Phypers claimed in an interview with TMZ that he discovered messages between Richards and another man on her laptop, and also accused her of hitting and scratching him His claims follow Richards' own, in which she accused her estranged husband of multiple instances of physical abuseDenise Richards' estranged husband Aaron Phypers is accusing the actress of cheating on him and being physically abusive. Earlier this week, Richards, 54, alleged that Phypers, 49, 'repeatedly abused' her throughout their six-year marriage, and she was granted a temporary restraining order. Now, in a Saturday, July 19, interview with TMZ, Phypers claimed that Richards cheated on him with another man at the beginning of the year. He said he found out about the alleged infidelity through text messages on Richards' laptop, telling TMZ he discovered selfies that Richards and the other man sent to each other, as well as messages where they exchanged phrases such as "sweet dreams" and also indicated they wanted to meet up. Phypers said he and Richards decided to stay together after he confronted her about the alleged texts. He also accused Richards of hitting him, scratching him and smashing his phone. Representatives for Richards did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's requests for comment on July 19, nor did representatives and lawyers for Phypers. Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories. Phypers filed for divorce from Richards on July 7 following six years of marriage. He listed their date of separation as July 4 and cited 'irreconcilable differences" as the reason for their split, according to documents obtained by PEOPLE. Days later, Richards accused Phypers of multiple instances of physical abuse, and she was later granted a temporary restraining order against him. She alleged in court documents obtained by PEOPLE that her estranged husband would "frequently violently choke me, violently squeeze my head with both hands, tightly squeeze my arms, violently slap me in my face and head, aggressively slam my head into the bathroom towel rack" and "threaten to kill me," among other allegations. Phypers, who wed Richards in 2018, denied the allegations of physical abuse as "completely false and deeply hurtful" in a statement to PEOPLE. Read the original article on People
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ed Henry's rape accuser Jennifer Eckhart arrested, accused of attacking her boyfriend
Former Fox News producer Jennifer Eckhart was arrested and accused of attacking her boyfriend for ending their relationship, according to a report. Eckhart, who recently settled a sexual assault lawsuit against former Fox News anchor Ed Henry, was booked by Florida's Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office on Wednesday on suspicion of battery. The podcaster 'struck, screamed, and became combative' toward Thomas Beasley after he tried to end the relationship, according to an arrest affidavit obtained by the Daily Mail. According to the Mail, the affidavit said Beasley caught the alleged altercation on film, which showed Eckhart 'yelling, striking Beasley, grabbing his shirt and ripping it, and demanding he delete the video.' The 34-year-old was released on recognizance without having to post bail. Jennifer Eckhart was booked by Florida's Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Wednesday on suspicion of battery. (Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office) The Independent has contacted Eckhart for comment. Eckhart is the host of the REINVITED podcast and runs a non-profit called The Reinvited Project, which aims to support trauma survivors through animal-assisted therapy. On June 15, Eckhart settled her 2020 lawsuit against Henry, in which she accused him of rape. Henry, who was fired from Fox News in July 2020, denied the allegations. He now works for right-wing network NewsMax. In the lawsuit, Eckhart alleged that the former Fox News anchor 'groomed, psychologically manipulated and coerced' her into a sexual relationship while referring to her as his personal 'sex slave.' Eventually, after she 'would not comply voluntarily' with his sexual demands, she claimed he violently raped her in 2017. In June Eckhart settled her 2020 lawsuit against Ed Henry, in which she accused him of rape. Henry, who was fired from Fox News in July 2020, denied the allegations. (Newsmax) Fox News was initially a defendant in Eckhart's lawsuit, as she claimed the network downplayed the severity of the risk Henry posed to female employees and retaliated against her by firing her in June 2020 after she complained about a hostile work environment. Prior to the settlement, Fox News was dismissed as a defendant from the case. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Ronnie Abrams said there was 'no direct evidence that Fox News was aware of Henry's alleged harassment of Eckhart before it occurred.' Additionally, Abrams agreed with Fox's legal team that 'no reasonable jury' would find the network liable for preventing 'Henry from harming Eckhart.' 'This matter has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, and the parties are moving on with their lives,' Henry's attorney said in a statement when the settlement was reached. Additional reporting by Justin Baragona
TechCrunch
26 minutes ago
- TechCrunch
David Sacks and the blurred lines of government service
When Vultron announced its $22 million funding round earlier this week, the AI startup made sure to highlight a key investor: Craft Ventures, the firm 'co-founded by White House AI adviser David Sacks.' The announcement has raised questions about conflicts of interest in the Trump administration, where Sacks serves as both AI and crypto czar while maintaining his role at Craft Ventures — an arrangement that critics see as a new model of government service where the lines between public duty and private gain have become unclear. Sacks has secured not one but two ethics waivers allowing him to shape federal policy while maintaining financial stakes in the very industries he oversees. The first, an 11-page document from March, covers his crypto investments. The second, issued in June, specifically addresses his AI holdings. Together, they've enabled what ethics experts call an unprecedented arrangement. 'This is graft,' said Kathleen Clark, a Washington University law professor specializing in government ethics, after reviewing Sacks' crypto waiver. 'This is a lawyer in the White House Counsel's office doing Trump's bidding, letting [Sacks] make money while insulating him from criminal liability.' Clark's analysis is critical. She notes the waiver discusses percentages of Sacks' total assets – when it was signed, his stake in Craft's overall portfolio represented less than 3.8% of his total assets, for example – but never reveals actual dollar amounts. 'The fact that this interest is just 3.8% of someone's total assets, that's something if you're talking about a law professor. But 3.8% of this guy's assets is a heck of a lot of money,' Clark said. Clark also argues that the waiver fails to consider any consideration of potential upside. Federal regulations require examining not just current value but 'potential profit or loss.' For a venture capitalist like Sacks, Clark notes, 'even if right now [if his shares are] less than 3.8% of his assets, if it does well, it could be more than that.' Craft Ventures did not respond to several requests from TechCrunch this week to discuss this story. Techcrunch event Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise. Tech and VC heavyweights join the Disrupt 2025 agenda Netflix, ElevenLabs, Wayve, Sequoia Capital — just a few of the heavy hitters joining the Disrupt 2025 agenda. They're here to deliver the insights that fuel startup growth and sharpen your edge. Don't miss the 20th anniversary of TechCrunch Disrupt, and a chance to learn from the top voices in tech — grab your ticket now and save up to $675 before prices rise. San Francisco | REGISTER NOW The Vultron investment The timing of Vultron's announcement illustrates the complexity. Vultron creates AI tools specifically for federal contractors, helping them win government contracts more efficiently. The company boasts of reducing proposal timelines 'from weeks to days' and claims one Fortune 500 client now saves 'more than 20 hours per user each week' on federal contracting work. A source close to the company says Craft Ventures' investment predates Sacks' government appointment. However, the timing raises questions: the nation's AI czar has a financial stake in a company that profits from helping businesses win the very federal contracts his policies will influence. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been among the most vocal critics of these arrangements. In a May letter to the Office of Government Ethics, the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee questioned Sacks' crypto waiver, noting he was simultaneously 'co-hosting a $1.5 million-a-head dinner for crypto industry players' while shaping federal crypto policy. 'Mr. Sacks simultaneously leads a firm invested in crypto while guiding the nation's crypto policy,' Warren wrote. 'Normally, federal law would prohibit such an explicit conflict of interest.' Sacks has largely dismissed Warren's concerns, accusing her of having a 'pathological hatred for the crypto community.' He has separately said that he sold a fortune in crypto before joining the White House 'because I didn't want to even have the appearance of a conflict.' Indeed, supporters of Sacks point to the sacrifices he's made for government service. According to his waivers, he and Craft Ventures have divested over $200 million in digital assets, with at least $85 million directly attributable to him. He has sold stakes in fast-growing companies, including his position in Elon Musk's xAI, and initiated the sale of interests in approximately 90 venture capital funds, including Sequoia funds. The source close to Sacks emphasizes these divestments, noting that because of his government role, Craft Ventures must now run every AI and crypto-related deal past the White House ethics committee. This oversight, they suggest, makes it implausible to invest in feeder funds and smaller deals, given the volume of work that might entail for everyone involved. Clark argues that the underlying ethical framework remains flawed. The waivers themselves, she argues, are designed to provide legal cover rather than address ethical concerns. 'This is whitewashing,' she said. Complicating matters further, Sacks works as a government employee just 130 days per year – effectively every other week – while maintaining his commercial activities during off periods. In September, for example, Sacks and his co-hosts in their popular podcast, All In, will stage what has become an annual three-day conference to which attendees pay $7,500 per person to join. While legally permissible, these activities further blur the lines between his public and private roles. Some observers wonder whether Sacks – a self-made billionaire by Forbes' estimates – will declare victory and exit government service altogether. With the GENIUS Act now law, he may consider his primary mission accomplished: bringing cryptocurrency from the fringes to center stage. But that will likely take time. Sacks used a Fox News appearance yesterday to detail his immediate priorities following the act's passage, emphasizing the development of regulatory frameworks in three key areas, including defining market structure categories (securities versus commodities versus digital assets), expanding stablecoin regulations, and evaluating a potential national digital asset stockpile. Meanwhile, critics concerned about conflicts of interest argue the precedent has been set. The rapid passage of crypto-friendly legislation, combined with ongoing investments in AI companies serving the federal government, suggests that Sacks and others with similar arrangements have positioned themselves and their wider orbit to benefit from their government access. Whether this represents a new normal for Silicon Valley relations with Washington, or instead an aberration that future administrations will reverse, remains to be seen. What's clear is that traditional ethics frameworks may be inadequate for an era when venture capitalists can maintain their investment activities while simultaneously shaping the policies that determine those investments' future value. For now, the arrangement continues, protected by carefully crafted waivers that ethics experts have questioned but find legally unassailable. As Clark puts it: 'No one will be able to prosecute him.'
