Live updates on Trump's presidency: Administration seeks release of Epstein testimony
Date: 13 min ago
Title: Trump says "nothing will be good enough" for those demanding more information on Epstein case
Content:
President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post yesterday that 'nothing will be good enough' for those he deems 'troublemakers' and 'radical left lunatics' demanding more information on the Jeffrey Epstein case.
Trump's post came after days of turmoil surrounding his administration's handling of documents related to the disgraced financier, including rare criticism from the president's MAGA base. The Justice Department on Friday asked a judge to release years-old grand jury testimony made against Epstein, the convicted sex offender who faced sex trafficking and conspiracy charges before his 2019 death in jail.
'I have asked the Justice Department to release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to Court Approval. With that being said, and even if the Court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more,' Trump wrote yesterday morning.
In the Justice Department filing, Attorney General Pam Bondi said unsealing the transcripts would be justified by the public's 'longstanding and legitimate interest.' But it's ultimately up to a federal judge to decide.
Trump's weekend: The president is expected to remain in the Washington, DC, area and does not have public events scheduled this weekend.
He took private meetings yesterday afternoon at his Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, a White House official said. The official declined to share any details about the meetings.
CNN's Aleena Fayaz contributed to this report.
Update:
Date: 14 min ago
Title: Catch up on a chaotic week in the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files
Content:
The Justice Department has asked a federal judge to release years-old grand jury testimony made against convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as President Donald Trump fumes on social media over public demands to release the so-called Epstein files.
If you're just catching up on the saga, here's what to know:
• How we got here: The DOJ's move came after a week of outcry from the president's MAGA base over the administration's perceived backtracking on promises of maximum transparency regarding Epstein. The pressure campaign had been ramping up since the Justice Department said in a memo earlier this month that it wouldn't be releasing further documents on the case.
• Putting the request in context: Grand jury testimony made behind closed doors is a 'minuscule fraction of the entire file' from Epstein's case, according to CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. And while Attorney General Pam Bondi argued in her request that releasing the material is in the public interest, it's ultimately the court's decision.
• Trump sues newspaper: Trump also announced Friday that he is suing the publisher of The Wall Street Journal and two reporters who wrote a story about a collection of letters gifted to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003, including a note bearing Trump's name and an outline of a naked woman. The Journal report seemed to unite a set of skeptical MAGA influencers in defense of the president after the week's turmoil.
• More on the doodle: The president has emphatically denied writing the note and said he doesn't draw pictures. But a charity director told CNN she received two doodles from him in 2004 for an auction in Ohio.
• Read CNN analysis: With the renewed scrutiny surround Trump's relationship with Epstein, CNN identified five key questions that remain unanswered.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NFL players, employees fined for selling Super Bowl tickets: reports
More than 100 NFL players and dozens of club employees are to be fined or suspended for selling their allocations of tickets for this year's Super Bowl on secondary markets, US media reported on Friday. ESPN reported that players who sold allotted tickets will be fined one-and-a-half times the face value of the tickets sold and be barred from receiving tickets to the next two editions of the Super Bowl. Players amongst those caught will be given the option of purchasing tickets if their team reaches the Super Bowl in 2026 or 2027. Players who decline to pay the fines face being suspended, ESPN cited league and union sources as saying. ESPN quoted an NFL memo sent to teams which said employees and players had sold tickets to "bundlers" working with a ticket resale site. Tickets to the Super Bowl are consistently one of the hottest -- and most expensive -- tickets in North American sport, fetching as much as $10,000 on resale sites. "Our initial investigation has determined that a number of NFL players and coaches, employed by several NFL Clubs, sold Super Bowl tickets for more than the ticket's face value in violation of the policy," NFL chief compliance officer Sabrina Perel wrote in the memo. Perel cited "long-standing league policy" which "prohibits League or club employees, including players, from selling NFL game tickets acquired from their employer for more than the ticket's face value or for an amount greater than the employee originally paid for the ticket, whichever is less." Perel added that the league will enhance mandatory training before Super Bowl LX for all league personnel to emphasize the rules and "the broader principle that no one should profit personally from their NFL affiliation at the expense of our fans." The league, meanwhile, also planned to improve training to avoid a repeat, with the possibility of stiffer sanctions for future offenses. "No one should profit personally from their NFL affiliation at the expense of our fans," Perel wrote in the memo. rcw/js
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Meta Clashes With Apple, Google Over Age Check Legislation
(Bloomberg) -- The biggest tech companies are warring over who's responsible for children's safety online, with billions of dollars in fines on the line as states rapidly pass conflicting laws requiring companies to verify users' ages. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy The struggle has pitted Meta Platforms Inc. and other app developers against Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.'s Google, the world's largest app stores. Lobbyists for both sides are moving from state to state, working to water down or redirect the legislation to minimize their clients' risks. This year alone, at least three states — Utah, Texas and Louisiana — passed legislation requiring tech companies to authenticate users' ages, secure parental consent for anyone under 18 and ensure minors are protected from potentially harmful digital experiences. Now, lobbyists for all three companies are flooding into South Carolina and Ohio, the next possible states to consider such legislation. The debate has taken on new importance after the Supreme Court this summer ruled age verification laws are constitutional in some instances. A tech group on Wednesday petitioned the Supreme Court to block a social media age verification law in Mississippi, teeing up a highly consequential decision in the next few weeks. Child advocates say holding tech companies responsible for verifying the ages of their users is key to creating a safer online experience for minors. Parents and advocates have alleged the social media platforms funnel children into unsafe and toxic online spaces, exposing young people to harmful content about self harm, eating disorders, drug abuse and more. Blame Game Meta supporters argue the app stores should be responsible for figuring out whether minors are accessing inappropriate content, comparing the app store to a liquor store that checks patrons' IDs. Apple and Google, meanwhile, argue age verification laws violate children's privacy and argue the individual apps are better-positioned to do age checks. Apple said it's more accurate to describe the app store as a mall and Meta as the liquor store. The three new state laws put the responsibility on app stores, signaling Meta's arguments are gaining traction. The company lobbied in support of the Utah and Louisiana laws putting the onus on Apple and Google for tracking their users' ages. Similar Meta-backed proposals have been introduced in 20 states. Federal legislation proposed by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah would hold the app stores accountable for verifying users' ages. Still, Meta's track record in its state campaigns is mixed. At least eight states have passed laws since 2024 forcing social media platforms to verify users' ages and protect minors online. Apple and Google have mobilized dozens of lobbyists across those states to argue that Meta is shirking responsibility for protecting children. 'We see the legislation being pushed by Meta as an effort to offload their own responsibilities to keep kids safe,' said Google spokesperson Danielle Cohen. 'These proposals introduce new risks to the privacy of minors, without actually addressing the harms that are inspiring lawmakers to act.' Meta spokesperson Rachel Holland countered that the company is supporting the approach favored by parents who want to keep their children safe online. 'Parents want a one-stop-shop to oversee their teen's online lives and 80% of American parents and bipartisan lawmakers across 20 states and the federal government agree that app stores are best positioned to provide this,' Holland said. As the regulation patchwork continues to take shape, the companies have each taken voluntary steps to protect children online. Meta has implemented new protections to restrict teens from accessing 'sensitive' content, like posts related to suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. Apple created 'Child Accounts,' which give parents more control over their children's' online activity. At Apple, spokesperson Peter Ajemian said it 'soon will release our new age assurance feature that empowers parents to share their child's age range with apps without disclosing sensitive information.' Splintered Groups As the lobbying battle over age verification heats up, influential big tech groups are splintering and new ones emerging. Meta last year left Chamber of Progress, a liberal-leaning tech group that counts Apple and Google as members. Since then, the chamber, which is led by a former Google lobbyist and brands itself as the Democratic-aligned voice for the tech industry, has grown more aggressive in its advocacy against all age verification bills. 'I understand the temptation within a company to try to redirect policymakers towards the company's rivals, but ultimately most legislators don't want to intervene in a squabble between big tech giants,' said Chamber of Progress CEO Adam Kovacevich. Meta tried unsuccessfully to convince another major tech trade group, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, to stop working against bills Meta supports, two people familiar with the dynamics said. Meta, a CCIA member, acknowledged it doesn't always agree with the association. Meta is also still a member of NetChoice, which opposes all age verification laws no matter who's responsible. The group currently has 10 active lawsuits on the matter, including battling some of Meta's preferred laws. The disagreements have prompted some of the companies to form entirely new lobbying outfits. Meta in April teamed up with Spotify Technology SA and Match Group Inc. to launch a coalition aimed at taking on Apple and Google, including over the issue of age verification. Competing Campaigns Meta is also helping to fund the Digital Childhood Alliance, a coalition of conservative groups leading efforts to pass app-store age verification, according to three people familiar with the funding. Neither the Digital Childhood Alliance nor Meta responded directly to questions about whether Meta is funding the group. But Meta said it has collaborated with Digital Childhood Alliance. The group's executive director, Casey Stefanski, said it includes more than 100 organizations and child safety advocates who are pushing for more legislation that puts responsibility on the app stores. Stefanski said the Digital Childhood Alliance has met with Google 'several times' to share their concerns about the app store in recent months. The App Association, a group backed by Apple, has been running ads in Texas, Alabama, Louisiana and Ohio arguing that the app store age verification bills are backed by porn websites and companies. The adult entertainment industry's main lobby said it is not pushing for the bills; pornography is mostly banned from app stores. 'This one-size fits all approach is built to solve problems social media platforms have with their systems while making our members, small tech companies and app developers, collateral damage,' said App Association spokesperson Jack Fleming. In South Carolina and Ohio, there are competing proposals placing different levels of responsibility on the app stores and developers. That could end with more stringent legislation that makes neither side happy. 'When big tech acts as a monolith, that's when things die,' said Joel Thayer, a supporter of the app store age verification bills. 'But when they start breaking up that concentration of influence, all the sudden good things start happening because the reality is, these guys are just a hair's breath away from eating each other alive.' (Updates with App Association statement in 24th paragraph.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: For Coldplay concert couple, Canadian harassment law would top privacy concerns
If you want to know how far harassment protections have expanded in Canadian workplace law today, look no further than the Coldplay concert debacle. While most observers seem to agree that the two colleagues caught canoodling at a Boston Coldplay concert — the chief executive and head of HR for U.S. tech company Astronomer — have been appropriately (and very publicly) shamed, there are divisions on the question of professional punishment and accountability. I have read arguments suggesting that the relationship, while extramarital, was between two consenting adults, and therefore not deserving of reprimand or termination, or perhaps even investigation. Or that the company had no interest in getting involved, since there was no evidence of coercion or complaints of favouritism or violation of company policies. None of this is reflective of Canadian law today. First, all potential harassment must be investigated, whether there is a complaint or not. The fact that a relationship between a superior or subordinate is ostensibly 'consensual' does not end the issue legally. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted last month in a case involving Metrolinx: 'There are many reasons why a victim of harassment might choose not to pursue an official complaint, none of which erase the harassing behaviour or the employer's obligation to investigate it to protect the workplace from a hostile or demeaning environment. … (A lack of complaint) does not relieve an employer of its statutory duty (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of each province) to conduct an investigation' into harassment. The Court of Appeal in that case made clear that the obligation of an employer to investigate potential harassment is not just owed to the potential victim but to all employees in that workplace. But does the apparent affair between the CEO and HR head qualify as harassment, which therefore must be investigated? In 2001, there was a groundbreaking decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simpson v. Consumers Association of Canada, in which the court made clear that there should be no assumption that a relationship is consensual even if it might appear so. Instead, an evaluation of the imbalance of power must occur to see if there may be factors affecting the individual's consent (scared of losing job, afraid of reprisal, etc.). 'It is an error to ignore the supervisory role of the alleged harasser and to treat him as one of the employees. … Mr. Simpson may well have viewed all of his conduct as consensual and therefore as welcome. Because of the power imbalance in an employee's relationship with a supervisor, and the perceived consequences to objecting to a supervisor's behaviour, particularly when the behaviour is not directed specifically at that employee … an employee may go along with the conduct. In those circumstances, the employee will be effectively consenting to unwelcome conduct because she feels constrained from objecting' This 25-year-old case highlighted that claims of consensual conduct will be closely examined when the individual involved holds a position of power. It is important to monitor relationships involving power differentials, as they give rise to legal risk. The court noted that anyone in a position of authority — and Andy Byron, the CEO in the Coldplay imbroglio would no doubt qualify — 'owes duties to their employer … to protect employees from harassing behaviour and to safeguard the employer from potential civil liability arising from such complaints. Any CEO consorting with an employee risks that employee later saying that they only succumbed to the CEO's advances to protect their job. In the Simpson case, the court also noted it is 'a workplace reality that it is difficult for staff to disapprove of the conduct of a superior without feeling that their jobs may thereby be in jeopardy.' It further stated that Simpson 'failed to properly consider whether the reason Ms. X felt that she was obliged to go along with his behaviour was to ensure that she retained her job, which she needed, and to be part of Mr. Simpson's 'inner circle.' Perhaps most important and relevant to the Andy Byron affair, the court said that a having a relationship with a subordinate exposes the employer to the risk of civil suits, and that it the job of senior employees to ensure an employer carries out its duties to its workers, shareholders and the public so that the company is protected. 'If the supervisor creates the problem,' the court said, 'he is in breach of that duty.' The suggestion that privacy concerns prevail is also inconsistent with the development of sexual harassment law in this country. Privacy rights are generally dramatically overstated: in other words, in general, privacy rights have little protection under our law and they fall to the wayside next to an employer's duty to stop and investigate potential harassment in their workplace. There is a common misconception that employers must find that a relationship lacked consent or that there was differential treatment before management can act. This assumes that the subordinate employee will come forward willingly, which, as noted above, may not occur. Employers are obliged to deal with potential harassment prior to any escalation by complaining employees. Of course, if policies are violated, such as one prohibiting superior-subordinate relationships, which I encourage employers to adopt — or at least policies requiring disclosure of such relationships — the case against the violator is clearer. But superior-subordinate relationships are always problematic, even in the absence of such policies. Howard Levitt: How the Coldplay concert affair would have played out in Canada Howard Levitt: Even the most desultory employee can find favour with the courts In short, in Canada, employers cannot view relationships between superiors and subordinates with equanimity, nor as private affairs. They must investigate from the standpoint that any such relationship may be inherently coercive and, in any event, damaging to the organization and come with substantial liability risks. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.
