US federal judge refuses Trump's bid to unseal Epstein grand jury records
On Wednesday, US District Judge Robin Rosenberg of Florida indicated her hands were 'tied' in the matter.
The unsealing of grand jury testimony is relatively rare, given the need for secrecy in such sensitive criminal investigations.
There are only narrow exceptions to federal criminal procedure that would allow for the transcripts to be released, and Judge Rosenberg indicated that those were not met by the Justice Department's requests.
The request Judge Rosenberg received was one of three issued by the Justice Department, as it seeks to tamp down outrage from President Donald Trump's base about the lack of recent revelations in the Epstein scandal.
Epstein scandal fuels conspiracy theories
In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi played up the impending release of a trove of documents related to Epstein, a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender whose entourage included high-profile figures.
Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial in New York, fuelling conspiracy theories that his death might have been a cover-up orchestrated by powerful, shadowy figures.
But the nearly 200 pages Bondi and the Justice Department ultimately published failed to produce any major new revelations. It also notably lacked the 'client list' that Bondi told Fox News was 'sitting on my desk right now to review'.
Some of President Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters had pushed the idea that paedophiles had infiltrated the highest levels of government and popular media, and that Epstein kept a client list in order to blackmail those power brokers.
Even Trump's appointee to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Kash Patel, and his second-in-command Dan Bongino had promoted the conspiracy theories, claiming there was a 'black book' or 'list' in the government's possession that would prove the Epstein rumours.
But the FBI and the Justice Department have since attempted to quash that speculation. In July, the agencies released a joint memorandum denying the existence of such a list.
'This systematic review revealed no incriminating 'client list.' There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,' it read.
Scrutiny on Trump
That, however, did little to abate the outrage, and scrutiny has since turned to President Trump's own relationship with Epstein.
The Wall Street Journal this month published a report alleging that Trump had signed a birthday note to Epstein featuring a suggestive message, alongside a doodle of a naked woman. Trump denied ever writing or drawing such a birthday message, and he has since sued the newspaper and its parent company.
But on Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal continued its coverage of the Epstein scandal with an article that alleged the Justice Department knew Trump's name appeared multiple times in files related to the sex offender.
Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, called the latest report 'another fake news story'.
Trump has called for all the Epstein transcripts to be released, calling the ongoing scandal a 'scam' and a 'hoax'. He also repudiated any of his supporters who believed the rumours.
'My PAST supporters have bought into this 'bull****,' hook, line, and sinker,' Trump wrote on social media on July 16. 'Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work.'
While the Justice Department has argued there is 'extensive public interest' in releasing the grand jury transcripts, experts say those testimonies are unlikely to contain the full extent of the evidence in the Epstein case.
Federal grand jury testimonies are usually brief, supplying only enough information to secure an indictment.
One former federal prosecutor, Sarah Krissoff, told The Associated Press the transcripts are likely to be a 'distraction'.
'The president is trying to present himself as if he's doing something here, and it really is nothing,' Krissoff said in an interview published earlier this week.
Democrats seek advantage
Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to highlight the lingering questions about Epstein in a bid to damage Trump's reputation with his supporters.
In the House of Representatives, for instance, Democrats on the Committee for Oversight launched a bid to subpoena the Justice Department for all its Epstein files.
Rather than risk a vote to push for further Epstein records, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson adjourned the chamber early for its six-week August recess.
Democrats like Representative Summer Lee seized upon that manouevre as evidence of complicity.
'They're fleeing our work, our job and sending us back home because they don't want to vote to release these files,' Lee said.
But Johnson defended the move this week, saying Trump officials were 'already doing everything within their power to release them'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Public opinion is split as US marks 80th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing
On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first and only country in history to carry out a nuclear attack when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While the death toll of the bombing remains a subject of debate, at least 70,000 people were killed, though other figures are nearly twice as high. Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least 40,000 people. The stunning toll on Japanese civilians at first seemed to have little impact on public opinion in the US, where pollsters found approval for the bombing reached 85 percent in the days afterwards. To this day, US politicians continue to credit the bombing with saving American lives and ending World War II. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, perceptions have become increasingly mixed. A Pew Research Center poll last month indicated that Americans are split almost evenly into three categories. Nearly a third of respondents believe the use of the bomb was justified. Another third feels it was not. And the rest are uncertain about deciding either way. 'The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,' Eileen Yam, the director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. 'This is something Americans have gotten less and less supportive of as time has gone by.' Tumbling approval rates Doubts about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the advent of nuclear weapons in general, did not take long to set in. 'From the beginning, it was understood that this was something different, a weapon that could destroy entire cities,' said Kai Bird, a US author who has written about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His Pulitzer Prize-winning book, American Prometheus, served as the basis for director Christopher Nolan's 2023 film, Oppenheimer. Bird pointed out that, even in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, some key politicians and public figures denounced it as a war crime. Early critics included physicist Albert Einstein and former President Herbert Hoover, who was quick to speak out against the civilian bloodshed. 'The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,' Hoover wrote within days of the bombing. Over time, historians have increasingly cast doubt on the most common justification for the atomic attacks: that they played a decisive role in ending World War II. Some academics point out that other factors likely played a larger role in the Japanese decision to surrender, including the Soviet Union's declaration of war against the island nation on August 8. Others have speculated whether the bombings were meant mostly as a demonstration of strength as the US prepared for its confrontation with the Soviet Union in what would become the Cold War. Accounts from Japanese survivors and media reports also played a role in changing public perceptions. John Hersey's 1946 profile of six victims, for instance, took up an entire edition of The New Yorker magazine. It chronicled, in harrowing detail, everything from the crushing power of the blast to the fever, nausea and death brought on by radiation sickness. By 1990, a Pew poll found that a shrinking majority in the US approved of the atomic bomb's use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 53 percent felt it was merited. Rationalising US use of force But even at the close of the 20th century, the legacy of the attacks remained contentious in the US. For the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, had planned a special exhibit. But it was cancelled amid public furore over sections of the display that explored the experiences of Japanese civilians and the debate about the use of the atomic bomb. US veterans groups argued that the exhibit undermined their sacrifices, even after it underwent extensive revision. 'The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims,' William Detweiler, a leader at the American Legion, a veterans group, told The Associated Press at the time. Incensed members of Congress opened an investigation, and the museum's director resigned. The exhibit, meanwhile, never opened to the public. All that remained was a display of the Enola Gay, the aeroplane that dropped the first atomic bomb. Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, says that the debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world. 'What's at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire, right up to the current day,' he told Al Jazeera. Baker explained that the US narrative about its role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — the main 'Axis Powers' in World War II — has been frequently referenced to assert the righteousness of US interventions around the world. 'If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do 'whatever was necessary' to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can't be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the 'bad guys' today,' he added. A resurgence of nuclear anxiety But as the generations that lived through World War II grow older and pass away, cultural shifts are emerging in how different age groups approach US intervention — and use of force — abroad. The scepticism is especially pronounced among young people, large numbers of whom have expressed dissatisfaction with policies such as US support for Israel's war in Gaza. In an April 2024 poll, the Pew Research Center found a dramatic generational divide among Americans over the question of global engagement. Approximately 74 percent of older respondents, aged 65 and up, expressed a strong belief that the US should play an active role on the world stage. But only 33 percent of younger respondents, aged 18 to 35, felt the same way. Last month's Pew poll on the atomic bomb also found stark differences in age. People over the age of 65 were more than twice as likely to believe that the bombings were justified than people between the ages of 18 and 29. Yam, the Pew researcher, said that age was the 'most pronounced factor' in the results, beating out other characteristics, such as party affiliation and veteran status. The 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing also coincides with a period of renewed anxiety about nuclear weapons. US President Donald Trump, for instance, repeatedly warned during his re-election campaign in 2024 that the globe was on the precipice of 'World War III'. 'The threat is nuclear weapons,' Trump told a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia. 'That can happen tomorrow.' 'We're at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,' said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US-based think tank. Panda says that such concerns are linked to geopolitical tensions between different states, pointing to the recent fighting between India and Pakistan in May as one example. The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, has prompted Russia and the US, the world's two biggest nuclear powers, to exchange nuclear-tinged threats. And in June, the US and Israel carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities with the stated aim of setting back the country's ability to develop nuclear weapons. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings, advocates hope the shift in public opinion will encourage world leaders to turn away from nuclear sabre-rattling and work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Seth Shelden, the United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, explained that countries with nuclear weapons argue that their arsenals discourage acts of aggression. But he said those arguments diminish the 'civilisation-ending' dangers of nuclear warfare. 'As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they're going to incentivise others to pursue them as well,' he said. 'The question shouldn't be whether nuclear deterrence can work or whether it ever has worked,' he added. 'It should be whether it will work in perpetuity.'
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
What Trump's tariffs mean for Shein and Temu shoppers
Are US tariffs about to end the 'add to cart' era? United States President Donald Trump's move to end the de minimis exemption closes a loophole used by Shein, Temu and others to ship duty-free. With costs likely passed to shoppers, consumers are starting to rethink the real price of ultra-cheap clothing.
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
White House says Apple to invest billions in US manufacturing
Apple will pledge $100bn for manufacturing in the United States that will focus on building more jobs across the country, the White House has said. The investment is expected to be announced on Wednesday. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Apple was likely to make an investment announcement on Wednesday, as he discussed the financial pledges made by companies and countries under US President Donald Trump. 'They're moving here in droves. This is trillions and trillions of dollars of commitments for people to build new factories here. In fact, you're likely to see one today from Apple,' Hassett said in an interview with Fox Business Network. Hassett did not elaborate further. The investment will help move key parts of the Cupertino, California-based tech giant's supply chain to the US, Bloomberg News reported, but details on the specifics were sparse. 'Today's announcement with Apple is another win for our manufacturing industry that will simultaneously help reshore the production of critical components to protect America's economic and national security,' Assistant White House Press Secretary Taylor Rogers said in a statement. The president is slated to make an announcement at 4:30pm in Washington (20:30 GMT), according to the White House, which gave no specifics about the deal with the tech giant. The latest investment Apple said in February that it would spend $500bn in US investments in the next four years, which would include a giant factory in Texas for artificial intelligence servers and the addition of about 20,000 research and development jobs across the country. Apple has many times pledged investments in the US in the last decade. In 2018, during Trump's first term, the company pledged $350bn. In 2021, under former President Joe Biden, Apple announced a $430bn investment. The investment comes after Trump warned that he would hit Apple with a 25 percent tariff if it did not move its manufacturing efforts to the US. Analysts have said such a shift is not realistic. Dan Ives at Wedbush Securities said in a note that it would take at least five to 10 years to shift production to the US, meaning consumers would pay as much as $3,500 for an iPhone. 'We believe the concept of Apple producing iPhones in the US is a fairy tale that is not feasible,' Ives had previously said. Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment. In April, Apple had announced plans to move to India the assembly of the majority of the phones it sells to the US by the end of next year in an effort to reduce its reliance on China as the trade war between the US and China heats up. But Trump's ire has now shifted to India and he has slapped the country with a 50 percent tariff over imports of Russian oil. It's not clear if the latest developments will impact Apple's India plans. Apple's stock surged on the looming US investment announcement. The company, which is traded under the ticker symbol APPL, is up more than 3.8 percent since the market opened as of 10:15am in New York (14:15 GMT) on Wednesday.
