Raskin: Not releasing Epstein files ‘dangerous to public health and safety'
'If there are literally other people on this list who are somehow implicated in these actions, it is dangerous to public health and safety not to release the names publicly,' Raskin said during an appearance on MSNBC's ' Deadline: White House.'
His request comes after Attorney General Pam Bondi released binders earlier this year to conservative influencers called 'The Epstein Files: Phase 1.' She later signaled more information would be released, as the binders included details that were previously released.
She also suggested during an interview with Fox News in February that a full client list was sitting on her desk for a review. Bondi sought to clarify those comments last week during a Cabinet meeting, saying she was referring to the files — not a list of names.
Criticism of the administration's handling of the case came into full view earlier this month after the Justice Department and FBI issued a joint memo concluding that Epstein committed suicide in his jail cell in 2019 and that there was no evidence pointing to a client list.
Democrats and even some MAGA supporters have lashed out over the memo, urging the administration to release the files in full.
In his comments Monday, Raskin pressed for more transparency.
'If all of it is a concoction and an invention, then I think they need to come clean about that and say they don't have such a list or it's made up or what have you,' the Maryland Democrat told host Nicolle Wallace. 'But I think it's very dangerous just to leave these things hanging out there.'
He also suggested that President Trump is the one who made the decision to withhold files.
'Clearly, it's Donald Trump who's making the call here for whatever reason,' Raskin said. 'He said he was going to release it and now he's saying there's nothing to see here and appears to be wanting to sweep the whole thing under the rug.'
'And I think that's an irresponsible way to proceed after having inflamed millions and millions of people in the country and raised all kinds of doubts about our law enforcement commitment to prosecuting child sex abuse,' he added.
Trump has defended his administration in light of the controversy. During Tuesday's Cabinet meeting the president reprimanded a reporter who asked questions around the Epstein files and on Saturday, he said Bondi was doing a 'fantastic job.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cambodia to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for role in ending country's conflict with Thailand
Cambodia will nominate President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize after he helped the country reach a ceasefire agreement to end its border conflict with Thailand. Sun Chanthol, Cambodia's deputy prime minister, thanked Trump for bringing peace to the region while speaking to reporters earlier Friday in the country's capital of Phnom Penh. Chanthol said the American president deserved to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, the highest-profile international award given to a person or organization for doing the most to "advance fellowship between nations." "We acknowledge his great efforts for peace," Chanthol said. THAILAND, CAMBODIA REACH CEASEFIRE DEAL TO END CONFLICT THAT DISPLACED 260k, TRUMP SAYS Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said last month he had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize and Pakistani officials said in June they would recommend him for the award for his role in helping to end its conflict with India. Read On The Fox News App Trump urged a ceasefire last week when he spoke to the leaders of Cambodia and Thailand and threatened that the U.S. would not get back to the "trading table" with the Southeast Asian countries until the fighting stops. A ceasefire was negotiated in Malaysia on Monday, ending the heaviest conflict between the two countries in over a decade. "Numerous people were killed and I was dealing with two countries that we get along with very well, very different countries from certain standpoints. They've been fighting for 500 years intermittently. And, we solved that war ... we solved it through trade," Trump told reporters during his recent trip to Scotland. Trump Calls For Immediate Ceasefire Between Cambodia And Thailand Amid Escalating Violence Following news of the ceasefire, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt wrote on X that Trump's direct involvement led to the truce. "President Trump made this happen. Give him the Nobel Peace Prize!," she said. The fighting began last week after a land mine explosion along the border wounded five Thai soldiers. Each side blamed the other for starting the clashes, which lasted five days. At least 43 people were killed and more than 300,000 people were displaced on both sides of the border. "I said, 'I don't want to trade with anybody that's killing each other,'" Trump continued while in Scotland. "So we just got that one solved. And I'm going to call the two prime ministers who I got along with very, very well and speak to them right after this meeting and congratulate them. But it was an honor to be involved in that. That was going to be a very nasty war. Those wars have been very, very nasty." Chanthol, who also serves as Cambodia's top trade negotiator, said his country was also grateful to Trump for a reduced tariff rate of 19%. The Trump administration had initially threatened a tariff of 49% before later reducing it to 36%, a level that would have decimated Cambodia's vital garment and footwear sector, Chanthol told Reuters. Reuters contributed to this article source: Cambodia to nominate Trump for Nobel Peace Prize for role in ending country's conflict with Thailand Solve the daily Crossword
Boston Globe
43 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
How Democrats can stop talking past each other and start winning
A second group of moderates, including important donors, are libertarians who endorse ' Advertisement The third group of moderate Democrats yearns to turn back the clock to the New Deal coalition. A chief spokesperson is Ruy Teixeira of the Liberal Patriot newsletter. '[T]he New Deal Democrats were moderate and even small-c conservative in their social outlook,' he Advertisement Beginning in the 1970s, college-educated progressives began to focus on issues involving race, gender, the environment, and sexual freedom. Teixeira This brings us to the only moderate position that holds promise for Democrats: defining moderate as being pragmatic, rather than doctrinaire. College-educated progressives need to recognize that their priorities and their cultural values don't match those of most Americans. In 2024, inflation and the economy were Advertisement Centering that economic message is the first pragmatic step in rebuilding Democrats' brand to appeal to both college grads and noncollege grads. The second step is to recognize that cultural preferences differ across class lines. Non-elites value self-discipline because they need to get up every day, on time, without an attitude, to work at jobs with little autonomy. Consequently, they highly value traditional institutions that anchor self-discipline: religion, the military, the family. Those same institutions offer non-elites sources of social status independent of their subordinate positions in a capitalist economy. Blue-collar values reflect blue-collar lives. That's why, on cultural issues, college-educated progressives need to stop demanding a mind-meld with the Democratic Party. If you're playing to win, politics requires not purity but an ability to build coalitions with people whose values may differ from yours in fundamental ways. Democrats need to treat voters without college degrees as respected coalition partners, making tradeoffs. Advertisement This doesn't mean that progressives need to abandon their values; it means they have to act on them. Here are two uncomfortable facts: Progressive activists as a group are much
an hour ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
