House Democrats demand answers from Fox News on edits to Trump's Epstein comments
The letter from Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), first obtained by CNN, accuses Fox News of omitting key context from Trump's response when asked by Fox & Friends host Rachel Campos-Duffy whether he would commit to making the Epstein files public. Garcia is requesting that the network provide all internal records and communications related to the interview with Trump's campaign.
'Considering President Trump's well-documented past social ties with Jeffrey Epstein, Fox News's selective omission raises serious concerns that the network may have deliberately sought to shield then-candidate Trump from any further association with Epstein,' the letter to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott and Fox Corp chairman Lachlan Murdoch reads.
'It is legitimate to ask whether President Trump himself or those close to him may have actively encouraged' the edit, Garcia adds.
The network, meanwhile, is denying any claims that it deceitfully edited the interview, noting that the entire conversation was later made available on its digital site.
'As previously stated, there was no selective or deceptive editing whatsoever. Portions of the initial interview that aired on Fox & Friends Weekend with then-candidate Trump on June 2, 2024 had standard editorial cuts for time and the full answer to the Epstein question aired on the following day's show,' Fox News said in a statement.
'The entire unedited interview was also run on multiple FOX News Media platforms with full transparency on June 3, 2024, including audio, digital and streaming, while the entire transcript was posted on foxnews.com,' the network added.
During the televised portion of the interview that originally aired on Fox & Friends Weekend, Trump appeared to be fully in favor of releasing the Epstein case documents, unequivocally telling Campos-Duffy that he supported that decision.
During the unedited version that was later made available online, however, Trump hedged and suggested that he would need to redact or fully withhold some documents and evidence because it could contain 'phony stuff' that could potentially 'affect people's lives.'
'Yeah, yeah, I would. I guess I would. I think that less so because, you don't know, you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there, because it's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world,' Trump told Campos-Duffy when asked if he'd declassify the Epstein files.
'Do you think that would restore trust? Help restore trust?' the Fox host wondered.
'I don't know about Epstein, so much as I do the others,' he deflected, referencing files related to the John F. Kennedy assassination and the 9/11 terror attacks. 'Certainly, about the way he died. It'd be interesting to find out what happened there, because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn't happen to be working, etc., etc. But yeah, I'd go a long way toward that one. The other stuff, I would.'
While the edit for the television broadcast drew attention at the time, especially after Trump sued CBS News for 'election interference' over edits 60 Minutes made to an interview with Kamala Harris, the Fox News sit-down has gained further scrutiny and criticism in recent days amid the uproar over the Justice Department's conclusion that Epstein had no 'client list' and died by suicide.
Amid the MAGA meltdown over the DOJ's memo and Trump now claiming the files are a Democrat-created 'hoax' while angrily demanding his 'stupid' supporters move on from Epstein, Democrats have looked to politically take advantage of the controversy by calling for the release of more documents and evidence.
Following CBS News parent company Paramount's recent $16 million settlement with the president over the 'meritless' 60 Minutes lawsuit, which occurred as Paramount seeks an $8 billion merger that requires the Trump administration's approval, Democratic senators questioned FCC Chairman Brendan Carr about the Fox News edit.
Carr, who is currently investigating CBS regarding the editing of its Harris interview, was asked last week by Sens. Chuck Schumer and Ed Markey why he wasn't probing the conservative cable giant.
'This selective editing appears to be far more misleading than the run-of-the-mill editorial decision-making in CBS's interview with Harris,' the senators' letter stated, adding that rather than investigate Fox, Carr's FCC 'should stop its partisan investigations into the news media and cease interfering with independent journalism altogether.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
7 minutes ago
- BBC News
US-China talks to restart as hopes grow for trade war truce extension
The US and China are due to start a fresh round of talks on Monday as expectations grow that the world's two biggest economies could agree a 90-day extension to their trade war meetings in Sweden - led on Washington's side by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and for Beijing by Vice Premier He Lifeng - come hours after US President Donald Trump announced a framework tariffs deal with the European current 90-day truce between the US and China - which saw the two countries temporarily lowering tariffs on each other - is set to end on 12 Trump returned to the White House in January, the US and China had raised import levies on each other to more than 100%. The current 90-day tariffs pause came after top officials from the US and China met in Geneva and London earlier this week, Bessent said talks with China were in "a very good place" and suggested the new round of talks could result in a second Monday, citing sources on both sides, the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post reported that the US and China are expected to extend the truce by another three BBC has contacted the Chinese embassy in the US and the US Treasury Department for latest US-China talks come after Washington struck deals with both the EU and Japan in the last Sunday, Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced a trade agreement ended a months-long standoff between two of the world's biggest economic week, Trump said Washington had agreed a "massive" trade deal with the agreement, Japan would invest $550bn (£407bn) in the US while its goods sold to America would be taxed at 15% when they reach the country - below the 25% tariff Trump had US has also struck tariffs deals with the UK, Indonesia and 10%, Britain has negotiated the lowest US tariff rate so similar breakthrough is expected from the US-China talks this week but, with expectations of an extension to their truce, there are hopes that global trade will not be hit by fresh tariffs disruption.
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
It's hard to see new left party cutting through in Scotland
The first thing to say is that if it is able to break out of the factions and abbreviations which abound in the terrain to the left of Labour – and with 300,000 claimed sign-ups and a poll rating of 10% it just might – then it marks a very big change in socialist thinking. For more than a century, socialists who wanted to change capitalism have rubbed along in the Labour Party with those who just wanted a bit more from it. Now large sections of the Labour left look set to give up the ghost. For me, that ship sailed long ago. It's more than two decades since I became convinced that using the powers that Scotland would get with political independence offered a much better prospect of changing the world than trying to reform a British state run by people still steeped in the mindset of empire. READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' Nonetheless it's an important debate. The political character of England should matter greatly to Scotland and this new party might even play a role here. In one sense the Labour left has nowhere to go. Those now in control of the party have made it perfectly clear radical views are no longer welcome within it. They have been demonised and purged. Labour is manifesting every bit as much intolerance and authoritarianism in its internal structures as it does in government. But how did it come to this? A short time ago the Labour left had more power than at any point in the party's history. Corbyn was leader and commanded the considerable resources provided to the parliamentary opposition by the state. The left controlled the conference and the NEC. And the mobilisation of the grassroots through Momentum was impressive in its day. Yet within a few short years it had all evaporated. Corbyn and others left or were expelled, policy was abandoned wholesale, and the Labour conference would sing the national anthem with no visible dissent. It has been a remarkable transition both in speed and scale. In part this is because the Corbyn project failed abjectly (Image: Getty) in its own terms. Jeremy became leader by accident. And he wasn't very good at it. I watched for years in the House of Commons the breathtaking disloyalty of the right-wing Labour parliamentarians towards the Corbyn front bench. It was embarrassing. Never have I seen such hostility and hate between political parties, never mind within one. But no-one got suspended, or expelled or deselected. They were ignored, left alone to operate as a party within a party. Despite his strength in the wider party organisation, Corbyn never moved against his enemy within. Too naïve, or too nice. Either way, a fatal mistake. Corbyn also never got out of his silo, unwilling or incapable of moving beyond his natural support. He should have developed a narrative about Brexit or constitutional reform that would have galvanised a wider alliance which the left could lead. He didn't. Once defeated, his opponents lost no time in eradicating any possible legacy. These right-wing parliamentarians had been busy making plans. There were organised by a ruthless and clever Irishman called Morgan McSweeney under the banner Labour Together. McSweeney built a strategy for power inspired by Odysseus. Seeing the popularity of left policies in the party, and among the electorate, he argued for 'Corbynism without Corbyn'. But he needed someone to front it who couldn't immediately be outed as a right-wing hack. Step forward the hapless Keir Starmer. You'll cringe to look now at the ten-point platform McSweeney drew up for Starmer's leadership bid. Common ownership, higher income tax on top earners, improving welfare, and more. It worked at the time. Those Labour members who hadn't left after their leader fell lapped it up. Once in position, McSweeney and his acolytes didn't show any hesitation that might have come from wanting to be nice or fair. At breakneck speed and with ruthless efficiency they brushed aside anyone in their way, including many on the soft left, which they saw as a gateway for extremists. They won through deceit, but at the price of the party itself. Which is why we've got a new one. So, what does this mean for us? We've just got used to Scotland being a plurality in which six parties compete. Are we now to have seven? It's hard to see. Certainly, there's plenty of discontent within Labour ranks, but not nearly as much as in places like London. Besides, there's already plenty of options where the disenchanted could escape to. And across it all lies the independence question. Not really something you can avoid. Is it plausible, or possible, for a new party to say we're really radical and want a complete overhaul of the system, but we are agnostic on whether Scotland should be an independent country or remain in the UK? Especially when they would, by definition, be living proof of the failure of the latter option.
The National
22 minutes ago
- The National
Sign of a bright energy future – but for whom?
I saw John Swinney visiting Eyemouth last week and singing the praises of the Neart na Gaoithe wind farm in the Firth of Forth. For sure, the First Minister was right, it is a wonder of engineering and a sign of a bright energy future. But for whom? Almost all the benefits are passing Scotland by, just as they did in the first great energy bounty, when oil was discovered in the North Sea. Oil's still there and still being drilled for, though not as much as it should be, and it's only weeks since the Grangemouth oil refinery closed. Of course, there's a nice shiny new office block on Eyemouth pier for NnG, as it is referred to. The jobs there are few but welcome all the same. But where's the real work going – and, more importantly, who owns and profits? READ MORE: Man arrested for 'carrying a placard calling Donald Trump an offensive word' NnG might lie between Lothians and Fife but ownership lies abroad and a clue's in the name. Neart na Gaoithe is Gaelic but the Irish version, the reason being that the wind farm is owned not just by EDF, the state energy company of France but also ESB, the Republic of Ireland's state electricity company. The Irish consul general told me it is the single biggest investment ESB has ever made outwith the island of Ireland. All this means that profits from the wonder Swinney saw are going to Paris and Dublin and not to Edinburgh. But it's far worse than that: not one turbine for it is being manufactured in Scotland, despite Methil being visible from it, never mind other ports and yards in Scotland being available which are crying out for work. Even if the excuse is a lack of capacity here in turbine manufacturing – which itself is lamentable and indicative of a shameful lack of an industrial strategy – what about other works such as subsea cabling, the laying of pipeline and the assembly of the units, along with the ship contracts? As with ownership, they've gone abroad, with firms from Italy, Belgium and far beyond winning out and Scotland languishing without. Even the jobs that are coming to Scotland are limited. Beyond the smaller vessels at Eyemouth, there was hope for work for maritime crews providing for the major construction and cabling work from Montrose. So thought a former constituent of mine who left the deep-sea tankers for a job closer to home. Within a few days he and the rest of the UK crew had been laid off and replaced by South Asian labour. When you're working beyond territorial waters – and that's where NnG lies – UK employment law doesn't apply. What a rip-off. And the NnG tragedy won't be alone as it's not the only Scottish offshore wind farm owned by foreign state companies; China, Norway, Sweden and the UAE also have sites. There's a double whammy here, and not just in the work and contracts being frittered away. When the ScotWind auction took place – under the auspices and control of the Scottish not UK Government – offshore sites were sold off for a song. The £800 million raised was trumpeted as a triumph by the then first minister Nicola Sturgeon. Yet within a matter of weeks that was shown to be a paltry sum. Less than 25% of what had been auctioned off in Scotland was sold in the US by New York State for a site off Long Island and for somewhere in the region of $4.3 billion. And believe me, the European energy market, of which Scotland is a critical part, is larger than the US's. But we were told all's well as we'd be getting the supply jobs. Well, where are they? A few jobs at Eyemouth and a few ribs going out of that port aren't what we were led to believe we'd get, and are probably less that Ireland will have from just NnG alone. What a waste and what a letdown. The Scottish tragedy is being repeated but when it was oil and gas we had no Parliament. Now we have Holyrood and, shamefully, it is being complicit as well as supine. Yes, energy is largely reserved but the ScotWind sell-off was wholly down to [[Holyrood]]. This is our great opportunity, as the First Minister said, but it has to actually happen, not just be empty rhetoric. While Swinney was at Eyemouth harbour, I was at the funeral of an independence stalwart and was reminded by the eulogy of his role in the anti-poll tax campaign. Back then, he and his compadre, who sat next to me in the chapel, painted 'Pay No Poll Tax' on the bridges along the M8. No easy task but much appreciated by many. Things should be better and easier for us now, but as well as failures there's been a dampening of the spirit. Radicalism, let alone political actions, have been decried, as shown over the genocide in Palestine. We need some competency in our Government, but we also require some fire back in our movement.
