Trump orders release of Epstein ‘transcripts'
After months of pledges to disclose the full case files, the US Department of Justice said in a memo on Sunday that no further documents would be made public – triggering backlash even among some of Trump's closest supporters.
'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony, subject to court approval,' Trump wrote on Truth Social on Thursday. 'This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!'
Bondi confirmed that her office is 'ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts,' though it remains unclear which documents would be released or when.
Epstein was arrested in 2019 and charged with trafficking minors for sex. He allegedly hanged himself in his New York jail cell before standing trial. His longtime associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, was later convicted of conspiring to sexually abuse underage girls and is now serving a 20-year sentence. Although Epstein's death was officially ruled a suicide, it has long fueled public skepticism.
The DOJ's controversial review concluded that no 'client list' of Epstein's sex-trafficking ring ever existed and found no evidence of blackmail. There were no grounds to investigate uncharged third parties, the memo stated.
These findings appeared to contradict Bondi's earlier comments that the client list was 'sitting on [her] desk,' and that the FBI had turned over a 'truckload' of materials that would 'make you sick.'
During a government meeting on Tuesday, she walked back those remarks, clarifying that she was referring to case files on her desk in general. She also dismissed concerns about a one-minute gap in the 11-hour surveillance video recorded near Epstein's jail cell.
Trump ordered the release of additional documents after the Wall Street Journal published a report accusing him of sending a birthday greeting to Epstein in 2003 that allegedly featured a crude drawing of a nude woman. The president has denied the claim and threatened to sue Rupert Murdoch and what he called his 'third-rate newspaper' for defamation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
2 minutes ago
- Russia Today
How the Epstein saga exposed a system built on silence
In an age where every celebrity meltdown or presidential tantrum is livestreamed, where partisan jabs flood timelines within seconds, and where outrage is algorithmically amplified to viral proportions, one might assume that the most heinous crimes – especially those committed against the most vulnerable – would dominate media discourse. Yet the opposite is true. Global child trafficking, particularly when it implicates oligarchs, elite institutions, humanitarian organizations, and religious authorities, remains one of the most underreported, diluted, and actively suppressed issues across both mainstream and alternative media ecosystems. The selective silence is not accidental as it is designed to shield power from scrutiny while feigning moral concern. Take the decades-long cover-up of Jimmy Savile's crimes in Britain. For years, the BBC and the broader British establishment, including members of the royal family, ignored, enabled, or even protected a prolific predator in their midst. Keir Starmer, now prime minister, has faced longstanding accusations that he obstructed investigations into Savile's network during his tenure as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. Instead of truth and accountability, Britain witnessed institutional inertia and elite protectionism. Across the Atlantic, things are no better. US President Donald Trump – whose populist rise partly hinged on 'draining the swamp' and exposing elite pedophile rings – recently declared that there is 'nothing to see' in the Jeffrey Epstein files. He even dismissed ongoing public concern about the case as 'stupid.' This abrupt reversal betrayed many who viewed Epstein's exposure as a gateway to unraveling deeper systemic rot. Except for hardcore MAGA grifters and the 'compromised cohort', nobody bought Trump's deflections this time around. MIT scholar and activist Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai recently issued a single, scathing tweet – linked here – sharing FBI and DOJ files which contradicted Trump's words. These were not conspiracy breadcrumbs but official documents, offering a damning appetizer for anyone willing to dig deeper. But legacy media will ignore it, and alternative influencers will likely pivot to more 'monetizable' culture-war topics. Curiously, the Democratic Party – always eager to weaponize Trump's prevarications – remained suspiciously muted on the subject. The reason is not hard to fathom. America's political establishment functions as a duopoly. Republican or Democrat, both parties have skeletons in the same basement. When it comes to institutional crimes against children, mutual silence becomes a form of mutual protection. At one point, the hashtag #PedoPete – referring to then-President Joe Biden – trended briefly on Twitter. Today, the trend has flipped: #PedoTrump now circulates with greater, more sustained intensity. These hashtags may sound juvenile, but they reflect the fact that both sides of the political divide are equally compromised. When elite crimes threaten to break through media filters, the duopoly instinctively closes ranks. This is not just a media failure. It is a civilizational failure. The refusal to investigate, question, or even discuss the abuse of children by people in power suggests that, despite all our technological progress, we remain governed by the same feudal reflexes which protect the nobility, silence the peasants, and punish the whistleblowers. That so few journalists, influencers, or institutions dare to speak plainly about this issue is not due to lack of evidence. It is due to a lack of will. The media's silence is not benign; rather, it is complicity by omission. And increasingly, even independent platforms mirror the same herd behavior: Mainstream mimics mainstream; conspiracy mimics conspiracy. Viral outrage loops endlessly, but the hard questions go unasked. In an attention economy driven by clicks and tribal confirmation, there's little incentive to tackle issues that require long attention spans, moral courage, or cross-partisan inquiry. And so, the real stories – the ones involving systemic abuse, elite immunity, and generational trauma – remain locked in the basement of our public consciousness. The question is no longer whether the truth is out there. It is whether we are still capable of seeking it. According to the International Labor Organization, nearly 1.7 million children are victims of commercial sexual exploitation worldwide. (I believe this number to be grossly underreported). The figure does not include forced labor, child marriages, and trafficking under the guise of 'adoption' or 'rescue'. These crimes often occur in the shadows, but the silence surrounding them is deafening, especially considering the alleged involvement of trusted institutions like the UN, NGOs, and faith-based charities. In 2017, leaked internal UN reports and whistleblower testimonies revealed a disturbing pattern of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers in several African countries, notably the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Victims were children – orphaned, impoverished, and completely powerless. These revelations barely made headlines beyond a few days of fleeting, dissembled horror. There was no sustained investigation, no sweeping reckoning. The UN promised reforms, but follow-up reporting was minimal. And today, those same peacekeeping structures continue to operate with minimal public scrutiny. What happened to the Syrian children who disappeared during the years the West, Israel, Türkiye, and Global Jihad Inc. waged war on Bashar Assad? There were disturbing allegations that US intelligence had recruited children as suicide bombers for its jihadist proxies, some of whom were also accused of harvesting the organs of over 18,000 minors. So is it any wonder that Trump – who once vowed to defeat 'radical Islamic terror' – personally lavished praise on Syria's new president and jihadist war criminal extraordinaire Ahmed al-Sharaa? There is perhaps no greater moral shield for crimes against children than the Trojan Horse of charity. Some of the most egregious trafficking networks operate under the halo of humanitarian work. In Haiti, multiple investigations have revealed how certain orphanages and foreign-run NGOs were fronts for abuse and trafficking. In India and Nepal, similar patterns emerged: Western 'voluntourists' and missionaries gain access to vulnerable children under the pretext of aid, only to become conduits for exploitation. Mother Teresa's charity organization itself was linked to child trafficking networks spanning India to Haiti. Stories like these are often relegated to obscure human rights blogs or independent journalists with limited reach. Beholden to the same donor networks and oligarchic interests, the mainstream press simply looks away. While the AI boom dominates headlines in terms of productivity and existential risk, almost no major outlet has dared to delve into how generative AI tools are being used to create photorealistic child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The dark web is rife with communities exchanging AI-generated images, bypassing existing legal frameworks which often only address real photographic evidence. This raises disturbing questions: What constitutes child abuse imagery in the age of AI? How will law enforcement adapt? And why is no one talking about it? The tech platforms developing these tools are often mum about their misuse. Regulatory agencies are slow, and public debate is nearly non-existent. The media, meanwhile, prefers to debate AI replacing screenwriters rather than protecting children. In fact, AI parodies of Israel's genocidal war on Gaza are more likely to get censored than child sexual abuse material. The Epstein case should have shattered any illusions about elite immunity. A convicted sex offender with connections to presidents, royalty, and top scientists managed to operate a trafficking network for years – even after his initial conviction. His mysterious 'death in custody' convinced no one with two functioning brain cells. His co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted. Yet not a single client has been named in court. Rather than igniting systemic media scrutiny into elite involvement in trafficking, the Epstein saga has been conveniently bracketed as an anomaly or relegated to conspiracy land. But it was never just about Epstein. Similar scandals have emerged in the UK (the VIP child abuse ring), in Hollywood (Dan Schneider and Nickelodeon), and within religious institutions across continents. While the media has been reduced to a recycled echo chamber, the lesson bears repeating: The elite criminal class continues to get away with crimes against children with impunity. The hashtag #ArrestObama is trending before another sensationalist deflection takes over. What next? A few carefully scripted jabs at Benjamin Netanyahu to regain credibility with disillusioned MAGA voters? The decentralization of news via social media was expected to fill in vital gaps in mainstream reports. To some extent, it has. Survivors, whistleblowers, and independent researchers have found platforms to speak out. Hashtags like #SaveTheChildren briefly trended. But these moments are fleeting. The attention span of social media is short, and the billionaire owners of these platforms are inextricably linked to various elite pedophile networks. A 2024 meta-analysis by the University of Edinburgh estimated 302 million children (1 in 8 globally) experienced online sexual abuse annually, with platforms like Facebook serving as vectors for exploitation. Earlier, in 2020, Facebook accounted for around 20 million child sexual abuse material reports, constituting nearly 95% of all incidents submitted through its systems. By comparison, Google logged 500,000, Snapchat 150,000, and Twitter just 65,000. Serious discussions are also often hijacked by fringe accounts, QAnon-style disinformation, or bad-faith actors. As a result, the issue itself becomes tainted via guilt by association. Even legitimate stories and investigations are dismissed because they were shared by someone with suspect affiliations. This is a classic tactic perfected by the likes of the CIA and Mossad. The cost of media complicity in the face of global child trafficking is not just journalistic failure; it is moral collapse. The ongoing crimes against children is a human story of betrayal, of complicity, and of the innocent lives that are shattered while the world scrolls on.
Russia Today
4 hours ago
- Russia Today
Trump questions Kiev's use of US aid (VIDEO)
US President Donald Trump has claimed that billions of dollars in American aid given to Ukraine under his predecessor Joe Biden may have been misused. The US became Kiev's top foreign backer under the Biden administration, allocating over $170 billion in military and financial aid, according to official data. Trump, however, has long argued the total is far higher, estimating $350 billion in 'equipment and cash' and criticizing Biden for 'giving away' money without returns. He reiterated the point at a Republican meeting at the White House on Tuesday, questioning whether Kiev had actually used US aid for defense needs. 'Biden gave away $350 billion worth of equipment or cash. Worse than equipment – cash… They were supposed to buy their own equipment. But I have a feeling they didn't spend every dollar on the equipment,' Trump said. 'We want to find out about that [money], someday, I guess, right?' 'Not every dollar allocated to Ukraine by Biden for weapons was actually spent on them' – Trump believes that the Ukrainians partially embezzled American aid.'I am very proud that European countries will buy our weapons, pay 100% of their price, and then distribute them… Trump's comments echo growing concerns over corruption in Ukraine. The country has long struggled with graft, and its Defense Ministry has faced multiple scandals since the conflict with Russia escalated in 2022. Both the US and EU have pressed for audits and stronger anti-corruption measures. In April, US National Security Adviser Michael Waltz urged tighter oversight of aid, calling Ukraine 'one of the most corrupt nations in the world.' Despite calls for transparency, Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky signed a law this week reducing the independence of Ukraine's anti-corruption bodies, claiming it would streamline investigations. The legislation has triggered international scrutiny and protests across the country, with critics saying the move could be aimed at shielding Zelensky's inner circle and concealing the embezzlement of military funds. Moscow has long argued that Western aid prolongs the fighting without changing the outcome of the conflict. Russian officials have also long accused Kiev of misusing foreign funds. UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia told RT last month that it's 'an open secret' Ukraine 'stole billions of dollars out of the aid' and that Zelensky clings to power to avoid consequences.
Russia Today
18 hours ago
- Russia Today
Why this American vassal is suddenly defying its master
The Trump administration has been having a rough few months. Domestic chaos – fuelled by the use of black clad, masked para-military squads to deport illegal immigrants – has fused with the deepening foreign policy crises resulting from Trump's support for the doomed right-wing Zelensky and Netanyahu regimes. And if this were not bad enough, last week Trump escalated his disruption of the global economic order by imposing yet more tariffs on the EU and other countries that are ostensibly American allies. Add to that the establishment of an 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida and Trump's recently revealed threat to 'bomb the sh*t out of Russia and China,' and it's no surprise that even Trump's core MAGA supporters are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a president who promised them that he would swiftly end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and restore America's economic prosperity. They are also up in arms at the White House's refusal to release Jeffrey Epstein's client list, suspecting a self-serving cover up. Prominent Trump supporters are now openly critical, and Trump's dissatisfaction with inept cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi is clear for all to see. More ominous, perhaps, is the calculated silence of Vice President J.D. Vance in recent times. Even in Australia there are signs that the American hegemony is beginning to crumble. Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the extraordinary step of refusing to reassure Trump that Australia would assist America militarily if it went to war with China over Taiwan. Albanese's reluctant assertion of foreign policy independence was somewhat surprising given that, until now, he has been a keen supporter of Trump's foreign policy. Albanese remains a committed funder of the Zelensky regime, and Australia has consistently aligned itself with US policy in Gaza. The Australian leader enthusiastically embraced the AUKUS military agreement with America and the UK, when it was entered into by his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Morrison, and has echoed – albeit more moderately – the narrative surrounding a perceived China threat. Albanese's previous reluctance to assert its foreign policy independence is a consequence of Australia's longstanding dependence on America – together with Albanese's pragmatic decision to adopt wholesale the Conservative coalition's foreign policy framework so as to neutralise foreign policy as a domestic political issue. This foreign policy capitulation was also designed to mute criticism from the pro-Trump, pro-Israel, anti-China and anti-Russia Murdoch media empire – which incessantly promulgates various rejigged Cold War conspiracy theories demonising China, Russia, and the Palestinian cause. Albanese, of course, has has not succeeded in placating Murdoch – and it is a measure of his abject weakness as a political leader that he refuses to openly attack the owner of Fox News who peddles the same discredited dogmas in Australia that he does in America. It is Albanese's most egregious failure as prime minister to have permitted Murdoch to frame the foreign policy public debate – such as it is – in this country. Why then has Albanese belatedly decided to stand up to Trump? Primarily because the fundamental irrationality at the heart of the Trumpian agenda has now become glaringly obvious – even to political leaders as maladroit and supine as Albanese. Trump's efforts to dismantle the rules-based world order have, paradoxically, only strengthened China, Russia and BRICS. Meanwhile, the American proxy wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to intensify. Nor has Trump's green lighting of Netanyahu's recent attacks on Iran destroyed that country's nuclear capacity. Trump has shown skepticism about NATO, and his commitment to defending allies like Australia is unclear. The recent inquiry launched by Pete Hegseth into the AUKUS compact may signal intentions to withdraw from the agreement. The AUKUS deal – which obliges Australia is to pay $360 billion for a few submarines that may or may not be delivered years down the road – is not only economically profligate, but it ties Australia to Trump's military agenda. Why would Albanese give a commitment to Trump to provide militarily assistance should America be unwise enough to commence a war with China? Australia has no strategic interest in defending Taiwan, and only the most ideologically deranged of Murdoch journalists could believe that Australia and America could defeat China militarily in a war in Southeast Asia. Despite advocating for a reduced global footprint, Trump continues to promote the concept of American global leadership. He may still pursue conflict with China, possibly to shift attention from persistent domestic and foreign challenges. China is Australia's most important trading partner and Trump sought last week's assurance from Albanese while the prime minister was in China on an important five-day visit. The trip included a meeting with the Chinese president – something, by the way, that Trump has denied Albanese to date. Trump was well aware of this, and he well knew that, if Albanese had given him the assurance he sought, China would have immediately retaliated by imposing trade sanctions on Australia. The contrast between Trump's treatment of Albanese and Xi Jinping's – at their private lunch last week Xi committed China 'unswervingly towards ongoing cooperation and common understanding with Australia' – is stark and telling. Meanwhile, as the US shifts away from traditional diplomacy, China and Russia have deepened their diplomatic engagements. Trump's domestic policy measures also warrant reconsideration by Western political leaders. The scenes of masked ICE officers clashing with protesters in California have drawn comparisons to past episodes of American civil unrest. Many observers were alarmed when Senator Alex Padilla was manhandled by officers for raising questions at a press conference. Additionally, the administration's suppression of dissent – including defunding public broadcasting and pressuring media outlets to silence critical voices – raises concerns about media freedom and civil liberties. The perceived harshness of Trump-era policies contributed to Albanese's election success. Many Western voters reject combative political behaviour, and Australian voters were similarly put off by Peter Dutton's emulation of Trump's combative style. There are two key takeaways for Western leaders from Trump's treatment of Albanese, and Albanese's decision to resist his demands. First, that the Trump administration is facing deep internal and external challenges, and its foreign policy approach may become increasingly erratic and unilateral. Second, that Trump may prioritize his administration's objectives even at the expense of partners. Albanese was placed in an extremely difficult diplomatic position this week. For many mainstream Western leaders, these insights may be more than a little uncomfortable – particularly those who continue to support US foreign policy and seek approval from the administration. There are also domestic pressures, including media outlets aligned with Trump, that make it difficult to oppose his influence. Unsurprisingly, the Murdoch press criticised Albanese for 'neglecting the US alliance' and 'putting the region in danger.' Nevertheless, as the inconsistencies within Trump's foreign policy become more apparent, political leaders in the West who value sovereignty and economic stability may feel compelled – as Albanese did – to redefine their alliances and pursue a more independent path. If they fail to do so, they may face a similar fate to Trump's most obsequious and compliant ally – Vladimir Zelensky.
