Victim in Epstein case decries ‘political warfare' in effort to release grand jury transcripts
Casey Gannon
, CNN
Two victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse have filed letters to the court condemning the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and cited the lack of respect they feel has been showed toward them by
President Donald Trump
and his administration.
Both of the victims remained anonymous in their writings sent on Monday, with one calling the latest handling of the so-called
Epstein Files
"political warfare."
"Dear United States, I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole 'Epstein Files' with more respect towards and for the victims. I am not some pawn in your political warfare. What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely," one of the victims wrote.
Another victim argued that priority has only been on protecting "wealthy men."
"(I) feel like the DOJ's and FBI's priority is protecting the "third-party", the wealthy men by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims, "know who they are,'" one of the victims wrote.
While neither letter outwardly requests federal Judge Richard Berman in New York to keep the transcripts under seal, both strongly urge him to take all necessary precautions in concealing victims' identities.
One of the victims suggested that a third party review the release of the documents to ensure that no information related to the victims is revealed. The other victim told the judge that it is an "upmost priority" for any information regarding identify of the victims be redacted.
Both emotional letters submitted to the judge showed clear frustration towards the administration's handling of the files.
"I appreciate your time reading my short thoughts and feeling and my anxiety and frustration is NOT aimed at you, obviously. It is aimed at the very government here, the ones asking to release these transcripts, exhibits, etc., of which the victims are not privy to while they have concluded that there is nothing more to see on the files they hold. Yet no one has seen them, but them," one of the letters read. "I am beside myself."
Victims in the case were asked to respond to the government's request to release grand jury transcripts by August 5.
-
CNN
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
4 hours ago
- RNZ News
Victim in Epstein case decries ‘political warfare' in effort to release grand jury transcripts
By Casey Gannon , CNN Two victims of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse have filed letters to the court condemning the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony and cited the lack of respect they feel has been showed toward them by President Donald Trump and his administration. Both of the victims remained anonymous in their writings sent on Monday, with one calling the latest handling of the so-called Epstein Files "political warfare." "Dear United States, I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole 'Epstein Files' with more respect towards and for the victims. I am not some pawn in your political warfare. What you have done and continue to do is eating at me day after day as you help to perpetuate this story indefinitely," one of the victims wrote. Another victim argued that priority has only been on protecting "wealthy men." "(I) feel like the DOJ's and FBI's priority is protecting the "third-party", the wealthy men by focusing on scrubbing their names off the files of which the victims, "know who they are,'" one of the victims wrote. While neither letter outwardly requests federal Judge Richard Berman in New York to keep the transcripts under seal, both strongly urge him to take all necessary precautions in concealing victims' identities. One of the victims suggested that a third party review the release of the documents to ensure that no information related to the victims is revealed. The other victim told the judge that it is an "upmost priority" for any information regarding identify of the victims be redacted. Both emotional letters submitted to the judge showed clear frustration towards the administration's handling of the files. "I appreciate your time reading my short thoughts and feeling and my anxiety and frustration is NOT aimed at you, obviously. It is aimed at the very government here, the ones asking to release these transcripts, exhibits, etc., of which the victims are not privy to while they have concluded that there is nothing more to see on the files they hold. Yet no one has seen them, but them," one of the letters read. "I am beside myself." Victims in the case were asked to respond to the government's request to release grand jury transcripts by August 5. - CNN
RNZ News
6 hours ago
- RNZ News
New Trump tariffs: early modelling shows most economies lose - the US more than many
By Niven Winchester of President Trump announced tariffs on 2 April, pauses them a week later, and on 31 July reinstated and expanded the policy. Photo: CHIP SOMODEVILLA / Getty Images via AFP President Donald Trump's 2 April "Liberation Day" announcement placed reciprocal tariffs on all countries. A week later, amid financial market turmoil, these tariffs were paused and replaced by a 10 percent baseline tariff on most goods. On 31 July, however, the Trump Administration and expanded the reciprocal tariff policy. Most of these updated tariffs are scheduled to take effect on August 7. To evaluate the impact of these latest tariffs , we also need to take into account recently negotiated free trade agreements (such as the US-European Union deal), the 50 percent tariffs imposed on steel and aluminium imports, and tariff exemptions for imports of smartphones, computers and other electronics. For selected countries, the reciprocal tariffs announced on 2 April and the revised values of these tariffs are shown in the table below. The revised additional tariffs are highest for Brazil (50 percent) and Switzerland (39 percent), and lowest for Australia and the United Kingdom (10 percent). For most countries, the revised tariffs are lower than the original ones. But Brazil, Switzerland and New Zealand are subject to higher tariffs than those announced in April. In addition to the tariffs displayed above, Canadian and Mexican goods not registered as compliant with the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement are subject to tariffs of 35 percent and 25 percent respectively. Economic impacts The economic impacts of the revised tariffs are examined using a global model of goods and services markets, covering production, trade and consumption. A similar model was used to assess the impacts of the original reciprocal tariffs and the outcome of a US-China trade war. GDP impacts of the tariffs are displayed in the table below. The impacts of the additional tariffs are evaluated relative to trade measures in place before Trump's second term. Retaliatory tariffs are not considered in the analysis. The tariffs reduce US annual GDP by 0.36 percent. This equates to US$108.2 billion or $861 per household per year (all amounts in this article are in US dollars). The change in US GDP is an aggregate of impacts involving several factors. The tariffs will compel foreign producers to lower their prices. But these price decreases only partially offset the cost of the tariffs, so US consumers pay higher prices. Businesses also pay more for parts and materials. Ultimately, these higher prices hurt the US economy. The tariffs decrease US merchandise imports by $486.7 billion. But as they drive up the cost of US supply chains and shift more workers and resources into industries that compete with imports, away from other parts of the economy, they also decrease US merchandise exports by $451.1 billion. For most other countries, the additional tariffs reduce GDP. Switzerland's GDP decreases by 0.47 percent, equivalent to $1,215 per household per year. Proportional GDP decreases are also relatively large for Thailand (0.44 percent) and Taiwan (0.38 percent). In dollar terms, GDP decreases are relatively large for China ($66.9 billion) and the European Union ($26.6 billion). Australia and the United Kingdom gain from the tariffs ($0.1 billion and $0.07 billion respectively), primarily due to the relatively low tariffs levied on these countries. Despite facing relatively low additional tariffs, New Zealand's GDP decreases by 0.15 percent ($204 per household) as many of its agricultural exports compete with Australian commodities, which are subject to an even lower tariff. Although the revised reciprocal tariffs are, on average, lower than those announced on 2 April, they are still a substantial shock to the global trading system. Financial markets have been buoyant since Trump paused reciprocal tariffs on 9 April, partly on the hope that the tariffs would never be imposed. US tariffs of at least 10 percent to 15 percent now appear to be the new norm. As US warehouses run down inventories and stockpiles, there could be a rocky road ahead. * Niven Winchester is Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology This story was first published by The Conversation
1News
6 hours ago
- 1News
China hits back at FBI director's 'groundless assertions' in Wellington
China says it strongly opposes any "groundless assertions" after comments made by the head of the FBI at its new office in Wellington. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation is opening a dedicated attaché office in the capital to investigate threats, including terrorism, cyber crime, money laundering and child exploitation. Director Kash Patel also said it would counter China's influence in the Pacific. Jose Sousa-Santos from the University of Canterbury said the move will bring New Zealand law enforcement up to speed with modern threats. (Source: Breakfast) The Chinese Embassy hit back, saying it took note of the comments and described them as part of a "Cold War mentality". ADVERTISEMENT "Transnational crime is a common challenge encountered by all countries requiring cooperation to tackle," a spokesperson said. "On the opening of a new FBI office in Wellington with a permanent Legat (legal attaché) position, we have taken note of the assertions by the American side, as well as the remarks by relevant New Zealand ministers in response to the media. "We believe that relevant cooperation should not target any third party. And we strongly oppose any attempt to make groundless assertions or vilification against China out of the Cold War mentality. Such acts are against people's will and are doomed to fail." The government has pushed back on suggestions that the FBI's new office in Wellington aimed to counter China. Foreign Minister Winston Peters said China was not raised in his meeting with Patel, and the minister responsible for the spy agencies GCSB and NZSIS, Judith Collins, said it was up to Patel what he wanted to say. A Chinese national flag is raised at the Chinese embassy in London. (Source: Associated Press) "When we were talking, we never had raised that issue," Peters said. "We talked about the Pacific, what we could do to improve the law and order situation and the great concern that Pacific countries had and that they needed help, and that we need to be part of the solution." ADVERTISEMENT Collins said the US was "very focused on fentanyl" and knew New Zealand was focused on disrupting the methamphetamine trade. "We know that we do have international criminals ... let's just understand that our security agency is also involved in this. We're not going to single out any particular country." The morning's headlines in 90 seconds, including fleeing driver hits house, severe turbulence hits US flight, and massive new bug found in Australia. (Source: 1News) University of Otago lecturer Dr Peter Grace said drug and human trafficking was "spiralling out of control" in the region, and New Zealand had limited resources to fight it. "New Zealand is a small state, and we just don't have the kind of resources that are going to help solve these problems… So the fact that you've got somebody with much deeper pockets coming down and cooperating can be a particularly good thing." Opposition parties expressed surprise at the announcement, Labour saying it had come without explanation and Greens saying the office should not exist and New Zealand should exit the Five Eyes arrangement altogether.
