Trump on appointing special counsel for Epstein case: ‘I have nothing to do with it‘
As the president was leaving after giving a speech at the White House, a CNN reporter asked whether he'd consider appointing a special counsel in the matter.
'I have nothing to do with it,' Trump responded, before walking away.
A number of prominent Trump supporters, including members of Congress, have called for the administration to release more information related to the Epstein case.
Even some staunch Trump supporters, like far-right activist Laura Loomer and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), have been critical of the handling of the files and called for a special counsel to investigate.
The Justice Department and FBI issued a joint memo last week that said Epstein did not have a client list and confirmed he died by suicide — not due to foul play as many suspected — in his New York City jail cell in 2019.
The findings incensed members of the MAGA movement, who have for years pushed conspiracy theories about Epstein's death and claims that prominent Democrats would be named on a client list.
But Trump has pushed back against the criticism and on Wednesday wrote a lengthy Truth Social post, in which he dismissed the uproar over the Epstein files as a 'scam' perpetuated by Democrats and suggested he no longer welcomed his backers who have called for more transparency around the documents.
'Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bulls‑‑‑,' hook, line, and sinker,' Trump posted. 'They haven't learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years.
'I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country's history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax,' Trump continued.
'Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
a few seconds ago
- USA Today
PBS, NPR push liberal propaganda. Trump is right to cut their funding.
Why do conservatives have so much disdain for NPR and PBS? Since both are taxpayer funded, they are supposed to serve all the public. But both push leftist propaganda to a progressive audience. NPR and PBS were once one-stop shops for news and wholesome programs for families. The kids could watch "Sesame Street" while their parents listened to "All Things Considered." But now NPR and, to a lesser extent, PBS have become a cesspool of liberal bias that taxpayers have been forced to fund. From my perspective, President Donald Trump can't cut funding for these two liberal fortresses fast enough. Does that make me heartless or financially prudent? I say the latter. Trump is right to cut funding for public broadcasting At Trump's behest, the Senate voted July 17 to cut $9 billion in federal funds from public broadcasting and foreign aid programs. House Republicans are expected to concur and send the legislation to Trump for his signature. Opinion: Liberals claimed Trump would end democracy. They were wrong again. The executives who run NPR say that the public broadcaster gets only 1% of its funding directly from the federal government and member stations receive around 10% of their budgets from Washington. Yet, the progressives who love PBS and NPR can't stop screaming that the budget cuts will mean the end of public broadcasting as we know it. To which I say: Now, tell me the bad news. NPR pushes liberal propaganda Why do so many conservatives have so much disdain for NPR and PBS? Since both are taxpayer funded, they are supposed to, at least in theory, serve all the public. But both outfits push leftist propaganda and partisan talking points to a targeted audience of progressives. Even worse, executives like NPR CEO Katherine Maher refuse to admit the obvious. On CNN, Maher seemed befuddled about the suggestion of liberal bias. "As far as the accusations that we're biased, I'd stand up and say, 'Please show me a story that concerns you,'' she said. Hey, no problem. Here are a few headlines from NPR: Let's review: Republicans and their presidential nominee are racist and sexist. The Democratic nominee is the victim of that racism and sexism. Even "nice" White people are racist as is American society as a whole. And by the way, before you ask, none of those "news" stories were labeled as opinion. Yes, no bias here. Just keep those tax dollars flowing. The bias starts with executives like Maher, who in 2020 posted on social media that "America begins in black plunder and white democracy." NPR often frames its news coverage in ways that make Trump's conservative policies seem harmful, rather than simply reporting the facts. A progressive point of view is fine when presented as commentary, but NPR purports to be a neutral news source that serves all Americans. Opinion: Our schools are struggling because teachers unions don't put kids first Don't believe me? AllSides, a media literacy organization that rates news organization's biases, has repeatedly found that NPR's online content "leans left." And the calls about NPR's leftist bias have even come from inside the house. Longtime business editor Uri Berliner famously resigned last year after being suspended for publicly detailing his employer's history of newsroom bias. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to financially support a news source that's so blatantly partisan. Trump's cuts can't happen soon enough. Hear that sound? It's liberals screaming into the void without NPR as their mouthpiece. Nicole Russell is an opinion columnist with USA TODAY. She lives in Texas with her four kids. Sign up for her newsletter, The Right Track, and get it delivered to your inbox.
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
The MAGA-Epstein Drama, Explained - CNN Political Briefing - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
The MAGA-Epstein Drama, Explained CNN Political Briefing 21 mins President Donald Trump is facing serious backlash from the MAGA world over his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. CNN senior correspondent Donie O'Sullivan explains why Epstein looms so large in the MAGA-verse—and why this controversy isn't likely to die down soon.
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Men deported by US to Eswatini in Africa will be held in solitary confinement for undetermined time
The men, who the U.S. says were convicted of serious crimes and were in the U.S. illegally, are citizens of Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen and Laos. Their convictions included murder and child rape, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security said, describing them as 'uniquely barbaric.' Their deportations were announced by Homeland Security on Tuesday and mark the continuation of President Donald Trump's plan to send deportees to third countries they have no ties with after it was stalled by a legal challenge in the United States. Advertisement Here's what we know and don't know about the deportations: A new country for deportees Eswatini, a country of 1.2 million people bordering South Africa, is the latest nation to accept third-country deportees from the U.S. The Trump administration has sent hundreds of Venezuelans and others to Costa Rica, El Salvador and Panama, and deported eight men earlier this month to South Sudan, also an African country. The deportees to South Sudan are citizens of Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and South Sudan. They were held for weeks in a converted shipping container at a U.S. military base in the nearby country of Djibouti until a Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for them to be finally sent to South Sudan. The U.S. also described them as violent criminals. Advertisement Eswatini's government confirmed on Wednesday that the latest five deportees were in its custody after landing on a deportation plane from the U.S. Local media reported they are being held at the Matsapha Correctional Complex, outside the country's administrative capital of Mbabane, which includes Eswatini's top maximum-security prison. The men's fate is unclear The Eswatini government said the men are 'in transit' and will eventually be sent to their home countries. The U.S. and Eswatini governments would work with the U.N. migration agency to do that, it said. The U.N. agency — the International Organization for Migration or IOM — said it was not involved in the operation and has not been approached to assist in the matter but would be willing to help 'in line with its humanitarian mandate.' Eswatini's statement that the men would be sent home was in contrast to U.S. claims they were sent to Eswatini because their home countries refused to take them back. It's unclear how sending the men to Eswatini would make it easier for them to be deported home. There was also no timeframe for that as it depends on several factors, including engagements with the IOM, Mdluli said. 'We are not yet in a position to determine the timelines for the repatriation,' she wrote. Four of the five countries where the men are from have historically resisted taking back some of their citizens deported from the U.S., which has been a reoccurring problem for Homeland Security. Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the administration was happy the men were 'off of American soil' when she announced their deportations. Advertisement Another secretive deal There have been no details on why Eswatini agreed to take the men and Mdluli, the government spokesperson, said 'the terms of the agreement between the U.S. and Eswatini remain classified.' Eswatini has said it was the result of months of negotiations between the two governments. South Sudan has also given no details of its agreement with the U.S. to take deportees and has declined to say where the eight men sent there are being held. Some analysts say African nations might be willing to take deportees from the U.S. in return for more favorable relations with the Trump administration, which has cut foreign aid to poor countries and threatened them with trade tariffs. The Trump administration has also said it's seeking more deportation deals with other countries. Rights groups have questioned the countries the U.S. has chosen to deal with, as South Sudan and Eswatini have both been criticized for having repressive governments. Eswatini is Africa's only absolute monarchy, meaning the king has power over government and rules by decree. Political parties are banned and pro-democracy protests have been quelled violently in the past. Several rights groups have criticized Eswatini since pro-democracy protests erupted there in 2021, citing deadly crackdowns by security forces and abusive conditions in prisons, including at the Matsapha Correctional Complex, where pro-democracy activists are held. Associated Press writers Mogomotsi Magome and Michelle Gumede in Johannesburg contributed to this report.
