McCarthy: Democrats ‘never' asked about Epstein files when he was House leader
'They never asked about it — they tried to hide from it,' McCarthy said during an appearance on Fox News's 'Jesse Watters Primetime' on Thursday. '[Trump] didn't hide from this — he had the authorities investigate this.'
'You know what I want? President Trump focused on exactly why we elected him, and that's what he's doing,' the California Republican added, lauding Trump's economic and foreign policy since returning to the White House.
McCarthy was ousted from his leadership post in 2023 and retired weeks later from the lower chamber. In his latest remarks, the former Speaker defended the Trump administration's handling of the federal probe into Epstein, the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender.
The administration has faced fallout from Democrats and the president's MAGA base since the Justice Department (DOJ) and FBI issued a joint memo concluding that Epstein didn't keep a 'client list.' The finding runs counter to what Attorney General Pam Bondi said earlier this year and sparked calls for greater transparency.
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday night that Trump allegedly penned a 'bawdy' 50th birthday note to the disgraced financier in 2003 before Epstein faced sex trafficking allegations and when the two were known associates. The president denied writing the message and threatened to sue the publication.
Calls for the administration to release more documents have only grown in recent days, despite Trump's efforts to move on from the topic.
'We need total disclosure of the complete file, redacting only the names and the identities of the minor victims,' Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) said during an MSNBC appearance Thursday. 'There is overwhelming bipartisan, popular demand, Congressional demand, to release all of this stuff.'
Trump on Friday leaned into the same argument as McCarthy, asking why Democrats did not release more files when they controlled the Senate and White House.
'If there was a 'smoking gun' on Epstein, why didn't the Dems, who controlled the 'files' for four years, and had [former Attorney General Merrick] Garland and [ex-prosecutor Maureen] Comey in charge, use it,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. 'BECAUSE THEY HAD NOTHING!!!'
His comments come a day after the president intervened, directing Bondi to release relevant grand jury testimony in the case. In response, the attorney general said she would ask a federal court to do so.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fast Company
a few seconds ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
The Hill
a few seconds ago
- The Hill
Most support Trump immigration goal, but say approach goes too far: Survey
Most Americans support President Trump's immigration goals, but they argued that the administration's approach is overreaching, according to a new survey. The Wall Street Journal poll, released Monday, found that 62 percent of U.S. adults said they are supportive of the administration's deportation of migrants who are in the country illegally. Despite the support, many respondents are against two approaches that administration has taken to facilitate Trump's robust crackdown on illegal immigration: Mass deportation without due process and deporting immigrants to jails in countries other than where they are from. Both approaches received 58 percent opposition, the survey shows. Close to 60 percent of independents said the White House has gone too far in deporting migrants without granting them a hearing or sending them back without evidence that they are in the U.S. illegally. GOP voters are strongly supportive of Trump's immigration policies, with 90 percent of them being fully on board. Just 11 percent of Republicans said the administration has gone too far, according to the poll. Around 75 percent of GOP voters also signaled support for deporting migrants without giving them a chance to appear before a judge or sit for a court hearing. Amongst all Americans, the support is at around 39 percent, the poll revealed. Nearly two-thirds of Americans, 62 percent, said the administration is deporting as many people as possible, regardless of whether they have a criminal background. Around a third of U.S. adults said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is mainly deporting migrants who are in the country illegally and have a criminal record, according to the poll. Earlier this month, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that 60 percent of voters support Trump's push to close the border. The survey showed that 75 percent of Americans are supportive of the administration's push to deport migrants who are in the country without authorization. The Wall Street Journal survey was conducted from July 16-20 among 1,500 registered voters. The margin of error was 2.5 percentage points.
San Francisco Chronicle
a few seconds ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Virginia judge bars Youngkin's university board appointments rejected by Senate Democrats
FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — A judge ordered that eight public university board members tapped by Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin be removed from their posts in a victory for Virginia Senate Democrats who rejected the appointees in a June committee vote. Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Jonathan D. Frieden severed the newly appointed members from their governing-board seats at the University of Virginia, George Mason University and the Virginia Military Institute. His order came at the request of nine Virginia Senate Democrats who filed a lawsuit last month requesting immediate action against the heads of university boards, also known as rectors or presidents. The nine senators argued that despite the legislative committee rejecting the membership of the eight board members, the board chairs had continued acknowledging them as members, and Frieden agreed. 'Here, the public interest is served by protecting the power of the elected legislature to confirm or reject gubernatorial appointees,' Frieden wrote in an opinion letter about his order. An attorney representing the board rectors said in court that if unsuccessful, he intended to appeal Frieden's order. The case comes amid the White House's effort to reshape higher education, with a focus on DEI. Colleges in Virginia and across the U.S. have recently become a groundswell for political tension between academic leaders and the federal government, with boards at the center of those battles. The political and cultural divide in higher education has only escalated conflicts over who gets to have a seat at the table for critical board votes that could shape those institutions' future. In June, University of Virginia President Jim Ryan resigned after the Justice Department pushed for his removal. Earlier this month, the Trump administration initiated a civil rights investigation into George Mason University's hiring practices. The board at George Mason is having a meeting later this week. And earlier this year, the board at the Virginia Military Institute ousted its president, Retired Army Maj. Gen. Cedric T. Wins. His tenure as president was marked by the implementation of diversity initiatives, which faced pushback from some conservative alumni. Last month, the Virginia Senate Privileges and Elections committee met through an ongoing special session and opted against approving the eight university appointees made by Youngkin, notably including former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli II and Caren Merrick, Youngkin's former commerce secretary. According to the state Constitution, all gubernatorial appointments are subject to confirmation by the General Assembly. Following the vote, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Scott Surrovell wrote a letter to all board chairs, reminding them that appointees must be approved by the legislature. But Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares also wrote to the heads of the university boards, instead advising them that the appointed members should remain on the governing bodies because only a committee, not the whole state General Assembly, had voted to reject them. Mark Stancil, an attorney representing the Democratic senators, argued that the attorney general's guidance was incorrect. 'Their position flies in the face of the text of the Constitution, the text of the governing statute, and decades of longstanding practice," he wrote in a court filing. Christopher Michel, representing the rectors, countered that if the Constitution states that the legislature has the power to reject appointees, that would mean the full legislature rather than one committee. 'The General Assembly is a two-house body,' Michel said. Michel further questioned whether the Virginia senators met the legal requirements necessary to have board members immediately removed by a judge. He asserted that Virginia senators had sued the wrong people, and that the rectors did not represent the voted-down members themselves. In turn, Stancil argued to the court that rectors are responsible for holding meetings and counting votes. Frieden said in his letter that the rectors did have culpability in the case, writing: 'As the person presiding at those meetings, each ... is responsible for recognizing members who wish to speak and recognizing and announcing the votes of members.' Inside the courtroom, Surovell, state Sen. Kannan Srinivasan and Deputy Attorney General Theo Stamos sat among the benches. Surovell said to a group of reporters outside the courtroom that state Democrats had a responsibility to push back. 'These boards just don't seem very interested in following any law or listening to anything that the entity that controls them says,' he said. 'This hearing today is about making sure that we have a rule of law in Virginia — that the laws are followed and that the Senate is listened to.' ___
