Comer agrees to postpone Maxwell's testimony to House on Epstein
Comer, however, declined requests from an attorney for Maxwell, the longtime associate of the late Jeffrey Epstein, to grant her immunity or to send her questions in advance.
Pursuant to a motion that garnered bipartisan support in the committee last month, Comer had subpoenaed Maxwell for a deposition to occur at Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Tallahassee on Aug. 11 — though she was quietly moved to Federal Prison Camp (FPC) Bryan in Bryan, Texas, a Bureau of Prisons official confirmed Friday.
'Your testimony is vital to the Committee's efforts regarding Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including the 2007 non-prosecution agreement and the circumstances surrounding Mr. Epstein's Death,' Comer said in a letter to Maxwell on Friday. 'These investigative efforts may be used to inform potential legislation to improve federal efforts to combat sex trafficking and reform the use of non-prosecution agreements and/or plea agreements in sex-crime investigations.'
Maxwell's attorney Attorney David Oscar Markus wrote to the committee on Monday seeking to delay the interview until after the Supreme Court weighs Maxwell's petition.
Comer agreed to the delay: 'On July 30, the U.S. Supreme Court noticed that your petition for writ of certiorari will be considered at its conference on September 29. In light of this notice, the Committee is willing to delay your deposition until a date following the Court's certiorari determination,' he wrote.
Comer then rejected the immunity request.
'The Committee is unwilling to grant you congressional immunity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6005 at this time. Further, while the Committee is unwilling to send you questions in advance, the Committee will continue its long-standing practice of engaging in forthright and detailed discussions about scoping,' Comer wrote.
In her appeal to the Supreme Court, Maxwell argues her conviction violates a nonprosecution agreement Epstein signed with federal prosecutors in 2007. Lower courts previously ruled that the agreement applied only to the Southern District of Florida and not the New York district where Maxwell was sentenced.
Maxwell last week sat for a two-day interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.
Markus, Maxwell's attorney, said that it was a 'thorough, comprehensive interview' and that 'no person and no topic were off-limits,' adding: 'The truth will come out.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This isn't the death of the American Republic. It's the birth of colour-blind democracy
Is the US Supreme Court about to disenfranchise black Americans and other racial minority voters? You would think so, given the hysterical hyperbole found in the progressive press. In the New York Times, Jamelle Bouie claims that the Supreme Court is seeking to make the Voting Rights Act of 1965 – legislation that prohibits racial discrimination in the electoral process – 'an artefact of the past'. 'The Supreme Court Prepares to End Voting Rights As We Know Them,' shrieks the headline in the Left-wing journal Mother Jones. 'Sixty years ago, the Voting Rights Act ended the Jim Crow regime and transformed the country, finally, into a multiracial democracy – albeit an imperfect one,' the Mother Jones article reads. 'But, with the court's quiet announcement it would return to a paused case, the justices are now preparing to take us back to a time when elected officials at all levels of government were white, and the rights of minorities were trampled.' Is the Republican majority on the Supreme Court really about to strike down or eviscerate the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Will the Court legalise the outlawed methods used by Southern segregationists to deny the right to vote to black Americans, like literacy tests and poll taxes? Of course not. The occasion of these alarms is the willingness of the Court to consider a Louisiana case involving the use of race by state legislatures in drawing congressional districts. What is at issue is the question of whether the half-century-old practice of racial gerrymandering – drawing congressional districts in such a way as to elect representatives of a particular race to the House of Representatives – is compatible with the Voting Rights Act or the US constitution. Partisan gerrymandering is almost as old as the United States. American states, not the federal government, draw the lines of districts that send representatives to the House of Representatives, and following the census every decade state legislatures redraw the lines to take into account population growth or decline. To increase the chances of electing members of their own party, state legislators often draw bizarrely-shaped districts, with extensions bypassing members of the rival party to loop in likely supporters of their own party. The term 'gerrymander' originated in the early 19th century with this kind of cynical partisan congressional redistricting. In 1812, the Massachusetts legislature drew a district which, according to critics, resembled a salamander. Although Governor Elbridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, accepted the redistricting plan reluctantly, claiming it was 'highly disagreeable', the contorted district was named a 'Gerry-mander' in his dubious honour. Partisan gerrymandering by state legislatures still exists. Democratic and Republican majorities in every state legislature, following each federal census, seek to draw congressional districts that will boost their party's representation in the national House of Representatives. Racial gerrymandering, however, arose in the aftermath of the civil rights revolution of the 1960s. In racial gerrymandering, congressional districts are drawn to maximise the likelihood that the representative who is elected to Congress will belong to a particular race, as defined by America's arbitrary post-1970s system of official races: non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics, African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, and native Americans. To put it another way, racial gerrymandering is race-based affirmative action or DEI for non-white politicians, the corollary of the race-based quota system that reshaped college admissions and public, private, and nonprofit hiring, before the recent push-back led by President Trump and Supreme Court conservatives. Both kinds of affirmative action have always betrayed not only the spirit but also the letter of actual civil rights statutes. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, for example, makes it illegal for employers or labour unions 'To discriminate against, any individual because of his race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin'. The language of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is equally colour-blind, emphasising the rights of minority voters to vote as they choose for politicians of any race, not the desire of minority politicians to enjoy rigged congressional seats: 'A violation of [the Act] is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. [emphasis added].' While the complete absence of any elected officials belonging to racial minorities might well be evidence of a violation of the law, the Voting Rights Act does not create a right for minority politicians to have districts drawn to give them safe seats. As in the case of race-based affirmative action in general, racial gerrymandering has been practised for more than half a century in defiance of the plain language of the law. Ironically, conservative Republicans in the South teamed up with black Democrats in support of racial gerrymandering for their own selfish reasons, beginning in the 1970s. Some Republican legislatures used a strategy of 'packing' – drawing lines to pack black voters into black-majority districts, while trapping white Democrats as powerless partisan minorities in Republican-majority districts. At the same time, some activists sacrificed the interests of the Democratic Party in winning congressional majorities to the goal of electing as many black Democrats in safe, gerrymandered districts as possible. When I worked for a white liberal Democrat in the Texas legislature in the 1970s, I was told that Texas Republicans had donated large sums of money to black legislators and activists to help them draw black-majority districts. The Democratic Party soon suffered as a result of racial gerrymandering, in Texas and in the House of Representatives. Thanks to racial gerrymandering as well as partisan gerrymandering, Republicans have dominated both houses of the Texas legislature since 2003, freezing out Texas Democrats. In the mid-term elections of 1994, Republicans led by Newt Gingrich recaptured the US House of Representatives for the first time since the 1950s. Not a single black Democrat lost in that election, thanks to their safe districts. But the loss of seven seats held by white Democrats thanks to racial gerrymandering gave Republicans the majority. At the time, David Bositis of the Joint Centre for Political and Economic Studies declared: 'Over the last two elections, the Democrats have lost as many as 15 seats because of majority black redistricting.' Without the loss of those seats, Democrats would have retained the House in 1994 by a margin of 218-216 and Gingrich would have been the frustrated House Minority Leader, not the Speaker of the House. Racial gerrymandering, then, might serve the interests of minority politicians but not necessarily the interests of minority voters. Presumably most black Democrats in 1994 would have preferred to have fewer black Democratic representatives in a House with a Democratic majority instead of more black representatives in a Democratic Party that had lost control of the House. Racial gerrymandering gained some credibility from the extreme racial polarisation along party lines in the immediate aftermath of desegregation half a century ago. Progressive propaganda to the contrary, however, the American electorate is far less polarised by race in the 2020s than ever before. In terms of partisan polarisation, black voters are outliers in the American electorate. In 1994, 86 per cent of black registered voters were Democrats, according to Pew; in 2024, the number was 83 per cent. Hispanic voters (61 per cent Democrat, 35 per cent Republican) and Asian-American voters (63-35) also prefer Democrats but by much smaller margins. And white Americans have long been the least racially-polarised group in the electorate, preferring Republicans by 55-42 per cent in 1994 and 56-41 per cent in 2024. These numbers fail to completely register the decline of racial polarisation, however, with Hispanic and black voters shifting toward Republicans in recent elections. And they do not show the growing trend of class polarisation between college graduates and those without college degrees. What is more, the very categories on which affirmative action in congressional redistricting and other areas rests are rapidly being eroded by intermarriage, now that one in six American newly-weds are estimated by Pew to have a spouse of another race. The federal courts should continue to enforce the law against attempts by federal, state and local governments to deprive individual Americans, of any race, of the right to vote. But individual Americans surely do not have to be represented in Congress by a member of their own race as long as the candidates of the party for whom they vote represent their personal views and values. Let us hope the Supreme Court will vindicate the original mission of the Voting Rights Act of eliminating barriers to voting by individuals, as opposed to setting up racially-gerrymandered safe seats for a few politicians. Michael Lind is a fellow at New America and the author of 'Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages Is Destroying America' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court formally asked to overturn landmark same-sex marriage ruling
Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision. Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk who was jailed for six days in 2015 after refusing to issue marriage licenses to a gay couple on religious grounds, is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict for emotional damages plus $260,000 for attorneys fees. In a petition for writ of certiorari filed last month, Davis argues First Amendment protection for free exercise of religion immunizes her from personal liability for the denial of marriage licenses. More fundamentally, she claims the high court's decision in Obergefell v Hodges -- extending marriage rights for same-sex couples under the 14th Amendment's due process protections -- was "egregiously wrong." "The mistake must be corrected," wrote Davis' attorney Mathew Staver in the petition. He calls Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Obergefell "legal fiction." The petition appears to mark the first time since 2015 that the court has been formally asked to overturn the landmark marriage decision. Davis is seen as one of the only Americans currently with legal standing to bring a challenge to the precedent. "If there ever was a case of exceptional importance," Staver wrote, "the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it." Lower courts have dismissed Davis' claims and most legal experts consider her bid a long shot. A federal appeals court panel concluded earlier this year that the former clerk "cannot raise the First Amendment as a defense because she is being held liable for state action, which the First Amendment does not protect." Davis, as the Rowan County Clerk in 2015, was the sole authority tasked with issuing marriage licenses on behalf of the government under state law. "Not a single judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals showed any interest in Davis's rehearing petition, and we are confident the Supreme Court will likewise agree that Davis's arguments do not merit further attention," said William Powell, attorney for David Ermold and David Moore, the now-married Kentucky couple that sued Davis for damages, in a statement to ABC News. A renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent Davis' appeal to the Supreme Court comes as conservative opponents of marriage rights for same-sex couples pursue a renewed campaign to reverse legal precedent and allow each state to set its own policy. At the time Obergefell was decided in 2015, 35 states had statutory or constitutional bans on same-sex marriages, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Only eight states had enacted laws explicitly allowing the unions. So far in 2025, at least nine states have either introduced legislation aimed at blocking new marriage licenses for LGBTQ people or passed resolutions urging the Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell at the earliest opportunity, according to the advocacy group Lambda Legal. In June, the Southern Baptist Convention -- the nation's largest Protestant Christian denomination -- overwhelmingly voted to make "overturning of laws and court rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, that defy God's design for marriage and family" a top priority. Support for equal marriage rights softening While a strong majority of Americans favor equal marriage rights, support appears to have softened in recent years, according to Gallup -- 60% of Americans supported same-sex marriages in 2015, rising to 70% support in 2025, but that level has plateaued since 2020. Among Republicans, support has notably dipped over the past decade, down from 55% in 2021 to 41% this year, Gallup found. Davis' petition argues the issue of marriage should be treated the same way the court handled the issue of abortion in its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v Wade. She zeroes in on Justice Clarence Thomas' concurrence in that case, in which he explicitly called for revisiting Obergefell. The justices "should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote at the time, referring to the landmark decisions dealing with a fundamental right to privacy, due process and equal protection rights. "It is hard to say where things will go, but this will be a long slog considering how popular same-sex marriage is now," said Josh Blackman, a prominent conservative constitutional scholar and professor at South Texas College of Law. Blackman predicts many members of the Supreme Court's conservative majority would want prospective challenges to Obergefell to percolate in lower courts before revisiting the debate. The court is expected to formally consider Davis' petition this fall during a private conference when the justices discuss which cases to add to their docket. If the case is accepted, it would likely be scheduled for oral argument next spring and decided by the end of June 2026. The court could also decline the case, allowing a lower court ruling to stand and avoid entirely the request to revisit Obergefell. "Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett seem wildly uninterested. Maybe Justice Neil Gorsuch, too," said Sarah Isgur, an ABC News legal analyst and host of the legal podcast Advisory Opinions. "There is no world in which the court takes the case as a straight gay marriage case," Isgur added. "It would have to come up as a lower court holding that Obergefell binds judges to accept some other kind of non-traditional marital arrangement." MORE: 20 years of marriage rights for same-sex couples. Research disputes apocalyptic fears Ruling wouldn't invalidate existing marriages If the ruling were to be overturned at some point in the future, it would not invalidate marriages already performed, legal experts have pointed out. The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act requires the federal government and all states to recognize legal marriages of same-sex and interracial couples performed in any state -- even if there is a future change in the law. Davis first appealed the Supreme Court in 2019 seeking to have the damages suit against her tossed out, but her petition was rejected. Conservative Justices Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred with the decision at the time. "This petition implicates important questions about the scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly present them," Thomas wrote in a statement. Many LGBTQ advocates say they are apprehensive about the shifting legal and political landscape around marriage rights. There are an estimated 823,000 married same-sex couples in the U.S., including 591,000 that wed after the Supreme Court decision in June 2015, according to the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School. Nearly one in five of those married couples is parenting a child under 18. Since the Obergefell decision, the makeup of the Supreme Court has shifted rightward, now including three appointees of President Donald Trump and a 6-justice conservative supermajority. Chief Justice John Roberts, among the current members of the court who dissented in Obergefell a decade ago, sharply criticized the ruling at the time as "an act of will, not legal judgment" with "no basis in the Constitution." He also warned then that it "creates serious questions about religious liberty." Davis invoked Roberts' words in her petition to the high court, hopeful that at least four justices will vote to accept her case and hear arguments next year. Solve the daily Crossword
NBC Sports
2 hours ago
- NBC Sports
House Judiciary Committee turns attention to NFL's broadcast antitrust exemption
In the aftermath of the 2024 election, there were stray rumblings that the reconstituted federal government could potentially be conducive to an expansion of the NFL's broadcast antitrust exemption. The opposite could be true. On Monday, the House Judiciary Committee announced on Monday that it has contacted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the other three major league sports commissioners regarding the Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961, which created the antitrust exemption. 'As the Committee evaluates the sufficiency of existing law, it has requested a briefing on the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB's participation in the sports broadcasting market and related matters,' the Committee's statement explains. The letter to Goodell begins with a clear indication of the possibility that the exemption will end. 'The Committee on the Judiciary is examining the sufficiency of federal laws related to the '[p]rotection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,'' it explains. 'Under the Sports Broadcasting Act (SBA), major sports leagues receive broad immunity from antitrust liability for agreements related to the broadcasting of their games on network television. However, the sports broadcasting market has changed significantly since the SBA was enacted, and recent antitrust cases have raised important questions about whether the SBA should be modified or repealed as a result.' In May, the Senate held a hearing regarding the ongoing pivot from broadcast television to streaming. (Goodell was invited to participate, but he declined.) During the hearing, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the NFL has 'tiptoed up to' the limits of the exemption. Elimination of the SBA would require the teams to sell their broadcast rights collectively, not individually. It would result in, for example, the Cowboys doing a multi-billion-dollar deal for their home games and the least popular teams seeing much lower revenue. That would make it difficult, and perhaps legally impossible, for the teams to share broadcast revenue. Which would potentially splinter the operation into something like one league with the most popular teams, and another league with the least popular teams. So the stakes for the NFL are as high as they can be. Without the ability to sell broadcast rights as a 32-team block, pro football as we know it could dramatically change.
