Trump Won't Recommend Special Counsel In Epstein Probe: White House
The rejection of a special counsel is part of an effort by the White House to turn the page from continued outrage from corners of Trump's base over the Justice Department's refusal last week to release additional records from the investigation into Epstein, a well-connected and wealthy financier who killed himself in jail in 2019 as he awaited trial on sex trafficking charges.
Officials also said Epstein did not maintain a much-hyped "client list" and said the evidence was clear he had died by suicide despite conspiracy theories to the contrary.
Trump on Wednesday sought to clamp down on criticism from his own supporters about his administration's handling of the Epstein-related records, calling them "weaklings" who were being duped and characterizing the investigation as a "hoax" — even though his hand-picked leaders at the FBI and Justice Department had long stoked public expectations that important information was being hidden.
The news organization Just the News published excerpts Wednesday from a Trump interview in which Trump said he would be open to having a special counsel look into "anything credible" related to Epstein, as well as other long-standing grievances he and his supporters have long raised.
But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to close the door Thursday on a special counsel for the Epstein investigation, saying "the idea was floated from someone in the media to the president."
"The president would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case," she said.
Justice Department regulations allow for the attorney general to appoint and supervise an outside special counsel to investigate allegations of criminal wrongdoing in instances when prosecutors might face a potential or perceived conflict of interest.
The department in recent years has appointed a succession of special counsels — sometimes, though not always, plucked from outside the agency — to lead investigations into politically sensitive matters, including into conduct by President Joe Biden and by Trump.
Last year, Trump's personal lawyers launched an aggressive, and successful, challenge to the appointment of Jack Smith, the special counsel assigned to investigate his efforts to undo the 2020 presidential election and his retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Florida.
A Trump-appointed judge agreed, ruling that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had exceeded his bounds by appointing a prosecutor without Senate approval and confirmation, and dismissed the case.
That legal team included Todd Blanche, who is now deputy attorney general, as well as Emil Bove, who is Blanche's top deputy but was recently nominated to serve as a judge on a federal appeals court.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
12 minutes ago
- First Post
Who is Maria Farmer, the Epstein accuser linking Trump to sex offender?
Maria Farmer, who is in her 50s, is believed to be the first Jeffrey Epstein victim who went to the authorities. She has claimed she had a 'troubling encounter' with Donald Trump in the 1990s at Epstein's Manhattan offices. But who is Farmer? What did she tell authorities about Trump? read more Maria Farmer is believed to be the first Jeffrey Epstein victim who went to the authorities. Image courtesy: One of Jeffrey Epstein's first accusers is now linking US President Donald Trump to the late, disgraced financier. Maria Farmer, an artist in her 50s, has claimed she had a 'troubling encounter' with Trump back in the 1990s. Farmer and her younger sister Annie both testified at Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial. She claimed she urged the police in 1996 and later the Federal Bureau of Investigation to look into Epstein's social circle. The development comes amid Trump suing the Wall Street Journal for $10 billion over a bombshell story over his ties to Epstein. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But who is Farmer? What do we know about her? And what has she said? Let's take a closer look Who is Farmer? Farmer is an American visual artist. She has said that she met Epstein when she was a student at the New York Academy of Art. Farmer has claimed she was introduced to Epstein by Elaine Guggenheim, who was the dean of the academy at that time – a claim the New York Academy of Art has denied. Guggenheim has said she is 'distantly related' to the family behind the Guggenheim Museum. Farmer worked for Epstein in 1995 and 1996. She said he initially wanted her to buy art on his behalf. Farmer accused Epstein and Maxwell of assaulting her at the Ohio estate of Les Wexner. Wexner, an associate of Epstein, is the ex-chairman of Limited Brands. Farmer said she later found out that Maxwell assaulted her sister Annie at Epstein's New Mexico ranch. Farmer, who fled New York in the aftermath of the allegations, accused Maxwell of intimidating her and trying to destroy her reputation. Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019 in a US prison. Many in the Maga movement have for years alleged that he was murdered by the 'deep state'. Reuters/File Photo 'I was terrified of Maxwell and Epstein and I moved a number of times to try to hide from them,' Farmer stated in an affidavit filed last year. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Farmer has said she kept a low-profile over the past two decades. She has been earning money selling antiques and restoring old houses. She was diagnosed with a brain tumour in 2019. In 2020, she was diagnosed with Hodgkin's lymphoma. What has she said? Farmer said she took her concern about Epstein and his associates to the authorities. She said she first approached the New York Police Department's Sixth District in 1996. Nearly a decade later, in 2006, she was interviewed by the FBI. Farmer claimed she told the authorities to look at the relationship between Epstein and high-profile celebrities like Trump and politicians like Bill Clinton. She said she mentioned Trump specifically because the two men 'seemed so close'. Farmer has claimed she has a 'troubling encounter' with Trump in the 1990s. At the time, she was a teenager and Trump was a real-estate developer. Farmer, who was working for Epstein in 1995, arrived at his offices in Manhattan after getting an unexpected call from him. Farmer, who was wearing running shorts, claimed Trump, who was in a business suit, 'stared at her bare legs'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD She said she remembered feeling scared. Then, Epstein came into the room. He told Trump 'no, no. She's not here for you.' The men then left the room, she said. Donald Trump had once called Jeffrey Epstein a friend. File Photo/Reuters Farmer claimed she heard Trump say that she looked 16-years-old. The White House has denied the incident ever occurred. 'The president was never in [Epstein's] office. The fact is that the president kicked him out of his club for being a creep," White House communications director Steven Cheung said. The Epstein controversy has created a major fissure between Trump and his loyal base, with some of his most vocal supporters slamming the White House for the way it has handled the case, and questioning why Trump would not want the documents made public. Trump had promised to sue the Wall Street Journal almost immediately after the paper put a new spotlight on his well-documented relationship with Epstein by publishing an article that described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump's name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump denied writing the letter, calling the story 'false, malicious, and defamatory.' The suit, filed in filed in federal court in Miami, accuses the paper and its reporters of having 'knowingly and recklessly' published 'numerous false, defamatory, and disparaging statements,' which, it alleges, caused 'overwhelming financial and reputational harm' to the president. With inputs from agencies
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
What's really behind Harvard's clash with the US government over federal funds?
Harvard challenges US funding cuts in $3 billion legal battle with Trump administration Harvard University is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the US government over the freezing of nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The dispute centers on allegations made by the Trump administration and the University's response through a federal lawsuit. The courtroom hearing, taking place in Boston's Seaport District, represents a key moment in the case. The proceedings involve oral arguments over whether Harvard can recover federal research funds that were withheld following the administration's imposition of specific conditions tied to hiring, admissions, and oversight. Background of the lawsuit and key issues at stake The legal conflict began in April when the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber outlining conditions for continued federal support. These included structural reforms to increase 'viewpoint diversity' and audits of various academic units, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration's demands violated the First Amendment and bypassed formal legal procedures for terminating federal funding. Following the University's legal challenge, the administration halted more than $2 billion in federal grants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp Read More Undo According to The Harvard Crimson, the government escalated further by adding hundreds of millions in additional cuts and warning that Harvard would no longer receive future grants. Federal agencies involved and legal grounds cited Eleven federal agencies are named as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. Harvard argues that the Trump administration's funding freeze violated the First Amendment by attaching viewpoint-based conditions to funding. The University also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the government failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating grants. Title VI typically requires a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a failed attempt at voluntary compliance. Harvard contends that none of these steps were followed before the April funding freeze. Key Information Details Amount frozen Over $2.2 billion Total funds at stake Nearly $3 billion Agencies involved 11 (including NSF, DOD, HHS) Legal claims First Amendment, APA, Title VI Judge Allison D. Burroughs Court location Boston, Massachusetts Allegations of antisemitism and racial bias According to the Trump administration, the cuts were prompted by Harvard's alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, several federal agencies referenced findings from a task force on antisemitism, which described incidents of social isolation and discrimination faced by Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard, however, maintains that it has implemented significant measures, including the formalization of protest policies and expanded academic programs on Jewish and Israeli history. In a court filing cited by The Harvard Crimson, the University said the 2,000-page administrative record submitted by the government failed to show a proper investigation into antisemitism on campus. Ongoing impact and future implications The funding cuts have already disrupted research at Harvard, halting projects in cancer and rare disease treatment and prompting layoffs and hiring freezes. According to The Harvard Crimson, the University requested a summary judgment in early June to resolve the case before the federal government's September 3 deadline for fulfilling financial obligations related to canceled grants. The Trump administration has argued that the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, which could delay a final ruling. Meanwhile, discussions between Harvard and the White House have not resulted in a settlement. Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the case. Though a final ruling is not expected immediately, the court's decision will have significant implications for the University and federal oversight of higher education. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
First Post
30 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? Vantage with Palki Sharma
Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G Trump's Indonesia Trade Deal: Relief or Exploitation? | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G Donald Trump's latest trade deal with Indonesia slashes threatened tariffs but imposes steep costs on Jakarta. The agreement keeps a 19% U.S. tariff on Indonesian goods — nearly four times last year's rate — while granting American exports free access to Indonesia. Jakarta also pledged billions in purchases of U.S. oil, agriculture, and Boeing jets. Indonesia's President Prabowo accepted the deal to avoid harsher penalties but admitted it was tough. Critics say the agreement showcases Trump's coercive approach: threaten extreme tariffs, then demand one-sided concessions. The deal raises questions about whether this is negotiation — or economic pressure disguised as diplomacy. See More
