logo
Victims' lawsuits show FBI and DOJ's focus on Epstein files misses the mark

Victims' lawsuits show FBI and DOJ's focus on Epstein files misses the mark

Yahoo2 days ago

On Thursday, a woman named Maria Farmer filed a lawsuit against the federal government that begins with a paragraph both familiar and chilling: 'For nearly a quarter of a century,' Farmer charges, Jeffrey Epstein got away with a 'wide-ranging sex trafficking venture' in which she was one of hundreds of victims. And worse, Farmer alleges, the high-profile financier was able to do so because the FBI, Justice Department and United States Attorneys' offices 'failed to listen to or protect his sex-trafficked, sexually abused, and sexually exploited victims.'
Indeed, Farmer alleges that she first reported to the FBI that she was sexually assaulted by Epstein and his partner Ghislaine Maxwell in 1996, that she told the agent that Epstein had also committed 'multiple serious sex crimes' against other girls and young women, including one of her minor sisters; that Epstein had stolen and transported across state lines nude and partially nude pictures of both of her minor sisters; and that, with others, Epstein was producing and distributing content that could constitute child pornography. (In 2022, Maxwell was sentenced to 20 years in prison after a jury convicted her of multiple sex trafficking-related charges; she is currently serving her sentence in a Tallahassee, Florida, federal prison and recently asked the Supreme Court to overturn her conviction.)
Nonetheless, Farmer alleges, the FBI agent hung up on her and never followed up, leaving Epstein to 'exponentially" multiply his abuse and trafficking of girls and young women over the ensuing decades. (The FBI declined NBC News' request for comment on the lawsuit, citing its standard practice of not commenting on litigation.)
In some respects, Farmer's lawsuit is not news. That she and her sisters were both victimized by Epstein and allegedly ignored by federal authorities has been reported for years. Nor is she the first Epstein victim to sue the federal government for its alleged failure to protect them from his manipulation, abuse and threats. Another similar suit now features 28 plaintiffs who accuse the FBI of 'gross negligence and reckless indifference' to Epstein and his associates' sexual abuse and trafficking of them and others for two decades. These lawsuits also seem unlikely to succeed for several reasons, including but not limited to the plaintiffs' sheer delay in bringing them.
But the existence of Farmer's and others' suits, and the plaintiffs' collective demand that the FBI right its wrongs, demands our attention. That's especially true because what the victims seem to most want from the FBI — accountability for their ongoing trauma and internal reform to ensure something like the Epstein saga never recurs — contrasts with the growing MAGA-world hunger for more information about Epstein's crimes, his co-conspirators and his suicide, which many in Trump-world have baselessly alleged was actually a murder.
That pressure has been escalating since February, when Attorney General Pam Bondi released a couple hundred pages of documents, most of which had already been disclosed publicly.
The February release spurred many — including Bondi herself — to angrily accuse the FBI of concealing relevant records and/or to continue speculating about which famous or otherwise distinguished Americans were complicit in Epstein's sex trafficking ring. Republicans were not the only disappointed audience; Rep. Dan Goldman, a prominent New York Democrat and Donald Trump critic, characterized the release as 'a ham-handed attempt to gaslight the American people' while asking whether Trump, who knew and socialized with Epstein long before entering political life, 'intervened to prevent the public release of the Epstein files in order to hide his own embarrassing and potentially criminal conduct.'
In early May, Bondi told reporters that the FBI was 'diligently' going through 'tens of thousands of videos of Epstein with children or child porn' involving 'hundreds of victims' whose identities would need to be protected in any release of such materials. Yet Bondi remains under scrutiny by other Trump allies who either doubt that she has such records, including because of a belief that prior Justice Department officials have destroyed them, or because they're simply impatient to learn whether Epstein had ties to the U.S. government or 'specific intelligence agencies.'
And in the meantime, to apparently relieve some of the Epstein-related anxiety, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino himself pledged last week to release surveillance video from the Manhattan federal jail where Epstein died, which both Bongino and FBI Director Kash Patel now say demonstrate that Epstein was alone in his cell that night and therefore died of suicide.
But from the victims' perspective, of course, how Epstein died, much less how he lived, is a secondary, if not needlessly salacious, detail. From their own experiences, they know what he did, to whom and with whom.
What the victims deserve — beyond the continued privacy to which Bondi rightfully has said they are entitled — is not an 'all hands on deck' review, redaction, and possible release of sickening videos or Epstein case file documents by agents who've been diverted from national security matters.
What they deserve is a DOJ and an FBI willing to examine and reform their own procedures for handling sexual assault and trafficking reports. After all, it's been more than two years since Farmer's lawyer wrote the FBI and DOJ a 15-page letter asking for "a comprehensive investigation to determine why there was and remains such abject failure to timely investigate, expose, and prosecute this unprecedented, decades-long criminal conspiracy."
That kind of internal investigation and reform may not satiate those still poring over Epstein's little black book — but it would get closer to real justice for his victims.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk calls Trump's tax bill a 'disgusting abomination'
Musk calls Trump's tax bill a 'disgusting abomination'

Yahoo

time18 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Musk calls Trump's tax bill a 'disgusting abomination'

Elon Musk has hit out at President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill, describing it as a "disgusting abomination", in a widening rift between the two. The tech billionaire posted on X that the bill would add to the US budget deficit and saddle Americans with "crushing" debt. The budget, which includes huge tax breaks and more defence spending, was passed by the House of Representatives last month and is now being considered by senators. "Shame on those who voted for it," said Musk, hinting that he may try to unseat the politicians responsible at next year's midterm elections. The bill has the backing of President Donald Trump and would be the legislative linchpin of his second-term agenda if it passes Congress. Musk left the administration abruptly last week after 129 days working to cut costs with his team, known as Doge. The comments mark his first public disagreement with Trump since leaving government, after having previously called the plan "disappointing". The South African-born tech billionaire's time in the Trump administration came to an end on 31 May, although Trump said that "he will, always, be with us, helping all the way". In its current form, the bill - which Trump refers to as the "big beautiful bill" - has been estimated to increase the budget deficit - the difference between what the government spends and the revenue it receives - by about $600bn (£444bn) in the next fiscal year. It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House? In a series of posts on X on Tuesday, Musk said that the "outrageous, pork-filled" spending bill will "massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America [sic] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt". In American politics "pork" refers to spending on projects in lawmakers' constituencies. Musk has previously vowed to fund campaign challenges against any Republican that votes against Trump's agenda. But on Tuesday he fired a warning to those who backed the bill. "In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people," he wrote. Asked about Musk's comments soon after the first post, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said "the President already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill". "This is one, big, beautiful bill," she added. "And he's sticking to it." The legislation also pledges to extend soon-to-expire tax cuts passed during the first Trump administration in 2017, as well as an influx of funds for defence spending and to fund the administration's mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. To the dismay of fiscal conservatives, it would lift the limit on the amount of money the government can borrow, known as the debt ceiling, to $4tn. The comments from Musk reflect wider tensions among Republicans over the plan, which faced stiff opposition from different wings of the party as it worked its way through the House. The Senate has now taken it up, and divisions are already emerging in that chamber, which is also narrowly controlled by Republicans. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has said over the last few days he will not support the bill if it raises the debt ceiling. "The GOP [the Republican Party] will own the debt once they vote for this," he told CBS News, the BBC's US partner, over the weekend. Trump responded to Paul with a series of social media posts, accusing him of having "very little understanding of the bill" and saying that the "people of Kentucky can't stand him". "His ideas are actually crazy," Trump wrote. Republican lawmakers pushed back on Musk's comments, with Senate majority leader John Thune telling reporters the party plans to "proceed full speed ahead" despite "a difference of opinion". "We have an agenda that everybody campaigned on, most notably the president," he said. Mike Johnson - the Republican Speaker who has ushered the legislation through the House - told reporters on Capitol Hill that "my friend Elon is terribly wrong". "It's a very important first start. Elon is missing it," Johnson said. Johnson said he had a 20-minute phone call with the tycoon about the bill on Monday, adding that its phasing out of electric vehicle tax credits could "have an effect" on Tesla, Musk's firm. "I lament that," Johnson said, expressing surprise that Musk criticised the bill despite their call. "I just deeply regret he's made this mistake.' Among the issues that upset Musk involved air traffic control at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), according to Axios. Musk was hoping it would be run on his Starlink satellite system, but he was denied because of issues relating to the technology and the appearance of a conflict of interest, the political outlet reported. Some Democrats welcomed Musk's comments despite their previous criticism of him and the work of Doge. "Even Elon Musk, who's been part of the whole process, and is one of Trump's buddies, said the bill is bad," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "We can imagine how bad this bill is." Trump and Republicans in Congress have set a deadline of 4 July to get the measure passed and signed into law. Musk supported Trump in last year's November election with donations of more than $250m. To make peace with spending hawks, Trump is also asking Congress to pass a plan that would reduce current spending by $9.4bn, a figure derived from Doge's work. It would mainly slash funding for foreign aid, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and for broadcasters NPR and PBS. It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House? Elon Musk plans to cut back political spending Musk 'disappointed' by Trump's tax and spending bill Follow the twists and turns of Trump's second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher's weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Is This the Best the Democrats Can Do?
Is This the Best the Democrats Can Do?

Yahoo

time23 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Is This the Best the Democrats Can Do?

On Tuesday, the Democratic National Committee served tacos outside the Republican National Committee's headquarters—a nod to a trendy new acronym spelling out 'Trump always chickens out.' If the point was to push a slogan that works perfectly in one area (tariffs, where the president is constantly ramping up and backing down) and less perfectly in several others (immigration and general authoritarianism, where the president is running roughshod over the rule of law), then perhaps it was mildly successful. Still, the endeavor was most notable because of a comment from Vice President JD Vance: 'We have,' he tweeted, 'the lamest opposition in American history.' On this—and perhaps this alone—it's hard to disagree with the vice president. Handing free food to fascists outside their offices might be the high-water mark for the pugilism Beltway Democrats. Two days earlier, Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on CNN to weigh in on the recent fascistic detention of an aide to Democratic Representative Jerry Nadler by ICE agents to make it clear that this aggression will not stand. 'In terms of how we will respond to what Trump and the administration has endeavored to do, we will make that decision in a time, place, and manner of our choosing. But the response will be continuous, and it will meet the moment that is required,' he said. Bash, understandably, was perplexed by the answer. 'What exactly does that mean? Have you not decided how to respond?' Jeffries, having apparently not realized that he had not said anything of substance at all, stared blankly ahead for a few seconds—his signature move—before repeating the line he had clearly decided was a slam dunk: 'We will respond in a time, place, and manner of our choosing if this continues to happen.' To which I say, what exactly does that mean? His counterpart in the Senate only did slightly better—or perhaps slightly worse, depending on your perspective—on Monday. Responding to reports that Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff were reportedly close to reaching a nuclear deal with Iran that was reportedly more or less identical to the landmark one forged by Barack Obama in 2015, Schumer returned to the TACO moniker. 'If TACO Trump is already folding on Iran, the American people need to know about it. No side deals,' Schumer said. 'What kind of bull is this? They're going to sound tough in public and then have a side deal that lets Iran get away with everything? That's outrageous,' he added. 'We need to make that side deal public. Any side deal should be before Congress and, most importantly, the American people.' Schumer's rhetoric was more or less identical to the way Republicans attacked the Iran deal wrought by President Barack Obama. Here you have it: The Democrats! One says he has a response but can't say what it is or when he'll use it, and the other one is pushing a 10-year-old Republican talking point. America has never needed an effective opposition party as badly as it needs one now; instead we have the most feckless Democratic leaders of the past 100 years. The best thing that can be said is that Schumer and Jeffries are finally clearing the lowest of bars in their approach to Trump. For the first few months of the administration, they were guided by the belief that the iron law of political gravity would simply bring him down on its own. It had before, after all. To their minds, after being subjected to a daily barrage of crude tweets and fascism, ordinary people would finally wake up and realize that the Democrats were the only responsible, grown-up party. You know, the party that wasn't really doing much. To be fair to Schumer and Jeffries, this was born out of the unfortunate reality that there wasn't much that they could do—at least in their functions as party leaders. The Democrats were out of power in the House and the Senate, and Republicans had stacked the Supreme Court despite having only won the popular vote in three presidential elections in the last 40 years. But politics can take many forms beyond legislative maneuvers and parliamentary tricks. Donald Trump's rise is proof of this. Resistance is not solely built around investigations and legislative obstinance. One important part of politics is highlighting abuses and exploiting them. As The New Republic's editor, Michael Tomasky, pointed out back in March, these are tasks to which Schumer and Jeffries are ill suited. And Democrats, to their regret, have not empowered those who might more deftly serve as attack dogs to take up the fight. It's worth taking a second to return to the matter to which Jeffries was responding. Last week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents entered Nadler's office, accused one of his aides of 'harboring rioters,' and handcuffed her while she wept and pleaded her innocence. Nadler was unmistakably clear about what happened: 'They're behaving like fascists,' he said. 'We have to fight them.' Is this what fighting them looks like? Schumer was a vocal opponent of the deal with Iran struck by Obama: His criticism of the one Trump is nearing is not hypocrisy. It is principled opposition. But part of being the leader of an opposition party is choosing which principles to emphasize. It's good to push back, even if the whole 'TACO' thing isn't quite the political winner a lot of Democrats think it is. But to go after the administration for continuing a policy—one of the defining foreign policies—of a beloved Democratic president at a moment when the party's approval rating is in the toilet is simple political malpractice. Again: You have ICE agents cuffing Democratic staffers! Read the room (it's full of fascists). It's clear that Jeffries and Schumer can read the room. They know that their voters want them to do more. To do something. They want a response that is continuous and that will meet the moment. What's also clear is that they haven't the foggiest idea what that might look like. For years, Schumer has said that he's viewed important political decisions through the prism of an imaginary family named 'The Baileys' to better guide his decisions. Perhaps it's time for him and his fellow Democratic leaders to get real.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store