Trump knew Epstein ‘stole' young women, including Virginia Giuffre, from Mar-a-Lago
The president, who has been under sustained pressure to release more files from the Epstein investigation and detail his own knowledge of his former friend's activities, revealed he knew Epstein was poaching young women from Mar-a-Lago and gave him a warning.
After telling reporters in Scotland that he threw Epstein out of the club in the 2000s because the financier 'stole people' that worked for him, Trump was asked on Tuesday (Wednesday AEST) whether the people in question were young women.
'I don't want to say, but everyone knows the people that were taken,' he said initially. 'The concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story's been pretty well out there – and the answer is yes, they were [young women].'
Trump went on to say: 'In the spa, yep, people that worked in the spa. I have one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago and people were taken out of the spa. Hired, by him. In other words: gone. Other people would come and complain: 'This guy is taking people from the spa'.
'When I heard about it, I told him, I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people', whether it was spa or not spa. I don't want him taking people. And he was fine, and then not too long after that, he did it again, and I said, 'Out of here'.'
Asked whether that included Giuffre, Trump replied: 'I don't know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so, I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her.'
Trump added: 'And by the way, she [Giuffre] had no complaints about us, as you know - none whatsoever.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News AU
32 minutes ago
- Sky News AU
Hamas refuses to disarm and end war without an independent Palestinian state
Nothing in Gaza has changed since US envoy Steve Witkoff's visit, with hospitals receiving dozens more casualties from aid sites. Another seven hunger-related deaths have been reported in the last day. The American plan is to disarm Hamas and stop the war, but Hamas refuses to disarm without an independent Palestinian state.
Perth Now
an hour ago
- Perth Now
Ex-Trump prosecutor Jack Smith under investigation
US officials have opened an investigation into Jack Smith, the former special counsel who investigated then-candidate Donald Trump before his re-election, for alleged illegal political activity. The Office of Special Counsel, an independent federal agency, on Saturday confirmed the investigation after reporting by other news organisations. Smith was named special counsel to investigate Trump by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in November 2022. Trump and his Republican allies, including Senator Tom Cotton, have — without offering evidence of wrongdoing— accused Smith of violating the Hatch Act, a federal law that bans certain public officials from engaging in political activity. Smith prosecuted two federal cases against Republican candidate Trump in the lead-up to the November 2024 presidential election. Smith ultimately dropped the cases — neither one had gone to trial — after Trump was re-elected, which would have shielded him from prosecution according to longstanding Justice Department practice. Smith then subsequently resigned as special counsel. Cotton, on Wednesday asked the Office of Special Counsel to investigate Smith, alleging that his conduct was designed to help then-President Joe Biden and his vice president, Kamala Harris, both Democrats. Biden had dropped his own bid for re-election following his disastrous performance in a campaign debate against Trump and tapped Harris to succeed him on the ticket. Trump won the election. The White House had no immediate comment on the investigation. The New York Post was first to report on the investigation into Smith.
Sky News AU
2 hours ago
- Sky News AU
'It's Covid all over again': Labor bending at the knee to eSafety Commissioner's advice on YouTube ban while turning blind eye to our freedom, education
There is nothing in politics more ominous than a government that wants to be seen to be 'doing something'. A government that feels something must be done on a controversial topic is likely to act so boldly and so quickly that they don't have time to consider the consequences, and those who suffer are left to pick up the pieces. The popular thing to do these days is find an expert on an issue and outsource all responsibility on policy to them. Trusting an expert sounds nice - they know a lot and often have a reassuring 'Dr' at the start of their name. It's never the case that this expert is democratically elected or answerable to the people that their decisions affect. They are there for the government to hide behind - don't look at us, we had to do whatever the expert told us to. This was all the rage during Covid. Various state governments' preferred experts would recommend all sorts of bizarre restrictions - shutting South Australia down over a pizza box, for instance - but the government could tell their voters they were taking the issue seriously, because they were listening to the experts. I thought after Australians were told not to touch a football if it came into the stands of the Adelaide Oval that Australians were done stomaching the idea that we should listen solely to the experts. But Labor's talking points over the social media ban - especially its backflip on an exemption for YouTube - is a test for my theory. Social media use in teenagers is an area the government really wants to be seen as 'doing something'. It's a hot topic and for good reason. Mental health in teenagers, particularly among girls, has nosedived since smartphones and social media became widespread. Parents feel helpless. They know that social media will hurt their child, but also know depriving them of social media when all of their friends have them harms them as well. The government has jumped on this and come up with their social media ban. They also found their expert and outsourced responsibility to her. Enter the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. The level of deferral from the government to this public servant is galling. In Question Time on Wednesday, Minister Anika Wells referenced the commissioner four times in her one answer about the social media ban - including saying she 'was required by the law to seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner on the draft rules, and the eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear'. That's all well and good - but the Australian people did not elect the eSafety commissioner. They elected Anika Wells, and they elected her to do far more than ask Julie Inman Grant what to do then listen politely. The eSafety Commssioner's duty according to the government is to ensure Australians 'have safer, more positive online experiences.' But that is just one piece of the puzzle when it comes to forming policy about the online world. Safety must be balanced with freedom, educational possibilities, economic concerns and a whole raft of other factors. We'd all be free of harm from social media if we never went on the internet again - but we'd also lose all of the wonderful benefits it gives us too. It's Covid all over again. Then governments outsourced responsibility to Chief Health Officers whose primary concern was safety and stopping the spread of the virus - because that was their area of expertise. Other concerns like students' education, mental wellbeing, individual freedom and the economy - issues that should have been considered with the same seriousness as the virus itself - were swept aside in the narrow view of stopping the spread. And now other factors are being swept aside in the narrow view the government and the eSafety Commissioner are taking when it comes to social media, and particularly YouTube. The government this week reversed its commitment to exempt YouTube from their social media ban for people under the age of 16. The problem with that is that YouTube does not behave in the same way as Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook or the other social media networking sites. Those latter sites rely on users sharing information with each other, such as photos and updates. Teenagers spend hours cultivating their profiles to make their lives look idyllic, and spend further hours seeing the photos and lifestyles of people they know look even more idyllic - a vicious cycle that harms mental health. YouTube does not act like that. There is not as much person-to-person sharing as there are in the other social media networks. People watch videos and move on to other videos. In fact a survey released by the eSafety Commission itself found that YouTube is one of the safest social media websites for teenagers in terms of the risk of grooming, sexual harassment and bullying. Teenagers are more likely to be targeted over text message than over YouTube. The 'safety' concerns around YouTube are less about bullying and comparative lifestyles and more about what content is popular on YouTube, such as conservative opinions. Julie Inman Grant told the National Press Club this year that she was concerned YouTube's 'opaque algorithms' were 'driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against'. That's a whole different reason for enforcing safety and completely removed from the original conversation around protecting children online. But it's not unexpected considering the eSafety Commissioner's remit is to ensure online safety. It's up to the government to balance the desire for safety with other effects a ban on YouTube would have - especially education. Oxford Economics this year found that 72 per cent of parents agree that YouTube helps their children learn and 79 per cent of parents agree YouTube provides quality content for their children's learning. In an interview on Sky News this week, YouTube personality Leo Pugilsi said his teachers upload videos of themselves explaining what was discussed in school to help children out with homework. This is what the government is impacting when it listens solely to the eSafety Commissioner. An unforgivable sin from Covid was our governments letting experts tell them the education of children was a secondary concern. By listening solely to the eSafety Commissioner and ignoring the educational benefits of YouTube, Labor is making the same mistake again - all in the name of "doing something". James Bolt is a Sky News Australia contributor.
