House Oversight Committee votes to subpoena DOJ for Epstein files
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
The Daily Show jokes that Trump is going after famous Black people in an effort to deflect interest away from Epstein
The Daily Show lambasted President Trump for using a series of targeted verbal attacks to distract attention from the Jeffrey Epstein debacle. 'Trump is going to target every exceptional Black person he can think of,' returning correspondent Jessica Williams said on Jon Stewart 's show Monday night while highlighting that in recent weeks, Trump has singled out Beyonce, Oprah, and former Vice President Kamala with threats. 'We're about a week away from him saying that Urkel did 9/11? Urkel! 'Did he do that?' No, Jon, no, he didn't. He was nowhere near the towers that day,' an Emmy-nominated star joked about the famous child actor who appeared on the '90s sitcom 'Family Matters.' Steve Urkel, a character played by Jaleel White, became associated with the catchphrase 'Did I do that?' which typically followed acts of clumsiness. Williams joked that Trump may even start going after other notorious Black celebrities, including Michael Jordan and Michael B. Jordan. 'He better watch his back. I'm scared for him,' she teased about an imaginary 'Michael C Jordan' on the topic. Williams, an actor and a comedian, formerly appeared as a series regular on the Nickelodeon series 'Just for Kicks' in 2006, before becoming The Daily Show 's youngest correspondent at 22 years old in 2012. Earlier in the show, Stewart spoke on the Epstein scandal after the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, met with Ghislaine Maxwell last week. The former socialite is currently serving a 20-year sentence after being convicted for her role in helping Epstein recruit, groom, and abuse underage girls. The talk show host then suggested that the president is trying to downplay his relationship with Epstein and any mishandling of the documents relating to the disgraced financier's case. During the show, Stewart showed a Truth Social post, where Trump lashed out at Beyoncé, Oprah, and former Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday, demanding that 'they should all be prosecuted!' for 'illegally endorsing' the Democrats in the 2024 presidential election. 'Kamala, and all of those that received endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW,' Trump wrote. Williams, who joined in at the end of the segment, called out the president's 'b*****t' before adding that she had 'had it with Trump.' 'He's got to come clean about Epstein,' she insisted. It was reported earlier this month that in May, Attorney General Pam Bondi told Trump that his name appeared in the files. The president has since filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal 's parent companies, News Corp and Dow Jones, following the newspaper's publication of the president's alleged birthday letter to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The president has consistently denied any wrongdoing regarding his friendship with Epstein. On Sunday, Trump suggested that the Democrats are focused on conspiracy theories. He claimed that 'all they know how to do is talk and think about conspiracy theories and nonsense.' The president is currently on his final day of his visit to Scotland, where he told a reporter to scrap any ideas of his alleged involvement. "Oh, you gotta be kidding with that," Trump said. "No, had nothing to do with it. Only you would think that. That had nothing to do with it."
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Pam Bondi takes action against anti-Trump judge for 'misconduct' in mass deportation case
Attorney General Pam Bondi is reprimanding the chief judge for the district court of Washington, D.C. for his comments about President Donald Trump. Judge James Boasberg expressed at a March conference concern that President Donald Trump would cause a constitutional crisis by going against federal judges. The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the chief judge in relation to these comments. Bondi claims that Boasberg's remarks 'undermined' judicial integrity. Reports emerged earlier this month that in the March Judicial Conference, the District of Columbia's chief judge raised concerns to colleagues that the Trump administration would cause a 'constitutional crisis' by disregarding federal court rulings. A memo, reported earlier this month, summarized the working breakfast and noted that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who presides over the conference, defended Trump against Boasberg's concerns. Boasberg's comments came just a few days before he ordered the Trump administration halt removals of illegal immigrants to El Salvador as courts considered the legality of his mass deportation operations. 'Today at my direction, [the Justice Department] filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,' Bondi wrote on Monday in a post to X. 'These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,' she added. The week of March 11 this year, members of the Judicial Conference met in the nation's capital for the first of its two regular meetings. This group is the national policymaking body for federal courts, the website explains. A memo from the gathering notes: 'District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues' concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.' 'Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize,' according to the memo. It also said Roberts made clear 'his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.' Just 12 days after the Federalist reported on the memo, AG Bondi took action against Judge Boasberg. Revelations of the comments make clear an anti-Trump bias that Judge Boasberg holds. Trump has been critical of Boasberg and claims he is a 'highly conflicted' judge. The president says that the judge is 'disgraceful' and suffering from 'massive Trump Derangement Syndrome.' Boasberg's comments about President Donald Trump came during a Judicial Conference in March – just days later the judge ordered the administration halt deportation flights after a challenge was filed against Trump's deportation of illegal immigrants without due process He came under immense criticism when on March 15 he issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration's deportation flights. Trump responded to the halt by calling for Boasberg's impeachment and claiming he was trying to usurp the presidency. He wrote on Truth Social that Boasberg is a 'Radical Left Lunatic Judge' and 'troublemaker.' The pause came after the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of five illegal Venezuela immigrants who Trump was deporting without due process. The administration was using the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The wartime law is usually used during 'declared' conflicts to allow deportations without court proceedings. Boasberg argued it may not apply to a criminal gang since they are not a sanctioned government entity.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law
When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid growth. And that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act — a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment though a process that requires agencies to consider a project's possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some communities. The AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it's commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump's plan would give 'categorical exclusions' to data centers for 'maximum efficiency' in permitting. A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is 'focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership." Trump's administration has been weakening the law for months. 'It's par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment,' said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch. Here's what to know about this key environmental law, and Trump's effort to weaken it: What is NEPA and why does it matter? NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States, 'essentially our Magna Carta for the environment,' said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions worldwide. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal agency. In recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project's possible contributions to climate change. 'That's a really important function because otherwise we're just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way," Park said. But business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often taken five years or more to complete. 'Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,'' said Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber's Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA 'a blunt and haphazard tool' that too often is used to block investment and economic development. The White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects -- including some for clean energy -- take too long to be approved. What's happened to NEPA recently? NEPA's strength — and usefulness — can depend on how it's interpreted by different administrations. Trump, a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous reviews. In his second term, Trump has again targeted the law. An executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA reviews. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn't designed 'for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.' "It's been a rough eight months for NEPA,' said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican presidents. John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he said. Some examples of cases where NEPA has played a role A botanist by training, Mary O'Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O'Brien said. The U.S. Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides' impact on humans and red alders wasn't a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement. 'It's a fundamental concept: 'Don't just roar ahead.' Think about your options,' O'Brien said. O'Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2018 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA's requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan. 'I think it's one of the laws that's the most often used by the public without the public being aware,' said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. 'NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in.' Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects' full impacts. 'Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,'' he said. Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law's requirements may invite even more litigation. "And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes," he said. ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
