Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
The idea is that giving in to pressure – even a little – just rewards it and allows your opponents to win.
But Trump hasn't been able to hold that line on the Jeffrey Epstein files. For the second time in a week now, the administration has made a concession that seeks to quell the growing storm in the MAGA base demanding more disclosure about Epstein.
First, it was the administration on Friday seeking to unseal grand jury testimony; now, it's Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's Tuesday statement that he intends to meet with convicted Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell.
But both of those moves appear to be pretty thin gruel for a base hungry for much more – to the extent that base recognizes what it's being fed. And the administration could be playing a dangerous game.
Trump ordered the first gambit in the wake of a Wall Street Journal story about a 2003 birthday letter to Epstein bearing his name and an outline of a naked woman — which Trump has denied is from him. (He's sued the newspaper's publisher and the reporters.)
'Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,' Trump posted on Truth Social last Thursday night after the story published.
But that last clause – 'subject to Court approval' – looms large. Grand jury testimony is generally kept secret for a reason, and courts will be reluctant to release it. Public interest can be a valid reason for more disclosure, but legal experts say it's unlikely we'll get a huge raft of new information. (Two judges have said that they need more information before unsealing any grand jury transcripts and gave the Justice Department a next Tuesday deadline to provide that, while Maxwell will oppose the unsealing of grand jury materials related to her and Epstein, according to a person close to her.)
Whatever may eventually be unsealed could be, in large part, federal agents' summaries of their interviews rather than full transcripts. And even that could take a long time, given the courts will want to review everything and consult with victims and other people who haven't been charged with crimes but could see their names surface.
The grand jury materials also represent only a small portion of the documents that could be in the files.
In other words, it seems like a great way for the administration to look like it's giving people something in order to take the heat off and hope the story dies down.
That clearly wasn't enough, though, so the administration made another concession Tuesday, regarding Maxwell. Blanche said he planned to meet Maxwell 'in the coming days' to see what she might know about anyone else who has committed crimes.
'If Ghislane [sic] Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say,' Blanche said in his statement, adding: 'Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.'
The first question is why that's only changing now. If the administration was interested in uncovering more crimes and full disclosure, why hadn't it already gone to a living source of the crimes – someone who could seemingly shed some light?
Far-right activist Laura Loomer and others were asking such questions Tuesday shortly after the announcement, with Loomer calling it a 'massive cope' by the DOJ.
Another question is why it's Blanche. Such interviews could seemingly be conducted by prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Blanche is not only a political appointee, but he happens to have been Trump's former personal defense lawyer. (Trump said Tuesday he wasn't aware of Blanche's plans but said it 'sounds appropriate' and praised his former attorney.)
Are people who are very concerned about a federal coverup going to believe that Blanche will be a neutral arbiter here, given Trump's demonstrated past relationship with Epstein?
Will this interview be shared publicly, or will the administration ask people to trust it to summarize it? (The administration has not said what it will do with any information Maxwell gives it.)
There are other personal politics involved here, as well. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence and could be tempted to say the kinds of things the administration wants her to say.
That's not just because, as some surmised, she might want a pardon; it seems ridiculous to think Trump might pardon a convicted child sex-trafficker. It could also logically bear on how the Justice Department treats her appeals, which remain ongoing. Trump's DOJ has shown little compunction about intermingling politics with official actions that are normally insulated from them, such as in the Eric Adams case.
Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, has also been solicitous of Trump in his public statements. Last week, he labeled Trump the 'ultimate dealmaker' and suggested the president might prevail on his Justice Department to change its course in the appeals process. In further comments after the Blanche announcement Tuesday, Markus praised Trump's 'commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.'
Whether Trump actually has any intent in helping Maxwell, these statements can't help but raise caution flags about whatever might come out of this process. As recently as last week, Maxwell's own lawyer suggested Trump could get involved in helping her. And Trump, of course, made those odd repeat statements about Maxwell – 'I wish her well' – after she was charged in 2020.
In other words, to those skeptical about the administration's transparency and who think there's a real scandal to uncover here – which is lots of people and also lots of Republicans – there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical about these steps.
But even beyond that, there is danger for the administration. Both of these steps could have unintended consequences.
Who knows, for instance, what grand jury materials might ultimately be released – and what theories those might seed about what remains under wraps? The Trump team would seemingly be familiar with those materials if it truly reviewed the case extensively, but it's handling of the matter hasn't exactly been flawless.
The bigger wildcard, though, is what Maxwell might say. Despite her attorney's kind words for Trump – and perhaps despite the administration potentially being confident about what she might say – you never really know until you open up that can of worms.
She, like Epstein, had a relationship with Trump dating back years and could seemingly shed light on that, to the extent we actually learn all of what she might say.
And if the administration doesn't release a video or a transcript of that meeting, it could seed further suspicions about a cover-up.
The administration is treading water on Epstein, and there are no great answers for Trump right now. But the administration's actions clearly show the pressure is getting to it, and it feels the need to do something.
Whether the somethings it's choosing are going to satisfy people is another matter entirely.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CNN host laughs at Republican senator as he fact-checks him on Epstein ‘sweetheart' deal
CNN's Jake Tapper repeatedly fact-checked a Republican senator on air Sunday as the lawmaker insisted that Democrats and Barack Obama's administration were at fault for a 'sweetheart' deal that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to escape his 2008 conviction on child sex charges virtually unscathed. Sen. Markwayne Mullin appeared on CNN's State of the Union and repeatedly claimed that a plea agreement to keep Epstein from being charged federally for child sex crimes was signed in 2009, under the Obama administration. But Epstein's plea agreement was drafted in 2007 and signed in 2008, when he pleaded guilty to soliciting a minor for sex, before Obama was even president. 'It was 2008,' Tapper corrected him, chuckling. Tapper noted that the U.S. attorney who oversaw the non-prosecution agreement was Alex Acosta, who went on become Donald Trump's secretary of labor during his first administration. 'It all took place in 2008,' Tapper said. Mullin then shot back, asking 'who was in office at the time?' — seemingly making the error of assuming that Obama was the president. Obama won the presidential election that year but was inaugurated in January 2009. 'In 2008, George W. Bush was the president,' Tapper said, as he was cut off by Mullin repeating his question. 'George W. Bush.' Mullin went on to insist that because the case was 'sealed in 2009' that Democrats were somehow involved. A clearly exasperated Tapper responded that 'the point is, the 'sweetheart deal', which was completed in 2008, was under the Bush administration.' The plea agreement inked between Acosta and Epstein's attorney, Alan Dershowitz, was staggering in its leniency. Epstein was allowed to leave the prison facility for hours at a time for 'work release' to the headquarters of a nebulous enterprise called the 'Florida Science Foundation' he founded shortly before beginning his sentence and shut down when it concluded. Inside the prison, Epstein was allowed to maintain his own office, just as he'd done at Harvard University for years, while watching television and was watched by guards who wore suits and were partially on his payroll. Mullin and other Republicans closely aligned with the president are treading a careful line on the issue of the Epstein investigation. The Trump administration ignited a firestorm early in July when the Department of Justice and FBI announced that the agencies would not release any more documents related to the Epstein investigation despite having promised to do so. The agencies cited a refusal to release identifying information about victims and graphic sexual imagery involving children. Most glaringly, the agencies also declared in that early July announcement that a so-called 'client list' of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators had not been found. Having latched on to the issue long before Trump was elected to a second term, his MAGA base descended into chaos. Many of the president's 2024 supporters called the reversal a betrayal by the administration, while some questioned whether Trump himself was involved in a cover-up to protect himself or other powerful men named as Epstein's accomplices in the files. Some Democrats latched on to the issue at the same time, joining calls for transparency. Then, a pair of articles in The Wall Street Journal purported to outline Trump's own connections to the investigation. The newspaper reported the contents of a message allegedly penned by Trump to Epstein as part of a 50th birthday celebration in 2003, including allusions to a 'secret.' Trump firmly denied authoring the note, and sued the newspaper and its reporters in response. A second article from the WSJ days later reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed Trump in May that he was mentioned in the Epstein investigation multiple times, thought it was not clear in what context The White House called that story 'fake' and has repeatedly insinuated that Democrats including Joe Biden tampered with the Epstein files in response. Being mentioned in the files does not mean wrongdoing, and hundreds of names are reportedly included. Republicans on Capitol Hill are caught in the middle. Some are joining on to a bipartisan effort led by Thomas Massie — a Republican who clashed with the president over the GOP budget reconciliation package earlier this year — and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna to force the Justice Department to release the entirety of its document trove, with redactions for child sexual assault material and the names or identifying information of victims. Others more aligned with leadership, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. But Johnson and others have been careful not to label the Epstein story a distraction, to the White House's annoyance. Johnson called the August recess early this past week, sending lawmakers home for the month to avoid a vote legislation from Massie and Khanna.
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Number of Democratic voters who are ‘extremely motivated' to vote in next election skyrockets
Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters say they are 'extremely motivated' to cast their ballots in the 2026 midterm elections, a dramatic uptick from four years ago, polling shows. Just six months after Republicans took control of the White House and Congress, 72 percent of Democrats and Democratic-aligned voters say they are 'extremely motivated' to vote in the next election, a CNN poll conducted by SSRS this month found. By contrast, only 50 percent of Republicans say the same. Democrats are now looking to enter midterm elections in 2026 under similar circumstances as 2018 in an attempt to break up the GOP's control of both chambers of Congress and the White House. During the 2018 elections, voters dealt a massive blow to President Donald Trump's first-term agenda, with House Democrats gaining 23 seats to take control of the House. In October 2022, two years into President Joe Biden's term when Democrats narrowly controlled the trifecta, just 44 percent of Democratic voters expressed the same motivation to vote in the midterm. That figure was just slightly higher for Republicans, with 48 percent saying they were eager to vote. In that election, Republicans clinched the House of Representatives while Democrats retained control of the Senate. Still, the poll shows Democrats could have some work cut out for them. Just 28 percent of respondents said they view the Democratic Party favorably. Meanwhile, 33 percent expressed a favorable view of the Republican Party. 'I think that the Democratic Party, we have a lot of work to do to make sure we are meeting voters where they are, listening to what they have to say, and talking to them about issues that they want us to take action on,' Virginia Democratic Congresswoman Jennifer McClellan told CNN in response to the poll. "What's going to matter is what we're doing on the ground in these districts.' Recovering from Kamala Harris' defeat to Trump in 2024, Democrats are looking to harness an electorate that they lost in the last election. A separate poll by Lake Research Partners and Way to Win analyzed 'Biden skippers,' those living in battleground states who voted for Biden in 2020 but sat out of the 2024 presidential election. The survey poked holes in the idea that Harris was 'too far left.' Progressive lawmaker Vermont Independent Senator Bernie Sanders and New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez topped the list of public figures respondents viewed positively, with 78 percent having a favorable view of Sanders and 67 percent having a favorable view of Ocasio-Cortez. Republicans are also making moves ahead of the 2026 midterms. The White House is already strategizing to ensure the GOP retains the trifecta. The plan reportedly includes Trump returning to the campaign trail as well as him having a hand in advising which candidates run and which 'stay put' in the upcoming election, sources told Politico.
New York Post
4 minutes ago
- New York Post
Good riddance to UNESCO — a hate-America shouting gallery
President Donald Trump is pulling America out of UNESCO for the third time. Maybe this time it'll be for good. Once lauded for its work in preserving important cultural sites, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organizations became a platform for miseducation by every tinpot tyrant trying to score points by defaming America and its allies. It also adopted a full-on woke agenda, backing divisive DEI and social-justice causes that, as a Team Trump aide explained, conflicted with American values. Advertisement 'Continued involvement in UNESCO is not in the national interest of the United States,' the State Department declared. The agency's focus on the UN's 'Sustainable Development Goals,' for example, follows the Paris Climate Accords program of deindustrializing the developed world, while paying the Third World to help it catch up. It admitted the 'State of Palestine' as a full member, though the United States does not recognize such a state, believing the Palestinian issue should be decided by Israel and Palestinian Arabs, not the striped-pants brigade from third-party nations. Advertisement UNESCO has also politicized Jewish holy sites, calling Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem a 'mosque,' which it never was. And it's been China's running dog, promoting Beijing's domination of Tibetan and Uyghur culture — arguably genocidal — as perfectly fine. UNESCO's odious record goes back decades. Washington first withdrew from the group in 1984, under Ronald Reagan, when it sought to have US media companies submit to the control of a 'New World Information Order.' Advertisement Trump's withdrawal from UNESCO follows his exit from the UN's equally vile Human Rights Council, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's sanctioning of its 'special rapporteur' on Palestinian issues, Francesca Albanese, who was obsessed with falsely depicting Israel as a perpetrator of genocide. Those moves were well deserved. Call it a Turtle Bay trifecta.
