Trump Aides Plan to Plead With Joe Rogan to End Epstein Crisis
Trump officials are also considering the release of audio from an administration interview with jailed sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell, sources told CNN.
Vice President JD Vance is set to host a dinner meeting at his residence on Wednesday evening to hash out the Trump administration's next move on the Maxwell audio and transcript, the network said.
The gathering will include Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and FBI Director Kash Patel, according to three sources familiar with the plans.
Last month, Blanche met with Maxwell, a longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate, at the U.S. attorney's office in Tallahassee, Florida. According to CNN, the Department of Justice has been working to digitize, transcribe, and redact over 10 hours of audio.
The group is expected to discuss whether to release the audio and transcript from Blanche's conversation with Maxwell. The meeting will attempt to craft a 'unified response' to the handling of the Epstein case and the interview with Maxwell, according to CNN.
Two sources told the network that all but Vance are the core players shaping the 'administration's ongoing strategy regarding the Epstein files.'
Among the options under discussion is a media blitz led by Blanche. Three people familiar with the internal talks told CNN that aides have floated a press conference or a podcast appearance with Rogan, who endorsed Trump in the 2024 election but has also criticized the administration's handling of the Epstein case.
Epstein, the disgraced late financier and convicted sex offender, died by suicide while in federal custody in New York City in August 2019 as he awaited trial on new sex trafficking charges.
Officials in the first Trump administration determined that Epstein's death was a suicide. Still, conspiracy theories that he was killed to shield high-profile individuals, including Trump, Britain's Prince Andrew, and former President Bill Clinton, have proliferated nonetheless.
The Trump administration in February declassified and released files related to Epstein, but they were highly redacted and did not offer major revelations. A July memo from the DOJ and FBI said no additional material would be released.
Trump's MAGA base has been vocally critical of attempts to stop the release of the Epstein files.
The Daily Beast has contacted the White House, the DOJ, and the FBI for comment.
Two officials said the material from the interview could be released as early as this week. One of the internal debates centers on whether releasing the interview could reignite the Epstein scandal, something which some officials close to Trump believe has largely died down.
When asked whether the Trump administration would release the Maxwell interview transcript, White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told CNN, 'This is nothing more than CNN trying desperately to create news out of old news. [Trump] already addressed this issue in an interview with Newsmax, a real news outlet that routinely gets better ratings than CNN.'
Trump addressed the Blanche–Maxwell meeting during a Newsmax interview last week. When pressed on whether the public would get to hear the contents of their conversation, the president said, 'I don't know, because I haven't spoken about it, but he's a very talented guy, Todd Blanche, and a very straight shooter, and I think he probably wanted to know, you know, just to get a feeling of it, because we'd like to release everything, but we don't want people to get hurt that shouldn't be hurt. And I would assume that was why he was there. I want to release everything. I just don't want people to get hurt.'
Maxwell was convicted in 2021 for helping Epstein groom and sexually abuse underage girls.
She is continuing to appeal her conviction, including a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, Maxwell was transferred from Florida to a lower-security facility in Texas.
When pressed on the matter by CNN host Kaitlan Collins on Tuesday, Trump said: 'I didn't know about it at all, no. I read about it just like you did.' He added of the jail switch, 'It is not a very uncommon thing.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Man Convicted of Killing Fellow Bus Passenger Because Victim Allegedly Bumped into Him and Didn't Apologize
James Richburg, 62, shot and killed William Womack, 30, on an MTA bus in Baltimore in 2024NEED TO KNOW James Richburg, 62, has been found guilty of second-degree murder, along with several firearm charges, after he shot a fellow bus passenger in 2024 The Maryland man shot the victim, William Womack, 30, after he allegedly bumped into him and failed to apologize Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for NovemberA Maryland man has been convicted on several charges after he shot a fellow bus passenger who allegedly bumped into him and then refused to apologize. James Richburg, 62, was found guilty on three counts — second-degree murder, use of a firearm in a crime of violence and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person — on Friday, Aug. 8, according to a press release from the Maryland State Attorney's Office. Richburg shot and killed William Womack, 30, in Baltimore on Nov. 30, 2024, "following a dispute" on a Maryland Transit Administration bus, according to authorities, per Law & Crime. Court documents obtained by WBFF reportedly state that Richburg and Womack were riding the same bus when Womack bumped into Richburg without apologizing while exiting at the rear of the vehicle. The men began arguing, and Womack then got back on the bus as the argument continued — at which point Richburg took out a firearm and shot the other man. Womback was taken to a local hospital, where he later died, CBS affiliate WJZ reported. Richburg fled the scene before authorities arrived, but he was later arrested on a bus without incident on Dec. 9, 2024, according to the outlet. "Our family got justice," Tamika Johnson, Womack's mother, said in a statement to WBALTV 11 regarding the conviction. "It has been long-anticipated. I've been going through up-and-down emotions. This is closure." Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases. 'This egregious act of violence is despicable and completely unacceptable and stands as a stark reminder that we must reject any form of brutality in Baltimore,' State's Attorney Ivan Bates said in the office's press release. He added, 'Since day one of my administration, I have been adamant that carrying an illegal firearm is an incredibly dangerous offense that I take very seriously because it leads to deadly outcomes like what we saw in this case.' Richburg's sentencing is scheduled for November, per WMAR. Read the original article on People
CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
A new law could have led to the Manhattan shooter's guns being confiscated. It went into effect a month before the rampage
Crime Gun violence Mental health Gun controlFacebookTweetLink Follow A new Nevada law that went into effect last month gives police officers the power to confiscate firearms from a person placed on a mental health crisis hold. Experts say it was designed to work in cases like the gunman who opened fire in a Manhattan office building on July 28. Shane Devon Tamura, 27, of Las Vegas, owned guns and was placed on a psychiatric hold in 2022 and 2024 after his mother reported to police her son was threatening to take his own life, according to records from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Tamura had a Nevada license to carry a concealed weapon when he killed four people at the 345 Park Avenue office building in New York and injured another before he died by suicide, police said. The key to the state's new law is it allows police to confiscate the firearms of someone experiencing a mental health crisis before a court's ruling. It authorizes a law enforcement officer who places someone on a mental health crisis hold to 'immediately confiscate a firearm owned or possessed by the person' and provide them with a notice detailing the procedures determining the return of the firearm. The state's earlier red flag law is similar to others around the country. It is intended to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat to themselves or others but requires a court process, after law enforcement or family members initiate a request to temporarily restrict their access to firearms. The earlier form of the law was the only available tool that could have led to the removal of Tamura's firearms after his two mental health crises, according to Thomas Chittum, former associate deputy director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The two incidents were 'critical touchpoints' where the red flag law could have been triggered, and they represent one of the major indicators of future acts of violence, which is when those closest to the individual have tried to intervene, according to Christian Heyne, a gun violence survivor and the chief programs and policy officer at Brady, a gun violence prevention organization. 'These tools exist, but even when people are calling law enforcement, they may not be aware they have the ability to prevent them from purchasing firearms or possessing them or pushing law enforcement to pursue these tools as well,' said Heyne. The law is not widespread nationally, but states such as Texas, Florida and California have similar ones with variations. All 50 states have a legal procedure for taking a person into custody for a mental health crisis hold but not all of them have added a provision about what to do if they possess or own guns, according to Chittum. Depending on the circumstances of his psychiatric holds, which are still unclear, Tamura would not have necessarily been prohibited from obtaining his license in 2022 or buying firearms because of the holds alone, gun law experts say. Under federal law, only involuntary commitments or an 'adjudication of mental defectiveness' are disqualifying, Chittum said. The federal government and most states – with some variations – restrict firearm ownership in cases where a person was declared incompetent by a court, faced a restraining order, involuntarily committed or deemed a danger to themselves or others due to a mental illness, Chittum said. An extreme risk protection order, or red flag law, allows law enforcement or family members to petition a court to seize a person's guns in cases where they pose a danger to themselves or others. 'It might have worked in this case if they had sought an ERPO, which goes into the background check system and would have blocked him from buying a firearm,' Chittum said of Tamura. Gun rights advocates who oppose such laws argue they deprive a person of their Second Amendment rights without having been convicted of a crime, according to Chittum. The Nevada Firearms Coalition, a gun rights group, wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee members, strongly opposing the bill and comparing it to the red flag law. 'The entire purpose and point of individual constitutional rights is that they must be protected by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government without due process,' the coalition's president Duncan Rand Mackie wrote. Mackie said rules around 'the confiscation and return of the firearms are vague, and both place an undue, unconstitutional, and expensive burden on the accused for the return of his property, ownership of which is a constitutional right.' Some law enforcement officers have expressed support for the new law because they wanted 'protection and clear direction on what they should do when they're dealing with people in a mental health crisis. It's not radical,' Chittum said. Data from the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety show 21 US states have implemented a red flag law, while at the federal level, a red flag bill passed by the House in 2022 has not moved forward. The bill would authorize and establish guidance for federal courts to issue extreme risk protection orders, allowing family members to request a federal court order which would remove access to firearms for someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others by the court. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue of red flag laws, which is still an emerging area of law, Chittum said. 'We're still trying to figure out this issue where people have a constitutional right but at the same time, we know some people are dangerous.' 'Must we wait until they've committed a crime and been convicted? That's the tension – we've got to do something and yet we've got this right, so how do we protect it?' In previous high court cases where police took away someone's firearms under the 'umbrella' term of community caretaking, they were sued and the court determined such justification does not give officers blanket authority to seize them, according to Chittum. One of those cases is Caniglia v. Strom. Police confiscated firearms from a man they took for observation, and he later sued them for violating his Fourth Amendment rights of unreasonable seizure of property. While the First Circuit Court approved the seizure under the community caretaking function, the Supreme Court ruled it was not a 'blanket exception' and remanded, Chittum said. 'On remand, the court found the officers had qualified immunity because it wasn't settled law,' he added. In another case last year, U.S. v. Rahimi, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wrote historic laws 'confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed.' The case is notable because it upheld a civil process for disarming a person – while most such mechanisms are handled in criminal court – and involved a process granting the subject a hearing before a court issued an order, similar to red flag laws, Chittum said. Nevada's new gun law compares to California's 5150 law, allowing an involuntary detention of someone who is deemed a danger to themselves or others, during which authorities can temporarily seize their firearms and could lead to a five-year prohibition. 'That's a model that is trying to narrowly tailor a firearm prohibition for people who are at an imminent and immediate risk,' said Heynes. 'It's something that other states have leveraged and utilized too and has shown to be an effective way of preventing violence.' Most states barely touch on the area of mental health when a person applies for a gun license due to concerns over privacy issues and stigmatizing people who have mental health issues, CNN has reported. People living with a mental illness are far more likely to be a victim of gun violence than a perpetrator, said Heyne, who stressed the importance of not being 'broadly overinclusive' of individuals who are in the category of additional risk. 'These hospitalizations or involuntary commitments carry a lifetime worth of consequences,' said Heyne. 'The answer to gun violence can't be more hospitalizations. The answer to gun violence can't just be more commitments.' It is why tools such as extreme risk protection orders 'become critically important' to not just be enacted as law but 'heavily utilized by both law enforcement and families when appropriate,' Heynes added. 'That's a civil process. There may be people who don't need to actually be committed but you want to separate them from firearms.' Firearm prohibitions rooted in temporary holds, he added, can be the difference 'between life and death' for individuals who are at an increased risk of behavior, particularly around self-harm. CNN's Josh Campbell contributed to this report.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jury finds man guilty of multiple felony sex crimes against two children
( — The San Joaquin County Superior Court jury found Gerardo Juarez guilty on July 31 of multiple felony charges related to the sexual abuse of two minors. According to the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office, the verdict came after a lengthy trial that was prosecuted by the DA's office. Lucky Powerball player wins more than $700,000 in Sacramento County The jury returned with several guilty counts, such as lewd and lascivious acts upon a child under 14, assault, forcible lewd act upon a child, and forcible sexual penetration with enhancements being found that the victim was under 14 years old. The SJCDA said based on these convictions, Juarez faces a maximum possible sentence of 95 years to life in state prison, which includes a mandatory 25 years to life for the bodily harm enhancement under the guilty verdicts. 'This verdict brings justice for the survivors of these horrific crimes. I commend their bravery in coming forward and cooperating throughout this difficult case,' said San Joaquin County District Attorney Ron Freitas. 'I also want to thank Deputy District Attorney Victor Bachand for his tireless work in securing this conviction, and Detective Erika Gonzalez of the Stockton Police Department for her thorough and compassionate investigation. Because of their commitment, this predator has been held accountable, and our community is safer.' The case is scheduled to reappear in court on October 6 for a hearing on aggravating facts which could increase the severity of the sentence. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
