White House has 'no interest' in appointing special counsel in Jeffrey Epstein case
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
16 minutes ago
- The Independent
Democrats laugh off Trump attempts to blame them for Epstein fallout
Donald Trump 's political rivals seemed unshaken by his attempts to pin blame on them for the fallout over his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation this weekend. As the president and his allies leveled allegations about the Biden Justice Department supposedly tampering with evidence to link Trump to the convicted pedophile, Democrats remained fixed on calling for the full release of the Justice Department's cache of evidence and investigation. Even as news broke this past week that Trump had instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to release grand jury testimony from the investigations into Epstein and his mistress, those same Democrats called the move an attempt to cover up the president's involvement, given that it constituted less than full transparency. On Sunday, Sen. Amy Klobuchar laughed off a suggestion made by Trump on Wednesday in an interview with a MAGA-supporting channel, Real America's Voice: 'I can imagine what they put into files, just like they did with the others.' 'The president blaming Democrats for this disaster, Jake, is like that CEO that got caught on camera blaming Coldplay, okay?' Klobuchar joked to CNN's Jake Tapper on State of the Union, referencing a now-viral clip that made the rounds last week. 'This is a problem of his own making.' Eric Swalwell, a congressman from California, also discussed the president's response and call for the release of the Epstein grand jury testimony. 'If you're Donald Trump and you have Elon Musk saying you're in the files, and Mick Mulvaney, your former chief of staff, saying you're in the files, and Michael Wolff, your biographer saying that you're not just in the files but that there's some pretty disturbing things you did with underaged girls, wouldn't you want to clear your name?' he asked during an appearance Saturday evening. 'I think that's why his supporters are scratching their heads,' Swalwell continued, adding that the president was 'willing to throw his supporters overboard to keep these files buried.' Numerous other Democrats across the ideological spectrum joined in on the calls for the files' release this past week, bridging across the party's ideological spectrum and revealing a generational divide more than a policy gap. Senior Democrats, like Nancy Pelosi, have referred to the controversy as a 'distraction'. But younger Democrats roll their eyes at the notion of letting Republicans off easy on the first issue that has truly divided the MAGA base in years. 'This is Donald Trump's effort…to gaslight you into thinking they're turning over the Epstein files, when in reality, they're turning over nothing that is relevant to what everybody deserves to know,' Congressman Dan Goldman said on Friday. 'The grand jury testimony of course will only relate to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell — the two people who were charged in the case.' The Justice Department moved this past week to unseal grand jury transcripts from the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and his girlfriend/accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. Epstein died in federal custody in 2019 while Maxwell remains in prison. Any transcripts released from those grand jury proceedings would relate solely to Maxwell and Epstein themselves, and would not likely contain any mention of Trump or other powerful men known to have cultivated relationships with the billionaire financier who was set to face trial for sex trafficking underage girls when he died. The motions were filed in court a day after the Epstein story again blew up with a bombshell story from Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. The Journal published the text of a note that was allegedly penned by Trump to Epstein as part of a 50th birthday card. The note itself was framed with the silhouette of a naked woman, Trump's signature in place of pubic hair; the contents alluding to a 'secret' that Trump wrote the two men shared. Trump has fiercely denied the authenticity of all parts of the Journal 's reporting, from the drawing to the contents of the note.
Daily Record
16 minutes ago
- Daily Record
Stephen Flynn says he would rather 'wash his hair' than meet Donald Trump when President visits Scotland
Stephen Flynn joked today he would be "busy getting a haircut" when the Republican leader arrives in Aberdeenshire. The leader of the SNP at Westminster has quipped he would find "any excuse possible" to avoid meeting Donald Trump when the US President arrives in Scotland later this week. Stephen Flynn joked today he would be "busy getting a haircut, or washing my hair" when the Republican leader arrives in Aberdeenshire to open a new golf course at his Menie Estate. Trump is expected to meet separately with John Swinney and Keir Starmer in the Granite City during his Scottish trip, before the President spends time at his Turnberry golf resort in South Ayrshire. Flynn, MP for Aberdeen South, confirmed today he would not be meeting the New Yorker when he arrives north of the Border. He told the BBC: "It's absolutely right that John does meet him, as the First Minister of Scotland. We've got one of the most senior politicians on the planet coming to Aberdeen. So it's absolutely right John meets him in a respectful fashion. "I don't think the UK should be rolling out the red carpet later on this year. I'll not be meeting the President, I'll be busy getting a haircut, or washing my hair, or finding any excuse possible to make sure that I'm looking after my own toddler at the time time." Swinney said last week his forthcoming meeting with Trump presents an "opportunity" for Scotland. The First Minister said most Scots said most Scots would expect him "to engage, promote and pursue the interests of the country" when he speaks with the US President. The Republican leader revealed he would meet with Keir Starmer in Aberdeen, which he described as the "oil capital of Europe". There is no date or venue confirmed for Trump's meeting with Swinney but the Record understands it is likely to be the Granite City. Swinney said: "I think most people would expect their First Minister to meet with the President of the United States. It's an opportunity for me to set out the issues that concern people in Scotland, and also issues we might want to make some headway with." The First Minister continued: "I understand there will be people who don't agree that I should take forward this meeting. I understand where they're coming from. But I'm the First Minister, and I think members of the public would expect me to engage, promote and persue the interests of the country. "I think it's important that where I have an opportunity to influence issues that will affect Scotland, I should take it."
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
It's time to rethink how we measure labor in the US
Last week the Wall Street Journal reported that, as a result of the 'tougher environment' in the labor market, companies are 'in control again' and are warning applicants of 'long hours and few boundaries'. At the same time some industries are reporting worker shortages due to Donald Trump's immigration crackdown. And then there's artificial intelligence, which is about to devastate the jobs market – or is about to create new jobs. Amid all this change, what do we really know about the jobs market? Just the other week the Department of Labor said the economy added 147,000 new jobs to the economy. So that seems encouraging? But the official figures are subject to revision – and big ones too. The labor department has said its own numbers were overstated by as much as 818,000 during the first eight months of 2024. The payroll giant ADP is more in line with the some pessimists on Wall Street, saying that the private economy shrank by 33,000 in June. But their competitor, Paychex, reported that small business employment – which represents about half of the country's workers – has continued to 'hold steady' throughout this year. Job openings 'jumped' to a six-month high last month. Does anyone know how the labor market is actually doing? No economist, no government agency, no academic that I know has yet figured out how many Americans are working or not. Why? Because it's not just about jobs anymore. It's about income. The 'jobs' data we read isn't relevant. Last week a report in Fortune introduced us the concept of the 'over-employed'. These are workers – many in the tech industry – that are holding down more than one job at a time, with some making as much as $3,000 per day working for multiple employers. But the over-employed trend goes beyond this. That's because in the same week, new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics revealed what we already knew: workers working remotely were logging two hours less hours per day than their counterparts coming into the office. So what are they doing with this extra time? Maybe they're watching Netflix. Others were generating more income for themselves doing other things, like starting their own businesses. According to new data from the Census Bureau: almost 460,000 applications were filed for new businesses in June alone, a level almost twice the amount of the monthly average before the pandemic. We all know these 'workers'. Some have multiple full-time jobs. Others have multiple part-time jobs. Many have multiple sources of income. They drive Ubers. They have Etsy shops. They're selling used sneakers on eBay and working late shifts under the table at the local bar. They write programs. They work with data. They do it all! Are we taking all of these people into consideration when analyzing the 'job market?' Some of the 'over-employed' and really just underpaid and need the extra work to make ends meet, unfortunately. According to a new NerdWallet data, nearly two in five Americans are aiming to make more money this year and 10% have started a side business or second job just to cover basic necessities. In this increasingly complicated 'jobs' market perhaps it is time for economists to stop evaluating the labor market in terms of jobs. This is quickly becoming obsolete. We need to measure income. How many people over the age of 18 in the US are earning more than, say $50,000 per year, taking into consideration all sources of income and inflation-adjusted? What percentage is that compared to the working-age population? How has that increased or decreased over time? Isn't this more relevant than the numbers we're getting now? And shouldn't the numbers come from actual, real data and not from an unreliable Department of Labor survey that's revised 10 times after it is initially published? Can't we get this information from tax returns, social security and private sources such as Etsy, Amazon, eBay, ADP and Paychex? Can't this be calculated and updated monthly and annually? Of course it can. Major economic policy decisions still hinge on the unemployment rate and jobs growth. Politicians get re-elected or ejected on this data. But in a job market that's being shaken by AI, immigration and the rapid rise of side gigs, it's time we rethought how we measure the health of the labor market.
