Epstein Accomplice's Lawyer Suggests Trump Would 'Agree' With Argument for Her Appeal: 'He's the Ultimate Dealmaker'
Earlier this year, Maxwell petitioned the Supreme Court to review her case, claiming she should have been shielded by a non-prosecution agreement the late financier made with federal prosecutors in Florida, Axios reported. On Monday, the Justice Department urged the court to reject the appeal, arguing that lower courts already dismissed her legal team's arguments.
Maxwell's attorney, David Oscar Markus, wrote in a statement obtained by Axios, however, that he would "be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal."
"He's the ultimate dealmaker—and I'm sure he'd agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it," Markus claimed.
The latest controversy arises as the president faces mounting criticism within his MAGA base after his administration's refusal to release the notorious "Epstein files." Trump previously said he would declassify the files during his 2024 campaign.
In response, Trump has labeled the situation a "hoax" orchestrated by the Democratic Party and former President Joe Biden. He has also repeatedly attacked his own supporters, calling them "stupid [and] foolish" for "doing the Democrats' work."
Former Trump officials, including Steve Bannon, Elon Musk, and Lev Parnas, a former associate of Rudy Giuliani, warned that the president's attacks on his base and his ongoing refusal to release the files could harm Republicans' chances for both the 2026 midterm elections and the 2028 presidential election.
"You're going to lose 10% of the MAGA movement. If we lose 10% of the MAGA movement right now, we ain't gonna ... we're gonna lose 40 seats in '26," Bannon declared during a recent recording of "The War Room" podcast. "We're gonna lose the president."
Originally published on Latin Times Donald trump Supreme court Lawyer
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
DW
an hour ago
- DW
What Ukrainians expect of the Putin-Trump summit – DW – 08/13/2025
Are Ukrainian experts and politicians optimistic about the upcoming talks between US President Donald Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin in Alaska? Or do they doubt there will be a real breakthrough? Soon after the August 15 meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska was announced, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy put out a video warning against excluding his country from the talks: "Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are decisions made against peace. They will not work." Many Ukrainians share this view, according to a survey conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in late July and early August. "Ukrainians remain open to negotiations and making difficult decisions," Anton Hruschezkyj of KIIS told DW. "The absolute majority, however, continues to reject demands for [Ukrainian] surrender." According to the survey, 76% of Ukrainians reject Russia's "peace plan" and the idea of making concessions to Russia. At the same time, 49% oppose the US peace plan that entails security guarantees for Ukraine from European countries but not from the US, recognizes Crimea as part of the Russian Federation, maintains Russian control over Ukraine's occupied territories, and lifts sanctions against Russia. Ukrainians do not rule out that the upcoming negotiations between Putin and Trump, which will not have Ukrainian or European representatives present, will be aimed at forcing Ukraine to capitulate. "The Russians never changed their negotiating stance and will not do so as long as they do not suffer serious military and political defeats," Volodymyr Horbach of the Ukrainian Institute for Northern Eurasia Transformation (INET) told DW. The fact that Trump is talking to Putin without first pressuring Russia to change its stance shows that this approach is doomed to failure, Horbach says. "The Russians will stick to their position and want to offer a ceasefire in return for Ukraine's de facto surrender, in other words, fulfilling Russian demands. So calling this concessions is very naive," Horbach said. The analyst does not regard the upcoming Putin-Trump talks as a disaster, but says they signal an "alarming trend" as Trump is "legitimizing Russian war criminal Vladimir Putin, which is unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe." Horbach said he sees "no possibility of implementing any real, practical outcomes of these negotiations in the context of the Ukrainian-Russian war. The proposals that Putin may make will satisfy neither Ukraine nor the European Union." He added that "Trump will have to maneuver, he will not be able to force Ukraine and its European partners to accept Putin's terms." Ukraine was in a similar situation in March 2025, says Dmytro Levus, who heads the Ukrainian Meridian Social Research Center. At the time, Donald Trump believed that the war could be quickly ended by negotiating with Russia and enforcing a peace agreement based on Ukraine's surrender. Lifting sanctions on Russia, however, proved impossible, as most of them had been imposed by the Europeans, Levus said. He believes that after this Alaska meeting, the US and Russia will once again have to face reality — Ukrainian forces continue defending their country and Ukrainian's European partners will not unconditionally accept and implement any deal agreed between Putin and Trump. "Ukraine's position, as stated by Zelenskyy, is clear and correct: the [Ukrainian] constitution does not allow for the ceding of [Ukrainian] territory," Levus told DW. "That is why I do not expect anything meaningful to come out of the Alaska meeting." Iryna Herashchenko, one of the leaders of Ukraine's opposition European Solidarity Party, says the Putin-Trump meeting represents a challenge for the entire international security system. She explains that it would signal to the whole world that violence can go unpunished if Russia, the aggressor, is rewarded for its attack on Ukraine, for annexing parts of the country and for committing war crimes. That is why Herashchenko says recognizing Russian occupation is a red line that must not be crossed. "This would pave the way for new wars, not only in our region," Herashchenko said on Telegram. "That is why all negotiations should be conducted with the participation of Ukraine and the EU, with strict security guarantees, international monitoring, and provisions for sanctions." Anything else would not bring peace, but only lead to new war. Danylo Hetmantsev of Ukraine's rulingServant of the People party takes a more positive view of the upcoming talks, saying the summit will finally reveal Russia's stance. "If there are once again attempts at 'diplomatic maneuvering' instead of productive negotiations at the meeting, this will likely lead to the imposition of tough American sanctions, including on Russia's allies, who will have to pay for supporting the aggressor, which they will not like," Hetmantsev said on Telegram. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video At the same time, Ukrainian experts do not rule out that the US will once again try blackmailing Ukraine into accepting unacceptable conditions after the Putin-Trump summit. Kyiv-Mohyla Academy lecturer and Ukrainian Prism think tank researcher Oleksandr Kraiev believes that Trump could threaten to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine. "But [weapons] deliveries are already sporadic and unsystematic, so it won't be as much of a shock as when Trump first announced something like this," Kraiev told DW. He believes the summit will be purely held for the "sake of talks," as neither side has any real idea of how the war should end. "There could be a joint statement on continuing the talks, but that's all," Kraiev said.
DW
2 hours ago
- DW
Germany rejects US censorship claims in human rights report – DW – 08/13/2025
The report itself has been accused of political bias, with the US softening criticism of Israel and El Salvador. Germany rejected the report saying it has "a very high level of freedom of expression." Human rights, such as freedom of expression, are under threat in Germany and other European countries, according to the 2024 Human Rights Report by the US State Department. The report, which in former years has been seen as a reliable point of reference for global human rights advocacy, has been criticized by human rights groups as containing numerous omissions and mischaracterizations to fit the current US administration's political aims. The German government rejected the report. "There is no censorship in Germany," Deputy Government Spokesman Steffen Meyer said. "We have a very high level of freedom of expression in Germany, and we will continue to defend it in every form," he added. "The human rights situation in Germany worsened during the year," an executive summary of the report's Germany entry said. "Significant human rights issues included restrictions on freedom of expression and credible reports of crimes, violence, or threats of violence motivated by antisemitism," the report said. The report stated, however, that the German government "took some credible steps to investigate, prosecute, and punish officials who committed human rights abuses." The report follows on from comments made by US Vice President JD Vance in February, in which he accused Germany and other European allies of imposing restrictions on free speech and attempting to marginalize far-right parties, including the Alternative for Germany (AfD). His remarks have been described as "intrusive" by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. The report devotes a much smaller section to Israel than it did last year and fails to mention the severe humanitarian crisis and death toll in the Gaza Strip amid Israel's ongoing offensive against the Palestininian militant group Hamas. El Salvador, which was described in the 2023 report under the Biden administration as having "significant human rights issues," also got off lightly in 2024. "There were no credible reports of significant human rights abuses," the 2024 report said about the Central American country, whose president, Nayib Bukele, is accused of overseeing unlawful and arbitrary killings, torture and harsh prison conditions. The Trump administration's relations with El Salvador have strengthened in recent months, with Washington using a high-security mega-prison in the country to house migrants it has deported under draconian new migration policies. Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine was referred to in the report mainly as the "Russia-Ukraine war," though it did say Russia's forces and officials were reported to have committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and abuses in Ukraine. In contrast, countries such as South Africa and Brazil, with whose governments Trump has clashed, came in for severe criticism that was not contained in the 2023 report. The report was issued with a delay as officials appointed by US President Donald Trump altered an earlier draft to bring it into line with his administration's foreign policies and ideological slant. It was prepared after the department underwent a major revamp during which hundreds of people were dismissed, many from the agency's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which has a large role in writing the report. In April, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in an opinion piece that the bureau had become a nest of "left-wing activists" and pledged that the Trump administration would change its focus in favor of "Western values." "The report demonstrates what happens when political agendas take priority over the facts," said Josh Paul, a former State Department official and director of nongovernmental organization A New Policy. "The outcome is a much-abbreviated product that is more reflective of a Soviet propaganda release than of a democratic system," he told Reuters news agency. Rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have also criticized the report, saying the Trump administration had mischaracterized some records of abuses and omitted others to suit its political agenda. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce, however, defended the report, saying it had been restructured to improve readability and to stop it from being a list of "politically biased demands and assertions."
DW
4 hours ago
- DW
India: How can New Delhi deal with its stray dog problem? – DW – 08/13/2025
Authorities in Delhi say stray dogs are a safety hazard, while activists see the animals as a part of the community. The huge number of dogs — combined with a lack of resources — makes it hard to find a humane solution. Animal rights activists in the Indian capital are angry about a new directive calling for stray dogs to be removed from the streets. After dozens of protesters were arrested on Tuesday, the Chief Justice of India BR Gavai said he would "look into" the order issued by the Supreme Court. The order, which was handed down on Monday, directs authorities in Delhi to relocate all stray dogs from the streets of residential areas to dedicated shelters within two months. The court said the order came in response to an increase in dog bites and rabies cases. "Infants and young children, at any cost, should not fall prey to rabies. The action should inspire confidence that they can move freely without fear of being bitten by stray dogs," the order said. Based on various surveys coming from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), and animal rights activists, the estimated stray dog population in Delhi is cited as being between 800,000 to 1 million. While some residents of the Indian capital view these dogs as a menace, others see the animals as companions and part of the urban ecosystem. Dog lovers and activists say municipalities are not prepared to safely remove and shelter the massive number of strays estimated to roam Delhi's streets. "The court order is illogical, impractical, inhuman, and illegal. That is like rounding up your next-door neighbor. These dogs have lived here for generations. They are Delhiites, through and through, simply trying to survive like the rest of us," Shaurya Agrawal, from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), told DW. Animal rights activists argue that the Supreme Court order contravenes so-called animal birth control (ABC) rules calling for the sterilization, vaccination, and return of dogs to their territories as a humane and scientifically proven method of population control. Data tabled in India's parliament showed more than 3.7 million cases of dog bites and 54 suspected human deaths from rabies reported in 2024 across the country of 1.4 billion people- Figures from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare show around 2.75 million dog bite cases in 2023. More than 26,000 dog bite cases have been reported in Delhi so far this year, according to official municipal data used as a basis for the recent judicial action. Critics of the removal order argue that it is logistically improbable for authorities to set up shelters and resources on a scale envisaged by the top court. Delhi's municipality operates just 20 animal control centers, with a combined capacity for less than 5,000 dogs. "Catching, feeding, and caring for tens of thousands of dogs daily would require huge annual funding for thousands of animal catchers, ambulances, veterinary doctors, and large teams for daily maintenance, all of which Delhi currently lacks," Anjali Gopalan, who runs All Creatures Great and Small, an animal rights NGO, told DW. "The only way to deal with the stray dog population is to stabilize it by sterilization and vaccination. Bites and rabies will go up if dogs that are sterilized and vaccinated are moved outside their territory as unvaccinated dogs will move in. There are consequences to public health," Gopalan told DW. Bharati Ramachandran, CEO of the Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO), who has been critical of the court order, said the mass sheltering of healthy, vaccinated dogs is "impractical and inhumane." "The court order runs contrary to global public health guidance. In addition, ABC rules require that sterilized and vaccinated community dogs be returned to their original territories after treatment," Ramachandran told DW. "We are still studying the order and see how we can chalk out a future course of action," she said. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Activists say removing sterilized dogs from an area could allow unsterilized dogs to move in, causing a "vacuum effect." "Rodents tend to increase when dogs are removed because dogs help control their populations. Hence, proper waste and garbage management is critical to reducing food availability for both stray dogs and rodents, further managing the risks associated with these animal populations," added NGO head Gopalan. In Jaipur, the capital of Rajasthan state, animal rescue groups have been running an ABC program for a decade, which has reportedly seen the roaming dog population halved. The proportion of puppies dropped from 19% to just 2% of the total number of dogs. The state of Goa has achieved around 70% vaccination coverage of its dog population as part of its mass canine immunization program to control rabies. This success has been aided significantly using an app-based tracking system that enables spatial direction of vaccination teams and real-time monitoring of vaccination rates. Similarly, a city-wide census in Bengaluru showed stray dog numbers decreased by nearly 10%. "The formula is simple — sterilize and vaccinate dogs as per the law. Close illegal pet shops and breeders and encourage adoption from shelters and the streets. This is a practical public-health policy that works," said Agrawal from PETA. Ayesha Christina Benn of Neighbourhood Woof, an NGO for dog welfare, pointed out that Delhi's dog control order may end up doing more harm than good. "Scientifically speaking, the reason this order can be catastrophic because it will reduce rates of sterilization as this exercise is being done in a kneejerk fashion and actual sterilization centers being used to board dogs," she told DW. "We are simply not equipped for long term care. More public participation to ensure effective street dog management is needed," she added. To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video
