Latest news with #disclosure
CNN
a day ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. 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.
CNN
a day ago
- Politics
- CNN
Analysis: Trump is caving to pressure on Epstein. But his concessions could be thin gruel
Through any number of controversies over the years, President Donald Trump's modus operandi has been to never give an inch. Steve Bannon calls it Trump's 'fight club mentality,' and it's certainly more pronounced in his more bare-knuckle second term. 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.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
C.S.T. Spark Inc. refiles Management Reports of Fund Performance and Fund Facts
TORONTO, July 21, 2025 /CNW/ - C.S.T. Spark Inc. has refiled the Annual and Semi-Annual Management Reports of Fund Performance ("MRFPs") and filed new Fund Facts for each of the CST Spark Education Portfolios (the "Funds"). The purpose of the filings is to correct an inadvertent error in the performance returns in the disclosure of each of the Funds' year-to-year performance and other performance information. A summary of changes in the performance returns can be found at The revised MRFPs and new Fund Facts are available through SEDAR+ at and through the CST Spark Funds' designated website at About CST Founded in 1960, the Canadian Scholarship Trust Foundation is dedicated to improving access to post-secondary education to foster a more resilient and inclusive country for generations to come. For more than 60 years, CST has helped almost 700,000 Canadian families set their children up for success through post-secondary education. As the creators of education savings plans in Canada, CST has awarded over $3 million to students pursuing post-secondary education through its scholarship and bursary programs. For more Information, please visit The Canadian Scholarship Trust Foundation and its subsidiaries, C.S.T. Savings Inc. and C.S.T. Spark Inc., operate under the master brand name CST. The terms "we", "us" and "our" refer to CST. CST Spark Education Portfolios are sold only by prospectus. Investors should read the prospectus before investing. Mutual funds are not guaranteed, their values change frequently and past performance may not be repeated. Commissions, trailing commissions, management fees and expenses all may be associated with mutual fund investments. Please read the Fund Facts or Prospectus before investing. Mutual fund securities are not covered by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation or by any other government deposit insurer. SOURCE C.S.T. Spark Inc. View original content to download multimedia: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Globe and Mail
4 days ago
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Carney's ethics filing shows more than 100 entities under conflict-of-interest screen
Prime Minister Mark Carney must recuse himself from discussions, debates, decisions or votes specifically pertaining to more than 100 corporate entities, newly released ethics documents show. That includes Brookfield Asset Management Ltd., where he held a management role prior to entering politics, but also dozens of companies with ties to Brookfield, even if Mr. Carney personally has no role or direct financial interest. 'In all of his work for Canadians, the Prime Minister will continue to serve with the highest standards for integrity at all times,' spokesperson Audrey Champoux said in a statement. The filings were released Friday in compliance with a deadline under the Conflict of Interest Act requiring public disclosure within 120 days of Mr. Carney becoming Prime Minister in March. He had been pressed to make the information public ever since he launched his bid for leadership of the Liberal Party earlier this year. Carney promises conflict-of-interest screen to prevent him from making decisions for companies he served Mr. Carney came to federal politics after a high-profile career in the private sector, including a stint as board chair for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd., a US$1-trillion asset manager whose investments touch on numerous sectors. Mr. Carney's critics had argued that his connections to the company potentially placed him in a conflict of interest − as Prime Minister, his decisions might not just benefit Brookfield, but also Mr. Carney personally through his own financial relationship with the company. Mr. Carney resigned from his board positions at the start of his leadership campaign, saying if he won he'd begin the process of compliance with ethics law. During the subsequent federal election, he said he had set up ethics screens and put his assets in a trust. But, he resisted calls to publicly disclose the scope of those screens or his holdings ahead of the legally required deadline. As a public office holder, he must report assets, liabilities, income and activities to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and then a statement of those holdings must be made public within 120 days. Conflict-of-interest screens can in turn be proposed by the Ethics Commissioner as a preventive measure. The screen means he can't be aware of or participate in any matters specifically involving the companies' interests, but may participate in discussions or decisions that are general in nature or could affect the companies' interests more broadly. Mr. Carney was also required to divest of any assets that could be directly or indirectly affected by government decisions or policy. He opted to place them in a blind trust. That means he no longer has control over how the holdings are managed. Though the financial value of his holdings is disclosed to the Ethics Commissioner, that number is not made public. In addition to his roles with Brookfield, he was a director of the board of payments processor Stripe Inc. and an advisory board for investment giant PIMCO, among other private-sector jobs. The disclosures list hundreds of individual stocks held through an investment account. They include many stocks found in a typical mutual fund or index fund sold to ordinary investors, such as Walmart, Starbucks, video conferencing company Zoom, and tech giants such as Microsoft and That investment account does not include many of the largest Canadian companies, including those in highly regulated industries, such as major Canadian banks, telecommunications companies or energy producers. Mr. Carney also continues to own an interest in Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. He owns stock options and deferred share units in Brookfield and its parent company, Brookfield Corp., worth millions of dollars at current share prices, though their value fluctuates as Brookfield's stock rises or falls. The disclosures reveal that he owns shares of Partners Value Investments LP, a fund through which Brookfield's most senior executives own a large block of Brookfield shares. Those shares are typically only awarded to an exclusive group of Brookfield insiders, demonstrating the prominent position he held at the company. The Prime Minister is eligible to take part in the 'notional long-term inventive plan' for the Brookfield Global Transition Fund, a US$15-billion pool of capital that Mr. Carney spearheaded that makes large investments in technologies such as carbon capture and storage, solar power and batteries, and nuclear services. Mr. Carney could earn bonuses if it performs well. It is not clear if those incentives would be paid in cash, stock, or in carried interest − a cut of the fund's profits after it meets a certain threshold for investment gains. Mr. Carney divided his conflict screen into three sections. One is companies where he had a management position or an oversight role. The second lists Brookfield portfolio companies in the Registry of Lobbyists. The third section is described in the records as 'entities being screened out of an abundance of caution,' identified by the Ethics Commissioner as being Brookfield-related, 'even though I had no role in managing them, and no direct financial interest in them.' The screen is administered by his chief of staff and by the Clerk of the Privy Council. Even before the records were public, Mr. Carney was obligated to recuse himself from decisions that could place him in a conflict of interest. Those recusals must be made public within 60 days. None are listed on the Ethics Commissioner's website. A spokesperson for the opposition Conservatives said Friday that they were not officially commenting until they had a chance to fully review the records.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Is Caught in His Own Trap
A NEW POLL, ON A MATTER THAT ADAMANTLY should not be decided by untutored public opinion, finds that 79 percent of Americans believe all of the documents relating to the Epstein case should be disclosed. A shocking result? Not quite. Ask Americans, who've been hearing wall-to-wall accusations about secret sex abuse cabals, celebrity client lists, and government cover-ups, whether they want to know the full story and—waddaya know—they say yes. They're wrong, and I'll come back to that. But first, there is someone who is less enthusiastic about disclosing all available records, and that person is President Donald Trump. Asked last April whether he would release whatever information the government has about a number of A-list conspiracy theories, Trump was unequivocal . . . until it came to Epstein. Q: Would you declassify the 9/11 files? A: Yes. Q: Would you declassify the JFK files? A: Yeah. I did a lot of it. Q: Would you declassify the Epstein files? A: Yeah, yeah, I would. Q: All right. A: I guess I would. I think that less so because you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there, because it's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. But I think I would, or at least— Q: You think that would restore trust, help restore trust? A: I don't know about Epstein so much as I do the others, certainly about the way he died. . . . But I'd go a long way toward that one. 'I guess I would.' Hmm. Notable hesitation. But on the matter of rashly releasing the results of investigations, the man is right. Become a Bulwark+ member and join a community of more than 100,000 people enjoying the best reporting, commentary, analysis, and discussion on the internet. Try it free for one month! There's a reason we have a tradition in this country (formerly a nation of laws) that strongly discourages the government from releasing the results of investigations that do not result in a criminal charge: such investigations unearth unsubstantiated gossip, bad-faith accusations, details about the victims, and other potentially damaging information. If there is no criminal procedure, the besmirched citizen will be denied an opportunity to rebut the charges. So Trump is correct that a responsible government should tread carefully before releasing the results of criminal investigations or other inquiries, taking care to redact names or other identifying information about innocent people. Now let's come back to the world we actually inhabit. That's not Trump's motivation. Trump has done more than anyone to demolish the laws, traditions, and basic decency that should govern in these matters. He has himself spewed the kind of incendiary accusations (of treason, of vote stealing, even of murder) that undermine faith in the system. Even on the topic of Epstein, Trump was happy to pile on with MAGA forces in stoking suspicion. In 2019, he retweeted a post suggesting that Bill Clinton might have been involved with Epstein. Asked to elaborate, he resorted to the 'just asking questions' dodge: 'So you have to ask: Did Bill Clinton go to the island? That's the question. If you find that out, you're going to know a lot.' Trump and the forces he unleashed have destroyed the norms and rules that protect innocent people from unjust accusations and flagrant incitement. He cannot hide behind those destroyed norms now. They're gone. MAGA influencers have stoked the Epstein conspiracy theories and countless other lies and calumnies with Trump's blessing for years. In 2023, Kash Patel confidently explained why the Biden administration hadn't released the Epstein files: 'Simple, because of who's on that list. You don't think that Bill Gates is lobbying Congress night and day to prevent the disclosure of that list?' He even threw some shade at congressional Republicans: 'What the hell are the House Republicans doing? They have the majority. You can't get the list? . . . Put on your big boy pants, and let us know who the pedophiles are.' Talk show host Don Bongino, now deputy director of the FBI, repeatedly demanded to know 'what the hell they were hiding.' Get 30 day free trial Epstein's legally established pattern of abusing underage girls was just the springboard to suggest a far more comprehensive corruption deforming elites in America. MAGA foot soldiers like Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, and Benny Johnson piled on, encouraging their audiences to believe that he was a 'deep state' operative who ran a pedophile ring catering to every liberal or Democrat MAGA despised. Trump has never shown anything like concern for the innocent—just the opposite. If the innocent are in his way, he will mow them down without a backward glance. If you're a law-abiding, legal immigrant unjustly detained or even deported to a foreign prison by ICE, don't expect this president to pause for a moment. If you're a legal permanent resident wrongfully detained by immigration authorities for exercising your First Amendment right to speak, don't turn to this president for relief. If you've been defamed or targeted or even had a violent mob sent after you, calling for you to be hanged, don't expect concern for your innocence to cross Trump's mind. No, the only person whose privacy and reputation Trump has any concern about is Trump. And that's why his uncharacteristic reticence about releasing the Epstein files is suspicious. He was happy to encourage the most reckless speculation about a pedophile conspiracy while he was running for office, but now that the worm has turned, he's suddenly concerned about 'innocent' people being hurt. It's impossible to imagine that his reticence arises from anything other than self-interest. He seems to be running scared. It's poetic justice. Share
