There’s a reason that it is not the usual practice of the DOJ to release unverified, disparaging information about people it’s not charging with crimes.
There’s a reason that it is not the usual practice of the DOJ to release unverified, disparaging information about people it’s not charging with crimes.
The Justice Department (DOJ) declined on Thursday to release additional unredacted records from its investigation into convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, telling a federal judge that it has already adequately complied with the law. The DOJ’s response came in the final hours of a court-ordered deadline to remove redactions in at least a dozen documents…
Reporter Katie Phang recently nabbed a huge win against interim AG Todd Blanche and his crusade to keep the Epstein files under wraps. After months of stalling by the administration of President Donald Trump and ignoring the letter of a new law demanding the release of the sex-trafficker’s files, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan opened the floodgates on Trump’s longtime friend. Sullivan sided with former MS NOW show host Katie Phang in her lawsuit demanding the Trump administration adhere to the Epstein Transparency Act.Now, fresh off her big win, Phang tells “Left Hook” podcaster Wajahat Ali that Blanche, Trump and his entire crew appeared to be a bunch of idiots who had no real plan to protect Trump from being implicated in the Epstein files.“They're damned if they do and damned if they don't,” howled Phang. “You either produce it and now we have information that I and others can track down and do more reporting on, or you don't … it means they're trying to hide s——.”“If I were them I'd comply,” Phang told Ali. “I'd say ‘here are the names of the co-conspirators. Here are the names of the bad people that sent these terrible f—— emails. Here are the names of possible perpetrators. Have a nice day.’ But they are so dumb the way that they play this game. They had no f—— strategy and p—— off a federal judge like Emmett Sullivan … [who] told [Trump conspiracist] Michael Flynn to his face ‘you are a traitor to this country.’”Sullivan’s ruling means Blanche now must explain to a court why he shouldn't be forced to release names redacted from emails and documents that reference potentially damning videos and allegations of abuse of minors. Also included in redacted info includes the potential names of Epstein’s co-conspirators, as well as potentially damaging FBI interview notes from a victim who claimed Epstein introduced her to President Donald Trump when she was only 13.Phang told Ali that she had no doubt Sullivan put Trump administration in terrible danger.“Starting last year right … in the spring of 2025 they convene in the situation room about the Epstein files and it's not just the vice president of the United States, JD Vance there,” said Phang. “It was also then-attorney general Pam Bondi. It was FBI director Kash Patel. It's the deputy director of the FBI, Dan Bongino. It was then-deputy attorney general Todd Blanche. … It's the White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. It's the White House council … and a slew of other people. If something [fatal] had happened to that situation room pretty much … the entirety of the trump administration upper echelon would be f—— exterminated.”“The fact that you convene all those people repeatedly in the Situation Room you don't have to be a Rhodes scholar to figure out that there is something politically toxically horribly bad for the President of the United States [in those files],” she said.Phang added that she deliberately targeted Blanche in the suit to make him the prime target.“Unlike in other lawsuits when the DOJ is being sued and they parade in some junior federal prosecutor who has to go hat-in-hand to sit there and explain what happened or why they didn't do it, I only sued one person,” Phang said gleefully. “So, Todd Blanche … is gonna have to show up. You can't just send in some lackey.”
White House staff are reportedly concerned that Donald Trump’s Fourth of July rally is a recipe for disaster—one that will send the president into yet another meltdown. The remarkably low turnout for Trump’s Great American State Fair has sparked serious worries that the president’s massive rally planned for Saturday will also be a dud, multiple sources told CNN Wednesday. The rally is scheduled to take place outside on the National Mall, as temperatures in Washington are forecast to reach a stifling 100 degrees. One official familiar with the event told CNN that there would likely be large groups of people who reserved tickets for Trump’s address but don’t end up attending. Empty seats means that viewers are likely in for another presidential temper tantrum—a sorry sight given it will be the country’s 250th anniversary. The rally will be punctuated by a massive fireworks display, currently scheduled to begin at 11 p.m. Unlike in past years, attendees will not be able to bring coolers to help beat the heat. “I do not understand why we are doing this so late,” one White House official told CNN, adding there were still ongoing efforts to fix the timing. “I’m really not sure who thought this was a good idea.”So far, Trump’s Great American State Fair has been supremely underwhelming and beset by technical difficulties, lame programming, and disappointing weather delays. Trump has raged in the face of bad reviews and lied about the visibly low attendance.Internally, those in Trump’s orbit have begun pointing fingers about the president’s own Fyre Festival (except people actually went to the Fyre Festival). “The mistake here was not driving attendance,” one person close to the White House told CNN. “It was an ‘if you build it, they will come’ mentality that failed.”
House Democrats were staggered Wednesday by the loss of yet another one of their longtime colleagues to a democratic socialist challenger.Why it matters: Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) was a staunch progressive, not a moderate, these members are privately fuming. So why did she become a target of the left?"One more case in the growing dynamic of performative politics," one House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity to share candid analysis on the results, told Axios."Diana was an excellent representative with seniority — but the style of someone younger and more outspoken has become more attractive to that cohort of motivated urban left voters."A senior House Democrat called the result a "wake-up call" for members of CongressDriving the news: DeGette was defeated decisively by 29-year-old Melat Kiros, an attorney and PhD student who led the incumbent by nearly 10 percentage points as of Wednesday morning.DeGette's loss in the Denver-based district came despite a deluge of outside spending in her favor from groups tied to the Democratic establishment and AIPAC.Progressive groups such as the Justice Democrats spent substantially in favor of Kiros as well, but their expenditures were greatly eclipsed by those of pro-DeGette outside groups.Between the lines: DeGette boosters sought to defend her progressive bona fides, touting her support for Medicare for All, her opposition to ICE and her time as a Trump impeachment manager.Pro-Kiros ads took aim at the 68-year-old incumbent's support from corporate PACs and votes in favor of Israel.DeGette's loss comes after challengers backed by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani unseated Reps. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) and Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) last week, which already had House Democrats on edge.What we're hearing: "Diana is a progressive. Sad to see her loss," a third House Democrat told Axios, adding that there is clearly "an appetite for newer, younger blood in some parts of the country."I told everyone that would listen in 2024, that Trump winning was like manna from heaven to DSA," said a fourth."That DSA is ... winning some safe seat primaries with these young white college educated voters is just no shock. It's literally their entire playbook."Yes, but: Some House Democrats aren't waiting too long to bring Kiros into the fold, with some even exulting in her win. "I'm grateful for all Diana has done ... as our region's dean," Rep. Emily Randall (D-Wash.) told Axios. "I don't know Melat yet, but I sent her a note of congratulations and look forward to welcoming her to the team."Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who backed Kiros, told Axios: "The progressive movement is where the energy of our party is across the nation."What's next: The left isn't done yet. They're pinning their hopes on a slew of progressive candidates to knock off as many as half a dozen more Democratic incumbents this cycle.The candidates include Donavan McKinney in Michigan, Oliver Larkin in Florida, Mai Vang and Angela Gonzalez-Torres in California, Kai Newkirk in Arizona and Elijah Manley in Florida."A week after NYC," a fifth House Democrat told Axios, "there [is] momentum."
President Donald Trump has had a hard time distancing himself from the Jeffrey Epstein saga, and a new development in the case might prove to be more of a headache than he wants, according to two legal experts. Earlier this month, convicted sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein's assistant, Lesley Groff, testified before Congress about her relationship with the disgraced financier and his crimes. The transcripts of that interview were released late last week, and some of the details Groff shared with investigators raised red flags for attorneys Brian Kabateck and Shant Karnikian, who co-host the "Civil Action" podcast on the Legal AF Network. For instance, Kabateck pointed out in a new episode on Sunday that Groff testified she began working for Epstein in 2001 and that Epstein and Trump were in contact for at least a decade. That seems to contradict Trump's previous claim that he cut off communications with Epstein in 2004 or 2005, well before Trump became president, Kabateck noted. Another issue is that those dates extend beyond Epstein's 2008 felony conviction for soliciting a minor, which is another "problematic" aspect of the timeline, Kabateck said. Karnickian said the transcript showed that Trump "has something to hide" in the case. "Early on, we talked about Epstein, and we thought this is a sideshow, and maybe Trump's deliberately putting it out there," Karnikian said. "It's become a big problem for him, and it's clear that he has something to hide here."
President Donald Trump's announcement of a fresh round of strikes on Iran touched off a wave of backlash this week — not just from his usual critics, but from voices on the right, including prominent America First and MAGA-aligned figures.The reactions followed Trump's post on Truth Social declaring that U.S. aircraft had struck Iranian missile and drone storage sites and coastal radar positions for again violating the ceasefire, warning that "the Islamic Republic of Iran will no longer exist" if the U.S. is "forced to militarily complete the job."Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, once among Trump's most steadfast allies, reacted with alarm and invoked the anti-interventionist promise central to the movement."He might have opened Pandora's Box," Greene wrote. "I'm praying this ends. We said no more foreign wars."Some of the sharpest criticism came from David Pyne, an America First conservative who posts under @AmericaFirstCon, and who openly called for the president's removal."Trump says the cease-fire has collapsed as the US continues daily bombing strikes on Iran and then again threatens to wipe it off the face of the Earth implying the use of US nuclear weapons to do so," Pyne wrote. "Can Congress impeach and remove this lunatic already?"Pyne amplified several other critical voices. One, posting as Richard under the handle @ricwe123, framed the strikes as a strategic blunder."Starting a conflict is easy. Living with the consequences is the hard part," Richard wrote, adding that "Trump made a catastrophic miscalculation by blindly following Israel into a confrontation with Iran, with little apparent regard for the geopolitical and economic fallout."Another account Pyne shared, Ryan Matta, is widely followed on the right. Matta argued the episode had shredded American credibility abroad."Trump looks like complete fraud on the world stage. Every peace talk was a lie, the MOU was a hoax, and this was the plan all along," Matta wrote on X. "No country should ever take a peace talk with America seriously. We look like a joke on the world stage."Tom Nichols, the Never-Trump conservative writer and retired Naval War College professor, took a more caustic approach, mocking the administration's characterization of the situation as a ceasefire at all."I'm just simple retired War College professor, but two sides exchanging fire is not a 'cease-fire,'" Nichols wrote, before taking a shot at the administration's rebranding of the Defense Department: "Maybe renaming the DOD was a little hasty." His post was amplified by Lincoln Project co-founder Reed Galen, also a conservative.
