Connect with us

News

Epstein papers leave questions about what powerful men knew about his crimes

Published

on

Epstein papers leave questions about what powerful men knew about his crimes

Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were friendly with and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein during years when he allegedly victimized women. Both say they had no knowledge of Epstein’s behavior. One alleged victim says Epstein’s powerful acquaintances “had to be blind” not to know.

Ted Shaffrey/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Ted Shaffrey/AP


Former Presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump were friendly with and traveled with Jeffrey Epstein during years when he allegedly victimized women. Both say they had no knowledge of Epstein’s behavior. One alleged victim says Epstein’s powerful acquaintances “had to be blind” not to know.

Ted Shaffrey/AP

The new trove of documents linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, which was released by a federal court over the past two weeks, didn’t unmask any major public figures or include shocking revelations.

But the documents include claims from Epstein’s alleged victims who say prominent men who socialized with Epstein must have known what was going on and failed to blow the whistle — even if they didn’t engage in criminal behavior themselves.

Advertisement

“If you walked foot into Jeffrey Epstein’s house and you went in there and you continued to be an acquaintance of his then you would have to know what was going on there,” Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s alleged victims, testified in a newly revealed 2016 deposition.

“I would say the first time they came to [Epstein’s home] there is nude pictures everywhere. These are [photographs of] salacious acts of girls, young girls doing things to each other that would be considered child pornography,” she added.

Those named in the Epstein documents include former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Maine Sen. George Mitchell, and Harvard professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz, among many others.

The fact that an individual is named or that they socialized with Epstein does not indicate wrongdoing. But the documents raise questions about who knew what about Epstein’s activity.

At one point in testimony made public for the first time, Giuffre said former President Bill Clinton was among the men aware of Epstein’s activity:

Advertisement

“Yes, he would be a witness because he knew what my purpose there was for Jeffrey and he visited Jeffrey’s island,” she said, adding that sexual activity involving girls was “something that Jeffrey Epstein wasn’t shy about admitting to people.”

Photographs have emerged of Clinton receiving a neck massage at an airport from a young woman who now describes herself as one of Epstein’s victims.

But in a 2019 statement, Clinton — who is named frequently in the documents — said he never visited Epstein’s private island in the Virgin Islands and “knew nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to in Florida.”

Angel Ureña, a spokesman for Clinton, said it had been nearly 20 years since Clinton last had contact with Epstein and that the former president has never been accused of any wrongdoing.

In separate sworn depositions, alleged victim Sarah Ransome said Epstein was transparent about trafficking girls to visitors who came to his home in New York City and his private island in the Virgin Islands.

Advertisement

“There were various buildings around the island … like little shelter things, where him and his guests used to have sex with the girls, like beds set up for instant sexual entertainment,” Ransome said in 2017.

One of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims said young women were offered to guests for “instant sexual entertainment” at his property on Little St. James Island. The powerful men who socialized with Epstein say they had no idea sex trafficking occurred.

Gabriel Lopez Albarran/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Gabriel Lopez Albarran/AP


One of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged victims said young women were offered to guests for “instant sexual entertainment” at his property on Little St. James Island. The powerful men who socialized with Epstein say they had no idea sex trafficking occurred.

Gabriel Lopez Albarran/AP

“At his town house [in New York] I was also lent out by him to his friends and associates to have sex,” she alleged under oath.

At least one public figure, former President Donald Trump, has acknowledged in a 2002 interview being aware that Epstein “liked beautiful women…on the younger side.”

Advertisement

Trump, who is also named in the documents and acknowledged being friends with Epstein for “fifteen years” has said he did nothing wrong and knew nothing of Epstein’s criminal behavior.

“Did any of us know what was going on?”

Harvard Professor and prominent attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who represented Jeffrey Epstein, says he knew nothing about wrongdoing while the two were friends. “Did any of us know what was going on? I can’t vouch for other people. I can only tell you, I didn’t know.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

J. Scott Applewhite/AP


Harvard Professor and prominent attorney, Alan Dershowitz, who represented Jeffrey Epstein, says he knew nothing about wrongdoing while the two were friends. “Did any of us know what was going on? I can’t vouch for other people. I can only tell you, I didn’t know.”

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

In an interview this week with NPR, Harvard law professor and attorney Alan Dershowitz, who was friends with Epstein and represented him, said Epstein kept his predatory behavior carefully closeted.

“Did any of us know what was going on? I can’t vouch for other people. I can only tell you, I didn’t know,” he said.

Advertisement

“That was shocking that could have happened without us knowing, without us seeing, because as you say there were so many people around them.”

Federal prosecutors now say Epstein, who worked for decades as a private financier for a secretive list of wealthy clients before taking his own life in a federal jail in 2019, operated sex-trafficking ring, which at times involved minors, from 1994 until at least 2004.

He allegedly developed a scheme to identify and exploit “dozens” of vulnerable girls and young women, some as young as 14 years old. His accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is currently serving a 2o-year sentence for perpetrating what U.S. Attorney Damian Williams called “heinous crimes against children.”

Dershowitz, who denies any wrongdoing, acknowledges being close to Epstein from 1996 through 2008, describing visits to Epstein’s homes as well as phone conversations and meetings at social and professional gatherings.

He worked on the high-powered legal team that crafted a controversial deal in 2008 allowing Epstein avoid federal charges.

Advertisement

Epstein instead pleaded guilty to relatively minor state-level prostitution charges in Florida and was allowed to serve most of his 18-month sentence in a work-release program.

Dershowitz told NPR he now believes Epstein did engage in criminal, abusive behavior, and says their personal relationship ended after 2008. But he says he saw no red flags involving young women while they were socializing.

“One of my sons said, ‘Stay away from this guy, I don’t like him financially,” Dershowitz recalled, referring to the financial and consulting services Epstein provided to clients. “But nobody warned me about anything having to do with sex.”

“You would have to be blind not to know”

In 2016 testimony, revealed in the new documents, Giuffre offers a different narrative, saying under oath that Dershowitz was one of the powerful men present at social events where it was obvious that young women like herself were vulnerable.

Giuffre: The only thing I can say to that is that there were minors around and did Dershowitz know that Jeffrey Epstein was using these minors for sexual
purposes, yes, he did.

Advertisement

Q. How do you know that?

Giuffre: How do I know what he knew, because he was around Jeffrey Epstein so many times that you would have to be blind to not know what Jeffrey Epstein was doing.

Asked by NPR about those statements, Dershowitz described Giuffre as unreliable and said claims by her and Ransome that he had sexual encounters with them were false.

Dershowitz pointed to the fact Giuffre has since expressed uncertainty about her claims that she had met and had sex with him.

Asked more broadly by NPR how he and others could have missed signs Epstein and Maxwell were abusive to young women, Dershowitz said Epstein “kept his private life completely secret.”

Advertisement

“I regret having ever met him. I think it was the worst thing that ever happened in my life meeting him,” Dershowitz said.

Asked about his role as an attorney, helping Epstein avoid more serious federal criminal charges for trafficking underage girls, Dershowitz said he acted professionally:

“I don’t know how I could have done anything different. That’s just in my wheelhouse, what I do. I regret the outcome, of course, I regret having ever met him, but I can’t say I feel guilty about anything I did.”

After that deal was struck, Epstein, a registered sex offender, continued to live freely for years. According to an investigation published last month by The Wall Street Journal, he continued his practice of traveling to meetings with powerful men in the company of young women.

There’s no evidence that at any point any of the men who interacted with Epstein raised concerns about his behavior with authorities.

Advertisement

In 2019, after the Miami Herald published an expose about Epstein, he was finally arrested on federal sex trafficking charges. He took his own life in jail while awaiting trial.

News

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

Published

on

Supreme Court reinstates Republican-favored Alabama congressional districts

The U.S. Supreme Court

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.

The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.

The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.

Advertisement

The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.

Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.

But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.

What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.

Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.

Advertisement

This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.

The case, however, was not over.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”

So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.

The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”

Advertisement

The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”

Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.

Continue Reading

News

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Published

on

Map: 3.7-Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the San Francisco Bay Area

Advertisement

Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown.  All times on the map are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.

The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.

Advertisement

U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.

As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Aftershocks detected

Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.

Advertisement

Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles

Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.

Advertisement

When quakes and aftershocks occurred

 All times are Pacific time. The New York Times

Advertisement

Advertisement

Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.

Continue Reading

News

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

Published

on

Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation.  My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry. 

Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components.  As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country.  We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.

It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.

Sec. 2.  Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

Advertisement

(b)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.

(c)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:

(i)    expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;

(ii)   establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and

(iii)  facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.

Advertisement

(d)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.

(e)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.

(f)  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.

Sec. 3.  Secure Frontier Model Deployment.  Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:

(a)  develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate.  Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.

Advertisement

(b)  design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:

(i)    engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;

(ii)   provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and 

(iii)  collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.

(c)  Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.

Advertisement

Sec. 4.  Protection Against Criminal Actors.  The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime.  This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.

Sec. 5.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Advertisement

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d)  The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.

                             DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,

    June 2, 2026.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending