claim

WASHINGTON — Tips provided to federal investigators about Donald Trump’s alleged involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s schemes with young women and girls are “sensationalist” and “untrue,” the Justice Department said on Tuesday, after a new tranche of files released from the probe featured multiple references to the president.

The documents include a limousine driver reportedly overhearing Trump discussing a man named Jeffrey “abusing” a girl, and an alleged victim accusing Trump and Epstein of rape. It is unclear whether the FBI followed up on the tips. The alleged rape victim died from a gunshot wound to the head after reporting the incident.

Nowhere in the newly released files do federal law enforcement agents or prosecutors indicate that Trump was suspected of wrongdoing, or that Trump — whose friendship with Epstein lasted through the mid-2000s — was investigated himself.

But one unidentified federal prosecutor noted in a 2020 email that Trump had flown on Epstein’s private jet “many more times than previously has been reported,” including over a time period when Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s top confidante who would ultimately be convicted on five federal counts of sex trafficking and abuse, was being investigated for criminal activity.

The Justice Department released an unusual statement unequivocally defending the president.

“Some of these documents contain untrue and sensationalist claims made against President Trump that were submitted to the FBI right before the 2020 election,” the Justice Department statement read. “To be clear: the claims are unfounded and false, and if they had a shred of credibility, they certainly would have been weaponized against President Trump already.”

“Nevertheless, out of our commitment to the law and transparency, the DOJ is releasing these documents with the legally required protections for Epstein’s victims,” the department added.

The Justice Department files were released with heavy redactions after bipartisan lawmakers in Congress passed a new law compelling it to do so, despite Trump lobbying Republicans aggressively over the summer and fall to oppose the bill. The president ultimately signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act into law after the legislation passed with veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

One newly released file containing a letter purportedly from Epstein — a notorious child sex offender who died in jail while awaiting federal trial on sex-trafficking charges — drew widespread attention online, but was held up by the Justice Department as an example of faulty or misleading information contained in the files.

The letter appeared to be sent by Epstein to Larry Nassar, another convicted sex offender, shortly before Epstein’s death. The letter’s author suggested that Nassar would learn after receiving the note that Epstein had “taken the ‘short route’ home,” possibly referring to his suicide. It was postmarked from Virginia on Aug. 13, 2019, despite Epstein’s death in a Manhattan jail three days prior.

“Our president shares our love of young, nubile girls,” the letter reads. “When a young beauty walked by he loved to ‘grab snatch,’ whereas we ended up snatching grub in the mess halls of the system. Life is unfair.”

The Justice Department said that the FBI had confirmed that the letter is “FAKE” after it made the rounds on Tuesday.

“This fake letter serves as a reminder that just because a document is released by the Department of Justice does not make the allegations or claims within the document factual,” the department posted on social media. “Nevertheless, the DOJ will continue to release all material required by law.”

The department has faced bipartisan scrutiny since failing to release all of the Epstein files in its possession by Dec. 19, the legal deadline for it to do so, and for redacting material on the vast majority of the documents.

Justice Department officials said they were following the law by protecting victims with the redactions. The Epstein Files Transparency Act also directs the department not to redact images or references to prominent or political figures, and to provide an explanation for each and every redaction in writing.

The latest release, just days before the Christmas holiday, includes roughly 30,000 documents, the department said. Hundreds of thousands more are expected to be released in the coming weeks.

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released a statement in response to the Tuesday release accusing the Justice Department of a “cover-up,” writing on social media, “the new DOJ documents raise serious questions about the relationship between Epstein and Donald Trump.”

Documents from Epstein’s private estate released by the oversight committee earlier this fall had already cast a spotlight on that relationship, revealing Epstein had written in emails to associates that Trump “knew about the girls.”

The latest documents release also includes an email from an individual identified as “A,” claiming to stay at Balmoral Castle, a royal residence in Scotland, asking Maxwell if she had found him “some new inappropriate friends.” Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, formerly known as Prince Andrew, has come under intense scrutiny over his ties to Epstein in recent years.

Speaking at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida on Monday, Trump said the continuing Epstein scandal amounts to a “distraction” from Republican successes, and expressed disapproval over the release of images in the files that reveal associates of Epstein.

“I believe they gave over 100,000 pages of documents, and there’s tremendous backlash,” Trump told reporters. “It’s an interesting question, because a lot of people are very angry that pictures are being released of other people that really had nothing to do with Epstein. But they’re in a picture with him because he was at a party, and you ruin a reputation of somebody. So a lot of people are very angry that this continues.”

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for President Trump urged a federal judge on Friday to rule that Trump is entitled to presidential immunity from civil claims that he instigated a mob’s attack on the U.S. Capitol to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta didn’t rule from the bench after hearing arguments from Trump attorneys and lawyers for Democratic members of Congress who sued the Republican president and allies over the Jan. 6. 2021, attack.

Trump spoke to a crowd of his supporters at the “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House before the mob’s attack disrupted the joint session of Congress for certifying Democratic President Joe Biden’s electoral victory.

Trump’s attorneys argue that his conduct leading up to Jan. 6 and on the day of the riot is protected by presidential immunity because he was acting in his official capacity.

“The entire point of immunity is to give the president clarity to speak in the moment as the commander-in-chief,” Trump attorney Joshua Halpern told the judge.

The lawmakers’ lawyers argue Trump can’t prove he was acting entirely in his official capacity rather than as an office-seeking private individual. And the U.S. Supreme Court has held that office-seeking conduct falls outside the scope of presidential immunity, they contend.

“President Trump has the burden of proof here,” said plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Sellers. “We submit that he hasn’t come anywhere close to satisfying that burden.”

At the end of Friday’s hearing, Mehta said the arguments gave him “a lot to think about” and he would rule “as soon as we can.”

Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat who chaired the House Homeland Security Committee, sued Trump, his personal attorney Rudolph Giuliani and members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers extremist groups over the Jan. 6 riot. Other Democratic members of Congress later joined the litigation.

The civil claims survived Trump’s sweeping act of clemency on the first day of his second term, when he pardoned, commuted prison sentences and ordered the dismissal of all 1,500-plus criminal cases stemming from the Capitol siege. Over 100 police officers were injured while defending the Capitol from rioters.

Halpern said immunity enables the president to act “boldly and fearlessly.”

“Immunity exists to protect the president’s prerogatives,” he said.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the context and circumstances of the president’s remarks on Jan. 6 — not just the content of his words — are key to establishing whether he is immune from liability.

“You have to look at what happened leading up to January 6th,” Sellers said.

Kunzelman writes for the Associated Press.

New documents in a lawsuit against Priscilla Presley’s son include claims that Elvis Presley’s granddaughter Riley Keough is the biological parent of John Travolta and the late Kelly Preston’s youngest child, Benjamin.

Priscilla Presley’s former business partner Brigitte Kruse and associate Kevin Fialko filed an amended complaint against Navarone Garcia in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Tuesday. Included in the allegations are claims that the “Daisy Jones & the Six” actor, daughter of the late Lisa Marie Presley, gave her eggs to Travolta and Preston in exchange for “an old Jaguar” and “between $10,000 – $20,000.”

According to the complaint, “the entire Presley family clamored for control of the estate and for pay-outs” immediately after Lisa Marie Presley’s death in 2023. Among those who allegedly approached Kruse was Lisa Marie’s ex-husband Michael Lockwood, with whom she shared twin daughters Harper and Finley Lockwood. Kruse and Fialko were allegedly tasked with acting as negotiators and mediators amid the “family chaos.”

The document details how Lockwood said Travolta and Preston had “previously used Lisa Marie’s eggs to get pregnant” because Preston “had been unable to bear her own children.” It was unclear whether Presley’s eggs produced a child. Preston died in 2020 at age 57 after a two-year battle with breast cancer.

Lockwood also allegedly said the couple had approached the Presley family again “in or around 2010” but Travolta “no longer wanted to use Lisa Marie’s eggs because they did not want ‘eggs with heroin’ on them.” According to the filing, a deal was “orchestrated” in which “Riley Keough gave her eggs to Travolta so that Kelly could give birth to their son, Ben Travolta” and “Riley was given an old Jaguar and paid between $10,000 – $20,000 for the deal.”

Included in the filing is an image of a handwritten note that features the words “Kelly Preston carried baby,” “medical bills paid” and “old Jaguar 1990s-ish,” as well as a screenshot of messages presumably exchanged with Priscilla Presley that describe Ben Travolta as her “beautiful great-grandson.”

Lockwood further allegedly claimed that “the entire arrangement required a ‘sign off’ from the Church of Scientology, which heavily involved Priscilla’s oversight.” According to the document, Lockwood “demanded” the information be used “to orchestrate a settlement for him and his daughters,” whom he said were “financially destitute.”

Kruse and Fialko’s amended complaint against Garcia alleges that he “threw a tantrum, demanding [they] keep Riley’s and Travolta’s son out of the press, since Priscilla [had] promised him that he would be the only male musician in the family and would now be the ‘king.’” The document also claims “Priscilla’s love for Navarone was, and always has been, incestuous.”

The filing is the latest in the legal feud involving Presley and her former business partner. Presley previously filed a lawsuit against Kruse and her associates alleging fraud and elder abuse. Kruse and Fialko, meanwhile, are suing Presley for fraud and breach of contract.

“After losing motion after motion in this case, and unsuccessfully seeking to have Presley’s counsel of record, Marty Singer, disqualified from representing her in this matter, Brigitte Kruse, Kevin Fialko, and their co-conspirators have demonstrated that there is no bar too low, no ethical line that they are unwilling to cross in an effort to cause further pain to Priscilla Presley and her family,” Presley’s attorneys Singer and Wayne Harman said in a statement to TMZ.

“In a completely improper effort to exert undue pressure on Presley to retract her legitimate, truthful claims, Kruse and her co-conspirators have also sued Presley’s son, cousin, and assistant,” the statement continued. “These recent outrageous allegations have absolutely nothing to do with the claims in this case. The conduct of Kruse, Fialko, and their new lawyers (they are on their fourth set of attorneys) is shameful, and it absolutely will be addressed in court.”

Representatives for Keough did not respond immediately Thursday to The Times’ request for comment.

The FTC had accused the grocery delivery giant of charging fees to consumers after promising ‘free delivery’.

Instacart has agreed to pay $60m in refunds to settle allegations brought by the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that the online grocery delivery platform deceived consumers about its membership programme and free delivery offers.

According to court documents filed in San Francisco on Thursday, Instacart’s offer of “free delivery” for first orders was illusory because shoppers were charged other fees, the FTC alleged.

The agency also accused Instacart of failing to adequately notify shoppers that their free trials of its Instacart+ subscription service would convert to paid memberships and of misleading consumers about its refund policy.

“The FTC is focused on monitoring online delivery services to ensure that competitors are transparently competing on price and delivery terms,” said Christopher Mufarrige, who leads the FTC’s consumer protection work.

An Instacart spokesperson said the company flatly denies any allegations of wrongdoing, but that the settlement allows the company to focus on shoppers and retailers.

“We provide straightforward marketing, transparent pricing and fees, clear terms, easy cancellation, and generous refund policies — all in full compliance with the law and exceeding industry norms,” the spokesperson said.

The shopping platform is currently under scrutiny after a recent study by nonprofit groups found that individual shoppers simultaneously received different prices for the same items at the same stores.

The FTC is investigating the company and has demanded information about Instacart’s Eversight pricing tool, the news agency Reuters reported on Wednesday.

Instacart has said that retailers are responsible for setting prices, and that pricing tests run through Eversight are random and not based on user data.

Lindsay Owens, the executive director of the Groundwork Collaborative, an economic think tank, criticised the grocery platform for using artificial intelligence (AI) to tweak its prices.

“At a time when families are being squeezed by the highest grocery costs in a generation, Instacart chose to run AI experiments that are quietly driving prices higher,” Owens said in written remarks provided to Al Jazeera.

She also called on the administration of US President Donald Trump to take action to prevent such price manipulation from continuing into the future.

“While the FTC’s investigation is welcome news, it must be followed with meaningful action that ends these exploitative pricing schemes and protects consumers,” Owens said. “Instacart must face consequences for their algorithmic price gouging, not just a slap on the wrist.”

On Wall Street, Instacart’s stock is taking a hit on the heels of the settlement, finishing out the day down 1.5 percent.

Dozens of California National Guard troops under President Trump’s command apparently slipped out of Los Angeles under cover of darkness early Sunday morning, ahead of an appellate court’s order to be gone by noon Monday.

Administration officials would not immediately confirm whether the troops had decamped. But video taken outside the Roybal Federal Building downtown just after midnight on Sunday and reviewed by The Times shows a large tactical truck and four white passenger vans leaving the facility, which has been patrolled by armed soldiers since June.

About 300 California troops remain under federal control, some 100 of whom were still active in Los Angeles as of last week, court records show.

“There were more than usual, and all of them left — there was not a single one that stayed,” said protester Rosa Martinez, who has demonstrated outside the federal building for months and was there Sunday.

Troops were spotted briefly later that day, but had not been seen again as of Monday afternoon, Martinez said.

The development that forced the troops to leave was part of a sprawling legal fight for control of federalized soldiers nationwide that remains ongoing.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order late Friday but softened an even more stringent edict from a lower court judge last week that would have forced the president to relinquish command of the state’s forces. Trump federalized thousands of California National Guard troops in June troops to quell unrest over immigration enforcement in Los Angeles.

“For the first time in six months, there will be no military deployed on the streets of Los Angeles,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “While this decision is not final, it is a gratifying and hard-fought step in the right direction.”

The ruling Friday came from the same three-judge panel that handed the president one of his most sweeping second-term victories this summer, after it found that the California deployment could go forward under an obscure and virtually untested subsection of the law.

That precedent set a “great level of deference” as the standard of review for deployments that have since mushroomed across the country, circumscribing debate even in courts where it is not legally binding.

But the so-called Newsom standard — California Gov. Gavin Newsom was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit — has drawn intense scrutiny and increasingly public rebuke in recent weeks, even as the Trump administration argues it affords the administration new and greater powers.

In October, the 7th Circuit — the appellate court that covers Illinois — found the president’s claims had “insufficient evidence,” upholding a block on a troop deployment in and around Chicago.

“Even applying great deference to the administration’s view of the facts … there is insufficient evidence that protest activity in Illinois has significantly impeded the ability of federal officers to execute federal immigration laws,” the panel wrote.

That ruling is now under review at the Supreme Court.

In November, the 9th Circuit vacated its earlier decision allowing Trump’s Oregon federalization to go forward amid claims the Justice Department misrepresented important facts in its filings. That case is under review by a larger panel of the appellate division, with a decision expected early next year.

Despite mounting pressure, Justice Department lawyers have doubled down on their claims of near-total power, arguing that federalized troops remain under the president’s command in perpetuity, and that courts have no role in reviewing their deployment.

When Judge Mark J. Bennett asked the Department of Justice whether federalized troops could “stay called up forever” under the government’s reading of the statute at a hearing in October, the answer was an unequivocal yes.

“There’s not a word in the statute that talks about how long they can remain in federal service,” Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. Eric McArthur said.

For now, the fate of 300 federalized California soldiers remains in limbo, though troops are currently barred by court orders from deployment in California and Oregon.

Times staff writers David Zahniser and Kevin Rector contributed to this report.

The political terrain of the country has dramatically changed since the presidential nominating process began in February. The most significant development was the outbreak of violence in Los Angeles following the acquittal of four police officers accused of illegally beating Rodney G. King. New forces are arising in the land. They must be addressed.

A segment of the so-called marginalized and disenfranchised are stirring. In the past, they were written off as the “underclass,” the disadvantaged, even as “illegal.” They have been criminalized and dismissed. You could either feel sorry for them or hate them. The point was not to get near them.

They must now be reckoned with as a political force.

From the homeless to welfare mothers, from people with AIDS to the physically handicapped, thousands are flexing their organizational muscle, and using it on the streets, in pursuit of their economic and political interests. The unity in Los Angeles between the city’s two largest gangs, the Crips and Bloods, is expressive of this development.

The stirrings of “the bottom” of society aim toward certain goals: the end of scarcity in the midst of plenty; complete literacy; the ability to function competently at any chosen level of society; productive and livable employment; access to the most advanced health care in the world and a real voice in the policy decisions that affect their lives.

It is in this context that the Bloods and the Crips have come together to demand their place in the changing social fabric.

How is this possible when police and most of the media portray them as drug-dealing, inner-city terrorists?

It’s possible because these gangs are not monolithic. There is no single leadership. To be sure, there are gang members who care nothing about unity. For years, their violent acts dictated the lives and determined the deaths of thousands of young people in South-Central. Communities were pulled into the warfare.

Another group, less publicized, became politicized with every police beating, every inequity, every injustice. Years ago, these gang members, along with others in the community, began work on uniting the gangs. Until the April uprising, most of these efforts involved individuals. Since then, unity efforts have been carried out on a larger scale, with neighborhoods participating.

At the same time, gang members grew tired of the senseless killings. Many of these killings touched everyone, particularly when children were hit. This is why, in the aftermath of the uprising, graffiti appeared expressing such sentiments as “Mexicans & Crips & Bloods Together.” Police later erased most of the unity-related scrawl.

The gangs became political through observation and participation. Although many of the youth don’t read, they witness politics playing itself out every day. What the King beating did, what the uprising did, was help them cross the line of understanding what’s really going on.

The Bloods-Crips unity is about who will rule South-Central. A Los Angeles radio announcer recently estimated that there were some 640 liquor stores within a three-mile radius of South-Central, compared with no movie houses or community centers. Elsewhere, schools and streets are in disrepair. Manufacturing industries have been shuttered forever. Under these circumstances, you have to ask: Who really controls this community?

Not the community.

Although the people of South-Central share responsibility for their conditions–proportionately, more of them are in jail than any other community in the city–they don’t have any decisive control over their lives. This is a breakdown in the integration of responsibility and authority, a component of any democratic process. Those with the authority, including the police and city, county and state officials, fail to take any responsibility, thus abdicating any claim to leadership.

Yet it was precisely when the gangs came together that the police tried to break up as many “unity” rallies as they could, arresting gang leaders and inflaming the ire of residents of housing projects, where many of the rallies were held. The Los Angeles Police Department told the media that the gangs were going to turn on police officers, even ambush them. Yet no police officer in South-Central has been killed or severely hurt since April 29, the day the King-beating verdict came down.

Soon after the rebellion, local law enforcement circulated a flyer among themselves–and the media–that proclaimed the Crips and Bloods would “kill two cops for every gang member killed.” It was incendiary and a forgery. For example, most African-American gang leaders would never use the words “little black girl” to describe Latasha Harlins, who was slain by a Korean grocer last year. They know the flyer’s writing style was not even crudely close to the current street style. The flyer appeared to be yet another example of cartoon propaganda that has characterized previous allegations by police.

Meanwhile, the federal government has launched the largest investigation of its kind to destroy the gangs. Government officials are using the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act, the one used to put reputed crime boss John Gotti in jail, to go after every person associated with the Crips and the Bloods. It appears the FBI is targeting the L.A. gangs for political, not criminal, activity, since its efforts are directly related to the events beginning April 29.

This is not new, or surprising. After the 1965 Watts rebellion, several gangs united, some of them becoming the L.A. chapter of the Black Panthers. The federal government intervened, orchestrating the friction between the Black Panther Party and the United Slaves organization.

Last year, nearly 600 L.A. youth were killed in gang- or drug-related incidents. Yet only now has Washington decided to come in, when the rate of shootings and deaths has dramatically fallen.

Despite the array of local, state and federal forces currently poised against L.A. gangs, gang unity is going to last. The Bloods and Crips have undergone a 22-year-old war without declared terms. To think that in five or six months there will be total unity is unrealistic. There are still some individual disputes. But the attacks have diminished in scale and number. The war is essentially over. The government–and police–should stop undermining the truce, stop fanning the emotional flames that will only bring on more death and destruction.

The Bloods and Crips are not asking for anything from anybody. This is what they have to do for themselves. They have even bypassed certain so-called leaders, including Jesse Jackson. They are not asking for outsiders to step in and dictate the terms of peace.

Recently, a plan to rebuild L.A., presumed to be from the Bloods and Crips, was floated around. Regardless of its origin, the plan was in clear contrast to the “official” rebuilding group, whose members are mostly from outside South-Central. The plan does not call for re-establishing the taco stands, the liquor stores or exploitative markets that previously dotted South-Central. Instead, it calls for improved housing, infrastructure and sanitation, for more parks, community centers and health-care facilities. It includes a proposal for upgrading all schools. It ends with the statement: “Give us the hammers and the nails, we will rebuild the city.”

This embodies a vision, something many police and some government officials would like the public to believe the gangs are incapable of possessing. This is taking responsibility. And it is a demand for the authority to carry it out.

Despite great odds, the Bloods and Crips have found common ground, a unified aim, to end the violence. Whether society is ready for this or not, it is the only path not littered with hypocrisy and blame. Indeed, it is one of the few for peace and justice still viable in Los Angeles.

Cross-border fighting between Thailand and Cambodia has shown no signs of easing, after US President Donald Trump announced the two sides would halt attacks. The violence has killed dozens and forced mass displacement.