disclosure

Epstein survivors implore Congress to act as push for disclosure builds

Survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s sexual abuse made their voices heard Tuesday on Capitol Hill, pressuring lawmakers to force the release of the sex trafficking investigation into the late financier and pushing back President Trump’s effort to dismiss the issue as a “hoax.”

In a news conference on the Capitol lawn that drew hundreds of supporters and chants of “release the files,” the women shared — some publicly for the first time — how they were lured into Epstein’s abuse by his former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell. They demanded that the Trump administration provide transparency and accountability for what they endured as teenagers.

It was a striking stand as the push for disclosure of the so-called Epstein files reached a pivotal moment in Washington. Lawmakers are battling over how Congress should delve into the Epstein saga while the Republican president, after initially signaling support for transparency on the campaign trail, has been dismissing the matter as a “Democrat hoax.”

“No matter what you do it’s going to keep going,” Trump said Wednesday. He added, “Really, I think it’s enough.”

But the survivors on Capitol Hill, as well as at least one of Trump’s closest allies in Congress, disagreed. Some of the women pleaded for Trump to support their cause.

“It feels like you just want to explode inside because nobody, again, is understanding that this is a real situation. These women are real. We’re here in person,” said Haley Robson, one of the survivors who said she is a registered Republican.

Epstein killed himself in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial in 2019 on charges that said he sexually abused and trafficked dozens of underage girls. The case was brought more than a decade after he secretly cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida to dispose of nearly identical allegations. Epstein was accused of paying underage girls hundreds of dollars in cash for massages and then molesting them.

Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime confidant and former girlfriend, was convicted in 2021 and sentenced to 20 years in prison for luring teenage girls for him to abuse. Four women testified at her trial that they were abused by Epstein as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at his homes in Florida, New York and New Mexico. The allegations have also spawned dozens of lawsuits.

Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is usually closely aligned with Trump, described her support for a bill that would force the Justice Department to release the information it has compiled on Epstein as a moral fight against sexual predation.

“This isn’t one political party or the other. It’s a culmination of everyone work together to silence these women and protect Jeffrey Epstein and his cabal,” Greene said at the news conference.

She is one of four Republicans — three of them women — who have defied House GOP leadership and the White House in an effort to force a vote on their bill. House Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to quash the effort by putting forward his own resolution and arguing that a concurrent investigation by the House Oversight Committee is the best way for Congress to deliver transparency.

“I think the Oversight probe is going to be wide and expansive, and they’re going to follow the truth wherever it leads,” Johnson, R-La., said.

He added that the White House was complying with the committee to release information and that he had spoken with Trump about it Tuesday night. “He says, ‘Get it out there, put it all out there,’” Johnson told reporters.

The Oversight Committee on Tuesday night released what it said was the first tranche of documents and files it has received from the Justice Department on the Epstein case. The folders — posted on Google Drive — contained hundreds of image files of years-old court filings related to Epstein, but contained practically nothing new.

Meanwhile, the White House was warning House members that support for the bill to require the DOJ to release the files would be seen as a hostile act. Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican who is pressing for the bill, said that the White House was sending that message because “They’ve dug in.”

“They decided they don’t want it released,” he said. “It’s a political threat.”

But with Trump sending a strong message and Republican leadership moving forward with an alternative resolution, Massie was left looking for support from at least two more Republicans willing to cross political lines. It would take six GOP members, as well as all House Democrats, to force a vote on their bill. And even if that passes the House, it would still need to pass the Senate and be signed by Trump.

Still, the survivors saw this moment as their best chance in years to gain some justice for what had been done by Epstein, who died in as New York jail cell in 2019 while facing sex trafficking charges.

“Justice and accountability are not favors from the powerful. They are obligations decades overdue” Jess Michaels, a survivor who said she was first abused by Epstein in 1991, told the rally on the Capitol lawn. “This moment began with Epstein’s crimes. But it’s going to be remembered for survivors demanding justice, demanding truth, demanding accountability.”

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump has bought more than $100m in bonds in office, disclosure shows | Donald Trump

Trump’s investments include Meta, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, and T-Mobile, according to filing.

United States President Donald Trump has bought more than $100m in company and municipal bonds since his return to the White House, financial disclosures show, providing a window into the management of the billionaire’s wealth in office.

The filings released by the US Office of Government Ethics on Wednesday detail nearly 700 financial purchases made by Trump from his January 21 inauguration to August 1.

The purchases include bonds issued by the financial giants Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup, as well as those from corporate household names such as Meta, UnitedHealth, T-Mobile and The Home Depot.

Dozens of US states, including Texas, Florida and New York, are represented in the purchases of municipal bonds, with Trump’s investments spanning hospitals, schools, airports, ports and gas projects.

The documents do not provide the value of each transaction, only broad ranges, such as $100,001-$250,000 and $1,000,001-$5,000,000.

Trump did not report any sales during the period.

A type of fixed-income investment, bonds are a loan to a government authority or company in exchange for a specified rate of interest.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but US media cited administration officials as saying that Trump and his family were not directly involved in the transactions.

Under legislation passed in 1978 in the wake of the Watergate scandal, US presidents are required to disclose a broad accounting of their finances, but they are not obligated to divest from assets that could potentially raise conflicts of interest.

Before Trump, all US presidents going back to 1978, set up a blind trust or committed to limiting their investments to diversified mutual funds upon taking office.

Trump controversially dispensed with that tradition, instead passing control of his business empire to a trust managed by his children.

Government ethics experts have for years raised concerns about the intersection between Trump’s governance and his personal fortune.

Richard Painter, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer in the administration of former President George W Bush, noted that Trump’s bond holdings stand to rise in value if the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates as he has demanded.

“When interest rates go down, bond prices go up,” Painter told Al Jazeera. “No wonder he’s leaning on the Fed for a rate cut!”

While Trump’s exact net wealth is unclear, the Bloomberg Billionaires Index last month estimated the US president to be worth $6.4bn.

Source link

Teyana Taylor owes Iman Shumpert $70,000 in divorce-leaks dispute

Teyana Taylor was ordered to cover ex-husband Iman Shumpert’s $70,000 in attorney fees after she was found in contempt of court for violating terms of her 2024 divorce agreement.

Taylor, 34, and Shumpert, 35, both had been accusing each other of violating the agreement by leaking their settlement terms to blogs, according to court documents filed Aug. 5 in Georgia’s Fulton County Superior Court.

The court found the “Gonna Love Me” singer had violated the “prohibition against disclosure of ‘summaries, abstracts, portions and descriptions’” of the final judgment in their divorce.

Taylor confirmed her marriage to the former NBA pro during a 2016 appearance on “The Wendy Williams Show” and the couple appeared that same year in the official music video of the track “Fade” by Kanye West (now known as Ye).

The exes have two children together, Iman “Junie” Tayla and Rue Rose, now 9 and 4, respectively. Shumpert helped Taylor deliver both babies at home in the couple’s bathroom.

The couple separated in 2023 and she filed for divorce that November. The split was finalized in July 2024, then in March of this year details of the agreement suddenly appeared online, leading to the filings in civil court.

Taylor had asked the court to order Shumpert to pay her legal fees, but after she refused to show proof of income, the answer was no. The “Coming 2 America” actor did not answer questions about her assets and her income, stating the information was “completely irrelevant to any issue.”

The court ordered Taylor to pay for Shumpert’s fees, saying she had the means to pay because she has been in three movies since the divorced was finalized and has TV series booked for this fall.

During the hearing, Taylor failed to prove that Shumpert had provided details from their divorce case to entertainment blogs.

Source link

More disclosure of suspects’ immigration status needed, Cooper says

Yvette Cooper calls for ‘more transparency’ over the background of suspects charged with crimes

Guidance for police on sharing the immigration status and ethnicity of crime suspects “needs to change”, the home secretary has said, following calls for details to be released of two men charged over the alleged rape of a 12-year-old in Warwickshire.

Yvette Cooper said guidelines on disclosing personal information were being reviewed, but it is up to individual police forces and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide what is released.

The men under suspicion of the alleged rape are reportedly Afghan. Warwickshire County Council’s Reform UK leader claims they are asylum seekers.

Police have not confirmed this. Nigel Farage called the police’s decision not to publish the details a “cover-up”.

Asked if she believed such information should be in the public domain, Cooper told the BBC: “We do want to see more transparency in cases, we think local people do need to have more information.”

Warwickshire Police has previously said once someone is charged with an offence, the force follows national guidance that does not include sharing ethnicity or immigration status.

The two men accused of the offence in Warwickshire are Ahmad Mulakhil, who has been charged with two counts of rape, and Mohammad Kabir, who has been accused of kidnap, strangulation and aiding and abetting the rape of a girl aged under 13.

Mr Mulakhil, 23, appeared before magistrates in Coventry on 28 July, and Mr Kabir, also 23, appeared in court on Saturday.

Both were remanded in custody.

In a statement, Warwickshire Police and Crime Commissioner Philip Seccombe said: “It is essential to state that policing decisions – such as whether to release details about a suspect – must follow national guidance and legal requirements.”

He added that he would not speculate on the personal circumstances of those involved while court proceedings were active.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast on Tuesday about the alleged rape in Warwickshire, the home secretary said it was “an operational decision” how much information could be revealed in the middle of a live investigation but said “we do want to see greater transparency”.

She later told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “We do think the guidance needs to change”.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch agreed that the ethnicity and immigration status of suspects should be revealed.

Badenoch warned that the public would “start losing faith in the justice system and police if they feel things are being hidden.”

She said that police and home secretary were “saying different things” on the issue and that she is “not convinced we’ll see that transparency.”

‘Most officers want that information out there’

Emily Spurrell, chair of the Association Of Police And Crime Commissioners, told the BBC that police had had “a very difficult job in these kinds of instances”.

“Most officers I speak to want to get that information out there, they know the public want to know what’s going on, who’s being held to account,” she added.

But she said police were trying to “walk that line” of going public with information and ensuring suspects had access to a fair trial.

The Law Commission is conducting a review into what information or opinions someone should lawfully be able to publish after a suspect has been arrested.

Following a government request, it has agreed to speed up its reporting on the parts of the review that relate to what the government and law enforcement can do to counter misinformation, including where there are possible public order consequences of failing to do so.

The Southport murders committed by Axel Rudakubana in July last year led to speculation about the suspect’s ethnicity and immigration status.

False rumours spread online that he was a Muslim asylum seeker, fuelling widespread rioting in the aftermath of the killings.

An independent watchdog concluded in March that failure to share basic facts about the Southport killer led to “dangerous fictions” which helped spark rioting.

Jonathan Hall KC, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said it would have been “far better” for the authorities to share more accurate detail on the arrest of Rudakubana.

He said the “ineffectual near silence” from police, prosecutors and the government after the attacks led to disinformation that sparked the rioting.

Merseyside Police took a different approach last June after a car drove into crowds during Liverpool’s Premier League victory parade – they confirmed soon after the incident that they had arrested a “white British man”.

Source link