FORT PIERCE, Fla. — Prosecutors, other attorneys and observers assembled in a federal courtroom Thursday for the start of opening statements in the trial of a man charged with trying to assassinate President Trump while he played golf in South Florida last year, when he was campaigning for a second term.
Ryan Routh is representing himself after U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon agreed to let him dismiss his court-appointed attorneys. They are, however, standing by in the courtroom if needed.
He has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer and several firearm violations.
Until this week, Routh has appeared at hearings shackled at the wrists and ankles and dressed in a tan jail jumpsuit. But with jurors present, Routh has been unrestrained and dressed in a sport coat and tie. Cannon has said that Routh will be allowed to address jurors and witnesses from a podium, but he will not have free rein of the courtroom.
A panel of 12 jurors and four alternates was sworn in Wednesday, at the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Fla. There are four white men, one Black man, six white women, and one Black woman on the jury, and the alternates are two white men and two white women. The panel was selected from a pool of 180 potential jurors.
The trial begins nearly a year after prosecutors say a Secret Service agent thwarted his attempt to shoot the Republican presidential nominee. It’s expected to run two or three weeks. The trial’s start comes as police search for the gunman who killed conservative influencer Charlie Kirk at a campus in Utah on Wednesday in what political leaders are calling an assassination.
Prosecutors have said Routh, 59, methodically plotted for weeks to kill Trump before aiming a rifle through the shrubbery as Trump played golf on Sept. 15, 2024, at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Officials said Routh aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot.
Just nine weeks earlier, Trump had survived another attempt on his life while campaigning in Pennsylvania. That gunman had fired eight shots, with one bullet grazing Trump’s ear, before being shot by a Secret Service counter sniper.
Cannon is a Trump-appointed judge who drew scrutiny for her handling of a criminal case accusing Trump of illegally storing classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach. The case became mired in delays as motions piled up over months, and was ultimately dismissed by Cannon last year after she concluded that the special counsel tapped by the Justice Department to investigate Trump was illegally appointed.
Routh was a North Carolina construction worker who in recent years had moved to Hawaii. A self-styled mercenary leader, Routh spoke out to anyone who would listen about his dangerous, sometimes violent plans to insert himself into conflicts around the world, witnesses have told the Associated Press.
In the early days of the war in Ukraine, Routh tried to recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova and Taiwan to fight the Russians. In his native Greensboro, N.C., he was arrested in 2002 on suspicion of eluding a traffic stop and barricading himself from officers with a fully automatic machine gun and a “weapon of mass destruction,” which turned out to be an explosive with a 10-inch fuse.
NEW YORK — Former U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez’s wife told a judge that her husband was “not the man I thought he was” before she was sentenced Thursday to 4½ years in prison for selling the powerful New Jersey politician’s influence in exchange for bribes of cash, gold bars and a luxury car.
U.S. District Judge Sidney H. Stein sentenced Nadine Menendez, 58, after she was convicted in April of colluding from 2018-23 with her husband, the former Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a variety of corrupt schemes, some involving assisting the Egyptian government.
Sobbing as she addressed the judge shortly before she was sentenced, Nadine Menendez described her husband as a manipulative liar.
“I put my life in his hands and he strung my like a puppet,” she said. “The blindfold is off. I now know he’s not my savior. He’s not the man I thought he was.”
Stein told the defendant that she wasn’t the person she was portrayed as during last year’s trial of her husband and two New Jersey businessmen, when the judge said she was painted “as manipulative, hungry for money and the true force behind the conspiracies.”
But he said she also wasn’t the “innocent observer of what was happening around you,” as she was portrayed by her lawyer at her trial.
“You knew what you were doing. Your role was purposeful,” he said.
When she spoke, Nadine Menendez partly blamed her husband, saying she was duped by his power and stature and that she felt compelled to do whatever he wanted, such as calling or meeting with certain people.
“I would never have imagined someone of his ranking putting me in this position,” she said, though she acknowledged that in retrospect, she was a grown woman and should have known better.
Before the hearing, Bob Menendez submitted a letter to the judge saying he regretted that he didn’t fully preview what his lawyer said about his wife during his trial and in closing arguments.
“To suggest that Nadine was money hungry or in financial need, and therefore would solicit others for help, is simply wrong,” he wrote.
In addition to prison time, Stein sentenced Nadine Menendez to three years of supervised release. He said he granted her leniency in part because of the trial she endured, her difficult childhood in Lebanon, her abusive romantic partners, her health conditions and her age.
Stein said a prison term was important for general deterrence purposes: “People have to understand there are consequences.”
Nadine Menendez won’t have to surrender to prison until next summer. Stein set a reporting date of July 10, accommodating a defense request that she be allowed to remain free to complete necessary medical procedures before she heads behind bars. Federal prosecutors did not object to the request.
Prosecutors had sought a prison sentence of at least seven years.
Her lawyer, Sarah Krissoff, asked that she serve only a year behind bars, citing her difficult recovery from breast cancer, which was diagnosed just before last year’s trial, when she was to be tried along with her husband. She ended up being tried separately.
Bob Menendez, 71, is serving an 11-year sentence after his conviction on charges of taking bribes, extortion, and acting as an agent of the Egyptian government.
Prosecutors say Nadine Menendez played a large and crucial role in her husband’s crimes, serving as an intermediary between the senator and three New Jersey businessmen who literally lined his coat pockets with tens of thousands of dollars in cash in return for favors he could deliver with his political clout.
During a 2022 FBI raid on the couple’s New Jersey home, investigators found $480,000 in cash, gold bars worth an estimated $150,000 and a luxury convertible in the garage.
Prosecutors said that, among his other corrupt acts, the senator met with Egyptian intelligence officials and speeded that country’s access to U.S. military aid as part of a complex effort to help his bribe-paying associates, one of whom had business dealings with the Egyptian government.
Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.
Italy’s Filippo Ganna won a shortened individual time trial on stage 18 of the Vuelta a Espana as Britain’s Tom Pidcock retained his third place in the overall standings.
UAE Team Emirates-XRG’s Joao Almeida, who is second in the general classification, took 10 seconds off the advantage of overall race leader Jonas Vingegaard.
The stage was reduced from 27.2km to 12.2km to ensure “greater protection” for riders because of security concerns resulting from a series of pro-Palestinian protests during the three-week race.
Police numbers were also ramped up, with hundreds of protestors waving flags along the route and whistling riders from Israel-Premier Tech.
And French news agency AFP reported that two protestors were detained for trying to jump over barriers.
Two-time world time trial champion Ganna, 29, lived up to his billing as the favourite, with the Ineos Grenadiers rider edging out Australian Jay Vine by a second in Valladolid.
“Obviously, with the news of the change in the parcours [route] last night it was a bit strange, but I tried to do the best today,” said Ganna, who was 10 seconds quicker than anyone else over the final four kilometres.
“The first part I didn’t find the correct rhythm and in the final I tried to push over without thinking of the numbers. I am really happy for today.”
While Ganna’s fast finish ensured he pipped Vine, all eyes were focused on the battle at the top of the general classification.
Almeida finished strongly to put time into Visma-Lease A Bike’s Vingegaard and the Portuguese rider now sits 40 seconds behind the Dane with two competitive stages of racing remaining.
Q36.5 Pro Cycling’s Pidcock finished 29 seconds behind Ganna but managed to extend his advantage over Australian Jai Hindley in the battle for the final podium spot by three seconds.
With a relatively flat 161.9km run from Rueda to Guijuelo scheduled for Friday, it raises the prospect of a huge day in the mountains on Saturday’s penultimate stage with a summit finish on the Bola del Mundo.
LANSING, Mich. — A Michigan judge dismissed criminal charges Tuesday against a group of people who were accused of attempting to falsely certifying President Trump as the winner of the 2020 election in the battleground state, a major blow to prosecutors as similar cases in four other states have been muddied with setbacks.
District Court Judge Kristen D. Simmons said in a court hearing that the 15 Republicans accused will not face trial. The case has dragged through the courts since Michigan Atty. Gen. Dana Nessel, a Democrat, announced the charges over two years ago.
Simmons said she saw no intent to commit fraud in the defendants’ actions. Whether they were “right, wrong or indifferent,” they “seriously believed” there were problems with the election, the judge said.
“I believe they were executing their constitutional right to seek redress,” Simmons said.
Each member of the group, which included a few high profile members of the Republican Party in Michigan, faced eight charges of forgery and conspiracy to commit election forgery. The top felony charges carried a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.
Supporters, friends and family crowded in the hallway outside the courtroom cheered when the judge said the cases would be dismissed. Defendants leaving the courtroom cried and hugged friends and family. One woman wept as she hugged another and said, “We did it.”
Investigators said the group met at the Michigan GOP headquarters in December of 2020 and signed a document falsely stating they were the state’s “duly elected and qualified electors.” President Joe Biden won Michigan by nearly 155,000 votes, a result confirmed by a GOP-led state Senate investigation in 2021.
Electors are part of the 538-member Electoral College that officially elects the president of the United States. In 48 states, electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote. In Nebraska and Maine, elector votes are awarded based on congressional district and statewide results.
One man accused in the Michigan case had the charges against him dropped after he agreed to cooperate with the state attorney general’s office in October 2023. The other 15 defendants pleaded not guilty and have maintained that their actions were not illegal.
Judge Simmons took nearly a year to say whether there was sufficient evidence to bring the cases to trial following a series of lengthy preliminary hearings.
Prosecutors in Nevada, Georgia, Wisconsin and Arizona have also filed criminal charges related to the fake electors scheme. None of the cases have neared the trial stage and many have been bogged down by procedural and appellate delays.
In Nevada, the state attorney general revived a case against a group of allegedly fake electors last year, while a judge in Arizona ordered a similar case back to a grand jury in May. In Wisconsin last month, a judge declined to dismiss felony charges against three Trump allies connected to a plan to falsely cast electoral ballots for Trump even though Biden won the state in 2020.
The Georgia prosecution is essentially on hold while Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in Atlanta, who brought the charges against President Trump and others appeals her removal from the case. Technically, Trump is still a defendant in the case, but as the sitting president, it is highly unlikely that any prosecution against him could proceed while he’s in office.
The effort to secure fake electors was central to the federal indictment against Trump that was abandoned earlier this year shortly before Trump took office for his second term.
Exposing years-old concerns about California’s resilience to wildfires, a government whistleblower and other witnesses in a recent state trial alleged that cleanup operations after some of the largest fires in state history were plagued by mismanagement and overspending — and that toxic contamination was at times left behind in local communities.
Steven Larson, a former state debris operations manager in the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, failed to convince a jury that he was wrongly fired by the agency for flagging those and other issues to his supervisors. After a three-week trial in Sacramento, the jury found Larson was retaliated against, but also that the agency had other, legitimate reasons for dismissing him from his post, according to court records.
Still, the little-discussed trial provided a rare window into a billion-dollar public-private industry that is rapidly expanding — and becoming increasingly expensive for taxpayers and lucrative for contractors — given the increased threat of fires from climate change.
It raised serious questions about the state’s fire response and management capabilities at a time when the Trump administration says it is aggressively searching for “waste, fraud and abuse” in government spending, proposing cuts to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and clashing with state leaders over the best way to respond to future wildfires in California.
The allegations raised in the trial also come as FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers are overseeing similar debris removal work — by some of the same contractors — following the wildfires that destroyed much of Pacific Palisades and parts of Altadena in January, and as fresh complaints arise around that work, as The Times recently reported.
Steve Larson poses for a portrait at Elk Grove Park on Sept. 1. Larson, who was a former state debris operations manager in the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, is a whistleblower alleging widespread problems in California fire cleanups.
(Andri Tambunan / For The Times)
During the trial, Larson and other witnesses with direct knowledge of state fire contracts raised allegations of poor oversight and sloppy hiring and purchasing practices by CalRecycle, the state agency that oversaw multiple major cleanup contracts for CalOES; overcharging and poor record-keeping by contractors; toxic contamination being left behind on properties meant to have been cleared; and insufficient responses to those problems from both CalOES and FEMA officials.
The claims were buttressed at trial by the introduction into evidence of a previously unpublished audit of cleanup operations for several large fires in 2018. They were mostly rejected by attorneys for the state, who acknowledged some problems — which they said are common in fast-paced emergency responses operations. They broadly denied Larson’s allegations as baseless, saying he was an inexperienced and disgruntled former employee who was fired for poor performance.
The allegations were also dismissed by CalOES and by Burlingame-based Environmental Chemical Corp., which was the state’s lead contractor on the 2018 fires and is now the Army Corps of Engineer’s lead contractor on cleanup work for the Palisades and Eaton fires, which is nearing completion.
Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for CalOES, defended the agency’s work in a statement to The Times. While acknowledging some problems in the past, she said the agency is “committed to protecting the health and safety of all Californians, including in the aftermath of disasters, and is unwavering in its desire to maintain a safe and inclusive workplace where everyone can feel respected and thrive.”
In its own statement to The Times, ECC said it followed the directives and oversight of state and federal agencies at all times, and “is proud of its work helping communities recover from devastating disasters.”
“We approach each project with professionalism, transparency, and a commitment to delivering results under extraordinarily challenging conditions,” the company said.
Maria Bourn, one of Larson’s attorneys, told The Times that while her client lost at trial — which they are appealing — his case marked a “win for government accountability and the public at-large” by revealing “massive irregularities by wildfire debris removal contractors” who continue to work in the state.
“The state’s continued partnership with these companies when such widespread irregularities were identified by one of its own should alarm every taxpayer,” Bourn said.
A Malibu home lies in ruins after the Woolsey fire. Many questions were raised about the response.
(Al Seib / Los Angeles Times)
Camp, Woolsey and Hill fires
The allegations centered in large part around the state-run cleanup efforts following the Camp fire in Northern California, which killed 85 people and all but erased the town of Paradise in November 2018, and the contemporaneous Woolsey and Hill fires in Southern California, which ripped through Malibu and other parts of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.
FEMA has reimbursed the state more than $1 billion for costs associated with those cleanup efforts.
In a July 28, 2019, email entered as evidence in the trial, Larson wrote to CalOES chief of internal audits Ralph Zavala that he wanted to talk to him about “potential fraud” by Camp fire contractors, including ECC.
“I cannot say for sure, but something sure smells fishy,” Larson wrote in the email. “Either their contract was not in fact the lowest bid or they are creating fraud in the way they collect debris.”
Larson wrote in the same email that ECC was “supposedly the lowest bidder” but was “costing more” than the lower bids, which he wrote “doesn’t make sense.” At trial, Larson and his attorneys repeatedly claimed that instead of properly investigating his claims, his supervisors turned against him.
Other current and former state officials testified that they had raised similar concerns.
Todd Thalhamer, a former Camp fire area commander and operations chief who still works for CalRecycle, testified during the trial that he’d told Larson he believed ECC had low-balled its bid to win the work, then overcharged the state by millions of dollars. He said he had “dug very deep into the tonnage cost that they were charging, how they were charging, how they were cleaning it up,” and believed that ECC had been able to “game the system” by reporting that it was hauling out more of the debris types for which it could charge the most.
ECC denied manipulating bids or overcharging the state, and said that “all debris types and volumes are 100% inspected by and determined by CalRecycle and its monitoring representatives and systems, not by ECC or its subcontractors.”
Thalhamer testified that he’d sent an “email blast” out to top CalOES and CalRecycle officials telling them of his findings. He said that led to internal discussions and some but not all issues being resolved.
Further concerns were raised in records obtained by Larson’s attorneys from the prominent accounting firm EY, formerly known as Ernst & Young, which the state paid nearly $4 million to audit the Camp, Woolsey and Hill fire cleanup work.
According to those records, which were cited at trial, EY found that CalRecycle was “unable to produce documentation that fully supports how the proposed costs were determined to be reasonable when evaluating contractor proposals,” and didn’t appear to have “appropriate controls or oversight over the contractor’s performance.”
EY flagged $457 million charged by the contractors through 89 separate “change orders” — or additional charges not contemplated in their initial bids. It said the state lacked an adequate approval process for determining whether to accept such orders, couldn’t substantiate them and risked FEMA rescinding its funding if it didn’t take “immediate corrective action.”
EY specifically flagged $181 million in change orders for the construction of two “base camps” near the burn areas, from which the contractors would operate. It said the state only had invoices for $91 million of that spending, and that even those invoices were not itemized. EY executive Jill Powell testified that the firm believed such large contract changes were likely to be flagged as questionable by FEMA.
ECC — one of two contractors EY noted as having made the base camp change orders — defended its work.
The company said change orders are a necessary part of any cleanup operation, where the final cost “depends on the final quantities of debris that the Government directs the Contractors to remove and how far the material has to be transported for recycling or disposal.”
Such quantities can change over the course of a contract, which leads to changes in cost, it said.
As for the base camps, ECC said the state had explicitly stated in its initial request for proposals that it would “develop the requirements” and negotiate their cost through change orders, because details about their likely location and size were still being worked out when the bids were being accepted.
“Bidders could not know at the time of bid, which area of Paradise they would be assigned, how many properties would be assigned to the bidder, and therefore the exact size of the workforce that the Government would want housed in a Base Camp,” ECC said.
ECC said it “submitted invoices with supporting documentation in the format requested” by CalRecycle for all expenditures, and was “not aware of any missing invoices.”
“We cannot speak to what EY was provided from the State’s files or how the State provided those materials for EY’s review,” the company said. “Any gap in what EY reviewed should not be interpreted as meaning ECC failed to submit documentation.”
ECC said state officials only ever complimented the company for its work on the 2018 fires. And it said it continues to work in Southern California “with the same professionalism and care we bring to every project.”
SPSG, the second contractor EY flagged as being involved in the base camp change orders, did not respond to a request for comment.
Attorney James F. Curran, who represented the state at trial, said in his closing arguments that the work was not “running perfect” but was coming in on schedule and under budget. He said state officials were not ignoring problems, just cataloging non-pressing issues in order to address them when the dust cleared, as is common in emergency operations.
Curran said many of Larson’s complaints were based on his unfamiliarity with such work and his refusal to trust more experienced colleagues. He said Larson was fired not for flagging concerns, but because of “misconduct, arrogance, communication style problems, and performance problems.”
Gore, the CalOES spokeswoman, said CalRecycle awarded the contracts “through an open, competitive procurement process with oversight from CalOES and FEMA,” and that CalOES worked to address problems with contractors before Larson ever voiced any concerns.
Gore said CalOES hired EY to identify any potential improvements in the contracting and reimbursement process, and changed its policy to pay contractors per parcel of land cleared rather than by volume of debris removed in part to address concerns about potential load manipulation.
She said the agency could not answer other, detailed questions from The Times about the debris removal process and concerns about mismanagement and alleged overcharging because the Larson case “remains pending and subject to appeal,” and because CalOES faces “other, active litigation” as well.
The EY audit also flagged issues with several other contractors, including Tetra Tech and Arcadis, according to draft records obtained from EY by Larson’s attorneys and submitted as evidence at trial.
The EY records said Tetra Tech filed time sheets for unapproved costs, without sufficient supporting information, with questionable or excessive hours, with digital alterations that increased hourly rates, and without proper supervisor approvals. It said it also charged for work without providing any supporting time sheets.
The EY records said the company also used inconsistent procedures for sampling soil and testing for asbestos, used billing rates that were inconsistent between its contract and its invoices, charged for “after hours” work without supporting documentation, filed questionable, per-hour lodging costs, appeared to have digitally edited change orders after they were signed and dated, and relied inappropriately on questionable digital signatures for approving change orders.
Tetra Tech did not respond to a request for comment.
The EY records said Arcadis filed change orders for costs that appeared to be part of the “normal course of business,” filed invoices for work that began before the company’s state contract was signed, and relied inappropriately on digital signatures.
Arcadis referred all questions to CalRecycle. CalRecycle provided a copy of its own “targeted” audit of Arcadis’ work, which found the company had complied with the requirements of its nearly $29-million contract with the state. CalRecycle otherwise referred The Times back to CalOES.
A recovery team searches for human remains after the Camp fire.
(Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times)
North Bay fires
Concerns about cleanup work following major fires in Sonoma, Santa Rosa and other North Bay counties in 2017 — under both CalOES and the Army Corps of Engineers — also arose at the trial.
Sean Smith, a former 20-year veteran of CalOES and a prominent figure in California debris removal operations to this day, alleged in an email submitted at trial that ECC and other contractors hired to clear contaminated debris and soil from those fires over-excavated sites in order “to boost loads to get more tonnage and money.”
ECC denied Smith’s claims, saying it “does not perform excessive soil removal” and that it followed “the detailed debris removal operations plan requirements” of the Army Corps of Engineers, which had its own quality assurance representatives monitoring the work.
In a deposition, Smith also testified that, in the midst of spending more than $50 million to repair that over-excavation, state officials identified lingering contamination at “what would be considered hazardous waste levels.”
“They hadn’t finished the cleanup in all spots, and we found it, and we recorded it,” he said.
Smith testified that those findings were presented to high-ranking CalOES and FEMA officials during a meeting in San Francisco in October 2018. At that meeting, CalOES regional manager Eric Lamoureux laid out all the state’s contamination findings in detail, “but nobody wanted to hear it,” Smith said.
During his deposition, Smith alleged that the “exact words” of one FEMA attorney in attendance were, “We have to find out how to debunk the state’s testing” — which he said he found surprising, given the testing was based on federal environmental standards.
“I don’t know how you’d debunk such a thing,” Smith said.
FEMA officials did not respond to requests for comment. CalOES also did not answer questions about the alleged meeting.
ECC said that Smith, who managed and signed its contracts with CalOES, gave ECC “a very positive performance review” when it completed the Sonoma and Santa Rosa work — describing its work as “exceptional.”
Smith said he quit his post working on those fires after the San Francisco meeting, though he continued working for the agency in other roles for a couple more years. Smith more recently formed his own debris removal consulting firm — which has been involved in soil testing for the state after other recent fires.
CalOES did not respond to questions about Smith’s claims or separation from the agency.
This screengrab taken from AFPTV shows Ryan Wesley Routh at a protest supporting Ukraine in April 2022.
This week, a man accused in an alleged plot to assassinate President Donald Trump last September will stand trial in Florida.
The incident, which occurred just weeks after a bullet grazed Trump’s ear in another assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, further underscored political violence in the US. Both incidents prompted intense scrutiny of the US Secret Service and its ability to protect high-profile candidates like Trump.
The suspect at the heart of this case, Ryan Wesley Routh, will represent himself in what could become an unorthodox trial. He has pleaded not guilty.
Routh, 59, is a North Carolina native but lived in Hawaii prior to the alleged assassination attempt. He has a previous criminal history and was a supporter of Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Here’s what you need to know about the case.
What do prosecutors allege Routh did?
The incident occurred on 15 September 2024, as Trump was campaigning to retake the White House.
According to court documents, President Trump was golfing at his club in West Palm Beach, Florida when a US Secret Service agent spotted a man’s face in the bushes at the property’s perimeter. The man was later identified as Routh.
Routh fired on the agent, federal prosecutors say, and a witness saw him running across the road back to a black Nissan Xterra. Local law enforcement apprehended him later on Interstate 95.
Agents with the Federal Bureau of Investigation found an SKS semiautomatic rifle with a scope and extended magazine in the area where Routh had been hiding.
They also found documents with a list of events where Trump had appeared, or was expected to appear, in the coming months. According to law enforcement, another witness said that Routh had left a box at his home months before that included a note, reading in part, “This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I am so sorry I failed you.”
Trump was playing golf at the time, but did not come into contact with Routh.
What charges does he face?
The government has charged Routh with attempted assassination of a presidential candidate, possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, assaulting a federal officer, felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
Routh pleaded not guilty to the charges last year. He has been held in jail in Florida while awaiting trial.
When is the trial?
Routh’s trial begins on Monday, 8 September at a federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Florida.
It will begin with jury selection, before moving on to opening statements.
The trial will be held in the same federal courthouse where President Trump himself faced charges for allegedly retaining classified documents from his first term in the White House. That case ultimately ended after Trump was re-elected.
Judge Aileen Cannon, who oversaw Trump’s case and ultimately dismissed it, will also preside over Routh’s trial. Trump appointed Judge Cannon to the federal bench in his first term.
FORT PIERCE, Fla. — A federal trial is scheduled to begin Monday for a man charged with trying to assassinate Donald Trump as he played golf in Florida in September 2024.
Jury selection is expected to take three days, with attorneys questioning three sets of 60 prospective jurors. They’re trying to find 12 jurors and four alternates. Opening statements are scheduled to begin Thursday, and prosecutors will begin their case immediately after that. The court has blocked off four weeks for the trial, but attorneys are expecting they’ll need less time.
Here’s what to know about the case:
Defendant to represent himself
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon signed off in July on Ryan Routh’s request to represent himself during his trial, but said court-appointed attorneys need to remain as standby counsel.
The judge told Routh she believes it’s a bad idea for him to represent himself, but he wouldn’t be dissuaded. Routh, who has described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understood the potential challenges and would be ready.
Cannon confirmed during a recent hearing that Routh would be dressed in professional business attire for the trial. She also explained to Routh that he would be allowed to use a podium while speaking to the jury or questioning witnesses, but he would not have free rein of the courtroom.
“If you make any sudden movements, marshals will take decisive and quick action to respond,” Cannon said.
Self-styled mercenary leader
The 59-year-old Routh was a North Carolina construction worker who in recent years had moved to Hawaii. A self-styled mercenary leader, Routh spoke out to anyone who would listen about his dangerous, sometimes violent plans to insert himself into conflicts around the world, witnesses have told the Associated Press.
In the early days of the war in Ukraine, Routh tried to recruit soldiers from Afghanistan, Moldova and Taiwan to fight the Russians. In his native Greensboro, N.C., he had a 2002 arrest for eluding a traffic stop and barricading himself from officers with a fully automatic machine gun and a “weapon of mass destruction,” which turned out to be an explosive with a 10-inch-long fuse.
In 2010, police searched a warehouse Routh owned and found more than 100 stolen items, including power tools, building supplies, kayaks and spa tubs. In both felony cases, judges gave Routh either probation or a suspended sentence.
Attempted assassination charge
Authorities said Routh tried to assassinate Trump, then the Republican nominee for president, while Trump played golf at his club in West Palm Beach, Fla.
Routh is facing five felony counts in federal court in Fort Pierce. They include attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, possessing a firearm to carry out a violent crime, assaulting a federal officer, being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.
In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.
Same judge presided over Trump case
Cannon is the same judge who presided over another high-profile case involving Trump — the classified documents case against him.
Last year, Cannon, who was nominated to the bench by Trump during his first term, sided with Trump’s lawyers who said the special counsel who filed the charges was illegally appointed by the U.S. Justice Department.
Cannon’s ruling halted a criminal case that, at the time it was filed, was widely regarded as the most perilous of all the legal threats the president faced before he returned to office in January. The felony case was being appealed when Trump was elected in November, after which that and other criminal indictments against him were dismissed, following a Justice Department policy not to charge a sitting president.
No signs of shots fired
Trump was uninjured, and there’s no evidence that Routh fired his weapon at the golf course. U.S. Secret Service agents stationed a few holes up from where Trump was playing golf noticed the muzzle of an AK-style rifle sticking through the shrubbery that lines the course, roughly 400 yards away. An agent fired, and the gunman dropped the rifle and fled in an SUV, leaving the firearm behind along with two backpacks, a scope used for aiming and a GoPro camera. He was later stopped by law enforcement in a neighboring county.
That alleged assassination attempt took place nine weeks after Trump survived another attempt on his life, in Pennsylvania, when a gunman’s bullet grazed the candidate’s ear during a rally.
Cardi B has prevailed in a civil lawsuit brought against her by a Beverly Hills security guard after two days of testimony from the rapper that was sometimes colorful and drew laughter from jurors.
Emani Ellis sued Cardi B for $24 million, accusing her of assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress in the aftermath of a confrontation in a hallway outside of an obstetrician’s office. Ellis claimed that, during the set-to, the rapper scratched her with a long nail extension, leaving a facial scar.
The hip-hop star was found not liable on all counts by jurors after less than an hour of deliberations.
“I swear to God, I will say it on my deathbed, I did not touch that woman,” Cardi B said outside the courthouse following the conclusion of the trial. She added that she had missed her kids’ first day of school because of the civil trial.
“I want to thank my lawyers,” she said, “I want to thank the jurors, I want to thank the judge, and I want to thank the respectful press.”
Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Marlenis Almánzar, testified that she never touched, scratched or spat at the security guard, who she believed was taking video of her with her cellphone. The rapper was four months pregnant and had an appointment on the day of the incident — Feb. 24, 2018.
Ellis worked as a security guard at the Beverly Hills building where Cardi B had her medical appointment, and she testified that she was doing her rounds when she saw the celebrity exit the elevator. She testified that she was overcome with excitement and declared, “Wow, it’s Cardi B.”
Ellis alleged that the performer then turned to her and said, “Why the f— are you telling people you’ve seen me?” Cardi B then accused her of trying to spread news about her being at the doctor’s office, she testified during the four-day trial.
Cardi B cursed at her, used the N-word and other slurs, called her names, threatened her job, body-shamed her and mocked her career, Ellis said. She alleged Cardi B spat on her, took a swing at her and scratched her left cheek with a 2- to 3-inch fingernail.
The rapper blasted the plaintiff in an Alhambra courtroom, saying she was looking for a payout. Cardi B said the pair went chest-to-chest and exchanged angry words but nothing more.
She told jurors that she said to Ellis: “B—, get the f— out of my face. Why are you in my face? Why are you recording me? Ain’t you supposed to be security?’
“I’m thinking to myself, ‘Girl is big!’” she testified.” “She’s got big black boots on. I’m like, ‘D—, the hell am i gonna do now?’”
The rapper said that she’s 5 feet 3 and was 130 pounds and pregnant at the time of the incident. She wouldn’t have tried to fight the guard, who was far larger, she said.
Asked if she was “disabled” during the incident, Cardi B’s comments drew laughter in the courtroom: “At that moment, when you’re pregnant, I’m very disabled,” she said with a roll of her eyes. “You want me to tell you the things I can’t do?”
Tierra Malcolm, a receptionist for Dr. David Finke, with whom Cardi B had an appointment that day, told jurors that she saw Ellis corner the celebrity. The receptionist said she then got between them, and the guard reached for the rapper. Malcolm said she ended up with a cut on her own forehead.
Finke testified that he saw the guard cause that injury and also hit the receptionist’s shoulder. He further said that Ellis had no injuries. Both testified they never saw Cardi B hit Ellis.
During closing arguments on Tuesday, Ellis’ attorney, Ron Rosen Janfaza, told jurors, “Cardi B needs to be held accountable.” “There was no video camera … so really it comes down to one thing — do you believe, Ms. Ellis, a guard with a good record? She is a model citizen,” he told jurors.
Rosen Janfaza noted that, under cross-examination, the rapper acknowledged that she and Ellis were chest-to-chest as expletives were exchanged, and that alone is an unwelcome touch and battery on his client, he said. He told jurors that the receptionist and doctor did not see the 40 to 50 seconds where Cardi B labeled his client fat, spat on her and took a swing at her.
He said his client suffered for seven years, and “this was a violent attack.”
Cardis B’s attorney, Peter Anderson, said jurors needed to employ common sense to reject the security guard’s story and that the preponderance of evidence showed his client did nothing more than yell and curse, and “that isn’t something you can sue over.”
“The question is whether Cardi ever struck the plaintiff,” Anderson said. And the evidence is overwhelming that she did not, he said. Anderson said that the guard testified that she never made a police report, did not seek immediate medical attention, did not even use a Band-Aid on the scratch, but went home and took a nap.
During the trial, though, a concerning but little-noticed exchange popped up between lawyers for the state of California and Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was in charge of the federalized National Guard forces in L.A. It should have been an explosive, red-flag moment highlighting the pressure our military leaders are under to shake off their oath to the Constitution in favor of fealty to Trump.
Sherman testified that he objected to National Guard involvement in a show-of-force operation in MacArthur Park, where Latino families often congregate.
That action, Sherman said, was originally slated for Father’s Day, an especially busy time at the park. Internal documents showed it was considered it a “high-risk” operation. Sherman said he feared his troops would be pushed into confrontations with civilians if Border Patrol became overwhelmed by the crowds on that June Sunday.
Gregory Bovino, in charge of the immigration efforts in L.A. for the Border Patrol, questioned Sherman’s “loyalty to the country,” Sherman testified, for just showing hesitation about the wisdom and legality of an order.
It’s the pressure that “you’re not being patriotic if you don’t blow by the law and violate it and just bend the knee and and exhibit complete fealty and loyalty to Trump,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Tuesday. And it’s a warning of what’s to come as Trump continues to press for military involvement in civilian law enforcement across the country.
For the record, Sherman has served our country for decades, earning along the way the prestigious Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal among other accolades.
The MacArthur Park operation, according to the Department of Homeland Security, was itself little more than a performative display of power “to demonstrate, through a show of presence, the capacity and freedom of maneuver of federal law enforcement within the Los Angeles,” according to agency documents presented in court. It was dubbed Operation Excalibur, in honor of the legendary sword of King Arthur that granted him divine right to rule, a point also included in court documents.
But none of that mattered. Instead, Sherman was pushed to exhibit the kind of blind loyalty to a dear leader that you’d expect to be demanded in dictatorships like those of North Korea or Hungary. Loyalty that confuses — or transforms — a duty to the Constitution with allegiance to Trump. Military experts warn that Sherman’s experience isn’t an isolated incident.
“There’s a chilling effect against pushing back or at least openly questioning any kind of orders,” Rachel E. VanLandingham, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, told me. She’s former active duty judge advocate in the U.S. Air Force who now teaches at Southwestern Law School and serves as a national security law expert.
VanLandingham sees the leadership of our armed forces under pressure “to not engage in the critical thinking, which, as commanders, they are required to do, and to instead go along to get along.” She sees Sherman’s testimony as a “telling glimpse into the wearing away” of that crucial independence.
Such a shift in allegiance would undermine any court order keeping the military out of civilian law enforcement, leaving Trump with exactly the boots on the ground power he has sought since his first term. This is not theoretical.
Through Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Trump has purged the top ranks of the military of those who aren’t loyal to him. In February, Hegseth fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black soldier who championed diversity in the armed forces. Hegseth has also purged the head of the Pentagon’s intelligence agency, the head of the National Security Agency, the chief of Naval Operations, multiple senior female military staff and senior military lawyers for the Army, Navy and Air Force. In August, he fired the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency after that general gave a truthful assessment of our bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites, angering Trump.
At the same time, the military is being pushed farther into civilian affairs, and not just as erstwhile cops. The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Hegseth ordered 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges.
Not to dive too deep into the convoluted immigration system, but these are civilian legal positions, another possible violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, VanLandingham points out.
And beyond that, can a military lawyer — trained and bound to follow orders — really act as an impartial judge in proceedings where the administration’s wish to deport is clearly known?
Goodbye due process, goodbye fair trial.
That “looks like martial law when you have militarized … judicial proceedings,” VanLandingham said. “How can we trust they are making unbiased decisions? You can’t.”
And even though Sherman pushed back on a full-blown military presence in MacArthur Park, that raid did happen. Federal agents marched through, about three weeks after Father’s Day, with National Guard troops remaining in their vehicles on the perimeter. It was Hegseth himself who authorized the mission.
Sherman also said on the stand that he was told there were “exceptions” to the Posse Comitatus Act — the law being debated in the trial that prevents the military from being used as civilian law enforcement — and that the president had the power to decide what those exceptions were.
“So your understanding is that while [some actions] are on the list of prohibited functions, you can do them under some circumstances?” Judge Charles Breyer asked.
“That’s the legal advice I received,” Sherman answered.
“And the president has the authority to make that decision?” Breyer asked.
“The president has the authority,” Sherman answered.
But does he?
Breyer also asked during the trial, if the president’s powers to both command troops and interpret law are so boundless, “What’s to prevent a national police force?” What, in effect, could stop Trump’s Excalibur-inspired inclinations?
For now, it’s the courts and ethical, mid-level commanders like Sherman, whose common-sense bravery and decency kept the military out of MacArthur Park.
Men and women who understand that the oaths they have sworn are to our country, not the man who would be king.
Cardi B returned to the witness stand on Wednesday in a civil suit brought by a security guard who alleged that the rapper assaulted her — even scratching her with one of her nail extensions — in a 2018 incident in the hallway outside a Beverly Hills obstetrician’s office.
On Wednesday, the performer blasted the plaintiff, saying she is looking for a payout. Emani Ellis is seeking $24 million. Cardi B said the pair went chest-to-chest and exchanged heated words but nothing more.
Cardi B, whose real name is Belcalis Marlenis Almánzar, reiterated in her testimony that she never touched, scratched or spat at the security guard, who she believed was taking video of her with her cellphone.
Her defense got a boost Wednesday with the testimony of the obstetrician with whom the then-4-months-pregnant rapper had an appointment on the day of the incident — Feb. 24, 2018 — as well as from his receptionist.
Receptionist Tierra Malcolm told jurors that she saw Ellis corner Cardi B — and then, when the receptionist got between them, the guard reached for the rapper. The receptionist said she ended up with a cut on her own forehead.
Dr. David Finke testified that he saw the guard cause that injury and also hit the receptionist’s shoulder. He further said that Ellis had no injuries to her face. Both testified they never saw Cardi B hit Ellis.
But the rapper testified that when a doctor’s staffer asked Ellis that day what had occurred, Ellis said, “The b— just hit me.’ … And I’m, like, so confused because … I didn’t hit you.”
Under cross-examination by Ellis’ attorney, the rapper acknowledged she and Ellis were chest-to-chest as expletives were traded.
Ellis filed suit in 2020, alleging assault, battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as negligence and false imprisonment.
She worked as a security guard at the building where Cardi B had her medical appointment and said during testimony on Monday that she was doing her rounds when she saw the celebrity get off the elevator. She testified that she was overcome with excitement and declared, “Wow, it’s Cardi B.”
Ellis alleged that the performer then turned to her and said, “Why the f— are you telling people you’ve seen me?” Cardi B then accused her of trying to spread news about her being at the doctor’s office, she testified.
Cardi B cursed at her, used the N-word and other slurs, called her names, threatened her job, body-shamed her and mocked her career, Ellis said. She alleged Cardi B spat on her, took a swing at her and scratched her left cheek with a 2- to 3-inch fingernail.
The rapper said during Wednesday’s court proceedings that she’s 5 foot 3 and was 130 pounds and pregnant at the time. She wouldn’t have tried to fight the guard, who was far larger, she said.
Asked if she was “disabled” during the incident, Cardi B’s comments drew laughter in the courtroom: “At that moment, when you’re pregnant, I’m very disabled,” she said with a roll of her eyes. “You want me to tell you the things I can’t do?”
Malcolm said that Cardi B was the lone patient visiting the office that day as it had been closed for her privacy.
When the incident occurred, the receptionist said, “I really just saw Ms. Ellis in front of her and that’s what made me rush and get in between.” Malcolm acknowledged that she did not see the entire interaction between the pair.
When she got between them, Malcolm testified she was facing Ellis, who was reaching with her arms. Malcolm said she suffered a cut to her forehead during the incident.
“Cardi B was behind me. The only assumption I had was that it was from Ms. Ellis as she was facing me,” she testified. “I see her hands trying to reach over me.”
Asked if Cardi B could have caused the injury with one of her nails, she replied, “But she was behind me.” She said it was a nurse who noticed the cut to her forehead.
The doctor said he was “just flabbergasted with the allegations that don’t seem congruent with what i saw that day.”
Following the incident, he said he eventually persuaded Ellis to get on the elevator and leave the floor.
Cardi B testified Wednesday that her social media followers alerted her that the guard had gone online about the incident, where she responded, calling the accusations lies.
The defense ended at the end of Wednesday’s session.
For the third day of the trial, the rapper, known for her daring style choices, donned a long black wig. The first day of the trial, she sported short black hair, followed the next day by a blond showgirl hairstyle.
The Jury: Murder Trial has returned for a second series and Channel 4 viewers have taken to social media after recognising one of the actors from BBC One soap EastEnders
22:01, 26 Aug 2025Updated 22:38, 26 Aug 2025
Channel 4 viewers all said the same thing minutes into the first episode of The Jury: Murder Trial series two
Channel 4 viewers all said the same thing as they watched the first episode of The Jury: Murder Trial series two.
This BAFTA-winning show returned on Tuesday (August 26) night with the real-life trial of a young mother called Sophie who stabbed her boyfriend Ryan in the chest with a kitchen knife. She says it was self-defence but is she telling the truth?
The trial has been restaged using original court transcript with actors, but will the jury made up of 12 members of the public agree with the verdict of the original trial?
Watching the trial in Liverpool Crown Court are ordinary people from the local area.
Young mother called Sophie stabbed her boyfriend Ryan in the chest with a kitchen knife(Image: Channel 4)
As the prosecution laid out their case, the jurors immediately started to draw different conclusions from the evidence.
Some suspected the defendant was a victim of domestic abuse but others weren’t so sure.
In the first series, the juries were confronted with a case involving a husband who had killed his wife but denied it was murder and fans have shared their disappointment
EastEnders star Karen Henthorn appeared in the documentary as Sophie’s grandmother Mary(Image: Channel 4)
After listening to the defence and prosecution’s cross-examination, they retreated to the deliberation room to hammer out a verdict – but did it align with the other jury’s decision?
The second series followed a similar patter but this time there’s just one jury instead of two.
Towards the end of the first episode, actress Karen Henthorn appeared in the dock as Sophie’s grandmother Mary and fans quickly recognised her and shared their observation on social media.
Karen recently returned to EastEnders as Julie Bates (Image: BBC)
Taking to X, formerly known as Twitter, one penned: “Julie what are you doing here #TheJuryC4.”
Another added: “Julie from EastEnders turning up on #TheJuryC4!!.”
A third person joked: “Excuse me get back to Nigel bet he’s gone missing now ffs #THEJURYC4.”
Karen recently returned to EastEnders as Julie Bates to find her husband Nigel Bates (Paul Bradley) who has Dementia.
The show will air over four consecutive nights.
The Jury: Murder Trial is available to watch and stream on Channel 4 from Tuesday, August 26 at 9pm
HERMOSILLO, Mexico — A judge in Mexico said boxer Julio César Chávez Jr. will stand trial over alleged cartel ties and arms trafficking but could await that trial outside of detention, the boxer’s lawyer said.
Chávez’s lawyer, Rubén Fernando Benítez Alvarez, confirmed that the court imposed additional measures and granted three months of further investigation into the case. He described the claims against his client as “speculation” and “urban legends” following the court hearing Saturday in the northern Mexican city of Hermosillo.
If convicted, Chávez — who took part in the hearing virtually from a detention facility — could face a prison sentence of four to eight years, Alvarez said.
Chávez, 39, who had been living in the United States for several years, was arrested in early July by federal agents outside his Los Angeles home, accused of overstaying his visa and providing inaccurate details on an application to obtain a green card. The arrest came just days after a fight he had with famed American boxer Jake Paul in Los Angeles.
Since 2019, Mexican prosecutors have been investigating the boxer following a complaint filed by U.S. authorities against the Sinaloa cartel for organized crime, human trafficking, arms trafficking and drug trafficking.
The case led to investigations against 13 people, among them Ovidio Guzmán López — the son of convicted drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán — along with some alleged collaborators, hit men and accomplices of the criminal organization. Guzmán López was arrested in January 2023 and extradited to the U.S. eight months later.
Following the inquiry, the federal attorney general’s office issued several arrest warrants, including one for Chávez.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said that Chávez was wanted since 2023 in Mexico but that he wasn’t detained because he spent most of the time in the U.S.
“The hope is that he will be deported and serve the sentence in Mexico,” Sheinbaum said in July.
The boxer, who is the son of Mexican boxing great Julio César Chávez, was deported by the U.S. on Tuesday and handed over to agents of the federal attorney general’s office in Sonora state, who transferred him to the Federal Social Reintegration Center in Hermosillo.
The high-profile case comes as the Trump administration is pressuring Mexico to crack down on organized crime, canceling visas of notable Mexican artists and celebrities and ramping up deportations.
Chávez has struggled with drug addiction throughout his career and has been arrested multiple times. In 2012, he was found guilty of driving under the influence in Los Angeles and was sentenced to 13 days in jail.
He was arrested last year on suspicion of weapons possession. Police reported that Chávez had two rifles. He was released shortly afterward upon posting $50,000 bail, on the condition that he attend a facility to receive treatment for his addiction.
WASHINGTON — Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein’s imprisoned former girlfriend and accomplice, repeatedly denied in her interview with the Justice Department having witnessed any sexually inappropriate interactions with Donald Trump, according to records released Friday meant to distance the president from the sex-trafficking case.
The Trump administration issued transcripts from interviews that Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche conducted with Maxwell last month as the administration was scrambling to present itself as transparent amid a fierce backlash over its refusal to disclose a trove of records from the case.
The records show Maxwell repeatedly showering Trump with praise and denying under questioning from Blanche that she had observed Trump engaged in any form of sexual behavior. The administration was presumably eager to make such denials public at a time when Trump has faced questions about his former longtime friendship with Epstein and as his administration has endured continued scrutiny over its handling of evidence from the case.
The transcript release represents the latest Trump administration effort to repair self-inflicted political wounds after failing to deliver on expectations that its own officials had created through conspiracy theories and bold pronouncements that never came to pass. By making public two days’ worth of interviews, officials appear to be hoping to at least temporarily keep at bay sustained anger from Trump’s base as they send Congress evidence they had previously kept from view.
After her interview with Blanche, Maxwell was moved from the low-security federal prison in Florida to a minimum-security prison camp in Texas to continue serving a 20-year sentence for her 2021 conviction for luring underage girls to be sexually abused by Epstein.
Her trial featured sordid accounts of the sexual exploitation of girls as young as 14 told by four women who described being abused as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at Epstein’s homes.
She was convicted of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, transporting a minor to participate in illegal sex acts, sex trafficking conspiracy, and sex trafficking of a minor.
Victims of Epstein and Maxwell and victims’ family members, among others, have expressed outrage at her prison relocation and the Trump administration’s handling of the case.
Neither Maxwell’s lawyers nor the federal Bureau of Prisons has explained the reason for the move, but one of her lawyers, David Oscar Markus, said in a social media post Friday that Maxwell was “innocent and never should have been tried, much less convicted.”
Maxwell is widely believed to be seeking a presidential pardon, which Trump has not ruled out.
‘Never inappropriate’
“I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting,” Maxwell said, according to the transcript. “I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.”
Maxwell recalled knowing about Trump and possibly meeting him for the first time in 1990, when her newspaper magnate father, Robert Maxwell, was the owner of the New York Daily News. She said she had been to Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., sometimes alone, but hadn’t seen Trump since the mid-2000s.
Asked if she ever heard Epstein or anyone else say Trump “had done anything inappropriate with masseuses” or anyone else in their orbit, Maxwell replied, “Absolutely never, in any context.”
Maxwell was interviewed over the course of two days last month by Blanche — one of Trump’s personal lawyers before joining the Justice Department — at a Florida courthouse. She was given limited immunity, allowing her to speak freely without fear of prosecution for anything she said except in the event of a false statement.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department on Friday began sending to the House Oversight Committee records from the investigation that the panel says it intends to make public after removing victims’ information.
The case had long captured public attention in part because of Epstein’s social connections over the years to prominent figures, including Britain’s Prince Andrew, former President Clinton and Trump, who has said he had a falling-out with Epstein years ago and well before the financier came under investigation.
Maxwell told Blanche that Clinton was initially her friend, not Epstein’s, and that she never saw him receive a massage — nor did she believe he ever did. The only times they were together, she said, were the two dozen or so times they traveled on Epstein’s plane.
“That would’ve been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage,” Maxwell said. “And he didn’t, because I was there.”
She also spoke glowingly of Britain’s Prince Andrew and dismissed as “rubbish” the late Virginia Giuffre’s claim that she was paid to have a relationship with Andrew and that he had sex with her at Maxwell’s London home.
Maxwell sought to distance herself from Epstein’s conduct, repeatedly denying allegations made during her trial about her role. Though she acknowledged that at one point Epstein began preferring younger women, she claimed she never understood that to “encompass children.” Prosecutors presented evidence at trial showing she and Epstein both knew some victims were underage.
“I did see from when I met him, he was involved, or — involved or friends with or whatever, however you want to characterize it — with women who were in their 20s,” she told Blanche. “And then the slide to, you know, 18 or younger looking women. But I never considered that this would encompass criminal behavior.”
Epstein was arrested in 2019 on sex-trafficking charges, accused of sexually abusing dozens of teenage girls, and was found dead a month later in a New York jail cell in what investigators determined was suicide.
A story that’s consumed the Justice Department
The saga has consumed the Trump administration following a two-page announcement from the FBI and Justice Department last month that Epstein had killed himself despite conspiracy theories to the contrary, that a “client list” that Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi had intimated was on her desk did not actually exist, and that no additional documents from the high-profile investigation were suitable to be released.
The announcement produced outrage from conspiracy theorists, online sleuths and Trump supporters who had been hoping to see proof of a government cover-up during previous administrations. That expectation was driven in part by comments from officials, including FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Director Dan Bongino, who on podcasts before taking their current positions had repeatedly promoted the idea that damaging details about prominent people were being withheld.
Patel, for instance, said in at least one podcast interview before becoming director that Epstein’s “black book” was under the “direct control of the director of the FBI.”
The administration made a stumble in February when far-right influencers were invited to the White House in February and provided by Bondi with binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified” that contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain.
After the first release fell flat, Bondi said officials were poring over a “truckload” of previously withheld evidence she said had been handed over by the FBI and raised expectations of forthcoming releases.
But after a weeks-long review of evidence in the government’s possession, the Justice Department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” The department noted that much of the material was placed under seal by a court to protect victims and “only a fraction” of it “would have been aired publicly had Epstein gone to trial.”
Faced with fury from his base, Trump sought to quickly turn the page, shutting down questioning of Bondi about Epstein at a White House Cabinet meeting and deriding as “weaklings” his own supporters who he said were falling for the “Jeffrey Epstein hoax.”
The Justice Department has responded to a subpoena from House lawmakers by pledging to turn over information.
Tucker, Sisak and Richer write for the Associated Press. AP writer Adriana Gomez Licon contributed to this report.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Kilmar Abrego Garcia was released from jail in Tennessee on Friday so he can rejoin his family in Maryland while awaiting trial on human smuggling charges.
The Salvadoran national’s case became a flashpoint in President Trump’s immigration agenda after he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on criminal charges.
Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a challenge to any deportation order.
On Friday, after two months, Abrego Garcia walked out of the Putnam County jail wearing a short-sleeved white button-down shirt and black pants and accompanied by defense attorney Rascoe Dean and two other men. They did not speak to reporters but got into a white SUV and sped off.
The release order from the court requires Abrego Garcia to travel directly to Maryland, where he will be in home detention with his brother designated as his third-party custodian. He is required to submit to electronic monitoring and can only leave the home for work, religious services and other approved activities.
An attorney for Abrego Garcia in his immigration case in Maryland, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said in a statement Friday his client had been “reunited with his loving family” for the first time since he was wrongfully deported to a notorious El Salvador prison in March.
“While his release brings some relief, we all know that he is far from safe,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “ICE detention or deportation to an unknown third country still threaten to tear his family apart. A measure of justice has been done, but the government must stop pursuing actions that would once again separate this family.”
Earlier this week, Abrego Garcia’s criminal attorneys filed a motion asking the judge to dismiss the criminal case, claiming he is being prosecuted to punish him for challenging his removal to El Salvador.
Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the smuggling charges, which stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was allowed to continue driving with only a warning.
A Department of Homeland Security agent testified he did not begin investigating the traffic stop until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the U.S. illegally. In 2019, an immigration judge denied his application for asylum but granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he faces a “well-founded fear” of violence, according to court filings. He was required to check in yearly with Immigration and Customs Enforcement while Homeland Security issued him a work permit.
Although Abrego Garcia can’t be deported to El Salvador without violating the judge’s order, Homeland Security officials have said they plan to deport him to an unnamed third country.
Sebastien Lai, son of imprisoned Hong Kong media publisher Jimmy Lai, showed a picture of his father, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva in February. Lai’s trial resumed Monday after pausing Friday for Lai’s heart issues. File Photo by Salvatore Di Nolfi/EPA
Aug. 18 (UPI) — A court in Hong Kong resumed closing arguments in the criminal trial of media mogul Jimmy Lai on charges of sedition and collusion with foreign powers.
The trial had paused Friday because Lai, 77, was having heart issues. Lai was given medication and a Holter monitor, which tracks the heart’s electrical activity. The trial had also been delayed Thursday because of torrential rain in the city.
Judge Esther Toh said extra breaks could be allowed for Lai if needed.
Lai, a citizen of the United Kingdom, founded Apple Daily, a Chinese-language newspaper published in Hong Kong from 1995 to 2021. The tabloid has been described as anti-government, pro-democracy and anti-China.
He is accused of collusion with foreign forces and sedition. He has been in solitary confinement since December 2020. He faces life in prison.
Prosecutors have accused Lai of requesting foreign countries to engage in “hostile activities,” such as imposing sanctions, against authorities in Hong Kong and mainland China.
He allegedly conspired with senior editorial staff of Apple Daily and was the “mastermind and financial supporter” of the Fight for Freedom; Stand with Hong Kong advocacy group, which lobbied for international sanctions against Hong Kong and China.
Lai denied in court that he had ever sought to influence the Hong Kong policies of other countries via his high-level contacts overseas, including former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence and former Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen.
Questioned about meetings with Pence and then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in 2019, Lai said the meeting with Pence was more of a briefing where he updated him and answered questions about what was going on in Hong Kong
Lai, who was noticeably thinner Monday than when the trial began in late 2023, was dressed in a white jacket in the glass dock and pressed his palms together in a prayer gesture several times to his family and supporters, the Independent reported.
The prosecutor discussed the security law concerning the collusion charges, arguing that the request to impose sanctions must include officials and not just states.
He planned to lay out other issues in the afternoon and make his closing statement on Tuesday.
Lai is among hundreds of people who have been detained and charged under the controversial National Security Law, which critics say have silenced dissent in Hong Kong. Beijing justifies that the law is needed to maintain stability in the city.
Supreme Court will rule on ex-president’s fate in case dividing nation that could result in lengthy prison term.
Brazil’s Supreme Court says it will hand down a verdict and sentence in former President Jair Bolsonaro’s coup trial early next month, in a case that has polarised the country and drawn in the ex-leader’s ally, United States President Donald Trump.
The court announced on Friday that the five-justice panel overseeing the proceedings will deliver decisions on the five charges between September 2 and 12. A coup conviction carries a sentence of up to 12 years.
Bolsonaro, under house arrest since August 4, is accused of orchestrating a plot to cling to power after losing the 2022 presidential election to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. He denies the allegations.
Prosecutors allege Bolsonaro led a criminal organisation that sought to overturn the election results.
The case includes accusations that the plot involved plans to kill Lula and Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is presiding over the trial. They have presented messages, handwritten notes and other material they say document the conspiracy.
Defence lawyers counter that no coup attempt was carried out and that Bolsonaro allowed the presidential handover to take place, undermining claims he tried to block it.
The five charges against Bolsonaro include attempting a coup, participation in an armed criminal organisation, attempted violent abolition of the democratic order, and two counts linked to destruction of state property.
Two separate five-justice panels operate within Brazil’s top court. Justice de Moraes, a frequent target of Bolsonaro’s supporters, sits on the panel hearing the case. Although Bolsonaro appointed two justices during his 2019–2022 presidency, both serve on the other panel.
Separately, right-wing Brazilian lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro said on Friday that he met with US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent this week as part of his campaign to secure sanctions against officials linked to the trial of his father, Bolsonaro.
In a post on X, Bolsonaro said the meeting took place on Wednesday, the same day Bessent had been expected to hold talks with Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad.
Haddad told journalists earlier in the week that the US Treasury cancelled his meeting without offering a new date.
The younger Bolsonaro has been vocal in defending his father and calling for sanctions on his own country following his father’s alleged coup attempt.
The Supreme Court headquarters in Brasilia was one of the targets of a rioting mob of supporters known as “Bolsonaristas”, who raided government buildings in January 2023 as they urged the military to depose Lula, an insurrection attempt that evoked Trump supporters on January 6, 2021.
The rioting also prompted comparisons to Brazil’s 1964 military coup, a dark era that Bolsonaro has openly praised.
The trial has captivated Brazil’s divided public. Tensions deepened when Trump linked a 50 percent tariff on Brazilian imports to his ally’s legal battle, calling the proceedings a “witch hunt” and describing Bolsonaro as an “honest man” facing “political execution”.
The Trump administration has also sanctioned Justice de Moraes and imposed further trade restrictions on Brazil, a move widely criticised in the country as an assault on national sovereignty.
A recent Datafolha poll found more than half of Brazilians support the decision to place Bolsonaro under house arrest, while 53 percent reject the idea that he is being politically persecuted.
The 77-year-old founder of the Apple Daily newspaper is charged with foreign collusion over 2019 protests.
Hong Kong judges have postponed the trial of media tycoon Jimmy Lai until he is provided with a heart monitoring device and related medication.
Friday’s decision marked the second delay to the case this week after his lawyer said he had suffered heart palpitations.
The 77-year-old founder of the Apple Daily newspaper is charged with foreign collusion under Hong Kong’s national security law, which Beijing imposed following widespread pro-democracy protests in 2019.
Closing arguments in the long-running trial were originally expected to begin on Thursday, but all court sessions were suspended due to bad weather.
As the court resumed on Friday, defence lawyer Robert Pang said that Lai had heart “palpitations” and had experienced the feeling of “collapsing”, but added that the tycoon did not want attention to be concentrated on his health.
Lai has been kept behind bars since December 2020, reportedly in solitary confinement, and concerns have previously been raised over the septuagenarian’s welfare.
‘The world is watching’
The three-judge panel adjourned the case to Monday to allow time for prison authorities to outfit Lai with a wearable heart monitor and provide medication.
The sprawling trial, which began in December 2023, is entering its final stages as Western nations and rights groups continue to call for Lai’s release.
Aside from the collusion charge – which could land him in prison for life – Lai is also charged with “seditious publication” related to 161 op-eds carrying his byline.
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said on Thursday that “the world is watching how Hong Kong treats its journalists”.
“The prolonged detention of Jimmy Lai not only destroys Hong Kong’s historic reputation as a free and open society, but also as a trusted hub for business,” said CPJ regional director Beh Lih Yi.
US President Donald Trump told a Fox News radio programme on Thursday that he had previously brought up the Lai case with Chinese President Xi Jinping.
“I’m going to do everything I can to save him … you could also understand President Xi would not be exactly thrilled,” the outlet quoted Trump as saying.
The Hong Kong government said on Wednesday it “strongly disapproved and rejected the slanderous remarks made by external forces” regarding Lai’s case.
Lai is a British citizen and his son Sebastien reiterated in March calls for the Keir Starmer administration to do more, saying: “I don’t want my father to die in jail.”
Two prosecution witnesses, Chan Tsz-wah and Andy Li, also accused Lai of financially backing an advocacy group that ran overseas newspaper advertisements supporting the 2019 protests.
Lai has denied calling for sanctions against China and Hong Kong and said he never advocated separatism.
Apple Daily was forced to close in 2021 after police raids and the arrests of its senior editors.
Former president denies involvement in alleged effort to overturn his loss in the 2022 election.
Lawyers have submitted a final statement on behalf of Brazilian ex-President Jair Bolsonaro in a trial focused on his alleged role in a plot to stay in power despite losing the 2022 election.
In a statement submitted on Wednesday evening, Bolsonaro’s legal representatives denied the charges against him and said that prosecutors had presented no convincing evidence.
“There is no way to convict Jair Bolsonaro based on the evidence presented in the case, which largely demonstrated that he ordered the transition … and assured his voters that the world would not end on December 31st,” the document states.
The right-wing former president faces up to 12 years in prison if convicted of attempting to mount a coup after losing a presidential election to left-wing rival and current President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.
Bolsonaro, who raised alarm in the months leading up to the election by casting doubt on the voting process, has denied involvement in the plot, which allegedly included plans for Lula’s assassination.
The former leader’s legal representatives say the fact that he authorised the transition contradicts the coup allegations.
“This is evidence that eliminates the most essential of the accusatory premises,” they said.
Prosecutor-General Paulo Gonet submitted final arguments in July, citing handwritten notes, digital files, message exchanges, and spreadsheets that he said show details of a conspiracy to suppress democracy.
Following Bolsonaro’s election loss, crowds of his supporters gathered outside of military bases, calling on the armed forces to intervene and prevent Lula from taking office. A group of Bolsonaro’s supporters also stormed federal buildings in the capital of Brasilia on January 8, 2023. Some drew parallels to a military coup in the 1960s that marked the beginning of a decades-long period of dictatorship, for which Bolsonaro himself has long expressed fondness.
Bolsonaro and his allies, including United States President Donald Trump, have depicted the trial as a politically motivated “witch hunt”.
A recent survey conducted by Datafolha, a Brazilian polling institute, found that more than 50 percent of Brazilians agree with the court’s decision to place Bolsonaro under house arrest in August. The survey also found that a majority believe that Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, a frequent target of right-wing ire and central figure in the trial, is following the law.
Respondents also largely disagreed with the claim that Bolsonaro was being persecuted for political reasons, with 39 percent in agreement and 53 percent in disagreement.
Speaking from the White House on Thursday, Trump said Bolsonaro was an “honest man” and the victim of an attempted “political execution”.
The Trump administration has mounted a pressure campaign to push the court to drop Bolsonaro’s case, sanctioning De Moraes and announcing severe sanctions on Brazilian exports to the US. That move has met anger in Brazil and been depicted as an attack on Brazilian sovereignty.
Aug. 13 (UPI) — Former Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein will face a third trial in New York in connection to the sexual assault case of actor Jessica Mann.
A jury was unable in June to come to a verdict on a rape charge that alleged Weinstein sexually assaulted Mann but did find him guilty of sexually assaulting former “Project Runway” production assistant Miriam Haley in 2006, and not guilty of assaulting former runway model Kaja Sokola that same year.
The judge announced he would not sentence Weinstein on the conviction involving Haley until Weinstein is retried for the charge related to Mann, who has alleged Weinstein raped her in 2013.
Weinstein was slated to be sentenced on Sept. 30 for the guilty verdict in Haley’s case, which means unless he pleads guilty to the charge that involves Mann, or either he is tried before September or prosecutors drop that charge, he’s likely to have that sentencing date postponed.
Weinstein, the co-founder of film studios Miramax and The Weinstein Company, was originally convicted of rape and criminal sexual act in 2020 and sentenced to 23 years in prison for the crimes.
However, New York’s state Court of Appeals overturned his conviction after finding the jury in the 2020 trial was prejudiced by the judge of that trial who allowed women with unrelated allegations to testify.
Weinstein was also found guilty by a Los Angeles jury of sexual assault and sentenced to 16 years in prison.
He is currently appealing against that conviction and has denied all of the charges lodged against him. Weinstein has been held in custody in New York’s Rikers Island jail.
Minutes after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth trumpeted plans to “flood” Washington with National Guard members, a senior U.S. military official took the stand in federal court in California to defend the controversial deployment of troops to Los Angeles.
The move during protests this summer has since become the model for President Trump’s increasing use of the military to police American streets.
But the trial, which opened Monday in San Francisco, turns on the argument by California that troops called up by Trump have been illegally engaged in civilian law enforcement.
“The military in Southern California are so tied in with ICE and other law enforcement agencies that they are practically indistinguishable,” California Deputy Atty. Gen. Meghan Strong told the court Tuesday.
“Los Angeles is just the beginning,” the deputy attorney general said. “President Trump has hinted at sending troops even farther, naming Baltimore and even Oakland here in the Bay Area as his next potential targets.”
Senior U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer said in court that Hegseth’s statements Monday could tip the scales in favor of the state, which must show the law is likely to be violated again so long as troops remain.
But the White House hasn’t let the pending case stall its agenda. Nor have Trump officials been fazed by a judge’s order restricting so-called roving patrols used by federal agents to indiscriminately sweep up suspected immigrants.
After Border Patrol agents last week sprang from a Penske moving truck and snatched up workers at a Westlake Home Depot — appearing to openly defy the court’s order — some attorneys warned the rule of law is crumbling in plain sight.
“It is just breathtaking,” said Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel, part of the coalition challenging the use of racial profiling by immigration enforcement. “Somewhere there are founding fathers who are turning over in their graves.”
The chaotic immigration arrests that swept through Los Angeles this summer had all but ceased after the original July 11 order, which bars agents from snatching people off the streets without first establishing reasonable suspicion that they are in the U.S. illegally.
An Aug. 1 ruling in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed to assure they could not resume again for weeks, if ever.
For the Department of Justice, the 9th Circuit loss was the latest blow in a protracted judicial beatdown, as many of the administration’s most aggressive moves have been held back by federal judges and tied up in appellate courts.
Trump “is losing consistently in the lower courts, almost nine times out of 10,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law.
In the last two weeks alone, the 9th Circuit also found Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship unconstitutional and signaled it would probably rule in favor of a group of University of California researchers hoping to claw back funding from Trump’s war on diversity, equity and inclusion policies.
Elsewhere in the U.S., the D.C. Circuit Court appeared poised to block Trump’s tariffs, while a federal judge in Miami temporarily stopped construction at the migrant detention center known as Alligator Alcatraz.
California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta has noted that his Department of Justice had sued the administration nearly 40 times.
But even the breakneck pace of current litigation is glacial compared with the actions of immigration agents and federalized troops.
Federal officials have publicly relished big-footing California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, who have repeatedly warned the city is being used as a “petri dish” for executive force.
On Monday, the White House seemed to vindicate them by sending the National Guard to Washington.
Speaking for more than half an hour, Trump rattled off a list of American cities he characterized as under siege.
Asked whether he would deploy troops to those cities as well, the president said, “We’re just gonna see what happens.”
“We’re going to look at New York. And if we need to, we’re going to do the same thing in Chicago,” he said. “Hopefully, L.A. is watching.”
This image taken from video shows U.S. Border Patrol agents jumping out of a Penske box truck during an immigration raid at a Home Depot in Los Angeles, on Aug. 6, 2025.
(FOX News/Matt Finn via AP)
The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the same power that allows the president to federalize troops and deploy them on American streets also creates a “Constitutional exception” to the Posse Comitatus Act, a 19th century law that bars troops from civilian police action.
California lawyers say no such exception exists.
“I’m looking at this case and trying to figure out, is there any limitation to the use of federal forces?” Judge Breyer said.
Even if they keep taking losses, Trump administration officials “don’t have much to lose” by picking fights, said Ilya Somin, law professor at George Mason University and a constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute.
“The base likes it,” Somin said of the Trump’s most controversial moves. “If they lose, they can consider whether they defy the court.”
Other experts agreed.
“The bigger question is whether the courts can actually do anything to enforce the orders that they’re making,” said David J. Bier, an immigration expert at the Cato Institute. “There’s no indication to me that [Department of Homeland Security agents] are changing their behavior.”
Some scholars speculated the losses in lower courts might actually be a strategic sacrifice in the war to extend presidential power in the Supreme Court.
“It’s not a strategy whose primary ambition is to win,” said professor Mark Graber of the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. “They are losing cases right and left in the district court, but consistently having district court orders stayed in the Supreme Court.”
Win or lose in the lower courts, the political allure of targeting California is potent, argued Segall, the law professor who studies the Supreme Court.
“There is an emotional hostility to California that people on the West Coast don’t understand,” Segall said. “California … is deemed a separate country almost.”
A favorable ruling in the Supreme Court could pave the way for deployments across the country, he and others warned.
“We don’t want the military on America’s streets, period, full stop,” Segall said. “I don’t think martial law is off the table.”
Pedro Vásquez Perdomo, a day laborer who is one of the plaintiffs in the Southern California case challenging racial profiling by immigration enforcement, has said the case is bigger than him.
He took to the podium outside the American Civil Liberties Union’s downtown offices Aug. 4, his voice trembling as he spoke about the temporary restraining order — upheld days earlier by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals — that stood between his fellow Angelenos and unchecked federal authority.
“I don’t want silence to be my story,” he said. “I want justice for me and for every other person whose humanity has been denied.”
