Tag: Epstein

WHEN PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP authorized the full release of federal archives on the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., he made good on a promise near and dear to academic historians and conspiracy theorists alike.

“That’s a big one, huh?” Trump said upon signing the executive order. “A lot of people are waiting for this for a long—for years—for decades.”

“And everything will be revealed,” he added.

But Trump conveniently left out a big name that conspiracists watching along at home were eager to hear: Jeffrey Epstein. Many of them take the reviled financier, social climber, and alleged sex trafficker to be the ringleader of a cabal of perverted fiends operating at the highest levels of government, Wall Street, and Hollywood. He’s also a former associate of Trump himself.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York magazine in the early 2000s. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Right-wing conspiracists seem remarkably unbothered by the trove of photos and videos of Trump palling around with Epstein and his now-imprisoned wingwoman Ghislaine Maxwell, which is in keeping with their tendency to cast the president in a heroic role in their stories. But a lot that people still want to know about the late financier and the network he partially documented in his little black book. So I sought out some of the top Republican senators to gauge their interest in Trump adding Epstein’s files to the declassification list—and why they think Epstein wasn’t included in the president’s executive order.

“I’d like to see them,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). When I asked Kennedy why he thinks Trump didn’t include Epstein, he said, “I don’t know. If I talk to him, I’ll ask him, but I’d like to see them. I’ll be the first in line.”

“I don’t care if he’s named in them,” Kennedy added of the possibility of a Trump cameo in the files. “The American people are entitled to know the truth. The man’s dead as Jimmy Hoffa—he’s gone—and his sidekick’s in jail. We’re entitled to know what he did, who he did it with, and whether he broke any laws.”

Trump should “absolutely” release Epstein’s documents, said Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas). “I have long called for the administration to release the Jeffrey Epstein files, and also the P. Diddy files. We deserve to know who is implicated in abusing children.”

“Yes,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) when I asked if Trump should release the documents. Daines balked when I then asked, “Even if he’s named in them?” After a long pause, he said, “I think they should be released.”

One Senate Republican, the newly sworn-in Jim Justice of West Virginia, did not offer an affirmative “yes” like his colleagues.

“Well, to be perfectly honest, there’s a whole lot about that, and I still need to get up to speed on [it],” he said. “But I do really believe that President Trump is really moving fast and moving the proper way, and it’s different and everything, but we’ve got to absolutely give him his chance to really perform.”

Based on his tone, there’s a strong possibility that Justice was unaware of who Epstein was; that’s often the case when a senator gives such a general answer to a straightforward question.

According to experts interviewed by NPR, the documents set to be released by the National Archives are unlikely to include bombshells that would dramatically alter the already well-documented history of the assassinations of the Kennedys and King. (Epstein committed suicide in jail.)

While I can’t imagine that will satisfy the conspiracy theorists most eager to flip through the hundreds or possibly thousands of pages on the three individuals named in Trump’s executive order, for the well-adjusted, a bland full release could help close a sad chapter in American history. The conspiracy theorists will still have the Epstein story to chew on for the foreseeable future, at least. They just won’t be demanding the same levels of scrutiny.

Share

Former Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s nomination to serve as director of national intelligence was always one of Trump’s riskier cabinet bets, and the odds of her being confirmed are getting longer as her confirmation hearing draws nearer. While many Republican senators remain noncommittal about how they’ll end up voting, Gabbard also faces significant challenges related to process.

“Well, the hearing is going to be this week,” Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters Monday evening in the Capitol. “Unfortunately, it conflicts with the hearing on [Robert F. Kennedy for HHS secretary], so that’s going to make things difficult for those of us who serve on both committees.”

“There are still issues about her position on [FISA Section 702], for example, where I believe that her responses to the questions for the record are hedged and unclear,” added Collins, a member of the Intelligence Committee.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) isn’t as concerned about Gabbard’s positions or character. Instead, he was basically handing over his vote on the confirmation to others.

“If she gets unanimous support out of the committee, I’m supporting her,” Tillis said Monday. “You know, unlike Pete [Hegseth], where I did more work, it’s because I spent eight years on Senate Armed Services. But I don’t have any expertise in Intel, so I’m going to defer to the majority—and it would take everybody on committee to vote her out.”

The “work” Tillis is referring to was his conversation with Hegseth’s former sister-in-law. He reportedly assured Danielle Hegseth that if she provided a signed statement affirming that the then-presumptive defense secretary had an alcohol problem and had abused his ex-wife, it could “potentially” move a few more Republican votes, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal. She did provide a signed statement, but Tillis voted to confirm Hegseth anyway. If he hadn’t, Trump would be shopping around for a new SecDef right now.

Behind the scenes, quite a few Republicans are on the fence about Gabbard for policy reasons. Her past positions on Israel specifically have struck some conservative senators as problematic, leaving them with unresolved questions about her fitness for the role.

Gabbard’s fate will likely be known in advance of any scheduled floor vote in the full Senate.

That’s because, typically, if a nominee survives the committee process by going through the necessary hearing(s) and receiving a vote of confidence from a majority of the panel, they will make it on the floor. And from there, as Tillis noted, even someone with great reservations about a nominee will usually defer to the committee’s judgment—either as a political cop-out or because they really do respect their colleagues.

Nominees typically fail the way former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz did when he was up for attorney general: The leader of the chamber hears from a sufficient number of members of the majority party opposed to the nominee to doom the confirmation vote. At that point, the nominee will humbly bow out to pursue life in the private sector. (In Gaetz’s case, it was to anchor the evening news and opinion on one of TV journalism’s great wastelands, One America News Network.)

That has not happened to Gabbard yet.

However, a small further issue for Gabbard’s nomination that others did not face is that the DNI pick is voted on in a closed-door session, which removes the political pressures of an on-the-record process. While some Republicans want to make the vote public in an apparent bid to put the political screws on Gabbard-skeptical members of the committee, doing so would require a rewrite of the Senate rules, which is simply not possible in this timeframe.

While she has little to no chance of making a political comeback in a future run for office in her native Hawaii—one of the bluest states in the nation—Gabbard has future prospects outside of government. She made more than $1 million during the presidential campaign by being a regular Fox News contributor, publishing a culture-warring book, and stumping for Trump, according to her financial disclosure. As a born-again conservative who rejects the Great Satan that is the American military-industrial complex, she checks a lot of boxes for today’s MAGA political movement. She’d no doubt have an easy transition into a permanent role in the Republican cinematic universe should Collins end up giving her a thumbs-down. Her fate will likely be sealed by the week’s end.