Posts

Trump Might Pardon the Sex Trafficker Who “Stole” His Spa Girls and Other Details of the Cover-Up

/41 Comments/in /by

Much of the traditional press (though not Chris Hayes) has missed the significance of Trump’s confession yesterday that Virginia Giuffre — recruited from Trump’s spa when she was 16 or 17 — was one of the girls that he says Jeffrey Epstein “stole.”

Reporter 1: I’m just curious. Were some of the workers that were taken from you — were some of them young women?

Trump: Were some of them?

Reporter 1: Were some of them young women?

Trump: Well, I don’t wanna say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. It was, the concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story’s been pretty well out there. And the answer is, yes, they were.

[inaudible]

Trump: In the spa. People that work in the spa. I have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago. And people were taken out of the spa. Hired. By him. In other words, gone. And um, other people would come and complain. This guy is taking people from the spa. I didn’t know that. And then when I heard about it I told him, I said, listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether they were spa or not spa. I don’t want him taking people. And he was fine and then not too long after that he did it again and I said Out of here.

Reporter 2: Mr. President, did one of those stolen persons, did that include Virginia Giuffre?

Trump: Uh, I don’t know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.

Many, for example are forgetting what Trump said the day before: Epstein “stole” one of Trump’s girls, Trump told him to stop, and Epstein did it again.

What caused the breach with him? Very easy to explain. But I don’t want to waste your time by explaining it. But for years I wouldn’t talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn’t talk. Because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help. And I said, don’t ever do that again. He stole people that worked for me. I said, don’t ever do that again. He did it again. And I threw him out of the place. Persona non grata. I threw him out. And that was it.

To tell Epstein to stop doing something, Trump would have had to have known he was doing something.

And the “it” is made much more clear by what “the Mar-a-Lago” told Page Six in 2007, even before Epstein had signed the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement.

Meanwhile, the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach last night confirmed a Web site report that Epstein has been banned there. “He would use the spa to try to procure girls. But one of them, a masseuse about 18 years old, he tried to get her to do things,” a source told us. “Her father found out about it and went absolutely ape-[bleep]. Epstein’s not allowed back.” Epstein denies he is banned from Mar-a-Lago and says, in fact, he was recently invited to an event there.

Before the full extent of Epstein’s abuse was public, someone at Mar-a-Lago wanted to make it clear that when Epstein did “procure girls … he tried to get her to do things.”

This member’s daughter who was “about 18,” was at least the second girl Trump learned about.

The first (or who knows? maybe she wasn’t the first!) was Giuffre.

The second (at least) was the member’s daughter.

Having now confirmed that Giuffre was among the “girls” Epstein would try to “procure” from Trump’s spa, it makes both Trump’s public acknowledgement to New York Magazine (two years after Ghislaine Maxwell “stole” Giuffre) that Epstein liked his so-called women “on the younger side” and the smutty letter sent a few months later reflected knowledge that Epstein was fucking girls.

“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is. 

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey. 

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it. 

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that? 

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you. 

Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.

Not just any girls, but his girls. Trump’s girls, from his spa.

And Trump is so furious that Ghislaine Maxwell stole girls from his spa that he’s saying the same thing about a pardon for her that he said about pardons for Paul Manafort and Roger Stone before he rewarded for their lies about him, that he won’t rule it out.

By all appearances, Trump will pardon the woman who stole his girls. That’s how furious he is that she groomed at least two of his girls and tried — successfully in Giuffre’s case — to turn her into a sex slave.

Meanwhile, now that Trump has placated much of the press, the cover-up continues apace. In a letter David Markus sent to James Comer (but not Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia — Markus was leaving nothing to chance) he said that Ghislaine would only testify to the House Oversight Committee if she:

  • Got formal immunity
  • Got the questions in advance
  • After she tests her luck with SCOTUS (in which case she won’t need to spill secrets to get out of prison)
  • If she gets clemency for the things she’ll say

In other words, she’ll only testify if that’s the only way she can leverage what she knows.

Comer immediately declined, meaning Trump faces no risk that Ghislaine’s silence will disrupt the cover-up.

Meanwhile, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, and Jay Clayton (but not even the AUSA who filed an appearance) have confessed that they are engaged in a headfake. Their response to Richard Berman and Paul Engelmeyer  falsely claims that the interest in these transcripts arose from the memo Pam Bondi released and not the inflammatory comments and promises Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino made.

Attention given to the Epstein and Maxwell cases has recently intensified in the wake of the July 6, 2025 Memorandum announcing the conclusions of the Government’s review into the investigation

They minimize the concerns about victim testimony because just two people testified.

Here, there was one witness—an FBI agent—during the Epstein grand jury proceedings. There were two witnesses—the same FBI agent from the Epstein grand jury proceedings and a detective with the NYPD who was a Task Force Officer with the FBI’s Child Exploitation and Human Trafficking Task Force—during the Maxwell grand jury proceedings.

Both witnesses are still alive; the FBI agent continues to be an agent with the FBI, and the Detective continues to be a Detective with the NYPD as well as a Task Force Officer.

Consistent with applicable rules concerning the admissibility of hearsay testimony, the grand jury witnesses described statements of others, including statements of and concerning victims, many of whom are still alive.

They admit they’ll redact the names of the third parties who enabled Epstein (which they wouldn’t necessarily have to do if they released the files in their custody).

[T]he grand jury transcripts contain victim-related and other personal identifying information related to third parties who neither have been charged or alleged to be involved in the crimes with which Epstein and Maxwell were charged, to which the Government is sensitive, and which is why the Government proposes redacting the transcripts before releasing them.

But they are providing notice to those people.

 In addition, the Government is in the process of providing notice to any other individuals identified in the transcripts.

They appear to suggest that they’re not providing all the grand jury transcripts to the judges — just the underlying material.

The Court directed the Government to submit: (1) indices of Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials, including a brief summary, the number of pages, and dates; (2) a complete set of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts; (3) a complete proposed redacted set of the Epstein and Maxwell grand jury transcripts; and (4) a description of any other Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials, including, but not limited to, exhibits. (Epstein Dkt. 63 at 3; Maxwell Dkt. 789 at 3). As to the final category, the Government provides a description of all of the underlying materials presented to the grand jury as well as copies of, and proposed redactions to, certain materials presented to the grand jury. [my emphasis]

They definitely don’t answer a question both judges asked: whether DOJ had asked the victims before filing this response.

The Court also directed the Government to state whether, “before filing the instant motion, counsel for the Government reviewed the Maxwell grand jury transcripts and whether the Government provided notice to the victims of the motion to unseal,”

[snip]

In addition, the Government has now provided notice to all but one of the victims who are referenced in the grand jury transcripts at issue in this motion. The Government has attempted to contact the remaining victim, but such efforts have been unsuccessful. In addition, the Government is in the process of providing notice to any other individuals identified in the transcripts.

Having not done that (and not yet spoken to one of the victims), they ask for a chance to respond to the victims’ comments about this ploy — which they should have asked about before they started it — after they file sealed responses.

[T]he Government also respectfully requests leave to file a supplemental submission once the Government and the Court have received any filings from the victims or others referenced in the transcripts.

The only thing this exercise is “transparency” has done so far is to share grand jury information with people implicated, but not charged, in Epstein’s actions.

Note, one person specifically implicated in Epstein’s crimes is Prince Andrew. To the extent he was investigated and possibly even charged under seal — which is the most obvious explanation for why he wouldn’t travel — the DOJ letter would create the appearance of a clean bill of health. But it could be buried in a different grand jury and we’d never even know.

Update: This is a very good CNN piece, including a long focus on how hard this is on the victims.

Share this entry

Todd Blanche Fails Effort to Force SDNY AUSAs to Frame Themselves

/39 Comments/in /by

Most reports on the resignation letter from the last three AUSAs on the Eric Adams case focus, justifiably, on its substance. After stating that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche would only let them return from paid leave if they confessed wrong-doing they didn’t commit, Celia Cohen, Andrew Rohrbach, and Derek Wikstrom instead resigned.

The Department placed each of us on administrative leave ostensibly to review our, and the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney’s Office’s, handling of the Adams case. It is now clear that one of the preconditions you have placed on our returning to the Office is that we must express regret and admit some wrongdoing by the Office in connection with the refusal to move to dismiss the case. We will not confess wrongdoing when there was none.

[snip]

Serving in the Southern District of New York has been an honor. There is no greater privilege than to work for an institution whose mandate is to do the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. We will not abandon this principle to keep our jobs. We resign.

But I’m just as interested in the date: Tuesday’s date, April 22.

The same day that Jay Clayton was apparently installed at SDNY, over Chuck Schumer’s attempt to hold his nomination.

Trump has, in general, conducted his purges before bringing in new leaders, even if (as with Kash Patel) the incoming leader was secretly part of the purge. In any case, the attack on the Adams

prosecutors has been going on for months. Emil Bove first put Wikstrom on paid leave, along with Hagan Scotten, on February 13, over two months ago. He first attempted to smear prosecutors with quotations stripped of context on March 7, by which point he had already rifled through their communications.

In between, Judge Dale Ho pushed back on DOJ’s claims any of these prosecutors engaged in misconduct.

Finally, the parties raise related issues in their briefs that do not appear in DOJ’s Rule 48(a) Motion. For reasons explained below, a court cannot properly grant a Rule 48(a) motion on the basis of rationales that were not raised in the motion. But even considering these additional points on the merits, the Court finds them either inapposite or unsupported by the record. For example, DOJ attaches various exhibits to its brief consisting of communications involving the former prosecution team and asserts that they show “troubling conduct” at USAO-SDNY. DOJ Br. at 1. But these communications were not public until DOJ sought to rely on them; as a matter of logic, they could not have affected “appearances” in this case. Moreover, the notion that DOJ sought dismissal because of improper conduct by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team is belied by the February 10 Decisional Memo itself, which makes clear that DOJ, in reaching its decision, “in no way call[ed] into question the integrity and efforts of the line prosecutors responsible for the case.” February 10 Decisional Memo at 1. At any rate, the Court has reviewed these communications carefully and finds that they do not show any improper motives or violations of ethics canons or the Justice Manual by the USAO-SDNY prosecution team or by former U.S. Attorney Sassoon.49

49 The Justice Department’s Principles of Federal Prosecution state, in relevant part, that “the attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction, unless (1) the prosecution would serve no substantial federal interest; (2) the person is subject to effective prosecution in another jurisdiction; or (3) there exists an adequate non-criminal alternative to prosecution.” U.S. Dep’t of Just., Just. Manual § 9-27.220 (2023). There is nothing in the USAO-SDNY communications indicating a violation of these principles. For example, one communication indicates that a friend of AUSA Scotten believed that he would make a good federal judge. See ECF No. 175-4. The Court has reviewed this communication and finds that it shows nothing noteworthy, only that AUSA Scotten was focused on his current job “first,” rather than on any possible future opportunities. Id. Another communication—an email circulating a draft letter to the Court—refers to the Williams op-ed as a “scandal,” ECF No. 175-3, but the use of that informal shorthand in an email does not suggest that any of the individual AUSAs on the case, or the U.S. Attorney at the time, had any inappropriate motives or otherwise violated Justice Department policy or guidelines. [my emphasis]

Ho thus foiled DOJ’s effort to conduct a Twitter Files attack on these prosecutors, to invent scandal among private messages.

And, apparently, Todd Blanche was left demanding that the prosecutors implicate themselves.

There’s nothing good about a dozen prosecutors ousted from DOJ over Bove’s effort to cover up his own quid pro quo with ginned up claims of wrong-doing. There’s nothing good about Blanche’s overt effort to weaponize DOJ in the name of fighting it.

But amid silence about other prosecutors ousted on similar terms, this seems to mark a clear failure. Thus far, the ethics of the prosecutors have thwarted Bove and Blanche’s efforts to recruit them in their own corruption.

Share this entry

The Little Noticed Jay Clayton Pick at SDNY

/6 Comments/in /by

Amid the Star Wars bar menagerie of Trump Administration picks, that of Jay Clayton to be US Attorney for SDNY has gone little noticed.

But it was among the earliest picks Trump announced, on November 14, like that of Mike Huckabee to be Ambassador to Israel on November 12, weirdly early, bespeaking an unusual set of priorities.

Here’s how NYT — reporters who know the Sovereign District well — covered the Clayton pick.

President-elect Donald J. Trump on Thursday said he would pick Jay Clayton, the top Wall Street enforcer in the first Trump administration, as the head federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, a critical post for an incoming president who has vowed revenge on those who pursued him in the courts.

Mr. Trump made the announcement on his social media platform Truth Social, where he called Mr. Clayton “a highly respected business leader, counsel and public servant.” Mr. Clayton still must be confirmed by the Senate.

The office of U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York is considered one of the most prestigious federal prosecutor’s offices in the nation. It holds sway over some of America’s most powerful businesses and financial institutions, and it has aggressively targeted politicians accused of corruption.

[snip]

Mr. Clayton is not a former prosecutor — often seen as a prerequisite to being named as a Southern District U.S. attorney — but he has long wanted the Manhattan post, said Steven Peikin, a lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell who served as his co-director of enforcement at the S.E.C.

In fact, toward the end of his tenure at the S.E.C., Mr. Clayton nearly got the job when he emerged as a potential candidate to replace Geoffrey S. Berman, a Trump-appointee who then held the post.

In a surprise move, the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, announced in June 2020 that Mr. Berman had resigned as U.S. attorney for the Southern District and Mr. Clayton would replace him. But Mr. Berman denied he had stepped down. He was then fired by President Trump, an action he did not contest after he was assured his deputy, Audrey Strauss, would lead the office.

The affair was worrisome to some Justice Department officials because at the time Mr. Berman’s office was handling cases involving people close to Mr. Trump. The episode raised concerns about possible political interference in criminal investigations.

Mr. Berman, in a statement to The New York Times on Thursday evening, said of Mr. Clayton, “Jay is an exceptional lawyer and will be an excellent United States attorney.”

Clayton is a grownup, though not a prosecutor. But Trump attempted to install him once before as a way to oust the incumbent US Attorney and — it is widely understood — in an attempt to thwart ongoing investigations into Trump’s people.

Even in spite of their expertise, I don’t see a NYT story on what happened next.

First, on November 18, Merrick Garland visited SDNY to encourage AUSAs there to continue on: “You will continue in the Department’s mission, what has always been its mission: to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.”

Then on Monday, the current US Attorney for SDNY, Damian Williams, announced he would resign on December 13, leaving his Deputy, Edward Kim, in charge.

Damian Williams, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who has served as the chief federal law enforcement officer in the district, announced today his intention to resign his position as United States Attorney, effective 11:59 p.m. on December 13, 2024. Edward Y. Kim, who currently serves as Deputy United States Attorney, will become the Acting United States Attorney upon his departure.

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said: “Today is a bittersweet day for me, as I announce my resignation as United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. It is bitter in the sense that I am leaving my dream job, leading an institution I love that is filled with the finest public servants in the world. It is sweet in that I am confident I am leaving at a time when the Office is functioning at an incredibly high level – upholding and exceeding its already high standard of excellence, integrity, and independence. That success is due to the career attorneys, staff members, and law enforcement agents of this Office. Working with them during my tenure has been a privilege of a lifetime. They are worthy custodians of this Office’s tradition of doing the right thing, the right way, for the right reasons. They are patriots. They are my family. And I will miss them dearly.

In spite of NYT’s apparent reticence (or, perhaps, ongoing reporting), it was big news: WaPo’s coverage noted Williams’ close ties to Garland and Bill Barr’s past effort, described by NYT, to install Clayton as a means to oust Williams.

NYPost’s coverage instead focused on the boon this may present for Eric Adams’ case, even while noting that prosecutors plan to supersede the indictment and have a December 20 status hearing scheduled. By the end of NYPost’s story, they had moderated their headline claim that Williams’ move, will “make way for Trump’s replacement.” As they acknowledged, Williams’ resignation doesn’t make way for Clayton, at least not before he is confirmed; it makes way for Kim as the interim Acting US Attorney.

Clayton’s appointment still requires confirmation by the US Senate.

Until then, Williams’ deputy, Edward Y. Kim, is set to take over as acting US Attorney when he steps down.

We’ll see how all this plays out, as we saw how it played out in June 2020, when Barr tried to remove Geoffrey Berman before SDNY took action in August 2020 against Steve Bannon and his co-conspirators and tried to advance the investigation into Rudy Giuliani, only to have Berman lawyer up and invoke succession rules to ensure that his Deputy Audrey Strauss would continue. Unless SDNY judges take action to protect Kim, I think Trump can just replace him with another Acting US Attorney on January 20, though I’m not an SDNY lawyer and they have ways of working the law.

In any case, by announcing the Clayton pick so early, Trump ensures that incoming SJC Republicans can prioritize his confirmation — and since he’s a much higher caliber pick than Trump’s other picks — it could go quickly.

But it’s likely not Adams’ prosecution (much less Diddy’s, which NYPost also invoked) that Trump’s early pick of Clayton was an attempt to redirect. For a variety of reasons, I expect Trump will include Adams in the pardon-palooza that will kick off his Administration.

Indeed, I can’t help but notice that Trump announced this pick one day after the FBI seized the devices of Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan on November 13.

The FBI seized a cellphone and other electronic devices of betting site Polymarket’s CEO, Shayne Coplan, in a raid on his New York City apartment early Wednesday, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The company’s markets wagered correctly and controversially in Donald Trump’s favor in bets on who would win the presidential election, even though opinion polls showed a tight race.

Coplan, 26, was home when numerous agents entered his apartment Wednesday and he turned over his devices to authorities, the source said, adding that he has not been arrested or charged. The source said it is not clear whether Coplan or Polymarket are targets of an investigation.

“New phone, who dis?” Coplan posted on X after the raid.

Polymarket, which Coplan founded in 2020, has recently been the subject of intense debate and scrutiny over its creation of election betting markets. It brought in more than $3.6 billion from bets placed on the presidential election, including $1.5 billion on Trump and $1 billion on Vice President Kamala Harris, according to an NBC News analysis.

Speculation has swirled around the identities of major bettors who wagered on Trump and whether or not the odds and the existence of the markets could have had an effect on voters.

Though U.S. election betting is newly legal in some circumstances, Polymarket is not supposed to allow U.S. users after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission halted its operations in 2022, but its user base largely operates through cryptocurrency, which allows for easy anonymity.

There are other investigations that Trump might be trying to interrupt with this quick appointment. But the Polymarket investigation — in which FBI got a probable cause warrant targeting someone who helped Trump’s campaign within days of the election — is likely one of them.

Once before, Trump tried to install Jay Clayton at SDNY to block investigations into his people. This time around, Trump will have to find a different path than just firing the incumbent US Attorney. Because he already quit.

Share this entry