Blue Press Journal – As the threat of a government shutdown draws near, Democrats are accusing House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of intentionally keeping the House of Representatives out of session to avoid a vote on the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. The House had been scheduled to vote on Monday and Tuesday, but Johnson canceled the votes, citing the need to pressure Senate Democrats to accept a government funding bill passed by the House earlier this month.
However, Democrats argue that the real motive behind the delay is to prevent a vote on the Epstein files, which could potentially embarrass high-ranking government officials and politicians. The files, related to the Justice Department’s investigation into the late sex trafficker, have been the subject of intense scrutiny and speculation.
The delay in voting is also holding up the swearing-in of Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva, a Democrat who won a special election last week to fill her late father’s Arizona seat. Grijalva’s presence in the House would provide the crucial 218th signature on a “discharge petition” that would force a vote on legislation to release the Epstein files.
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.), the No. 2 Democrat in the House, wrote a scathing letter to Johnson on Monday, accusing him of depriving Grijalva’s constituents of representation and questioning the motive behind the delay. “Any delay in swearing in Representative-elect Grijalva unnecessarily deprives her constituents of representation and calls into question if the motive behind the delay is to further avoid the release of the Epstein files,” Clark wrote.
Blue Press Journal – In a significant development, the House of Representatives has finally garnered the necessary support to demand the release of documents related to the late financier and convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. The momentum shift came after Democrat Adelita Grijalva’s victory in the special election for Arizona’s 7th District on Tuesday. Grijalva’s win is expected to tip the scales in favor of transparency, as she has pledged to sign a petition calling for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to unseal the Epstein files.
The petition, which now boasts 218 signatures, crosses party lines, with a handful of Republicans joining their Democratic counterparts in demanding accountability. The magic number of 218 signatures is crucial, as it triggers a vote on the matter. While it is uncertain whether President Donald Trump’s DOJ will comply with the request, the mounting pressure from lawmakers may ultimately lead to the release of the long-sought documents.
Epstein, a onetime close friend of President Trump, was embroiled in a high-profile sex trafficking scandal before his death in August 2019. The DOJ’s handling of the case has been shrouded in controversy, with many questioning the circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death and the extent of his connections to powerful figures.
Blue Press Journal (DC) – In a surprise move, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) filed an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Wednesday, seeking to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all unclassified records related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The amendment, which was added to the annual defense authorization bill, aims to shed light on the Epstein case and bring transparency to the Justice Department’s handling of the matter.
Schumer’s amendment is identical to a bill being pushed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in the House, which would force the Justice Department to release all Epstein-related documents in its possession. The move comes as Senate Republicans, including Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), have expressed support for transparency in the Epstein case, but have stopped short of committing to a vote on legislation directing the Trump administration to release the documents.
Thune told reporters on Tuesday that he supports “transparency” in the Epstein case, but did not say whether the Senate would vote on a measure to release the documents if it passes the House. Schumer’s amendment puts pressure on Senate Republicans to take action on the issue, which has garnered significant public attention and outrage.
The amendment was filed as the Senate Armed Services Committee prepares to vote on the NDAA, which is a key piece of legislation that authorizes funding for the nation’s defense programs. Schumer’s move is seen as a way to force the issue of Epstein transparency onto the Senate’s agenda, and to hold the Trump administration accountable for its handling of the case.
Anouska De Georgiou, a woman who claims to have been abused by Epstein on his island in the Caribbean and elsewhere for years, spoke passionately about her experiences. “I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless, and I am no longer alone,” she said. “And with your vote, neither will the next generation be.” De Georgiou directed her message to President Trump, urging him to use his influence and power to help the victims. “President Trump, you have so much influence and power in this situation. Please use that influence and power to help us,” she said.
De Georgiou was joined by Representatives Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, who have been leading the charge for transparency in the Epstein case. Massie emphasized that the Epstein scandal is not a hoax, but a real and serious issue that involves powerful and wealthy individuals who have been protected by their connections to the establishment in Washington, D.C. “This is not a hoax,” Massie said. “This is real. There are real survivors. There are real victims in this criminal enterprise, and the perpetrators are being protected because they’re rich and powerful and political donors to the establishment here in Washington, D.C.”
The press conference also featured Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a major Trump ally, who joined the call for transparency and accountability. The presence of such a large and diverse crowd, including media, activists, and onlookers, suggests that the Trump administration’s efforts to bury the story will not succeed.
One of the key issues at stake is the release of the Epstein files, which are currently being held by the Department of Justice (DOJ). While some pages have been released, they are heavily redacted, with some pages entirely blacked out. Massie criticized the DOJ’s handling of the documents, saying that they are allowing the department to “curate” the information that is being released. “If you’ve looked at the pages they’ve released so far, they’re heavily redacted,” Massie said. “Some pages are entirely redacted, and 97% of this is already in the public domain.”
The victims who spoke on Wednesday repeatedly rejected Trump’s claim that the Epstein scandal is a hoax. Annie Farmer, who was abused by Epstein and made some of the earliest police reports about his conduct, called Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former associate, “a major architect” of Epstein’s trafficking and abuse. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking charges and is seeking a pardon from Trump.
De Georgiou, who claims to have been abused by both Epstein and Maxwell, said that Maxwell’s potential pardon is a “nightmare” scenario. “This woman abused children,” De Georgiou said. “I was abused by Epstein and Maxwell for over 10 years, and she was present for some of my abuse. She was present, complicit and enabling. It’s one of my worst nightmares that she not only be transferred but the possibility that is very much going around that she might be pardoned. This is not OK.”
The demand for transparency and accountability in the Epstein case is not going away. The victims and their supporters are determined to ensure that justice is served and that those responsible for the abuse and trafficking are held accountable. As De Georgiou said, “I am no longer weak, I am no longer powerless, and I am no longer alone.” The Epstein victims and their allies will continue to fight for the truth and for justice, and they will not be silenced.
Judge Berman argued that the government is the logical party to make a comprehensive disclosure to the public, stating that the current grand jury motion appears to be a “diversion” from the broader scope of the Epstein files in the government’s possession. He emphasized that the law is clear on this issue, with few exceptions allowing for the release of grand jury materials.
The judge noted that the Justice Department has the full authority to release the documents, which were compiled during its investigation into Epstein. By withholding these documents, the administration is denying the public access to crucial information about the case. This decision has sparked widespread criticism, with many arguing that the government is prioritizing secrecy over transparency.
The Trump administration’s refusal to release the documents has raised concerns about the government’s commitment to accountability and openness. Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has been instrumental in the administration’s handling of the Epstein case, has faced intense scrutiny for her role in withholding the documents.
Judge Berman’s opinion serves as a stark reminder of the importance of government transparency, particularly in high-profile cases like Epstein’s. The public has a right to know the truth about the government’s investigation and any potential wrongdoing that may have occurred. By withholding these documents, the Trump administration is undermining this right and perpetuating a culture of secrecy.
One thing is certain, however: Judge Berman’s scathing opinion has sent a clear message to the Trump administration that its attempts to withhold information from the public will not go unchallenged.
Blue Press Journal D.C. – In a shocking move, D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb (D) has filed a lawsuit against President Trump, challenging the administration’s decision to install the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) as the commander of the city’s police force.
The 33-page complaint, filed early Friday, alleges that DEA Administrator Terry Cole’s appointment as “emergency police commissioner” exceeds the emergency authorities granted to the President under the D.C. Home Rule Act. The act, which governs the relationship between the federal government and the District of Columbia, allows the President to surge law enforcement resources in the city in times of crisis.
However, Schwalb argues that the President’s actions go far beyond the scope of the act, and constitute a “brazen usurpation” of the District’s authority over its own government. The lawsuit claims that Cole’s appointment is an attempt to undermine the city’s autonomy and impose federal control over its police force.
The controversy began when U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Cole to command the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), requiring MPD leaders to seek his approval for new directives, which grants him significant control. Bondi also rescinded MPD orders that limited officers’ involvement in immigration enforcement, raising concerns about the city’s sanctuary policies.
Schwalb’s lawsuit argues that Section 740 of the D.C. Home Rule Act does not authorize the President to take such drastic action, and that the appointment of Cole as police commissioner is a clear overreach of federal authority. The lawsuit seeks to block Cole’s appointment and restore the city’s control over its police force.
The move is the latest salvo in the ongoing battle between the Trump administration and the District of Columbia over autonomy and governance. The lawsuit is likely to spark a heated debate about the balance of power between the federal government and the city, with significant implications for law enforcement in the nation’s capital.
A growing number of critics and observers believe that President Trump’s sudden move to seize control of Washington D.C.’s police department is a deliberate attempt to divert attention away from the increasingly contentious issue of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
From left, American real estate developer Donald Trump and his girlfriend (and future wife), former model Melania Knauss, financier (and future convicted sex offender) Jeffrey Epstein, and British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell pose together at the Mar-a-Lago club, Palm Beach, Florida, February 12, 2000. (Photo by Davidoff Studios/Getty Images)
Trump later elaborated on the reason for the rift, stating that Epstein had “stolen” young women who worked at his Mar-a-Lago spa, including Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s accusers. Giuffre had worked at the spa, and Trump claimed that Epstein had poached her from him. This revelation has raised questions about Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s predatory behavior and his role in enabling it. Also why was Trump hiring young (girls) women at his spa which was used by older men?
According to some reports, the pair’s falling out occurred in late 2007, when Trump barred Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after he behaved inappropriately towards a teenager. This incident, as reported by journalists from the Miami Herald and Wall Street Journal, suggests that Trump was aware of Epstein’s problematic behavior towards minors as early as 2007.
However, another factor may have contributed to the end of their friendship: a bitter dispute over a Palm Beach oceanfront mansion. In 2004, Trump and Epstein engaged in a heated bidding war over the property, which ultimately drove a wedge between them. This incident, reported by The Washington Post in 2019, occurred just months before Palm Beach police began investigating allegations of Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors.
The complex and troubling history of Trump and Epstein’s relationship raises significant skepticism regarding the former president’s judgment and potential complicity in enabling Epstein’s crimes. One can’t help but question how Trump could remain oblivious to what was happening, given their apparent closeness. While Trump tries to downplay their friendship and create distance from Epstein’s actions, the evidence seems to point to a relationship that was not only closer but also far more problematic than he cares to admit.
Just weeks ago, news outlets reported on an alleged clandestine gathering involving Todd Blanche, FBI Director Kash Patel, and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. The purpose of this purported meeting was chilling: to discuss the continuing suppression of information related to Jeffrey Epstein’s vast network and the files connected to his crimes. The report even specified a location – the Vice President’s residence.
Official sources, however, were quick to shut down the narrative. Spokespersons for the individuals and the administration vehemently denied the claims, categorizing them as unsubstantiated rumors and a deliberate spread of misinformation. The message was clear: no such meeting took place.
The agenda, according to further revelations, was precisely what was denied: “to discuss the ongoing coverup of the Epstein files.”
This isn’t merely a simple misstatement or a change of venue; it’s a deliberate act of deception by those in power. It suggests a profound level of coordination to control information and, more disturbingly, to manage the narrative surrounding one of the most explosive and sensitive cases in recent memory.
The very act of lying about a meeting that was allegedly convened to discuss a cover-up only deepens the public’s suspicions about what exactly is being suppressed in the Epstein case. Why would high-ranking officials risk their credibility to deny a meeting if its purpose was innocuous or unrelated to the controversies surrounding Epstein? The logical conclusion, for many observers, is that the contents of the Epstein files are so damaging, and the network of implicated individuals so extensive, that extraordinary measures are being taken to keep them out of public view.
The public deserves to know the full truth, not just about the contents of the Epstein files, but about who is actively working to suppress that truth, and why. The saga of the Epstein files continues to unfold, not just in the shadows of past crimes, but in the glaring light of present-day deception.
The Bloomberg report notes that the FBI’s actions suggest that it is highly unlikely that Trump’s name will ever be unredacted from the Epstein files, stating that “the chances of aliens resurrecting JFK are greater than Trump’s name ever being unredacted from the Epstein files.” This assertion implies that the FBI has taken extraordinary measures to protect Trump’s reputation and conceal any potentially damaging information that may be contained in the files.
The revelation has sparked outrage and raised questions about the integrity of the FBI’s investigation into Epstein’s activities and the extent to which the agency may have gone to shield high-profile individuals, including Trump, from scrutiny. Critics argue that the redactions undermine transparency and accountability, and that the public has a right to know the full extent of Epstein’s connections to powerful figures like Trump.
The Epstein case has been shrouded in controversy since his death in 2019, with many questioning the circumstances surrounding his passing and the handling of the investigation into his alleged sex trafficking and abuse of minors. The revelation that Trump’s name was systematically redacted from the files has added fuel to the fire, with many calling for greater transparency and accountability in the investigation.
As the controversy continues to unfold, it remains to be seen whether the FBI will be forced to disclose more information about its handling of the Epstein investigation and the extent to which Trump’s name was redacted from the files.
Blue Press Journal: — President Donald Trump is heading to his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland this weekend, according to official White House press pool guidance. The trip comes amid escalating scrutiny over newly unsealed court documents related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, prompting critics to question the timing and substantial taxpayer expense.
The President’s official schedule lists no public events through Sunday, and a return to the United States is not currently noted, though some reports suggest he may return on July 29.
The timing of the visit has immediately drawn criticism. President Trump has spent the past week vehemently defending himself and lashing out at media coverage of the Epstein revelations. He has publicly dismissed the unsealed documents as a “hoax,” attacked his own base for focusing on the issue, and blamed political enemies, describing the situation as a “coordinated distraction” from his presidency.
In light of these recent developments, observers are quick to suggest the costly personal trip amounts to the president avoiding further public questions on the Epstein matter. Reports indicate the multi-day foreign visit is expected to cost U.S. taxpayers upwards of $10 million.
The significant expenditure has drawn ire from critics, who have highlighted the sum by questioning what essential public services or benefits, such as “Meals on Wheels” programs or veteran support, could be funded with such a sum.
While the White House has offered no specific comment on the timing of the trip in relation to the Epstein controversy, the president’s unscheduled and potentially extended retreat to his private property overseas continues to fuel public debate over presidential conduct and taxpayer accountability.
Blue Press Journal 