Connect with us

Congress

Congress is set to receive the first batch of Epstein files. It’s not likely to quell the drama.

Published

on

The Justice Department is expected on Friday to start handing the first batch of Jeffrey Epstein files over to Congress. But it may be a while before lawmakers get the information they want — if ever.

The DOJ is taking a piecemeal approach to transmitting documents to Capitol Hill, pursuant to a subpoena issued this month by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after Democrats on the panel forced the matter.

The committee, led by Kentucky Republican Rep. James Comer, anticipates receiving an initial tranche of files related to the convicted sex offender by the end of the day Aug. 22. Making these materials public, however, will be a slow, deliberative process.

That’s because House Oversight intends to coordinate with the Justice Department on taking steps to shield the names of the women who were victims of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019, and information around ongoing criminal cases.

“The Committee intends to make the records public after thorough review to ensure all victims’ identification and child sexual abuse material are redacted,” said an Oversight Committee spokesperson, granted anonymity to share details about the panel’s internal activities. “The Committee will also consult with the DOJ to ensure any documents released do not negatively impact ongoing criminal cases and investigations.”

If the Justice Department follows precedent, both Democrats and Republicans on House Oversight would get access to the materials. While under a typical arrangement, the majority — in this case Republicans — would control its disclosure, either party could release the materials unilaterally.

Democrats, however, intend to review the files before releasing them publicly, according to a person familiar with Oversight Democrats’ planning, speaking on condition of anonymity to share internal party strategy.

The files they receive could include FBI reports of witness interviews; materials seized from the searches of Epstein’s vast properties in New York, the Virgin Islands, Palm Beach and New Mexico; and the affidavits used to gain permission from judges to execute those searches.

There are a variety of complicating factors to consider, among them the ongoing legal challenge that Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime Epstein associate, is pursuing against her 20-year conviction for sex trafficking crimes. House Oversight previously subpoenaed Maxwell for testimony and is negotiating the conditions of the interview with her legal team. Maxwell, who was sentenced in 2021, is demanding that she be granted immunity from further criminal proceedings in exchange for her cooperation.

The plodding process is unlikely to satisfy demands for transparency from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, though. And House GOP leaders shouldn’t expect to return from the August recess free from the drama that consumed them in July.

“After months of stonewalling, calling Epstein files a hoax, and telling people nothing but porn exists in their possession, the administration now admits the files exist, and agrees to release some of them,” Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) said in a social media post this week. “Americans want transparency though, not smoke and mirrors.”

Massie, with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), has been leading the charge to force a floor vote on a resolution that would compel the release of the Epstein files, and the two men say they’ll follow through on plans when Congress returns to use procedural maneuvers to call the measure up without leadership’s consent.

The Massie-Khanna resolution would call for the materials to be made public with redactions only for the purposes of protecting names of victims, hiding sexually explicit content and in instances where ongoing legal cases could be compromised. In other words, the lawmakers want to guarantee the identities of Epstein’s associates, if applicable, are revealed.

Last month, Speaker Mike Johnson said Republicans should give the DOJ time to reveal the documents in a responsible manner that would respect the privacy of Epstein’s victims. However, President Donald Trump — who had ties to Epstein, a well-known financier — was also pushing to move past the issue after his allies had stoked conspiracy theories for years about what authorities were hiding.

Yet Massie, Khanna and allies would not budge from their stance that members must be allowed to vote to bring the files to light, disrupting the Rules Committee that tees up floor consideration for most legislation. Leaders opted to send their members home a few days ahead of schedule for the summer recess rather than stay in Washington to take politically uncomfortable votes.

Democrats are also signaling they won’t be satisfied by the DOJ’s game plan and will continue to make the issue a political headache for Republicans.

“Releasing the Epstein files in batches just continues this White House cover-up. The American people will not accept anything short of the full, unredacted Epstein files,” Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in a statement. “We will keep pressing until the American people get the truth — every document, every fact, in full. The administration must comply with our subpoena, by law.”

Efforts to draw a wedge in the GOP over the Epstein files were taking place as far away as Texas this week, where Gene Wu, chair of the state’s House Democratic Caucus, offered an amendment to delay Republicans’ mid-decade redistricting efforts until after the release of Epstein materials.

Meanwhile, back in Washington, lawmakers will regroup on Capitol Hill on Sept. 2 with just four weeks left to avert a government shutdown, and there’s already concern in GOP leadership over the time the House could waste continuing to fight over perceived distractions.

“I’d really like to see this resolved, if possible, before we get back,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-Va.), chair of the House Rules Committee, told reporters this week. “We’re going to have a lot of work to do when we get back in September. I’ve already looked at my September calendar, and it looks pretty busy.”

Foxx, whose committee work was derailed by members’ efforts to force Epstein-related votes, called the saga “a tempest in a teapot.”

In February, the Department of Justice released what it called the “first phase” of documents related to the Epstein investigation, which has been a fixation of some of the president’s supporters. It has long been public that Trump — along with other prominent figures, like Bill Clinton — are referenced in documents previously released in court cases surrounding Epstein. But Trump is not accused of any wrongdoing linked to Epstein.

The real firestorm, however, began in earnest in early July, when the department quietly released a memo saying the federal government did not find evidence of a so-called Epstein “client list.” Conspiracists had long postulated that Epstein kept such a list of people with whom he trafficked young women, and that it was being hidden to protect the rich and powerful.

No additional disclosures would be forthcoming, the unsigned memo said, which quickly — and predictably — set off a complicated political quagmire for the president and the GOP amid accusations that the administration was reneging on its promise for transparency.

Trump, in an effort to quash the outrage, asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek the release of grand jury materials in the most recent investigations of Epstein and Maxwell in New York, as well as an earlier federal probe of Epstein in Florida. In recent weeks, all three judges assigned to resolve the unsealing requests rebuffed the administration, with the most recent rejection coming Wednesday.

The judges said the department hadn’t justified taking the unusual step of unsealing the secret files and that, in any event, most of material in the files had already been made public through Maxwell’s trial or other means.

Still, even if the grand jury transcripts and exhibits were made public, they represent a tiny fraction of the material the Justice Department possesses in the Epstein and Maxwell investigative files that are the subject of the congressional subpoena.

When the House Oversight Committee interviewed Trump’s former attorney general, Bill Barr, as part of its probe into the Epstein matter earlier this month, Barr told congressional investigators that he did not know why the documents were being withheld, according to a person familiar with his testimony and granted anonymity to describe the private conversation.

The lack of transparency around the process, however, might have to do with the fact that some grand jury materials may need court approval, Barr suggested, and that current policy prohibits the release of unsubstantiated information.

Ultimately, the House Oversight subpoena currently represents the best chance for bringing some information to light — and for the Trump administration to get limited details released to satisfy those clamoring for action.

Longstanding DOJ policies as well as a federal law — the Privacy Act of 1974 — limit disclosures about living individuals investigated for potential crimes. However, that law and those DOJ rules do not apply to Congress, which is generally free to ignore individuals’ pleas for discretion. DOJ has sometimes used that distinction to effectively make sensitive information public by transmitting it to Congress — with GOP and Democratic lawmakers then able to cherry pick what of the sensitive information they choose to share.

A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

Erica Orden, Josh Gerstein and Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Congress

Hill staffers brace for their boss’s ‘TMZ moment’

Published

on

TMZ has launched an effort to shame members of Congress into ending their recess early and funding the Department of Homeland Security — and many congressional aides are quietly delighting in the celebrity gossip site’s interest in covering Congress.

“I am super stoked,” said one Hill staffer granted anonymity to speak candidly. “I think a lot of offices, particularly ones who aren’t in major media markets, are in for a rude awakening.”

“My attitude is any new press that forces members to be sharper and for comms staffers to be more nimble is a good thing,” the staffer added.

Staffers whose bosses end up splashed across the infamous website are likely feeling less stoked about the spottings. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was seen by a TMZ tipster at Disney World over the weekend, and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) was caught on camera at a Las Vegas casino.

Garcia said he was visiting his father who lives in Las Vegas, while Graham followed up Tuesday with photos of himself in his home state.

The publication has been soliciting photos of lawmakers anywhere but Washington as the DHS impasse hurtles toward day 50. Other shots the site has obtained include Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) at a Florida airport, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) at his son’s basketball game and a slew of House Republicans — including Reps. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), John McGuire (R-Va.) and David Rouzer (R-N.C.) — roaming around Scotland.

Van Orden said in a Wednesday X post that he was participating in “high level” meetings with the Irish government.

“I would like to thank @TMZ for pointing out that even though our US Senate colleagues can’t figure out how to vote to fund our entire government, and that the House voted 4 times to do so, that I will not stop working for the 3rd congressional district of Wisconsin and every American,” Van Orden said.

A second Hill staffer, also granted anonymity to speak candidly, said “there are definitely conversations on how to engage and prepare for your boss’s TMZ moment.”

While TMZ has long had a footprint in Washington, founder and executive producer Harvey Levin said in a statement Monday he is redoubling coverage of national political players — and said the ongoing DHS shutdown was an important moment to pounce.

“Last week, we interviewed a TSA worker who is struggling to survive without a paycheck, and it outraged us so much we wanted to use our platforms to show how Congress — Dems AND Republicans — have betrayed us,” Levin said. “We spontaneously came up with the idea to juxtapose members of Congress on their Spring Break against federal workers who are losing their homes, their cars, their livelihoods.”

“Short story — our D.C. presence will sometimes be fun, sometimes intensely serious,” he added.

Continue Reading

Congress

How prediction markets landed in Congress’ crosshairs

Published

on

Lawmakers are quickly coming to a realization: Odds are, Congress is going to have to do something about booming prediction markets.

The online platforms where people can bet on the outcomes of future events like elections, sports and the Oscars had already attracted attention in Washington as the industry garnered backing from Wall Street giants, Silicon Valley investors and even Donald Trump Jr.

That scrutiny has exploded in recent weeks, however, after unusual trading patterns around markets related to the U.S.-Israel war with Iran suggested possible insider profiteering. The result has been an uptick in legislation targeting the industry amid new questions about the policing of its major players.

At the center of the fight is a debate over who should regulate and tax transactions that take place on sites like Kalshi and Polymarket, which operate as financial exchanges but have become best known as sports and political betting platforms. The clash pits states and tribes against an increasingly powerful new industry that has won over key presidential appointees.

Lawmakers of both parties are also eyeing various ways to crack down on insider trading on the platforms — including by members of Congress themselves and their staffs.

“There seems to be a growing consensus that the status quo is unsustainable,” said Rep. Ritchie Torres, a New York Democrat who was an early entrant into Congress’ prediction market debate.

The platforms, once considered niche, are poised to get new scrutiny across Capitol Hill this year. Senate Commerce Committee members have discussed holding a hearing focused on the industry, according to four people granted anonymity to discuss the private conversations. The House Agriculture Committee, which oversees commodities trading, has been holding bipartisan briefings on the issue, with more expected.

Discussions about the industry largely haven’t reached the GOP leadership level on Capitol Hill, where bigger clashes such as the Department of Homeland Security funding fight have taken precedence. Asked about banning elected officials from trading on prediction markets, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he “hadn’t thought about that” and said he’d “take a look at it.”

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries — after referencing the markets’ high odds that Democrats would win the midterms — told reporters last week it was “reasonable for us to take a look at what can be done in this space and to try to find a bipartisan path forward.”

Washington is getting a crash course on the prediction markets just as the companies have broken out from obscurity to become one of the hottest areas of investment — thanks in part to President Donald Trump, whose regulators have allowed them to offer a larger menu of wagers to their customers.

Kalshi and Polymarket, which operate the largest prediction market platforms, have recently snagged mammoth valuations and inked partnership deals with everyone from BLN and CNBC to Major League Baseball. Kalshi is federally regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a small but powerful financial watchdog. Polymarket is best known for its larger offshore prediction market, which is not regulated by the CFTC, but the company is also pushing into the U.S. with a separate, regulated venue.

Congress’ interest is rising as the fight over industry regulation plays out in the courts. State officials from Arizona to Massachusetts have argued that the prediction markets should be subject to the same rules as traditional sportsbooks and casinos. But the companies have rejected those claims, arguing that they are exclusively overseen by the CFTC. Attorneys following the legal fight expect it to eventually reach the Supreme Court.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers is backing the states’ push to regulate the platforms. Sens. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and John Curtis (R-Utah) have introduced legislation that would ban CFTC-regulated entities from offering products that resemble sports betting or casino games.

They are echoing concerns from state and tribal officials who say prediction markets are threatening critical tax revenue and usurping state-level consumer protections for sports bettors. Notably, Senate Agriculture Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.), whose panel oversees the CFTC, has expressed concerns about sports betting on the sites.

“What I would like to see is an economic purpose in regulated derivatives markets,” said Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.). “Anything that has no economic purpose, I think, should be taxed like gambling, regulated like gambling.”

The prediction market companies are fighting back, saying that the so-called events contracts they offer are sophisticated financial products — not a form of gambling. They have key allies in the fight, including Trump’s CFTC chair, Mike Selig — who, like the companies, says the agency has “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets. GOP senators including Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee have applauded Selig’s posture on the issue.

But esoteric arguments about the nature of gambling have only gotten so much traction in Congress. What has instead galvanized public attention is the specter of insider trading — including possible profiteering from government officials with foreknowledge of geopolitical events such as the U.S. military intervention in Venezuela or the administration’s strikes in Iran.

Possible insider bets related to the war in Iran have spurred several new bills. Reps. Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.) and Adrian Smith (R-Neb.) introduced bipartisan legislation last week to ban members of Congress and executive branch officials from participating in prediction markets related to policy decisions and political events.

That bill has attracted support from a handful of House Democratic and GOP lawmakers, and a bipartisan group introduced similar legislation in the Senate. The Coalition for Prediction Markets, which has Kalshi as a member, endorsed the legislation soon after introduction.

But there are even broader efforts afoot. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has called for stricter regulations on prediction markets, comparing them to the tobacco industry. And Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) are aiming to entirely ban a wide range of prediction market trading, including anything predicated on government actions or any event “where an individual knows or controls the outcome.”

The CFTC has already promised to go after insider trading on the prediction markets, and both Kalshi and Polymarket recently unveiled new measures designed to head off the improper use of inside information on their platforms.

Kalshi also recently rolled out ads across Washington highlighting that it blocks insider trading on its platform and bans trading directly related to war and deaths. Polymarket has also expanded its presence in Washington — most notably with a pop-up bar on K Street.

“Prediction markets are an emerging technology, yes, but they’re not all the same, and we want to highlight those big distinctions,” Kalshi spokesperson Elisabeth Diana said. A Polymarket spokesperson declined to comment.

If Congress does take action on the issue, it will end up with the Agriculture panels, currently led by Boozman in the Senate and Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) in the House. Thompson promised “bipartisan hearings and member meetings” on prediction markets in a recent interview.

“It definitely is a focus,” he said. “I don’t know what the conclusion will be.”

But Republicans could be put in a tough spot as prediction market legislation gains momentum. The Trump family has had close ties to prediction markets: Donald Trump Jr. is an adviser to Kalshi and Polymarket, and Trump’s social media company announced last year plans to create Truth-Predict, a new prediction market service.

Some Democrats are skeptical Republicans will actually move to address the issue given the Trump family’s ties and their overall friendliness to the firms.

“I don’t think the Republican-led House or Senate will seriously take this on,” Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon said.

Jordain Carney contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Congress

The DHS shutdown might never end

Published

on

Washington is locked in a high-stakes game of chicken over Department of Homeland Security funding, raising the possibility that thousands of federal workers could go unpaid for several more weeks — if not longer.

The shutdown is already the longest ever experienced by any part of the federal government, and in recent days the political sparring has gone from being a mostly partisan showdown between Republicans and Democrats into a messy internal battle for the GOP.

Both the House and Senate have adjourned for two weeks, with neither chamber seriously considering returning early despite a wave of online outrage and calls from the White House to return to session. Instead, House Republicans and Senate Republicans have spent the last several days pointing fingers at each other, while Democrats dig in against funding immigration enforcement agencies without implementing guardrails the GOP has resisted.

“The House has their process, we have ours and this happens periodically,” Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.) told reporters Monday.

There is no immediate hope the standoff, which has affected tens of thousands of workers since it began Feb. 14, will soon end. An administration official granted anonymity to speak candidly said that “people are thinking this will go into the summer.”

“Morale is low. The TSA getting paid while the rest of us summer is not playing well inside the building,” the official added.

Bipartisan negotiations over immigration enforcement changes have gone almost nowhere, according to several people granted anonymity to candidly describe the talks. House and Senate Republicans are in a public tug-of-war over their competing Plan Bs. And President Donald Trump is doing little to unite his party behind a consensus position — let alone pushing them to cut a deal with Democrats.

Perhaps most worrying for those eager to end the stalemate is that the strongest impetus for a deal — the hourslong security lines at some U.S. airports — is already dissipating.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended Trump’s decision to step in and fund TSA paychecks — a move privately encouraged by some Republicans — saying that the president had to do “what’s right to end this crisis that we’ve had at air travel and at airports across the country.”

But a DHS official granted anonymity to speak candidly said Trump’s decision to pay airport screeners, as well as the unanimous passage of a Senate GOP plan to fund the vast majority of the department, stripped Republicans of their main pressure point.

“Remember in the last shutdown, it was airport chaos that forced the seven Democrats to switch sides and fund the government,” the official said.

While about 50,000 airport security officers are now getting paid under Trump’s executive action, thousands more workers remain furloughed or working without pay. Those include more than 2,000 employees of the premier federal cybersecurity agency, more than 4,000 FEMA workers as well as more than 1,000 Coast Guard civilians.

DHS spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement that the record-breaking shutdown was affecting department employees tasked with protecting Americans and visitors for the upcoming World Cup soccer tournament and America 250 anniversary celebrations,

“Democrats need to stop holding these hard-working DHS employees’ pay hostage and putting politics above national security,” she said.

But as far as Democrats are concerned, they have struck a shutdown-ending deal — the Senate legislation passed early Friday morning by voice vote that would fund all of DHS except for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and some parts of Customs and Border Protection. House Republicans rejected that bill and passed their own legislation late Friday that would fund all of DHS through May 22.

No senator attempted to pass the House measure in a brief Monday morning session, and in a sign that a consensus deal is nowhere close, some Senate Republicans want to instead try to fund the entire department through the party-line budget reconciliation process. That would bypass Democrats but require time-consuming procedural steps and potentially create messy new divides among Republicans.

Still, Hoeven said Republicans might have no better choice than to enact DHS legislation themselves for the remainder of Trump’s term.

“We’re not going through this again with the Dems,” he told reporters after the Senate session Monday. “We’re taking this off the table.”

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) also argued Republicans need to accept that Democrats will never fund the immigration enforcement agencies that became politically toxic on the left after federal agents killed two people in Minneapolis in January.

“The only thing I know to do is to take the Democrats out of it,” Kennedy said in an interview. “Just do the entire DHS budget under reconciliation.”

The problem for Republicans is they want to do much more than DHS funding in reconciliation, with the House and Senate GOP holding vastly different visions for the effort. Conservatives in both chambers are pushing to offset any new spending with cuts elsewhere — a politically tricky ultimatum.

Under the plan Senate GOP leaders passed last week, the consensus funding bill agreed to by Democrats would be paired with a reconciliation bill narrowly focused on immigration enforcement. Senate Majority Leader John Thune warned that trying to do all of DHS under the party-line process “gets a lot more complicated.”

Instead, Thune approached Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer after the House rejected the Senate-passed bill to try to find another path to funding as much of DHS as possible. But expectations for a deal are low, given Democrats’ repeated rejections of stopgap funding bills. Still, Thune is expected to spend most of the two-week break trying to find a bipartisan path out of the funding impasse, according to a Senate GOP aide granted anonymity to disclose private scheduling.

A bipartisan group in the House has pitched its own plan to pair DHS funding with immigration enforcement changes. But the Senate conversations aren’t headed in that direction, absent a shift from the White House, with Thune saying the “ship has sailed” after Democrats rejected multiple GOP offers on enforcement restrictions.

Thune is dealing with pressure from the White House, online activists, House Republicans and even some of his own members to bring the Senate back into session before its scheduled April 13 return date.

In a head-scratching subplot, a few Senate Republicans have publicly suggested they did not agree with the deal they could have derailed in advance, while others have privately questioned Thune’s strategy given how quickly it unraveled in the House.

The bill was approved at 2:19 a.m. Friday after Senate GOP staffers ran a “hotline” — an established process for clearing measures slated for passage by voice vote or unanimous consent.

In addition to checking with Senate offices in the hours before the vote, Thune also briefed his conference Thursday evening on a developing plan to try to pass a bill funding as much of DHS as possible, leaving ICE and parts of CBP for reconciliation.

But Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) said later that morning he opposed the deal. Asked why he didn’t object to the hotline or on the floor — or if he would try to pass the House bill in the Senate — a spokesperson pointed back Monday to his social media posts.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) similarly expressed regrets online after his social media followers aired outrage about the overnight vote. He explained on X that he “had every reason to believe President Trump and House Republicans were on board” with the play and thus “declined to call in an objection.” Spokespeople for Lee didn’t respond to questions Monday.

Hoeven, a close Thune ally, defended the majority leader Monday saying he “absolutely” believed leadership was handling the DHS funding fight well. He brushed off some of the intraparty grumbling as sour feelings about the long-running standoff.

“I think there’s some real frustration because the Democrats want to go back to open borders, and they’re blocking funding,” Hoeven said. “So I think you’re hearing some of that from senators.”

Eric Bazail-Eimil, Katherine Tully McManus, Calen Razor and Riley Rogerson contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending