A federal judge has ruled that Alina Habba, who was a former attorney for President Donald Trump, was not authorised to serve as acting United States Attorney for New Jersey, Just the News reported. Habba's term expired last month, and the Senate has yet to confirm her, but she remained in place through a series of moves which the judge said may have been improperly applied.
Interim appointments are limited to 120 days, but the Trump administration attempted to keep Habba in place through a series of moves that included firing the person in place to take over her position. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann said in his 77-page decision Thursday that these tactics were "not lawful," but suspended his ruling pending appeal.
“Faced with the question of whether Ms. Habba is lawfully performing the functions and duties of the office of the United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey, I conclude that she is not," Brann said. The case was brought by two New Jersey drug-trafficking suspects whose prosecution began before Habba took over, which is why Brann denied a request to dismiss the case based solely on the validity of Habba's appointment.
Following the judge's decision, Habba called out the "rogue judges" who have thwarted the Trump agenda and her appointment, the New York Post reported. "I am the pick of the president. I am the pick of Pam Bondi, our attorney general, and I will serve this country like I have for the last several years, in any capacity," Habba told Fox News's Sean Hannity on Thursday.
Trump managed to keep Habba in her position without confirmation by using an unorthodox approach. Once the interim term is up and the seat is vacant, the first assistant is supposed to take the place of the U.S. attorney, who, in this case, was First Assistant US Attorney in New Jersey, Desiree Leigh Grace.
However, Bondi fired Grace, and Trump withdrew Habba from consideration and made her the first assistant as a roundabout way of allowing Habba to ease into the position of acting U.S. Attorney of New Jersey once again. Last month, a panel of federal judges who were mostly appointed by Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden could have allowed Habba's appointment but declined.
Brann was appointed by Obama, and this fact plays into Habba's assertion that this is another case of judges becoming "activists" against the administration. "It’s disturbing, what we’re seeing," Habba told host Sean Hannity.
"And Pam Bondi called it like it is. The attorney general said it today. We will not fall to rogue judges," Habba pledged.
"We will not fall to people trying to be political when they should just be doing their job: respecting the president. And you can’t get rid of the president," Habba added. The Trump administration has faced opposition from judges on many issues, but Habba is clearly up to the challenge, considering her experience as Trump's attorney.
Before rising to the district attorney's office, Habba was one of the attorneys who defended Trump in his New York civil fraud case. Although he initially lost and was forced to pay a $500 million verdict in that case, the judgment was tossed out in an appeal on Friday, Fox News reported.
Habba celebrated the verdict in a post to X, formerly Twitter, on Friday. "Surreal moment watching this win from my office today in Newark, NJ," Habba wrote.
"I will always fight for the truth and justice to be served. It has taken years to get here and the fight continues to Save America. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE USA."
Surreal moment watching this win from my office today in Newark, NJ. I will always fight for the truth and justice to be served. It has taken years to get here and the fight continues to Save America. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP AND THE USA. 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/Pm28J6LdFu
— Alina Habba (@AlinaHabba) August 22, 2025
Trump has fought against his opponents in politics and in courtrooms, and it seems they are not giving up when it comes to issues like Habba's appointment. However, Trump is winning these fights in the end, and surely the issue over Habba's rightful appointment is not something the president will abandon, especially since she has been loyal to him through it all.
Ghislaine Maxwell, the right-hand woman of the late billionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, is disputing the claim that Epstein died by suicide.
According to newly released interview transcripts, Maxwell was adamant that Epstein didn't kill himself, echoing a sentiment that has reigned supreme ever since Epstein's suspicious death in a prison cell that was labeled a suicide.
The hundreds of pages of redacted transcripts and handful of audio clips released on Friday come after months of demands from both conservative and liberal voters who want transparency on Epstein's death.
Epstein was too powerful and too well-connected, and it was expected that his testimony in his sex trafficking trial would likely implicate many extremely powerful individuals in his horrific crimes.
When Epstein died of "suicide" in a prison cell, while the prison's camera system was conveniently down for maintenance, it created a wave of outrage. Now the Trump administration is doing its best to be transparent, and Maxwell's interview transcripts are a big step in accomplishing that goal.
Maxwell is the key to uncovering the truth about Epstein's sex trafficking network that reportedly serviced the rich and powerful for decades.
While Maxwell herself is no doubt a monster who is complicit in Epstein's crimes, her testimony and statements are invaluable for uncovering the truth and even exposing some of Epstein's affluent and powerful clients.
Epstein was connected to every high-profile figure, from Donald Trump, who was New York's biggest real estate tycoon, to former President Bill Clinton, who spent a significant amount of time on Epstein's private jets and island resorts.
Many leftists claim that Trump was likely involved in Epstein's criminal enterprises, but Maxwell refuted those claims, and this is supported by Trump's public falling out with Epstein over twenty years ago.
Furthermore, there was no chance that there was dirt on Trump related to Epstein that the previous administration wouldn't have used. If there was evidence that Trump was a participant in Epstein's crimes, it would have been rolled out by Biden's presidential campaign.
Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking a minor to Epstein and other sex crimes, which likely constitute a fraction of her crimes. However, if the Trump administration can continue to get her to talk, it's likely that more significant information will come out.
There are rumors that Maxwell could be angling for a pardon from Trump, but it's likely that Maxwell would have to trade truly monumental information in order to land a pardon, considering her extensive crimes against children.
Maxwell's attorney suggested that she would be willing to testify in front of Congress if Trump agreed to give her clemency. Whether Trump would be willing to grant that privilege depends on how many names Maxwell can give up.
This situation is an ongoing story to keep a close eye on. For the first time in years, there is a real chance that Americans will get justice, and the rich and powerful might actually face consequences after decades of immunity.
New York Attorney General Letitia (Tish) James spent months bragging about the civil penalty her case forced President Donald Trump to pay, only to have it completely backfired right in her face this week.
According to Breitbart, an appeals court handed Trump a massive win by throwing out the staggering $364 million penalty he was ordered to pay earlier this year, marking yet another epic legal victory for the president and his team of defense lawyers.
Five judges in New York’s mid-level Appellate Division ruled this week that they believe the original verdict against Trump was "excessive."
Two of the judges on the panel said that the excessive fine "violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
The court's bombshell ruling was shared this week, and it made clear that it believes that the original penalty was ridiculous.
"While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants’ business culture, the court’s disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution," Judges Dianne Renwick and Peter Moulton wrote in the court's opinion.
Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow posted on X after the decision came down, reminding readers that it was based on the same argument he made in one of his books.
🚨 BREAKING: Appeals court throws out $515 million(!!) civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump.
The judge ruled the penalty was cruel and unusual, violating the Eighth Amendment.
This is EXACT argument I made in my NYT bestseller BREAKING THE LAW!
Great news.…
— Alex Marlow (@AlexMarlow) August 21, 2025
While most of Trump's recent legal wins have come via the U.S. Supreme Court, the appelate courts have also generally been kind to the Trump administration.
The president's only real legal roadblock at this point is the federal judiciary, where he's stopped at nearly every turn by mostly Democrat-appointed federal judges.
Users across social media weighed in on the appellate court's bombshell ruling in Trump's favor.
"What about disbarring the corrupt judge. This was an absurd ruling," one X user wrote.
Others called for AG James to face consequences.
"Lock Tish Up! Lock Tish Up!" another X user wrote.
Ghislaine Maxwell had what many called a very rare talk with Todd Blanche, one of the Department of Justice's top-ranking officials, with many others speculating that the conversation could have had to do with potential immunity negotiations.
According to the Daily Caller, the Trump administration released a full transcript of her interview with Blanche this week, revealing all of the questions she was asked about deceased, convicted child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and her role.
In the transcript, it was revealed that Maxwell said she didn't recall former President Bill Clinton receiving a massage aboard Epstein's private jet.
She also revealed during the two-day interview that she doesn't believe President Donald Trump ever sent Epstein a birthday card.
During the interview, Blanche dialed in on several questions related to Bill Clinton.
“Do you know whether, for example, President Clinton ever received a massage?" he asked at one point.
Her answer was quite wordy, to say the least.
“I don’t believe he did,” Maxwell said, prompting Blanche to ask her if she doubted her answer.
“Well, because I don’t—so that’s a good question. The time that Epstein and President Clinton spent together, the only times I believe—well, obviously they traveled. There was that, you know, the plane, they went on the plane 26 times or whatever … So they spent time on the plane together, and I don’t believe there was ever a massage on the plane. So that would’ve been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage. And he didn’t, because I was there."
The Daily Caller noted:
Photographs allegedly taken in September 2002 showed Clinton receiving a massage from Epstein accuser Chauntae Davies while he was traveling to Africa for a humanitarian trip on Epstein’s plane. Another accuser, Virginia Giuffre, told an attorney that Clinton visited Epstein’s private island, though she did not say that the former president committed any crimes.
As far as Trump, Maxwell said she always believed him to be a "gentleman," noting that she never saw Trump in a compromising position.
"I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody," Maxwell said.
"In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects."
It'll be interesting to see what else comes of the Trump admminstration's release of the rest of the Eptstein-related files.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Democrats long have used their claim, "No one is above the law" against President Donald Trump.
That included back when they were trying twice, unsuccessfully, to impeach him and remove him from office.
That slogan actually now has come back to dog Democrats, as there is a long list of party members now facing potential charges for mortgage fraud and other claims, not to mention charges that may come out of the Department of Justice investigations into the "Russiagate" conspiracy theory that party members promoted with false claims for years.
But now the Institute for Justice is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling that makes the "No one is above the law" a precedent to be used across America.
"Constitutional guarantees mean little if the government can break them without consequences," said IJ lawyer Anya Bidwell. "That's why, since the country's founding, federal officials could be sued for violating people's rights. It is imperative we hold on to these sacred principles under current circumstances."
The precedent being sought means access to judicial remedies for those whose rights are violated by federal officials.
"Such remedies were a hallmark of the country's original constitutional design, as a method of implementing the protections of the Bill of Rights. But over time, the government has sought to undermine and eliminate that foundational guarantee of individual liberty. The judiciary should not go along with the government's efforts to force on the country a system of federal impunity," explained the legal team.
The brief explains the country's original system of federal accountability has been largely upended by a series of statutes and judicial decisions.
One statute the brief notes, the Federal Tort Claims Act, does in fact provide relief when government employees inflict harm.
In the case at issue, however, the government is arguing that the FTCA forecloses remedies where Texas property owner Lebene Konan alleges that postal officials engaged in a pattern of racial discrimination and economic interference against her by, among other things, refusing to deliver mail to her and her tenants and changing the locks on her mailbox.
As the Supreme Court confirmed in 1882, if the "courts cannot give remedy" for such harms, our government no longer, "has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights."
The IJ is urging the court to resist government attempts to shut down remedies.
The brief recounts several instances of lower courts eliminating remedies for outrageous rights violations by federal officials, including the brutal attack of an innocent student in Michigan and the false imprisonment of innocent teenage Somali refugees in Minnesota. And it discusses the case of a traumatic predawn raid of an innocent family's home in Georgia, in which IJ recently secured a Supreme Court victory regarding the scope of the FTCA.
"With federal police being deployed in cities around the country, it's vital for the judiciary to ensure that federal officials cannot operate with impunity," said IJ Attorney Jaba Tsitsuashvili. "The FTCA serves that function and preserves individual liberty."
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) suddenly closed down a criminal inquiry into the Clinton Foundation in 2019, blindsiding a pair of tax experts who came to the agency with evidence of wrongdoing, according to e-mails reviewed by Just The News.
The two whistleblowers, John Moynihan and Larry Doyle, have alleged for years that the Clinton Foundation was involved in pay-to-play corruption with foreign governments. They submitted 6,000 pages of evidence to the FBI and IRS in 2017 and testified to Congress about their findings the following year.
Between January and April 2019, the whistleblowers met several times with IRS agents who appeared to show interest in their claims, according to the whistleblowers' notes.
Contemporaneous, partially redacted e-mails appear to show the IRS took the matter seriously enough to begin a criminal investigation. Indeed, an agent in New Jersey requested that a dedicated server be set up to upload the evidence.
“[Redacted] and I are working on a case that involves a significant amount of evidence,” the IRS email stated. “We would like to request a separate server that we can upload all this evidence onto this way it's all in one place and the three of us can view it. The three of us will need access to the server. If you need me to do anything on my end, please let me know," the agent wrote.
Another IRS e-mail with the subject line "Foundations Call" alludes to "possible coordination of investigations in the Dallas and Newark Field Offices.”
After this initial flurry of activity, the whistleblowers began to encounter pushback that seemed to come out of nowhere.
IRS special agent Paul Bataille remarked to the pair that "we can't talk about CF," while IRS supervisory special agent Carlo Nastasi insisted a probe of the Clinton Foundation could not proceed without a cooperating witness.
When the whistleblowers provided a list of potential witnesses, they were told that the IRS "really is not in a position to pursue charitable organizations that engage in purposes and activities beyond their approved authority” and that “the IRS is not capable or staffed to oversee this activity."
The tone shift came as a surprise after several meetings that seemed to generate momentum, with discussion even proceeding to "specific venues where cases might be brought.”
Was this a deliberate cover-up? If so, it would not be the first time that investigations into the Clintons were scuttled.
FBI director Kash Patel recently declassified evidence showing that FBI and DOJ leadership stifled probes into the foundation in 2016, as Hillary Clinton campaigned for the White House.
Three different FBI field offices began looking into the Clintons' nonprofit before then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe intervened, giving orders not to proceed further without his permission.
Doyle and Moynihan have a trial in U.S. Tax Court scheduled for Dec. 1, where they will plead their case for receiving a whistleblower award, which is a financial incentive the IRS gives to those who report on tax violations.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The definition of to "bork" someone now is to obstruct a candidate for office "by systematically defaming or vilifying them."
It comes from the leftists and Democrats who viciously attacked Judge Robert Bork when he was nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan, activists who decided they would not tolerate his conservative views.
Perhaps there soon will be a word to "engoron" someone, which would be to let a political agenda get in the way of the law, to wildly redefine evidence and the law, and deliberately target a politician for a courtroom defeat.
That's essentially the conclusion from constitutional expert Jonathan Turley, who wrote about Arthur Engoron, the New York judge who orchestrated a $500 million judgment against President Donald Trump, then saw his work canceled on a sheet of paper delivering an appeals court decision.
"In New York, a court revealed that a leading citizen had cooked the books by inflating questionable figures without any support in reality. Moreover, his wild overvaluation was widely viewed as motivated by his self-aggrandizement. The final reported figures are so absurdly inflated that they were rejected in their entirety. In the end, he was off by over half a billion dollars. That man is Judge Arthur Engoron," Turley wrote.
"After a New York appellate court unanimously threw out Engoron's absurd half-a-billion-dollar judgment and interest against President Donald Trump, the irony was crushing. It was Engoron who seemed, as he characterized Trump witnesses, as having 'simply denied reality.' It made his notorious reliance on an assessment of Mar-a-Lago as worth between $18 million and $27.6 million seem like good accounting."
In the end, not a single appellate judge supported Engoron.
Turley noted, "For some of us who covered that trial, the most vivid image of Engoron came at the start. He indicated that he did not want cameras in the courtroom, but when the networks showed up, Engoron took off his glasses and seemed to pose for the cameras. It was a 'Sunset Boulevard' moment. We only need Gloria Swanson looking into the camera to speak to 'those wonderful people out there in the dark!' and announcing 'all right, [Ms. James], I'm ready for my close-up.'"
WND reported that a five-judge panel in the appellate division in New York's court's threw out Engoron's judgment against Trump, created by himself without a jury.
The ruling said Engoron failed to follow the U.S. Constitution in the case.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, who had campaigned for office on the promise to "get" President Trump, without citing any evidence of wrongdoing, then created "fraud" claims against him. She alleged that he was guilty over the valuation of his properties in connection with various loans.
Testimony during the trial showed that the banks that loaned Trump money were happy with the transactions, that all the loans were repaid in full, they made money from the deals and they would like to do them again.
Despite the evidence, Engoron, without a jury, claimed Trump was guilty and owed in excess of $300 million in penalties. That grew to more than half a billion dollars with interest, a threat Engoron made against the president that now has vanished.
Reports confirmed the ruling is a major loss for James, who ironically now is under investigation herself for fraud.
She's accused of misrepresenting her residences in order to obtain preferential mortgage loan treatments, including once when she allegedly characterized her father as a "spouse" and represented a five-apartment building she owns as having four apartments because that would give her a better interest rate.
The "delirium" began with James, who "injected lawfare directly into the veins of New Yorkers," Turley wrote.
"Yet, James could not have succeeded if she had not had a judge willing to ignore reality and cook the books on the fines. She needed a partner in lawfare. She needed Engoron," he wrote.
The appeals court found the law cited by Engoron "has never been used in the way it is being used in this case – namely, to attack successful, private, commercial transactions, negotiated at arm's length between highly sophisticated parties fully capable of monitoring and defending their own interests."
"Ironically, if Engoron had shown a modicum of restraint, he might have secured a victory. During the trial in New York, I said that he would have been smart to impose a dollar fine and limited injunctive relief. That, however, required a modicum of judicial restraint and judgment. Instead, Engoron chose to walk down the stairway into infamy. He was off by half a billion dollars, which could put him in the Bernie Madoff class of judges," Turley said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Los Angeles, its mayor and chief of police are being sued in a case that accuses them of operating in violation of the U.S. Constitution by imposing a system of viewpoint discrimination that simply takes away the rights of some parts of the city's population.
The case comes from Liberty Counsel, which alleges that the defendants denied a permit for a peaceful assembly because it was from Mayday USA, a grassroots organization that advocates against abortion, pornography and human trafficking.
Yet, the charges say that the city, Mayor Karen Bass and Police Chief Jim McDonnell just "days later" provided that same permit for the LA Pride Parade, which advocates for positions opposite to what Mayday USA endorses.
Liberty Counsel chief Mat Staver said, "The city of Los Angeles may not pick and choose which groups are allowed First Amendment rights of free expression or religious freedom. The Constitution is clear that religious freedom is inalienable.
"Liberty Counsel is defending these ministries because silencing the peaceful public expression of Christian viewpoints cannot be tolerated. The city's unconstitutional permitting scheme cannot withstand First Amendment scrutiny and causes irreparable harm to religious liberty. Los Angeles city officials must be held accountable."
The legal team charged, "The city unconstitutionally denied the organizers a permit to peacefully assemble even though a few days later the city permitted the LA Pride Parade in the same location."
It represents Jenny Donnelly, founder and president of Her Voice Movement, Inc., lead organizers Robert Donnelly, Ross Johnston, and Russell Johnson, lead pastor of The Pursuit, a Christian church in Washington.
They requested access to Hollywood Boulevard, a traditional public forum, for a May 31 event to worship, and to speak against abortion, pornography, and human trafficking.
City officials refused, and then went further by creating a long list of administrative hurdles and technical permitting requirements.
Yet, the same officials quickly granted permission at the same location for events such as the 55th Annual LA Pride Parade, the Thai New Year Songkran Festival, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests.
The plaintiffs are asking the court for an injunction to halt the city's "unlawful permitting process that violates the rights to free speech, religious exercise and equal protection."
The rights advocates had set up events in LA, New York, Miami, Seattle and Houston in May, a "Mayday" call for Christian revival.
"The events were permitted and held in the first four cities, though the city of Seattle conspicuously denied organizers their location of choice and only granted it to be held in a predominantly LGBTQ neighborhood," Liberty Counsel reported, where "gender-confused and antifa rioters dressed in black and wearing face masks assaulted the Christians in attendance," forcing police to intervene.
Los Angeles, for example, insisted organizers conduct a petition of Hollywood Boulevard's business owners and vendors to ensure at least 51 percent approved of Mayday's expressive activity and speech, they hold an event without a stage, and refused to allow reasonable times for the permit application, none of which is found in the city's code.
The filing quotes the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Shurtleff v. Boston, which rules, "When the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on 'religious viewpoint;' doing so 'constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.'"
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump can terminate millions of dollars in bogus health research that was geared toward diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
The 5-4 ruling is a victory in Trump's effort to restore integrity to health science, which in recent years has come under attack from woke ideology. The court was split down the middle, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, siding with the liberal minority.
The case centers on $783 million in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding that the Trump administration cut earlier this year, saying it was being spent on pseudoscientific, wasteful projects at odds with Trump's priorities.
The projects covered by the grants included a study on “Buddhism and HIV stigma in Thailand,” “intersectional, multilevel and multidimensional structural racism for English- and Spanish-speaking populations," and “anti-racist healing in nature to protect telomeres of transitional age BIPOC for health equity.”
The administration's cuts sparked furious backlash from Democrats, who said the White House was targeting critical, life-saving research.
In June, a district judge appointed by Ronald Reagan issued a bizarre, emotionally charged ruling that ordered the government to discharge the funding. U.S. District Judge William Young said the termination of the NIH grants was "arbitrary and capricious" and motivated by racial hatred.
"I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this,” Young said at a hearing. “Have we no shame?”
The Trump administration said the district court's ruling ignored a Supreme Court precedent earlier this year that allowed Trump to gut education funding targeted to DEI.
A majority of the Supreme Court agreed that Young lacked jurisdiction to force payment of the NIH grants, clearing Trump to make the cuts.
Neil Gorsuch, in a short, separate opinion chastising Young, noted a pattern of defiance from lower courts -- a trend that has frustrated Trump and his supporters.
"This is now the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to intercede in a case 'squarely controlled' by one of its precedents," Gorsuch wrote.
The Trump win brought out another turgid outburst -- 21 pages long -- from liberal Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has written a number of furious dissents blasting her colleagues for ruling in Trump's favor.
“This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins,” she wrote.
Another win for Trump and common sense. Pound sand, libs!
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The government's investigatory documents into Jeffrey Epstein, the pedophile who serve jail time for one set of cases and died, apparently by suicide, while in jail awaiting prosecutors to assemble another set, have reached a boiling point in America.
Democrats are demanding full release of everything the government knows, likely in the hope that they will find some dirt on President Donald Trump. Trump, at the same time, has said if there WAS any dirt on him, Joe Biden already would have publicized it.
But there remain a ton of questions because of Epstein's connection to high profile individuals, like Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips on Epstein's "Lolita Express" jet, and visited his private island where victims have confirmed they were sexually abused.
Another high profile name involved in Bill Gates, whose ex-wife cited his relationship with Epstein as their marriage broke up.
But the biggest name, if he is implicated, would be Trump.
But his critics likely will be disappointed.
That's because the Department of Justice has released hours of interview tapes between a federal prosecutor and Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a long prison sentencing for helping Epstein recruit – for abuse – young girls.
"Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche sat down with Maxwell in a federal prison in Tallahassee, where she was being held until recently. The terms of the interview granted her limited immunity from further prosecution – unless she told lies," reports confirmed.
And her testimony about Trump?
Asked if she ever observed President Trump get a massage, she said, "Never."
"I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting. 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."
Another big name in the case is Prince Andrew, who months ago reached a massive financial settlement with a woman who charged that he abused her as a young girl.
Authorities now have published hundreds of pages of transcripts as well as audio recordings of Maxwell's interview on the DOJ website.
The materials are available here.
Maxwell is serving a 20-year term for her conviction of helping Epstein traffic teen girls. Her case is on appeal.
The release came with little warning, days after federal judges denied the DOJ's requests to unseal of grand jury materials from both Maxwell and Epstein's criminal cases.
The report in the Gateway Pundit on the release said, "Everyone is going to know what Maxwell told Deputy AG Todd Blanche in her interviews."
Maxwell also has subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee, and she has expressed willingness to appear, but that hasn't developed yet.