Former President Joe Biden's campaign to fund a presidential library is encountering significant resistance from previous donors, Breitbart reported.
The fundraising effort, crucial for honoring Biden's legacy, is struggling amid a mix of political caution and discontent among traditional Democratic supporters.
Many previous donors are now hesitant to contribute to Biden's presidential library, reflecting wider political and personal reservations.
According to a report by NBC News, numerous significant Democratic supporters from Biden's past political campaigns have expressed reservations or outright refusal to fund the library. More than half a dozen high-profile backers disclosed that they would either withhold their donations or limit them considerably.
Some donors are apprehensive about potential political retribution, especially given the volatile climate under the Trump administration. Chris Korge, the Democratic National Committee Fundraising Chair, emphasized the difficulty in securing large donations due to fears of retaliation from Trump's quarters.
Others relay tales of personal dissatisfaction with Biden's closest associates, which has tarnished their willingness to contribute. Negative experiences with Biden's team seem to play a significant role in their decision-making process.
Additionally, strategic concerns about the future direction of the Democratic Party are prompting some donors to redirect their resources away from the library project and towards more imminent political endeavors.
Biden's initial decision to run for reelection stirred unease among supporters due to his health concerns. His subsequent withdrawal from the race after a presidential debate last summer only compounded donor frustrations.
This sudden change of plans directed support towards Kamala Harris, who took the Democratic nomination but ultimately lost to Donald Trump in November. This transition has left some donors like John Morgan, a seasoned fundraiser, feeling particularly disillusioned. Morgan humorously commented on the improbability of the library’s construction, suggesting it might end up being "a bookmobile from the old days."
Moreover, Biden's insistence on re-entering the political fray, followed by a withdrawal, has led to discrimination and increased frustration amongst his financial backers, causing doubts about the feasibility of a dedicated library.
Morgan also voiced a stark skepticism regarding the actual construction of a significant library building, mirroring a broader sentiment of doubt among former allies. "I want an $800,000 refund," he quipped to NBC News, articulating his disappointment over financial support that ultimately supported Harris’s unsuccessful campaign.
Another major donor, Susie Buell, revealed that she had not been approached for contributions yet but expressed a general lack of interest in funding presidential libraries.
Yet, amid the disapproval and skepticism, Rufus Gifford, chairman of the Biden library board and a former fundraiser, remains hopeful. He believes in the importance of preserving and promoting Biden's presidential legacy, stating, "This isn’t about the past. It’s about the future," aiming to rally support despite the challenges.
The Biden library aims to secure funding between $200 million and $300 million, a formidable goal considering the current donor hesitance. This target sits in sharp contrast with the fundraising achievements of other recent presidents. For instance, the Obama Presidential Library in Chicago commanded a budget of $850 million.
Throughout his presidency, Biden also faced criticism from his donors who felt they had inadequate access to him despite their financial contributions, further complicating current fundraising efforts.
The financial landscape for Democratic undertakings remains complicated by wide-ranging factors—from political dynamics under Trump to internal party concerns, all of which play into the challenging task of honoring a former president through the establishment of a library.
=Former North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn was arrested this Wednesday in Cape Coral, Florida, as Breitbart reports.
The arrest followed his failure to appear at a scheduled court hearing for a prior traffic violation.
In April this year, Cawthorn was cited for driving without a valid license in Naples, located in Collier County, leading to the scheduled court appearance at 8:30 a.m. on the day of his arrest.
Authorities in Collier County issued an out-of-county warrant early Wednesday when Cawthorn did not show up to court. He was subsequently apprehended by police in nearby Cape Coral.
The Gulf Coast News detailed the arrest: "Former Congressman, Madison Cawthorn, was arrested earlier today for failure to appear for a routine traffic infraction. Madison keeps a very busy schedule and, due to a scheduling misunderstanding, did not appear in court this morning."
Cawthorn was released on the same day after posting a $2,000 bond.
Simultaneously, Cawthorn is eyeing a return to Congress, this time from Florida's 19th Congressional District. This was confirmed by meetings he held with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill on the same day.
Axios, citing an unnamed source, reported, “Cawthorn was meeting with Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Wednesday to discuss his bid for the seat."
The pursuit of a political comeback in Florida unfolds at a time of legal and personal turmoil for the young politician.
The series of incidents, ranging from legal issues to potential political maneuvers, has kept Cawthorn in the public eye.
Following his release, Cawthorn has not made any public statements regarding the arrest or his future political plans.
His previous tenure in Congress and the recent challenges highlight a turbulent career marked by both controversy and resilience.
As the dust settles on his recent arrest, the conversation about Cawthorn’s political future intensifies.
The potential to run for a congressional seat in Florida suggests a strategic move to rejuvenate his political path amid ongoing legal battles.
Observers and constituents alike are closely monitoring Cawthorn’s actions, waiting to see how his legal and political dramas unfold.
In response to the disastrous Palisades Fire in northwest Los Angeles, Senators Ron Johnson and Rick Scott announced a Senate investigation targeting the adequacy of state and local government responses. Governor Gavin Newsom's actions during the crisis will be scrutinized, and he may be subpoenaed.
The Senate's probe will seek to understand the causes of the fire, support affected victims, and establish preventative measures for future incidents.
The fire, which occurred in January, resulted in the deaths of 12 individuals and razed nearly 7,000 structures in the Pacific Palisades and Malibu, unveiling potential shortcomings in crisis management and preparedness.
The examination is led by the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate Special Committee on Aging. Senator Ron Johnson highlighted the committee's capability to compel testimony through subpoenas.
Senator Rick Scott voiced disillusionment with the reconstruction progress during his visit to the devastated locales, remarking on the stark difference in pace compared to recovery operations he led in Florida, stating, "It's like nothing's happened. I think I saw one house being rebuilt."
Spencer Pratt, a resident severely impacted by the fires, criticized the preventative measures taken locally, particularly the lack of adequate forest management in Topanga State Park, where the initial blaze broke out, suggesting that basic, inexpensive actions could have mitigated the disaster.
The Senators are contemplating expanding their investigation to include the Eaton Fire, another devastating event that occurred simultaneously in the nearby areas of Altadena and Pasadena. This would allow a comprehensive review of fire management and response strategies.
Additionally, the Senate committee is examining issues related to home insurance claims and is considering legal action against insurers who failed to honor fire-related claims, leaving many victims uncompensated.
A suggestion on the table involves appointing a Special Master to oversee and ensure the appropriate allocation and use of federal funds for recovery, mimicking the model used in the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund.
Adding a personal dimension to the story, Spencer Pratt expressed widespread community fears about the risk of future fires, noting the general unease, "I know that nobody feels safe for this not to happen again.” His statement reflects a pressing need for reassurance and stronger preventive measures.
Despite the current difficulties, Pratt remains hopeful that the outcomes of this Senate investigation will lead to significant improvements in disaster management practices, potentially benefiting the entire nation. He emphasizes, "I feel like this is going to be so powerful for all of the United States."
The Senate's ongoing investigative efforts are closely watched by local citizens and officials alike, bearing potential to reshape policies that could better prepare both California and the nation for future natural disasters.
The ramifications of this investigation are expected to extend beyond the immediate regions affected by the Palisades and Eaton Fires. As the Senate delves into the detailed aspects of each incident, the goal is to extrapolate lessons that can be applied nationwide, ensuring more robust disaster readiness.
Through this inquiry, there is an opportunity to reform how both local and state governments prepare for and respond to emergencies, potentially setting new national standards in disaster response.
As conclusions begin to form and actions are taken, both the victims of the Palisades Fire and observers across the country await meaningful change that will fortify communities against future adversities.
An alleged birthday card sent by President Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein has stirred a fresh wave of controversy, prompting legal and political responses.
Amid ongoing scrutiny over his past associations, Trump has refuted claims regarding a lewd birthday card linked to Epstein, leading to significant media coverage and a defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, the Daily Mail reported.
In a detailed response to the allegations, Trump has termed the birthday card matter as "a dead issue," emphasizing his perspective during a statement to NBC News. This response comes in the wake of the Democrats' release of images from a birthday scrapbook alleged to contain a card from Trump to Epstein, featuring a provocative drawing accompanied by Trump's signature.
Trump has aggressively denied the authenticity of the birthday message, branding it as "fake" and consequently suing The Wall Street Journal for $10 billion, alleging defamation. His lawsuit highlights his team's intent to challenge the veracity of the reporting vigorously.
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump's denials on X, stating, "The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal proves this entire 'Birthday Card' story is false," indicating a strong ongoing dispute over the facts presented by the media.
As part of his rebuttal, Trump has distanced himself from any knowledge or involvement in Epstein's criminal activities, asserting that he severed all ties with Epstein much earlier.
The birthday scrapbook, which was compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's 50th birthday, has become a key piece of evidence in the ongoing controversy. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for her involvement in Epstein’s criminal activities.
The scrapbook not only includes the contentious card but also other notable entries, such as a photo of Epstein with a large check and a humorous note about Trump and a woman both individuals knew, portraying a complex web of interactions.
Further adding to the intrigue, the scrapbook contains a handwritten note from former President Bill Clinton, among contributions from other prominent figures, demonstrating the high-profile nature of Epstein's associations.
The dissemination of these materials by Democrats has led to a severe partisan clash, with Republicans and Democrats debating the contextual handling of the recently surfaced documents.
Attorney General Pam Bondi's involvement has deepened the legal dimensions of the case, as she handed over 33,000 pages of documents related to Epstein to the House Oversight Committee, fueling further investigations.
In a DOJ interview, despite the storm of controversy, Maxwell defended Trump, stating he was "never inappropriate" despite the scrutiny over his past social ties with Epstein.
The release and interpretation of these documents have intensified the demands for transparency. Democrat Rep. Robert Garcia sharply criticized Trump's previous dismissal of the investigation, asserting in a statement to The Wall Street Journal that Trump is covering up the truth about his relationship with Epstein and the alleged birthday note.
This has spurred a broader debate on the accuracy of public figures' statements and the true extent of their past relationships. "President Trump called the Epstein investigation a hoax and claimed that his birthday note didn't exist. Now we know that Donald Trump was lying and is doing everything he can to cover up the truth. Enough of the games and lies, release the full files now," Garcia stated, highlighting the tension and the stakes involved.
The fallout from this saga continues to unfold, with legal, political, and media narratives clashing in a highly publicized battle over truth and historical transparency. As both sides of the political spectrum delve deeper, the implications are expected to resonate well beyond the current news cycle.
A bipartisan initiative spearheaded by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-KY) and Ro Khanna (D-CA) is close to pushing the Epstein Files Transparency Act to a House vote, requiring only three more signatures to meet the threshold, Breitbart reported.
As the U.S. struggles with transparency, a crucial document release hangs in the balance, initiated by two Congress members from across the aisle.
The titled "Epstein Files Transparency Act" was filed on July 15, with the intention of unsealing all government-held documents concerning Jeffrey Epstein. Representatives Massie and Khanna aim to shed light on any hidden details tied to Epstein's case through this legislative push.
Securing enough signatures for the discharge petition has been a contentious journey. To date, the petition has acquired 215 signatures, just shy of the required 218 to bring it to the House floor for a deliberation and vote.
The support for the petition is largely drawn from the Democratic side, with 211 out of 212 House Democrats signing it, whereas only four Republicans, including Massie, have endorsed it. These Republicans are Lauren Boebert, Nancy Mace, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
On ABC News, Rep. Ro Khanna asserted that they have 216 votes secured, counting on two additional Democrat supporters who have yet to officially sign due to vacancies, but have expressed their commitment to the petition.
While the effort has seen notable bipartisan support, not everyone agrees with the approach. House Speaker Mike Johnson has criticized the discharge petition as unnecessary, pointing out that recent document releases might render the petition redundant. He argues that the petition might jeopardize the protection of victims' identities.
In a more direct political challenge, Former President Donald Trump criticized Rep. Massie, hinting at a potential endorsement of a challenger against him due to his involvement with the petition.
The strategy behind the proposal allows the Attorney General to redact any sensitive information from the files, yet mandates that all unclassified documents be released in a searchable format within 30 days of the act’s enactment.
Earlier this month, on September 2, the House Oversight Committee received a tranche of documents from the Department of Justice related to Epstein. These documents, which had been delivered to the committee on August 22, include over 33,295 pages of content. Such developments suggest ongoing progress in uncovering details about the Epstein saga through established channels.
Despite facing criticism, Reps. Massie and Khanna continue to emphasize the significance of their proposed legislation in ensuring government transparency and accountability. Thomas Massie voiced on social media, asking constituents whether their representatives would choose transparency and justice or reject such principles when the time comes to vote.
Eric Swalwell, a Democratic representative who was absent due to a family member's bereavement, has stated his intent to support the petition upon his return, potentially bringing the initiative closer to its critical threshold.
The unfolding debate over the Epstein Files Transparency Act encapsulates the broader challenges and controversies surrounding government transparency and the safeguarding of sensitive information. As the political drama continues to unfold, all eyes will be on the pending signatures and the subsequent actions of the House.
The story thus not only underscores significant bipartisan efforts but also reflects deep political divisions and the complexities inherent in balancing transparency with the protection of privacy and the integrity of ongoing investigations.
The ultimate decision, likely to come soon, will significantly impact public trust and the overarching narrative surrounding accountability in high-profile cases involving influential figures.
A recent U.S. military operation against a drug trafficking vessel off the Venezuelan coast has sparked substantial political controversy concerning its legality and morality, the Daily Mail reported.
The lethal strike resulted in the deaths of 11 members from the Venezuela-based Tren de Aragua cartel, intensifying debates over the operation's adherence to due process.
The U.S. military described the action as a defensive measure designed to disrupt the cocaine trade, notably shipments tainted with fentanyl, signaling heightened U.S. enforcement efforts in the region.
Senator JD Vance publicly supported the military's actions, describing them as a necessary force against drug cartels, which he deemed detrimental to U.S. citizens. Vance's blunt justification included dismissive remarks towards criticisms labeling the act as potential war crimes.
Contrasting Vance's views, Senator Rand Paul criticized the operation for overriding judicial processes, emphasizing the risks of targeting individuals without a fair trial, thereby potentially violating human rights.
"What a despicable and thoughtless sentiment it is to glorify killing someone without a trial," Paul asserted, challenging the moral and legal basis of Vance's position on using military interventions in law enforcement actions.
Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's leader who is not recognized by the U.S., condemned the strike as a criminal threat to his country's sovereignty. He declared a state of maximum preparedness in response to the U.S. military's aggressive posturing.
President Donald Trump capitalized on the incident to warn against drug trafficking into the U.S., asserting through a released video that the military action destroyed a significant threat, with Trump aggressively pledging continued actions against drug shipments.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio reasserted the strike's justification, pointing out that the vessel was actively engaged in narco-terrorism, reinforcing the administration's commitment to combating drug trafficking via military means.
In response to the ongoing threat, the Pentagon has reportedly intensified its naval and air presence in the southern Caribbean, aiming to deter similar trafficking activities.
Adding to the administration's efforts, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a significant reward for information leading to the arrest of Nicolas Maduro, accusing him of leading a prolific drug trafficking operation.
This reward signifies a stern U.S. approach to dealing with individuals they deem threats under international narcotics laws, suggesting a proactive stance that includes military and legal dimensions.
This incident has stirred significant discussion regarding the practicality and ethics of using military forces in international law enforcement actions, especially those that bypass traditional legal paths.
The debate extends beyond U.S. borders, potentially affecting international relations with Latin American countries and shaping global policies on narcotics and terrorism.
As the U.S. continues to enforce its narcoterrorism policies, the repercussions for diplomatic relations with countries like Venezuela and broader international law implications remain a pressing concern.
The Los Angeles Police Department ended its special protection services for former Vice President Kamala Harris this past Saturday, marking a significant change in security measures for the high-profile political figure, ABC 7 reported.
In a controversial decision, former Vice President Kamala Harris saw her LAPD protection withdrawn days after President Donald Trump rescinded her Secret Service detail.
President Trump, who defeated Harris in the November 2024 election, ordered an end to her Secret Service protection effective September 1. This move set the stage for local and state law enforcement to temporarily step in.
Rising to the occasion, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass requested that the LAPD provide interim security for Harris. This decision came after Trump's unexpected rescission left Harris without federal protection.
The California Highway Patrol, along with specialized units from the LAPD’s Metropolitan Division, quickly assumed responsibility for Harris’s safety. These units were tasked with a temporary security role until a more permanent solution could be implemented.
Mayor Bass emphasized that this security arrangement was always intended to be temporary, expressing gratitude for the LAPD's flexibility in her official statement.
The LAPD's interim role was not without its detractors. Members within the Metropolitan Division, responsible for crime suppression across Los Angeles, voiced concerns about being redeployed to protect Harris, citing a strain on resources that could have been directed towards ongoing crime issues in the city.
Amid these internal criticisms, the LAPD's special protection for Harris became a subject of broader public debate. The Los Angeles Police Protective League openly criticized the decision, arguing that the responsibility for Harris's security should not fall on the shoulders of L.A. taxpayers.
Following this debate, the protection was withdrawn, and the LAPD officers returned to their regular duties, a decision met with approval from many within the department keen to return to their primary roles.
The decision to cease LAPD’s protection was welcomed by the Los Angeles Police Protective League. They suggested that Harris, a former California senator and attorney general, could seek alternative means to fund her protection, including potentially launching a GoFundMe campaign.
This suggestion, made somewhat facetiously, highlights the ongoing discussion around the funding and provision of security for public figures who no longer hold office but who may still be at significant risk.
The issue of protecting public figures after their term has ended remains contentious, with varying opinions on who should bear the responsibility and cost of such security measures.
Traditionally, former vice presidents receive Secret Service protection for six months after they leave office. However, Joe Biden had extended Harris’s service to 18 months, a term that concluded earlier this year when he left office.
The discontinuation of Harris's Secret Service detail by President Trump, therefore, marked an unusual deviation from the norm which continues to stir controversy and discussion about the security protocols for former national leaders.
The debate around former Vice President Kamala Harris's security arrangements underscores the complexities and political nuances of providing safety nets for individuals who have served at the highest levels of government but are no longer in the immediate public eye.
An unprecedented immigration raid at a Hyundai battery plant in Georgia saw the detention of 475 individuals, unveiling a complex legal scenario entangled with the U.S. push for advancements in electric vehicle technology, Fox News reported.
The operation has propelled an intricate probe into labor practices linked with significant American construction projects.
Early this week, a substantial DHS intervention took place at a Hyundai factory under construction near Savannah, Georgia. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) confirmed the arrest of nearly half a thousand people, primarily hailing from South Korea.
The factory is a crux in the partnership between Hyundai and LG Energy Solution, aimed at bolstering the U.S. capacities in electric vehicle (EV) production. Slated for battery production, this facility has been a beacon of industrial progression, as highlighted by numerous public figures.
Despite the arrests, Hyundai has been quick to clarify its position, stating that the detained individuals were not on its direct payroll but were instead employed by various subcontractors engaged at the site. The company reiterated its commitment to compliance with all applicable laws and workplace safety standards.
Construction activities at the site have been put on hold following the raid. Nevertheless, operations at a nearby existing EV manufacturing campus run by Hyundai remain unaffected, emphasizing the localized nature of the enforcement action.
In May 2022, during a notable visit to South Korea, former President Joe Biden praised the initiative, foreseeing it as a monumental contributor to the U.S. job market with the potential to create over 8,000 jobs. He accentuated the investment of approximately $5.5 billion into the new facility and its paramount role in pioneering advanced automotive technology.
Georgia Governor Brian Kemp has also been a staunch supporter of the project, previously highlighting its substantial impact on the state's economic impetus during a speech in February.
Biden further emphasized, "Our administration is setting ambitious standards to cut pollution in cars and trucks and boost fuel economy standards for those continuing to operate on gasoline."
The raid comes amidst the Trump administration's extensive crackdown on illegal labor practices across various sectors. This strategic focus included a recent intervention at a California cannabis farm where child labor was reportedly utilized, amassing widespread criticism and further examination of labor laws enforcement.
This specific enforcement action at the Hyundai site required a robust collaboration among multiple federal agencies and the Georgia State Patrol to address the complications associated with the case, described by a DHS spokesperson as "complex."
A social media video caught an officer declaring the immediate cessation of construction activities: "We need construction to cease immediately... We need all work to end on the site right now," an enforcement directive that underscores the immediacy and severity of the government's response.
The fallout from this raid stretches beyond the immediate legal implications, hinting at broader questions regarding the recruitment and employment of international labor in major U.S. industrial ventures.
As investigations continue, the focus remains on how such significant projects can balance rapid development needs with strict adherence to national immigration and labor laws, a challenge that might redefine future foreign collaborations in U.S. industries.
The unfolding events will likely influence not only the future of Hyundai's operations in Georgia but also the broader conversation around immigration, labor laws, and international cooperation in American industrial expansion.
In a bold legislative initiative, U.S. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie, alongside Democrat Ro Khanna, have declared their intention to disclose the names of individuals linked to Jeffrey Epstein should a new bill mandating the release of related files pass, as the Daily Mail reports
The proposed bill, which seeks bipartisan support, aims to bring transparency to the ongoing Epstein case by compelling the release of withheld information.
The announcement emerged amid widespread bipartisan concern over the limitations of information concerning Epstein's associates and their activities. Despite the Department of Justice previously unveiling a document cache related to Epstein, legislators and the public alike have voiced dissatisfaction with the extent and scope of these disclosures.
At a recent press conference, Greene and Massie, along with Khanna, vocalized their support for legislation initially proposed by Khanna. This bill, if passed, would force Attorney General Pam Bondi to release the Epstein files in their entirety to the public.
Amid this legislative push, the issue of constitutional immunity surfaced. Citing this rule, both Greene and Massie expressed their preparedness to use their privilege of legislative immunity -- which permits open speech on the House Floor without legal backlash -- to publicly name implicated parties.
In their statements, the representatives underscored the gravity and potential risk involved in naming high-profile individuals linked to the Epstein scandal. Greene highlighted the significant power disparities that could threaten the legal and financial stability of those who come forward against influential figures.
Recent releases by the House Oversight Committee, which consisted of 34,000 pages connected to Epstein, have not met expectations. Massie pointed out that much of this report was redundant and heavily redacted, rendering it ineffective in providing new insights or clarity.
This frustration coincides with actions from Epstein survivors as well. Lisa Phillips, representing a group of abuse survivors, intimated that they might release names themselves if the government continues to fail in its disclosures. This collective sentiment underscores a pervasive demand for accountability and transparency.
Massie's commitment was clear as he discussed a strategy to advance the bill despite current challenges, noting a discharge petition requiring 214 signatures -- just four shy of the target -- to force a vote on the bill.
While some politicians see a path forward in transparency, others dismiss the urgency or legitimacy of the matter. President Donald Trump labeled the ongoing controversy as a mere distraction orchestrated by Democrats, disconnected from his administration's achievements.
Contrasting sharply with Trump's statements, Massie rebuffed the notion of the case as a hoax. He emphasized the authenticity of the survivors' experiences and the injustice of ongoing protection afforded to perpetrators.
The political narrative surrounding the Epstein files splits significantly, with Trump distancing himself from the implications of the disclosures while others in Congress stress the imperative of addressing the victims' truth.
The legislative trajectory remains uncertain, but the proposed bill represents a significant stride towards resolving some of the opacity surrounding the Epstein scandal. With potential revelations on the horizon, the coming weeks could prove pivotal.
The discourse at the congressional level mirrors a larger societal confrontation with issues of power, abuse, and the accountability of high-profile individuals in criminal enterprises.
As Congress navigates these turbulent waters, the world watches, awaiting clear outcomes from a saga that has captured global attention. The decisions made in the upcoming sessions will likely resonate far beyond the halls of Congress, affecting legal precedents, privacy issues, and public trust in political and justice systems.
In a surprising turn of events, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has publicly distanced herself from former President Donald Trump, criticizing his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.
Greene has called for greater transparency with the Epstein files and criticized Trump for neglecting meetings with Epstein's victims.
Historically a staunch Trump supporter, Greene recently expressed displeasure with Trump's refusal to engage with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. This issue came to a head when she requested that Trump host these victims at the White House—an invitation Trump did not acknowledge.
Joining forces with Reps. Thomas Massie (R-TX) and Ro Khanna (D-CA), Greene co-sponsored legislation to release the Department of Justice's files on Epstein to the public. Despite warnings from the White House deeming support for this legislation as a hostile act, Rep. Greene remained undeterred.
In her conversation with CNN's Manu Raju, Rep. Greene stated, "This isn't a hostile act towards the administration," asserting her commitment to transparency and accountability in the Epstein case.
Greene's advocacy extends to a direct appeal to Trump, encouraging him to reconsider his stance and meet with Epstein's victims to acknowledge their suffering and seek justice.
Amid these calls for action, Trump instead prioritized international relations, meeting with the president of Poland during the crucial period when a dialogue on the Epstein scandal was sought by Greene and others. During this meeting, Trump explicitly dismissed the Epstein files legislation as irrelevant and a distraction from his administration's successes.
Trump equated the ongoing demands for the Epstein files to the controversy surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy, suggesting a pattern of dissatisfaction no matter the extent of disclosures provided.
Following Trump's refusal to meet with the victims, Greene joined a press conference organized by Massie and Khanna, which featured about a dozen Epstein victims sharing their stories.
At the press conference, Greene did not mince words. She criticized the Department of Justice under Trump for its opacity and called for the truth to be revealed by federal agencies, including the FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA.
Her statements at the conference underscored the need for truth and justice, advocating on behalf of the victims. "The FBI, the DOJ, and the CIA hold the truth. And the truth we’re demanding comes out," she declared, emphasizing the significance of transparency.
Highlighting the broader implications, Greene stated, "This should never happen in America, and it should never be a political issue that divides us," marking a notable shift from her typical alignment with Trump's policy positions.
Greene's stance represents a significant departure from her previous unwavering support for Trump, reflecting a broader schism within parts of the Republican Party over issues of justice and transparency.
Such a stance not only brings attention to the Epstein scandal but also pressures other political leaders to take a stand on matters involving high-profile figures and federal transparency.
Her participation and vocal criticism at the press conference illustrate a critical turning point, suggesting that her political alignment might be shifting towards more bipartisan and victim-centered justice initiatives.