Connect with us

International

Trump DOJ to share Epstein documents with House Oversight Committee this week

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Rep. James Comer said the Department of Justice complied with a request to provide the records before the deadline.

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) is preparing to share documents pertaining to notorious dead predator Jeffrey Epstein with members of Congress by Friday, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer announced.

“Officials with the Department of Justice have informed us that the Department will begin to provide Epstein-related records to the Oversight Committee this week on Friday,” Comer, a Republican from Kentucky, announced Monday, according to a Daily Wire report. “There are many records in DOJ’s custody, and it will take the Department time to produce all the records and ensure the identification of victims and any child sexual abuse material are redacted. I appreciate the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and efforts to provide the American people with information about this matter.”

Comer filed a subpoena for the material on August 5; the deadline for compliance was August 19.

A prominent investor with years of associations throughout American politics, business, and high society, Epstein killed himself in his cell at New York’s Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC) in August 2019 while being held on charges of trafficking underaged girls to be raped by himself and wealthy associates in a high-profile case that was believed to implicate many prominent figures around the world.

The case has long been a source of concern due to the mysteries surrounding the billionaire financier’s private Caribbean retreat (dubbed “Pedophile Island” by locals), Epstein’s close association with major public figures such as former President Bill Clinton, President Donald Trump, and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates; and the botched past prosecutions and lax punishment for his previous crimes. Epstein’s death ended any possibility of him naming any public figures who may have taken part in his crimes, sparking impassioned conspiracy speculation online.

Many hoped the election of Trump would bring with it new disclosures (egged on by MAGA personalities such as future Vice President JD Vance), but instead the issue has become a political headache for the administration. The White House elicited a backlash in February when several prominent MAGA influencers were invited for exclusive first access to what was billed as “The Epstein Files: Phase 1,” but turned out to largely consist of old, already-public material.

After months of dueling and contradictory statements from administration officials about who was in possession of what and the state of the review, in July the DOJ and FBI released a joint memo declaring the review complete, affirming Epstein killed himself after all, declining to release previously sealed material, and most controversially announcing, “This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.”

Discontent swelled to outrage on social media, for reasons ranging from fear that there remain unidentified offenders evading justice, to suspicion that powerful figures still had enough influence to maintain a cover-up, to simple belief that influencers had gotten audiences’ hopes up by over-promising dramatic twists that reality was never going to match.

Taking on renewed relevance amid this tumult was Epstein’s former lover and accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, currently serving a 20-year prison sentence. In attempts to mollify critics, the Trump DOJ moved to re-interview Maxwell and have her grand jury materials unsealed, though a judge blocked the latter.

Trump and Epstein were friendly associates in the president’s days as a liberal celebrity businessman, through which Trump flew on Epstein’s private jet, but no evidence linking Trump to Epstein’s crimes has ever emerged, and in fact Trump eventually banned him from his Mar-a-Lago club for assaulting an underage girl (though Trump himself has strangely offered a less-flattering explanation for their falling out in recent months, that Epstein poached employees from him).

“I was hired to lead Jeffrey Epstein’s defense as his criminal lawyer 9 days before he died. He sought my advice for months before that. I can say authoritatively, unequivocally, and definitively that he had no information to hurt President Trump,” attorney David Schoen says.

In July, The Wall Street Journal reported that Trump was one of several people who contributed a “bawdy letter” to an album for Epstein’s 50th birthday. Among the salacious details of Trump’s submission were lines that the two “have certain things in common” and a wish that “every day be another wonderful secret.” Trump vociferously denied writing the letter, an original copy of which has not yet been produced.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

How Trump Can End Europe’s Reign Of Terror On American Oil And Gas

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Audrey Streb

The Trump administration has an opportunity to free the U.S. of draconian climate regulations and directives the European Union (EU) has imposed on American oil and gas companies for years, energy sector experts and industry insiders told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Though the Trump administration made a major trade deal with the EU in July that benefitted American energy, the EU still imposes a number of climate regulations and directives that drive up U.S. energy costs, according to some energy policy experts. The Trump administration is positioned to pressure the EU into a fairer trading atmosphere and ease burdens on the American energy sector, industry insiders told the DCNF.

“It’s going to take the pressure of the Trump administration in the trade negotiations to get the EU to back down from these extraterritorial regulations imposed on American companies, including U.S. oil and natural gas producers,” Vice President of Corporate Policy at the American Petroleum Institute (API) Aaron Padilla told the DCNF. “The EU should not make it more difficult for companies to provide the energy that their consumers need.”

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.

Thank you!

Energy sector experts and insiders specifically pointed to the Critical Entities Resilience Directive (CER), the EU methane regulation and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). The CSDDD requires companies to have a net-zero transition plan and the EU methane regulation places additional stringent emissions standards on the oil and gas industry, while the CER requires companies to report a whole host of risks that add red tape, according to energy insiders.

Trump has threatened the EU with tariffs to buy American oil and gas, and part of the major July trade deal required the EU to purchase $750 billion in American energy by 2028.

“The Administration continues to address trade barriers against every American industry with our trading partners, and commitments from the EU, Japan, South Korea, and other countries to buy hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American energy over the next few years reflect how President Trump is delivering on his agenda of fair trade and drill, baby, drill,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told the DCNF.

Tammy Nemeth, a strategic energy analyst, told the DCNF that the climate regulations and directives are burdensome to American oil and gas companies. Nemeth argues that these regulations increase costs on U.S. businesses and Americans as companies hoping to do business in the EU have to wrestle with layers of red tape and adopt a net-zero transition plan. It is difficult to estimate, but compliance with EU climate regulations and directives can add significant costs, according to Nemeth.

“I think if companies are approaching [these non-tariff barriers] with open eyes, they’ll say we need the government to help us maybe eliminate some of these non-tariff barriers, because if the compliance costs [equate to a] 10 to 30% increase, then that’s something that they have to pass on, not just to those to whom they’re exporting, but also domestically, because those are costs that are borne by the entire company,” Nemeth told the DCNF. “[These non-tariff barriers] could therefore increase costs to Americans, not just passing it on only to the Europeans, because all of those bureaucratic structures have to be established within the company, and that’s cost they have to absorb or pass on in some way.”

If American oil and gas companies decide to not comply with the climate regulations, they can be heavily fined or essentially forced out of trading with the EU, Nemeth said.

“It’s really quite absurd,” Nemeth said, noting that the EU already requires a significant amount of red tape and environmental reporting paperwork. Nemeth added that all the reporting also can open companies up to environmental litigation.

API has generally supported President Donald Trump’s energy policy and praised his April decision to exempt oil and gas from new reciprocal tariffs, however, the trade association argues that now is the time to force the EU into relaxing its non-tariff barriers. API has asked the Trump administration to negotiate EU non-tariff barriers, including the CSDDD and the EU methane regulation, to ease burdens on American oil and gas companies hoping to do business in the EU, Padilla noted.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejected the International Maritime Organization’s net-zero framework on Tuesday, stating that the U.S. “will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists.”

An EU official told the DCNF that negotiations with the U.S. are still ongoing, though any amendments to EU legislation would represent a non-negotiable boundary for the EU.

Energy costs have been a major concern for European officials following the 2022 spike in prices, which hit the continent’s economies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and weaponization of its natural gas supply. Many European countries are also devoted to a green energy transition as the continent faces high electricity prices and grid instability.

Notably, several European countries have recently moved to rethink or reverse their anti-nuclear pledges in search of a sustainable energy resource.

“We say to the Europeans, you don’t need to put these non-tariff barriers into place. The only result of them is going to be to make it more expensive and difficult for Europeans to import the energy that they need from the United States. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you,” Padilla said. “You need oil and you need natural gas from the United States, especially in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. So, don’t make it more difficult to get that energy that you need from the United States.”

Nemeth and other energy policy experts argued that these non-tariff barriers work to benefit EU oil and gas companies and disincentivize American companies from competing in the European market.

“For years, the European Union has used trade policy as a backdoor to impose its climate agenda on American businesses. Their reporting rules and carbon tariffs aren’t about saving the planet, they’re about controlling markets and kneecapping competitors,” CEO and founder of the American Energy Institute Jason Isaac told the DCNF. “As President Trump negotiates with the EU, the first order of business must include a clear commitment to scrap these schemes. The United States should set the terms and not let European bureaucrats punish American energy.”

Continue Reading

Energy

USDA reverses use of taxpayer dollars to fund solar panels on farmland

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture will no longer subsidize large-scale solar projects placed on farmland or use solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries in any agency projects, according to a news release Tuesday.

Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have gone towards solar and other “green” energy initiatives since 2022 alone. Roughly 47% of utility-scale solar projects are located on farmland as of 2025, according to Agricultural Economic Insights, and solar panels on American farmland have increased by 50% since 2012, according to USDA.

“Our prime farmland should not be wasted and replaced with green new deal subsidized solar panels,” USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins said. “Subsidized solar farms have made it more difficult for farmers to access farmland by making it more expensive and less available. We are no longer allowing businesses to use your taxpayer dollars to fund solar projects on prime American farmland, and we will no longer allow solar panels manufactured by foreign adversaries to be used in our USDA-funded projects.”

As part of the change, both solar and wind projects will no longer be eligible for the USDA Rural Development Business and Industry Guaranteed Loan Program.

Prospective recipients of the USDA Rural Development Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) Guaranteed Loan Program will only be eligible for the subsidies if their solar photovoltaic systems are smaller than 50kW.

Tennessee will particularly feel the impact of the change as it has lost more than 1.2 million acres of farmland over the last 30 years. Both the Republican governor and U.S. lawmakers, including some representing Tennessee, praised the USDA’s decision.

“Tennessee farmland should be used to grow the crops that feed our state and country, not to house solar panels made by foreign countries like Communist China,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., stated. “Secretary Rollins and President Trump are right to put an end to these Green New Deal subsidies that waste taxpayer dollars while threatening America’s food security.”

The move follows the Environmental Protection Agency’s rescission of $7 billion in Solar for All community grants and the Department of Interior’s plans to increase production of more traditional sources of energy like oil and gas.

Continue Reading

Trending

X