July 22, 2025

Tuesday, July 22, 2025. Annette’s Roundup for Democracy.

Yesterday, I sent this,👇 but the video didn’t open for some.

Try agin.

The week began.

A brief video to give you a lift.

———-

Trump Talks About Anything but Epstein on His Social Media Account.

On Truth Social, the president railed against Democrats and shared a wacky video.

Lawmakers have been pushing for the release of federal files on Jeffrey Epstein, the financier and one-time friend of President Trump who died in a Manhattan jail while awaiting trial on charges of sex trafficking.

Dogged for weeks over his administration’s refusal to release the Epstein files, President Trump spent the weekend posting on social media about, well, anything else.

On Sunday, the president railed against Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, long a prime target. He attacked Samantha Power, the former administrator of U.S.A.I.D. He posted a fake video of former President Barack Obama being arrested and a fake photo of Mr. Obama and members of his administration in prison garb. He threatened to derail a deal for a new football stadium for the Washington Commanders if the team did not take back its old name, the Redskins.

Mr. Trump even at one point posted a video compilation of 25 wacky and incredible stunts, such as a fake video of a woman catching a cobra midstrike with her bare hand.

“One year ago our Country was DEAD, with almost no hope of revival,” he wrote on his Truth Social site on Sunday, the six month anniversary of his second term. “Today the USA is the ‘hottest’ and most respected Country anywhere in the World. Happy Anniversary!!!”

If the scattered posts, which continued into Monday, were an attempt to distract from the outcry over his administration’s handling of the files, it did not appear to be working. Lawmakers continued to clamor for the release of more information.

“79% of Americans support releasing the Epstein files, but only 16 members of Congress have sponsored the legislation to do so,” Representative Thomas Massie, Republican of Kentucky, wrote Sunday on X. “After 7 legislative days, I’ll be able to collect signatures to force a vote on my bill to release all the files.”

Mr. Trump was friendly for nearly 15 years with Jeffrey Epstein, the multimillionaire financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

Their relationship is now under scrutiny after the Trump administration reversed its promise to release files tied to the sex trafficking investigation into Mr. Epstein and his former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell was convicted in 2021 of conspiring with Mr. Epstein to sexually exploit and abuse underage girls.

Mr. Epstein had many connections to rich and powerful people that both the right and the left suspect of being involved in the financier’s criminality. In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi released some materials, including flight logs from Mr. Epstein’s private jets, but she held back others, including what officials described as child sexual abuse material.

On Friday, facing increased political pressure, the Justice Department followed a directive from Mr. Trump, asking a federal judge in Manhattan to unseal grand jury testimony from the prosecution of Mr. Epstein.

But judges rarely agree to make such materials public, and the unsealing effort could take months. Even if the testimony becomes public, the materials being sought are most likely only a small part of the evidence collected in the investigation and may not satisfy his critics. (New York Times).

Epstein crisis forces House GOP to scrap votes.

Republicans will not to tee up a series of bills this week because Democrats are continuing to force votes over releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files.

By MEREDITH LEE HILL, MIA MCCARTHY, CASSANDRA DUMAY and CALEN RAZOR
07/21/2025, 7:32PM ET

House Republicans will scrap several votes this week as internal party drama over Jeffrey Epstein derails a key committee that handles legislation on its way to the floor.

The House Rules Committee came to a standstill Monday night as GOP leaders struggled to contain rank-and-file Republicans and their Democratic allies clamoring for a floor vote to compel the publication of materials related to the late disgraced financier and convicted sex offender.

Committee Democrats had planned to force a vote that evening on legislation that would call for the release of the materials, as the panel worked to tee up floor consideration on a slate of unrelated bills. It was poised to be a repeat of what transpired last Thursday inside Rules, which gummed up the works for several hours.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said it was “unlikely” that the panel would reconvene this week at all.

But rather than this time work through the Democratic disruption, Republicans chose instead Monday to recess the rest of the Rules meeting altogether, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) saying it was “unlikely” that the panel would reconvene this week at all. Later, lawmakers said there were no plans to return at all.

That means House members will depart for August recess at the week’s end without being able to vote on legislation that would not otherwise be able to pass on the chamber floor with a simple majority vote, including an immigration-related bill that would increase penalties for individuals who enter the country illegally and a water-permitting measure.

The House will still vote on measures that can be taken up under an expedited procedure typically reserved for noncontroversial legislation that can pass with a two-thirds majority of those present and voting, such as a bill that would establish new ZIP Codes for certain communities and deter China in the ongoing Taiwan conflict.

“See you in September,” said Rules Committee ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). He was spearheading the effort to call up a vote on the legislation from Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). The two men are working to force a floor vote on that bill through a procedural maneuver known as a discharge petition, which allows members to put a bill on the floor without leadership approval if the effort gets 218 signatures.

Scalise blamed Democrats for the meltdown.

“At the end of the day, look, Democrats are yelling and screaming,” he said in an interview. “They spent four years covering up for Epstein, and you know, at least President Trump’s in the courts right now trying to get documents released, and I really think you’re gonna see, hopefully, a lot unsealed from that and then we’ve got some other options.”

Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), a member of the Rules Committee, also accused Democrats of “grandstanding” and said Republicans refused to give the minority party ”an endless microphone.”

McGovern, in a statement, accused Republicans of making their own mess.

“Democrats on the Rules Committee gave Republicans a choice — either vote to release the Epstein Files, or keep them a secret. Republicans are so afraid of taking that vote that they are torching their own agenda instead of doing something they promised the voters they would do,” he said. “Trump and his top allies have been pushing this for years — and people aren’t going to forget about it in a month.”

Massie, speaking to reporters Monday night, was unrepentant. He’d just been seeing walking onto the House floor with a binder labeled “The Epstein Files: Phase 2,” and the bill number of his resolution with Khanna.

“Their Epstein bill resolution is non-binding so it’s kind of fake. The resolution I have with Khanna would be binding on the President,” Massie said, explaining the breakdown between Republican leaders and other members of the House. Rules leadership last week teed up compromise legislation that would simply support the release of Epstein materials, which opponents called two week and which Speaker Mike Johnson has since said he won’t bring to the floor, anyway.

Scalise reiterated that decision, saying in a brief interview, “the Trump administration’s petitioned the courts to release some of the sealed documents. Hopefully, the court acts swiftly. It’d be important if they got that out.”

Trump last week instructed Attorney General Pam Bondi to begin the process of unsealing grand jury testimony in Epstein’s criminal case. It followed publication of a Wall Street Journal report alleging Trump sent Epstein a racy birthday letter several decades ago, though Trump has said the letter is fake and is now seeking billions in a defamation lawsuit against the paper. (Politico)

While the world waits for the Epstein files, more information about Trump’s sexual tastes keep being revealed.

Warning. 2006 Audio.Contains Trump bragging that he has virtually no limit on age of girls. Touch to listen.

This too is about Trump, sex and age of girls.

---

It seems Trump wants to release all files but one.

Be A King @BerniceKing

Statement from me and my brother, Martin Luther King IlI, on the Release of the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Assassination Files.

“We recognize that the release of documents concerning the assassination of our father, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., has long been a subject of interest, captivating public curiosity for decades. As the children of Dr. King and Mrs. Coretta Scott King, his tragic death has been an intensely personal grief – a devastating loss for his wife, children, and the granddaughter he never met – an absence our family has endured for over 57 years. We ask those who engage with the release of these files to do so with empathy, restraint, and respect for our family’s continuing grief.

The release of these files must be viewed within their full historical context. During our father’s lifetime, he was relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign orchestrated by J. Edgar Hoover through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The intent of the government’s COINTELPRO campaign was not only to monitor, but to discredit, dismantle and destroy Dr. King’s reputation and the broader American Civil Rights Movement. These actions were not only invasions of privacy, but intentional assaults on the truth – undermining the dignity and freedoms of private citizens who fought for justice, designed to neutralize those who dared to challenge the status quo.

In 1999, our family filed a wrongful death civil lawsuit in Shelby County, Tennessee. The jury unanimously concluded that our father was the victim of a conspiracy involving Loyd Jowers and unnamed co-conspirators, including government agencies as a part of a wider scheme. The verdict also affirmed that someone other than James Earl Ray was the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame. Our family views that verdict as an affirmation of our long-held beliefs. As we review these newly released files, we will assess whether they offer additional insights beyond the findings our family has already accepted.

While we support transparency and historical accountability, we object to any attacks on our father’s legacy or attempts to weaponize it to spread falsehoods. We strongly condemn any attempts to misuse these documents in ways intended to undermine our father’s legacy and the significant achievements of the movement. Those who promote the fruit of the FBI’s surveillance will unknowingly align themselves with an ongoing campaign to degrade our father and the Civil Rights Movement.

Instead of repeating the injustices of the past, we encourage the public to continue the work that our father began – building equity, justice, and peace for all. Now more than ever, we must honor his sacrifice by committing ourselves to the realization of his dream – a society rooted in compassion, unity, and equality.

Let us move forward together, inspired by our father’s enduring vision of the Beloved Community – a world made possible when we choose to center love in all that we do. By embracing compassion, mutual respect, and justice, we can transform his dream into our shared reality.”

Please note that the King Family will not be conducting any interviews on this matter at this time.

---

Trump Admin continues its policy of xenophobia, disrespect and lies.

Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old Democrat nominee for mayor of New York City, capitalized on his media literacy when White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt referred to him as "Zamdani" during a press briefing.

"The name is Mamdani. M-A-M-D-A-N-I," the democratic socialist said in a viral TikTok video from the New York City mayoral debate set to the beat of Gwen Stefani's "Hollaback Girl."

When asked about President Donald Trump not endorsing a candidate in the New York City mayoral election, Leavitt said Trump "absolutely does not want to see Zamdani elected, who is a known Communist, who supports the abolishment of private property [and] the defunding of police…"

Leavitt added that it would be a "disaster for New York and for this country" if Mamdani wins this November. (Fox News)

---

Finally, miscellaneous proofs that Trump is always crazy.

On President Obama

On the Wall Street Journal

You may remember that Trump is suing the Wall Street Journal because they wrote about his “bawdy” birthday card to his pal Jeffrey Epstein on the occasion of Epstein’s 50th birthday.

Trump is also furious that anyone thinks he is not a genius who knows about everything and needs no advisors.

Trump has now also banished the Journal from the White House Press corps.

From the WHCA.

---

On another subject, good things seem to be happening.

Judge Challenges Trump Administration in Hearing on Harvard Funding.

In a courtroom in Boston on Monday, a lawyer for Harvard called the Trump administration’s case against the school “cooked up.”

A federal judge appeared deeply skeptical on Monday of the Trump administration’s efforts to strip Harvard University of billions of dollars in research funding, suggesting the school might prevail in its legal battle against the government.

Judge Allison D. Burroughs did not issue a ruling during a crucial hearing, which lasted more than two hours in her courtroom in Boston. But she did seem receptive to Harvard’s arguments, as both the school and the government sought to have the case decided in their favor without a trial.

The judge unleashed a barrage of pointed questions at the lone Justice Department lawyer. She demanded to know, for instance, how the administration could reasonably tie withdrawal of medical research funding to concerns about the civil rights of Jewish people.

And she appeared bothered by the administration’s hurried approach to attacking Harvard’s research funding, suggesting there were potentially “staggering” constitutional consequences if the government could punish a university without due process.

Monday’s hearing came two months after Harvard sued the Trump administration. In the lawsuit, Harvard accused the government of threatening the school’s First Amendment rights when it conditioned federal funding on the university bowing to a set of Trump administration demands. Beyond free speech concerns, a central question in the case is whether the Trump administration ignored rules and procedures when it blocked the funds.

The administration framed its tactics as a righteous response to antisemitism. But Harvard and its allies saw the roster of federal demands as intrusions untethered from trying to eradicate discrimination.

The demands included a review of the school for “viewpoint diversity” and the establishment of outside scrutiny of “those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.” The government also sought dilution of the faculty’s influence over the university and the establishment of “merit based” hiring and admissions policies.

Michael Velchik, the Justice Department lawyer at the hearing, asserted on Monday that the administration had the power to decide where it spent taxpayer money.

“The choice was that the government does not want to fund research at institutions that fail to address antisemitism to its satisfaction,” he said, arguing that Harvard’s rejection of the Trump administration’s terms freed the administration to terminate any contracts with the university.

Harvard, he said, “should have read the fine print.”

Harvard has sharply disputed the idea that it condones discrimination. Steven P. Lehotsky, a lawyer for Harvard, told Judge Burroughs on Monday that the government’s quest to punish Harvard was a “blatant, unrepentant violation of the First Amendment.”

He added, “It’s the constitutional third rail, or it should be, for the government to insist it can engage in viewpoint discrimination.”

Judge Burroughs said relatively little during Mr. Lehotsky’s presentations, resting her chin on her right hand, her fingers usually covering her mouth. But she often lowered her hand when Mr. Velchik was before her.

“Let’s assume for the sake of argument that Harvard has not covered itself in glory on the topic of antisemitism,” she said, noting her own Jewish faith. What, she asked, was the relationship between antisemitism and cutting off, for instance, cancer research funding?

“You’re not taking away grants from labs that have been antisemitic,” she said.

Mr. Velchik replied that the government had discretion to direct public money as it saw fit.

“You’re saying you can terminate a contract for any and all reasons, even if the reason you’re giving is a violation of the Constitution?” Judge Burroughs asked Mr. Velchik at one point, her doubts made clear by her tone. At another moment, she said, “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech.”

Harvard has also argued that the Trump administration had sped past ordinary procedures in its haste to punish Harvard. Mr. Lehotsky depicted the administration’s argument as an unbound approach to executive power, one that would effectively allow presidents and their officials to do “whatever we want, whatever our priorities are,” without any meaningful guardrails.

Judge Burroughs seemed to share the worries of Mr. Lehotsky, who said the government was pursuing an “anti-Harvard policy" that would be unlawful under any president.

“What I’m wrestling with is this idea that the executive branch can decide what is discriminatory or racist,” she said, and then make “these ad hoc decisions without any procedure around it.”

She also appeared dismissive of the government’s contention that a different court, one dealing with financial disputes, should be hearing the case instead of her own.

Mr. Velchik, himself a Harvard alumnus, scrambled on Monday to argue that the government was not seeking to decapitate Harvard. Naming a handful of luminaries who had studied at Harvard — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., President John F. Kennedy and even the actor Matt Damon — he insisted that the government was seeking to strengthen and reshape an important American institution that had lost its way.

In his telling, his alma mater had devolved into a bastion of bigotry that public money should not underwrite. He said the administration could choose, if it wished, to direct its largess toward other institutions. The case, he argued, was more about money for Harvard than any profound matters like free speech.

Judge Burroughs suggested that Harvard might very well not be such a titan of American academia if the Trump administration’s cuts stand.

Judge Burroughs’s posture on Monday was not entirely surprising. She had previously sided with the university in another significant case, when she ruled on several interim matters related to the government’s effort to block the school from enrolling international students. But Monday’s hearing was the first substantive opportunity to glimpse her thinking on Harvard’s signature lawsuit against the federal government.

The fifth-floor courtroom was filled to capacity with lawyers, journalists and spectators. Robert K. Hur, a lawyer for Harvard who was the special counsel in an investigation of Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s handling of classified documents, was relegated to the second row of the gallery.

Besides the hearing itself, there was no indication of the status of settlement talks between the White House and Harvard. But the outcome of the proceeding was expected to shape any future talks.

Even as they have negotiated, though, the administration has continued to pursue Harvard with other tactics, like a challenge to the university’s accreditation and accusations that the school violated Title VI, a part of federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. This month, Immigration and Customs Enforcement subpoenaed the university for troves of information, including payroll records, years of disciplinary files and any videos Harvard had of international students protesting on campus since 2020.

It is not clear when Judge Burroughs will issue a ruling.

President Trump, in a social media post after the hearing, called Judge Burroughs “a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling.”

He also criticized Harvard, and reiterated promises to end its federal funds. “When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN,” he wrote of Judge Burroughs. “Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation.”

Harvard, citing deadlines for grant-related paperwork, is pressing for a decision by early September. Judge Burroughs said she was mindful of that and that she had not “prejudged” the case.

But, as the hearing neared its end, she directed her attention to Mr. Velchik. She decried antisemitism. The matter before her, she said, was not about whether anyone favored antisemitism.

“I think the issue,” she said, “is whether there’s a legitimate relationship between our distaste for discrimination and the approach the administration is taking.” (New York Times)