Law (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares11 Views

    US judge throws out criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James

    by

    A federal judge threw out the criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James on Monday, concluding that the prosecutor handling the cases was unlawfully appointed.Lindsey Halligan, who Trump named the interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia in September, had “no lawful authority to present the indictment” against the former FBI director and New York attorney general, Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, wrote in her opinion.“I conclude that the attorney general’s attempt to install Ms Halligan as Interim US attorney for the eastern district of Virginia was invalid and that Ms Halligan has been unlawfully serving in that role since September 22, 2025,” Currie, who was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, wrote in her opinion. She added that “all actions flowing from Ms Halligan’s defective appointment” were “unlawful exercises of executive power and must be set aside”.The decision is a major win for Comey, who was charged with lying to Congress five years ago, and James, who was charged with mortgage fraud. Both unequivocally denied wrongdoing and said the cases were a thinly veiled effort by the Trump administration to punish them for opposing Trump.“I am heartened by today’s victory and grateful for the prayers and support I have received from around the country,” James said in a statement. “I remain fearless in the face of these baseless charges as I continue fighting for New Yorkers every single day.”Comey also praised the decision.“I’m grateful that the court ended the case against me which was a prosecution based on malevolence and incompetence,” he said in a recorded video. “This case mattered to me personally, obviously, but it matters most because a message has to be sent that the president of the United States cannot use the Department of Justice to target his political enemies.“I know that Donald Trump will probably come after me again and my attitude is gonna be the same. I’m innocent, I am not afraid, and I believe in an independent federal judiciary,” he added.US attorneys must be confirmed by the Senate. Federal law allows the attorney general to appoint someone to serve on an acting basis for 120 days while a nomination is pending. Once that 120 day period is up, the law allows the judges on the district court where the prosecutor handles cases to appoint a top prosecutor.Halligan’s predecessor, Erik Siebert, began serving in the role on an interim basis in January. In May, at the end of the 120-day period, the judges in the eastern district of Virginia chose to extend his appointment. In September, Siebert was forced out of his role as it reportedly determined there was insufficient evidence to charge James with a crime. Trump installed Halligan, a White House aide with no prosecutorial experience in the role and Comey was indicted on charges of lying to Congress days later. Halligan then indicted James on allegations of mortgage fraud shortly after that.The Trump administration argued that the attorney general could simply revisit someone new every 120 days, but Currie said that would simply allow the attorney general to indefinitely appoint someone on an interim basis. The “text, structure, and history” of the law do not support the government’s argument she wrote.Currie dismissed both cases “without prejudice”, which means the government could theoretically try to bring the charges again under a properly appointed US attorney. But it is unclear if they could even do that in Comey’s case because the statute of limitations for the crime he is charged with passed on 30 September 2025.“The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment,” said Patrick Fitzgerald, a lawyer for Comey. “The day when Mr Comey was indicted was a sad day for our government. Honest prosecutors were fired to clear the path for an unlawful prosecution. But today an independent judiciary vindicated our system of laws not just for Mr Comey but for all American citizens.”Halligan personally presented both cases to the grand jury and has been under intense scrutiny since taking her position. Last week, a judge overseeing the case questioned whether she had properly followed routine procedure in obtaining an indictment in Comey’s case. Prosecutors handling the case say they followed appropriate procedure.“The court’s order acknowledges what’s been clear about this case from the beginning. The president went to extreme measures to substitute one of his allies to bring these baseless charges after career prosecutors refused,” Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for James, said in a statement. “This case was not about justice or the law; it was about targeting Attorney General James for what she stood for and who she challenged. We will continue to challenge any further politically motivated charges through every lawful means available.” More

    More stories

    • 100 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      Court rules Trump can’t expand fast-track deportation process

      by

      A federal appeals court on Saturday declined to clear the way for Donald Trump’s administration to expand a fast-track deportation process to allow for the expedited removal of immigrants who are living far away from the border.A 2-1 panel of the US court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit declined to put on hold the central part of a ruling by a lower-court judge who had found that the administration’s policies violated the due process rights of immigrants who could be apprehended anywhere in the US.The US district judge Jia Cobb in an 29 August ruling sided with an immigrant rights group and blocked the US Department of Homeland Security from enforcing policies that exposed immigrants to the risk of rapid expulsion if the administration believed they had been in the country for less than two years.The administration asked the DC circuit to stay that ruling while it appealed.But the US circuit judges Patricia Millett and J Michelle Childs said the administration was unlikely to succeed in showing that its systems and procedures adequately protected immigrants’ due process rights under the US constitution’s fifth amendment.The judges, both appointees of Democratic presidents, cited “serious risks of erroneous summary removal” posed by the administration’s effort to expand the fast-track deportation process away from the borders to cover the entire US.While the court largely left Cobb’s order in place, it stayed part of it to the extent it required changes to how immigration authorities determine whether someone has a credible fear of being sent back to their country of origin.US circuit judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, dissented and called Cobb’s ruling “impermissible judicial interference”.The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The administration’s appeal on the merits is scheduled to be heard on 9 December.For nearly three decades, the expedited removal process has been used to quickly return immigrants apprehended at the border. In January, the administration expanded its scope to cover non-citizens apprehended anywhere in the US who could not show they had been in the country for two years.The policy mirrored one the Trump administration adopted in 2019 that Joe Biden’s administration later rescinded. The Trump policy also was challenged by the immigrant rights’ advocacy group Make the Road New York. More

    • 188 Shares42 Views

      in US Politics

      Congressman Ro Khanna warns officials not to impede Epstein files release: ‘They will be prosecuted’

      by

      Democratic congressman Ro Khanna was a major force behind the legislative campaign that led Donald Trump to back down from his opposition and sign into law a bill compelling the release of files related to the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.With the justice department now required to release the documents within 30 days, Khanna has a warning for those in the Trump administration who may find themselves pressed to withhold information: comply or face the consequences.“Now, it’s federal law for those documents to be released, and if the justice officials don’t release it, they will be prosecuted, and they … could be prosecuted in a future administration,” Khanna told the Guardian on Wednesday evening, shortly before Trump put his signature on a bill intended to reveal the truth about what he spent weeks calling a “Democrat hoax”.“The career officials [that] are making these decisions have to think that they’re going to be subject to future contempt of Congress or criminal prosecution, and they’re taking a huge risk … if they violate that, given that administrations change,” the California lawmaker added.As Democrats eye regaining control of the House of Representatives in next year’s midterm elections, Khanna also expressed his support for issuing a subpoena to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former British royal who was stripped of his titles over his affiliation with Epstein.A top UK minister has since said Mountbatten-Windsor should answer questions about the relationship from US lawmakers, and Khanna and other Democrats asked Mountbatten-Windsor to sit for a deposition voluntarily, though the former prince has not responded.“We could subpoena him, because then, if he ever visited the United States, he’d be in contempt of Congress, and … face prosecution,” Khanna said. “Maybe he never wants to visit the United States, but if he does, he would have to comply with the subpoena.”It would be up to the House of Representatives’s Republican majority to issue a subpoena, and Khanna said he had suggested doing so to James Comer, the Republican chair of the oversight committee, which is also investigating the Epstein case. He has not heard back, and spokespeople for Comer did not respond to a request for comment.A financier and one-time friend of the president, Epstein died in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex-trafficking charges, after pleading guilty in 2008 to a sexual abuse charge in Florida after a deal with prosecutors. During last year’s campaign, Trump and his allies insinuated that there was more to be revealed about Epstein and his interactions with global elites, but in July, the justice department and FBI announced that they would release no further information.That sparked an outcry among Trump’s supporters as well as many of his opponents, which continued even after the president dismissed the concern as a politically motivated attack. Khanna then collaborated with Republican congressman Thomas Massie on the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires the release of the government’s files about Epstein. To overcome the objections of the House speaker, Mike Johnson, Massie circulated a discharge petition among lawmakers to force a vote on the bill.The petition took weeks to receive the 218 signatures necessary to succeed, due in part due to the 43-day government shutdown and Johnson’s refusal to swear in a newly elected Democratic representative. Earlier this week, Trump dropped his opposition to the bill, and the House approved it overwhelmingly. The Senate later agreed to pass it unanimously.“We cracked the Maga base. It’s the first time anyone has ever cracked the Maga base,” Khanna said, adding that the “courage of the survivors” of Epstein, who twice traveled to the US Capitol to publicly press for the release of the files, was similarly pivotal.The US attorney general, Pam Bondi, has been accused of undoing the justice department’s independence from the White House, and recently opened an investigation into ties between Democrats and Epstein at Trump’s request.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionUnder the law, she is now tasked with releasing a wide range of files related to Epstein, his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell and others who interacted with them, though there are exemptions for materials related to open investigations or that could jeopardize national security.Khanna would not speculate on what may be revealed by the files, but signaled that Democrats would not let the issue drop, and would pursue officials who do not follow the law, though that will likely have to wait until they reclaim the majority in one chamber of Congress.“If we have the House, the people will be held in contempt and in front of Congress if they’re not complying. And if there’s a new administration, they’re very likely to enforce the law if people have violated it,” he said.The Epstein files have already generated uncomfortable headlines for powerful Democrats, including Larry Summers, a former treasury secretary under Bill Clinton who this week announced he would stop teaching at Harvard University after emails released by the House oversight committee reignited questions about his ties with Epstein.Khanna said he was not concerned by the possibility that the documents could cost others in his party their reputation.“I believe that we need a clearing, frankly, of the elite governing class … whether they were Democrats or Republicans,” he said.“We need a generational change, and if there are people who are caught up in protecting sex offenders or people caught up in participating in sex trafficking or abuse of underage girls, they should not be part of the future of politics.” More

    • 150 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge halts Trump’s deployment of the national guard to Washington DC

      by

      A federal judge on Thursday halted for now Donald Trump’s deployment of national guard troops to Washington DC, dealing the president a temporary legal setback to his efforts to send the military to US cities over the objections of local leaders.US district judge Jia Cobb, an appointee of former president Joe Biden, temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deploying national guard troops to enforce the law in the nation’s capital without approval from its mayor.Cobb paused her ruling until 11 December to allow the Trump administration to appeal.The legal fight is playing out alongside several others across the country as Trump presses against longstanding but rarely tested constraints on presidents using troops to enforce domestic law.The DC attorney general, Brian Schwalb, an elected Democrat, sued on 4 September after Trump announced the deployment on 11 August.The lawsuit accused Trump of unlawfully usurping control of the city’s law enforcement and violating a law prohibiting troops from performing domestic police work.Trump has unique law enforcement powers in Washington, which is not part of any state, but local officials say he overstepped by supplanting the mayor’s policing authority and violated legal prohibitions against federal troops engaging in civilian police work.Trump administration lawyers called the lawsuit a political stunt in court filings and said the president is free to deploy troops to Washington without the approval of local leaders. The administration also claims the troops are operating lawfully and successfully reducing crime.Trump, a Republican, has also moved to deploy troops in Los Angeles, Chicago and Portland, Oregon, to combat what he describes as lawlessness and violent unrest over his crackdown on illegal immigration.Democratic leaders of those cities and their states have sued to block the deployments, saying they amount to an attempt to punish political foes with militarized shows of force. More

    • 125 Shares32 Views

      in US Politics

      Full grand jury didn’t see final Comey indictment, prosecutors admit

      by

      Federal prosecutors on Wednesday said they had never presented the final version of the indictment filed against James Comey to a full federal grand jury, a concession that adds to mounting challenges in their effort to prosecute the former FBI director.Prosecutors acknowledged the omission during a Wednesday hearing in which Comey’s lawyers argued the case against him should be dismissed because it was a selective and vindictive prosecution.Comey was indicted on 26 September on one count of making a false statement to Congress and one count of obstructing a congressional proceeding in connection with testimony he gave in 2020 in which he said he had not “authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports” regarding Hillary Clinton.Court documents from September show that Lindsey Halligan, a Trump ally installed as a top prosecutor in the case, had sought an additional false statement charge against Comey, but that grand jurors had rejected it.Once the grand jury rejected the charge, Halligan could have had the full grand jury vote again on a copy of the indictment that only included the two charges they voted to indict on, or presented the judge with a three-count indictment crossing out the count on which the grand jury had chosen not to indict on. But, pressed on Wednesday by Michael Nachmanoff, the US district judge overseeing the case, Halligan confirmed that only the foreperson and another grand juror had seen the revised indictment that had only the two charges the grand jury had voted to indict on, CNN and Lawfare reported on Wednesday.Comey’s team therefore views the indictment as null. “There is no indictment Mr Comey is facing,” Michael Dreeben, one of Comey’s lawyers said in court on Wednesday. N Tyler Lemons, an assistant US attorney handling the case, argued that there wasn’t a problem because the final version of the indictment merely removed a charge rejected by the grand jury. “The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” he said, according to the Washington Post.Andrew Tessman, a former federal prosecutor in West Virginia and Washington DC, said he saw the issue as “highly problematic” and a “fatal flaw”. “This is just not how grand jury operates,” he said.Halligan is a former insurance lawyer who presented the case to the grand jury herself despite never having previously handled a criminal case.A transcript of the hearing in which the indictment was returned in Comey’s case obtained by CBS News shows some confusion over the indictment. The magistrate judge overseeing it said she had been given two versions of the indictment.“The reason we want to cross all of our T’s and dot all of our I’s in these situations is because the court is also going to take it very seriously for the same reasons. And if you screw up one step in this process, then you’re risking the whole case going away in an embarrassing fashion,” Tessman said. “The US attorney’s office is going to take this whole process very seriously, but the court is going to take it even more seriously. And if they see one thing wrong with how the case was presented to the grand jury, they’re going to err on the side of protecting people’s constitutional rights.”“It’s understandable. You pulled a random insurance lawyer off the street and you put her into the grand jury with no training and no other experienced attorney there,” he added. “It’s not surprising at all that some big mistake was made.”Nachmanoff gave the justice department until 5pm on Wednesday to further explain what happened.Before Trump installed Halligan, it was widely reported that career prosecutors believed there was not sufficient evidence to charge Comey with a crime. On Wednesday, Lemons said the deputy attorney general’s office had instructed him not to disclose whether a memo outlining the reasons for not prosecuting the case existed.Wednesday’s hearing came days after a magistrate judge handling the case said there may have been “government misconduct” and that Halligan made at least two “fundamental and highly prejudicial” misstatements of law to the grand jury. The magistrate judge ordered the prosecutors to take the highly unusual step of turning over grand jury materials to Comey’s team. That order is on hold while an appeal is pending. More

    • 125 Shares92 Views

      in US Politics

      Trans air force members sue Trump administration over denied pension

      by

      A group of 17 transgender US air force members has sued the Trump administration for denying them early retirement pensions and benefits.The complaint, submitted in federal court, describes the government’s move against them as “unlawful and invalid”.The legal action follows the air force’s confirmation it would deny early retirement benefits to all transgender service members with 15 to 18 years of military experience, a decision that effectively pushes them out of the military with no retirement support at all.“The Air Force’s own retirement instruction provides that retirement orders may only be rescinded under very limited circumstances, none of which were present here,” the lawsuit says.Among the named plaintiffs are Logan Ireland, Ashley Davis, Kira Brimhall and Lindell Walley.Glad Law, one of the advocacy groups behind the lawsuit who is representing the affected service members, said the revocation of early retirement support had ripped away financial support and benefits these families were counting on after long years of excellent service to their country.“These service members will lose $1-2m in lifetime benefits, jeopardizing their families’ economic security,” Glad Law said in a statement. “The action also strips the airmen and their families of access to TRICARE, the military health insurance program, which would have provided access to civilian health care providers beyond VA [Veterans Administration] facilities.”The lawsuit came amid the latest escalation by the Trump administration to prohibit transgender people from joining the military and to remove those already serving. The Pentagon has argued that transgender people are medically unfit, something civil rights activists have pushed back on and say constitutes illegal discrimination.In March, a federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order banning transgender people from military service. US district judge Ana Reyes in Washington DC ruled that the order likely violated their constitutional rights. Pentagon officials have said in the past that 4,200 service members were diagnosed with “gender dysphoria”, which they use as an identifier of being transgender.The air force, however, has stood apart in its enforcement of policies that go beyond just separating troops from military service. As well as rescinding early retirement benefits, the service rolled out a new policy in August to deny transgender members the right to argue before a board of their peers for the right to continue serving.The most recent lawsuit, the latest in a string, is challenging that.According to the court documents, the “plaintiffs’ retirement orders remain valid and effective”. Their legal team are calling for these “orders to be reinstated” and pushing for “their military records be corrected accordingly”. The lawsuit also says “interest, costs and attorney’s fees” must be accounted for and “further relief as the court deems just and proper.”Ireland, a master sergeant in the air force with 15 years of service, told the Associated Press: “The military taught me to lead and fight, not retreat.“Stripping away my retirement sends the message that those values only apply on the battlefield, not when a service member needs them most.” More

    • 138 Shares87 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge bars Trump administration from cutting funding to University of California

      by

      The Trump administration cannot fine the University of California or summarily cut the school system’s federal funding over claims it allows antisemitism or other forms of discrimination, a federal judge ruled late on Friday in a sharply worded decision.US district judge Rita Lin in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction barring the administration from cancelling funding to the university based on alleged discrimination without giving notice to affected faculty and conducting a hearing, among other requirements.The administration over the summer demanded the University of California, Los Angeles, pay $1.2bn to restore frozen research funding and ensure eligibility for future funding after accusing the school of allowing antisemitism on campus. UCLA was the first public university to be targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations.It has also frozen or paused federal funding over similar claims against private colleges, including Columbia University.In her ruling, Lin said labor unions and other groups representing UC faculty, students and employees had provided “overwhelming evidence” that the Trump administration was “engaged in a concerted campaign to purge ‘woke’, ‘left’ and ‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities”.“Agency officials, as well as the president and vice-president, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of pre-eminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune,” Lin wrote.She added: “It is undisputed that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California.”At UC, which is facing a series of civil rights investigations, she found the administration had engaged in “coercive and retaliatory conduct in violation of the first amendment and 10th amendment”.Messages sent to the White House and the US Department of Justice after hours on Friday were not immediately returned. Lin’s order will remain in effect indefinitely.The president of the University of California, James B Milliken, has said the size of the UCLA fine would devastate the UC system, whose campuses are viewed as some of the top public colleges in the nation.UC is in settlement talks with the administration and is not a party to the lawsuit before Lin, who was nominated to the bench by Joe Biden, a Democrat. In a statement, the university system said it “remains committed to protecting the mission, governance and academic freedom of the university”.The administration has demanded UCLA comply with its views on gender identity and establish a process to make sure foreign students are not admitted if they are likely to engage in anti-American, anti-western or antisemitic “disruptions or harassment”, among other requirements outlined in a settlement proposal made public in October.The administration has previously struck deals with Brown University for $50m and Columbia University for $221m.Lin cited declarations by UC faculty and staff that the administration’s moves were prompting them to stop teaching or researching topics they were “afraid were too ‘left’ or ‘woke’”.Her injunction also blocks the administration from “conditioning the grant or continuance of federal funding on the UC’s agreement to any measures that would violate the rights of plaintiffs’ members under the first amendment”.She cited efforts to force the UC schools to screen international students based on “’anti-western” or “‘anti-American’” views, restrict research and teaching, or adopt specific definitions of “male” and “female” as examples of such measures.Donald Trump has decried elite colleges as overrun by liberalism and antisemitism.His administration has launched investigations of dozens of universities, claiming they have failed to end the use of racial preferences in violation of civil rights law. The Republican administration says diversity, equity and inclusion efforts discriminate against white and Asian American students. More

    • 138 Shares65 Views

      in US Politics

      US judge bars Trump from cutting off University of California funds

      by

      A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funding and threatening hefty fines against the University of California amid the administration’s attempts to coerce elite US universities into adopting and promoting conservative ideals.US district judge Rita Lin of San Francisco issued the preliminary injunction late Friday, saying the government was not allowed to demand payments from the California school system over the administration’s claims that it violates civil rights by allowing antisemitism and practising affirmative action.In her ruling, Lin said that the plaintiffs – who include UC faculty, researchers and students – have submitted “overwhelming evidence” illustrating the Trump administration’s “concerted campaign to purge ‘woke,’ ‘left’ and ‘socialist’ viewpoints from our country’s leading universities”.Lin ruled that the government had a “playbook of initiating civil rights investigations” at universities in order to cut federal funding, “bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune”.In July, the Trump administration froze $584m in federal funding for the University of California, Los Angeles, while accusing the university of discrimination and violating civil rights over its handling of the 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The administration claimed UCLA was “acting with deliberate indifference in creating a hostile educational environment for Jewish and Israeli students”.In October, the administration proposed a deal to nine prominent universities in the US that promised funding in exchange for schools imposing policies and changes that included banning race or sex as considerations in admissions and hiring and removing departments that “purposefully punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas”.While the University of California school system was not offered the deal, the University of Southern California – a private institution – was.California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, responded to the offer with a warning that any California universities that signed Trump’s proposed settlement would lose their state funding.Democracy Forward, a progressive legal advocacy group, called the Trump administration’s efforts to influence policy at universities “strong-arm tactics”.“This is not just a harmful attempt to stifle speech, it is a betrayal of the constitution and a dangerous step toward autocracy,” the group said in a statement. More

    • 213 Shares105 Views

      in US Politics

      The Guardian view on Trump and Epstein: the truth about Maga and its conspiracy theories | Editorial

      by

      It is 20 years since Florida police first investigated the financier Jeffrey Epstein for the sexual abuse of underage girls; six years since he killed himself in prison following his arrest on federal sex-trafficking charges; and more than a year since Donald Trump said that he would have “no problem” with releasing the FBI files on the offender.As the Democratic politician Ro Khanna noted, releasing the files “was core to Trump’s promise … It was his central theme that the American corrupt elite had betrayed forgotten Americans”. The question is not only what Epstein’s associates did, but also what they knew and what they did not do. It is not only about their own behaviour, but about any knowledge or suspicion of his crimes, and willingness to overlook them.Yet the Maga base is still waiting. Mr Trump has said that he had “no idea” about Epstein’s crimes. On Wednesday, questions were reignited by the Democrats’ release of emails in which Epstein described Mr Trump as “that dog that hasn’t barked”, adding that “[victim’s name redacted] spent hours at my house with him”. Republicans said the victim was the late Virginia Giuffre, who told lawyers that “I don’t think Donald Trump participated in anything”. Separately, Epstein wrote that “of course he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine [Maxwell] to stop” and that “Trump knew of it” but “he never got a massage”.Mr Trump, who has mainstreamed and legitimised conspiracy politics and the championing of emotion over fact, attacks the issue as a “hoax”. The very people who urged Maga supporters to pursue this story – such as Kash Patel, now FBI chief – abruptly changed their minds this year without adequate explanation. Republicans released thousands of documents in response to the emails published by Democrats. But Mr Trump faces a bipartisan demand for the full release of the files, with members of the Maga far right joining Democrats.The Republicans took a drubbing in off-year elections last week, and Mr Trump’s approval rating is the lowest of this term. The ending of the longest government shutdown in history – after a handful of Democrats folded on Wednesday – relieved the White House, but opens the way for a vote on releasing the files, expected next week.Mr Trump has shaken off troubles that would have ended any other political career – including E Jean Carroll’s successful civil suit against him for sexual abuse (which he is again asking the supreme court to dismiss) and two dozen allegations of sexual assault, which he denies. The full release of documents might aid him: the slow drip of information has kept the scandal running and made it look, rightly or wrongly, as if the administration has something worse to hide.For the Maga base, previously fired up by lurid and false “Pizzagate” claims of a paedophile ring connected to the Democratic political elite, this remains a burning issue. Their claims about Epstein’s circle have at times been partisan, provably wrong and antisemitic. Yet it’s hard to deny that the mills of justice usually grind slower when the rich and well-connected are involved, and that powerful figures who benefited from a relationship with Epstein, such as Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Peter Mandelson, have sought to avoid scrutiny and minimise their ties. It took the courage of victims and dogged reporting to make Epstein accountable, and it took far too long. A fuller reckoning for his associates – from across the political spectrum – is overdue.

      Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here. More