Eat & Drink

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) issued a fierce demand Monday to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche regarding President Donald Trump’s “long-term friendship” with Jeffrey Epstein, arguing it may have not only influenced the Trump administration’s policies, but created a “major national security liability.”

Raskin's demand came in the form of a letter to Blanche's office requesting records on Epstein's foreign ties, details of which have emerged through the Justice Department's release of millions of Epstein-related files that started last year. Specifically, Raskin’s request centered around suspicions that Epstein acted as a “foreign agent” for multiple countries, and on some occasions, did so “in order to influence policies of the first Trump administration.”

“Given the information Mr. Epstein possessed about President Trump and his easy access to high-level officials in the President’s inner circle, Mr. Epstein’s relationships with foreign leaders, including adversaries, posed a major national security liability,” Raskin’s letter reads.

Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, released the letter publicly on Tuesday, in which he cited evidence suggesting that Epstein worked on behalf of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia and Israel, a potential violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Raskin went on to detail several examples as to how Epstein’s friendship with Trump may have created a legitimate “security risk” to the United States, including one involving a “Russian oligarch.”

“Mr. Epstein privately alleged the President was involved in an international money laundering scheme with a Russian oligarch that centered around real estate in Florida. In another missive, Mr. Epstein connects the dots between this scheme and the sale of expensive artwork to [Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman],” Raskin’s letter reads.

“While Mr. Epstein was prone to exaggeration and self-aggrandizement, these emails suggest President Trump’s foreign business interests may have had a tangible effect on foreign policy and that Mr. Epstein knew about and was willing to weaponize such lurking and explosive conflicts of interest.”

Raskin demanded that Blanche's office turn over “all records” related to Epstein and 19 different countries, as well as all records relating to entities associated with Epstein that “may have been set up to avoid their foreign contacts triggering personal FARA registration requirements.”

In the letter, Raskin noted that Epstein, alongside former Trump official Steve Bannon, appeared to employ “strategies for skirting FARA’s requirements,” including the use of non-profit entities and other non-governmental organizations to structure “international arrangements,” and to “use go-betweens so he could remain ‘surgically pure.’”

A law professor flagged a legal theory from a Trump amicus brief that he says would let foreigners bring enslaved people into the U.S.

During an interview on the Legal AF podcast, legal expert Paul Gowder talked about American legal scholar Richard Epstein and an argument he made in an amicus brief filed in Trump's birthright citizenship case. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled against Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, and Epstein filed the brief on Trump's side.

Gowder explained that Epstein argued that the phrases "subject to the jurisdiction" and "within the jurisdiction" have different meanings in the Constitution. Epstein observed that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" is used in the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship, and the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery.

Epstein interprets that to mean that those two amendments can only apply to people who are members of society in the United States, or "subject" to the jurisdiction, not simply within it, according to Gowder.

"Richard Epstein wants to read 'subject to the jurisdiction' to mean like in more control of the U.S., basically a member of the U.S. community, not somebody who's just passing through," Gowder explained.

That would allow Epstein to argue, "We can read the 14th Amendment to exclude tourists and to exclude undocumented people," Gowder said. But with slavery and the 13th Amendment, "he just, like, embraces the notion that therefore the 13th Amendment must mean that if somebody from a country that has legal slavery comes to the U.S. as a tourist, they can bring their slaves with them," Gowder explained.

"Like, what?" Gowder said in dismay as he described Epstein's idea as "slave tourism."

Gowder stressed that Epstein isn't a fringe legal scholar and described him as a "very, very famous NYU law professor, worshipped by the [Federalist Society], like basically, for a certain kind of right-wing thinker, people on the right often think he's like the greatest legal mind of his generation."

However, for Gowder, Epstein is "completely nuts."