'Criminal Charges' Rep. Tim Burchett drops a MOAB mother of all bombs confirming that Biden staffers were taking payoffs.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) stated last week that he believes a client list tied to Jeffrey Epstein once existed but was “destroyed” by the Biden administration.
“I think the files existed at one time,” Burchett said in an interview on NewsNation’s “On Balance” with host Leland Vittert. “I think they were destroyed in the previous administration.”
A Justice Department memo released earlier that week determined that Epstein never maintained the purported client list used to blackmail prominent individuals, directly contradicting long-standing conspiracy theories. The memo also affirmed that Epstein died by suicide in his New York City jail cell in 2019, rejecting claims that his death was suspicious.
Burchett rejected suggestions from former Trump adviser Elon Musk and other media figures that President Trump’s name appeared on any such list.
“I think if they’d ever had anything on Trump, it would have been out Day 1 under the Biden administration,” the Tennessee Republican said.
“I think there’s some very prominent people. There’s Hollywood people,” he added. “I mean, I think there’s world leaders too. And would it have caused economic disruption around the globe? Maybe. But I don’t really care. I want to bury those dirtbags.”
Asked why Attorney General Pam Bondi wouldn’t come out and just say that the evidence has been destroyed, Burchett responded, “She doesn’t have any proof of it.”
“I’m just telling you what I think. I’ve been around this town enough,” the lawmaker continued. “I think she got over her skis pretty much saying all this stuff, the files are on my desk, I’m going to release it, and then she releases stuff that I knew.”
“I think they all got out there, got a little excited, and I don’t think they exist,” he added, referring to the files.
Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI Director Kash Patel, and Deputy Director Dan Bongino have faced intense scrutiny from leading MAGA figures who suspect the government is suppressing explosive details about Epstein. Notably, both Patel and Bongino promoted similar theories before joining the administration.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said last week as well that the DOJ’s conclusion is the result of an “exhaustive review of all of the files related to Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes and his death.”
She noted that the Trump administration withheld certain material because of its graphic content.
In 2019, during Trump’s first term, Epstein was federally charged with running a sex-trafficking ring that exploited underage girls from 2002 to 2005. He died in prison a month later before his case went to trial, after having previously pleaded guilty to separate sexual misconduct offenses.
The official cause of death was suicide.
The former attorney for deceased human trafficker “unequivocally” said that Trump is nowhere to be seen on the infamous list of clients that his former client had.
David Schoen, who represented Epstein in the final weeks before he died in 2019, revealed in June that he had questioned his imprisoned client about any potential dirt on Trump.
The comments resurfaced last week as a new twist in the already chaotic saga of the Trump administration’s handling of Epstein’s files.
“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. I specifically asked him!” Schoen said in a post on X.
The DOJ concluded that Epstein died by suicide and maintains that no list exists naming the powerful individuals allegedly involved in his network of sexual abuse, Fox News reported.
In a joint memo obtained by Fox News last week, the DOJ and FBI stated they had no additional information to release regarding Jeffrey Epstein’s case or death.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
