Here's the link if you want to try to use it. I found a way last night, but it's not working for me now. I was going to quote the part about Donald Trump supposedly drawing the figure of a woman with 2 big curves for breasts and the scribbled signature "Donald" as the pubic hair.
Is that in the article or just the detritus of a bad dream? I don't know. There's that paywall. If you want to take down Trump — save the world from the marker-wielding fiend — you've got to show what you've got to everyone, not exploit the occasion for subscriptions.
And if I remember correctly from last night — or was it a dream? — you didn't even show us the drawing. I want to see this famous historical drawing that brought down a President. Has there ever been a drawing like this?
Here's what I prompted Grok: "Imagine a contest where you have to do a drawing that is supposedly by another American President that would reveal something this bad about him. What would be some entries in the contest? That is, what would it have been possible but terrible for Abe Lincoln to have sketched, etc." I'm sure you could think of funnier ideas that Grok described.
But let's see if I can get Grok to draw that picture Trump supposedly drew but the WSJ did publish (perhaps out of fear of getting "Rathergated"). Oh, no: "Unfortunately I can't generate that kind of image."
ADDED: If you were trying to play up to someone you knew was a pedophile, why would you emphasize a woman's pubic hair? It seems more like a way to call out and needle a pedophile. Try that interpretation, Trumpsters, if the letter turns out to be real.
संदेश
266 टिप्पणियां:
«सबसे पुराना ‹पुराने 266 का 201 – 266Maybe the latest release from Tulsi Gabbard explains why the Post chose to run such a weak, uncorroborated story.
Inag is unaware that Epstein was arrested in 2008.
“Because some 'anyones' are foreign intelligence assets”
Does that make it right in your world view?
Rabel - "the Post" or the WSJ?
@Rabel, St. Obama is directly implicated...the wise don't believe in coincidences.
“Then-U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, was responsible for the non-prosecution agreement that allowed Jeffrey Epstein to avoid federal prosecution in 2008.
This agreement resulted in Epstein pleading guilty to two state prostitution-related charges and serving only 13 months in jail, with lenient work release privileges allowing him to leave jail for work six days a week. The agreement also controversially granted immunity from federal prosecution to Epstein and any potential co-conspirators in Florida. A judge later ruled that the agreement violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act by not adequately informing victims.
The Department of Justice later concluded in 2020 that Acosta exercised "poor judgment" in handling the Epstein prosecution, although it did not rise to the level of professional misconduct.”
Yes, the WSJ.
"Does that make it right in your world view?"
Absolutely not, but we're talking about two different things. You want the files released because you think they'll implicate Trump in pedophilia, which they won't.
I want the files released because I'm very certain they will implicate Israel and our own government in a blackmail/honey-pot operation aimed at the rich and the powerful who will also suffer destruction at its hands.
I'm also quite certain that A) those files have been very highly classified making it practically illegal to release them now and B) seriously implicating evidence that reflects poorly on our own government - and that of Israel - has already been destroyed.
You hate Trump. We know. We're at crossed purposes.
Is that in the article or just the detritus of a bad dream? I don't know. There's that paywall. If you want to take down Trump — save the world from the marker-wielding fiend — you've got to show what you've got to everyone, not exploit the occasion for subscriptions.
They want to take down Trump. They have nothing, and KNOW they have nothing.
So they put it behind a paywall so the rest of us can't see that they have nothing.
The rest of the hacks were pissed at BuzzFeed for releasing the "Steele Dossier" to the public, because once we saw it, we knew it was crap. WSJ isn't going to make the mistake.
FormerLawClerk said...
Statuatory rapists, in other words. Who are getting away with it thanks to Trump forcing the DOJ to drop any further investigation.
Just how completely fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that the Derrick Garland DoJ would not have gone after Trump if there was ANYTHING in the Epstein files that could be used against him?
Ah, I get it, "FormerLawClerk" because you were fired for gross incompetence. Makes sense
TULSI GABBARD RELEASES REPORT: BARACK OBAMA ORDERED THE IC TO FALSIFY ITS RUSSIAGATE CONCLUSIONS TO FRAME TRUMP; SAYS THAT ALL CONSPIRATORS MUST BE PROSECUTED TO "FULLEST EXTENT OF THE LAW"
Ride space Mt -
What would Israel have to gain by this sex-with-minors honey-pot operation?
Blackmailing who and for what purpose?
I'm genuinely curious.
“I want the files released because I'm very certain they will implicate Israel and our own government in a blackmail/honey-pot operation aimed at the rich and the powerful who will also suffer destruction at its hands.”
I’m with you here. And here…
“You want the files released because you think they'll implicate Trump in pedophilia…”
Greg said -
"Just how completely fucking stupid do you have to be to believe that the Derrick Garland DoJ would not have gone after Trump if there was ANYTHING in the Epstein files that could be used against him?"
Exactly.... over and over.
So Russia Russia Inag is certain Trump is a pedo. Got it.
@Peachy, hasn't this been discussed enough? Why-oh-why would a country like Israel - the United State's single biggest recipient of foreign military and domestic aid - be interested in activities that could be used as leverage to ensure such aid not only never ceases, but continues to increase? Why would a government be interested in the nefariously sadistic side-hobbies of wealthy and powerful people in the center of the globe's financial nexus, information that could be used as in a million different ways in countries other than the US and Israel?
Why do governments have a proven track record of dealing with the scuzziest scumbags on planet earth? I can assure you it's not because they enjoy having a good time...
Ride Space - that assumes people who control those purse strings are targeted. Name one - just for grins.
Prince Andrew? Trump ? who didn't enter politics until 2015-2016. Bill Gates?
Bill Clinton?
Funny isn’t it that the day after Trump met with Netanyahoo, the DOJ said they would not release any Epstein files and the matter was closed?
Hmmm…
...well, Epstein did have a darling little picture of Slick Willie in a dress. That should satisfy a "grin" for the time being...
Watch a bit of Mike Benz' youtube channel..
I await comment from "Pedo Pete".
Obviously a woman wrote this.
The letter concludes: “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
Was that painting an early Humper Biden work?
Actually it was July 7th when Trump met kwith Netanyahu and it was the very same day July 7th, that the DOJ released their memo saying that no Epstein files would be published.
Hmmm…hmmm…
"Obviously a woman wrote this. The letter concludes: 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.'"
Couldn't be better if it had been concluded with "Ravishing Regards"
Thinkin' of you JSM, Lol
RR, RSM
I think once DJT owns WSJ, he should rename it Wyle E. Coyote.
The left operate off of lies, hearsay, manufactured BS, - so Igna is happy! She knows Trump is a pedo. all it takes are a few planted connect the dots - and bammo - it's Russia Russia all over again.
OT - lol
CBS Reportedly Lost $40 Million on Colbert’s Late Show This Year
'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret. Thank you for your attention to this matter."
and now a word from Coffee and Covid:
"The move came shortly after the Wall Street Journal published a salacious and thinly sourced birthday note allegedly sent from Trump to Epstein in 2003. The letter included “a sexually suggestive drawing,” hints of “shared secrets,” and an implied threat of blackmail-by-leak. Trump immediately denied the report and promised prompt lawsuits, accusing CEO Rupert Murdoch of reneging on a promise to “take care of it.”
Let’s take a moment to look at this “letter.”
🔥 The Wall Street Journal’s hit piece was headlined, “Exclusive - Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.” Allegedly, the letter was included in a leather-bound scrapbook of birthday wishes that Ghislaine Maxwell collected for Epstein in 2003.
To say the letter was ‘thinly sourced’ is like saying the Titanic had a slight moisture problem."
tcrosse said...
'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret. Thank you for your attention to this matter."
7/18/25, 5:01 PM
Now THAT would have convinced me!
"First, the Journal has neither the Birthday Scrapbook nor the letter. It said it “reviewed” the letter. When? Where? How? Was it just read to them over the phone? What does “reviewed” even mean? For sure, it means they don’t have it. The Journal described the letter as being “among documents examined by Justice Department officials” —what officials?— “according to people who have reviewed the pages.” People? The Village People? Psychics?
“I’m sensing the letter was typed… I’m seeing small arcs… there’s… a signature? Yes! It’s forming… it’s… Donald!”
In other words: the whole Scrapbook story is double anonymous hearsay. Some unnamed “people” said some unidentified “officials” reviewed the birthday binder and the original letter. Even bad lawyers wouldn’t consider trying to admit that in court. “Um, your Honor, someone told us that some government officials may have seen a letter, which someone else described to us… and we’d like to enter that into evidence.” Okay."
more..
"Next, the Journal’s future defendants admitted they know nothing about the letter’s provenance. “It isn’t clear,” the Journal admitted, “how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.” Great. And there’s no chain of custody. Nobody’s ever even heard of this Birthday Scrapbook before. “The existence of the album and the contents of the birthday letters,” the Journal conceded, “haven’t previously been reported.”
No leaks, no mention in any of the court cases, nothing, in over twenty years.
It’s just too much. Biden’s DOJ raided Mar-a-Lago for newspaper clippings, indicted Trump four separate times, subpoenaed everyone but Barron, surveilled campaign officials, and criminalized memes. They even leaked photos from the Mar-a-Lago raid. But we’re supposed to believe Democrats sat on a perfectly gift-wrapped, visually grotesque, plausibly deniable Trump–Epstein letter since 2019 or earlier— and just … what? Forgot to use it? Even during impeachment one and two?"
Notwithstanding all those problems, the Journal glowingly described the “bawdy” letter. It waited till about three pages in, and then set out a very non-Trumpian, odd, quippy typed (not handwritten) fake dialogue between Trump and Epstein that sounds just like a scripted confession. “Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey,” the letter gushed. “Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.”
To make sure we got the message, the carefully scripted, incriminating-sounding typed dialogue was allegedly placed inside a hand-drawn cartoon of a naked woman, with “breasts denoted by small arcs” (small breasts? pre-pubescent ones?) above “Donald,” scrawled as a signature in the sketch’s pubic region.
Get this— despite the obvious, explosive, salacious potential, the Journal did not publish a picture of the actual letter. It did not even explain the letter’s absence. Why not show the letter? Is it sealed? Confidential? Restricted? If so, why not just say that? Or is it possible the Journal never actually saw the letter but just “reviewed” an oral description?"
"Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Journal did not mention any forensic analysis. The convenient fact the incredibly suspicious ‘dialogue’ was typed eliminates handwriting analysis of that part, but what about the signature? The drawing? You’d think they’d have cited six forensic handwriting analyses before going to print with something like this.
Only the original letter with the wet ink signature could be subjected to forensic analysis. Anything else could be copy-pasta. Stroke direction, pen pressure, ink composition, paper age and source— none of these things can be analyzed from a PDF or cell phone snap.
In other words, it’s thinner than Shell station toilet paper. It’s so thin, if you held it up to the light, you’d see the ghost of J. Edgar Hoover shaking his head. So, the alleged letter is a stinking pile of hot garbage, and Trump is about to get another fat settlement to fund the “Golden Defamation Wing” of his presidential library."
"Now let’s get back to Bondi.
🔥 Before Jeffrey Epstein could face trial in 2019 for running a sex trafficking ring so depraved it made Eyes Wide Shut look like a summer church potluck, a federal grand jury had to greenlight the case. A grand jury is like a legal litmus test. It doesn’t decide guilt, just whether there’s enough sketchy behavior to let prosecutors haul someone into court. In Epstein’s case, the grand jury reviewed evidence and testimony about a conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking of minors, then issued the indictment that landed him in that now-infamous Manhattan jail cell, where the cameras flickered, the guards napped and … well, you know the rest.
The grand jury in the Epstein case likely saw a one-sided highlight reel from prosecutors—because that’s how grand juries work. No defense attorneys, no cross-examination, just prosecutors walking jurors through flight logs, victim statements, bank transfers, surveillance footage, and possibly a who’s-who of eyebrow-raising guest lists."
"They probably heard tearful testimony from survivors, saw photos of underage girls at Epstein’s homes, and maybe even reviewed those infamous massage room schedules. The pitch wouldn’t have been subtle: “Here’s a billionaire who shipped teenage girls across state lines like Amazon packages. Now can we please charge him with conspiracy and sex trafficking of minors?”
The jurors, ordinary citizens locked in a private, secured courtroom with all this filth, only had one job: to decide whether there was probable cause to indict. They did. And that indictment probably contains some very awkward facts for very powerful people."
"To get an indictment, prosecutors did not necessarily need to show the jurors the client list, Epstein’s intelligence connections, the blackmail ring, or even name a single customer. But in 2019, they were operating under the full assurance that the grand jury room was a legal black box. Prosecutors present evidence to a grand jury understanding that the proceedings are secret, and that any records, transcripts, or testimony will remain sealed, absent a very rare court order.
In a politically charged case like Epstein’s, federal prosecutors almost certainly and confidently assumed that the grand jury transcripts would never see daylight. Prosecutors try to make their best case to a grand jury. That’s literally the job. And in a case like Epstein’s, they might have made it with a firehose, believing no one would ever read the transcript."
"🔥 If the court grants Bondi’s request to unseal the Epstein grand jury transcripts, don’t expect a Hollywood-style exposé with names, photos, and smoking-gun confessions. Expect a dense, heavily redacted legal document—probably hundreds of pages long—filled with euphemisms, “Witness A”-style pseudonyms, and enough black ink to empty a toner cartridge.
Victims’ identities will be shielded, uncharged third parties will be scrubbed out, and any still-classified investigative details will vanish beneath thick redaction bars. But what does remain —timelines, charges, patterns, and unredacted narrative structure— could still paint a damning picture of what prosecutors knew, when they knew it, and how close they may have gotten to people the public has never been allowed to name.
Still, if the Epstein grand jury transcripts are unsealed, it would be one of the most explosive document releases in modern American legal history. If Epstein was killed to prevent the trial, releasing the Grand Jury report will give us the best look at what evidence would have surfaced in public. Presumably, it was evidence worth killing for."
"In a way, this is Trump’s Revenge.
The DOJ renewed the Epstein investigation during Trump 1.0’s first year in office. They indicted the Financial Man of Mystery (at the Grand Jury) in 2019, and were preparing to try his case when Epstein died in federal custody, driving the whole thing into a graveyard ditch. Now, President Trump is ordering Pam Bondi to expose what was about to come out at trial in 2019, but had never gotten the chance.
And this probably wouldn’t have been politically possible, absent the Democrats’ recent demands for transparency while they were drunk on scandal momentum. Now, it’s bipartisan."
"🔥 What about the court? The case now lands into the lap of an unlucky federal district judge, who will probably have to wade through tons of opposition. Lawyers for the victims will probably oppose release. Shady third parties will probably file sealed motions to at least scrub references to themselves. Each of these opposing motions is entitled to due process. Absent a miracle, expect the process to take weeks or even months.
The New York Times sneered that unsealing the grand jury transcripts isn’t the same as releasing “the whole Epstein file.” That’s technically true; but it’s also deeply misleading.
The Grand Jury testimony represents the best version of the case the DOJ believed it could prove, before Epstein’s death, before redactions, and without political caution. It’s the raw indictment pitch, presented to citizens in private, without spin or PR filter. Unlike rumors, anonymous leaks, or pages of potentially related or unrelated documents, grand jury material is presented under oath. The witnesses are sworn. The evidence is carefully cataloged. It’s all been formally curated by prosecutors."
"Releasing the transcript offers a way to pull back the curtain without doxing the victims or dumping volumes of child sexual abuse material (CSAM). It threads the delicate needle between secrecy and public interest. On the other hand, the full Epstein archive —meaning, the totality of what was seized by the FBI (photos, hard drives, flight logs, emails, letters, videos, contacts, interviews, account statements, etc.)— almost certainly contains a hopeless chowder of damning evidence, irrelevant junk, and misleading red herrings.
Any experienced litigator will agree that too much evidence is just as bad, or maybe even worse, than too little evidence.
🔥 Now we reach the most curious aspect of this developing ‘scandal.’ Some people have speculated that Biden’s DOJ invested its four years packing the Epstein file with misleading disinformation, or even manufactured evidence (like Birthday Scrapbooks nobody’d ever heard of), intentionally turning the full file into a politically useless powder keg of devastating ammunition aimed at Democrat enemies.
Let’s explore that notion a little further."
"When Trump calls the Epstein scandal a “Democrat hoax” and “scam,” most people assume he’s gaslighting. But … what if he means something more tactical? Maybe Trump isn’t saying that Epstein didn’t commit crimes. Maybe he’s hinting that Democrats (and their deep state allies) weaponized the aftermath. Such as padding the FBI case file with misleading misinformation; creating just-plausible-enough “evidence” to entrap Trump or his allies; flooding the archive with innuendo, red herrings, and manufactured grotesqueries (like “bawdy letters” allegedly signed “Donald”); and intentionally making it too politically dangerous to release.
Maybe they aimed to put Trump in an impossible fix: either don’t release, and break his promises, or release, and get manufactured Epstein spooge all over himself and every other significant Republican. Headline from WaPo, Wednesday:
image 4.png
Democrats had four long years to get ready. This theory would explain why Bondi first said, “I have the file”— and then said, “there’s nothing to see here.” Maybe she wasn’t backtracking. Maybe she was dodging the trap. She didn’t flip— she recognized a setup. Ecstatic NPR headline, this week: "What to know about the MAGA faithful’s anger over Trump and the Epstein case"
"In other words, when Trump says Democrat hoax, maybe he means they sabotaged the file.
Did Bondi discover the Democrats had prepared a honeypot? They were aware of all the many promises made by Bondi, Kash, and Bongino to release the entire Epstein file. Did they prepare for it, by loading the file up with so many lies it would be impossible to untangle? Fine. We’ll pack it so full of so much scandalous crap that when it comes out, it destroys Trump’s people, not ours.
But Trump went sideways, and said, “we’re not releasing it.” It caused the Democrats to lose their marbles, turn on a dime, and suddenly start demanding it now! Hence the sudden surge of press coverage, calls from the left for “full transparency,” and suspiciously timed media grenades (like the mystery Birthday Scrapbook) that just happened to target Trump and no one else.
Unlike the bloated FBI archive, the grand jury transcript is court-sealed, time-locked (2019), prosecutor-curated, sworn and vetted, and immune to post-hoc deep-state meddling. It’s the version of the case built before Epstein’s death, before Biden’s DOJ, and before the cleanup crew arrived. It’s the last known account of the crimes as the Trump DOJ saw them.
When Democrats suddenly start demanding the release of the “full Epstein file” —after four years of DOJ silence, sealed records, and zero momentum— they mean they want their trap to spring. The last thing they want is for the grand jury file to be opened.
So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them."
"Finally, despite the overheated corporate media claims and wishful thinking, CNN found that the MAGA faithful are not leaving Trump. If anything, Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is climbing:"
No wonder the WSJ and the hacks built a Rather-Mapes inspired line of fake BS B-day book.
"So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them.
So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them.
So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them.
So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them.
So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them.
So Trump decided not to pry open the compromised FBI file, but the sealed courtroom vault. He outplayed them."
Finally
"The Epstein case’s global scale, and its involvement with some of the world’s most well-known celebrities and top political figures, make it potentially the greatest scandal in human history. Nothing else comes close. Not Watergate, the Pentagon Papers, or even perhaps the Church Abuse Scandal. So it should surprise no one that the route to the truth looks like something from a “Family Circus” cartoon drawn by a schizophrenic whistleblower with an LSD-infused Sharpie.
Forget about predicting it; the Epstein story defies description. It isn’t just a scandal, it’s a whole genre; somewhere between political thriller, true crime, and cold war noir. We’ll have to wait impatiently for the grand jury materials to appear. We’ve officially entered Disclosure Phase 1, thanks to Trump’s move to unseal the one document they didn’t get to rig.
Now, the game is on. Expect ‘them’ to pull out all the stops. It’s going to be lit."
Coffee and Covid. Read the link here, please.
What is this nonsense? You cut up the whole story on a different blog and pasted it here, in installments? We are all capable of clicking on a link. Do that, next time please.
I thought it was important to spoon feed, in this case. Not everyone clicks the links. sorry to annoy.
"Slowest damn walls in the world if you ask me."
Perpetually closing.
Zeno's walls.
Obviously, the fact that Epstein was a pedophile does not mean that all his friends or connections are pedophiles. No doubt beautiful , sexxy, fun women were provided by Epstein for sex and entertainment. Also, no doubt, vast majority of the women were in it for the money, just like Only Fans, Chaturbate, and typical high priced prostitutes.
Probably majority of clients fear martial problems if exposed.
From WSJ article;
It was Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday, and Ghislaine Maxwell was preparing a special gift to mark the occasion. She turned to Epstein’s family and friends. One of them was Donald Trump.
Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein’s other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Pages from the leather-bound album—assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006—are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It’s unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump administration’s recent review...
Justice Department officials didn’t respond to requests for comment or address questions about whether the Trump page and other pages of the birthday album were part of the agency’s recent documents review. The FBI declined to comment...
The book was put together by a New York City bookbinder, Herbert Weitz, according to people who were involved in the process. Weitz, who died in 2020, listed Epstein as a client on his website in 2003.
It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared. Inside the outline of the naked woman was a typewritten note styled as an imaginary conversation between Trump and Epstein, written in the third person.
“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.
Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.
Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?
Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Trump: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.
So, let me get this straight, Dingabat- Ron Wyden has bravely been investigating these transactions for three years fighting, I suppose those dastardly GOP members and the Trump DoJ all the while he is just nobody ranking member of the committee. I write this because this is exactly how the NYTimes is trying to create the narrative on this story but there is just one problem with this- Ron Wyden was the committee chair from January 2021 until 6 months ago and the DoJ was, of course, Biden's for those 4 years. So, has Wyden been sitting on this all this time? And, as a member of the Senate, Wyden is free to put this information into the Senate record right from the floor. So, will he?
The Killian memo all over again. The usual suspects will swallow it hook, line and sinker.
If there was any damning evidence about Trump and Epstein that card would have been played over and over since 2016.
Trump has filed in Miami federal court. Using same lawyer as ABC. Surprised he sued Rupert personally. Should think that at least cannot survive MTD. A big part of allegations is recital of republication. In that regard, no love for this blog.
Trump has boasted about grabbing women by their genitals, entered dressing rooms of undressed Miss Teen USA contestants, was found liable for sexually assaulting E. Jean Carroll, and was convicted of concealing hush money payments to an adult film actress.
Here’s why the Epstein allegations against him are unfounded. ~ MAGA
RSM: ""Obviously a woman wrote this. The letter concludes: 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.'" Couldn't be better if it had been concluded with "Ravishing Regards""
Ha!
RR
JSM
I subscribe to The Australian - our more centrist version of the NYT. I get a free sub to WSJ as part of the deal which I was eager to use. Until I did. Boy, has that joint gone downhill.
"Boy, has that joint gone downhill."
It's run by 20-somethings.
Here is the link to Trump's lawsuit against Murdoch.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70843413/trump-v-murdoch/
Webpage Archive usually works for me.
The WSJ does not show the letter. I suspect big-time scam. If they were innocent (and scammed by the reporter), they would show the letter. It looks like they don't even have the letter. TDS + actual malice = early settlement before discovery (again).
Epstein needed to be tried and convicted. Then Maxwell needed to be tried and convicted. The files weren't going to be released in 2019 or 2020. It's unlikely that they will ever be released in their entirety.
We know sex with underaged women was a major part of Epstein's life. We don't know how big a part of his operation it was. Eli Cohen, the Israeli superspy, went very far just providing liquor and a place where higher ups could talk freely, spilling secrets and providing connections. Granted, that was in Syria and liquor may have been harder to get there.
Freder Frederson said...
You ever consider that there were high-profile clients on both sides of the political aisle and it would have been problematic to expose Trump without also exposing important Democrats (Bill Clinton if you like).
Because we're not complete morons, no, we don't even for a minute believe that the Democrats would have refrained from going after Trump in order protect Bill Clinton, or any other Democrat not named Merrick Garland or * Biden
Someone pointed out on Twitter today that no other "news" organization is piling on with this story.
Which is not their normal behavior.
Gee, it's almost like the story is such completed utter crap that you'd have to be completely delusional to believe it
एक टिप्पणी भेजें
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.