"One woman wrote: 'With you, dear Jeffrey, I laugh like a little girl and feel like a woman.'"

"The next page in the book simply shows a hand-drawn heart, a brief message and a photo of a woman’s buttocks in a thong bikini. Another assistant described how Mr. Epstein transformed her life, from a 22-year-old woman who had been divorced and had worked in a hotel restaurant to a person who traveled the world meeting powerful people. Among them, she listed Mr. Trump, Mr. Clinton and 'brilliant scientists, lawyers and business men.'"

From "In Epstein’s 'Birthday Book,' a Celebration of His Lecherous Exploits/The book containing 50th birthday tributes to Jeffrey Epstein was released on Monday by the House Oversight Committee" (NYT).

"There Must Be More to Life Than..."

"All I had to do was pretend to be entertained by their lewd gestures, and when Andrew cupped my breast with a doll made in his image, I only giggled away."

Wrote Virginia Giuffre, quoted in "Virginia Giuffre’s memoir ‘contains Prince Andrew puppet assault claim’/Posthumous memoir by victim of Jeffrey Epstein will be released in late October" (London Times).

Why did Andrew have a puppet of himself? Was this sex paraphernalia that he brought to the encounter? No. Epstein and Maxwell gave Andrew a puppet — a very ugly caricature of himself — from TV show "Spitting Image."

"5 Takeaways From Ghislaine Maxwell’s Interview About Jeffrey Epstein."

For what it's worth. From the NYT. Gift link, because I don't value spending my time on this. 

The first bulletpoint is the one of most interest though not at all surprising, considering her interests: "Maxwell praised Trump and distanced him from Epstein."

ADDED: You can read or listen to all of the interviews at the Department of Justice website: here.

"Ms. Maxwell cannot risk further criminal exposure in a politically charged environment without formal immunity."

"Nor is a prison setting conducive to eliciting truthful and complete testimony. Of course, in the alternative, if Ms. Maxwell were to receive clemency, she would be willing — and eager — to testify openly and honestly, in public, before Congress in Washington, D.C. She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning."

Said David Oscar Markus, Ghislaine Maxwell’s attorney,  quoted in "Ghislaine Maxwell quietly moved from Florida to Texas prison as lawyers seek Trump pardon" (Independent).

And there's this from Trump: "Well, I’m allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody’s approached me with it. Nobody’s asked me about it."

"As profound as the abundance produced by AI may one day be, an even more meaningful impact on our lives will likely come from everyone having a personal superintelligence..."

"... that helps you achieve your goals, create what you want to see in the world, experience any adventure, be a better friend to those you care about, and grow to become the person you aspire to be. Meta's vision is to bring personal superintelligence to everyone.... This is distinct from others in the industry who believe superintelligence should be directed centrally towards automating all valuable work, and then humanity will live on a dole of its output. At Meta, we believe that people pursuing their individual aspirations is how we have always made progress expanding prosperity, science, health, and culture. This will be increasingly important in the future as well.... Personal devices like glasses that understand our context because they can see what we see, hear what we hear, and interact with us throughout the day will become our primary computing devices.... Meta believes strongly in building personal superintelligence that empowers everyone...."

From Mark Zuckerberg's manifesto at Meta. 

If you want the "personal" touch, here's the purported person, Mark Zuckerberg, interfacing with the camera to explain how personal the Meta approach to AI is going to be:

Today Mark shared Meta’s vision for the future of personal superintelligence for everyone.
Read his full letter here: https://t.co/2p68g36KMj pic.twitter.com/Hpzf77jAiG

— AI at Meta (@AIatMeta) July 30, 2025

AND: Speaking of eyeglasses that understand and facilitate your personal agenda... here's the ad that was served up to me in the very next thing that I read, "Virginia Giuffre’s Family Was Shocked That Trump Described Her as 'Stolen'/The siblings of one of Jeffrey Epstein’s most prominent accusers wonder what the president knows":

Who thinks what about the Epstein files?

The Washington Post has a poll and graphics like this:

Here's a gift link.  Check it out. I think it's interesting to see who thinks what. I'd like to ask them why. Obviously, Democrats are hot to think ill of Trump. But why aren't they more concerned that there's bad stuff about Democrats in there? There needs to be some reason why the Biden administration didn't release this information when it was so desperate to stop Trump in 2024. But the way of the human mind is not reason. It is wishful thinking. We are optimists, even about scurrilous ugly things.

"She is the Rosetta stone. She knows everything. She arranged every single trip, and if she was just given… immunity, she could be compelled to testify."

Said Alan Dershowitz, quoted in "Trump’s MAGA allies zero in on Ghislaine Maxwell as Epstein furor persists/The intensifying focus on Ghislaine Maxwell represents the latest turn in a winding case that has long been a focus of conspiracy theorists" (NYT).

I'm sure her testimony is valuable, but I see at least 5 problems with the Dershowitz assertion: 1. She may have misunderstood or misperceived what she witnessed when she witnessed it. 2. She will have forgotten some things, 3. She may misremember when she attempts to recall when she is questioned now, 4. She has so much reason now to lie, distort, or at least shape her story to serve her obvious self-interest, 5. Arranging a trip doesn't mean that you know everything that happens everywhere on the plane and at the destination.

ADDED: I know what I've listed are typical problems, and of course, Professor Dershowitz know what they are, but he's the one who chose to say: "She knows everything."

Well, then that's it: "Judge Denies Request to Unseal Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts in Florida."

The NYT reports.

A federal judge in Florida on Wednesday denied a request by the Trump administration to release grand jury transcripts from an investigation into the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, stymying efforts by President Trump to blunt criticism from many of his supporters.

Either that or it's a great relief.

What do you think is Trump's reaction?

Stymied

Relieved

 

pollcode.com free polls

AND: Follow on NYT headlines:

1. "Polls show Republicans breaking with Trump over the Epstein files" ("The incident has revealed a schism among Mr. Trump’s base, with anger over the Epstein files appearing more concentrated among the traditional Republican wing of the party. Republicans who do not identify as part of Mr. Trump’s MAGA movement were more likely to be dissatisfied with how the administration has handled the files...").

2. "Attorney General Alerted Trump He Was Named in Epstein Files/It was not clear in what context Trump’s name was raised in the files" ("One person close to Mr. Trump, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said that White House officials were not concerned about the latest disclosures given that Mr. Trump’s name appeared in the first round of information that Ms. Bondi released").

The Wall Street Journal's aggressive effort to get Trump with the Big Bawdy Birthday Letter backfired, according to the NYT.

I'm reading "How Trump Deflected MAGA’s Wrath Over Epstein, at Least for Now/By tapping into other grievances, President Trump managed to turn one of the most fractious moments for his base into a unifying one."

That's an amazingly pro-Trump headline for the NYT. Let's read:

Mr. Trump turned one of the most fractious moments for his base into one of the most unifying by tapping into other MAGA grievances: the deep mistrust of mainstream media, the disdain for Rupert Murdoch and the belief that the president had been unfairly persecuted by his political foes.... 

Stephen K. Bannon, a former White House adviser to Mr. Trump and influential leader of the MAGA base, said that the dynamics were shifting in part because the reporting in the story seemed “phony,” and because the paper decided not to show Mr. Trump a copy of the letter.

“The Murdochs’ bizarre assault on the president galvanized his base because of both content and process,” Mr. Bannon said. “Now we are united as Trump goes on offense — against the Murdochs, the courts and the deep state.”...

It seems less a matter of Trump managing to turn things around as the press behaving badly and suffering the predictable consequence.  

Now doesn't Bill Clinton need to sue The Daily Mail... or is that exactly what he must not do?

I'm reading "Bill Clinton sent 'warm and gushing' letter for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday - as Trump sues over claim he also wrote a 'bawdy' note for paedophile's half-century" in The Daily Mail.

Bill Clinton wrote a 'warm and gushing' letter which was included in Jeffrey Epstein's infamous 50th 'birthday book', The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The former US president was one of hundreds who contributed to a heavy leather-bound, gold-embossed album of letters that Epstein's ex-lover Ghislaine Maxwelltook more than a year to compile leading up to the landmark date.

Is this Book of Bawdy letters real or not? The Wall Street Journal, by presenting it as real, attracted a $10 billion lawsuit from Donald Trump. Wouldn't you think that would make The Daily Mail more careful about asserting that the book exists and that it contains a letter that is really from the person who purportedly wrote it?

Why is the Wall Street Journal's big story on Trump behind a paywall?

Are they trying to destroy him or not?

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.

"The Wall Street Journal late last night published a counterfeit letter it falsely accused Trump of sending to Jeff Epstein in 2003..."

"... long before law enforcement or the future president discovered Epstein pimped minors. How do I know the letter is false? Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ told me so. You see, it ran a 13,000-word expose on Epstein on December 17, 2023. The piece did not mention Trump. Not once. If the publication had the goods on Trump, it would have exposed him ahead of the 2024 presidential primary season. If the deep state had the goods on Trump, the end of him would have come years ago...."

Writes Don Surber, in "The counterfeit letter on Epstein may end the Wall Street Journal" (Substack).

Trump denounces his "PAST supporters" who "have bought into this 'bullshit'" he calls "the Jeffrey Epstein hoax."

These people are "pay dirt" hit by Democrats. They are "weaklings" who "do the Democrats work," and he doesn't even "want their support anymore."

Here's the full text, from Trump, this morning at Truth Social:

The Radical Left Democrats have hit pay dirt, again! Just like with the FAKE and fully discredited Steele Dossier, the lying 51 'Intelligence' Agents, the Laptop from Hell..."which the Dems swore had come from Russia (No, it came from Hunter Biden’s bathroom!), and even the Russia, Russia, Russia Scam itself, a totally fake and made up story used in order to hide Crooked Hillary Clinton’s big loss in the 2016 Presidential Election, these Scams and Hoaxes are all the Democrats are good at - It’s all they have - They are no good at governing, no good at policy, and no good at picking winning candidates. Also, unlike Republicans, they stick together like glue. Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this 'bullshit,' hook, line, and sinker. They haven’t learned their lesson, and probably never will, even after being conned by the Lunatic Left for 8 long years. I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore! Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

"Let’s... not waste Time and Energy on Jeffrey Epstein, somebody that nobody cares about."

Writes Donald Trump, at the end of this long post at Truth Social:

What’s going on with my “boys” and, in some cases, “gals?” They’re all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB! We’re on one Team, MAGA, and I don’t like what’s happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and “selfish people” are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein. For years, it’s Epstein, over and over again.

"If a lawyer brought me this file and asked if it was suitable for court, I’d say no. Go back to the source. Do it right. Do a direct export from the original system—no monkey business."

Said Hany Farid, "a professor at UC Berkeley whose research focuses on digital forensics and misinformation."

Quoted in "Metadata Shows the FBI’s ‘Raw’ Jeffrey Epstein Prison Video Was Likely Modified/There is no evidence the footage was deceptively manipulated, but ambiguities around how the video was processed may further fuel conspiracy theories about Epstein’s death" (Wired).

Metadata embedded in the video and analyzed by WIRED and independent video forensics experts shows that rather than being a direct export from the prison’s surveillance system, the footage was modified, likely using the professional editing tool Adobe Premiere Pro. The file appears to have been assembled from at least two source clips, saved multiple times, exported, and then uploaded to the DOJ’s website, where it was presented as 'raw' footage. Experts caution that it’s unclear what exactly was changed, and that the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation. The video may have simply been processed for public release using available software, with no modifications beyond stitching together two clips. But the absence of a clear explanation for the processing of the file using professional editing software complicates the Justice Department’s narrative...."

If it was manipulated — and still presented as raw — that was done for a reason. What was the reason if not to deceive? You can't say there is "no evidence" of a proposition when there is a basis for inference. If you manipulate to deceive, you try to cover your tracks. Portraying the footage as raw when it is not raw is itself deceit. The question is how far does the deceit go.

The phrase "the metadata does not prove deceptive manipulation" jumps out at me, because it leaves open the proposition that the metadata is probative of deceptive manipulation and certainly doesn't mean that the the metadata proves that there was no deceptive manipulation.

And the phrase "processed for public release" is maddening. What we wanted to see was unprocessed video. Why process it for us? The processing is what makes us suspect manipulation, so it should be the last thing you would want to do. If there were 2 clips, you could give us 2 clips. You didn't need to "stitch" them together. So "no modifications beyond stitching together two clips" sounds fishy.

Finally: "[T]he FBI did not respond to specific questions about the file’s processing, instead referring WIRED to the DOJ. The DOJ in turn referred inquiries back to the FBI and the Bureau of Prisons. The BOP did not respond to a request for comment.... One media forensics expert... put it bluntly: 'It looks suspicious—but not as suspicious as the DOJ refusing to answer basic questions about it.'"

"Ms. Bondi and her allies believe that Mr. Bongino, who parlayed a he-man image and promotion of conspiracies into a top law enforcement job, planted stories..."

"... in the conservative news media blaming Ms. Bondi for the backlash after an announcement earlier this week that the Epstein case would be closed, according to officials close to the situation.... It escalated into an angry face-to-face confrontation at the White House on Wednesday, when an irate Ms. Bondi accused Mr. Bongino of leaking information to the news media in the presence of the F.B.I. director, Kash Patel, the White House chief of staff Susie Wiles and one of her deputies, Taylor Budowich. Mr. Bongino denied it, they said."

From "Fallout Over Handling of Epstein Case Erupts Into the Open/An irate attorney general is said to have confronted the deputy director of the F.B.I. at a tense White House meeting earlier in the week" (NYT).

Presumably, what was done in the presence of Kash Patel was the accusation, not the leaking.

Will Bongino resign? "On Friday, a high-profile Bongino booster — the far-right influencer and conspiracist Laura Loomer — claimed, in two dramatic social media posts, that the bureau’s deputy director had taken Friday off to collect his thoughts, and was 'now seriously thinking about RESIGNING' over Ms. Bondi’s actions in the Epstein case. A person close to Mr. Bongino did not dispute her characterization, describing him as very angry and considering a range of options, including quitting."

"Trump’s Top Aides Spread the Epstein Conspiracy. Now They Are Trying to Kill It.

Today's episode of the NYT "Daily" podcast — transcript and audio at Podscribe.

Excerpt: "It's one thing to be on the outside when you can say whatever you want. There's no responsibility for proving anything. It's another, when you have to actually run the organizations you've spent years and years beating up and accusing of coverups, it only takes an instant for the outsiders to then turn on you. And I think that's what Pam Bondi is learning. That's what Kash Patel is learning, and that's what Dan Bongino is learning.... The day-to-day responsibilities that these people are bearing forces them to accept realities that folks outside the wall don't have to.... They may have ultimately stood on the path of truth here, but they've weakened their own position in the movement that elevated them...."

"Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? This guy's been talked about for years.... This guy. This creep...."

President Donald Trump gets upset when a reporter asks Attorney General Pam Bondi about the Justice Department's inconsistencies about the Jeffrey Epstein case.

"Are people still talking about this guy?" pic.twitter.com/YnimAQYsdd

— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) July 8, 2025

"Patel, Bongino and the other leaders are caught in a trap of their own making. The world they helped create, a world in which conspiracy destroys facts, is now the world they have to inhabit."

Said politics professor Russell Muirhead, quoted in "Once Champions of Fringe Causes, Now in a ‘Trap of Their Own Making’/Top leaders at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. are struggling to fulfill Trump campaign promises often rooted in misinformation and conspiracy theories" (NYT).

From the article:

The tension between practicing politics based on conspiracy theories and having to govern extends far beyond the F.B.I. and Justice Department’s problems with the Epstein case.... Days after the backlash over his Epstein comments, Mr. Bongino offered other promises — new investigations into other episodes that have gripped the president’s base: the discovery of cocaine in the West Wing during the Biden administration, the leak of the draft Supreme Court opinion overturning abortion rights in 2022 and the discovery of pipe bombs near Republican and Democratic Party headquarters before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, an unsolved crime that has already consumed significant law enforcement resources.... 

Emerald Robinson, a former White House correspondent for Newsmax, made her frustration clear on social media. “Dan Bongino & Kash Patel know they destroyed their credibility by claiming that ‘Jeffrey Epstein killed himself’ so now they’re trying to offer up three investigations you don’t care about to misdirect you from the Epstein files you do care about,” she wrote. “Sad!”