I just woke up and feel like I’m going to barf. Almost certainly this is because I knew when I finally hit the sack last night that I was going to have to write about this new low in Axis “Get Trump!” shenanigans—oh, I’m sure there will be even lower ones to come—this morning.
You see, it seems that a long time ago, eventually-to-be-President Donald Trump wrote a bawdy birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein as part of Ghislaine Maxwell’s project to create a leather notebook filled with such cards from his friends. It seems that Trump cooperated with the project, which means that he had criminal sex with under-age girls. Or it means that he would have liked to have sex with under-aged girls. Or that he’s evil and needs to be destroyed by any means necessary, of which this smoking doodle evidence is one….but the Trump Deranged lunatics who are fulminating over this “scandal” already know that, or think they do, so again we find ourselves asking, “What’s going on here?“
It was unbelievable yesterday, even though I have come to believe that the ethics rot in the news media is capable of almost anything when it comes to attacking the President. Both CNN and MSNBC found nothing to discuss in panels and news reports that they felt was more important that the stupid card and the fact that CBS finally canned Stephen Colbert. The latter, these reports started speculating, was secretly an example of Orange Hitler taking away our human rights, which is constitutional nonsense even if dumping Colbert was part of the CBS/”60 Minutes” settlement deal, though there is absolutely no evidence that it was. And yet the freak-out over the doodle was even more stupid that than this!
The Wall Street Journal posted “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump” early yesterday, saying in part,
“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. The president’s past relationship with Epstein is at a sensitive moment. The Justice Department documents, the so-called Epstein files, and who or what is in them are at the center of a storm consuming the Trump administration. On Wednesday, after angry comments about how the files are a hoax created by Democrats, President Trump lashed out at his own supporters for refusing to let the matter go.”
Right, this is a storm “consuming the Trump administration.” No, this is a storm in a demitasse tea cup that the assholes who can’t accept the results of elections want to consume the Trump administration because they have nothing else. The article continues,
“The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.”
Of course, the Journal doesn’t have the card to show us, we’re just supposed to take its word for it as if it were not true that we can no longer take any news source’s word about anything. More…
“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. Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
I’m surprised CNN and MSNBC didn’t accuse Trump of being a racist because he used the term “enigma.” Maybe they did: I couldn’t watch them all day. That may be the next attempted “gotcha!”
You see, this is why these things are ethics train wrecks: anyone who comes on board is going to end up looking bad. Even me: the mess is littered with land mines. If I write, “Oh for heaven’s sake, this is the worst thing Trump’s foes can bitch about?” I’m engaging in Rationalization #22, “It’s not the worst thing.” I could point out that hyperventilating over a 25 year-old birthday card is absurd coming from the same people who pretended Joe Biden hadn’t aided and abetted his son’s influence peddling, but that would be pure “whataboutism.” It’s also tempting to default to #52, The Underwood Maneuver, or “That’s in the past.” Who cares what kind of birthday card Donald Trump sent to a fellow billionaire so long ago? The Golden Rationalization is also in play: Guys writing provocative things to guys isn’t exactly unusual behavior, but “everybody does it” is not an excuse for genuinely wrongful conduct.
Nevertheless, this isn’t genuinely wrongful conduct, and anyone who says it is has fallen prey to confirmation bias: Trump is bad, so therefor anything that might have been done out of bad motives was done out of bad motives. It’s pure bias. So what we have is brazen guilt by association, a defiance of Occam’s Razor ( usually a jokey birthday card is just what it looks like), a Big Lie (and Trump is falling into the trap by objecting to it so vociferously), and the Streisand Effect.
The people making a big deal out of this will only look better than stupid to those are are even more stupid than they are, Trump-haters and the substantial number of MAGA fanatics who have single digit IQs. (Let’s face it: a lot of them are deplorable.) Bias makes you stupid, but hate makes you ridiculous.
Ethics Alarms 
I am genuinely mystified by many features of this episode…
My best guess (which may be COMPLETELY off base) is that Murdoch is sending some kind of coded signal by publishing this? And Trump is responding to that signal?
I think its much simpler than that. Wall Street doesn’t like Trump and never has: too much volatility. That, and the fact that th WSJ concluded—correctly—that the story would sell papers, it was an obvious call.
It’s not complicated. Exposing Trump as a guy who hung out with Epstein and had sex with underaged girls and getting him indicted for it in New York state where there is no longer a statute of limitations on rape is the Democrats’ current strategy to get Trump convicted of something and removed from office.
OB That New York law that they passed at the behest of another billionaire to go after Trump had a sunset provision so that it could not be used against others in their party. It did get Pdiddy caught up in it.
I didn’t know that, Chris. Thanks. The NY state legislature will pass another one upon demand?
I got to “according to people who have reviewed the pages” and realized that:
There’s a word for salacious claims offered by anonymous third-party sources without evidence, and that word is “gossip.”
None of this crap adds up in my mind.
“. . . it seems that a long time ago, eventually-to-be-President Donald Trump wrote a bawdy birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein as part of Ghislaine Maxwell’s project to create a leather notebook filled with such cards from his friends.”
Here we have a supposed piece of evidence probably from Maxwell’s trial or Epstein’s potential trial. Ok, I’ll buy the idea that such a album exists. However, that album has existed for a very long time and we are now just hearing about it. The Washington Post of all people stated that their is no evidence uncovered linking Trump to Epstein’s activities. Does anyone believe that Comey would not have used it against Trump in the runup to the 2024 election? Comey is implicated in a plan to discredit Trump by erasing the intelligence assessment which exonerated Trump and stated that Russian meddling was insufficient to change results.
It is alleged that Trump drew a doodle of a naked female and supposedly signed his name using squiggles in the pubic area to represent hair. So which is it pubic hair or his signature and why would he only sign it “Donald” if it were to be a keepsake. It would seem to me that you would need the whole name to know which Donald we are talking about Is it Donald Pleasance the actor or Donald the Duck. Trumps signature could be replicated fairly easily by drawing squiggles. Can anyone really make out the word Donald or Trump from his well known signature if you did not have a working knowledge of what it looks like?
This brings me to the typewritten dialogue. Why was it typed? Better yet who types a heartfelt note to a “pal”, let alone one that is an imaginary two way conversation and then uses a broad marker to sign it. To me that would indicate an attempt to prevent identifying who actually wrote it as well as an attempt to reinforce the idea it is Trump’s signature by virtue of the pen and a very close relationship with Epstein.
Some say his threat to sue amplifies the story but what if that is the purpose to illustrate the corruption within specific media outlets. Ignoring it allows the media to claim he did not deny it. Given that the truth is defense against slander or libel such a suit will require the WSJ to disclose their source in order to defend their story in discovery. If it decides not to disclose to its source then Trump should win because the WSJ is making the claim and has the burden to prove that what they reported was done in good faith and accurate. So to the WSJ, people should say prove it and then say so what.
Readers should also be reminded that conservative Rupert Murdock died and his left wing offspring are now making decisions.
Seems like Rupert Murdoch is still alive (he’s 94, but reports of his death appear premature!); the court case involving the control of his media empire after he dies seems not to be going well for Murdoch and his son Lachlan (both want Lachlan to have sole control). But he’s still alive, so Rupert is still in control.
“Once Murdoch dies, the family trust requires Lachlan Murdoch to equally share control of their father’s media empire with his siblings James, Elisabeth and Prudence.”
I apologize. You are correct. I thought he had died about a year ago and because his sons were reported to be directing the activities of the media empire.
I think the drawing, what was said about “wonderful secrets” …
Brings up questions about Trump’s relationship between Epistein, other famous people, and predation. Was there any relationship? There’s a reason for curiosity.
Then MAGA has been so interested in Epstein because they think there’s a whole globalist pedophile conspiracy.
Quite frankly the obsession of some of the MAGA folks out there with Epstein mystifies me. Conspiracy theories run rampant in the fringes of both the right and left of the political spectrum, plus an unhealthy desire to tar the other side of the political spectrum with scandals. Plus there is a contingent of people that are very vulnerable to moral panic about sex, especially the social conservative right (think about satanic ritual abuse in the late 20th century, with repressed memory syndrome).
The Trump administration has not communicated wisely in this matter. The DOJ (Pam Bondi) should have remained with the facts as officially known, namely that Epstein committed suicide, and have given reason to speculation that there is much more evidence not yet published (such as a list with names). An AG should keep the cards close to the vest, and only communicate when an investigation is launched, arrests are made, and indictments are brought. Just the facts, and only at a need to know basis. And everybody else should keep their mouth zipped. An investigation should only be launched when there is probable cause; not based on innuendo from mudslinging pundits and “journalists”.
CVB
I concur with your assessment. Those who are preoccupied with the Epstein files are hoping against hope that the release will bring down their opposition. I have a friend who swears that the DOJ is covering up a Clinton murder of Epstein which obviously makes no sense whatsoever. Others want to tie Trump with Epstein for for no other reason than it smears him and because he has shown an interest in sexual activity with many women it must be true. Never mind the fact he has never been accused of sexual assault on underage women and banned Epstein from Mar a Lago for hitting on a child of a guest.
The curious who see meaning in phrases that include the words “secrets” should consider that the intelligence community did in fact work to undermine Trump and many still remain. The word “secret” when it is related to sex is often a coded message to suggest pedophilia. Just how hard would it be to craft an imaginary conversation with the alleged perpetrator of sex trafficking using words that would suggest sexual deviancy among the members of this imaginary conversation? Not very hard at all. One need not have to prove anything all that is needed is to cause people to question if it is true. All that is necessary is for those wanting to get Trump or create the illusion that Trump is hiding something is to make it up and let the American people’s imaginations run wild. Far too many American’s want to believe anything that makes them feel morally superior to their political opponents. If this raises questions then ask the people making the claims how they know them to be true before you accept them as fact.
Why is no one asking who allowed these young girls to go off with Epstein? Were they all runaways? Where were the parents? Is it possible that many went quite willingly based on the allure of living the lifestyle of the rich and famous?
The irony that progressives work hard to get legislation passed that prevents parental notification when underage sexually active teens seek birth control or STD treatments yet somehow want to believe that these same girls are so sexually naïve that none of these girls would jump on the Lolita Express voluntarily. Every image they see on TV and in other media promotes lifestyles of the rich and famous which includes all sorts of sexual activities. Hell MTV had a program where young adults were in and out of each others beds in a posh beach house. Not a peep about that.