Right now, a sniffling groups of women including past victims of the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking operations are standing in front of the Capitol before Congress’s vote on releasing “the Epstein files,” whatever that means at this point. One speaker—they are all saying not just kind-of the same thing, but exactly the same thing but in different words (sometimes) said that their lament isn’t about politics. It’s obviously about politics. Both CNN and MSNBC, the most aggressive Democratic propaganda agents broadcasting, are showing the demonstration live, as if it’s important news. Fox News is barely mentioning it.
The issue is political and partisan. The proof is irrefutable. Why didn’t the victims, or whoever organized them, or the mainstream media, insist that the Biden Administration release the files when the power to do so was entirely within its grasp? Nobody thought of it? The Democrats were fabricating ways to “Get Trump” and had been since 2015; everyone knew he had once been pals with Epstein; and the scandal was 20 years old. The Epstein revival only became a thing when the Axis of Unethical Conduct became desperate in its efforts to slow down Trump 2.0 as his administration began dismantling the Obama-Biden nascent totalitarian state. Naturally, Axis media was all in. Naturally, publicity hound Marjorie Taylor Greene, who comprehends neither law nor logic, decided to use it to get cheap clicks. Maybe she really thinks a rehash of the evil deeds of a man who has been dead for six years is a good use of her time; who knows? She’s an idiot.
But I don’t understand why the Party of Women waited until now to shake this like a terrier with a rat, when what was known and what hadn’t been exposed is little different in 2025 than it was when Epstein died/was murdered/killed himself.
Ethics Alarms has written about Epstein and the much surrounding him. The scandalous involvement of President’s Trump’s Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, was covered (in horror) here; the disturbing documentary about how Epstein initially escaped justice was analyzed here. Yet as I looked at all those angry, indignant, emotional women this morning, I kept wondering, “If you have damaging information about President Trump, why haven’t you written an op-ed or a book or given an interview that would get the bastard but good?”
What’s going on here? The main thing going on here appears to be an all-time “hoist with their own petard” classic, if the files exonerate Trump from any complicity in Epstein’s perversions while exposing Democratic icons (<cough> Bill Clinton<cough>) and distinguished personas like former Harvard President and Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
The other matter which has been, naturally, since competent journalism no longer exists, ignored in most of the coverage is that it isn’t “justice” to reveal grand jury testimony, which is part of what the Epstein files include, indeed probably the juiciest part. The justice system will be crippled if grand jury confidentiality is only as secure as how much partisans want the information made public. There is a lot of grand jury testimony on other matters I’d love to see, like say, the George Floyd grand juries testimony, and the testimony regarding whether (actually how) Barry Bonds mutated himself using banned steroids. That information would be especially welcome as the Hall of Fame once again considers whether the all-time home run champ and all-time baseball cheat deserves to be honored by the game he almost ruined.
But I digress.
Over on my increasingly Trump Deranged Facebook feed, so many FBF’s are convinced that President Trump is Prince Andrew American Style. Why? Because they hate him with white-hot fury and presume that he’s guilty of any bad acts he’s accused of regardless of evidence. Revealing the Epstein files won’t change a thing.
The Axis better get busy manufacturing another scheme.
Ethics Alarms 
If there is nothing damaging in the files, why did Trump fight SO hard to keep them secret? He was putting immense pressure on the GOP signers of the petition to release the bill.
Why didn’t Biden release the files? Because the DOJ wasn’t weaponized under Biden, and Merrick Garland refused to look like he was personally attacking Trump at every turn? Because most people assumed Trump was a dead duck politically after jan 6?
The people who should REALLY be worried are everyone who did oppo research for Cruz, Kasich, Rubio, or HRC, or Biden or Harris. How they didn’t have someone interviewing Michael Wolff, who says he has SEEN the photo of Trump with topless Epstein girls…That’s wild incompetence.
As for why these women don’t write out what Trump did–Epstein literally hired hundreds of women. I haven’t seen one yet who says Trump did stuff with her. Maybe these women are…honest? Maybe these women don’t make up stories, so if they are saying “release the files” they are just wanting the full story to come out, and people in there face justice, whether they are Ds or Rs. Some issues are bigger even than our polarization, and this seems to be one. I don’t care if Clinton or Summers or anyone is implicated. Let the truth come out in all its tawdry glory. I will say that Trump has circumstantially placed himself as likely to be implicated. The sketch and poem he wrote for Epstein’s B-day. The emails we already have. The “sale” of a “fully depreciated” girl to Trump by Epstein, with the big check. The pervy interest he has expressed over and over for underage girls, including bragging about sneaking into their dressing room at the pageant he owned. The weird way he sexualized his own teenage daughter. Dude gives off those vibes, and has for YEARS. Read one of his earliest books, where he brags about seducing the wives of other men. Or listen to his pervy commentary on Howard Stern’s show. The party he and Epstein hosted which was almost entirely girls under 23 (some 17) and…these two rich men over 45. If you don’t think there’s some damning info about Trump (or Melania, maybe?) in there…then how do you explain how Trump fought SOOOOO hard to keep it from coming out?
“Because the DOJ wasn’t weaponized under Biden.”
Jd. Please. Come on.
Yeah, I caught that statement as well and thought, “you can’t be serious!…?”
1000% true and serious. The national security and election tampering cases against Trump were righteous. If anything, Merrick Garland proceeded too slowly. Trump’s conduct was egregious. Not prosecuting him for trying to overturn an election would have been a travesty. And NO OTHER TOP OFFICIAL, let alone a president, has ever refused to return top secret documents. Has it happened that high officials end up with secret docs? Yup. But they all, every one I’ve ever HEARD of, cooperates. Trump…tried to hide. Lied. Forced the FBI to do a raid. That type of willful defiance of the law almost forced the DOJ to launch its investigation. Look at the Hur report. Biden IMMEDIATELY cooperated. That’s what people that want to obey the law DO. They demonstrate remorse by complying with the Archives or the FBI or whoever is saying “you got some stuff you shouldn’t have” Trump said, in effect, fuck you, no one is going to tell me what to do. Are we a nation of laws or a nation of…Trump? He can’t just defy the law as if he owns the government. He doesn’t have the king’s power to declassify stuff by thinking about it, as he once moronically proclaimed. AND–there’s not a shred, scintilla or suggestion of evidence that Biden, or anyone at his White House, affected either prosecution. So yeah, nothing was weaponized. Talking points don’t automatically become true via repetition.
Using the “overturn an election” talking point poisons the discussion. If a President believes that a Presidential election was “fixed” or “stolen,” he is obligated to halt the process and to try to fix the problem. This was exactly the kind of act related to a POTUS official duty that is immune from prosecution. That prosecution was spectacularly partisan, and Jack Smith was (and had been shown to be previously) an unethical prosecutor. I would have come to the exact conclusion if the parties (and parties) were reversed.
Trump was wrong not to just accept the dubious election results (as Nixon did in 1960), and his rally speech was irresponsible (but not “incitement”) as were his public comments suggesting fraud. The members of his administration who resigned had just grounds. But nothing Trump did was illegal.
If a President believes that a Presidential election was “fixed” or “stolen,” he is obligated to halt the process and to try to fix the problem.
Yes but legally, not by breaking the law.
You’re not paying attention. Talking to a crowd. Legal. Having alternate electors ready. Legal, with precedent. Having lawyers challenge state votes. Legal. Asking a governor to “find” votes he believed had been suppressed or hidden? Legal. Smith’s case regarding the classified documents had substance, but was selective prosecution.
Agree to disagree. Some of what Trump was doing to overturn the election was illegal
Nope, that’s not an argument. Specifics, please.
Were acts of perjury, forgery, bribery, or identity theft alleged?
Exactly
Trying to overturn an election is not a crime.
Now THAT’s not true, depending on whether the election results were actually illegally manipulated.
There is no statute that makes “trying to overturn an election” a standalone crime, especially as legal procedures exist to overturn an election. There have been cases where judges threw out election results. Those judges clearly are not criminals for entering some judgments .
Similarly, a propaganda campaign to “convince voters the President is illegitimate” or that “the President colluded with a foreign power to steal an election”, while unethical, does not constitute a standalone crime.
This is not to argue that it is impossible to imagine that crimes- like perjury, forgery, bribery, identity theft, or making false statements to the Federal Elections Commission- could be committed to further such objectives. But they would be crimes regardless of the objective.
There’s no proof that Biden directed the DOJ to prosecute Trump or his political enemies. The rule of law and procedure was in place but there’s always grey area who did it first.
Biden didn’t say “go prosecute Trump” or going through prosecutors until he found one who would do it, unlike Trump. Many of the cases against Trump fell apart anyway, which means the system worked.
The prosecution was the punishment, and was designed to be. Trump, to his credit, sort of, is open about what he wants the DOJ to do. As with Obama and the IRS persecution of Tea Party groups, it’s not difficult for a President to make clear what he wants to have done (and what he doesn’t.) “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”
Trump, to his credit, sort of, is open about what he wants the DOJ to do. A
Being openly defiant is definitely appealing to his supports. Just like you claim, “to his credit”… But I don’t consider being honest about how big of a scumbag they are an appealing quality.
I Would rather vote for someone who is marginally hypocritical than someone who is openly eroding our democracy.
openly eroding our democracy.
Complete partisan talking point nonsense. There is no substance to that claim at all. What do you call “eroding democracy”? I can’t wait for the answer!
“I can’t wait for the answer!”
None of your five (5) person commentariat can, either.
PWS
illegally trying to overturn the election is the big one but I mention above, not really worth getting into it, I wont convinced you.
Lame-o. Called ducking the question and evading the issue. The talking point is right because it just IS and Trump Bad. I’ve already explained why the election dispute, from his perspective, was protecting democracy and the Constitution, and as President, his perspective is what matters. This like all the people who said Charlie Kirk advocated racism and hate. He just DID, that’s all. Do better. Come on, what other threats to democracy? You made the claim, support it.
Wait…. that wasn’t sarcasm? It can’t be real, can it?
Shaking my head.
jdkazoo123: “As for why these women don’t write out what Trump did–Epstein literally hired hundreds of women. I haven’t seen one yet who says Trump did stuff with her. Maybe these women are…honest?”
Have they told their own story? The only person I have heard about is Prince Andrew and that was Virginia Giuffre, I think.
Maybe these women don’t have anything on Trump, but don’t they have something on someone? Why have we not heard about that? (Maybe they have named names; I will admit that this story is kind of in my peripheral vision.) If they start pointing fingers at people, that might get people talking and talking about Trump, if there is anything to say about him.
-Jut
Oh, and one more reason the files couldn’t be released during most of Biden’s presidency–the investigation, active criminal trial and lengthy appeals by Epstein’s coconspirator, Maxwell–you know, the one getting cushy treatment from the federal Bureau of Prisons all of a sudden….
Yup!
That would not stop someone from leaking the files.
I dont necessarily disagree with anything written in the blog post, but also think Trump is hiding something he doesn’t want out in the public.
”The “sale” of a “fully depreciated” girl to Trump by Epstein, with the big check
can you elaborate on this? I’ve never heard this.
This is from one of the letters in the “birthday book” (which also has the drawing by Trump). From businessman and longtime Mar-a-Lago member Joel Pashcow apparently.
“The letter featured an image of Epstein, two other men and a woman holding an oversized check. The photo makes it look like Trump gave Epstein a posterboard-sized check for $22,500. The woman’s face in the photo is redacted and a woman’s name in the letter is also redacted.
A handwritten caption beneath the image reads, “Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women sells ‘fully depreciated’ [redacted] to Donald Trump for $22,500. Showed early ‘people skills’ too. Even though I handled the deal I didn’t get any of the money or the girl!”
NOTE: The Trump signature on the giant check replica doesn’t actually look like Trump’s signature (the drawing, which was presumably contemporaneous, DOES look very much like his signature today), and hence I suspect this was a staged joke stunt… which nonetheless reveals the sort of things that Epstein was likely to find entertaining. Virginia G writes in her book that the girls E favored “aged out” of sexual service to E once they no longer looked young enough, so that is likely what “fully depreciated” refers to.
Not evidence of anything. Not even circumstantial evidence.
Not saying it is evidence of anything — certainly not evidence that Trump was involved in this gag (as I said, the signature doesn’t look at all like his actual signature). I was just answering a question about what the reference to “fully depreciated” was about.
It is strong circumstantial evidence that within Epstein’s circle of men who were wildly interested in sex with women much younger than them, Trump stood out for being part of the ongoing recruitment and exploitation of young woman. It’s not dispositive–perhaps Epstein lied to all his friends about Trump’s passion for young women. Perhaps the exchange of women between Epstein and Trump, which is written about in several emails, the birthday letters, and in several other accounts, including one girlfriend of Epstein’s who says she was taken to Trump’s office by Epstein and Trump tried to grope her, and it was like she was DELIVERED to Trump by Epstein, that’s how she described it, and also how Trump described when Giuffre was “stolen” from his club. Stolen? Like you OWNED her? So as part of a tapestry of circumstantial evidence that Trump was very similar to Epstein in his outlook about young girls and women, it’s strong circumstantial evidence that this was a widely held perception of Trump. Imagine it this way–suppose Jack is having his 50th birthday party. A couple of his friends put together a big fake poster saying “World’s Greatest Beer Drinker, defeating JDkazoo in one on one consumption competition!” That’s pretty strong evidence that I’m a drinker, and even that maybe Jack and I enjoy drinking together. It’s not the only interpretation, but it’s the most likely one. If I was on trial for drunk driving, and I was trying to claim that I had never touched alcohol, any prosecutor in America would love to get their hands on that image. It doesn’t PROVE that I drink…but it does prove that people THOUGHT I was a drinker.
Raising Giuffre undermines the credibility of this completely. As many are pointing out, she wrote a book and has made it clear that Trump wasn’t her victimizer.A photo of someone with abeer indeed undermines claims that someone is a teetotaler. A photo of a young rich guy with a young woman proves nothing. Trump has never claimed he didn’t like young women. Now there are dozens of photos of Joe Biden, touching and sniffing young girls when they were subject to his superior position, and they look miserable. Those WERE evidence of wrongdoing. So was his daughter’s diary saying that he showered with her. Again, a new standard is being asserted for Trump based on rumors and innuendo and hearsay. I would think they would be embarrassed with this witch hunt, but they have nothing better apparently.
I don’t think mentioning Guiffre eliminates all my other points. Moreover, let’s assume she’s telling the truth (and I have no reason to doubt her)–what Trump SAYS about her still has evidentiary worth as a comment on how he THINKS about women. As playthings. As possessions. Read his second book (of course he doesn’t write them, but this one, like most, involved long conversations that the ghost writer transcribed)…he talks about women as the possession of their men. He brags about the hot women he’s fucked. You know a man is successful if his wife is hot. If she’s old (his age) or fat or frumpy–the man’s a loser. The comment that a cute young employee was STOLEN is remarkable. Or at least, worthy of note. Maybe, as with his weaponization of the DOJ, you somehow appreciate his HONESTY, that he is openly subverting our government, that he is open about his manifest disrespect for women. Maybe all successful men feel that way, maybe all presidents have ignored the vital need to have prosecutorial independence at DOJ. But I don’t think so. Trump is uniquely unprincipled in almost every aspect of his life. We elected Tony Soprano president. Epstein was running his Ba Da Bing.
We know how Trump thinks about women. I wrote about how that made him a repulsive Presidential candidate ten years ago. Frankly, I’m not happy about how most men think about women, based on discussions I’ve listened to and been part of. But thoughts aren’t unethical, or illegal, or even damning, except when they lead to action. But a thought doesn’t mean, at all, that action is imminent or even likely.
Thoughts are not illegal, ever. But every prosecutor knows that while he doesn’t have to show motive to prove guilt, it sure helps move a jury. If you accuse someone of murder, and you find pre-murder emails from him saying that he fucking hates the now dead victim, that the dude is vermin, and you find videos of him shooting pictures of other enemies at his home shooting range…you are going to use that evidence of propensity to violence. The admissibility will depend on the judge and the exact circumstances, and not all of it will get in, but its evidentiary value is still strong.
In “12 Angry Men,” the jury members prone to vote guilty are greatly motivated by the fact that the defendant said, “I’m going to kill you!” to his father the night his father was stabbed. The theory is greatly weakened when the leader of the guilty group gets angry at the leader of the “reasonable doubt” group and says, as he’s being restrained, “I’ll kill him!” Juror 8 (Henry Fonda in the film) says, calmly, “You don’t really mean you’re going to kill me, do you?”
I do trust your judgment that this would be insufficient for a search warrant, as you were a prosecutor.
Thanks for the explanation. I had no idea at all what that was about.
You are exactly right. I give you my most enthusiastic “Grawwwk! I Agree!” Kudos.
If the Democrats had any proof that Trump was a client of Epstein’s – as opposed to just one of the many well-known movers and shakers in whose circles Epstein sometimes appeared – they would have released it last year…
….after the disastrous Presidential Debate…
…after the assassination attempt on Trump…
…after installing Kamala Harris without a primary…
…before begging/bribing Oprah, Beyonce and Harry Ford and half the cast of “Star Trek” to endorse Harris
…as an October surprise…
They didn’t even do it to save democracy! Our way of life! Our system of government! All of it was at stake because Trump was literally Hitler! They didn’t release it even then.
Which tells me that there is zero evidence that Trump was a client of Epstein’s.
I doubt there ever was an actual list. I think Epstein’s operation was more sophisticated than Heidi Fleiss’ Little Black Book (in fact, did we ever get any confirmation about who was in that??). Wealthy and influential people rarely like getting the law involved. They just use their wealth and influence to make problem people go away (Note: this is not a conspiracy theory on my part about Epstein’s weird death. I’m just pointing out that it is well within the historical practice of that social strata for people like Trump and the Clintons to exert Kennedy-style pressure when the time comes to ditch embarrassing associates.).
What I do think is that there are a bunch of emails and other communications that, put together, could possibly implicate some well-known people. Unfortunately, I suspect that such evidence has been so thoroughly tampered with by the partisan Justice Departments of two separate ideologically opposed administrations that we may never know the whole truth about who was and was not involved.
Which means that these demonstrations and calls to “release the files” (such as they are) are pointless and will achieve nothing.
Most likely, if the files are released a lot of innocent people on both sides will be tarred and feathered because they had some random association with Epstein.
This has got to be the most pointless, absurd, guilt-by-association drama I have seen in my lifetime. Every time I come across it, with the exception of this blog, I change the channel.
The guy is dead. Everybody with a brain (which is apparently way less than half the country) knows that if Trump was closely affiliated with Epstein, the Biden administration would’ve released it all with relish. I mean, that would’ve accomplished what no amount of lawfare would, right?
So my conclusion is that this is “…a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It’s something “influencers” use to get clicks and congress creatures use to virtue signal and engage in ad hominems.
In other words, a talking point for unethical morons with nothing better to do than to waste other people’s time.
Even if there was a court order otherwise, someone would have leaked it.
Indeed. Leaking is never a problem for Democrat administrations.
Attorney General Letitia James ran on getting Donald J. Trump.
Would she not have preferred a straightforward criminal prosecution for aiding and abetting sexual abuse of minors, instead of a questionable, highly technical fraud case in which the alleged victims denied being defrauded?
She would have no jurisdiction over crimes in Florida, or the Caribbean. True, Epstein committed some crimes in NY, and there is one allegation against Trump in his NY office with Epstein’s then girlfriend, but there is a vast difference between the evidence held by the feds and Florida from 2007-8, and what is in possession of a local NY prosecutor. There may be a way for a local prosecutor to access FBI files and grand jury records from federal and Florida cases, but I’ve never heard of it. Maybe Jack knows.
In general, the exoneration logic above, that IF there were anything against Trump in the files, Biden would have released them, so therefore, there must be nothing in the files, is kind of flawed. First, it assumes the Biden administration was highly competent, particularly at dirt flinging. They were remarkably good at policy process, but they were not good at politics. Second, it assumes that there was a complete weaponization of the DOJ under Biden. There wasn’t. There’s no evidence of law fare. None. Third, for most of Biden’s presidency, these files were ungettable because of the Maxwell trial, and then her appeals. You release the files and Maxwell could easily get a mistrial. As for leaks–after what happened to the agents having a marital affair, and their emails got out…do you think an FBI agent is going to leak? First of all, leaking evidence in a federal investigation is a CRIME. Even if you escape prosecution, you are going to be fired. Here’s a similar case–we have multiple accounts that more than 100 folks at headquarters spent days going through Epstein materials earlier this year, allegedly looking for any material linked to Trump. None of that has leaked. Does this mean it doesn’t exist? That it never happened? Maybe. But the FBI, in general, is not like most federal agencies. It doesn’t leak very often, and when it does, it resembles the alleged Comey leak–high ranking official trying to get info out to influential reporters, not low level agent risking everything to make a political point. Agents have a culture of–we are law enforcement. If we make mistakes, and a criminal walks, that’s the worst outcome. Above all, they don’t want to end up on the wrong side of the law. So, this exoneration logic isn’t that strong.
I think the answer to your implied question of why NOW is simple. As Quill said to Ronan toward the end of the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie, “It’s a distraction, Bro”.
The pressure to release the Epstein files just happened to coincide with the end of the 44-day shutdown.
With the votes of 8 Democrats and most of the Republicans, the Senate essentially passed the same bill the Republicans offered before the shutdown.
Stirring up the Epstein pot of tawdry and salacious innuendo easily buried any coverage of the Democratic shutdown fiasco. Any damage to Trump is just icing on the cake.
Whatever is contained in the files is irrelevant to the ills our elected representatives should be focusing their time on. Having the press morph into the National Enquirer does the country no good.
He’s not fighting anymore. He said he’ll sign the bill to release the files.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-whether-he-would-sign-epstein-files-bill
(Accidentally posted this on the main thread. You can delete the other one Jack.)
He’s not fighting anymore. He said he’ll sign the bill to release the files.https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-whether-he-would-sign-epstein-files-bill
The Axis better get busy manufacturing another scheme.
Never fear. I’m sure they’ve got three or four in the queue.
Um…fighting like hell until it becomes obvious you will lose, then switching sides…doesn’t really matter, does it, when we are trying to discern motive?
I hope that I am allowed to say that after reading this discussion I am glad that I still have not relinquished my Dutch citizenship in order to become an American citizen.
The whole fracas about the integrity of the elections in 2020, plus the resistance of politicians to ensure the integrity of election should be an embarrassment to the United States of America. I have absolutely no doubt about elections in my home country, the Netherlands, and many other European countries. The integrity of elections in the USA is closer to what is common in the Ukraine than in the Netherlands.
The level of political discourse in the USA is shameful. In the Netherlands you cannot demonize political opponents like what is occurring in the United States, for the simple reason that in the next administration you may have to form a coalition. The United States has a two party system with no political center in common between the parties. There is no loyal opposition in the USA that puts interest of the country above that of party; instead we see incessant lawfare, and a flight into the sewer by attempting to bring politicians down with scandals like Epstein.
Please convince me that the USA is not the Weimar Republic of the 21st century.
If you wonder why so many people were willing to believe that the 2020 election was stolen, consider this.
They were told, for years, that Trump colluded with the Russians®™ to steal the 2016 election.
It was a steady drumbeat.
It poisoned the political discouyrse, with the phrase “Russian bot” becoming a typical retort.
Crimes were committed to further this narrative. The Clinton campaign admitted filing a false report to the FEC to hide the source of the funding of the Steele dossier. A lawyer foer the FBi altered an e-mail presented to the FISa court to obtain a warrant against Carter Page.
And 51 spies lied, likely violating campaign finance laws.
If they were willing to commit these crimes, what would they not do?