The Bullet that Wasn't

Las Vegas-based podcaster Brian Shapiro believes that the assassination attempt on Donald Trump in 2020 in Butler, Pa. was staged and claims (at 2:11 of this video)

It's the same reason Donald Trump is halting- or isn't allowing- an investigation into Epstein's ranch.

Have you heard this story? We've heard alleged (word indistinguishable) that there are children buried on that ranch and Trump is halting an investigation into it. Why would he do that? Why is it that Donald Trump doesn't want all the Epstein files to be released out there? Why is he halting an investigation into his own assassination attempt? I think I might be on to something here. That's what I think.

According to Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino told him that Donald Trump had ordered that an FBI investigation into the Butler incident be terminated, which Bongino denies.  An email from 2019 alleged that rapes and murders occurred at the Zorro Ranch, Epstein's property south of Santa Fe. That prompted an investigation by the state of New Mexico. In March of this year the estate was raided after new allegations of serious crimes and the state's Attorney General later filed a lawsuit "to compel the Trump adminstration to turn over files that the state claims it needs to identify victims, witnesses and potential perpetrators connected" to the abuse which reportedly took place.  

So it appears that the Trump Administration has been stonewalling an investigation into the Epstein ranch, which since has been sold. It is less clear that the President has directly blocked an investigation into the assassination attempt in Butler, though it's likely that he has discouraged it. Shapiro adds

It's funny, though. The next day he plays golf and his ear grew back. It's intersting. We didn't see any cuts. We didn't see any bruises- nothing on his ear the next day when he was seen in public. I also find that to be a little interesting as well. It's the same reason Donald Trump is halting, or isn't allowing, an investigation into Epstein's ranch.

The Administration has done whatever it could, thus far largely successfully, to block release of anything pertinent from the Epstein files. That is because Donald Trump was deeply involved with Jeffrey Epstein and very likely with Epstein's criminal activities.

Donald Trump's behavior pursuant to Thomas Crook's attempt on his life on 7/13/20 comes from a different place. Medical records from the incident never were released. Recovering so quickly and completely after reportedly being hit by a bullet was extraordinary; such a resurection while daily taking 325 mg of aspirin- which greatly increases bleeding risk- is beyond that.

So how did Donald Trump pull it off? Not a fake assassination attempt, as Shapiro tends to believe he did. Though he probably did not play golf, he did fly to Milwaukee the following day for the Republican National Convention. The President is well known as an avid fan of professional wrestling (a fake admiring fellow fakes) and fortunately, a former wrestler and public official has an explanation: In March, former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura appeared on Piers Morgan's podcast and

 Morgan said, "To be fair to Trump, when he got shot, he got back up and said, 'Fight, fight, fight!'"

"Oh yeah, right, right, right," Ventura replied. "You ever hear of a blade job?"

 A "blade job" is a term used in professional wrestling for when the performers actually cut themselves out of view of the audience so that they bleed during the match.

This does add credence to the notion that the attempt on Donald Trump's life was staged. However, if Trump had kept his head straight rather than turning slightly to the right immediately before allegedly being struck, the bullet would almost certianly have killed him. As it was, the FBI concluded that the candidate was struck by either a bullet or a bullet fragment. Had Christopher Wray's FBI admitted that Trump was not hit at all, Wray would have been in very serious trouble in a second Trump Administration, and very quickly.

Credit is due to Donald Trump, though. He employed all his acting skill- which is immense- to cut himself while pushed down by the Secret Service agents and, fist raised, defiantly yell "fight, fight, fight"  It was spectacular optics and became emblematic of his campaign and vision. It was a snow job eclipsing a lake effect winter storm in January in western New York.

Share |

Unbothered By Sexual Misconduct

If this was a win, MAGA world surely would hate to see what a loss looks like. Brace yourself for a whale of a job of selective editing:

 HUGE WIN: CNN painfully FORCED to admit President Trump was telling the truth and cut ties with Epstein after Trump learned of Epstein's sexual misconduct at Mar-a-Lago, back in 2003.

The truth ALWAYS prevails. pic.twitter.com/txAYagyyXu

— The SCIF (@TheSCIF) January 1, 2026

There is no "CNN" being "forced to admit President Trump was telling the truth" when he "cut ties with Epsteein after Trump learned of Epstein's sexual misconduct."  Aside from the two conservatives (Pete Seat and Scott Jennings) at the panel discussion, there were two liberals, the sort-of liberal Elie Honig (there for his legal expertise), and host Abby Phillip.

As usual, effectively moderating the discussion and bringing light to the subject, Phillip- in a portion of the subject unsurprisingly omitted by the sycophantic Trump tweeter, notes

Not to quibble too deeply with this but it is interesting to me that Trump- he doesn't ever mention the conduct toward women that is at the hert of the whole Epstein thing, the complaints that came to him from a manger, which is that not that he was taking employees but he was propositioning them. Some of them were very tound and the President doesn't ever seem to mention that or anything about that in all the times he has talked about Epstein. I am confused about that. I don't know why he finds it so hard to acknowledge what we all know, which is that Jeffrey Epstein was a creep and that he was molesting girls and that's what he was prosecuted for. 

The Law of Parsimony (Occam's Razor) suggests that the President finds it hard because he didn't care about the welfare of the young women then, and does not now, either. It is conceivable, though, that he doesn't want to talk about the pattern of molestation by Epstein because those girls or women had been going to Epstein's place all along. In this scenario, Epstein was paying for the hop but had tired of doing so and Trump wasn't having it.

That's highly speculative. However, we do know that when on 7/20/24 Trump was 

asked if the workers who were hired away were young women, Trump responded, "the answer is yes, they were."

"People were taken out of the spa — hired by him — in other words, gone. And other people would come and complain, 'This guy is taking people from the spa,'" Trump said. "I didn't know that. And then when I heard about it, I told him, I said, 'Listen, we don't want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa, I don't want them taking people.' And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again. And I said, 'Out of here.' "

Trump has said that he had given Epstein a warning about poaching employees from him and "threw him out of the place persona non grata" when his friend persisted.  Donald has not stated when the incident occurred. Yet

In 2019, The Washington Post reported about a 2004 bidding war over a Palm Beach oceanfront mansion as driving a wedge between Trump and Epstein. 

The dispute happened months before Palm Beach police began investigating allegations that Epstein was sexually abusing minors...

The mansion entered the market after previous owner and healthcare tycoon-turned-philanthropist Abraham Gosman declared bankruptcy, Palm Beach Daily News reported.

Bankruptcy court acquired the home — dubbed Maison de l'Amitie, or House of Friendship — and put it on the auction block. Trump outbid Epstein, securing the 62,000-square-foot mansion for $41.35 million.

Before the auction, the trustee in the case, Joseph Luzinski, described the showdown as "two very large Palm Beach egos going at it," said The Washington Post's report.

There is little public record of the two men interacting after that, The New York Times reported.

It appears there was contact between Trump and Epstein sometime after Donald decided the "creep" was "persona non grats."  However, that is not absolutely certain because relatively little in the Epstein/Trump relationship has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Nonetheless, whatever the reason for the split between these two lowlifes, it was clearly not because of any personal revulsion Donald Trump harbored toward Jeffrey Eptstein's sexual perversion and criminality.

Share |

Rest Assured, He's There

I don't know the context of the following statement from Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough, what may have preceded his remark or followed his remark. And the stupid may have been removed from his brain later in the segment. He remarked

So one of the great mysteries all along in this- no what Donald Trump is hiding, not what did he do, deh, deh, deh, deh- why if he's not in these files, which all reporting says he's not, why is he so obsessed on blocking access to the files? Is he trying to protect somebody?

BREAKING🚨: Joe Scarborough on the newly released Epstein files containing nothing incriminating about President Trump:

"One of the biggest puzzles for me—and many others—is that despite reporting on this for quite some time, Donald Trump doesn't appear on Epstein's list.… pic.twitter.com/JB5snr2XuE

— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) December 23, 2025

That "somebody" may be Donald Trump himself- worse, it may be a donor. That donor could be directly related to Russia, Saudi Arabia, China or another nation, and the President's connection to him (or them) may be a national security threat. If the association does not have foreign implications, it nevertheless may reveal that Trump is tied to a donor who controls him.

Donald may be protecting Melania Trump in a matter related to her immigration to this country or to her personal past. Rumor has it that she was not, ahem, a virgin when she met Donald. That would prove extremely embarrassing, though that would be the least among possible revelations in the Epstein files.

Trump may have been involved in laundering money for Jeffrey Epstein. One of the documents released on December 23 referred to internal FBI communications following Epstein's arrest in July, 2019 which "asks about the status of what it refers to as '10 co-conspirators," with the response heavily redacted. Trump may have been one of the ten, though there is no evidence that he is.

Nonetheless, Trump may have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the sex trafficking activities of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell Or he may simply have been a client, cheerily having consensual and/or forced sex with numerous women, possibly including juveniles. And his sex may not have been restricted to females, given the (figuratively) patented Trump dance simulating a sexual act while the onetime gay anthem "YMCA"  plays. 

Or it may be a combination of two or more of those items.  The point is, as John Oliver would put it, that we don't know.  The vast majority of the files have not been released (at least not yet) and a tremendous amount which has been disclosed has been heavily redacted.

Notwithstanding Scarborough's remark, there is likely no Epstein "list."  Donald Trump does "not appear on Epstein's list" because, as far as we know, there is no actual list.

Scarborough should know this. He should know also that not all reporting says he's not in the files. Rather, the "reporting" is that no one has accused Trump of breaking any laws.  Nor has he been accused of specific wrongdoing. And that's because

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy Todd Blanche informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein that the Department of Justice and the FBI reviewed.

The officials told Trump of their plan not to release any additional documents, the report says, because the material contained child pornography and the personal information of victims.

Maybe, but the odds are that the other reason included the most important to the Justice Department- the repeated invocation of the name "Donald Trump." Those odds are roughly the same as those of the Houston Texans making the NFL playoffs this season. Have patience- it takes a long time to excise the name of a former businessman, actor, and current President when documents are saturated with his name.

But we don't know for sure. We don't know because the Trump Justice Department has been balking all along at releasing the files. And the odds that this is unrelated to Donald Trump being involved in highly unsavory, if not illegal, behavior are approximately equal to the Indianapolis Colts entering the playoffs.

 

    

                                       MERRY CHRISTMAS

Share |

We've Been Had

On November 16, 2023, Representative Ro Khanna appeared on Meet the Press, hosted by NBC News' Kristen Welker.  The California congressman and Republican Thomas Massie were the sponsors of, and were heavily invested in, the House bill which purportedly would force the Justice Department to release all of the files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein. 

At that point, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene had joined Massie, Representative Nancy Mace, and Representative Lauren Boebert as the few GOP Representatives willing to buck the White House and endorse the Massie-Khanna initiative, although, as Khanna told Welker, he was hoping for at least 40 Republicans overall to jump on board. 

So the NBC personality asked the Californian "Your joint bill with Thomas Massie is going to come to a vote on the House floor. It's expected to this week. Do you think you have enough votes for it to pass?" Massie responded "We do, and there's nothing I have been prouder of or more meaningful than this work. The credit goes to the survivors."

 

If this was his proudest moment, he set the bar very low.  The House passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act (with only one "no" vote), the Senate followed suit, and three days after the Meet the Press interview The Washington Post reported that President Donald J. Trump had announced

that he has signed a bill directing the Justice Department to release the Epstein files, documents related to the sprawling sex-trafficking investigation into the onetime powerful financier that are fervently sought by Trump’s political opponents and members of his political base.

After Trump’s announcement, made in a social media post, the Justice Department will have 30 days to release all unclassified documents about Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested on federal sex-trafficking charges in 2019 and died in an apparent suicide while in federal custody.

At that point, waiting thirty days was no big deal, and that period is almost over as of today, December 14, 2025. However

despite Trump’s signature, there are many reasons to doubt that a bulk release of the files is imminent — the legislation calling for the release of the files includes major loopholes, and the Justice Department has said little about its plans….

What Congress is “legally entitled to” is a more complicated question than the rhetoric from Capitol Hill might imply.

The legislation that Trump and Congress agreed to pass gives the Justice Department a few exceptions under which it can refuse to release material. Among them: if release “would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution.”

On Friday, Trump ordered Bondi to launch a federal investigation related to Epstein — this one aimed at his ties to several prominent Democrats….

That new investigation could become a reason for the Justice Department to block release of many files. Bondi and her deputies have previously said they cannot release information about active investigations.

Other information could be covered by grand jury secrecy rules. The bill does not explicitly waive those.

The Justice Department has also said many of the files cannot be released because they contain sensitive victim information and pornographic material. The legislation contains another exception allowing the Justice Department to withhold material that “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” or “depicts or contains child sexual abuse.”

Nonetheless, Khanna has taken us for idiots. As The Guardian noted

a warning for those in the Trump administration who may find themselves pressed to withhold information: comply or face the consequences.

“Now, it’s federal law for those documents to be released, and if the justice officials don’t release it, they will be prosecuted, and they … could be prosecuted in a future administration,” Khanna told the Guardian on Wednesday evening, shortly before Trump put his signature on a bill intended to reveal the truth about what he spent weeks calling a “Democrat hoax”.

“The career officials [that] are making these decisions have to think that they’re going to be subject to future contempt of Congress or criminal prosecution, and they’re taking a huge risk … if they violate that, given that administrations change,” the California lawmaker added.

Oh my gosh, they're quaking in their boots, they are. We are reminded that in Barack Obama's first term, the President

made it clear that we don’t torture now — but he’s done very little to ensure that we won’t do it again in the future.

The Justice Department’s Thursday announcement that it has closed its investigation into all torture-related actions save two particularly gruesome fatalities was a poignant reminder of that inaction.

Obama has renounced torture. He has issued a new executive order defining acceptable interrogation techniques. He has reasserted the illegality of many of the techniques used in American prisons around the world during the first few years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But he has also repeatedly expressed his desire to “look forward instead of looking backward.” As a result, there has yet to be any accountability for the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration. And none appears forthcoming.

And without accountability — without either criminal prosecutions or some sort of official national reckoning of what took place — there’s no reason to think that the next time a perceived emergency comes up, some other president or vice president will not decide to torture again.

President Trump has not decided to have anyone tortured- not yet, anyway- but the expansion the power of the Executive branch in his Administration has grown beyond what was expected by even those who long ago warned that he is a fascist. Meanwhile, Barack Obama, he of the "look expected instead of looking backward," remains not only Democrats' most popular politician, but enormously popular in the mainstream media, and in the media generally.

So those career officials Representative Khanna is warning need not fear having to appear before bar of justice in the next presidential administration or at any time. In the very unlikely event they are held accountable, Donald Trump and the American people will little notice, and care less. Even Khanna's admonition itself is telling, being directed not against President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, or even Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, but against "career officials." That's quite a bit down the chain of command.

Evidently, Trump has the least to worry about because we learned in July that

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy Todd Blanche informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein that the Department of Justice and the FBI reviewed.

The officials told Trump of their plan not to release any additional documents, the report says, because the material contained child pornography and the personal information of victims.

Here is a safe guess: the child pornography and/or the personal information of victims were not mutually exclusive of the name "Trump."

Now they are, thanks to the FBI's work on behalf of Bondi and Trump. As is probably obvious to Representatives Khanna and Massie, the full, unadulterated Epstein files will not be released even if the Justice Department complies with the law as written. On a positive note, we will know whether the Administration has chosen to be fully transparent or instead hide behind issues of national security, current investigations, or claimed concern for victims. If after release, there is a deep and widespread, fully bipartisan call for President Trump's resignation, we will have seen much of what had been hidden.. If not, we've been had.

Share |

Anti-Transparent Transparency

As Politico notes

Capitol Hill Republicans are rapidly falling in line behind a bill that would force the disclosure of Justice Department files concerning Jeffrey Epstein after President Donald Trump signaled Monday he would sign it.

Two prominent House committee chairs said they planned to support the bill compelling the release of materials related to the late convicted sex offender, and GOP leaders are exploring whether to advance the measure under special fast-track rules later this week.

The French say, "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose."  The more things change, the more they stay the same. The President advocated release of the files, then continually called the documents a "hoax" and lobbied House Republicans to oppose their release, and now has called for their release.

Chris Cillizza (video below) understands Republicans are thinking "it's time to move on" and "there is a recognition by Republicans that the more time they spend talking about Jeffrey Epstein, the worse." 

He understands that Trump can count votes, realizes that the vote in the House and then in the Senate will pass, and doesn't want to be on the losing side. Additionally, there is this from The Bulwark's anti-Trump veteran GOP strategist:

When you’re getting run out of town, jump in front and call it a parade. https://t.co/YzSX5n0FgA

— Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) November 17, 2025

That is Trump's M.O. Recall that in in 2022

Former President Donald Trump on the eve of the Missouri primaries gave his much-coveted endorsement in the Republican primary for Missouri's open Senate seat, but there was some confusion about who had been selected.

"I trust the Great People of Missouri, on this one, to make up their own minds, much as they did when they gave me landslide victories in the 2016 and 2020 Elections, and I am therefore proud to announce that ERIC has my Complete and Total Endorsement!" Trump wrote in a statement Monday night.

And with that, Trump apparently rejected anyone in the field of 19 who is not named Eric. There are two leading candidates who share the first name: Attorney General Eric Schmitt and former Attorney General Eric Greitens, and one candidate trailing them.

(Eric won.)

Cillizza fears, realistically, that (emphasis his) "even if he signs this into law and says "the Department of Justice needs to release all its files on the Epstein investigation, I think the DOJ could come back and say "well, we're in the midst of some ongoing investigations- we can't release all that stuff."

Unfortunately, there probably is another, more sinister and dangerous, reason, first divulged by Illinois senator Dick Durbin.  The Times of India reports

An old report has brought back a question Donald Trump's team hoped would disappear: did the FBI work through the night to remove his name from the Jeffrey Epstein files before saying there was nothing left to release? The timing is important as Trump has suddenly reversed his stance on making the documents public.

Trump announced on Truth Social: "House Republicans should vote to release the Epstein files, because we have nothing to hide." It marked a sudden U-turn after months of resisting pressure from both parties. His shift only came once it became clear that the house was preparing to move forward without him.

The move was surprising given that Trump had previously dismissed the Epstein issue as a  Democratic "hoax" despite having campaigned on transparency in 2024. Bloomberg reported in August this year that an FBI FOIA team had already blacked out Trump's name from the documents during an exhaustive internal review. 

Sources familiar with the process told Bloomberg "We know from news reports that Trump's name was in the Epstein files. But what hasn't been reported is that an FBI FOIA team redacted Trump's name and the names of other prominent public figures from the documents."

The review involved up to 1,0000 FBI agents and staff working through more than 100,0000 documents.

The White House referred questions about the redactions to the FBI. The FBI declined to comment and the Justice Department offered no response. In July, DOJ and the FBI said they had collected more than 300 gigabytes of Epstein-related evidence but concluded that "no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted."

In a fitting choice of words, the publication observes "downplaying the gravity of the situation, Trump has now pivoted...."  

As is the case with most organizations and individuals, public officials need to be nimble and there is no one more skilled than Donald Trump at pivoting from one side to the other and back again. Democrats must adjust to the new reality that the files, in one manner or another, are likely to be released.

 Presumably, there will be little mention of Donald Trump other than to highlight his unequaled humility, manly dedication to women and girls, and existential greatness.  How Democrats respond to the release and their contents may define the remainder of President Trump's second term. They need to devise a strategy to address the false narrative which will be depicted because, whether the impact is direct or indirect, nothing less than democracy's future is at stake.

 

Share |

Dare Him

Three members of the House of Representatives, one congresswoman-elect, and one Attorney General al are doing what they have to do. The guys from Louisiana and Massachusetts are wrong, but the latter is performing an important political function and public service. The Arizona Mirror notes that House speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)

initially promised to seat (Representative-elect Adelita) Grijalva whenever she requested it, but then backtracked and said he’d only do so after Democrats in the U.S. Senate agreed to support a stopgap spending bill to reopen the government.

Republicans and Democrats have been playing the blame game for weeks now over who is responsible for the shutdown, with Republicans falsely claiming that Democrats refused to vote for a stopgap funding bill as a way to protect health care services for immigrants who lack legal status.

“Speaker Johnson may be blocking my swearing-in, but he can’t stop me from showing up for the people of Southern Arizona,” Grijalva said in a statement on Wednesday. “Every day that goes by without representation is another day our veterans, seniors, and working families are left without a voice in Congress.”

Because Johnson has refused to seat Grijalva, she now holds the record for the longest delay in seating a member of Congress following a special election, a distinction previously held by Rep. Jimmy Gomez, of California. But there’s a huge difference: Gomez requested the delay due to family issues, while Grijalva and other Democrats have repeatedly demanded that Johnson swear in Grijalva.

Grijalva and her state's chief law enforcement officer are not sitting this out as

Last week, Grijalva and Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sued Johnson for the delay, arguing that his stall-tactics have denied the more than 800,000 Arizonans in the 7th Congressional District their constitutional right to representation. Johnson’s obligation to deliver the oath of office to elected members of Congress is not discretionary, they said in the lawsuit.

Grijalva, along with other Democrats, claim that Johnson is blocking her from taking office because she would be the 218th vote needed to force the release of the FBI’s case files concerning pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Republicans have largely opposed doing so because President Donald Trump is reportedly featured in those files, as he and Epstein were close friends in the 1990s before they had a falling out.

Johnson has denied those allegations.

Well, of  course he has. His handler, Donald Trump, would expect nothing less. However, the Epstein files are sufficiently dangerous to the President that the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dick Durbin of Illinoi wrote separate letters to Attorney General Bondi, FBI director Patel, and Assistant FBI director Bongino upon a Wall Street Journal report that 1,000 FBI agents were asked to peruse the files. Durbin asked 

My office was told that these personnel were instructed to 'flag' any records in which President Trump was mentioned.... Why were personnel told to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned? What happened to the records mentioning President Trump once they were flagged?

If I were an adviser to the Administration, I would have recommended that Bondi maintain no personnel was told to flag records in which President Trump was mentioned. The records pertained to a period well before Donald Trump ever was elected.

Nonetheless, there appears to have been no response from the regime. And according to NBC News, "Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy Todd Blanche informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein that the Department of Justice and the FBI reviewed."  Surprise! They have not been released.

There was a curious discussion between an MSNBC host and U.S. Representative Seth Moulton about that very same deceased child predator, with a portion of the video transcribed beneath the tweet.

MOULTON: If you're one of the people, like Trump, who took advantage of young girls with Jeffrey Epstein--

SCARBOROUGH: We don't have evidence that he took advantage of young girls with Epstein

MOULTON: Right. Common sense be damned

SCARBOROUGH: Let's look at the facts. Is he… pic.twitter.com/GNmBSgjBcB

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 31, 2025

S.M. ... from this White House, you know, if you're a criminal, you're going to buy your way to freedom with Trump. If you are one of the people, like him, who took advantage of young girls with Jeffrey Epstein, then we're just going to make that go away. Fortunately-

J.S.: We don't have evidence that he took advantage of young girls with Jeffrey Epstein.

S.M.: Right, well, common sense be damned.

J.M.: I'm not saying common sense be damned. I'm saying facts. Let's look at the facts.

S.M.: He's obviously in the Epstein files. And the reason that, fundamentally, Speaker Johnson has us on vacation is because he doesn't want to seat the newly-elected Democratic Representative.

J.S.: But you said he took advantage of young girls. You have absolutely no evidence of that.

S.M.:I think it's pretty obvious that that's what is going on.

J.S.: You think it's pretty obvious?

S.M. And I think it's pretty obvious that a-

At that point, Scarborough cut Moulton off in order to ask print journalist and sometime co-host Jonathan Lemire his opinion.

Neither I nor Rupar knows a great deal about the corporate culture of MSNBC, nor what is recommended to its hosts by management, nor what discretion the hosts have. Although Scarborough was somewhat bizarrely defensive of the President, he may have been required, accurately, that there is no hard evidence that Donald Trump "took advantage of young girls."

So Scarborough may have played the role too infrequently played by news hosts when Republicans claim as facts items which are definitively false. (See "Russia Hoax.")

There is no such evidence that we know of. There is no evidence because the Epstein files have not been released.  It's lacking because Speaker Mike Johnson, a fully-owned subsidiary of Donald J. Trump, has called the House of Representatives into recess to avoid passage of a discharge petition which would force out of committee a bill calling for release of the files. 

Does that justify Representative Moulton claiming of the President what has not been proven? Absolutely.

Press secretary Karoline Leavitt has the perfect platform to deny this allegation but has not directly addressed it. President Trump himself could specifically deny the allegation. Pam Bondi has had the opportunity, being asked at a committee hearing by Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse 

about reporting from author Michael Wolff, who alleged Epstein had shown him a photo of Trump with topless young women. Whitehouse questioned Bondi whether she was aware if the FBI had found those photographs in its search of Epstein’s estate.

Bondi shot back, accusing the senator of making “salacious remarks” and “trying to slander” Trump. The attorney general also alleged Whitehouse took money from “one of Epstein’s closest confidants,” Reid Hoffman.

The Attorney General thereby attacked the Senator and avoided specifically denying that Trump had engaged in such behavior.

But even if Bondi had uttered the simple, yet definitive, words "Mr. Trump never engaged in sexual activity of any sort at any time with anyone under the age of consent," it would matter little. The boss lies not often, but continually, and members of his Administration know they are expected to do the same, though not quite as frequently lest Donald not be #1 at something.

To be fair, the boss' lackeys have little reason to dwell on the topic of Trump's intimate involvement with the most famed, and possibly most active, pedophiles in American history. They are not pressed on the issue.

Democrats should be all over the airwaves and social media remarking about Epstein. Their goal should be to thwart the media's determination to ignore the issue, now that other matters are more pressing, more topical.

Most of us (warning: cliche ahead) weren't born yesterday. Trump and Epstein were close. There are photographs of them together and lewd birthday letter sent from Donald to Jeffrey including the line "may every day be another wonderful secret." The A.G. had perhaps 1,000 FBI employees flagging the files for Trump's name, she informed the President that his name was in them, and they've resisted with the power 

The possibility of disclosure of those files justifiably frightens, though far less than it would if the media and Democrats hadn't decided they constitute yesterday's news. Those files aren't going to release themselves, after all, and Republicans will not oblige Democrats by drawing attention to them.

That's why members of Congress such as Adelita Grijalva and Seth Moulton are critical. The former is suing House Speaker Johnson. The latter, speculating, is what, oh, probably around half of Americans believe- that Donald Trump has been involved, directly or indirectly, with underage females. If it's not true, everything Epstein can be released by Congress, if Johnson doesn't continue to run interference for the President. He can prove Moulton a liar. Challenge him to do so.

Johnson is not going to budge without application of pressure, by Democrats. Leaving it to the media to explore whether a President was involved in multiple and heinous felonies will be fruitless.  Moulton lacks hard-core proof but the evidence is all around us, in front of our noses, and as likely as the Arizona sun on a July afternoon. (Cliche alert.) We weren't born yesterday, though Johnson, Trump, and Bondi wish we were. 

And by all means, Democrats, do not allow the "White House ballroom" or the "Trump Ballroom" to gain currency with the public. It's the Epstein Ballroom. 

                   

Share |

Projecting Strength Which Isn't There

Ironically, in a podcast episode posted to criticize Representative Nancy Mace (R-South Carolina) and President Donald Trump, Steve Schmidt illustrated the political brilliance of Donald Trump. At 3:59 of the video below, Trump at the presidential debate with Kamala Harris can be seen bragging

You need Trump back as resident. They were afraid of him. China was afraid. I don't like to use the word "afraid" but I'm just quoting him. China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him Look at what's going on with North Korea, by the way. He said Russia was afraid of him.

If you're wondering who "he" is, the context of this quote makes it clear. Vice President Harris had noted, in part, "world leaders are laughing at Donald Trump. I have talked with military leaders, some of whom worked with you." And they say you're a disgrace.

Aside from the last five sentences (not pertinent here), Trump responded

Let me just tell you about world leaders. Viktor Orban, one of the most respected men -- they call him a strong man. He's a tough person. Smart. Prime Minister of Hungary. They said why is the whole world blowing up? Three years ago it wasn't. Why is it blowing up? He said because you need Trump back as president. They were afraid of him. China was afraid. And I don't like to use the word afraid but I'm just quoting him. China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him. Look at what's going on with North Korea, by the way. He said Russia was afraid of him. I ended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Biden put it back on day one but he ended the XL pipeline. The XL pipeline in our country. He ended that. But he let the Russians build a pipeline going all over Europe and heading into Germany. The biggest pipeline in the world. Look, Viktor Orban said it. He said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president.

A mere fifty-one weeks later and less than eight months into the presidency, we find Donald Trump decisively refuting his campaign claim that China, North Korea, and maybe Russia were afraid of him. Of course, no one has pointed it out and if media or politicians did so, they'd be accused of fake new (or worse), especially because this undermines one of the major pillars of his support. This week

President Donald Trump took to his social media platform as Chinese President Xi Jinping, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin appeared together in Beijing for China's largest-ever military parade on Wednesday.

Trump accused Xi of "conspiring against" the United States as they attended the parade, which marked the 80th anniversary of Japan's surrender in World War II.

"May President Xi and the wonderful people of China have a great and lasting day of celebration. Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong Un, as you conspire against The United States of America," Trump wrote on social media as the parade was underway.

Who is afraid of who (whom) now?  Russia, Mainland China, and Korea are assembling in the open. They're not hiding from Donald Trump. If they fear Donald Trump, it's only persuading them to forge an alliance.

The loser is not Donald J. Trump. The loser is the United States of America, Europe, and our allies in Asia. But it doesn't hurt Trump because his image, as the bully on the block, is intact and no one- aside from the three aforementioned nations- is challenging it.

Far from it.  Mace, who has repeatedly claimed to be a victim of rape and is running for the GOP nomination for South Carolina governor, took to X before the Capitol Hill news conference held by United States Representatives Massie and Khanna with victims of Jeffrey Epstein:

Since it’s already being reported - Yes I left the Oversight briefing with Epstein victims early.

As a recent survivor (not 2 years in), I had a very difficult time listening to their stories. Full blown panic attack. Sweating. Hyperventilating. Shaking. I can’t breathe.

I…

— Nancy Mace (@NancyMace) September 2, 2025

Mace then signed the Massie-Khanna discharge petition calling on the House of Representatives to release the full Epstein files. However, Mace is saying whatever she can to get the President's endorsement for her candidacy for governor of South Carolina  So in the wake of the Massie/Khanna news conference, Mace tweeted (emphasis hers)

President Trump is the one who banned Jeffrey Epstein from Mar-a-Lago. President Trump is the one who cooperated with the feds to get this guy. President Trump is the one who is COMMITTED to protecting women and kids.

President Trump is the one committed to protecting women and kids. There is nothing this President would rather hear than that he is protecting women because that is one big hunk of an alpha male does- protect women. Not ensure their rights, secure their prosperity, nor enact good policy. He counts on them being afraid, just as he claimed during the presidential campaign that Russia, Mainland China, and North Korea are all afraid of him. Kellyanne Conway calls it swagger.

BREAKING: Kellyanne Conway praises Trump’s “swagger” and his renovations to the Rose Garden which removed all the green space. The sycophancy of these people is off the charts. pic.twitter.com/hzW88OABl3

— Trump Lie Tracker (Commentary) (@MAGALieTracker) August 20, 2025

It now appears to be costing us a great deal internationally as the President poses as almost the reverse of what he actually is.  The President wrote that the three nations are "conspiring against" the USA because he consistently tries to portray himself as the victim

It's the Trump paradox (one of them). The guy who whines and cries, cries and whines postures as the strongman. Notwithstanding the disinterest of the Democrat Party in trying to undermine this image, it is still one of the wonders of the 21st century that Donald Trump is able to get away with it. And he's doing so even as he has successfully driven enemies, two of them economically and militarily powerful, of the USA into an apparent alliance with each other.

Share |

Not a Hoax, and Not For Publication

While first running for, and serving, his first term as President, Donald Trump used the term "hoax" almost 800 times.  He hasn't let up, and he is not letting up

Trump: “It's a Democrat hoax. It's just a hoax. The whole Epstein thing is a Democrat hoax.”
pic.twitter.com/AokjK6PWog

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) August 23, 2025

Nonetheless, Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled that the Epstein matter, especially as it applies to Donald J. Trump, is no hoax.

She first told us on February 21, 2025. Asked by Fox News America Reports host John Roberts whether "the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients" will be released, Bondi replied "It's sitting on my desk right now to review."

There probably is no actual list of men to whom Epstein supplied women for their carnal pleasure. Flight logs (to Epstein Island and elsewhere), a Rolodex-type record of contact numbers, sure; yet ironically, the list the right-wing has been pining for, unlikely.

However, the files are extremely vast and

When Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department’s review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, she told him that his name appeared in the files, sources familiar with the discussion told CNN.

The conversation, which also included Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, was characterized by two White House officials as a “routine briefing” that covered the scope of the Justice Department’s findings. Trump’s name appearing in the files, they said, was not the sole focus of the discussions.

Translation: she told him, but we discussed other things, too. Three days prior to that conversation, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois, had sent to FBI director Kash Patel a letter requesting a response to 15 questions Durbin posed. The Senator noted that "according to information my office received," Attorney General Bondi

pressured the FBI to put approximately 1,000 personnel in its Information Management Division (IMD), including the Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS), which handles all requests submitted by the public under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act, on 24-hour shifts to review approximately 100,000 Epstein-related records in order to produce more documents that could then be released on an arbitrarily short deadline. This effort, which reportedly took place from March 14 through the end of March, was haphazardly supplemented by hundreds of FBT New York Field Office personnel, many of whom lacked the expertise to identify statutorily-protected information regarding child victims and child witnesses or properly handle FOIA requests.

My office was told that these personnel were instructed to "flag" any records in which President Trump was mentioned.

In 2013, a group supporting Florida Attorney General Bondi accepted an illegal $25,000 contribution from the Donald J. Trump Foundation. The A.G.'s office thereafter declined to join a New York lawsuit against the Foundation despite 22 complaints against the latter and related entities.

That same Pam Bondi, now the US Attorney General de jure and de facto attorney for Donald Trump, pressures the FBI to assign 1,000 employees to review on 24-hour shifts approximately 100,00 Epstein-related files. They were expected to flag any records with a reference to Donald Trump so documents could be quickly released.

Yet, a "hoax."  Responding to a subpoena, the Justice Department on Friday gave to the House Oversight Committee a few files, no doubt those in which they've thus far been able to redact Trump's name. 

They all would be released, and with no redactions, if the President could make his name- and that of his wife- disappear without it being obvious. As usual, however, Trump's political instincts are sound. It might be Donald Trump's rape of women or of girls, or both; involvement in extensive money laundering schemes; Vladimir Putin's awareness of Trump's past and subsequent control of the American president; bygone activities of Melania Trump, nee Knauss; any combination of the other, or worse. 

President Trump, Pam Bondi, and possibly Kash Patel know that the full, unredacted Epstein files cannot be released and will make sure they're not.  If somehow they were, the political careers of Donald J. Trump and probably others would be over. 

Share |

Promises Made, Promises Unkept

If it happened with Jeffrey Epstein, it can happen with the District of Columbia. As ABC News recalls

In June 2024, Trump was asked if he would release various files -- including the John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. assassination files and the Epstein files -- during an interview with Fox News.

"Would you declassify the Epstein files?" Fox News' Rachel Campos-Duffy asked. Trump responded, "Yeah, yeah, I would."

That clip was circulated widely online, including by the Trump War Room -- the social media account of Trump's campaign operation. The account posted it to X with the caption: "President Trump says he will DECLASSIFY the 9/11 Files, JFK Files, and Epstein Files."

But Trump's full answer to the question wasn't shown until it played on Will Cain's radio show.

Trump went on to say in the exchange with Campos-Duffy: "I don't know about Epstein so much as I do the others. Certainly about the way he died. It'd be interesting to find out what happened there, because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn't happen to be working, etc., etc. But yeah, I'd go a long way toward that one."

In September 2024, Trump made a more firm pledge to release Epstein files during a podcast with Lex Fridman.

Fridman, in conversation with Trump, said "it's just very strange for a lot of people that the list of clients that went to the island has not been made public."

"It's very interesting, isn't it? It probably will be, by the way, probably," Trump said.

"If you're able to, you'll be --" Fridman started before Trump jumped in.

"Yeah, I'd certainly take a look at it. Now, Kennedy's interesting because it's so many years ago," Trump said. "They do that for danger too, because it endangers certain people, et cetera, et cetera, so Kennedy is very different from the Epstein thing but I'd be inclined to do the Epstein. I'd have no problem with it."

 And then in February of this year

Asked on Fox News if the DOJ would publish Epstein’s client list, Pam Bondi replied: “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review. That’s been a directive by President Trump.” Bondi and the White House have since said that the attorney general was referring to the entire tranche of documents related to the Epstein prosecution, rather than a “client list.”

In May, Attorney General Bondi informed Mr. Trump that his name was in the Epstein files (which of course, it is), though it is not clear how often, or in what context, it appears.

So the President is taking the only course of action- stonewall- he can, strategically.  He has not released the documents while he figures out  how some can be released without himself being implicated. That's a tall order and he and the fully-owned Justice Department would come under serious suspicion if the documents were exposed with the extensive, and likely awkward, redactions necessary.

Yet, the public and the media are being denied the complete files. As a distraction, the Justice Department asked a court (unsuccessfully) to unseal the grand jury transcripts because it knew that a) judges don't like to approve such a thing; and b) the grand jury information is but a tiny portion of the entirety. Through it all, the President's popularity has understandably plummeted as it becomes clearer that middle-aged Donald Trump  (and possibility female members of his family) was involved in very nefarious activities of a sexual or financial nature with Jeffrey Epstein.

It is conventional, and probably valid, wisdom that the President has taken a hit politically because he promised far more than he could deliver.  "I'd be inclined to do the Epstein. I'd have no problem with it." Compounding the problem was the strong suggestion from the Attorney General that those files would see the light of the day. Once she saw whose name was in, and probably saturated, the files, Bondi sang a different tune.

And now that Attorney General, who spoke too soon on Epstein, has made another rookie mistake. It is of the same kind, promising more than she can deliver.

Bondi: "Let me be crystal clear: crime in DC is ending and ending today." pic.twitter.com/oEhCHxG360

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 11, 2025

Bondi is referring to the deployment of approximately 800 National Guard soldiers to the District of Columbia, which began late on August 7, as well as placing the local police department "under direct federal control," in the President's words.  He can do the latter for "federal purposes" under terms of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act when he determines there are "special conditions of an emergency nature." 

Crime is ever-present, especially in major American cities (and some small towns), so there is no "emergency, " especially with violent crime in D.C. lower than it has been the past 30 years. The National Guard is part of the military, not part of law enforcement. Issues of coordination with D.C. police are unresolved and the soldiers will not be operating under the same rules (such as the wearing of masks) as do the municipal police.

Nonetheless, those issues, as well as what this portends for other Democratic-run cities as the Trump Administration continues, are a matter for another day, given that I started this post talking about an apparently unrelated matter.

But only apparently. Trump/Bondi nearly promised disclosure of the Epstein records. They have not done so (and cannot afford to do so in full) and President Trump has taken a political hit for it.

Crime in DC is ending and ending today. Obviously, Democrats cannot on facts win the political argument over National Guard soldiers being sent to the city and the city's police going under federal control. When it comes to crime, facts are optional; they are completely irrelevant. People just know that crime is going up whether it is or it is not, as long as Republicans claim it is rising and Fox News runs frequent video of black people vandalizing, looting, or beating citizens up.  If a Democrat notes that crime is declining, Republicans respond with "even one rape (or shooting or whatever) is too many" or "tell that to" or whatever the zeitgeist demands. The media says "people aren't feeling it," which is their way of saying "you're an idiot even for bringing it up."

Yet, Democrats can hold Republicans up to the standard they've set for themselves: crime disappears. They demanded disclosure of all Epstein documents. Now they say that crime will be vanquished, a goal even Superman could not achieve.

Hold them to it. Emphasize the Administration's promise now. The Attorney General has made a vow neither she nor President Trump can fulfill. Make them own it. And when crime in the nation's capital persists- whether it's down or up- remind everyone that Attorney General Pam Bondi said she would whip it... crush it... smother it. 

Then Democrats themselves could condemn crime, and more credibly than even centrist/moderate Democrats now do. They won't do it, of course, even those Democrats who disingenuously decry "woke" culture, and that goes to the heart of the party's problem. But they should.

Share |