Dawn of Awareness, Possibly

Extraordinary blogger Steve M. approvingly quotes New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg in her column "By Killing Renee Good, ICE Sent a Message to Us All."

Keith Ellison, Minnesota’s attorney general, told me that since ICE ramped up its operations in Minneapolis, it’s felt “like we are being inundated with a hostile paramilitary group that is mistreating, insulting, terrorizing our neighbors.” And the residents of Minneapolis have responded: “People have got their whistles, and they’ve got their little alert system to tell people ICE is in the neighborhood. They’ve been protesting. They’ve been out there trying to protect their neighbors.”

Many of these people probably believed that even in Trump’s America, citizens still have inviolable liberties that allow them to stand up to the jacked-up irregulars who’ve descended on their communities. The civil rights of immigrants have been profoundly curtailed; even green card holders are on notice that this government may detain and deport them simply for protesting. But Americans — particularly, let’s be honest, white Americans — might have thought themselves immune from ICE abuses.

The killing of Renee Nicole Good, a [white] mother of three and widow of a military veteran, tests that assumption.

S.M. concludes

The Republican base is as racist as you imagine. But the racism of the right is part of a larger belief system in which people with certain attributes -- white, right-wing, heterosexual, Christian, anti-feminist, pro-gun, and pro-fossil fuel -- are seen as better than everyone else in the world and deserving of a homeland in which no other people exist, or at least none have power, including mere voting power.

I don't think many of the anti-ICE protesters expected to be immune to ICE violence -- less susceptible, clearly, but certainly vulnerable. These people hate everyone who disagrees with them to at least some extent. Their core hatred might be racial, but they have plenty of rage to go around.

That's largely accurate. However, we knew that much of the GOP base is racist (or racially biased, as I would argue) and there is a core hatred of non-whites.

What we have never acknowledged- and which, to her credit, Goldberg comes close to doing- is that the hostility is usually not primarily grounded in ethnicity. The left is coming close now- with absolutely no help from the center- in acknowledging that most unjust state violence is not perpetrated for reasons of race.

We should have understood this in the summer and autumn of 2020. I tried, with limited success, to explain that there are many evils in this society and that most of them cannot justifiably be attributed to race. Instead, when the George Floyd protests came about, virtually no one (and "virtually" may be inaccurate) in the center or on the left found anything wrong with a movement called "Black Lives Matter."

Somehow, we got it into our collective heads that all - yes, all- of the problem with police violence against the public involved black civilians. There were victims and all were black, perhaps with a few Latinos.

There were three responses to the movement launched by the murder of George Floyd. There were supporters of the Black Lives Matter movement, which in those heady days constituted a majority. Most of those opposed to the movement protested that "Blue Lives Matter." And then there were a few people, usually denounced as racists by not only leftists but also by centrists, who maintained "All Lives Matter."

What a bizarre claim! The notion that "all lives matter" was considered bigoted and/or bizarre not only by the left- progressives and liberals alike- but also by centrists. Meanwhile, conservatives countered with the politically wise "Blue Lives Matter." It was hard to argue against that slogan and the left was not chanting "civilian lives matter" nor claiming that police lives don't matter. Strategically, the politically correct "Blue Lives Matter" was the correct, albeit disingenuous, response. 

No one I heard or read ever suggested that not only was the slogan "black lives matter" exclusive of whites, but also of Latinos and Asian-Americans. Yet, while there was disproportionate (unjustified) police violence directed against blacks, there were other individuals who were victims of bad policing. I'm sure Daniel Shaver would agree, were he still alive to be asked about it. In December, 2017 The New York Times reported

Newly released body camera footage shows a police officer shooting an unarmed man in an Arizona hotel after the man sobbed and pleaded with officers not to shoot him.

On Jan. 18, 2016, six officers were called to a La Quinta Inn and Suites in Mesa, Ariz., after guests reported seeing a man with a gun in the window of a fifth-floor room. The video showed Mr. Shaver and a woman walking into a hallway as Philip Brailsford, a two-year veteran of the Mesa Police Department who was wearing the body camera, trained an AR-15 rifle on them.

Another officer can be heard ordering them to get on the floor and threatening to shoot if they do not comply.

“If you make a mistake, another mistake, there is a very severe possibility you’re both going to get shot,” the officer says in the video. He shouts at Mr. Shaver, “If you move, we are going to consider that a threat, and we are going to deal with it, and you may not survive it.”

“I’m sorry,” Mr. Shaver says at one point. “Please do not shoot me,” he says at another.

The officer’s commands at times seemed contradictory.

“Do not put your hands down for any reason,” he tells Mr. Shaver. “Your hands go back in the small of your back or down, we are going to shoot you, do you understand me?”

“Yes, sir,” a tearful Mr. Shaver responds.

But immediately after, the officer commands, “Crawl towards me,” prompting Mr. Shaver to lower his hands to the floor and begin moving toward the camera.

A police report by an officer who reviewed the footage offered two possible explanations for why Mr. Shaver had bent his arm, the movement before the gunfire. It was “a very similar motion to someone drawing a pistol from their waist band,” the officer wrote, according to The Atlantic — but it “was also consistent with attempting to pull his shorts up as they were falling off.” No weapon was found on Mr. Shaver.

The Police Department fired Officer Brailsford two months after the shooting.

If you haven't already guessed, Shaver was white; if you didn't hear about this killing at the time, you weren't alone. It didn't fit the narrative of the left, the center, or the right (for the last group, because police can do no wrong). Interestingly

The jury deliberated for less than six hours before acquitting him. The acquittal came the same day that a judge in South Carolina sentenced Michael T. Slager, a white police officer, to 20 years in prison for the 2015 shooting of an unarmed black motorist, Walter L. Scott.

 

 Perhaps now, with the killing of Renee Gold, we will begin to understand that most law enforcement officers are fair and just and some, (being human) are not, as with persons in every profession. Of course, there is a danger of over-reaction, inaccurately concluding that state and local police officers are anything like Donald Trump's ICE, which is increasingly acting with impunity.

The upside of the killing of Good- as Goldberg notes- tests the assumption that whites are immune from our "inviolable liberties" being nullified by the Trump Administration and/or its lackeys. But Goldberg and S.M. need to understand that some of us, even back in 2020, knew that the heavy fist of law enforcement authorities was not confined to blacks. All of us- and our freedoms- matter, or at least should.

Share |

Dead Men Tell No Tales

Not true, Mr. Musk and  Mr. Virginia state legislator.

 

True https://t.co/ipD1kyQefl

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 9, 2026

In his press briefing on Thursday, Vice President J.D. Vance condemned "many people in the corporate media" for their coverage and added

And I say "attack" ver, very intentionally because this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order," Vance continued. "this was an attack on the American people."

Vance said the CNN headline also left out that the woman was there to "interfere with a lefitimate law enforcement operation in the United States of America" and is "part of a broader left-wing network" that attacks ICE officers and prevents them from doing their jobs.

"If the media wants to tell the truth, they ought to tell the truth, that a group of left-wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques, to try to amke it impossible for the President of the United States to do what the American people elcted him to do, which is enforce our immigration laws," Vance said.

 

 So Vance (presumably) believes Good's misbehavior "was an attack on law and order.... and on the American people." She was allegedly part of "a group of left-wing radicals (who) have been... using domestic terror techniques to try to make it impossible for the President of the United States to do what the American people elected him to do." Previously, he had stated "the reason this woman is dead is because she tried to ram somebody with her car."

Good may have been interfering with a law enfocement operation. However, once she began to pull away, she was removing herself from the situation. That did not satisfy, or even please, Officer Jonathan Ross. But in the Vice President's telling, Renee Good was a left-wing radical who attacked law and order with domestic terror techniques to obstruct the will of our President and of the American people and specifically tried to ram somebody with her car. 

She factually was not a domestic terrorist and Vance probably was aware that video would prove that she did not try to ram somebody. But, aware of the political difficulty that would ensue, he did not wish her dead. Oh, that makes so much sense.

Also not wishing her dead was the President himself. Yet,  in a Truth Social post of 3:28 p.m. on Pearl Harbor Day, Donald wrote/typed/dictated

I have just viewed the clip of the event which took place in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It is a horrible thing to watch. The woman screaming was, obviously, a professional agitator, and the woman driving the car was very disorderly, obstructing and reisisting, who then violently, willfull, and viciously ran over the iCE officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense....

Let me see if  I understand this correctly. "No one of the right  wishes that person were dead." The leader of the right, Donald J. Trump,illegally orders boats, probably carrying drugs to Trinidad or Europe, blown up along with the occupants.  the leader of the right, He (presumably) believes that the ICE officer, in order to prevent being injured or  killed, shot a professional agitator who was very disorderly, obstructing and resisting, then trying to run over the officer.

If Trump did in fact view the "clip" of the killing, he would know that the Good woman did not try to run the woman over, which would prove very inconvenient for the Administration once it was widely seen. She was a dangerous radical but he's sorr she's decesdl. But he did not wish the Good woman dead, even though if he did watch the clip he claims to have watched, he  would know that big trouble awaited- if she had lived.

President Trump and Vice President Vance may not be glad that Renee Good is dead.  Call them "relieved."

Share |

Taking a Scalp

Stephen Miller got his trophy.

On Halloween, the Deputy White House Chief of Staff, who reportedly is in charge of immigration policy, appeared on Fox News. Host Will

Cain asked Miller under what federal authority the Trump administration could arrest Pritzker if the governor tried to arrest ICE agents.

“To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties,” Miller said. “And anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony.”

ICE officers thereby were given a "get out of jail free" card. And on January 7, 2026, one emboldened immigration agent decided to take advantage of Miller's largesse.

Of course, this would be legitimate were Renee Nicole Good attempting to stop the officer or trying to obstruct him. This does not appear to have occurred.

One officer approached the driver's side of the car and may have yelled for Good to get out of the car. Another officer was moving from the front passenger side to the front driver's side, whereupon the motorist steered clockwise, away from the officer, who then fired the fatal shot. Former FBI supervisor Rob

D’Amico said the officer’s attempt to open the door may have distracted the woman, causing her not to notice the other officer in front of the vehicle, and that better training could have helped prevent the situation.

“It reminds me of a time that one of the first arrests I went out in Miami, I actually got in front of a vehicle, and my supervisor grabbed me after, and I think he was pretty strict with me. He said, ‘Look, people don’t block vehicles. Vehicles block vehicles,’” he recounted. “Don’t put yourself in a situation where you then have to employ deadly force if that vehicle comes at you, because, one, you’re not going to stop it. You’re going to get hit no matter what.”

Horrible, foolish police work, in which authorities escalate rather than de-escalate a situation, is not necessarily illegal, but it is very important. Few if any in the government (of course) or the media seem interested in the motive of the three ICE officers who approached Good's vehicle. They might find out that that the motorist was partially blocking the roadway and that good police work would entail approaching the vehicle in an unthreating manner and ordering the motorist to leave the area. 

The purpose, presumably, would be to clear the area, which Good was trying to do as she began to drive away. And if that was not the aim of the officers, law enforcement was even more irresponsible than the appears from the video.

Apprised of this incident, Stephen Miller's heart leapt. So did J.D. Vance's heart, and that of Donald Trump. Jesus wept.

 

Share |

Insidious Intent

Predator (Merriam-Webster): 

1) an organism that primarily obtains food by the killing and consuming of other orgnaisms; especially, an animal that preys on other animals;

2) one who injures or exploits others for personal gain or profit.

This is repulsive:

Rep. Ogles: "It's important that we have a stake in Greenland, that they are quite frankly a protectorate of the US. They've been in relationship with Denmark -- that needs to end. We have spilled more blood protecting Greenland than the Danes ... we are the dominant predator… pic.twitter.com/uAtHMMV0hL

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2026

The USA does have a stake in Greenland. However, Danish involvement has been deeper and more lengthy. And according to Mikkel Runge Ollesen of the Danish Institute for Inernational Studies

When the monarchy of Denmark and Norway broke apart in 1814, Denmark kept Greenland. Danish-Greenlandic colonial relations in the 19th and early 20th centuries were characterized by a Danish paternalistic policy for cautious development, ensuring that Greenland would be a profitable colony. In 1916, Denmark’s rights to Greenland were confirmed by the United States, as part of a deal that facilitated the American purchase of the Danish West Indies. A controversy concerning a Norwegian claim to parts of Greenland ended in 1933, when the Permanent Court of International Justice, founded by the League of Nations, ruled against Norway.

Allen Frazer on the Military.com website explains that as combat reached the Arctic in 1943, the Danish-led  Sledge Patrol comprising Danes, Norwegians, and Greenlanders, was formed. Using its reports American planes bombed the German base on Greenland and later went to destroy the camp. However, they found it abandoned, merely capturing a lone German staffing the station. Then 

In October 1944, USCGS Eastwind seized the German weather station on Little Koldewey and took twelve German prisoners. Eleven days later, she boarded and captured the trawler Externsteine, taking seventeen more prisoners and ending Germany’s weather operations on the coast. These were the only direct engagements between American and German troops on Greenland.

That was the first presence of the USA in Greenland and, Ollesen notes, in

1949, the United States and Denmark became allies through NATO. During the Cold War and the decades after, the U.S. safeguarded its security interests in Greenland: tracking Russian missiles, bomber planes, and nuclear-armed submarines from that location. This became the basis for the “Greenland card” in U.S.-Danish relations: the idea that base rights in Greenland constituted an important contribution from Denmark and Greenland to the U.S. and NATO.

So the USA, as well as Denmark and Norway, collaborated to throw the Nazis out of Greenland in world War II. This apparently transpired without a staggering loss of life, or "blood spilled" as Representative Ogles of Tennessee would put it.  This is not- or, rather, should not be- a competition as to whether Danes or Americans have "spilled more blood protecting Greenland."

Merriam-Webster, again; a "protectorate" is "the relationship of superior authority assumed by one power or state over a dependent one."  Obviously, President Trump and adviser Stephen Miller wouldn't be threatening to gain control (in whatever way) over Greenland if the latter were already a protectorate of the USA. Presumably, Representative Ogles invoked the term "protectorate" because it harkens back to the word "protect" and implies, incorrectly, that helping to protect a territory results in the latter being a protectorate. "Protecting" may be necessary; it is not sufficient.

The USA has no nationals security interest in acquiring Greenland because our national security interests already are promoted by our presence in Greenland. The New York Times reported early last year that the Air Force and Space Force personnel at Pituffit Space Bse (formerly, Thule Air Base), "handle missile defense and space surveillance and the Upgraded Early Warning Radar (which) can detect ballistic misslies in thir early trajectory of flight."  A Danish deefense analyst says the base is "where the U.S. can detect a launch, calculate the trajectory and activate its missile defense systems." 

Consequently, the status quo helps Greenlanders, but especially USA national security. If they want to opt out, they can do so by referendum. A poll taken twelve months revealed majority support for becoming independent, yet with 45% opposing independence if the standard of living would be at all harmed.  That would be likely because

the Greenlandic government remains dependent on a yearly block grant from Denmark of roughly $600 million, as well as on the Danish state supporting services in areas such as defense, coast guard, and law enforcement. Greenlandic independence, therefore, depends on substantial continued Danish assistance after independence, something the Greenlandic government has yet to convince Denmark to accept.

What kind of a person would argue in full view that his country is the "dominant predator"? A supporter of Donald Trump would. The head of the Washington, D.C.-based security think tank Artic Institute believes it would "mean the end of NATO" (and the "U.S. would be .... shooting itself in the foot and waving goodbye to an alliance it has helped created." A former commander of U.S. troops in Europe argues that also a "loss of trust by key allies.... culd result in a eduction in their willingness to share intelligence with the U.S. or a reduction in access to bases across Europe. Both of these would be severely damagint to America's security."

Destructive to NATO and damaging to America's security? That sounds like a win-win to a President who believes his country is "evil" and a congressman who craves recognition as a "predator."

Share |

The Peace President Strikes Again

Washed-up, right-wing actor does not know the meaning of the word "threat."

Maduro smuggled 200+ TONS of heroin into this country, you blithering jackanapes. Then there’s the fentanyl and all the rest of it. Thats no threat? https://t.co/2ajbRtblxo

— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 5, 2026

Connecticut senator Chris Murphy notes

America doesn't want this war. Nobody asked for this becuase it has nothing to do with American national security. I think that's the most important conversation to have.

Venezuela is not a security threat to the United States. They're not threataening to invade us. there is no terrorist group like Al Qaeda operating there that has plans to attack the United States. To the extent that you care about the drug trade, yes, that brings drugs but the drugs go to Europe. Fetanyl is the drug that's killing Americans. That's not coming from Venezuela. Venezuela produces cocaine. Ninety percent of  it is nor coming to the United States.

The military action of this past weekend, which was one-sided, constitutes less a war than an attack, even an invasion. However, Murphy is right about everything else. As a reporter for KCRA 3 in Sacramento, California has explained

drug seizure data shows that it's not as prominent a supplier of cocaine to the U.S. as other South American and Latin American countries.

There is also no evidence that any significant level of illegal fentanyl — the primary killer in U.S. overdose deaths — is produced in South America, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

UNODC analyzes global drug trafficking based on reporting from its member states, open sources and drug seizure information.

Most illegal fentanyl enters the U.S. from Mexico, per UNODC and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. Illicit fentanyl can also be diverted, or stolen, from legal sources as medical professionals use the drug....

Venezuela is not among the primary direct traffickers of cocaine to the U.S.

Like fentanyl, most cocaine enters the U.S. from Mexico and typically gets to Mexico via maritime transportation on both the Pacific and Caribbean sides, according to UNODC research officer Antoine Vella. Some also arrives in Mexico via land transportation.

While the Trump administration's early September attacks targeted Venezuelan boats, there is no known direct cocaine trade route from Venezuela to the U.S. via sea. The only known direct Venezuela to U.S. trafficking route is via air, according to drug seizure data from UNODC. Cocaine could still arrive from Venezuela to the U.S. through intermediary countries.

Colombia, Ecuador and Panama are among the main direct traffickers of cocaine to the U.S. via boat.

Coca, the plant cocaine is made from, is mainly grown in Columbia, Peru, and Bolivia....

The three coca growing countries also have the most illegal processing facilities.

A "threat," Merriam-Webster informs us, is "an expression of intent to inflict evil, injury, or damage." If we're concerned about nations which would like to inflict injury upon the USA, we can begin with Mainland China. If we're concerned about evil, Russia is #1, with both countries presenting a serious cyberthreat to the USA.

Selling drugs to willing customers, the drug users or middlemen, does not constitute a threat in the literal or practical sense. This does not suggest that hauling Nicholas Maduro into USA federal court is not a worthwhile endeavor if compatible with US law and national interest. However, if the narcotic activities of Nicaragua pose a threat justifying a violent attack, an assault upon Columbia, Peru, Bolivia, and China would be worthy.

And the major threat to hemispheric peace and stability does not presently come from any of those countries, but from the USA.  In recent days, President Trump has threatened both Colombia and Denmark and Little Marco has threated Cuba.  That's not to spank them with narcotics or with rifle toting, hormone-infused MAGAts, but with the most powerful military in history. 

Of course, Trump is little motivated by the proliferation of drugs, as his pardon of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez demonstrates. It's about a lot of oil and rare earth minerals, probably with Donald's expectation of personal profit, as well as satisfying the wet dreams of much of his base by "kicking ass" while Maduro "f'ed around and found out," as Pete Hegseth put it.

Other factors also may have entered into the decision to employ the armed forces because Donald Trump always has an angle, and helping the country he has called "evil" is rarely one of them. James Woods may not understand this, but we can't be sure because he and many others will support any behavior from the most violent and degenerate creature ever to hold public office in this country.

Share |

Conquest

With Secretary of State Marco Rubio, it's often difficult to determine whether he is grossly dishonest or equally naive. Among the interesting remarks he made at the Mar-a-Lago news conference called so that President Trump could congratulate himself and the US military for its raid on Venezuela was "Remember, at the end of day, at its core, this was an arrest of two indicted fugitives of American justice and the Department of War supported the Department of Justice in that job. Now there are broader policy implications here...."

Similarly, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, who has the ounce of integrity House Speaker Mike Johnson lacks

said in a statement that he had spoken with Rubio as well and argued Trump's actions wre undertaken as part of "the execution of a valid Department of Justice warrant."

"President Trump's decisive action to disrupt the unacceptable status quo and apprehend Madur. through the exectuion of a valid Department of Justice warrant, is an important first step to bring him to justice for the drug crimes for which he has been indicted in the United States," Thune said.

The kidnapping/arrest- of Nicolas Maduro may be the first step to bring the Venezuelan strongman to justice, but it is only the means to an end. And the Trump Administration is far more concerned with its goal of conquest than it is in prosecuting a drug kingpin.

The President didn't directly say that. The admission- or in his case, the brag- was clear. Donald remarked 

As everyone knows, Venezuela’s oil industry has collapsed for years. Production fell to almost nothing compared to what it should have been. We will bring in our largest U.S. oil companies – the biggest in the world – to invest billions of dollars and repair the severely damaged oil infrastructure....

We will restore production so the nation can generate real revenue again. And we are ready, if necessary, to launch a second and much larger operation. We were prepared for a second wave and expected it might be required.

The President did contend, as noted here, that "oil companies will pay directly for the cost of rebuilding Venezuela's crude infrastructure. But be prepared to be shocked: he added "They will be reimbursed for what they're doing."

Of course, they will. However, that promise is no promise and is not binding. Nonetheless, show Donald that they appreciate the armed forces being activated on their behalf, they may be fully reimbursed. Show Trump personally some love, and it will benefit them- and him. A win-win.  After Trump v. United States, none dare call it bribery.

Over two weeks ago, the extremely conservative Kentucky Republican, Thomas Massie, made more than one good point:

Thomas Massie is going NUCLEAR on Trump’s regime change war in Venezuela.

“How did it work out in Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?”

“Do we want another Afghanistan in the Western Hemisphere?”

“This is about oil and regime change.”

“Previous presidents told us to go to war over… pic.twitter.com/XzwsC1uPpU

— Holden Culotta (@Holden_Culotta) January 3, 2026

"Venezuela also seized and sold American oil assets, costing us billions," maintained the President, which at least has the virtue of being closer to the truth than most of what he says, an extremely low bar. The nation's President now commingles the interests of Chevron and the USA, a dangerous coupling in any circumstance. And with that President being the King of Graft, what could possibly go wrong?

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 |