Even President Donald Trump doesn’t seem to think his angry and chaotic efforts to end the renewed storm over convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein will work.
He warned in a weekend social media post that “nothing will be good enough” to satisfy what he claims are leftists and troublemakers fanning the uproar.
Farmer, who was preparing to do some work for Epstein, said she was wearing running shorts when she turned up at the building to find Trump in a suit. Farmer told the Times that she started feeling scared as Trump allegedly stared at her bare legs, but Epstein came into the room and broke the tension. Farmer said Epstein reportedly said to Trump, “No, no. She’s not here for you.”
Rhian Lubin (INDEPENDENT) adds:
Farmer’s account is among “the clearest indications yet” of how Trump may appear in the Epstein files, the Times notes, though the White House disputed the alleged encounter.
“The president was never in [Epstein’s] office,” said White House communications director Steven Cheung. “The fact is that the president kicked him out of his club for being a creep.”
It follows a turbulent few weeks for the Trump administration after MAGA outrage over the Epstein files boiled over last week. Despite campaigning on a promise to release the files, Trump’s Justice Department announced in July that no further evidence in the case would be released, unleashing turmoil among the president’s MAGA supporter base.
Graeme Massie (INDEPENDENT) offers more:
The piece goes on to describe Trump hosting “a party at Mar-a-Lago for young women in a so-called calendar girl competition, Mr. Epstein was the only other guest.”
It states that the party was organized by Florida businessman George Houraney.
“Mr. Houraney recalled being surprised that Mr. Epstein was the only other person on the guest list,” it states.
“I said, ‘Donald, this is supposed to be a party with V.I.P.s,” Mr. Houraney told the newspaper about the party in 2019. “You’re telling me it’s you and Epstein?’”
All weekend, like Chump's done for two weeks now, he tried to scrape Epstein off his shoe. But it just won't scrape off as Ben notes at MEIDASTOUCH.
Donald said nothing to see here. Sort of as dangerous as sailing around on a boat named Monkey Business after encouraging the press to look into your personal life.
It's not going away. Today, Steve Inskeep (MORNING EDITION) observed, "The president is trying to quiet the criticism and he even sued THE WALL STREET JOURNAL over a story last week. The topic still dominated news shows on Sunday."
Lunatic Tulsi Gabbard spent the weekend trying to distract by issuing lies about former US President Barack Obama and, appearing on CBS' FACE THE NATION, US House Rep Jim Himes tied her crazy into the crazy that Chump and other stoked on Epstein for over a decade:
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: Here's the test. This is Epstein all over again. Criminal referrals. We're going to prosecute Barack Obama. You know, treasonist and seditious. Here's the thing. And I hope that four, five, six weeks from now. Don't take it from this Democrat. Four or five, six weeks from now, let's see if this administration, Tulsi Gabbard accusing a former president of treason, let's see if they bring charges. They won't. They won't, because there's not a judge in the land, not a single judge, who will treat this with anything other than laughter that will be heard from the Atlantic to the Pacific in this country.
So, the test of this is, four, five, six weeks from now, is the DOJ bringing charges.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HIMES: And the answer to that is no. And now we're going to be in Epstein world. We're like, wait a minute, treasonist conspiracy by a former president. Why isn't the Department of Justice bringing charges? And the answer to that question is that it is a lie.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Understood.
On Sunday's ABC THIS WEEK Martha Raddatz spoke with US House Rep Tim Burchett:
RADDATZ: And our thanks to Rachel.
I'm joined now by GOP Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee, who has called for more transparency in the Epstein case.
Good morning, Congressman.
You’ve co-sponsored the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, which would force the House to vote on whether or not to release all government files on Epstein.
What exactly do you think the government is withholding here?
REP. TIM BURCHETT, (R) TENNESSEE: Well, that’s the million-dollar question, ma’am. I -- I applaud the president and Attorney General Bondi for wanting to release the grand jury files. I believe that will pretty much cover everything. But I would give everybody a caveat or a -- that’s a big word, but a warning that just because somebody flew on a plane doesn’t mean they’re a daggum pedophile, you know. I -- I'm -- I have a lot of wealthy friends. I -- I aspire to be wealthy, but I've taken a vow of poverty because of my daughter rides horses.
So -- but I have a lot of wealthy friends, and they fly on people’s planes. And their plane will be down, and they’ll say, hey, we’re going somewhere, and we’ve got an extra seat, do you want to go? And they don’t even know the person on the plane.
So, you know, that’s one of the things I worry about, too, because I -- you know, President Trump admitted that he flew on his daggum plane. And so, I worry about some innocent people. I worry about -- there’s over 1,000 people that this dirtbag apparently offended. And currently, I believe the devil’s dealing with him. But --
RADDATZ: But, Congressman --
BURCHETT: I worry about some of those innocent names being out on that, too as well.
Yes, ma’am. Go ahead.
RADDATZ: So, Congressman, you think unsealing the grand jury records is enough for you now?
BURCHETT: I think it’s a start. I don’t think we’re ever going to get to the bottom of anything -- every -- all of it, ma’am.
Burchett also appeared on CNN"S STATE OF THE UNION WITH JAKE TAPPER AND DANA BASH where he repeated more or less the same remarks plus Tim Burchett's dramatic line reading of, "You know this town buries secrets. This town does not give up its secrets easy.”
At SLATE, Ben Mathis-Lilley offers his take on why Epstein hasn't faded away in a news cycle:
That might have something to do with the fact that Trump socialized with Epstein and has been accused of numerous sexual assaults himself, or it could be about cognitive dissonance: If Epstein is “a hoax” that everyone needs to let go now that it’s served its purpose of getting Trump elected, that might imply that the entire QAnon universe of theories was also a bunch of below-average fan faction that Trump encouraged because it got his dumb voters riled up. (We’re still working on finding the German word for "coming around to admitting an uncomfortable truth in order to maintain a much larger set of beliefs about things that are definitely still not true.") In any case, this was all starting to make non-MAGA observers wonder if the president has something to hide, even before the publication of a bombshell late-Thursday Wall Street Journal article which reported that Trump appears to have written Epstein a 50th-birthday card featuring a drawing of a naked woman and a poem that includes the phrases “We have certain things in common” and “may every day be another wonderful secret.” (Trump denied having made the card, telling the Journal, “I never wrote a picture in my life,” which does not appear to be accurate.)
Senator Dick Durbin is asking for answers and has made public three letters he's sent:
For a PDF of the letter to Attorney General Bondi, click here.
For a PDF of the letter to Director Patel, click here.
For a PDF of the letter to Deputy Director Bongino, click here.
This is from the Bondi article:
Dear Attorney General Bondi:
On July 7, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
released an unsigned memorandum regarding the Trump Administration’s “exhaustive review of
investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein.” This memorandum made two official findings:
(1) “[t]his systemic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list’”; and (2) “[a]fter a thorough
investigation, FBI investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide in his cell at
the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City on August 10, 2019.”1
The first finding directly contradicts public statements you have repeatedly made. On
February 21, 17 days after your confirmation as Attorney General, you were asked directly by
Fox News’ America Reports host John Roberts: “DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey
Epstein’s clients; will that really happen?”2 Your response was: “It’s sitting on my desk right now
to review.”3 On February 27, you released binders of documents related to Epstein to
conservative influencers and commentators,4 but despite the major media event the White House
staged around this release, these files were largely already publicly available.5 After intense
blowback from this incident, you appeared on another Fox News show, Life Liberty Levin, and
claimed that a “whistleblower” told you that “New York SDNY [was] sitting on thousands of
pages of documents”; that “we will get everything”; that you were “assured” there was more; and
that the country would eventually see “the full Epstein files.”6
According to information my office received, you then 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 FBI
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. Notably, in 2002, Mr. Trump said of Mr. Epstein, “I’ve known
Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy, He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful
women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”7 Just yesterday, it was
reported that the Department previously reviewed a “leather-bound album” comprised of dozens
of letters from Mr. Epstein’s friends in celebration of his 50th birthday in 2003.8 The letters were
collected by Mr. Epstein’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell and included one from President Trump
that allegedly “contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman,
which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker … and the future president’s signature is a
squiggly ‘Donald’ below her waist.”9
Despite tens of thousands of personnel hours reviewing and re-reviewing these Epstein-
related records over the course of two weeks in March, it took DOJ more than three additional
months to officially find there is “no incriminating ‘client list,’” and the memorandum with this
finding includes no mention of the whistleblower or additional documents, the existence of
which you publicly claimed on February 27.
A whistleblower is also mentioned in the letter to Patel. David McAfee reports:
Reports that federal workers were tasked with reviewing Jeffrey Epstein files to flag any mention of Donald Trump are indeed true, according to a legal expert on Sunday.
Legal analyst Allison Gill, better known as Mueller, She Wrote, did a little investigating of her own after it was reported that FBI agents were instructed to "flag" any mention of Donald Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein files.
"When I saw that over one thousand people had been put to work reviewing the Epstein files, I put a call out on my BlueSky account," the legal expert said as she explained her request for anonymous details from members of the FBI who were tasked with the assignment.
She adds, "In the 24 hours since, I’ve received several messages, including from a former analyst that was assigned to review the files, and a few things stood out to me."
According to Gill, "First, approximately 1,000 personnel in the Information Management Division (IMD) and the FBI New York Field Office were assigned to this task, confirming the whistleblower account made to Senator Durbin’s office. I can also confirm that a log exists tracking the mentions of Donald Trump in the files, and that there were approximately 100,000 files containing roughly 300,000 pages. Individual analysts were told to flag mentions of Trump by document and page number by logging them in an Excel spreadsheet, then they’d hand in their spreadsheet at the end of their (sometimes 24 or even 48-hour) shift. But it’s important to note that the agents were not told to flag Trump until later in a process that began mid-March."
Saturday, US House Rep Jasmine Crockett spoke with Alex Witt.
Are Republicans -- who give some lip service on the importance of Epstein -- going to join with Democrats?
US House Rep Jasmine Crockett: We saw a bunch of Republicans that just skipped a vote this week so I don't anticipate that we will get to any resolution on this. I think they again want to straddle the fence, they want to show that they are loyal to this -- I don't even know what to call him, I've called him so many things -- this wannabe Hitler, for sure. They want to pledge their loyalty to him and they know that he does not want this released. I think they also are concerned about the damage it may do. e if he's trying to hide it, they understand that he is most likely problematic for him as well as the as the MAGA brand as well as the Republicans. So I did not anticipate that they will be on board for doing anything that may harm them or their fearless leader.
Warren analysis reveals at least half a billion dollars in monetary contributions, gifts, in-kind donations flowing into Trump Presidential Library
Donations come while Trump makes critical decisions that may impact donors; raises serious concerns about bribery, influence-peddling
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released a new report exposing how companies, special interests, and foreign governments may be pledging donations to President Trump’s future Presidential Library as a corrupt tool to secure favorable outcomes from his administration.
“Donald Trump may be using his presidential library as a tool for corruption and bribery while still in office. We could be seeing giant companies like Paramount and Meta and foreign countries like Qatar pay Trump off in plain sight,” said Senator Warren. “Government should work for the American people, not just whichever giant company or foreign government can dump the most money into the president’s future library.”
Senator Warren’s new analysis reveals that companies seeking favorable outcomes from the Trump administration have pledged to funnel at least $63 million into Trump’s future presidential library. Other gifts and in-kind donations — including a $400 million luxury jet from Qatar, expensive candlelight dinners at Mar-a-Lago, leftover inauguration donations, and more — bring the total value of gifts flowing into Trump’s library to at least half a billion dollars.
Presidential Libraries are used to honor a president’s legacy and allow scholars and the public to learn about their time in office. This new report details how giant corporations, special interests, and at least one foreign government are promising donations to President Trump’s future library while his administration makes decisions on mega-mergers, the preservation of a U.S. military base in Qatar, Big Tech regulation, and more.
Just weeks ago, Paramount settled President Trump’s lawsuit against CBS’s 60 Minutes for $16 million, with the money funneling straight into Trump’s library. Paramount is currently vying for approval by the Trump administration of its proposed megamerger with Skydance.
In December 2024, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit with Donald Trump by agreeing to pay $15 million toward his Presidential Library.
Past presidents have also accepted suspicious donations while in office — such as the Clinton Foundation accepting a $450,000 donation from a woman pushing for a presidential pardon for her ex-husband, which President Clinton later granted, or a Bush Administration advisor soliciting Presidential Library donations in exchange for arranging meetings with top administration officials.
“But Trump is doing so at a magnitude that makes glaringly clear the need for common-sense guardrails around donations,” said Senator Warren’s report.
Unlike donations to presidential campaigns or inaugural committees, there are almost no restrictions on donations to Presidential Libraries. Even while in office, presidents can solicit unlimited, undisclosed donations from anyone — including foreign nationals, lobbyists, federal contractors, individuals seeking presidential pardons, and corporations with business before federal agencies.
###
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes7 hours ago
-
-
Idiot of the Week1 day ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Poor Chump, everybody's talkin'2 days ago
-
It's not going away2 days ago
-
-
-
-
-
