Thursday, August 28, 2025. Is Chump's dementia so bad that he can longer supervise his Cabinet, ask that as Tulsi Gabbard remains in her position after publicly exposing an undercover CIA agent, ask that as Chump's mind and body continues to decay, and let's drop back to March 22, 2017 when Senator Tim Kaine raised questions about Epstein's sweetheart deal during a Senate hearing.
Another day, another finger in the air checking the way the wind's blowing via Ben and MEIDASTOUCH NEWS.
As Convicted Felon Donald Chump struggles to walk in a straight line and as we see his flesh rotting before our eyes, the mind's going as well. As Mike observed Tuesday night, "He's out of control and he now appears to be so far along in his dementia that he believes his own lies. Think about that. He's crazy. His mind is going going gone. And he's now believing his own lies. And he's got the nuclear codes. It's time to impeach." Carl Gibson notes:
President Donald Trump may be too mentally compromised to hold the nation's highest office, according to one national security expert.
In a Tuesday post to her X account, journalist Juliette Kayyem — who is a CNN analyst and professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government — quote-posted a video of Trump's comments in the Oval Office about sending National Guard troops to Chicago, Illinois. In the video, Trump was asked about the legality of such a move, prompting him to respond that he had ultimate legal authority given his position.
"I would have much more respect for [Illinois Governor JB] Pritzker if he called me up and said 'I have a problem, can you help me fix it,' I would be so happy to do it," Trump said. "I have the right to do anything I want to do, I'm the president of the United States. If I think our country is in danger — and it is in danger in these cities — I can do it."
In her response to the video, Kayyem wrote that Trump was "incorrect" in his belief that he could do "anything" as president.
"He either believes it is true and is therefore unfit to be president or believes it is a lie and same," she tweeted. "The third option is that he is not of sound mind and body and all I can do is watch how he speaks and moves and it is a fair question to ask now."
The mind is gone. You see it over and over. He doesn't know where he is. He doesn't know who is around him. He's angry all the time and forever snapping -- someone opened the door to the Oval Office while he's in front of the press and he starts yelling. These are serious danger signs.
I did not trash Jake Tapper for co-writing ORIGINAL SIN -- a book that's supposed to be about Joe Biden's decline. I have no time to read it because we're dealing with a very dangerous person in the White House. There's really no time to stop and consider the past at this moment when the future is so at risk -- the future of our country, the future of democracy. I didn't attack him for promoting the book. It would have been stupid not to promote it. It would have made any publishing house think twice about signing him to write a book. I will, however, fault his publisher (RANDOM HOUSE) for having no angle to sell the soft cover edition. Instead, it was rushed out with the hardcover and Kindle release. The way you intelligently market a book like this is with bonus information often in an afterword. Had ORIGINAL SIN been handled correctly, the soft cover edition could be coming out this fall and include an afterword by the two authors where they grapple with whether or not similar or worse issues have come up with the president who replaced the one they wrote a book about.
But the whole supposed issue of the book and need for it was that Joe's decline was right there in plain sight and no one in the press covered it and sounded the alarms.
Now, I haven't read the book and am not going to. But warning signs for Joe go up in the debate and in the two weeks that follow.
If indeed the press let the country down by ignoring a valid topic, why compound that mistake by doing it again. And grasp, I say Joe declined in his last six months of his last year in office. Chump hasn't even finished year one since he was sworn in and he's declining in front of our eyes and the media doesn't want to treat this as the very serious threat it is.
This should be an issue on the broadcast evening news, it should be an issue on news magazines. If it's being polled on by news organizations -- IF -- that's not getting any traction or coverage.
Nicole Duncan-Smith (ATLANTA BLACK STAR NEWS) notes -- as other outlets should:
The 79-year-old commander in chief made the puzzling reference while signing an executive order and discussing his administration’s efforts to combat invasive Asian carp in the Great Lakes, creating a moment that quickly captured attention across social media platforms.
The bizarre episode unfolded as Trump was commenting on speculation about deploying National Guard troops to American cities before abruptly shifting to environmental policy.
“You know I did a favor for Kristi Whitman, ah Whitmer. A good favor, I think, with the fish, the carp, the China carp,” Trump said from behind the Resolute Desk.
The president seemed to catch himself mid-sentence, offering what appeared to be a correction, though he still referenced a nonexistent “Kristi Whitmer.”
Social media users wasted no time dissecting the verbal stumble, with many expressing concern about the president’s mental acuity.
A health expert is weighing in on a video of President Donald Trump from earlier this year, showing him on his dragging his foot after appearing to struggle to get out of his golf cart.
The video, posted by the grounds-keeping company that services Trump's Mar-A-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, appears to show the president struggling to get out of his golf cart and dragging his right leg.
Anthony Orrico writes for THE IRISH STAR. Our major daily newspapers seem disinclined to address reality.
Let's note a reality, Chump is not providing the needed oversight to his Cabinet.
Three times.
That's how many times Loose Lips Hegseth has paused/stop weapons supplies to Ukraine since being confirmed as Secretary of Defense on January 24th.
Three times.
All supposedly without Chump's approval or his knowledge.
Three.
Brett Forrest (THE WALL STREET JOURNAL) reports:
Tulsi Gabbard, director of national intelligence, surprised Central Intelligence Agency officials last week when she included an undercover senior CIA officer on a roster of 37 current and former officials she stripped of security clearances.
Most of the 37 people had either participated in intelligence assessments related to Russia’s attempt to influence the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election or had signed a 2019 letter calling for President Trump’s impeachment.
Gabbard
didn’t know the CIA officer had been working undercover, according to a
person familiar with the fallout from the list’s release. Three other
people with knowledge of the situation said that Gabbard’s office didn’t
meaningfully consult with the CIA before releasing the list.
Gabbard’s office delivered the list of 37 people to the CIA the evening before the list’s release, according to three people familiar with the communications and emails read to The Wall Street Journal.
The national intelligence office didn’t seek the CIA’s input about the composition of the list, and the CIA had no foreknowledge of Gabbard’s posting on X the following day that revealed the names, including that of the covered CIA officer, according to two of the people familiar with the events.
She's incompetent. We all noted she was a member of a strange cult headed by Guru Chris which to me screams "SECURITY RISK!" but worse than that, she had no experience. None at all.
And what she did was violate The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That doesn't apply to We The People. That would be an illegal barrier to free speech. But it does apply to government officials. And she should know that act. She should know that law. And she should ensure that her Tweets -- her damn Tweets! -- are not outing undercover CIA agents.
She just exposed -- to the world -- an undercover CIA agent and the buffoon still has her job?
Does Chump even know what's going on? How much is his Cabinet getting away with because Chump's dementia has gotten so bad.
Mr. ACOSTA. My understanding is that there is a pending civil lawsuit. The Department of Justice has defended the actions of the office in that matter under both President Bush and President Obama’s administrations.
Senator KAINE. The opening that I read suggests that you decided as U.S. attorney to cut a non-prosecution deal, that part of the decision was that that non-prosecution deal be held private, not appear in the public record, and there’s an allegation that I just read that you did not pursue a Federal indictment even though your staff had advocated that you do so. Is that accurate?
Mr. ACOSTA. That is not accurate. Let me address that one of the difficulties with matters before the Department of Justice is that the Department of Justice does not litigate in the public record or in the media and litigates in court. Let me set forth some facts. This matter was originally a State case. It was presented by the State attorney to the grand jury in Palm Beach County. The grand jury in Palm Beach County recommended a single count of solicitation not involving minors, I believe, and that would have resulted in zero jail time, zero registration as a sexual offender, and zero restitution for the victims in this case. The matter was then presented to the U.S. attorney’s office. It is highly unusual, and as I was speaking to some of your colleagues that have been involved in prosecutions, they mentioned that they don’t know of any cases personally where a U.S. attorney becomes involved in a matter after it has already gone to a grand jury at the State level. In this case we deemed it necessary to become involved, and we early on had discussions within the office, and we decided that a sentence or—how shall I put this—that Mr. Epstein should plead guilty to 2 years, register as a sex offender, and concede liability so the victims could get restitution. If that were done, the Federal interest would be satisfied and we would defer to the State. That was very early on in the case. I say that because the article goes on to talk about a view that the U.S. attorney’s office was not aggressive in this matter.
Senator KAINE. Can I read one other statement from the article, "Federal prosecutors detailed their findings in an 82-page prosecution memo and a 53-page indictment, but Epstein was never indicted.’" And then there’s a quote, "The agreement you described will not be made part of any public record, the deal between Epstein and Acosta says." The document was unsealed as part of the civil suit in 2015.
The CHAIRMAN. I’m going to give you, Senator, time to ask your question and the nominee time to answer the question, even though it goes over the 5 minutes.
Senator KAINE. Thank you.
Mr ACOSTA. Senator, again to address your question, I can’t discuss the details of the case, but let me take it generally. It is pretty typical in a prosecution for an indictment, a draft indictment, to be written. That doesn’t necessarily mean that that draft indictment is filed because that draft indictment does not consider often the strength of the underlying case. As part of any plea, it is not unusual to have an indictment that says these are all the places we can go, yet at the end of the day, based on the evidence, professionals within a prosecutor’s office decide that a plea that guarantees that someone goes to jail, that guarantees that someone register generally, and that guarantees other outcomes is a good thing.
Senator KAINE. Was that a consensus decision in your office?
Mr. ACOSTA. It was a broadly held decision, yes.
Senator KAINE. I’m over my time, Mr. Chairman. I may come back to this in a second round. Thank you.
[. . .]
Senator KAINE. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dean, I would like to close the loop on the previous discussion. I have a question about the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I asked you whether the agreement not to prosecute federally in exchange for an agreement on other matters was something that was a consensus within your office, and I think your testimony was that it was the generally held position of your office. I’ve not been a prosecutor, although I’ve practiced law.
The CHAIRMAN. It was broadly held——
Senator KAINE. Yes, broadly held position of the office. Thank you. I want to just read this. ‘‘In 2007, Acosta signed a non-prosecution deal in which he agreed not to pursue Federal charges against Epstein or for women who the government said procured girls for him. In exchange, Epstein agreed to plead guilty to a solicitation charge in State court, accept a 13-month sentence, register as a sex offender, and pay restitution to the victims identified in the Federal investigations. This agreement will not be made part of any public record’’—the deal between Epstein and Acosta says. What is the reason why a deal of this kind has the specification that it will not be made part of any public record?
Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I wish I could respond to that. You’re asking for—I hesitate not because of concerns but because this is a matter that’s pending litigation. Let me try to answer your question——
Senator KAINE. Then maybe you can answer it generally. I understand.
Mr. ACOSTA [continuing]. In a different way. There are times when in negotiating an outcome, there are agreements that are made that are ancillary. What we sought and what we presented at the very beginning was 2-years plus registration, plus individuals being able, victims being able to——
Senator KAINE. Seek restitution.
Mr. ACOSTA [continuing]. Seek restitution. What was obtained was 18 months plus registration, plus individuals being able to——
Senator KAINE. This says 13 months.
Mr. ACOSTA. The agreement called for 18 months. As it was applied by the State of Florida, it ended up being 13 months, which is a separate issue. Ultimately, there are other provisions that are part of that, and that is part of the give and take of a negotiation.
Senator KAINE. I understand your concern since the matter is still pending, but as a general matter, if something is allowed to be part of the public record, then more people become aware of it. In this case there were allegations that, I guess eventually, somewhat more than three dozen women had been victimized by the individual. If something is allowed to be public, it informs the public and provides opportunities for people to come forward. If something is prohibited from being part of any public record, it has a way of making it more difficult for people to bring forward claims. Isn’t that accurate?
Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, something that I think has ch changed over time is trust of government, and that’s relevant to the issue that you raised because there was a time when keeping something— when having something confidential was less of an issue. The public expectation today is that things be very public. If there is something that I have learned or thought about it’s how careful someone should be when something is not made public, because often a very positive outcome—again, not talking about this case but generally—a very positive outcome can become a negative outcome not because of a change in the underlying substance but because by something not looking public it is looked at with suspicion.
Senator KAINE. This is a question. The U.S. attorney position is a position of great power, and you’re dealing with a lot of people who are in very vulnerable positions. The Secretary of Labor position is a position of great power, and you’ll also be responsible for situations when there are a lot of vulnerable people. This is why I’ve been asking this question. Let me ask one other one. During the campaign, President Trump often ridiculed the BLS unemployment numbers, calling them ‘‘phony’’ or ‘‘a hoax.’’ Will you commit to keeping the Bureau of Labor Statistics independent and maintain and defend the integrity of its conclusions and data?
Mr. ACOSTA. Senator, I’ll answer your question, but if I could circle back, I just want to make one final point.
Senator KAINE. Mm-hmm.
Mr. ACOSTA. At the end of this case, I received a telephone call from the special agent in charge of the FBI who had been part of this entire process and had been at the meetings and had been involved, and he called to just say congratulations, this was really hard fought and well won. I say that because this truly was a point of pride. There was a New York Times article that was written concurrent to this that said, ‘‘But then the United States Attorney’s Office in Miami became involved.’’ Initially, the Epstein team was elated Mr. Epstein would avoid prison. Then the U.S. Office became involved, and last summer Mr. Epstein got an ultimatum, ‘‘plead guilty to a charge that would require to register him as a sex offender, or the government would charge him with sexual tourism.’’
Senator KAINE. Since you’ve added on, then I want to add on. You are aware that Mr. Epstein served that 13 months, he was allowed out during the day. He had to sleep at a county jail, but he was basically allowed to move and go around the community and do whatever he wants, and then that became a subject of significant criticism.
Mr. ACOSTA. I am on record condemning that, and I think that was awful.
Senator KAINE. You would say that was a problem with the way the State administered the State sentence.
Mr. ACOSTA. Yes, and I think it was wrong. Senator KAINE. OK. How about on the Bureau of Labor Statistics? Mr. ACOSTA. On the Bureau of Labor Statistics, briefly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics has kept statistics for decades, and it has a procedure. It’s a transparent procedure that makes clear how they calculate, that publishes for public comment any changes that may take place, and that procedure is very important because BLS keeps data that is used not just for today but for the future, and that process is very important.
Senator KAINE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thanks, Senator Kaine
If, somehow, Chump was unaware of Acosta's sweet heart deal with pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein when Acosta was vetted for the position, he knew about it after the confirmation hearing.
And he continued to support Acosta. It was only months later, when the reporting by THE MIAMI HERALD revealed even more problems with the deal Acosta gave Epstein and public outcry was mounting that Acosta was forced to resign from Chump's first administration.
How much did Chump know? How close were Chump and Acosta?
MAGA lawmaker Mike Collins lobbed a political grenade into efforts from Team Trump to limit his exposure to fallout from the Epstein files.
Georgia Rep. Collins made a bombshell admission, that he believes Donald Trump’s name will be in the files, at a county GOP meeting, the Washington Examiner reported.
A constituent asked the MAGA lawmaker whether he believed Trump was in the files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who died by suicide while in federal custody in New York City in August 2019 as he awaited trial on new sex trafficking charges.
“Yeah, I’m sure he’s in there,” Collins said, without providing evidence, according to an audio clip of the exchange uploaded to YouTube, titled, “HOT MIC: Republican caught saying Trump IS IN THE EPSTEIN FILES!”
This morning, EMPTY WHEEL offers a deep dive into claims offered by Chump pal and convicted pedophile Ghislaine Maxwell:
When NYT first ran this story on August 5 — with the two earlier WSJ stories (July 17; July 24), the third story providing unprecedented details on the Epstein scandal during the period Trump has tried to bury his sex trafficking problem — I noted two things about it: The exceedingly weird treatment of Todd Blanche’s visit with Ghislaine Maxwell, in which NYT mentioned neither Blanche by name nor his title.
The White House had pledged to release details about the federal investigations into Mr. Epstein and his associates. But this summer the Trump administration backpedaled. The ensuing right-wing outrage has threatened to splinter the Make America Great Again movement — for whom Mr. Epstein is a central figure in conspiracy theories — and has put Mr. Trump on the defensive like few other issues.
Seeking to quell the backlash, the Justice Department dispatched a top official to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell, Mr. Epstein’s longtime associate who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for sex trafficking. On Friday, Ms. Maxwell was moved to a lower-security facility. [my emphasis]
The other remarkable aspect of the story is the absolute dearth of any source description for the photos from Jeffrey Epstein’s brownstone. None appears in the story or credited on the photos.
The refusal to provide any hints as to source carried over to the response that lead reporter David Enrich gave to a question about sourcing:
These are good questions, but I’m afraid there’s not a whole lot I can say because of the need to protect sources who provide us with information. The one thing I feel comfortable sharing is that we published this information as soon as we were able. This is not something we’ve been sitting on.
I fully recognize that it is frustrating as a reader not to have transparency about where/how journalists get information like this, but I hope you can also understand that protecting sources is paramount — people need to be able to trust that we will protect their confidentiality when they come to us with important information.
Viewed in the aftermath of the release of the Ghislaine Maxwell transcripts (July 24, July 25), however, something else sticks out.
First, there’s the number of people mentioned in the story also mentioned in Maxwell’s interview:
- Ehud Barak
- Leo Wexner
- Fidel Castro
- Elon Musk
- Pope John Paul II
- Elon Musk
- Larry Summers
- Bill Clinton
- Richard Branson
- Bill Gates
- Martin Nowak
There are people mentioned in the story that Blanche did not ask about: Mortimer Zuckerman, Woody Allen, Steve Bannon, Mick Jagger, and Joi Ito.
There's so much to see and people are growing tired of the nonsense as Dan Abrams notes below.
Who's getting protected?
The following sites updated:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tomato Gravy in the Kitchen6 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Paul Krugman and Ryan Lizza17 hours ago
