The Epstein Files

1. 61

   Willowarborposted 2 weeks ago

   Massie (R) says Republicans are being threatened by Trump to not support the release of the files.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      The more Trump resists, the more confident I am that Trump is somehow implicated in this sorry, disgusting mess.
      
      I am really hoping what these amazingly strong women did will encourage hundreds of other what were then very young girls to come forward and start naming names of those who abused them. If it includes Trump, so be it. If he is implicated, I will not be surprised if MAUGA tries to destroy these women.

      replyreport
2. 61

   Willowarborposted 2 weeks ago

   GOP Rep. Thomas Massie: "It was just 9 months ago the entire administration was FOR releasing these files. The problem is they've done 180 degree turn on this"
   
   Trump and his administration used this issue and these women for political purpose and now that they are no longer valuable they have been kicked aside...

   replyreport
3. 61

   Willowarborposted 2 weeks ago

   What in the actual hell is wrong with this man??
   
   Donald Trump: "These [Epstein] files were made up by Comey, they were made up by Obama, they were made up by Biden."
   
   At what point will MAGA supporters confront Trump with the reality of how profoundly he has betrayed them? It is NOT a HOAX? 
   
   He really does have such little regard for you folks and really thinks you're stupid.
   
   My God he is burnt orange...
   
   https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/19 … 7060286920

   replyreport
   1. 83

      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      MAGA will have to break the cult-like hold he has on them. I feel most of MAUGA would figure out a way to justify personally murdering someone. It really is not much of a jump from justifying his responsibility of millions of deaths from his policies.

      replyreport
4. 69

   IslandBitesposted 2 weeks ago

   This is kinda funny. He keeps calling it a democrats hoax, but it's his MAGAs that keep pushing.
   
   From the MAGAs trusted Project Veritas founder...
   
   Pro-MAGA Activist Publishes Clip of Trump DOJ Officials Epstein comments
   
   James O’Keefe, the Project Veritas founder and longtime pro-MAGA activist, published a clip on Thursday of a Trump Justice Department official claiming that Ghislaine Maxwell was moved to prison “to keep her quiet.”
   
   In the clip, an off-camera woman asks Joseph Schnitt, an acting deputy chief of special operations, about the Epstein Files and Maxwell – a convicted sex offender and Jeffrey Epstein accomplice.
   
   “But those files do exist,” noted the woman.
   
   “Yeah, thousands and thousands to page through. They’ll redact every Republican or conservative person in those files, leave all the liberal, Democratic people in those pages,” Schnitt replied.
   
   “I think they visited that Maxwell person. Kind of also involved,” presses the woman.
   
   “Transferred to a minimum security prison too recently, which is against BOP policy because she’s a convicted sex offender. They’re offering her something to keep her quiet,” Schnitt claimed.
   
   O’Keefe then discusses the tape, adding, “That was the acting deputy chief of the Office of Enforcement Operations, Joseph Schnitt, telling a stranger about the FBI and DOJ’s handling of the Epstein files. Schnitt, who works at a high level inside the Department of Justice, goes on to comment on the inconsistent statements, special treatment of Ghislaine Maxwell, and the blatant backtracking on promises of transparency.”

   replyreport
5. 69

   IslandBitesposted 2 weeks ago

   DOJ responds to official’s Epstein comments in hidden-camera video
   
   “The comments in this video have absolutely zero bearing with reality and reflect a total lack of knowledge of the DOJ’s review process,” the Justice Department said in a statement. “The DOJ is committed to transparency and is in compliance with the House Oversight Committee’s request for documents.”
   
   The department also published a statement from Schnitt to his director, Jeffrey Pollak, in which he explained that he went on two dates in August with a woman named Skylar after they met on the dating app Hinge. Schnitt said the woman’s online profile is no longer available.
   
   “She claimed to be an au pair in Georgetown. She gave no clues that she was a reporter or recording our date,” Schnitt said in the statement, which was posted on social media. “Had I a clue, the first date would have immediately ended and there would never have been a second one.”
   
   Schnitt went on to say that his comments captured in the video were based on what he had “learned in the media and not from anything I’ve done at or via work.”
   
   
   Erm.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Here is what is true about that episode:
      
      1. He said those words
      
      2. He is a senior person in DOIJ
      
      3. He does not work in a position to have direct knowledge about what happens with the Epstein files.
      
      4. Besides media he is high enough up to have at least heard things.
      
      Conclusion: He was trying impress a woman and stepped in it.
      
      Obviously, no one should believe DOIJ's denial and look for other reasons to accept or reject what he said.

      replyreport
6. 0

   tsmogposted 2 weeks ago

   We each have an interesting perspective when considering the overall context of the Epstein saga from the beginning and continuing today. What ending will there be if one? Using several lens - historical, psychological, sociological, economics, power structure, and, perhaps, metaphorical in the grand scheme of things much can be learned. One such perspective offered is . . .
   
   The Jeffrey Epstein cover-up is an affront to US democracy published by the Guardian by author Rebecca Solnit (Sept 6, 2025)
   Democracy means a society and system in which everyone’s rights matter. Rapists count on this being untrue – and Trump is proving them right
   https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … GTUS_email
   
   For enticement the opening two paragraphs:
   
   "Rape is a crime against democracy in the most immediate sense of equality between individuals and the premise that we’re all endowed with certain inalienable rights. Most rapists operate on the premise that they can not only overpower the victim physically, but can do so socially and legally. They count on a system that discounts the voices of victims and only too often cooperates in silencing them, through shame, intimidation, threats, discrediting, the obscene legal instrument known as a nondisclosure agreement and a system too often run by men for men at the expense of women and children. That is to say, rapists count on getting away with it because of a system that hands them power and steals it from their victims. They count on a silencing system. On profound inequality.
   
   Which is what makes rape such a peculiar crime: it is the ritual enactment of the perpetrator’s power and the victim’s powerlessness, buttressed by the circumstances that puts and keeps each of them in those roles. It’s driven by the desire to use sexuality to cause physical and psychic injury, to dominate, to celebrate the rapist’s power and the victim’s powerlessness, to treat another human being as a person without rights, including the right to set boundaries, to say no and to speak up afterward. A society that perpetuates and protects this desire and arrangement is rape culture, and it’s been our culture throughout most of its existence."
   
   Thoughts, accolades, criticism, and/or commentary?

   replyreport
   1. 83

      My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      From where I sit, Trump and many Republicans put truth to those words.
      
      When it suited him, he said he wanted full transparency. When it doesn't suit him, he wants to throw those women to the curb and call them a hoax causing even more psychic injury, to use your phrase.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Sharlee01posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      I’m not sure why you post such thoughtful comments that really offer food for thought, only to have them quickly followed by off-topic Trump or MAGA bashing. It’s frustrating because it discourages genuine engagement, no matter how interesting the original topic may be. In my view, this forum has very little in the way of meaningful conversation, but I do give you credit for trying.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         My Esotericposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

         Simple - because this forum is about Epstein who is tied at the hip with Trump and MAUGA.
         
         All I did was point out that what Tsmog wrote, fits Trump to a "T". Also, I must point out again that it is not "bashing" when one is telling the truth.

         replyreport
7. 69

   IslandBitesposted 12 days ago

   
   
   Epstein Birthday Letter With Trump’s Signature Revealed
   The 2003 birthday book also includes a letter that references Trump with a crude joke about a woman from another Epstein associate
   
   https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/epstein … s-9d79ab34

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Willowarborposted 12 days agoin reply to this

      Oh the one he said didn't exist!

      replyreport
8. 71

   Kathleen Cochranposted 12 days ago

   Don't get your hopes up. These folks will excuse anything. They are "pot committed". It would cost them too much to admit they've been wrong now.
   
   Three years, three months, six weeks and counting. . .

   replyreport
9. 61

   Willowarborposted 12 days ago

   I am just so sick of this fool...
   
   Trump, 2 months ago: "I don’t do drawings. I’m not a drawing person. I don’t do drawings of women... Who would do a controversial drawing? "
   
   https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1965152717564699001
   
   Go ahead Maga give us the usual... Tell us how he's a victim, tell us it's a hoax....or just be honest and say that you really don't care what he says or does.  Sane-wash it.  Normalize it. Defend it. 
   
   HE IS A LYING LIAR WHO LIES INCESSANTLY

   replyreport
10. 61

    Willowarborposted 12 days ago

    
    
    Interesting...that Trump would  joke with his buddy about how you pay money  for him to sell you women and then it turns out by coincidence that Epstein was doing large-scale sex crimes...

    replyreport
    1. 69

       IslandBitesposted 12 days agoin reply to this

       He knew. I wont say he's the same, but... "Dime con quien andas y te diré quien eres..."

       replyreport
11. 69

    IslandBitesposted 12 days ago

    Never forget...
    
    "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump told the magazine. "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. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
    
    What is "the younger side", Trump? How young?
    
    
    In a 2006 interview, Stern asks Trump, “Do you think you could now be banging 24-year-olds?”
    
    “Oh, absolutely,” Trump says.
    
    “Would you do it?,” asks Stern.
    
    “I’d have no problem,” Trump said.
    
    Stern then asked Trump if he has an age limit.
    
    “No, I have no age — I mean, I have age limit. I don’t want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds.”
    
    
    12??
    
    "Somebody who a lot of people don’t give credit to but in actuality is really beautiful, really beautiful, is Paris Hilton. I’ve known Paris Hilton from the time she’s 12, her parents are friends of mine, and, you know, the first time I saw her she walked into the room and I said, ‘Who the hell is that?’
    
    "Who the hell is that" 12 y/o?? Who says that?
    
    
    YUCK!

    replyreport
12. 83

    My Esotericposted 11 days ago

    More Cognitive Dissonance for the Trump Apologists to suffer through. More lies they have to swallow and make believe they weren't said.
    
    https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/09/politics … -takeaways

    replyreport
13. 84

    Sharlee01posted 11 days ago

    What is Thus Far Known About This issue---
    
    In July 2025, The Wall Street Journal reported that in 2003, Donald Trump allegedly sent a sexually suggestive birthday message to Jeffrey Epstein, which was included in a scrapbook compiled for Epstein's 50th birthday. The letter, purportedly signed by Trump, featured a drawing of a nude woman and concluded with the phrase, "Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret." Trump immediately denied authorship, calling the report "false, malicious, and defamatory." He subsequently filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal, its parent company News Corp, and the reporters involved. Trump's legal team contends that the signature on the letter does not match known examples of his handwriting and claims the document is fabricated.
    
    The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Florida and has been assigned to Judge Darrin Gayles. As of now, the case is in the litigation stage, with discovery and pre-trial motions pending. The outcome of the lawsuit will depend on the court's assessment of the authenticity of the letter and the credibility of the parties involved.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Readmikenowposted 11 days agoin reply to this

       Shar,
       
       A guilty person would not file such a lawsuit.
       
       During the court process there will be discovery.  This is when both sides will be able to try and obtain documentation, depositions, etc. to prove their case.  If President Donald Trump wanted to hide something this lawsuit would not do it.
       
       It's pretty desperate of the democrats to try and act as if this is legitimate when it highly contested.  This lawsuit proves it.
       
       I do feel bad for democrats.  Their party is hugely unpopular and shows no signs of improving.  They have no leaders.  All the democrats have now is desperation.  The type that makes them focus on something like this rather than crime reduction, securing the border, getting me out of women's sports, etc. 
       
       But, President Donald Trump has done that...since the democrats weren't able to.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Willowarborposted 11 days agoin reply to this

          He filed the lawsuit before the Epstein estate was subpoenaed to release the birthday book.... Pretty sure his lawsuit is going to fold like a house of cards.

          replyreport
          1. 81

             Readmikenowposted 11 days agoin reply to this

             Oh, I don't think so.
             
             If there is anything President Donald Trump knows about it is lawsuits.
             
             He wouldn't have done this unless he felt confident he would win.

             replyreport
             1. 61

                Willowarborposted 11 days agoin reply to this

                Trump sues Wall Street Journal over Epstein report, seeks $10 billion
                By Nandita Bose and Jonathan Stempel
                July 19, 2025
                
                The man is stupid....

                replyreport
             2. 83

                My Esotericposted 11 days agoin reply to this

                Maybe checking facts would have helped you.
                
                Since 2013, Trump has filed 10 reported lawsuits.
                
                * One is still pending
                * He won only ONE of the remaining 9
                * He LOST Seven of them
                * ONE was settled
                
                Now, what were you saying about him not "done this unless he felt confident he would win."
                
                As usual, Trump doesn't really know what he is doing.

                replyreport
                1. 81

                   Readmikenowposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                   "* He LOST Seven of them"
                   
                   IF this is true...President Donald Trump filing such a lawsuit further proves he is confident he will win.

                   replyreport
                   1. 61

                      Willowarborposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                      Again...
                      
                      what's the logic behind the idea that someone, 20 years ago, included this birthday note with Trump's signature to the Epstein birthday book?  Which, is a bound book that was in the possession of the Epstein estate lawyers and not just a collection of loose crap found at the back of someone's closet... Please, interested to know the theory behind that one.

                      replyreport
                   2. 84

                      Sharlee01posted 10 days agoin reply to this

                      I did some research and would like to offer facts. Trump has done very well when suing for defamation.  Not sure what ECO is referring to. I asked  AI to list all defamation lawsuits Donald Trump has brought from 2013 to the present. Here is what was offered.
                      
                      ABC News Defamation Lawsuit    Settled: PAID $15 million to Trump's presidential library, $1 million for legal fees, public apology    Settlement reached after anchor George Stephanopoulos incorrectly stated that a jury found Trump liable for rape.
                      
                      CNN Defamation Lawsuit Dismissed Federal judge dismissed the lawsuit in July 2023.
                      
                      Wisconsin TV Station Lawsuit    Settled Lawsuit settled without an apology from Trump.
                      
                      Meta (Facebook/Instagram) Lawsuit    Settled    Meta agreed to PAID $25 million to Trump's legal team and reinstated his accounts.
                      CRUSH The LSAT
                      
                      Paramount/CBS Lawsuit    Settled    CBS and its parent company, Paramount Global, agreed to settle the lawsuit by PAYING $16 million to Trump's legal team and issuing a public retraction.
                      
                      The Washington Post Lawsuit    Ongoing    Lawsuit is ongoing, with no final judgment rendered as of yet.
                      
                      PBS and NPR Lawsuits    Pending    Both lawsuits are pending, with no final judgments issued.
                      
                      Wall Street Journal Defamation Lawsuit    Filed    Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch over a controversial birthday sketch allegedly from Trump to Jeffrey Epstein.
                      
                      It appears factually that he has done well thus far regarding money paid to him, with a few cases still pending.

                      replyreport
                      1. 61

                         Willowarborposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                         Trump's lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal is a defamation suit alleging the paper falsely reported that he contributed a sexually suggestive birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. Trump and his legal team claim the report is malicious, defamatory, and based on a "nonexistent" card, while the paper stands by its reporting.
                         
                         How do you think that's going to turn out since the "non-existent" card now exists??

                         replyreport
                      2. 83

                         My Esotericposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                         And you are focusing just on defamation? That wasn't mentioned by Mike, just lawsuits. But, since you asked, here are the 10 I was referring to plus a few more:
                         
                         Trump v. Univision (2015, Miss Universe/Miss USA TV rights) — Settled, Feb. 11, 2016.
                         Reuters
                         +1
                         
                         Trump Old Post Office LLC v. José Andrés (2015, D.C. hotel restaurant deal) — Settled, Apr. 7, 2017.
                         The Washington Post
                         +1
                         
                         Trump v. Vance (2019, to block Manhattan DA subpoena) — Lost at SCOTUS, 7–2 (July 9, 2020).
                         Supreme Court
                         
                         Patterson v. Padilla (Trump & campaign challenged CA tax-return ballot law) — Won; law struck down (Nov. 21, 2019).
                         Justia
                         CalMatters
                         
                         Donald J. Trump v. The New York Times & Mary L. Trump (2021, tax records story) — Claims vs. NYT dismissed (May 2023); ordered to pay NYT legal fees (Jan. 12, 2024). - That is counted as a Loss
                         AP News
                         CBS News
                         
                         Trump v. Twitter (X) (2021, account ban) — Dismissed by N.D. Cal. (May 6, 2022). - Again, a Loss
                         Reuters
                         internetlab.org.br
                         
                         Trump v. Thompson (Jan. 6 Committee/NARA records) (2021) — Lost; SCOTUS denied stay, records released (Jan. 19–20, 2022).
                         Supreme Court
                         SCOTUSblog
                         
                         Donald J. Trump v. Hillary Clinton, et al. (2022, “Russia hoax” RICO) — Dismissed; court imposed ≈$938k sanctions on Trump & counsel (Jan. 2023). Again a Loss
                         Justia
                         Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
                         
                         Donald J. Trump v. CNN (2022, “Big Lie” defamation) — Dismissed (July 28–29, 2023). Again, a Loss
                         Justia
                         Oyez
                         
                         Trump v. Anderson (2023–24, Colorado 14th-Amend. ballot case) — Won; SCOTUS unanimously kept him on ballots (Mar. 4, 2024).
                         AP News
                         
                         Trump v. Deutsche Bank & Capital One (2019, to block House subpoenas) — Lost at 2d Cir; litigation later ended after narrowed subpoenas/agreements; banks produced records with limits.
                         
                         Trump v. Meta (Facebook) (2021 class action) — Settled Jan. 2025 (terms confidential).
                         
                         Trump v. Woodward & Simon & Schuster (2023, “Trump Tapes” copyright) — Dismissed July 18, 2025 (leave to amend). Dismissed is a Loss
                         The Washington Post
                         
                         Note: Trump v. YouTube (2021) was stayed in 2022 pending related Twitter appeals (that’s likely the “stayed” case you remember).
                         Courthou
                         
                         So what is the new count?
                         
                         * TWO Wins
                         
                         * ONE Settled
                         
                         * One Stay
                         
                         * [/b]EIGHT Losses[/b]
                         
                         As to the ones you listed, mostly correct:
                         
                         * There was no retraction by CBS or Paramount (in many experts opinions, the two networks caved even though they had winning cases.)
                         
                         * PBS/NPR - Trump is not the plaintiff
                         
                         * Washington Post - no longer "on going". Trump lost both the one with the Campaign and the one with Truth social.
                         
                         Finally, the WSJ suit is almost a certain loss for Trump

                         replyreport
                         1. 84

                            Sharlee01posted 10 days agoin reply to this

                            https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/368 … ost4382057
                            
                            The link is where the conversation started between Mike and me.  You once again jump into a conversation you have not followed, then you post a litany of off-subject information.  Mike and I were discussing the lawsuit Trump filed regarding defamation regarding the Birthday book.  I truly wish you would not address me. I spend more time correcting your comments.

                            replyreport
                            1. 83

                               My Esotericposted 9 days agoin reply to this

                               You are right, my apologies, I was thinking about blowing up the boat thing. Nevertheless, you are wrong about not having followed the conversation, I have read every one, well almost, of the comments since your first mention of lawsuits.
                               
                               You are also wrong to imply that "jumping in" is somehow wrong. It is what these forums are about, they are exclusively between two people.
                               
                               I will continue to correct you, like in this case, as much as I want. Also, please tone down the insults, they violate the rules.

                               replyreport
                   3. 83

                      My Esotericposted 10 days agoin reply to this

                      That is a non-sequitur if I ever saw one.

                      replyreport
       2. 84

          Sharlee01posted 11 days agoin reply to this

          Mike,   Yes, the Democrats are clearly desperate, and I have to admit I’m enjoying watching all their failed antics. This is just another addition to their growing pile of political missteps, each one revealing their true nature, a series of cheap ploys one after another. People have woken up to the nonsense and don’t want to be associated with the party. Honestly, who would want to be part of a group so ill-equipped and ineffective? They have nothing to offer anyone. They’ve tried to push their far-left agenda, and now they are widely seen as the party of far-left socialism. It’s obvious that a majority of Americans want nothing to do with what they’re selling. They are done, and done. As for the very few stubborn holdouts still clinging to the party, good luck defending what’s left of their credibility.  I mean, some are: kick wall angery... Oh well, we certainly have, and are witnessing a huge meltdown of the Democratic party.

          replyreport
          1. 81

             Readmikenowposted 11 days agoin reply to this

             Shar,
             
             I really do hope that democrats don't change their approach.
             
             It does work to our benefit.

             replyreport
          2. 61

             Willowarborposted 11 days agoin reply to this

             Lol...MAGA brought this Epstein debacle on themselves.

             replyreport
             1. 83

                My Esotericposted 11 days agoin reply to this

                I wonder why the Trump apologists don't understand that - too much cognitive dissonance to handle?

                replyreport
    2. 61

       Willowarborposted 11 days agoin reply to this

       I think it would just be easier to say that the Maga movement doesn't care if Trump was a part of Epstein's lifestyle...

       replyreport
       1. 81

          Readmikenowposted 11 days agoin reply to this

          I think the MAGA movement believes there is no solid evidence he was part of Epstein's lifestyle.

          replyreport
          1. 61

             Willowarborposted 11 days agoin reply to this

             The proof is right in front of your eyes. Yet dear leader lies about his signature and tells maga to ignore it...

             replyreport
          2. 83

             My Esotericposted 11 days agoin reply to this

             That is dodging Willowarbor's proposition that MAUGA wouldn't CARE if Trump was a part of Epstein's lifestyle. What she said has nothing to do with evidence.

             replyreport
14. 61

    Willowarborposted 11 days ago

    He wrote the card, it's his signature, he's a liar.  The man campaigned on this issue... Now it's biting him in the ass. 
    
    The Trump regime's response on this is to treat their base as if they are completely stupid .. you don't see what you see with your own eyes!
    
    SHIELD YOUR EYES FOLKS
    
    

    replyreport
15. 69

    IslandBitesposted 11 days ago

    Some MAGAs want the world to believe this is all Democrats, the left. But they know, as we know, it is mostly their side pushing the issue. Their MAGA warriors, their influencers, their media heroes. Who were the first to mentioned the card? Who publish the drawing? Watch Carlson, Alex Jones, Rogan, even the guys in that photo with "the Epstein files".
    
    MAGA was so excited about the Epstein files, thinking they were going to f/u Hollywood, the eilite, Democrats. Then, they saw Trump face and his comments... "Uh-oh. Something isnt right. I better shut up and fall in line. Whatever king says. Baa, baa, baa."

    replyreport
16. 61

    Willowarborposted 11 days ago

    Just a reminder
    
    "Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That is an important thing.”
    
    https://x.com/Azi/status/1954573888710472106

    replyreport
    1. 83

       My Esotericposted 10 days agoin reply to this

       Fortunately, it seems the victims are compiling such a list even if no formal list was kept by Epstein.

       replyreport
       1. 61

          Willowarborposted 10 days agoin reply to this

          Maga will rip them from end to end...

          replyreport
17. 61

    Willowarborposted 11 days ago

    My god, they're just going to lie their way through this... They really do think they're supporters are idiots.
    
    How can this woman stand up there with a straight face? She's earned her title...bullshit Barbie.
    
    https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1965478823753122160

    replyreport
    1. 82

       Credence2posted 11 days agoin reply to this

       Yes, obviously they do and are willing to make them believe the most blatant of lies
       
       “Bullshit Barbie”, priceless…….

       replyreport
    2. 83

       My Esotericposted 11 days agoin reply to this

       That is what she is paid to do.

       replyreport
18. 61

    Willowarborposted 11 days ago

    Why would someone forge Trump's signature 23 years ago in Epstein's birthday book?

    replyreport
19. 69

    IslandBitesposted 11 days ago

    From the same guy who joked about Trump buying a woman from Epstein:
    
    Mr. Pashcow appears to have contributed several consecutive pages to the book. On the page before the mock check is a vulgar cartoon depicting Mr. Epstein’s grooming of young girls: On one side, marked 1983, Mr. Epstein is handing out balloons to a group of girls; on the other, labeled 2003, he is receiving a naked massage from four topless young women. “What a great country!” it reads at the bottom.
    
    They knew!
    
    Btw, more about the check joke,
    
    The entry, included in a bound volume in 2003, was made by Joel Pashcow, the former chairman of a real estate company in New York and a member of Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s resort in Palm Beach, Fla. It shows a photograph of Mr. Pashcow at the resort with Mr. Epstein, another man and a woman whose face is redacted. Mr. Pashcow is holding an oversize check that appears to have been doctored, with a seemingly phony “DJ TRUMP” signature.
    
    A handwritten note under the photo, which was taken in the 1990s, joked that Mr. Epstein showed “early talents with money + women,” and had sold a “fully depreciated” woman to Mr. Trump for $22,500.
    
    A visual analysis by The Times found that the photo was taken at Mar-a-Lago after the resort opened as a club in 1996 and was landscaped with palm trees and other features.
    
    The woman, whose name is also redacted in the files released by the House Oversight Committee, was a European socialite then in her 20s, according to two people familiar with the original photo. She had briefly dated both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Trump around that time, according to court transcripts and a person close to Mr. Epstein.
    
    The nature of the woman’s relationship with Mr. Epstein is murky. A lawyer for the woman said she knew Mr. Epstein in “a professional capacity” when she was a student but severed ties with him in 1997. She did not know anything about the letter or its “derogatory content,” the lawyer added.
    
    The woman in the photograph was mentioned in the criminal trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, Mr. Epstein’s former girlfriend who is serving a 20-year prison sentence for conspiring to sexually traffic minors.
    
    Mr. Pashcow had many associations with the disgraced financier in the 1990s. His contact information appears in Mr. Epstein’s “black book” of people who were once in his social and business circles. And flight logs show that Mr. Pashcow flew on Mr. Epstein’s planes about 10 times between 1994 and 2001.
    
    But his name has not come up in litigation brought by Mr. Epstein’s victims, said a lawyer who has represented numerous victims and a representative for another lawyer.

    replyreport
20. 61

    Willowarborposted 10 days ago

    

    replyreport
    1. 83

       My Esotericposted 10 days agoin reply to this

       I like it.

       replyreport
21. 61

    Willowarborposted 10 days ago

    Of course there will be an investigation and charges into whoever "forged " Donald's signature 20 years ago, right? LMFAO
    
    He won't let that stand right?? There will be all sorts of forensic investigation by the BEST PEOPLE from all around the world, people like we've never seen before with skills tha have  never seen before...right? 
    
    OR  does he realize that he doesn't need to go to any sort of effort at all.... His base takes every mushy word that falls from his mouth as gospel....yeah. that's going to be the ticket. 
    
    But Maga's... what's the logic behind the idea that someone, 20 years ago, included this birthday note with Trump's signature to the Epstein birthday book?  Which, is a bound book not just a collection of loose crap... Please, interested to know the theory behind that one.

    replyreport
22. 83

    My Esotericposted 9 days ago

    UK Ambassador to America fired for ties to Epstein - the fallout from the material release begins.
    
    https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/11/uk/peter … fired-intl

    replyreport
23. 69

    IslandBitesposted 6 days ago

    Yeah, yeah, Kirk is dead. Dont let them keep using it as a distraction.
    
    DOJ says names of two associates Epstein wired $100K and $250K should stay secret
    
    The Justice Department on Friday asked a federal judge overseeing the case of deceased sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein to deny a request from NBC News to unseal the names of two associates who received large payments from him in 2018, court documents show. The Justice Department cited privacy concerns expressed by the two individuals as the reason for not making their names public.
    
    The first associate received a payment of $100,000 from Epstein and the second associate received a payment of $250,000, both in 2018, days after the Miami Herald began publishing a series of investigative stories where victims criticized a plea deal he received in Florida in 2008.
    
    As part of the plea agreement, Epstein secured a statement from federal prosecutors in Florida that the two individuals would not  be prosecuted.
    
    The payments became public after Epstein was indicted and arrested in New York in 2019 and asked to be released on bail. Federal prosecutors in New York filed a memorandum on July 16, 2019, that argued Epstein should remain in jail to prevent him from tampering with witnesses.
    
    Prosecutors wrote that on Nov. 30, 2018, Epstein “wired $100,000 from a trust account he controlled, to an individual named as [REDACTED] a potential co-conspirator — and for whom Epstein obtained protection in — the NPA.”
    
    Prosecutors also wrote that “this individual was also named and featured prominently in the Herald series.”
    
    Prosecutors added that “the same records show that just three days later, on or about December 3, 2018, the defendant wired $250,000 from the same trust account to [REDACTED], who was also named as a potential co-conspirator — and for whom Epstein also obtained protection in — the NPA.”
    
    The prosecutors continued: “This individual is also one of the employees identified in the Indictment, which alleges that she and two other identified employees facilitated the defendant’s trafficking of minors by, among other things, contacting victims and scheduling
    their sexual encounters with the defendant at his residences in Manhattan and Palm Beach, Florida.”
    
    Last month, NBC News sent a letter asking U.S. District Judge Richard Berman to unseal the redacted names because Epstein is deceased, the criminal proceedings have ended, and the Justice Department said in a memo in July that there would be no additional charges filed against uncharged third parties.
    
    Berman gave federal prosecutors until Friday to respond.
    
    In a reply letter Friday, Jay Clayton, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote, “Individual-1 and Individual-2 are uncharged third parties who have not waived their privacy interests; indeed, both Individual-1 and Individual-2 have expressly objected to the unsealing of their names and personal identifying information in the July 2019 Letter.”
    
    Clayton said the two unnamed individuals sent letters to the U.S. attorney’s office expressing their concern but that those letters are under seal.
    
    
    Who? Why? Take a guess.

    replyreport
    1. 83

       My Esotericposted 6 days agoin reply to this

       DOIJ should be ashamed of themselves.

       replyreport
24. 69

    IslandBitesposted 5 days ago

    GOP momentum grows to force Trump DOJ to release Epstein files
    
    Some Republicans now say privately that it’s inevitable that Congress will pass legislation directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to release all files the Department of Justice (DOJ) has related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
    
    President Trump has repeatedly tried to wave aside calls from Republicans and MAGA activists to make all the Epstein files public, but GOP lawmakers say privately that Trump is losing the battle to move on from the controversy that has been a White House annoyance since earlier this summer.
    
    Republican lawmakers say it now appears certain that a discharge petition that’s being circulated in the House by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) will get enough signatures by the end of the month to force a vote on a bill directing Bondi to release the Epstein files.

    replyreport
25. 69

    IslandBitesposted 3 days ago

    Four arrested after photos of Trump and Epstein projected onto Windsor Castle during president's U.K. visit
    
    Police in the U.K. arrested four people after photos of President Donald Trump and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were projected onto Windsor Castle on Tuesday night.
    
    The projections included photos of Trump and Epstein; of the two joined by first lady Melania Trump with Epstein and his co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell; and of a lewd birthday message Trump allegedly sent Epstein in 2003 for a 50th birthday book.
    
    Trump arrived in London on Tuesday for a state visit. He's expected to spend most of Wednesday at the castle with King Charles III and Queen Camilla and other members of the royal family.
    
    

    replyreport
    1. 83

       My Esotericposted 3 days agoin reply to this

       I saw that. Don't you just love British humor?

       replyreport
26. 69

    IslandBitesposted 3 days ago

    Uh-oh Patel. MAGA is not going to be happy.
    
    https://youtu.be/D4p5zFlQOlg?si=6Cj1rF5TEMbRWymK

    replyreport
27. 69

    IslandBitesposted 36 hours ago

    Alexander Acosta testifies on Epstein case behind closed doors
    
    Acosta, Trump’s former labor secretary, was a federal prosecutor in South Florida who worked on a widely criticized plea agreement struck with Jeffrey Epstein.
    
    Alexander Acosta, the former labor secretary who as a federal prosecutor worked on a plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein, answered questions Friday in a closed-door appearance before the House Oversight Committee, which is scrutinizing federal investigations involving the deceased financier.
    
    Acosta was the top federal prosecutor in South Florida when Epstein reached an agreement with officials there to resolve allegations that he molested dozens of girls. The agreement allowed Epstein to plead guilty in state court in 2008 to soliciting prostitution and face no federal charges. He spent a little more than a year behind bars and was given generous work-release privileges.
    
    During the interview, members from both parties peppered the former prosecutor with questions about the 2008 agreement. Acosta reiterated previous statements, arguing there was not enough evidentiary proof to pursue harsher charges against Epstein, according to members who were in the room.
    
    The congressional committee's investigators are expected to press Acosta on a number of fronts, particularly on his decision to enter into plea negotiations in the summer of 2007, while a 60-count draft federal indictment against Epstein was gathering dust in the office of the lead prosecutor on the case. The negotiations and resulting plea deal also occurred, according to the OPR report, while the FBI and Acosta's prosecutors were still investigating the case and identifying new victims in other jurisdictions. The deal was also signed before the FBI or prosecutors had made any concerted effort to try to gain the cooperation of Epstein's alleged co-conspirators, according to the report.
    
    The OPR report called it "troubling" that Acosta decided to resolve that case through a negotiated plea before the investigation was completed.
    
    "As the investigation progressed, the FBI continued to locate additional victims, and many had not been interviewed by the FBI by the time of the initial offer. In other words, at the time of Acosta's decision, the [government] did not know the full scope of Epstein's conduct; whether, given Epstein's other domestic and foreign residences, his criminal conduct had occurred in other locations; or whether the additional victims might implicate other offenders," the report said.
    
    Acosta is also likely to face questions on repeated meetings and consultations he and his top deputies engaged in with Epstein's high-powered legal team, several of whom previously work as federal prosecutors in the same office in Miami and others who previously worked with Acosta at a white-shoe law firm.
    
    According to the Justice Department's OPR report, the line prosecutor, A. Marie Villafaña, objected to the access that was being granted by the office to Epstein's defense counsel.
    
    "As the lead prosecutor, Villafaña vehemently opposed meeting with Epstein's attorneys and voiced her concerns to her supervisors, but was overruled by them," the report said, noting that senior prosecutors viewed the meetings as primarily "listening sessions" that could be helpful for learning how the defense intended to attack the credibility of certain witnesses and perceived weaknesses in the case.
    
    Villafaña said she feared her office was "going down the same path" the state of Florida had gone down in allowing Epstein's defense attorneys to persuade prosecutors not to file serious charges, and she feared the delays might allow Epstein to continue to offend, the report said. Villafaña told OPR she believed Acosta was "influenced by the stature of Epstein's attorneys" and that the defense lawyers convinced some members of the prosecution team that the case was "extremely novel and legally complex."
    
    In 2019, Epstein was charged with federal sex trafficking. His death weeks later while in custody was ruled a suicide. Acosta was serving as Trump’s labor secretary when Epstein was charged. While Acosta initially defended the Florida plea agreement amid mounting criticism, he soon resigned.

    replyreport
28. 83

    My Esotericposted 35 hours ago

    This tells me that Acosta needs to be arrested and thrown in jail. What he did has to be criminal.
    
    What victim evidence existed (2007–2008)
    
    The FBI had already identified at least 30 minors as victims by 2008, and agents were still finding more as the investigation progressed. Many victims had not yet been interviewed when Acosta moved to cut the deal.
    Journal of Gender, Race & Justice
    +1
    
    Prosecutors in S.D. Florida had prepared an 82-page prosecution memo and a 52-page draft federal indictment with ~60 counts based on the evidence gathered.
    Journal of Gender, Race & Justice
    
    The DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) found it “troubling” that Acosta chose to negotiate a plea before the investigation was completed and before prosecutors tried to flip alleged co-conspirators—while the FBI was still identifying new victims (some in other jurisdictions).
    Justice Department
    +1
    
    Today’s Hill briefing echoes that picture: members said dozens of minors had given sworn statements to the FBI, and Acosta admitted he hadn’t actually read the victim statements himself when he assessed “insufficient evidence.”
    The Washington Post
    
    It also tells me there is plenty of evidence in DOIJ's hands that need to come out.
    
    I sure hope the victims can see their way clear to start naming names. Given the way things went down, I wouldn't be surprised to see Acosta's name among them!
    
    It also seems necessary to me to investigate the FBI's 2007-2008 OPR for failing to do their job.

    replyreport