Independent news sites are fun because you never know what you’ll find. Now, you may know my two favorites, even if AlterNet is a day behind Raw Story, which is generally current. They’re a blessing because the stories are a bit off the mainstream news beaten path, and they have some good stuff, fun stuff, serious stuff, all things enjoyable for a commentary opinion. And they’re entertaining at almost 2 in the morning. So here we are, as the title says, with the chance that Trump has bigger problems linked to the Epstein files than just how often he appears in them. With thanks to, you guessed it, Raw Story:
A prominent reporter in the Jeffrey Epstein case floated a startling possibility on Tuesday that powerful donors could be leaning on President Donald Trump to quash any damning information from being released by his Justice Department. Julie K. Brown, an investigative reporter with the Miami Herald, joined former GOP operative Tim Miller on a podcast for The Bulwark to discuss the case.
H0 h0 h0. Isn’t this an interesting bit of news? We can’t be sure anyone has extrapolated as far as Ms. Brown did. The unnerving part is that it’s not just possible, it’s probable. It would certainly explain all the delays in releasing them. Heh, they’d best hope they can still get those 1,000 agents because now *more* redacting is needed—no envy for them having to do this again. The question is, how many agents will fall asleep as they go through the files yet another time? Okay, yes, that’s mean, but damn, that would drive me nuts.
During their discussion, Miller brought up comments from former MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), who said Trump told her his “friends would get hurt” if abusers were named. “I think that was pretty noteworthy,” said Miller, adding, “For him to say, ‘my friends will get hurt‘ if abusers are named felt pretty telling.” Responding to Miller, Brown agreed. “Those men who know who they are, so it wouldn’t surprise me if they were reaching out to Trump and saying, ‘You gotta stop this.’ And who knows what else they know besides their own activity. They might know of other men’s activity. So, this is one big possible snowball here.”
Yes indeedy, it certainly is, and it’s all downhill now. Again, it would at least partly explain the delay in putting out *all* the files. Trump is getting his strings yanked by his donors. We can be sure there are some conversations going on behind closed doors that no one else is privy to. Money talks, even if he has a ton of “filthy lucre” from all his grifting. (Last we checked, he still hasn’t made payments on his court cases.) He’s caught between a rock and a hard place. The *law* says they MUST be released. But influential people want their names kept out of them. My heart does *ahem* NOT ache for him.
Brown said possible associates and even donors may have reached out to Trump to avoid “embarrassment” or even “criminal allegations.” “Donors, I was told, are possible in here. Some of his MAGA or Republican donors might be named in these files, which is kind of ironic because at one point, he said, ‘We’re going to investigate all the Democrats in these files.’ Well, there aren’t all Democrats in these files.”
Oooo taaaaaa! He really didn’t think this through when he campaigned on releasing the files. And then he was forced into signing the new law because Congress passed it with almost complete unanimity and made it veto-proof. Deal with it, oh, orange-faced sphincter. His time has come, and he can’t do a damn thing about it except redact, redact, redact, and some is still going to slip through. And to add insult to injury, where are the files with the survivors, who got this push started years ago? They’re not going to stand by and let them be ignored. Virginia, we hope you’re laughing at Trump wherever your spirit has chosen to go. He can’t hide anymore. Nope, nope, nope.
Friends, I know everyone begs you for money, especially around the holidays. I promise, among all those asking for spare change, we are the smallest and the hardest working. We’re a group of old, disabled people, except for one writer in his mid-50s. The rest of us are in our sixties and seventies, and this is a labor of love. All we’re asking for is the chance to keep telling the truth about Trump and help ensure democracy survives. If you can help, please do. Thank you. Ursula
And then we have MTG suggesting she will use her resignation speech to drop a few names …… Hell hath no fury than a Senate candidacy suppressed.
The “… orange-faced sphincter …” and his palm greasers should all be shiteing some razor blades if what is touched on above gathers both momentum and critical mass – aided by MTG, perhaps.
This goes along with his comment a while ago, saying “innocent people could get hurt”. That statement is so awfully ridiculous. Innocent people WERE hurt when these survivors were assaulted. None of the others are innocent, unless they were mere acquaintances-at which point they have nothing to worry about.
On a somewhat related topic, apparently there was a bit of trouble in the UK this past weekend. It seems there’s some tradition of the monarch and other members of the Royal Family to make a “Walk” (the story I read didn’t really explain–or I just didn’t understand–the importance of it) but it seems that Prince William tried to talk King Charles out of inviting William’s cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie (the daughters of disgraced former Prince Andrew), claiming their participation would bring some “further” disgrace on the Royal Family but Charles overruled William’s objections. Considering that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie don’t seem to have any actual connection to the Epstein matter, aside from their father’s already confirmed links (which led to his “eviction” from the Royal Family), William’s concerns MAY have been overblown but, at the same time, I do see where he’s coming from; the idea that children should not bear the guilt of their parents’ sins–and vice versa–is pretty well established in English law but, at the same time, having the daughters of THE recently disgraced former Prince participating in a kind of “official Royal” function could be seen as “not reading the room.”
From what I read, it doesn’t appear that the British public has really given that much attention to this matter. Many may have seen it as Charles recognizing his nieces’ innocence of any ties between Andrew and Epstein but others may see it as Charles drawing more unwanted (or unneeded) attention to the whole scandal.
The monarch has a number of residences and an established cycle of visits. They head for Balmoral in Scotland in the summer and Sandringham for Christmas. The walk you refer to is from the Sandringham estate to a church service and back with the public gathering along the route. The press are there of course for the photo op and checking out the family dynamics as Joseph suggests