Mike Johnson Snitch-Tags Donald Trump
When Manu Raju challenged Mike Johnson on Trump’s claim that the Jeffrey Epstein scandal was a hoax, Mike Johnson didn’t deny knowing that Trump had said that (even during the survivors’ press conference), the tactic he almost always uses when asked to condemn Trump’s atrocities. Instead, he claimed that, “when [Trump] first heard the rumor, he kicked him out of Mare-a-Lago, he was an FBI informant to try to … take this stuff down.”
This adopts a favorite tactic right wingers used during the Russian investigation, to claim that Carter Page’s explicit willingness to share non-public information with known Russian spies and his pursuit of money from Russia to support a pro-Russian think tank was no big deal because he was an “informant” for CIA, when in reality he was just an American that the CIA was permitted to talk to learn what Russian spies had done, not someone who was cooperating with intelligence collection.
Indeed, according to Rolling Stone, Johnson’s comment set off a frenzy at the White House as people tried to figure out WTF Johnson was saying.
According to five Trump administration officials and others close to the president, Johnson’s “informant” claim on Thursday sparked widespread confusion within the ranks of Trump’s government, with several senior officials blindsided or just completely perplexed by what the Trump-aligned House speaker could have possibly meant.
For some in the administration, the confusion spilled over into Saturday, with some officials still unsure about whether Johnson was citing some explosive, unheard-of insider information, or if he misspoke or was freelancing extemporaneously.
“What the hell is he doing?” one senior Trump administration appointee told Rolling Stone, after being asked about the Johnson “informant” comment.
Other Trump advisers say it’s their understanding that Johnson was referencing past claims made in the media about Trump; however, these claims did not amount to the idea he was a federal “informant.”
This could even have been a reference to a recent comment: At the presser on Wednesday, survivors’ lawyer Brad Edwards described that when he was first seeking information about Epstein in 2009, Trump was one of the few people who cooperated, though tellingly, Trump appears to have done so without deposition.
Bradley Edwards (01:04:44):
I’ll go first and then I’ll let them. They’re much more important than me, but I don’t understand why it’s a hostile act. I can tell you that I talked to President Trump back in 2009 and several times after that. He didn’t think that it was a hoax Then. In fact, he helped me. He got on the phone, he told me things that were helping our investigation. Now, our investigation wasn’t looking into him, but he was helping us then. He didn’t treat this as a hoax.
(01:05:07)
So at this point in time, I would hope that he would revert back to what he was saying to get elected, which is, “I want transparency.” This about face that occurred, none of us understand it. In fact, I don’t understand how this is an issue that’s even up for debate. How do you not stand behind these women after you’ve heard their stories and know that hundreds of them were abused and it was only because files are being kept in secrecy. The world should know who he is, who protected him, and the other people that are out there to be investigated need to be investigated.
So Trump was willing to cooperate, but only in a way in which he managed the information provided (and avoided attesting to his claims under oath).
Josh Marshall contemplates why Trump might have been willing to share information about Epstein after their clash over a West Palm Beach estate. Relying in part on comments from Michael Wolff, who said that Epstein believed Trump narced him out, Marshall adopted the theory that Trump narced out Epstein to undercut Epstein’s threats to expose Trump’s own money laundering efforts.
Epstein was trying to buy a South Florida estate. He brought Trump along to see it one time. A short time later Epstein found out that Trump had gone behind his back and placed a higher and ultimately successful bid on the property. He’d snatched it out from under him with a much higher bid. The problem was that Trump’s entire empire in 2004 was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. It made no sense that Trump was coming up with $41 million to buy this property. Epstein suspected that Trump was acting as a front for a Russian oligarch as a money-laundering scheme. And in fact Trump did purchase and flip the estate two years later to a Russian oligarch named Dmitry Rybolovlev for $95 million, or a profit of over $50 million dollars.
Epstein was pissed for his own reasons (he wanted the estate). But he also suspected the money laundering scheme. So he threatened Trump that he would bring the whole thing out into the open through a series of lawsuits. Right about this same time authorities got a tip about Epstein’s activities which started the investigation that led to his eventual 2008 plea deal.
That certainly might explain the seeming coincidence of the two conflicting explanations Trump has given for the split. But Marshall misses several known parts of this timeline.
First, remember there were two grand juries in WPB: one, (05-02), convened in what must have been early 2005, and a second, (07-103), convened later in 2007. The significance of this remains unclear. None of the Epstein experts I’ve asked has any insight on whether the earlier grand jury simply reflects the earlier known investigative steps, stemming from a 14-year old girl’s complaint that year, or whether there was an earlier, separate, investigation, in which case the second grand jury might just reflect one read into the evidence of the first one. But the earlier one would more closely coincide with Trump’s split with Epstein (and the real estate deal).
And almost everyone keeps missing the timing of what Trump (as well as a Page Six source from Mar-a-Lago that could be Trump) has already confessed to.
First, Trump explained that Epstein stole a spa girl from him, Trump told him “don’t ever do that again,” and then Epstein did it again.
What caused the breach with him? Very easy to explain. But I don’t want to waste your time by explaining it. But for years I wouldn’t talk to Jeffrey Epstein. I wouldn’t talk. Because he did something that was inappropriate. He hired help. And I said, don’t ever do that again. He stole people that worked for me. I said, don’t ever do that again. He did it again. And I threw him out of the place. Persona non grata. I threw him out. And that was it.
Trump didn’t confess, here, that he knew Epstein stole his girls to recruit into sex slavery.
But he alluded to as much the next day, when he confessed one of the girls Epstein “stole” was Virginia Giuffre.
Reporter 1: I’m just curious. Were some of the workers that were taken from you — were some of them young women?
Trump: Were some of them?
Reporter 1: Were some of them young women?
Trump: Well, I don’t wanna say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. It was, the concept of taking people that work for me is bad. But that story’s been pretty well out there. And the answer is, yes, they were.
[inaudible]
Trump: In the spa. People that work in the spa. I have a great spa, one of the best spas in the world at Mar-a-Lago. And people were taken out of the spa. Hired. By him. In other words, gone. And um, other people would come and complain. This guy is taking people from the spa. I didn’t know that. And then when I heard about it I told him, I said, listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether they were spa or not spa. I don’t want him taking people. And he was fine and then not too long after that he did it again and I said Out of here.
Reporter 2: Mr. President, did one of those stolen persons, did that include Virginia Giuffre?
Trump: Uh, I don’t know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so. I think that was one of the people, yeah. He stole her. And by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know. None whatsoever.
Trump doesn’t confess he knew Epstein was stealing girls for sex, but he does say, “that story’s been pretty well out there,” conceding it is what we think it is.
And in 2007 — in the period when Trump would have been cooperating with the FBI if he did do so — “the Mar-a-Lago” said the following to Page Six even before Epstein had signed the sweetheart non-prosecution agreement.
Meanwhile, the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach last night confirmed a Web site report that Epstein has been banned there. “He would use the spa to try to procure girls. But one of them, a masseuse about 18 years old, he tried to get her to do things,” a source told us. “Her father found out about it and went absolutely ape-[bleep]. Epstein’s not allowed back.” Epstein denies he is banned from Mar-a-Lago and says, in fact, he was recently invited to an event there.
Before the full extent of Epstein’s abuse was public, someone at Mar-a-Lago wanted to make it clear that when Epstein did “procure girls … he tried to get [] to do things.”
We know of two girls Epstein “stole” from Mar-a-Lago. Giuffre in 2000, and this other girl whose father was a member sometime later. And even in 2007, someone who worked for Trump (if not Trump himself, who loved to source Page Six stories) admitted that Epstein “tried to get” this girl “to do things.”
Trump has already all but confessed he learned about Giuffre, did not report it, then learned about another girl, to which he now attributes his break with Epstein in the same period as the real estate deal.
And here’s the thing about Trump and Epstein, which I think helps explain why he continues to flail now.
I tried to imply in this post that Todd Blanche purposely stopped short of getting cooperation from Ghislaine Maxwell. Even if Blanche didn’t know she was lying through her teeth, within days of her proffer, someone, who could even be Blanche, dealt photos to NYT that made it clear her claim there were no video cameras at any of Epstein’s properties was false.
Blanche didn’t get truth from Maxwell. He got leverage over her, fresh lies he could prosecute her for anytime until 2030. He has locked her into the claim (which is carefully caveated so might actually be true) that she was never present when Trump did anything inappropriate with Epstein, which falls far short of her knowing that he (or Melania) did.
DOJ is treating two other Epstein co-conspirators similarly. They were mentioned in a July 16, 2019 letter supporting Epstein’s detention.
In a July 12, 2019 letter, the Government informed the Court that the Government had recently obtained records from a financial institution (“Institution-1”) that appeared to show the defendant had made suspicious payments shortly after the Miami Herald began publishing, on approximately November 28, 2018, a series of articles relating to the defendant, his alleged sexual misconduct, and the circumstances under which he entered into a non-prosecution agreement (“NPA”) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida in 2007. The same series highlighted the involvement of several of Epstein’s former employees and associates in the alleged sexual abuse. At the Detention Hearing, the Court asked the Government to provide additional information about the individuals to whom these payments appear to have been made.
First, records from Institution-1 show that on or about November 30, 2018, or two days after the series in the Miami Herald began, the defendant wired $100,000 from a trust account he controlled to [redacted], an individual named as a potential co-conspirator—and for whom Epstein obtained protection in—the NPA. This individual was also named and featured prominently in the Herald series.
Second, 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. 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. This individual was also named and featured prominently in the Herald series. [my emphasis]
These are the assistants — not Maxwell — who played a similar role as Maxwell earlier in the scheme, one of whom was suspected of threatening a victim back in 2006.
NBC’s Tom Winter wrote a letter asking that the names — sealed in 2019 to protect potential trial witnesses — be unsealed. But rather than just giving notice to them and asking them to make their own declarations to the court (which would need to be true), DOJ instead informed them, and provided a response on their behalf, opposing unsealing.
Pursuant to the Order, on August 26, 2025, the Government notified Individual-1 and Individual-2 of the Motion and the Order.
On August 29, 2025, the Government received a letter from counsel for Individual-1. The letter, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, expressed Individual-1’s opposition to the Motion.
On September 5, 2025, the Government received an email from counsel for Individual-2. The email, which is attached as Exhibit B, expressed Individual-2’s opposition to the Motion.1
1 Because Exhibits A and B both contain personal identifying information for Individual-1 or Individual-2 and describe certain matters that are highly personal and sensitive, the Government respectfully submits that sealing of both exhibits is appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1051 (2d Cir. 1995) (The “privacy interests of innocent third parties” should “weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation” and can be the kind of “compelling interest” that may justify sealing or closure, and “[i]n determining the weight to be accorded an assertion of a right of privacy,” courts must “consider the degree to which the subject matter is traditionally considered private rather than public,” such as “family affairs, . . . embarrassing conduct with no public ramifications, and similar matters.”); cf., e.g., United States v. Silver, No. 15 Cr. 93 (VEC), 2016 WL 1572993, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 2016) (considering “personal and embarrassing conduct [with] public ramifications”).
At least one of these is necessarily (because she was named in the Epstein indictment) one of the people named in Epstein’s grand jury transcript to whom DOJ gave notice of the grand jury request before giving the victims any notice.
That is, both before and after pretending Maxwell provided truthful information and using that as an excuse to move her to comfier digs, DOJ has been solicitous of the other women who helped enslave these girls. And remains so.
Within a month, after two special elections are expected to send two more Dems to Congress, the Khanna-Massie dispatch petition will almost certainly get the required 218 votes.
And Mike Johnson will have to invent yet more false claims to excuse Republican efforts, from the very top of the party, to help Trump keep all these people silent.
Excellent work! Thanks for the additional information on the two grand juries and the payments to Epstein cronies. I hadn’t read that anywhere else. I wish the woman known as “Katie Johnson” in the 2016 civil lawsuit against Trump and Epstein would come forward and publicly call out Trump as her violent assailant. That might finally cause some Trumpers to fall away from the cult. Or not.
https://open.substack.com/pub/meidastouch/p/exclusive-spencer-kuvin-on-fighting
Here’s a Meidas interview with the lawyer who represented the Epstein/Maxwell victims who were the earliest to come forward. I think Meiselas screwed up by leading with the Epstein dick description which will color the whole segment as unnecessarily salacious (irrespective of any tactical deposition-utility he claims it had), but the rest of the interview is powerful, imo, especially wrt the seaminess of the Acosta deal and the way all his victims were hung out to dry…
and it blows Bondi’s “This is all we’ve got” bullshit out of the water. It also shows Dershowitz, Acosta (and Acosta’s patron, Trump) for the outright pedo-enablers they are.
As to the Speaker’s snitch theory, the call should be: “Then release the proof, in what would be the first sworn deposition of Trump *not* invoking the 5th Amendment!”
I should also mention that the lawyer, Spencer Kuvin, notes that they had Trump lined up for an Epstein deposition back then, but that it never happened for an unspecified reason.
This is an excellent interview. What again must be asked is who knew what and when. If one does rudimentary google searches of “jpmorgan epstein” there are scads of articles about the $290 million settlement with victims and the $75 million one with the Virgin Islands. Or try googling Jes Staley. Follow the money. Deutsche Bank paid $75 million to settle a class action lawsuit. They pledged $5 million to New Mexico to help combat human trafficking. There is more to all of this than Trump. I believe Senator Wyden’s investigation is about to reveal big time money laundering. IMHO Trump knows he’s in that net. What is the difference between accomplice or accessory in all of this rot?
The odds that Trump became an FBI snitch are vanishingly small. He hates law enforcement with a passion. He would be a stunningly unreliable witness, even by the standards of compromised CIs. He could never keep his trap shut about what he was doing and never follow orders. He couldn’t be relied on to keep his story straight from one moment to the next.
In many ways, he’s hapless and could be readily compromised by opposing counsel or a perp willing to pay him more in money or favors. Given rumors of his money laundering with Russians, rumors of mob deals in NYC to get his buildings built, and his lifelong shady deals, odds are against his being willing to testify or bear witness at all.
Mike Johnson chose a remarkably poor lie to pin on Trump. Ultimately, he’ll have to fall on his sword over it, when it’s proven to be a lie.
Good interview. The Meidas guys seem to know their stuff, legally speaking.
Sep 8, now. not caught up yet.
comments to the Noem Slander Melania post brought me these:
Ewan Woodsend says:
September 6, 2025 at 9:48 am
“Here is a link to The Cesspool and Chaos: the Russian connection in the Epstein affair which was flagged by Le Canard Enchainé Wednesday. It highlights the links between Epstein, Russia, and Thiel et al. which leads me to think that there might be more than one reason why Trump would like Epstein’s file to be buried deep.
Savage Librarian says:
September 6, 2025 at 12:28 pm
“Thank you, Ewan.”
So I read it and wonder now about everything and everyone everywhere, and still stay interested and read more, but understanding less. I only want to interject my thanks to commenters for sharing. The linked story says much about Dad and Daughter Maxwell, Jeffrey’s cosmos, and how difficult understanding can be, if you don’t proceed cautiously — with notes, too. Things seem to be balling, now, from many of the threads. Maybe.
Thank you Dr. Marcy.
Golf mogul Donald Trump sports an arrangement of hair that is less a comb-over than a ‘do-over, a candy-floss confection of gossamer wisps that comes off as the clumsiest cover-up since Watergate.
Steve Rushin
All about cover-up. Epstein case goes way beyond covering up Trump’s hair loss. He has the Retribution Regime for corrupted cruel criminals hiding more than a large bald spot on his head.
Michael Wolff has an indelible description* of Trump immediately post-shower but pre-coiffure. In order to achieve his signature look, Trump has for years grown the hair on the right side, below his balding crown, asymmetrically long for the purpose of sweeping (and shellacking) it up over the dome and then back again, all to achieve the illusion you are talking about, MsJenny.
Trump boasts that his hair is all his. So, of course, is the skin he lacquers with bronzer and whatnot. The older he gets, the more brittle the confection he seeks to maintain, and the more paranoid his fear of a Dorian Gray reveal…a glimpse of which we got last weekend in those long-range shots of him–minus makeup and plus hat–departing the WH for the links.
The astounding part (for me) remains the eager collusion of millions in perpetuating this Biggest of All Lies. I think it may even have begun to disturb Trump himself. At the very least, he has become a virtual prisoner of the death masquerade he started.
*In Fire and Fury, I think, although it’s not in the index.
What would have prevented Trump and his DOJ accomplices from destroying the files? Could it be that they really can’t release them because they don’t exist any more? And when that’s revealed, won’t Republicans just shrug, as they have when confronted with all his other crimes?
I don’t believe Trump would hesitate to destroy records, though he does seem to like to keep incriminating evidence, to read at bedtime or brag about it.
But the FBI destroying a boatload of evidence would be more visible, be harder to hide, and be more likely to be discovered. Obstruction of justice and destroying govt records, inevitably involving a conspiracy, carry decades long sentences.
Only if prosecuted and a conviction upheld, a real long shot these days.
So be thankful that there are still people who consider the law, or the potential future
Yes, of course destroying evidence is a serious crime, thought not for President Immune who’d surely invoke a national security emergency (it’s a hoax to damage him and the country) to justify it being part of his job. But if he also controls the Justice Department that would prosecute in the short run and intends to ensure he and his fellow fascists control the U.S. government in perpetuity, his henchmen have nothing to worry about. And I’d bet they’ve been told as much.
That was Trump in the video throwing the files out the White House window. Of course, he can prove me wrong by releasing all the files.
When people bring this up, I can’t help but get an image of the last shot in the first Indy movie, the giant warehouse of secrets.
Given that Alex Acosta was willing to make the deal with Epstein, a stunning moral and ethical violation, it’s not hard to imagine him sanitizing the files to cover up the information in the files.
Josh Marshall at TPM intimates that Johnson’s remark leads to the Epstein story as being (at bottom) all about covering up Trump’s Russian money laundering.
May it all be revealed in our lifetimes.
Sen. Ron Wyden wants to follow the money and has asked for the pertinent Suspicious Activities Reports (SARS). And he is being stone-walled.
At the Wednesday presser, the attorney Brad Edwards mentioned JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank as enabling banks.
Somewhere, perhaps from a Michael Wolf interview, I heard that Epstein, in his early years, managed assets for wealthy people. This involved looking for off shore investment for tax purposes and to hide assets from spouses or others. Money laundering would involve similar acumen.
Based on available evidence, it is hard to say that either Epstein or Trump was involved in money laundering. But the available evidence suggests further investigation. It does seem that major media outlets like The NY Times should be on the trail.
We know, and Rayne posted about, golf clubs as money-laundering exercises. Casinos are also used that way. Is anything The Felon Guy has done *not* a criminal activity?
And golf resorts as human trafficking vehicles, given the “stealing” of staff for illicit purposes.
It has bugged me since now-deceased NFL owner Robert Kraft was arrested in January 2019 for solicitation at a spa in Jupiter FL. At the time I wondered why Jupiter; I decided to check services offered by Mar-a-Lago and the page that would ordinarily offer spa services was 404 the week of the arrest. No idea what it means, could just be a coincidence. But fishy.
Note to Rayne: Robert Kraft is still alive. His son, Josh Kraft, is now running for Mayor of Boston. Very well produced commercials in heavy rotation but poor polling numbers. We’ll see how the primary goes in a few weeks.
Some activities are magnets for money laundering, some are virtually impossible to engage in without it. Trump and Epstein seemed to gravitate toward many of them. Epstein, at least, seems to have anticipated the need to grease the skids with law enforcement and prosecutors.
Covering for Russian money laundering may have been why the first President Trump warned Mueller that he was NOT to investigate his family business at the start of the Russia probe.
NY state’s AG and its prosecutors found lots of reasons why Donald Trump would not have wanted a former director of the FBI to investigate his personal financial holdings.
If a politician is offering information to get get control of a scandal’s narrative, the reality and facts are always worse.
When it comes to MAGA and Trump and Israel and CIA and FBI, it’s going to be even worse. This is the tip of “seven times seven” Titanic icebergs.
Epstein’s relationship to MIT and the tech community through groups like John Brockman’s Edge Foundation haven’t been in the spotlight but should get some attention. Edmund Carlevale, a former MIT employee, has been bird-dogging the MIT connection and believes John Deutsch is very much a part of it, in probable collusion with Mossad. Carlevale also shows how the MIT Energy Initiative is run for the benefit of the Kochs and the fossil fools. You can see some of his work on his Linked-In comments.
Bird-dogging? LinkedIn?
It’s very interesting. Just look up Edmund Carlevale and you should be able to see it.
gmoke and Savage Librarian:
Thanks for the suggestion. I am not very familiar with the MIT and Harvard parts of Epstein.
I also had to look up “bird-dogging”. Interesting technique.
So Trump’s DOJ works to protect the identities of Epstein’s co-conspirators more than they try to protect the victims.
That follows exactly the sentiment that candidate Trump expressed in the pre-election Fox News interview. Trump said,(paraphrasing), “Sure, I will release the Kennedy assassination files, I will release the 9-11 files, the Epstein files -” I think that less so because, you don’t know, you don’t want to affect people’s lives if it’s phony stuff in there, because it’s a lot of phony stuff with that whole world. ”
Trump knows well “that whole world”. He had some long relationships with John Casablancas of Elite Model Management and Jeffrey Epstein. Then he had his own modeling agency, Trump Model Management. His agency faced several allegations of visa and underpayment frauds, and reportedly targeted Eastern European girls and women.
If you squint your eyes, you too can read precedent so that it always serves your venial purposes! For example: “The “privacy interests of innocent third parties” should “weigh heavily in a court’s balancing equation” and can be the kind of “compelling interest” that may justify sealing or closure…” Ta-Dah! Eureka! Comme on dis!
The key to this? Just be careful what/how you elide. Doesn’t it sound *much* better, for instance, if we just drop that mothball “innocent” out of phrase? Doesn’t that also solve a plethora of annoying and obsolete little legal issues of the kind our new(ish) Trump administration doesn’t feel like bothering with?
Not when it can revert to “lethal” and blow all those whining women (surely “narcoterrorists” all) off the steps of the Capitol.
You’re the expert, but doesn’t venal suggests more corruption than venial?
Absolutely, earl! (Nor do I consider myself an expert, certainly not on lesser sins.)
I chose “venial” to indicate the now mundane–and, sadly, accepted–aspect of how justice gets eroded here, from our highest Court primarily, whose Catholic majority seems to have a permanent exemption from the Lord for the ratiocinations they perform.
At least they very much give the impression that they believe they have such an exemption.
How this will pan out in the long run is unclear.
My cynical, dejected self tells me that whatever truly damning evidence does come out of all this—in spite of the maximum efforts to cover it up—Trump will simply reframe it, spin it, and walk free again. We all have seen this movie before.
Yet, many of the facts about Epstein were reported to the authorities starting in the late 1990s, almost 30 years ago. Now we know that the number of victims ranges into the thousand. These victims were not mute, blind, or unaware of what was happening to them. They saw people; they knew the names. Yet after Bush, Obama, Trump’s first term, Biden, and now Trump’s second, the DOJ is still not directly speaking with them to list and round up all the perpetrators involved. I don’t think that the previous presidents were giving strict orders to avoid pursuing the case, but DOJ’s timid culture of playing it 100% safe is largely responsible for this failure. DOJ does not like to try and fail, so it often does not even try. That too amounts to a kind of corruption.
From where I stand, it is hard not to conclude that the DOJ simply refuses to investigate when big names are persons of interest in a crime. Oh, if you are a kid caught up doing a car-jacking in Chicago we can kick your ass in jail for years, but the system looks the other way when a rich high society person is obviously a person of interest. This hypocritical failure of the U.S. system of government—demagogically exploited by Trump and the MAGA movement—is what fuels populist rage.
As my account names states, I am being totally honest here, I got stuck in this read at the part with Epstein attempting to by a South Florida estate, Trump out bidding him, Trump being in financial distress, and a Russian millionaire paying 95 million dollars for a 41 million dollar estate. Bonk! Then Epstein’s pedophilia is exposed. This, alone, is a story.
Where the narrative goes after that, the idea of conflicting stories from Trump’s brain which the blood is no longer circulating to, is confusing to me. Is he lying about the stolen girls to distract from the competing sexual predators? It is an odd lie? Or it is true, lol.
Then the wiring of 100K and 250K to redacted individuals is when I am lost in the sauce. Also, a story all by itself.
Mike Johnson is a card carrying MAGA cult member. He’s gonna say shit to obfuscate. And obfuscation this has become.
I love this:
While he’s at it Blanche could also argue that he knows plenty of women that Trump hasn’t assaulted.
It’s been mentioned before I’d hate to see what a sex trafficker consider inappropriate behavior. And Blanche didn’t ask for her definition.
Right. What does she consider inappropriate? But beyond that, my understanding is that Maxwell told Blanche that she never saw inappropriate behavior “by the president.” Am I mistaken to think that her calling him “the president” with reference to behavior at a time when he was not yet “the president” renders her statement meaningless as to what she actually saw the person Donald Trump do back in the day? Does the obviousness of that possibly evasive response cause it to pass without comment or question?
It’s likely she doesn’t understand the actual meaning of the word, but simply uses it because it has a value in discourse with others. That is, she understands it as something that others will expect her to say in some contexts. It’s almost exactly like the way Trump uses words, and likely from similar sources, i.e., malignant narcisissm.
Is John Marshall related to Josh Marshall?
TY
To elaborate on Trump and Virginia Giuffre, it comes off a bit odd to me Trump’s use of “not too long after that he did it again”, to describe events from 2001 to 2007. But maybe that’s just Trump.
It would seem really surprising if Trump did not know the nature of Epstein’s relationship with Virginia Giuffre.
Michael Wolff describes Trump being involved with Epstein in a “Committee” to get girls for Prince Andrew.
https://archive.is/AsrYR
Relevant dates:
April 2000: beginning of Prince Andrew and Ghislaine Maxwell romantic relationship
https://people.com/archive/midlife-makeover-vol-54-no-21/
June 2000: Virginia Giuffre begins working at Mar-a-Lago
August 2000: Virginia turns 17, she has already been recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein
10/29/00 to 10/31/00: Heidi Klum hosts party in New York, Prince Andrew attends with “conspirator” Maxwell and Trump and Melania. Trump tells People “He’s not pretentious,” says Trump. “He’s a lot of fun to be with.”
https://people.com/archive/midlife-makeover-vol-54-no-21/
Dec 2000: Maxwell’s 40th bday party, thrown by Prince Andrew. There have been rumors this year that they will be engaged [Source: Julie Brown]
1/4/01: Evening Standard article “Girls, Girls, Girls” detailing Epstein and Maxwell arranging Prince Andrew’s entertainment in Miami, New York, and Los Angeles [source: Julie Brown]
1/7/01: Daily Mail article “Prince Andrew, a Blonde Model Who Runs a Sex Aid Company And The Flights on [sic] Donald Trump” detailing Prince Andrew at Mar-a-Lago. [Source: Julie Brown]
March 2001: Virginia trafficked to Prince Andrew
Sept 2002: Virginia goes to Thailand, then escapes Epstein to Australia
And that odd blurb in the Page Six, where Trump is the likely source, did occur after Epstein first signed the NPA.
There are 3 dates that Epstein signed it, I’m not up to speed on the differences there.
8/14/07: FBI visits Courtney who admits to bringing over 20 girls to Epstein over 4 years, in addition to her being abused by Epstein as a minor
9/24/07: Epstein first signs an NPA
10/07/07: Epstein account closed at Mar-a-Lago
10/12/07: Acosta meets Epstein lawyer Lefkowitz at the Marriott, and agrees on most of Epstein’s demands
Date unknown: “Web site report”, which I can’t find, unclear which website or exact date
10/14/07: source from Mar-a-Lago confirms the mysterious “Web site report that Epstein has been banned there.”
10/15/07: Page Six blurb
10/29/07: Epstein signs addendum to agreement
12/7/07: Epstein reaffirms NPA
June 2008: Epstein enters guilty plea in state court, first public glimpse of sex crimes with minors
As with any major felon, it’s good to check on his use of cut-outs. In Epstein’s case, that would be Ghislaine Maxwell. When was she banned from MAL?
I wonder how many others Trump kicked out of Mar a Lago because they poached employees.
WaPo: Johnson backs off claim that Trump was an ‘FBI informant’ in Epstein case.
The statements from the speaker come as Democrats and a small number of Republicans are pushing for legislation to compel the release of more files […]
Washington Post September 7, 2025
Allison Gill provides a GIFT link here:
https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrote.com/post/3lybtr5wbhs26
September 7, 2025 at 7:28 PM
NYT: How JPMorgan Enabled the Crimes of Jeffrey Epstein
A Times investigation found that America’s leading bank spent years supporting — and profiting from — the notorious sex offender, ignoring red flags, suspicious activity and concerned executives.
NYT David Enrich/Matthew Goldstein/Jessica Silver-Greenberg Sept. 8, 2025
Jeff Jarvis provides a GIFT link here:
https://bsky.app/profile/jeffjarvis.bsky.social/post/3lyd2mb76w22o
September 8, 2025 at 7:03 AM
Miami Herald, New York Times seek to unseal records on Jeffrey Epstein’s estate
Miami Herald Julie K. Brown Updated September 5, 2025 9:09 PM
Julie Brown provides a GIFT link here:
https://bsky.app/profile/jkbjournalist.bsky.social/post/3ly65orzb6k2r
September 6, 2025 at 8:15 AM
Great stuff harpie. You are the best of detectives!