Posts

Trump Keeps Demanding that You Stop Talking about His Jeffrey Epstein Problem

/66 Comments/in /by

From the second I saw Trump say, Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?, I knew this scandal would roll out differently. At that point, I understood it only as a matter of attention — and I was right.

“POTUS is clearly furious,” said a person close to the White House, who, like others in this story, was granted anonymity to discuss the mood inside the West Wing. “It’s the first time I’ve seen them sort of paralyzed.”

A senior White House official told POLITICO the president is frustrated with his staff’s inability to tamp down conspiracy theories they once spread and by the wall of media coverage that started when Attorney General Pam Bondi released information from the Epstein case that was already in the public domain.

“He feels there are way bigger stories that deserve attention,” the senior White House official said.

Donald Trump survives (and thrives) via two super powers: his ability to command and redirect attention, and his exploitation of polarization to defy actual truth once he has that attention. And, in asking that question, Ae you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein, he expressed that he believed those super powers were failing.

At the time I only understood that his ability to command and redirect attention was failing, but given what has transpired since we can hypothesize about what brought him to this point.

Epstein is different than past scandals because it is so close to a motivating conspiracy of his base, QAnon. A third of his mob is motivated by an equally strong cult belief, and he relies on that mob to control political opinion and wield credible threats against defectors. Meanwhile, his base is suffering from what I’ll call “Justice deprivation,” (which I’ll return to — I’m sure there’s a better term), meaning they believe in him because he continues to stoke their belief he’ll deliver “Justice.” But they’re getting impatient. The John Durham investigation didn’t quench their thirst for vengeance against the Deep State, and now Pam Bondi has been caught stalling on delivering justice to the pedophiles.

And, Ghislaine Maxwell has a credible threat. This doesn’t mean she has proof Trump raped 15-year olds, though we can’t rule it out. Given how things are proceeding, I doubt we’ll ever learn what it is. What matters is the threat was and is serious enough he recognizes he must neutralize it.

But that credible threat meant that two parallel developments — Maxwell’s attempt to cut her 20-year prison sentence and the bumbling efforts from Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino to resolve the Epstein thirst they had stoked — collided in the week before John Sauer had to move forward on defending the prosecution against Maxwell’s appeal. Probably, Bondi’s frantic review of the case files in March was an assessment, as Maxwell was preparing her appeal, of how badly those two risks collided, and (as we’ll see) a creation of a list of names to target.

For a brief moment, the left — which has squandered any effort to be able to command attention, in part because most prefer to yell at Chuck Schumer — managed to piggyback on the right wing mob to be able to command attention and even, in Congress, political risks.

In those weeks, we’ve seen Sauer take an action (the response to her cert petition at SCOTUS) that Maxwell viewed as a threat to her ability to get out of prison. Then, her attorney David Markus publicly conveyed that he believed Donald Trump was reneging on a deal (publicly, that was a reference to the appeal, but this is a world of easy double entendres). Then the initial WSJ story — I can’t prove that it came from Maxwell but everything that happened since is consistent with that and this discussion assumes that’s true — demonstrated to Trump how Maxwell’s threat might play out against the backdrop of his mob’s dissatisfaction with Bondi’s dodge on the Epstein files, which convinced Trump to take steps to address the Maxwell threat, all the while against the backdrop of the second (Iran was the first) defections from his base, as they accused Trump of covering up.

It’s fairly clear the plan was to fire Maurene Comey, freeing up Trump to sell out the victims, create a delay and diversion with the grand jury head fakes, so as to shift Maxwell’s focus on Trump onto everyone else. Markus revealed that she was asked about 100 people in her two-day “proffer,” and the plan is to feed the base with scandals about those 100 people, some of whom will be the most prominent Democrats. That will provide Trump the space and excuse to get Maxwell out of prison.

Meanwhile, the Tulsi Gabbard conspiracy theories met with tremendous success at redirecting the focus, at least of the top trolls, from Epstein to transparently bullshit claims about The Black President. Kate Starbird shows that the Epstein focus tailed off by the end of day on Friday July 18, after Tulsi aired her conspiracy theories.

But those conspiracy theories are already creating their own problems. The John Durham investigation already proved there’s no legal there there. And Tulsi recklessly (but effectively) upped the ante, promising even better results than Trump ever promised Durham would provide. Treason, she said.

Trump is still struggling. Perhaps, most lethally for him, he’s not hiding that he’s trying to command and redirect attention — he has said as much three times now. Spectacle fails when you reveal its strings, and Trump, himself, is disclosing them.

He literally reeled off a list of things he wants journalists to cover other than his own Epstein problems.

What are you hoping Todd Blanche gets out of his meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell?

Well I don’t know about the meeting — I know it’s taking place. And he’s a fantastic man. He’s a great attorney, and people should really focus on how well the country’s doing, or they should focus on the fact that Barack Hussein Obama led a coup, or they should focus on the fact that Larry Summers, from Harvard, that Bill Clinton, who you know very well, and lots of other friends — really close friends of Jeffrey Summers [sic] — should be spoken about, because, you know — Jeffrey Epstein — should be spoken about. And they should speak about them because they don’t talk about them, they talk about me, I have nothing to do with the guy.

[pre-planned exchange about the homeless in which Trump asserts authority to take over DC]

Have you heard about Todd Blanche’s interview with Ghislaine Maxwell? Have you considered clemency for Ghislaine Maxwell?

Well, I don’t want to talk about that. What I do want to say is that Todd is a great attorney. But you ought to be speaking about Larry Summers, you ought to be speaking about some of his friends that are hedge fund guys, they’re all over the place. You ought to be speaking about Bill Clinton who went to the island 28 times. I never went to the island.

Do you maintain you did not write a letter?

I don’t even know what they’re talking about. Now somebody could have written a letter, used my name, but that’s happened a lot. All you have to do is take a look at the dossier, the fake dossier. Everything’s fake with that administration. Everything’s fake with the Democrats. Take a look at what they just found about the dossier. Everything is fake. They’re a bunch of sick people.

[turns back to talk about homeless people]

[Another conversation endorsing genocide of Palestinians]

Would you consider a pardon or a commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell?

It’s something I haven’t thought about.

If [inaudible] recommended it?

I’m allowed to do it, but it’s something I have not thought about.

But you wouldn’t rule it out.

But Markus, Maxwell’s attorney, is doing a good job of shifting the attention. After the first proffer, the WSJ magically came to focus on all those other people, some of the very same people Trump would name the next day (again, Markus revealed that Blanche brought in a list of about a hundred names, surely culled from what they saw in the case files; Maxwell is not being asked what happened, she’s being asked what kind of dirt she has on a pre-selected group of people).  And NewsMax and some key influencers are beginning to sell his narrative that Maxwell is the victim. Markus is a formidable lawyer in any context, but he happens to be South Florida’s formidable lawyer, and he knows these players and how they work.

And while Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi are nowhere near as formidable as Markus (indeed, Markus handed Blanche his ass on a cheap plastic plate), they do have the power and the shamelessness to do what needs to get done — the betrayal of victims, the clemency for a monster. Blanche already guaranteed that everything Trump will do going forward, including pardoning a sex trafficker to neutralize the threat she poses to him, will be rubber stamped by a SCOTUS already happy to sanction Trump’s crimes. We can’t probe his motives, even if they’re transparently deprave, SCOTUS already dictated.

That means only political pressure can thwart or impose a cost for Trump’s plan on rewarding a sex trafficker to redirect her weapons.

  • One question is what Maurene Comey does. She has been silent (and, as far as I know, has not been a source for any story). But there are a number of steps she might take that would either clarify how important her own firing was in making this happen or fuel the response.
  • I think Trump has also assumed the victims won’t find a way to speak up. That may well be true — after all everyone else is terrified and they have far less power than all the people cowering from Trump — but it may not be. There are a lot of journalists who have fought to tell their stories, and those stories are powerful.
  • Epstein’s executors are clear they’ll accept subpoenas. And at least for the moment, Democrats have succeeded in forcing Republicans to vote for subpoenas.
  • I’d love to do a campaign asking every Republican to go on the record about whether they would impeach Trump for a Ghislaine Maxwell pardon — but the moment for that may have passed.
  • One reason Deputy Attorneys General don’t meet with sex traffickers is because it makes them a witness. And while I think Blanche may one day claim he is protected by dual privileges — those of a top law enforcement officer and those of the President’s consigliere — that’ll be a legally dodgy claim. He has done plenty, already, to warrant a subpoena for testimony about why he has broken every law enforcement protocol to meet with a sex trafficker.
  • The three judges involved in the grand jury unseal requests seem to smell something is up; Richard Berman, in particular, is acutely aware of how badly the victims have and are being treated. (Note the docket in that case has shifted to non-public filing, which likely means victims have started filing their response to the unsealing request.)
  • Bondi created 1,000 witnesses to what is in the Epstein files, and put everything on a SharePoint server, meaning it may be vulnerable to hacking under the zero day just released, and was vulnerable to Elon’s DOGE boys.
  • NewsMax, which employs Alex Acosta and is front-running the pardon Ghislaine campaign, could be pressured for coddling pedophiles. And for the moment at least, the twin powerhouses of the Trump bubble, are taking different approaches (silence versus complicity) to helping Trump kill this story.
  • And until the far right totally gets on board, it is still possible to keep this swamping the news.

All of which is to say there are other sources of attention and power. Trump has a plan forward and a shit-ton of tools (and an exceedingly competent partner in Markus), but cannot be sure he’ll be able to reclaim that attention.

Still, a number of other things are going on, as Trump’s accelerating sprint to consolidate power.

Again, he is disclosing his strings. You don’t shift attention by telling people to avert their gaze, you entice them elsewhere. First Trump started yelling at his influencers for covering Epstein (most of them complied with his orders, but not all), and then he started giving people a list of things to cover instead: Trump’s claimed successes, his Potemkin trade deals, or the Obama conspiracy theory, or Larry Summers and Bill Clinton. You gotta pick, grandpa. You pick your focus and lead the way, you don’t give a multiple choice test!

The diversion — Tulsi’s conspiracy theory — may create its own problems. NYT reports that Tulsi did that without giving Pam Bondi a heads up (in the same way Bondi staged the first Epstein influencer event).

Ms. Bondi was given little warning the director of national intelligence was about to demand she investigate one of Mr. Trump’s most longstanding grievances: claims without evidence that the Obama administration overstated Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election in order to undermine him.

Ms. Bondi, fresh off a nasty fight with a top F.B.I. official over who was responsible for the political mess around the Epstein case, felt blindsided and annoyed, according to several people familiar with her thinking. They said that in reality, however, Ms. Gabbard was acting as little more than a proxy for a president demanding action on his vengeance agenda.

Ms. Bondi’s staff scrambled for a solution that would satisfy Mr. Trump while not committing the department to a tit-for-tat Obama investigation with unpredictable legal and political consequences.

Ms. Gabbard, standing at the White House briefing room lectern on Wednesday, made a series of provocative claims and pointedly said the onus was now on the Justice Department.

Several hours later, Ms. Bondi’s deputies posted an ambiguous, four-paragraph statement on the department’s website that announced the formation of what they described as a “strike force” to look into the Gabbard accusations.

In several posts, Ben Wittes has unpacked the series of non-announcements that Bondi has made.

So if the two conspired as government officials—as the Fox News article suggests—to do something nefarious to cook intelligence to get Trump, the statute of limitations for that offense, assuming such conduct even maps onto any known criminal offense, would have lapsed long ago. Ditto the statutes governing false statements and perjury. In other words, it’s completely unclear what the Justice Department—so eager to announce the investigation—might actually be investigating.

I can think of only two possible answers to this question.

Third, the first possibility is that some of the investigations of these matters dragged on for years, and some interviews might have taken place late enough that statutes of limitations have not yet run. For example, Comey gave one congressional testimony as late as September 2020, which would leave a few months yet before the statute of limitations on that. Brennan was interviewed by the John Durham investigation in August of the same year. So it’s theoretically possible that the investigation is limited to supposedly false statements made in the context of interviews made within the past five years.

Fourth, the second possibility—maybe more likely—is that the investigation is premised on a fanciful theory that the supposed “conspiracy” continued past the two men’s service in government. If you posit some conspiracy, after all, the statute of limitations runs five years past the end of the conspiracy, not five years after any of the specific acts that make up the conspiracy.

With respect to any supposed conspiracy involving Brennan and Comey to cook the intelligence on Russia to get Trump, we are operating in the land of fantasy. And when exactly does a conspiracy to commit a fantastical act end? In other words, if one predicates an investigation based on nonsense, it is possible to nonsense one’s way back quite a few years using a theory of conspiracy to nonsense.

Fifth, I actually doubt that either of these things is what is really happening here. What I think is happening is what one might call a ghost investigation.

I’d add another several points about evidence:

  • First, DOJ and FBI already conducted assessments about some of this evidence, both as they assessed it in counterintelligence reviews and as part of the John Durham investigation. As I’ve shown, Tulsi’s claims include an SVR document that HPSCI not only selectively cited, but which they had to know had been deemed “objectively false;” revisiting that decision would require, among other things, conceding that Jim Comey intentionally threw the election to Donald Trump in 2016. The Durham investigation showed that to try to make an investigation of these files, you have to fabricate things that aren’t even in the underlying Russian spy reports.
  • Now, think of the witnesses. DOJ can’t pursue this for the same reason it would have been nearly impossible to reopen the Russian investigation; because a credible witness (in that case, Bill Barr) had weighed in definitively. Tulsi’s recent claims conflict with things Kash Patel, Marco Rubio, and John Ratcliffe have had to say, after reviewing the same evidence. As I’ll show, the HPSCI Report right wingers are frothing over actually added an egregious error years after Kash sort of got the same assertion correct.
  • And that would also mean that the FBI and CIA Director would be natural, irreplaceable witnesses. Want to create a shitshow? Invite John Brennan to call Kash Patel as a hostile defense witness to both what happened in 2017 and what has happened more recently.

Will Sommer has been tracking what he calls “hype-debt” among Trump’s rubes.

But as I dove into the MAGA internet to get a sense of whether this distraction was working as intended, I was surprised to discover that not everyone was buying it. Yes, it’s only been a few days. But my sense is that Trump is racking up a sort of hype-debt within the party, as he tries to refocus his base away from one disappointment by setting them up for an even bigger one when Obama fails to face a military tribunal.

Take Liz Wheeler, a conservative pundit who received one of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s fateful Epstein binders back in February, and has since become one of the most vocal critics of Trump’s attempt to shut down questions about Epstein. On Monday, demonstrating why she was trusted to participate in the binder photo-op in the first place, she gushed that Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had published “new evidence” of a scheme by senior members of the Obama administration to undermine Trump’s first term. (That was, coincidentally, a day after the infamous Wall Street Journal story on Trump writing a note to Epstein). Gabbard’s moves against Obama, she wrote, marked “the first glimmer of what I would call real justice.”

But even Wheeler couldn’t miss the contradiction here. If Obama and his aides committed treason, why don’t they actually get, y’know, arrested? Can a Trump Justice Department that can’t manage to release the Epstein documents without stepping on a series of rakes really pull off the criminal prosecution of an entire past presidential administration?

Wheeler said the only way to fulfill Trump’s new commitment to his supporters would be actual prosecutions.

Though he was also one of the first to catch NewsMax prepping the way for Maxwell’s clemency.

Meanwhile, Republicans are the only ones who buy this. In Gallup’s latest, Trump has started closing in on his all-time lows — his support immediately after leading an assault on the Capitol — among support from Independents. And that’s as the effects of his tariffs builds.

It seems likely that Trump’s defense attorney will pull of some kind of non-Trump Epstein distraction. What’s not yet clear is how much backlash that will elicit. Or whether Trump will reclaim his ability to grab attention.

Share this entry

DOJ Denied Jeffrey Epstein Blackmail … But Not Ghislaine Maxwell Blackmail

/49 Comments/in /by

WSJ has confirmed not only that Donald Trump’s name is in the Epstein files — and that Pam Bondi told him that on some unidentified date in May.

When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a “truckload” of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump’s name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.

In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn’t a sign of wrongdoing.

The officials said it was a routine briefing that covered a number of topics and that Trump’s appearance in the documents wasn’t the focus.

They told the president at the meeting that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of the officials said.

The detail that Trump was told means that Trump lied when ABC asked him about it on July 15 (as you watch the video, watch how Karoline Leavitt’s head swings around as Trump is asked).

On July 15, an ABC News journalist asked Trump, as he took questions from reporters at the White House, what Bondi told him about the Epstein files: “Specifically, did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the files?”

“No, no, she’s—she’s given us just a very quick briefing,” Trump responded. He also said Bondi had “really done a very good job” on the Epstein review.

DOJ, FBI, and the White House have now all issued statements that don’t address the issue. The Bondi/Blanche one that appears in this ABC piece emphasizes that there was nothing left to investigate — something totally contradictory from Blanche’s plans to do a proffer with Maxwell.

In a statement, Bondi and Blanche said, “The DOJ and FBI reviewed the Epstein Files and reached the conclusion set out in the July 6 memo. Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution, and we have filed a motion in court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts. As part of our routine briefing, we made the President aware of the findings.” [my emphasis]

Consider how that emphasis compares with the full, most tortured paragraph, in the July 7 release.

This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credibleevidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.

As I wrote at the time, this very short paragraph was sandwiched between two actually credible sections stating that much of the material would implicate the victims and that Epstein killed himself (was allowed to kill himself) in prison.

So yesterday, DOJ and FBI released (or rather, made available to Axios without yet, apparently, releasing it via normal channels) a two-page unsigned notice (which may be on letterhead created for the purpose).

It included two main, credible conclusions:

  • Much of the material that FBI has depicts victims and any release of that material would retraumatize the victims.
  • FBI concluded (and Trump’s flunkies agree) that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself. DOJ released two files (one unaltered, one enhanced, both with titles that do not even mention Epstein) showing that no one entered his cell the night he killed himself.

But there’s also a short, broader conclusion that is less sound.

This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. [my emphasis]

Emphasis on credible?

Of course there’s a client list; one version of it was already released. There are also the names or descriptions shared by victims of the men who abused them. And while there may be no evidence in the FBI files that Epstein did blackmail Trump or anyone else, he had blackmail material on them.

DOJ’s current story emphasizes the third sentence: There wasn’t enough to open an investigation against uncharged third parties (whom we now know to include Trump). DOJ is less interested in talking about what was always clearly a dodge: no, there’s no client list, but there are people who, the evidence shows, raped one or some of Epstein’s victims, and that list could be released.

The second sentence looks a lot different, just a few weeks later.

There may be no credible evidence that Epstein blackmailed people.

But all this has been proceeding as Ghislaine Maxwell seeks a way out of prison. All this has been proceeding as the WSJ gets stories about Trump using his signature as pubic hair. All this has been proceeding as Trump’s defense attorney claims to be representing the interest of the country by meeting with Ghislaine — all while ignoring the victims.

That paragraph always looked like misdirection.

But now DOJ is misdirecting even from two of the three sentences in that paragraph.

Timeline

February 16, 2017: Alex Acosta nominated Secretary of Labor.

July 2, 2019: Jeffrey Epstein indicted.

July 12, 2019: Alex Acosta resigns.

August 10, 2019: Epstein dies by suicide.

June 20, 2020: Geoffrey Berman fired.

June 29, 2020: Ghislaine Maxwell indicted.

March 29, 2021: Superseding indictment.

November 16, 2021: Jury selection begins.

December 29, 2021: Maxwell convicted on 5 of 6 counts.

February 28, 2023: Maxwell appeals.

September 17, 2024: Second Circuit rejects appeal.

January 15, 2025: Maxwell delays appeal.

February 10, 2025: Dan Bongino promises he’ll never let Epstein story go.

February 21, 2025: Pam Bondi claims Epstein client list is on her desk.

February 27, 2025: Bondi orchestrates re-release of previously released Epstein files.

March 4, 2025: James Dennehy forced to retire.

March 14, 2025: Pam Bondi conducts emergency review of Epstein and Maxwell documents.

April 10, 2025: Maxwell files cert petition.

April 25, 2025: Virginia Giuffre dies by suicide.

Sometime in May: Bondi tells Trump he’s in the Epstein files.

May 7, 2025: John Sauer delays response; Bondi claims there are thousands of videos.

May 18, 2025: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino affirm that Epstein killed himself.

May 22, 2025: Epstein prison video created.

June 5, 2025: Elon Musk claims Trump is in the Epstein files.

June 6, 2025: John Sauer delays response.

July 7, 2025: Pam Bondi claims there’s no there there.

July 8, 2025: Trump loses it over questions about Epstein.

July 9, 2025: Undefined ABC query about Epstein leads to spat at DOJ.

July 12, 2025: Trump attempts to claim Epstein is a Democratic plot.

July 14, 2025: DOJ defends Maxwell prosecution; David Markus suggests Trump is reneging on a deal.

July 15, 2025: WSJ interviews Trump about Epstein book; Trump falsely tells ABC he has not been told.

July 16, 2025: Pam Bondi fires Maurene Comey, on Trump’s personal authority.

July 17, 2025: Trump yells at supporters who won’t move on from Epstein. WSJ publishes story.

July 18, 2025: Todd Blanche files to unseal grand jury materials; Trump sues WSJ.

July 21, 2025: Mike Johnson dodges week of work to give Trump “space” to fix his Epstein problem.

July 22, 2025: Blanche announces he’ll meet with Maxwell; Oversight votes to subpoena Maxwell for deposition.

Share this entry

Trump’s Defense Attorney Todd Blanche Will Meet with Sex Trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to Make a Deal for His Client

/129 Comments/in /by

Trump Defense Attorney Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi just announced that Blanche will meet with Ghislaine Maxwell and discuss potential cooperation deals with her.

Statement from @DAGToddBlanche: This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.  The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6 remains as accurate today as it was when it was written.  Namely, that in the recent thorough review of the files maintained by the FBI in the Epstein case, no evidence was uncovered that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.  President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence. If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.   Therefore, at the direction of Attorney General Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department.  I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days.  Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government.  That changes now.

Justice demands courage. For the first time, the Department of Justice is reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell to ask: what do you know? At @AGPamBondi’s direction, I’ve contacted her counsel. I intend to meet with her soon. No one is above the law—and no lead is off-limits.

So here’s what happened.

Maxwell delayed her appeal to SCOTUS until after the inauguration. Trump’s DOJ twice delayed the decision whether they were going to defend the appeal, finally filing their response on Monday.

That day, Maxwell’s defense attorney, David Markus, insinuated that Trump was reneging on a deal.

In a statement Monday, an attorney for Maxwell hinted at the swirling controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s decision not to release any further records related to investigations of Epstein.

“I’d be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. He’s the ultimate dealmaker—and I’m sure he’d agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who’s being prosecuted and who isn’t, it’s especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the government made and broke,” wrote David Oscar Markus.

The next day, Tuesday, WSJ moved forward with a story implicating Trump in “daily secrets” with Jeffrey Epstein.

The following day, Wednesday, Pam Bondi fired Maurene Comey, the prosecutor who would be competent to assess any cooperation offered from Maxwell.

Friday, in a false show of transparency, Todd Blanche (filing under his defense attorney identity) moved to unseal grand jury transcripts that DOJ has in a form it could release immediately.

Meanwhile, Trump’s DNI Tulsi Gabbard created a false diversion to distract his rubes.

Yesterday, the Speaker of the House ceded his majority for a week to give Trump “space” to cover up his pedophile problem.

My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing,

And today, Trump’s Defense Attorney Todd Blanche announces he will meet with Maxwell soon to make the kind of deal that could excuse releasing her early. Probably, he’ll ask her to implicate someone like Bill Clinton.

Absent that deal, it seems clear, the WSJ will continue to publish stories implicating the President in Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking.

Update: Markus, in his Tweet about the deal, does Trump a real solid by suggesting Trump is taking action to “uncover the truth.”

I can confirm that we are in discussions with the government and that Ghislaine will always testify truthfully. We are grateful to President Trump for his commitment to uncovering the truth in this case.” David Oscar Markus We have no other comment at this time.

Update: Oversight just agreed to subpoena Maxwell for a deposition in a voice vote. This could complicate Blanche’s plans.

Timeline:

February 16, 2017: Alex Acosta nominated Secretary of Labor.

July 2, 2019: Jeffrey Epstein indicted.

July 12, 2019: Alex Acosta resigns.

August 10, 2019: Epstein dies by suicide.

June 20, 2020: Geoffrey Berman fired.

June 29, 2020: Ghislaine Maxwell indicted.

March 29, 2021: Superseding indictment.

November 16, 2021: Jury selection begins.

December 29, 2021: Maxwell convicted on 5 of 6 counts.

February 28, 2023: Maxwell appeals.

September 17, 2024: Second Circuit rejects appeal.

January 15, 2025: Maxwell delays appeal.

February 10, 2025: Dan Bongino promises he’ll never let Epstein story go.

February 21, 2025: Pam Bondi claims Epstein client list is on her desk.

February 27, 2025: Bondi orchestrates re-release of previously released Epstein files.

March 4, 2025: James Dennehy forced to retire.

March 14, 2025: Pam Bondi conducts emergency review of Epstein and Maxwell documents.

April 10, 2025: Maxwell files cert petition.

April 25, 2025: Virginia Giuffre dies by suicide.

May 7, 2025: John Sauer delays response; Bondi claims there are thousands of videos.

May 18, 2025: Kash Patel and Dan Bongino affirm that Epstein killed himself.

May 22, 2025: Epstein prison video created.

June 6, 2025: John Sauer delays response.

July 7, 2025: Pam Bondi claims there’s no there there.

July 8, 2025: Trump loses it over questions about Epstein.

July 12, 2025: Trump attempts to claim Epstein is a Democratic plot.

July 14, 2025: DOJ defends Maxwell prosecution; David Markus suggests Trump is reneging on a deal.

July 15, 2025: WSJ interviews Trump about Epstein book.

July 16, 2025: Pam Bondi fires Maurene Comey, on Trump’s personal authority.

July 17, 2025: Trump yells at supporters who won’t move on from Epstein. WSJ publishes story.

July 18, 2025: Todd Blanche files to unseal grand jury materials; Trump sues WSJ.

July 21, 2025: Mike Johnson dodges week of work to give Trump “space” to fix his Epstein problem.

July 22, 2025: Blanche announces he’ll meet with Maxwell; Oversight votes to subpoena Maxwell for deposition.

Share this entry

The Virgin Birth of the Epstein Book Story

/93 Comments/in /by

The WSJ and Donald Trump are telling different versions of the genesis of the story on Trump’s birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. But both are hiding the timeline of how the story came together.

As Trump’s “Statement of Facts” in his frivolous lawsuit claims, Joe Palazzolo sent Karoline Leavitt an email alerting her WSJ was going to publish.

12. On July 15, 2025, Palazzolo sent an email to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt advising of Dow Jones’ intent to publish an article which discussed a purported letter sent by President Trump to Epstein for Epstein’s fiftieth birthday.

WSJ says that one or both of them actually interviewed Trump during the evening on July 15 (it doesn’t describe the circumstances of the interview), and in that interview the President told [the Journal] he was going to sue.

In an interview with the Journal on Tuesday evening, Trump denied writing the letter or drawing the picture. “This is not me. This is a fake thing. It’s a fake Wall Street Journal story,” he said.

“I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

He told the Journal he was preparing to file a lawsuit if it published an article. “I’m gonna sue The Wall Street Journal just like I sued everyone else,” he said. [my emphasis]

In a Truth Social post published shortly after the story, Trump claimed (using the passive voice) that Murdoch “personally, [was] warned directly by President Donald J. Trump” and that Karoline Leavitt warned Emma Tucker.

The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued. Mr. Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but, obviously, did not have the power to do so. The Editor of The Wall Street Journal, Emma Tucker, was told directly by Karoline Leavitt, and by President Trump, that the letter was a FAKE, but Emma Tucker didn’t want to hear that.

None of those conversations appear in the lawsuit (nor is Tucker included in the suit, though CEO Robert Thomson, whom Trump claims was also “put on notice” is). It says that, seemingly in response to  in response to Palazzolo’s email and “that same afternoon,” some unnamed counsel (Alejandro Brito, who filed the suit? someone at the White House? he doesn’t say) sent an email warning that the “claim[] that President Trump authored the purported letter … was false.”

13. That same afternoon, counsel for President Trump sent an email to Defendants advising that the intended article was false in claiming that President Trump authored the purported letter, which he did not, and further warned Dow Jones to cease and desist from publishing, disseminating, or otherwise distributing such information, because it was false and defamatory.

14. None of the Defendants responded to the email. [my emphasis]

Trump doesn’t quote this email. But the claim the email refutes — that Trump “authored” the email — is not what the story says at all. It says this:

[Ghislaine Maxwell] turned to Epstein’s family and friends [for birthday emails]. One of them was Donald Trump.

[snip]

The letter [bears] Trump’s name

[snip]

It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.

A non-existent claim that Trump authored the email is by no means the only thing in the lawsuit Trump makes up.

Mind you, this lawsuit, like the ones against CBS and ABC (the others that Trump boasted about having sued), is only ostensibly about factual claims. It’s really about power. As he said in a Truth Social post after filing the lawsuit, this is about “[holding] to account.”

We have proudly held to account ABC and George [Stephanopoulos], CBS and 60 Minutes, The Fake Pulitzer Prizes, and many others who deal in, and push, disgusting LIES, and even FRAUD, to the American People.

I have noted that Trump may be less interested in threatening News Corp with regulatory consequences than ABC and CBS; after all, he relies on the dominance of the Fox News bubble. But unless we’re misunderstanding this lawsuit (and we may well be), his goal is to force Rupert Murdoch to sit for a deposition or, in Murdoch’s attempt attempt to avoid that, to extort millions of dollars as tribute.

But to understand whether that would ever happen, it would help to know some more background that either side is revealing. Just as one example, was early reporting on this story the reason why Trump so feebly asked “Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein” on July 8, a full week before the Tuesday exchanges about the truth of the story.

WSJ takes credit for the panic Trump expressed on July 16 — the day when, we now know, he knew the story was coming but we only knew rumors.

Earlier this week, after the Journal sought comment from the president about the letter, Trump told reporters at the White House that he believed some Epstein files were “made up” by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden and former FBI Director James Comey.

He said that releasing any more Epstein files would be up to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “Whatever she thinks is credible, she should release,” Trump said.

But they don’t take credit for the very similar panic Trump expressed on July 12, the first time he attempted to slot the Epstein scandal in next to other things he falsely claims are hoaxes.

15. Instead, on July 17, 2025, Defendants published, or caused the publishing of, the article authored by Defendants Safdar and Palazzolo titled “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One was from Donald Trump” (the “Article”).

Something put Trump entirely off his game before July 8 and it’s not yet clear whether he has resumed it with Tulsi’s conspiracy theories or not.

It’s not clear whether this story spooked him, or this story came about by the circumstances that spooked him a few weeks earlier (though it is clear that a story like this would take some time to fact check).

It’s not even clear whether Trump has a Jeffrey Epstein problem, or a far more pressing Ghislaine Maxwell problem.

Update: Ben Wittes’ thoughts about why Trump might be suing mirror my own. But as I said, I think the obvious answers may not be the correct ones.

A second possibility is that the story is true, but that Trump thinks—like Wilde and Hiss did—that it can’t be proven true. So he thinks he can use the litigation to intimidate the press and raise doubts about the truth of the allegations. This was a dangerous move for Wilde and Hiss, and it’s a dangerous move for Trump too. The discovery process never flatters a man like Trump; there are a lot of people who know things about his relationship with Epstein; and there are undoubtedly other documents out there as well that reflect on it. Creating a formal legal process in which Trump has to provide materials to an opposing litigant and answer questions about those materials is a profoundly risky game.

Possibility number three—which I suspect is the most likely one—is that the story is true and the litigation is just for show. Trump knows he can’t afford discovery. He also knows his suit has no merit. So while he gets a news splash out of filing the lawsuit, he will then—as he did with the Des Moines Register poll suit—quietly drop it sometime down the road, before the discovery can actually do him any harm. This way, he gets much of the intimidation benefit of the suit. He costs News Corp. some money. But he doesn’t put much at risk.

A final possibility is that Trump hasn’t really considered the risks at all; he’s just rage-suing. Rage-suing is somewhat like rage-tweeting, except that it involves lawyers. With rage-tweeting, public relations people and policy folks clean up the damage after the fact. In the case of rage-suing, lawyers do so—assuming they can. If this is what’s going on here, Trump could dig himself into a real hole. He could get a judge who doesn’t look kindly on this sort of thing. He could end up having to turn over a lot of documents. He could end up having to testify under oath, the very thing that got Clinton into trouble.

Share this entry

Why Is Todd Blanche Risking the Conviction of a Sex Trafficker Rather Than Use Fruits of Already-Completed Review?

/51 Comments/in /by

As I’ve mentioned, Todd Blanche was in such a rush to ask a judge to unseal Jeffrey Epstein grand jury files that he didn’t update his SDNY filing profile first. As a result, his request to unseal grand jury records was filed under the identity he had when formally serving as Donald Trump’s defense attorney: Todd Blanche, Blanche Law, a firm set up exclusively to serve Trump.

In his request to unseal the files, Blanche waves away the concern that unsealing these files should wait until Ghislaine Maxwell’s appeal has been exhausted.

While the Government recognizes that Maxwell’s case is currently pending before the Supreme Court on a petition for a writ of certiorari, it nonetheless moves this Court for relief due to the intense public scrutiny into this matter.

As Josh Gerstein noted, in a filing submitted in a FOIA lawsuit last year, Maurene Comey described at great length the risks posed by releasing files before Maxwell’s appeals are exhausted.

12. As noted above, the Maxwell criminal prosecution is still pending on appeal. If the Second Circuit grants Maxwell the relief she seeks, there could be a new trial. Therefore, public disclosure of the FBI’s records relating to the investigation and prosecution of Epstein that were withheld in full or in part under Exemption 7(A) could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell.

[snip]

14. Public disclosure of the first category of records, identified in the First Seidel Declaration as Evidentiary/Investigative Materials, could reasonably be expected to interfere with the pending prosecution of Maxwell. As noted in paragraphs 61 through 63 of the First Seidel Declaration, this first category includes copies of records or evidence, analysis of that evidence, and derivative communications summarizing or otherwise referencing evidence. Those records or evidence include, among other things: business records (for example, phone records, travel records, financial records, and shipping records) gathered during criminal investigations, including through the service of grand jury subpoenas, and analysis of those records; documents and evidence provided by witnesses to law enforcement; documents regarding witness background information (for example, criminal history records, medical records, employment records, social media records, and educational records); reports, notes, or transcripts of witness statements; and communications with and about witnesses. The documents contained in this category include confidential witness statements from dozens of witnesses, and the discussion of evidence among members of law enforcement. The release of these records to the public risks the following harms to the pending prosecution of Maxwell:

a. Impact on Witness Testimony: Premature disclosure of the business records and witness statements within this category (including disclosure of analysis and summaries of those materials) could reasonably be expected to influence potential witnesses’ testimony at trial. These records include details that are not publicly known or known to other witnesses, and include information and documents authored by and about potential witnesses. Because the majority of the records in this category were not introduced as public exhibits during Maxwell’s first trial, they remain non-public, though the Government may still seek to introduce them should Maxwell be granted a retrial. The premature release of these materials could influence the testimony of witnesses by providing the opportunity for witnesses to shape their testimony to conform with other evidence gathered during the investigation, including both records and witness statements. For example, witnesses may shade their testimony to match the descriptions of events and places given by other witnesses about whom they might not otherwise know, or witnesses may shade their testimony to match the timing of travel, financial transactions, phone calls, and/or shipments reflected in the records. In order to preserve the independent integrity of its witnesses’ testimony, the Government has worked to ensure that its witnesses are not exposed to other parts of its investigative file, the accounts of other witnesses, or the full scope of exhibits it may offer at a retrial. The release of these materials would undermine the Government’s efforts to present witness testimony that is uninfluenced by exposure to other evidence in the case and can therefore be independently corroborated by other witness accounts and exhibits at trial. Additionally, premature release of witness statements and background materials in this category could prevent the Government from effectively questioning witnesses in a manner that would allow jurors to assess their credibility because the witnesses may have already viewed records that counsel may use for impeachment purposes, including witness background materials, witness statements, and business records that might contradict witnesses’ testimony.

b. Impact on Witnesses’ Willingness to Testify: The business records, witness statements, and witness background materials within this category (including summaries and analysis thereof) contain sensitive personal and private information about dozens of potential witnesses, including some witnesses who testified at Maxwell’s first trial and many witnesses who were not called at Maxwell’s first trial, but who may be called to testify if Maxwell is granted a retrial. By their very nature, all of the witness statements and witness background materials necessarily include identifying information and sensitive details regarding numerous witnesses. Similarly, the business records—including financial records, travel records, phone records, and shipping records—include the names, addresses, phone numbers, and other identifying information of numerous witnesses. The public release of this information could lead to the identification and intimidation of witnesses, who may decline to cooperate with the parties and be disinclined to testify if their personal information is released to the public. Indeed, multiple witnesses at Maxwell’s first trial testified under pseudonyms or just their first name to protect their privacy. Those same witnesses likely would not have agreed to testify if their identities or sensitive information about them were publicly revealed. The premature release of these records could reasonably be expected to interfere with a potential retrial of Maxwell by causing witnesses to be identified in the media and face embarrassment and potential harassment from members of the public as a result. Should these records be released, many witnesses, including some witnesses who agreed to testify at Maxwell’s first trial and others who did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial but may be called at a retrial, may decline to cooperate in trial preparation with the Government and may refuse to testify at a retrial. This outcome is likely because many witnesses only agreed to cooperate with the Government’s investigation because they understood that the Government would take every effort to protect their privacy.

c. Impact on Jury: Premature public disclosure of the records withheld under Exemption 7(A) within this first category, including those which the Government anticipates will be entered into evidence at trial, could reasonably be expected to further impair the Government’s pending prosecution of Maxwell by affecting its ability to present its case in court in any Maxwell retrial because it risks prejudicing the jury pool. As noted above, the majority of records in this category—including phone records, bank records, travel records, and shipping records—were not admitted into evidence at Maxwell’s first trial. Similarly, many witnesses whose statements and background information fall within this category did not testify at Maxwell’s first trial. The premature release of these materials risks prejudicing the jury pool so as to hinder the Government’s ability to present its case in court in two distinct respects. First, to the extent materials within this category are never admitted at a retrial, the jury may wonder why those materials were absent from the trial and may suspect the Government of trying to hide evidence from the jury, causing jurors to draw an unwarranted adverse inference against the Government. In this scenario, the jury may also improperly consider publicly released materials that were not introduced as evidence at the trial in their deliberations. The materials in this category, including business records and witness statements, may seem relevant to a layperson but may be inadmissible at trial for various reasons under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Potential jurors’ consideration of the records that are being withheld under Exemption 7(A) but will not be presented at trial may impact the consideration jurors give to the actual evidence presented by the Government. If some or all of this evidence is excluded at trial, pre-trial publication of these materials would risk exposing potential jurors to material they would otherwise not be shown during trial, which risks unduly influencing jurors’ views of the case and would impair the Government’s ability to effectively and fairly present its case in court. Second, if materials within this category are admitted at trial after being prematurely released, members of the jury could have preconceived notions of that evidence’s relevance or importance. This is especially concerning given the intense media scrutiny surrounding the Maxwell case and commentary that is likely to follow the release of any records of substance from the investigative file.

Of course, Ms. Comey was fired on Wednesday, as Trump waited for the WSJ story on his ties to Epstein to drop. So now Blanche can do whatever he wants with this case, without anyone to protect the equities of the prosecution.

And the grand jury request is not only completely unnecessary, but it represents a colossal waste of the time that Pam Bondi already invested when she ordered up to 1,000 people to spend reviewing the FBI case files in March.

Bondi could release those files without involving a judge. But she’s not. She’s going to instead meddle with grand jury records, a smaller subset of the whole, but one that could do more damage if Maxwell wins a retrial.

Donald Trump can’t pardon Maxwell, in spite of his past expression of well wishes for the sex trafficker, because his mob would go nuts.

But Todd Blanche could do something to intentionally fuck up her case.

Share this entry

“May Every Day Be Another Wonderful Secret,” Donald Trump Once Wished

/45 Comments/in /by

Deep inside the story describing the letter hinting about sexual secrets that Trump wrote Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 — 26 paragraphs in — WSJ includes a seeming no comment from Ghislaine Maxwell.

Maxwell, a British socialite, was convicted in 2021 of helping Epstein’s sex-trafficking and sentenced to 20 years in prison. Maxwell didn’t respond to a letter requesting an interview sent to her in prison. Arthur Aidala, an attorney who represented Maxwell, said, “At this point, she is focused on her case before the Supreme Court of the United States.”

The reporters either had time to write Maxwell a posted letter or they are among the contacts Maxwell has listed to contact her via the prison email system (in any case, Trump would have no compunctions about tracking her communications in prison). Whichever means they used to contact her, they got got no response.

They also asked Arthur Aidala, who represented Maxwell — past tense — for comment. His response wasn’t so much a no comment, but was, instead, a claim that Maxwell is focused on her Supreme Court appeal — the appeal which she delayed until Trump was inaugurated, the appeal response to which John Sauer twice delayed, first from May until June, then from June until July, before finally submitting the response last Monday, July 14, just one day before WSJ interviewed Trump about the story. Aidala is not the attorney on that appeal; David Markus and Sara Kropf are the listed attorneys on her SCOTUS appeal. In fact, after Sauer submitted the response — indicating Trump’s DOJ would defend the prosecution after twice leaving open the possibility it might not — Markus told ABC that Trump probably didn’t know that Sauer — Trump’s one-time defense attorney — had done that, because Trump is the ultimate dealmaker.

In a statement Monday, an attorney for Maxwell hinted at the swirling controversy surrounding the Trump administration’s decision not to release any further records related to investigations of Epstein.

“I’d be surprised if President Trump knew his lawyers were asking the Supreme Court to let the government break a deal. He’s the ultimate dealmaker—and I’m sure he’d agree that when the United States gives its word, it should keep it. With all the talk about who’s being prosecuted and who isn’t, it’s especially unfair that Ghislaine Maxwell remains in prison based on a promise the government made and broke,” wrote David Oscar Markus.

The ultimate dealmaker wouldn’t break a promise, Markus said on Monday.

And then on Tuesday, the WSJ interviewed Trump for a story revealing that Trump had sent Epstein a letter boasting that “A pal is a wonderful thing” and referencing daily secrets and enigmas.

Aidala represented Maxwell in her Second Circuit Appeal but not her criminal case, which means that, like Markus, he’s not covered by the protective order in the case which, by the way, permits witnesses to use discovery for purposes other than their testimony, but not Maxwell’s own attorneys, and of course only covers Government attorneys (or former Government attorneys) if discovery is actually turned over to the defendants.

With all that in mind, let’s look closer at what WSJ — which doesn’t say whether it spoke with Markus or any of Maxwell’s attorneys from the criminal case — says about that letter and in the process, their sources for the story.

The first reference to the album — a bound book — describes documents that show Maxwell collected letters.

Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein’s other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

This is important: If Maxwell “collected” those letters, she might have not just the letters, but letters about the letters — the kind of thing that would provide further authentication for the chain of custody. Just as one example, during the Russian investigation, we learned some of what the Agalarovs and other well-connected Russians sent to Trump not from the Agalarovs themselves, but via the communications to Trump’s then Executive Assistant, Rhona Graff, passing them on.

There’s even an example of Rob Goldstone asking Graff to get Trump to contribute a note for a birthday book, precisely the same ask Maxwell would have made in 2003.

If Maxwell solicited a letter from Trump, she would have asked Trump’s assistant to get one for her, and Trump would have passed on the letter via the same assistant.

WSJ seems to have seen letters about letters. Which might explain why they’re not clear “how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared,” but are sure that it came from him.

It isn’t clear how the letter with Trump’s signature was prepared.

Mind you, they’ve also seen the letters themselves — not just the Trump one, but letters from other famous people from whom WSJ solicited comment: Leslie Wexner and Alan Dershowitz.

The album had poems, photos and greetings from businesspeople, academics, Epstein’s former girlfriends and childhood pals, according to the documents reviewed by the Journal and people familiar with them. Among those who submitted letters were billionaire Leslie Wexner and attorney Alan Dershowitz.

[snip]

The longtime leader of Victoria’s Secret wrote a short message that said: “I wanted to get you what you want… so here it is….” After the text was a line drawing of what appeared to be a woman’s breasts. Wexner declined to comment through a spokesman. Wexner’s spokesman previously told the Journal that the retail mogul “severed all ties with Epstein in 2007 and never spoke with him again.”

Dershowitz’s letter included a mock-up of a “Vanity Unfair” magazine cover with mock headlines such as “Who was Jack the Ripper? Was it Jeffrey Epstein?” He joked that he had convinced the magazine to change the focus of an article from Epstein to Bill Clinton. Dershowitz, who represented Epstein after his first arrest, said, “It’s been a long time and I don’t recall the content of what I may have written.”

Wexner doesn’t want to talk about what documents might have once been in Epstein’s possession or might still be in Maxwell’s possession showing him joking about women with a sexual predator. Dershowitz, however, didn’t deny he sent a letter to Epstein laughing about framing Bill Clinton for something Epstein did, several years before Dershowitz would denigrate Epstein’s victims in a successful bid for a get out of jail free card for the abuser. He just claims not to remember that he was thinking of doing so before he actually had to help Epstein out of a terrible criminal jam.

I’ve read the WSJ article a bunch of times, and while they claim to have seen the letters (and possibly letters about letters), they don’t appear to claim they’ve seen the leather bound album itself. They are reporting on the existence of the album and the contents of the letters.

The existence of the album and the contents of the birthday letters haven’t previously been reported.

They know it was bound because several people involved in the process of getting it bound (this could be people both on Maxwell’s side and on Herbert Weitz’s team — he’s dead but his team might not be) told them who bound it.

The book was put together by a New York City bookbinder, Herbert Weitz, according to people who were involved in the process.

There’s one more thing about the album, something absolutely critical for understanding what is going on. Pages from the album were examined by DOJ officials back in 2019 and 2020, but WSJ has no idea whether they were part of the review Pam Bondi just did.

Pages from the leather-bound album—assembled before Epstein was first arrested in 2006—are among the documents examined by Justice Department officials who investigated Epstein and Maxwell years ago, according to people who have reviewed the pages. It’s unclear if any of the pages are part of the Trump administration’s recent review.

WSJ is certain they were in DOJ custody during the first Trump term. WSJ is not certain that those documents were among the ones Pam Bondi had 1,000 people review in 24-hour shifts before John Sauer kept delaying the decision about what to do about Maxwell’s appeal.

This doesn’t necessarily mean that WSJ has DOJ sources — or rather, former DOJ sources. It could be that witnesses were asked about the letters, which is how WSJ discovered they were in DOJ custody. But it’s worth noting that one of the prosecutors on both the Epstein and Maxwell prosecutions, Andrew Rohrbach, was among the people Emil Bove got fired for refusing to take part in Trump’s quid pro quo. Rohrbach isn’t the only one who’d be covered by that asymmetric protective order. Obviously, Maurene Comey, whom Trump fired the day after the interview with WSJ, would be too. But Rohrbach is one person who would know what prosecutors did in 2019, but probably not the review done in March. But then, so would a bunch of other people at SDNY if the Maxwell prosecution was one of the reasons Trump fired Geoffrey Berman.

With all that in mind, let me lay out something else.

This binder does not obviously show up in the inventory of things obtained in searches of Epstein’s various properties. Most of the binders included in the inventory contain CDs or photos, though item 1819 describes 10 binders, some of which may contain other things, and item 18140 is a bankers box with miscellaneous things. Nothing in the WSJ story says that DOJ had the binder itself.

It’s possible that DOJ obtained “pages from the leather-bound album” via email warrants targeting either Epstein or Maxwell, letters about letters.

But if those pages were obtained with a search warrant, they would not be covered by grand jury secrecy.

Moreover, nothing in either Epstein’s or Maxwell’s indictments would reflect testimony about the album. They rely on victim testimony, travel records, and phone records. And while Epstein’s indictment spans the same period — 2002 to 2005 — as the binder (which explains why DOJ would have obtained it), Maxwell’s indictment focuses on 1994 to 1997. If she got copies of the binder in discovery (and it’s not clear she would have), it would not have been central to her case.

The only other way this album would be covered by grand jury secrecy would be if it were subpoenaed. But wherever the album itself ended up by the time SDNY was investigating in 2018, it is extremely unlikely it was obtained via subpoena.

All of which is to say that it is virtually certain that Donald Trump instructed his defense attorney turned Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche (because Blanche has not updated his NY bar membership, he shows up in the docket under his firm identity, as if he’s a defense attorney who happens to represent the government in this issue), to go look for this letter in one place he’s pretty sure it never appeared, the grand jury.

When JD Vance tried to dispute the WSJ story by crying that WSJ hadn’t shown “us” the letter, there’s a decent chance he said that knowing that the signed copy of the letter remains safely in DOJ custody — precisely where Trump knows his attorneys won’t look for it.

Update: Added screencap of Rob Goldstone email.

Share this entry

Three Things: Look Over There, Not at Trump’s Failures [UPDATE-1]

/137 Comments/in , , , /by

[NB: Updates will appear at the bottom of this post. /~Rayne]

Trump’s Thursday morning tweet stirred up people more than his average tweets do — which is saying a lot since his average tweets are pretty annoying.

But this one crossed a line by suggesting a potential violation of the Constitution.

This tweet could be taken in isolation, but it really shouldn’t be. There were other things which Trump wanted us to ignore so he lobbed a massive turd in the punch bowl.

From what was he trying to redirect our attention?

~ 3 ~

You probably already know these two facts about COVID-19:

— The U.S. passed the 150,000 benchmark this week; Americans are 23% of the total COVID-19 deaths globally;

— Herman Cain, business man, Tea Party activist, and 2016 GOP presidential candidate died of COVID-19 today after more than a month in ICU. Cain had attended Trump’s Tulsa rally and did not wear a mask.

All these deaths including Herman Cain’s are due to Donald Trump’s gross negligence and malfeasance.

A Vanity Fair article published today also suggests that Trump did nothing about COVID-19 because it initially impacted blue states most heavily.

In other words, Trump committed and continues to commit political genocide.

Herman Cain was collateral damage.

Is it possible that Trump had been informed of Cain’s death before the public was notified, and wanted to get out in front before the public focused heavily on Cain’s death by COVID-19?

~ 2 ~

Economic data released Thursday showed a dramatic -10% drop in quarterly GDP, equivalent to -32.9% annualized rate. It’s the worst drop ever recorded in U.S. GDP.

The unemployment rate tracks with this plummet, with 47.2% Americans unemployed as of the end of June.

None of this had to happen. It was entirely preventable had Trump dealt effectively with COVID-19 beginning in Jan-Feb but killing off blue state voters and blaming their governors was more important to him for his re-election prospects than protecting the country’s economic well being.

~ 1 ~

After multiple repeated attempts to delay or obstruct their release, the Ghislaine Maxwell papers were released as ordered by Judge Loretta Preska on Thursday evening.

Papers can be found via this link to Courtlistener.

Courthouse News’ Adam Klasfeld made a first pass through the documents and filed a report.

In two separate tweets, Klasfeld noted the documents are not entirely new material.

… Multiple documents in the #MaxwellFiles data dump tonight are either old documents or previously released, making the rounds as though new. …

… Some old documents have nuggets of newly unsealed information contained within them, but the files themselves are being rediscovered as though new. …

Also noted: Maxwell lied to the court.

There will be more analysis and more bullshit thrown in the air by the White House and proxies to obscure details in the papers apart from content further compromising former president Bill Clinton and other Democrats like former governor Bill Richardson. You can bet those points will be boosted to fuzz the links between Trump, Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Some of the obscuring may already have begun with Trump’s fascistic tweet.

~ 0 ~

Trump doesn’t have the power to delay elections. We went all through this back in April when it came up. What should happen now — and we should look for it and insist on it — is that journalists should get every Republican on record about Trump’s election delay tweet.

We as citizens should be asking them as our congressional representatives where they stand on the election delay suggested by Trump, since Congress and not the Executive Branch has the power to delay the election.

We should also check with our state election officials since they can mess with the conduct of the elections. Recall after delaying their primary because of COVID-19, Kentucky shut down all but one voting place for its primary in the most populated portion of Louisville, attributing the change to pandemic safety.

States could do this for the general election which will already have been affected by the U.S. Postal Service’s Trump-crony slow down of first class mail.

Work on this now before the tangerine hellbeast in the White House tweets out something outrageous to throw us off our mission to ensure a safe, secure, and timely general election.

This is an open thread.

UPDATE — 10:00 A.M. ET —

Hearing now underway this morning:

NIAID Director Dr. Fauci along with CDC Director Dr. Redfield & HHS ADM Giroir will appear before Select Committee on COVID Oversight beginning at 9:00am ET to discuss the urgent need for a National Strategy to contain COVID-19.

Live stream at https://youtu.be/YkP1t_2u5B0

Joe Biden must be watching the hearing:

Republicans are doing their best to whitewash Trump’s failures — nauseating, I must say. I do feel for Rep. Walorski (Republican, IN-02) who is trying to discourage anti-vax propaganda with her line of questioning, might be the only GOP questioning of late which hasn’t been intended to prop up Trump.

Share this entry