"If every single one of them is as terrified of Trump as Epstein was, we’re all in bigger trouble than we can know."
Why shouldn't they be? He commands a personal army in ICE/CPB and is ordering the deaths of deaths of fishermen hundreds of miles away. It's well within his demonstrated power to "disappear" someone to another country's torture prisons, and all of the supposed checks and balances that were supposed to check this behavior are dead letters.
If I were someone with the goods on Trump, the only silver lining I can see is that he might become too senile to remember that I exist or the actuarial tables should be doing their thing shortly, and it's unlikely he leaves a successor that he has confessed what he did to.
I know sometimes Presidents want to be able to control the pace of the news cycles, but in this case, why? If Trump is innocent of anything with regard to Epstein, why wouldn't he want it all out, and like, yesterday. As things stand, the longer he slow walks this, the greater hit he takes in his approval numbers, and we all know how much he loves to have as much of the American people's approval as possible.
I don’t think he’s innocent. I do think there is not enough evidence to “take him down.” So Trump wants to use the scandal which isn’t really a scandal by his standards (is anything?) as news bait and to claim another “witch hunt.” Similar to Russiagate. Trump wasn’t innocent (still not) there either but no smoking gun. It also give him something in his pocket as a pretext to mess with his enemies or warn off those he wants to warn (as he’s doing now). He’s behaving exactly like Epstein wrote.
The question remains: why is Trump fighting so hard against the release of the investigation files if there's nothing implicating him in either Epstein's pederasty ring or some other wrongdoing? Is it really about some financial fraud, or does it get back to Russia in some way?
Or is he trying to protect somebody other than himself - and if so, why?
You know, I also don't think trump participated with sex with the ladies Epstein had. Why? Bc Trump is germaphbic and I think he's been that way for many years. (Maybe seeing how his brother was under the influence). And, I would wager, a germaphobe would consider the "nastiness" of "sex with every tom, dick, Harry, as not being very clean.
It's hard to read thru the stormy stuff, and harder to recall supposed stuff, but I don't recall the situation being quite like the sir/madam of Epstein houses. Was it?
i can see, if in some drunken/drug stupor, that a person (if they know) they are dealing with a "hooker", they might not use protection. Trump knew he could have children but maybe she said she couldn't. And yes, I understand horn-dogs, but I understand germaphobe as well.
I think he wasn't drunk/stoned. The added "without protection", I don't believe. I think that was included for flavor. I know its hard to imagine a teetotaler, but they do exist.
"If every single one of them is as terrified of Trump as Epstein was, we’re all in bigger trouble than we can know."
Why shouldn't they be? He commands a personal army in ICE/CPB and is ordering the deaths of deaths of fishermen hundreds of miles away. It's well within his demonstrated power to "disappear" someone to another country's torture prisons, and all of the supposed checks and balances that were supposed to check this behavior are dead letters.
If I were someone with the goods on Trump, the only silver lining I can see is that he might become too senile to remember that I exist or the actuarial tables should be doing their thing shortly, and it's unlikely he leaves a successor that he has confessed what he did to.
I know sometimes Presidents want to be able to control the pace of the news cycles, but in this case, why? If Trump is innocent of anything with regard to Epstein, why wouldn't he want it all out, and like, yesterday. As things stand, the longer he slow walks this, the greater hit he takes in his approval numbers, and we all know how much he loves to have as much of the American people's approval as possible.
I don’t think he’s innocent. I do think there is not enough evidence to “take him down.” So Trump wants to use the scandal which isn’t really a scandal by his standards (is anything?) as news bait and to claim another “witch hunt.” Similar to Russiagate. Trump wasn’t innocent (still not) there either but no smoking gun. It also give him something in his pocket as a pretext to mess with his enemies or warn off those he wants to warn (as he’s doing now). He’s behaving exactly like Epstein wrote.
Russiagate was a nothingburger, this isn't.
It may just be more evidence re Russia, from some of the emails at least.
Well written, Steve. I’m always a fan.
The question remains: why is Trump fighting so hard against the release of the investigation files if there's nothing implicating him in either Epstein's pederasty ring or some other wrongdoing? Is it really about some financial fraud, or does it get back to Russia in some way?
Or is he trying to protect somebody other than himself - and if so, why?
I believe it’s simply to control the media and news cycles. He wants to control what is released and when.
Maybe.
You know, I also don't think trump participated with sex with the ladies Epstein had. Why? Bc Trump is germaphbic and I think he's been that way for many years. (Maybe seeing how his brother was under the influence). And, I would wager, a germaphobe would consider the "nastiness" of "sex with every tom, dick, Harry, as not being very clean.
Like Stormy Daniels?
It's hard to read thru the stormy stuff, and harder to recall supposed stuff, but I don't recall the situation being quite like the sir/madam of Epstein houses. Was it?
The point is that he had unprotected sex with a pornstar, which directly counters the germaphobe claim.
i can see, if in some drunken/drug stupor, that a person (if they know) they are dealing with a "hooker", they might not use protection. Trump knew he could have children but maybe she said she couldn't. And yes, I understand horn-dogs, but I understand germaphobe as well.
See, that contradicts him being a teetotaler due to his brother's alcohol issues.
I think you've just mixed-up those details is all.
I think he wasn't drunk/stoned. The added "without protection", I don't believe. I think that was included for flavor. I know its hard to imagine a teetotaler, but they do exist.
and that is a "he-said", "she said". So, depends on who you believe.