Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Trump And Devin Nunes Have Gamed This Out Since 2022

There's little particularly new in what commentators have divined in the past week's revelations in the documents sent to the Justice Department from the CIA and the Director of National Intelligence. In fact, I'm convinced that Trump himself was fully aware of everything contained in those documents at the time they were written, and he'd prepared an agenda to address the situation during his interregnum. For example, he hired former Rep Devin Nunes to become CEO of Trump Media in January 2022.

Nunes had been Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, but according to CBS News, "he was forced to recuse himself from that committee's investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election amid an investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics into whether he had leaked classified information." In other words, he was one of the key people who knew everything about the "Russian meddling" when the whole scheme was being cooked up. Nunes resigned from Congress to take that job with Trump. I never thought Trump just wanted him to run Truth Social.

Instead, Trump hired him to keep him nearby during his time out of office, but on the day of his second inauguration, Trump named him Chair of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board. According to Wikipedia,

Most of the board's work is classified, but one public investigation involved the loss of U.S. nuclear secrets to China from the Los Alamos National Laboratory during the 1990s.

In fact, it sounds as if the Board does pretty much exactly what the president tells it to do. I would not be the least bit surprised to hear that Nunes is currently working closely with Director Gabbard. But let's look a little more at what Nunes may have known during the first days of Trump's first term. According to Wikipedia,

On March 22, 2017, during the House Intelligence Committee's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Nunes held a press conference to announce that he had received information that the communications of "some members of Trump's transition team, including potentially the president himself" had been "incidentally collected" by the intelligence community and "widely disseminated" throughout the intelligence community. He added that it was legal FISA surveillance, and unrelated to Russia. It was later revealed that it involved Russia and the Trump transition team. The surveillance was of multiple phone conversations between Michael Flynn, a member of the transition team, and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, which occurred after Flynn sought advice from the Trump transition team at Mar-a-Lago[.]

This surveillance led to Michael Flynn's resignation as National Security Adviser on February 13, 2017. CNN outlines the circumstances:

Three days after Trump officially takes office, US officials say investigators are scrutinizing several calls between Flynn and Russia’s ambassador. Spicer, now the White House Press Secretary, reiterates that Flynn told him sanctions were not discussed in the calls.

At some point in January, the Justice Department warns the Trump administration that Flynn misled administration officials regarding his communications with Kislyak and is potentially vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, according to a person familiar with the matter.

The message is delivered by Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who is fired on January 30 for refusing to enforce Trump’s controversial travel ban barring citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.

By Febuary 10, public allegations emerged that Flynn did in fact discuss sanctions with Kislyak, and by February 13,

As the reports emerge, Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway tells MSNBC that Flynn “does enjoy the full confidence of the president,” but around an hour later, Spicer says Trump is “evaluating the situation.”

Flynn resigns a few hours later, admitting he had “inadvertently briefed the Vice President-elect and others with incomplete information” regarding the phone calls with Kislyak and apologizes.

Over the following weeks, a conflict ensued between Nunes, the House Intelligence Committee Chair, and then-Rep Adam Schiff, the ranking Democrat, that appears to have involved the nature of the surveillance that led to Flynn's resignation. The full details have never been made public, but they appear to be connected with the current criminal referrals of Comey, Clapper, and Brennan. At the Nunes Wikipedia link above,

In late March 2017, Nunes canceled a public hearing in which former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former National Security Agency Director James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan were to testify, saying he wanted to hear FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers in a classified setting first. Democrats criticized Nunes's decision and said he was trying to protect the White House from damaging revelations.

According to the Atlantic link just above,

About an hour later, Schiff held his own press conference, calling Nunes’s announcement a “serious mistake” and accusing him of bowing to White House pressure.

. . . The dueling press conferences cap an astonishing week in the Russia investigation. On Monday, the committee held hearings with Rogers and Comey, in which Comey confirmed for the first time that the FBI is investigating potential collusion between Trump campaign officials and Russia to interfere in the election.

On Wednesday, Nunes made a strange announcement in which he said he had obtained documents about surveillance of Trump team officials. But Nunes’s revelation was extremely vague. . .

Since much of this controversy seems to have involved whatever led to Michael Flynn's resignation, it's intriguing that Flynn himself has been chiming in,
At 3:18 in the clip embedded above, he says,

What Devin Nunes did in the March/April timeframe of 2017, was he came forward to the White House and said, "Hey, this is all fake. This is all fake." And Devin was then sidelined by Speaker Ryan from the House Select Committee on Intelligence, he was the chairman at the time. So there's some GOP dirt here that has got to be looked at, because the American people have lost so much trust in all of the institutions of government.

In a duifferent interview, he gives more details on the circumstances that led to his resignation:

Sally Yates and Mary McCord, who was head of the National Security Division for the Department of Justice—Sally Yates was the acting Attorney General—went over to the White House like two or three days prior to me having to be resigned and me being fired on the 13th of February. I think it was the date.

So Mike Pence, Reince Priebus are in the Situation Room in the White House, and Mary McCord, Andy McCabe is the other name, and Sally Yates was the third name that came and briefed Mike Pence on a document. And Mike Pence—he had Reince Priebus call me up while they were all together. And he said, “I just reviewed this document. The document shows that you talked about sanctions”—something I never talked about, ever.

I never talked to Mike Pence about them. I never talked about them with anybody. Never talked to the Russian ambassador about sanctions. Mike Pence told me that he just saw a document where I discussed sanctions. So that document is either—that’s either a lie, or Mike Pence was lying. Somebody, somewhere in between.

What I believe is that Mike Pence—I believe that part of their effort was to try to figure out a way, because later on, we now know from other cases that came out, as well as mine, that there was a 25th Amendment that was going to be put on the table further down the road. So this is an effort to get rid of Donald J. Trump.

Well, under the 25th Amendment, the vice president coordinates any effort to declare the president unfit. All we know right now is that Sally Yates, Mary McCord, and Andy McCabe seem to have been behind an effort that now may look hinky to push Michael Flynn out as Trump's National Security Adviser using transcripts of surveillance that may have been illegal or may have been faked. Devin Nunes at the time appears to have had questions about this very issue, but pressure from Democrats forced him to recuse himself from investigating, and there the matter stayed.

Except that Nunes is now involved in whatever is happening behind the scenes. By the way, all of a sudden now-Sen Schiff has got problems with mortgage fraud. You can't tell me Trump and Nunes haven't gamed this out over a period of years.

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

AI Declares Trump The Most Successful Since Roosevelt

Newsweek reports,

The first six months of Donald Trump's second presidency have been the most "successful" of any American president since Franklin D. Roosevelt, according to an analysis conducted by Newsweek using AI.

But it isn't Newsweek at all, it's ChatGPT.

Newsweek asked ChatGPT to rank the accomplishments of 20th and 21st century U.S. presidents in their first six months, taking account of the level of support they enjoyed in Congress.

The model gave Trump an overall score of "very high," thanks to legislation such as the One Big Beautiful Bill and Laken Riley Acts.

But aren't legislative accompliahments just one side of the story? He was also fighting rogue district judges who tried to impose restraining orders on the whole country. Congress had nothing to do with it. And even with Congress, in his first term, he seldom could get Mitch McConnell's cooperation as Senate Majority Leader, much less Paul Ryan's as Speaker. To get to his current level of success, he had to get control of the Republican Party during his interregnum.

The only real help he got from Mitch McConnell during his first term was confirmation of his three Supreme Court nominations, which he could finally exploit during his second term. And his second-term cleanup of several Cabinet departments was undertaken using his Article II executive authority, no Congressional action needed.

Most prominently, he's gone a good way to cleaning out the State, Homeland Security, Justice, and Defense Departments, although these efforts are continuing. If anything, Newsweek is damning Trump with faint praise. It's a little like Tucker Carlson focusing on one accomplishment, getting men out of women's sports, and calling it an "appetizer", as though he hadn't done much else. But Trump isn't stopping at six months.

It looks like he's taken up a new agenda item in the last few weeks, the Federal Reserve. It looks like he wants to force the Fed Chair, Jerome Powell, out before his term expires nezt year. For now, it seems likely that Trump and his allies can force him out based on scandals connected with the Fed's headquarters remodeling:

But that will be just the start: In a longer post on X, Bessent went into detail:

While I have no knowledge or opinion on the legal basis for the massive building renovations being undertaken on Constitution Avenue, a review of the decision to undertake such a project by an institution reporting operating losses of more than $100 billion per year should be conducted.

The Fed does regular reviews of its monetary policy framework. I would urge Fed leadership to similarly undertake, publish and implement a comprehensive institutional review across its entire mission to buttress its credibility. It will go a long way towards strengthening the Fed’s credibility with the American people on its core mission of guiding our nation’s monetary policy.

Inevitably,

Mohamed El-Erian on Tuesday called for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell to voluntarily relinquish his position in order to ensure the central bank’s independence, making the chief economic advisor at Allianz one of the first prominent economists to publicly take such a position.

“If Chair Powell’s objective is to safeguard the Fed’s operational autonomy (which I deem vital), then he should resign,” El-Erian said in a morning post on X.

This is a polite way of telling him he'll be fired if he doesn't resign. In effect, Trump is holding the Fed's independence hostage; if he has to fire Powell, it will set a bad precedent, but Powell has to go. And he almost certainly will.

Then there's the whole question of the criminal referrals for Comey, Clapper, Brennan, Rice, and even Obama himself for an allegedly "treasonous" coup attempt against Trump in 2016-17. The thing to keep in mind is that Trump is proving himself not to be a creature of empty bombast. As I've been noting over the past several days, Trump seems to have been fully aware of what was going on as it happened over his 2016-17 transition period, and any allegations that emerge from these referrals have almost certainly been throroughly substantiated. This is also a serious agenda item, and it's a mistake to minimize or discount it.

And then we have the California agenda. As we saw with the stunt Sen Padilla tried to pull, charging Secretary Noem without wearing his Senate ID, it seems as if he was trying to provoke her security into an overreaction that he could use to make some kind of point. Trump appears to be aware of threats from California politicians and is clearly working to forestall them, most recently Sen Adam Schiff:

Adam Schiff said that his primary residence was in MARYLAND to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America, when he must LIVE in CALIFORNIA because he was a Congressman from CALIFORNIA. I always knew Adam Schiff was a Crook. The FRAUD began with the refinance of his Maryland property on February 6, 2009, and continued through multiple transactions until the Maryland property was correctly designated as a second home on October 13, 2020.

Trump's strategy appears to be to provoke California politicians like Schiff, Padilla, Newsom, and Bass into various forms of overt aggression or resistance, at which point he either retaliates with federal law enforcement or cuts another form of federal aid to the state, as he recently did with funding for its high speed rail program. In many cases, he'll invoke the Supremacy Clause in Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which establishes that federal laws and treaties are the supreme law of the land.

His overall objective will be to destroy the California urban Democrat machine. It's a major miscalculation to underestimate Trump or characterize him as ego-driven or narcissistic. He has a big agenda, but he's working very hard on it, and he's so far been remarkably successful.

Monday, July 21, 2025

James Comey Is In Hot Water, So He Does The Worst Possible Things

A little over a week ago,

Former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey are under criminal investigation for potential wrongdoing related to the Trump–Russia probe, including allegedly making false statements to Congress, Justice Department sources told Fox News Digital.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred evidence of wrongdoing by Brennan to FBI Director Kash Patel for potential prosecution, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital.

. . . As for Comey, DOJ sources told Fox News Digital that an investigation into the former director is underway, but could not share details of what specifically is being probed.

This past Friday,

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard detailed "striking" findings from declassified documents released Friday, claiming to showcase "overwhelming evidence" that an Obama-era cabal laid the groundwork for what would be the years-long Trump-Russia collusion probe after the 2016 election.

. . . Evidence released by Gabbard's office implicated then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, former FBI Director James Comey and former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, among others, in addition to the former president.

Gabbard confirmed her intent to send all the uncovered documents to the Department of Justice and the FBI for a criminal referral.

I asked the web, "I'm under federal criminal investigation. What should I do?" The federal criminal defense law firm Perlman Defense provided, in part, the following helpful advice:

The sooner you speak with a federal criminal defense attorney, the better your chance of building a strong defense and avoiding mistakes. A lawyer with experience in federal criminal cases can help you understand the investigation, guide your decisions, and deal with federal agencies on your behalf.

. . . Never post about the investigation, the agents, or your legal concerns on social media. Avoid sharing any details or even vague comments online. Federal law enforcement and the U.S. Attorney’s Office can use your posts against you in court.

Sharing the wrong thing online can seriously damage your legal defense and complicate your criminal case.

. . . If you talk to anyone other than your lawyer about the investigation, you risk those people being questioned by the federal authorities or subpoenaed by the grand jury, in which case whatever you told them could end up being used against you.

You could even face obstruction of justice or witness tampering charges if the things you said can be twisted around to make it seem like you were attempting to influence the investigation.

. . . Destroying documents pertaining to a federal investigation is a crime, and you could end up facing additional charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 if you alter or destroy documents, records, or other evidence.

. . . Agents may collect evidence, speak with witnesses, and review your financial records or digital communications before deciding to indict. If you suspect you're under a federal criminal investigation, do not wait. Contact a defense attorney right away, even if no formal charges have been filed yet.

Comey is a former Assistant US Attorney, a former US Attorney, a former Deputy Attorney General, and a former FBI Director. He of all people should know how federal criminal investigations work and the things potential defendants should avoid. He should certainly have known by this past May that he probably was under some type of surveillance, since Trump was back in office, and every indication is that Trump and his team were fully aware of his activities in detail before Trump fired him in 2017.

So it seems to me that he should have hired someone like Abbe Lowell, who was Hunter Biden's defense attorney, almost as soon as Trump was inaugurated, if not earlier. And even if he didn't want to do that, he should have known what any competent defense attorney -- or even a wise non-arttorney friend -- would tell him: keep a low profile, and for pity's sake, stay off social media. Instead, last May, he posted the 8647 note on Instagram, and then, just to be cute, he deleted it.

Federal law enforcement officials said on May 15 that they are investigating an Instagram post Comey made depicting an image reading “8647.”

. . . A federal law enforcement official told USA TODAY on the condition of anonymity that the Secret Service was sending agents to question Comey about his post.

Do you suppose Comey had the good sense to have an attorney with him as he met with those agents? I kinda doubt it. But if he didn't have agents on his case before he made that post, he sure as shootin' did afterward, and you would have to suppose, given his broad experience in the federal legal system, he would have understood this and modified his behavior. But last evening, in the wake of announcements of one ongoing investigation and referral for another, he made a video on Substack. He went on at length about the firing of his daughter Maurene and concluded,

Trump and the hacks who lead the Department of Justice are hammering at the dam [of the DOJ's credibility] day after day, trying to turn it into just another gold-leaf-covered Trump subsidiary.

Our best hope is that good people will stay and do what Maurene asked—have the courage to do the right thing, always. You may get fired for acting that way, but there’s honor in that—and nothing but disgrace for those who don’t stand up.

But this brings Maurene into the picture. On one hand, his remarks can be interpreted as trying to influence Maurene's former colleagues not to cooperate with any DOJ investigation or prosecution of Comey himself, which can be a problem for him. But also, Miranda Devine at the New York Post broadly hints what I've also surmised, that Maurene was the one with access to the Trump-Epstein letter and leaked it to the Wall Street Journal:

One of [Epstein's 2019 fededral] prosecutors was none other than Maurene Comey, the daughter of notorious FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump had sacked two years earlier. James Comey is now in the crosshairs of the FBI, along with former CIA Director John Brennan, after current CIA Director John Ratcliffe referred them for criminal investigation two weeks ago over freshly declassified evidence that highlights their roles in the Russia collusion hoax.

Maurene Comey was fired Wednesday, one day before the WSJ story was published, and one day after the White House was alerted to the story. She told colleagues in an email that her ouster was “unexpected” and unexplained.

Comey was also the lead prosecutor of Maxwell in 2021 over her role in Epstein’s sex trafficking. According to the WSJ, the “birthday book” Maxwell compiled was in the files examined by the DOJ during the investigations of Epstein and Maxwell.

There is no federal father-daughter privilege. Both James Comey and his daughter must be aware of this. It sounds to me like both may have discussed the case at great length, if indeed they both didn't come up with the idea of leaking the Trump-Epstein letter to the WSJ. That leak could make Maurene eligible for criminal contempt charges, obstruction of justice charges under 18 U.S.C. § 1503, or theft of government property charges under 18 U.S.C. § 641.

Given the timing of the leak and Maurene's firing, the DOJ must have had a pretty good idea who was responsible. If Maurene discussed it with dad James, that could bring him into this episode as well. So let's see:

  • Comey posted the 8647 image on Instagram and then deleted it, giving the impression he knew of his guilty intention, but also making him liable for obstruction of justice charges
  • If he's hired a federal criminal defense attorney, which he clearly should do, he doesn't seem to be following any advice he'd be given
  • Although federal agents have already met with him, there's no indication that he had an attorney with him then
  • He's gone on social media making wide-ranging vague comments that could be used against him
  • He's almost certainly talked to his daughter about his potential case, when she isn't his attorney, and the discussions aren't subject to any privilege
  • He and his daughter may well be involved in the leak of grand jury material to the Wall Street Journal.
So far, this guy is looking like his own worst enemy.

Sunday, July 20, 2025

Six Ways From Sunday

Flashback to January 3, 2017:

New Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday that President-elect Donald Trump is “being really dumb” by taking on the intelligence community and its assessments on Russia’s cyber activities.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow.

“So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

Trump said Tuesday evening that an intelligence briefing on Russia’s cyber activities “was delayed until Friday” and suggested that intelligence agencies weren’t prepared. NBC News reported, however, that the briefing was always planned for Friday.

“The ‘Intelligence’ briefing on so-called ‘Russian hacking’ was delayed until Friday, perhaps more time needed to build a case. Very strange!” the president-elect wrote on Twitter.

Intelligence officials have reportedly determined that Russia tried to interfere in the U.S. presidential election to help Trump win the White House.

More than eight years later, we're finally learning what was behimd Trump's tweet and Schumer's implicit threat:

The Obama administration "manufactured and politicized intelligence" to create the narrative that Russia was attempting to influence the 2016 presidential election, despite information from the intelligence community stating otherwise, Fox News Digital has learned.

On Friday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard declassified documents revealing "overwhelming evidence" that demonstrates how, after President Donald Trump won the 2016 election against Hillary Clinton, then-President Barack Obama and his national security team laid the groundwork for what would be the years-long Trump–Russia collusion probe.

Documents revealed that in the months leading up to the November 2016 election, the intelligence community consistently assessed that Russia was "probably not trying…to influence the election by using cyber means."

. . . Fox News Digital obtained declassified, but redacted, communications from the FBI on the Presidential Daily Brief, stating that it "should not go forward until the FBI" had shared its "concerns."

Those communications revealed that the FBI drafted a "dissent" to the original Presidential Daily Brief.

The communications revealed that the brief was expected to be published Dec. 9, 2016, the following day, but later communications revealed that Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "based on some new guidance" decided to "push back publication" of the Presidential Daily Brief.

. . . Later, Obama officials "leaked false statements to media outlets" claiming that "Russia has attempted through cyber means to interfere in, if not actively influence, the outcome of an election."

By Jan. 6, 2017, a new Intelligence Community Assessment was released that, according to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, "directly contradicted the IC assessments that were made throughout the previous six months."

This sounds like Trump knew what was happening as it was taking place, and his tweets were completely correct, which must have been making the deep state at least mildly uncomfortable. But now let's move to a 2019 account by Josh Campbell, by then a CNN analyst, but in 2016-17 a special assistant to James Comey, then FBI Director:

It was January 6, 2017, two weeks before Donald J. Trump would take the oath of office and assume the role of commander in chief, responsible for protecting the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Comey had flown to New York to join his counterparts in the national security community to brief the president-elect and his transition team on their findings on actions the Kremlin had taken to interfere in the 2016 US presidential election.

. . . For months, a series of memos had been privately circulating among members of the media and across government that contained unverified but explosive charges against then candidate Trump. . . . the “Steele dossier,” as it would become known, also included tawdry alleged details of Trump’s sexual proclivities and illicit acts conducted while in Moscow. At one point, Steele thought the information so potentially damning that he approached the FBI and provided it with his reporting.

. . . Conscious of the personal embarrassment this sensitive brief might cause the president-elect, the FBI director opted to discuss it with Trump separately at the end of the larger briefing on Russian interference.

. . . When Comey got to the tawdry details contained in the dossier, Trump became defensive, cutting him off and denying the allegations. “Do I look like the kind of guy who needs prostitutes?” Trump asked. . . . Comey indicated that the intelligence community was aware that the claims in the dossier were unsubstantiated, but that he nevertheless wanted Trump to be aware the information was circulating through government and media circles. Trump thanked Comey for the information, signaling the end of the short one-on-one meeting.

Campbell reports reading Comey's laptop notes on "a meeting that would spell the beginning of the end of his career, and one that would mark the start of a veritable hurricane—a torrent of attacks on the rule of law that would risk threatening the viability of our national institutions of justice." How little he knew. My surmise is that Trump already knew what the meeting with Comey would bring up, as he clearly knew the workings within the deep state that would generate the false assessments of Russian interference in the election.

Let's keep in mind that within days of the election, National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers met with Trump to inform him that Trump Tower wasn't secure, and as a consequence, Trump moved his transition headquarters to his Bedminster, NJ golf club. He seems to have had well-placed informants within the deep state from the start, but the specific reason or reasons he fired Comey as FBI Director have never been made clear. They may eventually surface now.

Cats can eventually lose all nine of their lives, and it looks like the deep state is running out of the six ways from Sunday it had to get back at Trump. Matt Taibbi said, "All week, Washington buzzed with rumors about imminent document releases," but he meant the releases of the Russiagate documents Tulsi Gabbard declassified, when the real rumors that buzzed all week were about the upcoming Wall Street Journal story that turned out just to cover pube doodles. If anything, this was a sign that the deep state had used up all six ways from Sunday.

One thing we're learning is that the grapevine is always a few days ahead of what's happening. Just before DNI Gabbard released the declassified documents and the report,

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on Friday bashed Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

“Tulsi Gabbard is not competent to be the director of national intelligence,” he told moderator Peter Baker at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado. “I believe she is trying to politicize the workforce and work product, and that makes America less safe.”

But also in the days leading up to Gabbard's action, the Justice Department fired, of all people, James Comey's daughter Maurene.

Ms. Comey was told of her firing Wednesday in a letter from a Justice Department official in Washington who cited Article II of the Constitution, which broadly describes the powers of the president, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. She said in her email that the letter did not give a reason for her termination.

Nor do we know the specific reason for James Comey's own termination in 2017, but the history we're beginning to revisit suggests Trump was then, and is now, much better informed than we give him credit for. I suspect that Comey's daughter was in fact a means of communication that continued between Comey and the deep state, it's now been eliminated, and the timing is no coincidence. And as I've said, there's good reason to think she was the source of the pube doodles letter, too. It's one more indication they've used up their six ways from Sunday.

Saturday, July 19, 2025

The Deep State Jumped The Shark!

Michael Lebron, a legal analyst, sometime conspiracy theorist, and standup comic who posts as Lionel on his YouTube channel, had been off the Trump train for a few weeks, convinced Bondi and Bongino were covering something up. No longer, at the post embedded above:

We are hitting a Twilight Zone level of disconnect that I never even thought was possible. . . . I mean, if you'd have told me that we'd be talking about pube doodles, I'd think you were out of your mind. What is this story? What is it? What does it have to do with anything? He wrote, if you believe it, Trump wrote, a birthday note, jotted something, typewritten, I guess, to Jeffrey Epstein, and it's this weird kind of a cryptic -- he's writing this down, and he does doodle by the way. You know, Trump does doodle. . . . We're actually breaking down the word "enigma", whether he's used it or not, I mean, it's the most ridiculous thing in the world, and they said that in the outline of this thing, he writes in the name Donald in pubic hair, but nobody's seen this picture? So show us the picture! Is this even important?

Here's another Trump-Epstein skeptic doing a 180 on the story:

Ten days ago, I wrote “Yes, President Trump, We Are Still Talking About The Creep, Epstein”. Ten days later, I have flip flopped on my position and I no longer give a flying fig about anything Epstein related. Last night, the Wall Street Journal posted “Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.”. Stop the presses. For his 50th birthday, Ghislaine Maxwell curated a leather notebook filled with bawdy cards, including one birthday doodle from Donald Trump. Get me some freaking pearls to clutch.

Sundance at Conservative Treehouse is of the same mind:

There are some who have speculated the recent tone and response by President Trump to those who requested release of the “Epstein files” may have been a proactive decision by Trump who knew the WSJ story was being assembled. However, the entire thing seems so over-the-top ridiculous it’s likely fake news or manufactured foolishness; akin to the Chris [Steele] claims of “tapes” showing President Trump standing on a bed in Moscow peeing on prostitutes (completely untrue and stupid).

Even David Brooks on the PBS News Hour is taking this line:

This is crazy to me. It's like — and I have to take account of Candace Owens, the people who — like, seriously, the people who invented the QAnon theory?

Somehow, all political conversation revolves around them? As far as I can understand — and this has been looked into — there seems to be no evidence so far that anybody can find that there is an Epstein list. There are a lot of people — and the fact that Donald Trump knew Jeffrey Epstein back in the day is the least surprising fact in American life. They're two rich guys with a little Playboy tendencies.

But like a lot of people, Donald Trump had a fight with Epstein, apparently in 2004, over real estate. And they broke. And Epstein was then arrested and indicted a couple years after that. So a lot of people knew Jeffrey Epstein in those days, and a lot of people broke with him, Bill Clinton, Les Wexner.

So the whole story seems to have disappeared almost immediately, and CBS's cancellation of Stephen Colbert turns out to have been much more consequential news. So I don't seem to need to spend much time debunking the WSJ story. But there are still puzzling aspects that I think are going to come back to bite the Journal.

First, the implications of the original WSJ story are that the leatherbound volume of birthday greetings to Epstein was one-of-a-kind; there was a single copy, and it's now in the possession of the Justice Department.

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.

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.

As best anyone can tell, this single leatherbound album remains in the possession of the Justice Department, as implied in this X post by Karoline Leavitt: She says, "The WSJ refused to show us the letter and conceded they don’t even have it in their possession when we asked them to verify the alleged document they’re basing their ENTIRE fake story on."

So esactly what did the WSJ reporters see, and how did they learn about it? Where exactly was this album physically located, and who had access to it? As best I can surmise, someone at the Justice Department, probably in New York or Washington, had access to what must have been very restricted Epstein evidence and saw fit to call the WSJ writers and tell them about it. However, the album was probably in an evidence room, it certainly couldn't be easily removed, maybe not even taken to a copy machine.

I would almost think the Trump note wasn't even copied on a copy machine and then faxed. I would guess whoever was talking to the WSJ went into the evidence room, pulled the album out, took a photo of the Trump note on their phone, and e-mailed it to the WSJ. That's what the writers were working with. And if they showed the White House the photo, given the capabilities of the NSA to search all e-mail, from everyone, everywhere, they'd identify who'd sent the photo immediately.

But this also makes me think whatever copy the WSJ was working with was pretty low quality. According to the story:

It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

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

If in fact the album is still in the Justice Department's possession, located in a closely conrolled evidence room, then it's likely the WSJ writers have never seen the real thing at all, much less had an opportunity to examine it closely. At best, they've seen some e-mailed photos of Trump's note and a few selected others, supported by unsubstantiated second-hand accounts of what else is in it.

And the writers will be highly reluctant to answer any questions about the album, as they would almost immediately lead to the identity of the source who had access to it, which must be among a very limited number of people at a high level with a reason to see it. (You want my bet? Maurene Comey, who led the Epstein prosecution in 2019.) This is a big reason the media is suddenly deciding this isn't much of a story after all.

This story is going to turn out to have been a big mistake by the deep state remnants within the Justice Department. The Trump team just this week fired Maurene Comey, and I wouldn't rule out the WSJ piece as part of the reason; I suspect they knew about the story well in advance, as Sundance suggests above, and had already followed up. But a good many people are also now asking, "Is that all they have? This is ridiculous." They may once have had six ways from Sunday to try to get Trump, but it almost seems like they've come to the end of their ammunition.

Friday, July 18, 2025

The Epstein Birthday Letter: Another Thing I Don't Get

Alt media has been slow on the uptake over The Wall Street Journal's report of a 2003 birthday letter from Trump to Epstein:

The letter revealed by The Wall Street Journal was reportedly collected by disgraced British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell as part of a birthday album for Epstein years before the wealthy financier was first arrested in 2006 and subsequently had a falling-out with Trump. The letter bearing Trump’s name includes text framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman and ends with, “Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret,” according to the newspaper. The outlet described the contents of the letter but did not publish a photo showing it entirely.

My first reaction is to wonder why the WSJ is messing around with stuff at this level. Trump has had allegations of a tryst with Stormy Daniels; he's been found liable for sexually abusing E Jean Carroll; he's spoken of grabbing women on the Access Hollywood tape. None of these things has done him permanent damage, and in fact, every time they came out in his interregnum, his polls went up. But similar allegations against Bill Clinton, JFK, Grover Cleveland, or Andrew Jackson didn't do them political harm, either.

So it can't be that he once wrote a bawdy birthday letter to Epstein, there's got to be more to it -- even if the letter is authentic, it seems like it's no big deal. So maybe it's the wording of the message, which is said to be typewritten:

Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything.

Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.

Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.

As far as I can parse this, it seems to be an oh-so-arch reference to some sort of "wonderful secret", and we might infer that the wonderful secret is they're both into nymphets, or something like that. But in a post on Truth Social, Trump said, “These are not my words, not the way I talk." I'm inclined to agree. "Enigmas never age" is something out of Oscar Wilde, not Donald J Trump. The same for "may every day be another wonderful secret" -- that's gushy girl-chat, not Donald J Trump. Trump's style is punchy, one- and two-syllable concrete words. "Enigmas" and "wonderful" aren't his vocabulary.

So this is on top of the problem that so far, the WSJ hasn't shown a photo of the letter itself, and at least according to Vice President Vance, it didn't show the letter to the Trump team in preliminary discussions, either. And it's supposed to be in some sort of leatherbound book put together by Ghislaine Maxwell. One thing that bothers me is that the text quoted above, something like eight typewritten lines, is somehow "framed by the outline of what appears to be a hand-drawn naked woman".

This suggests to me that the overall image must be quite large, larger than what might be expected in a grereting card or a page in a normal book -- and I just can't imagine Trump having the artistic focus or the time to create something like this. Since we don't have a photo, I can only imagine this to be something like a Charles Bukowski sketch, an example of which is at the top of this post. Bukowski, yes. Donald J Trump, no.

But here's another thing that doesn't fit. The Wall Street Journal is a generally reputable paper They have a lot to lose if this is a hoax, but not a whole lot to gain if it's true. CBS got crosswise with Trump, and they're still suffering the aftereffects -- the same morning news that carries the Epstein letter also reports they've canceled "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert".

On one hand, commentators like Scott Jennings are calling the story "a dud" as it is, but now the onus is going to be on the WSJ to prove the letter is authentic, especially if Trump follows through and files suit. Whatever the WSJ may write, there will be a process of discovery which will inevitably cover the letter itself, the leatherbound book that allegedly contained it, the provenance of the book and the letter itself, and so forth. This could well take years and run past Trump's term in office, and he isn't eligible to run again anyhow.

And the downside for the WSJ would make the problems CBS and CNN now face look like just a bad day, while even if the letter is authentic, it will likely not affect Trump much at all. I just don't get this.

Thursday, July 17, 2025

How Long Did It Take Them To Kill Big Bird?

On news that the rescissions package had passed the Senate early this morning, including elimination of federal money to public broadcasting, I decided to check how long the idea of "killing big bird" had been in the public imagination. It's been at least since the 1990s:

“Every time Congress comes at public broadcasting, Big Bird is held up,” Sesame Street creator Joan Ganz Cooney told an interviewer in 1998, “as a crucifix is to a vampire.” Three years prior, when Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) took the floor to argue against proposed cuts to public broadcasting funding, he brandished a small Big Bird doll. “Don’t kill Big Bird,” he extolled, “because public broadcasting works, public broadcasting is good for the American taxpayer, and good for the American people.”

From the Tampa Bay Times in 1992:

Columnist George Will has had his fill of Sesame Street.

"Does Big Bird need a subsidy?" he asks.

Heritage Foundation scholar Laurence Jarvik hates the whole antique structure of the thing.

"Public television is a relic," he says. "The high priest is Bill Moyers. The sacred symbol is Big Bird. And you have people always asking you for offerings."

The same story quoted Bob Dole, who noted that people were complaining to him that Republicans, by holding up a financing bill, were threatening "to derail democracy, tear up Sesame Street, kill Big Bird and starve the Cookie Monster."

In other words, the idea of "killing big bird" had been in the language at least by 1992, but I'm almost certain I'd heard it before then. Still, this at least means the phrase was 20 years old by the time Mitt Romney brought it up in the 2012 presidential campaign:

Sad news, Sesame Street fans. That meanie Mitt Romney wants to cut funding for PBS, the public television network that has broadcast Big Bird and her fellow Muppets since 1970. "I like PBS, I like Big Bird," he claimed during Wednesday's [October 3] presidential debate. "But I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for."

Although Big Bird had been a metonymy for PBS by at least 1992, the exploitation of cloying characters from its childrens' programming went back to 1969, only two years after its founding:

On May 1, 1969 Fred Rogers, host of the longtime children's television landmark Mister Rogers' Neighborhood, appeared in Washington before the Senate Subcommittee on Communications to express his disagreement with a proposal by President Richard Nixon to cut federal funding for public broadcasting from $20 million to $10 million.

. . . Over the course of Rogers' passionate yet respectful testimony, Senator Pastore's gruff demeanor slowly softened. The chairman even said that, though he was "supposed to be a pretty tough guy," Rogers' fervent plea had given him "goosebumps." Pastore effused: "I think it's wonderful. I think it's wonderful," and, after a slight pause, he made his conclusion clear: "Looks like you just earned the twenty million dollars."

In other words, PBS's "for the children" defensive strategy had been successful for at least 56 years, and Big Bird had been part of that strategy for more than half that time. Another part of that argument was that the PBS budget was only a rounding error in the federal deficit, and any cut would be meaningless.

As far as I can see, up to Trump 47, Republicans had simply conceded these arguments. But all of a sudden, Big Bird is dead. Except it wasn't Republicans who killed it:

[W]ith the rise of streaming, it became difficult for the preschool staple to maintain being on PBS due to licensing fees once DVD and video sales tapered off. "Sesame Street" simply couldn't maintain staying on PBS without the revenue needed to produce the show, which is when HBO stepped in. But after completing their five-year deal, HBO, now known as Max, is shifting its focus to content for adults and families according to Variety.

On one hand, times changed. But on the other, congressional Democrats, even in this year's budget debates, with Sesame Street canceled by HBO, still fell back on Elmo to try to keep funding for PBS. But for the first time in nearly 60 years, Republicans finally won that symbolic fight. Under Trump. I can't disagree with him here:

I have had more success in 6 months than perhaps any President in our Country’s history, and all these people want to talk about, with strong prodding by the Fake News and the success starved Dems, is the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax. Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work, don’t even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don’t want their support anymore.

Something's truly hinky here. Cutting funding for PBS had been a small but symbolic item on the Republican agenda since Nixon's first term, and only Trump finally accomplished it -- but B-list Republicans are drowning it out with Epstein, Epstein, Epstein. I'm scratching my head.