I'm just watching an hour long Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on the Ubu-Putin relationship. Very interesting compilation, with good sources, drawing a lot of stuff together, some of which we knew, but with more details. I don't know if you can get this stuff in the US (or Germany etc), but I reckon if you can you might find it worthwhile: https://x.com/C4Dispatches/status/1945861731344880003
In case it helps, it's called ‘Trump: Moscow’s Man in the White House? Dispatches’
2025-07-17 14:08:12
I've just watched a Daily Beast interview with Tina Brown, who commissioned and ran, when she was still with the Daily Beast, the first really detailed series (6 parts) by Conchita Sarnoff in 2010 on the Epstein case . She says, among other things, that her bet is also that Ubu himself was not into underage girls, despite his long, sleazy relationship with Epstein, but that she wonders whether one of the reasons he may want to keep any "list" secret is so that he has leverage, or kompromat, on some of the people mentioned in it. Also credible, IMO.
2025-07-16 18:15:31
And if I were Bondi, I'd be sure to stash the evidence somewhere that Trump couldn't get to it, rather than destroying it. Given all that we have seen from Trump in the past, the only way to protect yourself is to have leverage. If she were to get rid of it, she would have no leverage.
Yeah, good point. It's not as if all these "super loyal" toadies don't know what kind of scummy guy they are dealing with, and will act accordingly.
Time will (hopefully) tell, but currently my own bet would be that there is no real evidence that Trump personally took advantage of the opportunities offered by Epstein (have you all followed the recent case of Jes Staley and his exchange with Epstein? "That was fun. Say hi to Snow White for me" Epstein: "What character would you like next time?" Staley "Beauty and the Beast"), but maybe he is being pressured by another person who is in the files, and in a position to threaten him in some way. As I say, I hope we will find out some time.
2025-07-16 17:32:00
this is a real fault line that could be a wedge issue. I'd et the infighting rage, and work to poke holes in the Trump cover story that there is nothing to be seen. All that is required is to remain skeptcally agnostic and ask questions. They'll do the rest themselves.
Here's hoping. And here's also hoping that they don't find a way to just destroy any evidence that does exist....
2025-07-16 14:53:50
I agree it may not move the needle enough on the MAGA people, but still, every development shows Ubu has not understood how unhelpful so much of this is to him:
From 2 hours ago in the Guardian: Trump doubles down on 'Epstein hoax' and says Republicans pursuing it are 'stupid people'.
The president then was asked what evidence he might have seen to change his stance on the Epstein case, which this morning he called a “hoax”.
Trump doubled down on his claim that it’s a “big hoax,” but did not provide evidence to support this claim. He also claimed the Epstein case was “started by the Democrats,” but again cited no evidence (though he did mention the Steele Dossier, a report on Trump’s 2016 campaign that alleged cooperation with Russia?).
“Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net and try to do the Democrats’s work,” Trump said.
“They’re stupid people,” he continued to say about Republicans who believe there is more to be revealed about the Epstein case.
I'm just watching an hour long Channel 4 Dispatches documentary on the Ubu-Putin relationship. Very interesting compilation, with good sources, drawing a lot of stuff together, some of which we knew, but with more details. I don't know if you can get this stuff in the US (or Germany etc), but I reckon if you can you might find it worthwhile:
https://x.com/C4Dispatches/status/1945861731344880003
In case it helps, it's called ‘Trump: Moscow’s Man in the White House? Dispatches’
I've just watched a Daily Beast interview with Tina Brown, who commissioned and ran, when she was still with the Daily Beast, the first really detailed series (6 parts) by Conchita Sarnoff in 2010 on the Epstein case . She says, among other things, that her bet is also that Ubu himself was not into underage girls, despite his long, sleazy relationship with Epstein, but that she wonders whether one of the reasons he may want to keep any "list" secret is so that he has leverage, or kompromat, on some of the people mentioned in it. Also credible, IMO.
And if I were Bondi, I'd be sure to stash the evidence somewhere that Trump couldn't get to it, rather than destroying it. Given all that we have seen from Trump in the past, the only way to protect yourself is to have leverage. If she were to get rid of it, she would have no leverage.
Yeah, good point. It's not as if all these "super loyal" toadies don't know what kind of scummy guy they are dealing with, and will act accordingly.
Time will (hopefully) tell, but currently my own bet would be that there is no real evidence that Trump personally took advantage of the opportunities offered by Epstein (have you all followed the recent case of Jes Staley and his exchange with Epstein? "That was fun. Say hi to Snow White for me" Epstein: "What character would you like next time?" Staley "Beauty and the Beast"), but maybe he is being pressured by another person who is in the files, and in a position to threaten him in some way. As I say, I hope we will find out some time.
this is a real fault line that could be a wedge issue. I'd et the infighting rage, and work to poke holes in the Trump cover story that there is nothing to be seen. All that is required is to remain skeptcally agnostic and ask questions. They'll do the rest themselves.
Here's hoping. And here's also hoping that they don't find a way to just destroy any evidence that does exist....
I agree it may not move the needle enough on the MAGA people, but still, every development shows Ubu has not understood how unhelpful so much of this is to him:
From 2 hours ago in the Guardian:
Trump doubles down on 'Epstein hoax' and says Republicans pursuing it are 'stupid people'.
The president then was asked what evidence he might have seen to change his stance on the Epstein case, which this morning he called a “hoax”.
Trump doubled down on his claim that it’s a “big hoax,” but did not provide evidence to support this claim. He also claimed the Epstein case was “started by the Democrats,” but again cited no evidence (though he did mention the Steele Dossier, a report on Trump’s 2016 campaign that alleged cooperation with Russia?).
“Some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net and try to do the Democrats’s work,” Trump said.
“They’re stupid people,” he continued to say about Republicans who believe there is more to be revealed about the Epstein case.