Trump 2.0

[jimbob]

A grim thread on the Epstein birthday book contents

https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1965217835476779282

[IvanV]

A grim thread on the Epstein birthday book contents

https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1965217835476779282

You can download the entire birthday book (over 200 pages) from this link. It has been redacted in places, mainly covering over the pictures and names of certain people, mainly young women, also for nudity.

There's nothing I could find that mentioned Trump, except the birthday letter from him.

Trump claims it's not his signature. It's only slightly different from his present day signature, because it has a tall L, but today he uses a lower L. But people are finding examples of contemporary signatures with the tall L.

You have to ask, why would anyone have forged it back in the day?

You wonder what Trump is worried about. All Epstein-related revelations so far pale into insignificance beside what we already knew: allegations of sexual misconduct towards them by at least 28 women; being recorded saying he could "grab women by the p.ssy"; and of course being found liable for sexual abuse in the civil case brought by E Jean Carroll. It is often alleged that Epstein might have created kompromat relating to those who accepted his hospitality, but so far nothing really compromising has emerged about anyone. We already knew all these people, Clinton etc, were happy to be his guest and be matey with him.

There was one page in the Epstein birthday book that interested me, from a rather different aspect. I have tended to suspect that Epstein hid a bit of Maxwell's money, and then made that available to Ghislaine. She was seemingly left with only what she had already been given, which wasn't enough to carry on living the life of a New York socialite. Which she nevertheless carried on doing. And indeed I recently learned that Maxwell was one of Epstein's clients. In the birthday book, we learn it goes back further. We have a note from someone who was working alongside Epstein on investments for rich people, before Epstein set up on his own. The writer mentions that he was working on the Maxwell account. He asks if that is when Epstein met a teenage Ghislaine. That would suggest that he knew that Epstein was working on that account too, and meeting the Maxwells. And maybe already knew Ghislaine from that earlier time, rather than the several months after her father's death that is generally reported.

[Opti]

Peak Trump.

1757435207496.png (391.58 KiB) Viewed 3028 times

[IvanV]

There's nothing I could find that mentioned Trump, except the birthday letter from him.

In fact there is another page that mentions Trump. I did spot this page when I first went through it, but thought it of no interest. But that's because I didn't read the description carefully enough.

Trump buys girl.jpg (208.43 KiB) Viewed 2935 times

It appears to be a photo to record Trump paying Epstein $22,500 for a "fully depreciated" girl. It isn't a real cheque, it's nothing like Trump's signature, it's undated, and he isn't in the photo. So I don't know if it was created as a joke or what. But one guesses something disreputable lies behind it.

It's not clear who wrote the handwritten description. Immediately following is a handwritten letter in a quite different hand. Immediately preceding is this delightful - and very much to the point - sketch. Clearly the artist knew just what went on. And that immediately follows a computer-created birthday card from "Joel". So maybe this sketch and then photo and description is all part of the contribution from "Joel", but it's not clear.

Epstein sketch.jpg (511.76 KiB) Viewed 2935 times

[IvanV]

...this delightful - and very much to the point - sketch. Clearly the artist knew just what went on....
Epstein sketch.jpg

For further disgust value, it appears that the building drawn in the background on the massage part of the sketch is Mar-A-Lago.

[IvanV]

Trump has sued the NY Times for $15bn for defamation (NPR article). For saying nasty things about him, that he wasn't really a very successful business man given how much capital he inherited, that he has broken the law, etc. And suggesting he might behave like a dictator if elected. And suggesting people vote for Kamala Harris instead.

These seem quite unbelievably flimsy grounds for a US defamation suit. And it has been filed in Florida, which has strong anti-SLAPP laws.

But as one commentator (youtube) has pointed out, he has sued as an individual. It says so on the front page of the suit. The commentator argues this means he cannot rely upon the Presidential immunity the Supreme Court just expanded for him. So the NY Times could go for discovery, and he won't be able to argue immunity to refuse. Since the court documents mention his business success, and how it has been reduced by the NY Times article, they could ask for all those financial documents he has been so reluctant to expose. Since the case mentions the Epstein birthday card, they could get him to be deposed denying that is his signature. Since he argues that his business interests have been damaged by the NY Times, they could try to get the info that shows how he has massively profited since becoming president.

On the most recent occasion Trump was deposed - that means made to make a sworn statement in response to a set of questions posed by the other side in a civil court case, if you get sued you can make them do that - he cited the whatever amendment on self-incrimination in relation to every question, and refused to answer. You can do that too. But, embarrassingly, that was fairly shortly after he had blown his mouth off about people who cite the amendment and wouldn't testify, and how that shouldn't be allowed. But he was happy to take advantage of that privilege when put in that situation himself. In this case, I think people would take it as an admission if he cited the amendment and refused to testify on various things, such as the signature.

That commentator may be wrong in this analysis. But it certainly seems very entertaining. And maybe the NYT would consider it rather dangerous to take a path the commentator suggests, because Trump would be angered beyond belief by such a course of action by them, and who knows what dictatorial horror he cook up for them if they did that.

A motion to dismiss would seem to be the safer course for the NYT. In the normal course of events it seems very likely to succeed.

But some other media organisations, so sued by Trump in similar ridiculous cases, have chosen instead to negotiate a payment to him, rather than risk his wrath by beating him in a case. The exception is the WSJ/Murdoch. But they were sued for $10bn, and so presumably did not think they could get away with a making a modest kowtowing and payment.

[Tessa K]

I've had the joy of being on the helicopter flight path to the US ambassador's residence the last couple of days. So many of the big bastards.

[Brightonian]

Jimmy Kimmel show cancelled: https://www.rte.ie/news/us/2025/0918/1534073-kimmel/

[TopBadger]

Guardian article on the subject says DoJ removed the report that shows most political violence / homegrown terrorism is from the far-fight.

Wondering how far we are from the point that US citizens will be expected to refer to Trump as Big Brother.

[Grumble]

Guardian article on the subject says DoJ removed the report that shows most political violence / homegrown terrorism is from the far-fight.

Wondering how far we are from the point that US citizens will be expected to refer to Trump as Big Brother.

Big Daddy, surely? Which leaves the position of Giant Haystacks open.

[TopBadger]

Guardian article on the subject says DoJ removed the report that shows most political violence / homegrown terrorism is from the far-fight.

Wondering how far we are from the point that US citizens will be expected to refer to Trump as Big Brother.

Big Daddy, surely? Which leaves the position of Giant Haystacks open.

Also leaves open Hit-Girl...

The US has slid so far in just 8 months...

[IvanV]

Trump has sued the NY Times for $15bn for defamation (NPR article). For saying nasty things about him, that he wasn't really a very successful business man given how much capital he inherited, that he has broken the law, etc. And suggesting he might behave like a dictator if elected. And suggesting people vote for Kamala Harris instead.

These seem quite unbelievably flimsy grounds for a US defamation suit. And it has been filed in Florida, which has strong anti-SLAPP laws.

The NYT hasn't had to do anything, as the judge threw out Trump's filing as incompetent. He's given him a month to refile.

[Tessa K]

Now he's saying paracetamol/Tylenol taken during pregnancy cause autism.

[Grumble]

Now he's saying paracetamol/Tylenol taken during pregnancy cause autism.

They discussed this on the Skeptics Guide in the 6 Sept episode, Steve Novella explained how it has been long debunked.

[Tessa K]

Now he's saying paracetamol/Tylenol taken during pregnancy cause autism.

They discussed this on the Skeptics Guide in the 6 Sept episode, Steve Novella explained how it has been long debunked.

When did that ever stop him?

[Grumble]

Now he's saying paracetamol/Tylenol taken during pregnancy cause autism.

They discussed this on the Skeptics Guide in the 6 Sept episode, Steve Novella explained how it has been long debunked.

When did that ever stop him?

Just thought I’d mention a handy resource if it comes up

[FlammableFlower]

Now he's saying paracetamol/Tylenol taken during pregnancy cause autism.

They discussed this on the Skeptics Guide in the 6 Sept episode, Steve Novella explained how it has been long debunked.

Got a link? Would like to hear/read.

[Grumble]

Now he's saying paracetamol/Tylenol taken during pregnancy cause autism.

They discussed this on the Skeptics Guide in the 6 Sept episode, Steve Novella explained how it has been long debunked.

Got a link? Would like to hear/read.

https://overcast.fm/+AALcDBdaKNA segment starts at 21:35

[FlammableFlower]

Cheers!

[Grumble]

It’s the 13 Sept episode btw, I got that detail wrong if anyone was searching for it another way.

[IvanV]

Trump has signed an order (White House fact sheet) designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation. The effect of the order is to empower the federal government to 'investigate, disrupt, and dismantle any and all illegal operations' by the organisation.

There are a number of issues with this. One is that US law currently only recognises the concept of foreign terrorist organisations, and has no list, not even an empty potential list, of domestic terrorist organisations.

Another, as with Palestine Action, is what is the boundary between terrorism and the more usual kind of politically motivated criminal actions. It seems to set the boundary very low, that would make many right wing organisations also qualify. The order describes Antifa militarist, anarchist enterprise that explicitly calls for the overthrow of the United States. I have no recollection of ever hearing calls for the overthrow of the US.

It also raises the problem that there does not appear to be any specific organisation that is Antifa. Rather it appears to be a term describing an array of autonomous groups. Though doubtless MAGA will find that quite convenient, because they can label anyone they want as Antifa. Rather like they do when they deport people for being illegal migrants.

Meanwhile, MAGA continues to allege Tyler Robinson was connected to left-wing groups, but have presented no evidence of this.

[IvanV]

Trump has signed an order (White House fact sheet) designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation.

Here's the rather brief full text of the order.

The supreme irony is the definition of domestic terrorist it includes: 'organized effort designed to achieve policy objectives by coercion and intimidation'.

Sounds very much like what MAGA does.

[bob sterman]

If the term "antifa" is a shortened version of the German "antifaschistisch" (antifascist) - rather than an abbreviation of "AntiFacist Action" specifically - does this mean he's just made it illegal to be antifacist?

[dyqik]

Trump has signed an order (White House fact sheet) designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organisation.

Here's the rather brief full text of the order.

The supreme irony is the definition of domestic terrorist it includes: 'organized effort designed to achieve policy objectives by coercion and intimidation'.

Sounds very much like what MAGA does.

Whereas antifa is famously not an organized effort.

[headshot]

If you haven’t already seen Trump’s speech to the UN, seek it out.

It’s completely mental.

Or, just watch Jimmy Kimmel take it apart on his show tonight.