A grim thread on the Epstein birthday book contents
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1965217835476779282
Trump 2.0
Re: Trump 2.0
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Re: Trump 2.0
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.jimbob wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 9:14 am A grim thread on the Epstein birthday book contents
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1965217835476779282
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.
Re: Trump 2.0
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.IvanV wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2025 1:25 pm There's nothing I could find that mentioned Trump, except the birthday letter from him.
- Trump buys girl.jpg (208.43 KiB) Viewed 488 times
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 488 times
Re: Trump 2.0
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 wrote: Wed Sep 10, 2025 10:18 am ...this delightful - and very much to the point - sketch. Clearly the artist knew just what went on....
Epstein sketch.jpg
Re: Trump 2.0
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.
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
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 5128
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: Trump 2.0
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.