Scrutable

He hates to lose, so now that it's clear Congress will vote to release the files, he's going to claim he was for that all along.

What comes next is a separate problem.

Martin Y wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 1:56 pm I'm assuming they've concluded it isn't going away and the increasingly lurid speculation about what's not being revealed will be more harmful in the midterm elections than such damage as results from releasing the files and dealing with the fallout now.

I think his attitude might be coloured by the drip-drip of releases we have been getting, that keeps it on the news. If it, or much of it, is going to get released anyway by that drip-drip, maybe better for him to have it done in one go. Though some of the more interesting things that have been coming out recently in dribs and drabs have been files from the Epstein estate, rather than files held by public authorities.

One issue that might affect Trump's comfort with a release of "the Epstein files" is what particular set of files he means by that, and then whether those particular set of files are even allowed to be released. Initially Trump tried to pretend that "the Epstein files" meant just the grand jury files, a very small subset of what most people meant by "the Epstein files". It was very easy and very safe for him to be in favour of releasing those, not least because they were unlikely to say anything much about Trump, and even better because they couldn't be released anyway, whoever demanded it. So what actually is the scope and releasability of this particular "Epstein files" he is now happy to have released?

The most salacious email is quite amusing, but equally it is also damning.

Forget for a moment the identity of "Bubba" .

The email confirns the link between Bannon and Putin and that Bannon knows at least some of the kompromat that Putin has on Trump, and that Epstein's brother was aware of compromising photos of Trump that Bannon also knew of.

Which raises the question, why ask Bannon about those photos unless he's the one sending them to Russia?

Also note Bannon's recently recorded speech in which he said, "...if we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison, myself included"

jimbob wrote: Tue Nov 18, 2025 10:19 am The email confirns the link between Bannon and Putin and that Bannon knows at least some of the kompromat that Putin has on Trump, and that Epstein's brother was aware of compromising photos of Trump that Bannon also knew of.

Except that Epstein's brother says it was written in jest.

IvanV wrote: Thu Nov 20, 2025 2:36 pm

jimbob wrote: Tue Nov 18, 2025 10:19 am The email confirns the link between Bannon and Putin and that Bannon knows at least some of the kompromat that Putin has on Trump, and that Epstein's brother was aware of compromising photos of Trump that Bannon also knew of.

Except that Epstein's brother says it was written in jest.

Mark Epstein has no motive to lie about an email that suggests he's complicit in his brother's crimes, it was at least aware of his behaviour.

And it's the sort of joke that is only hilarious if there's nothing behind it.

You can search the Epstein emails as though you are logged into his Gmail account.

https://jmail.world/

There's a link to the original PDF, for every email

Since it is hard to keep up with all the awfulness, there is so much of it, and as a reminder of how much there has been, here is:

A recitation of every illegal and corrupt act by Trump since his election. A handful of these acts were retrospectively legalised by the Supreme Court, but were illegal at the time. At about 10 seconds per illegal act, it takes nearly 40 minutes to recite about 200 illegal and corrupt acts. That's over 4 per week. He was probably playing golf on the other days.

And, How closely the present US administration matches the criteria for authoritarianism (6 mins).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cewjg272dq9o

A US appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump's former personal lawyer, Alina Habba, has been unlawfully serving as top federal prosecutor for New Jersey - a ruling likely to affect scores of criminal cases in the state.

The president handpicked Habba for the role of US attorney this year, but a district court rejected her nomination, so the Trump administration installed her in a role that allowed her to fill in on an acting basis.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... -all-order

The Trump administration is struggling with its message over this event. First they denied it happened, then they denied the order came from the Pentagon, now they are running with it was a perfectly legal order. It is of course an extra-judicial killing with no justification. For all the talk of it being a war crime, that is not strictly correct as the US is not at war. Only Congress can authorise a war.

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 1:28 am https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... -all-order

The Trump administration is struggling with its message over this event. First they denied it happened, then they denied the order came from the Pentagon, now they are running with it was a perfectly legal order. It is of course an extra-judicial killing with no justification. For all the talk of it being a war crime, that is not strictly correct as the US is not at war. Only Congress can authorise a war.

I doubt "It's not a war crime because we didn't fill out the paperwork" would carry much water at The Hague.

I guess there's a question of when does a war become a war, because it feels like you need to have one to have war crimes, otherwise they're just crimes. I don't know the answer to that, and I suspect there's not a set number of killings that define it. But I would have thought that your armed forces dropping bombs on people would be considered by many to be an act of war at the very least, and that suggests the possibility of war crimes to (non-international lawyer) me.

monkey wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:25 am

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 1:28 am https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... -all-order

The Trump administration is struggling with its message over this event. First they denied it happened, then they denied the order came from the Pentagon, now they are running with it was a perfectly legal order. It is of course an extra-judicial killing with no justification. For all the talk of it being a war crime, that is not strictly correct as the US is not at war. Only Congress can authorise a war.

I doubt "It's not a war crime because we didn't fill out the paperwork" would carry much water at The Hague.

I guess there's a question of when does a war become a war, because it feels like you need to have one to have war crimes, otherwise they're just crimes. I don't know the answer to that, and I suspect there's not a set number of killings that define it. But I would have thought that your armed forces dropping bombs on people would be considered by many to be an act of war at the very least, and that suggests the possibility of war crimes to (non-international lawyer) me.

It’s only a war crime if it comes from the Guerre region of France. Otherwise it’s just sparkling murder.

monkey wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 5:25 am

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 1:28 am https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... -all-order

The Trump administration is struggling with its message over this event. First they denied it happened, then they denied the order came from the Pentagon, now they are running with it was a perfectly legal order. It is of course an extra-judicial killing with no justification. For all the talk of it being a war crime, that is not strictly correct as the US is not at war. Only Congress can authorise a war.

I doubt "It's not a war crime because we didn't fill out the paperwork" would carry much water at The Hague.

I guess there's a question of when does a war become a war, because it feels like you need to have one to have war crimes, otherwise they're just crimes. I don't know the answer to that, and I suspect there's not a set number of killings that define it. But I would have thought that your armed forces dropping bombs on people would be considered by many to be an act of war at the very least, and that suggests the possibility of war crimes to (non-international lawyer) me.

It's either an illegal extradjudicial killing or it's a war crime.

I think that is the only legal uncertainty about that

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 1:28 am https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... -all-order

The Trump administration is struggling with its message over this event. First they denied it happened, then they denied the order came from the Pentagon, now they are running with it was a perfectly legal order. It is of course an extra-judicial killing with no justification. For all the talk of it being a war crime, that is not strictly correct as the US is not at war. Only Congress can authorise a war.

Hegseth is desperately trying to dissociate himself from this: he wasn't in the room at the time (had to leave after an hour to go to another meeting...); it wasn't him that gave the order anyway; to, we're all following Trump's lead... which I'm sure will go down well with Trump when he figures out what Hegseth is implying...
They even tried: the second strike was to ensure there wasn't dangerously large debris around that might harm other shipping...

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 1:28 am https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... -all-order

The Trump administration is struggling with its message over this event. First they denied it happened, then they denied the order came from the Pentagon, now they are running with it was a perfectly legal order. It is of course an extra-judicial killing with no justification. For all the talk of it being a war crime, that is not strictly correct as the US is not at war. Only Congress can authorise a war.

The point about war crimes isn't about things which are fine in peace time but become crimes when there's a war on.

Nice new prospective candidate for the GOP

https://thebarbedwire.com/2025/12/02/ja ... democracy/

shpalman wrote: Wed Dec 03, 2025 2:46 pm

Chris Preston wrote: Tue Dec 02, 2025 1:28 am https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/ ... -all-order

The Trump administration is struggling with its message over this event. First they denied it happened, then they denied the order came from the Pentagon, now they are running with it was a perfectly legal order. It is of course an extra-judicial killing with no justification. For all the talk of it being a war crime, that is not strictly correct as the US is not at war. Only Congress can authorise a war.

The point about war crimes isn't about things which are fine in peace time but become crimes when there's a war on.

In peace time, and/or when targeted at civilians, even the first strike is murder. The second strike is murder even in wartime when aimed at enemy combatants. The third and fourth strikes...

Sleepy Don is going to be more memorable nickname than Sleepy Joe at this rate.

FlammableFlower wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 9:12 am Sleepy Don is going to be more memorable nickname than Sleepy Joe at this rate.

Dozy Don, alliteration is a winner

Very true

Dementia Don covers all the bases, no?

headshot wrote: Thu Dec 04, 2025 6:30 pm Dementia Don covers all the bases, no?

Dementia is harder to prove and not obviously true, him dozing off is absolutely clear and undeniable.

Your commitment to medical accuracy is laudable. Not sure Trump applies the same rules when coming up with the nicknames he uses.

headshot wrote: Fri Dec 05, 2025 7:15 am Your commitment to medical accuracy is laudable. Not sure Trump applies the same rules when coming up with the nicknames he uses.

It’s the difference between a nickname that stings his supporters and one that they can just ignore