Back in November 2021 when Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial commenced, I posted furiously about the presumption of innocence, scapegoating, et cetera, the corollary of which is that I accepted the verdict of guilty.
This was mainly out of deference to the judicial system, accepting all its flaws, but mostly out of respect for the criminal investigators who almost always get it right.
Ghislaine Maxwell groomed underage girls for a pedophile ring. That makes her as guilty of child abuse as a getaway driver is of bank robbery.
In thrall to the ring-leader, Ghislaine would have intimate knowledge of the membership of that ring.
In other words, she is Epstein’s black book. Maybe also his black box, but, you know, won’t get into that just yet…
Fast-forward four years, what I do not and will not accept is Donald Trump’s lawyer being sent to tear pages out of the black book, i.e., privately interview Ghislaine.
Yet another strategic blunder by the Trump administration. Only a truly independent interviewer could walk out and say Ghislaine exonerates Trump. It is too late to argue that Donald Trump was not part of Jeffrey Epstein’s inner circle.
But so what if he was? Lots of people were in Epstein’s orbit. The only question is whether the current US President was also a member of Epstein’s pedo ring.
It’s a big call and, reflecting my instinctive reaction to Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, Trump is innocent until proven guilty.
Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t seem a stretch building a circumstantial case off the back of just his public admissions and contemporaneous photographic evidence; reasonable inferences arise from these now-infamous statements:
TRUMP 2002: “I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy … He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”
TRUMP 2003: “Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.”
EPSTEIN 2017: “I was Donald’s closest friend for 10 years.”
After picking the low-hanging fruit, I would interview the 28-and-counting victims who have so-far accused Trump of pussy-grabbing.
Not to prove their case, mind you, but to build a “tendency and coincidence” argument against Trump. Because leopards never change their spots and the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, such analysis would illuminate Trump’s modus-operandi as a sex-pest.
Which he admitted in public, anyway.
Damn those hot mikes, right?
After that, I would interview the staff of both Epstein and Trump and subpoena business records to answer this question: “How often were Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein in the same place at the same time?”
Who else was present? What did they witness? Epstein’s underage accusers say they were handed around m”like snacks”. Who had a nibble?
Trump’s the sort of guy who can resist everything except temptation. So when motive (sex pest) and opportunity (beauty pageant) collide, it would almost automatically trigger his default predatory behaviour (pussy grabbing).
There’s a case against Trump here, I can smell it. It also segues nicely with rumours of Russian kompromat held against Trump.
We know for a fact that the Rus interfered in the US elections to get Trump elected. Why do that? Maybe to put the dirt-file on Donny to good use, ensuring the US gets out of Putin’s way when the grand plan unfolds.
Buit, to be fair, Trump’s victims may or may not have also been Epstein’s underage victims, and vice versa.
But if they did ever cross swords in the dark, it would have been during the infamous and sometimes hotley-denied 15 year bromance between them that ended in 2004.
That means any “friendly-fire” victims would be adult women in their 40’s with families and lives and probably no desire to go up against this vengeful clown.
But my guess is that the more the President trying to deny the Epstein files, the more likely it is that a Miss Teen Vermont 1997 (or whatever) raises her hand.
In the meantime, as part of the official diversion strategy, scapegoating Pam Bondi will just be another own-goal.
Because Pammy has seen the evidence the administration now refuse to release, and while I am no expert on micro-expressions, this photo only affirms my suspicions.
