general

Emails don’t explain why Trump is terrified of Epstein ‘disclosure’: analysis

Columnist and author Ross Douthat tells the New York Times that while the new Epstein documents are successfully riling up America and the White House, there’s plenty they don’t yet answer.“The new tranche of information confirms, yet again, the moral squalor of various powerful Americans. But it still leaves us short of definitive answers to the outstanding Epstein questions: Did other powerful men have sex with the underage girls that he trafficked? What were his connections, if any, to the world of intelligence? And what unrevealed details have made Trump so intent on preventing further disclosure?”Douthat referenced Epstein’s email to Ghislaine Maxwell shortly after his release from prison: “I want you to realize that the dog that hasn’t barked is Trump .[VICTIM] spent hours at my house with him, he has never once been mentioned. Police chief, etc. I’m 75 percent there.”That letter, by itself, said Douthat, “is not the smoking gun proving Trump’s complicity in sex crimes.”Other letters, he said, suggest “it was normal for Epstein’s friends to have sexual encounters if not sexual intercourse” and that “Epstein at least wanted people to think the girls in involved were not minors.” Third, they prove Epstein “had a longstanding grudge against Trump but probably did not have some secret tape of Trump getting a massage or more.”“But then the great question remains: Why doesn’t Trump want more disclosure?” asked Douthat, referencing Trump’s campaign to keep the documents hidden from the House Oversight Committee.“It’s possible that he just doesn’t like the embarrassment of having everyone reminded that he was one of the rich creeps in the Epstein circle. Or it’s possible that there’s something truly sensitive related to Epstein and intelligence that has yet to be revealed,” said Douthat.“Or it’s possible that there is some thread remaining here, and not necessarily the obvious one, that the president really, really doesn’t want to see get pulled,” he said. Read the New York Times report at this link.

general

‘Great job, Elon’: Billionaire bashed for setting the stage for Trump war threats

Donald Trump’s saber-rattling, with a threat to send the military into Nigeria to stop “horrible atrocities” against Christians, is directly related to billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) ending aid to the troubled African nation. That was the conclusion of an MSNBC panel on Friday morning, with “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough calling out the tech billionaire who is no longer whispering in Trump’s ear. At the beginning of November, Trump wrote a menacing post on Truth Social, where he claimed, “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U. S. A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing,’ to completely wipe out the Islamic Terrorists who are committing these horrible atrocities. I am hereby instructing our Department of War to prepare for possible action. If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet, just like the terrorist thugs attack our CHERISHED Christians! WARNING: THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT BETTER MOVE FAST!”That led New York Times columnist Nick Kristof to write a column where he claimed, “He [Trump] has expressed such outrage at attacks on Christians in Nigeria that he has threatened military intervention there, and the Pentagon has obligingly prepared plans for attack. Trump’s concern for Nigerians is welcome, but here’s the awkwardness: Trump’s aid cuts are killing far more Nigerian Christians than Islamic terrorists are.”Using that as springboard, Scarborough remarked, “Let’s underline what Nick Kristof has said here, and this is what we warned when Mr. Chainsaw-man was running around cutting U. S. aid and celebrating it: The number of deaths in Africa, in places like Nigeria were going to be explosive.”“Nigeria is the most populous country on the African continent and nearly 200 million people,” MSNBC contributor Eugene Robinson contributed. “I think this is a very substantial country that he’s talking about wading into somehow. It’s just it’s a ridiculous idea. The much better idea, yes, is to restore the aid programs that really did save millions of lives. And again, for a pittance, for money that was returned to the United States in a million ways, not just through good will but through economic development and everything.”“This U. S. aid that we have been giving for years, we’ve done it because America has fed and freed more people on this planet than any other nation ever. But we also did it for our own self-interest by handing out aid. We got intel that helped us know what jihadists’ next move, what they were going to be. And now that’s cut off,” host Scarborough added before sarcastically exclaiming, “Great job Elon. Hope you enjoyed your moment with your chainsaw.”“We need to get the aid flowing again to save lives and to get intel on the ground that will help us save more lives; when Islamic terrorists want to strike,” he added before exclaiming, “So stupid what they have done on the slashing of aid on so many levels.” YouTube youtu. be.

general

German far-right activist seeks asylum in U.S. as Trump ties deepen

Social media influencer Naomi Seibt, a supporter of the nationalist AfD party, said she is being persecuted in Germany for her political views. BERLIN A prominent far-right German activist has applied for political asylum in the United States, citing fears for her safety, as the Trump administration has signaled plans to prioritize protections for White refugees and Europeans who claim they are being targeted for their populist views. The activist, Naomi Seibt, is a social media influencer and supporter of the nationalist, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which German authorities have labeled extremist. Seibt, 25, said she is being persecuted in.

general

The future of the GOP is not what it used to be: analysis

While ‘Reaganism’ is “still an article of faith for many conservatives,” the future of the Republican Party despite it taking a beating at the ballot box last Tuesday, is ‘Trumpism,’ according to New York Times opinion writer Damon Linker.”The second Trump administration has given the country 10 months of relentless power grabs, a globally disruptive trade war and, most recently, a demolition project at the White House all while an inexorably rising cost of living continues to weigh on American workers,” Linker writes.”The result? A presidential approval rating that has plummeted from already middling levels,” he adds. Linker thinks it does.”Could Mr. Trump prove to be a temporary aberration? Might the Republican Party return to its Reaganite essence once the man who has done so much to trash it finally leaves the Oval Office in a few years?” he asks. Unfortunately, he writes, Reaganism seems to be over.”In other words, is the future of the Republican Party Reaganism or Trumpism? The answer, I’m afraid, is most likely Trumpism,” Linker says. President Ronald Reagan, he notes, was a one-off, saying, “Reagan’s election in 1980, through the presidency of George W. Bush and the candidacies of John McCain and Mitt Romney, was an unusual and fleeting moment of moderation and responsibility for the G. O. P.”Reaganism, he writes, “was provoked and inspired by the sense of threat and moral clarity of the Cold War and its immediate aftermath.”Republicans have now returned to what Linker says is “a spirit of furious reaction to modern liberalism, an unwillingness to countenance compromise with the realities of governing a sprawling continentwide commercial nation and a conviction that political wisdom lay in the country’s turning inward and indulging a temptation toward self-absorption. Any serious effort to think through what’s likely to follow the Trump presidency needs to grapple with these potent and persistent strands in the right’s political DNA,” Linker says. A rebellious right, Linker says, started to emerge at the end of the Cold War.”Discontented factions on the right first began to rebel against their marginalization immediately after the end of the Cold War and demise of the Soviet Union,” he explains. George W. Bush’s administration, Linker says, rewrote “the Cold War script to portray the global war on terror as a battle for freedom against the enemies of civilization largely satisfied the most rabid factions of the Republican base. Had a Democrat been president when Al Qaeda unleashed its attacks, the furiously reactive antiliberalism of the Old Right might have overwhelmed the G. O. P. more than a decade before it actually did,” Linker says. Republicans in the White House, Linker notes, “kept populist rage submerged at least until it began to heat up in response to the financial crisis and Great Recession and then to boil over during the Obama administration, leading first to the Tea Party protest movement.”Today, Linker says, “we’ve been living in a world dominated by Mr. Trump and a newly emboldened hard right.”The MAGA movement, he writes, “aspires to take a wrecking ball to the ‘administrative state’ and career civil service, use extortionist threats to force ideological capitulation across civil society, deploy troops and a masked federal police force to round up and deport millions of immigrants, and bully other countries into submission to the president’s will.”When Trump eventually exits, and he will, Linker says, the stench of “the more personalistic dimensions of his rule above all, its most breathtaking examples of corruption will likely recede as well,” he notes. But other stains of Trumpism will linger, Linker says.”Much of the rest will remain, including a willingness to use sweeping state power to combat anyone who dares to defy the destructive impulses of the rejectionist Republican base,” he writes. Removing this should become the Republican Party’s number one issue, he writes.”What might tame these reactive impulses is unclear, but doing so may be the G. O. P.’s, and the country’s, most pressing priority,” Linker says.”If Republicans receive a drubbing in next year’s midterm elections in proportion to the one they suffered this past week, many in the party will begin to think more anxiously about where it should turn in 2028. Such thoughts (and second thoughts) will need to grapple seriously with the right’s longstanding dark currents that are part of our national character and cannot be willed or wished away,” he adds.

Sitemap Index