Trump Love Letter to Jeffrey Epstein Made Public

It wasn't going to stay under wraps forever. Yesterday, the executors of the estate of Jeffrey Epstein delivered a bunch of materials to the House Oversight Committee, including the now-infamous "birthday book." And the Democrats on the Committee wasted no time in sharing the letter from Donald Trump to Epstein, first brought to public attention by The Wall Street Journal. Here it is, for those who haven't seen it already:

It's not so easy to read, so here's the text:

Voice Over:
There must be more to life than having everything.

Donald
Yes, there is, but I won't tell you what it is.

Jeffrey
Nor will I, since I also know what it is.

Donald
We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.

Jeffrey
Yes, we do, come to think of it.

Donald
Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?

Jeffrey
As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.

Donald
A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.

Donald J. Trump

For us, this raises many questions. For example, did Trump write this himself? Maybe, because it's kind of hacky, but maybe not. Second, what exactly was the author going for? Something like a sonnet, maybe? Third... is anyone else picking up on the enormous amounts of gay subtext? This could have been copied and pasted from the script of Brokeback Mountain. I can't quit you, Jeffrey.

Naturally, the administration and MAGA world both responded by declaring it a fake, and a hoax, and yadda, yadda, yadda. Their particular "proof" is that the signature on the letter is not a match for Trump's actual signature. For example, here's White House Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich:

This is a pretty weak defense. Clearly, in the examples Budowich shares, Trump was signing something formal, and so wrote his whole name. On the Epstein document, which was between friends, he more casually signed just his first name. Here is a collection of examples someone put together of Trump just signing his first name:

Clearly, it's a match. Also, the released letter comports to the description given by the Journal, and later echoed by others. It's also worth noting that the Journal clearly believes it's real, or they would not have published it, for fear of losing a defamation suit. The Democrats also believe it's real; if they were outed as creating or perpetrating a fake, that would become the basis for 10,000 hours of coverage on Fox. And 10,000 hours of coverage on Newsmax, too—but nobody would see it.

At this point, as we try to figure out what this release might mean going forward, we think it is instructive to have a roundup of some of the lowlights of Trump's history in this area (something that also came up in the mailbag this weekend):

• Trump has a long history of sexual comments about underage women, including his own daughter Ivanka.
  
  
• Trump also engaged in (and bragged about) predatory behavior at the beauty pageants he once owned; using the access he had to watch teenage girls dress and undress as they competed.
  
  
• Grab 'em by the pu**y
  
  
• Trump raped E. Jean Carroll. The only thing that protected him from a formal legal finding of rape was a quirk in New York State law (and, by the way, one of the two defamation judgments was upheld again yesterday).
  
  
• Trump was credibly accused of raping his first wife.
  
  
• Trump cheated on all three of his wives, and paid off at least two of his sexual partners to keep quiet.
  
  
• There are dozens, and perhaps hundreds, of photos of Trump with Epstein, and nobody denies they were close friends for a long time.
  
  
• In total, at least 28 women have accused Trump of sexual misconduct of various sorts. That includes at least one woman, Katie Johnson, who says Trump and Epstein raped her when she was 13. There are also witnesses, both male and female, to Trump's sexual behavior in Epstein's presence.
  
  
• In addition, at least 50 women have accused Trump of making unwanted sexual advances, of using derogatory language about women in their presence, or otherwise engaging in conduct that would fit under the general rubric of sexual harassment.

Trump, of course, claims this is all a grand conspiracy, targeting him because he is succesful and he has deep pockets. On the whole, this is a nearly inconceivable claim. Because of the consequences to women of making such claims (even if true), it is fairly rare for women to lie about this (less than 10% of claims are false, according to some studies; others place the figure at lower than 5%). Even a "billionaire" is not going to have that kind of bad luck 20 or 30 or 40 times. Plus, some of the claims have actually been adjudicated, and proven in a court of law.

On top of that, of course, is Trump's own behavior. He's the one who cheated on his wives. He's the one who had that conversation with Billy Bush. He's the one who palled around with Epstein. He's the one who said what he said about his own teenage daughter. All of this is verified by video and photo evidence. There literally could not be a conspiracy when it comes to these things.

Having laid out the unpleasant evidence (though we're hardly being comprehensive here), the following assertions would appear to be incontrovertible to us:

• Trump has few or no boundaries when it comes to indulging his own libido.
• At the same time, Trump has an enormous sense of entitlement when it comes to indulging his own libido.
• Consequently, he has committed multiple acts of sexual misconduct/sexual violence, many of which would be (or were) actionable in civil or criminal lawsuits.

The evidence speaks clearly for itself.

What this means is that even if the Epstein files are made fully public, they aren't going to be that revelatory. It's already abundantly clear, based on already-public evidence, that Trump is guilty of sexual misconduct at a level that would be fatal to the career of any other politician.

The issue here is exactly what information that is not already publicly known might be present in the Epstein documents. To us, there are really only two questions that might have been considered unanswered as of Sunday night: (1) Did Trump know about Epstein's sexual acts with underage victims? and (2) Did Trump himself participate in those acts?

As of Monday, however, we consider #1 to have been answered. Trump insists he didn't know, but he is an inveterate liar in general, and he's a proven liar in the Epstein matter. Every exculpatory claim Trump has made, including "I never sent Epstein a card on his 50th birthday" has been proven to be false. There must be something that Trump is trying to hide, and it's not just "I knew Epstein." Everyone is already aware of that; it has to be something more that the President is covering up. And the BEST case scenario for him is that he's covering up that he knew what Epstein was up to.

That means the only question that is even possibly unanswered is whether Trump also joined Epstein in raping the underage victims. We are aware of the testimony of Katie Johnson and others, as we note above. But those claims have not been subject to cross-examination, and so it's at least possible they might not stand up to scrutiny. We think they probably would stand up, but we allow for the possibility they would not.

Time will tell if information comes to light, one way or another, that conclusively proves Trump was a participant in Epstein's crimes, as opposed to just being aware of them. The only thing we feel confident about is that the release of the letter yesterday is only going to heighten pressure to release everything. And if "AG" Pam Bondi, et al., won't do it, maybe the Epstein estate will. And don't forget that Epstein's victims are busily compiling their own evidence right now.

Meanwhile, when it comes to the politics angle, we have the following questions we don't really know the answers to:

1. Will the new revelations cause Trump-enabling politicians to distance themselves from this, for fear of getting subsumed themselves? For example, Speaker (and bootlicker) Mike Johnson (R-LA) made the laughable claim last week that the reason Trump is in the Epstein files is that Trump was working as a government informant. Johnson backed off that claim on Monday (perhaps he finally remembered that annoying bit about "thou shalt not bear false witness"?). Will Johnson and others start letting Trump bat for himself, instead of going to bat for him?
   
   
2. Will yesterday's new information, or any additional information, cause some portion of Trump's base to turn against him? On one hand, they hate sexual misconduct against underaged victims (see Moore, Roy); on the other hand, they tolerate ten times more stuff from Trump than any other politician. If there were to be undeniable proof that Trump raped 13-year-olds, would that cause the dam to break?
   
   
3. Will yesterday's new information, or any additional information, cause some voters to get to the polls specifically to resist Trump and the Republicans on this point? We're thinking women in general, sexual assault victims, men who regard themselves as "chivalrous," religious people, etc.

Again, we just don't know about any of these possibilities. The one thing we do know is that we're multiple months into this scandal having flared up, and yet it's still making front-page news. That is not good news for Trump. (Z)

How Low Can SCOTUS Go?

The Supreme Court decided to wade into the issue of ICE's indiscriminate roundups of Latinos in Los Angeles, by granting Donald Trump's request for an emergency stay and putting the lower court's temporary restraining order on hold while the administration appeals it. As a practical matter, this victory may be short-lived, as the TRO expires on September 24, when the lower court hears the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Assuming that's granted, the appeal process (and requests for stays) will begin again. A judge's life is so glamorous these days—that lifetime tenure must feel more like an anchor around the neck than a perk.

The majority opinion from the Supreme Court is one paragraph:

The application for stay presented to JUSTICE KAGAN and by her referred to the Court is granted. The July 11, 2025 order entered by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, case No. 2:25-cv-5605, is stayed pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a 10-page opinion concurring in the stay decision, but no other Justice joined it. And the majority's decision is not a ruling on the merits. So, a solitary concurrence has even less significance in this context. Nevertheless, Kavanaugh not only addresses the merits (albeit in a very superficial way) but he also deliberately creates an impression that he is speaking for the majority, and all but directs Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong to deny any further requests for injunctive relief. News flash: She can ignore him. Unfortunately, the media has latched onto Kavanaugh's implied claim that the majority's stay decision means that it believes the defendants have the stronger case. Perhaps. But it's important to remember that a TRO is issued at the very early stages of a case, so it's especially irresponsible of him to essentially say that his brief musings will be the last word on the subject.

Even though it carries little weight, Kavanaugh's concurrence is nonetheless stunning in its casual shift to a "show your papers" requirement for people of a certain ethnicity. Kavanaugh begrudgingly admits that the Fourth Amendment prohibits racial profiling by itself, but says it can be a "relevant factor" along with any other stereotypes based on race. And if there are enough of them, he claims, they add up to the "totality of the circumstances" that allow random people to be snatched off the streets by armed and masked federal agents. He quotes the law that requires an immigration officer to have "reasonable suspicion, based on specific, articulable facts, that the person being questioned" is in the U.S. illegally. But according to Kavanaugh, "specific, articulable facts" give way if there are enough more general factors—and those words "specific" and "articulable" never appear again in his opinion. For example, Kavanaugh, who can't be bothered to cite the record, or refer to the actual facts of this case, claims that there are "2 million illegal immigrants" in Los Angeles. Many of them "come from Mexico or Central America and do not speak much English." They gather in "certain locations" and look for work in fields like construction and landscaping.

Well, those general factors also describe many people who are here lawfully, which is why the law requires "specific and articulable facts" before one can be arrested. But Kavanaugh dismisses such concerns: "as for stops of those individuals who are legally in the country, the questioning in those circumstances is typically brief, and those individuals may promptly go free after making clear to the immigration officers that they are U.S. citizens or otherwise legally in the United States." Hear that everyone? If you are brown and speak Spanish, you better keep your papers on you, because the rules for you are different than for someone with lighter skin. At the very least, think twice before hanging around a Home Depot speaking Spanish and not carrying papers to prove your citizenship. This turns the Fourth Amendment completely on its head. Basically, if you share certain characteristics with people who are not here legally, you should expect to be stopped and questioned, and it's up to you to prove that you have not violated any laws. Sherrilyn Ifill took Kavanaugh to task for his rewriting Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and his whitewashing of the facts of the case.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and reminded us, again, of the majority's abuse of the shadow docket. Regular immigration enforcement is not an "emergency" justifying the Court's intervention here, more than any other law enforcement action. And the harm that has been done when ICE snatches up people erroneously far outweighs any delay in enforcement. Kavanaugh fails to explain how requiring BICE (it's the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, incidentally) to adhere to the Fourth Amendment or to have specific and articulable information about a suspect before sweeping them up compromises their ability to enforce the law. Those pesky constitutional requirements are there precisely to curtail law enforcement's power in order to protect individual liberty.

The one silver lining—besides the fact that it's not a foregone conclusion that the plaintiffs will lose on the merits—is that Kavanaugh agrees that excessive force during these raids would violate the Fourth Amendment. He argues it's not a part of this case, which allows him to conveniently ignore the facts of these brutal operations, but in actuality, the way these raids are carried out is evidence of their indiscriminate nature and further supports enjoining the unlawful actions. But whenever inconvenient facts don't fit his narrative and desired outcome, Kavanaugh simply ignores them. (L)

It's the Stupid Economy

The unqualified, incapable, bigoted troll that Donald Trump has chosen to be the next leader of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not on the job yet, pending Senate approval. And so, we can be reasonably confident that the latest jobs numbers are legit. And, as many readers will have seen, the numbers are not good.

There are three pieces of bad news that stand out. First, the number of jobs added to the U.S. economy in August was 22,000; that is short of expectations, and is well short of the roughly 100,000 new jobs needed to keep up with population growth. Second, the final jobs numbers for June are in; the initial (poor) figure of 14,000 jobs added has been revised downward to 13,000 jobs lost. That is the first negative number since late 2020. Third, unemployment is now up to 4.3%, the highest figure since mid-2021. Obviously, those previous (very poor) jobs lost/unemployment figures are both from the pandemic. Back then, it was pandemic first, economic downturn second. Now, with the tariffs and the "work" of RFK Jr., the administration appears to be shooting for economic downturn first, pandemic second. You can't say Trump doesn't try to mix things up.

As readers might imagine, the propaganda operation kicked into full gear as soon as the jobs figures were out. Fox "reported" that the data was unreliable, and that things are actually much better than they seem. In fact, we understand that this is their coverage of the story:

Quite a few MAGA Congress members, who take their goose stepping marching orders from Fox, echoed this point. Others took the tack that the numbers might be disappointing right now, but just you wait for a year, once the immigration enforcement and the tariffs and the visa fees and all the other administration initiatives have time to bear fruit. Then the economy will really be humming, apparently. For example, here's Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: "You look at the unemployment rate numbers today—wait until a year from today. Wow. It will be amazing numbers."

We do not presume to have a handle on the precise relationship between the economy and voting patterns, and we aren't sure anyone really does. But we do have a few things that our guts tell us. The first thing we think is that while the politicians and the pundits and the market analysts care about things like the jobs report, average folks do not. Average folks care about results, and neither the announced figures (good or bad), nor all the propagandizing in the world can do much to change that.

The second thing we think is that unemployment levels don't affect voting patterns all that much, at least not directly. People largely care about what's happening at their own kitchen table, and not the kitchen table of the Millers and the Johnsons, down the block. Undoubtedly, if someone is actually out of work, then that could affect their vote. But the number of people who are out of work, and who vote based on that fact, is probably not enough to swing most elections.

The third thing we think is that poor jobs numbers are often the opening act to a recession. And recessions affect pretty much everyone, and can influence a very large number of votes. So, if the jobs numbers are actually bad, and are going to be bad for the foreseeable future, the administration will eventually pay a price, because of the broader economic impact. And no amount of claiming "fake news," or even having the goateed incel try to cook the books, can prevent it. (Z)

Donald Trump Is a Delicate Flower

It is not a secret that extensive steps are taken, on a regular basis, to protect Donald Trump's ego. That applies to both insiders within the administration, and also outsiders looking to curry favor and/or to avoid his wrath. But boy howdy, there were a couple of particularly outlandish examples of this over the past few days.

Let's start with the one that got the most coverage, namely the U.S. Open tennis tournament. Trump decided that he wanted to be in attendance, presumably because he's a VERY big tennis fan:

Yes, very big, indeed. He might also have been in attendance because the U.S. Open is staged in New York City, where he was always treated as an outsider by the Big Apple's movers and shakers. So, there's undoubtedly some satisfaction in showing up, and being escorted to the prime seats.

The problem is that most of the sporting events Trump shows up for can be expected to attract a reasonably Trumpy crowd—NASCAR races, college football games in the South, UFC fights, etc. Not so much true for a tennis crowd, particularly in New York. Let us not forget that when these same fans decamp for tennis at Wimbledon, they eat strawberries and cream, not biscuits and sausage gravy.

Under these circumstances, it was predictable that, on his arrival, Trump would be booed. The U.S. Tennis Association (USTA), perhaps fearing that their research grants would be canceled, tried to address the matter proactively, telling broadcaster ESPN not to show the booing. ESPN, to their credit, said that they would cover the whole match, including any booing.

So, what actually happened? You can watch Trump's arrival here, if you wish. There are people (including some lefties) who were present at the match, and insist they did not hear booing. There are people (including some righties) who were present at the match, and insist they did hear booing. The truth is that there were some cheers, and some boos, and the nature of the sound is such that it's nearly impossible to tell how much of each there were.

In fairness, there is no evidence that Trump had anything to do with this request, but we're not so sure the USTA did him any favors here. The boos were going to happen anyhow, and the coverage was going to happen anyhow, and all the organization really did was prompt a huge number of stories that served to remind everyone how fragile his ego is. This does not comport so well with the tough guy image he tries to portray.

Moving on to our second example, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point gives out an award called the Sylvanus Thayer Award. The point is to honor someone who embodies the ideals the Academy tries to encourage, even if the person did not attend the Academy. It's pretty prestigious; past recipients include Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., Neil Armstrong, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, Walter Cronkite, Colin Powell, Sandra Day O'Connor, Condoleezza Rice, Gary Sinise, Mae C. Jemison and Barack Obama.

The awardee for this year is ostensibly Sinise's Forrest Gump co-star, Tom Hanks. Hanks has been involved in various veteran-related activist causes for years, including helping to rally money and support for the building of the World War II Memorial (in D.C.), the national memorial for President Dwight D. Eisenhower (also in D.C.) and the National World War II Museum (in New Orleans). Hanks has also brought numerous common-soldier-focused stories to the big screen (or the small screen), most notably Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers and The Pacific. When the award was announced, the chair of the awards committee declared:

Tom Hanks has done more for the positive portrayal of the American service member, more for the caring of the American veteran, their caregivers and their family, and more for the American space program and all branches of government than many other Americans.

In theory, the award ceremony includes speeches and lots of other bells and whistles, including a parade.

There is a problem, however. Several problems, actually. First, Tom Hanks is a well-known lib. Second, Hanks is not only a lib, he's a lib who campaigned and fundraised for both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Third, there is only one person in this country who is allowed to be honored with a military parade, and it is NOT Thomas Jeffrey Hanks. (Fourth, maybe, is that Hanks first achieved stardom on a show where he dressed in drag on every episode.) As a result of some or all of this, West Point canceled the festivities, muttering something about how they really need to focus on operational readiness. Odd, since they've been able to hold the ceremony in every year since 1958, including many years in which there was an actual war going on. It would seem that Hanks at least gets to keep the award, and just doesn't get his ceremony, though nobody seems to be particularly clear on that point.

This was obviously done with Trump in mind. And while the President has no obvious connection to the tap dance that took place at the U.S. Open, he waded right into the Hanks situation. Here is what Trump posted to his bone-spur-forward social media platform:

Our great West Point (getting greater all the time!) has smartly canceled the Award Ceremony for actor Tom Hanks. Important move! We don't need destructive, WOKE recipients getting our cherished American Awards!!! Hopefully the Academy Awards, and other Fake Award Shows, will review their Standards and Practices in the name of Fairness and Justice. Watch their DEAD RATINGS SURGE!

We've seen it a thousand times, but we still find it remarkable how very much Trump cares about ratings. Your reality TV show ended more than a decade ago, Mr. President.

Hanks is one of the most popular celebrities in the world, and he's done lots of good work for veterans and veterans' awareness. Poking him in the eye is a bad look, and makes Trump look small. We know the base loves to see their hero own the libs, but the base are not the voters that Trump needs to retain control of Congress next year. And every petty little gripe and grudge he indulges in erodes his support with non-MAGA voters a bit more, and a bit more, and a bit more. Note that Trump just got another week of polling that is the worst of his second term. That's happened for something like 6 of the last 7 weeks. (Z)

Future of Murdoch Empire Is Settled

The real-life version of the show Succession, which was playing out before our very eyes, has had its series finale. The Murdoch family, heirs to the media empire of 94-year-old patriarch Rupert, has reached agreement on the question of "How far do you need to be into the 'more money than you can ever possibly spend' range, in order to be happy?"

Initially, the terms of the deal were not reported, but it's not the type of secret that keeps for long. And so, it's now known that Lachlan Murdoch, who has largely been running the show, will gain complete control of his father's empire. The other three Murdoch children who were supposed to benefit from dad's trust—James Murdoch, Elisabeth Murdoch and Prudence MacLeod—will each get $1.1 billion. Nice work, if you can get it.

The angle that most politically oriented sites are taking is "Lachlan is the most conservative of the Murdoch kids, and this will allow/cause Fox's cable channel to remain conservative." Truth be told, even if the three much more liberal kids had taken control, we doubt Fox's editorial policy would have changed. And the far more important dynamic, when it comes to the future of Fox "News," is that the median age for their viewers is 68. And that's not just a Fox thing; the median age for CNN viewers is 67, and for MS NOW it's 71. Cable is slowly dying, cable "news" is quickly dying, and most people who want political content want it on-demand, and less structured. That means things like podcasts and YouTube streams. It is implausible that, in 10 years, Fox will have anywhere near the relevance it has right now. And if it does, it will be a very different-looking Fox. Sorry, Sean and Laura!

The Murdochs are not likely to say so openly, but they know the score. The crown jewels of the Murdoch empire are things like the Dow Jones and Sky News in Australia. The Fox cable channel is definitely down to "side hustle." (Z)

No Wes, No Moore

It would seem we have our first "Full Sherman" of the 2028 presidential cycle. Gov. Wes Moore (D-MD), who is young, dynamic and Black, was tapped as a rising star by many pundits and politics-watchers, many of whom look at him and imagine a Barack Obama v2.0. Nobody checked with the candidate, however, and yesterday he said that he's definitely not running, and that his goal is to be reelected to his current post.

It's not too surprising that Moore is taking a pass. The 2028 Democratic field is going to be brutal; it will make The Hunger Games look like a picnic at the beach. And Moore is only 46, which means he can afford to bide his time, building up his profile and his résumé. He could serve in a Cabinet post, or as an ambassador, or maybe go for a Senate seat if Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) stands down (though at 66, Van Hollen could have three, maybe four more decades left in the old folks home that is the U.S. Senate).

Of course, Moore remains available as a running mate to, say, a moderate, centrist, white candidate like Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY). And the Full Sherman is never really official until the ballots are cast, so Moore could maybe get back in, if he ends up butting heads with Donald Trump over Baltimore, and becomes some sort of symbol of the resistance. (Z)

---

If you wish to contact us, please use one of these addresses. For the first two, please include your initials and city.

• questions@electoral-vote.com    For questions about politics, civics, history, etc. to be answered on a Saturday
• comments@electoral-vote.com   For "letters to the editor" for possible publication on a Sunday
• corrections@electoral-vote.com To tell us about typos or factual errors we should fix
• items@electoral-vote.com            For general suggestions, ideas, etc.

To download a poster about the site to hang up, please click here.

---

Email a link to a friend.

---The Votemaster and Zenger