Jul.24

electoral-vote.com

Dem 47

   

GOP 53

POTUS Is Furious

That is the headline of yesterday's lead story at Politico. The gist of the story is that even Trump does not believe he can put out the Epstein fire. He said that nothing will be enough to satisfy the leftists and troublemakers causing the uproar. Of course, it is his base causing the uproar. Democrats are mostly watching with enjoyment from the sidelines.

Trump has tried everything he can think of to deflect attention from the problem. According to Sarah Longwell, who has held focus groups with hundreds of Trump voters, they don't trust either party. They think all politicians lie. But they saw Trump as an outsider who would never lie to them. This made up for his many flaws. As long as he was honest with them, everything else was forgiven.

Trump's fundamental problem is that he ran on a promise to release all the "Epstein files" and is now doing everything he can to block their release. To the base, this is unforgivable. The base expected the files to show that many top Democrats were pedophiles, so why is Trump breaking his promise? Is he protecting Democrats? It makes no sense to them and they are very angry. Longwell thinks this will not blow over. The base is very angry and the more it looks like Trump is lying to them, the worse it will get. Here is an image projected on the Chamber of Commerce building across from the White House:

Trump is furious that he is constantly dogged by questions about Epstein. He wanted to spend the summer bragging about the BBB and playing some golf, and not playing defense about a sex offender who was found dead in his jail cell 6 years ago. He is angry with his staff for being unable to tamp this down. He was furious at the media coverage generated when AG Pam Bondi released "new" information—that was already in the public domain. He is also very angry at "allies" like Steve Bannon and Laura Loomer, who are calling for Bondi's head on a pike. And he is extremely angry at Rupert Murdoch for letting The Wall Street Journal publish a story about his bawdy birthday card to Epstein.

Everything Trump is doing seems to throw more gasoline on the fire. One probably hopeless idea is drawing Ghislaine Maxwell into the battle as a possible ally—after putting her in prison for 20 years for trafficking underage girls. Why are they doing this and why now? Is this a hail Mary play or what? Politico has four questions about this strategy:

• Why now?: Two weeks ago, Deputy AG Todd Blanche said there was no reason to talk to Maxwell. Now he says there is. She has already testified twice in civil lawsuits, fiercely claiming there was no large-scale sex-trafficking operation. Is this a matter of throwing everything at the wall and seeing if anything sticks? One problem is that DoJ rules state that people asking for a plea deal must disclose all other crimes they have committed or risk losing the benefits of the deal. For Maxwell, this could be a stumbling block and Blanche surely knows this. So why is he even trying now?
  
  
• What new beans could she spill?: The DoJ has thousands of documents about Epstein totalling over 100,000 pages. Over 1,000 FBI agents are poring over them now to remove the ones mentioning Trump so the rest can be released. What could Maxwell possibly tell the DoJ that it doesn't already know? And if there is nothing new she could tell them, how would that put the fire out? And given that the DoJ has called her a confirmed liar many times, even if she had some new details, who would believe her?
  
  
• What's in it for her?: Maxwell is not going to help Trump placate his base without some huge upside for her. There are two ways Trump might try to get her to cooperate, but both have problems. First, the DoJ could file a "Rule 35 motion." This is a request to a federal judge to lower someone's sentence as a reward for cooperating with the government. However, the judge on the case is Paul Englemayer, an Obama appointee whom Trump sees as an enemy. How is he going to convince the judge to do this? The judge will surely want a detailed explanation of what she is going to say and how it helps the application of justice. He is not likely to accept: "This makes Trump's base happy and solves a political problem for him."
  
  Englemayer already asked what information is being sought and why. He also asked Maxwell to state her position. She is not likely to do that before at least an offer is made to her. The judge also asked some of the victims for input.
  
  Alternatively, Trump could pardon Maxwell or commute her sentence, freeing her but not erasing the conviction. He can do this on his own, with no judge involved. But the political blowback would be extreme, especially from Republicans who think that her work as a pimp is despicable beyond belief. Giving a break to a convicted sex offender would send the base into paroxysms of rage. If she named a dozen prominent Democrats, that might help a little, except that all of those still alive would vigorously deny it and probably sue her. Without corroborating evidence, no one would believe her.
  
  Also, Maxwell knows very well that Trump can't be trusted. Suppose she signs some document Blanche prepares and then Trump doesn't follow through with the pardon or commutation? She may be scummy, but she is definitely not stupid and neither are her lawyers. She is going to insist on her lawyers having a properly vetted signed pardon in their office safe before singing like a canary. This would require Trump trusting her. Since neither trusts the other, how could this work?
  
  
• How does this affect the House subpoena?: Yesterday, Rep. James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, issued a subpoena for Maxwell to testify before the House. Will this interfere with Blanche's plans? Remember, their goals are different. Comer wants to grandstand and Blanche wants to put the fire out. These are probably contradictory wishes. Oh, and once a person gets before a House committee, everyone on the committee gets to ask questions, including Democrats.
  
  A federal judge will have to approve Comer's subpoena. Will Blanche support or oppose Comer? The judge will surely want to know what legislation Comer was thinking about and how Maxwell's testimony will shape it.
  

None of these questions have easy answers.

Trump is doing other things that show he doesn't know what to do. He had a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the Oval Office on Tuesday. Instead of asking Trump if he and Marcos were working on a way to counter China in Asia, or about a trade deal Trump claimed to have closed, reporters wanted to know why Blanche was talking up a deal with Maxwell. Trump claimed he knew nothing about what Blanche was up to. Sure.

One of the many things Trump is trying in order to douse the flames is to release the grand jury transcripts from the mid-2000s. This requires a federal judge to sign off on the release. Yesterday, Florida U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg ruled that there are specific rules under which grand jury transcripts can be released and making the president's base happy isn't one of them. He was very clear: "Eleventh circuit law does not permit this court to grant the government's request. The court's hands are tied." Not that the transcripts would have put out the fire anyway, but this looks like a dead end for Trump, which will just make him angrier.

Another thing that made Trump unhappy yesterday was a statement Epstein's brother, Mark Epstein, gave to CNN's Erin Burnett. Burnett asked Epstein how close Trump was to his late brother, who then replied: "They were very close. They were good friends." He also said that Trump was often in Jeff's office. This undercuts Trump's assertion that he barely knew Epstein.

And there were more such statements yesterday. CNN also interviewed Stacey Williams, a former Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. She said she dated Jeffrey Epstein for 4 or 5 months and that Epstein and Trump were best friends. Williams said the only friend Epstein ever mentioned to her was Trump. Epstein related many funny anecdotes about Trump to Williams. Williams also said Epstein and Trump were very close. Again, there goes Trump's claim of "Which Epstein?"

Of course, you could also go right to the horse's mouth. Epstein might be dead, but film footage of him lives on. Back in 2016, during one of the many depositions he sat for, Epstein was asked if he and Trump were friends, and he conceded they were. Then Epstein was asked if he had "ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" and he pled the Fifth, and for good measure added in the Sixth and Fourteenth. That footage has been public for nearly a decade, but it's gone viral in the last 24 hours, for obvious reasons.

Democrats are starting to get into the act a bit more. Yesterday Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) sent Pam Bondi a letter with seven recommendations for immediate action. He is ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, so he wants her to follow the money:

1. Investigate the 1000+ wires to Epstein's bank account totalling over $1 billion to find out who sent them and why.
2. Find out why billionaire Leon Black paid Epstein $170 million for tax and estate planning.
3. Check if wires for hundreds of millions of dollars to Epstein from Russian banks related to the transport of girls.
4. Subpoena all the biggest banks for all wires they made to Epstein's accounts to see what they were for.
5. Investigate the big banks to see if they followed all the anti-money-laundering laws.
6. Depose all of Epstein's account managers at the banks where he had accounts. Did they follow the KYC laws?
7. Check out the settlement Leon Black made with the AG of the USVI. What is in there?

All well and good, but Wyden sent it to the wrong address! Silly Ron. He sent it to Pam Bondi. It will go directly into her paper shredder. He should have sent it to NY AG Letitia James. Epstein had a mansion in New York and probably had multiple bank accounts there, meaning she has the authority to subpoena the records of those banks. If she tells them she is investigating whether they violated various New York State banking laws, she will definitely get their full attention.

There was also a rather sizable bit of late-breaking news. The House is heading out of town a day early; as we've noted a couple of times, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was trying to avoid any uncomfortable votes before the recess, in hopes this will somehow all die down. Well, the House Oversight Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement was wrapping up its pre-recess business yesterday, and then, at the very end of the day, held a surprise vote on a motion to subpoena the Epstein files. The vote was 8-2 in favor, as Republicans Nancy Mace (SC), Scott Perry (PA) and Brian Jack (GA) voted with the five Democrats on the Committee.

Following the vote, a spokesperson for House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-KY) said this means the subpoena must be issued immediately. If so, then Trump will presumably defy it, effectively declaring war against a Congress controlled by his own party. We do not know how this will play out, but we do know that the last thing Richard Nixon did, as he was going down in flames, was unsuccessfully try to fight off demands for information from multiple directions, including Congress. (V & Z)