Dem
47
GOP
53
By long-standing tradition, stories about Epsteingate go first, and who are we to argue with tradition? The news is that on or around Sept. 8, the estate of Jeffrey Epstein will turn over the most famous birthday book in the history of the United States to the House Oversight Committee in response to a subpoena from the Committee. The $64 billion question is whether it contains a raunchy drawing from Donald Trump alluding to secret fun times Trump and Epstein had together. Epstein's one-time girlfriend and later pimp, Ghislaine Maxwell, collected the cards many people sent to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003 and put them in a book for him.
There are many possibilities here. First, maybe the book is a hardcover bound book with numbered pages and there is a card from Trump there. Then he is in big trouble since he repeatedly said he sent no such card. Second, maybe the book is a hardcover bound book with numbered pages and there is no card from Trump and no evidence of tampering. Then Trump is probably off the hook. We think this is not a likely possibility because The Wall Street Journal's lawyers would never have allowed the story to be published unless they were 100% certain it was true.
A third possibility is that the book is more of a looseleaf scrapbook where a page can be easily removed by removing a couple of screws, removing the offending page, and then screwing it back together. Alternatively, a card taped to a page could be carefully removed and optionally replaced by another card taped in its place. To dispel any doubts, the chairman of the Committee, Rep, James Comer (R-KY), could hand the book over to FBI director Kash Patel for a forensic examination, along with instructions to announce that it has not been tampered with. Problem solved.
Or possibly not. Assuming at least some of the cards are legitimate, Comer could subpoena some of the senders and ask if they ever saw the card from Trump. Since Epstein and Trump were buddies at the time, Epstein was probably proud of the card from Trump and may have shown it to many people at the party. The lawyers for Epstein's estate could also be subpoenaed and asked if the card was in there when it left their possession. There are enough loose ends here that if Comer wants to conduct a thorough investigation, there are leads aplenty for him to follow. Don't count on him wanting to conduct a thorough investigation, though.
Another lead is Alexander Acosta, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida who indicted Epstein in 2007 and let him off with a slap on the wrist despite charges of sex trafficking girls as young as 14. Acosta will testify before the Committee on Sept. 19. The Democrats are going to ask: (1) Why was Epstein let off so easily when he was facing 45 years in prison? and (2) Was Acosta's later appointment to Trump's cabinet a reward for letting Epstein skate? Don't count on Acosta revealing much, but it is worth a try because if he lies under oath, a future Democratic AG could indict him for perjury. Acosta is a graduate of Harvard Law School who clerked for Samuel Alito, then a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Acosta knows very well that lying to Congress under oath is a felony.
Anything can happen here, but remember, Richard Nixon's downfall began during a televised Senate hearing in which minority counsel Fred Thompson asked Alexander Butterfield, a White House official, if there was a taping system in the Oval Office. Butterfield said there was. Nixon refused to give up the tapes but on July 24, 1974, the Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes to special prosecutor Leon Jaworski. Nixon resigned on Aug. 8, 1974. Sometimes asking the right question to the right underling can cause the dam to break. (V)