Reason Roundup

Trump—Who Once Said Jeffrey Epstein 'Likes Beautiful Women as Much as I Do'—Moves to Distance Himself From the Disgraced Palm Beach Billionaire

Plus: Gabbard slams Harris' "political ploy," a fair use win for Vanity Fair and Andy Warhol, Hawaii decriminalizes marijuana, and more…


The ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida billionaire arrested this week for alleged sex crimes against teen girls and young women, have been getting a lot of understandable scrutiny. Trump and Epstein partied together in the 1990s, reports Business Insider, and he told a reporter in 2002:

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. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.

But White House advisor Kellyanne Conway said the friendship between Epstein and Trump ended long ago. They haven't had contact "in years and years and years," said Conway. "And [Trump], like everyone else, sees these charges, the description of these charges against Epstein, as completely unconscionable and obviously criminal. Disgusting, really."

Trump himself stressed to reporters that while he knew Epstein at one time, he hasn't been associated with him for many years.

The New York Post alleges that Trump even had Epstein banned from Mar-a-Lago over his predatory behavior, citing an April 2011 court filing in a Florida case between Epstein and lawyer Bradley Edwards. "Trump allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted a girl at the club," the New York Post quotes an unspecified document as saying. (I've been through the April 2011 filings in the Epstein-Edwards Florida case and been unable to find this particular statement, however.)

Update: New York Post reporter Priscilla DeGregory points me to a bankruptcy case for the now-defunct law firm of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. An April 2011 filing from that case contains as an attachment a "Statement of Undisputed Facts" from September 2010 in the Epstein-Edwards case in Palm Beach County. That document says Edwards wanted to interview Trump as part of his research into claims against Epstein, since "message pads confiscated from Epstein's home indicated that Trump called Epstein's West Palm Beach mansion on several occasions during the time period most relevant to [Jane Doe] complaints"; Trump had "allegedly banned Epstein from his Maralago Club in West Palm Beach because Epstein sexually assaulted an underage girl at the club"; one of the Jane Does accusing Epstein said she "was initially approached at Trump's Maralago…and recruited to be…Epstein's underage sex slave"; and "Epstein's phone directory from his computer contains 14 phone numbers for Donald Trump, including emergency numbers, car numbers, and numbers to Trump's security guard and houseman."

Trump has also been taking heat for his labor secretary, Alexander Acosta, being the U.S. prosecutor that allowed Epstein's incredibly lax plea deal in Florida in 2008. Acosta was quiet in the days immediately following Epstein's July 6 arrest, but tweeted on Tuesday:

"The crimes committed by Epstein are horrific, and I am pleased that NY prosecutors are moving forward with a case based on new evidence.

With the evidence available more than a decade ago, federal prosecutors insisted that Epstein go to jail, register as a sex offender and put the world on notice that he was a sexual predator.

Now that new evidence and additional testimony is available, the NY prosecution offers an important opportunity to more fully bring him to justice."

It's unclear to what new evidence he refers, considering the current indictment against Epstein lists the same old complaints from 2002-2005 that informed the 2008 case.

But some people aren't satisfied with criticizing Acosta's actions back then (or his defense of it now) and seemingly want to make him into a supervillain. The Guardian is running a silly story about Acosta trying to "slash funding to anti-sex trafficking agency by 80%."

The twisted impetus for the newspaper's claim is that 2020 budget plans for Department of Labor would slash the budget of the International Labor Affairs Bureau from $68 million to $18.5 million. "The proposed reduction is so drastic that experts say it would effectively kill off many federal efforts to curb sex trafficking and put the lives of large numbers of children at risk," the Guardian insists. Notably, it does not offer any specifics on what budget cuts would mean for any particular programs, instead letting us know that congressional Democrats say it will be bad.

In my five-plus years reporting extensively on U.S. efforts to fight sex trafficking, I've hardly ever encountered any mentions of the International Labor Affairs Bureau. Most of the human rights work it does concerns forced labor in sectors like agriculture and manufacturing. Whatever this agency may be doing to combat sex trafficking, it is far from a central front in the feds' fight.

Meanwhile, there are dozens of other agencies and initiatives devoted to fighting sex trafficking, and federal budgets for these entities have continually increased. For instance, according to the State Department's latest Trafficking in Persons Report, Department of Justice funding for federal-state anti-sex trafficking task forces soared from $2.8 million in fiscal year 2017 to $23.1 million the following year.


Sen. Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii) accused Sen. Kamala Harris (D–Calif.) of pulling a "political ploy" with her debate-stage attack on Joe Biden for his opposition to federally mandated busing—a position Harris herself later admitted to holding. (Her campaign tried to get around the discrepancy by pointing out that it's a different year than when Biden opposed it.)

"Really what she's saying is her position is the same one she was criticizing Joe Biden for," Gabbard told CBS News. "So this is just a political ploy and I think a very underhanded one just to try to get herself attention, to move herself up in the polls. I think we need to be above that. All of us."


Prince versus Andy Warhol winds up in a good ruling for Fair Use. From Mike Masnick at techdirt:

There's a fair bit of background to this story, so stick with me, but the short version is that a photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, took a bunch of photos of Prince in 1981. In 1984, Vanity Fair magazine (owned by Conde Nast) licensed Goldsmith's photographs for an article the magazine was doing about Prince. The magazine then commissioned Warhol to do a painting of Prince based on Goldsmith's photographs. That resulted in this 1984 spread:

Apparently Warhol actually created a bunch of paintings based on Goldsmith's photographs, most of which have been sold, and a few of which are now in the Warhol museum. You can see all the images in the original complaint in this case.

After Prince died, Vanity Fair reran its article, and then teamed up with some other Conde Nast publications, and put out a special magazine called "The Genius of Prince" using one of Warhol's other portraits."

The court's ruling? "It is plain that the Prince Series works are protected by fair use." More here.


Hawaii decriminalizes marijuana. Hawaii has joined 25 other U.S. states in either decriminalizing or legalizing cannabis, with a law that will take effect in January 2020. "The new law removes the possibility of jail time as a penalty for up to three grams of marijuana, but maintains a $130 fine," reports Vox.

"Unfortunately, three grams would be the smallest amount of any state that has decriminalized (or legalized) simple possession of marijuana," notes the Marijuana Policy Project. "Still, removing criminal penalties and possible jail time for possession of a small amount of cannabis is an improvement."


NEXT: Brickbat: Filed Away

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. …Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now facing a lawsuit for blocking people from viewing her personal Twitter account.

    A woman of some of the people.

    1. A woman of the people. Just not those people.

  2. The author of the infamous Trump-Russia dossier has been meeting with

    netflix? hulu? amazon prime? yuck… facebook watch?

  3. so long as it’s not the same government agency that illegally seized it.

    finally, a good reason to create countless agencies

    1. this is how they will make it after the fact “legal” for the CIA to spy on the Trump campaign by running it through the FBI.

  4. Michelle Carter is petitioning the Supreme Court to vacate her conviction on involuntary manslaughter charges for urging a suicidal boyfriend to kill himself.

    And she’d like any of the justices leaning away from overturning that conviction to give her a call.

    1. Can we give her phone numbers for Tony, Buttplug, and Pedo Jeffy?

  5. Tucker Carlson is drawing heat for his xenophobic criticism of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar

    i’m starting to think both of these people benefit from drama

    1. It’snow Xenophobic to point out Omar was a refugee who was taken in and now hates and trashes us for our trouble? Or that she lied about her marital status?

      1. Yes, the truth must be hidden if it hurts the feelings of anyone in that religion of peace.

      2. punching down

    2. Certainly Omar does. Her intellect is on the thin side and she is clearly another anti-American Socialist turd. Carlson on the other hand is right to shed light on this cockroach. The more she babbles on about how awful this country is the more likely she will be relegated to dung heap of insignificance.

  6. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has decided it’s OK if a government agency searches a phone that should never have been seized in the first place…so long as it’s not the same government agency that illegally seized it.

    Fostering all kinds of interagency cooperation.

  7. “The ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein”

    That’s it. Orange Hitler’s Presidency is officially over. This explosive Epstein revelation is the tipping point.

    The walls are closing in. It’s the beginning of the end.


    1. Certainly there is a Russian connection somewhere in all of this.

      1. Nah, he obstructicated it.

      2. Where do you think Epstein’s private jet kept taking everyone?

        1. Any good lawyer will tell you to commit illegals acts over international waters.

          Take to the sea/air!

        2. Where do you think Epstein’s private jet kept taking everyone?

          The Clinton Global Initiative Timeshare program on Lolita Island.

  8. Trump and Epstein partied together in the 1990s

    How do people who don’t drink or use drugs party?

    1. Gifts, cake and ice cream, temper tantrums /parent of two year old

    2. Working girls who are totally over 18?

    3. They watch other people get drunk.
      And whores.

      1. Schmoose. There are rare people who have the ability to pretend other people are interesting while fully sober. Trump appears to be one of those people.

        1. One of my favorite friends to party with is a non drinker

          1. Are his initials D.D.?

        2. Yes, I think you are right.

        3. I have a relative that sometimes acts like he’s on something but doesn’t drink or use drugs. Trump may be that type of person as well

          1. Maybe he and Trump just have a different definition of “drugs”.

            1. Trump is “high” on his own YUGE supply!

    4. Like it’s 1799?

    5. He had a business and Epstein spent money at his hotel. Since the intellectually lazy, Elizabeth Nolan Brown, focused her article on another article by a clown boy at the infamously sleazy Business Insider there is little of actual news here. There is no real context in which this quote is phrased. The Business Insider article is a hit piece that offers no evidence that the party referred to actually happened the way it was depicted. The BI author’s journalistic past is laced with anti-Trump articles all light on facts. This is another such one. Brown is really an award winning journalist? How low do you have to be to get a job at Reason.

    6. “How do people who don’t drink or use drugs party?”

      They prey on 14-year-old girls, if they have plenty of money (inherited, earned, or otherwise) and are devoid of morality. Maybe throw in some urine-soaked Russian professionals, too.

      1. He wasn’t actually asking you how you party.

      2. This from a bug-chasing twink

    7. They talk about being President and being under indictment years in the future.

  9. More bad economic news.

    Levi Strauss profit tanks 17%


    1. Isn’t most of their operation in China now?

    2. It’s the NRA boycott!

      1. I was here to say the same Rich, only difference is the NRA never actively called for a boycott but gun owners automatically stopped using their products just like they stopped going to Dick’s sporting goods. BTW I stopped wearing levis years ago but not for political purposes i just don’t like their fit.

    3. too hot for jeans in the summer

    4. But curiously sales for Revi’s Jeans up 17%

  10. 2020 budget plans for Department of Labor would slash the budget of the International Labor Affairs Bureau from $68 million to $18.5 million.

    Why stop there? Why not drop it to $0? In fact, what the hell do we have a “department of labor” for anyways? That’s towards the top of the worthless federal bureaucracy shit pile heap.

    1. I wonder how that would go. If an agency exists by law but has no budget, obviously they can’t do much, but I wonder what courts would say. It would be nice if congress would abolish some agencies rather than just dicking with the budget, but I guess it’s probably easier to get things into the budget.

      1. The agency would be a dead letter Zeb. This sort of thing happens all of the time, though never on the scale of an entire agency. There are two parts to the appropriations process: the authorization that tells you what you are legally authorized to do and the appropriation that tells you how much money you have to do it. If you don’t have both, you can’t do it. So if Agency X has an authorization for a “Widget Counting and Quality Office” but in its authorization Congress says “no money shall be spent on the Widget Counting and Quality Office”, the office ceases to exist and the authorization becomes a dead letter.

        There is no reason it couldn’t be done to an entire agency should Congress choose to do so.

        1. Can the executive essentially kill an agency by simply refusing to staff it? Maybe to ask the question in a slightly different sense. If Congress appropriates money, does the money have to be spent, or could it simply be returned to the treasury?

          1. Technically no, practically yes. Congress ended the practice of impoundments, where the President just refuses to spend money appropriated by Congress in the 1974 Budget Act. Now, if the money is appropriated, the executive has to spend it. As a technical matter, the President could not just zero out the staff in some agency he doesn’t like. As a practical matter, the agency could list the jobs for that agency and then just never fill them and that would accomplish the same thing and there wouldn’t be anything Congress or the courts could do about it.

            1. He could also effectively kill it just by rolling back some of the functions and personnel into the Department of Commerce and RIFing the rest of the staff. That way, he could say that the “essential” duties are still being handled, even though the department has been obliterated.

          2. If Congress appropriates money, does the money have to be spent, or could it simply be returned to the treasury?

            Yes, if Congress appropriates the money, it has to be spent. This was established back in the early 90s, when Cheney tried to kill off the V-22 when he was SecDef. The Marine Corps’ allies in Congress kept appropriating money to develop the aircraft, so Cheney attempted to get around this by funding the bare minimum needed for testing and development, so that he could claim it was being “worked on,” when in reality nothing was being done to advance the program because he wasn’t approving contracts.

            After the Comptroller General got involved and said that not spending the funds that Congress appropriated for the program amounted to illegal impoundment, he backed down to avoid a legal tangle over the issue.

        2. Yes, they should. But actually abolishing the agency would be even better.

      2. When the Freedmen’s bureau was first established after the Civil War it had a budget of $0. Most of the work was done by Army officers or abolitionist volunteers and later Congress appropriated money for it to operate, but they originally gave it none (probably an oversight).

    2. Department of Education is a bigger loser

  11. Trump said that in 2000. In 2005, he kicked Epstein out of the Marlargo or whatever it is for trying to recruit underage girls to his parties. Trump also hired an attorney to represent one of Epstein’s victims.

    That seems like fairly important context. To put the statement up alone without that context and flat out lying by omission.

    1. Good, you’re gathering evidence. Don’t forget to include the time in 2005 when Trump said he would go into dressing rooms to see the women as they were dressing. He supposedly pulled the creep move on teenage contestants one as young as 15.

      1. Didnt you embarrass yourself enough in the last roundup thread?

      2. Trump was there to prevent their abuse by others, obv.

      3. Lets not forget that time that you have absolutely no link to and somehow never made the news during the election. I guess the media didn’t report it out of kindness or something.

        Go lie to someone dumb enough to believer you.

        1. Leave it to a Shreek sockpuppet like OG to die on the kiddie porn hill.


    The Trump administration has done more to help Uighurs than any Islamic leader has.

    #Worst Racist Ever!!

    1. Uighurs arent a favored minority yet.

  13. “Who Once Said Jeffrey Epstein ‘Likes Beautiful Women as Much as I Do'”

    Obviously there is no other possible way of interpreting that besides.. “we both like to skeaze on underage girls”

    1. That is right. And just ignore Bill Clinton and his 26 trips to Lolita Island sitting in the corner. I am sure Bill didn’t partake. He is known to have so much self control about sex you know.

      1. Bill Clinton and his 26 trips to Lolita Island sitting in the corner.

        Snot’s running down his nose.
        Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes.

        1. Nice reference.

    2. Well, anyone who thinks you can read anything into a statement like that from Trump really hasn’t been paying attention. I don’t think it’s safe to infer anything about what he actually thinks about a person based on public statements he makes.

      1. Pretty much. Who knows what he meant. Apparently Epstein being a pervert was well known in New York social circles. Maybe it was an inside joke about that.

        1. Ironically the same liberals outraged at any and every trump connection to epstein are quiet about clinton and quiet about how hollywood makes epstein look like a saint.

          1. Or how a ton of people in the media and entertainment were close pals of his. See my link below about what has to be the most bizarre dinner party in history. So Woody Allan, Katie Couric and a convicted Pedophile walk into a room…

          2. Bill Clinton denied having sex with any of them. He wouldn’t lie about that.

        2. Which is still reprehensible behavior by the New York elite social circle. Not sure what the costs should be to them all but pretty much anyone who sits back and allows children to be abused has a special place in hell in my book.

        3. It’s not like this is anything new–kiddie-diddling is something that social elites have indulged in since time immemorial. It’s just exaggerated in modern society because of the sheer amounts of money and connections these people have today.


    Dem donor Ed Buck accused of human trafficking by family of dead man found in his LA home. It is always the second dead gay guy they find in your house that does you in.

    1. It’s like Lay’s potato chips.

  15. Ian Millhiser of ThinkProgress explains the latest Republican attempt to mass murder Americans.

    We should call what two Republican judges appear ready to do to the Affordable Care Act what it is. It is an atrocity. A mass killing that I don’t know that we’ve seen on American soil since the Civil War.

    Terrifying stuff.


    1. A mass killing that I don’t know that we’ve seen on American soil since the Civil War.

      “And don’t even get me started about the banning of DDT!”

    2. Didn’t everyone die already because of ending Net Neutrality?

      1. Anybody that didn’t get will be picked off by global warming in twelve years or so.

        1. That’s not a big deal GMO toxins are going to kill in 2 years

        2. So many Tipping Points.

        3. Eleven years and three months. Anyone remember how Al Gore said the tipping point would be 2016?
          Step 1 – Claim the apocalypse will happen soon, but not too soon, so people will remain permanently frightened.
          Step 2 – Keep a rolling number so you’re never tied down to a particular date.
          Step 3 – ???
          Step 4 – Save the world!

          1. Step 3 – global socialism

      2. I died in the mass starvations of the 1970s.

        1. Al Gore turned me into a Newt.

    3. Wasn’t ThinkProgress on the auction block because it ran out of SorosBux?

      1. ThinkProgress is Podesta’s thing, isn’t it?
        Wonder how nervous he is right now…
        I’d guess at least as much as when he misplaced his “pizza” map napkin

      2. Spoke foreign country’s clandestine services should quietly dispose of Soros and his pups. Then his assets can be frozen and kept from the progressives.

  16. “I have officially filed my lawsuit against AOC for blocking me on twitter,” Saladino tweeted. “Trump is not allowed to block people, will the standards apply equally? Stay tuned to find out!” “If we can’t talk to one another, the whole system breaks down,” Saladino added in his press release.

    Serious question: Is tweeting really that fucking important?

    1. To normal people, no it is not. To journalist and other assorted political weirdoes, yes it is.

      1. Hmm. How about suing Twitter for not coming out with this essential mechanism *decades* ago?

        1. Sue the Phoenicians for inventing the alphabet we use!

    2. The underlying principle is important to libertarians, but social justice warriors go whichever way the wind blows. If you want to use the First Amendment to attack Trump, it’s the most important thing in the world. If you want to use the First Amendment to refuse to cater a gay wedding, then, no, the First Amendment doesn’t matter at all and FYTW.

    3. Yes. Twitter and the advent of social media, and the subsequent take over of virtually all of the advertising market, are important. Access to these systems is also important. So much so that we should consider threats to liberty outside of what the US government can do to us. The US government has tremendous capability to violate rights, so do the organizations that dwarf the size of many governments throughout the world. The US government also takes many actions that protect its citizen’s rights. Its a messy world, but one that can easily be simplified to black in white if you want to choose one of a few sorted ideologies.

      1. “…the subsequent take over of virtually all of the advertising market,…”

        If you expect to be taken seriously, you should quit posting idiotic opinions as facts.

        1. No one takes you seriously because you don’t engage with whats being said.

          1. “No one takes you seriously because you don’t engage with whats being said.”

            You’re a laugh riot along with being an idiot.
            Fuck off.

            1. Case and point.

  17. buybuydandavis made some interesting observations about Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 yesterday–observations that echoed similar comments made by others, as well. I want to make sure I respond to them. When we left off, I was talking about the implications of the standard of actual malice and why Section 230 is really just protecting the industry from frivolous lawsuits rather than protecting them from liability. buybuydandavis responded with the following:

    “Malice isn’t required generally. Only on matters of public concern”.

    He then cited two cases:

    Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)

    Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985)

    Here’s my response:

    In Gertz v. Robert Welch, the Court held that if states set a standard below that of actual malice, then the remedies they could offer are limited to monetary damages to the victims–and nothing more. I don’t see any reason to believe that repealing Section 230 would change the standard of actual malice at the federal level because Gertz v. Welch was about the states. Furthermore, we’re talking about the actions of the FTC and the Justice Department, not some state.

    In Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc, the crux of the Court’s decision about a “purely private concern” had to do with the observation that Dun & Bradstreet isn’t a public news company. In other words, when the business owner went to the bank, he was denied a loan because Dun & Bradstreet incorrectly said he was bankrupt. The court held that was different as a “purely private concern”–and it’s a private concern because Dun & Bradstreet didn’t make this information publicly available by publishing it a newspaper. It was Dun & Bradstreet telling someone this information over the phone. Social media isn’t like that at all. It is a public concern by this standard, like a newspaper, and so it is still subject to the standard of actual malice.

    Remember, “actual malice” is about harmonizing libel laws with the First Amendment. The First Amendment doesn’t protect violating someone’s rights with your speech any more than the Second Amendment protects violating someone’s rights with a gun. In order to convict a defendant for violating someone’s rights with a gun, a jury should need to find that the defendant possessed mens rea–that the defendant acted with malicious intent. Even in cases of negligent homicide, the jury should find that the defendant willfully disregarded someone’s rights.

    The “actual malice” standard for libel fills the same purpose in libel law that mens rea does in laws against murdering someone with a gun. Because we cannot possibly demonstrate that Facebook possessed malice when I willfully decided to post something on Facebook that libeled you, Facebook should be protected from frivolous lawsuits. If you want a remedy for that libel, you have to go after the person who willfully decided to libel you.

    This is exactly like protecting gun manufacturers from liability for murders that were perpetrated with their guns. Anti-gun activists would love to see a wave of frivolous lawsuits overwhelm and destroy the gun manufacturing industry, but even if there were no protection from those frivolous lawsuits, there is no reason why a gun manufacturer should be held responsible for a case in which a man murdered his wife. That is because the manufacturer is a third party and cannot possibly possess mens rea–there could not possibly have been any malicious intent to violate the victim’s rights on the part of the gun manufacturer.

    I understand there are plenty of people who hate Facebook and Google so much that they’d love to see a wave of frivolous lawsuits destroy both companies. However, as a third party, there is no good reason why they should be held responsible for libel when there is no way they could possibly be shown to possess actual malice–even if the protection from frivolous lawsuits were withdrawn.

    1. Actual malice is not necessary when the person is not a public figure. Facebook, since they have assumed complete control over their content are not a common carrier but a publisher. They should be held to the same standards as any other publisher. So if there are libelous statements on Facebook about a non public figure, that person should have an action against them. If Facebook doesn’t like that, they need to stop acting like a publisher and stop banning people for arbitrary reasons.

      1. The idea that actual malice is only a standard against public figures is interesting. Do you have a link for that?

        Everything I’m reading suggests that going after newspapers for libel requires actual malice. Why should social media be any different?

        1. the link is New York Times v. Sullivan. That is the whole case. Libel was always a strict liability crime at the common law. The case involved the Times printing an advertisement that slandered some sheriff in Alabama. Under traditional libel law, the Times was responsible. The Court saved the Times and said it was different because the plaintiff was a public figure and thus it required actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth for the plaintiff to prevail. They created the public figure doctrine out of thin air. It is not in the Constitution and did not exist before NYT v. Sullivan.

        2. Look at the rolling stone case. Against the Virginia frat.

          1. They were not public figures and since what was said was false, Rolling Stone was screwed. Had they been public figures, Rolling Stone could have said “we didn’t know it was a lie and didn’t act with malice” and won the case.

            1. That’s right. Telling the truth is evidence that brings the claim of actual malice into question. That essentially is why actual malice is the standard. Telling the truth is consistent with the First Amendment–even if it hurts somebody. “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. That includes libel laws. The First Amendment doesn’t protect violating other people’s rights with your speech, hence the actual malice standard.

              If you’re suggesting that people who sue Rolling Stone, the New York Times, or Facebook shouldn’t be or aren’t required to prove actual malice, I don’t understand why.

              If Rolling Stone or the New York Times publishes something untrue written by one of their reporters with malicious intent, then they’re guilty of libel. If Facebook carries a story by either one of them that turns out to be libelous, Facebook isn’t guilty of libel if they didn’t know or couldn’t have known that the story was false at the time that they carried the story.

              Likewise, if Ken posts something libelous about John on Facebook, Facebook can’t be guilty of libel because they were merely the paper on which that libel was printed–not the publisher. They could not have possessed malicious intent.

              The public and private aspect of this is only about the kinds of damages and remedies available when the difference is between Ken libeling John in a private email to his employer or the New York Times defaming John in front of the world. It isn’t about the standard of proof–it’s about the damages.

              All I’ve seen so far is that state laws can make for a lesser standard than malice if the State of New York wants to let people go after the New York Times for defaming them, but in those cases, the rewards must be limited to actual damages suffered by the victim. I don’t believe punitive damages are allowed at all. That standard has no play whatsoever, far as I can tell, when the antitrust divisions of the FTC and the Justice Department are trying to make Facebook spin off Instagram and WhatsApp.

              Furthermore, I can’t see anything that says that once Facebook and the rest of the online world is subjected to a slew of necessarily frivolous lawsuits, that the new standard of libel in federal court will be anything less than malicious intent. Was the First Amendment repealed? Actual malice is the only thing that makes going after publishers for what they print acceptable and legal in light of the First Amendment, and that will continue to be the appropriate standard until the First Amendment is repealed.

              1. You completely misunderstand libel law Ken. Truth is and always has been an absolute defense to libel. So, if what you say is true, then you are not guilty of libel no matter what.

                The question arises when what you said or printed is untrue. If it is untrue and the person is a private party, they don’t have to establish anything except that you said it, it was untrue, and it caused damages to prevail. If the person is a public figure, then you have to establish actual malice or a reckless disregard to prevail.

                1. I was referring to the reason why the truth is considered a defense to libel, which is telling, and in countries that don’t have the First Amendment, their libel laws did not evolve to be consistent with the First Amendment. Having printed the damaging truth is not necessarily an obvious defense against libel in those countries’ courts.

                  Australia and Canada also evolved from English common law, but their libel laws are quite different from ours–with a lack of the necessity to prove actual malice being a distinguishing feature. Again, that is because of our First Amendment–not because of Section 230–and that actual malice feature will remain an integral part of our libel law until the First Amendment is repealed.

        3. There was a good Paul Newman movie about this, I forget the title.

          1. hilarious.

          2. Absence of Malice.

            1. You’d probably like the sequel:

              “Thou shalt not step on my joke”.

    2. If Facebook leaves up one libelous post after its been reported but deletes another, Facebook is exercising editorial discretion.
      Such discretion should be proof of malice.

      1. Its almost like maybe they shouldn’t be touching any posts (except illegal content) and let people just block/mute each other. Or, we could continue to make them immune from recourse by giving them special protections like libertarians seems so fond of doing for mega corporations lately.

        1. Is Twitter and Facebook like the phone company or a newspaper? If they are like the phone company, then they are not responsible for illegal or libelous content on their servers. If I plot to kill my wife over the phone, you can’t hold the phone company responsible for giving me a means to do so. But, the phone company doesn’t monitor the content of my calls or claim any authority to refuse service based on the content of what I say on the phone. Twitter and Facebook do monitor content and claim the authority to refuse service to someone because they don’t like the content. That makes them like the newspaper. If they want the freedom to refuse service based on content, then they should have to assume the responsibility of the content they do allow that comes with that.

          1. I’m totally on board with this, this is a policy I could get behind. Its fair to both the owners of the social media servers, their customers (advertisers) and their product (social media users).

        2. Or maybe you should pick a different social media company. Maybe try this one:

          Why should the government solve your problems for you when you’re perfectly capable of solving your own problem for yourself?

          Are you or are you not a libertarian?

          1. The barriers to entry and economies of scale make that an impractical option. There is no point in being on a network until there is a critical mass of people on it.

            1. There’s no economy of scale that stops you from joining MeWe and inviting your friends and family–certainly not for people who are upset about Facebook invading their privacy. In this country, you’re entitled to liberty and justice–and that’s it. Facebook isn’t even the government–they don’t owe you anything they didn’t agree to give you on purpose.

          2. Me?
            I’d considered being a libertarian, but Reason has dissuaded me over the year and a half I’ve been coming here.

            As for social media participation, I’m not too big on it.
            Regardless, if social media companies act as publishers, which they currently are, they should bear the responsibilities that come with publishing – they should not get crony protection

      2. Seems like you’d need a bit more to prove malice. There are other explanations for that kind of apparent selectivity.

        Why do people keep using Facebook, anyway? It seems like a big part of the left hates them because of Russia nonsense and many on the right do because of this stuff. Yet they keep using it.

        1. Facebook is a hell of a drug?

          Alternatively I can’t believe that a rich conservative has created Trumpet as an alternative to Twitter and get the #1 tweeter on board. Besides the fact it probably wouldn’t make any money. Does Twitter make any money?

          And I have Slick Rick’s The Rulers Back play in the viral video marketing campaign for Trumpet.

        2. “Seems like you’d need a bit more to prove malice. There are other explanations for that kind of apparent selectivity.”

          Because you want it to be so?

          If Facebook publishes A but not B, and A and B are of kind, Facebook has implicitly endorsed A through its exclusion of B.
          Let a jury decide.

          1. Why would I want it to be so? That’s just how it looks to me. As you should be able to tell from my post, I don’t give a fuck about facebook.
            You are the one who claimed that there is proof of malice. Now you seem to be backing off of that. An endorsement of A over B does not demonstrate malice towards B. Malice is more than liking one thing better than another.

            1. I’d say choosing to publish A and not B, rather than neither or both, is sufficient proof of malice toward B

              1. In the case of social media, where there isn’t action required to leave A and B published

      3. If Facebook or any of these companies leave up a libelous post after they know its libelous, they are guilty of reckless disregard and can be sued even if it is a public figure. They only get the immunity if they take the content down when they are informed it is libelous or illegal in some way.

      4. “If Facebook leaves up one libelous post after its been reported but deletes another, Facebook is exercising editorial discretion.
        Such discretion should be proof of malice.”

        I’m not sure that’s the case, and I’m not sure why it should be.

        Because some of the hundreds of Facebook employees make mistakes in taking down libelous comments, we can’t have social media?

        It seems to me that you hate Facebook so much that you’re willing to violate the First Amendment and build a regulatory framework for the government to police our speech–not to mention giving the central planners an excuse to regulate the economy. I’m a libertarian capitalist first and foremost, and that means I’m wiling to stick up for the First Amendment and capitalism–even if doing so benefits awful shitheads like Zuckerberg.

        Hell, I’ll stick up for worse than that in the defense of capitalism and our rights. I argue that racists have free speech rights, homophobes have the freedom of religion, and gangbangers have Second Amendment rights, too? It’s all the same thing, Buddy Ro!

        1. Because some of the hundreds of Facebook employees make mistakes in taking down libelous comments, we can’t have social media?

          Companies are responsible for the actions of their employees. My God Ken is there any law you think these companies should be subject to?

          1. You’re holding Facebook employees responsible for libel that’s been perpetrated by others. They need to make a good faith effort not to knowingly perpetuate libelous stories. They are not responsible for the libel that’s perpetrated by others.

  18. Now three years into an attempted coup of the Presidency. Crickets at Reason.

    1. Fuck Reason.
      I keep trying to post a link to Aaron Mate’s report about the Russian narrative, but Reason won’t post it.
      Anyway, look it up.
      Their was never an investigation, it was always a coup attempt.
      John Brennan’s brainchild.
      This was what I’ve been saying, because its obvious, for 3 years

        1. Nice. Thanks.

        2. Wow. A must read.

        3. “”And CrowdStrike was hired to perform the analysis of the DNC servers by Perkins Coie – the law firm that also was responsible for contracting Fusion GPS, the Washington, D.C.-based opposition research firm that produced the now discredited Steele dossier alleging salacious misconduct by Trump in Russia and his susceptibility to blackmail.””

          I wonder if Hillary is on the board of directors.

      1. Aaron Mate is a journalist stud.

  19. “Trump—Who Once Said Jeffrey Epstein ‘Likes Beautiful Women as Much as I Do’—Moves to Distance Himself From the Disgraced Palm Beach Billionaire.”

    I understand Epstein had other friends who probably aren’t happy to be associated with him, but I eagerly await ENBs revelation that Trump and Epstein BREATHE THE SAME AIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. For someone ready to believe Hillary Clinton murdered Seth Rich you have some fucking nerve playing dumb now.

      1. Fuck off and die.

        1. You’ll be dead long before me old man.

          1. I won’t.

            Now fuck off Shreek, your Epstein/Clinton-like love of kiddie porn is going to be your downfall.

          2. “You’ll be dead long before me old man.”

            And everybody but a bucket of rocks will be smart long before you.

      2. Those two shots in the back are obv suicide. Like Vince Foster!

        1. I guess you missed the new but hardly surprising revelation that the Seth Rich story was planted by Russians for the consumption of useful idiots?

          1. Hahahahahaha!

            Did you also read that OJ found the real killers – it was the Russians!

          2. I guess you bought that, Shreek.

          3. Like we really needed the Russians to pile on to an existing conspiracy that was made by any American the second he was killed. the government can’t even figure out a decent password let alone find the origins of a story on the internet

            1. OG’s tin hat is artisanally-made.

          4. “”I guess you missed the new but hardly surprising revelation that the Seth Rich story was planted by Russians for the consumption of useful idiots?””

            Considering the Clinton kill list conspiracy has been around for decades, I find it funny that people would think it’s a Russian op to plant this. Anyone who dies with a nexus to the Clintons is automatically assumed to be part of the that conspiracy. Russian involvement is not needed.

            1. Below is a comprehensive list of 48 mysterious deaths connected to the clintons that have grave implications.
              1 – James McDougal – Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.
              2 – Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
              3 – Vince Foster – Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
              4 – Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
              5 – C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
              6 – Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992… Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”
              7- Ed Willey – Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
              8 – Jerry Parks – Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
              9 – James Bunch – Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a “Black Book” of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
              10 – James Wilson – Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
              11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
              12 – Bill Shelton – Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.
              13 – Gandy Baugh – Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
              14 – Florence Martin – Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
              15 – Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
              16 – Paula Grober – Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
              17 – Danny Casolaro – Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
              18 – Paul Wilcher – Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death
              19 – Jon Parnell Walker – Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
              20 – Barbara Wise – Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
              21- Charles Meissner – Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
              22 – Dr. Stanley Heard – Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.
              23 – Barry Seal – Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.
              24 – Johnny Lawhorn Jr. – Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
              25 – Stanley Huggins – Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
              26- Hershell Friday – Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
              27 – Kevin Ives and Don Henry – Known as “The boys on the track” case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
              28 – Keith Coney – Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.
              29 – Keith McMaskle – Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
              30 – Gregory Collins – Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
              31 – Jeff Rhodes – He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
              33 – James Milan – Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to “natural causes.”
              34 – Jordan Kettleson – Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
              35 – Richard Winters – A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
              THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 – Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37 – Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 – Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 – Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 – Major General William Robertson 41 – Col. William Densberger 42 – Col. Robert Kelly 43 – Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 – Steve Willis 45 – Robert Williams 46 – Conway LeBleu 47 – Todd McKeehan

              1. I kept this gem for just occasions like this.

    2. I didn’t read that as any kind of condemnation of Trump. Maybe it’s just me.
      Trump once said nice things about someone. Now he doesn’t. That’s what Trump does. He says what suits his needs at the moment.

      1. “I didn’t read that as any kind of condemnation of Trump.”
        If it isn’t meant that way, why is it even news?

        1. This is the morning links. It links to what is in the news from other sources.

          Anyway, it seems like Acosta is the one who comes off looking bad here. Everyone knows Trump pretends to like people when it suits him.

          1. I stand by my statement; those links are *selected*

          2. We all know Trump sexually assaults women. We all know Trump is a pathological liar who will say anything if it’s convenient for his needs. You seem to believe Trump’s fucked up personality is some kind of a defense. It’s quite the opposite.

            1. We all know you’re a sockpuppet for a pedophile.

            2. “We all know Trump is a pathological liar who will say anything if it’s convenient for his needs”

              Yes Shreek, you stupid fuck, that’s exactly the point.

          3. The headline isn’t selected. It’s written. In this case, it’s also editorializing.

            1. Fair enough. But it still doesn’t seem like anything bad about Trump. He once associated with this person in some small way. Now that he’s in the news again, Trump makes it clear that he has not continued that association and that he condemns the behavior. Seems like exactly what he should do.
              You can accuse me of being overly charitable in my interpretation. It’s probably fair.

              1. “But it still doesn’t seem like anything bad about Trump.”

                Not directly, I’d probably agree. The problem I think is that there is a clear attempt to allude to some connection, that upon any real examination, simply doesn’t exist.

                Meanwhile, many many big names with at least a more plausible association to Epstein go unmentioned.

                I think, after watching ENB do links for this long, and being able to basically write this headline in advance (I, and probably others, knew it would read like this) that her motives are more visible than she thinks they are.

                She doesn’t like Trump. Fine. But the headline, while not a direct attack, could easily be seen as an attempt to smear Trump by association. An association which is tenuous to the point of near non-existence.

                1. “She doesn’t like Trump. Fine. But the headline, while not a direct attack, could easily be seen as an attempt to smear Trump by association.”

                  She could have selected from a pool of several hundred people and found the same sort of association.
                  But instead, she posted ‘well, I really don’t mean to accuse *him* of anything, but did you hear?….’
                  On top of being guilt-by-innuendo, it’s dishonest besides.

                  1. The president gets more attention and scrutiny than other people. Imagine that.

                    1. “The president gets more attention and scrutiny than other people. Imagine that.”

                      Especially from those afflicted. Seek treatment.

                    2. “”Which president?””

                      And securitized by who?

                      Business Insider did an article about the “concentration camp” situation on the border with photos of kids in cages back in 2014. Where was the outrage then?

      2. Little Rocket Man agrees.

    3. ENB should do some digging into what people said about serial rapist Bill Cosby from 1964-2014. A lot of people, including myself, have some explaining to do, at least per ENB

  20. Her campaign tried to get around the discrepancy by pointing out that it’s a different year than when Biden opposed it.

    It’s the year that she needed to play a race card.

  21. (I’ve been through the April 2011 filings in the Epstein-Edwards case and been unable to find this particular statement, however. )

    Maybe if you’d come up with pithy headline after pithy headline, we’d believe you over the Post.

  22. Maybe we should’ve paid more attention to Trump’s 2011 trip to the Cal/Mexico border where he posed for a photo opp w a crowd of agents in front of a border wall *while wearing a fake police badge* & grinning like a toddler who just stole your cake

    Oh oops did I say Trump


    1. Hitler? One of these days, he’s actually going to be the answer to one of these questions…

  23. The new law removes the possibility of jail time as a penalty for up to three grams of marijuana, but maintains a $130 fine…

    Failure to pay the fine, however…

    1. “Still, removing criminal penalties and possible jail time for possession of a small amount of cannabis is an improvement.”

      “Now, if only we could do something about that pesky Federal illegality.”


    On the evening of December 2nd, 2010, a handful of America’s media and entertainment elite—including TV anchors Katie Couric and George Stephanopoulos, comedienne Chelsea Handler, and director Woody Allen—convened around the dinner table of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

    New York friends are suddenly hesitant to talk about Maxwell. “She’s a high-end ‘fixer’,” and so what? they ask. “No one in café society gives a damn that a 15-year-old girl gives massages,” says one frequent
    charity-benefit guest.

    This was after the guy went to prison. Why isn’t anyone asking Couric and Stephadophalopolous or whatever his name is what they were doing there?

    1. Because everyone knows that the media is a bunch of depraved perverts? MeToo and all that is such a farce because of exactly this sort of thing. Everyone looks the other way until they have no choice not to. It’s so blatantly obvious, yet no one calls them out for ignoring people like that for years when they all know what was going on.

      1. Ignoring is one thing. Why would you be friends and go to dinner with this guy after he has gone to prison.

        I can’t find the links but there were some very interesting things about him floating around the web yesterday. No one knows exactly what he does or how he made his money. He claims that he “manages the money of billionaires”, which is absurd. Billionaires run corporations and have entire staffs of people to manage their money. They would never hire some schmoe like Epstein, whose entire experience before starting his company was being a small time broker at Bear Sterns and I kid you not a private school teacher.

        The theory is that he was running a blackmail scheme. He would have these parties with underage girls, get rich people to partake and then blackmail them into giving him millions. It sound far out but apparently people like the founder of Victoria Secret went so far as to give him a mansion at no charge and give him general power of attorney over all of their assets. It is pretty hard to explain that without resorting to something very out of the ordinary like blackmail.

        1. That’s really something if even partly true.

          I expect Epstein will be made to go away so no one ever finds out what was really going on.


            This lays it all out Zeb. They give several theories for his wealth from Ponzi scheme to blackmail to money laundering. But it seems to be an established fact that no one knows how or can explain where Epstein got his money or why on earth very wealthy people gave him control over their money that are previously unheard of.

            1. I’d say it was less a series of honey-traps, than wealthy pedophiles paying him for access to diddle kiddies. It’s not that much different than rich people who sponsor yachting parties so their friends have the chance to bang “Instagram models”.

              The fact that some of the material that they found in Epstein’s New York apartment was labeled with names indicates that he knew it could be used as blackmail insurance, however.

          2. thats what jail time is for. i hear most prisoners don’t like pedophiles so I’m thinking if Epstein was a blackmailer then he finally probably tired to blackmail the wrong person. How else does one explain the length of time he got away with such crime even in front of a former president

            1. note thats a conspiracy that didn’t require the Russians

            2. Pedophiles like Epstein dont make it long in prison.

              Inmates with Life sentences find people like Epstein great targets for extortion and murder (up their prison status as a badass).

    2. Ask Whoppi what she thinks about drugging and raping under-age women.

      1. since she probably does it its okay for others as long as your a democrat

        1. ” Polanski was not guilty of ‘rape-rape’, says Whoopi Goldberg
          This article is more than 9 years old
          ‘We’re a different kind of society, we see things differently,’ actor says in defence of Roman Polanski”

          1. I hope to God Trump throws Hollywood’s protection of Roman Polanski in their faces.

    3. To me, this is a prime example of why the idea of using Big Government to control Big Business is such a futile one. All of the bigwigs in business, government, and the media are intimate friends (even if they go into “every man for himself” mode when a scandal erupts).

      1. You are mistaken about how scandals work.

        You are only on your own if the group wants you to be.

        Lefties tend to be protected by the media so working peers can bring you back into the fold after the public is influenced to

        Jussie Smollett, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Roman Polanski… are examples of those protected.

        Anthony Weiner, Al Franken… are examples of those thrown under the bus for the “greater good”.

        Trump is an example of a person the media will defame, attack, and try to take down. FYI: The media used to protect Trump a bit during the minor scandals in his life. Now the propagandists are out to destroy him.

        1. “”FYI: The media used to protect Trump a bit during the minor scandals in his life. “”

          When he was a democrat.

  25. The Twitter links about the border photo aren’t working…

    1. OK, so 15 minutes after Fist’s comment, the links aren’t working.

  26. Shutting the southern border down is becoming more and more popular all the time–in Mexico.

    “63 percent of respondents in a survey conducted by El Financiero believe that the Mexican government should close the border to migrants , this is nine points more than what had been registered two weeks ago, with 54 percent.

    In contrast, 35 percent believe that migrants have to be supported and facilitated through the national territory. Thus the public opinion after the negotiations between the representatives of the governments of Mexico and the United States.”

    No matter how you slice it, the fact is that an overwhelming majority of Mexicans do not want hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadoreans traipsing through their country on the way to the United States. Their opposition to that is a little complicated however:

    “This majority support for the deployment of the National Guard to the southern border contrasts, however, with a widespread belief that President Donald Trump will not respect the agreements with the Mexican government: the survey reveals that 64 percent of those consulted believe that Trump will not respect the agreements with Mexico, compared to 31 that he believes will respect them. The same agreements established a period of 45 days to review the progress.”


    In other words, much of their support for keeping asylum seekers from entering Mexico seems to be about the agreement Trump made with the Mexican government on June 7. In short, Mexico has 45 days from June 7 to significantly stop the flow of asylum seekers, and if they fail, then they’re supposed to put a “safe third country” agreement up to a vote in the Mexican senate, which would make asylum seekers ineligible for asylum in the U.S. if they first set foot in Mexico. On the other hand, it would make them eligible for asylum in Mexico pending a hearing by international treaty standards.

    The majority of Mexicans BOTH don’t want to be overrun with millions of asylum seekers from Central America in the wake of a safe third country agreement AND they don’t want their economy to be subjected to the tariffs Trump threatened them with in the beginning of June. That is the most likely explanation for why they support using their military to close down the border with Guatemala–they hope they both won’t be subjected to Trump’s tariffs and they won’t need to join in a safe third country agreement if they stop the flow of migrants within 45 days.

    They don’t expect Trump to “keep his word” meaning that even if they succeed in their efforts to stop the asylum seekers, they expect Trump to hit them with tariffs and demand a safe third country agreement anyway. In order to make the Mexican Senate ratify a safe third country agreement, it will probably be necessary for Trump to slap Mexico with tariffs under the promise of lifting them once Mexico ratifies the agreement. Give it a couple of weeks, and we should know whether Trump thinks slapping Mexico with tariffs is likely to enhance or diminish his chances of reelection.

  27. “I think we need to be above [moving up in the polls]. All of us.”

    You’ve got nothing to worry about.

  28. And Trump has exactly what to do with the alleged criminal behavior of somebody he knew?

    1. If every person was guilty because at sometime they meet someone who at some other time committed a crime, everyone would be in jail.

    2. Don’t let yourself get distracted by facts and logic.

    1. I guess the VA Governor, Lt Gov, and Attorney General will not be resigning their office.

      So much for #MeToo #BlackFaceMatters #BidenHandsOffClub

  29. >>>… so long as it’s not the same government agency that illegally seized it

    Federal Department of 4A Violations. FD4AV in yellow would look cool on one of those blue jackets.

  30. So, if you have a friend who is has been accused of a terrible crime and you said something favorable about that friend years ago that may vaguely have to do with his criminal action, you are tainted with that crime?

    1. You were not supposed to de-code that bit of innuendo, just be ‘influenced’ by it.
      No peeking behind the curtain!

      1. +100

    2. No no of course that isn’t what ENB is saying. Because she’s a fucking coward who would never be so direct.

      It’s just what she is implying.

      1. like 2 days after somebody else did too. super brave.

    3. The Deep State would never hesitate to use false kiddie porn info to destroy someone if nothing else worked. Its one of the few non-violent crimes left that shocks the conscience of the public.

      Why would propagandists in the media be any different?

    4. “So, if you have a friend who is has been accused of a terrible crime and you said something favorable about that friend”

      Telling the press that your pedophile friend likes fucking underage girls is not something favorable. It’s damning to the pedophile and the friend of the pedophile.

      1. I didn’t see where in the quote Trump said his pedophile friend liked fucking underage girls. Was that censored from the version I read, or is the severe TDS you’re suffering from making you hallucinate stuff?

        1. “I didn’t see where in the quote ”

          It’s called ‘reading between the lines.’ You can sharpen your political antennae %1000 by learning these skills. The point is, Trump knew the guy was a pedophile but didn’t cut ties to him out of principle. And hired the creep who cut him a sweet heart deal into his cabinet.

          1. I guess I’m stuck with dull antennae, ’cause I can’t tell the difference between “reading between the lines” and “making shit up to fit a narrative”. To me, Trump subsequently banning the guy from his club after he behaved poorly towards an underage employee indicates he doesn’t tolerate that shit, but to an experienced between-the-line reader, …what? You tell us dull-antennae types what that means.

            I guess you and Tony have been “reading between the lines” all this time.

            1. “I guess I’m stuck with dull antennae”

              Yes, I gathered that. But it’s because you want to be stuck in your dullness, not because of any intellectual limitations.

  31. How about some free markets?
    “The S&P 500 surges above 3,000, stocks hit record highs after the Fed reaffirms a rate cut is coming”

    And just a reminder:
    “New York Times opinion writer and economist Paul Krugman predicted early Wednesday morning that the stock market will “never” recover from Donald Trump’s presidential victory,”

  32. >>>U.S. Rep Ilhan Omar

    the “sorry not sorry” tweets are irritating why will nobody come back w/ “well i’m not married to my brother so there’s that”

  33. “Maybe we should’ve paid more attention to Trump’s 2011 trip to the Cal/Mexico border where he posed for a photo opp w a crowd of agents in front of a border wall *while wearing a fake police badge* & grinning like a toddler who just stole your cake
    Oh oops did I say Trump
    — Alex Yelderman (@alexflevy) July 9, 2019”

    Unfortunately, the twitter links no longer show a picture. Anyone know what it was?

  34. The ties that bind President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein,

    I am sure reason will do daily articles about Bill Clinton riding the Lolita Express and all documented interactions with Epstein.

    The propagandists out there make me laugh. Like Epstein never had beautiful adult women accompany him when Trump was around and that was what Trump was talking about. I mean just because nobody found any evidence that Trump likes to mess with kids, doesn’t mean that the propagandists cannot make that libelous connection now with all the TDS.

    1. “Like Epstein never had beautiful adult women accompany him when Trump was around and that was what Trump was talking about.”

      Trump seems to have been aware of his friend’s pedophilia, even making a point to comment on the young age of the girls he liked to fuck.

      1. So Trump said under 18? Of course, he didn’t.

        Trump could have as easily been talking about 18 and 19 old young women that Epstein was fucking around others to get some not-quite-jailbait.

        You people crack me up as if people will believe your nonsense.

        1. “Trump could have as easily been talking about 18 and 19 old young women that Epstein was fucking around others to get some not-quite-jailbait.”

          That’s called giving him the benefit of the doubt. Why not assume the worst? You have to be pretty naive if you think Trump’s enemies are not thrilled at the prospect of distracting Trump with a political sex scandal.

          1. Trump does not drink or smoke. He might actually have some self control.

            He is addicted to trolling Lefties.

            If Lefties have not found any illegal actions by Trump, they aren’t any.

            1. “If Lefties have not found any illegal actions by Trump, they aren’t any.”

              A very unpersuasive, ungrammatical defense strategy you seem to be pursuing here. My advice: do better.

            2. Works every time.

              1. Works on some of the people all of the time.

    2. There is far more evidence that Michael Jackson diddled kids than Trump. There is a narrative going around that Trump is a racist therefore everyone who likes Trump is a racist. Following that line of logic, if you like Michael Jackson, you are a pedophile.

      1. “There is far more evidence that Michael Jackson diddled kids than Trump.”

        Ah, the Michael Jackson did it more defense. I can smell the desperation.

        1. Woooooosh

        2. Nowhere am I defending anyone. But I guess you couldn’t figure that out on your own.

          1. I will defend Trump on this topic.

            All the Lefties trying to get Trump and the Deep State trying to coup his ass and nobody found any illegal underage girl action?

            I suspect like most garbage coming from Lefties, any accusation without proof that Trump did anything illegal with underage girls, is a lie.

            1. “I will defend Trump on this topic.”

              But you are not defending Trump. You are blowing smoke making vague attacks against ‘Lefties.’ You are going to have to do better than that, sunshine.

              1. I cant wait for Bill Clinton’s connection with Epstein to bet more attention.

                1. You’ll have to wait. As long as Trump is president, he’s going to garner more attention than anyone else. You must be desperate if this your hope.

                  1. I meant more attention by the DOJ into Bill Clinton’s abuse of under age girls.

                    1. Why not Trump too? Wrong party?

          2. “Nowhere am I defending anyone.”

            There is nothing to defend. This is a catastrophe, over 300 million Americans and Trump hires the lawyer who cut a sweet heart deal with his friend, the pedophile.

  35. A Drastic Drop in Migrant Arrivals on the Border: What’s Happening?

    Even Lefty propagandists have to admit that Trump’s strategy to enlist Mexico, in controlling immigrants, is working.

    I am sure that reason will do an in-depth article about this…never.

  36. Shouldn’t there be an article about Bill Clinton and Epstein instead of Trump?

  37. Alright, I’m probably the enemy here, because I’m male, white, over 60, Christian, straight, and married, but what’s wrong with younger beautiful women? Trump isn’t wrong. Epstein is, because he’s a damned child molester and needs to rot in prison for the rest of his life, but any straight male who doesn’t appreciate at least LOOKING at a younger beautiful woman is demented.

  38. Trump “distanced himself” from Epstein 15 years ago when he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago for having sex with underage girls.

  39. […] Elizabeth Nolan-Brown took an early look at the new indictment against Epstein. Read her analysis from earlier in the week here.  And she explored Esptein’s past friendship with Trump himself here. […]

  40. […] Elizabeth Nolan-Brown took an early look at the new indictment against Epstein. Read her analysis from earlier in the week here.  And she explored Esptein’s past friendship with Trump himself here. […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.