Mailwatch(ed) Forum

The BBC is fairly popular in the US, but I'd guess not with Trumpers. Is this the best distraction he's got? I wonder if the impetus of this came from our own cranks.

Not clear yet whether this is the line- I expect they were caught on the hop. But they could do with a better line.

Link to full story here.

One hesitates to call Schumer a strategic genius, but if they knew they had this ready to go, the shutdown deal looks more comprehensible.

This line may not hold either.

White House says new batch of Epstein emails is part of 'fake narrative' in an attempt to 'smear' Donald Trump
In response to the latest batch of emails released by House Democrats on the oversight committee, the White House said this was an attempt to “to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump”.

In a statement, press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed “the ‘unnamed victim’ referenced in these emails is the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever. However, the emails redacted the name of the victim when they were released, and Leavitt didn’t expand on her reasoning.

“The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club decades ago for being a creep to his female employees, including Giuffre. These stories are nothing more than bad-faith efforts to distract from President Trump’s historic accomplishments,” she added. “Any American with common sense sees right through this hoax and clear distraction from the government opening back up again.”

Doubtless this looks clever because Virginia Giuffre is dead. I wonder if it might be a different victim, who isn't dead?

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Wed Nov 12, 2025 5:45 pm Doubtless this looks clever because Virginia Giuffre is dead. I wonder if it might be a different victim, who isn't dead?

Surely it's more that Virginia Giuffre is on record exonerating Trump, it would be very convenient if the redacted victim was her.

I'm not sure that Virginia Giuffre really does exonerate Trump. All she says is that she never saw him do anything wrong. She may not have seen him doing anything wrong but she does place him at Epstein Island.

Why's he spending all this time with her? Sounds like something was up with somebody.

Epstein Files coming up for a vote. Got the 218th signature. Bobert and Mace can’t take their signatures off. I don’t know if Mike Johnson knew this when he swore the new Democrat member in.

Sounds like lots of Republicans now realize the game's up with the Epstein files and will vote to release them.

That's of course assuming that Pam Bondi won't just refuse.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:13 am Sounds like lots of Republicans now realize the game's up with the Epstein files and will vote to release them.

That's of course assuming that Pam Bondi won't just refuse.

Looking at Bondi's recent statements, the body language says more than the words.
*Mogodon delivery.
*An expression that says "I'm trashing everything I worked to achieve".

Leavitt was pretty awful too. But doesn't mean that they'll release anything.

.

Epstein in the emails says Bill Clinton never went to the island. I say this isn't convincing but it never is.

That's quite the list there (credit Marc Elias) says he's directing the Justice Department, says he's targeting opponents, and says the Epstein files exists and he knows what's in it. How do you deal with this stuff if so many people don't care about it?

Here's the nearest thing to a principled Republican. He's rather coy, as you can see. And retiring. Maybe Trump's travails will mean we see more from Don Bacon, though maybe not because his family got death threats another time he did this.

Tubby Isaacs wrote: ↑Fri Nov 14, 2025 3:52 pm Epstein in the emails says Bill Clinton never went to the island. I say this isn't convincing but it never is.

Does he think J P Morgan is still around (died 1913)? Maybe they'll subpoena the travel organiser Mr Thomas Cook.

Was Henry Ford at Epstein Island?

I was pondering, should “Malevolence” be added to the title of this thread

That sentence is coherent and logical compared with the rest of it.

In other news. No extra Trump seats in Indiana. Gerrymanders are great unless your support slumps. Rather than winning all those seats by small margins, you can lose them by small margins. Republican congressmen have noticed the results the other day and decided to stick. Texas did a big gerrymander before the elections, doubtless based on confident predictions of continued strong performance among Hispanics. That is now very much in doubt.

That sentence is coherent and logical compared with the rest of it.

In other news. No extra Trump seats in Indiana. Gerrymanders are great unless your support slumps. Rather than winning all those seats by small margins, you can lose them by small margins. Republican congressmen have noticed the results the other day and decided to stick. Texas did a big gerrymander before the elections, doubtless based on confident predictions of continued strong performance among Hispanics. That is now very much in doubt.

https://bsky.app/profile/muellershewrot ... mh4447422l