All of this is like being allowed a secret keyhole to put our eye up to and peep into, just glimpsing into that Ultra-Secret World of the Rich and Famous Elite of the World. Like looking back upon the Roman Days when men sat or cruised and walked naked with hot water that warmed themselves in Hot Bathhouses. Things done with adolescents with no fear of any of it ever coming out for discerning eyes and ears to hear or see. But did a wheel fall off the wheel oiled machine of Sexcapades? Why did these come for all of us to now know. And how do you feel about these young youths being used in detachment of regret crimes by the rich And famous? Can none now be trusted? And how many others are still taking place?

Trump says his falling out with Jeffrey Epstein was over spa workers at Mar-a-Lago : NPR https://www.npr.org/2025/07/29/nx-s1-5484136/trump-jeffrey-epstein-mar-a-lago-ghislaine-maxwell

Based on the article provided, here’s a breakdown of the points you raised and what the text says:

“Trump knew Epstein for 15 years and was on great terms of friendship with Him when Epstein took workers from Trump.”

• The article states that Trump and Epstein were friendly for a period. Trump praised Epstein in a 2002 interview, calling him a “terrific guy” and noting his preference for “younger” women.¹
• Their “long friendship ended” in 2004 due to a real estate rivalry over a Palm Beach mansion.²
• Trump later said in 2019 that he and Epstein had a “falling out” and hadn’t spoken in 15 years, and that he was “not a fan” of his former friend.³
• Regarding Epstein taking workers, Trump stated he ended the relationship because Epstein “hired away” spa attendants from Mar-a-Lago, claiming “he stole her” in reference to Virginia Giuffre.⁴ He stated, “When I heard about it, I told him, I said, ‘listen, we don’t want you taking our people, whether it was spa or not spa.’ I don’t want him taking people. And he was fine. And then not too long after that, he did it again. And I said, ‘out of here.'”
• The article notes, “It is unclear what other employees Mr. Trump may be referring to, and the White House did not answer a question about the claim. There are no known records of Mr. Epstein recruiting others from Mar-a-Lago.”

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvn7ee3539o

“Trump knew what kind of spa work these Stolen Workers would be doing under Epstein? This is allowed crime? Isn’t it?”

• The article states Virginia Giuffre was 16 when she was recruited from Mar-a-Lago in 2000 and “was groomed to perform sexual services and ‘passed around like a platter of fruit’ to rich and powerful predators in Mr. Epstein’s circle.”⁵
• The article does not explicitly state that Trump knew the nature of the “spa work” under Epstein beyond his comments about Epstein “hiring away” spa attendants. Trump’s current statements distance himself from the allegations, saying “she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever” regarding Giuffre.
• The article presents Trump’s claim that he ended his friendship with Epstein due to Epstein “stealing” employees from his spa, implying a business dispute, rather than directly acknowledging knowledge of or involvement in Epstein’s alleged sex trafficking activities at the time of their association.
• The actions described by Virginia Giuffre – being groomed and trafficked for sexual services as a minor – are serious crimes. The article reports on Trump’s shifting explanations for ending his relationship with Epstein and his current distancing from the accusations against Epstein. It does not state that Trump’s actions in this context are “allowed crime” but rather reports on the accusations and Trump’s responses to them. Serious Crimes but not serious enough to put individuals behind Bars?

Then the story withered out about the true nature of the Money Trials and how it all was blindfolded and the Scorpion Queen who recruited innocence of youth to be torn apart and misused by the rich and indulgence like the Roman Days of long ago.

Ma__ was 16 or was it Ma__a, and M__-a-Lago was everything. It wasn’t the opulence that thrilled her, but the sheer fact that she, a girl who still had a curfew, was working in the same gilded halls as titans of industry and celebrities. As a spa attendant, her world was one of hushed tones, the scent of lavender and eucalyptus, and the quiet satisfaction of seeing a weary face relax under her care. She saved every tip, dreaming of a future she hadn’t quite defined yet—maybe fashion school, maybe a business of her own. The world felt vast and full of possibilities. She was just on the cusp, a child in an adult’s world, brimming with the simple, innocent excitement of youth.

Then, she met him. He wasn’t a guest but a frequent visitor, a man with . hypnotism of charisma that made the air around him seem to hum with importance. He introduced himself simply as Jef__ey. He saw her, truly saw her, not as a faceless employee in a uniform, but as a person. He asked about her dreams. He told her she was too smart, too vibrant, to be wasting her time wrapping towels and pouring fruit-infused water. He spoke of opportunities, of a life beyond Palm Beach, of travel to exotic places and a career that would put her in contact with people who could change her life forever. He promised to be a mentor, to introduce her to a world of power and influence. He spoke with such conviction that his words didn’t feel like an offer; they felt like a destiny.

Her excitement was a palpable thing, a fizzing soda of pure hope. She spent her last night in her small bedroom, carefully folding the few nice clothes she owned into a suitcase, a mix of disbelief and a fierce, adolescent confidence in her own good judgment. Her parents, cautious and worried, had asked a dozen questions. She had answered them all with a smile and a shrug, reassuring them that this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. They had nothing to worry about. This was her big break.

The disappointment came not with a crash, but with a slow, suffocating leak. The pred “assistant” job was vague. The glamour of the private jet was replaced by the cold silence of an isolated estate. CThe “mentorship” became a series of uncomfortable requests, strange introductions to powerful men who looked at her in a way that made her skin crawl, not as a protégée but as something else entirely. The confident, excited girl began to fade, replaced by a confused young woman, trying to reconcile the dreams she was sold with the terrifying reality she was living. Her life, which she had believed was just beginning, was being taken from her piece by piece, her identity stripped away in the name of a career she would never have. Her “big break” was, in fact, a carefully crafted cage.

For every parent who believes their child is too smart, too grounded, too well-loved to be lured away, M__a’s or M__ia’s story is a whisper in the dark. It is a reminder that the predators who prey on the young do not do so with fangs and claws. They do so with promises and flattery, by identifying the cracks in youthful self-confidence, and by exploiting the powerful, irresistible desire to be seen and to matter. The “big break” is often a beautiful lie, a siren’s call to a fate that no one, least of all a 16-year-old, should ever have to face.

Who knew what and when? How could all of this go on for So long? And pardoning a criminal like Ghislaine Maxwell is a crime itself?

The cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are complex and have involved numerous individuals and allegations. Here’s a breakdown to address your questions:

Who knew what and when?

• Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell: They were at the center of the sex trafficking operation. Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted in December 2021 on five of six federal charges, including sex trafficking of a minor, transporting minors for illegal sexual acts, and conspiracy to commit such offenses.¹ She was sentenced to 20 years in prison in June 2022 for her role in recruiting, grooming, and sexually abusing underage girls for Epstein.² Epstein himself was arrested in July 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges, but died by suicide in jail in August 2019 before his trial.³ Their knowledge and direct involvement are clear through the legal proceedings and victim testimonies.
• Donald Trump’s Relationship: Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein had a friendship that spanned from the late 1980s, through the 1990s, and into the early 2000s.⁴ They socialized at various events, including parties at Mar-a-Lago and trips on Epstein’s private jet. Trump has publicly stated that he knew Epstein, and in 2002, called him a “terrific guy.”⁵ However, Trump has since made efforts to distance himself from Epstein, claiming their friendship ended around 2004 or 2007, with varying explanations for the falling out, including Epstein “stealing” employees from his Mar-a-Lago spa, including Virginia Giuffre.⁶ The extent of Trump’s knowledge of Epstein’s criminal activities is a matter of public debate and speculation. He has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection to Epstein’s crimes.
• Other Associates: Epstein cultivated an elite social circle, and many prominent figures, including politicians and celebrities, had contact with him.⁷ Court documents and flight logs have revealed names of individuals who traveled with or were in contact with Epstein.⁸ However, being named in these documents does not inherently imply knowledge or involvement in his criminal activities. The Justice Department has stated that no credible evidence has been found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions, and they did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.⁹
• Law Enforcement and Legal System: There have been questions raised about why Epstein’s activities were not stopped earlier, particularly given a non-prosecution agreement in 2007.¹⁰ This agreement, which allowed Epstein to plead guilty to state charges in Florida but avoid federal prosecution, has been widely criticized.¹¹ The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility concluded in a 2020 review that the prosecutor involved exercised “poor judgment.”

How could all of this go on for so long?

The longevity of Epstein’s operation is attributed to several factors:

• Financial Resources and Influence: Epstein was a wealthy financier who used his money and connections to cultivate a network of powerful individuals, which may have provided him with a sense of impunity.¹²
• Manipulation and Coercion: Victims were often young and vulnerable, making them susceptible to Epstein’s manipulation and threats.
• Secrecy and Isolation: Epstein maintained multiple properties and used private jets, allowing him to conduct his activities discreetly and isolate victims.
• Non-Prosecution Agreements: The controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement significantly hindered federal efforts to prosecute Epstein earlier, despite evidence of his crimes.
• Failure of Institutions: There have been criticisms regarding the effectiveness of law enforcement, legal systems, and social institutions in identifying and intervening in these crimes.

Pardoning a criminal like Ghislaine Maxwell is a crime itself?

• Presidential Pardon Power: The U.S. President has broad constitutional power to grant pardons for federal offenses, with the exception of impeachment cases.¹³ This power is considered “plenary” and generally cannot be restricted by Congress or the judiciary. A pardon effectively forgives a federal crime and restores certain civil rights.
• Legality vs. Ethics: While a president can pardon someone like Ghislaine Maxwell under their constitutional authority, whether such a pardon would be ethical or appropriate is a separate matter. Pardons are intended to be acts of justice or mercy, and their use is often scrutinized, especially in high-profile cases involving severe crimes.¹⁴
• Current Situation: Ghislaine Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year federal prison sentence.¹⁵ Her attorney has suggested the possibility of a presidential pardon and has indicated she would be willing to testify before Congress if granted immunity or a pardon.¹⁶ Donald Trump has acknowledged his power to pardon her but has stated it’s “not the time to be talking about pardons” and that he has not thought about it.¹⁷ Legally, a pardon is not a crime in itself, but it can be highly controversial and can raise questions about the motivations behind such an act.

Determining whether to “believe” a political figure like Donald Trump is a complex and very confusing question, as it involves evaluating their statements, track record, and the broader context of political discourse. Here’s a breakdown of factors to consider:

1. Fact-Checking and Verifiability:

• Extensive Fact-Checking Record: Numerous independent fact-checking organizations, such as PolitiFact and The Washington Post Fact Checker, have extensively analyzed Donald Trump’s public statements.¹ These organizations have consistently documented a high volume of false or misleading claims made by him across various topics.²
• Repetition of Claims: It’s been observed that Trump often repeats claims, even after they have been debunked.³ This can contribute to the “illusory truth effect,” where repeated exposure to information, even if false, can make it seem more credible.
• Source Material: When evaluating any statement, it’s crucial to look for the evidence or source material supporting it. If a claim is made without verifiable sources, or if the sources are questionable, it warrants skepticism.

2. Rhetorical Style and Intent:

• Populist and Confrontational: Trump’s rhetoric is often described as populist, nationalistic, and confrontational.⁴ He frequently frames issues in binary terms, emphasizing themes of crisis and division, and positioning himself as an outsider fighting against an establishment.⁵
• Strategic Use of Language: Scholars and analysts have noted that Trump’s communication style can be seen as a rhetorical strategy that aims to control meaning, mobilize his base, and even create a sense of plausible deniability through shifting positions and contradictions.⁶
• “Bullshit” vs. “Lies”: Some commentators have suggested that many of Trump’s false statements might be characterized as “bullshit” rather than outright “lies.”⁷ While a liar intends to deceive with knowledge of the truth, a “bullshitter” may not care about the truth at all, focusing instead on persuasion or effect, regardless of factual accuracy.

3. Context and Bias:

• Political Motivation: All political figures, including Trump, make statements with a political purpose. This can include rallying support, attacking opponents, or shaping public perception. Understanding this underlying motivation is important for evaluating the claims.
• Confirmation Bias: People tend to interpret information in a way that confirms their existing beliefs. This “confirmation bias” can make it challenging for individuals to objectively evaluate statements from a figure they either strongly support or strongly oppose.
• Media Consumption: The media outlets one consumes can significantly influence how one perceives a politician’s statements. Different outlets may highlight different aspects, provide varying levels of scrutiny, or present information with a particular slant.

4. How to Approach Political Statements:

• Be a Critical Consumer of Information: Don’t automatically accept any statement, regardless of who makes it.
• Seek Multiple Sources: Consult a variety of reputable news organizations and fact-checking sites to get a more complete picture.
• Look for Evidence: Does the statement come with supporting data, studies, or direct quotes? Can those sources be verified?
• Consider the Source’s Agenda: What might be the motivation behind a particular statement?
• Understand Nuance: Avoid falling into overly simplistic “true” or “false” categorizations for complex issues.

In summary, when it comes to “believing” Donald Trump or any political figure, it’s essential to engage in critical thinking, consult diverse and credible sources, and be aware of the various factors that can influence the accuracy and intent of public statements.

Is Epstein clawing back from the Graveyard?

Exclusive: Epstein’s brother calls DOJ video a cover-up: ‘It shows nothing’

In an exclusive interview, Mark Epstein says surveillance video released by federal investigators proves nothing about his brother’s death and claims someone already inside the tier could have killed him.

The video shows guards escorting Epstein down stairs, across a common area, and disappearing off camera to the right toward his cell. But those green doors close-up in the footage are not Epstein’s cell door. His cell was down a locked corridor, out of view of the cameras.

https://www.wpbf.com/article/epsteins-brother-doj-video-cover-up-shows-nothing-florida-fbi/65356899