The 2003 birthday book also includes a letter that references Trump with a crude joke about a woman from another Epstein associate
An image of the letter bearing Trump’s signature, which has been turned over to Congress by the Epstein estate.
Lawyers for Jeffrey Epstein’s estate have given Congress a copy of the birthday book put together for the financier’s 50th birthday, which includes a letter with President Trump’s signature that he has said doesn’t exist.
wsj previously released an article stating that this letter exists and explaining the circumstances that of its origin. this article releases an actual copy of the letter which wsj previously did not have direct access to, but at the time only saw and reported on what they saw of the image, which is now released. does that clear it up?
i wrote an opinion of that image in another post, which since the op which has apparently since been removed, i’ll copy and spiff up a bit here:
yes, you’ve seen the indication of breast buds, but if that’s all you noticed then you’re missing the most damning part, in my opinion. did you notice the palpably explicit dismemberment? the arms aren’t cut off by the page boundaries. they’re depicted as amputated. the torso is depicted as headless and legless; but rather than amputated they are simply cut off- missing, empty.
and no face.
a headless, limbless, torso. donald’s name on the cunt and a particularly revolting union of their thin, slimy mobster-pretext all over the belly. what a fucking enigma.
No. Don’t try to make it worse than it is.
I’m not sure if this is intentional or unintentional, but either way has the same result. You’re downplaying what actually happened by trying to exaggerate and then it’ll be walked back. The worse thing you’re depicting will make reality more mundane.
The same way he said apocalypse now on Chicago and then walked it back while taking steps forward.
not drawing head and limbs was an intentional choice by the artist and it is as valid to examine that choice as it is the choice of breast shape and size. you may disagree with my speculation as to the reason he would have chosen to depict that child sex object void of all agency and expression, but you can’t possibly deny that that’s not the way you depict a person when you value their life or humanity.
and what in the fuck makes you think for one red second i would extend to donald “the john” trump a good faith presumption of innocence? every single time i’ve thought he has found the last depth of depravity i have found him colonizing a new level of hell within a week. I’m not downplaying childrape, intentionally or otherwise, by suggesting there’s motive means and opportunity to dispose of the evidence afterwards too. i don’t think most people would agree that “child rape” seems mundane in comparison to “child rape and also lupara bianca” when they think about the proposition in those terms. that is assuming your skeptic reaction is right and the “mundane” truth is that donald has only threatend, coerced, and bribed his victims into silence.
Exactly.
“Don’t make it worse than it is” is some fairy tale bullshit at this point.
Dude ran a child beauty pageant and then hosted parties with just kids, epstein and trump. Multiple girls from those parties ended up exploited by epstein. Some went missing. Others “committed suicide”.
The reality of trump is he is an iceberg of filth. Every time a wave or wobble exposes a new constellation of filth it turns out that’s just the smallest visible surface.
I cannot think of a single instance where people, pundits, newspapers, lemmings, or whoever gave trump the benefit of the doubt were ever correct on anything. Yet morons keep popping up saying bullshit like “what if he’s not that bad” and every time they’re wrong.
Their critique is valid, what’s with all the assumptions? They’re pointing out additional details that enhance the darkness behind the message, not denying the original point. It’s not an exaggeration - it’s an observation. Different people notice different things. It’s an aspect of human diversity, and it’s supposed to be a good thing. Maybe it takes an artist’s eye to notice it, but the disembodiment of the girl can definitely be interpeted as a display of dehumanization toward their victims. Faceless, anonymous, they clearly see those girls as no more than sentient sex toys.
Are we so desperate to attack someone that we must complain when someone on our same side notices more than one shitty thing about our shared target? Are we not all in agreement that this is a really creepy card? It seems to me the real detraction here isn’t the new perspective provided, but the assumption that a new perspective only exists as part of some greater pro-Trump scheme.