Kristy Greenberg: THE CASE FOR CHARGING GHISLAINE MAXWELL WITH LYING TO THE DOJ

"Ghislaine Maxwell lied repeatedly during her interview with DOJ Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Making false statements to a federal officer is a crime. Former SDNY Criminal Division Deputy Chief Kristy Greenberg walks through the evidence of Maxwell's lies and makes the case for why the DOJ should charge Maxwell with making false statements in her interview with Blanche."

Source:Courtside With Kristy Greenberg with a look at convicted serial murderer Ghislaine Maxwell.

From Courtside With Kristy Greenberg

As Fred Schneider wrote about Ghislaine Maxwell last week: 

"We have an expression... or joke, here at The New Democrat about liars. And it goes something like: "She has the credibility of a compulsive liar". And if we were talking about a man here... replace "she" with "he" in our little expression. If the Southern District of New York didn't have Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein dead to rights on the sex trafficking, where Epstein is probably looking at life in prison, if he didn't take his own life and went to trial and Maxwell got 20 years, she would be a convicted perjurer right now, as well.

And yet this is the person that Trump.Inc wants to use as their character witness to prove that Mr. Trump wasn't seriously involved with either of these distinguished individuals. Back in 2017, President Trump said he thought the U.S. Department of Justice was his own personal law firm. 8 years later, looks like he's gotten that wish." 

From The New Democrat

I just want to focus on 1 point that Kristy Greenberg made, first and then I'll get into what I really want to talk about here. 

Ghislaine Maxwell said she wasn't present and didn't participate at sex acts recorded by Jeffrey Epstein's victims. And the more obvious lie here, is that she hardly knew Jeffrey Epstein at all. So I guess when they were hugging each in those photos and on video... Epstein even kissed her a few times, that was just love at first sight, but they never went even further than that. Or they mistook each other for other people. Or another possibly and the fact in this case: they already knew each other very well. 

The 2nd point I want to focus on here, Ghislaine Maxwell said that she had no clue that there was anything "shady" going on in Jeffrey Epstein's world. But as Fred Schneider said last week: 

"So Kristy Greenberg's point here is that you don't let the defendant (or in this case convict) get to decide for you what is "inappropriate" and what is "appropriate". She's been in prison for 5 years now because she was convicted of a lot of inappropriate actions. (And based on the evidence, did some really inappropriate things) And we're not talking about serial jaywalker, (if you are a serial jaywalker, stay out of Washington and Chicago right now) or a shoplifter, who only steals because they are addicted to gum. 

In Ghislaine Maxwell's case, we're talking about a sex trafficker, who was involved with Jeffrey Epstein in this criminal enterprise, for 20-25 years, before they finally got caught in 2019. But according to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, she qualifies as someone who knows the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate". If Ghislaine Maxwell knows anything about "inappropriate", she knows how to behave very badly. And even how to get way with it, up to a point. She was a woman behaving very badly, for. a very long time. 

And if the Deputy Attorney General of the United States is going to make Ghislaine Maxwell a spokesperson for what's "appropriate" and "inappropriate"... why stop there? Why not he invite the Idaho college serial murderer Bryan Kohberger to give a series of speeches on the importance of human life and being pro-life? He could give those speeches from his prison cell since we all know how private of an individual he his and doesn't like coming out of his closet very often...

Kristy Greenberg calls that a lie saying that Maxwell lied when she said: 

"I never saw anything shady going on in Mr. Epstein's world". 

But I think "inappropriate" is a better word here because it's clearer and gets right to the point. And when you are a sex trafficker, sex trafficking probably seems "appropriate" to you. Just like a rapist who thinks that the women that he raped, wouldn't get sexy any other way, or would never get better sex, then what they got from him, so he was just doing them a favor. Or a serial murderer who thinks that his victims deserved to die. Both the murderer and rapist would be 100% wrong, but you can be wrong without lying. 

I never met Ghislaine Maxwell or Jeffrey Epstein, (I guess God has been looking out for me in this case) and I'm not a psychologist, but I'm thinking Maxwell hates prison so much right now, it's so different from her former life and she's been able to follow the news enough in prison, she clearly knew Donald Trump before he became President and maybe she thinks she has a credible dossier about him. 

I think what Maxwell is thinking here is, that if she tells Trump.Inc everything they want to hear, including lying her head off to make The Donald look good here and risk future perjury charges against her from a different DOJ, that Trump DOJ will go easy on her and perhaps even let her out of prison well before her current release date. I think that's her play for freedom right now. And we'll see if it works or not. 

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

CBS News: New Push From Lawmakers to Release Epstein Files as Congress Returns From Recess

"Democrats in Congress are making a new push for files related to the Jeffrey Epstein case as lawmakers return from their August recess. CBS News congressional correspondent Caitlin Huey-Burns has more on that and the looming government shutdown deadline." 

Source:CBS News with a look at Jeffrey Epstein's files.

From CBS News

As I wrote about this back in March and no... nothing has changed my mind about a possible Chuck Schumer government shutdown, even in September: 

"So it looks like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and company have selected option a, which is to try to block this bill in hopes that Senate Majority Leader John Thune would sit down with Leader Schumer and they would work out a compromise. That's a really risky play. A lot of political incentive for the Majority Leader to say: 

"No. We're in charge, we won the elections, we have The White House and Congress. Go ahead and shut the government down and take the blame for it". 

Which would be my response even as a Democrat, (from a political standpoint) if the Democrats controlled The White House and Congress right now and someone was drunk, high, stupid, and crazy enough (trust me: plenty of people with all those characteristics at once in Washington) to elect me Senate Majority Leader. 

If John Thune doesn't compromise here, this would be the best case scenario: 

Senate Democrats relent and buck their leader and maybe 10 of them vote for cloture, just to avid the government shutdown on Friday. 

Worst case scenario: the government shuts down this weekend because Leader Schumer holds his members together and. So now we're in a shutdown next week and maybe Senate Democrats relent then because the politics here for them (especially if they're up for reelection in 26) is too bad for them...

From The New Democrat

The New Democrat has had 3 posts about the Jeffrey Epstein and his very own Epstein files (that he didn't bother to take to his grave) the previous 2 weeks. From Fred Schneider: 

"But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public. 

When the far-right of the Republican Party was talking about "family values", morality and character, the need for these things in our government, that was just something they used to attack Democrats. That's not what they care about. Someone could literally be a convicted felon, a serial liar and adulterer... if that person is on their side and represents their political values. And Mr. Trump's professional celebrity base, would probably just view him as a bigger "rockstar" and "badass", after the Epstein files are released. 

The main lesson from Watergate that both Republicans and Democrats have failed to learn the last 50 plus years, that once a bad story is about to break, or has broken, is that the worst thing that you can do is to try to cover it up. What you do, is what a good lawyer would do in court: get the bad information and evidence about your side out, before the opposition and the media does it for you. Get ahead of the story and put your own spin on it, before you lose the narrative of it. 

As long as The White House and Trump DOJ try to cover up this story, the longer it will be in the news, along with the slowing economy, rising prices, everything else that has gone wrong since Donald Trump became President again. And that's not where you want to be going into an election year. So of course they should release." 

From The New Democrat

I'll talk about why I still oppose a Senate Democratic led government shutdown and then the Epstein files, but first what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer might be considering, first. 

If I'm Ken Martin (the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee) right now, I want September to be about the slowing Trump economy, with weak job growth, rising prices, and weak economic growth, etc and winning the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as the Epstein files. 

Again, if I were Chairman Martin, I don't want September to be the month of Chuck Schumer's government shutdown and when will Federal employees get to go back to work and will the one's who are still working during the government shutdown... will they get paid for the work that they did when the full government reopens, etc. 

I don't want the Democratic opposition to be the issue this September and remind voters why Democrats lost in 2024. I want everything to be about MAGA and this MAGA government and their incompetence and corruption, led by their Dear Cult Leader, Donald John Trump. 

Everybody knows what the Democratic Left wants... they want total chaos and then try to blame all that chaos and gridlock, on Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader John Thune, and President Trump. And you do that by literally blocking everything that comes to the Senate floor. They want Chuck Schumer to become Mitch McConnell's political twin brother in Congress. The problem is, no one else in the country wants that and when you only at best represents maybe 1/3 of even your own party, you are not in charge of anything that's important in Washington, anyway.

As far as the Epstein files, it's hard to imagine a sitting U.S. President being more unpopular than Donald John Trump. He's now in Joe Biden's range as far as political unpopularity, with his low 40s and upper 30s approval rating. Releasing the Epstein files even with him all over them, couldn't hurt himself anymore than what he's already done to his own political standing. If anything, it would probably just make him seem cooler with his reality TV base and perhaps even Independents who voted for him, because they think he's a "badass" or something: 

"Yeah!!! The Donald rolls with pimps and sex traffickers!!! He's even a bigger badass than we thought" 

Or phrase that last part anyway you want.

You can follow me on Threads, Facebook, and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Senator Joni Ernst Won't Run For Reelection in 2026

"Is Iowa a bellweather?  Too early to tell, but the news is good! MAGA Senator Joni Ernst likely has some sooper dooper secret internal polling that scared the snot outta her. Tillis, Tuberville, McConnell also are OUT!" 

Source:Cheri Jacobus having a good day.

From Cheri Jacobus

"Chuck Todd examines the electoral landscape and breaks down the path for Democrats to flip several senate seats and regain control of the chamber from Republicans and President Trump. He highlights North Carolina, Texas, and Maine as pickup opportunities, as well as several midwestern and southern states that could potentially be in play." 

Source:The Chuck ToddCast. Perhaps you are already familiar with this redhead.

From Chuck Todd

To completely clear the air here and put everything out on the record... I didn't like Chuck Todd that much when he was at NBC News and MSNBC. And it wasn't just his cheesy goatee and urban, white-collar, hipster, drinks coffee all day, works and lives out of a loft, persona, that I didn't like about him. I think he came off as some Washington establishment, wishy-washy, reporter, who doesn't want to offend anybody. And that's what concerns him the most. But since he's left NBC News and has gone independent, he now seems to feel the freedom to speak his mind and do some real reporting now. 

I'll give credit where credit is due, Chuck Todd suggested that Senator Joni Ernst wouldn't seek reelection in 2026, to serve in the next Congress... almost 2 months ago. And that's why I've linked his video on this post. And to pick up on what Cheri (I used to be a center-right Republican before I was brainwashed by left-wing Hippies) Jacobus said about Senator Ernst and her position on the Medicaid cuts that were part of the "One Big Beautiful Bill", when she said: 

"We're all going to die anyway". 

Back in early June, I think that was the clue (and maybe Chuck Todd picked up on that as well) that Senator Ernst just wasn't feeling it anymore (to use a pop culture expression) that she had enough and just didn't care anymore, including about her political career. That she had enough of Washington, enough of Congress, enough of being a U.S. Senator, enough of MAGA even and feeling the need to carry Donald Trump's water everyday, just to preserve what's left of her political career. 

If Senator Ernst did decided to run for reelection, she would probably be the favorite, even against a popular, mainstream Democrat, who knows how to campaign for both blue-collar voters, as well as college town hipsters and whatever minorities live in Iowa. But it would probably be a tough reelection battle for her. 

I've had a hard time finding a concrete number here, but President Trump's current approval rating right now in Iowa, is around 45%. Iowa is a state that the Republican presidential nominee has to win every election, just like with Ohio. It's a big enough state with 3.5 million people (give or take) that it's important for the Republicans in the Electoral College. But a state where it can be competitive, with the right kind of Democrat. 

So when a Republican President (like Donald J. Trump) is not even at 50%, when even 50% would be a low number for a Republican, that's bad news for a Republican statewide elected official who is up for reelection. And again as Cheri Jacbous said, I think the Senator doesn't even want to entertain a close reelection battle right now. If she runs at all, she wants to essentially know that she's going to win, or not run at all. 

So what does this mean for Senate Democrats in 2026? 

To make Chuck Schumer the Senate Majority Leader again, in the next Congress, Democrats need a net gain of just 4 seats. A lot tougher than it sounds. They have 13 seats that are up like in Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, which might be Republicans' best shot at winning any pickups because these aren't MAGA states and they would have to run with President Trump (whether they like it or not) in order to get his voters to the polls for them. So if you look at Senate Democrats chances here, they have to hold their own seats and not lose anything. I think that part is not just doable, but probably likely right now. 

But the 2nd part in the Democrats scenario is they still need a net pickup of 4, just to win the Senate back. 

So you look at North Carolina with Senator Thom Tillis retiring and former Governor Roy Cooper, who was a popular Democrat there, is probably the now the favorite there to replace Senator Thillis. 

Look at Ohio with Republican Senator Jon Husted running to a full-term to replace Vice President Vance in the Senate. Again, The President is under 50% there, blue-collar, populist Democrat Sherrod Brown, who won 3 Senate races there, will probably be Senator Husted's opponent there. 

Maine is another solid possibility. Senator Susan Collins is like in the low 40s there and might not even run for reelection. The problem is who do Democrats nominate to run for Senate there. Maine gets stereotyped (and Maine Democrats seem to believe this as well) as a much larger Vermont, a place where both Socialists and Hippies are welcome and feel very comfortable there. And those are the type of Democrats that they tend to nominate statewide there. The problem is, Maine despite being a large state in territory, is almost 100% rural and completely small town, blue collar, and with a lot of small college towns as well. You don't get elected there statewide, if you don't win blue-collar voters, with a majority. 

After North Carolina, Ohio, and Maine, I think Iowa now that Senator Ernst is not seeking reelection, is a real possibility for Democrats... with the right candidate, Similar with Maine, Democrats would need a candidate who can win both blue-collar, as well as young, college town, hipsters, who are part-time voters and want to be inspired by a candidate before they vote for that person. So that's Iowa Democrats next task here: finding a candidate to run statewide, who can put that coalition of voters together, who is under 60, (55 or under, would be better) who is popular, with young people, but who can communicate with blue-collar voters as well. And last, but just as important as anything else... who is not a leftist. 

Some political analysts are looking at Louisiana, if Senator Bill Cassidy doesn't either run for reelection, or loses the primary to a MAGA member. I'll take a look a Louisiana, when Senator Cassidy is not the Republican candidate there for 26. And the same thing with Texas, if Senator John Cornyn loses the Republican primary to Ken Paxton, that race could become playable, with the right Democrat. 

But the House, is probably gone for Republicans right now. The question might only be now how many seats do they lose. Democrats only need 4 seats, but they would obviously like a governing majority. But I think the Senate is in play as well... I've believed that for a few months now. But Democrats might not need a straight flush, but they have to hold their own and probably win North Carolina, Ohio, Maine, and Iowa, to win back the Senate in 26. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Larry David: A Letter From Ghislaine Maxwell

"Ghislaine Maxwell, a longtime confidante of the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, told a top administration official she never saw President Trump engage in improper or illegal acts during his long friendship with Mr. Epstein, according to transcripts.

—The Times.

I’m writing this at 3 a.m. in my cell, since I’ve been unable to sleep after reading the transcript of my recent meeting with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. I realize now that I left out vital information and details, so I’d like to take this opportunity to clear up any lingering doubts, particularly in regard to President Trump’s involvement in Jeffrey Epstein’s life.

First off, I want to reiterate that, although President Trump did have a friendship with Epstein, I can state unequivocally that he never did anything wrong—ethically, morally, or legally. On the contrary, all the girls held him in the highest esteem and had nothing but the greatest admiration for him. Many of them called him Uncle Donald, and one of the Latina girls even referred to him as El Magnífico, which always made him blush, endearing him to them even more.

In fact, he was a rock for those girls. A shoulder to cry on. He was someone to whom they could confide their innermost thoughts and secrets without being judged or criticized. He was part therapist, part chaplain, and part teacher. Every night before bed, all the girls would gather in the main house in their pajamas in front of the fire, and Uncle Donald would read the classics to them. Shakespeare was his favorite, and he would often perform some of the Bard’s greatest soliloquies. The awestruck girls never failed to give him a standing ovation, and he would always respond with an exaggerated, comedic bow, which delighted them to no end.

And nobody told funnier stories. A highlight was the one about the time a Black woman tried to rent an apartment in one of his buildings and he told her that it was ten thousand dollars a month. His imitation of her reaction was pure vaudeville and had the girls in stitches. He also tutored them in math and was a whiz at calculus, able to solve complex problems in his head on demand. He said that he had the same gene as his Uncle John, who’d taught Ted Kaczynski at M.I.T.

Making sure the girls got plenty of exercise was a top priority for Uncle Donald as well, which included coaching them in daily rounds of golf. One of the girls—let’s call her Donna—became his regular caddy and liked to secretly improve his ball position by kicking it and moving it all over the course. Had he known, he never would’ve tolerated it. Cheating in any way, at anything, was anathema to him. But Donna did it anyway, because she knew that nothing made him happier than winning. Back at the lodge, he would recount his round, his cheeks flush with excitement, his strong, elephantine hands wildly gesticulating. It was a sight to behold.

Of course, it was inevitable that some of the girls would fall in love with him. Donna became inconsolable when he told her that she was too young for him. He asked her to wait five years, but, when you’re fourteen, five years seems like an eternity. Unfortunately, her obsession got the best of her and, one night, distraught, she walked into the ocean. Uncle Donald, who was doing his regular evening meditation at the time, sensed that something was amiss. In spite of his bone spurs, which have caused him a lifetime of intense pain with nary a complaint, he ran into the surf fully clothed to save her. I still have the red tie he was wearing that night. It’s one of my most treasured possessions, reminding me of his bravery and what the human spirit can accomplish.

I only wish I could say the same for some of the others who were on that island, two of whom were former Presidents. That’s right—two. I’m not making this up. Nobody’s putting words in my mouth. And no one on the island liked either of these former Presidents. One was a bad tipper who the girls liked to call El Producto because he smelled of cheap cigars. And the other was known as Biscuit because he always wore an unflattering tan suit. Then there was the woman who was Speaker of the House and would walk around talking to herself, screaming out epithets to imaginary people. Crazy! And the former goody-two-shoes Vice-President who’s not actually so goody and lacked the courage to do the right thing on January 6th.

There was also that Republican congressman who co-hosts a morning show and happens to be a murderer. (I’ve got proof!) And let’s not forget the Senate Minority Leader who got caught stealing sunblock and Q-tips. Finally, Jeffrey had to tell him not to come back. The guy cried like a five-year-old lost at the beach, but Jeffrey held firm.

There were Hollywood people as well. One was a bald comedian with glasses who complained constantly and had an inordinate fear of halitosis. He spent more time on that island than anyone. Once, when he was stung by a jellyfish, he kept calling out for his mother and demanded to be airlifted to a hospital in Miami. Jeffrey said he was the worst guest that he ever had.

All this is just the tip of the iceberg. And, again, I want to reiterate that I’m not writing this expecting or seeking any pardon or commutation. I’m merely telling the truth about what I observed, both on and off the island. As far as the girls—grown women now—are concerned, they are all doing well, leading happy, productive, and, from what I understand, very luxurious lives.

Uncle Donald would be proud.

Yours sincerely,

Ghislaine Maxwell

Source:The New Yorker with a look at convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. Perhaps even from her private suite at Club Fed. 

From The New Yorker

In case this isn't obvious enough: Larry David is a professional comedian, who writes humor pieces for The New Yorker. Not that you really should take anything that Ghislaine Maxwell says seriously, but she actually didn't write this... as far as I know. 

From what my colleague Fred Schneider wrote about the Epstein files last week: 

"The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public...

From The New Democrat

And from what Fred wrote about Ghislaine Maxwell yesterday: 

"I think Kristy Greenberg hit a home rune (or, should I say "grand slam" since that word has something to do with both baseball and tennis and the US Open is going on right now) when she was talking about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate". Greenberg was talking about the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (who still seems to think that he's Donald Trump's defense lawyer) and he asked Maxwell: 

"Did you ever hear Mr. Epstein ever say or do anything that President Trump did anything inappropriate with anybody in your world?" 

And Maxwell responded with: 

"Absolutely never in any context."

So Kristy Greenberg's point here is that you don't let the defendant (or in this case convict) get to decide for you what is "inappropriate" and what is "appropriate". She's been in prison for 5 years now because she was convicted of a lot of inappropriate actions. (And based on the evidence, did some really inappropriate things) And we're not talking about serial jaywalker, (if you are a serial jaywalker, stay out of Washington and Chicago right now) or a shoplifter, who only steals because they are addicted to gum. 

In Ghislaine Maxwell's case, we're talking about a sex trafficker, who was involved with Jeffrey Epstein in this criminal enterprise, for 20-25 years, before they finally got caught in 2019. But according to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, she qualifies as someone who knows the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate". If Ghislaine Maxwell knows anything about "inappropriate", she knows how to behave very badly. And even how to get way with it, up to a point. She was a woman behaving very badly, for. a very long time... 

From The New Democrat

So imagine this is a Saturday Live skit and they have someone playing Ghislaine Maxwell (perhaps because they really hate that actress, but don't want to fire her) and it's a skit with Ghislaine in her Club Fed prison cell, perhaps just on her bed, in her dormitory, writing a letter to the Deputy Attorney General of the United States (Todd Blanche) trying to convince the DAG that President Trump had 100%, absolutely (which is redundant) nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein. 

Ghislaine is trying to convince the DAG that those videos and photos of Mr. Trump at the Epstein house in the 1990s and 2000s... Donald and Melania simply went to the wrong house by mistake. (Over and over and over again) When they discovered that, they also noticed that their car battery was dead and Mr. Epstein invited them to wait at his house until AAA got there to repair their car... I mean limo. 

And now imagine this: in this SNL skit, before Ghislaine can even write a "letter", (piece of trash would be more accurate) a fellow inmate slipped Ghislaine some truth serum in her dinner drink (perhaps scotch, since this is Club Fed) and she's not aware of it and she's writing this letter while being forced to be honest. (For perhaps the first time in her life) So I just want to give you an idea of what an honest letter from Ghislaine Maxwell to Todd Blanche would look like, about the relationship between her and Donald, as well as Jeffrey Epstein.  And my fictional letter, won't sound that different from what Larry David wrote. 

"Mr. Deputy Attorney General

I'm writing you from the comfort of my queen-sized bed, from my private bedroom, I mean suite... here at Club Fed, to tell you that your boss President Trump, was best party friends with my boss Jeffrey Epstein. Every time 1 of Donald's wives was out-of-town, (perhaps just to get a break from him) he would call Mr. Epstein to ask if he could come over to the Epstein mansion and would he throw a party for him and have all his girls there waiting. Especially his latest recruitments. 

I'm telling you all of this, because as much as I appreciate my new accommodations here at Club Fed... I miss the Manhattan party scene and lifestyle... not to mention all those girls that I recruited to our parties and all the money I was paid for doing my part. 

Mr. Blanche, I would tell you that Donald John Trump is Jesus Christ himself, (even though DJT doesn't even believe in God) if it meant I could leave prison and go home immediately. Whatever you want me to say, however many times you want me to perjurer myself on behalf of the President, I'm your girl, just as long as it gets me out of prison immediately and I can go home. 

Best regards, Federal prison inmate Ghislaine Maxwell". 

If the truth and honesty had anything to do with these conversations that Ghislaine Maxwell had with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, (and the Cleveland Browns played the Detroit Lions in the Super Bowl) this is what her letters to Todd Blanche, or anyone else who works at Trump DOJ right now, would look like. But we're talking about a woman who probably lies as much as Donald Trump does, who sense of morality might even be lower. So she's probably only capable of telling the truth, when it doesn't hurt her, or she can gain from it. 

You can follow me on Threads and Facebook.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Ghislaine Maxwell: Lying Her Head Off For a Pardon

"Kristy Greenberg, former top prosecutor and host of Courtside with Kristy Greenberg, breaks down the transcript of the interview Todd Blanche had with Ghislaine Maxwell." 

Source:Talking Feds With Harry Litman with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell and her "friend" Donald J. Trump.

From Talking Heads With Harry Litman

"The Client List Cover-Up: Why Maxwell’s Story Doesn’t Add Up" 

Source:Nancy Grace with a look at Ghislaine Maxwell's story.

From Nancy Grace

From what I wrote about this story last week relating to the Epstein files: 

"The speculation (and I'm sure it's true) is that the reason why President Trump doesn't want his Attorney General Pam Bondi, to release the Epstein files, because he knows he's all over them and it would be very embarrassing for him. Even though there's probably nothing in them that could probably incriminate him of anything relating to Jeffrey Epstein. 

But my point is, for reasons that I've already laid out, is Donald Trump literally has nothing to lose here in releasing them. He's already the most unpopular 2nd term President, at least in the television and internet age. People who dislike and hate him now, won't dislike and hate him more after those files are released to the public... 

From The New Democrat

I'll tell you what I personally think of this story. (Even if you are completely not interested in what I have to say about this) But before I do that, there are 2 excellent points that David Axelrod and Kristy Greenberg have made about this story, that I want you to focus on, first. 

CNN political analyst David Axelrod, who is a longtime Democrat, including Democratic political strategist, is also perhaps the best Democratic analyst and political analyst in general, when it comes to tossing out the garbage (to put it mildly) and laying out "what's what and who's who" and just putting it out there. I think he had the best social media post about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate", when he said: 

"Two questions:

1) What does a convicted sex trafficker consider "inappropriate?"

2) If she WERE trying to win a parole or commutation--or a transfer to a minimum security, "Club Fed" prison camp--aren't these precisely the things she would say?" 

From David Axelrod

I think Kristy Greenberg hit a home rune (or, should I say "grand slam" since that word has something to do with both baseball and tennis and the US Open is going on right now) when she was talking about Ghislaine Maxwell and the word "inappropriate". Greenberg was talking about the interview that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (who still seems to think that he's Donald Trump's defense lawyer) and he asked Maxwell: 

"Did you ever hear Mr. Epstein ever say or do anything that President Trump did anything inappropriate with anybody in your world?" 

And Maxwell responded with: 

"Absolutely never in any context."

So Kristy Greenberg's point here is that you don't let the defendant (or in this case convict) get to decide for you what is "inappropriate" and what is "appropriate". She's been in prison for 5 years now because she was convicted of a lot of inappropriate actions. (And based on the evidence, did some really inappropriate things) And we're not talking about serial jaywalker, (if you are a serial jaywalker, stay out of Washington and Chicago right now) or a shoplifter, who only steals because they are addicted to gum. 

In Ghislaine Maxwell's case, we're talking about a sex trafficker, who was involved with Jeffrey Epstein in this criminal enterprise, for 20-25 years, before they finally got caught in 2019. But according to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, she qualifies as someone who knows the difference between "appropriate" and "inappropriate". If Ghislaine Maxwell knows anything about "inappropriate", she knows how to behave very badly. And even how to get way with it, up to a point. She was a woman behaving very badly, for. a very long time. 

And if the Deputy Attorney General of the United States is going to make Ghislaine Maxwell a spokesperson for what's "appropriate" and "inappropriate"... why stop there? Why not he invite the Idaho college serial murderer Bryan Kohberger to give a series of speeches on the importance of human life and being pro-life? He could give those speeches from his prison cell since we all know how private of an individual he his and doesn't like coming out of his closet very often. 

I don't want to make too much light of Bryan Kohberger, (even though I have already done that) but and I think this is Kristy Greenberg's point here, when you give the power to the defendant, to decide what's "inappropriate" or "appropriate" and you are a government attorney, (like I don't know, the Deputy Attorney General of the United States) you are no longer acting as the attorney for the people here. You are now acting like a defense attorney, who wants to make the convict here (Ghislaine Maxwell) a friendly witness for some other case that you are working on here. The only thing that Mr. Blanche is trying to do here, is to clear his client, Donald Trump, of having anything inappropriate to do with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. 

We have an expression... or joke, here at The New Democrat about liars. And it goes something like: "She has the credibility of a compulsive liar". And if we were talking about a man here... replace "she" with "he" in our little expression. If the Southern District of New York didn't have Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein dead to rights on the sex trafficking, where Epstein is probably looking at life in prison, if he didn't take his own life and went to trial and Maxwell got 20 years, she would be a convicted perjurer right now, as well.

And yet this is the person that Trump.Inc wants to use as their character witness to prove that Mr. Trump wasn't seriously involved with either of these distinguished individuals. Back in 2017, President Trump said he thought the U.S. Department of Justice was his own personal law firm. 8 years later, looks like he's gotten that wish. 

You can follow me on Threads and Facebook.

You can also se this post on WordPress.

News Nation Now: Donald Trump Goading JB Pritzker Into Confrontation: Geraldo Rivera

"As President Donald Trump and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker continue to trade barbs over the possibility of National Guard troops in Chicago, NewsNation contributor Geraldo Rivera says Pritzker may be taking Trump’s bait." 

Source:News Nation talking to longtime talk show host and TV anchor, Geraldo (don't ever call me Gerry, if you know what's good for you) Rivera. 

From News Nation

At risk of sounding like Chris Cuomo (who is also a News Nation anchor) and sound like I'm trying to have it both ways and agree with both sides here, or argue that "both sides are at fault", etc... I'm going to take that risk anyway and for this reason: Geraldo Rivera is right that this Federal takeover of big cities when it comes to their law enforcement, is a distraction for Democrats. But I just wouldn't use the language that he would used here. 

I think the best way to describe Donald John Trump as a politician, is that he's a machine gun politician. Because the President is a machine gun politician, he can do so much damage, to so many people and things, including our most valuable and important institutions, that his opponents never have the time and resources to focus on every important bad thing that he does. 

That's 1 way you can govern in this country with a 40% (give or take) approval rating and a 55% (give or take disapproval rating) because the people (at least anyone who pays attention to all his irresponsible nonsense) see 1 bad thing, or several at a time and simply don't have the time to get all the information that they need about every bad action that Machine Gun Trump takes. 

The President can strike so many people and things and the exact same time, that his opponents, including Republicans, don't have the time or resources to focus on everything and leave out important issues, like the Federal takeovers of municipal police departments, when Democrats should really just be talking about Donald Trump's tariff driven, weak economy and his attempted coverup up the Epstein files. If Democrats leaders, including governors, were politically smart (and it never snowed in Chicago again) they would not put this police takeover aside... but what they would essentially say is something like: 

"Our crimes rates are actually lower than what you see in rural red states and small towns. (On a per-capita base) We completely disagree with this Federal overreach here and we're going to see President Trump to court on this". 

And move on to bigger and more important things, like the bad Trump economy and the coverup of the Epstein files. 

But since since a lot of these Democratic politicians are so politically inept, (stupid, would be more accurate) and perhaps can only get elected in deep blue states like Illinois and can sound like dishwashers trying to give a lecture on how to perform brain surgery, or Donald Trump trying to give a lecture on aviation (which he actually tried to do) as far as how they practice politics, they get the media talking about how they much they dislike President Trump, as well as crime in big, blue cities... but also calling him every name in the book that they can possibly think of, while they're doing live press conferences. Which might be good for the left-wing, partisan base of the Democratic Party, but hurts them everywhere else, perhaps even with their own voters. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Nick Gillespie: Did MAGA Kill The Tea Party?

"Former Rep. Justin Amash and Fox News’ Kennedy join Nick Gillespie to examine how MAGA populism reshaped the Tea Party’s limited-government mission, why Congress no longer acts as a check on power, and what it will take to spark a new libertarian revival... 

From Reason Magazine

"In 2008, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran for the Republican presidential nomination and did surprisingly well with a campaign focused on stopping the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, ending the Federal Reserve, and reducing the size and spending of the federal government. Two years later, the Tea Party movement burst on the scene, bringing people like Paul’s son Rand to the Senate and one of today’s guests, Justin Amash, to the House of Representatives. In 2012, Ron Paul again ran for the GOP nod, finishing second to the eventual nominee Mitt Romney, and helping to usher in what The New York Times called “the libertarian moment.”

What happened to the Ron Paul Revolution’s and Tea Party’s promise to shrink government, especially once Donald Trump and the MAGA movement emerged in 2015? Did the broad-based alliance that rose to cut spending and limit power transmogrify into one that prizes wielding the state instead of restraining it?

Today’s episode was recorded live on Saturday, August 9 at Ron Paul’s 90th Birthday BBQ in Lake Jackson, Texas. The guests are former Rep. Amash and Fox News personality Kennedy. They talk with Nick Gillespie about how the MAGA movement grew out of the Ron Paul Revolution and the Tea Party and redirected the right’s anti-establishment energy toward expanding government power rather than limiting it. They also discuss why Congress refuses to legislate, whether social media has expanded freedom or increased anxiety, and if Gen Z is libertarian or conformist." 

Source:Reason Magazine talking to former U.S. Representative Justin Amash & Reason Magazine anchor Lisa Kennedy. 

From Reason Magazine

From Britannica about the early days of the 20th Century Tea Party: 

"Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in 2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation and government intervention in the private sector while supporting stronger immigration controls...

From Britannica

The Tea Party at it's best, (I guess from a Liberal Democratic perspective) was movement of lots of ordinary Americans, who were literally getting screwed by the Great Recession and were very angry at Washington for that, during a time when the national debt was growing out-of-control, when trillion-dollar budget deficits were now the norm. And you had all these constitutional and fiscal conservatives in this movement who got reelected to Congress because they were against big government, high debt and deficits. 

But then Donald Trump runs for President in 2015-16, wins in 2016 and now all the sudden debt, deficits, and big government, are no longer concerns with the Tea Party, because their man is now in-charge and those things don't matter to them, as long as they're in charge. 

You can blame MAGA for a lot of things, but most of their members either at the activist level or who are in public office, are politicians at heart. If running against high debt and deficits, and shrinking the size of the Federal Government, we're popular and winning issues for them, they would still be running on those issues. 

It's 1 thing to go after the national debt and deficit, when the other party is in power and you don't expect anything to ever be done about that, as long as the other party is in power, or at least controls The White House. But it's another thing when you are now in complete control of government and now have the power and responsibility to deal with those fiscal issues and then have to run on the fact that you've just cut all these government programs or reformed them, to help deal with the deficit and debt. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Robert Reich: Donald Trump’s “State Capitalism”

"It would be communism under any other dictator

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks:

Allowed Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices to license artificial intelligence chips to China on condition they pay the United States 15 percent of the money they make.

Demanded that Intel’s CEO resign (the CEO met with Trump yesterday to plead his case).

Proposed that the Defense Department take a 15 percent stake in MP Materials, which mines critical minerals.

Allowed Nippon Steel to take over U.S. Steel on condition that Nippon pay a “golden share” of the proceeds to Washington.

Reserved the right to personally direct some $1.5 trillion of promised investment from America’s trading partners into the United States.

Never before in peacetime has the United States owned so many critical businesses. Never since World War II has the American public owned as much of the private sector.

Karl Marx might have been thrilled. Is the proletariat finally becoming the bourgeoisie, owning the means of production? Not a chance.

It’s unclear what the “United States” means when the deals Trump has struck give the United States ownership rights in corporations, but it’s certainly not the people.

How do America’s ownership rights get exercised? By whom? Who holds the equity, and where is it held? It appears that all this is up to the whims of Trump.

In reality, Trump’s state capitalism is just another part of Trump’s growing fascist state, extending his personal arbitrary control into what had been the private sector of the U.S. economy.

Recall that in Trump’s first term, CEOs spoke out when they disagreed with his policies on immigration and trade. After his bigoted “you had some very fine people on both sides” response to the violence in Charlottesville, CEOs resigned from his business advisory panels. After he orchestrated an attempted coup in 2021, they shunned him.

Now, CEOs are showering him with donations and praise. They can’t kiss his derriere enough. Jeff Bezos won’t run editorials critical of Trump in his Washington Post. CBS won’t allow “60 Minutes” or Stephen Colbert to oppose him (when Colbert’s contract runs out). The bros of Silicon Valley don’t dare say a word against him (look what happened to Musk).

As with other aspects of Trump fascism, Trump has extended his power by exploiting greed and fear.

Much of the public is playing along because he has also tapped into a deep vein of distrust in the system we previously had. American free-market capitalism has done wonderfully well for a few at the top, but most working families are less secure than in living memory, and their real (inflation-adjusted) wages have barely risen for decades.

At least since the bailout of Wall Street, most Americans have concluded that the economic game is rigged against them — and they’re right. So when Trump promised he was on their side, they believed him. (He wasn’t, of course.)

In addition, China is eating our lunch in what are considered the industries of the future — solar cells, semiconductors, batteries, super-computers, and AI — creating another opening for Trump to assert power over the private sector by arguing that national security requires it.

Rubbish. Several of the deals noted above are likely to compromise national security.

Trump’s state capitalism has nothing whatever to do with public ownership, socialism, helping the working class, or improving national security.

It’s all about centralizing ever more control over America in the Oval Office. It’s simply another power grab by Trump — just like his usurpation of Congress’s authority over spending and tariffs, and his new threat to occupy Washington, D.C., with federal troops.

Make no mistake. Trump’s ever-increasing power is an ever-growing threat to the rule of law and democracy.

This is what fascism looks like."

Source:Robert Reich actually arguing against socialism. Perhaps the Atlantic Ocean has finally run out of water as well. 

From Robert Reich

From CNN's reporting today about the U.S. Government getting $10 billion from Intel to have an official stake in that company: 

"President Donald Trump said on Friday he reached an agreement with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan that would involve the struggling chipmaker giving the United States a company stake worth $10 billion, a deal model that Trump said he hopes to revisit with other companies.

“I said, I think you should pay us 10% of your company,” Trump said of his conversations with Tan. “And they said yes.”

Trump said the deal will was a win for both sides.

“I think it’s a great deal for them. And I think it’s a great deal,” Trump said in the Oval Office on Friday. “He walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

Two weeks ago, Trump called for Tan’s immediate resignation following reports about his alleged connections to China.

The agreement Trump announced is part of an effort to help boost semiconductor manufacturing in the United States, although it is not immediately clear how involved the Trump administration aims to be in strategic decision-making at the company.

Trump also said he would do more of these types of deals. His administration has been weighing opportunities to take similar stakes in various US companies in critical industries, two people familiar with the White House discussions on the matter told CNN last week.

Intel declined to comment following the Trump announcement. The chipmaker’s stock (INTC) rose 7% on Friday." 

From CNN

From what my colleague Rik Schneider wrote about President Trump back in May, responding to Conservative columnist Kevin Williamson's argument that Donald Trump is a Socialist: 

"I could give you old cliche to talk about whether or not Donald Trump is a Socialist or not, by saying: "If it quacks, like a duck, walks like a duck.. but hopefully you want to hear something more interesting than that. I sure as hell want to say something even more original and interesting (ha, ha) than that. 

I think what's going on here, is the President and The White House know they're in trouble: 

House Republicans are freaking out about not just losing the House in 2026, but getting blown out and not having much of an opportunity about winning it back in 28. 

Senate Republicans are even worried that maybe even their majority will be at risk in 26, because of what House Republicans are worried about as well, which is who unpopular the President is, especially as it relates to his economic policy. 

And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they're desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can't spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now. 

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the "king of reality TV", sounding like a Socialist, because he's talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn't doing as well... I don't think there's anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist... but he's a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that's exactly what he will do." 

From The New Democrat

And from what Rik Schneider wrote about The Socialist Don yesterday: 

"My real point here is it's not Democrats (at least not left-wing Democrats) who are freaking out about the Trump Administration's using the U.S. Government to purchase a stake in Intel. Most of the opposition is coming from the Right, in some cases, even the far-right, especially if you look at where Erick Erickson has been on cultural issues the last 20 years or so. 

So if you are a die hard MAGA follower, who has been living in this political cult the last 10 years or so... you are so lost in space, that you might be able to make 1 of Charlie Manson's followers seem very sane and sober. But if I were try to talk to you anyway, (perhaps like some dedicated shrink who simply wants to try to help as many of my patients as possible) and even use reason (which is very out-of-style right now) to try to get you to see the light here, I would tell you too look at the Kudlow's, the Erickson's, the Steve Moore's, because they would tell you why this is such a horrible idea. 

As Erick Erickson's said on his blog post: 

"When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk... 

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there's no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy... 

From The New Democrat

As Robert Reich said so himself: 

If “state capitalism” were proposed by Democrats or progressives, it would be considered socialism or communism. Done by a neofascist president — as chronicled by the The Wall Street Journal — it’s simply considered inefficient (as the Journal concludes).

But Trump’s state capitalism is already large and growing, and it’s profoundly altering what we once thought of as the private sector. Consider what Trump has done in recent weeks... 

Take out the word "Progressives" and replace it with "Socialists", Mr. Reich is 100%, damn right about this. If this were Joe Biden or Kamala Harris, (or God forbid) Bernie Sanders, Liz Warren, or Alex Cortez proposing this in the future, as President, the Republican Party (or what's left of the Republican Party) would immediately be calling for the impeachment and removal by Congress, of that President, because they would say that person is a Socialist or Communist. 

But since its Manhattan, New York, real estate/reality TV mogul, Donald John Trump, they call this "state capitalism", or economic nationalism. I guess in their far-out in outer space, warped view, "state capitalism" and "economic nationalism", sounds more patriotic to them. 

As we've said before, when even Conservatives are arguing that what you are doing is socialist, or you are acting like a Socialist, and you are a registered Republican, (whether you are actually a Republican in reality, is a different question) wouldn't you at least listen to those folks?

Does anyone whose currently not institutionalized, or off their medication, who isn't high or drunk... who wan't born last night, seriously want to argue that Kevin Williamson, Larry Kudlow, Steve Moore, and Erick Erickson, (just to name a few economic Conservatives opposed to President Trump's "state capitalism") are (as Rik Schneider said yesterday) radical Hippies or flaming Socialists? 

Seriously, I challenge anyone who currently meets the mental condition that I just laid out, to try to argue that these men are radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. And no, your word alone won't be good enough on that. If you think you can, feel free to comment on this post on The New Democrat's Blogger or WordPress pages, or reply to us on our Threads and Twitter pages.

Again, The New Democrat is a center-right, classical liberal (if you don't like liberal) JFK Democrat blog, in philosophy. That's what my personal politics are as well. So of course we're not fans of socialism, or what the Nazi-Right would call "state capitalism". But if our word is not good enough, you should listen to real-life Conservatives who oppose this as well. Unless you are currently drunk, high, institutionalized, or off your medication. For competent, sober people, who are open to President Trump's "state capitalism", but are open to another viewpoint on this, listen to the Conservatives on this. 

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

You can also see this post on WordPress.