Dems think they tied Trump to Epstein - again. It blows up in their faces - again. (update: Michael Wolff exposed)
-
USA "House" Dems selected 3 out of 20,000 Epstein emails - they thought it worked for them.
I may post details later - like those emails.
For now, summary. Dems only proved
-
Epstein never got anything out of Trump. No kompromat, no info. Epstein calls Trump "dog that won't bark"
-
Virginia Giuffre "spent hours" with Trump and affirmed he did nothing (wrong) ever, she got nothing on him ever.
-
-Lib journalist Michael Wolff was friend to Epstein, so much, that Wolff tried to advise Epstein on how to still blackmail Trump- even tho Epstein got nothing / couldn't pull it off.
Only people as retarded as libs, could think Epstein question works for libs.
-
-
"Michael Wolff told Epstein he should try to end Trump’s 2016 campaign to save himself "
WTF? Lib writer, so TDS he conspired -with- Jeffrey Epstein?
“NYT called me about you and Trump. Also, Hillary campaign digging deeply. Again, you should consider preempting,” Wolff wrote to Epstein on Feb. 19, 2016.
The since-deceased pedophile invited the writer to join him and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for a meeting, but Wolff declined, and the two didn’t apparently trade emails again until Feb. 24 of that year.
“You [Epstein] can hang [contradict arbitrarily] him [Trump] in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you [from Democrats & USA Establishment], or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt,” Wolff added.
Wolff, in a lengthy March 18, 2016, email to Epstein, laid out a communications strategy for him during the election year, apparently in response to author James Patterson writing a book about the financier that required “an immediate counter narrative.”
“You would not be able to do a competing book or documentary before then,” he wrote. “That being said, you do need an immediate counter narrative to the book. I believe Trump offers an ideal opportunity. It’s a chance to make the story about something other than you, while, at the same time, letting you frame your own story.
“Also, becoming an anti-Trump voice gives you a certain political cover which you decidedly don’t have now. Still, this necessary [sic] involves you going public,” he added.
Mic dropUSA media, Michael Wolff, Dems & Establishment are what was just discredited & exposed.
The “strategic plan,” Wolff explained, should be in the interests of “involving your public identity, philanthropic activities and interests, and the development of media allies, ought finally to be put in place.”
“Filthy Rich: The Shocking True Story of Jeffrey Epstein” was published by Little, Brown and Company on Oct. 20, 2016.
Nine days later, Wolff followed up with Epstein: “There’s an opportunity to come forward this week and talk about Trump in such a way that could garner you great sympathy and help finish him. Interested?”
Wolff [went on to be] the author of the supposed tell-all about the first Trump White House...panned by fellow journalists for its shoddy reporting, with The Washington Post describing many of its mistakes as apparent evidence that it wasn’t “clear the book was vetted.”
When confronted with other factual errors in his follow-up book...Wolff fumed in a June 2019 interview on the Yahoo News podcast “Skullduggery”: “Even if I was wrong, I’m not going to admit it to you.”
The Daily Beast also had to retract an article earlier this year based on claims Wolff made on a podcast alleging a modeling agent connected to notorious sex predator Jeffrey Epstein introduced Melania Trump to her husband.
"Trump-obsessed writer Michael Wolff encouraged Jeffrey Epstein to blackmail then-presidential candidate Donald, emails reveal"
-
@blablarg18 said in Dems think they tied Trump to Epstein - again. It blows up in their faces - again. (update: Michael Wolff exposed):
Epstein calls Trump "dog that won't bark"
That's not the quote, and you clearly don't understand what he was saying.
The idiom Epstein's referring to is "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, then the one that hollers is the one you hit." It means that if you say something generally about a group of people, then the person(s) who complain are likely the people the statement is true about. If you throw out an general accusation, then the one who starts denying it is likely the guilty party.
Epstein's saying that Trump is a guilty dog, but he hasn't barked yet. Whether Trump did or did not do anything wrong, clearly Epstein thought he did.