Trump denies that he wrote the note. He is suing Rupert Murdoch and The Wall Street Journal for $10 billion for publishing the story, which he says is fake. This open break between Trump and Murdoch may have interesting consequences, since Murdoch s FOX News is Trump’s biggest cheering section.
Ellie Leonard writes:
Long before we knew the story of Jeffrey Epstein, a young Ghislaine Maxwell was coming of age in the 53-bedroom home of her father, Robert Maxwell, a British media proprietor and politician. He named his luxury yacht after the little girl, the “Lady Ghislaine,” but spent most of his time buying and selling businesses like MacMillan and Pergamon Press, and flying back and forth to Headington Hill in Oxford on his helicopter. Ghislaine would later say that she had a “difficult, traumatic childhood with an overbearing, narcissistic, and demanding father…(that) made [her] vulnerable to Epstein.” But despite being a billionaire, Robert Maxwell had a lot of debt, (having “plundered hundreds of millions of pounds from his companies’ pension funds) and in 1991 his body was discovered floating in the Atlantic Ocean. The newspapers said he had apparently fallen overboard from the “Lady Ghislaine,” but Ghislaine never believed the stories.
“One thing I am sure about is that he did not commit suicide. I think he was murdered.” – Ghislaine Maxwell, Hello! Magazine, 1997
She would meet Jeffrey Epstein for the first time just a few months later. And despite the bad taste her father left, she found common ground with the young millionaire financier.
It is unclear how long Maxwell dated Epstein, though there is evidence to indicate it was from about 1992 to 1997. However, due to the nature of Epstein’s “extracurricular” activities and business dealings, those lines may be blurred. In a 2003 Vanity Fair article Epstein claimed that Maxwell was his “best friend,” indicating that, at least on paper, they were no longer together. But he stated that although she wasn’t on his payroll, she “organized much of [his] life,” and that when a relationship is over, the girlfriend “moves up, not down,” to friendship status.
Open the link to keep reading and to view the drawing at the center of Trump’s $20 billion lawsuit against Murdoch.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has frozen $8.6 billion that Congress appropriated for students this summer. The Administration is supposed to spend the money that Congress authorized and appropriated, not withhold it.
The Network for Public Education urges you to take action!
Open the link and fill out the form to lodge your protest.
#RELEASEFUNDS4SCHOOLS
Just weeks before the school year begins, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon is refusing to release $8.6 billion in federal funds that Congress approved for public schools.
This is more than a funding freeze—it’s a test run for permanent cuts. And unless we act now, our schools will pay the price. Send your letter to Linda McMahon.
3. Call the U.S. Department of Education: 1-800-647-8733. Press 5 to report a violation of law regarding the lack of disbursement of approved federal funds by the U.S. Department of Education. You can leave a message.
As the controversy over Trump’s relationship to notorious pedophile Jeffrey Epstein turned into a media frenzy, members of Trump’s team threw distractions into the mix. One of them came from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. She released a report calling for prosecution of high-level Obama-era officials for what she called “treasonous conspiracy” about Russian interference in the 2016 campaign. She ignored a three-year investigation by a Republican-led Senate Committee, which concluded that Russia did try to influence the 2016 election in Trump’s favor.
Politico posted:
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard called for several Obama administration officials to face criminal prosecution for participating in a “treasonous conspiracy” surrounding the 2016 election on Friday afternoon, the latest example of the Trump administration targeting critics of the president.
In a newly declassified report, Gabbard on Friday alleged the officials “manipulated and withheld” key intelligence from the public related to the possibility of Russian interference in the election.
In a Friday afternoon statement, Gabbard said she would provide all related documents to the Justice Department “to deliver the accountability that President [Donald] Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.”
“No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again,” Gabbard said in the statement.
The DOJ declined to comment on Gabbard’s comments.
The ODNI’s memo names former DNI James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, among others allegedly involved in the White House’s review of possible Russian meddling in the election.
The administration has routinely targeted critics of the president and has sought to relitigate the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections. The president has repeatedly criticized former intelligence officials for their efforts to probe the Kremlin’s possible attempts to interfere in American politics, with Trump accusing Comey of leading a “corrupt and vicious witch hunt” against him.
The New York Times reported this afternoon that the Trump administration has put the Environmental Protection Agency into reverse gear. Its leader, Lee Zeldin, was previously a Congressman representing the East End of Long Island, one of the most ecologically fragile places in the U.S.
The Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday that it would eliminate its scientific research arm and begin firing hundreds of chemists, biologists, toxicologists and other scientists, after denying for months that it intended to do so.
The move underscores how the Trump administration is forging ahead with efforts to slash the federal work force and dismantle federal agencies after the Supreme Court allowed these plans to proceed while legal challenges unfold. Government scientists have been particular targets of the administration’s large-scale layoffs.
The decision to dismantle the E.P.A.’s Office of Research and Development had been widely expected since March, when a leaked document that called for eliminating the office was first reported by The New York Times. But until Friday, the Trump administration maintained that no final decisions had been made.
The E.P.A.’s science office provides the independent research that underpins nearly all of the agency’s policies and regulations. It has analyzed the risks of hazardous chemicals, the impact of wildfire smoke on public health and the contamination of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Its research has often justified stricter environmental rules, prompting pushback from chemical manufacturers and other industries.
Last night, I read the story in the Wall Street Journal that was breaking news. The WSJ, owned by Rupert Murdoch, had somehow obtained a leather-bound book presented to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday. In it was a “bawdy” note from Donald Trump that hinted at their common interests.
At a time when other media outlets are hesitating and capitulating, Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal just stood up to President Trumpand scooped one of the biggest political stories of the summer. The print headline on Page One today reads “Trump’s Bawdy Letter to Epstein Was in 50th Birthday Album.” It is, of course, the most-read article on the Journal’s website.
And yet… Murdoch’s Fox News has not mentioned the story once.So let me take a stab at answering all the questions I’m getting about the media mogul and his role.
Murdoch, age 94, wants to have it both ways. He wants to be a newsman (that’s how he sees himself) but also needs to be a businessman. He wants a muscular Journal breaking big stories but he also needs Fox News to keep printing money for his family and other shareholders.
It’s been readily apparent for years that Fox succeeds when it is The Trump Show. So Fox does what it does, ignores what it ignores. But Murdoch, who has always cared most of all about old-fashioned newspapers, derives satisfaction and a sense of power from the Journal.
We wrote all about the operatic relationship between Murdoch and Trump in this CNN.com story overnight. I think this quote is quite telling: “Rupert loves to poke the president in the eye once in a while,” an executive who has worked with him closely told me.
Trump: I’m going to ‘sue his ass off’
Trump is, of course, taking this very personally. “I told Rupert Murdoch it was a Scam, that he shouldn’t print this Fake Story. But he did, and now I’m going to sue his ass off, and that of his third rate newspaper,” he wrote on Truth Social.
Trump’s post confirmed rumors that had been swirling in political and media circles for two days: namely, that the White House was trying to kill a damaging WSJ story. Trump said he personally spoke with both Murdoch and WSJ editor Emma Tucker.
As for a lawsuit, well… we’ll see, but no suit will take this story off the internet. The timeline is worth revisiting here. The WSJ approached Trump for comment on Tuesday. Trump derided the Epstein scandal as a “hoax” on Wednesday.
As I said on “The Source with Kaitlan Collins” last night, his well-trodden “hoax” talking point was a direct response to his concern about the looming WSJ report. Trump uses the word “hoax” to shut down conversation and discourage critical thinking; to tell his supporters to just ignore something altogether. TBD on whether it’ll work this time.
>> Inside Dow Jones HQ: After the story landed, Journal staffers expressed pride in their colleagues and in the publication for running the report despite the president’s attempt to squash it. There’s a real sense that publishing was an act of bravery…
>> BTW, WSJ has no comment on the lawsuit threat. Trump seems empowered by his settlements with Paramount and other media companies…
****************************************
Not part of Stelter’s commentary:
The note from Donald to Jeffrey:
The typewritten note was an imaginary conversation between Donald and Jeffrey, inside the outline of a naked woman.
“Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything,” the note began.
Donald: Yes, there is, but I won’t tell you what it is.
Jeffrey: Nor will I, since I also know what it is.
Donald: We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.
Jeffrey: Yes, we do, come to think of it.
Donald: Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?
Jeffrey: As a matter of fact, it was clear to me the last time I saw you.
Donald: A pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.
This is extremely awkward for MAGA World, because one of their obsessions was the failure of the Justice Department to release the Epstein files. Those files, they assumed, would contain the long list of names of powerful men who participated in Epstein’s orgies with underage girls. It would also contain the flight logs of Epstein’s private airplane(s), including the names of everyone who visited Epstein’s private island, officially named Little James Island, but unofficially called “Pedo Island.” The files might also contain the videos of prominent men taking advantage of young girls, which is a felony. Epstein had video cameras in all of his residences.
Trump would like everyone to stop talking about Epstein. On national television, he denounced the MAGA followers who want to see the Epstein files. He denounced them as “stupid” and “weaklings,” and he said he didn’t want their support anymore.
Fact is, no matter what’s in the Epstein files (assuming they have not been incinerated) won’t hurt Trump. He may lose some rabid fans. He will still be president until the election of 2028.
But the Epstein story won’t go away. MAGA was encouraged to believe that Democrats were hiding them and Trump would release them. Trump now says that the files shouldn’t be released because innocent people might be implicated. Or he says the files don’t exist. Or he says that the files were created by Obama, Hillary Clinton, James Comey, and Biden.
House Democrats offered a resolution demanding the release of the Epstein files. Republicans voted the resolution down, putting them into the awkward position of defending Attorney General Pam Bondi’s claim that the files don’t exist. but if they do exist, they should not be released.
Bondi made this claim after saying on national television that the Epstein list of clients was “on her desk.” Maybe she confused her grocery shopping list with Epstein’s list of clients.
Trump, Epstein and friendsParty time!! Only the best!
Republicans complained in the past that Biden was “weaponizing” and “politicizing” the Justice Department. That was not true. But it’s happening now, and Republicans don’t care. Lawyers who worked on prosecution of January 6 insurrectionists are being terminated, as are those who worked on investigations of Trump. If Trump and Bondi succeed, only Trump loyalists will still have a job in the Justice Department. James Comey’s daughter, who was a prosecutor of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, was fired from
Her job in the New York office of the Justice Department.
Stein writes:
The Trump administration is firing and pushing out employees across the Justice Department and FBI, often with no explanation or warning, creating rampant speculation and fear within the workforce over who might be terminated next, according to multiple people with knowledge of the removals who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.
Some people are simply fired, delivered a notice signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi that cites the broad powers afforded to the president in the U.S. Constitution. Others, particularly at the FBI, are told they can leave or be demoted or terminated.
The removals appear more individually targeted, and are happening in smaller numbers, than the high-profile ousters of senior Justice Department and FBI officials in the early months of President Donald Trump’s second term, when he returned to the White House vowing to clean house at the federal law enforcement agency that had brought two criminal cases against him. They are unrelated to the mass reductions-in-force and reorganizations that Trump has launched at many other federal agencies, which the Supreme Court has said may move forward for now.
Multiple people familiar with the Justice Department said scores of experienced staffers are opting to voluntarily leave the government to avoid being fired at random or asked to do things that would potentially violate their legal ethics. Their departures are worsening staff shortages in major divisions and U.S. attorney offices and have created an opening for the Trump administration to further shape the Justice Department workforce, allowing officials to fill career staff vacancies with attorneys who align ideologically with the president.
“Many, many lawyers have resigned on their own power because they saw the writing on the wall,” said Max Stier, chief executive of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit organization that pushes for a strong federal workforce. “They understood if they didn’t leave on their own volition they would be subject to firing — or if they stayed they felt they couldn’t uphold their oath in a way that was consistent with their integrity.”
The lack of explanation for the firings has fueled rumors, multiple people familiar with the situation said.
One Justice Department lawyer was suspected of being fired because he used “he/him” pronouns in his email signature. People interviewed say they believe another attorney was ousted because of a message he put on social media. Others told to leave may not mesh with or may be disliked by Trump’s political appointees, the people said. And some are suspected of speaking to the media without authorization.
“Notice of Removal from Federal Service,” the subject line in the email from Bondi to one employee read. It continued: “Pursuant to Article II of the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States, you are removed from federal service effective immediately.”
Trump has an almost mystical view about tariffs. He thinks that they are a payment that a country makes to the U.S. in return for selling their products here. He thinks that the U.S. will collect so many billions in tariff payments that the government can keep cutting taxes. He doesn’t understand that the cost of tariffs is paid first by American retailers, but ultimately by consumers. Tariffs mean higher prices for everything that is imported.
He apparently never learned in high school about the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930, which led to retaliation and ultimately contributed to the Great Depression.
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman has some lessons for Trump. Given Trump’s belief in his own great intellect, it’s doubtful that he’s interested in learning anything new.
Krugman writes:
Many investors seem to have deluded themselves into believing that Trump was done disrupting world trade, and some economists, myself included, were hoping that we wouldn’t keep having to write about stupid, feckless trade policy. But here we go again.
By now we were supposed to have scores of trade deals signed. Instead… Trump began posting letters on Truth Social (diplomacy!) telling a variety of countries that they would face high tariffs on Aug. 1. The first two letters were to South Korea and Japan, both told that Trump would put a 25 percent tariff on all their exports. Some countries are facing even higher tariffs. Overall, the tariff rates announced so far look very close to the widely ridiculed Liberation Day tariffs announced on April 2.
Honestly, I’ve written so much about tariffs that it’s hard to find new things to say. But let me offer a few notes on where we seem to be now.
These tariffs are really, really high
One way to look at the newly announced tariffs is in the light of history. The infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 pushed the average tariff rate to about 20 percent. So far every country that has received a letter will be facing rates higher than that.
Another way to look at it to ask how much we would expect these tariffs to reduce trade. The key number is the elasticity of substitution in world trade — the percent fall in imports caused by a one percent rise in import prices. The median estimate from many studies is 3.8, which implies that in the long run 25 percent tariffs will reduce trans-Pacific trade by almost 60 percent. That’s a lot.
Side note: If I were a government employee, this post would probably be flagged for DEI because I just used the word “trans.”
There were never going to be genuine trade deals
These tariffs are going to hurt South Korea and Japan, although they’ll hurt U.S. consumers even more. So why didn’t Korean and Japanese negotiators make big enough concessions to satisfy Trump?
Because there was nothing for them to concede. South Korea has had a free trade agreement with the United States since 2012, so most U.S. exports to Korea face zero tariffs. Japan, like other wealthy nations, has very low tariffs on most goods. Neither country, then, was in a position to offer big tariff reductions, because their tariffs were already minimal.
Here’s part of Trump’s letter to South Korea, alleging that the country’s “Tariff, and Non Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers” are responsible for the bilateral trade imbalance:
Notice that Trump offered no specifics — because there aren’t any. How were the South Koreans supposed to end unfair trade practices that exist only in Trump’s imagination?
Here’s an analogy that occurred to me: Imagine that you have a belligerent neighbor who threatens to take revenge unless you stop dumping trash on his lawn. You reply, truthfully, that you aren’t dumping trash on his lawn. His response is to accuse you of being intransigent and slash your car’s tires.
The only possible out here would be a series of fake deals, in which countries pretend to have offered significant concessions and Trump claims to have won big victories. Some people still think that will happen — the new tariffs aren’t supposed to take effect until Aug. 1. But the tone of those letters and Trump’s clear obsession with tariffs make me doubt that he’ll call the tariffs off, in part because of my last observation: Attempts to mollify Trump always end up emboldening him to demand more.
Why make a deal with a man who will surely break it?
As I already mentioned, South Korea and the United States have had a free trade agreement (KORUS) since 2012. This agreement wasn’t some vague memorandum of understanding. It was the result of years of tough negotiation, followed by intense political debate in both countries before our respective legislatures passed the enabling legislation.
Yet Trump is simply ignoring that hard-won agreement. His letter to the South Koreans doesn’t even mention KORUS, let alone explain why the United States is reneging on its solemn promises.
Japan doesn’t have a free trade agreement with the United States. But it does have Most Favored Nation status, which means that under international trade law it is entitled to face tariffs no higher than those America committed to under the last major global trade agreement, the Uruguay Round that concluded in 1994. Again, these tariff commitments weren’t embodied in some casual memorandum. They were the result of years of negotiation, whose results had to be approved by Congress.
And again Trump isn’t even trying to explain why he’s going back on a longstanding U.S. commitment.
The point is that Trump doesn’t feel bound by trade deals America has made in the past. Why should anyone expect him to honor any new deals he makes, or claims to make, now?
Obviously this behavior isn’t unique to tariffs. Many domestic institutions, from law firms to universities, have discovered that attempting to appease Trump buys you at best a few weeks’ respite before he comes back for more.
It’s possible that the governments receiving Trump’s tariff letters haven’t figured that out yet. But they will. And my bet is that the TACO people — Trump always chickens out — are wrong in this case. I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, but right now it looks as if deeply destructive tariffs are really coming.
Jackie Mitchell with Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. (National Baseball Hall of Fame Library).
On April 2, 1931 history was made in Chattanooga, Tennessee. That same day a mystery was also born. Seventeen-year-old Jackie Mitchell took the mound against the New York Yankees, striking out Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig before walking Tony Lazzeri. Mitchell placed her name in the record books with the strikeouts but also became part of an ongoing debate and mystery regarding the circumstances surrounding the game. Who was Jackie Mitchell? Where did she come from? Did she really strike out the Yankee stars or was it all a publicity hoax?
Born Virne Beatrice Mitchell on August 29, 1913, Mitchell grew up in Memphis, Tennessee. Her mother sold hosiery and her father was an optician. Mitchell was encouraged by her father to take part in sports. Growing up, she played basketball, tennis, and baseball, and swam. As a youngster Mitchell supposedly learned to pitch from one of the family’s neighbors, Dazzy Vance. She later told reporters that Vance taught her a drop ball, or sinker. Vance had pitched for the Dodgers, winning the National League MVP in 1924. When she was a teenager, Mitchell’s family moved to Chattanooga. Mitchell joined a local baseball school and it was here that the new president of the Chattanooga Lookouts saw her pitching.
Joe Engel signed on as the new president of the Lookouts in 1929 and in 1931 he followed a common practice of minor-league teams arranging exhibition games with major-league clubs. The New York Yankees were returning north after spring training in 1931 and Engel was able to sign a contract for two exhibition games. Shortly after setting up these games, Engel signed Mitchell to a contract, announcing that she would pitch in one of the games. And here is where the real debate begins. Did Engel sign Mitchell for real or was she just a publicity stunt? It was the heart of the Great Depression and teams everywhere were adding special events and exhibitions to make money. Signing Mitchell could certainly be seen in that light.
When Mitchell signed her contract, she became only the second woman to sign an Organized Baseball contract. The first was Lizzie Arlington, who signed to play with the Reading Coal Heavers in 1898. Female baseball players on men’s teams were not a common sight. Most women playing baseball were part of the bloomer teams that barnstormed the country from the 1910s through the 1930s. Engel would have certainly seen the opportunity to bring in fans to watch Mitchell pitch, especially against the Yankees. About 4,000 fans were reported in the stands to watch Mitchell get a chance to pitch against Babe Ruth.
Engel had a reputation for pulling off crazy stunts, so the strikeouts could have been staged. Engel raffled off a house to a fan and traded a shortstop for a turkey. He then cooked the turkey and served it to the local reporters. He later sold “stock” to fans to save the ballclub from being sold. He held an elephant hunt in the outfield before a game, offering fans the chance to hunt some papier-mache animals. Engel’s willingness to try just about anything to generate publicity has led many researchers and fans to believe the strikeouts were staged. An added fact was that the game was originally supposed to take place on April 1 but was postponed due to cold. The exhibition could have been an April Fool’s Day joke.1
So what actually took place on April 2, 1931? The Lookouts started Clyde Barfoot against the Yankees but Barfoot never got past the first two batters. He gave up a leadoff double and then a single before Engel called Mitchell in to the game. Mitchell entered the game as a 17-year-old southpaw preparing to pitch to the Sultan of Swat, Babe Ruth. Prior to the game, publicity photos were taken of Mitchell with Ruth and Gehrig. The photos showed a slight young girl in an oversized uniform with a grin on her face and Ruth and Gehrig looking more solemn. They even had her take out a mirror and powder her nose.2
After throwing a few warm-up pitches, Mitchell threw two pitches that Ruth swung at and missed. She followed that with a called third strike. Ruth threw his bat in disgust and stormed back to the dugout. Some stories at the time claimed he turned and smiled before he left the field, adding to the idea that the whole thing was staged. Next up was Lou Gehrig and Mitchell struck him out with three pitches as well. She then walked Tony Lazzeri and Engel took her out of the game in favor of bringing back Barfoot. The Lookouts went on to lose, 14-4, making the game less than memorable except for Mitchell’s pitching. A few days after the game, Mitchell’s contract was voided but she did not leave baseball. She continued to pitch for another Engel team, the Junior Lookouts. After barnstorming the rest of the 1931 season and some of 1932, Mitchell signed with the well-known bearded House of David nine. She was promoted as the famous girl pitcher. After playing with the House of David on and off for a few years, Mitchell retired from baseball in 1937 and went to work for her father. She claimed until the day she died in 1987 that the strikeouts were legitimate. Her own claims added to the debate.3
Other ideas that have been proposed to support the legitimacy of the strikeouts include her pitching itself but also Ruth and Gehrig. There were two runners on base when Ruth came up; would he have deliberately struck out to leave the runners stranded? Ruth hit a lot of home runs but he also struck out a great deal, making it believable that Mitchell could have struck him out. Add to that Gehrig’s strikeout, which many believed he would never have agreed to stage. Teammate Lefty Gomez stated in an interview that Yankee manager Joe McCarthy was too competitive to ever stage such strikeouts. Then there was Mitchell herself. She was a southpaw pitcher who had a good sinker/curveball-style pitch. She was also someone they had never faced before. Often pitchers do well the first time they face new hitters but not so much the second time around. She never faced them again since she was taken out of the game.4
Please open the link to finish reading the article.
Diane Ravitch's blog 