Trump and Hitler

There is a taboo about likening someone to Hitler.

The rule even has a name, Godwin's Law: reductio ad Hitlerum. The presumption of the rule of debate is that comparison with Hitler is so extreme and hyperbolic that the person who makes the comparison loses all credibility.

We need to rethink Godwin's Law.

The thrust of the amicus brief my attorney and I filed in the tariff case is that Trump is flagrantly claiming a power clearly given to Congress alone, and that this is part of a larger pattern of growing authoritarian rule. My attorney didn't cite Hitler. But it did argue that Trump's takeover of the Civil Service and his wholesale attack on federal judges in Maryland were part of a bigger project of taking personal control of the government. The brief argued that Trump respects no limit on his power. Where does it stop?

In the month since we filed that brief, Trump said explicitly that the tariff on Brazilian exports was retaliation for their prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro, a former leader who, like Trump, led a riot in an attempt to retain office. Trump threatened to withhold appropriated funds to repair the Baltimore bridge that services the Port of Baltimore in retaliation against a Democratic governor in Maryland who said Baltimore did not need federal troops. Trump's FBI searched the home of a national security critic, who wrote a tell-all book critical of Trump. He used a pretext to fire a member of the independent Federal Reserve Board member. Trump told Intel they should fire its CEO, then took 10 percent of Intel for the government, and now praises the same CEO. Trump bullied NVIDIA and AMD into ceding 15% of revenue from sale of certain chips to the U.S. government as tribute and payback for Trump's administration deciding that those chips were not a national security threat after all. 

L'État, c'est moi.  Trump isn't hiding it. He is showing it off. He can do whatever he wants and no one can stop him, and each time he gets away with it he is stronger for doing so. He is getting bolder.

Marc Bayliss graduated a year ahead of me from Medford High School. He was a scholar athlete and an All State football player. He graduated with honors from Notre Dame. He speaks seven languages. He tells me he was especially dismayed by the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health organization and our cancellation of humanitarian projects administered by USAID. He has served on multiple boards and commissions throughout his adult life. 

Bayliss

Guest Post by Marc Bayliss
 

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This is originally from George Santayana. It was paraphrased again by Winston Churchill in a 1948 speech to the British House of Commons as "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

After graduation from Notre Dame in 1970, I was selected to fulfill the role of a Rotary International Graduate Fellow for my graduate studies at the University of Salzburg and the University of Innsbruck. All expenses paid for my post-grad degree. Most people in Austria couldn't pin down my accent when we were speaking in German. In my first few months I happily shared that I was from the USA. Their response was muted and aloof. 

Trump was popular with the message: Make Germany great again

 I was puzzled until a movie opened my eyes. The movie was "TORA! TORA! TORA!" A joint production of Japan and Hollywood about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. In a 1,000-seat movie emporium in Innsbruck I was shocked into the reality of understanding when all 1,000 Austrians jumped to their feet to cheer whenever a battleship of the U.S. Navy was blown sky high by Japanese bombs.

From that time on I knew that my ambassadorial scholarship was teaching me real-life international relations.  

For background - in 1945 Innsbruck was occupied by the 91st Division of the U.S. Army. The 91st (the "Tall Firs Division") trained at Camp White, Oregon, near Medford. And in another local connection, the German Wehrmacht surrendered and faced a "stand-down" at the Brenner Pass -- just 12 miles due south of Innsbruck. One of the chief negotiators of the tense stand-down was a young officer of the U.S. 10th Mountain Division named Bill Bowerman. He was also from Medford, and later a track and football coach at Medford High, and then the University of Oregon. He was the partner of Phil Knight in founding Nike. 

But the dynamic that still remained 25 years after the end of WWII in Austria was that Americans were the "victors" and the Austrians were the "vanquished." It took a lot of trust and carefully crafted friendships on my part to help overcome that stigma. 

Now, what about the history of then versus now? After I was able to overcome an awkward dynamic, I gently asked my older Austrian neighbors how Hitler gained their vote. The answers from those who lived during those times was that Hitler promised two things; To whip inflation and to create and protect jobs for Germans and Austrians.

So how do we fast-forward to compare then with now? Here are some similarities with Donald Trump today and Hitler's Germany 100 years ago:

--- Both craved territorial expansion. Trump wants Greenland, Canada and the Panama Canal. Hitler forced expansion of the Third Reich into Austria, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. 

--- Dissidents were sent to special-purpose detention facilities.

--- Both promoted civil insurrection. For Trump: January 6th, 2021 at the Capitol. For Hitler: the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich, November, 1923. 

--- Both made strong efforts to gain traditional conservative support.

--- Both made strong attacks on the press. Hitler and Trump both criticized the media as biased and denied access to journalists with whom they disagreed. 

--- Both harnessed the power of emerging media. For Hitler it was a newfangled invention called radio. For Trump it is social media and the internet. 

--- Both attacked elite universities. 

--- Both closed the borders. 

--- Both were convicted by trial.  

--- Both managed the historical record, blocking out and stigmatizing forbidden opinions. Hitler famously burned books. Trump is demanding federal museums remove language that describes milestones in racial or gender equality.

 

--- Both promoted science denial. Hitler forced into exile the top physicists, scientists and intellectuals. These included three Nobel Prize winning physicists, Albert Einstein, Edward Teller and Erwin Schrodinger (and his famous fictional cat). Trump is cancelling research grants.

--- Both applied strict tariffs on foreign goods. 

--- Both demanded and received implied approval from large businesses. For Hitler it was Thyssen and Krupp, cutting edge industries for 1930's Germany. For Trump it is all of the high-tech giants. 

So - coincidence or repeated ideologies? And what are the consequences if we continue to disregard the past?

Churchill and Santayana know.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

 

Ariticial Intelligence is the new toy. Or the new revolutionary business tool.

I liken artificial intelligence applications to a new piano dropped into everyone's home or office.

1.  Most people ignore it. 

2.  Some people plink around on it, and maybe learn to tap out a few bars of a song with one finger.

3.  Some people put in the time and energy to play it fluently.

One of my readers is in stage three, learning how to give artificial intelligence tools the prompts and guidance it needs to increase the speed and accuracy of letters and briefs coming out of his law practice. There was a steep learning curve, he tells me, but over the course of a year of intense effort to integrate AI, it went from slowing him down to half-speed, then to break-even. Now it doubles his productivity, and it is getting better every month. He thinks the tool will revolutionize the practice of law. It is already starting to do so.

He has urged me to let AI help write my blog posts. I haven't done so. I am at stage one.

Artificial intelligence is user friendly, but there is a learning curve to using it as an effective tool in doing serious work. It requires being willing to change the process for how one works. When one switches from pen and paper to a typewriter to send a letter, one doesn't use a pen to write the letter onto the side of the typewriter, and mail the typewriter. One completely abandons the pen and no longer touches the paper. The letter-writer needs to accept using a whole new process. 

I don't feel ready to sit down every morning and prompt AI to write a blog post consistent with my thoughts as revealed in prior posts. So I don't. But maybe that is the future of opinion journalism. Like my guest post author, I am glad I am retired.

College classmate Erich Almasy went from college to the Harvard Business School and straight into management consulting. He shares his observations about resistance to change.

Almasy

Guest Post by Erich Almasy

Nothing Changes and Everything Stays the Same

In my first year as a management consultant, I was tasked with researching examples of significant industrial change. Curiously, despite industry innovation and even invention, I found that changes in industry leaders rarely occurred. In the 1940s and 50s, DuPont developed the first water-based house paint, Lucite®. While it revolutionized the paint industry, after the dust settled, the top paint companies like Sherwin-Williams and PPG remained the same. Similarly, electric furnaces using scrap metal instead of iron ore upended steel industry technology, but the Big Three steelmakers retained their positions. Radial tires from Michelin, personal computers from Altair, and even decaffeinated coffee from Kaffee Hag did little to displace the industry leaders because market share and consumer preference were slow to change. As long as the industry leaders stay in power, they have little incentive to redefine the work they do. To move the needle, it seems that the creation of a new industry is needed, such as semiconductors, solar panels, email, and electric vehicles. Even then, widespread adoption typically takes decades.

Recently, it was reported that eight of ten companies are using AI, but that they have not noticed a jump in productivity. This parallels the early years of the so-called personal computer and Internet revolutions, both hailed as productivity game changers but subsequently seen as largely sizzle and no steak. At the heart of both these dilemmas is the simple fact that improving productivity requires significantly changing the nature of the work involved, and that task is challenging. As Ron Frank, my HBS Professor and good friend, used to say, “work is the way it is because that’s the way it is.” As a consultant, I found it’s tough to change what works, and until one does, the existing patterns, designs, and habits of work processes remain the same. Work processes are highly resistant to new technology when it is only layered on. The status quo means “the state in which,” and it requires significant change to overcome inertia (a tendency to do nothing or remain unchanged).

To make work different is very risky and expensive. Witness Ford Motor’s recent announcement that it will spend billions to end linear assembly of vehicles in favor of a “tree” assembly, making front, middle, and end portions of its cars on separate lines and bringing them together at the end. The middle will be a battery platform that will be used in all EV models Ford makes. This radical redesign of work and huge change for Ford may dramatically reduce labor and parts costs. Like the Model T assembly line, the Springfield rifle’s interchangeable parts, and the division of labor in Adam Smith’s pin factory, radical redesign of work causes radical change.

The aspirational claims for AI so far are that it will produce a fundamental change in how white-collar workers handle everyday management tasks. Estimates range up to the replacement of up to fifty percent of these workers. Careers similar to the one I had in management consulting will change dramatically. An even more spectacular opportunity is claimed for medical research and the development of new treatments or drugs. However, present AI results include gay and anti-Semitic slurs, misinformation, plagiarism, outright lies, and points of view that are bent to specific politics. To the point that it is unclear to what extent this technology can be trusted. When AI writes your research report, you may spend more time checking its facts than writing it yourself. Or not. We are in an age where children, teens, and young adults are looking at social media and texting on their smartphones rather than reading or writing. Why not let a computer app do all your communication for you? Sorry, I’m old school. I still write in cursive. I will obstinately continue to communicate using only Grammerly and spell-check. I also think that breakthroughs like Ford’s will come more from human effort than computer programs. I’m also glad that I’m retired.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

White-collar criminal

The New York appeals court agreed that what Trump did was fraudulent.

He gets to keep the fruit of that fraud anyway.

That's dangerous. 

Appeals Court Judge Peter Moulton said, "While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state." The original judgment was $355 million, but it grew to $500 million due to the statutory interest of 9 percent per year while the case was on appeal. 

The case was controversial. President Trump's lawyers argued that the loans Trump received from banks were issued at a rate that banks found satisfactory, and that they were paid back on schedule. The rate of interest Trump paid was lower than it might have been because Trump vastly overstated the value of collateral for the loan, but this was an arm's-length transaction between sophisticated market participants. They argued no-harm-no-foul. No one got hurt.

In fact, we all got hurt. Business fraud isn't just a matter between two parties in a transaction. The whole financial system depends on honest transactions. We know this from experience.

When Enron cooked its books, employees and pensioners in companies that Enron bought when it was flying high, including one of Oregon's two big utility companies, Portland General, lost their jobs and pensions.  People got hurt when Bernie Madoff cooked the books on the value of the fund he managed.

The housing boom and bust was fueled by business fraud. Banks and mortgage companies accepted "liar loans" from customers knowing that the ability to repay was questionable at best. They approved the loans anyway because they could instantly re-sell the loans to loan syndicators. Credit rating agencies, eager to get the fee for assigning it an AAA -rating, signed off on the loans. Those loan packages were sold to pension funds by banks eager to get them off their books. At every level, the market participants fudged because it was good money while it lasted. My own employer, Citibank, was a participant in that fraud. Its president, Chuck Prince, explained that the loan marketplace looked sketchy as of June, 2007, just before the bubble popped, but the bank continued with its willful blind eye.

When the music stops, in terms of liquidity, things will be complicated. But as long as the music is playing, you’ve got to get up and dance. We’re still dancing.

That "dancing" destroyed the bank. It had to be bailed out by taxpayers.

Imagine a different kind of business fraud.  A homeowner buys an insurance policy on his house to protect against fire or another catastrophe. The homeowner wants it, and his mortgage lender demands it. His insurance agent pockets the premium. The agent sends fraudulent certifications of insurance to the homeowner and mortgage lender. Years pass without incident, the insurance agent pocketing the premium and, fortunately, no incident takes place triggering a claim. Was that a no-harm-no-foul situation? Should the agent keep the money he pocketed? Of course not.

Someone was hurt. The homeowner thought he was insured, but was not. The mortgage lender thought their loan collateral was protected, but it was not. Parties were exposed to risk they didn't know they had. 

The way to discourage that behavior by insurance agents -- beyond being fired by the insurance company and the criminal sanctions for defrauding the homeowner -- is disgorgement of the profit from the crime. Whether it is theft or an innocent mistake, a person must never profit from an error. Gains from errors are disgorged as a matter of law. They are returned to the client or turned over to the state, depending on circumstances, but never given to the fraudster or careless mistake-maker. How else to discourage outright fraud or accidentally-on-purpose mistakes?

The public is deeply suspicious that the wealthy are coddled in prosecutions. I applaud New York for demanding disgorgement of gains made through fraudulent business practices. Trump calls it a “WITCH HUNT.” New York and every other state should conduct more of these hunts. White-collar crime sometimes involves high-status, well-connected, wealthy people. All the more reason to go forward with those investigations and prosecutions. Let the public see equal justice. High profile criminals should be prosecuted, not pardoned. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Easy Sunday: Instant hydration

I don't carry a water bottle around with me.

I live in the USA. I am never far from good, pure, cool fresh water out of a tap. So why carry a water bottle around like a security blanket?

Until Jeff Lowenfels sent me this proposed Easy Sunday guest post, I hadn't given water bottles a second thought.

I realize that with all the trouble in the world, publishing a guest post about water bottles is small potatoes. There are famines, wars, the economy, tariffs, immigration, the Epstein coverup, and the erosion of our democracy to worry about. But it is Sunday, and a day to chill with the mental "comfort food" of an opinion on something of no real consequence.

Jeff is my age, and a college classmate. He has an opinion on water bottles.

32 oz.  $17.50 on Amazon

Jeff is famous in Alaska. He has been writing an award-winning garden column for the Alaska Daily News for over 45 years. He is also an attorney who managed Alaska's largest law firm. He ran for Congress a couple of years ago, and lost. He writes books about the essential role microbes play in plant growth.

Amazon

I welcome comments from people who carry a water bottle around and think they have good reason to do it. If we are going to have a lively discussion in the comments section, what better subject on a hot August day than hydration?

Lowenfels

Guest Post by Jeff Lowenfels

Have you ever noticed how many people walk around with a water bottle? I am not just talking about those folks who carry a rolled yoga mat with them, either. I just don’t get it. Where did the idea that you must carry around a half-gallon bottle filled with water come from?  

I am 76 years old. I have never had a water bottle and I don’t plan on getting one. Wait, I did have a canteen when I went to overnight camp. You were supposed to fill it, then dip the cloth case into water and hang it. Evaporation was supposed to cool the water. Still, I am never thirsty to the point that I need to be packing a couple of pounds of it all day.

I may simply be too old and remember when no one carried water to anything. I mean, I am part of the generation that went through nuclear, “duck and cover” drills. I don’t remember anyone bringing water with them when we had to go duck under our desks. That would have simply been the silliest thing ever! 

And I remember standing in line waiting for my first polio shot, one of the first groups of kids to get one. Not only was no one carrying a water bottle, no one even gave me a drink of water after that punch of a shot. Damn, needles were big back then!

I know water is good for you. In Portland, Oregon, there is a system of sidewalk water fountains around town that run 24/7. I think they were installed so workers would drink water instead of beer and be a bit safer and better on the job. Anyhow, I watched a street guy wash his bulldog in one once. I don’t drink out of those either.

I drink water at home. Then I go out. I don’t rely on a crutch just in case I might break my foot. Why the heck would I rely on having a supply of water, just in case I develop a dry throat any more than I should carry Band Aids around, you know, just in case.

I am glad I never fell for it. Have you ever walked into a thrift store and wandered by the used water bottle shelf(ves)? Now that plastic is no longer allowed, there are dozens and dozens of them. What happened to the classic prediction in the movie “The Graduate” when the advice for the future was plastic?

There was a time when putting logos on these things and giving them away to people who thought they might need water sometime was popular. Now they blaze from unsold bottles, probably destined to become recycled into that black plastic no one wants to cook with anymore. You can find metal ones as well, with plastic caps rendering them unusable. You can’t win.

 

 [Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

The problem with mocking Trump

     "Gavin Newsom mocking the attempted assassination of Donald Trump is not funny, and is an example of why Gavin Newsom should not be the Democrats' nominee."
            Comment to yesterday's post

The problem with mocking President Trump with parody is that he has no limits or boundaries. 

He is already a super-exaggerated over-the-top character.  

Trump, in the oval office, surrounded by gold swag, wearing a hat saying "Trump was right about everything." 

This is Trump's penthouse home.  For real. How does one parody this?  More gold? Is that possible?

He has redecorated the Oval Office. How would Saturday Night Live exaggerate this?

Gavin Newsom got a ball rolling in social media. The public, using artificial intelligence graphic tools, has taken over my social media feed with posts mocking Trump. Trump's merchandise:

Mocking Trump's presentation of himself as under the guidance and protection of Jesus Christ:

Mocking Trump's presentation of himself as the virile stud in possession of a trophy wife. The recurrent theme is that Melania is disgusted by Trump and is hot for Newsom.

A related theme is the contrast in age. Newsom is strong; Trump is old, fat, and weak:

"Look how foolish Trump is!" is more damaging to the Trump brand than "Look how frightening Trump is." Trump wants to scare people into doing his will, so he makes wild and improbable threats, and then goes through with some of them. 

     -- Starve children and burn food rather than feed victims of famine in Africa? Yes. They are Africans. We aren't their keepers.

     -- Cut funding of research on drugs? Yes. Universities are full of lefties. Smack them down.

     -- Ban entire law firms from entering federal courthouses unless they pay a ransom to Trump's personal charities? Yes. They once represented a client or cause he doesn't like. Show who is boss. 

Trump is legitimately frightening. 

That doesn't mean he isn't also legitimately ridiculous.

My memory is that it would have been verboten it to joke about the attacks on JFK, Gerald Ford, or Ronald Reagan. Times have changed. Both Donald Trump and Don Junior joked about the skull-cracking assault on Nancy Pelosi's husband in the kidnapping attempt on Speaker Pelosi. I don't remember a big stir. Our sense of "presidential decorum" has changed. Trump made the assassination less an attack on democracy and more an opportunity for merchandising and branding. It was a campaign boost demonstrating courage, an indomitable spirit, and God's protection. Trump used it to show off. 

Flags for sale:

A huge ear bandage at the Republican convention. Look at me, America!!!

It became an impromptu campaign button for Republicans:

Newsom isn't mocking the assassination attempt. He mocks the way that Trump turned the assassination attempt into a marketing ploy. Trump presented it as heroic.

Parody does brand judo by turning it into a self-serving marketing con by a huckster.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

The mockery weapon.

California Governor Gavin Newsom is not duplicating President Trump.

He is mocking Trump.

Donald Trump wants to be feared. He wants liberal tears and stories of impending doom. Those validate his power. That persona -- that brand -- is undermined when a taller, better looking, younger California governor sneers at Trump and points out Trump's foolishness. The trouble with satire is that some people don't "get it." And some people get it. but pretend they don't.  But Newsom's message is clear: He is not intimidated by Trump. And he is not "going low." He is holding Trump up to ridicule.

Donald Trump's communication has worked for him. He says outrageous, hyperbolic things, both verbally and in text messages to social media, often in ALL CAPS. They make news because they are so extreme in content and tone. Trump supporters consider them Trump "truths," written on his own social media site "Truth Social." Trump critics think he looks mentally ill -- manic -- and generally unhinged.

Gavin Newsom's mimicking Trump does the work that good parody does. It points out the ridiculousness of the target.  Newsom's press office and his allies are putting up images like these, mocking Trump's grandiosity and proud use of images of himself as a heroic Rambo-figure anointed by God:

Newsom duplicates Trump's ALL CAP pronouncements, and Trump's new signature line, "Thank you for your attention to this matter."

Social media trolls are adding their voices. Exaggeration become hyper-exaggeration becomes ridiculous, at which point even the most gullible person understands that Trump is being mocked.

And this:

The Fox media universe is unhappy with it, complaining that Newsom is undignified and unkind, complaints that spread the reach of the mockery.

Newsom described his intent:

I hope it’s a wake-up call for the president of the United States. I’m sort of following his example. If you’ve got issues with what I’m putting out, you sure as hell should have concerns about what he’s putting out as president. . . .  I think the deeper question is how have we allowed the normalization of his tweets, Truth Social posts over the course of the last many years, to go without similar scrutiny and notice.

The real intent is to show that Democrats have a voice willing to stand up to Trump. Someone strong. Someone clear-headed and reasonable. Someone worthy of being America's next president. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]

Models and Millionaires.

Hoist by his own petard.

Turnabout is fair play.

The karma boomerang.

Trump is the victim of conspiratorial suspicion. He set a fire, and now he is being burned by it.

Donald Trump was involved with a business adjacent to -- but not necessarily criminally engaged with -- sexual favors with very young women. He owned Trump Model Management for 18 years, finally shutting it down in 2017 after being elected president.

Trump has long been seen as oddly incautious in his remarks about his attraction to young women. He integrated those comments into his overall brand as an alpha-male with appetites. He was a winner in sex, business, politics, and statecraft.

Trump dealt with suspicion about himself with diversionary attacks on Democrats. Whatabout Bill Clinton? Whatabout Bill Gates? Whatabout Larry Summers?  He was just asking questions.  

This tactic worked well with GOP voters. Trump "just asking questions," as a form of accusation, and forever failing to be satisfied with the answer, convinced most Republicans that Barack Obama was born not in Hawaii, where official records were created and stored. It elevated Trump into a national political figure popular with Republicans.

Trump's supporters developed a taste for suspicion. Trump is now the victim of it. Why the Epstein coverup? What is the real story? That suspicion is fed by revelations of court filings by accusers naming Trump. 

The accusations are in the public record. Was the underlying conduct they describe real? Who knows? Maybe. They could be. They raise questions. So why the coverup?

The Katie Johnson filing

And this one, with accusations of vaginal and anal rape:

The Jane Doe filing

Rick Millward insists he is not conspiracy-minded himself, but he says that his social media algorithmic feed keeps sending him examples of suspicious and suggestive connections. Once a person shows an interest in a subject, the algorithm sends more of it. If a Democrat like Millward gets them, then conspiracy-minded MAGA people, with a history of believing conspiracies, must be getting even more of them.

One area of suspicion is Trump's involvement in youth beauty pageants, spa facilities staffed by young women, and Trump's ownership of modeling agencies. People in the MAGA conspiracy circle know all about it because it is popping up on their social media feeds. Rick Millward shared what he has learned. Millward is a musician and songwriter. He created music in Silicon Valley and Nashville before coming to Southern Oregon. His music is available on Spotify and other streaming platforms.

Millward

Guest Post by Rick Millward

Models and Millionaires

Trump and Epstein’s friendship has an aspect that isn’t widely known. They both owned modeling agencies. These agencies recruit young girls with the promise of money and fame, and many of the most well known “supermodels” come from this system. It’s a $13 billion industry that runs the gamut from high fashion to a darker underside that includes sex trafficking and pornography. One of the things sex traffickers do is front their operations with modeling or photography agencies. Ads on Craigslist seeking aspiring models are seen as recruitment tools for pornographers. Of course no reputable company would advertise this way, but gullible young girls see them as an opportunity.

Epstein was financially involved with MC2 Management, whose founder Jean-Luc Brunel committed suicide in a cell in France while facing rape charges. Trump partnered with John Casablancas of Elite Model Management for his “Look of the Year” competition which he judged and hosted at his Plaza Hotel. Another player was Paolo Zampolli of ID Models who managed Melania Trump. Trump himself owned beauty pageants and ran Trump Model Management.

All these men and their businesses have been widely reported on by various sources, and Google searches will bring up these stories. I’m not repeating them here, but simply pointing out that this industry is in the business of recruiting and promoting teenage girls. It’s a world unto itself, populated by the rich and powerful, businessmen, financiers, and politicians who socialize together, often at events where these girls and their managers are in attendance as well.

Epstein’s parties in New York, Florida and at his private island hosted celebrities and the wealthy. The details of these events are likely part of the suppressed documents at the U.S. Department of Justice. The MAGA conspiracy theorists see this as a vast hidden pedophile network and given the history of these companies it’s easy to understand how it might prompt a troubled young man to take a gun to a pizzeria to rescue children he believed were being held there. Wealth, power and sex are intertwined in our media and imaginations, giving us the impression there are rich, debauched men and women who engage in activities that flaunt our social norms and laws. The popular series “Law and Order: SVU” has run for 26 seasons; just one example of our fascination with these deviations, and also why the Epstein story and its secrets demand to be repealed.

I’d also like to point out the courage of the victims. They are survivors who have been silent for years about their abuse. I don’t blame them for this. The price they will pay for speaking out is to live through their trauma again, but now as adults. They are facing unwanted public scrutiny that may well make their coming forward futile. We should believe them and protect them.

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]