The Trump birthday card looks real.
Trump says he didn't write it.It may be too clever, too literary, too indirect, and too philosophical to be from Trump. That is what today's guest post suggests. I agree.
A birthday letter that turns out to be fake would be the perfect false-flag evidence for a Trump ally to plant. Trump would use that to discredit the whole Trump-Epstein sleaze connection.
"Voice Over: There must be more to life than having everything.
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 mater 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."
We have seen how a false document helps exonerate a guilty person. Even the Republican-led U.S. Senate concluded that Russia most certainly did assist the Trump campaign in 2016. Errors in one source of evidence -- the so-called Steele dossier -- became the basis for Trump to say that the whole investigation was fake, all part of a "Russia hoax."
Today's guest post posits that maybe this birthday card is fake. The Wall Street Journal -- a Rupert Murdoch-owned property -- wrote that it looked real. Here is their report. They write that Trump did do drawings of this sort, that the signature looks genuine, that he used elsewhere some of the uncommon words in the document, and that he often referred to himself in the third person, as does this birthday card.
My own doubt comes from the "bank shot" indirectness of it. The birthday card text presumes an observed dialog, with a voice-over narrator observing two men making indirect comments about a mutual secret. I have never seen from Trump a glimmer of this card's meditative reflections on life's meaning, the aging of enigmas, or the value of friendships over having material things. Where is the bombast? The invincibility?
To my ear, it is more probable that Trump had someone else create a suggestive, enigmatic card with rich opportunities for guessing at secret crimes. It would be bait placed to trick his opponents. The Wall Street Journal may be a whistleblower doing honest reporting, or it may be participating in the ruse, helping to set up the trap. Rupert Murdoch wanted to preserve his media empire after his death as a conservative voice. Being a trap-setter, not a whistleblower, is consistent with that role. The birthday card could be the new Steele dossier.
It is a mystery. An enigma. It might be real. It might not.
Musician, song-writer, and music producer Rick Millward is one of the many Americans who have gotten deeply into the Trump-Epstein matter. He has reserved final judgment on whether Trump could be convicted of criminal acts with young girls, but he sees lots of evidence in the public record of a very close relationship with a man who pled guilty to criminal acts with young women. He has doubts about the legitimacy of the birthday card.
 |
| Millward |
Guest Post by Rick Millward
The Letter: “We Have Certain Things In Common”
Trump lied about it. He lied about it, even knowing that it would eventually be made public. Now that it has been released, I can see why. We already knew the contents: A “script” of a dialogue between Trump and Epstein, a drawing of a female, and Trump’s signature, but seeing it “in the flesh” so it were, is disturbing and gross.
The script is somewhat inscrutable except for one thing. It says “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey.” The implication is difficult to ignore. What did they have in common?Both wealthy, very wealthyBoth known womanizers ("Grab ‘em". . . . And "On the younger side . . . ”)
The letter alludes to all this, but then to “a secret.” What?Overall the image reminds me of something that might have been done in the 60s, like a poem done on a typewriter, probably an IBM Selectric judging from the serif font. Did Trump have one? The drawing and the signature appear to be done with a Sharpie, Trump’s writing implement of choice. The sketch is of an outline of a headless, armless female with the only detail being the suggestion of a bosom. It is not what we would expect in such a “bawdy" drawing. The small size raises the question of whether it depicts a young female.But is it authentic? Frankly, the “script” displays a level of erudition that no one would expect from Trump. The veiled language, use of dialogue like a play, seems to me that it might have been created by someone else, someone smarter. Except that it is so personal, hinting at a shared experience, so maybe it was Trump. Use of the term “voice over,” shows knowledge of TV/radio vernacular, and that’s certainly the star of “The Apprentice.”And the signature? If it’s a forgery, that means that someone created this very imaginative document and then surreptitiously placed it in the “birthday book” after the fact. The book is reportedly bound so it would be hard to do, but plausible if we accept that the signature isn’t Trump’s. If it’s not, it’s a very good forgery. Finally there is the placement, like a giggling schoolboy’s graffiti. Keep in mind that it would have been done by a 50-year-old man, if authentic.Maxwell could verify it. Someone should ask her. The right answer would earn her a presidential pardon.So now we have another piece of the Trump/Epstein puzzle and a number of conclusions that can be drawn from it. Foremost for me is that if it’s authentic at the very least it makes it very difficult for Trump to credibly profess ignorance of the Epstein/Maxwell/others crimes. That’s the thing about secrets; They don’t stay secret forever.
[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.]
10 comments:
Trump doesn’t even read, much less write. But it’s easy to imagine him having some toady write the card for him and then sign it, like his executive orders.
A commenter here has observed, this is the new “Russia Russia Russia.” In other words, the Epstein scandal is every bit as real as Russian election interference was, but Trump’s supporters won’t care any more about this than they did about that because they have no conscience. Could it be true that not even pedophilia would be a deal breaker for his devotees? Judging from their response to all his other crimes, I wouldn’t be surprised. Nonetheless, since they were best buddies for so long, there's good reason to believe that Trump not only knew what was going on but could very well have taken part in it.
Tend to agree with Peter’s take on the effect of fake evidence. Remember OJ’s bloody glove and “sloppy detective work” dismantled Fuhrman’s credibility and resulted in a quick jury verdict, regardless of actual guilt.
The reading and math scores for American 12th graders have hit a 20-year low, according to a study from the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP).
In the area of reading, these are the worst scores in the history of the study, which launched in 1992.
The study also showed that eighth graders lost a lot of ground in science and that the gender gap between boys and girls in science, technology, engineering, and math returned after nearly being equal in 2019. Girls are falling behind.
Per NBC, the “assessments were the first since the pandemic for eighth graders in science and 12th graders in reading and math.”
“Scores for our lowest-performing students are at historic lows,” Matthew Soldner of the National Center for Education Statistics told NBC. “These results should galvanize all of us to take concerted and focused action to accelerate student learning.”
Russia, Russia, Russia failed because there turned out to be absolutely no evidence for the crucial claim, that Trump “colluded“ with Putin to influence the 2016 election.
Here we go again, off on another wild goose chase, this one about Epstein, Epstein, Epstein.
This reminds me of nothing so much as an old meme:
2016: Now we got him.
2017: Now we got him.
2018: Now we got him.
2019: Now we got him.
…
And now here we are in 2025 with the Democrats once again attempting to execute the same failed play.
MT is not stupd, nor is he uninformed. He is being a troll here, and it will probably work to arouse Mike into angry objection. MT knows full well that Paul Manifort colluded with Russia, that Russia set up meetings with the Trump children, that their bot factories flooded social media with anti-Hillary/pro Trump stuff, and that the Republican-lead Senate committeee that investigated it reported that Russia activily and effectively helped Trump. The Meuller Report also made the colusion clear, although AG Barr embargoed the report for two weeks while mischaracterizing it, which gave the Trump echo chamber enough time to get first-impression leadership. Robert Meuller himself objected to Barr's characterization that there was no collusion and said his report demonstrated conclusively the opposite. MT is resolute in finding fault among Democrats and especially Democratic past woke ideology as found in universities, especially blue-city ones. That is a useful point of view and I am glad he speaks up. But people who travel in that path sometimes get sucked into believing Trump'sl German fascism-style Big Lies. I don't think he was sucked into it because I think MT knows better. I think he is just doing what he likes to do: provoke Mike with an outrageously obvious untruth. I expect Mike to do what he likes to do -- tell MT that he is dead wrong and a useful idiot for Trump -- within the hour.
"Speaking to CNN’s Manu Raju Tuesday, Comer said that he believed the White House’s desperate claim that the letter and signature were fake.
“The president says he did not sign it. So I take the president [at] his word,” Comer said, according to Raju on X. “You asked if I’m going to be trying to figure out whether that, you know, fake or not, probably not. We’re going to be trying to get justice for the victim."
Good enough for me!!
When people make lame excuses for Trump and/or the chumps who support such a lawless pervert, I can't deny that I do enjoy jerking their chain. But Peter did fine.
What bothers me is Republicans keeping the information lid on this to protect sex traffickers. Seems unseemly to not view sex trafficking as something that should be investigated fully. Is that a political divide? Again it must be repeated: in prison child molesters are viewed with disdain. Having sex, rape of 14, 15, 16 year old girls (not women) is just plain morally wrong. Do Republicans think it’s okay if Trump did it? How about it MT- do they?
That’s what it looked like to me, but I didn’t immerse myself in the details. I am willing to believe Peter that there actually was evidence of collusion by Trump with Russia.
In that case, I would like to “revise and extend“ my remarks as follows:
What Mueller did not find was simple “smoking gun“ evidence tying Trump to Putin in some unmistakable act of collusion. And, due to that, the entire Russia, Russia, Russia thing failed to have a significant political effect and was a waste of effort that could have been deployed more usefully somewhere else.
I do not purposely say things I know to be false. I am not trolling. I am trying in my own perhaps unique way, to present a point of view that might possibly lead to the Democrats being able to effectively oppose the bad things that Trump is doing, something they currently seem to be incapable of.
People who participate only to jerk chains are the real trolls.
Post a Comment