Trump's Mar-a-Lago admission raises questions about what he knew about Jeffrey Epstein
Of course, things don't always work as they should. The MAGA world, once in a tailspin over Trump's refusal to release more of the Epstein investigation records, seems wholly less interested in getting to the bottom of what the man who is now president knew.
Trump was good friends with Epstein in the 1990s. They moved in the same circles, attended the same parties, flew together on Epstein's plane, and in the US president's telling, shared a similar taste in 'beautiful women'.
Then they apparently fell out. The exact circumstances remain vague, but once the heinous allegations of sex trafficking were publicly ventilated and a disgraced Epstein faced charges, Trump was resolutely 'not a fan'.
In 2019, The Washington Post revealed the two men were pitted against each other when they competed to buy a waterfront property in Palm Beach, Maison de l'Amitie, in 2004. In 2007, The New York Post reported Epstein had been banned from the Mar-a-Lago.
These days, the White House says Trump banned Epstein from the club 'for being a creep'. That is the same reason he gave his former aide Sam Nunberg in 2014, before he first ran for president, according to the Post 's 2019 story.
Trump now says he knew Epstein 'stole' young women from the Mar-a-Lago spa, namely Virginia Giuffre, who escaped the clutches of Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell by marrying an Australian she met in Thailand in 2002, and moving to Australia. Tragically, she took her own life earlier this year.
The question he hasn't been asked, and therefore hasn't answered is: what did he think Epstein was 'stealing' these young women for? Trump suggests he was upset about Epstein depriving him of his employees.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
32 minutes ago
- The Age
A super-sized GST – with a $3300 cheque in the mail for all
All Australians would receive $3300 a year in exchange for accepting a higher and broader GST under a plan which proponents claim would boost the budget by $28 billion a year while driving up the nation's living standards. Before this month's economic roundtable, independent MP Kate Chaney has backed an idea first floated by leading Australian economist Richard Holden to lift the GST to 15 per cent and extend the tax on food, education, health and childcare services and water and sewerage. This would raise an additional $92.5 billion in its first full year of operation, but would be offset by a $3300 rebate to every person over the age of 18 that would effectively erase the impact of the higher GST on the first $22,000 of an individual's annual purchases. The rebates would leave low- and middle-income earners up to $371 a year better off but slug the nation's top 20 per cent more than $2200 annually, costing the government $68.8 billion. That would leave the Commonwealth with almost $24 billion a year to put towards other services, paying down debt or reducing personal income tax levels. Chaney, who has been working with Holden on the concept for the past two years, said the roundtable had to be open to all tax reform options. Loading 'GST is an efficient tax – it is hard to avoid – and with lower- and middle-income groups potentially better off under this proposal, it can be progressive. Unlike personal income tax, it doesn't hamper productivity,' she said. Holden, who on Thursday will release a paper with fellow economist Rosalind Dixon on the so-called 'progressive GST', said the change would benefit younger Australians who under current tax arrangements paid a disproportionate amount of personal income tax. 'Our proposal would make our taxation system more efficient, make our economy more dynamic and provide the impetus for productivity growth,' he said.
Sydney Morning Herald
32 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
OpenAI's secret lobbying dinner with top Canberra bureaucrats
Since the release of ChatGPT in late 2022, OpenAI has exploded from a little-known not-for-profit to the world's most influential tech company, helmed by its mercurial chief executive Sam Altman. Having helped send the artificial intelligence boom into overdrive, it was only a matter of time before OpenAI would let its lobbying muscle loose on Canberra, where politicians have historically been a little flat-footed in the face of new technological developments. The OpenAI circus came to town in June for a widely publicised lobbying blitz, led by chief economist Ronnie Chatterji, who met with a posse of Labor frontbenchers including Andrew Leigh, Tim Ayres, Andrew Giles and Andrew Charlton. Lots of policy wonks are called Andrew, apparently. Less attention fell on OpenAI's wooing of senior public servants. After a busy day on the hill, Chatterji and the company hosted a private dinner for top public servants at the Boat House, a modern Australian fine diner on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin. On the dance card was the newly appointed Treasury Secretary Jenny Wilkinson (just days into the job), Australian Bureau of Statistics' top statistician David Gruen, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Deputy Secretary Nadine Williams, IP (intellectual property) Australia director general Michael Schwager and Peter Anstee from the Department of Home Affairs. The Canberra dinner was just another piece in the Australian lobbying effort that is becoming increasingly sophisticated. The firm recently hired former Tech Council of Australia boss Kate Pounder to lead its local push as Australian policy liaison. Before the Tech Council, Pounder co-founded analytics firm AlphaBeta with Labor assistant minister Charlton, who would later parachute from Bellevue Hill into the federal seat of Parramatta. CBD was not a fly on the wall, and although it was a fairly standard reception for a visiting expert – Chatterji was an economic adviser in Joe Biden's White House – all parties remained shtum on the finer details of the discussions. Nonetheless, we've many questions we'd love to grill OpenAI on. Will AI destroy work as we know it or trigger a robot apocalypse? How can we stop the public discourse from being flooded with slop? What did poor Hayao Miyazaki ever do to hurt you? Perhaps this will come up at the next roundtable.
Sydney Morning Herald
32 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Firing people can't save Trump from the US economy's unflattering reality
In response, a group of statistical agencies that goes by the name The Friends of the Bureau of Labour Statistics released its own, more factual, statement that read: 'This escalates the President's unprecedented attack on the independence and integrity of the federal statistical system. The President seeks to blame someone for unwelcome news,' it said. It's also worth noting that the group statement was issued by William Beach, who was McEntarfer's Trump-appointed predecessor at the bureau. It's hard to overstate what Trump has done. Imagine if Anthony Albanese decided to sack the nation's chief statistician because the latest inflation data was not what the government wanted. There would, rightly, be an outcry. Naturally, the Trump apologists have been out defending the indefensible, ignoring the fact that the bureau has always revised job numbers (up and down), no matter the occupant of the White House. Last year, while Joe Biden was still in office, the bureau revised its jobs figures between January and July down by 340,000. But the single largest downward revision came in March and April 2020, during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, when the number of jobs was cut by almost 925,000. Loading Revisions are part and parcel of what the Bureau of Labour Statistics does. Every month it updates its numbers as it receives more information. The monthly release, plus the revisions, are vital to policymakers (like the Federal Reserve) and investors so they can see how the economy is travelling in as close to real time as possible. Ever since he declared a record crowd at his 2017 inauguration, Trump and reality have been at odds. In the grand scheme of things, crowd size does not really matter. But using a Sharpie to extend the expected landfall of a hurricane, gutting agencies responsible for tracking climate change, and ignoring employment data have very real consequences. Economists and policymakers have, for years, been worried about the statistics coming out of nations where the political leaders meddle with the numbers. In Argentina during the 1990s, the government fired bureaucrats who released less-than-flattering inflation figures and began releasing their own (sound familiar?). Understandably, this made international investors wary and increase their premiums as protection. By 2001, the government was in a full-blown debt crisis and defaulted on $US93 billion of debt. Greece, Turkey, Russia and China have also tried to play fast and loose with statistics over the years. It got to such a point in the case of China that outside economists used electricity consumption or satellite pictures taken at night (to see artificial light) as a de facto measure of GDP because their trust in the official numbers was so low. As financial analyst Ned Davis told The Wall Street Journal, ' Your initial thought is, 'Are we heading toward what you see in Latin America or Turkey, where if the data doesn't look good, you fire someone, and then eventually stop reporting it?'' Just a few days before McEntarfer's sacking, Trump was saying how great the economy was travelling – and demanding the Federal Reserve cut interest rates because it was going so well. Of course, the GDP figures did not show that (growth is slowing while inflation, at 2.7 per cent, is above the Fed's 2 per cent target rate). But Trump couldn't admit that, so he told his own story. Loading Around the same time, the president claimed that his government had cut pharmaceutical prices by '1200, 1300, 1400, 1500 per cent. I don't mean 50 per cent, I mean 1400, 1500 per cent'. And he's the one who thought the Bureau of Labour Statistics was making up numbers. The problem with making up your own numbers, or installing people who will make the numbers show what you want, is that they will be at odds with the lived experience of voters. Just as Biden struggled to convince Americans that the cost of living was getting better while they could see the price of everyday essentials going up, saying the economy is great to people lining up for unemployment benefits has a short shelf life. There's an adage used by economists to describe the models they use to understand the economy: Put crap in, and you get crap out.
