Epstein and more

First, a little housecleaning: No, I did not watch the Trump SOTU. Since I do not acknowledge him as a legitimate president, and since I've always despised the man (even when he was a Democrat), I never will grant him that level of respect.

I did catch Stacey Abrams. Wonderful woman. A model for other Dems. That's how to do it, folks: She made the case for greater inclusion without sliding into the politics of resentment and divisiveness.

The Northam case, as you know, has taken some decidedly odd turns. Given the Republican record of skullduggery, I remain extremely suspicious regarding the accusations leveled against Justin Fairfax.

Remember Al Franken. (That's one bloody shirt I'll probably be waving for the rest of my life.)

Remember the offer of $20,000 for false accusations against Mueller. Remember the false story about Avenatti. I may not be a big Avenatti fan, but I definitely do not like false stories.

That said: Vanessa Tyson does make a good initial impression, and her lawyer, Debra Katz, is nobody's fool.

There are two sides to this story, as is always the case. If we are going to allow women -- simply by virtue of their sex -- to dictate the rules of reality, then the Republicans will always win. Even if Tyson is telling the truth, some women are corrupt and some are fantasists. Women are just as likely as men to be unethical or unstable, and anyone who argues otherwise is an absurd female supremacist.

All of a sudden, many progressive purists have decided that Northram is forgivable.

I'm very much open to the possibility that Tyson will be proven correct -- but even if she is, this whole thing still smells like a Republican ratfucking op. The purpose, it would seem, is to turn Virginia red again. Perhaps there is some deeper purpose which remains obscure at the moment.

Progs hated me when I said that Franken was the victim of an op. Now, far more Democrats agree with my stance. One day they will agree with my initial response to the Northram case.

Why should Northam resign while Donald Trump -- who kept black tenants out of his buildings -- continues to hold office?

The larger picture. It's about time progs got the message: Identity politics creates racism. Similarly, extreme feminism creates sexism.

Hatred and resentment create nothing but hatred and resentment, and too much of what we call "identity politics" is founded on hatred and resentment. Without "progressive purity," without political correctness, neither Trumpism nor the Alt Right would be possible.

All liberals want more women and people of color elected to office. I can think of no goal more laudable. But do you really want the Democratic party to lay out the "unwelcome" mat whenever a white male shows up? That's no way to win elections. And even if a narrow victory is somehow attained, it's no way to govern. The country will, in fact, become ungovernable.

We don't need identity politics. All we need is the Golden Rule. 

Again, look at Stacey Abrams. No rage. No hatred. She exhibits none of the self-destructive madness that one encounters on so many progressive websites. She doesn't speak of white males as if they were cancer. She radiates decency and reason. She speaks of inclusion, fairness and opportunity, not us against them.

By the way: The Republicans are circulating a photo which, they falsely claim, depicts Hillary in blackface. I'm reminded of the "Che photo" fabrication which was the subject of one of my little videos. The Republican party has become a nonstop lie machine.

Jeff Epstein is back in the news. From Axios:

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility has opened a probe into allegations that federal prosecutors "may have committed professional misconduct" in a case involving multimillionaire serial pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, according to Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.).

Why it matters: Epstein walked away from the 2008 trial with a light sentence from Miami's then-top prosecutor Alexander Acosta — now Trump's labor secretary. As Axios' Jonathan Swan reported at the time, Sasse asked the Justice Department in December to investigate its treatment of Epstein, after a Miami Herald exposé late last year uncovered details of his sweetheart deal.

This is not just about Epstein; it's about Trump. Do not forget that Virginia Roberts -- then very much underaged -- was recruited for Epstein by Trump's friend Ghislaine Maxwell. This occurred at Mar-a-Lago, where Virginia worked as a child. Trump made Virginia wear a very skimpy outfit, even though the girl looked pre-pubescent at the time.

If you think that Roberts, then a child, was recruited without Trump's knowledge, you are naive. Again: She was recruited by Trump's friend Maxwell for Trump's friend Epstein at Trump's club.

Naturally, certain towering intellectuals who frequent Democratic Underground decided that this would be the perfect occasion to slam Bill Clinton. Several DU readers referred to the false claim that Clinton had sex with minors on Epstein's island. The right has pushed that meme endlessly.

You may be interested in my response:

* * *

No, Clinton had nothing to do with it

Disproving this oft-heard canard would require much more time than I can spend right now. Suffice it to say, I've looked into this matter closely. I've studied Virginia Roberts' various declarations and I've painstakingly gone over the flight records and passenger lists for Epstein's jets. I invite others to do likewise; the materials are all online.

Bottom line: Every time Clinton was on one of Epstein's two jets, he was taken to a conference (usually about science) on a trip that was covered in the news. On no occasion did he share a trip with Virginia Roberts or any other underaged female.

There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton went to Epstein's island.

At the time, Epstein's perversions were NOT well-known. Neither jet was known as "The Lolita Express." Some people claim otherwise, but those claims are never backed by evidence. When Clinton accepted those rides, Epstein was known for his interest in science.

The Virginia Roberts declaration presents us with no small amount of difficulty: Most of us have come to despise Dershowitz; thus we do not want to discredit her testimony. However, three things must be noted:

1. What she said about Clinton is NOT borne out by the evidence.

2. For understandable legal reasons, she has retracted what she says about Dershowitz, although I'm told that she privately still says that he had sex with her. (Remember, her suit was against Epstein, not Dershowitz. Battling the latter detracted from the battle against the former.)

3. Even though she claims to have met Clinton, at no point did she say that she or any other "Epstein girl" had sex with Clinton. This has not stopped the right from claiming otherwise. Absurdly, the right continually uses the Roberts declaration against Clinton while absolving Dershowitz -- even though Roberts claimed to have sex with Dershowitz and not with Clinton!

There are two additional pieces of "evidence" (if it can be called that) against Clinton proffered by the right:

1. Ghislaine Maxwell attended Chelsea's wedding. My response: Big deal. Maxwell was invited to lots and LOTS of social functions at that time. That's just the world in which she circulates. She's the daughter of Rupert Maxwell, she has money, she knows everybody, and she gets invited to all sorts of events. That doesn't mean that everyone she has ever met is a pedophile.

2. Maxwell was instrumental in founding a "clean the oceans" group (I forget the name) which received money from the Clinton Foundation. The group is very real and does good work. Only a nut would claim that her association with this group somehow proves that Clinton raped a child.

And that is it. That is the sum total of evidence against Bill Clinton. The rest is supposition, conclusion-hopping and conspiracy theory.

Dems have to get over Clinton Derangement Syndrome. The right keeps repeating anti-Clinton lies so often that the left starts to believe those lies. Or rather, the left refuses to challenge them. Instead of passively accepting the claims made by reactionary propagandists, we must demand proof. Even if they are talking about the Clintons.

Oh, and here's the part that everyone forgets: Virginia Roberts was recruited while working for Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago. (Her father, who appears to be a real piece of work, also had a job there.) Donald Trump was the one who had her wear a skimpy outfit -- even though she looked pre-pubescent.

The Trump connection was completely left out of the original Roberts declaration. I'm not sure why.