It's going to get ugly

I was listening to the Ari Melber show on MSNBC just now. Apparently, the "impeachment track" most likely to move forward concerns the payment to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Why that? Why not the obstruction charges outlined in the Mueller report, or the many gross violations of the emoluments clause?

The talking heads on teevee say that, although l'affaire Stormy is far from the worst thing that Trump has ever done, the campaign finance violation is easy to prove. It's a slam dunk, or so they seem to think.

What those talking heads don't know is that this thing could end up biting the Dems in the ass.

Y'see, there's a Democratic candidate who has a certain secret in his past -- a secret I learned about by accident years ago. The secret isn't really that bad, as these things go. But I'm sure that the candidate would rather see it remain unrevealed.

How did I learn about that secret? Pure luck. The fact that I maintain a formerly-kinda-popular political blog has nothing to do with the way I stumbled across this piece of information. At this time, I can't divulge the exact details of what I know or how I learned it. Frankly, I would rather see the nomination decided by an argument over policy. I don't want to see this nation engulfed in a ridiculous tizzy-fit over a minor scandal that occurred quite a few years ago.

(Whenever the talk turns to sex, allegedly-progressive feminists go into neo-puritan mode, which is absolutely abhorrent to me. The only thing more abhorrent is way Republican propagandists use feminist neo-puritanism to their advantage, as they did during the Lewinsky scandal and the Franken smear.)

If the Democratic candidate referenced above wins the nomination...

...and if the scandal comes out at the worst possible time (as it undoubtedly will)...

...and if the Dems try to impeach Trump over paying Stormy and Karen for their silence...

...and if we then learn that the Democratic nominee made any kind of promise or payment to the woman in his past...

...yeah. Things could get ugly.

Y'know what? I'm that close to joining Team Warren.

Epstein: The latest. Have you noticed that every time the late Jeff Epstein makes the news, it's the conservative press that starts salivating? That fact should sound the alarms and ignite the warning lights. For example, here's the NY Post...

An anonymous man terrified he’s about to be named in court papers related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell’s alleged child sex trafficking ring is begging a judge not to release his name and identities of others accused — because it could tarnish their reputations, according to a surprise motion filed Tuesday.

Lawyers for the John Doe filed the letter Tuesday — just a day before Epstein’s self-proclaimed “sex slave” Virginia Roberts Giuffre is expected to join her lawyers in court as they continue efforts to unseal thousands of pages of documents related to her civil lawsuit against the dead pedophile’s alleged procuress.

“As a non-party to these proceedings, Doe lacks specific knowledge about the contents of the Sealed Materials,” his lawyers wrote to Manhattan federal court judge Loretta Preska. “But it is clear that these materials implicate the privacy and reputational interests of many persons other than the two primary parties to this action, Giuffre and Maxwell.”

The Post wouldn't be covering the story this way -- with barely-hidden glee -- unless they knew that this whole thing was ultimately going to be used against Bill Clinton. If there was any chance that Trump could be hurt, The Post would offer very different coverage.

I don't think that Clinton is John Doe. Bill Richardson? Maybe. (Added note: A contributor to Vicky Ward's Twitter feed suggests that Doe is Dersh: "I was there too. Dershowitz had three lawyers there. At one point they addressed the bench “I don’t care” she said. Ouch.")

This came out just a few hours ago:

The case files are known to contain claims by Giuffre that she was sexually abused by “numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister and other world leaders.”

She has been in the public eye for quite a few years, yet she's talking about all these people only now. Pretty damned suspicious. Sorry, but I can no longer trust that woman -- not since I learned that she is represented by Pottinger. I suspect that everyone she fingers will be people hated by Putin and/or the Alt Right.

The situation is infuriating. They really are going to use Virginia as a witness against everyone except Dershowitz. As far as the media is concerned, Virginia becomes impeachable and unbelievable only when pointing the finger at Dersh. At all other times, she must not be doubted.

As I said: Infuriating.

Why am I the only writer who has noticed that she is being represented by spooked-up lawyers? In particular, by Stanley Pottinger, who is probably the spookiest of the spooky? Who the hell is paying those guys?

Someone should offer a special study of the Post's links to the Epstein case. For example, why did Ghislaine Maxwell send that staged photo (the one at In-n-Out Burger) to the NY Post?

Think about that situation. Think long and hard. That whole charade was put on for the Post's benefit. Why on earth would Maxwell do that? Why did the Post publish a completely false story -- now universally admitted to be false -- as to how the photos were obtained?

One of Epstein's former business partners had a special relationship with the NY Post. This business partner turned out to be quite the crook in his own right. That's all I'll say about him for now.

The Post's relationships with Trump and Roy Cohn are well known.

I predict that when the Big Smear hits, the Post will break the story.