A graph explorer of the Epstein emails

You're proving the point here.

You don't need to trust the media or care about his views on immigration to know that the guy got 34 felony convictions (for attempting to cover up mere infidelity with a porn star), that he's lost a lawsuit regarding sexual assault claims, and that sexual assault claims against him go back to the 70s and involving at least 28 women and him walking in on naked teenage pageant contestants.

Then there's the non-sexual stuff. If you want to say it's "shady" being twice impeached, or hanging his own arrest photo next to the oval office, or the huge number of business lawsuits, or the way he's now able to sue himself and win, or that he's now pardoning convicted co-conspirators etc., that's on you: as the quote goes, democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

The possibility of pee tapes was funny, but did anyone really care if golden shower was a liquid reference or a "24 carat (plated)" like his redecoration of the oval office?

> Russiagate

A significant number of Trump associates actually went to jail for Russia-related business, and I don't think it's been entirely ruled out for himself. Of course, it has not yet been proven either and I doubt it will be in his lifetime.

> Show me where it’s a felony to use your own money to cover up an affair?

The "falsified business records" bit, for which he was convicted under felony charges. Those bits, where he was convicted as a felon, are what makes it a felony.

Likewise, it wasn't a crime for Bill Clinton to have an affair with any of the White House interns (AFAICT Paula Jones was before then), but then Clinton went and lied about affairs under oath, which was.

There's a reason why I put emphasis on "mere infidelity".

> My esteemed colleagues in the bar would be outraged if a legal theory half as aggressively creative as this one was brought against a gang murderer. They would leap at the chance to handle the appeals pro bono.

The fact he was convicted says otherwise on the first part, and the observation that he's still having trouble getting competent lawyers to defend him even now he's back in office speaks poorly of either your esteemed colleagues or of your estimation of them.

> what fundamentally differentiates people who simply don’t like Trump for all the legitimate reasons to dislike Trump from the people who go full blown Rachel Maddow is deep-seated liberal universalism

You should know this isn’t me.

I was honestly optimistic for this Presidency. The corruption and lawlessness were annoying. But the masked ICE agents openly defying the law struck a nerve. And now we’re seeing folks like Megyn Kelly advocate for dismissing child rape.

That Trump is acting guilty, and has taken this from a fringe conspiracy theory to something worth considering, is almost besides the point. My condemnation is of the partisan dismissal of the crime per se, not Trump’s involvement.

>But they turned up their nose at representing Trump because he doesn’t subscribe to their religion.

Of course, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with his habit of refusing to pay.

That’s a good reason, but it wasn’t their stated reasons.

> But the masked ICE agents openly defying the law struck a nerve.

The ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement. People voted for the guy that promised mass deportations, and the government is entitled to carry out that policy and respond to violent resistance to those operations.

Nobody is “dismissing” Epstein’s crimes. Megyn is reacting to people trying to smear Trump as a “child rapist” and “pedophile” based on zero evidence.

> ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement

Not a problem for all other law enforcement. The precedent being set--that masked men can disappear people from the street--is dangerous and un-American.

> People voted for the guy that promised mass deportations, and the government is entitled to carry out that policy and respond to violent resistance to those operations

Sure. None of this requires a mask.

Also, the only injuries ICE officers have suffered have been due to e.g. being dragged by a car [1]. None have been due to someone tracking them down ex post facto.

> Megyn is reacting to people trying to smear Trump as a “child rapist” and “pedophile” based on zero evidence

She argued Jeffrey Epstein is not technically a pedophile. (A defense she similarly mounts with zero evidence.) She described a 15-year old as "barely legal," which is nonsense and disgusting and deeply unsettling given she literally has a daughter around that age.

And until now, Trump has been going out of his way to block the government from fulfilling his campaign promise around the Epstein files. (After his AG lied that they don't exist.) As a result, it took Democrats in the Congress releasing the e-mails to get Larry Summers to step down [2].

[1] https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/12/dhs-statement-ice-office...

[2] https://apnews.com/article/larry-summers-jeffrey-epstein-ema...

> The ICE agents are masked because people think they can violently interfere with federal law enforcement

Actually it is wearing masks interferes with legal law enforcement. You know how we know, because FBI told ICE that. Because now anyone can wear a mask and pretend to be ice to kidnap people. That really interferes with law enforcement man