Jeffrey Epstein comes back to haunt Donald Trump

He had an impressive career as U.S. senator, Senate majority leader, White House chief of staff and ambassador to Japan, but, above all, Tennessee's Howard Baker is remembered for one question he asked in 1973 as Republican vice-chair of the Senate Select Committee investigating the Watergate break-in: "What did the president know, and when did he know it?"

Back then, that was the big question for Richard Nixon about Watergate. Today, that's the big question for Donald Trump about Jeffrey Epstein. According to emails released this week, we now know the answer: Trump knew a lot more about Epstein than he's willing to admit.

For starters, let's remember: The Epstein scandal's not something Democrats laid on Trump. This is a problem he created for himself. In 2024, J.D. Vance, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino - all of whom are now leaders of the Trump administration - accused Democrats of covering up a pedophile ring led by Epstein and demanded release of the "Epstein files." Which candidate Trump promised to do, if elected.

Then, suddenly, once in the White House, Trump reversed course. No longer calling it a coverup, Trump dismissed the whole Epstein matter as a "Democratic hoax." On his orders, Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to release the Epstein files. Trump begged his supporters to stop talking about it. And Speaker Mike Johnson shut down the House of Representatives for six weeks to avoid having to vote on a bipartisan resolution to release the files.

All of which puzzled and angered many members of Trump's MAGA base, and raised the obvious question: Why? Why the change of course? Why not release the Epstein files? What are they afraid of? As even Trump's best bud Elon Musk said, it must be because Trump's name is all over the files. That's why Bondi wouldn't release them.

Bingo! As the just-released emails prove, Musk was right.

Democrats released three bombshell email exchanges. In the first, when many leading New Yorkers were being questioned in the early days of the investigation into his sex ring, Epstein told his top aide Ghislaine Maxwell: "I want you to realize that the dog that hasn't barked yet is trump ... (name of victim) spent hours at my house with him." Maxwell replied: "I've been thinking about that."

In the second exchange, Epstein tells journalist Michael Wolff that Trump, now president, is wrong in insisting he knew nothing about what he, Epstein, was up to: "Of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop" (recruiting them from Mar-a-Lago). In a memo to himself on Feb. 1, 2019, Epstein wrote: "Trump knew of it, and came to my house many times during that period," then adding: "He never got a massage."

In the third set of emails, Wolff warns Epstein that CNN might ask Trump about his relationship to him in an upcoming debate. What should we do? Wolff advises: "I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt."

So what do those emails tell us? They do not prove that Trump had sex with underage girls. In fact, in a 2016 deposition, victim Virginia Giuffre testified: "He didn't partake in any sex with any of us."

But they do prove that everything else Trump said about the Epstein affair is another big, fat, Trump lie. He was Epstein's close friend. He did hang out at Epstein's house. He did fly on Epstein's plane. He said in 2002 he knew Epstein liked women "on the younger side." He once told adviser Roger Stone how Epstein's "swimming pool was full of beautiful young girls." He knew that Epstein and Maxwell were recruiting young girls to entertain men in New York, New Mexico and on Epstein's private island. And he never asked himself why?

Now here's the worst part: He did nothing about it! He knew Giuffre was underage when Maxwell recruited her from Mar-a-Lago. But he never alerted authorities. He looked the other way.

It's pretty clear that's why Trump's fighting so hard not to release the Epstein files. Because, while they might not prove he was Epstein's accomplice, they will prove he was Epstein's enabler. Release the files!

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
 

Jubilation!

It feels good, doesn't it?

Democrats deserve to break out into a full-throated chorus of "Happy Days are Here Again" after their amazing string of victories on November 4.

There's no way Donald Trump or MAGA fanatics can spin it otherwise. For Democrats, this was a total blowout. A governor's race in Virginia; a governor's race in New Jersey; a mayor's race in New York City; and a ballot measure in California. Every one of those elections was a referendum on Donald Trump. And every outcome was his total repudiation. He lost every one of them. Big time.

For Democrats, it was one triumph after another. In Virginia, Abigail Spanberger trounced her Republican opponent by 15 points, becoming the state's first female governor. Voters also elected a Democratic lieutenant governor and attorney general, and awarded Democrats a near two-thirds majority in the House of Delegates.

Many analysts predicted a close race in New Jersey, where Republican Jack Ciattarelli had Trump's endorsement. No way. Democrats Mikie Sherrill soared to a 13-point victory, in part by blasting Trump for terminating the new tunnel project linking New Jersey commuters with New York.

In New York City, Trump did everything he could to derail Zohran Mamdani: talked Eric Adams into dropping out of the race; begged Republican Curtis Sliwa to drop out; threatened to deny the city any federal funding if Mamdani won; and, in the end, even endorsed his long-time enemy Andrew Cuomo. It all backfired. Mamdani got more votes than Cuomo and Sliwa combined, and on Election Night had the pleasure of looking into the cameras and telling Trump directly: Mr. President, we're talking to you: "Turn the volume up!"

The biggest blowout of all came in California's Proposition 50. When Trump ordered Texas to redraw its congressional district lines in order to give Republicans five more seats, Governor Gavin Newsom decided to "fight fire with fire" and ask California voters to do the same, empowering Democrats to pick up five more seats. Prop. 50 won overwhelmingly, 64 percent to 36 percent - and 75 percent of "yes" voters said they were voting to send a message to Donald Trump.

Again, there's no way to downplay the national significance of those four contests. It was the first time voters had a chance to vote thumbs up or thumbs down on Donald Trump since January - and they clearly don't like what he's doing. In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, Trump's disapproval rating soared to 59 percent. Trump's a loser.

Tuesday's solid election results give Democrats a burst of momentum going into midterm elections, less than a year away. They also provide Democrats a few important lessons, moving forward.

One, the quality of candidates matters. Spanberger, Sherrill and Mamdani each ran an extraordinary campaign, full of energy, bold new ideas and generated tons of enthusiasm, especially among younger voters.

Two, the age of candidates matters. Americans are tired of today's sclerotic political leadership. Experience is not such a big deal anymore because, as Mamdani pointed out, politicians with years of experience got us into today's political mess. Young leaders like Spanberger, Sherrill and Mamdani are the future of the Democratic Party. Old fossils like Chuck Schumer are not.

Three, issues matter. It may seem insightful to talk about such weighty issues as threats to democracy or loss of our moral compass. But that's not what voters want to hear about. They want to know what you're going to do about soaring rents, lack of affordable housing, availability of childcare and the price of groceries. Every pre-election poll showed that the most important issues facing voters were not crime, immigration or trans - but the cost of living and healthcare. And that's all Spanberger, Sherrill and Mamdani talked about. The central issue of their winning campaigns was "affordability."

Tuesday's off-year elections were so important because they gave Democrats the winning formula for winning back the House and Senate in 2026. Field candidates like Abigail Spanberger, Mikie Sherrill and Zohran Mamdani. It doesn't matter if they're progressive or centrist. Just pick the candidate that best suits that state or district - as long as they're younger, full of energy and bold ideas, focus on the cost of living and dare to take on Donald Trump.

In that spirit, kudos to Nancy Pelosi for setting an example by passing the torch to the next generation. Once again, she's shown what a great leader she is, and why she'll be remembered as the most powerful and most effective Speaker of the House ever.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 

Democrats set to win big one in California

Los Angeles. While most political news today focuses on the mid-term elections, still a year away, there are three important off-year elections next week which will have a huge political impact: a governor's race in Virginia; a governor's race in New Jersey; and an initiative campaign in California.

Technically, Donald Trump is not on the ballot in any one of those states. But he might as well be. Because each of those three contests has become a referendum on the Orange Man: the first chance for voters to say thumbs up or thumbs down on Trump's second term. And it looks like he will lose all three.

In Virginia, Democratic candidate Abigail Spanberger has long held a steady double-digit lead over her Republican opponent. But now, with more federal employees in Northern Virginia fired or furloughed by Trump's government shutdown than in any other state, she keeps getting stronger and stronger.

Things are tighter in New Jersey, but Democrat Mikie Sherrill continues to lead in the polls, and her opponent has made the rookie mistake of inviting Trump to stump with him in the final days of the campaign - which will only increase Democratic voter turnout.

But nowhere is Trump likely to lose bigger than in California's Proposition 50 campaign. This ballot initiative is all about Donald Trump. He started it, he supported it and he will most likely be crushed by it.

Once approved by voters on November 4, Prop. 50 will empower the California Legislature to draw new district lines that will reward Democrats with five new seats in Congress - in addition to 43 Democrats now serving in the state's 52-person congressional delegation. Prop. 50 was launched by Governor Gavin Newsom after President Trump told Texas to redraw their district lines to create seats for five new Republicans.

Strategically, the Prop. 50 campaign is one of the most brilliant in California's, or America's, political history. For three reasons. First, because Newsom and California Democrats decided to "fight fire with fire." If Trump was going to "rig" the mid-term elections by redrawing districts to help elect more Republicans, they'd do the same thing to elect more Democrats. Second, because they made it a national, not just a California issue. Hence the name: "Proposition 50" - meaning, winning this initiative campaign is important for the entire country, all 50 states.

Third, because Newsom persuaded good government groups like Common Cause and the League of Women Voters, which championed taking redistricting away from politicians - and successfully convinced California voters to do so in 2010, to briefly return to "politics as usual" in order to stop Trump from stacking the deck.

With their blessing, Newsom and California Democrats simply out-campaigned, out-smarted, out-maneuvered and out-fundraised the opposition. So much so that California Republicans have all but raised the white flag. In three days in California this week, I could not find one political strategist who believed Prop. 50 would lose. The Sacramento Bee headlined: "Cash-strapped Campaign Against Prop. 50 Goes Out With a Whimper."

Politico reports that "Protect Voters First," the biggest funder of the anti-50 campaign has cut its weekly spending from more than $4 million a week to less than $300. "Stop Sacramento's Power Grab," another opposition committee spent $155,000 on advertising last week, while Newsom's "Yes on 50" committee spent $3.8 million. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy vowed to raise $100 million to defeat Prop. 50. To date, he's raised only $11 million.

As anti-Prop. 50 funding dried up, public support for Prop. 50 grew steadily. When launched by Newsom in August, barely over 50 percent supported the initiative. This week's CBS poll shows Prop. 50 winning with 62 percent of voters. And here's what's most telling. In that same poll, 75 percent of likely voters say they're voting for Proposition 50 in order to express their opposition to Donald Trump. Again, he started it - and he'll pay the political price when Prop. 50 wins and he loses.

In fact, the blame game has already started. That's the best part. Privately, California Republican leaders are laying the blame at the feet of Donald Trump. The main reason so many GOP donors haven't sent big checks to help defeat Prop. 50, they contend, is because Trump didn't ask them to. Instead, he begged them to send checks for the only thing he really cares about: his big new ballroom.

How ironic if, in the end, Trump gets his ballroom - but loses control of Congress.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Covering the White House, I believe, is the best job in journalism. For nine years - eight under President Obama and one under Trump - I was at the White House every day for the daily briefing.

Even though it was part of my daily routine, I never walked up that West Wing driveway without getting goosebumps. For me, it was like entering the Holy of Holies. Like the feeling a Catholic gets walking into St. Peter's, or a Muslim entering the Blue Mosque, or a Jew praying at the Wailing Wall.

And not once did I ever say to myself: how much better this place would be if it only had a big ballroom. Not once did I ever think I'd see the day when a president could demolish any part of that sacred building. Nor did I ever imagine that a president could destroy the entire East Wing of the White House - and get away with it!

Yet that's exactly what's happening today. By the time you read this, the East Wing, built in 1902 to house the offices of the first lady and serve as a visitors entrance to the Executive Mansion, will no longer exist. It will have been totally destroyed to make room for Trump's $300 million, 90,000 sq. ft. ballroom - twice the size of the main building - modeled on the ballroom at his Turnberry golf course in Scotland.

Of course, this isn't Trump's first attempt to reshape the White House to his own liking. He planted two gigantic flag poles, one on the North Lawn, one on the South, which are totally out of proportion to the White House. He's decked the walls of the Oval Office and Cabinet Room with bordello-like gold designs. And he destroyed the historic Rose Garden, turning it into an exact replica of Mar-a-Lago's paved patio, complete with tacky cocktail tables and umbrellas. He even calls it the "Rose Garden Club."

But this is by far Trump's biggest and most outrageous move - and the one he's lied most about. On July 25, Trump first told reporters something he now repeats daily: "They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years." Which begs the question: Who? Name one president, Republican or Democrat, who said they yearned for a ballroom. Trump can't. He was lying then, and now.

In that same exchange with reporters, Trump said: "It'll be built over on the east side, and it will be beautiful. It won't interfere with the current building. It'll be near it, but not touching it." Big lie. Cut to video of a giant crane ripping the walls off the East Wing and flattening it.

Hillary Clinton is right: "It's not his house. It's your house. And he's destroying it." But apparently there's no way to stop him. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 doesn't cover the White House. Technically, changes to the White House must be approved by the National Capitol Planning Committee, but all 12 members of the old committee were fired by Donald Trump, and its new Trump-appointed chairman is in Trump's pocket.

Not even the White House Historical Association, which you'd expect to stand up and protect the White House, has uttered a peep of protest. Instead, WHHA President Stewart D. McLaurin merely echoed official White House propaganda, insisting that what Trump's doing is no different from what Harry Truman did. Baloney! In 1949, when building engineers declared the White House unsafe for occupancy, Truman had to move out so the White House could be totally gutted and rebuilt. That's far different from tearing down an entire wing of the White House to build your own pet project.

For Republicans in Congress, blowing $300 million on a vanity ballroom could not come at a worse time, in the middle of a government shutdown, with tens of thousands of federal employees struggling without a paycheck and health care subsidies about to double or triple for millions of Americans. But cowardly Republican leaders Mike Johnson and John Thune don't care. They'd support Trump if he painted the White House orange and put a big "T" on top of it.

In a way, Trump's destruction of the East Wing is the perfect metaphor for his second term. In just 10 months, he has bulldozed everything we once thought untouchable, including: the Constitution, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Defense Department, the National Institute of Health, and the US Agency for International Development. To that list now add: the White House.

(C)2025 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.