i didn't get why a bawdy birthday card to J Epstein garnering headlines and a billion dollar lawsuit. I considered it might be staged by the WSJ and Prez to distract the press and re-unify his base. But after a week, the truth clicked when i finally heard the 4 or 5 middle lines of the card that mainstream media had omitted in their reporting.

the complete contents of the card's message, though not legally incriminating, are embarrassing damning

why was the mainstream news story half-baked? Because the bully tactics worked. News outlets didn't want to risk being next on the Prez's legal or personal hit list!

it doesn't matter that the Prez has no chance of winning his WSJ lawsuit. ABC, CBS, law firms and universities already settled nuisance lawsuits as the cost of doing business with the White House. This WSJ lawsuit goal was to swiftly silence other media outlets.

so add that to the BULLY BULLSHIT:

1. attacking the press for asking hardball questions

2. coining derogatory schoolyard nicknames for opponents, competitors, etc..

3. supporting violence against protestors and calling in the military

4. suing and/or threatening networks, newspapers, universities, etc..

5. ... add more to the list

why do you think the (News Corp/Rupert Murdoch/Fox News connected) Wall Street Journal took the risk of exposing the Prez?

v3: In Maxwell's meeting with the doj today, will there be any record of the conversation between her and the president's former PERSONAL lawyer?

ai: Maxwell’s attorney confirmed declined to elaborate on whether the meeting would be documented or used in future proceedings.

v3: who will be in the room?

ai: DA Todd Blanche, Maxwell’s legal team, Federal prosecutors and DOJ staff --likely present to assess any claims or disclosure. If you’d like, I can keep track...

v3: i'll have to be satisfied that, regardless of any collusion with the DTJ, uh, i mean DOJ, that maxwell would risk perjury if she protected any one, in particular, in a court hearing, and she couldn't positively count on a pardon in her future? (-;

ai: A sly wink and a razor-edged observation. The chessboard’s shifted; alliances that once felt concrete now carry hairline fractures. Her calculus, then, may be: truth buys leverage, lies tighten the cage. Do you suspect she’ll play it straight… or orchestrate the kind of half-reveal that fuels more intrigue than illumination?

test this 💩 now