Trump Mentioned More Than Once in Disgusting Epstein Birthday Book

As the White House grapples with the House Oversight Committee’s release of a lewd birthday letter from Donald Trump to Jeffrey Epstein, additional mentions of the president in the deceased sex criminal’s 50th birthday book have emerged.

On one page of the 2003 book, a man identified by House Oversight Committee Democrats as “a longtime Mar-a-Lago member” appears to joke about Epstein selling a woman to Trump for $22,500.

Epstein, standing alongside two men and a woman whose identity has been redacted, holds a giant check supposedly from Trump, in payment for the woman. The note reads: “Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women! Sells ‘fully depreciated’ [redacted] to Donald Trump for $22,500. Showed early ‘people skills’ too. Even though I handled the deal I didn’t get any of the money or the girl!”

As the president seeks to dispel the scandal surrounding perhaps the world’s most notorious sex trafficker, one would be hard-pressed to come up with a more embarrassing revelation than his name appearing on an enormous check for a woman from Epstein.

On another page, a letter from a woman whom Epstein apparently took around the world mentions meeting both Trump and former President Bill Clinton. (Clinton also reportedly penned Epstein a letter in the book.) “Before Jeffrey, I was a 22 year old divorcee working as a hostess in a hotel restaurant,” the message states. Since then, she wrote, she met Trump and Clinton, among other dignitaries.

The White House has been quiet about these pages thus far, as they instead seek to disprove the authenticity of the infamous birthday note in which Trump seems to have typed an unsettling poetic dialogue between himself and Epstein, framed by a marker drawing of a woman’s figure.

The letter’s release on Monday undermined the Trump administration’s claims that The Wall Street Journal’s prior reporting on the letter was fake. White House spokespeople have since persisted with that narrative nonetheless—desperately trotting out recent autographs by the president that appear different from Trump’s first-name signature on the 2003 birthday note. But examples abound of contemporaneous examples that are a perfect match.

Ghislane Maxwell’s former lawyer just admitted what we all suspected: The sexual abuser and Epstein accomplice was transferred to a nicer, minimum-security prison so that she could give the Trump administration something in exchange—like a favorable testimony. 

Arthur Aidala, who represented Maxwell in her 2022 sex-trafficking trial and appeals, appeared on CNN on Monday to talk about the case. 

“The deputy attorney general met with Ghislaine, and then she was shortly thereafter moved to a cushier prison,” CNN’s Abby Phillips asked Aidala, who has also represented Alan Dershowitz, Harvey Weinstein, and Rudy Giuliani. “Why?” 

“Well, there are things I’m not allowed to talk about, right?” Aidala replied, stumbling over his words. “So there are things I can’t talk about.”

“Let’s just—” Phillips attempted to interject. 

“Obviously I can talk in generalities,” Aidala continued. “Anybody who’s represented by a lawyer who knows what they’re doing, [and who] goes in and meets with the government … there’s always a quid pro quo.… Anytime the government wants information from a citizen, the citizen says, ‘Well, I have a right to remain silent. If you want me to give up that right, I need something in return.’ Usually, it’s a plea bargain. Usually, your charges are going to be lowered, and your exposure.”

Former Biden adviser Neera Tanden, who was present, started laughing at Aidala. 

“Why are you laughing?” he said. “I’ve done that for 35 years!” 

“Because you just admitted to a quid pro quo with the Trump administration!” 

“That’s how the whole system works! The whole system works on quid pro quo.” 

Phillips then asked Aidala if the government’s quid pro quo promise came before or after Maxwell sat for an interview with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. Aidala said he didn’t know. 

Maxwell is still serving out her 20-year sentence for conspiring to sexually abuse girls. 

This revelation from Aidala, along with recent release of the Epstein birthday book, and Speaker Mike Johnson’s baffling lie about Trump being an FBI informant, only adds more fire to the theory that Trump is willfully cooperating with Maxwell to push her to absolve him of any scrutiny that his numerous appearances in the Epstein files will bring.   

The Trump administration allegedly “working” with such a vile woman while calling the entire fiasco a “Democrat hoax” is a slap in the face to Epstein’s numerous survivors and their families who have come forward.    

“It is with horror and outrage that we object to the preferential treatment convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has received,” said the family of Virginia Giuffre, an Epstein victim and legal advocate who committed suicide in April. “Ghislaine Maxwell is a sexual predator who physically assaulted minor children on multiple occasions, and she should never be shown any leniency. Yet, without any notification to the Maxwell victims, the government overnight has moved Maxwell to a minimum security luxury prison in Texas.… The Trump administration should not credit a word Maxwell says, as the government itself sought charges against Maxwell for being a serial liar. This move smacks of a cover up. The victims deserve better.” 

The White House is absolutely melting down over the unveiling of President Donald Trump’s lewd birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.

The Wall Street Journal on Monday published an image of Trump’s 50th birthday letter to Epstein, after it was delivered to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee by lawyers for the late sex trafficker’s estate. The letter included a signature that appeared to match Trump’s.

Having previously claimed the 2003 letter didn’t exist at all, the Trump administration attempted to keep up the farce.

“The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire ‘Birthday Card’ story is false,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed in a post on X.

“As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it,” she wrote. “President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation.”

Leavitt didn’t offer up any potential plot holes in the story, but she did accuse the reporter Joe Palazzolo of requesting a comment only at the time of publication.

On the flip side, California Governor Gavin Newsom had fun drawing attention to Vice President JD Vance’s claim in July, when the letter was first reported, that it was “complete and utter bullshit.”

“Where is this letter?” Vance wrote back then. “Would you be shocked to learn they never showed it to us before publishing it? Does anyone honestly believe this sounds like Donald Trump?”

“This aged nicely,” Newsom wrote Monday in a post on X.

The House Oversight Committee obtained a copy of Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday book on Monday.

The book, initially reported on by The Wall Street Journal, was said to contain a strange birthday poem from Trump to Epstein framed by a sketch of a woman’s figure.

The image released verifies the Journal’s reporting, showing the form of a woman surrounding a poem addressed to Epstein in which Trump allegedly wrote “a pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret. Donald J. Trump.”

There is also a signature at the bottom of the woman’s figure, potentially mimicking pubic hair. It reads “Donald.”

The White House was quick to declare the image a fake, accusing The Wall Street Journal of defamation.

“The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire “Birthday Card” story is false,” wrote White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. “As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.”

“Time for @newscorp to open that checkbook, it’s not his signature,” White House deputy chief of staff for communications Taylor Budowich wrote. “DEFAMATION!” Attached to his post were four other images of more recent signatures from Trump that were a bit more rigid and sharp than the one shown in the Journal.

But unfortunately for Team Trump, there are countless examples of Trump signing other documents with the signature extremely similar to the one shown by the Journal, demonstrating that Trump’s signature has likely changed over time and that his signature is different when signing his first name versus both of his names.

“Taylor’s examples are all from after he became President, at least two are from 2024,” journalist Damien Toll wrote above Budowich’s post. “The birthday letter is from 2003. For comparison, here’s a book Trump signed for Epstein in 1997, also with just his first name.”

“Two seconds on google I found this 2005 autograph when his signature was clearly different. He spelled out both names. The Dons letter to his friend Jeff just has him signing Donald,” said Talking Point Memo’s Josh Marshall. “Back to the drawing board @TayFromCA.”

Another 1999 letter shows a similar Trump signature.

Each defense the Trump administration has offered has been shaky at best. When reports of his naked woman sketch to Epstein first came out, he responded with, “I don’t draw pictures.” The internet was quick to point out that outright lie, as at least five sketches of his have been auctioned off over the years. Now they’re dismissing a signature that looks very real.

The Trump administration continues to turn to lies and excuses as the Oversight Committee’s possession of the book may lead to new insight into Trump and Epstein’s relationship.

President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdown on immigrants is coming to Chicago.

The Department of Homeland Security on Monday announced Operation Midway Blitz, an Immigration Customs Enforcement operation targeting undocumented immigrants in Chicago and Illinois.

Undocumented immigrants had “flocked” to Illinois, the DHS said, because they “knew Governor Pritzker and his sanctuary policies would protect them and allow them to roam free on American streets.”

While sanctuary cities have policies in place that limit coordination and information sharing with federal immigration authorities about noncitizens, undocumented immigrants accused of committing crimes are processed by local law enforcement similarly to how anyone else would be.

The DHS announcement follows the takeover of the Naval Station Great Lakes, north of Chicago, which came as a surprise to local leaders. A procurement document for portable lavatory and laundry trailers indicated that ICE would use the naval base as a headquarters for at least a month, The Independent reported.

For weeks now, Trump has set his sights on Chicago to expand his intimidation campaign against Democratic cities. This latest operation comes as the Supreme Court has rubber-stamped ICE’s racial profiling. The announcement comes just months after sweeping ICE raids in Los Angeles led Trump to call in the National Guard—which a California judge had ruled was a blatant violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

At the height of Donald Trump’s scandal surrounding notorious late sex criminal Jeffrey Epstein, the Wall Street Journal in July reported that the president had written a cryptic message wishing Epstein a happy 50th birthday in 2003. The note was reportedly contained within a marker drawing of a woman’s naked torso.

Trump insisted this was a “fake thing.” “I never wrote a picture in my life. I don’t draw pictures of women,” he told the Journal. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.” Vice President JD Vance called it “complete and utter bullshit.”

The president filed a lawsuit against the newspaper in hopes of, in his words, suing owner Rupert Murdoch’s “ass off, and that of his third rate paper.”

Murdoch and the Journal’s asses may live to see another day, as the paper on Monday released a photo of the letter.

In response to a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee, the Journal reports, lawyers for Epstein’s estate provided Congress a copy of the birthday book in which the letter was reportedly contained. And lo and behold, the document whose existence Trump vehemently denied appears exactly as reported—complete with its bizarre typewritten note and bawdy drawing, including Trump’s signature scribbled to mimic pubic hair.

The message is an imagined dialogue between Trump and Epstein, in which the two knowingly express awareness that there’s “more to life than having everything,” while refusing to utter what exactly that secret something is. “We have certain things in common, Jeffrey,” says Donald in the dialogue, to which Jeffrey replies, “Yes, we do, come to think of it.” Donald answers: “Enigmas never age, have you noticed that?”

Trump signed off the message by calling Epstein a “pal,” wishing him happy birthday, and writing, “May every day be another wonderful secret.”

White House spokesperson Taylor Budowich took to X to claim that the signature on the letter is not Trump’s—citing recent pictures in which the president’s autograph looks different. But reporters were quick to produce examples from the 1990s and 2000s in which the signature is a clear match.

It’s not the first time Trump has apparently been caught in a lie regarding the notorious late sex criminal, with whom he was formerly close friends. The Journal’s revelation is sure to complicate the president’s so-far futile efforts to sweep the Epstein affair under the rug.

A new poll says capitalism’s hold over the U.S. population is slipping.

Only 54 percent of Americans view the economic system of capitalism favorably, down from 60 percent in 2021. It’s the lowest percentage since Gallup began collecting data in 2010.

Both Democrats and independents view capitalism less positively this year, as well. Less than half of Democrats, 42 percent, have a positive image of capitalism. Just over half of independents feel the same, compared to three-quarters of Republicans (whose views on the economic system haven’t changed since 2010).

What about the alternatives? Socialism still polls positively for 39 percent of respondents, holding steady since 2019.

But if you dig a little deeper, there are two diverging perspectives hidden behind that steady number: Democrats’ view of socialism has been increasing, while Republicans’ view has been decreasing.

While around 50 percent of Democrats had a positive view of socialism in 2010, nearly two-thirds do today. They’re the only partisan group who view socialism more positively than capitalism, at 66 to 44 percent, respectively.

It’s not hard to see why people may be fed up with the economic status quo. The cost of buying a home has skyrocketed, especially after the Covid-19 pandemic, and wages haven’t kept up. And since 2001, rents have risen 10 times faster than income.

Democratic socialist politicians like Bernie Sanders and New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani have become more popular recently, as voters look to leaders who acknowledge that the cost of living is unacceptable.

Things have gotten so bad, it seems that even President Donald Trump may have lost his faith in capitalism—just ask Intel or Nippon.

The man accused of trying to kill President Trump on his Florida golf course began his trial on Monday—and he’s already running into some strange jury selection issues. 

On September 15, Ryan Routh, a 59-year-old construction worker, allegedly hid in the bushes of Trump Palm Beach golf course with a rifle for hours. When Trump was a hole away, the Secret Service spotted Routh’s rifle peeking from the foliage and shot at him. He ran, and was later arrested and hit with five criminal charges, including attempting to kill a presidential candidate and possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence. Routh is facing life in prison and pleads not guilty. 

Routh is representing himself, a controversial move that’s been most bothersome to U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon in her effort to oversee the three-day, 60-person jury selection process. 

“I will be representing myself moving forward; It was ridiculous from the outset to consider a random stranger that knows nothing of who I am to speak for me,” Routh wrote in a letter to Judge Cannon in July. “I am so sorry, I know this makes your life harder.”

Routh has been holding up the process by asking potential jurors questions like how they would react if they saw a turtle in the middle of the road while they were driving, because their answers would “speak to their character and mindset,” he said, according to ABC News. Routh also attempted to ask jurors what they think about Palestine and about Trump’s attempted takeover of Greenland.

Cannon struck the questions, saying, “They are all really off base and have no relevance to the jury selection process.”

Court filings also quote Routh requesting both a “beatdown session” and a round of golf with Trump instead of going on trial. 

“I think a beatdown session would be more fun and entertaining for everyone; give me shackles and cuffs and let the old fat man give it his worst,” he wrote. “A round of golf with the racist pig, he wins he can execute me, I win I get his job.” He also asked for female strippers.

Routh’s witness list is an odd cast of characters, including his son, an ex-girlfriend, a Palestinian activist group, and President Trump. 

Cannon is already over Routh’s shenanigans, and has accused him of orchestrating “calculated chaos” in her courtroom and called one of his witnesses “a farce” and “obviously ludicrous.”  

Routh has not been diagnosed with any mental illness, according to his family, but he does “fixate” on things. That would explain what prosecutors say was months of planning for a failed assassination attempt, or his willingness to “FIGHT AND DIE” as a civilian volunteer for Ukraine in its war against Russia.

Opening statements in Routh’s trial are on Wednesday. We’ll see what he has to say for himself.

Four in 10 Americans say that they’re buying less thanks to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, according to a new poll from CBS.

Support for the tariffs has fallen steadily since June, when 41 percent of those surveyed supported them. In July, that number fell to 40 percent and in August, 38 percent.* Over half of all Americans oppose the tariffs.

Republicans make up the bulk of those who still favor the tariffs, according to CBS. They also are more likely to say higher prices are OK, actually, when Trump is responsible: 70 percent of Republicans believe Americans should be willing to pay more to support Trump’s trade policies, opposed to a mere 6 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents.

It’s not just the court of public opinion where Trump’s tariffs are facing an uphill battle. After an appeals court ruled that the president’s tariffs were illegal, the president asked the Supreme Court to make an “expedited ruling” to overturn the decision.

If the highest court rules against the president—which, if it follows precedent rather than bow to Trump’s whims, it very well could—then the U.S. Treasury would have to issue enormous refunds, “about half” of the $180 billion the country has collected in tariffs so far, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent.

Trump has said that refunds of this size would lead to a second Great Depression. But if the latest dismal jobs report is any indication, it seems like we might be heading that way regardless.

* This article previously mischaracterized the polling on tariffs.

The Supreme Court on Monday accepted another emergency request from the Trump administration—this time lifting a lower court’s order that prohibited roving immigration agents in Los Angeles from profiling individuals on the basis of race, language, job, or location.

The majority ruled without explanation, while Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, took her conservative colleagues to task in a blistering dissent.

“Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor,” wrote the court’s eldest liberal justice. “Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”

The Fourth Amendment “prohibits exactly what the Government is attempting to do here,” Sotomayor observed, as the Trump administration has “all but declared” Latinos in low-wage jobs “fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction.”

Kavanaugh’s concurrence, Sotomayor noted, falsely assumed agents are just conducting “brief stops for questioning” and seizing only undocumented immigrants.

In reality, they “are seizing people using firearms, physical violence, and warehouse detentions,” and whisking away American citizens as well. Further, she wrote, Kavanaugh incorrectly places the burden of proof during immigration stops not on law enforcement but on “an entire class of citizens to carry enough documentation to prove that they deserve to walk freely”—essentially creating “a second-class citizenship status” that is incompatible with the Constitution.

In Trump’s second term, the Supreme Court has repeatedly enabled the president’s lawless excesses via its emergency docket—overruling lower courts that halt his actions, oftentimes, as on Monday, providing little or no explanation. Sotomayor’s dissent railed against these tendencies, calling the decision “yet another grave misuse of our emergency docket,” whose lack of explanation is “troubling.”

“In the last eight months, this Court’s appetite to circumvent the ordinary appellate process and weigh in on important issues has grown exponentially,” she pointed out. “Its interest in explaining itself, unfortunately, has not.”

Whereas there are sometimes good reasons for issuing orders without explanation, other “situations simply cry out for an explanation,” Sotomayor said—“such as when the Government’s conduct flagrantly violates the law, or when lower courts and litigants need guidance about the issues on which they should focus.”

To conclude, Sotomayor wrote that Monday’s ruling means the Fourth Amendment may no longer protect the rights of people “who happen to look a certain way, speak a certain way, and appear to work a certain type of legitimate job that pays very little. Because this is unconscionably irreconcilable with our Nation’s constitutional guarantees, I dissent.”