Trump Exposed Himself in Epstein Virginia Giuffre Panic
PDS Published 07/30/2025
-
So many of the details in the Epstein story are just not adding up, and now, the Democrats are hatching a plan to blow it wide open.
So let’s start with a few of those pesky details, first of all the apparent breakup between Trump and Epstein in 2004. [B roll, 01:45]
Because the exact reason for their split has been and still is a bit of a mystery. [Same B roll]
With some reports suggesting it had to do with a bitter real estate deal, others claiming it was because Epstein acted inappropriately toward the daughter of a member of Mar-a-Lago. [Quote, find “squaring” and “inappropriately”]
And this month, the White House has insisted that Trump cut ties with him because Epstein was a “creep.”
But on Monday, during his meeting with Keir Starmer, Trump himself offered a third explanation that seemed to contradict his own White House. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 01:05:35 - 01:05:45] Caption: “He stole people that worked for me. I said, ‘don’t ever do that again.’ He did it again. And I threw him out of the place, persona non grata.”
So after that, people were like, was he a creep, or did he poach your staff, and yesterday, a reporter pressed him for clarification. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 09:34 - 09:39, 09:48 - 09:58] Caption: [Reporter:] “So can you explain that discrepancy?” [Donald Trump:] “Well maybe they’re the same thing, you know? It’s sort of a little bit of the same thing.” … [Reporter:] “So is that what was meant by ‘being a creep?’” [Donald Trump:] “Who are you with?” [Reporter:] “Me?” [Donald Trump:] “Yeah.” [Reporter:] “I’m the travel pool but I’m with NBC News.” [Donald Trump:] “NBC. NBC fake news.”
But skeptics point out that when you combine that with comments like this …
[Clip, 16:20 - 16:23] Caption: “When they steal people, I don’t like it.”
… and this …
[Clip, 26:16 - 26:20] Caption: “The concept of taking people that work for me is bad.”
… and this …
[Clip, 26:46 - 26:51] Caption: “When I heard about it I told him, I said, ‘listen, we don’t want you taking our people.’”
… It sounds like Epstein’s transgression was that he violated Trump’s general rule against poaching employees, not that he raped underage girls or acted “creepy.”
Though when a reporter asked, he admitted that those employees fit a specific demographic. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 26:06 - 26:14, 26:22 - 26:24] Caption: [Reporter:] “Were some of them young women?” [Donald Trump:] “Well I don’t want to say, but everyone knows the people that were taken. … And the answer is yes.”
Then, when a reporter asked whether one of those women was Virginia Giuffre [Pronounce 00:43], the late Epstein survivor who alleged that Maxwell recruited her from Mar-a-Lago when she was a 16-year-old spa attendant there, at first he said …
[Clip, 27:09 - 27:11] Caption: “I don’t know.”
… but then just six seconds later, he said …
[Clip, 27:17 - 27:19] Caption: “He stole her.”
Which, as some have pointed out, seems to throw a wrench in his story.
Right, because Giuffre was reportedly poached from Mar-a-Lago in 2000, four years before Trump stopped talking to Epstein. [Quote, find “2000”]
And in 2002, Trump gave that now infamous quote to New York Magazine in which he called Epstein a “terrific guy” and said: [Quote]
“He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” [Same quote]
So that would seem to suggest that Trump knew about Epstein’s “creepy” tendencies and employee-poaching well before they split up.
And as the journalist Sarah Blaske [Blask-ee] reported, Epstein remained on Mar-a-Lago’s membership rolls until October 2007, roughly three years after the apparent breakup and over a year after Epstein was charged with sex crimes. [Quote, find “2007”]
So on this point, we’re left with more questions now than answers, but this isn’t the only thing people are talking about.
But if they’re not gonna hand over the footage, let alone the files, willingly, Congress just might force them to.
And no, House Speaker Mike Johnson didn’t have a change of heart; he’s still blocking the resolution from Thomas Massie and others.
Rather, the Democrats have discovered a little trick that may let them bypass the Republican majority.
Right, you see, there’s a rarely invoked law from 1928 that compels an executive branch agency to hand over requested information when it’s requested by at least five members of the Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. [Quote, find “five members”]
And it just so happens that there are seven Democrats on that committee.
So today, all of them, along with Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to the DoJ demanding the “full and complete Epstein files.” Quote same link]
With them requesting the files by August 15, and saying: [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:50 - 01:02] Caption: “Our request covers all documents, files, evidence and other materials in possession of the DoJ, the FBI, related to the case of United States vs. Jeffrey Epstein.”
[Clip, 02:21 - 02:29, 03:24 - 03:32] Caption: “Every single time Donald Trump or his administration or Republican leaders have had a chance to be transparent about the Epstein files, they have chosen to hide. … Donald Trump should stop hiding from the truth. He should stop hiding from the American people.”
Now to caveat, this five-member rule hasn’t faced significant tests in the courts, so it’s unclear whether it’s actually enforceable. [Quote, find “test”]
But still, this is a bold move from Schumer.
Because recently he’s demanded a closed-door briefing between the White House and Senate on the Epstein files, and he’s called for the FBI to conduct a counterintelligence threat assessment related to the files, but now he’s actually doing something with some teeth.
And what’s more, if this move provokes a legal battle with the White House, then that’ll force Senate Republicans to choose between backing Trump and protecting their own power of Congressional oversight.
Though I should note that any legal case could take years, and might end up before the Supreme Court.
-
A massive earthquake in Russia is causing tsunami waves in multiple U.S. states -- and it caused mass panic as people fought traffic to seek higher ground and safety.
So, yesterday, an 8.8 magnitude quake hit just off eastern Russia’s Kamchatka (Com-chot-kuh) peninsula.[]
And yeah, you might zoom out on that map and think, well, it looks like a scary but very far away problem.
But the thing is, 8.8 is big, in fact, it’s the sixth biggest earthquake ever recorded.
With the severity being evident in some footage of people experiencing the shake in Russia, like these doctors who were performing a surgery and then had to hold the patient down as it played out.
As well as videos from inside buildings where objects were moving, from outside where people were fleeing as chimneys collapsed onto the ground, and even of sea lions diving into the water as the quake hits and rocks fall down the hills above them.
Hell, one of the biggest volcanos in the northern hemisphere even began to erupt in its aftermath.
Those quakes did cause some damage to structures, and according to BBC News some people were injured as well, but so far no fatalities have been reported. []
But Russia was also where we first saw tsunami waves, with BBC reporting that waves up to 13 feet hitports and caused flooding. []
And the waves then made their way to Japan, where around two million people were told to evacuate and get to higher ground.
And you might be seeing some of these waves and thinking…that’s a tsunami?
And, yeah, they don’t look like they do in the movies, right, a tsunami isn’t, like, one singular monster wave crashing ashore, with Dan Snider, the tsunami warning coordinator with the National Tsunami Warning Center, telling CBS News:[]
"It's a series of powerful waves over a long period of time. Tsunamis cross the ocean at hundreds of miles an hour — as fast as a jet airplane — in deep water. But when they get close to the shore, they slow down and start to pile up. And that's where that inundation problem becomes a little bit more possible there."
"In this case, because of the Earth basically sending out these huge ripples of water across the ocean, they're going to be moving back and forth for quite a while.”
Right, and that is why, while many areas have lifted their warnings and advisories, some places were under alert for hours, and may still continue to see dangerous tides and currents for a while.
Which brings us to the U.S., where the coasts of Hawaii, California, Alaska, Oregon, and Washington were all under some form of alert.
And we will start with Hawaii, because that is where most headlines are coming from.
Gridlock traffic, sirens, and more caused chaos on the island as people were warned to evacuate, go inland, or find higher elevations.
“I would say that a lot of…(siren blares) people that…(siren keeps blaring) sorry we have a siren going off now.” (start of this YT short)
The situation has since been downgraded, but there was real panic leading up to it, with officials predicting waves up to ten feet.
With a retired coast guard chief telling the New York Times:
“People are driving like idiots. I have moved 100 feet in the last hour.”[]
But so far, minimal damage has been done here, with waves hitting at 7:30 PM local time and peaking at just under six feet, though some local outlets did share footage of flooding.
But as Hawaii Gov. Josh Green explained in a press conference, again, even if that does not sound big, these are not just normal waves:
“This is a longitudinal wave with great force driving through the shoreline and into land. That’s why we ask people to evacuate very far back.” (7:14-7:24)
And as people were evacuating, you may have seen people talking a lot about Oprah.
Right, she owns property on Maui, and you had tons of people online claiming that she had closed off a private road that people could have used to evacuate, which worsened traffic congestion in the area.
With that contributing to larger backlash we have seen over the years regarding wealthy people buying up land in Hawaii and pricing out locals, making it hard to live there. [][]
Some just pissed that Oprah owns a road to begin with. []
However, claims that she kept the road closed have been disputed by both officials in Hawaii and Oprah herself.
A press release from Maui Police regarding the tsunami warning noted that:
“Oprah’s road is open to get Upcountry.”[]
And a spokesperson for Oprah also issued a statement saying:[]
“As soon as we heard the tsunami warnings, we contacted local law enforcement and FEMA to ensure the road was opened. Any reports otherwise are false.”
But that has done little to quell the outrage she is facing online, with people saying she has bought up land on the island “like a Monopoly board.”[]
Others just generally arguing that “Billionaires should not own roads.”[]
But this all brings us to the mainland United States, where again, tsunami waves have hit, but things are mostly fine.
Notably, that area has seen devastating tsunamis in the past, but this time around it is expected to be much different, with a city manager telling the LA Times:
“it is going to be an event that creates a lot of disruption in the ocean, a lot of strong currents. We’re asking people to stay away from the beaches, stay away from the mouths of the river and any low-lying area.”[]
Especially as disruptions in the ocean could last as long as 30 hours.
Most waves hit in the early morning, so footage is minimal, but in this video of the San Francisco Bay Area you can see boats rising and falling pretty dramatically with the water levels.
Waves also hit areas of Washington State, but it seems that for all coastal areas of the U.S., the worst is over with little damage reported, which is a relief. []
Though, the ocean will likely continue to fluctuate in impacted areas. []
Now, warnings are making their ways to other parts of the globe, with the Galapagos islands issuing evacuation orders this morning.
Chile also issued a red alert for most of its coast. []
Back in Russia, aftershocks are ongoing, and the country could see pretty sizable ones for around a month following this event. []
And we will obviously have to keep an eye out for updates, right, we are still in the immediate aftermath, so news on potential damage and injuries is subject to change.
But I would love to know your thoughts on any of this, especially if you live in an impacted area, what your experience has been.
New Customers can get 15% OFF at Huel using code PHIL at Huel! (With minimum $75 purchase).
-
Underpaid and fed up, Massachusetts defense attorneys have stopped showing up and now, the state’s justice system is falling apart.
Right, Massachusetts lawyers have been refusing to take on cases for defendants that can’t pay as a protest for higher wages. []
And it’s forcing judges to dismiss dozens of criminal cases - even those with potentially violent defendants.
But in order to understand how we’ve gotten to this point, we’ve got to talk about exactly how this system works in Massachusetts.
You see, unlike most states, Massachusetts relies mainly on private lawyers rather than public defenders to handle cases where the defendants can’t pay for an attorney. []
We’re talking roughly 80% of cases like this are handled by private attorneys.
And because the defendant can’t pay and the right to legal representation is, ya know, guaranteed in the Constitution, the state pays these attorneys - contracting them and calling them bar advocates.
Except in Massachusetts, bar advocates are reportedly not paid anywhere near the amount as their counterparts in nearby states.
The state reportedly offers $65 an hour for these cases - which is less than half of the $150 attorneys are making in Maine. []
Then in New Hampshire, the rate is $125 and it’s $100 plus is Vermont and Rhode Island.
And so Massachusetts attorneys are asking the state to hike their wages to $100 an hour for these cases.
With Jennifer O’Brien, a lawyer in Middlesex County, saying,
“We’re trying to save this program, because at this rate — half of what bordering states are paying — no one in Massachusetts is going to do this work anymore. That’s the risk the Legislature is taking.” []
And now, attorneys are giving the system a taste of the consequences of that risk - since Memorial Day, they’ve stopped doing court-appointed work.
As more lawyers joined the pretty loosely organized protest, the number of defendants going without representation multiplied.
With the whole thing coming to a head recently - last week, judges were forced to dismiss 102 criminal cases in Boston and the surrounding area thanks to a state law that says after 45 days, if defendants still don’t have a court-appointed attorney, the charges against them have to be dismissed entirely. []
And these cases that have been dismissed? Some of them have some violent charges attached to them.
Like one defendant was released from custody despite being accused of threatening the mother of his child with a gun while she held their baby.
And another defendant was accused of spraying cologne on her nephew and using a lighter to burn his arm. []
With a spokesperson for the local DA saying,
“We consider this an extraordinarily dangerous moment for the public. We are informing victims and witnesses that these cases are being dismissed, and those are very difficult conversations - they want justice, and we want justice for them.” []
Of course, many people have been laying the blame entirely at the feet of the attorneys here.
Like one former Massachusetts police chief saying,
“It's very irresponsible. It's selfish and it's greedy.” []
"You don't just get to not come to work, because the whole system breaks down. The police officers are out in the street doing their job, the judges, the court officers, the prosecutors… We don't get to walk out the door because we aren't getting paid enough." []
To which attorneys within the Mass. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers have replied that it would be better if those angry with them help advocate for better pay - with one saying,
"I would say back to them, help us get the pay up. Help us make sure we have a system that functions. I think it indicates how deep a problem this is, but this has been a problem for so many years that Massachusetts political entities are just kind of used to bar advocates, saying 'OK I'll take the really low pay, and I'll do it because I believe in the work.'" []
And we’ve also seen a few political figures address this issue - with Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey calling on the legislature and the attorneys to come to a solution. []
While State Senator Michael Rodrigues just told the lawyers to, quote, “get back to work.”
Adding,
“We are ready and willing to work with them, but a pre-emptive work stoppage serves only to harm victims, defendants, and the overall justice system.” []
As of now, we don’t know how far off a solution to this problem really is - especially considering the 2026 fiscal year budget that was signed by Healy earlier this month reportedly didn’t include any raises for bar advocates. []
But we do know that the cases that have been dismissed have been done so without prejudice - meaning that prosecutors can refile the charges if and when defense representation is made available. []
Which they have reportedly said they plan on doing.
So this is definitely something we’ll have to keep our eyes on.
In the meantime, I would love to know your thoughts about this - especially if you’re in Massachusetts or the legal space at all.
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
America’s housing crisis is so bad that it’s getting Republican and Democratic lawmakers to actually agree on something and push forward the first big housing landmark bill in over a decade.
It’s called the Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream to Housing Act of 2025, or ROAD to Housing Act for short.
It’s backed by Republican Tim Scott and Democrat Elizabeth Warren, although it seems to have widespread bipartisan support.
That’s because its first big hurdle was the SEnate Banking Committee… which advanced the bill with unanimous support.
The ROAD to Housing Act has a ton of provisions -- but in general it tries to directly tackle a lot of the core reasons America’s housing is so expensive right now.[]
For example, it would largely cut all the red tape around building houses, such as the various zoning codes almost all American neighborhoods have.[]
Not to mention getting rid of a lot of bureaucracy around building a home.
Right, there are some regulations that are essentially the same thing, but a builder needs to get approval twice. This would get rid of those double requirements.
It also wants to tackle other red tape, such as by streamlining the environmental review process home builders have to go through.
Additionally it would try to set up loan programs to help people with low- to moderate-incomes to actually buy a home.[]
There are also incentives for cities and states to try and get them to build more
However, even if the bill passes there might be a small hiccup: a lot of these changes would need to be carried out by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Considering that’s a federal agency controlled by Trump it’s seen widespread funding and staff cuts, so there are concerns about how effective the agency will actually execute the ROAD to Housing Act.
It’s such a concern that Warren thinks some changes to the bill might be necessary , saying:
“There are new programs here that should operate more directly with the states and local communities so that we’re not at the mercy of a stripped down HUD. But I worry about HUD being under-resourced to meet its current obligations, much less to take on more.”
Even Republicans acknowledge that HUD might struggle with all the changes, but at the same time said this was better than nothing with Senator Mike Round saying:
“You have to start someplace. And part of it is to upgrade and to modernize a number of the issues that are causing us problems.”
For many Senators this bill is years worth of work and to be so close at the same time HUD is being ripped up is frustrating, with Senator Tina Smith lamenting that:
“We shouldn’t be tearing HUD apart at the same time that we’re trying to make some good policy reforms in this bill.”
Regardless, it’s clear to lawmakers that something has to be done because getting a house right now is extremely difficult for people.
Right, interest rates are fairly high, making mortgages far harder to keep up with.
And housing prices refuse to budge.
PHIL THIS IS MY SOAPBOX: We are looking for a house in SoCal. There are a billion houses on the market. However anytime they need to drop 10% below asking because they've sat on the market for years they just take them off the market.
The market is so odd right now that there are concerns we’re verging on another housing bubble.
For example, during the pandemic the median price of an American house was about $250,000.
Now it’s approaching $450,000 -- an all-time high.[]
What stands out is that normally when interest rates rise, home prices plummet.
But despite a sharp rise in interest rates homes have managed to hold onto their price.
A lot of this is because of supply-and-demand. There just aren’t enough homes.
That’s partially because not a lot of houses are being built -- something the ROAD to Housing Act is trying to address.
But also because of interest rates.
Right, if you bought a home during the pandemic your interest rate is below 3%.
Possibly the best way to put it is that it’s neither a seller’s nor a buyer’s market.
All that being said, this bill has a long way to go.
But considering it already has widespread support there’s a solid chance it might pass relatively unscathed.
Even if it does pass, it’ll be years before we see any real results.
In the meantime tell me about your experience with buying or selling a home, especially if it’s been over the last 6 months.
Is it as bad as the stats make it seem?
Download the FREE Upside App at Upside to get an extra 25 cents back for every gallon on your first tank of gas.
Use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first SeatGeek order & returning buyers use code “PDS” for $10 off AND your chance at weekly $500 prizes! SeatGeek.
