Trump’s Epstein Birthday Book Problem Is Worse Than You Think & 19 Killed in Gen Z Protests
PDS Published 09/09/2025
-
The infamous Epstein birthday book has now been released, and it is way worse than we previously knew.
If you need a refresher, in July The Wall Street Journal reported, without publishing the actual thing, that Trump had contributed a letter to Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday book in 2003. [Article and B roll, 00:00]
With it containing a drawing of a naked woman whose pubic hair is Trump’s signature, as well as an imaginary dialogue between Trump and Epstein. [Imqage]
With Trump supposedly writing that they have a lot in common, then adding “enigmas never age, have you noticed that?” and ending with “a pal is a wonderful thing. Happy Birthday—and may every day be another wonderful secret.” [Same image]
So after that was reported, Trump called the whole thing fake, then sued the Journal’s reporters, its publisher, and its parent company, News Corp, for defamation. [Image]
With JD Vance asking rhetorically: “Where is this letter?” [Post]
And well now, the letter is here, along with the rest of the 238-page birthday book, because the House Oversight Committee obtained it from Epstein’s estate and released it last night.
So we know now that the letter really exists, but still, Trump’s allies deny that it’s authentic.
With press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying, “As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it. President Trump’s legal team will continue to aggressively pursue litigation. This is FAKE NEWS to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax!” [Post]
Then, you also have Charlie Kirk, Benny Johnson and the White House deputy chief of staff posting other examples of Trump’s signature, claiming they look different. [Post, post, post]
But as many others have pointed out, the signature in the letter bears many hallmarks of Trump’s actual signature — the bold serif lettering, the loopier cursive, the long tail at the end of the final “d.” [Image and image]
Right, here are some side by side examples for comparison. [Image and Image and image]
But to that argument, some, like GOP representative Tim Burchett, are claiming this could be an outright forgery. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:12, 00:18 - 00:27] Caption: [Tim Burchett:] “I mean, anybody can do a signature. We’ve seen autopens used quite a bit with the Biden administration. So I’ve never known Trump to be much of an artist, either. … I just don’t buy it.” [Reporter:] “You think really someone might have just forged this somehow?” [Tim Burchett:] “Yeah, somehow. It’s so easy to do. I just don’t buy any of it.”
And to that, the response from the other side is that it would be quite strange for Epstein’s own estate, and therefore Epstein himself when he was alive, to have a fake letter from Trump in his birthday book.
But Trump has also attacked the credibility of the lude drawing, with him saying in July. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 00:05 - 00:08, 00:18 - 00:21] Caption: “I don’t do drawings. I’m not a drawing person. … I don’t do drawings of women. That I can tell you.”
And his son Eric reiterated that claim yesterday. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 04:20 - 04:24] Caption: “I can tell you my father does not sketch out cartoon drawings.”
But as others have pointed out, Trump did draw pictures around that same time, which he auctioned off for charity, and their style is remarkably similar to the one in the letter. [Image and image]
Right, once again, here they are side by side for comparison. [Image and Image and image]
But that’s not all; even the way he refers to himself in the third person in the letter’s imaginary dialogue resembles his speeches and social media posts.
[Clip, 00:03 - 00:07, 00:26 - 00:35, 01:48 - 01:52]
Then there’s his distinctive vocabulary; right, the word “enigma,” which the letter uses for himself and Epstein, he also used to describe Don King, Mike Tyson and Dan Rather in his books. [Image, image, image]
And the letter’s phrase “a wonderful thing” is also one that Trump uses frequently.
But we’re only talking about Trump’s letter; the birthday book contains many more that are very revealing.
With most people honing in on this one from businessman and longtime Mar-a-Lago member Joel Pashcow [Pash-cow].
Because it depicts, in a fake drawing, Epstein receiving an oversized check for 22,500 dollars from Trump with the caption: [Image]
“Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women,” and then “sells ‘fully depreciated’ [redacted name] to Donald Trump.” [Same image]
And according to The Journal, that redacted name belongs to a real person, a wealthy European woman then in her 20s, so the drawing’s apparently meant to show Trump purchasing a woman from Epstein. [Quote, find “European”]
With sources saying that she was courted by both Trump and Epstein in the 1990s, but that when she ultimately went for Trump, Epstein felt bitter. [Quote same link, find “bitter”]
Though the woman’s lawyer claimed that she had no romantic relationship with either man, severed ties with Epstein in 1997, doesn’t know Pashcow, and has no knowledge of the birthday letter. [Quote same link, find “1997”]
But then, there are dozens of other letters in the book, and although most don’t mention Trump outside of a brief comment that he was one of many famous people they met through Epstein,
They do demonstrate, in the words of The New York Times, that “Epstein’s lewd and lecherous behavior with young women was both widely known and widely celebrated by people who described themselves as his closest friends and associates.” [Quote]
So you’ve got a cartoon drawing of Epstein lying in a beach chair getting what appears to be a nude massage from four topless women. [Source: page 155 of request no. 1]
Another comparing him to the fisherman from a Hemingway story, except instead of catching fish, he catches women, “blonde, red or brunette.” [page 118, request no. 1]
Then another lamenting, “So many girls, so little time,” about Epstein. [page 120, request no. 1]
You also had one that reminisced about how, in a farm town in Iowa where it was hard to “tell the difference between the girls and the hogs,” Epstein somehow managed to find a “spectacular tall blonde” whom he later invited back with him to New York. [page 131, request no. 1]
In another, someone wrote, “I wanted to get you what you want,” so “here it is,” followed by a drawing of breasts. [page 171 of request no. 1]
With someone else saying in his letter that he “agonized long and hard about what to write,” then simply put photos of lions and zebras having sex, adding that they “seemed more appropriate than anything I could put in words.” [147-153 though we likely cant show the animals, request no. 1]
Then, another letter recounted an incident in London that left Epstein “howling with laughter.” [page 135, request no. 1]
With it describing how an “old man smiling sweetly” pulled down a woman’s panties and put his hand on her privates, only to find another man’s hand already there. [Same image]
Next, a letter alludes to how, in the mid-1970s, Epstein first “discovered the Maxwell teen-age daughter.” [page 234, request no. 1]
Then, this letter contains two drawings, one showing a man giving balloons to three female children in skirts and pigtails labeled “1983.” [page 155 of request no. 1]
And the other, labeled “2003,” shows the same man getting massages from topless blond women in a tropical locale, with the caption reading: “what a great country!” [Same image]
And finally, one more letter marvels at the fact that somehow, at age 50, Epstein “has avoided the penitentiary.” [page 164 of request no. 1]
So y’all can draw your own conclusions from all that, but arguably these letters show that even three years before his first arrest, Epstein’s reputation for being at least a womanizer and at worst a sex pest with a fixation on very young girls was widely known among his friends.
Now when NBC got Trump on the phone this morning, reportedly he said:
“I don’t comment on something that’s a dead issue. I gave all comments to the staff. It’s a dead issue.” [Quote]
And JD Vance said much the same thing, posting on X:
“The Democrats don't care about Epstein. They don’t even care about his victims. That's why they were silent about it for years. The only thing they care about is concocting another fake scandal like Russiagate to smear President Trump with lies. No one is falling for this BS.” [Post]
But this may only be the beginning, because the House Oversight Committee got more than just the birthday book from Epstein’s estate.
They also have his will, his 2007 non-prosecution agreement (AKA the sweetheart plea deal), and almost 30 years of entries in his personal address book.
Though the estate’s lawyers told the committee, “We are not aware of the existence of a ‘list of clients involved in sex, sex acts, or sex trafficking facilitated by Mr. Jeffrey Epstein.’” [Quote]
So for now, we just have to work with what we’ve got, and wait for the House to obtain more evidence.
Speaking of which, the committee still hasn’t received a second batch of documents from the DoJ despite the deadline to comply with its subpoena for the full Epstein files coming and going weeks ago.
And despite having several of Epstein’s victims come to Capitol Hill last week and demand that Trump release the files, no more Republicans have signed onto Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie’s discharge petition.
So they’re still just two lawmakers short of getting it passed in the House, with Massie himself, Nancy Mace, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert being the only ones to join Democrats.
-
The best way to avoid punishment for drinking and driving is apparently being a police officer – you know, that, or not drinking and driving.
At least that’s according to this shocking investigation from the New York Times and the nonprofit newsroom New York Focus.
Right, over the past two years, they obtained over 10,000 previously confidential disciplinary files detailing misconduct at roughly half the state’s law enforcement agencies.
And what they found is that some New York police departments have caught officers drinking and driving and protected them from the punishments faced by ordinary citizens.
Right, because if you’re not a cop, and you’re caught driving while intoxicated in New York?
You’ll lose your license for at least six months, you’ll face nearly $1,000 in fines, and you could even be looking at up to one year in jail.
And that’s for a first-time offense – although in that case, I will say, most people avoid actually being locked up.
But either way, with all that said, it’s probably no surprise that officers have given their brothers in blue special treatment.
With one former police chief even saying:
“If I go 85 on the freeway, I’m not going to get a ticket.”
And adding: “Have I let people go occasionally? Of course. We all have.”
But he and other former police chiefs and officers were reportedly surprised that even officers responsible for crashes had avoided arrest.
Right, according to this investigation, officers have collided with guardrails, parked cars, and even a moving police car with its lights on.
And then some have fled the scenes of accidents.
And others have even shown up for work under the influence — one to a police station; another, to a fire; and a third, to a crime scene.
Right, Officer Vincent Delforte, for example, reportedly admitted to having nine drinks before attending a basketball game in 2013, then having “few more beers” during the game, more drinks at two bars on the way home; and three more at his house before going to bed.
He then drove to work the next morning, and tested above the legal limit, but was never charged – just suspended for three days and breath-tested before every shift for six months.
And then, Ronald Wilson?
In 2021, at 11pm on a Saturday, he crashed his BMW into a Jeep.
The responding officer noted that Wilson’s speech was slurred and he was off balance, his eyes were glassy, and he reeked of alcohol.
But Wilson showed ID proving he was an investigator with the State Police, and the officer never gave him a sobriety test.
Wilson even admitted in an affidavit that he had been behind the wheel – and later admitted to drinking six cocktails and a shot that night – but all he got was a traffic ticket for following behind another car too closely.
He was also suspended without pay for 35 days.
And the officer who responded to the scene of the crash? Andrew Kowalski?
In June, he actually won Erie County’s D.W.I enforcement award.
And overall, the investigation found that among the agencies included, there were at least 17 cases from 2013 to 2023 in which responding officers didn’t take basic steps to confirm if their fellow officers had driven drunk, despite significant indications that they had.
And with a few exceptions, those who had been caught all returned to the job following short suspensions.
And what’s more, some experts said documented cases were very likely an undercount, suggesting that many drunken-driving incidents were never internally investigated.
That said, on the flip side, not every department failed to criminally investigate incidents of drunken driving – and officers who seriously injured themselves or others usually faced prosecution.
But it’s all still pretty alarming that officers can put other peoples’ lives at risk in this way and avoid any real consequences – not to mention it raises the question of what other types of misconduct is being swept under the rug.
-
The Supreme Court just gave the green light for racial profiling in LA!
That is what some experts are saying after this ruling yesterday.
Right, the case in question here is centered around the aggressive immigration enforcement efforts in LA that have been a key part of Trump’s crackdown.
There’s been countless videos circulating the internet in recent months apparently showing armed federal agents rounding up Hispanic people in LA - even those who are US citizens.
With critics saying these agents are acting as roving bands of masked officers that are routinely violating the Constitution.
While supporters argue this is a part of the Trump administration’s vigorous but entirely legal campaign to enforce immigration laws.
Regardless of what you call it, the situation led to civil rights groups and several individuals filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration - describing the confrontations from federal agents in LA as “indiscriminate immigration operations.”
Saying they had swept up thousands of day laborers, carwash workers, farmworkers, caregivers, and more.
With the lawsuit accusing the administration of violating these people’s Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and adding,
“Individuals with brown skin are approached or pulled aside by unidentified federal agents, suddenly and with a show of force and made to answer questions about who they are and where they are from.”
In response to this suit, a US District Court judge from Central California placed some hefty restrictions on immigration agents in a temporary restraining order.
Specifically, she ordered them not to rely on factors including race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or accented English; presence at a particular location, such as a day-laborer or agricultural site; or performing a particular type of work.
Saying that these factors shouldn’t be used alone or in any combination in deciding who to stop within her jurisdiction.
But the Trump administration took the issue of that restraining order to the Supreme Court - arguing that the restrictions were hampering their ability to handle the illegal immigration problem and that the stops made by federal agents were lawful.
And just yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3, along party lines, to lift those restrictions and offered no explanation.
With the only one providing any sort of context to the Court's judgement being Justice Brett Kavanaugh - who wrote in a separate, concurring opinion that those 4 factors the lower court judge excluded can play a role in determining who they need to stop.
Saying that while apparent ethnicity itself isn’t a reason to stop someone, that combined with other factors can be a relevant consideration.
And he went on to defend the LA immigration crackdown in general - writing,
“About 10 percent of the people in the Los Angeles region are illegally in the United States - meaning about two million illegal immigrants out of a total population of 20 million.”
By contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the other two liberal judges dissented - with Sotomayor saying that with this ruling, the court and the administration, quote,
“... all but declared that all Latinos, U.S. citizens or not, who work low wage jobs are 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.”
Adding,
“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. Today, the court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”
“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost. I dissent.”
As you can imagine, this ruling prompted a lot of reactions - including some grave warnings from experts.
Like Armando Gudino, the executive director of the Los Angeles Worker Center Network non-profit, who echoed Justice Sotomayor in an interview with the Guardian and said,
“... they have effectively legalized racial profiling and by extension racial discrimination.”
Angelica Salas, executive director for the Los Angeles-based Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, added that this ruling sends a message to Latino Americans and noncitizens.
Saying,
“Our Constitution is very clear in that it applies to all persons living in the United States as being entitled to civil rights. Unless you decide we are not people, you are saying we don’t have rights in this country, citizen or noncitizen.”
We also saw response from politicians like Gavin Newsom - who offered a sharp criticism of the order in a statement saying,
“Trump’s hand-picked Supreme Court majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles.”
As well as Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass - who replied directly to Justice Sotomayor’s written dissent, expressing her agreement and saying that everyone should dissent against this ruling because LA is just the beginning.
Saying her city is being used as, quote, “a test case for total dominance and unchecked power by the federal government.”
But, of course, there were also those celebrating here - including a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, who called the Supreme Court’s decision, quote, “a win for the safety of Californians and the rule of law.”
Adding,
“... law enforcement will not be slowed down and will continue to arrest and remove the murderers, rapists, gang members and other criminal illegal aliens that Karen Bass continues to give safe harbor.”
From here, we’re just going to have to wait and see what the repercussions of this will be.
Right, because of the lack of explanation offered from the court for their ruling, makes it hard to know where exactly this applies - is it just LA or is it nationwide?
Which is a recurring issue with the Supreme Court’s emergency rulings recently and we talked about more that in depth last week.
Regardless, this isn’t the last time we’re going to see this case - it’s still pending before a federal appeals court and it may make its way back up to the High Court.
Yesterday’s ruling was just about the restraining order - lifting the restraints on agents while the case is being argued.
But we know that this order doesn’t bode well for the real case and will absolutely embolden Team Trump - both on the immigration issue and with their requests to the Supreme Court in general.
In fact, his administration just asked the High Court to allow it to freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid.
Which could set up the biggest test of his bid to exert his authority over federal spending.
With that, I’m going to pass the question off to you - what are your thoughts here?
And I’d especially love to hear from you if you're in the LA area.
Let me know what you’re thinking in those comments down below.
SeatGeek: Seatgeek use code “PHIL” for $20 OFF your first order. “PDS” for $10 on returning buyers.
-
then next up from that today we've got to talk about this crazy Gen
Z gender divide. Right.
Because, well, obviously, you know, men and women
have always had some differences in what they value, what they prioritize
career versus family, stability versus status, blah, blah, blah.
recent polling we're seeing, it is more divided than ever.
And it's pulled even wider because of politics.
actually on the Nota politics, that's where we'll start
with the approval ratings around President Trump.
Around specific topics. Right.
So for this age group, 18 to 29 year olds, 47% of these men said
that they somewhat or strongly approved of the president's job performance.
for women, it was only 26%.
for border security and immigration.
You had 46% of men, 24% of women.
deportations and immigration, 45% of men, 21% of women.
trade 42% of men, 23% of women, and inflation and cost of living,
41% of men and 21% of women.
then regarding anxiety,
you know, we've heard things about Gen Z being a very anxious generation.
But the numbers here are wild.
asked in general, how often do you feel anxious or worried about the future?
19% of men and 33% of women said almost all the time.
followed by 27% of men and 33% of women, saying most of the time.
and then 39% of men and 28% of women saying sometimes they feel
anxious or worried and very rarely and never very small numbers.
then I'd say the
most interesting information we got here was when all of these people were asked,
which of the following is important to your personal definition of success?
they gave them these 13 options, which you can pause on screen
if you want to read every single one of them.
and then from all those answers, they provided a ranking of
what was important, not just split by men and women, split by men and women.
And who they voted for.
Harris or Trump. the gap here is wild.
for men who voted for Trump, the number one thing they said is pivotal
to their personal definition of success is having children.
for the women who voted for Harris.
It was number 12 out of 13.
And even for women who voted for Trump, it was number six.
but then also when connect to this as far as the ranking for being married
for men who voted for Trump, that was number four.
but for women, it came in 11th for Harris voters and ninth for Trump voters.
which is actually where it also came in for men who voted for Harris.
so a lot of huge gaps, though I will say also, interestingly,
there were a number of things that did seem to line up.
for having a job or career you find fulfilling.
That took a lot of the top spots across the board.
having enough money to do the things that you want to do.
also achieving financial independence.
There's a lot of money anxiety here.
again, we do see certain Partizan things pop up like, emotional stability.
that was much higher for Harris voters than it was for Trump voters.
you know, all of this, it leaves you wondering
if this divide is going to continue on and on.
It also makes
you wonder what relationships or the lack of them are going
to look like moving forward.
and so actually, a question I'll connect with this.
If you fit into this age range or the border at 18 to 29 years
old, what's the relationship dating situation like right now?
Are you finding it hard to meet like minded people?
I guess also, are you not interested in that?
Because it ranks pretty low, at least as far as getting married
and having kids in that part of our relationship.
know, for a lot of people.
-
A federal appeals court just ruled that Trump has to pay $83 million for defamation.
Right, and this case centers around E. Jean Carroll.
Back in 2019, she publicly accused Trump of sexually assaulting her two decades earlier.
Trump, for his part, has repeatedly denied the claims and criticized Carroll.
Continually attacking her on social media, during news conferences, and in other public forums.
So, in response, Carroll filed two lawsuits against Trump, alleging both defamation and sexual assault.
And in 2023, a jury found him liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages.
A decision that notably was upheld by a different appeals court, though Trump’s lawyers have indicated they intend to take the matter to the Supreme Court.
But the second case — which is the one we’re talking about today — that just focused on the defamation allegations.
And last year, a separate jury ruled that Trump must pay Carroll $83.3 million for his defamatory remarks — a decision that he appealed.
But yesterday, a three-judge panel on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected his appeal, upholding the jury’s ruling.
With the judges writing that the jury’s award was “fair and reasonable.”
Adding that there was “ample evidence that Trump was recklessly indifferent to Carroll’s health and safety.”
And, very notably here, the court also rejected Trump’s argument that presidential immunity protected him from being held liable for defamation.
With Trump citing a Supreme Court decision last year that granted presidents sweeping immunity from prosecution for official acts.
Get an exclusive NordVPN deal at NordVPN Risk free with Nord's 30-day money back guarantee!
-
Israel just launched a strike on the capital of Qatar.
According to reports, the strike was aimed at senior leaders of Hamas.
With a spokesman for the Qatari Foreign Ministry saying on X that the attack “targeted residential buildings housing several members” of Hamas.
And in a statement, the Israeli Defense Forces confirmed that it had launched strikes directed at senior Hamas leadership, though it didn’t explicitly mention Qatar.
Now, as of recording, there have not been any casualties reported, but this is a rapidly developing situation that is subject to change.
And even regardless of any potential fatalities this move is absolutely massive for a few reasons.
Right, Qatar has played a major role as a mediator in talks between Israel and Hamas since October 7th.
And, as a result, Qatar has widely been viewed as neutral grounds — largely because it keeps contact with the Israeli government, with senior officials repeatedly traveling to the country for talks.
What’s more, Qatari officials have said in the past that they agreed to host an office for Hamas because the U.S. requested it.
In fact, sources from both Hamas and Israel have said that the attack came as Hamas negotiators were gathering in the Qatari capital to consider President Trump’s latest ceasefire proposal.
And you even had a Middle East official involved in the talks telling reporters that the strike appeared to be explicitly designed to scuttle the negotiations.
Right, and with all this, you have many condemning the strike as a dramatic escalation.
With Qatar’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson calling it a “criminal assault” that “constitutes a blatant violation of all international laws and norms.”
And that was echoed by many other international leaders — including the U.N. secretary-general, who also slammed the move as a violation of Qatar’s sovereignty.
Additionally, you also had experts and others arguing that the attack will likely damage — if not totally ruin — Trump’s latest efforts to negotiate a ceasefire and end the war.
-
At least 19 protesters have been killed, government buildings are burning, and the prime minister has now resigned.
There is chaos in Nepal – and we gotta talk about it.
Right, this goes back to late last week when the government moved to ban 26 social media platforms in the country – including Facebook, X and YouTube – claiming the companies had failed to register and submit to government oversight.
But that ban? It was widely seen as a tool for censorship and something that would allow the government to punish those who voice their dissent online – with this then sparking what have been described as Nepal’s “Gen Z” protests.
But notably, this has been about a hell of a lot more than social media from the very beginning.
It’s also about unemployment, economic inequality, and corruption – and all of that is encapsulated in the anger we’ve seen directed at the country’s so-called “Nepo Kids.”
Right, in this context, the term pretty specifically refers to children of political leaders who have been seen enjoying lavish lifestyles on social media – in the eyes of many, thanks to the ill-gotten gains of their corrupt parents – and all while most young people struggle to find work.
Right, according to the World Bank, for example, youth unemployment stood at around 20 percent last year.
And the Nepali government estimates that more than 2,000 young people leave the country every day to find work in the Middle East or southeast Asia. []
And with all that in mind, it was early on Monday morning that tens of thousands of people gathered in Kathmandu (cat-man-doo) and surrounded the parliament building (BROLL: 0:00-0:09)
Police responded by deploying tear gas, water cannons, and rubber bullets (BROLL: 4:36-4:39, 4:16-4:19),
And at least one point, according to reports, they opened fire with live ammunition – ultimately killing 19 people (BROLL: 0:22-0:26) (BROLL: 3:11-3:18)
And in response you had the prime minister saying that compensation would be given to the families of those killed and that those who were wounded would receive free treatment.
With him also announcing that he would form an investigating committee that would submit a report on the shooting in 15 days. []
The government also lifted the social media ban and by early this afternoon, the prime minister had resigned.
But none of that has satisfied the protesters.
Right, tens of thousands remained on the streets today, with some attacking government buildings and the residences of the top political leaders.
Right, specifically, the presidential palace, the prime minister’s official residence, and the building housing the offices of the prime minister and several ministries?
They were torched – along with the private homes of some politicians.
And in videos shared on social media, protesters were reportedly seen beating up the head of the country’s largest party – who has also been prime minister several times – along with his wife – who is the current foreign minister.
And with that, there’s reportedly been helicopters airlifting some ministers out of the city.
And with most senior politicians running for cover, there’s seemingly no one left in charge.
Right, the heads of Nepal’s main security agencies, including the army chief, issued a joint statement appealing for restraint and calling on political parties to find a peaceful way out of the crisis.
And the president – who has more of ceremonial role in Nepal – has urged demonstrators to “cooperate for a peaceful resolution” and called on protesters to “come to talk” – saying in a statement:
“In a democracy, the demands raised by the citizens can be resolved through talks and dialogue, including through the participation of representatives of the Gen Z.” []
But with everything we’ve seen so far, we’ll have to wait and see if it can actually end that way.
And, notably, with that, this isn’t the first country in the region where we’re seeing something like this happening.
Right, the images we saw coming out of Bangladesh last year weren’t so different when deadly protests ended with the resignation and exile of that country’s prime minister.
And actually, three years ago, we saw similar events playing out in Sri Lanka (Shree Lahn-kuh).
