There’s an accompanying note in the book that makes it clear that’s not the case at all. The redacted info in these documents are almost entirely the names and images of victims. There’s no reason to redact information related to winning money from a tournament, and that definitely doesn’t fit with the note.
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!
I mean with the WSJ they’re right wing and billionaire class suck ups. Putting out just enough softball articles to point to and try to say they aren’t. They always leave relevant information out when it’s inconvenient.
Out-of-context, this doesn’t seem too bad. People are often “auctioned” or “sold” for charity, and even the sexist jokes, despite being horrible, are the sort of thing you see all the time… That being said, this is a check from Donald Trump to a known sex trafficker for a woman.
And you can imagine what today’s propaganda media would say if there was a Democrat or an actual progressive politician’s name on that novelty check, even if it was just some stupid charity auction and had nothing to do with a sex trafficker.
Now I’m more confused. He’s clearly being coy with that “people skills”, but I don’t understand what he’d mean by handling the deal, but not getting the money or the girl.
Well, yeah they wrote notes to each other about selling humans but its not like this proves they were selling humans. If you ignore everything else that has happened in the last decade around these people its really innocent fun.
The note underneath where the guy who set up the deal being shown in the picture, whining about how he didn’t get any money for the sale of the girl, does though.
There’s an accompanying note in the book that makes it clear that’s not the case at all. The redacted info in these documents are almost entirely the names and images of victims. There’s no reason to redact information related to winning money from a tournament, and that definitely doesn’t fit with the note.
The press is shit. The article in the wsj did not have that last line which makes it very clear what’s going on. Mother fuckers.
I mean with the WSJ they’re right wing and billionaire class suck ups. Putting out just enough softball articles to point to and try to say they aren’t. They always leave relevant information out when it’s inconvenient.
What difference does it make? You act like people listen to the press.
They do when it’s convenient to them. A lot of people prefer to be lied to
Because WSJ is owned by Murdoch. Just like Fox and NYPost
Yeah, that extra context definitely changes the nature of the photo. I can’t imagine another way to look at it, after reading that caption.
Out-of-context, this doesn’t seem too bad. People are often “auctioned” or “sold” for charity, and even the sexist jokes, despite being horrible, are the sort of thing you see all the time… That being said, this is a check from Donald Trump to a known sex trafficker for a woman.
And you can imagine what today’s propaganda media would say if there was a Democrat or an actual progressive politician’s name on that novelty check, even if it was just some stupid charity auction and had nothing to do with a sex trafficker.
The “fully depreciated” part really makes me sick to the stomach with the implications
I do wonder if he’s referring to some object they used as a cover for the real sale.
Now I’m more confused. He’s clearly being coy with that “people skills”, but I don’t understand what he’d mean by handling the deal, but not getting the money or the girl.
The note is written by a third person, Joel Pashcow, not Trump or Epstein.
Which makes me think it’s more likely, since the dude was joking about something Epstein and Trump probably wouldn’t have said out loud.
Ooooooh, that’s sorely necessary context.
The Guardian article linked in the OP does have context.
I thought it was an archived version of the picture. ‘Preesh
You redact the name of people so they don’t get harassed.
While this shows that they were pretty chummy about money and women, this doesn’t mean that this photo is proof of trafficking.
No one is saying it’s proof of trafficking. But it does show they joked about it, and casually enough to even scrapbook it.
Well, yeah they wrote notes to each other about selling humans but its not like this proves they were selling humans. If you ignore everything else that has happened in the last decade around these people its really innocent fun.
The note underneath where the guy who set up the deal being shown in the picture, whining about how he didn’t get any money for the sale of the girl, does though.
That wouldn’t hold up in any court on its own.
It’s rare that any single piece of evidence does.
Luckily there are mountains of other proof to back it up. Including multiple eye witnesses.