But this real estate deal caused a falling out?
Why?
Shouldn’t T be willing to answer?
If T said that to Clinton at golf, most likely Clinton wouldn’t ask why - it wasn’t Clinton’s business to know. This is something to ask in hindsight of course.
Answer who? Clinton. No. Answer under a subpoena… sure. First one would have to be issued. However, his answer could be “I do not recall the specifics of the deal, afterall I do tons of deals and that was a long time ago”.
Much like you got with Less Wexner’s deposition.
Lots of various reports on this, but both “could” be true. Here’s a timeline.
Judge for yourselves.
T and Jeffrey Epstein were BEST FRIENDS for 15 years. You don’t simply lose a friendship of that length, that caliber, over a mere real estate deal unless it was something dire.
After Epstein, T has never had a real best friend. Every relationship he has is transactional.
That said, there’s no way that T doesn’t remember the details of their falling out.
I think there is more to that real estate deal that he doesn’t want out:
- DT outbid Epstein in the midst of deep financial problems (the T Organization declared bankruptcy the same year of the purchase)
- He sold the mansion to Dmitry Rybolovlev, a known Russian money launderer, who never even lived in the mansion, for double the price in 2008. Literally just 2 months before the financial housing crisis where global real estate collapsed
- According to Michael Wolff, this wast necessarily a bidding war, but rather, T went behind Epstein’s back to purchase this mansion after Epstein sought T’s advice for the pool
- There is on-record evidence shortly hereafter that T had either reported and/or assisted with Epstein’s trafficking investigations directly with the Palm Beach PD
This wasn’t a falling out. There was something deeper to this, and T does not and has not publicly spoke about it. @rtcoog
That’s your feeling. I believe you can lose a friendship of that length and caliber over something trivial or over a real estate deal. Money can complicate the thickest of friendships.
Not saying that is what happened here, just that it is absolutely possible.
I didn’t say he didn’t remember. I just suggested T would or could say that he doesn’t remember and it would likely be hard to prove otherwise.
You’re speculating. Its not typical behavior to tell everyone details about why you had a falling out with someone else. It could be as simple as that, occam’s razor and all.
It really seems like you’re looking for the one key that will unlock all the answers. I don’t think there is one.
The key is already here:
- There is clear evidence that T & Epstein fell out over this real estate deal, and T has never publicly spoke about it. It’s not even about the details; T has never even mentioned anything at all revolving real estate
- Ever since Epstein was brought into the zeitgeist, T continues to say that he ended his relationship with Epstein due to Epstein stealing girls from Mar-a-Lago, one of whom was Virginia Giuffre (Roberts), who was trafficked by Epstein beginning in 2000.
T knows the details, but he doesn’t want to talk about it because it likely reveals numerous details:
- It reveals T’s financial ties to Russia (which he continued to call anything involving Russia a hoax for many years)
- It reveals that T knew what Epstein was doing even prior to their falling out
The reason he won’t talk about this real estate deal, is because he knows there are loose ends that he will have to explain, and it will open up a can of worms into other things.
If it’s true that T played a role in Epstein’s arrest, then T may very well be responsible for the entire Epstein takedown of the global elite
Speculation.
If this is all BS, then T would have no problem voluntarily testifying
Yet he keeps saying “I’m totally exonerated” implying a defensive, almost an ‘there’s no proof’ tactic of rejecting anything surrounding Epstein.
Implying that it’s possible he did something implicating, but the proof doesn’t exist.
1 Like
You are searching for reason where none will exist. Not with this administration, not with this president. That’s not his strategy, at all.
That’s not an insult to them, it’s what they do, and they don’t hide that fact.
1 Like
Kathryn Ruemmler, Leon Black, and Bill Gates all asked to testify, and there is bipartisan support to subpoena Pam Bondi
Good stuff.
Rejecting to testify, even if you lie or plead the 5th, is essentially and adjacently admitting guilt. It’s a bad look to reject to testify especially regarding Epstein.
We are closer and closer to getting DT to testify, and no, we won’t move on from this.
Eh… a lot of the people that will or are called upon to testify have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion. Maybe not universally, but I don’t think there’s much to lose for many people by not testifying. There might be more to lose by testifying for some of them as well.
Of course, that equation changes depending on the social/political/economic status of someone. If someone is in public office or wants to run for public office again, the dangers are higher than for someone like the Clinton’s who are basically retired. Someone like Les Wexner, especially with his wealth and being late in life, could easily back away from public life completely.
If Wexner starts to lose reputational stability (such as affiliation/ naming rights with Ohio State University), it sets a president to the Wexner name
Affecting family members, trusts, etc
I’m not suggesting they’re guilty of crimes, but they’re guilty of associating with someone whom they knew was a convicted pedophile, which has social implications
If he loses naming rights sure it will be a big deal for him, although he’s 88. It would likely be more of an ego blow.
I’m not sure that it will carry stink to his family like you think. Could they forever be linked to it? Someone says oh your dad or grandfather is that guy? Yea and it likely will be annoying. Could have some psychological damage but all of them will be able to have their own reputations outside of his shadow.
As far as it affecting trusts. The only possible effect is that maybe some banker or broker wouldn’t want to do business with the trust if he is trustee. Maybe some particular company wouldn’t accept investment from the trust with him as trustee but either way there will be plenty of other options for the trust to invest. Alternatively he could resign as trustee and a successor trustee take over.
If he is still a trustee or beneficiary of any trust, at age 88, he won’t be for long.
2 Likes
I agree it used to have social implications; in today’s America not so much.
1/2 will just say it’s fake news, hoax, etc. This is who we are now.
2 Likes
He will never testify.
Never.
And not testifying is not an admission of guilt. Not on it’s own. That’s not the way the system works.
1 Like
For legal purposes yes. In the court of public opinion, no.
Everything surrounding this victim is very strange.
It’s largely assumed that Epstein and DT didn’t meet until the late 80s, but nonetheless, it begs the question as to why she was interviewed 4 times and remained in various investigations.
Also - why were the interviews not released until yesterday?
Very weird.
The Department of Justice said the files had been mistakenly marked as duplicates | Miami Herald
Page 7