The Bare Bones of Life
WSJ says Trump sent lewd birthday card to Jeffrey Epstein
By Clara Harter
Staff Writer, LA Times
July 17, 2025 10:04 PM PT
President Trump sent a raunchy 50th birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein that included a sketch of a naked woman, her breasts and a squiggly “Donald” signature mimicking pubic hair, according to the Wall Street Journal.
The report comes as the president continues to battle the release of the Justice Department’s files on Epstein, the disgraced financier who died in prison.
According to latest media reports:
“Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired one of the top career officials tasked with advising her and other senior Justice Department officials of their ethical obligations, an official familiar with the dismissal confirmed to ABC News Monday.
Joseph Tirrell on Monday took to LinkedIn to post news of his termination, including a photo of his termination notice which provided no reasoning for his firing”
This is Nixon 2.0 by the book.
As the Watergate invesitigation closed in on Nixon, he took to firing officials involved with the investigation.
Nixon fired two high-ranking officials in the “Saturday Night Massacre”: Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus. Nixon also ordered the firing of Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox, but Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Ruckelshaus also resigned, and the order to fire Cox was ultimately carried out by Solicitor General Robert Bork. Additionally, Nixon forced the resignations of Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman, Domestic Affairs Advisor John Ehrlichman, and White House Counsel John Dean.
In the recent firing of Joseph Tirrell issues surrounding his signing off of $140k of free (pro bono) legal work given to Jack Smith.
The Department of Justice (DOJ’s) Ethics Office, which Tirrell was director of, advises employees of the rules governing financial disclosures, conflicts of interest and instances mandating recusal, among others.
Having received $140k of free (pro bono) legal work, the matter was reviewed and signed off by Tirrell as within ethical compliance parameters.
A key issue arose after former Special Counsel Jack Smith disclosed that he had received $140,000 worth of pro bono (free) legal services from the law firm Covington & Burling. This disclosure, made upon his resignation from the Justice Department, sparked controversy and criticism from some individuals and organizations.
Some critics raised concerns about the legality and ethics of a prominent law firm providing such a substantial “gift” to a top DOJ official, particularly given Covington & Burling’s traditional ties to government agencies and the fact that firms sometimes have business before the DOJ. They questioned whether this arrangement violated federal regulations prohibiting officials like Smith from accepting or soliciting gifts.
However, the Justice Department, under Tirerell as director, reportedly approved the arrangement, citing an Office of Government Ethics regulation allowing government employees to receive pro bono legal services if the work is related to their official position or a presidential campaign/transition team. These arrangements, according to the rule, must be approved by an agency ethics official and reported on an employee’s financial disclosure.
The controversy intensified after Donald Trump, upon returning to office, ordered the suspension of security clearances for lawyers at Covington & Burling who had advised Smith. This move was seen by some as an act of retribution against those involved in investigations that had targeted Trump.
The law firm, in a statement, affirmed that they represented Smith in his personal capacity after it became apparent that he would be subject to a government investigation, highlighting their tradition of representing clients facing government investigations.
The issue surrounding this disclosure is multifaceted.
Ethics Concerns:
Critics, including Sean Davis of The Federalist, questioned the legality and ethics of a law firm with business before the Department of Justice providing such a substantial “gift” to a top DOJ official. Federal regulations generally prohibit officials from accepting or soliciting gifts from prohibited sources unless an exception applies.
Potential for Undue Influence:
Some raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest given Covington & Burling’s strong ties to government agencies and the fact that several former high-ranking DOJ officials, including former Attorney General Eric Holder, are associated with the firm.
Trump Administration Response:
The Trump administration responded strongly, ordering the suspension of security clearances for lawyers at Covington who advised Smith, and directing agencies to review contracts with the firm.
DOJ Approval:
The Justice Department apparently approved Smith’s request under a regulation that allows government employees to accept free legal services if related to their official position or a position on a presidential campaign or transition team, provided the arrangement is cleared by an ethics official and disclosed.
Reasons for Seeking Legal Services:
It’s suggested that Smith sought outside legal counsel to prepare for potential investigations and legal actions by allies of former President Trump, who had repeatedly attacked Smith and vowed investigations.
Covington’s Statement:
Covington stated they agreed to represent Smith when it became apparent he would be the subject of a government investigation, acting as defense counsel in his personal capacity.
Ongoing Scrutiny:
Attorney General Pam Bondi’s administration has continued to scrutinize Smith and those who worked on the Trump investigations, forming a “Weaponization Working Group” and even firing a top Justice Department ethics official who approved the gift.
In essence, the issue revolves around the perception of a top DOJ official accepting a significant “gift” of legal services from a firm with deep government ties, raising questions about ethics, potential conflicts of interest, and the impartiality of the Justice Department, particularly in the context of the politically charged Trump investigations.
Attorney General Pam Bondi fires top Justice Department ethics official
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 14, 2024) – In Watergate, Nixon tried covering up how he and other high officials in the Nixon administration organized and paid operatives with campaign donations to break into the Democratic National Committee HQ to plant listening devices. The operatives were caught and arrested leading to a criminal investigation and the Washington Post writers Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward to investigate further.
In Watergate, Nixon, like Trump, (See Oliver Stone’s movie Nixon), became infuriated why people were paying attention to, or looking deeper into, the Watergate break-in. Meanwhile, the investigations continued to uncover tiny bits of evidence proving who was involved, including Nixon himself.
To try and deflect attention away from Watergate, Nixon tried minimizing the situation. Calling it petty, or trivial,and old news. It was clear Nixon was upset as to how everyone was talking about the Watergate break-in.
The break-in, as well as the obstruction and coverup by Nixon was nicknamed Watergate after the name of the hotel where the break-in occurred at in Washington, DC.
Since, other political scandals added the term “gate” to the end of a key term in the scandal. Trump has accumulated a number of -gate analogies to include Blabbergate, Bleachgate, Faceliftgate, Pussygate, Russiagate and Ukrainegate. We can now add Epsteingate to that list.
Like Trump in Espteingate, Nixon tried desperately to change the conversation away from the Watergate scandal. Nixon used similar methods now seen used by Trump such as trying to overstate various feets and accomplishments the Trump administration had made.
Similar to what Trump is doing now, Nixon, vilified anyone pointing a finger or critizing him or his administration regarding Watergate.
Nonetheless, the Watergate criminal investigation in the courts, as well as in media, all persisted and kept a slow but steady trickle of incriminated evidence which eventually turned into an avalanche.
Eventually, Nixon chose to resigned rather than give up personal recordings he made during meetings with his inncer circle in the oval office.
In Watergate, there was also gaps in various recordings that Nixon was compelled to release. Much like the gaps of the video surveillance footage of Jeffrey Epstein’s final night in custody and just before he was found dead in his cell from an apparent suicide.
These gaps in Nixon’s audio recorded meetings, as well as those found in the video recording of Epsteins final hours in custody were then for Nixon and are now for Trump an ongoing and highly debated topic of discussion and center of various conspiracy theories regarding Epsteins alledged suicide in jail while in solitary confinement.
Here, in Epsteingate, the sex trafficking Epstein case files, recordings, and other information seized from a private island and other sources are the issue.
It is presumed, and has been intimated by Attorney General Bondi, the evidence contained information purported to create a “client list” of wealthy, high ranking individuals who used Epstein’s sex services to gain access to underaged girls.
In Watergate, a key threat to Nixon was a former CIA agent Howard Hunt. Hunt was arrested as one of the burglars in Watergate. Hunt eventually threatened and turned against Nixon, extorting Nixon for money to keep quite about what he new of the Watergate break-in.
Here, Musk has turned against Trump making allegations that Trump is in the Epstein files. Fanning the flames of interest by the media and public.
Like Nixon, Trump continues to attempt to diffuse the Epstein client list scandal. Trump has tried to silence the matter by “telling” the media and the public to stop talking about the Epstein files.
Trump can also be seen using more dramatic tactics to change the focus off Epstein by talking about his accomplishments while in office such as tariff deals and negotiations between Israel, Iran, Russia and Ukraine.
Nixon, had the Vietnam war while Trump has the Israel/Iran and Russia/Ukraine wars at his disposal to try to redirect the public’s attention from the Epstein files. Trump has recently taunted a military conflict with Russia by directly indicating the US would send Patriot missles to Ukraine which in turn will be used against Russia.
Both Watergate and Epsteingate have followed similar paths by each of their respective administrations to hide the truth from official investigations, investigative journalists, the media at large and members of the general public.
Time will tell how long Trump can avoid disclosure of the Epstein files.
The primary piece of evidence sought pertains to an illusive “Client List” Epstein maintained as insurance or perhaps a “get out of jail free” card should Epstein have to face the law regarding sex trafficking charges.
In any case, a key inside player, now ousted from Trump’s inner circle is Elon Musk. A player similar to Hunt in the Nixon Watergate scandal.
Musk had access to classified information, or at least inside information regarding FBI, and other agency information pertaining to various offices in the government. Musk job running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) granted him access to this information.
Musk’s access to this information bolsters his claims that Trump is in the Epstein files. Musk has posted specific allegations on his platform X (formerly twitter), as well as posted photographs of Trump and Epstein together.
As a formidable foe in this saga, Musk has the financial and other resources to fend off retaliatory actions anticipated by Trump.
Trump has already threatened Musk’s citizenship, A political weapon Trump has used repetitively and recently against Rosie O’Donnell.
Citizenship revocation is a recuring weapon Trump has used to counterattack those who critize how he run’s the government.
Given Musk’s wealth, it is suggested he should offer $1M for information leading to the Epstein client list.
However, should Trump’s back be pushed against the wall, it is unlikely he will simply just resign. He may first attempt to pardon himself and those involved first, before resorting to Nixon’s strategy of resigning from the presidency to avoid accoutability for his actions.
WASHINGTON, D.C. (July 11, 2025) – With all of the ploys to distract, missdirect, avoid, delay and obstruct the onslought of requests for information by media and members of the public regarding Donald Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein the matter has now turned into Trump’s Watergate – Epsteingate.
Yet, with all the lies and not so undercover covering-up, it is highly unlikely Trump, will resign from the presidency of the United States like the original Watergate scandal center piece, former president Nixon.
Oh no, in fact, Trump may even invite the chaos associated with pardoning himself. Much like the chaos of the January 6 riots on the Capitol.
Should anything come of Epsteingate, we wont need the vice president to pardon Trump.
Trump will pardon himself.
Transcript
0:00
Hey there folks. Hope you’re doing well
0:01
today. You know, I left for 2,000 years.
0:06
I come back and somehow my biggest
0:08
followers are obsessed with a golden
0:11
idol who builds towers, cheats on his
0:13
wives, and brags about it on live TV.
0:17
Evangelicals,
0:19
what happened? I turned water into wine.
0:23
You turned scripture into a tax shelter
0:25
for billionaires. I said, “Love your
0:28
neighbor.” You said, “Build a wall.” And
0:32
then handed the hammer to a guy who paid
0:34
hush money to a porn star while his
0:36
third wife was home with a newborn. I
0:39
healed the sick for free. He tried to
0:42
strip health care from 30 million people
0:44
and called it a win. I fed the poor with
0:48
loaves and fishes. He fed the rich with
0:52
tax cuts and called the poor lazy. And
0:55
yet I’m the one you stopped inviting to
0:57
church. Trump once held a Bible upside
1:00
down in front of St. John’s Church like
1:02
it was a weapon. He didn’t read it. He
1:04
didn’t open it. Pretty sure he thinks
1:06
Corinthians is a hotel chain. But you
1:10
cheered. You cheered when he tear gas
1:12
protesters so he could take a photo.
1:14
Then you called it defending
1:16
Christianity. Let’s talk morality. You
1:19
used to say character counts. Then he
1:22
bragged about grabbing women by the
1:23
And your response was, “Well,
1:25
King David was flawed, too.” Oh, I know,
1:28
David. He wrote songs. Trump writes mean
1:32
tweets at 2 a.m. in adult diapers. I
1:35
preached, “Turn the other cheek.” He
1:38
said, “Punch him in the face and I’ll
1:39
pay your legal fees.” I said, “Blessed
1:42
are the meek.” He said, “Only losers and
1:45
suckers get buried in war.”
1:48
I told you not to store up treasures on
1:50
Earth. He stores them in Mara Lago
1:53
bathrooms next to classified documents
1:55
and Diet Coke. And you still defend him.
1:58
You call him God’s instrument. Well, if
2:00
God ever used an instrument that
2:02
bankrupt four casinos and couldn’t spell
2:04
Bible, it wasn’t for music. You think I
2:08
care if he stands with Israel? I’m from
2:10
Nazareth. That’s literally next door. I
2:14
was brown, Middle Eastern, broke, and
2:17
unarmed. By today’s standards, you’d
2:20
have called ICE on me and said I was
2:22
part of Hamas. Let’s not pretend you’re
2:24
defending me. You’re defending power,
2:27
comfort, control, and maybe a time share
2:30
in the rapture. You talk about family
2:32
values, but you backed a man who mocked
2:35
a war widow, called Haiti a hole,
2:38
and told four women of color in Congress
2:40
to go back to where they came from.
2:43
One of them is from Detroit.
2:46
You wanted prayer in schools. Fine. But
2:50
when kids prayed for their lives during
2:52
school shootings, he sold more guns and
2:54
blamed video games. And the worst part,
2:58
you know, deep down, you know, he
3:00
doesn’t believe any of it. He’s not one
3:02
of you. He’s not pretending anymore. He
3:06
just figured out how to sell Jesus like
3:07
a hat. He traded me in for a con man
3:10
wrapped in a flag holding a Bible like
3:13
it’s a menu at Denny’s. I didn’t die for
3:16
this. I died for the poor, the
3:19
oppressed, the outcasts. The same people
3:22
you now call crisis actors and illegals.
3:25
And let’s not forget the golden rule.
3:27
Treat others like you’d like to be
3:29
treated. Unless they’re gay or trans or
3:32
immigrants, then suddenly it’s religious
3:34
liberty to treat them like garbage.
3:37
Uh, Trump Tower, how poetic. A name
3:40
built on sand, pride, and unpaid
3:43
contractors. You didn’t crucify me this
3:45
time. You just branded me. And when the
3:47
poor cry out, when the refugees beg for
3:50
mercy, when the sick knock on your mega
3:53
church door, you quote me, but you don’t
3:55
follow me. So, no, I’m not angry. I’m
3:59
disappointed. And when judgment day
4:02
comes, don’t look for me at the pulpit
4:04
next to him. I’ll be out back hoping the
4:07
people you turned away. And just so you
4:09
know, he’s not on the guest list.
4:14
Birds are eating my face.
4:22
Leopards are eating my face.
4:30
Birds are eating my face. face.
4:39
The birds are eating my face.
By Detroit Free Press June 20, 2023 12:31 PM EDT (Yahoo News)
A Warren police officer is being charged with misdemeanors after assaulting an arrested suspect in the city jail booking area on June 13, 2023
(Read more.)
In a recent news article regarding a homeowner’s use of his yard to create landscaping into the shape of a swastika, many have criticized the man for using Hitler’s symbol – therefore, promoting hatred?
The man, has claimed the swastika was a Tibetan symbol before Hitler’s use of it for his war campaign. Yet, many believe the man should not display it because of Hitler’s use “hijacking” of the graphical symbol.
Well, lets see here.
Historically, this graphic does have multiple historical usages. A search online will reveal it as so.
So the argument is: If a graphical image previously defined in time to symbolize a particular meaning, as what the Tibetan’s used it for, and then another individual or entity such as Adolph Hitler comes around and uses the same image very different than the previous user, that is for his war campaign, then, the image is forever enslaved to represent Hitler’s later use, of that graphical image. That is, hijacking the meaning?
Now, just because Hitler’s symbolic use of the swastika was flown while he committed terrible acts, does that necessarily mean one is to surrender the previous symbolism of the swastika accordingly?
I think not.
To permit Hitler’s particular use of the swastika to “hijack” the previous or alternate use of the swastika symbol appears to be a surrendering one’s belief and use of the swastika symbol over another’s, albeit more popularly marketed and historically recorded use of that symbol. What does that say about the strengths of one’s believe of any symbol, to have the symbolism of a graphic image taken over merely by another’s use of that symbol. What if it were a use not so terrible, such as to promote a food chain?
Along those same lines. Remember when Travon Martin, while wearing a hoodie walking around a Florida neighborhood, was targeted by George Zimmerman years ago as a suspicious character, which ultimately led to a deadly confrontation whereby Zimmerman killed Martin after a confrontation? From that point forward, the hoodie garment took on, all kinds of meanings after that.
Along the same lines. What about the Confederate flag?
Some people interpret the Confederate flag as having a certain meaning. Others claim the flag represents a negative time in history. So, just as the argument that claims the swastika image should never mean anything else but Hitler’s use of it, the same logic should be therefore applied toward any display of the Confederate flag.
Hum? To permit one’s self to be “locked” into a particular mindset of how to interpret a graphical image, due to another’s use of that symbol, indicates perhaps one may need to build a more resilient integrity of his or her thinking strengths so has not to be lulled into how to interpret a particular graphic.
Admissions scandal reveals why America’s elite colleges are under fire
By By BENJAMIN WERMUND 03/12/2019 07:30 PM EDT (Politico)
Elite colleges already serve as some of President Donald Trump’s favorite targets. Their fat endowments took a hit in the 2017 GOP tax law. A sweeping admissions cheating and bribery scandal the FBI uncovered Tuesday is the latest blow to the nation’s most expensive and selective American universities, which are also battling allegations of misusing race in deciding who will be invited to enroll.
(Read more.)
WASHINGTON (Jan. 25, 2019) — Roger Stone and Richard Nixon Gesture Peace Signs Amid Investigations.
udge reverses order that barred reporting on search warrant in case of Newport Beach surgeonBy HANNAH FRY , RICHARD WINTON and JULIA SCLAFANI (LATimes.com)
(October 23, 2018 19:20) – An Orange County Superior Court judge Tuesday reversed an order barring journalists from reporting on a search warrant filed in the case against a Newport Beach surgeon facing felony charges of drugging and raping seven women dating to 2009.
Grant Robicheaux, 38, once dubbed Orange County’s most eligible bachelor, and his girlfriend, Cerissa Riley, 31, are accused of rape by drugs, kidnapping, oral copulation by anesthesia, assault with intent to commit sexual offenses and other crimes. They have denied all accusations of nonconsensual sex.
