[guest post by Dana]]

Just when you think that Jeffrey Epstein couldn’t have been involved in any deeper level of depravity than we already know about, we get reminded that depravity has no limits:

Jeffrey Epstein once had three 12-year-old girls from poor families flown in from France as a sick birthday present for himself, according to newly unearthed court documents.

Virginia Giuffre — who has claimed Epstein and his gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell coerced her into being a “sex slave” when she was 15 — said in court papers that the girls who were flown in were molested by the financier and returned to France the following day.

“The worst one that I heard from his own mouth was this pretty 12 year old girls he had flown in for his birthday,” she said, according to the document.

“It was a surprise birthday gift from one of his friends and they were from France. I did see them, I did meet them,” she said.

She said they were a gift from Epstein’s acquaintance Jean-Luc Brunel, a model scout, according to the Daily Mail.

Despicably, he boasted about it afterward:

“Jeffrey bragged afterwards after he met them that they were 12-year-olds and flown over from France because they’re really poor over there, and their parents needed the money or whatever the case is and they were absolutely free to stay and flew out.”

Giuffre said Epstein had described to her how the girls had massaged him and performed oral sex, according to the Daily Mail.

“He went on to tell me how Brunel bought them in Paris from their parents, offering them the usual sums of money, visas, and modeling career prospects,” she said, according to the news outlet.

“Laughing the whole way through, Jeffrey thought it was absolutely brilliant how easily money seduced all walks of life, nothing or no one that couldn’t be bought.”

Jean-Luc Brunel has been accused of aiding in Epstein’s abuse of young girls, as well as having been accused by former models of drugging and date-raping them:

Jean-Luc Brunel, 72, is the former head of Karin Models and Mc2—two well-regarded international modeling agencies that launched the careers of cover girls like Ginta Lapina, Juana Burga and Sessilee Lopez. He has also been accused by former models of drugging and date-raping them, and by former employees of recruiting foreign, underage girls to be pimped out of Epstein’s New York apartments.

[…]

According to Brunel, the venture fell apart after Elite Models learned of the sex-trafficking allegations against Epstein. The modeling agent even sued Epstein in 2015, claiming the allegations had tarnished his agency’s reputation and caused him a “tremendous loss of business.” But at least two people have claimed that Brunel not only knew about the trafficking—he was an active participant.

Virginia Roberts (now Giuffre)—one of the first alleged victims to speak out against Epstein…claimed in legal filings that Brunel was one of many powerful men she was forced to sleep with in her years as Epstein’s “sex slave.” She also accused Brunel of using his agency to find foreign girls, obtain visas for them, and “farm them out to his friends, including Epstein.”

“A lot of the girls came from poor countries or poor backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money… Jeffrey Epstein has told me that he has slept with over 1,000 of Brunel’s girls, and everything that I have seen confirms this claim.”

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Five years after killing Eric Garner, Officer Daniel Pantaleo has been fired:

New York City Police Commissioner James O’Neill announced on Monday that NYPD officer Daniel Pantaleo has been fired. O’Neill terminated Pantaleo, 34, after it was determined he violated department policy by restraining Garner with a prohibited chokehold in 2014.

“It is clear that Daniel Pantaleo can no longer serve as a police officer,” O’Neill said.

An administrative judge previously recommended Pantaleo’s termination following an internal disciplinary trial. The judge, a deputy commissioner, found Pantaleo was “untruthful” during interviews with investigators and had “recklessly used force” during the fatal encounter.

Pantaleo had not faced official sanction for his actions until now, only being placed on desk duty. The Justice Department in July declined to charge Pantaleo with violating Garner’s civil rights. A Staten Island grand jury in 2014 declined to indict Pantaleo.

According to Commissioner O’Neill, Pantaleo was not personally informed of his dismissal before it was publicly announced. Also, according to O’Neill, Pantaleo will not receive his NYPD pension, contributions already made towards his pension will be returned to him.

Eric Garner’s daughter told reporters:

“I don’t even want to see another video of a person being choked out. Because it wasn’t supposed to happen to him. It’s not supposed to happen. I should not be here standing with my brother, fatherless. I should be standing here with my father. But Pantaleo took that away from me on 7/17. Yes, he’s fired. But the fight is not over. We will continue to fight.”

She also thanked NYPD Commissioner James O’Neill for his decision to fire Pantaleo.

“I thank you for doing the right thing,” Emerald Garner said.

Pantaleo’s lawyers plan to appeal the decision:

Daniel Pantaleo’s attorney Stuart London said that he received a call notifying him that Pantaleo was being fired “about 13 minutes” before the NYPD police commissioner made the public announcement.

London, speaking at a press conference today, said that he passed the information onto Pantaleo.

“Obviously he is disappointed, upset,” London said about Pantaleo’s reaction. “But he has a lot of strength.”

London said that Pantaleo will file an Article 78 in court to appeal the decision by the commissioner to terminate him.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

Silencing me & treating me like a criminal is not what she wants for me. It would kill a piece of me. I have decided that visiting my grandmother under these oppressive conditions stands against everything I believe in–fighting against racism, oppression & injustice. https://t.co/z5t5j3qk4H

— Rashida Tlaib (@RashidaTlaib) August 16, 2019

This morning I am wondering what Rep. Tlaib thinks about Palestine’s efforts to silence a specific community by making them live under oppressive conditions as if they were criminals, which clearly runs counter to everything Rep. Tlaib believes in–fighting against racism, oppression & injustice:

Palestinian Authority police have banned a Palestinian LGBT rights group from organizing any activities in the West Bank and threatened to arrest them, saying such activities are contrary to the “values of Palestinian society.”

In a statement Saturday, police spokesman Louay Arzeikat said events such as those organized by the group al-Qaws “go against and infringe upon the higher principles and values of Palestinian society.”

Arzeikat also charged that “suspicious parties” were trying to “sow discord and undermine Palestinian society’s peaceful state of affairs” and asserted that the police would pursue al-Qaws’s staff and turn them over to judicial authorities if it successfully collars them.

[…]

While there are no PA laws on the books that ban homosexual acts, the Palestinian LGBT community largely exists underground due to familial, religious and government repression, a source familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The Times of Israel.

P.S.

​Israel is one of the most inclusive societies in the world for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. As early as the 1960s, same-sex couples lived in Israel freely and without fear of persecution. The Gay Revolution of the 1980s brought Israel’s LGBT community full recognition of their human rights, as well as legal and social equality to individuals and families. Today, Tel Aviv is considered the “Gay Capital of the Middle East”, thanks to its thriving and supported LGBT community, playing an integral role in Israeli society.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

And guess who he blames for the discouraging numbers???

Once a solid, reliable ally willing to spin just about anything to make the president look good, Fox News is not spinning its latest polling data, and the discouraging numbers are making Trump unhappy with… Fox News:

President Donald Trump on Sunday slammed his preferred news network over recent unfavorable poll results, saying: “There’s something going on at Fox [News], I’ll tell you right now. And I’m not happy with it.”

Trump’s comments to reporters in New Jersey were in response to a question about the network’s recently released survey showing the president losing head-to-head match-ups against four of the top Democratic presidential primary candidates.

Trump said he didn’t “believe” the poll that was published, adding: “Fox has changed. My worst polls have always been from Fox.”

Here is a breakdown of the head-to-head match-up numbers:

The poll found Trump with 39 percent support among registered voters in head-to-head matchups against Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The poll found Sanders beating Trump with 48 percent, Warren winning over Trump with 45 percent and Harris winning with 46 percent support.

Former Vice President Joe Biden, meanwhile, beat Trump in the theoretical matchup with 50 percent support among those surveyed, compared to Trump’s 38 percent.

Additionally, polling also shows that Trump’s disapproval rating has increased:

President Trump’s disapproval rating has jumped to 56 percent in a Fox News survey released Wednesday…

The survey found a 5 percentage point increase in Trump’s disapproval from last month. The only time his disapproval rating was higher, according to Fox News, was when it reached 57 percent in October 2017.

Forty-three percent of respondents said they approve of Trump’s job performance, down from 46 percent last month. The record low for Trump approval in Fox News’s polling is 38 percent, also from October of 2017.

This really isn’t surprising given that the president’s median approval rating, while remaining consistent, has been the lowest of almost all of the modern presidents:

If there’s one thing that’s been consistent about President Trump’s time in office, it’s his approval rating… his average approval has hovered between 36 percent and 45 percent, a fluctuation of 9 points, over practically the entire course of his presidency… But that’s a really narrow band, especially compared to previous presidents, and it has meant that his median approval rating is low…only President Harry Truman had a lower median rating. Trump’s approval rating has the least variation of any post-World War II president. Granted, Trump hasn’t yet served a full term, but changes in his approval rating have been remarkably small.

This is an interesting analysis of how the Fox News polling numbers may be an indicator of how Trump’s current strategy for 2020 may not be enough for the very different kind of race he faces today than the one he faced in 2016. Trump will remain who he is, and won’t be making any concessions to his campaign advisers who may futilely try and encourage the president to ease up on his incessant tweeting and inflammatory rhetoric. He knows that this is what keeps his loyal base of supporters coming back for more. Nor is there any indication that he will be able to stay focused on the actual issues that might draw in not-so-much Trump supporters but Republicans and Independents who voted for the lesser of two evils in 2016 or the one that most represented their interests, in spite of their dislike for the nominee. Nor is Trump finally going to become more “presidential,” as so many predicted (and hoped) he would. In other words, Trump is not about to change who he is, and for better or worse, he is a known quantity. So with that, we can assume that he will likely stick with what worked for him in 2016. But that just may not be enough this time:

[I]t isn’t hard to see why Trump might think that his presidency can survive on base mobilization alone. Trump’s approval rating may currently sit at a meager 42 percent; but on the day he won the White House, RealClearPolitics’ poll of polls had it at 38.6. So why shouldn’t he deem his current base of support sufficiently broad? After all, last time around, he prevailed with even lower favorability rating, and without the benefits of incumbency.

As far as comforting things Donald Trump likes to tell himself go, this is reasonable enough. But the path Trump took to the White House in 2016 was an awfully narrow one. Trump’s success in winning an Electoral College majority— despite being the most unpopular major-party nominee in recorded history — was contingent on (at least) three related factors:

1) He drew a historically unpopular Democratic opponent.
2) His share of the popular vote was higher than his Election Day approval rating (46.1 percent versus 38.6 percent).
3) And he won voters who disapproved of both candidates by a double-digit margin.

[…]

But for Trump, the most alarming takeaway from Fox’s survey may be this: Even if the president does manage to turn the Democratic nominee’s favorability steeply negative, he could still lose in a rout. In 2016, Trump won voters who disapproved of both major-party candidates by 50 to 39 percent margin in national exit polls. Respondents who disliked both Biden and Trump in Fox’s poll favored the Democrat over the president by a whopping 43 to 10 percent margin.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)

–Dana

[By DRJ]

This post is for everyone who wants to share a link to a breaking news story or to an interesting news story/blog post that is not related to a current post. Put your link in the comments.

Discussion about any links is welcome here, too.

— DRJ