The media can always be counted on to obfuscate and push a narrative and Vanity Fair is certainly no exception.
As the disgusting truth behind the Jeffrey Epstein travesty begins to unfold, the pattern among the press has been to desperately try to tie him to Donald Trump. That’d be fine if Trump was actually implicated in any possible wrongdoing, but as it stands, there’s essentially no evidence of that. While it’s not surprising that the media are going to do their partisan dance, even on something a serious as this, the problem with their approach is that they may be overlooking actual horrible activity simply to try to weaponize this against the President.
Take Vanity Fair’s latest expose, which makes Trump the lede of the story while glossing over far more serious and relevant allegations involving Bill Clinton.
Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, who would later go to prison in part for his role in these hush money schemes, was in the room when Pecker sat down. Pecker, he later told me, used to send him articles and issues before they were published so that he and Trump could read them. After the meeting Trump called in Sam Nunberg, then a Trump Organization employee, who saw Pecker leaving Trump’s office. “Michael was sitting in there when I came in, and the issue of the National Enquirer with the pictures of Prince Andrew was on his desk,” Nunberg recalled. “He said not to tell anyone, but that Pecker had just been there and had brought the issue with him. Trump said that Pecker had told him that the pictures of Clinton that Epstein had from his island were worse.” (Cohen, speaking by phone from the Federal Correctional Institution in Otisville, corroborated Nunberg’s version of the events, though he declined to add any additional information about the meeting.)
Now, call me crazy, but it seems to be that the big story here is not that Donald Trump’s man at the National Enquirer thought Epstein had pictures of Bill Clinton on his sex slave island. No, the big story is…and again call me crazy…that there are possibly pictures of Bill Clinton on Epstein’s sex slave island.
That seems like a pretty big freaking deal to me.
But what does Vanity Fair do with that information? They don’t even look into it. They just let it go like it’s no big deal that a former President may have been a guest on the personal island of a pedophile accused of sex trafficking. We of course also know that Clinton flew on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” business jet 27 times, including at least 7 times without his secret service detail. On many of those same flights were the names of the very girls who would later make up Epstein’s accusers. Are we to believe that Bill Clinton just didn’t notice underage girls hanging around on Epstein’s airplane?
Jane Fox, who wrote the article, chooses to not even follow or further comment on the most important, damning piece of information revealed in her research. Instead, she chooses to dismiss Clinton’s involvement with this line put in parenthesis.
(Clinton denies ever traveling to Little St. James Island, but has confirmed that he traveled with Epstein several times in 2002 and 2003, including trips to Africa in connection with the Clinton Foundation. In her interview with the Enquirer, Giuffre said she had seen Clinton around, but that she never saw him involved with women.)
Even the above attempt at sweeping Clinton’s involvement under the rug is false. Giuffre, who was one of the women abused, did not simply say she had seen Clinton around. No, she said she saw him on the island. Again, how do you not treat that as a big deal worth looking into? Fox is not an idiot who just missed that fact. She is purposely obfuscating here and choosing to make her piece wholly about Trump for obvious reasons.
What’s ironic about her tact is that she ends up mostly providing evidence of Trump’s non-involvement in all this.
Trump isn’t known to have gone on any trips with Epstein, which would have been out of character. “I don’t think Trump would go to someone else’s property or someone else’s island or villa,” Nunberg said. “He doesn’t even play golf at anyone else’s clubs.”
Maybe there’s a lot more to come out regarding Epstein and Trump that we don’t know. But for the media to make this all about Trump right now, knowing what we do know, is just a complete breach of journalistic ethics in favor of rabid partisanship. The huge, blockbuster story here is not Donald Trump. It’s that former President Bill Clinton continues to appear in multiple pieces of evidence involving Epstein’s awful escapades.
Every investigative journalist worth their salt should be diving deep into the Clinton and Epstein connection because it’s a flashing red light right now. Instead, we get side-stepping pieces like this one from Vanity Fair riffing about fairly irrelevant connections to Trump while ignoring the most disturbing revelations. Whether they are meaning to or not, the media are helping to cover for some really bad actors by refusing to shift their partisan rancor and follow the evidence.
Again, if Trump ends up implicated in any of this, he should burn. As it sits though, the actual facts are telling us he’s not who should be the focus here. Bill Clinton should be breaking out into cold sweats over this and he’s not going to be the only one who goes down.
The media need to get off their duffs and do their freaking jobs on this.
Enjoying the read? Please visit my archive and check out some of my latest articles.
I’ve got a new twitter! Please help by following @bonchieredstate.