Michael Arturo

It is not. There were TWO types of settlements. One where 136 were considered legitimate victims; the other, where 4 who DID NOT meet the evidentiary threshold, sued the estate for unspecified damages. The difference is significant if Democrats expect the public to believe a 13-year-old bit Trump’s dick. Jane Doe #4 was not among those considered legitimate victims. She sued and settled for unspecified damages. This is the discrepancy. And the discrepancy alone is enough to make any charge against Trump a nonstarter. Even if Roy Cohn rose from the grave tomorrow, they don’t have a case.

@QuietPart_Loud @DavidSchwartz70 Sounds like an assumption.

🚨BREAKING: The House Oversight Committee quietly dumped Epstein's accountant Richard Kahn and lawyer Darren Indyke's deposition videos today when media focus is on Trump's zigzags on Iran. Here's about "Jane Doe 4," who accused Epstein and Trump of raping her at the age of 13. Kahn seems to be shifting positions while under oath, and his lawyer followed up a day after that he can "neither confirm nor deny" whether Epstein's estate settled with "Jane Doe 4. Three of her four FBI interviews about Donald Trump are still "missing" and weren't released as part of the EPSTEIN FILES. I wonder why...

@RepSuhas The Trump accuser DID NOT receive money from the Survivors Fund. That is clearly stated.

My notes from the Richard Kahn deposition. -Kahn mentioned 5 rich and powerful men who paid for Epstein’s enterprise: Les Wexner, Glenn Dubin, Steven Sinofsky, the Rothschilds, and Leon Black -When I asked about heads of state or elected officials with financial ties to Epstein, Kahn mentioned Ehud Barak. -A Trump accuser has received $ from the survivor fund managed by Kahn. Guys like Kahn enable billionaires like Epstein to get away with crimes the other 99.9% of Americans couldn't.

@mcm_ct_usa She was ineligible for the Victims Comp Fund. Did you miss that part? That means her story didn’t make the cut. And if her story didn’t make the cut, you have no story. So shut the fuck up and have a nice day.

Epstein estate allegedly settled claims w/ Jane Doe #4, who accused both Jeffrey Epstein & Donald Trump of sexual abuse as a teen, per recent testimony from Epstein's accountant Richard Kahn in Mar 2026 House Oversight deposition. Kahn first confirmed settlement but later retracted via attorney & refused to confirm/deny, leading Dem lawmakers to demand clarity on whether estate paid to resolve accusations against Trump, who was interviewed 4x by FBI & deemed credible. The sad thing is is because the inhabitant of the @WhiteHouse couldn’t keep his dick in his pants. We have this war that is the most clear distraction and cover up attempt possible

@3reecrossing The type of settlement she received is the key, it was not from the Victim Comp Fund. So your shit is still shit, fly.

Guilty: Richard Kahn, Epstein’s accountant confirms Jane Doe #4, Trump’s accuser, received financial settlement from Espein’s estate.

@steve_hanke Conflicting testimony, a Guard made a report an Inmate told him something, the inmate then denied it to Fed Investigators. So not much there, again. No cover up, just idiots make something out of nothing.

New Epstein file releases include an FBI report that a corrections officer flagged unusually large-scale document shredding after Epstein’s death. ANOTHER EPSTEIN COVER-UP. THE JEFFERY EPSTEIN STORY JUST WON’T GO AWAY.

@sportslarryk Maybe, but it’s not clearly bone-headed.

Waiving Luis Matos and keeping Jerar Encarnacion is a bone headed move by the #SFGiants

So just for shits and giggles, 140 victims DID collect from the Victims Comp Fund but Jane Doe#4 did not. Yet we’re supposed to believe Jane Doe #4’s story. The guy who paid off the victims tells us he has no recollection Trump’s name ever came during any victims hearing, yet we’re supposed to believe Jane Doe #4’s story. The validity of the Jane Doe #4 affidavit will never stand up in any court of law, and yet the Democrats seem to believe they have Trump over a barrel with it. I don’t care what Democrats think is being hidden from them, it will never alter the preceding facts.

He doesn’t shift. Jane Doe #4 was deemed ineligible for the Victims Comp Fund and sued the estate, was awarded through mediation. What’s not clear from this is why she was ineligible for VCF and how she then sued the estate. (I can explain that to anyone, if they like). But the major takeaway here is Kahn doesn’t remember Trump whatsoever. Because Trump would not have been part of ANY settlement.

@RoKhanna @Rfk4POTUS Nah Ro high prices and Epstein victims? Come on, save the Blue Delusions for the No Kings facade

Why should ordinary Americans care about the Epstein Class? I explain that the reason life has gotten so hard is because our government is beholden to people who write the rules for their own benefit.

While Bondi answer has been much maligned, the question also should be scrutinized. WHO are Epstein’s accomplices? Ghislaine Maxwell is in prison. At least four other women have amnesty. Several others claim to have been victims BEFORE becoming traffickers. Several of those named as co-conspirators have been deposed or are about to be deposed. So, who else is out there? Who exactly are the Epstein accomplices?

Nadler asked Bondi how many of Epstein's accomplices she has indicted. Her answer: the Dow Jones hit 50,000. Not a joke. Not out of context. She cited the stock market instead of answering. Zero indictments.

@zerohedge Documents so sensitve they found an “inmate” to help shred them and carry them out to the trash and when asked the inmate said, “Golly gee, I never saw so many bags of documents” … that sounds like Julie K. Brown is hitting the bottle.

Epstein Cover-Up Deepens; FBI Officers Raise Alarm zerohedge.com/political/epst…

These claims are like the “Trump’s name appears 38,000 times” claims. Here’s the problem: Each individual claim has to be put under a microscope as some have with Jane Doe #4 and Katie Johnson. That takes time and effort. While we wait, Ro Khanna, Thomas Massie are swinging wildly like blindfolded kids at a piñata party, hoping they connect. Quite frankly, none of these lawmakers really know what they’re looking at or what they’re looking for. A) Are there bodies buried at Zorro? B) Can they prove any of the allegations? C) Have these claims been settled? D) Are lawyers for “victims” creating more than what’s there? E) Specifically, who went to Little St. James and was suspected of a crime? We get nothing definitive, IMO, either there’s nothing definitive or it takes time to prove what’s there. Like it or not, I tend to side with the idea that there’s nothing definitive outside of direct allegations about Epstein himself.

@Damaan4u2nv @WinterRewind Yeah it's actually that simple. Either they saw evidence of what they were claiming or made assumptions. No other option.

Five months ago Thomas Massie said the following: ▪️There are associates of Epstein who are guilty of raping children who have never been investigated before. ▪️When the Epstein files are released, men guilty of raping children will go to prison. ▪️The FBI is currently covering up at least 20 cases of child rape related to the Epstein case. ▪️There were 1,000 Epstein victims and the FBI will not be able to cover up all the cases. ▪️If the names of the guilty men aren't released, he or a Democrat would read them on the floor of the house. Where are these 1,000 victims? Who are all these guilty men? Doesn't the public deserve to know? Asking these questions will get you called a "protector of pedophiles." Massie will most likely block you. Trust me, I know. Ro Khanna has repeated the same lines as Massie nightly on TV for about six months. Recently he was on the BBC talking about there is a cabal of men who are guilty of raping children that the FBI is protecting. Either Massie and Khanna have seen proof to back up their claims, or they have not. If they have seen proof, they are currently protecting child rapists by not disclosing what they know. If they haven't seen proof of what they have been claiming on TV for six months and it was just all assumptions, then it's one of the most despicable grifts of all time.

@IMSiegfried @Jasper1977 @jkbjournalist First of all, it’s a sworn testimony, so it’s hard to believe it’s NOT true. Secondly, during Biden, anything Epstein was borderline conspiracy theory MAGA nuthouse delusion etc. Third, it’s gone. Not hacked as much as wiped clean.

@QuietPart_Loud @Jasper1977 @jkbjournalist Wild story if true. Hacker hacks the FBI without realizing it's them and accesses the Epstein files?! There's 3 million more files that the DOJ is sitting on... We'd do well to stop looking at the files through a partisan lens if one truly cares about justice and 1/2

NEW: Documents reportedly shredded by BOP after Epstein's Death open.substack.com/pub/jkbjournal…

@grantcohn I like it.

Instant reaction to the 49ers signing Robert Jones.

Yes, the email is loaded, the language is loaded … there’s still, unfortunately, no action that can be taken. Epstein is dead. Ruemmler stepped down from Goldman Sachs. Obama out of power. Other than that, no criminal angle to pursue. “Girls?” Can be construed as underage but there’s no direct indication of that. Renew old habit? Can mean pursuing girls, but is nothing more than talk. Isn’t actionable, especially since he’s already dead.

This 2014 Epstein email thread is… strange. I react to a 2014 email exchange involving Jeffrey Epstein and Kathryn Ruemmler (Obama's Lawyer) The language, the tone, and who’s involved — it raises more questions than answers.

@MiaForTrump Right, a third party cab driver.

“He r*ped me.” “Donald Trump had r*ped her along with Jeffrey Epstein.” “She was found with her head ‘blown off’… there was no way it was a su!cide.” ….directly from the Epstein files. Don't stop talking about the Epstein files. Don't stop talking about the Epstein files.

@craigunger Hey Craig, 2016 just called, they want their piss dossier back.

#37 "Russia, If You're Listening...." In the summer of 2016, as the two parties formally selected their candidates, Russian intelligence operatives went into overdrive in support of Trump. Suddenly, the emails started pouring in. open.substack.com/pub/craigunger…

@MichaelARothman I don’t see it as a left-right problem. It’s an up-down one. People who read widely don’t buy the establishment’s bullshit, regardless of where they stand politically.

𝗝𝗢𝗡 𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗪𝗔𝗥𝗧 𝗝𝗨𝗦𝗧 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗙𝗘𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗗: 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗣𝗘𝗢𝗣𝗟𝗘 𝗦𝗘𝗘 𝗨𝗡𝗙𝗜𝗟𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗗 𝗜𝗡𝗙𝗢𝗥𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡, 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗬 𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗘 𝗥𝗜𝗚𝗛𝗧. 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗥𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗘𝗠. One of the panelists on Jon Stewart's podcast cited a real study — published in Nature — showing that people who used X's algorithmic feed moved further to the right than a control group using a chronological feed. He presented this as evidence that Musk is "warping democracy." Let's take the study at face value for a moment. Let's assume it's accurate. What Stewart is telling you is that when people are exposed to a wider range of information and viewpoints than legacy media curated for them, they move to the right. Not because they were tricked. Not because they were radicalized. But because the information itself — presented without the filter of editors at the New York Times and producers at MSNBC deciding what you're allowed to see — leads people to draw different conclusions than the ones the left wants them to draw. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗺 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺. For decades, the left controlled the information environment — the networks, the newspapers, the platforms, the search results, the fact-checkers who decided what was true. People saw what they were allowed to see and drew the conclusions they were steered toward. That wasn't called brainwashing. That was called journalism. The moment a platform emerged that allowed crime statistics, border data, economic numbers, international news, and firsthand accounts to circulate without a progressive gatekeeper deciding what was fit to print — people started changing their minds. And the people who built and benefited from the old system called it manipulation. Jon Stewart isn't concerned that people are being deceived. He's concerned that people are no longer being managed. There is also a word for the system he's defending — one where trusted institutions decide what information reaches the public and frame it in ways designed to produce specific political conclusions. That word is not journalism. And the fact that losing control of that system feels to him like an attack on democracy tells you everything about whose democracy he thought it was. 𝗪𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘇𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗯𝗹𝗲𝗺 𝗶𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝘁𝗵.

@mtracey Being invited into a dressing room at Bergdorf-Goodman to watch a 55-year-old woman try on lingerie and then being accused of raping her … beats the 13-year-old biting the penis and the Russian Golden Showers.

Notice how lurid "sexual blackmail" theories have underpinned the dominant anti-Trump narratives of both terms? First it was a "pee tape" that put him under the spell of Russia, now it's Epstein blackmail compromised by Israel. Something psychologically weird going on here, no?