Swankiest little whorehouse in Palm Beach
Everything Trump says is, at best, a half-truth. He’s been claiming that he kicked Epstein out of Mar-A-Lago because he was poaching his employees, which is partly true. What he doesn’t mention is that this was after years of privileged access to resort employees. We have more details published in the Wall Street Journal.
Per the report published on Tuesday, Trump sent young women who worked for the Palm Beach resort to Epstein’s home for massage sessions, a perk afforded to some members of the Florida club. The resort kept up this practice for years, even though Epstein was not a member of the club.
The outlet reported that “the house calls went on… even as spa employees warned each other about Epstein.” Employees told the paper that Epstein “known among staff for being sexually suggestive and exposing himself during the appointments.”
Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell is known to have used the resort to recruit women and girls for the late sex trafficker. One of Epstein’s most vocal accusers, Virginia Giuffre, was pulled into Epstein’s orbit while working at Mar-a-Lago. Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year, had refuted accusations that Trump was involved in Epstein’s sex crimes.
The president said earlier this year that Epstein’s poaching of employees like Giuffre was part of the reason their friendship came to an end. The report dug into the much-discussed falling out between Trump and Epstein in 2003. Per employees who spoke to the outlet, Trump barred Maxwell and Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after an 18-year-old employee returned from a house call and said that Epstein “pressured her for sex.”
Mar-A-Lago was a pedophile hunting ground for years and years, and even if Trump didn’t directly rape any young women, he was an enabler who turned a blind eye to Epstein/Maxwell calling up and asking to have women delivered for “massages”.
Did Ms Giuffre really ‘refute’ accusations against Trump? I thought that she merely ‘rebutted’ them.
Can I borrow your most powerful microscope, PZ? I need it to identify just how surprised I am by this news.
“and even if Trump didn’t directly rape any young women”
There are million dollar settlement payments by Trump going back to the 80s, well documented. For girls and boys. There is at least one then 13yo that Trump and Epstein are said to have raped together, and I doubt this was the only one.
While the whole Epstein problem is important, the big problem now is the blowing up of America’s health system. This is going to blow up in the GOP’s face big time next November. The destruction of America’s health care system at the hands of Roadkill Kennedy Jr. is going to be an issue also. People can blow off Epstein, but when large portions of America can no longer afford healthcare, that can’t be just waved away as partisan bickering. The GOP is committing suicide right in front of our eyes.
@4,
“This is going to blow up in the GOP’s face big time next November.”
The GOP is not the GOP anymore. This is now a MAGA club, easliy recognizable by Mar-a-Lago faces, Jan 06 insurrection denial and general disdain for the rule of what used to be law. The recent changes to USPS mean mail-in voting is essentially fucked. There will be no midterm election, is my suspicion, but if there is, it will neither be free or fair.
@4 cheerfulcharlie
Is it? You are an optimist. I can no longer believe that people will do the sensible thing. By the time the election rolls around, Republicans will find, or fabricate, some issue to distract their easily distractable base. Do you remember when the abortion issue was going to save us? Do you remember “anti-woke” and critical race theory?
Trump and his co-conspirators are going to try to “unfairly win” the 2026 elections. I think it is likely that very few people will describe their efforts as ‘successful’, but I am disconcertingly confident that those efforts are going to splash….and quite possibly splash dangerously. When things splash the ‘Left’ (i.e. those of us who value truth and fairness) needs to be very clear that it is interested in truth and justice and not hateful hyperbole (we will be accused of ‘hateful hyperbole’, but that is nothing new). A calm demeanor and heartfelt words will be very useful. To reverse a Republican talking point from a number of years ago, it is past time for the sane people to take control of the asylum.
I haven’t seen reports recently, and I am sympathetic to those who come to this country for a better life, but about a year ago there were news articles about how all of the many illegal immigrants that were servants/slaves at smarm-a-lardo were being ignored by ALL law enforcement. I would love to see the ‘puppy-killer’ storm that dump and deport all their employees.
Cartomancer @ 2 beat me to it.
A criminal sleazebag was a criminal sleazebag back in 2003, too.
Nothing will change. Trump could rape a 13-year-old on 5th Ave. and nothing will happen.
@ Birger: And that is why the rich and powerful are afraid of this. I don’t think many of them joined the “party”, but they must have known and chose not to see.
Erlend Meyer @ 11
We saw a similar phenomenon in Britain: Jimmy Savile.
Everyone working in media appears to have heard the rumors.
The only one who spoke out was John Lydon aka Johnny Rotten of Sex Pistols, anf his interview was censored.
Iarpar @ 10
There appears to be two MAGA groups. One group just hate on darkies and other minorities and don’t care about Epstein.
Another group may be awful in general, but genuinely care about what Epstein did to all those girls. The Republicans cannot afford to lose either group, but one of them is peeling off.
birgerjohansson @#13
Call me when Trump faces consequences/accountability for anything.
rorschach @ # 3: There are million dollar settlement payments by Trump going back to the 80s, well documented.
factually.co:
Please rebut.
“Multiple fact‑checks have taken apart the circulating meme that lists six named children, ages and precise settlement amounts, concluding there is no documentary proof for those alleged payouts and that several named “victims” could not be corroborated in public records or credible reporting”
Not saying it did not happen, only that there is no documentation available.
(This is where heuristics are a guide)
John Morales @ # 16: … only that there is no documentation available.
Whereas rorschach @ # 3 averred his claims were “well documented.” I look forward to him supporting that assertion.
He’s using the term as in there is a collection of stories and names.
You’re using the term for ‘proof by documentation’.
That’s the point, Pierce. (Thus my parenthetical)
Google is your friend. Well it’s not, but seriously, these things are googable.
Alas, so far rorschach has not supported that assertion.
I’m shocked – shocked! – I tell you.
The assertion that allegations are documented?
Here is one such allegation: https://kbsd6.com/news/inside-the-mystery-of-the-kelly-feuer-1989-settlement-allegations/
I find the evidence of his own words sufficient to convict him. There’s the Access Hollywood recording where he even sounds like a rapacious rapist who can’t control himself. He admitted to walking into the girls dressing rooms at the pageants as a necessity of business…no it wasn’t. And there’s the Howard Stern show from 1996 (I think) where Stern gets him riffing on “how young” he would go. He gets to 12. I can imagine someone off camera waving frantically to get him to shut up and he finally notices at 12, so lower maybe. I think his comment about “dating” teenage Ivanka is a red flag because “dating” is almost certainly a euphemism for other things.
John Morales @ # 21: Here is one such allegation: …
From the linked article:
My heuristic requires accounting for the differences between “documented” and “well documented”.
robro @ # 22: I find the evidence of his own words sufficient to convict him.
We need to also note the frequent chasm between Trump’s words and his actions. In this case, only the latter matter.
Pierce, for the last time (the 3rd!):
Not saying it did not happen, only that there is no documentation available.
(This is where heuristics are a guide)
and
This is the precise distinction:
• documented allegations as allegations that appear in document
• documented evidence as documents that prove the *allegations
I can’t make that plainer.
Orthogonal claims.
(and yes, I am maybe playing advocatus diaboli functionally, since I can’t know R’s intent, but I am also not wrong — you gotta exhaust the universe of possibilty)
[sorry, forgot the markdown blockquote tag (“>”) breaks upon, um, linebreaks]
Pierce R. Butler
That only applies to his public pronouncements. His words, when he believes they’re spoken in confidence, such as to Billy Bush, should be held to a different standard.
John Morales @ # 24 – By your standards of evidence, we must accept the reports of leprechauns, angels, & orcs.
I can’t make that plainer.
You have made plain more than you seem to realize – but not about Trump, nor about establishing a solid case.
Walter Solomon @ # 26: His words, when he believes they’re spoken in confidence, such as to Billy Bush…
Even if we accept your definition of the context (I don’t – he was performing to an audience of a busful of men), that doesn’t come near to the claims made by rorschach @ # 3.
“By your standards of evidence, we must accept the reports of leprechauns, angels, & orcs.”
No. The evidence is that the allegations exist.
Documented allegations.
Their truth-value is irrelevant to their actual existence.
The more, the more significant, even absent credible documentary evidence.
BTW, unless you seriously imagine Trump
rapingbeing sexually serviced by young’uns is in the same category as the existence of leprechauns, angels, & orcs, then that is a stupid attempted analogy. Category error; claims about real‑world actors vs. claims about fictional entities are not epistemically comparable.“You have made plain more than you seem to realize – but not about Trump, nor about establishing a solid case.”
Oh, I think I’ve made other shit plain. Like your ability to process info.
But sure, unless it’s been documented, anything at all that is alleged is perforce false under your stance.
(“Pics or it didn’t happen”, eh?)
One of the more amusing aspects of this is that because Elon the genius of the galaxy apparently canceled the subscription to Adobe PDF creator which allowed actual redactions, the supposed redactions are simply blacked out, and can be retrieved. Government efficiency at work!
Matthew, PDF editors are a common thing nowadays.
cf. https://www.pcworld.com/article/407214/best-pdf-editors.html
Adobe is enshittified due to its subscripion model, maybe it’s better, but other options exist.
Not even dedicated ones; cf. https://help.libreoffice.org/latest/en-US/text/shared/guide/redaction.html
—
Basically, there is no entailed causal chain by ditching shitware. I myself use libreoffice.
May I ask commenters with stronger stomachs than I, who have read Giuffre’s book or been more resolute about following the evidence…Did Giuffre refute Trump’s involvement in Epstein’s crimes, or is it that she did not personally observe Trump being involved in Epstein’s crimes?
I haven’t read any book, but this is public: https://www.newsweek.com/virginia-giuffre-say-about-donald-trump-11040776
I ask because, like birgerjohansson@9, I recall figures like Jimmy Saville being given effective immunity for years on the justification that “Person A says it didn’t happen to them, therefore it couldn’t have happened to Persons B, C, D, E, F or G.” Similar for Weinstein, Lauer, Ailes, Cosby… even Prince Andrew’s current shame (but not prosecution) arrived after many years of transparent dishonesty (“I lost my ability to sweat in the Falklands”…seriously????).
Thanks, John, that link reinforces what I suspected. Giuffre testified that “she did not witness or allege any misconduct by Trump related to Epstein’s crimes.” This does not, as Newsweek put it, refute “allegations that President Donald Trump was involved in the crimes of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.” It only refutes allegations specific to Giuffre’s experience.
@larpar – 2nd January 2026 at 2:48 pm : “Call me when Trump faces consequences/accountability for anything.”
Trump was convicted on multiple (34?) felony counts and a civil case found he raped E Jean Carroll.
Then the Repugs the “family values” and “tough on crime” party chose hima stheir nominee and the USA elected him POTUS .. maybe with some help from Musk and certainly with helkp by voter suppression.
@19. rorschach : “Google is your friend. Well it’s not, but seriously, these things are googable.”
Wikipedia has a page too – see :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
@larpar again: Furthermore, Trump was impeached twice – just not convicted.
He’s been investigated and at least partially exposed for some of his crimes and vileness.
Dunno if that counts as consequences.
It certainly isn’t enough of a consequence I’ll grant you.
John Morales @ # 28: … allegations.
Their truth-value is irrelevant …
Perhaps you should go back to having a chatbot write your posts.
Or maybe you already have.
rorschach, does this person speak for you? Do you agree about “truth-value”?
Pierce R. Butler
Billy Bush said there were 8 eyewitnesses. That’s not exactly a “busful.” More to point, there’s no reason to think Trump believed what he said would leave that bus.
@35 and 36
He’s still the fucking President. Consequences my ass.
Follow up to #39
And now he’s kidnapped a foreign leader.
Pierce:
I wrote “(and yes, I am maybe playing advocatus diaboli functionally, since I can’t know R’s intent, but I am also not wrong — you gotta exhaust the universe of possibilty)”
Then, you wrote “rorschach, does this person speak for you? Do you agree about “truth-value”?”
What part of my I can’t know R’s intent made you imagine I might have been ‘speaking for him’?
It’s all me. The ref to advocacy and to logical exhaustion is lost on you, ostensibly.
(Again: I could not have been clearer!)
—
Re:
PZ forbade me to quote bots, so it’s all me.
Not that they ever wrote my posts, they saved me typing and formatting.
Always me, most people know my style by now.
Besides, bots are always wrong, whereas I am not.
The inference is clear.
(Also, shows how clueless you are; cf. #25)
—
So, three attempted putdowns so far, how’s it working for ya?
Do I seem put down? Put out?
(Or… well, the opposite perhaps)
@37 Pierce R. Butler Why would he do that? This thread is going exactly the way he always wants it to go. Way too much of him, an argument utterly besides the point alongside being banal, tiny, and trivial. As per irritatingly usual. Would you care to sing along with me? You know the words by now…
Misery seeks solace, I see.
I am often the third person.
indianajones, your ironic hypocrisy is remarkable: you added one more about me, causing one more by me.
(Self-defeating, really)
Walter Solomon @ # 38: Billy Bush said there were 8 eyewitnesses. That’s not exactly a “busful.”
Please note my verb: “performing.” Pretty much the functional opposite of “spoken in confidence” – particularly since all on that minibus were show business professionals. Back in 2005, Trump was able to understand the implications of that – and kept the spotlight on his already well-known grabbings and gropings of adult women, not his escapades with Jeffrey.
John Morales @ # 41: I could not have been clearer!
I agree. You don’t have what it takes for clarity.
… bots are always wrong, whereas I am not.
You are always not-wrong? Hoo, likewise hah!
I’ll admit you have made worthwhile comments a few times of late, but that streak seems to have ended, right here. Oh, well.
This is all for me for tonight: did a march today, got a demo to go to tomorrow.
rawshark?
nonono, Pierce. Pretty damn obvious.
Again: indianajones seeks solace in company.
Enemy of my enemy type of thing.
Reassurance in group dynamics.
—
Re: “… bots are always wrong, whereas I am not.
You are always not-wrong? Hoo, likewise hah!”
You do amuse, with your caperings.
• “Bots are always wrong” means: They get it wrong every single time.
• “I am not” means: I do not get it wrong every single time.
(Your acumen is on show)
@All the rest here
‘causing’ See what I mean about besides the point, wrong, and unfailingly irritating? Noting that my ‘why’ question was not actually answered, but just that the behavior I observed was repeated. Hypocritical observation no less, apparently.
‘See what you made me do’ words to the effect are often said by some of the most nauseatingly evil and abusive swine getting around. And more than once, to me, by the resident time vampire. Co-related but only that? Mere coincidence? I’ve made my case at other places about what I think it is, but it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that this (insert your own adjective here) behaviour is utterly predictable. I have found a way to shut it down, it works but is not %100 effective, perhaps I’ll find some other method. In the mean time, engagement absolutely does not, will not and cannot achieve the good faith discussion that .Pierce in this case (I think, IMO anyway) seemed to be after, except by accident. Chiropractic rhetoric perhaps. Always, but don;t take my word for it, follow any one of hundreds of times it has happened with no input from me whatsoever. Yuk.
indianajones:
“‘See what you made me do’ words to the effect are often said by some of the most nauseatingly evil and abusive swine getting around.”
Actions have consequences.
Your performative victimhood itself is nauseating in the same sense you try to pervert it.
I am in no way victimising you.
“Chiropractic rhetoric perhaps.”
SGBM was a worthy interlocutor, back when. OM, he was.
His position was that it was homeopathic.
Nor cowardly, either.
Disliked me maybe no less than you, but… well, honesty is a virtue.
Asked me to my face how old I was so he could figure out when I might cark it.
‘Yuk.’
Well, yes.
Another comment about me, another response by me to it.
(+2)
Are you even aware that your entire thing in this thread has been to snipe at me and appeal to others?
(Can’t be a healthy mental state)
Sorry for the double post, but one more word on the hypocritical causing thing. This behavior happens when I observe it publicly pretty reliably, tis true. But it also happens when I don’t share the observation too. It happens when I directly address the blight and disgrace, but when I merely talk about the B and D it will happen then and just as often It’ll happen, or be happening whenever i just comment on the topic at hand (and I do try to do that in the main, I sometimes don’t), or when I merely read along. Whether I even read it contemporaneously at all, or perhaps come back to it days later after the discussion has died down, it happens then too.
If everything causes it, then nothing does. I think I know what the real cause is, but again I have spelt this out elsewhere. I try not to point it out too often, usually when I see someone being victimised by it particularly egregiously. I try to warn people then. But I am aware of the boringness of repetition and the risk of that actually diluting my point. Apologies if I misjudge this at times.
Ah yes, the ‘technique’.
Keep sniping, until I reckon PZ probably has had enough and I do cease.
(Ah well, sometimes maturity is not the worst thing ever)
—
One I can’t let slip:
Yes. Reality is there are many many posts where my comment does not incur personal animosity and further exchanges. This is fact.
Your continued attempted exculpation is thus futile, in the most generous reading.
So. Consider this a success of your technique; rely on my maturity.
Sure. Last one here to you.
But a final note for you, indianajones.
In my personal estimation,
(1) your nym is most inapposite; and
(2) gotta love how you always appeal to the crowd when clearly I am onstage next to you.
(The attempted psychological distancing is futile but quite informative, and how’s your crowdsourcing going?)
John Morales @ # 49: (Your acumen is on show)
So you still haven’t figured out how I was parroting and parodying your disingenuity? 🤦🏻♂
rorschach – c’mon, whatcha got?
Huh – that was a male-presenting face-palm emoji @ my # 50 when I pasted it…
Apparently not, in your estimation.
Do elucidate. Please.
(Also, proper grammar would be ‘disingenuousness’)
John Morales @ # 52 – If you haven’t figured out your own verbal sleights-of-hand, you definitely need the practice here.
And “disingenuity” shows up in the first two dictionaries I consulted; how many did you look in?
(Never mind – I doubt I’ll return here any more.)
Heh heh heh.
It’s not the normal form, but zero.
I don’t need to do so, not being ignorant.
See for yourself.
Ah well.
Kicking against the pricks can’t be much fun, I suppose.
You sure schooled me, though you did not actually elaborate on your actual claim.
BTW: for the yuks: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/520086/disingenuity-and-intellectual-dishonesty
@53. Pierce R. Butler : ” I doubt I’ll return here any more.””
Yikes. Why’s that? Please do stick around and keep commenting here. You have my respect FWIW & sure many here would miss you.
I think he meant this thread, StevoR.
After all, I no longer roam in Lynna’s domain.
Alas for him, my lexicon seems more corpulent than thesauric, and I suppose I do exhibit some logophilic excess.
It follows that when he disputes me about such stuff, he is kicking against (ahem) the prick.*
Basically, bogus basis, bluster born.
—
*That’s also a Babblical ref, BTW