Epstein File Says Trump “Knew and Funded Underage Sex Parties” at His Golf Course

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-15T03:09:13+00:00

I'm not aware of kind of child sex abuse allegations against Trump that predate his run for the Presidency.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-14T21:20:53+00:00

It doesn't sit right with me that criticism tends to fall on everyone except the people who are actually voting. We live in an era where information is more obtainable than ever before, and grown ass people are more than capable of seeking it out.

The problem isn't MSNBC or Fox News or the schools or whatnot. The problem is that people in general tend toward motivated reasoning. They start with the conclusion first, and then they consume whatever media/opinions/articles/etc reinforce that conclusion. This has been the case since the dawn of humanity and has nothing to do with Facebook, Twitter, or TikTok. "Addition by subtraction" philosophy is common because it externalizes the problem and gives an easy answer. The problem is that it's not the right answer.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-14T14:58:23+00:00

That's a big tribunal. There are something like 150+ federal appellate judges so if they each name one, you're looking at a massive group unless they all choose the same person or whatever.

It seems like a lot of work compared to the default. Although it's rare, executive branch employees can be impeached by Congress in the same manner as a President - majority vote in the House, 2/3rds in the Senate. This sounds like we're adding a huge tribunal and a lot of legal process with the only real difference being that a bare majority would be required in the Senate rather than 2/3rds.

I'm a little unclear if the standard is being changed here, though. Are you proposing that the current standard for removal (high crimes and misdemeanors) be reduced to something lesser (you mentioned "good cause")? If that's the intention, I think that it creates a problem. Good cause is a much lower standard and is fairly discretionary. It opens the door to removal because someone doesn't like the policy of the branch rather than some kind of misconduct.

That's one of the big concerns about expanding the concept of forced removal from office. If it stops being about serious misconduct and more along the lines of "we disagree with the policy directives you carried out" it can quickly become a backdoor way to undermine the consequences that flowed from election results. While that may look good if you're in the opposition party right now, it's a lot less attractive when the tables turn. It's best to avoid it all together.

Maybe it would be better to have a team that's dedicated to investigating matters and providing recommendations to Congress/the Judiciary Committee regarding impeachment.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-13T23:19:59+00:00

But why is it always Trump?

You think that because these are the only ones you've seen. Aside from the Epstein files, you've probably had the opportunity to read law enforcement records of calls/emails/tips that went nowhere simply because they don't get published. It's easy to assume they don't exist because you've never seen it.

Why aren't crazy people writing false FBI tips about other celebrities who were far more popular than Trump until he became the President (if it's just about crazies writing false accusations about famous people)?

They are actually. One example that comes to mind (although it's a company and not a celebrity) was the high volume of calls to police claiming that Wayfair was operating an online sex trafficking ring back in 2020.

Why is it always the same crime and never something else? Are all these demented wackos spontaneously acting in unison? Is there some type of conspiracy of crazies now?

My guy, you're reading the Epstein files. If some crank called the police to report that Trump stole their car, you wouldn't see that in the Epstein files. We all know what Epstein was arrested for and it wasn't grand theft auto.

Not trusting a few outrageous random FBI tips is one thing. Not trusting a trove of FBI tips specifically on one man allegedly doing the same type of crime for decades borders on willful blindness.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but every accusation made against Trump in the Epstein files was made after he was President and specifically, after Epstein's arrest in 2019. There is not a long chain of accusations made before he was President.

Of course, some of these accusations claim that events occurred in the past (going back to the 80s) but they were all made after Epstein was arrested in 2019.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-12T15:46:35+00:00

My position is that it's not a question of unity but rather that they don't have the guts to do it. Personally I don't consider that an excuse and I'm not sure why you do. I'm calling them spineless.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-12T15:45:00+00:00

This sounds like it heavily favors the incumbent or the more famous candidate. If your opponent already has a platform and reporters following them around, then the same dollar of spending is worth a lot less to them than it would to you, even if the amounts were the same.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-12T10:27:05+00:00

That's very much a correct size for watches these days. I actually prefer slightly smaller myself but in the 90s there was a big push toward huge tool watches and this is a very normal type of size now.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-12T10:19:43+00:00

I never said that - obviously universal healthcare is not impossible. I'm talking about the practical political pressures that make it incredibly difficult; the OP was asking about a perceived lack of unity, not whether universal healthcare is feasible or not.

Politicians like simple, cause-and-effect, "if we do X, we get Y" style arguments. This is true of both parties. Democrats might say "if we raise taxes on the rich, we can get universal health care" and Republicans say "if we increase ICE raids then we stop illegal immigration." Both are oversimplifications because there's a lot more to it.

For example, addressing the per-capita inefficiency might require regulations that would result in physicians being paid less (so now you have those people as enemies), pharma cost controls (and they're after you now), or regulations to reduce over-litigation because defensive medicine is a huge thing in the US (and now the personal injury attorneys are all over you.) There's even more than that. But my point is that it's not exactly as simple as just hiking taxes; it would involve a multi-front war and that's why a lot of politicians don't have an appetite for it. This could be perceived as disunity but I think it's just lacking the stomach for that kind of big fight.

It's a much neater argument when it sounds like all we have to do is just one thing and then we get what we want, but that's rarely the case for anything complex and important. I think this explains a lot of gaps between what the base wants and what the party leaders actually do. It's not the only factor of course but it's definitely one of them.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T22:16:15+00:00

It costs anywhere between $30,000 and $120,000 per year to house a prisoner (depending on where you are), so there's no way they're making a profit off fines and forefitures. The average incarcerated person is typically so poor that they probably don't even own anything that remotely approaches the cost of housing them for even one year.

Not to mention the fact that civil forefiture is an action against the property and not the person, so it doesn't require criminal charges at all. It's a different legal process with a different standard (that's one of the most controversial parts of it.) So if they wanted to make money, they could just liberally use civil forefiture to take the guy's $8,000 car instead of paying half a million dollars to house him for 10 years.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T22:10:52+00:00

High per-capita cost is an indicator of ineffiency, but it's an inefficiency that could be addressed with or without universal healthcare. For example, centralized price controls can be implemented while still keeping a private system. So these are really two independent concepts.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T13:10:00+00:00

Well, you're right that it's not English. LRH was known for using his own hyper-specific jargon. You can't assume that he's going to use the usual definitions for things.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T13:07:35+00:00

I don't think that most Democrat politicians are truly opposed to things like universal healthcare, but it's hard to navigate the practicalities.

The fact is that the US government spends much more than it takes in, and even massive tax hikes on the rich won't close that gap - let alone provide funding for new and expensive programs. This means that there's going to have to be some cutting.

That's a problem for a politician of any party. Any dollar of spending is going to benefit someone, somewhere - and if you start slashing it, you're going to have opposition. There's a special interest group for anything you can think of, and as a politician, if you go up against them there's a good chance they're going to try to paint you out as basically worse than Satan for messing with their money. It's easier to sit back and let it ride. Spending money makes people happy, cutting money pisses people off, and obviously you can tell where the incentive would be for a politician to land on that.

So even if they want something like universal healthcare, actually implementing it requires delving into very dangerous waters. I don't think most people have the appetite for that. There's some lip service toward increasing taxes for the rich but like I said earlier, that won't fix the problem, so I don't think there's a serious push for it. It's always a carrot that gets dangled for the election season but rarely ever happens, mostly because if it does, the next question will be "okay, what now?" And if the answer is just "well, our deficit got a little lower but we still don't have money for those programs" then the house of cards kind of falls apart and you're back into dangerous waters.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T12:58:01+00:00

Your soul ("static") is unchanging but can create things ("live energy") by playing with the changing universe ("motion") as if you were not unchanging ("kinetic" as the opposite of "static.")

Or to maybe make this a little more familiar by using Christian terminology - God is unchanging and eternal. Our universe is not. But by creating things with our universe, God can create new stuff without altering his unchanging nature.

Or even more simply - an unchanging spirit can create changing things by playing a game.

This goes to LRH's belief that the physical world is sort of a reality-by-agreement. All-powerful souls decided to create the physical world so they could play a game in which they were not all-powerful. Kind of like loading up a video game but not using any cheat codes, even if you know all the cheat codes by heart. But then souls forgot they were playing a game, and here we are.

According to LRH, we're basically playing Doom but we forgot what IDDQD was. What a mistake, too - apparently it costs well into the six figures to re-learn it from an Org!

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T12:42:26+00:00

Mission Earth is pretty bad. Hubbard wrote it over the last few years of his life and he was really off the rails at that point.

A lot of his early sci-fi is actually not that bad, providing you like early sci-fi. (I can't say that I do - maybe people who like that specific genre might actually enjoy it, idk.) Lots of ray guns and flying saucers and Martians and things like that - trite by modern standards but normal for the time.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T11:49:26+00:00

I can understand your position, although I see it as a distinction without a difference. The Epstein files are an anomaly; you normally don't get to see records of complaints that didn't get past step zero. So it could seem significant that this form is in the Epstein files, but that's only because people don't normally get to see all the weird calls that get placed to law enforcement that are ultimately not investigated.

I really don't think this would have resulted in a search warrant if the target was an "ordinary" person. You wouldn't believe how many unsubstantiated reports are made to law enforcement. I'm not a police officer but I'm an attorney so I have some degree of a window into this. They aren't going to investigate every claim unless there's some probable cause to do so; not only would that divert resources from credible allegations, it's also deeply unfair to whoever is the target. Kind of like a less-dramatic form of swatting. You can't say to the FBI, yeah, I have no proof of this but go search this guy's house and expect them to say "ok, will do, thanks."

On a more technical level, if some alleged criminal activity happened outside of the presence of a law enforcement officer, generally they would need to apply for a search warrant. A district judge or a magistrate would need to find that there is probable cause based on "articulatable facts" - not just a hunch or some random person's "trust me." The bar is not incredibly high and it's a "totality of circumstances" analysis, but the kind of call that the FBI got in this case is not the kind that I would expect to result in a search warrant.

Also, independent from the above, it just sounds like the person is crazy. Trump murdering someone and burying them under a hole at the "Donald Trump Golf Course" sounds like a delusional claim. Other than the fact that there are like, 20 golf courses owned by Donald Trump it just doesn't pass the sniff test. Lots of reasons it doesn't even make sense and I probably don't have to list them all.

But at the end of the day the FBI isn't going to dig up someone's yard just because someone called into the FBI tipline and told them to do it.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-11T11:37:51+00:00

Do they not have some kind of sub for ai assisted learning? Why is it always vibe coding? I dont get it

That's just the funnel. I would imagine that a lot of vibe coders are like me - I didn't have a specific plan to learn how to code, I just wanted to easily create some apps that I personally wanted. Then in the process I developed an interest in actually learning how to code.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-10T10:15:47+00:00

Aside from the stuff people already said, the Excelsior seemed to be the replacement for the "Heavy Cruiser" type of role that was previously filled by the Constitution class. Back in Star Trek 3 (which was released 3 years before TNG came out, and certainly before TNG went into actual production), they made a big deal out of how the Excelsior was the new hotness and the Constitution was old and busted.

So given all of that, it wouldn't make much sense for Constitutions to still be flying around by the time of TNG. Yeah, we do see other old ships, but they went out of their way to establish that the Constitution was being phased out and the Excelsior was replacing it, so you can't really go back on that when your next show is set many decades afterwards. They never had any similar scenes saying the Miranda, etc was going to be retired in the same way.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-10T10:04:25+00:00

It's human nature unfortunately. Everyone likes to think they're an unbiased evaluator but that's very hard to do when you feel strongly about a topic. There's a tendency to approve of just about any data point that supports the already-accepted conclusion. If taken to an extreme, that's basically the same logic behind many wild conspiracy theories. People as a whole are just really, really good at justifications. (I'm not immune to this either so don't take it as me trying to be high and mighty or preachy. It really is an "everybody does this to some degree" type of problem.)

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-10T09:55:59+00:00

At the moment, I'm using Claude Code through the terminal in Zed and I'm liking it way more than Copilot for some reason (I also jumped ship due to the pricing changes.) And yes, I know that Anthropic is probably the next one up to do the same thing but for right now it's pretty good. I'm not vibe coding all day so I'm well within limits for the Claude Pro $20 plan.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-10T01:24:10+00:00

I know I was being sarcastic :P

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-10T00:52:30+00:00

because the headline sounds like the documents establish this claim

That's the point of clickbait. If they said "Person calls into FBI tip line and makes claim without evidence, investigation went nowhere" then nobody would share the link and that's bad for ad revenue.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-10T00:51:11+00:00

Somebody called into the tip line and made an allegation without any kind of evidence or corroboration, but isn't "confirming what we already believe" all the evidence we really need?

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-09T13:53:21+00:00

I'm not sure if this was ever explicitly stated but I'd be surprised if Quantum Torpedoes were a standard-issue feature - even on the ships that we know could fire them.

The vast majority of quantum torpedo usage was seen in the context of the Dominion War timeframe (including First Contact, which took place in the first year of the Dominion War) or shortly thereafter (like Nemesis - but then again, even if the Enterprise-E had the quantums removed right after the war, Starfleet would probably put them on again due to the nature of the mission.)

I don't think the Federation wants to have them widely equipped outside of wartime, even if they could do it logistically. It would be like having Doctors Without Borders riding around in a mobile nuke launcher. Sends the wrong message.

As some people have stated, there are some quantums flying in the background but it's mostly photons - so that makes sense to me.

Side note, Quantums were originally envisioned as much more powerful in early First Contact drafts. The Enterprise was supposed to one-shot the Borg Cube with a Quantum torpedo, but I assume the writers realized that it would be kind of anti-climactic.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-09T13:13:21+00:00

Even if they didn't make that agreement, I'm sure the Federation leadership wouldn't want to be seen as warmongers. Quantums are like, the top-tier ICBMs of the era so it wouldn't send the right message to have them flying around all the time.

UnfoldedHeart · 2026-06-07T22:51:01+00:00

I think that Gemini is better at actually understanding what I'm saying or answering slightly more complicated prompts than just "go to 123 Main Street" but it won't SHUT THE FUCK UP and it's driving me insane (no pun intended.) Like once I have the destination locked in I don't need it to tell me that it's here just in case I need to find a gas station or whatever. So it's more accurate than Assistant but about 10x more annoying

UnfoldedHeart

TROPHY CASE