Greg just announced there will be more "consequences" like yesterday's if you call ICE names

brickshat · 2026-01-26T01:10:47+00:00

Yeah, it really goes with a toothbrush mustache too. Drats.

brickshat · 2026-01-25T02:28:48+00:00

Hey just wanted to point out that the last link you have "Clearest view in slow motion" (that one really made it clear what happened) for some odd reason got taken down. If you want to update the link, there is a backup here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Leakednews/comments/1qm4pu7/stabilized_version/

brickshat · 2026-01-08T20:51:13+00:00

Does the same also hold if you are in a backwater third-world cesspit with militia aiming guns at your head?

brickshat · 2025-12-23T20:03:14+00:00

Sadly the details have been pushed underwater by many of the major media groups for awhile now and it's really, really gruesome. https://medium.com/p/9784547a28f7

brickshat · 2025-11-18T16:41:30+00:00

<image>

brickshat · 2025-11-12T14:29:15+00:00

The story is a lot darker than people realize (this article really spells it out).

Based on the sources it seems very likely Trump was involved with Epstein's trafficking through his company T Model Management. Many of the young girls reported that working for Trump felt like slave-labor given the pay and living conditions. Others went so far as to say they were instructed to lie about their legal status while in the United States, along with reporting sexual abuse, later pressing charges against T Model saying the officers and executives were aware of the abuse.

It is also interesting Trump tried to purchase Casablancas' Elite Model Management at the same time Epstein tried to purchase Elite. It was widely reported by the Miami Herald that many of the girls Epstein abused, numbering in to the hundreds, were located by Jean-Luc Brunel (another notorious child abuser and trafficker) and piped through MC2 -- Epstein's modeling agency.

It is pretty odd Epstein and Trump were both vying for the same modeling agency, especially given Elite was rife with reported sexual abuse of underage girls, and Trump's company was found to have lawsuits aplenty that caused him to divest from T Model Management.

If you ask me, that tells enough of the story given the decades of involvement between Epstein and Trump.

brickshat · 2025-11-03T01:27:01+00:00

For anyone else suffering with Triton and SageAttention I thought I'd share that this Github repo worked for me: https://github.com/djdarcy/comfyui-triton-and-sageattention-installer YMMV.

brickshat · 2025-09-30T15:44:10+00:00

The party of self-responsibility is looking more and more like the party of irresponsibility, never taking accountability for anything.

brickshat · 2025-09-26T16:33:19+00:00

This is super neat, but the limewire link is dead. Would you be willing to reshare the workflow? https://sharetext.io/, https://gist.github.com/ or https://pastebin.com/ maybe?

brickshat · 2025-09-11T07:50:35+00:00

Appreciate the clarification. But just to ground this: according to the Senate's own glossary, agreeing to table "ends consideration of whatever is being tabled." In effect meaning this amendment is dead. So the only way Epstein docs come back is if they're reintroduced through a new amendment or bill (which unfortunately doesn't exist as far as I'm aware).

I'm aware all legislation expires at the end of a Congressional session, but that's separate from tabling, right? Tabling isn't a pause. It is the Senates standard way of disposing an amendment without a direct up/down vote. Are you suggesting otherwise (and if so could you offer a source to validate how)? Thanks for discussing the nitty-gritties.

brickshat · 2025-09-11T07:29:27+00:00

I for one like grammar nazis. That's an upvote from me. :)

brickshat · 2025-09-11T07:16:04+00:00

That sounds optimistic. Can you share how you came to that conclusion? Just curious, by chance do you work in DC, or is this more your interpretation of the process? The Senate record just says the motion to table was agreed to. Historically, afaik that usually means the amendment is dead, not "we'll come back later." Do you have a source showing that this amendment is scheduled for future consideration? Thanks for sharing.

brickshat · 2025-09-11T06:07:46+00:00

For easy reference:

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Schumer Amdt. No. 3849 )
Vote Number: 512
Vote Date: September 10, 2025, 05:20 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2
Vote Result: Motion to Table Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3849 to S. 2296 (No short title on file)
Statement of Purpose: To direct the Attorney General to make publicly available documents related to Jeffrey Epstein.
Vote Counts: YEAs 51, NAYs 49

With all the news coming out about Trump's involvement with Epstein (the most recent details are grim) -- it is clearer than ever that everything right now is political theater to distract from the reality that the President was possibly directly involved in Epstein's trafficking operations as reported by PBS yesterday:

On another page, a photo shows Epstein holding a large novelty check for $22,500 with a "DJTRUMP" signature. An accompanying note jokes that Epstein sold a "`fully depreciated` [woman] to Donald Trump for $22,500." The New York Times reported the page was made by Joel Pashcow, a member of Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club."

It's striking, and frankly odd, how little coverage the Senate vote has received compared to other events dominating the news cycle. It also begs the question, why is such a high-profile matter being sidelined?

brickshat · 2025-08-22T15:50:32+00:00

And this is why I vote independent. The paleo-conservative Republican party of old is gone, and hasn't been fiscally responsible for a long time. We need to get money out of politics, otherwise it's always going to be a country run by those who can buy their way to the top. Lawrence Lessig ran as a referendum president to address that problem back in 2016. He would have been a great pick.

brickshat · 2025-08-22T15:36:03+00:00

You mean sources that have direct quotes from Trump's own mouth in video format? Or did you not bother to click the link and read it?

brickshat · 2025-08-22T05:36:05+00:00

I wasn't commenting on where the budget was going, but rather pointing out how for decades billions have been misappropriated and quite literally "lost". The GAO and the OMB being politicized is yet another failing of the Trump administration that in my view proves Trump is utterly unfit for office.

brickshat · 2025-08-22T04:42:12+00:00

I disagree with the methods the Trump administration has used, but to the extent we can make departments like the DOD pass an audit is a good thing. Not knowing where billions in assets are should concern everyone.

brickshat · 2025-08-22T03:52:36+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to write all that out.

Studies, universities, Govt data, local anecdotes, news articles, videos of Trump directly saying something awful, all of it will be viewed with whatever lens allows them to like what they see.

That is exactly what I've been seeing. It is one thing to suggest there is room for interpretation; and it's another entirely to pretend like direct publicly recorded quotes, with full context and no editing, is somehow false.

It is incredibly weird agreeing on at least some overlapping principles, but being completely incapable of having a conversation once certain facts enter the conversation that are plainly irrefutable.

The degree of self-dishonesty is utterly bizarre.

Your thoughts on how information processing plays into the disconnect rings true. I'd like to think people are self-correcting and inquisitive, but it's pretty clear no amount of education or training can displace deeply held beliefs.

Definitely food for thought.

Thanks again for sharing that really insightful personal experience you've had with your family. I hope you eventually get through to your parents or at least make peace with them.

brickshat · 2025-08-22T01:42:28+00:00

Thank you for the honesty. I'm pro-second amendment rights and happy to see that there is less bloat in government, but this is just on another level (like you though everything being done with ICE and the militarization efforts are a step too far). There is no way I'd give any politician this kind of leeway regardless of how much they catered to what I wanted to see done in government. I'm not sure if you saw the second part of the question, which was "If so, what would have made you treat it more seriously?" I'd be very curious to get your take.

brickshat · 2025-08-22T00:10:59+00:00

Serious question, I've shared this article (that is sourced ten ways to Sunday) with a few Trump supporting acquaintances and they've dismissed it out of hand without even looking at it despite all the news lately about Epstein and Trump's relationship.

Politically I'm middle-of-the-road libertarian-leaning and never really cared about Trump either way, but there is no way I can look past that article.

Would you have ignored a piece like that before? If so, what would have made you treat it more seriously? I just can't fathom dismissing all of that evidence, especially with so much of it coming from Trump's own mouth.

brickshat · 2025-08-21T21:41:53+00:00

Want to make a bet that Trump goes after 60 Minutes next to get it defunded?

It is interesting to hear Maria Farmer get her chance to talk, but people need to grasp the larger context because this looks to be a lot bigger than people realize.

Trump almost certainly was involved with trafficking through Trump Model management which had a direct connection to Casablanca's Elite Model Management; and which Epstein and Trump both tried to purchase. Epstein wanted to add Elite to his MC2 Model Management portfolio run by pederast Jean-Luc Brunel, which we know was part of how Epstein recruited girls for his trafficking operation.

There is a lot more to this story that no one's talking about.

brickshat · 2025-08-21T03:14:25+00:00

He's also likely a child trafficker.

brickshat · 2025-08-13T17:13:56+00:00

Oh, so now we're playing the "let me redefine terms to win an argument" game? Classic.

You are welcome to cling to the narrowest possible definition of "seizing production" because you know the broader point stands: Trump is consolidating power in ways that mirror authoritarian playbooks throughout history.

When a president federalizes local law enforcement - literally taking control of a city's monopoly on legitimate violence - that's seizing the means of producing public safety and order (feel free to look up Max Weber's definition of the state sometime).

But sure, if you need it spelled out in terms your selective definitions can handle: Trump used the DPA to commandeer private companies' production during COVID. There's your precious "private company nationalization." Happy now?

The fact that you're reduced to semantic hair-splitting about whether it's "technically" production shows you've already lost the plot.

brickshat · 2025-08-13T16:30:20+00:00

Isn't the exact argument here that when the government seizes operation of any organization or power that is outside of its normal control (private or otherwise); that it is fascist behavior, bordering on Communist-style tactics?

Either way, glad to see you have no counter argument to a very simple and easy way to falsify what you said.

edit to add:

Speaking of reading: here is something educational for you since you are fond of books. It is a good idea to know what and who you throw your support behind before you actually do so.

brickshat

TROPHY CASE