# Epstein Finally Gets Legally Ensnared for Human Trafficking of Kids

## Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, merjet said:

Here's the task that you were challenged with, and which you've been cognitively incapable of answering:

Quote

On 1/7/2019 at 12:24 PM,  merjet said:

...Its circumference is about 20% longer than the distance along the wires, which proves you are both wrong.

Prove it.

Demonstrate that you know how to account for the perspective in the images. Show us the geometry. Plot it out, and show your work. No more unsupported assertions.

Heh.

Um, here's a screen capture of the entire apparatus:

Do you see the vertical red rectangles that I've placed on the left and right sides of the image? They are both the same size. Notice that the one on the left is the same height as the wooden support next to it? See that? And on the other side, the wooden support appears to be shorter. Why is that?!!! Hmmm? Can you figure it out, genius?

Is the post on the right really shorter than the one on the left? If so, do the strings go downhill? When the wheel reaches the right side, do the lines end up lower than the circles to which they are currently tangential? No? They don't? So, what could explain the wooden support on the right appearing to be about 20% smaller than it actually is?

OMG, Merlin, look at this giant dog!!!

His shoulders come up to the deck of the Golden Gate bridge! He's way taller than the north tower of the bridge, but just shorter than the south tower.﻿

Dang, it's a new paradox. How is it that the bridge deck is level when the north tower is so much smaller than the south tower? Is the giant dog a part of the solution? ﻿﻿﻿﻿

Prove that the wheel's circumference is "20% longer than the distance along the wires."

I've proven otherwise. If you're still stubborn enough to disagree, then demonstrate, first, that you are capable of grasping the geometry of my proof, and, second that my geometry is incorrect.

J

• Replies 303
• Created

#### Posted Images

If it's true he can't grasp it does he even know he can't? That would give him grace. I, for example, can't grasp him not grasping he can't grasp it.

The world rest's on grasping. It's grasping all the way down.

--Brant

##### Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Prove that the wheel's circumference is "20% longer than the distance along the wires."

I've proven otherwise. If you're still stubborn enough to disagree, then demonstrate, first, that you are capable of grasping the geometry of my proof, and, second that my geometry is incorrect.

The obnoxious idiot omitted my second estimate of the length of the wires.  "The video shows an oblique perspective on the horizontal length of the wires and does not disclose what the length is relative to any circumference. Based on experiment, I estimated that the length along the wires is much closer to the circumference of the larger circle than the circumference of the disk. I am still waiting for the pretenders' [Jonathan and Jon] reasoned [mathematical with numbers] argument, rather than mere wishful assertion, that the length along the wires equals the circumference of the disk" (link).

Here's the proof I demand, moron. Prove the following with numbers substituted for the #'s: The length of the wires is ##.###. The circumference of the disk is ##.###. The circumference of the larger circle on the disk is ##.###. Clearly explain how you got the numbers. At least pretend you know and used the scientific method. Live up to it such that any reader who chooses to try can replicate your method and your results.

Your "proof" is hogwash and con art. Nobody on OL endorsed your "proof." I bet Hougen knows way more about geometry than you do. Responding to your "proof", he wrote, "To be honest, I'm not sure what you're doing above myself." Also, your con art shows no numerical distances. That by itself proves your "proof" is incorrect. Idiot, that's what's in dispute -- numerical distances.

Jonathan pretends to know something about projective geometry. Heh. "Projective geometry is an elementary non-metrical form of geometry, meaning that it is not based on a concept of distance" (link, my bold).

##### Share on other sites

Hahaha. Thanks, Merlin. You're a gift.

##### Share on other sites

That is the topic.

(We already know Merlin is always right about everything and anyone who disagrees is a poo-poo head. And if you don't believe it, he'll tell you. Over and over and over.)

So... to get back on topic and tie it to the thread drift, was Aristotle a pedophile?

Michael

##### Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

That is the topic.

What I'm seeing in my social media bubble is the left trying very hard to push the Narrative that Trump has ties to Epstein and is therefore likely a pedo, and it's just a matter of time before Trump is convicted and impeached and whatever. At the same time, rumors of Clinton's relationship with Epstein are just meh, then shouted down, and answered with 23 more memes portraying Trump as a pedo.

##### Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

(We already know Merlin is always right about everything and anyone who disagrees is a poo-poo head. And if you don't believe it, he'll tell you. Over and over and over.)

I love seeing Merlin's "logic."

Quote

Your "proof" is hogwash and con art. Nobody on OL endorsed your "proof." I bet Hougen knows way more about geometry than you do. Responding to your "proof", he wrote, "To be honest, I'm not sure what you're doing above myself." Also, your con art shows no numerical distances. That by itself proves your "proof" is incorrect. Idiot, that's what's in dispute -- numerical distances.

Pure belligerence and irrationality. He packs so many fallacies into one paragraph! And he does it effortlessly.

J

##### Share on other sites

On 7/7/2019 at 10:07 AM, william.scherk said:

There are lots of seats left on the "Who is Epstein going to take down?" bus.  Destination unknown. But see:  "Trump Acosta Epstein Miami" ...

Perhaps better put as "Who could the Epstein file take out?"  As of this moment, just the one guy, Alexander Acosta, Labor Secretary.  That so-called sweetheart deal as the proximate cause?

Edited by william.scherk
Corrrrrruption!
##### Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

That so-called sweetheart deal as the proximate cause?﻿

William,

Correct. Because nobody is talking about Bill Clinton and Pedo Island.

Mission accomplished so far.

That's the reason the press acted like thugs in a gang war instead of, er... well, the press.

It's disgusting.

btw - The press won't tell you this, but President Trump wanted Acosta to stay and he said it very clearly in front of the entire press. The press wants people to believe Trump fired Acosta out of fear and shame. Which is idiotic, but that's the way the press rolls these days.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

• No one yet wants to comment on the 'sweetheart deal'?
• Apply an Epstein Curse only to The Left (or other rubric)?
• Assume facts or plots not in evidence?
• Make hay while the sun shines.

Acosta could have banged-up Epstein. Instead, his office -- he, himself -- agreed a deal that had secret provisions (NOT to be shared with alleged victims).

He did not  explain how he failed to bang up Epstein to the satisfaction of President.

"A confluence of events" brings on his resignation, to use the passive voice and weasel-ish phrasing.  Or, Acosta resigns.

What seems disgusting (and chips fall where they may) is that there were and are a Corps of Enablers who (like Acosta) forgot about the victims/did a shoddy job of prosecution. There is to my mind another set,  a more diffuse class of enablers who "knew" or suspected criminal activity yet ignored, evaded, minimized or excused that behaviour (I note again the excellent work of the reporters on this file at the Miami Herald).

Muh Clintons!

I'd suggest that Acosta resigned only for optics:  in other words, he was rightly-or-wrongly drawing the wrong kind of attention to the White House.

I fully believe that Acosta will not be the only one who fails to answer questions adequately -- and will pay a price, either resignation or public shame and disgrace, if not via an indictment, trial and conviction, via the Social Disapprobation Machine known by other names.

This too shall pass. More bones will be found. Other heads will roll.  In the fullness of time.

Spoiler
Miami Herald:
New victims come forward as Epstein asks to be released from jail to his Manhattan mansion  —  At least a dozen new victims have come forward to claim they were sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein even as the multimillionaire money manager tries to convince a federal judge to allow him to await …
RELATED:
New York Times:
Acosta to Resign as Trump's Labor Secretary After Epstein Plea Deal  —  WASHINGTON — President Trump said Friday that R. Alexander Acosta, his embattled secretary of labor, will resign following controversy over his handling of a sex crimes case involving the financier Jeffrey E. Epstein …
Michelle Celarier / New York Magazine:
Real Hedge-Fund Managers Have Some Thoughts on What Epstein Was Actually Doing  —  Long before Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to prostitution charges in Florida more than a decade ago, his fellow Palm Beach resident and hedge-fund manager Douglas Kass was intrigued by the local gossip about his neighbor.
Anita Kumar / Politico:
Alexander Acosta stepping down as Labor secretary  —  Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta is stepping down from his post, just two days after he held a news conference to defend a plea deal that he brokered for wealthy sex offender Jeffrey Epstein while serving as a U.S. attorney in Florida more than a decade ago.

##### Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

No one yet wants to comment on the 'sweetheart deal'?

I did...

I thought I mentioned Bill Clinton.

Oh... I forgot to mention Hillary...

7 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

Muh Clintons!

Exactly.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

William wrote: What seems disgusting (and chips fall where they may) is that there were and are a Corps of Enablers who (like Acosta) forgot about the victims/did a shoddy job of prosecution. There is to my mind another set,  a more diffuse class of enablers who "knew" or suspected criminal activity yet ignored, evaded, minimized or excused that behaviour (I note again the excellent work of the reporters on this file at the Miami Herald). end quote

Well said William. The resignation of Alex Acosta would make an interesting episode of a legal - lawyer show like “Bull.” Oh crap the politician says, I didn’t know I would (be working for potus) (be the governor of Virginia) when I made that plea deal to get that asshole into prison and off my docket. The morality of a legal deal can come back to haunt you.

Following Acosta’s resignation and Epstein’s new indictments, will justice be served, William and all other readers? Epstein recruited young ladies to entice dozens more young ladies to “work” for him. It sounds like a Arabic harem but shush, we can’t talk about that. Along with Michael and all others interested I hope this case lives on and leads to indictments of all the creeps involved.  Peter

From The Daily Beast. Alex Acosta took the podium Wednesday to try to put to rest a controversial plea deal he reached with accused child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein when Acosta was the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida in 2007. Much of what Acosta said sounded somewhat reasonable at first blush: Prosecutors do have a great deal of discretion in charging and resolving cases, so assessing the strength of a case against a defendant, whether he is likely to be convicted, weighed against the possibility of a dangerous defendant walking free, are legitimate and important prosecutorial considerations. But they simply don’t hold up here to explain what Acosta did . . . . On its face, that sounds appropriate; Acosta is saying that federal prosecutors stepped in to ensure an outcome that state authorities had failed to reach on their own. But in reality, there was absolutely nothing about Florida’s state prosecution that would have prevented federal authorities from pursuing a full-throttle investigation of Epstein’s crimes—which clearly rose to the level of federal sex trafficking—and aggressively charging that conduct, regardless of what the state did. Neither double jeopardy law nor DOJ policy would have prevented that.  end quote

##### Share on other sites

I just wanted to note one or two other perspectives to this “younger but not underage” discussion. Did you know young men have sex with young ladies? That is meant humorously. I know several states once allowed 13 year old girls to get married but I don’t know if those laws have been overturned. Singer Jerry Lee Lewis may have married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his twenties and what about Romeo and Juliette? Several Arabic and African countries allowed grown men to add young ladies to their households or harems though scrutiny may have curtailed that activity. If anyone knows the facts I would gladly read them.  I just remember one black African male said in an interview that his new 13 year old bride would NOT be expected to have sex with him  . . . for now.

Do men rule the world? The ability to earn money for support and physical strength are factors of the human condition that go back to our cave living days. I am not supporting any of the above, just commenting on it as I look for a *why*. And what about *cougars* seducing younger men? What is the appropriate age difference?

##### Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Peter said:

William wrote: What seems disgusting (and chips fall where they may) is that there were and are a Corps of Enablers who (like Acosta) forgot about the victims/did a shoddy job of prosecution. There is to my mind another set,  a more diffuse class of enablers who "knew" or suspected criminal activity yet ignored, evaded, minimized or excused that behaviour (I note again the excellent work of the reporters on this file at the Miami Herald). end quote

Well said William.

Peter,

It's kinda well said. This is Overton Window stuff.

Not too long ago, William would be denying there was any sex abuse of minors at all if it came from Democrats or progressives, much less "enablers." So admitting there are enablers is a step in the right direction. Too little too late, but still a step. (And that's only because the prize is to get rid of President Trump, not defend any victims of rape or pedophilia or both.)

Even today, when one brings up the possibility of blackmailers behind Epstein, William gets goofy as if to mock the very idea.

As to Acosta and his "sweetheart deal," I imagine at the time he suffered enormous pressures from the inside by people who had a lot at stake, and he did as he said, that is, he took what he knew he could get rather than face down a cabal of the super-powerful and ultimately get nothing. He didn't have to get involved in that mess. He could have let the State of Florida let Epstein walk away untouched. But he didn't.

Also, there's this. I don't blame Acosta for the pedophile and sex trafficking rings. I blame the ringleaders of the pedophiles and sex traffickers--almost all of whom are among the ruling class.

William's frame is that Epstein is not the real monster. Trump's man is the real monster. In other words, if it weren't for Trump, all those raped and abused girls would not have abused themselves since nobody knows who really abused them, certainly not Epstein. (Have you seen the recent spin in the mainstream that Epstein did not actually do anything to the girls, he was more like The Great Gatsby and liked to watch?  Seriously. That's the spin these days.)

I find the yelling about the Acosta monster while letting Epstein off the hook to be a weird frame because it's so obvious and dumb, but the ruling class and its apologists get away with it because of the complicity of the press (that the morally compromised people or their family members own). So we can expect more of the same goofy shit until the jail sentences start coming down. (Which should happen before too long.)

Then I imagine the press and ruling class apologists will pipe down a bit.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Peter said:

From The Daily Beast. Alex Acosta took the podium Wednesday to try to put to rest a controversial plea deal he reached with accused child-sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein when Acosta was the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of Florida in 2007. Much of what Acosta said sounded somewhat reasonable at first blush: Prosecutors do have a great deal of discretion in charging and resolving cases, so assessing the strength of a case against a defendant, whether he is likely to be convicted, weighed against the possibility of a dangerous defendant walking free, are legitimate and important prosecutorial considerations. But they simply don’t hold up here to explain what Acosta did . . . . On its face, that sounds appropriate; Acosta is saying that federal prosecutors stepped in to ensure an outcome that state authorities had failed to reach on their own. But in reality, there was absolutely nothing about Florida’s state prosecution that would have prevented federal authorities from pursuing a full-throttle investigation of Epstein’s crimes—which clearly rose to the level of federal sex trafficking—and aggressively charging that conduct, regardless of what the state did. Neither double jeopardy law nor DOJ policy would have prevented that.  end quote

Peter,

There may have been nothing on the books in the State prosecution preventing the Federal prosecution from doing more, but there was that pesky Clinton machine in the backrooms pumping like a motherfucker, threatening, bribing and double-dealing.

The fake news wants people to believe there is no such thing as backroom deals and backroom pressure if it comes from the ruling class.

They think we are stupid.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

That Napolitano guy gets ahead of a story now and again. I note again the work of  (insert adjective here) reporters at the Miami Herald.

Quote

William's frame is that Epstein is not the real monster.

-- I can see why a quick reading could lead to this mistaken impression.

• Epstein is the real monster.
• Lax prosecution gave Epstein a 'sweetheart deal'
• Epstein had a wide range of 'friends,' some of who were "enablers" of sex-trafficking.
• Epstein had 'friends' or employees -- or victims enculturated to sex-trafficking -- who helped "The Defense" of the man.
• Further 'friends' and associates of Epstein may be the subject of scandal, if not prosecution, for tolerating or participating in the most criminal of acts alleged against Epstein.
• Chips will fall as they may (meaning some enumerated 'contacts' of Epstein may be charged with as yet unknown crimes).

Some folks who fumbled their public duties or who appear to have fumbled their public duties will lose face and gain notoriety, or as today, be under such scrutiny fair and unfair that these some folks must resign or be fired.

Epstein is the real monster.  How come he continued to prey on victims after the case in Florida was closed? How come the New York state attorney couldn't even manage to make Epstein report per his sentencing ... ?

I could load all (official/legal/social) bad decisions taken in regard to Epstein on a Clinton barge.  But I would be rightly raked for slipping in a kind of black and white thinking, false dilemma, false alternative fallacy.

More chips may fall.  I see no more cabinet secretaries being forced out of office, but I'd like to see the NY Attorney get fired and shamed.

All of those who participated in post-Florida-verdict socializing with Epstein (who is the real monster), all of them should have chips fall on them as well.

I want to discover just how rich Epstein is and was, who holds his debt if any, who has blackmail-able material looming over them, if any.

Funny how if it were Cosby, the Clinton Machine Thing Rubric Island Barge might be savaged for a seemingly-inverted moral sin.

Quote

Not too long ago, William would be denying there was any sex abuse of minors at all if it came from Democrats or progressives, much less "enablers."

Edited by william.scherk
"William's frame" is ... reactionary
##### Share on other sites

William must be a fan of Kammmalllla by finishing his post with her mini me video. Kamilla? Is it pronounced like Camilla? There she goes again, with her "I like what I am seeing" or is that her "I am looking forward to our date" look? If you don't listen to her recorded voice but just watch the video she looks like old movie actress Mae West saying "Why don't you come up and see me sometime, big boy?"

##### Share on other sites

What are the unemotional facts? I just had to look it up. Life expectancies were lower "way back then" but this is to IN NO WAY exonerates an old fart today with teenagers or his human trafficking. I saw where the dude said to someone, he mostly just watched! To continue, dear readers.  In “Romeo and Juliette” in the year 1597, Romeo was around 16 and Juliette around 13. That implies that both of them had reached puberty. And they should live to be 30 to 40 years of age. Peter

From the net. How old is Romeo Montague? Most interpretations of Romeo and Juliet estimate him to be about 16 years old, and Juliet to be about 13. The heir of the House of Montague, Romeo meets and falls in love with Juliet, the young daughter of the House of Capulet . . . .

From Very Well Health  . . . . After comparing the proportion of those who died young with those who died at an older age, the team concluded that longevity only began to significantly increase—that is, past the age of 30 or so—about 30,000 years ago, which is quite late in the span of human evolution . . . . gerontologist and evolutionary biologist Caleb Finch describes the average life spans in ancient Greek and Roman times as short at approximately of 20 to 35 years, though he laments these numbers are based on “notoriously unrepresentative” graveyard epitaphs and samples. From the 1500s onward, till around the year 1800, life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 30 and 40 years of age.

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

-- I can see why a quick reading could lead to this ﻿mistaken impression. ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

William,

Can you?

For example:

11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Epstein is the real monster.
Lax prosecution gave Epstein a 'sweeth﻿eart deal'
Epstein had a wide range of 'friends,' some of who were "enablers" of sex-trafficking. ﻿﻿
Epstein had 'friends' or employees -- or victims enculturated to sex-trafficking -- who helped "The Defense" of the man.﻿
Further 'friends' and associates of Epstein may be the subject of scandal, if not prosecution, for tolerating or participating in the most criminal of acts alleged against Epstein.
Chips will fall as they may (meaning some enumerated 'contacts' of Epstein may be charged with as yet unknown crimes).﻿

Right.

No matter how slowly I read, I still don't see the C word.

Clinton.

Including his enablers.

I don't expect to see it, either. Because I expect to see you keep focusing on Acosta (and/or anything Trump) as your perceived real monster as you quickly drop Epstein (one post should be enough, right?) and never get close to including Clinton in all this, unless you can come up with some casual snark at throwaway places to make fun of the very idea that Clinton & cohorts could have moral failings.

Some things never change.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I want to discover just how rich Epstein is and was, who holds his debt if any, who has blackmail-able material looming over them, if any.﻿

At least you could look in that direction...

The way you write reminds me of the following:

A drunk kept looking under a lamp post at night.
A cop stopped and asked him, "What are you doing?"
"I'm trying to find my car keys."
"Where did you drop them?," asked the cop.
The drunk said, "Over there in that dark alley.
"Then why, on earth, are you looking over here?"
"The drunk said, "The light is better under the lamp post."

So wisdom is in the light, not what it illuminates.

As Goethe said, "Light! More light!"

Michael

##### Share on other sites

Coolness, huh?

Quote

... an engineer and contractor named James Both commented that the wooden door of the structure appeared to be designed to keep people in, rather than keeping people out.

. . .

Here’s what Both said of the temple structure:

"It’s styled like what you might see on a castle, with what appears to be a reinforcing lock bar across the face. What makes it peculiar is that if you wanted to keep people out, the bar would be placed inside the building, [but the] locking bar appears to be placed on the outside … as if it were intended to lock people in."

Michael

##### Share on other sites

My God!

The science community is now being exposed through the filter of Epstein's pedophilia.

Here is a BitChute link in case the video gets taken off YouTube.

I'm only halfway through this video, but what a hell of a lot research this lady does, and most of it is online, right under our noses.

Yeah... It seems like incorporating some of the most morally compromised and evil scientists from the defeated Germany in WWII into the American science community and intelligence structures was not such a good idea after all.

And that's just one item the Amazing Polly covers.

This thing deserves a separate discussion. If I get some time, I will set up a thread with corroborating links and references.

Michael

##### Share on other sites

William wrote: Further 'friends' and associates of Epstein may be the subject of scandal, if not prosecution, for tolerating or participating in the most criminal of acts alleged against Epstein. end quote

Fox is saying that, so far, Epstein is known to have paid a quarter million in bribes. He faces life in prison. The rapper R. Kelly has paid bribes to hide his sex crimes. There were non-consensual, sex crimes.

Talk about a conspiracy of the moneyed getting away with sexual predation. If investigators follow the trail they will be able to find and prosecute the government officials who aided and abetted criminals. They are also criminals. And hopefully the IRS will get involved.

##### Share on other sites

My two cents: According to Acosta he got the best result he could with the evidence available at the time.  I don’t feel I’m in a position to disprove that claim.  But that only got Epstein off the hook in the State of Florida and the Federal level (double jeopardy and all).  Not in the State of New York (someone please correct me if I’m wrong about this).  Now, 10-15 years later, New York is finally coming after him for the crimes committed within its jurisdiction.  Which they knew, or should have known about.  Why did it take so long?  Why is it finally going down now?  I say the NY justice system has the most to answer for.

On a separate question: are there any accusations against Epstein that post-date his original prosecution?  There’s talk of how Acosta left a predator free to continue, but if Epstein changed his ways maybe Acosta shouldn’t be getting vilified at all.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said:

My two cents: According to Acosta he got the best result he could with the evidence available at the time.  I don’t feel I’m in a position to disprove that claim.  But that only got Epstein off the hook in the State of Florida and the Federal level (double jeopardy and all).  ﻿Not in the State of New York (someone please correct me if I’m wrong about this).  Now, 10-15 years later, New York is finally coming after him for the crimes committed within its jurisdiction.  Which they knew, or should have known about.  Why did it take so long?  Why is it finally going down now?  I say the NY justice system has the m﻿ost to answer for.

On a separate question: are there any accusations against Epstein that post-date his original prosecution?﻿  There’s talk of how Acosta left a predator free to continue, but if Epstein changed his ways maybe Acosta shouldn’t be getting vilified at all.

Dennis,

In his press conference, Acosta said that there are investigations ongoing against Epstein in quite a few states, not just New York, and he hopes and wishes they will eventually step up and prosecute.

As an aside, re the video by the Amazing Polly above, I had no idea the sheer quantity of famous scientists Epstein funds. He funds a lot of them, especial those connected with behavioral sciences and artificial intelligence. The US government (which funds the same scientists) has been caught carrying out scientific experiments of all kinds on unwilling subjects many times in the past, so it is conceivable that part of Epstein's human trafficking, in addition to the sex stuff, involves getting live human subjects to be used as lab rats without their knowledge.

It's illegal to experiment on humans without their consent for the most part, but if the scientists want to perfect AI to the point of attaining the singularity, immortality, our AI masters and whatever else their little hearts desire, they have to have human subjects to study and run tests on. Much can be gleaned from social media and covert surveillance (which they are using to great effect), but some questions need live specimens.

A typical area is stress. What's more stressful to a young girl than being forced into prostitution servicing old farts? In addition to Goid knows what else. Then, as she grows, the relevant scientists can keep an eye on her at a distance to see the long term effects of this and that. And that's just one possibility.

If this scenario has any legs at all, it would also explain a lot about Epstein's seeming immunity and sweetheart court deals over the years. And if this is true, I hope President Trump manages to use the full force of his power to blow the fucking lid off it.

Michael