The Media Research Center couldn’t stop complaining that non-right-wing networks continued to cover Jeffrey Epstein. Curtis Houck ranted in a Dec. 22 post:
As part of the elitist liberal media’s campaign to destroy President Trump’s second term by tying him to Jeffrey Epstein and his odious life of sex trafficking minors, the major broadcast networks of ABC, CBS and NBC have spent a gargantuan 1,033 minutes — or 17 hours and 13 minutes — since July 7 on their flagship morning and evening newscasts and Sunday talk shows seeking to establish an disturbing connection between them.
This new tally — which began after an FBI memo said Epstein died by suicide and there was no “client list” — marked just over a 20 percent increase (20.52%) from our first study on the morning of November 18, meaning the networks added just under 213 minutes (212:53) in 34 days.
[…]If they were interested in transparency instead of implicating Trump in unspeakable crimes, they would have told viewers the six women were overage and models appearing at Mar-a-Lago to promote Hawaiian Tropic, a brand of sunscreen. The Telegraph spoke to one of the women, who said Trump was “very nice” and “gentlemanly.”
More broadly, the totals were thanks in part to dumps of selective photos and videos from Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, creating a drip, drip, drip timed to keep a story in the headlines that few voters have expressed concern about.
If Epstein was explicitly linked only to Democrats, Houck would be demanding that the story be covered. But because there’s an explicit link to Trump, he wants to bury the story. And, as before, Houck made no calculation of how much time Fox News spent on Epstein — perhaps because, like Houck, it too wants to bury the story.
P.J. Gladnick spent a Dec. 25 post freaking out over a letter released in a tranche of Epstein documents in a Dec. 25 post:
Few things better illustrate why there has been a steep decline in the quality of writing at The New Yorker under the editorship of David Remnick than his absurd reaction to finding out that a letter supposedly written by Jeffrey Epstein to convicted serial sex offender Larry Nassar which implicated President Donald Trump in something bad has been determined to be fake.
On Tuesday, Remnick revealed just how sadly his obsession over his Orange Whale has overwhelmed him to the extent that he has laughably lost whatever sense of rationality he might have left as you can see in “Trump, Epstein, and the Women.”
[…]It appears that even Remnick accepts that the Epstein letter is fake. So did that cause him to even reconsider his charges against Trump? Nope. And here is Remnick’s twisted rationale: “The case for this President’s indecency hardly requires putting a dubious letter into evidence.”
So fake but accurate?
Gladnick whined even more about this the next day:
“So you’re telling me there’s a chance.”
We laughed when the “Dumb and Dumber” character uttered that but that attitude was reflected in real life by a New York magazine writer which makes it even funnier. Yes, the extreme Hopium expressed by that magazine’s Intelligencer section senior editor, Margaret Hartmann, over the incredibly slight possibility that Jeffrey Epstein’s postcard letter to imprisoned serial sex offender Larry Nassar might be valid is made hilarious by its sheer desperation despite the much less than million to one chance that it could be true. You can see Hartmann on Tuesday going full “Dumb and Dumber” in her plea for even slight hint of damning evidence against President Donald Trump, “Did Epstein Really Send Larry Nassar a Suicide Note?”
[…]2023? And was that not at the time when the Biden administration DOJ was conducting over-the-top lawfare against President Donald Trump? If there was the slightest chance that letter was valid does anybody think there would be any possibility that letter would not be quickly released to a very compliant media?
Does Gladnick think what Trump is doing to the likes of perceived foes like Jack Smith is not “lawfare”? Perhaps he can tell us what the right’s preferred term for it is.
Alex Christy was in full comedy-cop mode in a Jan. 6 post:
The late night comedy shows kicked off 2026 on Monday by talking about the big news of Nicolas Maduro’s capture by U.S. forces on Saturday in Venezuela. According to the liberal quintet, the most obvious motivations for President Trump to order such a move were to distract from the Epstein files and because Trump did not like Maduro’s dance moves.
[…]Earlier, Meyers’s NBC colleague, The Tonight Show’s Jimmy Fallon, echoed Kimmel and Colbert on the Epstein point, “Good luck to everyone who’s made New Year’s resolutions. Yeah, some people want to lose weight while others want to gain Venezuela and—. Yeah, the big news from this weekend is that President Trump sent U.S. troops into Venezuela to capture the country’s president, Nicolas Maduro. Yup, the news took everyone by surprise. When I heard there was an operation to extract a president, I just assumed Trump got stuck in his tanning bed… it turns out Trump’s New Year’s resolution was to distract everyone from the Epstein files.”
Rather than explaining why it’s not the case that the Maduro operation wasn’t a distraction, Christy defended the Maduro raid:
In 1989, the U.S. undertook a similar operation against Panama’s Manuel Noriega, who had also been indicted on federal drug charges and rigged his country’s elections. Are the late night shows even aware of that, or do they and their writers think history began on Saturday?
Christy didn’t explain why the Noriega operation needed to be linked to Maduro.