"YLS never beating the 'they don't teach law at Yale' allegations"

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Anna Bower
‪@annabower.bsky.social‬

Follow
YLS never beating the “they don’t teach law at Yale” allegations
JD Vance &
@JDVance
The contention--which is pretty clear if you just read what I said--is that it's bogus for the WSJ to publish a hit piece without showing us the letter.
I have no idea if the book exists--WSJ won't show it to us. I have no idea if the letter exists--WSJ won't show it to us. What I find absurd is the idea that Donald Trump was writing poems to Epstein, and I find it equally absurd that a major American paper would attack the President of the United States without revealing the basis for the attack.
We all know what's going to happen. They're going to dribble little details out for days or weeks in an effort to assassinate the president's character.
They won't show us this book or allow us to refute it until they've wrung every bit of fake news out of the story. And everyone will just move on from the fact that the WSJ is acting like a Democrat SuperPAC. It's disgraceful, and it's why the president sued.
ALT
July 25, 2025 at 3:06 PM

YLS never beating the “they don’t teach law at Yale” allegations

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) 2025-07-25T19:06:51.115Z

[struggle4progress]

1. JD needs to spend more time touring Pituffik

[karynnj]

2. If they printed a photo of the letter, Vance would call it pornography

available for school kids, like his "wife's" to see. He would also claim there is no proof that Trump drew it, wrote the words, or signed it and that is possibly correct because no one except Trump would know if he delegated the drawing and even the wording. Given that Trump likely was there for the birthday, it would be unlikely it was done without his concurrence.

What is provable, though, is that Trump and Epstein were good friends at the time of that birthday and for more than a decade. Not to mention, what other friends of that duration did Trump have? I can't think of anyone else for whom there are videos and photos of him laughing and joking.

It is also true that that card is no worse than things that ARE probable such as the Access Hollywood video and various inappropriate comments, such as speaking of his daughters in a sexual way, claiming the right to barge into teen dressing rooms, and almost every Howard Stern interview. The reason that card is a problem for him is that it IS consistent with his behavior then AND it brings up his provable friendship with a pedophile running a pedophile ring. Whether he drew the card or not, BOTH of those things are 100 percent provable.

[yardwork]

3. This from the guy who admitted that the "eating cats and dogs" story was a lie.

Vance admitted the story about immigrants eating cats and dogs was a lie but he said it was ok to repeat it because it was a good story.

And then he has the hypocrisy to tweet:

I find it equally absurd that a major American paper would attack the President of the United States without revealing the basis for the attack.