Kathy Ruemmler. How could she???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What's the connection between Karp and Ruemmler. It seems like Epstein was meeting with both of them at the same time. Was he getting off the books legal or strategic advice?

Yes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Some real all-or-nothing thinking I’m this thread. Yes, every person with power (White House, etc) will face some moral compromises and interact with some shady people.

Not everyone will accepts gifts from and cozy up to pedophiles. Which is why there are plenty of elites and billionaires who do not appear in these files.

Agree with a PP that saying “everyone does it” (when the “it” is being literal besties with a notorious pedophile) is itself a form of enabling.

Another one with conceptual thinking deficits. The principle you should have distilled isn't "everyone does it." Rather, it's to understand that the system of power we have is extremely corrupt and you must stop stupidly putting faith in the cover stories and mythologies with which these people explain their rise and cover their tracks. We, the People, cannot perform our watchdog function and hold power to count when we are so credulous. An investigation of EVERYONE in key positions throughout every administration in which Epstein operated is the least we should be demanding here. In a different country of people who hadn't internalized the falsehood that the powerful are heroes to be idolized, a government-wide investigation, along with investigation of private actors who were utilizing the revolving door throughout, would be already underway.

You're not doing anything special sitting around knowing that a literal cabal of pedophiles operated in this country for decades and then waiting for random unredacted names to leak so you can gasp and virtue signal with how shocked you are.

Respectfully, I think you think I’m more naive than I am. And somehow that you uniquely in this thread have the proverbial eyes to see.

But there are a lot of elite names that do not appear in these files. And obviously there are plenty that do. This thread is about the difference between those two categories of elites.

PP here. No, you're trying to create a conversation about the false dichotomy you have fabricated between people who are currently named and people who have not yet been exposed. You're pretending that the former are the only culpable parties while the latter are somehow innocent. Ask yourself why.

As I just pointed it out in a previous post, anyone paying attention right now is fully aware that the evidence in the public sphere is a mere fraction of the evidence that exists and the latter is a mere fraction of the evidence that once existed but was destroyed.

People like you, who like to place disproportionate focus on discrete individuals to obscure the reality of a literal pedophile cabal that either comprised or compromised virtually everyone in power over multiple decades, are part of the problem. You're sitting here exonerating people whom common sense should tell you were likely part of this or looked the other way at the very least, and then you're pretending this is some kind of attempt to hold people accountable? You're a clown.

The PP isn’t a clown. The PP is a wealthy person in the 2% afraid of the backlash when the other 98% of the population realize that the 2% is made up of deeply evil people. Ironically the attempt to manipulate the truth just shows that the PP is also in the deeply evil category.

I’m the PP, and you are incorrect about who I am.

Let me ask this: for those who are saying there’s no meaningful difference between those who appear (and you are correct to qualify this as “in the files that we have seen”), what process are you advocating, exactly? In your mind/s, what does accountability look like, and where does it begin?

I'm the PP who keeps posting about the systemic rot. I have a suggestion. Not that it's ever, ever, ever going to happen in America, but something along the lines of the Nuremberg trials crossed with South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission is needed here.

(Although even those tribunals were highly compromised and not allowed to look too far lest they expose too much. For instance, the number of high-level Nazis that the American government hired in places like NASA, for instance, was not allowed to be mentioned or even touched upon during the Nuremberg trials.)

A systemic years long effort to clean up at least some of this mess by demanding everyone in power in that given time testify under oath is necessary. The carrot will be the same as that of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission: That those, except the highest level of perpetrators, who come clean and expose everything publicly will be allowed to move on with their lives. I hate to see evildoers go unpunished, but it's going to take granting immunity to some level of evildoers -- the legal fixers, PR people, staff, and other enablers, but not the rapists, murderers, or traffickers -- to make sure that the worst ones are exposed and the whole system of corruption is weakened. Notice I say weakened because that is the most we can aspire to here IMO.

All of this is better than what we're currently seeing. Americans are letting the most powerful actors, who orchestrated the scheme with Epstein, leak the names of easy scapegoats to create the appearance of justice being done and to direct attention away from the system that is STILL operating.

PP. I’m 100% down with your proposal. Absolutely. I will go on record with…who, my senators? My reps? Rising pols and high influence individuals …to demand it. I will participate (even more than I already am) in an economic boycott until the system is broken and the demand is met.

Seriously. I like it.

But…can’t I also wonder about Kathy R’s individual state of mind? Like OP, I read her emails and am just absolutely floored. I can’t not wonder how, and why, and wtf?

I get that you see this as a failure of thinking. (It is definitely a failure of imagination on my part, as I cannot imagine her mindset). But I also think people wonder what they wonder, and I don’t see why truth and reconciliation demands not wondering about individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that's troubling me is when and how did she meet Epstein?

The released emails start in the summer of 2014, very soon after she left the White House, and are already chummy. Which implies that they already knew each other.

That fall is when Holder resigned. At some point she withdrew her name from AG consideration supposedly because confirmation would have been difficult. Did someobody know about the Epstein connection then?

How do you think she got the job of white house counsel? No one gets let into the room where the most sensitive misdeeds of the American president are being discussed, much less gets to make decisions about those misdeeds, without already being known as someone who is compromised and who is never going to get out of pocket.

That's the next question

The initial jump from Latham to the WH would have required someone powerful to vouch for her. Who was it?

Now, you're asking the right questions. These are the kinds of questions that the powerful are determined not to let the public ask. They would rather have you gasp about her than ask who her cronies and mentors were and what they're doing right now to maintain their power.

Ask yourself how she ended up hired by Obama and what that tells us about Obama. Ask how Epstein was so powerful that Obama's counsel was his errand girl and plaything. The implications of just that thought process alone get scary very fast.

It looks like it was Alice Fisher. Who just so happened to be AAG in 2008 when Acosta gave Epstein the sweetheart deal.

Fisher interestingly enough was on Trump's shortlist for FBI director after he fired Comey.

Alice Fisher got her bump up from Chertoff and Ken Starr. Ken Starr was Epstein's lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because people will do whatever rich people want. Especially lawyers

My husband's super rich best friend from college has always called attorneys "glorified janitors".

[Anonymous]

- Smart, ambitious and successful with a long list of accomplishments all along the way;
- Old and getting older (she’s now 54)
- Never married – she was a ‘winner,’ and must’ve wondered why couldn’t she find a suitable guy to marry, or one couldn’t find her.
- No children.

This combination can make a woman mean. It's good she's been found out. Nasty piece of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people will do whatever rich people want. Especially lawyers

My husband's super rich best friend from college has always called attorneys "glorified janitors".

What an ass

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:- Smart, ambitious and successful with a long list of accomplishments all along the way;
- Old and getting older (she’s now 54)
- Never married – she was a ‘winner,’ and must’ve wondered why couldn’t she find a suitable guy to marry, or one couldn’t find her.
- No children.

This combination can make a woman mean. It's good she's been found out. Nasty piece of work.

But will add she's no worse than the men involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Smart, ambitious and successful with a long list of accomplishments all along the way;
- Old and getting older (she’s now 54)
- Never married – she was a ‘winner,’ and must’ve wondered why couldn’t she find a suitable guy to marry, or one couldn’t find her.
- No children.

This combination can make a woman mean. It's good she's been found out. Nasty piece of work.

But will add she's no worse than the men involved.

Certainly no worse than the men. I think that those of us here (in DC, on DCUM) are likely to be around her age, and perhaps would have loved to be White House Counsel under Obama. So, we can identify with her more than the pasty pants-less men in the files. We wonder, why, if she had it made (from our points of view) would she give all of that up for a few shiny objects and a little bit of flattery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people will do whatever rich people want. Especially lawyers

My husband's super rich best friend from college has always called attorneys "glorified janitors".

What an ass

Just another reminder that if you're not among the mega-rich, you're just one of their resort staff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Epstein had an egg-shaped dick. Attorneys at Boies Schiller deposed him in one of the civil suits about his deformities. He had a noggin sized for Rapa Nui and no aesthetic sense. His rape mansion photos show that he could not collect art or design the interiors for shit.

Obama didn’t cozy up in return with Ruemmler or JE. She launched from the WH to Goldman and could buy her own wine but she’s a cheap loveless whore who thought she was superior to everyone her hatchet faced self interacted with at a rest stop. She’s a supremacist, that’s how they think.

Wow, did she not hire you? What’s with the hate?

That's the loco troll who goes off all the time on "Jewish Supremacy." You must be new here. Most of their posts get deleted but a few sneak through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Smart, ambitious and successful with a long list of accomplishments all along the way;
- Old and getting older (she’s now 54)
- Never married – she was a ‘winner,’ and must’ve wondered why couldn’t she find a suitable guy to marry, or one couldn’t find her.
- No children.

This combination can make a woman mean. It's good she's been found out. Nasty piece of work.

But will add she's no worse than the men involved.

Oh, she’s “no worse” than the men who were actively raping girls? Are you sure? That’s pretty generous of you to concede.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Smart, ambitious and successful with a long list of accomplishments all along the way;
- Old and getting older (she’s now 54)
- Never married – she was a ‘winner,’ and must’ve wondered why couldn’t she find a suitable guy to marry, or one couldn’t find her.
- No children.

This combination can make a woman mean. It's good she's been found out. Nasty piece of work.

But will add she's no worse than the men involved.

Oh, she’s “no worse” than the men who were actively raping girls? Are you sure? That’s pretty generous of you to concede.

That's not how I meant it, but you're right to make the distinction. Aiding an abuser is not exactly the same as being an abuser. Whatever the case, she made her choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When will she be fired???

She's sort of suprising to be in the position she has as Chief Counsel. Univ Washington undergrad. Georgetown Law. These are not the best legal credentials. So they just wanted her there for her connections and personality?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Epstein had an egg-shaped dick. Attorneys at Boies Schiller deposed him in one of the civil suits about his deformities. He had a noggin sized for Rapa Nui and no aesthetic sense. His rape mansion photos show that he could not collect art or design the interiors for shit.

Obama didn’t cozy up in return with Ruemmler or JE. She launched from the WH to Goldman and could buy her own wine but she’s a cheap loveless whore who thought she was superior to everyone her hatchet faced self interacted with at a rest stop. She’s a supremacist, that’s how they think.

Wow, did she not hire you? What’s with the hate?

That's the loco troll who goes off all the time on "Jewish Supremacy." You must be new here. Most of their posts get deleted but a few sneak through.

I’m sorry that you take personally discussion of the Zionist supremacist elements of these emails. It’s right there for everyone to read.

Perhaps her letting the ancient Reid Weingarten splooge all over her and then having Reid’s wife dump her for him over a “good luck in your future endeavors” e-mail makes Ms Ruemmler your idea of a boss babe. Takes all kinds.

Why do any of you psychos get pissy when people describe these people using their own communications?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:- Smart, ambitious and successful with a long list of accomplishments all along the way;
- Old and getting older (she’s now 54)
- Never married – she was a ‘winner,’ and must’ve wondered why couldn’t she find a suitable guy to marry, or one couldn’t find her.
- No children.

This combination can make a woman mean. It's good she's been found out. Nasty piece of work.

But will add she's no worse than the men involved.

Certainly no worse than the men. I think that those of us here (in DC, on DCUM) are likely to be around her age, and perhaps would have loved to be White House Counsel under Obama. So, we can identify with her more than the pasty pants-less men in the files. We wonder, why, if she had it made (from our points of view) would she give all of that up for a few shiny objects and a little bit of flattery.

Why? She’s unwell. She didn’t befriend and provide hundreds of thousands of dollars of free legal advice to her great friend who was a pedophile for years, even going to his federal arraignment to show support, and have a years long affair with a married person with a child because of a fabulous psychological profile. She knew the risks and immorality associated with both relationships and actively continued with them.