Some contrarian content from Michael Tracey. Note that the prosecutor seems to be "Woke" and looks like a stereotypical "evil feminist", so presumably the Alt Right keyboard warriors who demand the death penalty for Lindsay Clancy are siding with "the damn liberals"? And in Massachusetts! Ironic if true...
Melania Trump´s unexpected speech on Jeffrey Epstein has been spun by the mainstream media as simply a denial that she had anything to do with him or his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell. But as perennial gadfly Michael Tracey points out on X, the really weird part is that the First Lady is calling on Congress to launch a new investigation into the Epstein files! This despite the fact that Donald Trump wants everyone to drop the entire issue. Is the POTUS trying to distract attention from the seeming Iran debacle by re-opening the Epstein case? That would be...richly ironic.
Tracey´s xweets below.
xxxxx
This is gobsmacking. Not only did Melania Trump suddenly decide to give a televised address about Jeffrey Epstein, she's calling on Congress to "act," because Epstein was "not alone." So she just threw a giant stick of political dynamite on the issue her husband despises!
I don't know about you, but my head is still spinning over this Melania speech. WTF! Sure, there are photos of her consorting with Jeffrey and Ghislaine over the years, and maybe a fleeting email here or there, but has she ever really been THAT big of a focal point in the speculation? (Because now she definitely WILL BE...) She denied wrongdoing. What wrongdoing was she ever even accused of? Did anyone notice that while she was at it, she could've declared that her husband also didn't do anything wrong, but conspicuously chose not to...? Why suddenly make a televised statement on Epstein this afternoon -- apparently without Donald's knowledge -- calling for Congressional action and public "survivor" testimony, because, she claims, Epstein did not "act alone"? Donald has always been adamant that he feels the country should move on from Epstein. It's certainly not something he feels should warrant any further political or legislative attention. But... that's exactly what Melania just called for! So again, WTF!
There are conflicting opinions and reports about whether Melania chose to deliver this gobsmacking Epstein Speech with or without the consent, or knowledge, of Donald. One report suggests Donald was given a "heads up." But this could just be something like: "Heads up, Melania is about to give a speech." Doesn't necessarily mean Donald was involved in the planning of it. He could've simply been told about it at the last minute. Other reports suggest he had no knowledge that his wife was about to speak on Epstein, and call for renewed political action on the matter. So this at least appears to have been the personal initiative of Melania. Still, speculation will abound that it was plotted out in concert with Donald. Even though this would blatantly contradict Donald's repeat admonitions that everyone should forget about Epstein, and concern about the Epstein Files is a "hoax" cooked up by Democrats, as well as a cohort of "stupid" Republicans. Though of course Donald is not above contradicting himself, and is in fact becoming increasingly erratic/volatile, this would certainly be an all-time Whopper of a contradiction. For now, we simply don't know what gave rise to the Melania Epstein Speech, which is what makes this episode so gobsmacking.
xxxxx
 |
| Credit: Yoky |
Gadfly Michael Tracey on a very American predicament. Linked here mostly for information.
 |
| Gotta lööv the aesthetic |
Michael Tracey just now: "Among voters who say they oppose the war in Iran, the most common reason cited is "I do not trust Donald Trump." Just in case anybody gets the wrong idea that there's some major anti-war epiphany going on. Swap in another political figure they "trust," and they'd be all for it".
Well, Mikey, Iran is ruled by a brutal oppressive theocracy in effective control of the fossil fuel trade routes with a penchant for supporting terrorist movements all around the Middle East...so yeah, something like that. They seem hell bent on unleashing another Holocaust, too. If that´s a thing?
Although I would prefer some kind of freakin´ plan rather than "trust"...
Michael Tracey (the leading and perhaps only "Epstein skeptic" in the world) actually posted this himself on his YouTube channel and even self-ironically titled it "CAR CRASH interview". Which seems to be about right...
 |
| Credit: Michael Tracey(?) |
A very short piece by America´s leading "Epstein-denialist" Michael Tracey. Strictly for your information.
Most insane take so far on Trump´s Iran War of course comes from Michael Tracey, the contrarian extraordinaire.
>>>If you weren't aware, "unconditional surrender" is what Franklin D. Roosevelt demanded of the Axis Powers after the Casablanca Conference in 1943. This ultimately entailed extirpating the German state, dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, and occupying both countries in perpetuity.
Is MAGA *really* disintegrating because of Trump´s more and more "Neo-Con" activities? Michael Tracey has the receipts...
>>>As of a month ago, Republicans were by far the most likely to support regime change in Iran. Expect that number to skyrocket even higher now, especially among self-identified "MAGA Republicans." >>>WSJ, 2/19/2026: A recent Harvard CAPS/Harris poll found that self-identified 'MAGA Republicans' are the group most likely to back regime change in Iran—75% said they supported it, vs. only 69% of "traditional Republicans"
Believe it or not, but I actually agree with Cenk here. America´s foremost "Epstein-minimizer" Tracey is a born contrarian, not some kind of secret agent of the Zionist-Epstein-ite Organism or whatever people accuse him of this week.
I saw the contrarian tendencies already back in 2020, when Tracey managed to provoke both Trump´s, Biden´s and Sanders´ fans. But during a near-chaotic election campaign (or was it a regime change operation), this kind of attitude still smacked of independent journalism. He *did* write interesting stuff back then. Still does, after a fashion.
But when Tracey at some point (2023?) began to sound almost like a Holocaust denier on Xwitter, I realized that the man has a trollish side. Which perhaps also explains his peculiar collaborative relation with Richard Hanania, another notorious troll/gadfly (you know, the Palestinian-American who supports the Israeli far right). That is: he´s trolling on the opposite side of the political spectrum (Tracey comes across more like a dissident liberal).
How this will end is still an open question. I´m refering of course to the Epstein Files. Born contrarians will probably be part of the American alt-media landscape for years to come...
America´s resident "Epstein-minimizer" Michael Tracey explains(?) why he isn´t scandalized by the Epstein Files. Hmmm...
>>>However much they now might want to try to deny it, amid this torrential downpour of extreme hindsight bias, the reality is that 10-15 years ago, it would've been perfectly reasonable for most people to meet with Jeffrey Epstein.
>>>Especially if it was in the context of being invited to some function featuring other interesting, noteworthy people. >>>Sure, they might have googled him in advance, and found he had pleaded guilty to some prostitution charges in the past. But that would've been widely seen as no big deal. >>>Prostitution? Really? Who cares? Even if it's not your cup of tea, it's not something to get overly exercised about. >>>The same year Epstein was convicted, Eliot Spitzer also had to resign as governor of New York after he got caught patronizing a high-end escort service. >>>As I recall, Spitzer was never banished from polite society, nor was anyone told they must refuse to ever associate with him again. In fact, he was not long thereafter given a show on CNN.
For those who have X. An entire thread on Alex Jones´ curious transmogrification from conspiracy theory doyen extraordinaire (and llama tamer) to some kind of basic bitch admin operative.
Independent reporter Michael Tracey argues that Tulsi Gabbard is super-opportunist even by the standards of US politics. Indeed, her opportunism is almost irrational, since her position within the Trump administration apparently doesn´t come with much power anyway.
Maybe. But there is one aspect Tracey never mentions. Gabbard is a member of a mysterious religious sect, Science of Identity, led by one Chris Butler. There is no evidence that she is Butler´s intelligencer or infiltrator in Washington DC, but I can´t help wondering. During her political career, Tulsi Gabbard has befriended the DNC, Bernie Sanders, Joe and Jill Biden, and now Donald Trump. Which makes no sense...unless somebody really wants to have (dis)info on everyone in DC.
A more mundane explanation, I suppose, would be that Gabbard is a BJP asset. Her contacts with Hindu nationalists were apparently quite extensive already during her "leftist" period. Perhaps PM Modi uses her as a listening post and lobbyist? Maybe Modi correctly predicted Trump´s victory in 2024 and quietly told Gabbard to support him?
Of course, there is yet another possibility: Gabbard is crazy. Not in the clinical sense, of course, but in the everyday sense of that term. She´s something of a kook, which explains why she is still a member of Butler´s New Religious Movement (a peculiar breakaway from the Hare Krishna). I admit that I´m kind of weirded out by the Gabbardian situation myself!
Link below.
Noam Chomsky had close ties with Jeffrey Epstein. Here is a kind of pro-Chomsky defense, written by contrarian blogger Michael Tracey, the leading "Epstein Files skeptic". Also mentions Bannon...
Michael Tracey is really living up to his contrarian reputation here...
Mamdani´s ruthless politics of personal destruction
Andrew Cuomo´s fake "sexual harassment" scandal
Things are heating up in the New York City mayoral race.
Trump has publicly called on Republican voters *not* to support Curtis Sliwa, the "populist vigilante" candidate of the Republican Party (he´s apparently the founder-leader of the Guardian Angels). Instead, POTUS is backing liberal Democrat Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent. If all of Sliwa´s voters switch to Cuomo at the last moment, the latter will narrowly defeat the "socialist" candidate Zohran Mamdani (the official Democrat nominee).
Which is the real point of the exercise. That, and presumably to stop any further legal proceedings against the Donald in the Big Apple. Meanwhile, Mamdani quotes Marx in a tweet. A troll? Suggesting he thinks he´s going to win...
