Column

Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Noam Chomsky and Woody Allen were among the familiar faces in the latest batch of photographs released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee in connection to the late Jeffrey Epstein. With the Justice Department preparing to make additional files public, the images underscore an uncomfortable truth for us all: The convicted sex offender moved comfortably among some of the most intelligent men in the world. Rhodes scholars, technology leaders and artists.

Also in the release was a photograph of a woman’s lower leg and foot on what appears to be a bed, with a paperback copy of Vladimir Nabokov’s “Lolita” visible in the background. The 1955 novel centers on a middle-aged man’s sexual obsession with a 12-year-old girl. Epstein, a serial sexual abuser, famously nicknamed one of his private planes “The Lolita Express.” And we are to believe that some of the globe’s brightest minds could not put the dots together?

Donald Trump, who once described himself as “a very stable genius,” included.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York magazine in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

Later, the two had a public falling out, and Trump has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing. Great. But denial after the fact is only one side of this story. The other is harder to digest: Either the self-proclaimed “very stable genius” spent nearly two decades around Epstein without recognizing what was happening in plain sight — or he recognized it and chose silence. Neither explanation reflects on intelligence as much as it does on character. No wonder Trump’s defenders keep raising the most overused word in American politics today: hoax.

“Once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry-picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. “Here’s the reality: Democrats like Stacey Plaskett and Hakeem Jeffries were soliciting money and meetings from Epstein after he was a convicted sex offender. The Democrat hoax against President Trump has been repeatedly debunked, and the Trump administration has done more for Epstein’s victims than Democrats ever have by repeatedly calling for transparency, releasing thousands of pages of documents and calling for further investigations into Epstein’s Democrat friends.”

Jackson has a point.

Democrats were cherry-picking which photos to release, even if many of the men pictured were aligned with progressives. That includes the president, who was a Democrat when he and Epstein were running together in New York in the 2000s. Trump didn’t register as a Republican until 2009. Now whether the choice of photos and timing was designed to shield political friends or weaponize against perceived enemies isn’t clear. What is clear is that it doesn’t take a genius to see that none of this is a hoax.

The victims are real. The flight logs are real. The millions that flowed into Epstein’s bank account have wire transfer confirmation numbers that can be traced. What Democrats are doing with the information is politics as usual. And you don’t want politics to dictate who gets justice and who gets vilified.

Whatever the politicians’ intentions, Americans can decide how to react to the disclosures. And what the men around Epstein did with the information they gathered on his jet or his island fits squarely at the heart of the national conversation about masculinity. What kind of men could allow such abuse to continue?

I’m not saying the intelligent men in Epstein’s ecosystem did something criminal, but the lack of whistleblowing before his arrest raises questions about their fortitude for right and wrong. And the Trump White House trying to characterize this conversation as a partisan witch hunt — a hoax — is an ineffective strategy because the pattern with their use of that word is so clear.

We saw what happened on Jan. 6, and Trump tells us the investigation is a hoax. We hear the recording of him pressuring Georgia officials to find votes, and he tells us the investigation is a hoax. Trump campaigned on affordability issues — the cost of bacon, no taxes on tips — but now that he’s in office such talk is a hoax by Democrats. As if we don’t know the price of groceries in real time. Ten years ago, Trump told us he had proof that President Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. We’re still waiting.

In his book, “Art of the Deal,” Trump framed his lies as “truthful hyperbole” but by now we should understand for him hyperbole matters more than truth — and his felony convictions confirm that some of his claims were indeed simply false.

So if there is a hoax, it is the notion that none of the brilliant men whom Epstein kept in his orbit had any idea what was going on.

YouTube: @LZGrandersonShow

SACRAMENTO — It turns out Proposition 50 smacked California Republicans with a double blow heading into the 2026 congressional elections.

First, there was the reshaping of House districts aimed at flipping five Republican-held seats to Democrats.

Now, we learn that the proposition itself juiced up Democratic voter enthusiasm for the elections.

Voter enthusiasm normally results in a higher casting of ballots.

It’s all about the national battle for control of the U.S. House of Representatives — and Congress potentially exercising its constitutional duty to provide some checks and balance against the president. Democrats need a net pickup of only three seats in November’s elections to dethrone Republicans.

President Trump is desperate to keep his GOP toadies in power. So, he has coerced — bullied and threatened — some red-state governors and legislatures into rejiggering Democratic-held House seats to make them more Republican-friendly.

When Texas quickly obliged, Gov. Gavin Newsom retaliated with a California Democratic gerrymander aimed at neutralizing the Lone Star State’s partisan mid-decade redistricting.

California’s counterpunch became Proposition 50, which was approved by a whopping 64.4% of the state’s voters.

Not only did Proposition 50 redraw some GOP-held House seats to tinge them blue, it stirred up excitement about the 2026 elections among Democratic voters.

That’s the view of Mark Baldassare, polling director for the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California. And it makes sense. Umpteen millions of dollars were spent by Newsom and Proposition 50 backers advertising the evils of Trump and the need for Democrats to take over the House.

A PPIC poll released last week showed a significant “enthusiasm gap” between Democratic and Republican voters regarding the House contests.

“One of the outcomes of Proposition 50 is that it focused voters on the midterm elections and made them really excited about voting next year,” Baldassare says.

At least, Democrats are showing excitement. Republicans, not so much.

In the poll, likely voters were asked whether they were more enthusiastic than usual about voting in the congressional elections or less enthusiastic.

Overall, 56% were more enthusiastic and 41% less enthusiastic. But that’s not the real story.

The eye-opener is that among Democrats, an overwhelming 72% were more enthusiastic. And 60% of Republicans were less enthusiastic.

“For Democrats, that’s unusually high,” Baldassare says.

To put this in perspective, I looked back at responses to the same question asked in a PPIC poll exactly two years ago before the 2024 elections. At that time, Democrats were virtually evenly split over their enthusiasm or lack of it concerning the congressional races. In fact, Republicans expressed more enthusiasm.

Still, Democrats gained three congressional seats in California in 2024. So currently they outnumber Republicans in the state’s House delegation by a lopsided 43 to 9.

If Democrats could pick up three seats when their voters weren’t even lukewarm about the election, huge party gains seem likely in California next year. Democratic voters presumably will be buoyed by enthusiasm and the party’s candidates will be boosted by gerrymandering.

“Enthusiasm is contagious,” says Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley. “If the party’s concentric circle of committed activists is enthusiastic, that excitement tends to spread outward to other voters.”

Schnur adds: “Two years ago, Democrats were not motivated about Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. Now they’re definitely motivated about Donald Trump. And in order to win midterm elections, you need to have a motivated base.”

Democratic strategist David Townsend says that “enthusiasm is the whole ballgame. It’s the ultimate barometer of whether my message is working and the other side’s is not working.”

The veteran consultant recalls that Democrats “used to go door to door handing out potholders, potted plants, refrigerator magnets and doughnuts trying to motivate voters.

“But the best turnout motivator Democrats have ever had in California is Donald J. Trump.”

In the poll, 71% of voters disapproved of the way Trump is handling his job; just 29% approved. It was even worse for Congress, with 80% disapproving.

Among Democratic voters alone, disapproval of Trump was practically off the chart at 97%.

But 81% of Republicans approved of the president.

Among voters of all political persuasions who expressed higher than usual enthusiasm about the House elections, 77% said they‘d support the Democratic candidate. Also: 79% said Congress should be controlled by Democrats, 84% disapproved of how Congress is handling its job and 79% disapproved of Trump.

And those enthused about the congressional elections believe that, by far, the most important problem facing the nation is “political extremism [and] threats to democracy.” A Democratic shorthand for Trump.

The unseemly nationwide redistricting battle started by Trump is likely to continue well into the election year as some states wrestle with whether to oblige the power-hungry president and others debate retaliating against him.

Sane politicians on both sides should have negotiated a ceasefire immediately after combat erupted. But there wasn’t enough sanity to even begin talks.

Newsom was wise politically to wade into the brawl — wise for California Democrats and also for himself as a presidential hopeful trying to become a national hero to party activists.

“Eleven months before an election, nothing is guaranteed,” Schnur says. “But these poll numbers suggest that Democrats are going to start the year with a big motivational advantage.”

Trump is the Democrats’ proverbial Santa who keeps on giving.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Kristi Noem grilled over L.A. Purple Heart Army vet who self-deported
The TK: Newsom expresses unease about his new, candid autobiography: ‘It’s all out there’
The L.A. Times Special: A Times investigation finds fraud and theft are rife at California’s county fairs

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

SACRAMENTO — It’s almost like slapstick comedy — the budget act that California’s Legislature and governor perform every year.

OK, it’s not really funny. But it is a joke — all the gymnastics the politicians go through trying to hide their red-ink spending and convince us they’ve met their legal obligation to produce a balanced state budget.

“Balanced” means having enough money to pay for all the authorized spending. But it’s largely guesswork. And the budget often is balanced only on paper. The state pencils in whatever numbers are needed to “balance” the books.

“They always cook the numbers,” gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa told me last spring.

Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor, knows firsthand about “cooking.” He once was in the kitchen as a powerful state Assembly speaker.

“Every finance person does it,” he said. “But there’s got to be a limit. At the end of the day, you can cook [numbers] so much they’re not real.”

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office reminded us of this in a recent report. It warned of a growing state budget deficit for the next fiscal year beginning July 1.

In polite language, the analyst basically said that the current “balanced” budget — as Villaraigosa might put it — isn’t “real.”

“The budget problem is now larger than anticipated, despite improvements in revenue, and the structural deficits are significant and growing,” Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek wrote.

“Structural deficit” is governmentese for taxes and spending being out of balance.

“The Legislature faces an almost $18 billion budget problem in 2026-27,” Petek reported. “This is about $5 billion larger than the budget problem anticipated by the [Newsom] administration.”

“Budget problem” is Sacramento lingo for deficit.

Petek predicts even more red ink in the future.

“Starting in 2027-28, we estimate structural deficits to grow to about $35 billion annually, due to spending growth continuing to outstrip revenue growth,” the analyst wrote.

But that will be the next governor’s headache. It’s not uncommon for a departing governor to dump red ink all over his successor.

Right now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is finishing up the last budget proposal of his two terms. He’ll send it to the Legislature in early January.

Newsom’s deficit projection will be different from the legislative analyst’s, says H.D. Palmer, the governor’s budget spokesman. That’s mainly because Newsom will be using fresher data, the aide adds. The governor’s projected deficit size still hasn’t been determined, he says.

Translation: It’s still being cooked.

So far in Newsom’s reign, his budgets have mushroomed by 51% to $325 billion from $215 billion. But that’s not extraordinary growth under a California governor, Democrat or Republican.

Why does deficit spending matter? It’s akin to never fully paying off the credit card and wasting money on interest rather than retiring principal debt. In fact, it’s often just piling on more debt.

It’s kicking the can down the road and not ever tossing it in the trash.

The politicians employ various tricks to paper over deficit spending.

The state often borrows from itself — robbing Peter to pay Paul — by shifting money from one kitty to another, usually to the main checking account: the general fund. This often results in the delay or demise of a promised program that was to be funded by the tapped kitty.

Or lawmakers may raid bond money and use it for a purpose disguised as what voters thought they had actually approved.

They’ve even paid state employees on July 1 rather than June 30 so the spending could be counted in the next fiscal year.

All this gimmickry results in an unstable budget system.

The legislative analyst advised legislators to fix the problem with “achievable spending reductions and/or revenue increases” — cutting programs or raising taxes. Duh!

But the Democratic-dominated Legislature won’t do that because whacking certain programs would anger interest groups that support the lawmakers’ election campaigns. And raising taxes in this high-tax state is a political no-no for all but the most lefty Democrats.

Former state Controller Betty Yee, a gubernatorial candidate who once was state budget director, has long advocated reforming California’s outdated and very volatile tax system. It relies too heavily on rich people’s incomes, especially their capital gains fueled by Wall Street. Tax revenue booms in good times and goes bust during recessions.

Yee says if it were politically possible — which it never has been — she’d extend the sales tax to some services used by the wealthy, including country club memberships. She’d also cut back on corporate tax loopholes.

Petek, in his analysis, cautioned that “California’s budget is undeniably less prepared for downturns” than previously. He also said the stock market is “overheated” and “unsustainable.”

But it seems beyond the lawmakers’ ability to creditably balance taxes and spending.

“Legislators inherently think that balancing the budget is the governor’s responsibility,” says Rick Simpson, a retired longtime legislative consultant to several Democratic Assembly speakers. “And it’s way easier to spend than to cut.”

“The leadership in both houses also care a lot more about making the [legislative] members happy than fixing the budget.”

Simpson also blames term limits. They’ve caused legislators to focus less on the state’s long-term interests and more “on the next office they’re going to run for,” he says.

Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, who also has been an advisor to speakers, says: “There’s no upside for a politician to tackle nagging budget deficits. It’s much easier — and offends fewer allies — to paper it over and dump it in the lap of your successor.”

He adds: “No one runs for office wanting to slash and burn, except perhaps a few Republicans. But even they have pet priorities.”

So, Sacramento’s comedy of errors plays on year after year.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Newsom, seeking federal funds for L.A. wildfire recovery, is denied meeting with key Trump officials
CA vs. Trump: A Latino mom, daughter debate Trump: “ICE … would’ve netted Grandma”
The L.A. Times Special: To protect underage farmworkers, California expands oversight of field conditions

Until next week,
George Skelton

—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Reporting from Washington — Almost six months after Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered, the man believed to have ordered the killing has cemented his position as President Trump’s closest ally in the Arab world.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, has weathered the initial storm over the Oct. 2 killing in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey. Trump and his aides have made clear that they consider the prince an essential U.S. partner in the Middle East.

If they were thinking long-term about American interests, they’d see that he’s also one of their biggest problems.

MBS, as he’s widely known, is an autocrat, a hothead and a disruptor. He’s a younger, Saudi version of Trump — only with fewer checks and balances.

The 33-year-old prince hasn’t done much to stabilize the Middle East. Instead, he’s made the area even less stable — not only by ordering a savage crackdown against dissidents like Khashoggi, but also by bullying other princes, kidnapping Lebanon’s prime minister, imposing an economic blockade on one neighbor, Qatar, and launching a disastrous war against another, Yemen.

When Trump talks about Saudi Arabia under MBS, he extols the kingdom as a buyer of U.S.-manufactured weapons, pointing to deals he claims (with characteristic exaggeration) could reach $110 billion.

“I don’t want to lose an order like that,” he said last year.

Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo describes the Saudis in more strategic terms, as important allies in counterterrorism and the U.S.-led campaign to pressure Iran.

“It’s a mean, nasty world out there, the Middle East in particular,” Pompeo said. “There are important American interests…. Saudi Arabia [is] an important partner.”

Both make it sound as if the United States faces a single, all-or-nothing choice: stand by MBS, or walk away from the relationship entirely.

“I want to stick with an ally that in many ways has been very good,” Trump said.

But there’s a third alternative, of course — one the United States has often used when leaders of client states acted against U.S. interests. Call it “tough love.”

“You don’t want to walk away from the relationship. What you want to do is improve their behavior,” Robert W. Jordan, a U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under President George W. Bush, told me last week. “I don’t see much of a strategy in place to do that.”

Part of the problem, Jordan said, is that the Trump administration has ceded leverage to the Saudis. “We treat them as if they’re our most valued customer in the world, and the customer’s always right,” he said.

Instead, he said, the administration should make it clear that it’s not happy with some of MBS’ decisions and back up its words with action.

“You have to make it clear that you’re serious about it,” he said. “There are subtle ways we can make clear that they need us more than we need them. Take spare parts. Their F-15s would be grounded in weeks if we held up their spare parts.”

In the months since Khashoggi was killed and his body dismembered, the Trump administration has done nothing like that.

Instead, Trump has questioned whether MBS should be held responsible for the crime, despite a CIA finding (with “medium to high confidence”) that he ordered it.

The administration has been similarly muted about the kingdom’s imprisonment of dissidents, including women’s rights activists who have been subjected to physical abuse and threats of rape.

Even in the case of Dr. Walid Fitaihi, a Saudi American dual citizen who has reportedly been tortured, the United States has said little.

And when it comes to the Saudi intervention in Yemen’s civil war, which MBS launched three years ago, the administration has backed the prince — despite mounting reports of civilian casualties from Saudi airstrikes.

“The way to alleviate the Yemeni people’s suffering is … by giving the Saudi-led coalition the support needed to defeat Iranian-backed rebels,” Pompeo said March 15.

If the administration wanted to send a tough-love message, one way would be to get an ambassador to Riyadh. Trump didn’t nominate a candidate for the job for almost two years; the Republican-led Senate hasn’t yet confirmed his choice, retired Gen. John P. Abizaid.

Abizaid has said he’s willing to talk tough.

“We should speak frankly to our partners when they do wrong,” he said in his Senate confirmation hearing on March 6.

But once he gets to Riyadh, Abizaid will face a problem: MBS has gotten used to doing business directly with Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law.

“They have to empower Abizaid; he has to be seen as the president’s man,” said Barbara A. Leaf, a former ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. “You cannot have MBS thinking that all he has to do is call Jared.”

The U.S.-Saudi relationship “needs to be reset,” argues Aaron David Miller, a Middle East expert who worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations. “We are tethering ourselves to a regime that is undermining American interests and American values.”

He acknowledged that it won’t be easy. “How do you identify a policy between abandonment and embrace?”

But it won’t happen at all unless Trump and his aides resolve to try, and there’s no sign that they have.

In this test of statecraft, they’re failing.