"This person is being quiet so they must be hiding something" is a catastrophically terrible method of reasoning. It gets exploited by narcissistic gaslighters like Trump who will fill up every moment with their noise and lies.

The claim that the photo is flipped is based on Bill's shirt having a women's shirt hole pattern, but ignores that this would mean that the woman on the left (Melinda) would be wearing a shirt with a men's hole pattern.

It doesn't just look like her.

Very few people wear their wedding ring on their right hand as she does and the ring is a bit fuzzy in that pic but it looks the same.

I think if they had stronger stuff on Clinton than the hot tub photo they would have released it. But I'm not going to express confidence on that.

Also Donald Trump and anybody he likes is redacted. So the other person in the hot tub could have been Trump.

I very very strongly disagree with this! Mentioning that something is against the law is a necessary step in bringing consequences, but other steps are also critical. You don't climb a ladder by tearing down its first rungs.

Also a contender for any 30 but looks 40 competition.

I think most partners don't look over each other's Twitter histories and these posts were a long time ago. So their partner might have gotten quite the shock today.

Chuck Feeney did it, and I don't think this would be nearly as hard to do as most people think. Few rich maintain high charitable donations because few rich people try in the first place.

That said, in expectation he couldn't have predicted Apple stock would take the particular turns it has since.

He means to donate it to more effective charities later when it was worth way more money post iphone. My view is yes, that would have been the best course of action, but impossible to foresee that future so early and so Wozniak was probably right to sell in expectation when he did.

Regardless, Brooks in particular looks bad here because of the article he wrote.

It does seem to have been a front for Epstein to launder his reputation by giving them money but it also seems reasonable that people attending it wouldn't have known that.

It was apparently called The Edge event for billionaires, and it does sound like most of the people there wouldn't have known beforehand that Epstein was attending.

So by itself I don't think this would be bad for Brooks. But in the context of the article he wrote this year it's definitely bad.

Indian point closure probably not a large enough factor on the national scale but definitely the biggest local factor in New York specifically.

Ok but JD Vance probably heavily impacts this as well vs a generic republican.

With the note that is almost certainly the fault of the code and not the developer.