Back on January 19, a D.C. Water sewer pipe burst ahead of a major winter storm, sending hundreds of millions of gallons of untreated sewage — collected from homes and businesses in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs — into the Potomac River and triggering not only a foul smell and unspeakable solids, but levels for bacteria such as e. coli soaring to 4,000 times above safe levels for recreational use. As of this week, concerns remain and questions have arisen as to D.C. Water’s grasp of the situation and basic transparency. And with a major waterway in the greater Washington D.C. area serving as both a source of drinking water and the backdrop to major events celebrating America’s 250th birthday, one would think story would merit national attention. Instead, the major broadcast networks of ABC, CBS, and NBC have refused to mention it on their flagship broadcast network morning or evening shows. In contrast, NewsNation’s Katie Pavlich Tonight covered it twice, serving as the plunger to what would otherwise largely be a blocked-out system. The first time was on January 28 and was set up by Pavlich teasing a segment on “something truly horrifying lurking in the Potomac River” that’s become “a crisis of epic proportions.” Pavlich began her extended “Gloves Off” segment by catching viewers up on the fact that “hundreds of millions of gallons of raw sewage and wastewater surged into the Potomac north of Washington, D.C.” when it normally “safely transports as much as 40 million gallons...out of sight and out of smell.” This January 28 segment on @KatiePavlichNN is the longest anyone in TV news has talked about the sewage spill on the Potomac and what would become the largest sewage leak in U.S. history 66 Olympic-sized pools worth of exercement and such -- in the D.C. area's biggest waterway! pic.twitter.com/JDLVy7rOvG — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 13, 2026 Making matters worse, she explained, was that the size of the burst pipe meant the leak “created a literal geyser that, at times, launched sewage feet into the air before running into what may now be more accurately referred to as the Pootomac River, the D.C. version of Old Faithful, basically.” “It’s 66 Olympic-sized pools worth, which is so disgusting. Despite the incident happening amid sub-freezing temperatures — thank God for that — those tasked with responding to the poounami described the smell as horrific and said the concentration of raw sewage, even taking water samples, a public health risk,” she added The real concern, she explained, is that matters will grow worse “when things thaw out in the spring” and that, if “a private company at fault, we know there would be investigations, fines, and probably more regulations as a result.” Even more than that, if this had happened in a red state or red jurisdiction, it’s a safe bet there would be a torrent of coverage and attempt to make a wider commentary about the right and, oh, maybe racism. Pavlich also spoke with Potomac Riverkeeper Dean Naujoks, who said he was “a little frustrated with D.C. Water’s response to this” and “led the public and a lot of elected officials to believe that the sewage spills was being contained in the CNO Canal and it finally is largely being contained, but there’s still sewage discharge in the river.” “[T]he primary [drinking water] intakes are upstream above Great Falls, so that’s a good thing. But again, you know, we now have all the sewage that’s kind of trapped in ice and snow. Is there going to be a delayed down the road? I don’t think anybody knows. This is really an unprecedented 300 million gallons of sewage,” he added. On Naujoks’s point about D.C. Water’s diversion, that certainly seems to have been the case hours earlier on NBC News NOW when they ran a piece from an NBC Washington reporter. Also on January 28 was another embarrassing note for the network blackout as even far-left, soon-to-be cancelled Late Show host Stephen Colbert spent nearly two minutes joking about the geyser of number ones and twos. The Fox News Channel covered it as well on the Sunday, February 1 edition of Fox & Friends Weekend with co-host Charlie Hurt discussing it in his weekend news round-up with The Federalist’s Brianna Lyman (click “expand”): HURT: And then, there’s this. After federal taxpayers — that would be you — paid $2 billion to build a new sewer system in your nation’s capital, 300 million gallons of sewage went gushing into the Potomac River this week, one of the largest sewage spills in U.S. history. Cleanup efforts could reach $10 million. One local riverkeeper describes the sewage, saying “the vile and putrid smell from the torrent of sewage discharging to the — to the Potomac River for eight days straight is one of the most disturbing things I’ve ever seen in 25 years as a riverkeeper,” and of course all of “this can lead to dead zones...and harmful algal blooms,” and massive fish kills. Of course, it’s all still sort of a little bit frozen right now because it’s so cold there. It’s going to thaw. It’s going to be disgusting. This, ladies and gentlemen, is where your Environmental Protection Agency is located — In this city — and they’re dumping this into the Potomac River and in the Chesapeake Bay. LYMAN: Yeah, and this riverkeeper literally said that had proper maintenance been done to the facilities that transport this — HURT: Right. LYMAN: — this wouldn’t have happened, and that seems to be like this key theme. You think of the bridge that came down, right? If proper maintenance had been done, you wouldn’t be seeing this. So the big question becomes what are you paying your taxes for — HURT: Yeah. LYMAN: — if not to protect your rivers. HURT: Right? Exactly. And all of it, and you will be, the taxpayers will be on the hook for all of the cleanup. LYMAN: Yes! Fast-forward to this week and news that the spill became the largest in U.S. history. NBC News NOW again brought it up. This time, senior Washington correspondent Hallie Jackson had a brief on her eponymous show Wednesday that “a huge clog of non-disposable wipes is being blamed for the latest sewage spill in the Potomac River” that “knocked out a couple of the aboveground pumps being used to divert wastewater.” Pavlich returned to the poo-nami on Thursday night: “What started as a poopgiser in the Potomac River at the end of last month is officially the largest spill of wastewater in U.S. history. We covered the ecological calamity days after the doo-doo disaster began.” Risk for Potomia is very high. Worst sewage spill in U.S. history    pic.twitter.com/1iDW0eYnE3 — Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) February 13, 2026 After a clip from her interview with Naujoks, Pavlich explained how damaging the spill was and will continue to be. She also put the volume of doo-doo in comparison to the Exxon Valdez spill, which the left has tried to flush away since they’re in charge at all levers of power in local and state governemnts (click “expand”): Today, 300 million gallons have overflowed into the river. For comparison, Exxon — Exxon Valdez spill — oil spill into the ocean was 11 million gallons. But the officials tested the river downstream, they botched their math and dangerous pathogen levels were 100 times higher than initially reported. Even worse, DC Water officials say it could be another six weeks until the problem is actually fixed. This now historic disaster raises questions about accountability. And where are the environmental alarmist? You know, the types glue themselves to highways and twerk in traffic to protest injustice against the Earth? This is a real catastrophe. And yet, they’ve been oddly silent. Is it to avoid making Democrats who run D.C. look bad? This record-setting spill is bad for the environment. It’s a threat to public health. It’s a rest to wildlife, fisheries, and tourism. And it will be a very stinky issue once things thaw out. And it may even be a party pooper for America 250. The Democrats who run D.C., Maryland, and Virginia need to fix it and fast. Since Pavlich’s second segment, Friday brought about mentions on Newsmax’s American Agenda and then the Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Bret Baier. Perhaps ABC, CBS, and NBC could have sacrificed a few seconds from their Bad Bunny celebration and done their doodie and not let others to scoop them.

Remember how for years liberals kept repeating that illegal aliens don't take away jobs from American citizens  because many of them are just working in jobs that Americans don't want to do?  Well, a major news outlet has now completely contradicted that assertion. And the source isn't who you might think because it is none other than the Associated Press. The admission that removing illegals from the USA has the effect of lowering the unemployment rate came at the tail end of this AP story on Wednesday by Paul Wiseman about the glowing January  jobs report, "Surge of 130,000 US hires last month is a stark contrast to the weak hiring of 2025." Despite recent high-profile layoffs, the unemployment rate has looked better than the hiring numbers. That is partly because President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown has reduced the number of foreign-born people competing for work. As a result, the number of new jobs that the economy needs to create to keep the unemployment rate from rising has tumbled. Researchers at the Brookings Institution believe it could now be as low as 20,000 and headed lower. So why would the left leaning AP, normally hostile towards Trump, make such an admission? Most likely it was accidental because it was part of AP's effort to downplay the January jobs report starting with the title which emphasized supposed "weak hiring of 2025." Although the numbers  forced AP to generally concede that January yielded a good jobs report, they repeatedly attempted to cast shade over the  upbeat employment news  such as this: Samuel Tombs of Pantheon Macroeconomics remains skeptical, attributing January job gains partly to unusually warm weather that boosted hiring. He noted that construction firms added a strong 33,000 jobs last month. “We think it is premature to conclude the labor market has decisively turned a corner,” he wrote. So perhaps Mr. Wiseman in an effort to  cast  aspersions upon  the good employment numbers in January simply slipped up when he made the stunning admission that President Trump's deportation policies were extremely  helpful in  lowering the unemployment rate.

In a move one-upping Thursday’s World News Tonight, the virulent anti-Trump-haters at ABC made the decision Friday to go full Leroy Jenkins by having Good Morning America double down with not one but two segments melting down (pun intended) over President Trump’s decision to repeal the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding on climate change and fossil fuels. “Major rollback. The President announcing sweeping environmental deregulation, erasing the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas pollution from cars, power plants, and factories, endanger human health. Mary Bruce is at the White House, and Ginger Zee with a climate change reality check,” fill-in co-host Rebecca Jarvis warned in a tease. Like with World News Tonight, chief White House correspondent Mary Bruce was on-scene to fret Trump was “wiping out the federal government’s most powerful tool to regulate greenhouse gasses and fight climate change” and “erasing the scientific conclusion” that it “endangers human health[.]” ABC’s ‘Good Morning America’ went full Leeeeerooooy Jenkins on Friday with not one but two segments telling you President Trump’s decision on the EPA’s endangerment finding will kill you pic.twitter.com/RF705U7LNI — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 13, 2026 Bruce touted Obama’s statement claiming the move was based on corporate greed: Former President Obama firing back, saying “we’ll be less safe, less healthy, and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.” The 2009 decision had given the U.S. government authority to regulate emissions from cars, power plants, and oil refineries, labeling greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide and methane as a danger to public health and the environment. She also spoke to former EPA official Matthew Davis, explaining he told her, in Bruce’s summation, “thousands will die every year.” Davis — whom she made sure people knew was a “scientist” — told her “this is definitely not a decision based on science” and the removal of an Obama regulation will lead to “more pollution,” “more heart attacks, more stroke, more asthma attacks, more people’s lives will be cut short.” Only in the last sentence did she even acknowledge the Trump administration’s argument before quickly rebutting it: Now the White House is touting this as the largest deregulation in U.S. history, claiming it will save over $1 trillion but some major health organizations and several states, including California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, are already vowing to sue to block this reversal[.] GMA then went a step further with senior meteorologist and climate activist Ginger Zee, cued up by Trump-hating political correspondent Rachel Scott to “give us a reality check” because she knows “the science.” Zee didn’t outright tell viewers they were going to die, but she was close in saying Trump was rejected what “science [has told] us...for more than a century” and declared “[t]he National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine...found with overwhelming scientific evidence that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare.” She then asserted “[c]limate change intensifies risk to humans from exposure to extreme heat, ground level ozone, airborne particulate matter, extreme weather events, and airborne allergens, which then affect incidents of cardiovascular, respiratory, and other diseases.” Of course, she painted a grim picture as though little is being done: And just to put a little pin in understanding how warm we are. In 2024, global CO2 emissions hit an all-time high, and we saw the most significant annual increase since modern measurements began in 1957. The last 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record. Those records go back to the 1800s. She closed by showing her Greta Thunberg-levels of advocacy by arguing “the other administrations” — as in the Obama and Biden regimes — “didn’t do as much as they could — that’s what most climate scientists would say — to reduce those greenhouse gas emissions.” As he’s increasingly done to mirror colleague and former Clinton official George Stephanopoulos, co-host Michael Strahan interjected with his own personal snipes at the Trump administration: “But science shows that these threats are really real to the environment.” On issue after issue and climate at the top of the list, the media not only refuse to consider views besides their own, but they purposefully ignore them under the guise of said issue being existential. To see the relevant ABC transcript from February 13, click here.

As former CNN host Don Lemon was arraigned on Friday for his role in the St. Paul church invasion, his former employer stepped up to defend him. According to First Amendment lawyer and CNN News Central guest Katie Fallow, what Lemon did was functionally no different than a reporter jaywalking while covering a protest. Host Boris Sanchez got things going when he wondered, “Historically, has DOJ often tried to prosecute someone accused of interfering in a house of worship? If they are documenting that said interference?”   CNN brings on First Amendment lawyer Katie Fallow to declare, "this is a really unprecedented set of charges being brought against both Don Lemon" which she calls "extremely alarming" and "part of the Trump administration's really broad attack on free press rights." (1/2) pic.twitter.com/HWwiOUw6yE — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 13, 2026   Fallow confidently declared, “Absolutely not. I mean, this is a really unprecedented set of charges being brought against both Don Lemon and another independent journalist, Georgia Fort, and I can't think of a similar case in recent or any kind of history.” She further claimed, “It is extremely alarming for the government to bring these very serious charges against journalists merely for the act of covering these protests.” Accepting Lemon’s version of events, Fallow added, “Don Lemon said repeatedly that he was there not as part of the protest, but as a reporter covering those events. And that's a really important principle in our constitutional system is that the press provides access to the public to really important events, and that both the courts and the Department of Justice have historically recognized that. And the Department of Justice in the past has refrained from bringing any kind of coercive, you know, subpoena or arrest charges against journalists merely for the act of engaging in news gathering or reporting.” Repeating herself, Fallow insisted, “So, I think this is extremely unprecedented and alarming and is also part of the Trump administration's really broad attack on free press rights.” Sanchez then set Fallow up for a second round with more of a statement than a question, “The administration is arguing, in part, that Don Lemon was aware that something was going to happen at the church, that he was there with protesters before they went in. It doesn't seem like you buy that, that in any way changes his First Amendment rights.”   She also compares entering the church, which is private property, to jaywalking, which isn't, "journalists do have to comply with generally applicable laws like laws against trespass or, you know, jaywalking but, you know there's this, this long tradition of recognizing that when… pic.twitter.com/xxZy7VF6CT — Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) February 13, 2026   Fallow concurred, “Yeah, I don't think it does. I mean, obviously, what the government is going to need to do is to prove that he was either intentionally trying to interfere with access to a church under the FACE Act or was conspiring with others to violate the civil rights of the congregants in the church.” She then brought out the jaywalking analogy: And just based on what I've seen, I don't think that they can make out that—they can't prove that in a court of law because just the fact that he knew that the protesters were going into the church, I don't think rises to the level of culpability under the act, and I also think, you know, in a lot of cases, while journalists do have to comply with generally applicable laws like laws against trespass or, you know, jaywalking, but, you know, there's this, this long tradition of recognizing that when the press is covering, for example, protests, you might have to cross the street, break a jaywalking rule. But in general, the prosecutors recognize that. And, you know, they don't bring charges against journalists if they're engaged in a press function, which it seems to me both Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were.” Except that, unlike a street, a church is private property, and Lemon is alleged to have not left the church after being asked to. If a mob barged onto CNN’s set or into Fallow’s home and someone with a camera started asking questions, there is zero chance that they would agree to call that person a journalist. Here is a transcript for the February 13 show: CNN News Central 2/13/2026 2:05 PM ET BORIS SANCHEZ: I just want to let our viewers know that right now, the arraignment of Don Lemon has begun. We have reporters in the room monitoring that. I wonder, Katie, historically, has DOJ often tried to prosecute someone accused of interfering in a house of worship? If they are documenting that said interference? KATIE FALLOW: Absolutely not. I mean, this is a really unprecedented set of charges being brought against both Don Lemon and another independent journalist, Georgia Fort, and I can't think of a similar case in recent or any kind of history. And it is extremely alarming for the government to bring these very serious charges against journalists merely for the act of covering these protests. And as was mentioned in the introduction during his livestream, Don Lemon said repeatedly that he was there not as part of the protest, but as a reporter covering those events. And that's a really important principle in our constitutional system is that the press provides access to the public to really important events, and that both the courts and the Department of Justice have historically recognized that. And the Department of Justice in the past has refrained from bringing any kind of coercive, you know, subpoena or arrest charges against journalists merely for the act of engaging in news gathering or reporting. So, I think this is extremely unprecedented and alarming and is also part of the Trump administration's really broad attack on free press rights. SANCHEZ: The administration is arguing, in part, that Don Lemon was aware that something was going to happen at the church, that he was there with protesters before they went in. It doesn't seem like you buy that, that in any way changes his First Amendment rights. FALLOW: Yeah, I don't think it does. I mean, obviously, what the government is going to need to do is to prove that he was either intentionally trying to interfere with access to a church under the FACE Act or was conspiring with others to violate the civil rights of the congregants in the church. And just based on what I've seen, I don't think that they can make out that—they can't prove that in a court of law because just the fact that he knew that the protesters were going into the church, I don't think rises to the level of culpability under the act, and I also think, you know, in a lot of cases, while journalists do have to comply with generally applicable laws like laws against trespass or, you know, jaywalking, but, you know, there's this, this long tradition of recognizing that when the press is covering, for example, protests, you might have to cross the street, break a jaywalking rule. But in general, the prosecutors recognize that. And, you know, they don't bring charges against journalists if they're engaged in a press function, which it seems to me both Don Lemon and Georgia Fort were.

This week, reports surfaced that the Epstein Files contain a litany of messages outlining a deep-seated personal and professional relationship between the disgraced sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and former Obama White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler. As a result, she resigned from her high-ranking post at Goldman Sachs. Despite the thousand-plus minutes of Epstein coverage on the flagship newscasts of ABC, CBS, and NBC since July, the latter two have decided to ignore it. ABC, in contrast, gave it a quick, 35-second nod on Friday’s Good Morning America with congressional correspondent Jay O’Brien telling viewers that Ruemmler was “resigning from her current role as the top lawyer at Goldman Sachs after it was revealed...she and Epstein had a lengthy correspondence, including years after he first pleaded guilty to sex crimes.” This was the only flagship broacast network newscast coverage (ABC, CBS, and NBC) of former Obama White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler resigning from Goldman Sachs after the #EpsteinFiles revealed she had long-running personal and profession tires to Jeffrey Epstein ABC’s ‘Good… pic.twitter.com/ptPCIFJKWr — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 13, 2026 “The CEO of Goldman Sachs calling Ruemmler an extraordinary general counsel, saying he’s grateful for her contributions,” he added. Making it all the more embarrassing for CBS and NBC were the mentions on liberal cable networks CNN, MS NOW, and CNBC and, in the former’s case, its free, ad-supported (FAST) channel CBS News 24/7. On MS NOW, Ruemmler was brought up Thursday on All In With Chris Hayes and The 11th Hour With Stephanie Ruhle plus Friday’s Morning Joe, Ana Cabrera Reports, and Chris Jansing Reports, and Katy Tur Reports. CNBC had full discussions on Friday’s Squawk Box and Squawk on the Street. However, several MS NOW personalities completely ignored Ruemmler’s Obama connection: Curious omission of the Obama administration from this MS NOW segment Thursday night with Stephanie Ruhle and Peter Baker that brought up Kathy Ruemmler stepping down from Goldman Sachs b/c of her ties to Epstein pic.twitter.com/UbTPHSI9l6 — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 13, 2026 MS NOW's Ana Cabrera completely ignored the fact that Kathy Ruemmler -- whom the #EpsteinFiles showed had deep personal and professional ties -- was White House Counsel for Barack Obama pic.twitter.com/CHS73UlYpI — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 13, 2026 Notice what important fact about Kathy Ruemmler was left out of this report from the 1pm Eastern hour of MS NOW Whom did she (used to) work for besides Goldman Sachs? pic.twitter.com/h5MKGXYPxR — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 13, 2026 CNN only had three mentions through this blog’s publication — Thursday’s Erin Burnett OutFront and The Source plus Friday morning’s CNN News Central — despite the fact that a lengthy CNN.com article by the KFILE team detailed extensive and graphic language between the two in their correspondences. After three teases for a segment with KFILE name sake Andrew Kaczynski, Burnett explained “A review of hundreds of e-mails between Epstein and Ruemmler, a woman he once called his ‘great defender’ shows discussions about Epstein’s legal and reputational troubles, as well as more personal communications like plans for a proposed trip to Epstein’s island and gifts he’d given her,” Burnett began before adding Ruemmler has said she had no idea about Epstein’s crimes. This is how it's done vis-à-vis the Kathy Ruemmler story. CNN's 'Erin Burnett OutFront' read the e-mails and mentioned the Obama connection pic.twitter.com/oUnGtlAWAB — Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) February 13, 2026 Kaczynski dropped the sordid details, including an “XOXO” email signature and an allusion to male genitalia. Predictably, a Ruemmler representative insisted this was all misinterpreted (click “expand”): KACZYNSKI: Well, Erin, these new messages reveal even more details about Kathy Ruemmler relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, a relationship that, according to these e-mails, both of them described as a friendship. There are hundreds of e-mail exchanges between the two. Some of the messages they discussed Epstein’s legal battles and reputational problems after his 2008 conviction. Other communications between the two include plans for a proposed trip to Epstein’s island and responses to gifts he’d given Ruemmler. In one instance, she wrote, “totally tricked out by Uncle Jeffrey today. Jeffrey boots, handbag and watch.” Now, in some of these back and forth messages, Ruemmler discussed personal matters in her life. She expressed gratitude for their, “friendship” sometimes concluded her messages to Epstein with the sign off XO and XOXO. There’s one example we found where Ruemmler sent Epstein a message on his 62nd birthday in 2015 to wish him well, writing I hope you enjoy the day with your one true love. Adding a smiley face. Epstein replied with a raunchy note and an apparent reference to masturbation, writing, “they say men usually give a name to their penis as it would be inappropriate to make love to a total stranger.” Now after receiving Epstein’s racy reply, Ruemmler responded, “Hard to believe there is still an open question about whether men are the inferior gender.” BURNETT: Okay. So what has Ruemmler said about this message? KACZYNSKI: Well, Erin, we asked him about that and they referred this exchange. Ruemmler and her communications team referred CNN questions about this to her attorney, Tom Clare, And this is what he told us. He said, quote, "The fact is Ms. Ruemmler does not make any statement about Epstein’s penis. She does not reference it. She does not joke about it. She does not banter with Epstein about it. She does not accede to Epstein’s unsolicited, gratuitous remarks about men and their penises. Nothing. Her participation in the entire exchange in, I think he meant, is limited to wishing Epstein a happy birthday, ridiculing Epstein for the remark and exiting the exchange. Kaczynski moved over to the legal relationship and then how she had planned to visit Epstein Island (click “expand”): In one exchange from February 2015, Ruemmler addressed a crime victim’s rights act lawsuit brought by Epstein’s accusers. That’s the lawsuit which sought to reopen his so-called sweetheart plea deal from 2008. Ruemmler wrote to Epstein, I told you that the CVRA case is about money. And in another message, after inquiring about which lawyer was handling the case, Ruemmler wrote, victims rights, my ass. In another message from July 2015, Ruemmler forwarded Epstein a New York Times story which featured critics of sex offender registries like the one Epstein had been listed on for years by then. “Did you see the New York Times story re misapplication of sex offender registry? Thinking about whether there is an opportunity there,” Ruemmler wrote. Now, a spokesperson for Ruemmler told CNN in a statement that Epstein, “sought informal advice and she provided feedback based on her understanding at the time without any formal involvement.” (....) According to the newly released files, Ruemmler at one point inquired about taking a day trip to Epstein’s private island. In a January 16th, 2017 e-mail, that you can see right here, Epstein asked if he could have a plane pick her up in Saint Lucia to fly her to “the island.” Ruemmler replied, asking “can we take a day trip to the island on Saturday or is it too far?” E-mails then show a week later, Epstein appearing to coordinate a private jet to pick her up and referencing a copy of Ruemmler’s passport. This trip appears to have fallen through though, with Ruemmler writing two days later, there was, quote, still too much risk in the air. Later that year, Erin, the topic of the island actually came up again in messages between the two after Hurricane Irma damaged the island. Ruemmler mused about traveling there to help Epstein clean up, writing you know how much I like physical labor. It’s unclear whether Ruemmler ever visited the island, and she has denied ever going there. He concluded by reiterating a statement from a Ruemmler spokesperson that, while they refused “to answer some of the detailed questions from CNN,” they insisted their client “has done nothing wrong” and “only saw the [face] [Epstein] put on to win people over and gain credibility and acceptance” as well as “through her work as a criminal defense attorney[.]” To see the relevant CNN transcript from February 13, click here.