He Defined "White Culture" by Contrasting It With Black Church Music https://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/murphy-grills-unqualified-trump-nominee-on-his-white-nationalist-views If you want the cleanest signal from Jeremy Carl's confirmation hearing, **don't start with tweets.** **Start with this exchange.** Pressed to define "white culture," Carl didn't cite constitutional principles, legal traditions, or philosophical heritage. He cited **church aesthetics**, saying *"the white church is very different than the Black church"* and that *"music could be different."* That's not policy analysis. **That's racialized worship framing.** When Sen. Murphy followed up, *"So our ability to access white churches or white music is being erased?"*, the claim visibly collapsed. No statute. No federal action. No measurable deprivation. **Just grievance language.** This matters because **the job in question isn't a podcast seat.** It's Assistant Secretary for International Organizations. The portfolio that interfaces with the UN system and multilateral institutions. If your definition of cultural harm centers on contrasting "white church" and "Black church" music styles, that's not just rhetoric. **It's worldview.** And worldview is exactly what confirmation hearings are meant to test. Carl's [nomination has faced GOP opposition](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-nomination-senior-diplomatic-post-doubt-over-insensitive-remarks-2026-02-12/) over his remarks, with the [official nomination](https://www.congress.gov/nomination/119th-congress/730/13/) still pending Senate action. https://stacker.news/items/1434744

DOJ Slide Lists Trump Allegation: FBI 302 Confirms Minor-Victim Interview https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01660622.pdf Most arguments about the Epstein files focus on spectacle. **The real signal is institutional handling.** I'm not claiming the DOJ proved a crime by a sitting president. **I'm claiming the FBI formally interviewed a minor-aged Epstein victim who accused Trump of assault, and the allegation was included in an internal DOJ investigative presentation.** That's a bureaucratic decision, not a tweet. Here's the machinery: • A hotline tip identified a South Carolina victim alleging abuse at ages 13–15 • **FBI agents conducted a July 24, 2019 interview memorialized in an FD-302** • DOJ later compiled a 21-page internal slideshow listing prominent-name allegations • **The Trump allegation appears on that slide deck alongside other vetted claims** The slide quotes the victim stating Epstein introduced her to Trump, who allegedly forced her head down and struck her when she resisted. **The victim would have been approximately 13–15 at the time.** A separate entry references a Mar-a-Lago encounter involving a 14-year-old, sourced to a Maxwell trial witness. Yes, allegations are not convictions. That's a courtroom standard. **The narrower question is institutional: *why was this allegation preserved, briefed, and attributed to a victim interview rather than dismissed as noise?*** If the public claim is "no credible accusations," *what threshold excludes an FBI 302 and inclusion in an internal DOJ investigative presentation?* *What evidence would move this from "lead" to "cleared," and where is that documentation?* https://stacker.news/items/1434713