When I woke up this morning, CabinGirl asked me if I’d seen the thing from the Epstein files about “depreciated women.” I had actually seen someone using that term on social media but I didn’t know the context or that it came from the Epstein files, so I asked her to explain. She didn’t really have the details, which is why she was asking about it.

So, I went to the Google machine, and the first article that came up was from Fox News and was written by Elizabeth Elkind, Greg Wehner, and Andrea Margolis. I noticed that the headline was not about Trump (“Bill Clinton letter in Epstein ‘birthday book’ among new files released by House Oversight Committee”) but I clicked on it anyway.

Scrolling down, I eventually found a picture of Jeffrey Epstein and another man holding a large novelty check ostensibly signed by Donald Trump. It was made out for $22,500. The article informed me that it was from the 2003 book that Ghislaine Maxwell created for Epstein’s 50th birthday, and that below the picture was a caption that read: “Jeffrey showing early talents with money +women! Sells ‘fully dedicated’ to Donald Trump for $22,500. Showed early ‘people skills’ too. Even though I handled the deal I didn’t get any of the money or the girl!”

That’s all the Fox News article had to say on the matter. I was perplexed that CabinGirl had told me that I should expect to find the word “depreciated” but the article reported the word as “dedicated.”

So, I went back to the Google machine and clicked on an article from the U.K.’s Guardian. Here is what it stated:

A scrapbook for Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday released on Monday contains a photo of him holding a novelty check bearing Donald Trump’s signature, along with a note suggesting Epstein “sold” him a woman for $22,500, shedding further light on the longtime relationship between the president and the convicted sex offender.

The photo shows Epstein and Joel Pashcow, a longtime member of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, and a third figure, apparently a woman, whose face is redacted in the image, which was shared on social media by Democrats on the House oversight committee. The caption, apparently from Paschow, reads: “Jeffrey showing early talents with money + women! Sells ‘fully depreciated’ [redaction] to Donald Trump for $22,500.”

Epstein “showed early ‘people skills’ too”, the caption continued. “Even though I handled the deal I didn’t get any of the money on the girl!”

So, which was it? Did the caption say “fully dedicated” or “fully depreciated”?

The New York Times reports “there is an oversized check that purports to be Mr. Epstein jokingly selling a ‘fully depreciated’ woman to Mr. Trump for $22,500.”   CBS News says it’s “depreciated.” The U.K.’s Independent says it’s “depreciated.” TMZ says it has independently obtained the photo and the caption reads “depreciated.”

But, for some reason, Elizabeth Elkind, Greg Wehner, and Andrea Margolis of Fox News reported it as “dedicated.”

I’m assuming this is intentional rather than inadvertent. And, if I am correct, that means that people at Fox News want to raise some doubt about what the caption actually says, and that they think “dedicated” sounds less sinister or incriminating than depreciated.

Despite their efforts however, I can tell it’s not working very well. That’s because when I typed “depreciated w” into the Google machine, it autofilled “depreciated women meaning” for me. In other words, lots of people are googling in an effort to understand what that term might mean.

It comes from tax accounting. Investopedia informs me that “A fully depreciated asset is a property, plant or piece of equipment (PP&E) which, for accounting purposes, is worth only its salvage value” and “An asset can reach full depreciation when its useful life expires.”

What does it mean when a woman is “worth only her salvage value”? When does a woman’s “useful life expire”?

Is the salvage value of a woman $22,500?

I don’t know what this stupid entry in Epstein’s book means. It’s obviously some kind of inside joke. Joel Pashcow, a longtime member of Mar-a-Lago, apparently thought Epstein would understand it and find it amusing. The best I can tell, it’s making fun of Trump for paying too much for the woman whose face is redacted in the photo. See, Epstein is great with women and with money because he can sell a worthless woman to Trump for a large sum and dupe Pashcow into brokering the deal without compensating him with either cash or pussy. Ha ha.

Is it incriminating for either Epstein or Trump? Not directly. It’s clearly just a joke.

So, why does Fox News want to change the meaning to “dedicated,” which renders the joke completely incomprehensible?

Is it really less incriminating?

Insofar as the photo and caption are damaging, it’s really that it further solidifies the historical record that Trump and Epstein had a close relationship that involved sex with women. I don’t think most women will like the joke but most women have never liked how Trump talks about women and tens of millions of them voted for him anyway.

To me, the story here is really about the role Fox News has chosen to play in reporting it. Elizabeth Elkind, Greg Wehner, and Andrea Margolis are straight-up hacks, and so is their editor.