Epstein Files | They’ve released [REDACTED]

[theel4life]

They are very clearly covering up for Trump and his buddies.

 

[05C40]

Saying they didn’t remove the photo because Trump was in it, but rather because it also showed the victims is probably not the best strategy.

For example, if there was a photo of St. Donald of Mar-a-Lago violently raping an underage girl, then it seems the DoJ's policy would be to not release that photo on the grounds that even if the face were obscured, the victim would still recognize herself and would be forced to relive the entire event again.

 

[superrific]

Clearly adult women.

But he was there, he was on the prowl, and who knows what he was doing when he wasn't in this photo?

 

[superrific]

The law has already been passed. The next step is to find someone with standing (not easy) to go to court to challenge the DoJ's compliance with the law. Nothing more for Congress to do at this point.

It would be quite easy if Biden were in office.

 

[Patb78]

But he was there, he was on the prowl, and who knows what he was doing when he wasn't in this photo?

Exactly. Trump didn’t go to Epstein’s house to play canasta.

 

[superrific]

If Clinton (or any Dem politician or any left leaning public figure) is in the files, and an investigation reveals something criminal happened, they 100% should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Normally, yes. But not now. You cannot reward the executive branch misconduct here.

He's releasing Clinton stuff to whatabout and distract. Do not take the bait. Clinton isn't the story. Clinton should not be discussed. There is only one political figure who requires attention, because he's the one obviously (grossly obviously) covering it up.

 

[CFordUNC]

 

[finesse]

Normally, yes. But not now. You cannot reward the executive branch misconduct here.

He's releasing Clinton stuff to whatabout and distract. Do not take the bait. Clinton isn't the story. Clinton should not be discussed. There is only one political figure who requires attention, because he's the one obviously (grossly obviously) covering it up.

You can't ignore Clinton if he comes up both from the moral or political sense. If we do, it gives license to plead all sorts off dispensation for Trump's behavior. Have you not seen how Biden's misuse of pardons, no matter how justifiable to protect his family and more so in retrospect, has been used to justify the gargantuan abuse by Trump?

 

[Calheel]

It would be quite easy if Biden were in office.

Yes, it would. But the current Supreme Court's rulings seem to vary greatly based on the party of the President.

 

[tonman]

You can't ignore Clinton if he comes up both from the moral or political sense. If we do, it gives license to plead all sorts off dispensation for Trump's behavior. Have you not seen how Biden's misuse of pardons, no matter how justifiable to protect his family and more so in retrospect, has been used to justify the gargantuan abuse by Trump?

No. One person who had no capacity in the administration but was targeted by republicans. If hunter was not being politically railroaded biden would not have pardoned him. Theres a difference between Clinton being seen with epstein and trump. As far as i know no victim has come out and pointed a finger at Clinton. Trump on the other hand already has like 19 women charging him (unrelated) and with documents that shows he knew of what was going on. Again let's not get into guilt by association. If there is evidence then both should be held accountable. But despite the releases nothing bad has been associated with Clinton. Trump on the other hand there are enough info that he knew what was going on and despite that he did nothing about it letting a predator like epstein continue. I'm pretty sure all docs will be reviewed so if there is dirt on Clinton then do something. But let's not create a narrative unless there is info. I would suspect Trump's DOJ would release damaging info if it was available.

 

[pspsps]

Oh my this doesn’t sound wholesome.

 

[ChileG]

Oh my this doesn’t sound wholesome.

“I don’t agree with everything Trump does. I do agree with some stuff, though. Like I am fine with him being married. I don’t support him leering lustfully at 14 year-old girls, but nobody supports EVERYTHING their preferred candidate does.”

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Oh my this doesn’t sound wholesome.

What specifically is this Jane Doe accusing Trump of doing? Is this part of the justice department's recent highly redacted document drop?

 

[altmin]

“I don’t agree with everything Trump does. I do agree with some stuff, though. Like I am fine with him being married. I don’t support him leering lustfully at 14 year-old girls, but no supports EVERYTHING their preferred candidate does.”

meanwhile "This Democratic candidate once had a parking ticket in 1987. I just can't trust them with the office of the presidency..."

 

[milom98]

meanwhile "This Democratic candidate once had a parking ticket in 1987. I just can't trust them with the office of the presidency..."

Yeah, but it was an expired parking meter violation and the vehicle would have been towed if it had been anyone besides an elite liberal politician. So how could you trust someone like that to manage the economy if they can't manage a parking meter and also have everyone's best interests at heart after receiving such preferential treatment?

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

What specifically is this Jane Doe accusing Trump of doing? Is this part of the justice department's recent highly redacted document drop?

Probably nothing. But that isn’t the point. I think you know that it isn’t the point but pretending not to for whatever gets your rocks off with incessantly arguing.

This makes Trump look like an enabler at minimum. It isn’t a smoking gun. The testimony was likely related to a crime Epstein committed.

Most of the docs were redacted so who knows what else is there?

 

[1moretimeagain]

Even Russian government officials have jokes

 

[Duke Mu]

Answers for Today's Cognitive Test for Trump:

Man Child Pedo TV Felon

 

[Batt Boy]

5 Higher Ed Names in the Epstein Files

Both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to release the rest of the trove of documents related to Epstein. Here are some of the key higher ed people mentioned so far.

www.insidehighered.com

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Probably nothing. But that isn’t the point. I think you know that it isn’t the point but pretending not to for whatever gets your rocks off with incessantly arguing.

This makes Trump look like an enabler at minimum. It isn’t a smoking gun. The testimony was likely related to a crime Epstein committed.

Most of the docs were redacted so who knows what else is there?

It isn't a smoking gun or a bloody knife or a lead pipe in the conservatory. It's a limp pool noodle. It's one sentence mentioning someone people don't like and those same people are wildly speculating about what it could and then therefore must mean. It's an accusation with no proof it even happened other than this girl's statement. And even if it did happen, it could be completely innocuous.

It's the same thing happening with all of these guys including Clinton and Gates and Giuliani and Sommers and anyone else that was friends with someone who was probably a fairly charismatic guy that also didn't mind donating money to causes these people cared about.

In this specific case, it's a recycled insinuation from a civil case that was settled by the executors of the Epstein estate 6 years ago. It is not part of these new document dumps. Those document dumps may indeed contain your smoking gun but let's wait till something real comes out so that all the nonsense accusations don't dilute it.