Epstein Files | They’ve released wild claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 4K
  • Views: 155K
  • Politics 
superrific said:
It's hearsay; it's past the statute of limitations; and it's not clear that Trump said anything illegal.
Click to expand...
Are you aware of the details of the legal saga dating back to 2016 ? If so, can you offer us your detailed legal opinion regarding this sworn affidavit in support of the detailed lawsuit filed by the alleged victim of rape by Trump ? I count on your legal expertise, as always.
 
heelinhell said:
Are you aware of the details of the legal saga dating back to 2016 ? If so, can you offer us your detailed legal opinion regarding this sworn affidavit in support of the detailed lawsuit filed by the alleged victim of rape by Trump ? I count on your legal expertise, as always.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of that. The question was why the FBI didn't do anything about that, and I suggested that it wasn't grounds for an investigation. There's plenty of other stuff that is, perhaps, but a lot of limitations periods expired.
 
nrsair said:
I don’t know who Chad Scott is but this seems like #resistance libs holding on to the Russiagate fantasy. Putin’s name appears in the files but Epstein had a very close relationship and corresponded extensively with Ehud Barak, who was an Israeli general, minister of defense and prime minister. He was pretty clearly working for Israel.
Click to expand...

He was also advising Russia how to handle Trump.
 
Looking at the release it's very clear they redacted the names of alleged "victims" but also a WHOLE lot more. What is the legal justification for other redactions? It appears to me that they used redactions as a method of protecting people and preventing the release of information they did not want to become public. I'd like to know what court order allowed that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top