3 minutes after Massie said that he wanted to release phase 2 of the Epstein files, Trump put out the statement below...

Suspicious https://t.co/nRU17v8DpM pic.twitter.com/1UD5JVL0eP

— Axiomatic Enemy of the State (@DeTocqueville14) July 22, 2025

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

TAMU1990 said:

---

There's nothing in there that matters to Dems. How do I know that? They would have already released it if it could harm Trump. They sat on it the past 4 years. It's just a political tool to stir people up.

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Statement from @DAGToddBlanche:

This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.  The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6 remains as accurate today as it was when it was…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 22, 2025

I'll take "Things That Will Never Happen," for $600, Ken.

---

Quote:

---

President Trump has told us to release all credible evidence. If Ghislane Maxwell has information about anyone who has committed crimes against victims, the FBI and the DOJ will hear what she has to say.

Therefore, at the direction of Attorney General Bondi, I have communicated with counsel for Ms. Maxwell to determine whether she would be willing to speak with prosecutors from the Department. I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired about her willingness to meet with the government. That changes now.

---

OPAG said:

---

One thing that i am absolutely sure of is that Trump's relationship with Epstein was totally business. He did not engage in any pedo activity no matter how hard the antichirst left try to connect it.

Trump is not with holding any info to protect himself. In fact the opposite is true, if the whole things was released it would exonerate him.

If he (the DOJ) is holding things back (and there probably is things be held back) it is all the ties to all kinds of ties that Epstein had on multiple fronts and there are many that did nothing but business and their would be a massive witch hunt launched against them. Of that I am sure.

One thing that is not in doubt here, Epstein has a loot ties to a a LOOOT of people, from all kinds of backgrounds. It's a huge mess. And we do not need an 'off with his head' mentality towards any and everyone who had any dealings with him at all. And that's exactly what many want in the name of 'whacking pedos'

---

Keyno said:

---

OPAG said:

---

One thing that i am absolutely sure of is that Trump's relationship with Epstein was totally business. He did not engage in any pedo activity no matter how hard the antichirst left try to connect it.

Trump is not with holding any info to protect himself. In fact the opposite is true, if the whole things was released it would exonerate him.

If he (the DOJ) is holding things back (and there probably is things be held back) it is all the ties to all kinds of ties that Epstein had on multiple fronts and there are many that did nothing but business and their would be a massive witch hunt launched against them. Of that I am sure.

One thing that is not in doubt here, Epstein has a loot ties to a a LOOOT of people, from all kinds of backgrounds. It's a huge mess. And we do not need an 'off with his head' mentality towards any and everyone who had any dealings with him at all. And that's exactly what many want in the name of 'whacking pedos'

---

I'm on the fence about if I think Trump is criminal implicated with Epstein. What I do know is that for a decade, Trump has been talking about "draining the swamp", getting rid of corruption, being transparent, "locking her up", etc.

You can't be talking like that for so long and then cover this up.

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

Statement from @DAGToddBlanche:

This Department of Justice does not shy away from uncomfortable truths, nor from the responsibility to pursue justice wherever the facts may lead.  The joint statement by the DOJ and FBI of July 6 remains as accurate today as it was when it was…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 22, 2025

I'll take "Things That Will Never Happen," for $600, Ken.

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

So you want to release "files" that include names, including people or simple associates who are innocent?

When has that ever happened in any investigation?

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

So you want to release "files" that include names, including people or simple associates who are innocent?

When has that ever happened in any investigation?

---

If they're innocent, and the files don't show any indication of them being guilty, why does it matter? I would prefer the government be forced to release everything they have since they've lied to citizens before and this whole thing smells of a coverup.

To your investigation question, the HR explicitly withholds info relating to an ongoing investigation. And to be honest I don't really care if it has never happened before, the fed has gotten away with too much operating how they have previously. IMO you can't "drain the swamp" by giving the swamp an out.

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

---

Old McDonald said:

---

"we lied about releasing the epstein docs to get elected, we never really cared and it's time for you to get over it and move on"

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Old McDonald said:
the DOW has dropped 1000 points in one day 11 times in history. 4 of those have occurred since trump's "day of liberation".

---

Pichael Thompson said:


Wow


It's almost like after 4 years of mass money printing the market needed a reset



Great insight!

---

🚨 BREAKING: AG Pam Bondi orders the DOJ to immediately get in contact with GHISLAINE MAXWELL, “about anyone who has committed crimes against victims”

“I anticipate meeting with Ms. Maxwell in the coming days. Until now, no administration on behalf of the Department had inquired… pic.twitter.com/ZeUdUo0mPO

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) July 22, 2025

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

So you want to release "files" that include names, including people or simple associates who are innocent?

When has that ever happened in any investigation?

---

If they're innocent, and the files don't show any indication of them being guilty, why does it matter? I would prefer the government be forced to release everything they have since they've lied to citizens before and this whole thing smells of a coverup.

To your investigation question, the HR explicitly withholds info relating to an ongoing investigation. And to be honest I don't really care if it has never happened before, the fed has gotten away with too much operating how they have previously. IMO you can't "drain the swamp" by giving the swamp an out.

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

---

So you want INNOCENT peoples name released as part of the "Epstein files?" You want the names of all associates or anyone who dealt with Epstein?

Those people's lives will be destroyed. And they are innocent. HUGE legal and libel issue with doing this.

When have innocent people's names ever been released to the public as part of a criminal investigation? When a mass murderer is convicted, names of his innocent associates are not released.

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

So you want to release "files" that include names, including people or simple associates who are innocent?

When has that ever happened in any investigation?

---

If they're innocent, and the files don't show any indication of them being guilty, why does it matter? I would prefer the government be forced to release everything they have since they've lied to citizens before and this whole thing smells of a coverup.

To your investigation question, the HR explicitly withholds info relating to an ongoing investigation. And to be honest I don't really care if it has never happened before, the fed has gotten away with too much operating how they have previously. IMO you can't "drain the swamp" by giving the swamp an out.

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

---

So you want INNOCENT peoples name released as part of the "Epstein files?" You want the names of all associates or anyone who dealt with Epstein?

Those people's lives will be destroyed. And they are innocent. HUGE legal and libel issue with doing this.

When have innocent people's names ever been released to the public as part of a criminal investigation? When a mass murderer is convicted, names of his innocent associates are not released.

---

Yeah I want everything released about it. How could it be a libel issue if the releases files show no wrongdoing by an innocent person? Seems like a weak issue to harp on ngl. I highly doubt lives will be destroyed by an innocent person being proven innocent by the full release of the files lol

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

So you want to release "files" that include names, including people or simple associates who are innocent?

When has that ever happened in any investigation?

---

If they're innocent, and the files don't show any indication of them being guilty, why does it matter? I would prefer the government be forced to release everything they have since they've lied to citizens before and this whole thing smells of a coverup.

To your investigation question, the HR explicitly withholds info relating to an ongoing investigation. And to be honest I don't really care if it has never happened before, the fed has gotten away with too much operating how they have previously. IMO you can't "drain the swamp" by giving the swamp an out.

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

---

So you want INNOCENT peoples name released as part of the "Epstein files?" You want the names of all associates or anyone who dealt with Epstein?

Those people's lives will be destroyed. And they are innocent. HUGE legal and libel issue with doing this.

When have innocent people's names ever been released to the public as part of a criminal investigation? When a mass murderer is convicted, names of his innocent associates are not released.

---

Yeah I want everything released about it. How could it be a libel issue if the releases files show no wrongdoing by an innocent person? Seems like a weak issue to harp on ngl. I highly doubt lives will be destroyed by an innocent person being proven innocent by the full release of the files lol

---

100% disagree. People will be termed guilty just by association. And they were be outed online and their lives will be ruined.

In no situation are the innocent associates of sex offender names released to the public.

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

So you want to release "files" that include names, including people or simple associates who are innocent?

When has that ever happened in any investigation?

---

If they're innocent, and the files don't show any indication of them being guilty, why does it matter? I would prefer the government be forced to release everything they have since they've lied to citizens before and this whole thing smells of a coverup.

To your investigation question, the HR explicitly withholds info relating to an ongoing investigation. And to be honest I don't really care if it has never happened before, the fed has gotten away with too much operating how they have previously. IMO you can't "drain the swamp" by giving the swamp an out.

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

---

So you want INNOCENT peoples name released as part of the "Epstein files?" You want the names of all associates or anyone who dealt with Epstein?

Those people's lives will be destroyed. And they are innocent. HUGE legal and libel issue with doing this.

When have innocent people's names ever been released to the public as part of a criminal investigation? When a mass murderer is convicted, names of his innocent associates are not released.

---

Yeah I want everything released about it. How could it be a libel issue if the releases files show no wrongdoing by an innocent person? Seems like a weak issue to harp on ngl. I highly doubt lives will be destroyed by an innocent person being proven innocent by the full release of the files lol

---

100% disagree. People will be termed guilty just by association. And they were be outed online and their lives will be ruined.

In no situation are the innocent associates of sex offender names released to the public.

---

The Epsteiners don't care. They're perfectly happy with ruining innocent lives if it means getting Clinton, Gates, Trump, or whoever else they hate.

And they always seem to forget or ignore the fact that releasing "everything" means releasing hundreds if not thousands of hours of kiddie porn, which is never going to happen.

---

Everyone: we would like to see the epstein stuff
Tulsi: I have declassified Benjamin Franklin's love letters to various mistresses https://t.co/FERv2VSwvn

— OSINT Gorilla (@GorillaOSINT) July 22, 2025

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

aginlakeway said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

Trump has been after Massie long before the insanity over Epstein started.

But that doesn't stop the Epsteiners from seeing something that isn't there.

This has truly reached Q-Anon level of insanity.

Actually, Q would be embarrassed by it.

---

There'd be no harm in releasing the files then

---

In your opinion, what are "the files" specifically that you want released?

And how is the release of innocent people's names not harmful?

---

I think what Massie put in his HR is reasonable. If they're innocent why would the files say otherwise? If the Biden admin doctored the files, can they not say who doctored it and when? Instead they're saying "oh we looked into and nothing was there trust us, and if you keep asking you're a traitor to MAGA".

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/581?overview=closed

---

So you want to release "files" that include names, including people or simple associates who are innocent?

When has that ever happened in any investigation?

---

If they're innocent, and the files don't show any indication of them being guilty, why does it matter? I would prefer the government be forced to release everything they have since they've lied to citizens before and this whole thing smells of a coverup.

To your investigation question, the HR explicitly withholds info relating to an ongoing investigation. And to be honest I don't really care if it has never happened before, the fed has gotten away with too much operating how they have previously. IMO you can't "drain the swamp" by giving the swamp an out.

(C) would jeopardize an active federal investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;

---

So you want INNOCENT peoples name released as part of the "Epstein files?" You want the names of all associates or anyone who dealt with Epstein?

Those people's lives will be destroyed. And they are innocent. HUGE legal and libel issue with doing this.

When have innocent people's names ever been released to the public as part of a criminal investigation? When a mass murderer is convicted, names of his innocent associates are not released.

---

Yeah I want everything released about it. How could it be a libel issue if the releases files show no wrongdoing by an innocent person? Seems like a weak issue to harp on ngl. I highly doubt lives will be destroyed by an innocent person being proven innocent by the full release of the files lol

---

100% disagree. People will be termed guilty just by association. And they were be outed online and their lives will be ruined.

In no situation are the innocent associates of sex offender names released to the public.

---

The Epsteiners don't care. They're perfectly happy with ruining innocent lives if it means getting Clinton, Gates, Trump, or whoever else they hate.

And they always seem to forget or ignore the fact that releasing "everything" means releasing hundreds if not thousands of hours of kiddie porn, which is never going to happen.

---

You mean the kiddie porn that is explicitly withheld in Massie's HR? Implying anybody wants CP released is willful ignorance at this point. If a file says "Epstein met with Mr Smith the banker on Jan 1 2013 for a meeting at Mr Smith's office" and there's nothing else on Mr Smith, why would anybody care about Mr Smith?

The Trump admin had their chance to be transparent and chose to just say "we're moving on from this the government investigated themselves and found nothing further", despite releasing binders to influencers that said "Epstein part 1". Drastic times cause for drastic measures to hold govt accountable.

---