DOJ: Epstein killed himself, no client list

170,781 Views | 2487 Replies | Last: 13 hrs ago by PaulsBunions
Iraq2xVeteran
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a "truckload" of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump's name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.

In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn't a sign of wrongdoing.

The officials said it was a routine briefing that covered a number of topics and that Trump's appearance in the documents wasn't the focus.

They told the president at the meeting that the files contained what officials felt was unverified hearsay about many people, including Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past, some of the officials said. One of the officials familiar with the documents said they contain hundreds of other names.

They also told Trump that senior Justice Department officials didn't plan to release any more documents related to the investigation of the convicted sex offender because the material contained child pornography and victims' personal information, the officials said. Trump said at the meeting he would defer to the Justice Department's decision to not release any further files.

FBI Director Kash Patel has privately told other government officials that Trump's name appeared in the files, according to people close to the administration.
Patel declined to answer an inquiry from the Journal about the Epstein case, but said in a statement that the memo on the Justice Department website explaining why the department wouldn't release more Epstein documents was "consistent with the thorough review conducted by the FBI and DOJ."

Details of Bondi's meeting with Trump haven't been previously reported. Trump's advisers had for months, including during the presidential campaign, said they would release the files, and Trump, while at times equivocal, indicated he would support the release.

Trump's supporters, including some now serving in senior roles in the administration, claimed that the documents would expose global elites and powerful Democrats who spent time with the disgraced financier.

The decision to not release the files has triggered the most serious backlash from Trump's political base since he launched his bid for the White House a decade ago, with a vocal group of the president's allies seeing the move as a massive betrayal.

The decision to not release the files and the harsh fallout among the public has roiled some of Trump's senior staff, who have staked their reputations on exposing the ties between Epstein and moneyed elites.

Patel, the FBI director, and his deputy, Dan Bongino, had been in favor of releasing more documents, people familiar with their efforts said.

Bongino has told colleagues that his association with the administration's decision to keep the files private has eroded his credibility among the base of support that fueled his rise as a successful podcaster and media personality on the right, according to a senior administration official. Bongino didn't respond to requests for comment.

On July 9, after ABC News reached out to the White House about Bondi's briefing to the president, Bongino and Bondi clashed in a meeting in which Bondi alleged that Bongino secretly provided information to the media to damage her reputation, people familiar with the meeting said.

Bongino in turn exploded about Bondi, his face red, and called her a liar, a senior administration official said.

Exclusive | Justice Department Told Trump in May That His Name Is Among Many in the Epstein Files - WSJ
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Iraq2xVeteran said:

When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a "truckload" of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump's name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.

In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn't a sign of wrongdoing.



Yep. Then why do so many think that it is?
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Can someone please tell us what exactly "the files" consists of? My interpretation is that it is the sum of evidence in paper or data form collected about Epstein. That would naturally include everyone he ever did business with, officially interacted with or socialized with, etc. "the files" may be business paperwork, communications about attending social events, email exchanges about inane matters, etc. I think some people prone to conspiratorial thinking presume "the files" means criminal evidence and equate it with this "client list" that has never materialized, at least not as alleged regarding some sort of extortion plot or list of fellow deviants to do sex crimes with. Yeah, i imagine since we've known for 3 decades that Trump and Epstein socialized together was wealthy socialites in the 90's and early 2000's that Trump would be names in a few documents gathered about Epstein. The only question is what documents and in what context, because it is almost certain if it was anything even remotely criminal or even unethical it would have been leaked long ago.
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

Can someone please tell us what exactly "the files" consists of? My interpretation is that it is the sum of evidence in paper or data form collected about Epstein. That would naturally include everyone he ever did business with, officially interacted with or socialized with, etc. "the files" may be business paperwork, communications about attending social events, email exchanges about inane matters, etc. I think some people prone to conspiratorial thinking presume "the files" means criminal evidence and equate it with this "client list" that has never materialized, at least not as alleged regarding some sort of extortion plot or list of fellow deviants to do sex crimes with. Yeah, i imagine since we've known for 3 decades that Trump and Epstein socialized together was wealthy socialites in the 90's and early 2000's that Trump would be names in a few documents gathered about Epstein. The only question is what documents and in what context, because it is almost certain if it was anything even remotely criminal or even unethical it would have been leaked long ago.


POTD right here.

I have asked that numerous times. What are "the files?" No serious reply. Just criticism for me asking that question.

Yep. It would have been leaked years ago.

Yet here we still are ...
f1ghtintexasaggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How are we supposed to know what the "files" consist of without seeing them? We know for a fact that they have collected more information that has not seen the light of day publicly. That is established fact. Whatever that is--again, minus the obviously illegal to disseminate CP-- should be made public, per the admin's promise to "release the files/names" during and after the election.

OR, if they don't do that, those who, for whatever reason, dabbled in this "conspiracy theory" should resign in disgrace either for leading the base on opportunistically or outright lying to them.

At this point, it's not about legality. If they were going to charge someone, both Rs and Ds have had their chance. That's clearly not going to happen. What we do know, however, and there are several people who have testified as much, is that EVERYONE KNEW ABOUT EPSTEIN. They knew who he was and what he was doing. And some people continued relations, personal or otherwise, with him. They may not be legally culpable of anything, but their continued associations ought to bring disgrace upon them publicly.

"Files" or accountability, that is the choice. Trump and co. put themselves in this situation and continue to stoke the flame by their absolute incompetence in how they are handling it in the media. I have no sympathy.
Anonymous Source
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

MouthBQ98 said:

Can someone please tell us what exactly "the files" consists of? My interpretation is that it is the sum of evidence in paper or data form collected about Epstein. That would naturally include everyone he ever did business with, officially interacted with or socialized with, etc. "the files" may be business paperwork, communications about attending social events, email exchanges about inane matters, etc. I think some people prone to conspiratorial thinking presume "the files" means criminal evidence and equate it with this "client list" that has never materialized, at least not as alleged regarding some sort of extortion plot or list of fellow deviants to do sex crimes with. Yeah, i imagine since we've known for 3 decades that Trump and Epstein socialized together was wealthy socialites in the 90's and early 2000's that Trump would be names in a few documents gathered about Epstein. The only question is what documents and in what context, because it is almost certain if it was anything even remotely criminal or even unethical it would have been leaked long ago.


POTD right here.

I have asked that numerous times. What are "the files?" No serious reply. Just criticism for me asking that question.

Yep. It would have been leaked years ago.

Yet here we still are ...

Whatever it is that apparently has Trump's name throughout that they're not letting us see,
Gig 'Em
AGinHI
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

Iraq2xVeteran said:

When Justice Department officials reviewed what Attorney General Pam Bondi called a "truckload" of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein earlier this year, they discovered that Donald Trump's name appeared multiple times, according to senior administration officials.

In May, Bondi and her deputy informed the president at a meeting in the White House that his name was in the Epstein files, the officials said. Many other high-profile figures were also named, Trump was told. Being mentioned in the records isn't a sign of wrongdoing.



Yep. Then why do so many think that it is?

Because it is difficult for me to not think that, in the least, you observed something.

Then I start asking - What did you see? What did you know? And What did you do?

The question was asked of Epstein "Have you ever socialized with Donald Trump in the presence of females under the age of 18?" To which he responded "I'm going to have to assert my Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment right" (video)



Is it really so strange to wonder about wrongdoing? Recall how we responded to Joe Paterno for looking the other way.
bobbranco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anonymous Source said:

Whatever it is that apparently has Trump's name throughout that they're not letting us see,


If one were to believe NY Times' anonymous sources.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Or one could recognize that the FBI spent considerable time looking into Trump- Epstein connections. The more they try and investigate the more your "name appears in files".

Simple lib world interprets this as guilt and says we need to know more, completing the circle support of their TDS.
Anonymous Source
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

Whatever it is that apparently has Trump's name throughout that they're not letting us see,


If one were to believe NY Times' anonymous sources.

Man, if only there was a way to prove that they're FOS
Gig 'Em
bobbranco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All we know is that Epstein, Maxwell, and probably a very small group were aware of the abuse.

And if anybody thinks that this clip represents anything other than Epstein's continued deceit is laughable.
bobbranco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anonymous Source said:

bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

Whatever it is that apparently has Trump's name throughout that they're not letting us see,


If one were to believe NY Times' anonymous sources.

Man, if only there was a way to prove that they're FOS

Remarkably NY Times anonymous source reporting about Trump and Republicans have been proven to be free from fact time and again.
Anonymous Source
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

Whatever it is that apparently has Trump's name throughout that they're not letting us see,


If one were to believe NY Times' anonymous sources.

Man, if only there was a way to prove that they're FOS

Remarkably NY Times anonymous source reporting about Trump and Republicans have been proven to be free from fact time and again.

OK. Prove it then. Don't just say it on your own social media platform.
That's the problem. Trump says 'Fake News' and you lap it up unquestionably.
So if it's bull****, prove it. Should be easy enough if there's nothing on you.

Seems to me that if they lie about him all the time, Trump would have legal grounds. Yet, he's never...never...won a lawsuit against the NYT.
Gig 'Em
AGinHI
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bobbranco said:

All we know is that Epstein, Maxwell, and probably a very small group were aware of the abuse.

And if anybody thinks that this clip represents anything other than Epstein's continued deceit is laughable.

Well I think anybody that believes that is laughable.

They have neither worked with or known wicked people.

Again, TexAgs was up in arms over JoePa.

aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anonymous Source said:

bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

Whatever it is that apparently has Trump's name throughout that they're not letting us see,


If one were to believe NY Times' anonymous sources.

Man, if only there was a way to prove that they're FOS

Remarkably NY Times anonymous source reporting about Trump and Republicans have been proven to be free from fact time and again.

OK. Prove it then. Don't just say it on your own social media platform.
That's the problem. Trump says 'Fake News' and you lap it up unquestionably.
So if it's bull****, prove it. Should be easy enough if there's nothing on you.

Seems to me that if they lie about him all the time, Trump would have legal grounds. Yet, he's never...never...won a lawsuit against the NYT.


What's your end game? What exactly do you want done? And keep in mind that innocent people's names won't ever be released. They never are or will be in a criminal investigation.
Anonymous Source
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

What exactly do you want done?


I think I mentioned it here:

Quote:

So if it's bull****, prove it. Should be easy enough if there's nothing on you.



Get it all out there. If Clinton's on the list, OK. Dershowitz? Fine. Let's get the whole thing out there.

Otherwise, shut the **** up and quit dodging the thing. If you're innocent, what are you hiding?
Gig 'Em
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anonymous Source said:

Quote:

What exactly do you want done?


I think I mentioned it here:

Quote:

So if it's bull****, prove it. Should be easy enough if there's nothing on you.



Get it all out there. If Clinton's on the list, OK. Dershowitz? Fine. Let's get the whole thing out there.

Otherwise, shut the **** up and quit dodging the thing. If you're innocent, what are you hiding?


So what specific list do you want released to the public?
Anonymous Source
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

Anonymous Source said:

Quote:

What exactly do you want done?


I think I mentioned it here:

Quote:

So if it's bull****, prove it. Should be easy enough if there's nothing on you.



Get it all out there. If Clinton's on the list, OK. Dershowitz? Fine. Let's get the whole thing out there.

Otherwise, shut the **** up and quit dodging the thing. If you're innocent, what are you hiding?


So what specific list do you want released to the public?


Whatever it is that's got Don all spun up.
Gig 'Em
FobTies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

Can someone please tell us what exactly "the files" consists of?

Oliver North destroyed Iran Contra files in the 80s, likely including those related to Epstein's involvement. I doubt there is documented evidence that connects the feds to illegal ops. Possible there files to indicate that Epstein was a co-operative used to further US or Israeli interests abroad.

This thing likely gets exposed via counterparty or intermediary manifests/docs within some logistical shell company, or a whistleblower, small chance Maxwell adds something new.
aggiegolfer2012
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think it's as simple as Trump knew too much and never said anything. Probably (hopefully) nothing illegal, but a bad look if it came out. Clinton's are probably in the same boat, that was Trump's circle in the 90's and early 2000's.
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shut up with the questions.

The DOJ just blatantly lied to protect our Idiot in Chief yet again from being named a very close friend (hopefully no more than that or this Country is about to blow up) of the most notorious Pedophile in history.

They've done so much lying now about this topic the public isn't going to rest until every single file is released and anyone that is guilty is buried under the jail. I hope the Government knows that at this point.
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FWTXAg said:

Shut up with the questions.

The DOJ just blatantly lied to protect our Idiot in Chief yet again from being named a close friend (hopefully no more than that or this Country is about to blow up) of the most notorious Pedophile in history.

They've done so much lying now about this topic the public isn't going to rest until every single file is released and anyone that is guilty is buried under the jail. I hope the Government knows that at this point.


So which specific files should be released?

The ones that includes innocent names of associates?
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

Shut up with the questions.

The DOJ just blatantly lied to protect our Idiot in Chief yet again from being named a close friend (hopefully no more than that or this Country is about to blow up) of the most notorious Pedophile in history.

They've done so much lying now about this topic the public isn't going to rest until every single file is released and anyone that is guilty is buried under the jail. I hope the Government knows that at this point.


So which specific files should be released?

The ones that includes innocent names of associates?


Yes. At this point they have no choice. They've burned the bridge behind them. They're screwed now.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Can someone please tell us what exactly "the files" consists of? My interpretation is that it is the sum of evidence in paper or data form collected about Epstein.

Could be two tranches. The one that was presented to a grand jury in 2019 for Epstein, himself. And then what was presented to the grand jury a few years later for Ghislaine Maxwell. There is likely a lot of overlap but Maxwell probably had some info that Epstein did not.

My WAG.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ok. There is what the FBI/DOJ has. Some of if is solely under their jurisdiction and they could release it if they chose to do so. They do have a long-standing policy of not wantonly releasing evidence that has no context because it could imply involvement of of persons in the evidence but not in a criminal aspect, but the FBI could ignore that policy and release that evidence.
They will not release evidence that would identify a minor victim. They will not release media that involves sexual abuse of a minor.
There is evidence placed under the jurisdiction of the courts that have heard parts of the cases of Epstein and Maxwell. Both the criminal trials and the grand juries. Each of those judges may or may not have sealed parts of the evidence from release and can only be petitioned to release it, and may determine that evidence cannot be released. The DOJ has no power to change such a determination.

I for one would love for all documentation that can be released to be released so we can stop hearing about these implausible conspiracy theories, but I am well aware it will not end there. People who are invested in the theory will simply modify their conspiracy around the evidence, and can always claim there is more that is hidden. Always.
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FWTXAg said:

aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

Shut up with the questions.

The DOJ just blatantly lied to protect our Idiot in Chief yet again from being named a close friend (hopefully no more than that or this Country is about to blow up) of the most notorious Pedophile in history.

They've done so much lying now about this topic the public isn't going to rest until every single file is released and anyone that is guilty is buried under the jail. I hope the Government knows that at this point.


So which specific files should be released?

The ones that includes innocent names of associates?


Yes. At this point they have no choice. They've burned the bridge behind them. They're screwed now.


How did they burn a bridge? By associating with someone 20 years ago?

What about innocent people that worked for Epstein in minor roles 20 years ago? Anyone who did any business with him that had nothing to do with his sexual activities?

So you are saying that if I did some work for someone 20 years ago -- like designing his home or brokering a sale or handling stock purchase -- and he later turned out to be a pedophile, my name should be released to the pubic?
bobbranco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anonymous Source said:

bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

bobbranco said:

Anonymous Source said:

Whatever it is that apparently has Trump's name throughout that they're not letting us see,


If one were to believe NY Times' anonymous sources.

Man, if only there was a way to prove that they're FOS

Remarkably NY Times anonymous source reporting about Trump and Republicans have been proven to be free from fact time and again.

OK. Prove it then. Don't just say it on your own social media platform.
That's the problem. Trump says 'Fake News' and you lap it up unquestionably.
So if it's bull****, prove it. Should be easy enough if there's nothing on you.

Seems to me that if they lie about him all the time, Trump would have legal grounds. Yet, he's never...never...won a lawsuit against the NYT.


Who was in Epstein's inner circle of trust and who were his partners in crime?

There's Epstein's black book. A bunch of names. Do you think Epstein revealed to his investors that he was raping the underaged and others? That's not good business and groomers like him and Maxwell certainly had tight control of those reins.

I am not defending anyone here. All I'm trying to do is bring some common sense into the conversation rather that devolving into conspiratorial idiocy. The response from the left and right about the Epstein non-release is a comical charade of outrage that's stranger than the QAnon weirdness and the Libertarian freaks.

All the names excerpted from the black book of Epstein have been available for years. Are they to be investigated again and again with their names repeatedly pulled through the mud???

I googled 'epstein's inner circle' and it gave interesting results. Here's one.

https://theintellectualistofficial.substack.com/p/who-was-in-jeffrey-epsteins-black

Quote:

Power Players in Politics Push Back


Quote:

Prominent political figures dotted the book's pages, several of whom denied any meaningful association. Among them:
  • Prince Andrew, Duke of York, whose ties to Epstein have been widely reported.
  • Ehud Barak, former Israeli Prime Minister and defense minister.
  • Bill Clinton, 42nd U.S. President.
  • President Donald Trump, then a businessman and television personality, now serving his second term as President of the United States.
  • Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State and Nobel laureate.
  • David Koch, late industrialist and political donor.
  • Ted Kennedy, long-serving U.S. Senator.
  • John Kerry, former Secretary of State and Democratic presidential nominee.

Celebrities, Journalists, and the Shadows of Fame
Artists, actors, and journalists appeared in the book, underscoring the breadth of Epstein's connections:
  • Mick Jagger, lead singer of The Rolling Stones.
  • Courtney Love, musician and actress.
  • Alec Baldwin, actor and comedian.
  • Ralph Fiennes, British stage and screen actor.
  • Mike Bloomberg, businessman and former New York City mayor.
  • Ivana Trump, businesswoman and first wife of Donald Trump.
  • Anderson Cooper, CNN anchor and journalist.
  • Les Moonves, former CBS executive.
  • Charlie Rose, former PBS interviewer.
  • Woody Allen, filmmaker.
  • Liz Hurley, actress and model.
  • Phil Collins, musician and songwriter.
Inner Circle and a Legacy of Scandal
Some names in the black book were closer to Epstein's inner circle or symbolized his access to elite society:
  • Ghislaine Maxwell, later convicted for sex trafficking crimes tied to Epstein.
  • Jean-Luc Brunel, French modeling scout accused of abuse.
  • Naomi Campbell, supermodel and philanthropist.
  • Tom Ford, designer and filmmaker.
  • Marvin Minsky, pioneering cognitive scientist from MIT.
Why Epstein's Black Book Still Matters in 2025
Six years after Epstein's death, his black book remains a stark reminder of how association whether intentional or incidental can draw individuals into public scrutiny. It highlights how elite networks, shrouded in secrecy and exploitation, can corrode reputations and erode public trust.



AgDev01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MouthBQ98 said:

I for one would love for all documentation that can be released to be released so we can stop hearing about these implausible conspiracy theories, but I am well aware it will not end there. People who are invested in the theory will simply modify their conspiracy around the evidence, and can always claim there is more that is hidden. Always.




like those who keep trying to paint them as mere acquaintances when all evidence points to the contrary?
bobbranco
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AGinHI said:

bobbranco said:

All we know is that Epstein, Maxwell, and probably a very small group were aware of the abuse.

And if anybody thinks that this clip represents anything other than Epstein's continued deceit is laughable.

Well I think anybody that believes that is laughable.

They have neither worked with or known wicked people.

Again, TexAgs was up in arms over JoePa.



JoePa had the ability to stop that pederast and JoePa elected to ignore.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/court-records-joe-paterno-knew-about-sandusky-abuse-in-1976/
OPAG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BBRex said:

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

Keyno said:

MouthBQ98 said:

What time frame and what qualifies as good friend versus social acquaintance? I REALLY don't think Trump covering for Epstein in 2025 when the dude died in 2019 in prison for child porn and sexual assault. Surely one can assemble a timeline of Trump comments or social events with Epstein and get an idea when things went sour.

Everyone knew what Epstein was up to. He didn't nickname his plane the Lolita Express- others who hung out with him did.


https://www.independentsentinel.com/cindy-mccain-knew-all-about-jeffrey-epstein-everyone-did/


If you didn't live through the late '60s to the early '90s, then it probably doesn't make much sense. But then teens were given a lot more autonomy and freedom than kids today. By a long shot. And the sexual revolution was creating a more permissive attitude about sex. Quite a few celebrities and others were, in fact, hooking up with teens. Respectable people sort of looked down their noses at guys who did that, and maybe an angry dad would throw hands, but it generally wasn't something you called the cops over.

Epstein was in hot water now because 1., our mores have changed; and 2., because he wasn't Robert Plant or Vince Neil and used coercive force to get what he wanted.

This is true, In fact about 70 plus years ago, many girls were getting married at 15, The reality is that Mary the mother of Jesus was more than likely around this age when she had the Lord. Life spans were short.

We could put up pictures of girls who are 'underage' but you would not be able to tell. Having said this, I AM NOT FOR A CHANGE IN AGE OF CONSENT LAWS. Still, there is a pretty significant difference, IMHO, between a child pedo, like Mohammed was and someone who is attracted to a girl who is very close to being a woman and is well aware of their sexuality.

I am not justifying this, just saying there is a big difference between an 8 year old girl and 15 year old girl in about everyway.



FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

Shut up with the questions.

The DOJ just blatantly lied to protect our Idiot in Chief yet again from being named a close friend (hopefully no more than that or this Country is about to blow up) of the most notorious Pedophile in history.

They've done so much lying now about this topic the public isn't going to rest until every single file is released and anyone that is guilty is buried under the jail. I hope the Government knows that at this point.


So which specific files should be released?

The ones that includes innocent names of associates?


Yes. At this point they have no choice. They've burned the bridge behind them. They're screwed now.


How did they burn a bridge? By associating with someone 20 years ago?

What about innocent people that worked for Epstein in minor roles 20 years ago? Anyone who did any business with him that had nothing to do with his sexual activities?

So you are saying that if I did some work for someone 20 years ago -- like designing his home or brokering a sale or handling stock purchase -- and he later turned out to be a pedophile, my name should be released to the pubic?


Here's what you're not understanding, the people are now out for blood and nothing is going to stop it. DOJ, Bondi, and Trump fubar'd this beyond belief.

Release everything. The FBI has all the information in the world and they know the difference between someone who once brokered a deal and was a friend and someone who was a VERY close friend. Our President seems to be in the latter category. Does that mean he's guilty of pedophilia? Of course not.

But they've screwed this up so badly that it doesn't matter. The way Trump came out kicking and screaming at his voters saying if you still care about this then don't vote for me tells you everything you needed to know about where this was going to end up. The well has already been poisoned with a lot of his supporters, it's over.
aginlakeway
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FWTXAg said:

aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

Shut up with the questions.

The DOJ just blatantly lied to protect our Idiot in Chief yet again from being named a close friend (hopefully no more than that or this Country is about to blow up) of the most notorious Pedophile in history.

They've done so much lying now about this topic the public isn't going to rest until every single file is released and anyone that is guilty is buried under the jail. I hope the Government knows that at this point.


So which specific files should be released?

The ones that includes innocent names of associates?


Yes. At this point they have no choice. They've burned the bridge behind them. They're screwed now.


How did they burn a bridge? By associating with someone 20 years ago?

What about innocent people that worked for Epstein in minor roles 20 years ago? Anyone who did any business with him that had nothing to do with his sexual activities?

So you are saying that if I did some work for someone 20 years ago -- like designing his home or brokering a sale or handling stock purchase -- and he later turned out to be a pedophile, my name should be released to the pubic?


Here's what you're not understanding, the people are now out for blood and nothing is going to stop it. DOJ, Bondi, and Trump fubar'd this beyond belief.

Release everything. The FBI has all the information in the world and they know the difference between someone who once brokered a deal and was a friend and someone who was a VERY close friend. Our President seems to be in the latter category. Does that mean he's guilty of pedophilia? Of course not.

But they've screwed this up so badly that it doesn't matter. The way Trump came out kicking and screaming at his voters saying if you still care about this then don't vote for me tells you everything you needed to know about where this was going to end up. The well has already been poisoned with a lot of his supporters, it's over.


I understand 100%. I also don't trust the FBI.

I'm still trying to understand why it's OK for innocent names to be released after a criminal investigation is complete.

I had some very close friends 20 years ago that I don't see any longer. One of them went to prison earlier this year. Should my name be released if he went to prison for a sexual crime?
Windy City Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Here's what you're not understanding, the people are now out for blood and nothing is going to stop it.


Trump has now lost the QAnon Shaman.



Anonymous Source
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

aginlakeway said:

FWTXAg said:

Shut up with the questions.

The DOJ just blatantly lied to protect our Idiot in Chief yet again from being named a close friend (hopefully no more than that or this Country is about to blow up) of the most notorious Pedophile in history.

They've done so much lying now about this topic the public isn't going to rest until every single file is released and anyone that is guilty is buried under the jail. I hope the Government knows that at this point.


So which specific files should be released?

The ones that includes innocent names of associates?


Yes. At this point they have no choice. They've burned the bridge behind them. They're screwed now.


How did they burn a bridge? By associating with someone 20 years ago?

What about innocent people that worked for Epstein in minor roles 20 years ago? Anyone who did any business with him that had nothing to do with his sexual activities?

So you are saying that if I did some work for someone 20 years ago -- like designing his home or brokering a sale or handling stock purchase -- and he later turned out to be a pedophile, my name should be released to the pubic?


Here's what you're not understanding, the people are now out for blood and nothing is going to stop it. DOJ, Bondi, and Trump fubar'd this beyond belief.

Release everything. The FBI has all the information in the world and they know the difference between someone who once brokered a deal and was a friend and someone who was a VERY close friend. Our President seems to be in the latter category. Does that mean he's guilty of pedophilia? Of course not.

But they've screwed this up so badly that it doesn't matter. The way Trump came out kicking and screaming at his voters saying if you still care about this then don't vote for me tells you everything you needed to know about where this was going to end up. The well has already been poisoned with a lot of his supporters, it's over.


I understand 100%. I also don't trust the FBI.

I'm still trying to understand why it's OK for innocent names to be released after a criminal investigation is complete.

I had some very close friends 20 years ago that I don't see any longer. One of them went to prison earlier this year. Should my name be released if he went to prison for a sexual crime?

But for the past 4+ years, Trump fans have been clamoring for a 'Trump guy' to run the FBI. Now you've got that. At some point, you've got to give in. You can't keep 'not trusting' until you get someone in there who says exactly what you want.
Gig 'Em
AgDev01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If the evidence shows it was likely you knew about the crime and did nothing to prevent it from happening again then yes.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.