No Spin Ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

OPAG said:

---

JUST IN: President Trump suggests something was planted in the Epstein files, says they were “run” by the Biden administration.

“Those files were run by the worst scum on earth.”

“The whole thing is a hoax. They ran the files. I was running against somebody that ran the files.… pic.twitter.com/vKVaUBe5DE

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) July 28, 2025

---

Even more reason to release everything that doesn't include children and victims.

---

Negative. Release it all, no redactions.

If this is so serious that it continues to eat up the airtime, then nothing remains secret.

Else we get "Jane Doe #3 between the age of 14-17 at the alleged date of the incident, says she met Trump at (location redacted for privacy of victim) during the late 1990s (victim could not identify exact date due to trauma during that time)….".

So no, nothing gets redacted. If you want the information that bad, then you deal with the fallout.

---

So you want to ruin even further the lives of victims just to thumb the nose at those who want nothing but the names, places, and horrible things they did regarding all things Epstein?

You do realize everything (names, etc.) that can put those involved in public light, and likely in jail, can be done without causing further trauma to the victims, right?

I don't think anyone is saying to show the videos, pictures, and names of the victims. At least not those who just want the names, whichever names they may be..

---

Quote:

---

Again, I say release every single file there is and ever was.

---

Apparently not. I've been very clear about my position from the beginning. Release everything except the CP (which is obviously illegal to disseminate anyways). Yet, homeboy over here makes up these fantasies in his head about the other side foaming at the mouth to watch Bill plug underage girls. I reiterate my message above. Disgraceful. Disgusting. Shameful.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

What a weird response.

Trump's DOJ has said there is no list and nothing to release. So it would stand to reason that if there is proof of Clinton and others' involvement, it's being withheld. Especially considering how much Trump and co talked about releasing all information during the campaign.

The alternative is that there is no involvement from anyone besides Epstein and Maxwell.

---

So you do want to see the "proof" on Clinton, which is what I insinuated you were after.

Just admit what you want, it's not that hard.

---

You understand that an investigation like this would have thousands of documents, interviews on file, background research, summary findings, etc right? Trump's DOJ hasn't said "we're still working on it." They said there's nothing left to investigate and for everyone to move on. If he's going to insinuate Clinton and others are involved then release the evidence from the investigation that implicates them. Otherwise he's no better than the dems who are implying Trump was involved with no evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure why your mind immediately went to the only thing that can be released is videos of the victims but that probably says more about you than anything else.

---

Precisely.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I didn't call for the publishing of the victims names or any of videos and photos of such.

I said release it. Whether it's published it's not up to me or on me.

But if you release anything you release it all. Else you do nothing to end the ongoing speculation. See my example above on "redacted" releases.

---

Okay, I misunderstood you. My bad.

I'm just glad you're not on the "we can't do anything about this because (B.S. fill-in-the-blank excuse) that everyone even remotely close to the administration is at.

I haven't seen a thread on the Trump v Murdoch lawsuit, so I'll mention it here.

Trump wants to depose Rupert ASAP because he may be dead before discovery starts!

"Team Trump to judge: Let us depose Rupert Murdoch while he's still alive"
Trump's lawyer claims an expedited deposition is necessary because Murdoch is "94 years old" and "has suffered from multiple health issues."

Full story and filing here https://t.co/kFKSY3stXJ

— All Rise News (@allrisenews) July 28, 2025

L-O-****ing-L!!!
They have to know there's zero chance a judge is going to grant that based on those reasons, right? Right?!?!?!

Problem with you "righteous" approach is that it provides nothing.

So you will be fine with "files and videos show someone appearing to be William Jefferson Clinton having sexual relations with Jane Doe #8 who was purportedly under 18 at the time of this undated video"?

Cause that is at max the type of information being clamored for. Flight logs? Not enough. Guest book at Epstein Island? Bill and Dersch forgot to sign it.

So you can keep up you personal attacks of me, that's fine, I was prepared for it when I posted what I did.

But you should try and be a rational adult about that actualities of what the options are here and maybe, just maybe, understand why the Trump DOJ is taking the approach they are.

I don't agree with the current approach and have been critical on how they handled this in the media particularly at the start.

But I either support letting the process continue or the alternative RELEASING all files. Because anything short of that will be manipulated and abused.

People still do not believe Obama and Hillary created the Russia hoax, despite verified memos, emails, files and investigations. But they will take a memo from Trump and say "all good"?

And were you clamoring this hard for the Epstein files before?

I am perfectly fine nailing Prince Andrew and friends upside down on a cross on a wet Texas plain in August and turn the fire ants loose. But I want to see Mayorkas hanging beside him for conspiring to traffick 10,000 times more underage girls than Epstein was responsible for.

Im Gipper said:

---

I haven't seen a thread on the Trump v Murdoch lawsuit, so I'll mention it here.

Trump wants to depose Rupert ASAP because he may be dead before discovery starts!

"Team Trump to judge: Let us depose Rupert Murdoch while he's still alive"
Trump's lawyer claims an expedited deposition is necessary because Murdoch is "94 years old" and "has suffered from multiple health issues."

Full story and filing here https://t.co/kFKSY3stXJ

— All Rise News (@allrisenews) July 28, 2025

---

Trump going after the bane of liberals for the past thirty years? Holy F*k, I'm sure libs are creaming themselves at this news.

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

What a weird response.

Trump's DOJ has said there is no list and nothing to release. So it would stand to reason that if there is proof of Clinton and others' involvement, it's being withheld. Especially considering how much Trump and co talked about releasing all information during the campaign.

The alternative is that there is no involvement from anyone besides Epstein and Maxwell.

---

So you do want to see the "proof" on Clinton, which is what I insinuated you were after.

Just admit what you want, it's not that hard.

---

You understand that an investigation like this would have thousands of documents, interviews on file, background research, summary findings, etc right? Trump's DOJ hasn't said "we're still working on it." They said there's nothing left to investigate and for everyone to move on. If he's going to insinuate Clinton and others are involved then release the evidence from the investigation that implicates them. Otherwise he's no better than the dems who are implying Trump was involved with no evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure why your mind immediately went to the only thing that can be released is videos of the victims but that probably says more about you than anything else.

---

Precisely.

---

Immediately? I think I've posted quite a bit on this. Another attempted ftc is a perv psycho disguster disrgaceful shameful person for calling me out because I want files but I really don't know what I want as long as it gets Trump.

Y'all's arguments are shallow, disingenuous and you don't like being called out for it.

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

flown-the-coop said:

---

I am not sure what you are referring to about cult leader.

But yes, in America, where I live, one has a right to confront the accuser. We cannot continue to convict on vague accusations from decades ago where the accuser can hide behind vagueness, poor memory and such.

Before you continue to make such poor comments regarding some sort of cult leader, maybe learn why grand jury testimony remains secret. It's not to protect the victims.

---

Then why did the president and people that he planned to appoint to major justice department positions claim they were going to release everything?

flown-the-coop said:

---

So you will be fine with "files and videos show someone appearing to be William Jefferson Clinton having sexual relations with Jane Doe #8 who was purportedly under 18 at the time of this undated video"?

---

I see nothing wrong in that, and it would be a hell of a lot better than what we've got now: rumor and speculation.

flown-the-coop said:

---

I am perfectly fine nailing Prince Andrew and friends upside down on a cross on a wet Texas plain in August and turn the fire ants loose. But I want to see Mayorkas hanging beside him for conspiring to traffick 10,000 times more underage girls than Epstein was responsible for.

---

This would be perfectly fine by me too.

flown-the-coop said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

What a weird response.

Trump's DOJ has said there is no list and nothing to release. So it would stand to reason that if there is proof of Clinton and others' involvement, it's being withheld. Especially considering how much Trump and co talked about releasing all information during the campaign.

The alternative is that there is no involvement from anyone besides Epstein and Maxwell.

---

So you do want to see the "proof" on Clinton, which is what I insinuated you were after.

Just admit what you want, it's not that hard.

---

You understand that an investigation like this would have thousands of documents, interviews on file, background research, summary findings, etc right? Trump's DOJ hasn't said "we're still working on it." They said there's nothing left to investigate and for everyone to move on. If he's going to insinuate Clinton and others are involved then release the evidence from the investigation that implicates them. Otherwise he's no better than the dems who are implying Trump was involved with no evidence to back it up.

I'm not sure why your mind immediately went to the only thing that can be released is videos of the victims but that probably says more about you than anything else.

---

Precisely.

---

Immediately? I think I've posted quite a bit on this. Another attempted ftc is a perv psycho disguster disrgaceful shameful person for calling me out because I want files but I really don't know what I want as long as it gets Trump.

Y'all's arguments are shallow, disingenuous and you don't like being called out for it.

---

Not sure how to have a discussion with someone who apparently can't read. Feel free to expand on how you got the bolded above comment from this post.

Quote:

---

You understand that an investigation like this would have thousands of documents, interviews on file, background research, summary findings, etc right?

---

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

The District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maxwell's arguments. Thus, she has appealed to SCOTUS asking them to hear her case. Today she filed her Reply Brief.

Im Gipper said:

---

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

The District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maxwell's arguments. Thus, she has appealed to SCOTUS asking them to hear her case. Today she filed her Reply Brief.

---

Ah. So, if she fails again, then her only recourse is to perhaps try for a clemency deal with Trump in return for her silence? No wonder DOJ is fighting it so hard. Personally, I think she deserves to serve every year she got.

"President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a dealand surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it. We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted."

Again, if there were anything on DJT of substance in the Epstein files, it would have come out LOOOONG ago...

BREAKING: Donald Trump turned down opportunity to travel to Jeffrey Epstein’s island, per Axios.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 28, 2025

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Imagine being one of the morons duped by QAnon, and having the gall to lecture people about "the way it is" just a few years later. And lol at him saying his "track record" is consistently right.

---

Qanon was obviously a psyop, that said "hey I'm a psyop."

but it wasn't exclusively about kids in tunnels. It was on target about a lot (that's unfolding now in fact). The ones with egg on their faces will be those who ran/run around repeating "debunked. debunked." Wait until the final tally. There was bull****, and there is reality. not mutually exclusive.

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

So you will be fine with "files and videos show someone appearing to be William Jefferson Clinton having sexual relations with Jane Doe #8 who was purportedly under 18 at the time of this undated video"?

---

I see nothing wrong in that, and it would be a hell of a lot better than what we've got now: rumor and speculation.

---

What I posted is rumor and speculation.

Someone with your position on this is dangerous to society. I assume you have never been falsely accused of something or accused of something merely by association.

Go through that and report back. In the interim, you simply want more tabloid fodder instead of justice.

74OA said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

The District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maxwell's arguments. Thus, she has appealed to SCOTUS asking them to hear her case. Today she filed her Reply Brief.

---

Ah. So, if she fails again, then her only recourse is to perhaps try for a clemency deal with Trump in return for her silence? No wonder DOJ is fighting it so hard. Personally, I think she deserves to serve every year she got.

"President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a dealand surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it. We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted."

---

Did you really just postulate that Trump would grant her clemency if she agreed to remain silent? Or did you intend to mean clemency in return for BREAKING her silence?

flown-the-coop said:

---

74OA said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

The District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maxwell's arguments. Thus, she has appealed to SCOTUS asking them to hear her case. Today she filed her Reply Brief.

---

Ah. So, if she fails again, then her only recourse is to perhaps try for a clemency deal with Trump in return for her silence? No wonder DOJ is fighting it so hard. Personally, I think she deserves to serve every year she got.

"President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a dealand surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it. We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted."

---

Did you really just postulate that Trump would grant her clemency if she agreed to remain silent? Or did you intend to mean clemency in return for BREAKING her silence?

---

Er.......for keeping silent, based on the completely unproven speculation that she's concealing something politically explosive. Hasn't that been the driver behind all the interest in Maxwell recently?

will25u said:

---

Again, if there were anything on DJT of substance in the Epstein files, it would have come out LOOOONG ago...

BREAKING: Donald Trump turned down opportunity to travel to Jeffrey Epstein’s island, per Axios.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 28, 2025

---

I wonder how lefties will spin this one into being bad news for Trump. May be tough to do ...

For the 100th time ... if there was something out there or something in "the files" so against Trump, it would have come out years before now. They tried everything to prevent him from being elected. Twice. They would have dropped an Epstein pedo story as it relates to Trump out there in a second.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Not sure how to have a discussion with someone who apparently can't read. Feel free to expand on how you got the bolded above comment from this post.

Quote:

---

You understand that an investigation like this would have thousands of documents, interviews on file, background research, summary findings, etc right?

---

---

Great, and what is J. Walter Weatherman prepared to do with such information? Misconstrue it? Go to Reddit and see what they have to say?'

Would you believe summary findings saying Trump is innocent, Clinton went 28 times? What if it said Clinton was innocent and it "appears" Trump may have known more than he has disclosed?

How is J. Walter Weatherman going to determine if those interviews were with people who could be trusted and if they were telling the truth. See example on Jane Doe accusing Trump.

Do you even know the scope of any investigation into Epstein? When it started? Who made decisions on criminal referrals?

I may have trouble reading but its because you make no sense and remain unclear about what you are after... other than files you know nothing about and have no idea how to process such information. You would be relying on the podcast bros to "digest" it all for you, which we already have now.

74OA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

74OA said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

The District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maxwell's arguments. Thus, she has appealed to SCOTUS asking them to hear her case. Today she filed her Reply Brief.

---

Ah. So, if she fails again, then her only recourse is to perhaps try for a clemency deal with Trump in return for her silence? No wonder DOJ is fighting it so hard. Personally, I think she deserves to serve every year she got.

"President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a dealand surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it. We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted."

---

Did you really just postulate that Trump would grant her clemency if she agreed to remain silent? Or did you intend to mean clemency in return for BREAKING her silence?

---

Er.......for keeping silent, based on the completely unproven speculation that she's concealing something politically explosive. Hasn't that been the driver behind all the interest in Maxwell recently?

---

You think she is sitting on something politically explosive, and she waited until Trump is in charge and having success to all of the sudden be receptive to discussing things with the DOJ and Blanche meets with her for two days to buy her silence?

The only development regarding Maxwell that is of note is that Merrick Garland decided without ever asking her a question that she had nothing to say, despite being sentenced for 20 years for her role as the arranger and in many cases instigator and some cases participator.

Thats a take.

flown-the-coop said:

---

74OA said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

74OA said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

The District Court and Second Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Maxwell's arguments. Thus, she has appealed to SCOTUS asking them to hear her case. Today she filed her Reply Brief.

---

Ah. So, if she fails again, then her only recourse is to perhaps try for a clemency deal with Trump in return for her silence? No wonder DOJ is fighting it so hard. Personally, I think she deserves to serve every year she got.

"President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a dealand surely he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it. We are appealing not only to the Supreme Court but to the President himself to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Ghislaine Maxwell for Epstein's crimes, especially when the government promised she would not be prosecuted."

---

Did you really just postulate that Trump would grant her clemency if she agreed to remain silent? Or did you intend to mean clemency in return for BREAKING her silence?

---

Er.......for keeping silent, based on the completely unproven speculation that she's concealing something politically explosive. Hasn't that been the driver behind all the interest in Maxwell recently?

---

You think she is sitting on something politically explosive, and she waited until Trump is in charge and having success to all of the sudden be receptive to discussing things with the DOJ and Blanche meets with her for two days to buy her silence?

The only development regarding Maxwell that is of note is that Merrick Garland decided without ever asking her a question that she had nothing to say, despite being sentenced for 20 years for her role as the arranger and in many cases instigator and some cases participator.

Thats a take.

---

Just like everyone else, I have no idea beyond speculation. She may have just been waiting to exhaust the full appeal process before resorting to trying a desperate longshot deal.

It all depends on what, if anything, Maxwell is concealing and to what extent, if any, it may damage the president or his administration.

Either way the story ultimately goes, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Maxwell has suddenly fallen out of a window in prison or elsewhere.

will25u said:

---

Again, if there were anything on DJT of substance in the Epstein files, it would have come out LOOOONG ago...

BREAKING: Donald Trump turned down opportunity to travel to Jeffrey Epstein’s island, per Axios.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 28, 2025

---

Ok cool but why are we not going after Clinton and all the other pedos?

Glad (and somewhat surprised) to know coop knows more about my desires than myself. In the real world here, again, I've been consistent in what I want on this issue.

"Files" or accountability.

Someone needs to be held to account: the actual abusers (this is perferred), or the members of the Trump administration who perpetuated this "hoax" to get elected: Kash, Bongino, Bondi, even Trump himself.

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

Glad (and somewhat surprised) to know coop knows more about my desires than myself. In the real world here, again, I've been consistent in what I want on this issue.

"Files" or accountability.

Someone needs to be held to account: the actual abusers (this is perferred), or the members of the Trump administration who perpetuated this "hoax" to get elected: Kash, Bongino, Bondi, even Trump himself.

---

What accountability would you like Kash, Bongino, Bondi and even Trump himself to have?

What sort of "hoax" have they perpetuated?

You don't like the timing, the comms and the pace of activity and because of that you think Trump and his team need to be held account for a hoac>

Yes, I see you have the usual I want abusers to be held accountable. Epstein is dead, Maxwell is in prison.

Are you demanding Bill Clinton explain what went on during his visits to Epstein Island? Oh I forget, some just want to focus on alleged Trump doodles and coverups.

Yes, I I think I may know the desires of others more than they care to admit to themselves.

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Trump seems to be the one with no issue with Clinton going 28 times since he apparently won't release all of the files showing how much Clinton and others were involved. The rest of us want all of the information released.

---

Rest easy. You will get the videotape of Bill raping young girls that you desire so much. That is what you are looking for, right?

Do you have information on what documents Trump has instructed the DOJ not to release?

---

You are so freaking weird.

aginlakeway said:

---

will25u said:

---

Again, if there were anything on DJT of substance in the Epstein files, it would have come out LOOOONG ago...

BREAKING: Donald Trump turned down opportunity to travel to Jeffrey Epstein’s island, per Axios.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 28, 2025

---

I wonder how lefties will spin this one into being bad news for Trump. May be tough to do ...

For the 100th time ... if there was something out there or something in "the files" so against Trump, it would have come out years before now. They tried everything to prevent him from being elected. Twice. They would have dropped an Epstein pedo story as it relates to Trump out there in a second.

---

Probably just quote Donald himself saying he never had the privilege to go to the island.

Quote:

---

For the 100th time ... if there was something out there or something in "the files" so against Trump, it would have come out years before now

---

I see this said a lot, but I don't necessarily think it's binary. It is possible that Bill Clinton is dirty too and that's why the Democrats sat on it. Can't muddy up someone else without getting mud on yourself.

Also, it wasn't the Democrats talking about Epstein the last four years, it was Trump, Bondi, Patel, Bongino and others. If it wasn't for them, my belief is that Democrats were fine letting it fade away-Epstein is dead and Maxwell in prison. But they kept up the drumbeat and here we are. The Democrats didn't start this mess three weeks ago, the DOJ memo did and the MAGA crowd felt betrayed.

Agree 100%

FIDO_Ags said:

---

Quote:

---

For the 100th time ... if there was something out there or something in "the files" so against Trump, it would have come out years before now

---

I see this said a lot, but I don't necessarily think it's binary. It is possible that Bill Clinton is dirty too and that's why the Democrats sat on it. Can't muddy up someone else without getting mud on yourself.

Also, it wasn't the Democrats talking about Epstein the last four years, it was Trump, Bondi, Patel, Bongino and others. If it wasn't for them, my belief is that Democrats were fine letting it fade away-Epstein is dead and Maxwell in prison. But they kept up the drumbeat and here we are. The Democrats didn't start this mess three weeks ago, the DOJ memo did and the MAGA crowd felt betrayed.

---

Exactly, and the more the administration attempts to stonewall the subject, the more suspicious people become. It did too good of a job in earlier convincing supporters that there is a real coverup here.

So, instead of being fully transparent as promised during the campaign and putting this thing to bed, the administration is now just feeding a fire of its own making. It has no one to blame but itself.

Open the files and let the chips fall where they may.

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

Why do you say this? Don't you think if she actually got out of prison she'd simply go into hiding forever? If she was unable to be prosecuted, she would have essentially no incentive to spill anything useful anymore.

By the way if somehow she does get her conviction overturned (or if she's commuted/pardoned) it will be an all timer as far as scandals go. The one person convicted in all of this mess getting out of prison would be a deeply unpopular event.

Ag13 said:

---

74OA said:

---

Maxwell's lawyers are arguing right now at the Supreme Court to dismiss her conviction.

Wouldn't any claim of immunity have already been heard during her trial?

If she prevails, whatever is muzzling her from speaking out will be gone.

SCOTUS

---

Why do you say this? Don't you think if she actually got out of prison she'd simply go into hiding forever? If she was unable to be prosecuted, she would have essentially no incentive to spill anything useful anymore.

By the way if somehow she does get her conviction overturned (or if she's commuted/pardoned) it will be an all timer as far as scandals go. The one person convicted in all of this mess getting out of prison would be a deeply unpopular event.

---

Read the subsequent discussion. It's just speculation on my part and I don't care enough to bother repeating myself. Sorry.

will25u said:

---

Again, if there were anything on DJT of substance in the Epstein files, it would have come out LOOOONG ago...

BREAKING: Donald Trump turned down opportunity to travel to Jeffrey Epstein’s island, per Axios.

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) July 28, 2025

---

That just means Epstein delivered the girls directly to Trump! Orange Man bad! RRREEEEEEEEEEE!

/libtards, probably