Epstein………

[lurker]

It's almost as if I was talking about two different things!

Sorry, Ty, you can’t have it both ways. “That’s not the way it works”

[lurker]

Redacting a victim's name is quite different to that of a potential offender.

Who gets to choose whom the potential offender is when the potential offender says he’s innocent.

[ss12]

The convicted felon could use his presidential authority to release the Epstein files today if he wanted to. He claims the files are a Democrat hoax, yet now he wants Pam Bondi to launch an investigation into Bill Clinton and several others for their alleged involvement in the Epstein case. If this happens, the files can’t be released. He knows the House has enough votes to pass it, so he’s trying to get ahead of them, acting like he supports it. If it passes both the House and Senate and lands on his desk, will he veto it? And if he does, how will he explain his decision?

Trump Finally CAVES as Pressure RIPS HIM APART

[lurker]

Pam Bondi to launch an investigation —

But,Ty, just told us.

The DOJ and other relevant agencies are not meant to be used for political purposes.

[Tyy7777]

Sorry, Ty, you can’t have it both ways. “That’s not the way it works”

Anyone with half a functioning brain knows you can.

Stop with these bad-faith comparisons that don't make any logical sense. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who denies reality.

[Tyy7777]

Who gets to choose whom the potential offender is when the potential offender says he’s innocent.

Lurker, this is getting hard.

Trump is a potential offender with access to the files. Do you seriously think it's fine for him to get rid of his own name?

Why would his name, or any potential incriminating evidence be there in the first place? You can't be this stupid.

[Tyy7777]

But,Ty, just told us.

You're so close, Lurker. So close.

[lurker]

Stop with these bad-faith comparisons that don't make any logical sense. It's hard to have a discussion with someone who denies reality.

Will do. Sorry.

[lurker]

Do you seriously think it's fine for him to get rid of his own name?

No.

His name is in the files. We all know that. To what extent of incrimination we don’t know as of yet.

[lurker]

You're so close, Lurker. So close.

Thanks for posting that tidbit too.

[Tyy7777]

No.

His name is in the files. We all know that. To what extent of incrimination we don’t know as of yet.

And if it's heavily redacted, we'll never know!

[Morgs153]

I thought it was pretty funny that the Washington Post had the story of Stacey Plaskett (D-VI) who was actually texting with Epstein during a congressional hearing in 2019. Epstein was feeding her questions and coaching her up on what to ask to hopefully hurt Trump during the line of questions in the hearing.

Yeah, how bout that.

For sure, Trump will probably have his name mentioned a lot in these e-mails. Probably because at the time he was either the president or running for president. Being high profile and being in the news a lot would be reason enough to be in these e-mails. We shall see.

But, the part that defies logic to me is that while Biden and his team were in control and they were laser focused on lawfare and every single tactic they could use to try and ruin Trump, and ruin his associates, and ruin any chance that he could make another successful run at the White House, that they would sit on the Epstein information that they had control of. If there was a there - there, they would have jumped on it with both feet. What, they missed it? Until now? No way. They would have used it. You know they would have used it.

Are you trying to tell me that the big thing that could have ruined him and so many others was just kept aside for real emergency use only? Just in case he could actually beat Biden/Harris we'll take the chance to sit on this information which could totally derail his chances at being in the Oval Office again. Instead of using it when they had it in their possession and total control? That - is totally illogical.

That tells me that you've got nothing more than power players who ran in the same circles and had some associations which are now embarrassments. Past testimonies and depositions of women who were then girls who said Trump did not engage in the behaviors some of you are so sure he did. If your party and the people in charge of your party was so sure of that a few years ago, why didn't they do something about it when they absolutely could have? When it would have helped them the most and helped them retain their power.

Epstein existed through five administrations now in some sort of capacity or level of scrutiny. Five. Going back to his buddy portrayed in the painting with the blue dress. The chances for righting wrongs have been there but why things haven't been done is probably because there are a whole lot of connections which involve a whole lot of powerful people (who exist in both political orbits), other nations, and other nation's intelligence services being involved with the guy and not just singularly one person.

I've said from the beginning, release it. I want to see it too. But I would not be too surprised if somehow a court or DOJ or some entity steps in with some state secrets excuse.

[Morgs153]

As far as redactions, don't get too hung up on every redaction being connected to DJT.

The story the Washington Post broke regarding Congresswoman Stacey Plaskett had her name totally redacted from the e-mails. WaPo was able to do some investigative work and connected the messages and time stamps and link them up to the moment that she was involved in the hearing and asking the questions Epstein was feeding her.

So I'm not going to scream they were trying to protect a Democrat because of those redactions. I'm just saying, there will be a whole lot of them.

I don't post drive-by stuff but I will recommend a video. Look for Deep Focus with John Kiriakou, Epstein Coverup - How Deep Does it Go? with Nick Bryant. John Kiriakou is ex-CIA and went to prison for being a whistle blower on their torture program so he is not some sympathetic Trumper. Nick Bryant is an investigative journalist who has covered Epstein for over a dozen years. I think it is a pretty fair assessment of where we are with this and maybe what is to be expected.

[ss12]

427 to 1 that was close!!
House votes yes on Epstein files

[ss12]

Epstein & Trump Connection - Pleading the 5th (2010)