The Epstein File
-
What exactly is in the files (if they are credible anyway) that would hurt trump? We know he flew on Epstein's plane, we know Epstein said he had a social relationship with Trump for a while, ad we know Epstein took the 5th when he was asked if underage girls were present when he was hanging out with Trump. A video could come out of Trump banging a 17 year old and it wouldn't change any MAGA minds about him, IMO.
-
One thing we know for sure is that any name appearing anywhere in the gigabytes of Epstein files, is a pedophile. The only missing link in this chain, is to get that list of names.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
One thing we know for sure is that any name appearing anywhere in the gigabytes of Epstein files, is a pedophile. The only missing link in this chain, is to get that list of names.
Right, obviously there's a lot of bullshit going on. The idea that there are records of people we know breaking the law seems a little unlikely.
However, at the root of this is the undisputable fact that a lot of very influential and powerful people did actually hang out for years with somebody who can really only be described as a monster. And the tap dancing they've done since isn't exactly confidence inspiring.
-
There is no right wing deep state conspiracy theory more laughable than whatever theory explains Biden's handlers not releasing dirt on Trump being a pedo.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
There is no right wing deep state conspiracy theory more laughable than whatever theory explains Biden's handlers not releasing dirt on Trump being a pedo.
Despite what the magtards say the Biden justice department operated by the book. Case in point, Jack Smith wanted to release to the public the incriminating evidence against Trump in the documents case and fought to do so to the end. He was ultimately unsuccessful. The maga judge even prevented him from giving it to Congress, where it would have immediately been leaked. DoJ could have leaked it in the fall, and didn’t.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
There is no right wing deep state conspiracy theory more laughable than whatever theory explains Biden's handlers not releasing dirt on Trump being a pedo.
Despite what the magtards say the Biden justice department operated by the book. Case in point, Jack Smith wanted to release to the public the incriminating evidence against Trump in the documents case and fought to do so to the end. He was ultimately unsuccessful. The maga judge even prevented him from giving it to Congress, where it would have immediately been leaked. DoJ could have leaked it in the fall, and didn’t.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
There is no right wing deep state conspiracy theory more laughable than whatever theory explains Biden's handlers not releasing dirt on Trump being a pedo.
Despite what the magtards say the Biden justice department operated by the book. Case in point, Jack Smith wanted to release to the public the incriminating evidence against Trump in the documents case and fought to do so to the end. He was ultimately unsuccessful. The maga judge even prevented him from giving it to Congress, where it would have immediately been leaked. DoJ could have leaked it in the fall, and didn’t.
It's difficult to make any sense of this cope. I would never put words in your mouth, but my best guess is that ... you're claiming it would have been illegal for the Biden admin to release incriminating evidence against Trump, from the Epstein files? That's the rhetorical play here?
-
Cope. lol. Pure projection.
I don’t know if it’s illegal but it certainly isn’t DoJ policy to comb through files looking for embarrassing information about private individuals and release it to the public. At least before Bondi took over.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
The defense that Trump must be innocent because if he wasn't Biden would have released the data ignores the fact that the Democrats may have not wanted to release the data due to other names being in the file, and if they release very limited information, there's a really good chance of it triggering an avalanche.
Or are we really saying that nobody (other than Ghislaine Maxwell) is implicated in all of the data seized? How unusual that after so much widespread alleged sexual misconduct, the only person who's gone to jail is a single woman.
I was only joking
-
Cope. lol. Pure projection.
I don’t know if it’s illegal but it certainly isn’t DoJ policy to comb through files looking for embarrassing information about private individuals and release it to the public. At least before Bondi took over.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Cope. lol. Pure projection.
I don’t know if it’s illegal but it certainly isn’t DoJ policy to comb through files looking for embarrassing information about private individuals and release it to the public. At least before Bondi took over.
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
Maybe you really do need Jolly, to keep you on the rails.
Education is extremely important.
-
The defense that Trump must be innocent because if he wasn't Biden would have released the data ignores the fact that the Democrats may have not wanted to release the data due to other names being in the file, and if they release very limited information, there's a really good chance of it triggering an avalanche.
Or are we really saying that nobody (other than Ghislaine Maxwell) is implicated in all of the data seized? How unusual that after so much widespread alleged sexual misconduct, the only person who's gone to jail is a single woman.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Epstein File:
The defense that Trump must be innocent because if he wasn't Biden would have released the data ignores the fact that the Democrats may have not wanted to release the data due to other names being in the file, and if they release very limited information, there's a really good chance of it triggering an avalanche.
That's the most common justification, and I ignore it because I give a vanishingly low probability that those files with all those incriminated names would have survived without being leaked, through two administrations.
Or are we really saying that nobody (other than Ghislaine Maxwell) is implicated in all of the data seized? How unusual that after so much widespread alleged sexual misconduct, the only person who's gone to jail is a single woman.
Pretty sure Epstein went to jail as well. It's not that difficult to imagine that Epstein did not in fact have a bunch of incriminating evidence in his home office. Those theories seem to rest on Epstein blackmailing all these people, an allegation that has never been substantiated. If he was doing that, word would have gotten around, and his access to powerful people would have ended.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Cope. lol. Pure projection.
I don’t know if it’s illegal but it certainly isn’t DoJ policy to comb through files looking for embarrassing information about private individuals and release it to the public. At least before Bondi took over.
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
Maybe you really do need Jolly, to keep you on the rails.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
That’s like saying they chose not to arrest the ambassador of Costa Rica, because it would have been rude.
-
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
That’s like saying they chose not to arrest the ambassador of Costa Rica, because it would have been rude.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
That’s like saying they chose not to arrest the ambassador of Costa Rica, because it would have been rude.
No, it's actually like saying they chose not to bury their political arch-enemy, the guy who was an existential threat to our very democracy, because there's some sort of unwritten rule against combing through gathered evidence in a criminal investigation to build a case against him. That's what you said. They followed that unwritten rule. You basically claimed that Trump might be incriminated in the files, but the Biden DOJ didn't really look, because uncovering dirt on Trump would have been inappropriate. Not within protocol.
Of course, you don't believe any of that, but you'll happily say it.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Epstein File:
The defense that Trump must be innocent because if he wasn't Biden would have released the data ignores the fact that the Democrats may have not wanted to release the data due to other names being in the file, and if they release very limited information, there's a really good chance of it triggering an avalanche.
That's the most common justification, and I ignore it because I give a vanishingly low probability that those files with all those incriminated names would have survived without being leaked, through two administrations.
Or are we really saying that nobody (other than Ghislaine Maxwell) is implicated in all of the data seized? How unusual that after so much widespread alleged sexual misconduct, the only person who's gone to jail is a single woman.
Pretty sure Epstein went to jail as well. It's not that difficult to imagine that Epstein did not in fact have a bunch of incriminating evidence in his home office. Those theories seem to rest on Epstein blackmailing all these people, an allegation that has never been substantiated. If he was doing that, word would have gotten around, and his access to powerful people would have ended.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
Pretty sure Epstein went to jail as well.
It took an awfully long time to nail him.
There doesn't actually have to be sexual impropriety in the documentation. There could be very embarrassing records of deals that were done to prevent him from being prosecuted for rape and child abuse back in 2006.
It seems unlikely that Epstein hung around with Clinton and Trump just because they were fun guys to be with.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
That’s like saying they chose not to arrest the ambassador of Costa Rica, because it would have been rude.
No, it's actually like saying they chose not to bury their political arch-enemy, the guy who was an existential threat to our very democracy, because there's some sort of unwritten rule against combing through gathered evidence in a criminal investigation to build a case against him. That's what you said. They followed that unwritten rule. You basically claimed that Trump might be incriminated in the files, but the Biden DOJ didn't really look, because uncovering dirt on Trump would have been inappropriate. Not within protocol.
Of course, you don't believe any of that, but you'll happily say it.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
That’s like saying they chose not to arrest the ambassador of Costa Rica, because it would have been rude.
No, it's actually like saying they chose not to bury their political arch-enemy, the guy who was an existential threat to our very democracy, because there's some sort of unwritten rule against combing through gathered evidence in a criminal investigation to build a case against him. That's what you said. They followed that unwritten rule. You basically claimed that Trump might be incriminated in the files, but the Biden DOJ didn't really look, because uncovering dirt on Trump would have been inappropriate. Not within protocol.
Of course, you don't believe any of that, but you'll happily say it.
It’s completely true. Nobody at DoJ would have considered it and no one in the political operation would have asked for it.
Again - why didn’t they leak all the incriminating evidence from the classified doc and subsequent obstruction? They really really wanted to get it out there, tried to find an appropriate means, failed. And didn’t leak it.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
-
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
That’s like saying they chose not to arrest the ambassador of Costa Rica, because it would have been rude.
No, it's actually like saying they chose not to bury their political arch-enemy, the guy who was an existential threat to our very democracy, because there's some sort of unwritten rule against combing through gathered evidence in a criminal investigation to build a case against him. That's what you said. They followed that unwritten rule. You basically claimed that Trump might be incriminated in the files, but the Biden DOJ didn't really look, because uncovering dirt on Trump would have been inappropriate. Not within protocol.
Of course, you don't believe any of that, but you'll happily say it.
It’s completely true. Nobody at DoJ would have considered it and no one in the political operation would have asked for it.
Again - why didn’t they leak all the incriminating evidence from the classified doc and subsequent obstruction? They really really wanted to get it out there, tried to find an appropriate means, failed. And didn’t leak it.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
So it's your contention that the Biden DOJ chose not to bury Trump in incriminating evidence from the Epstein files, because it would have been rude.
That’s like saying they chose not to arrest the ambassador of Costa Rica, because it would have been rude.
No, it's actually like saying they chose not to bury their political arch-enemy, the guy who was an existential threat to our very democracy, because there's some sort of unwritten rule against combing through gathered evidence in a criminal investigation to build a case against him. That's what you said. They followed that unwritten rule. You basically claimed that Trump might be incriminated in the files, but the Biden DOJ didn't really look, because uncovering dirt on Trump would have been inappropriate. Not within protocol.
Of course, you don't believe any of that, but you'll happily say it.
It’s completely true. Nobody at DoJ would have considered it and no one in the political operation would have asked for it.
So that's what you're going with. That if there is incriminating evidence of Trump being a pedo, in the Epstein files, that it would have gone undetected by the Biden admin, because looking for it would have been outside normal procedure. That's what you're going with.
I can't imagine anybody on this board is dumb enough to buy this. I'm not sure who you even think you're talking to here anymore.
Education is extremely important.
-
Trump has so normalized using DoJ as a partisan machine people are starting to assume it’s always been that way.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Trump has so normalized using DoJ as a partisan machine people are starting to assume it’s always been that way.
The epstein files were gathered as part of a criminal investigation. There is no unwritten rule that criminal investigations cannot expand to include other targets, as investigators follow leads - leads they might discover as they comb through the evidence they gather.
