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.
@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.
-
@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.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
So that's what you're going with. That if there is incriminating evidence of Trump being a pedo, in the Epstein files,
I doubt there’s specific evidence of him having sex with minors. But enough that would be embarrassing. He’s made that pretty clear.
-
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
So that's what you're going with. That if there is incriminating evidence of Trump being a pedo, in the Epstein files,
I doubt there’s specific evidence of him having sex with minors. But enough that would be embarrassing. He’s made that pretty clear.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
So that's what you're going with. That if there is incriminating evidence of Trump being a pedo, in the Epstein files,
I doubt there’s specific evidence of him having sex with minors. But enough that would be embarrassing. He’s made that pretty clear.
That's certainly way less stupid a claim than saying that Biden's DOJ would have considered it dishonorable to follow leads to Trump in the Epstein files.
We can agree that Trump does not want the entire investigation evidence corpus released. Not releasing entire investigations is actually standard procedure (as opposed to wish casted standards of never expanding investigations), in case you have any genuine interest in institutions following standard procedures.
Investigators have special privileges to pry into otherwise private information, so it does make sense they wouldn't make everything public by default.
Enjoy the feeding frenzy just the same. I am sure twitter is atwitter with it. Or X is ax with it.
-
Indeed it is standard procedure not release those files. No doubt it contains names of many many people most of whom didn’t do anything wrong.
But he fucking campaigned on doing so and his fucking goon squad at justice talked about it incessantly.
And let’s be honest - he didn’t change his mind out of a respect for the role of the DoJ. He did so because the files, if released will embarrass him and perhaps people he cares about.
-
Indeed it is standard procedure not release those files. No doubt it contains names of many many people most of whom didn’t do anything wrong.
But he fucking campaigned on doing so and his fucking goon squad at justice talked about it incessantly.
And let’s be honest - he didn’t change his mind out of a respect for the role of the DoJ. He did so because the files, if released will embarrass him and perhaps people he cares about.
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Indeed it is standard procedure not release those files. No doubt it contains names of many many people most of whom didn’t do anything wrong.
But he fucking campaigned on doing so and his fucking goon squad at justice talked about it incessantly.
And let’s be honest - he didn’t change his mind out of a respect for the role of the DoJ. He did so because the files, if released will embarrass him and perhaps people he cares about.
The intent of the campaign promises, as I understood them, was to prosecute anybody incriminated in the files. It may happen that there are zero people incriminated in those files. Promise kept. All of the people incriminated in the files have been prosecuted. He accomplished that on day one, but it took some time to realize that it was done.
Maybe in several decades we'll get a release of everything, like was done with the JFK assassination files. Heard about any revelations, large or small, that came of them? Me neither.
Education is extremely important.
-
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Indeed it is standard procedure not release those files. No doubt it contains names of many many people most of whom didn’t do anything wrong.
But he fucking campaigned on doing so and his fucking goon squad at justice talked about it incessantly.
And let’s be honest - he didn’t change his mind out of a respect for the role of the DoJ. He did so because the files, if released will embarrass him and perhaps people he cares about.
The intent of the campaign promises, as I understood them, was to prosecute anybody incriminated in the files. It may happen that there are zero people incriminated in those files. Promise kept. All of the people incriminated in the files have been prosecuted. He accomplished that on day one, but it took some time to realize that it was done.
Maybe in several decades we'll get a release of everything, like was done with the JFK assassination files. Heard about any revelations, large or small, that came of them? Me neither.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
Maybe in several decades we'll get a release of everything, like was done with the JFK assassination files. Heard about any revelations, large or small, that came of them? Me neither.
Try telling that to Ted Cruz.
I was only joking
-
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Indeed it is standard procedure not release those files. No doubt it contains names of many many people most of whom didn’t do anything wrong.
But he fucking campaigned on doing so and his fucking goon squad at justice talked about it incessantly.
And let’s be honest - he didn’t change his mind out of a respect for the role of the DoJ. He did so because the files, if released will embarrass him and perhaps people he cares about.
The intent of the campaign promises, as I understood them, was to prosecute anybody incriminated in the files. It may happen that there are zero people incriminated in those files. Promise kept. All of the people incriminated in the files have been prosecuted. He accomplished that on day one, but it took some time to realize that it was done.
Maybe in several decades we'll get a release of everything, like was done with the JFK assassination files. Heard about any revelations, large or small, that came of them? Me neither.
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
@jon-nyc said in The Epstein File:
Indeed it is standard procedure not release those files. No doubt it contains names of many many people most of whom didn’t do anything wrong.
But he fucking campaigned on doing so and his fucking goon squad at justice talked about it incessantly.
And let’s be honest - he didn’t change his mind out of a respect for the role of the DoJ. He did so because the files, if released will embarrass him and perhaps people he cares about.
The intent of the campaign promises, as I understood them, was to prosecute anybody incriminated in the files. It may happen that there are zero people incriminated in those files. Promise kept. All of the people incriminated in the files have been prosecuted. He accomplished that on day one, but it took some time to realize that it was done.
Maybe in several decades we'll get a release of everything, like was done with the JFK assassination files. Heard about any revelations, large or small, that came of them? Me neither.
We did learn a new key fact quite recently but not from the Trump document release.
Very recently I saw a report that said that the CIA inadvertently revealed that a CIA employee had been following Lee Harvey Oswald before he assassinated Kennedy. Can you give me details?
Yes — there is indeed a very recent and significant development: the CIA has admitted for the first time that it had knowledge of and indirect contact with Lee Harvey Oswald in the months before President Kennedy’s assassination — a fact it had long denied.
⸻
️ What Was Revealed?
• Newly declassified CIA documents name George Joannides, a psychological‐warfare officer stationed in Miami in 1963, who ran a covert operation funding and overseeing a Cuban exile group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE) .
• Joannides, operating under the alias “Howard” (or “Howard Gebler/Gleber”), was the case officer managing the DRE—a role the CIA previously denied existed .
• The DRE had multiple direct interactions with Oswald in New Orleans during August 1963:
• A public confrontation while Oswald distributed pro‑Castro flyers.
• A televised debate between Oswald and DRE members, which boosted his public profile as a communist sympathizer  .
• For over six decades, the CIA maintained it had no pre-assassination knowledge of or connection to Oswald. These documents flatly contradict that claim and reveal internal deception .⸻
Implications & Significance
• Researchers like Jefferson Morley have called this a “breakthrough”, declaring that “the cover story for Joannides is officially dead.” 
• Additionally, Joannides later served as the CIA’s liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s—a committee that investigated JFK’s and Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassinations—and concealed his prior role to investigators, misleading congressional officials .
• While there’s no direct evidence yet suggesting Joannides orchestrated the assassination or met Oswald personally, the revelation confirms CIA awareness and indirect engagement prior to November 1963, contrary to decades of official statements. -
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
Maybe in several decades we'll get a release of everything, like was done with the JFK assassination files. Heard about any revelations, large or small, that came of them? Me neither.
Try telling that to Ted Cruz.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Epstein File:
@Horace said in The Epstein File:
Maybe in several decades we'll get a release of everything, like was done with the JFK assassination files. Heard about any revelations, large or small, that came of them? Me neither.
Try telling that to Ted Cruz.
I have - and what he told me in response would blow your mind.
