I’m doubting that Epstein kept his list with the DOJ. He probably had his own list that he was not sharing with the people that are ready to throw him in jail.
I know that’s a stretch, but… phuuuuleeese.
That statement requires some evidence. Clearly we are on the path to absolute dictatorship but we are not yet at the point where the feds will produce a whole fake federal chain of evidence at the president’s behest. If we were, Trump would have gotten the feds to create some evidence that J6 was an antifa false flag and all the Magaists were just trying defend the constitution
I’m not sure if you misread me, so just to be clear, I was saying that the DOJ interviewed the victims and others, learned about Epstein’s activities, and created a list of people who were involved in those activities (e.g. people that they might also want to pursue a prosecution against).
That could be considered - if Epstein was trafficking girls for other people - a “client list”. From the view of the DOJ, it’s a “suspect list” - people that they suspect as having, potentially, committed crimes in coordination with or through Epstein - but it is also, in practical effect, a client list.
Well Trump tried to overthrow the government, got people killed and over 1000 went to prison and had their lives ruined because of him.
Trump barely suffered a scratch. It’s Truth and Justice for all. We are missing truth, and especially Justice.
We don’t need a fake evidence chain. Just the real evidence.
Former DC Federal prosecutor Glenn Kirshner breaks down this grand jury information request by Bondi. He thinks it’s just a show. Bondi wants to release “pertinent” grand jury information and that needs to be approved by a judge, so there could be a delay or it could not be granted, depending on the judge. And as Kirshner puts it, the pertinent information requested could mean anything involving a Democrat and not pertinent information that wouldn’t be released could mean anything related to Donald Trump. This request would be made under seal and it’s up to the judge whether to unseal the request if granted, AIUI.
Trump & Bondi issue Epstein ANNOUNCEMENT, instantly get SKEWERED
Whatever it is, it’s not going to be the “client list.” Trump is planning to throw hamberder meat to the crowd when want they want is steak, as raw and bloody as possible.
I saw a spoof client list today on social media and it went something like this:
- Bill Clinton
- Barack Obama
- Joe Biden
- Not Donald Trump
- Stephen Colbert
- Adam Shifty Schiff
- [insert any Democrat here]
That might actually be close to what Trump has Bondi put out.
One thing is for sure: Whether he is guilty or innocent of any crimes done in connection with Epstein, Trump has handled this whole thing horribly. Since he was known even in 2016 to have been friends with Epstein, he and his supporters should never have stoked conspiracy theories involving him. And recently? Whatever he is doing makes no sense (again, guilty or innocent), and I think to a large degree his cognitive decline is making him inept at the bullshitting, dodging, and obfuscating hitherto has been a core part of his skill set.
Now, is Trump guilty? I think this article is incredibly enlightening about Epstein. Pretty much all one needs to know, really:
It’s hard to do guilt by association with Epstein, as the guy knew pretty much everyone. He held dinners for famous scientists, for example, and cultivated a wide range of famous friends (and friends and acquaintances and connections in general) with whom he had many different types of relationships. So just because someone knew Epstein or was seen with Epstein doesn’t allow one to draw any immediate conclusions.
Could someone have known Epstein a long time and not have known he was a criminal? It sure seems like it. Go to the part about the actor named Julie (pseudonym) to see how that might have worked.
Since Trump is a known scumbag, it’s very easy to imagine that he was involved in Epstein’s criminal activities. But Epstein knew so many famous people to varying degrees, that one cannot immediately assume that Trump was so involved or even knew that Epstein was a criminal.
There isn’t one neat set of “Epstein Files” in a manila folder that can be easily looked at, digested, and reported on. Rather, there is a shitton of different kinds of information from several different eras. I’m not sure why the concept of the “Epstein Files” even exists, really, except that perhaps it was a good term to use in conspiracy theories.
I also think that this article has a good point:
Emphasis in original.
So Trump is an idiot, and Pam Bondi (who seems not to have dementia!) is an idiot for having promised anything along the lines of a release of the “Epstein Files.” It’s too much information that would require too much redacting in order to protect victims and perhaps other people mentioned who were not suspected of crimes. This is a core truth whether Trump was guilty or not.
If Trump is innocent (in this case–not in others!), then such processing and redacting would satisfy no one, since he could still, in theory, be implicated in the information not presented.
If Trump was clearly guilty, then it’s not clear why he was never charged under Democratic administrations or, if the case was not strong enough to prosecute, made the subject of a leak to benefit Democrats (per the National Review article above).
If Trump is fully innocent (in this case), then it’s not clear why he’s acting in such a confused manner about the whole thing.
My guess is that Trump is mentioned here and there in the documents but not in a way that makes him an easy target for prosecution, and Trump doesn’t want the bother of having deal with any of the fallout–even though he could probably survive it. Plus there would be the aforementioned problem of processing and redacting, so he can’t look good no matter what.
Instead of handling this issue in a coherent way, Trump is just flailing and looks terrible because of it. It’s not clear to me what the endgame is.
In addition to Trump’s well-known general and sexual scumbaggery, his famous quote about Epstein, in a 2002 interview, adds fuel to the idea that Trump knew about at least some of Epstein’s sexual exploitation crimes, but, of course, it isn’t a true smoking gun.
It’s also curious that Trump gave a plump government job (Labor Secretary) to the lawyer who gave Epstein such a good plea deal.
Trump didn’t want a criminal lawyer, he wanted a criminal lawyer.
Here’s a better link to the whole Acosta thing.
Trump’s decision to sue the Wall Street Journal for defamation over its decision to describe a letter he wrote to Epstein strikes me as one of the truly stupidest things Donald has ever done.
For one, he’s suing for $10 billion. For another, as a public figure, he’d have to show that not only was the article false, but that the Journal knew it was false.
But the best part…Donald Trump, sitting president of the United States, is now going to have to sit for a deposition where the subject of his relationship with Epstein is fair game.
Yeah IMO very good chance this lawsuit and in fact this whole current bruhahah with the Epstein files, has more to do with Trump’s declining mental state than any evidence that might link Trump to Epsteins crimes.
On the other hand he could be correctly assuming that Newscorp will fold and accept a deal like CBS did rather than face the Dear Ruler in court and all the repercussions that go with that.
That makes the assumption that Trump will be forced to sit for a deposition. My money is that the act of putting a sitting president under oath will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supremes (presumptively).
In all this uproar, I’m surprised not to see mentioned the reportedly huge stash of videos found in his NYC townhouse. Early speculation was that these were blackmail fodder, but even if they weren’t they are still evidence. Whatever happened to those?
Bill Clinton already established that it’s fair game to depose a sitting president in a civil lawsuit.
(I know, I know…they can change their mind. But it’s certainly not unprecedented)
If that material exists somewhere, it’s been gone over by trump’s hard cores. I just can’t see them in a meeting debating the ethical, legal, or moral issues involved with tampering.
Yeah but they would debate how they wouldn’t fancy going to prison the moment Trump is out of office, and how they would prefer not being caught under oath blatantly lying. They would know that Biden and Obama officials that have gone over that same materials and would be willing to testify what they said before tampering. They would also know there would be a detailed federal paper trail describing what was in those documents that would be incredibly hard to tamper with.
It would be wonderful if he croaked before he had a chance to pardon them all.