The great Epstein unravelling

[Rideback]

And now MTG is announcing that she will be resigning from Congress in January. She's gotten a whole lot of death threats and the like since she supported the release of the Epstein files and broke from Trump.

[mister_coffee]

... and I speak for most liberals that we should hang every one of them, Democrat or Republican, who touched this.

The moral difference between R and D on this topic is that Rs see this in terms of getting the other guy and protecting their own. Ds just want all of the evil perverts gone.

[Rideback]

Newsweek: "House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries faced fresh scrutiny Tuesday after Republicans released newly obtained documents showing that a political firm working to boost his early congressional career allegedly once invited sex offender Jeffrey Epstein to a Democratic fundraising event."

Jingles, that's a wee bit of a difference between Trump being mentioned as actually having a 'best friend' relationship with Epstein. No, I'd say that the Dems are pretty solid on all things Epstein, it's a position of let the chips fall where they may so that the air can be cleared and any chance of cleaning house of these abusers has a chance to take place.

[Jingles]

Seems to be quite a few Dems names(i.e. Hakeem Jefferies for one) that have been on the list that was supposedly going to condem the republican party and depending on news source dems are in panic mode.

[Rideback]

In a twist, this reading means that any Dems who Bondi declares are under investigation would have their names redacted, but Trump's name would not be redacted...all this, of course, is different that actually not releasing any of the files at all.

And today's story, where the ghost writer of the now viral book by one of the victims, is declaring that she has the names of people in the files with receipts to back up her claim and that because there was a lawsuit in France against Epstein & Co where all the file info was part of the proceeding the French courts could release those for the public's view.

[mister_coffee]

That goes the other way too, they can't release information about supposed Democrats and Democrat-adjacent people if they are investigating them.

[Rideback]

Columbia Law School professor, Tobias Barrington Wolff
"Is D****d T***p under investigation by the DOJ? Journalists should be asking AG Pam Bondi that question at every opportunity. It is important for the media to interrogate the justification for the redactions we all expect in the Regime's efforts to cover up any involvement their boss had with abuse of children.
The Act permits material to be redacted if disclosure "would jeopardize an active federal investigation," but only "provided that such withholding is narrowly tailored." Any redaction of the Orange Occupant of the Oval Office's name from those files is only legal if he himself is under investigation or perhaps a key witness in the investigation of a close associate.
So ask AG Bondi this question and keep asking until you get an answer. If she says "No, of course not" then she has gone on record eliminating any legitimate basis for withholding his name. If she refuses to answer the question, that refusal will make her efforts to cover up incriminating material conspicuous."

[mister_coffee]

I'll just keep saying it.

If any other person in your life or in your community had the same fact pattern involving women of any age as Donald Trump has, you'd have nothing to do with that person. If that person had any position of responsibility or authority you'd be moving heaven and earth to get them out of that position.

[PAL]

Regarding redactions, laugh of the day or maybe the week.
It is not made up that Trump was associated with Epstein, until the falling out.

[dorankj]

Talk about a cult! When Biden is full on senile, 'nope seems fine don't believe your own eyes'. When there's no actual evidence, 'we just make things up and pretend there's evidence to back it up'.

[mister_coffee]

A prediction of what the redactions are going to look like:

“At ____ Tower in New York, a man indentified by vicitms as _____ __ ______ was seen with 12 females. Of them 4 appear to be underage and all had been trafficked by _________. Video confirms that _______ _ _____ knew this and still engaged in ______ acts with ____ of the victims. The person identified as _____ __ _____ is heard saying “_____ my friend, good friend, best ever, fantastic” before ______ inside a ______ then horse was _______ to ______ the ______ of the ______ _____ ______ lawnmower.

[PAL]

Another link as to why..
https://carlynbeccia.substack.com/p/the ... nt-release

[Rideback]

So much is still being dug up. This post delves into the lawsuit the US Virgin Islands brought against the Epstein estate, which was eventually settled for $105 million
https://annepmitchell.substack.com/p/wo ... irect=true

[PAL]

What will Melania and Trump lose? Their reputations? Melania's visa revoked? If there are any charges, what would they be? They will slither out of it.
No denying, that Trump did celebrate that Thanksgiving with Epstein. That would indicate a friendship of some kind.

[mister_coffee]

The reality was that most modeling agencies in the late 1990s and early 2000s, including Trump Model Management, were essentially human trafficking operations.

[Rideback]

According to one Rep, there are over 1,000 hours of video that can be released. There is still more available from the Epstein estate as well as Wolff's cache. Trump and Epstein, according to both Trump and Epstein, were best friends and it was Epstein who introduced Trump to Melania. They had a falling out over the Florida mansion they both wanted to buy but the now released files demonstrate that they stayed friends, after all Trump celebrated his first Thanksgiving at Mar a Lago with Epstein, per the now released sets of emails.

Melania's illegal visa was acquired via the modeling agency nest of vipers that was a part of Trump's circle. She has no doubt a fair amount to lose along with Trump himself when the full details are revealed.

[dorankj]

Trump is mentioned so much because Epstien hated him (probably b/c he wouldn't get caught up in Epstiens webs of manipulation and possibly Trump got Epstien arrested/prosecuted way back) but tons of dems gave zero shits about working with Epstien, getting advice, taking his money and covering up/ignoring his heinousness. We'll see how well all those people are held accountable by the public and media.

[mister_coffee]

The other reason the information was not released and nobody else was prosecuted is that it all was likely well past the statute of limitations and charges could not be brought. Most of the real damning child sexual abuse and trafficking evidence was likely fifteen years old, or much older, when Epstein was finally arrested on federal charges in 2019.

So even if there was video from 1998 of Donald Trump raping a little girl they can't bring charges.

DOJ is not supposed to release evidence it collects when it is not making a righteous case.

My bet is that we are never going to see most of the information and that they are going to play cute with releasing anything at all. Which while from their standpoint they might feel they have no choice will be politically catastrophic for them.

[Rideback]

During the Biden admin there couldn't be a release of the Epstein files because of the Maxwell appeal that was pending.
Both Reps and Dems voted for the Transparency Act, which was a big surprise to Johnson who had counted on Thune making amendments and then the plan was to send it back to the House where it would become tied up in more amendment battles and then die. Instead, Schumer brought the Bill forward unchanged in the Senate. Note that both Dem and Rep Senators know there will be members of their Party, like Larry Summers and Trump who will be exposed.

FYI, because of the released emails we already know that Bill Clinton was never on Epstein's infamous island, but likewise we do know that Trump's name is by far the most frequently mentioned.

[dorankj]

Oh weird, I thought congress just voted, you mean there were huge changes in the courts that just now happened too? Yeah, bull***!

[Rideback]

Ken. Quiet Piggy!

[just-jim]

.
Because from 2021 to 2025 the Administration was prevented from doing so by very strict Court Orders. You know….back in those ‘olden days’ when an Administration ACTUALLY followed the orders of a Court….

But dont let that stop you from continuing to stick up for, defend, and apologize for some sick puke….
.

IMG_0262.jpeg

.

[dorankj]

Funny, because they never 'brought' it when they were in charge. Why exactly was that? Oh, that's right they only 'care' when they think it will get the orange monster, they've never actually cared about the victims.

[just-jim]

.
This guy lays it out pretty well…..

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2000454183860360
.

[Rideback]

I haven't seen a Dem yet who has said they are in any way resistant to the transparency because there are any Dems involved. It's more an attitude of Bring It!
On the other hand, Trump and his enablers have fought tooth and nail to obstruct this, until Trump realized he could rely on Bondi to open an investigation and use that as an excuse not to release the files to the public.