Epstein Files -- Be Careful What You Demand

[75thru79]

I'm still trying to figure out how "why didn't Merrick Garland prosecute" justifies Pam Bondi......not prosecuting?

I'm still trying to figure out why you didn't post anything on this board complaining about Merrick Garland not prosecuting Epstein "clients". Granted Bondi is somewhat of a douche but the non-prosecution of Epstein clients goes waaaayyyy back. It's not all on her.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

The more realistic guess is that Trump didn't want a still living Epstein to testify under oath and implicate him.

(It is so funny to watch how many of you think there's always only ONE explanation - except when it implicates Trump and then all of a sudden we get a doctor performing a differential diagnosis of excuses. I'm willing to grant there MIGHT BE several reasons why not - but then again, this is not inconsistent on my part since I can see the same thing where it concerns Biden).

That's not what it is at all. Yes, I defend Trump against insane accusations and actions of his detractors all the time, but only when I honestly disagree with their BS. I catch myself defending Biden a lot nowadays, but again, only when I feel like the argument is mostly or completely BS.

Most people I talk to about this agree that if there was hard evidence that implicated Trump in those files, we would have known about it years ago. There's just no way the Dems wouldn't have used it. They set over a billion dollars on fire trying to elect an alcoholic nitwit when all they had to do was expose him. And it's not like they are beneath the usual skullduggery of reinterpreting law in order to get 34 felonies or actually pretending to believe nut-brains like E. Jean Carroll. No, considering what they have shown they are willing to do, I find the notion that they wouldn't conveniently leak an Epstein file to the Washington Post to be laugh-out-loud preposterous.

I still chuckle warmly over the fact that every time the Dems pulled more of their ****, Trump's approval ratings kept going up. In fact, all of 2024 felt like one long Road-Runner cartoon. Every trick they tried blew right up in their faces and Trumps popularity went up a few points. But THIS? Trump would not have survived being exposed as some sort of pedo in the Epstein files and we all know it. That is one line in the sand no one can survive.

Now, is it possible Trump is attempting to run cover for his friends? Ah Watson, the game is afoot! We need the rest of those files and an honest and responsible media to.....HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh God, sorry, I couldn't say it with a straight face. But we need SOMEBODY to do a thorough review and EXPOSE THEM ALL! (And if I'm wrong and Trump is totally revealed to be a sicko, impeach, convict and warm up the wood chipper.)

 

[JDCrimson]

She won’t even look at the victims.

I honestly don’t know how she can even go home and look in a mirror.

She probably does go home and look in the mirror but there is no reflection...

 

[JDCrimson]

That's not what it is at all. Yes, I defend Trump against insane accusations and actions of his detractors all the time, but only when I honestly disagree with their BS. I catch myself defending Biden a lot nowadays, but again, only when I feel like the argument is mostly or completely BS.

Most people I talk to about this agree that if there was hard evidence that implicated Trump in those files, we would have known about it years ago. There's just no way the Dems wouldn't have used it. They set over a billion dollars on fire trying to elect an alcoholic nitwit when all they had to do was expose him. And it's not like they are beneath the usual skullduggery of reinterpreting law in order to get 34 felonies or actually pretending to believe nut-brains like E. Jean Carroll. No, considering what they have shown they are willing to do, I find the notion that they wouldn't conveniently leak an Epstein file to the Washington Post to be laugh-out-loud preposterous.

I still chuckle warmly over the fact that every time the Dems pulled more of their ****, Trump's approval ratings kept going up. In fact, all of 2024 felt like one long Road-Runner cartoon. Every trick they tried blew right up in their faces and Trumps popularity went up a few points. But THIS? Trump would not have survived being exposed as some sort of pedo in the Epstein files and we all know it. That is one line in the sand no one can survive.

Now, is it possible Trump is attempting to run cover for his friends? Ah Watson, the game is afoot! We need the rest of those files and an honest and responsible media to.....HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh God, sorry, I couldn't say it with a straight face. But we need SOMEBODY to do a thorough review and EXPOSE THEM ALL! (And if I'm wrong and Trump is totally revealed to be a sicko, impeach, convict and warm up the wood chipper.)

That's interesting, you must defend Biden on another Board...

 

[DzynKingRTR]

I'll concede the point thought perhaps disagree on the verbiage, which in the great span of life is pedantic on my part.

A friend of mine in Dallas - and this had to have been around 2018 - June, in fact - told me that there were 2 things that REALLY bothered him where the country was politically:

1) those who think Trump can't do anything right
2) those who think Trump can't do anything wrong

But what's funny to me is...that's actually called "American politics." It may be so elsewhere.

Example:
Remember when we went to Iraq in 2003 and a bunch of (mostly) Democrats were critical of W and the whole "rush to war"? A number of them went with, "You know, his Dad was smart and took his time to build a coalition and W has alienated and blah blah blah." They would cite Bush 41 as "the right way to go about this war with Iraq."

Except MANY of those EXACT SAME politicians who were using the father to attack the son had ATTACKED THE FATHER in 1990 and accused him of (wait for it) "rushing to war" and "having dreams of imperialism" and pretty much all the same stuff they were saying for the second time.

And for the record, I opposed both wars at the time, although with age I can at least see the necessity of the first one.

Before 911 those same democrats criticized Bush for not looking into Iraq and WMDs.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

That's interesting, you must defend Biden on another Board...

Only when talking to Republicans. How often does that happen around here?

 

[mdb-tpet]

Before 911 those same democrats criticized Bush for not looking into Iraq and WMDs.

I NEVER believed there were any WMD in Iraq. All that ever looked like was just a cover for a continuation of a Bush family grudge.

As far as Epstein, I believe he was paid by someone or some group to create a giant honeypot organization. And, clearly he was VERY good at it. Too good. He entrapped folks of all walks all the while a lot of folks knew he was guilty of molesting underage girls, including and especially the President.

None of those guys turned him in. In fact, most of them protected each other for their varied self interests and clearly ignored years of illegal activity.

So, we can blame, indict, arrest, and try everyone listed as doing more than a meet and greet in those documents from any political party as far as I'm concerned. Bring it on.

Anyone now standing in the way of indicting everyone called out for any potential crime in those documents is simply now a co-conspirator and should be arrested, and this goes all the way to the White House.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I'm still trying to figure out why you didn't post anything on this board complaining about Merrick Garland not prosecuting Epstein "clients".

Don't worry, I'm still trying to figure out why you think this is a valid point about anything.

Keep in mind that unlike the political hacks in both parties, I never sat there thinking, "HEY, Clinton or Trump is in these and I can stir up a ruckus."

Bear in mind also that everything changed the moment Bondi - not Garland - told the whole world she had the files on her desk. And then said there were no files. And then obstructed justice in this "let's cover up for my boss" delay.

I didn't say a word because I always assumed that nothing was ever going to happen anyway for some of the reasons listed in this thread. But then again - Joe Biden didn't run on a promise to expose everyone, Donald Chump did. It was a self-declared intent.

Granted Bondi is somewhat of a douche but the non-prosecution of Epstein clients goes waaaayyyy back. It's not all on her.

Merrick Garland is no longer the AG.

The woman who went before the country and acted like a girl getting her first monthly visit from Flo(w) is.

I mean, unless you actually WANT your boy prosecuted, I'm not sure why you think this objection bothers me. It doesn't.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Before 911 those same democrats criticized Bush for not looking into Iraq and WMDs.

The other thing that was common was "but North Korea."

I've long gotten used to political partisans pretending the same thing exists that they'd support elsewhere when the objection is nothing more than whining.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Most people I talk to about this agree that if there was hard evidence that implicated Trump in those files, we would have known about it years ago. There's just no way the Dems wouldn't have used it.

Let's do a little thinking exercise:

Would Democrats refrain from releasing the files to hurt Trump if it was going to hurt someone on their own side - in 2021 through 2024? Maybe a big donor or well-connected family?

Yes, common sense says this.

Then Trump wins the election.

So now the calculus has changed and harming folks on the Democratic side is less of a roadblock - if it takes out Trump - than it was previously.


It's funny to me how the entire "thinking exercise" of Trump voters invests him with infallibility - "well, that's what Trump would do!"

I'm sure by next week some grifter will be selling WWTD bracelets in evangelical churches.

 

[Bamaro]

I wish Hell was really a place that existed just so she could go there.

Mind you she deflects and covers up and ignores and sidesteps questions when there is a backdrop of victims in the room behind her.

The recent batch of pdfs that were released have beyond heinous images and correspondence.

There is commentary about torture videos and children being ‘naughty’.

There are images uncensored of underage children partially nude…images of bondage.

Then we have this ghoul in human form doing and saying anything to gaslight people and prevent pedophiles from being brought to Justice.

She’s completely a husk without a soul.

Pam Blondies head is so far up trumps butt that she needs to re bleach her hair daily.

 

[92tide]

Pam Blondies head is so far up trumps butt that she needs to re bleach her hair daily.

i don't know if they made it as far as bleach enemas to try to stave off covid ...

 

[81usaf92]

That's not what it is at all. Yes, I defend Trump against insane accusations and actions of his detractors all the time, but only when I honestly disagree with their BS. I catch myself defending Biden a lot nowadays, but again, only when I feel like the argument is mostly or completely BS.

Most people I talk to about this agree that if there was hard evidence that implicated Trump in those files, we would have known about it years ago. There's just no way the Dems wouldn't have used it. They set over a billion dollars on fire trying to elect an alcoholic nitwit when all they had to do was expose him. And it's not like they are beneath the usual skullduggery of reinterpreting law in order to get 34 felonies or actually pretending to believe nut-brains like E. Jean Carroll. No, considering what they have shown they are willing to do, I find the notion that they wouldn't conveniently leak an Epstein file to the Washington Post to be laugh-out-loud preposterous.

I still chuckle warmly over the fact that every time the Dems pulled more of their ****, Trump's approval ratings kept going up. In fact, all of 2024 felt like one long Road-Runner cartoon. Every trick they tried blew right up in their faces and Trumps popularity went up a few points. But THIS? Trump would not have survived being exposed as some sort of pedo in the Epstein files and we all know it. That is one line in the sand no one can survive.

Now, is it possible Trump is attempting to run cover for his friends? Ah Watson, the game is afoot! We need the rest of those files and an honest and responsible media to.....HA HA HA HA HA HA! Oh God, sorry, I couldn't say it with a straight face. But we need SOMEBODY to do a thorough review and EXPOSE THEM ALL! (And if I'm wrong and Trump is totally revealed to be a sicko, impeach, convict and warm up the wood chipper.)

Even if Trump was seen in photos on Epstein island it wouldn’t matter one bit. We are past the point of people who support him caring about him dodging the draft, making fun of soldiers, making fun of the mentally handicapped, cheating on multiple wives, hiring an adult film star with a nda to spank him with a TIME magazine, having multiple major bankruptcies as a ‘successful’ businessman, and clearly not knowing the Bible as a self proclaimed Christian. So really what does it matter anymore? Let’s face it… anyone with two functioning brain cells could probably deduce that he has more than likely went for underage women and trafficked women at some point in his life. I think the release of the files no matter how damning they could possibly be would never be detrimental to Trump.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

Even if Trump was seen in photos on Epstein island it wouldn’t matter one bit.

"That was AI generated!"
"It's fake, it's like that picture of Oswald where they cropped his head and put it on another body! And I was the first to point out TED CRUZ'S DADDY killed Kennedy!"

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I NEVER believed there were any WMD in Iraq.

Better go look at the Democrats who said otherwise - including BILL Clinton.

And if your counterpoint is, "Well, W fooled them all," I'm gonna pause to chuckle at the idea a bunch of so-called smart Democrats got conned by a man those same people told me was a colossal idiot. Getting fooled by an idiot is a bigger indictment of them than it is of him.

For the record, I never believed they HAD any, but what W didn't know that his Daddy did (having been former head of the CIA) is that CIA operatives notoriously overstate the evidence to cover their behinds. Nobody wants to be the one who missed a dictator possessing a nuke and have his name branded in history as a moron when said dictator wiped out the city of Los Angeles.

All that ever looked like was just a cover for a continuation of a Bush family grudge.

Yes, a bunch of folks who opposed him voted to give a guy the ability to go to war over a family grudge.
Makes total sense.

As far as Epstein, I believe he was paid by someone or some group to create a giant honeypot organization. And, clearly he was VERY good at it. Too good. He entrapped folks of all walks all the while a lot of folks knew he was guilty of molesting underage girls, including and especially the President.

None of those guys turned him in. In fact, most of them protected each other for their varied self interests and clearly ignored years of illegal activity.

So, we can blame, indict, arrest, and try everyone listed as doing more than a meet and greet in those documents from any political party as far as I'm concerned. Bring it on.

Anyone now standing in the way of indicting everyone called out for any potential crime in those documents is simply now a co-conspirator and should be arrested, and this goes all the way to the White House.

I think there's probably some truth to this at least in the abstract.

The part I've just never been able to process is the (cringe) sex with teen girls by guys in their 30s/40s/50s and older. I'm 56, never once had the thought in my life, "Hey, I think what would be exciting is fooling around with a 15-year-old."

It's just sick in the extreme.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The more that's come out, the more two things puzzle me.

First, why hasn't the press hasn't made a bigger deal of all this?

Yes, it's gotten coverage. But not the breathless 24 / 7 / 365 type I would have expected. The Epstein stuff has actually gotten more pointed coverage in Europe (UK especially) than here.

I suspect that it's because the names aren't as splashy as we thought they might be. Yes, you have the Clintons. And likely Trump. No surprise there. But most of them are rich and powerful, but keep a low public profile. Unless you work on Wall Street or in the business side of the entertainment industry, or in the international halls of academia, you probably don't recognize the names.

Second, how was Epstein able to turn all these power brokers into sychophants? It can't be all about the sex. These folks could get sex any time they wanted it, in any permutation of age, gender and number of partners they wanted. And have it be a lot more discreet. Plus, some of the stuff coming out involves women -- like Goldman Sachs General Counsel.

I always suspected that Epstein intentionally and carefully cultivated relationships across political lines. So that no matter which party was in power, its PTBs had an incentive to keep their connections on the deep down low. That's how he was able to get away with it for so long and why the earlier conviction (1) carried such a lenient penalty, and (2) didn't really affect his operation for a long time.

So how did he do that? Why and how did all these Masters of the Universe (reference to Bonfire of the Vanities) guys come under his thrall in the first place?

I don't know the answer but am deadly curious.

 

[M Squires]

Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and many, many heads of industry who also happened to be major, MAJOR political donors were getting their awful urges satisfied by Epstein on Palm Beach Island, Epstein Island, and at Epstein's place in New York City. EVERYONE involved had a significant interest in not revealing the scope of it.

Bill and Hillary Clinton were invited to and attended Trump and Melania's January, 2005 wedding in Palm Beach. It's because Clinton and Trump were buds, having been hooked up over a common love of very young or young enough and willing women through their mutual buddy, Jeff Epstein. How do you think that Melania was approved for her "Einstein Visa" just before Clinton left office?!!? (The paper was made official a month or two later, and was pushed through at the very end of Clinton's second term).

Trump supposedly "cut off" Epstein in 2006, after Melania and Trump's wedding and after the Clinton approval of Melania's "Einstein Visa.".

BTW,

• Epstein is proven, through wedding photos, to have attended Trump's wedding to Marla Maples in 1993; lots of photos of that.
• Epstein has been said to have introduced Melania and Trump (who knows, but she was a random Eastern European hot model at the time - it fits perfectly), and
• Epstein may have been invited and attended Trump and Melania's 2005 wedding. That info is likely in the redacted or unproduced files.

As for Bondi; she is one of a long series of AG's that has deliberately not pursued this stuff, but her recent clearly obstructive, and prior perjured Congressional testimony is truly and shockingly shameful.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

The more that's come out, the more two things puzzle me.

First, why hasn't the press hasn't made a bigger deal of all this?

Yes, it's gotten coverage. But not the breathless 24 / 7 / 365 type I would have expected. The Epstein stuff has actually gotten more pointed coverage in Europe (UK especially) than here.

I suspect that it's because the names aren't as splashy as we thought they might be. Yes, you have the Clintons. And likely Trump. No surprise there. But most of them are rich and powerful, but keep a low public profile. Unless you work on Wall Street or in the business side of the entertainment industry, or in the international halls of academia, you probably don't recognize the names.

Second, how was Epstein able to turn all these power brokers into sychophants? It can't be all about the sex. These folks could get sex any time they wanted it, in any permutation of age, gender and number of partners they wanted, and have it, be a lot more discreet. Plus, some of the stuff coming out involves women -- like the top lawyer at Goldman.

I always suspected that Epstein intentionally and carefully cultivated relationships across political lines. So that no matter which party was in power, its PTBs had an incentive to keep their connections on the deep down low. That's how he was able to get away with it for so long and why the earlier conviction (1) carried such a lenient penalty, and (2) didn't really affect his operation for a long time.

So how did he do that? Why and how did all these Masters of the Universe (reference to Bonfire of the Vanities) guys come under his thrall in the first place?

I don't know the answer but am deadly curious.

Given the number of reporters who were silent about JFK's peccadillos IN PART because they were sampling the same goodies.....I think you can draw the conclusion from what I just said.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

The more that's come out, the more two things puzzle me.

First, why hasn't the press hasn't made a bigger deal of all this?

Yes, it's gotten coverage. But not the breathless 24 / 7 / 365 type I would have expected. The Epstein stuff has actually gotten more pointed coverage in Europe (UK especially) than here.

You know something I've noticed? Pollsters aren't including the Epstein files in their "issues" polling (that I've seen.) The usual stuff is there: economy, crime, immigration, etc. But no mention of the Epstein files at all. This is one of the most talked-about issues going. I don't get it.

 

[M Squires]

Given the number of reporters who were silent about JFK's peccadillos IN PART because they were sampling the same goodies.....I think you can draw the conclusion from what I just said.

Nah.

There are zillions of online reporters that would love to be famous for having the goods on this stuff.

I think it is less than a daily headline because of

• the regular saturation the tale has gotten over years by now,
• a couple of the most read media sources (Fox, etc.,) refuse to report on it beyond bare-bones/non-investigative reporting that absolves Trump, and
• the truly "hottest" items in the files are redacted or among the 50% of the files that are thus far unproduced.

And yet, even with these factors that tamp down impact, the public becomes more and more curious.
Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie for the win! (maybe, someday).