Go back
Where did Epstein evidence go?

Where did Epstein evidence go?

Debates


@wildgrass said
By not saying no, she implicitly says that yes there is evidence supporting the witness testimony of Trump's involvement and likely others. She was lobbed a softball question here.
Trump pretended he didn't remember Maxwell. When will Jimmy Kimmel be allowed to make fun of Trump for it?

https://rumble.com/v706nig-trump-feigns-ignorance-about-ghislaine-maxwell-w-ian-carroll.html?e9s=src_v1_ucp_a


@Metal-Brain said
American support for UH is more than 60%. Do math much?
UH? WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about votes to get bills passed, you idiot.

"American support" doesn't pass bills. Trump's OBBB was underwater in American support.


@Suzianne said
UH? WTF are you talking about?

I'm talking about votes to get bills passed, you idiot.

"American support" doesn't pass bills. Trump's OBBB was underwater in American support.
Doesn't matter. I asked you what percentage of Americans want UH. Answer the question.


@Metal-Brain said
Doesn't matter. I asked you what percentage of Americans want UH. Answer the question.
What America wants doesn't pass bills, you fool.


@Suzianne said
What America wants doesn't pass bills, you fool.
That means there is no democracy, not even a "representative" democracy since congress does not represent the majority.

Plutocracy. Look it up.


@Suzianne said
Including her boss, of course.
It's interesting because trump is a likely client but what about all the other clients? Epstein is known to have trafficked over 1,000 women. He had a whole infrastructure and employees and bank records all exist. What is the problem here? Can't they hide trump but at least go after the others?


@wildgrass said
It's interesting because trump is a likely client but what about all the other clients? Epstein is known to have trafficked over 1,000 women. He had a whole infrastructure and employees and bank records all exist. What is the problem here? Can't they hide trump but at least go after the others?
They have put themselves in a hole.

They can't prove Epstein is guilty while simultaneously ignoring his connection to Trump. Questions get asked. If there's one thing Republicans hate, it's playing defense. They'd rather pretend nothing happened.


@wildgrass said
It's interesting because trump is a likely client but what about all the other clients? Epstein is known to have trafficked over 1,000 women. He had a whole infrastructure and employees and bank records all exist. What is the problem here? Can't they hide trump but at least go after the others?
The FBI had credible evidence of Epstein's under-age sex trafficking racket during the presidency of George Bush (the Lesser). Epstein was given a sweet deal, which included a no-prosecution agreement for his unnamed co-conspirators and clients. That was when the files should have been released. This cover-up has long history ...

2 edits

@moonbus said
The FBI had credible evidence of Epstein's under-age sex trafficking racket during the presidency of George Bush (the Lesser). Epstein was given a sweet deal, which included a no-prosecution agreement for his unnamed co-conspirators and clients. That was when the files should have been released. This cover-up has long history ...
Yah that seems a crime in itself for prosecutors to absolve the crimes of others outside a transparent legal process.

It still amazes me that the Attorney General was asked if there are pictures of trump with half naked girls (which has been confirmed by witnesses), and instead of saying "no" she smeared the question asker.

Why not just say no,? Unless.


@wildgrass said
Yah that seems a crime in itself for prosecutors to absolve the crimes of others outside a transparent legal process.

It still amazes me that the Attorney General was asked if there are pictures of trump with half naked girls (which has been confirmed by witnesses), and instead of saying "no" she smeared the question asker.

Why not just say no,? Unless.
This cover-up has a long future, too.


@moonbus said
This cover-up has a long future, too.
Maybe Prince Andrew can shed some light on it... he'll be asked to testify.

Key sentence here ends with "... once the government ends the shutdown."

Maybe there's truth to the idea that the shutdown was designed to delay releasing Epstein file evidence.

https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/congress-epstein-files-prince-andrew-marjorie-taylor-greene-fst9gpbn8


@wildgrass said
Maybe Prince Andrew can shed some light on it... he'll be asked to testify.

Key sentence here ends with "... once the government ends the shutdown."

Maybe there's truth to the idea that the shutdown was designed to delay releasing Epstein file evidence.

https://www.thetimes.com/us/american-politics/article/congress-epstein-files-prince-andrew-marjorie-taylor-greene-fst9gpbn8
The Andrew formerly known as Prince ...


will refuse to testify. Count on it. Congress may eventually issue a subpoena, but cannot enforce it in Andrew's case.


Epstein? Never heard of him.


@Arkturos said
Epstein? Never heard of him.
"I stopped paying -- er, I mean, SEEING -- Epstein 15 years ago."


😛


@moonbus said
The Andrew formerly known as Prince ...


will refuse to testify. Count on it. Congress may eventually issue a subpoena, but cannot enforce it in Andrew's case.
Id think he could at least explain some things. He already lost his reputation and dignity and royal title over the assumption of a relationship with Epsteins girls, and he's getting old. There isn't much downside to just admitting to it. Take some pedos down with you.