Post New

Lots of folks on this board think that there's some bombshell(s) in the Epstein files that are going to be hugely damaging to Trump if disclosed. But as I keep saying, even if there's not - perhaps especially if there's not - they're going to have a major problem anyway. Because even if (or when) they turn over every single piece of paper, the MAGA base simply isn't going to believe them if there's nothing there. Per Politico:

“Are people ever going to be satisfied,” said one White House official, granted anonymity to discuss internal thinking. “No, because people in this country genuinely believe that the federal government is in possession of a list of pedophiles who work with Jeffrey Epstein. And that is just not true.”

* * *

House Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.), whose committee issued the subpoena to Epstein’s estate for the files, called further congressional action a “show vote,” adding that “the Department of Justice has turned over what they’re legally allowed to turn over.”

The White House official echoed Comer: “This idea that the federal government is in possession of documents that they can legally hand over with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, and we’re keeping them from the public is a fallacy, like, it’s not true.”

https://archive.ph/e6zhV#selection-811.0-815.247

Again, Trump can't make this problem go away by merely releasing the Epstein files. He needs to release documents that include a list of pedophiles that worked with Jeffrey Epstein. He needs to release a "client list," or his base will never believe that they've released everything. And so if that "client list" simply doesn't exist, if the government doesn't have evidence showing a large number of politically powerful people engaging in pedophilia along with Epstein, then this problem can never ever ever be solved. By releasing the Epstein files without including that client list (which probably doesn't exist), Trump merely becomes part of the cover-up.

Just like his tax returns, part of the E-files will be withheld because of ongoing "investigations".

Just like his tax returns, part of the E-files will be withheld because of ongoing "investigations".

Sure - that's the line that everyone will take. Both his base and his opponents will conclude that there's a material part of the Epstein files that's being held back, and that there's a list of pedophiles in it. And that's where he's trapped. It doesn't really matter whether the list doesn't exist and never did. No one will believe the Administration or any of their proxies.

This idea that the federal government is in possession of documents that they can legally hand over with respect to Jeffrey Epstein

This is the bit that -I think- is problematic. "legally hand over" implies that there's more they cannot hand over. Otherwise, why not delete that phrase, and remove any ambiguity.

Sure, some people still won't believe it. But that phrase gives them something to point at.

And, yes, I understand that there may be docs that they possess that they cannot publish (e.g. because of pending litigation). Though I don't know if that is actually the case.

this theory would defy obsfucation always working in favor of gop\MAGA since at least 2016.

epstein has been a stickier topic than affordability (most evident) , kleptocracy, and intl standing.
must be somehow related to false moral superiority of christofascists, who havent been this riled since the fully imaginary pizzagate. (the lurkersheepdope crowd seems atypical here, ordered to lose their prior obsession from cult media)

Lots of folks on this board think that there's some bombshell(s) in the Epstein files that are going to be hugely damaging to Trump if disclosed. But as I keep saying, even if there's not - perhaps especially if there's not - they're going to have a major problem anyway. Because even if (or when) they turn over every single piece of paper, the MAGA base simply isn't going to believe them if there's nothing there.

This is the first time I've heard you say that even if there's nothing there, the MAGA base won't believe it so he's got a problem. Perhpas I missed it. I agree on the client list, but he can tell them to make one and leave his name off. :) Thanks.

This is the bit that -I think- is problematic. "legally hand over" implies that there's more they cannot hand over.

That's almost certainly true. Even if we set aside the "active investigation" stuff as being subject to manipulation by the Administration, some of the materials will still be under court seal - particularly all information that could identify victims of abuse. The Administration literally cannot legally disclose it, not matter what they do.

There will always be stuff they can't hand over. And even if they violated the court orders and turned over every single piece of paper, most of the folks that are aggressively calling for the Epstein Files to be released will never ever believe that it was all turned over. Because they are convinced that there's a group of wealthy and powerful people who regularly engage in pedophilia whose identities are known to the federal government and are in the Epstein Files - and until they get that list of names, they will always believe there's a cover-up.

Oh, and now a subset of Democrats have now convinced themselves that Donald Trump is himself a pedophile and that there is evidence in the Epstein Files that proves that as well, so they won't be satisfied until **that** evidence is disclosed as well (whether it exists or not).

This is the first time I've heard you say that even if there's nothing there, the MAGA base won't believe it so he's got a problem. Perhpas I missed it. I agree on the client list, but he can tell them to make one and leave his name off. :) Thanks.

Of course. We old phartz remember Nixon. Remember when he released the "transcripts", and "expletive deleted" entered the language? Of course, the transcripts were edited. Then the tapes were grudgingly released, after they had been tampered with. One thing I can take as probably true, the Dem perverts will not be removed from the records, so we can corral half of the degenerates in and near the government.

Steve

No one will believe the Administration or any of their proxies.

Albaby1, I would like to think that will be true someday. Trump's job approval is still in the high 40% range so today is not the day.

Trump just is frustrated by the pointless distraction all of this is. With midterms coming up he has maybe six more months to get anything accomplished then it's hard core campaign season and good chances he loses the House. Then a Democrat house will just repeatedly impeach him until 2028.

Virginia Giuffre is on record as saying Trump has nothing at all to do with Epsteins abuse of women. That's it. End of story at least as to Trump.

As to anyone else named, the whole thing is a scam so politicians like Massie can use slander and unproven insinuations against political targets of opportunity without worrying about being sued for defamation as long as he doesn't cross the line into republication of whatever gets released or leaked by Congress. Congress is immune under the Speech and Debate Clause. Media is the same. Eyeballs, outrage, engagement, but no substance.

Trump just is frustrated by the pointless distraction all of this is. ~Old Marco000

LOL. Then why doesn't he just order the release of the entire Epstein document trove like he promised he would?

"On the campaign trail, Donald Trump and JD Vance promised their supporters that they would release the Justice Department files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein if elected."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/timeline-trump-adm...

"Happy Birthday Jeffrey — and may every day be another wonderful secret." ~Trump, Americas Pedo President

Virginia Giuffre is on record as saying Trump has nothing at all to do with Epsteins abuse of women. That's it. End of story at least as to Trump

Assuming someone at the book publisher didn't take a blue pencil to anything incriminating.

Don't you find it odd there are two suicides in this case?

Steve

Trump just is frustrated by the pointless distraction all of this is.

Trump lives for attention. He is loving every millisecond of all of this.

This is the first time I've heard you say that even if there's nothing there, the MAGA base won't believe it so he's got a problem. Perhpas I missed it.

Yeah, I've mentioned that's a big possibility:

They will be exceedingly angry if Trump were to tell them that there's nothing there. The most likely response will be disbelief and to start thinking Trump's part of the cover-up: if Trump isn't marching the Evil Sex Abusers off to jail, then he must be part of the Evil Sex Abuser Protection Establishment. They can't have been wrong about the Establishment Politicians engaging in terrible sex abuse. That would mean that all their anger, all their sense of horrible injustice, all of the time and energy they devoted to all of this was wasted. That can't be correct.

https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=-2&previousPostID=6...

...and elsewhere in that thread.

To MAGA (and QAnon before them, and PizzaGate as well) there has to be a "Client List." There has to be evidence, known to the federal government, of an evil and powerful group of pedophiles who use their connections and money to protect themselves. If Trump doesn't release it, it means he's trying to conceal it.

I suppose it's possible that some of them would look at an Epstein File release that didn't have a Client List and acknowledge they were wrong. But that's not typically how conspiracy theory believers react. Contrary evidence is just proof that the conspiracy goes deeper than even they thought. So again, the most likely outcome is that folks like Cernovich and Posobiec go out to the MAGA faithful and tell them that someone must have got to Trump. It can't possibly be the case that Cernovich and Posobiec were wrong - it has to be that even the Trump Administration is willing to keep the cover-up going.

And so if that "client list" simply doesn't exist, if the government doesn't have evidence showing a large number of politically powerful people engaging in pedophilia along with Epstein, then this problem can never ever ever be solved...

If a list "simply doesn't exist", huh. Well, then, he'll just have to make one up and miraculously "come up with" the evidence to back it.

Pete

Don't you find it odd there are two suicides in this case?

You mean if you don't mention Ivana being found at the bottom of her staircase?

If a list "simply doesn't exist", huh. Well, then, he'll just have to make one up and miraculously "come up with" the evidence to back it.

That's really hard to do, though, within a government file that's been in existence and actively scrutinized for six years now - across three administrations. Literally hundreds of people will have reviewed those files, and all of them would have noticed a "client list."

It's a huge lift to ask scores of people (like Bondi) to suddenly "remember" that these documents existed in the file - and that she saw previously saw them - even though they've never mentioned it to anyone, including all the Congressbeings they've briefed on the matter. You'd be asking scores of people to commit a very easily discoverable and provable crime that would still be within the statute of limitations after Trump left office. And most of those people aren't currently in the Trump Administration - it's folks from the first Trump Admin (like Bill Barr) and all the people from the Biden Admin who reviewed that file, who will all be out in public saying that the documents are faked.

That's why conspiracy theories are so absurd. It's not plausible that the number of people who would have to all agree to keep silent and stick to a common (false) story, at tremendous risk to themselves and almost no personal gain, would ever actually do that. People don't really work that way, except in fiction.

You mean if you don't mention Ivana being found at the bottom of her staircase?

And it’s not as if Trump is not on record fantasizing about throwing a wife/ex-wife down the stairs.

Joe Biden’s auto-pen threw her down the stairs.

Oh, and now a subset of Democrats have now convinced themselves that Donald Trump is himself a pedophile and that there is evidence in the Epstein Files

I'm part of the subset of Libtards that wants to know why Trump is behaving the way he is and doesn't buy any of the explanations. We need someone to dump it all on the internet for us. :) Then I can be disappointed too. What? He did all that for this? Makes no sense. :)

Then why doesn't he just order the release of the entire Epstein document trove like he promised he would?

As Albaby keeps telling us, it's because there's nothing in the files that would satisfy MAGA.

I still think this would be way too Machiavellian of Trump. He's just not that bright. It's far more likely that he was told his name is "all over that $h!t", as Jeff Tiedrich would say, and wants to keep that painful truth under wraps for as long as possible. Hence the call to start investigations into the democrats mentioned in the files, thereby impeding - Oops, so sorry! - any further disclosures due to "pending litigation".

Thanks for jiggling the memory cells. :)

Don't you find it odd there are two suicides in this case?

No.

Trapped……

He can’t even resign and enjoy his ill-gotten gains.

How long would he be given to enjoy them before armies of lawyers, representing hundreds of clients dismantled his empire of grift?

Once inflated, the balloon of lies must be constantly, eternally pumped.

But the longer the pumping continues, the more holes appear in the balloon, which in turn, demands that he pump even harder.

The more frenetic his efforts to keep the balloon inflated, the more unhinged he appears…. And that inevitably leads to a bunker and moving imaginary armies around on a map.

Eventually, the world tires of the nonsense, bulldozes the bunker and paves it over with a parking lot.

The fear… the resignation on his face in that photo.

I think he knows his future.

Hi Banksy,

Why would Trump order the release of the files? What is the clear political advantage to Trump of ordering the release of the files and taking full responsibility for whatever the unknown consequences of his order might be?

Tons of posts here lately telling us in detail that release of the files won't really resolve things to anyone's satisfaction anyway.

Far better to hand the hot potato off to Congress, which Trump has now done.

Whatever happens, Trump can claim not to be ultimately responsible. It's in Congress's hands now.

Additionally, all of you "Rule of Law" folks always insist that Trump should be deferring to Congress on important issues such as tariffs, Venezuela, and so forth.

When he doesn't defer to Congress, ProGlibs get angry. When he does defer to Congress,like he's doing with the Epstein files, ProGlibs still get angry.

Just because you don't understand his game theory approach to these things doesn't mean jack.

I still think this would be way too Machiavellian of Trump. He's just not that bright. It's far more likely that he was told his name is "all over that $h!t", as Jeff Tiedrich would say, and wants to keep that painful truth under wraps for as long as possible.

We already know his name is all over the files. You can look up a bunch of documents that have his name on it on the interwebs, if you like. I have no doubt that there are some other mentions of him in the files among papers that haven't been released. What's implausible is the notion that there's anything that actually demonstrates that he himself committed any sexual assaults on minors, given that the file passed through a second Administration (and a Democratic one at that) and nothing happened. There may be lots of stuff that makes Trump look bad (and perhaps makes it more explicit that he already knew who Epstein really was before cutting him away) - but probably nothing that shows that Trump was doing anything. Something that's a political irritant, but not the sort of "smoking gun" that conspiracists like to imagine.

As for Trump, he's incredibly astute when it comes to politics and media. He knows this is a losing issue for him, and he knows that the people calling for the release of the files will never actually be satisfied with whatever's released. That's exactly the sort of thing that he can get a good read on.

Of course, there's also a simpler explanation - a baser one too, which might appeal to critics of Trump who don't think he's all that sharp. That he's just defaulting to his basic MO of always fighting everything and everyone that crosses him. He told Massie to drop this, Massie didn't listen to him, so Massie can't be allowed to win. It could be as simple as that. Trump told Massie (and Boebert and Greene and Mace) what they were supposed to do, they didn't listen - so Trump had to win. He couldn't let them win, so he had to keep fighting it all year. Massie's a traitor, an enemy, so he can't be allowed to get the better of Trump.

The initial demand could have been based on little more than not wanting anything other than his chosen issue of the day/week to dominate headlines. That's his go-to insult for people who cross him - they're "Grandstanding," trying to steal his spotlight. He wanted Bondi's statement to close things down, and Massie wouldn't let it go. That's the sort of thing that always gets Trump to dig in - he thinks the best thing to do is always to double- and triple down when that happens.

I imagine it's both things. He knows that he can't give his base what they want and that it will end up making things worse when the files are (mostly) released, and he also wants to f**king kill Massie politically for betraying his orders and making this difficult for him. Greene too, apparently.

I think a big part of this Epstein issue is that there IS something there.

20 women have testified under oath.

4 women have testified at sex trafficker Maxwell’s criminal trial.

The royal now known as Not Prince Andrew settled a civil suit from an Epstein victim.

Larry Summers has “stepped back from public commitments” (aka as hiding under the sheets and hoping the monsters go away).

A fund established by Epstein's estate received claims from over 100 women.

There are numerous photos and videos of Epstein and “grab ‘em by the pussy” Trump hanging out having a good time. And tons of communications.

And more.

So Trump’s problem is that there IS something there, whether it’s in the Epstein files or not.

Steve,

Not sure I find it odd that there are two "suicides" in this particular case.

I'm just marveling at Bill & Hillary's efficiency in disposing of "inconvenient truths," and the people who could testify to those truths.

albaby1,

"We already know his name is all over the files" is pretty dumb.

What we know for sure is that the Dems in Congress put out a few emails which they believed would show Trump in the worst light possible, and tried to facilitate that by redacting Virginia Giuffre's name and called her "VICTIM."

And even if they hadn't, all the email said was Trump once spent a few hours in the same house as she did, one of Epstein's houses. You think that's a tiny 1 bedroom condo? It's probably a massive mansion with many rooms.

Big deal. That's it.

Guess what albaby? If this forum's files for the "US Policy" board were ever subpoenaed for whatever reason, albaby1's name (as well as many others) would be "all over the files" and it wouldn't mean jack squat.

Because they are convinced that there's a group of wealthy and powerful people who regularly engage in pedophilia...

I didn't follow it that closely, but isn't that why Epstein was in prison in the first place? His island retreat appears to have been precisely for that purpose.

And there is a list, apparently, of people who flew on his private jet to his island retreat. But I think that's already "out in the wild". The trick is proving people on that flight list(s) actually did anything wrong.

As for the Felon, I would be shocked if he didn't engage in illegal activities with minors on that island. I'm not aware of a victim singling him out, though. So we can't prove it.

Contrary evidence is just proof that the conspiracy goes deeper than even they thought.

I heard a joke not too long ago. You could tell it about any conspiracy theory. I heard it for JFK.

A guy goes to heaven and meets St Peter at the Gate. St Peter says "I can answer any one question before you enter.". The guy asks "who really shot JFK?". St Peter says "Lee Harvey Oswald". And the guy replies "wow, the conspiracy goes higher than I imagined!".

If there "is something there" [against Trump, I presume you mean], and 24 women have testified under oath, presumably most of them are still alive and more than able, and very welcome, to go on the MSM and tell us exactly what Trump supposedly did.

Have any of these women done that?

No release of any files by Trump or Congress or the DOJ is necessary.

In fact a few of the victims have been making the MSM interview rounds advocating "release the files" but yet not actually saying what Trump supposedly did to them.

Why do you think that is?

It's because their attorneys would prefer all kinds of hearsay defamatory nonsense gets leaked by Congress so their clients can leverage those releases for large settlement against Trump (and anyone else mentioned as being "involved") but without risking an actual defamation lawsuit from the targeted individuals.

It's pretty obvious at this point that's what's going on--as well as people like Massie wanting derogatory information released in a manner which will not subject Massie to a defamation lawsuit, as Massie has clearly stated he believes some of his political adversaries or people funding those adversaries may be implicated.

Yup, spread 20 or 30 or 100,000 pages of slander through Congress which is immune from a defamation suit under the Speech and Debate Clause. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, the MSM will run with it and try not to cross the line into republication and getting hit with their own defamation suits.

If Larry Summers was smart, and assuming Elizabeth Warren made her comments against him outside of Congress, where she would not have immunity, like at a press conference, he should have played offense and sued her ass off.

That's what Trump would do. That's what Trump has done, and may be doing against the BBC.

If there "is something there" [against Trump, I presume you mean], and 24 women have testified under oath, presumably most of them are still alive and more than able, and very welcome, to go on the MSM and tell us exactly what Trump supposedly did.

Huh?

How long would he be given to enjoy them before armies of lawyers, representing hundreds of clients dismantled his empire of grift?

That is what the talking heads were saying, the last time he left office.

Steve

I didn't follow it that closely, but isn't that why Epstein was in prison in the first place?

There's no doubt that Epstein was engaged in a years-long pattern of criminal activity.

The conspiracy theory is that there are numerous other wealthy and powerful individuals who are known to the government to be engaging in similar crimes, and that the government is intentionally declining to take action against them even though it could.

This predates the 2019 Epstein indictment by a few years. In 2016, Pizzagate (the belief that there was a massive Democratic satanist torture ring) very quickly morphed into Pedogate (the belief that there was a massive Democratic pedophilia ring). That then became a core belief of QAnon by 2017, which centered on the idea that there was a Deep State that was covering for a massive ring of Satanist cannibal pedophiles that was running a global child sex trafficking ring. Donald Trump was leading the charge to defang the deep state, which would culminate in all those horrible child molesters finally being led off to trial/mass executions.

That's why there has to be a Client List. It can't be true that Epstein was doing this by himself, for himself. It has to be a massive, global conspiracy by the Rich and Powerful. So it can't just be Epstein and maybe Andrew. There have to be lots of Names of Very Powerful People that the DOJ has and just refused to prosecute....

The conspiracy theory is that there are numerous other wealthy and powerful individuals who are known to the government to be engaging in similar crimes, and that the government is intentionally declining to take action against them even though it could.

This predates the 2019 Epstein indictment by a few years. In 2016, Pizzagate (the belief that there was a massive Democratic satanist torture ring) very quickly morphed into Pedogate (the belief that there was a massive Democratic pedophilia ring). That then became a core belief of QAnon by 2017, which centered on the idea that there was a Deep State that was covering for a massive ring of Satanist cannibal pedophiles that was running a global child sex trafficking ring. Donald Trump was leading the charge to defang the deep state, which would culminate in all those horrible child molesters finally being led off to trial/mass executions.

That's why there has to be a Client List. It can't be true that Epstein was doing this by himself, for himself. It has to be a massive, global conspiracy by the Rich and Powerful. So it can't just be Epstein and maybe Andrew. There have to be lots of Names of Very Powerful People that the DOJ has and just refused to prosecute....

Short version: Trump was fanning the flames and dancing in the firelight. Now the fire is too big for him to put out.

Oh, and now a subset of Democrats have now convinced themselves that Donald Trump is himself a pedophile and that there is evidence in the Epstein Files. ~MAGABOT

Yes,
Some liberals keep say Donald Trump is a pedophile, but so far we only have 100% definitive proof that Trump rapes women and starves children...

"The Trump Shutdown of U.S.A.I.D. Has Already Killed Hundreds of Thousands."
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-new-yorker-d...

The judge in the civil case Trump vs Carroll explicitly stated that Trump’s conduct meets the common understanding of rape, and it is accurate to refer to him as a rapist.
"A US District Judge has now formally held, in a lengthy written opinion, that it is perfectly appropriate, and, indeed, entirely accurate, to call Donald Trump a rapist."
https://newrepublic.com/post/174448/judge-e-jean-c...

"Happy Birthday Jeffrey — and may every day be another wonderful secret." ~Trump, rapist, child-starver, draft-dodger, adulterer...

A guy goes to heaven and meets St Peter at the Gate. St Peter says "I can answer any one question before you enter.". The guy asks "who really shot JFK?". St Peter says "Lee Harvey Oswald". And the guy replies "wow, the conspiracy goes higher than I imagined!".

Yup, a good one. In other words, some people will never let go of their preconceived ideas and/or conspiracy theories no matter how much evidence contradicts it.

There have to be lots of Names of Very Powerful People that the DOJ has and just refused to prosecute....

I have little doubt there are. Just like I have little doubt of sentient life elsewhere in the universe. I can't prove it, of course. So, I can't be absolutely sure. But I would be stunned if there isn't (with regard to both questions).

As another poster said this morning, why not interview the ladies? There may not be a physical list, but we could make one from their testimonies (if they were willing to testify, of course).

I'm just marveling at Bill & Hillary's efficiency in disposing of "inconvenient truths," and the people who could testify to those truths.

Oh, you aren't going to dig up Vince Foster's suicide again, are you? Clinton was investigated by a hostile special prosecutor for most of his administration. Looked at Whitewater. Nothing there. Looked at the White House travel office. Nothing there. Look at Vince Foster's suicide. Nothing there. Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones pushed their cases, for years. They finally got the horn-dog in a corner, and the idiot lied, under oath, about a private, legal, act, between consenting adults.

We realize that someone running a honey pot, will provide whatever the target wants, to induce him or her into a compromising position. What if his nibs only boinked consenting adults, like the other consenting adults he boinked, then paid off to be quiet? Would there be a crime? I don't think so.

I think the strategy he is working by ordering the files to be released, is he gets in front of the issue, then takes down a lot of Dems, while he thinks he is so perfect and wonderful, that it won't hurt him. Just like he said he could shoot someone down in the middle of the street, and his poll numbers would not suffer.

Steve

That's why there has to be a Client List. It can't be true that Epstein was doing this by himself, for himself. It has to be a massive, global conspiracy by the Rich and Powerful. So it can't just be Epstein and maybe Andrew. There have to be lots of Names of Very Powerful People that the DOJ has and just refused to prosecute....

A thousand (by several of the victim's estimations) girls weren't raped and molested by Epstein and Andrew alone. You only got access to Epstein and his network of girls if you were rich, powerful or connected. The 24 women who've already come forward know a lot more than they're currently disclosing, though some claim that even they don't know who all was abusing them.

Short version: Trump was fanning the flames and dancing in the firelight. Now the fire is too big for him to put out.

Yet another reason the truth should be uncovered.

Even if there’s no “there” there, that right there is a “there”.

You mean Trump led us through all this horseshit for nothing?

That right there.

As another poster said this morning, why not interview the ladies?

I'm sure they have. Just not in hearings.

These women haven't lacked for legal counsel, or for access to elected officials, for the last several years. They haven't had hearings on these things, but I doubt very highly that there's a whole lot that these women are willing to give that hasn't already been given. I have no doubt there are also things that they don't want to, or are unwilling to, talk about in those conversations - but then they probably wouldn't testify to them on national TV, either. None of this stuff is likely to be completely secret at this point, other than the things that they'll never speak of.

Which is why I think it's so unlikely that there's a whole lot of new perpetrators waiting to be identified - including Trump. Rather, I think the "accountability" would be more about all the very rich and powerful people who surrounded Epstein and knew that he wasn't into grown-ups, but kept silent (or worse enable his behavior) because he was rich and connected. The sort of stuff that the FBI/DOJ doesn't bring cases or investigations on, because there's no actual crime - just a complete and utter moral failure. And that's the sort of thing that the victims might not be in much of a position to testify on. They could certainly speak to the circumstances of their own assaults, with clarity and credibility. But they might not be in a position to testify directly that of course Famous Person X would have to have known what was going on.

The Epstein Files could theoretically bring some accountability for that kind of stuff, but it's not going to be criminal cases against other people actually engaging in pedophilia. Just the many people who knew that Epstein was a monster and did nothing to stop it.

No one will believe the Administration or any of their proxies.

That's the gist of the issue. Everyone knows that Trump and his administration lie constantly. Even if those lies are simply overstating things for sales purposes. ;-)

Trumpers see the lies and don't care, since the lies benefit them and keep their preferred politicians in power and their preferred issues in the headlines.
Not-Trumpers see the lies and can't believe that Trumpers don't care about them and allow them to continue.

But now that history of lying is coming back to bite. Trumpers want to see the names of all of their opponents in the Epstein files. Not-Trumpers want to see the name "Trump" in the files. But as you have said many times, it's quite possible that there aren't a bunch of prominent liberal leaning politicians in the files. It may only be a couple. And it's quite possible that we've seen all there is to see about Trump in the files. There may not be anything more.

That situation would be deeply unsatisfying to many people on both sides of the aisle. Conspiracy theories could start flying left and right.

Let's put a dose of reality in here. This isn't a breeding record for race horses or pedigreed dogs. That kind of record just isn't going to exist. No one is dumb enough to keep those kinds of records (unless Steve's conspiracy theory is correct and Mossad has not only the written records but photographic evidence to back that up, in which case the record keepers are exceptionally smart). I don't fully buy Steve's theory. Neither do I buy the assertion that nothing at all happened. There was likely sex trafficking going on, and there was likely some underage girls involved. There are way too many women coming forward as potential victims for there to be nothing at all to a trafficking ring here. Sure, some may be looking for notoriety (and perhaps a bit of cash). And some may be victims of some other trafficking ring. But digging up sufficient facts for convictions isn't going to happen in the public eye. It's not going to happen in Congress. It's not going to happen by releasing all of the Epstein files. If a case (or cases) are going to be made, they're going to be made by experienced investigators and not by anyone else. So let's get the information to the right people and then be patient while they uncover actionable facts and not the wild theories of some ignorant folks on some little discussion board in some little backwater site of the internet.

--Peter

So let's get the information to the right people and then be patient while they uncover actionable facts and not the wild theories of some ignorant folks on some little discussion board in some little backwater site of the internet.

Yes, but....don't we already know that this has happened?

I mean, what we're talking about is information that is in the files of the FBI and the DOJ. It's gotten to the right people. They initiated a big criminal case against Epstein in 2019, and a second one against Maxwell - it's not like they didn't go out and uncover actionable facts. It seems highly unlikely that these women didn't get asked about their experiences by the FBI previously just in the course of those investigations. In the highly unlikely event that these women didn't have the chance to talk to the FBI in 2019, they certainly have the chance now (with a half dozen or more Congressbeings from both parties behind them). The right people have already gotten the information.

Implicit in all of this is the conspiracy theory that the FBI was given this information and chose to sit on it. That they're corrupted by politics and/or the Deep State, to the point where they would choose to cover up direct testimonial evidence of child rape rather than act on it? The FBI, which brings criminal cases against Senators and Congressmen and many rich people all the time over lots of financial and white collar crimes wouldn't be stirred to action by child rape? It's the belief that these specific rich and powerful people are too rich and powerful for even the FBI to touch.

albaby1: Rather, I think the "accountability" would be more about all the very rich and powerful people who surrounded Epstein and knew that he wasn't into grown-ups, but kept silent (or worse enable his behavior) because he was rich and connected.

Umm, well:

In a 2019 email to author Michael Wolff, Epstein wrote: “of course [Trump] knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop.”

In a 2011 email to Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein said Trump “spent hours” at his house with an unnamed victim.

That 2011 email calls Trump “that dog that hasn’t barked … [victim] spent hours at my house with him … im 75% there.”

Like that guy?

Like that guy?

Sure. I mean, this is the same Trump who said "He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” Emphasis mine.

Might there be some more statements that reinforce that same issue for Trump that haven't yet been released? Maybe! There's clearly stuff about Trump in the files, which we know because a non-trivial amount of it has been released. So we don't know whether there's still some Trump stuff in there that hasn't been disclosed yet, or whether all the most damaging stuff is already out. But it's very, very unlikely that anything is actual evidence that Trump himself committed sexual assault against one of these victims.

There's no evidence that any unindicted third parties committed sexual abuse or assault against any underaged victims.

That's what the Trump DOJ reported.

That's what Biden's DOJ also must have concluded, as they took no action in 4 years.

The right people have already gotten the information.

But I LIKE that this won't go away. I just want a one word reason that someone can use to justify not backing or walking away from Trump. Epstein works, affordability may become one. ;P

hold the conflation please.

act alone? epstein was not serving in a role as his only client. if the clients are nobodies, then why are they not jailed?
i think trump is now forced into a path for distraction via 'the greater crimes of others'; and nabbing some gop is all the better for him to tout impartiality.

ptheland is on the right track regarding credibility of what happened, versus evidence.
i believe there isnt, and never can be any level of evidence that exists to convict trump. the gop cannot afford repudiation of a decade of undying support, it is absolutely identity-destroying to their false moral superiority.

let's run some scenarios :
- client list : if there ever was one, individuals named would immediately demand receipts that prove cash\favors transacted, of which of course there never would be.
- preparation of public victim testimony : how soon would the rightwing smear train discredit what they say? as noted elsewhere, it may be very unusual for clients to have provided their actual names and titles. how does your 2-3 decade memory hold up under stress?
- direct video evidence of trump attempting acts with a minor : well, it was the pre-smartphone era.
but i point to such an event that happened to MAGA parasite rudy guiliani, and has been completely dismissed because it was part of a mockumentary. (if interested, dont just watch the clip\movie which are always edited, but dig deeper into the followup.)
you can be certain if rudy can get way with this, so would trump.
SBC, who has an uncanny talent to extract true behavior from powerful people, glibly stated :
"I here to defend America's mayor Rudolph Giuliani. What was an innocent sexy time encounter with a consenting man and my 15-year-old daughter has been turned into something disgusting by fake news media."


so now it comes to credibility. why would trump, famous for reneging when not threatened, provide leniency to proven pedophile maxwell?
this goes against every tough-on-crime gop hypocrisy.
in the end, the decades of undisputed socializing with epstein, and circumstantial evidence of criminal acts, will probably sink many other long before\if it ever gets to trump. and buying time is as good as a win.

act alone? epstein was not serving in a role as his only client. if the clients are nobodies, then why are they not jailed?

Because he didn't have clients? If that's the case, and he was just engaging in his own terrible appetites, then it would (of course) explain that fact completely. I'm not aware of any of his victims publicly claiming that they were molested by other men as minors (though there are several that said they had sexual encounters at his 'events' with other men when they were above the age of 18). Other than Giuffre, who identified former Prince Andrew.

When identifying other people they believe are complicit in Epstein's crimes, it has generally been to claim that there were lots of Epstein associates that were involved in trafficking girls to him, such as at this press conference:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yvpgyjed8o

...but I'm not aware of any of the victims saying that there were men other than Epstein committing sexual assault against minors - again, excepting Giuffre's experiences with Andrew. As one of the victims' lawyers put it:

"Jeffrey Epstein was the pimp and the john. He was his own No. 1 client," Edwards told ABC News. "Nearly all of the exploitation and abuse of all of the women was intended to benefit only Jeffrey Epstein and Jeffrey Epstein's sexual desires."

Edwards describes the enigmatic Epstein as living, essentially, two separate lives: one in which he was sexually abusing women and girls "on a daily basis," and another in which he associated with politicians, royalty, and titans of business, academia, and science.

"For the most part, those two worlds did not overlap. And where they overlapped, in the instances they overlapped, it seems to be a very small percentage," Edwards said. "There were occasions where a select few of these men engaged in sexual acts with a select few of the girls that Jeffrey Epstein was exploiting or abusing -- primarily girls who were over the age of 18."

https://abcnews.go.com/US/jeffrey-epstein-key-vict...

There may simply not be any "clients." Epstein may not have been running a "service" for anyone other than himself, at least not with the girls who were under the age of 18.

Are you aware of any claims by victims that they had sex as minors with people other than Epstein? I wasn't able to find any - but it's also very difficult to search for things related to a topic that's making headlines today, since the results are just filled with the day's events.

why would trump, famous for reneging when not threatened, provide leniency to proven pedophile maxwell?

Because she traded her statement that he wasn't involved with anything in order to get the leniency? Costs him nothing to give that to her (he's not one that cares about the principles of letting that horrible woman have an easier time in jail), and he was hoping that would solve a political problem for him and get his base to back down on the issue. She had something of value to trade - that statement. Doesn't mean she had anything else.

again, no evidence but also no credibility.

all these girls, for all these events, for all these years, with all these 'socializers' simply there for the spectacle of epstein as the sole beneficiary. and andrew was a coincidence.

i can find meme coins with more substance than this stance.

albaby1: ...but I'm not aware of any of the victims saying that there were men other than Epstein committing sexual assault against minors

Well, not sure about the "minors" element, but several men were named: Alan Dershowitz,
Jean-Luc Brunel, Glenn Dubin, Bill Richardson, George J. Mitchell, Marvin Minsky, Stephen Kaufmann, Thomas Pritzker, and Leslie Wexner. Dershowitz may have been later removed.

Maybe you can answer this: how did Epstein amass his considerable wealth?

again, no evidence but also no credibility.

all these girls, for all these events, for all these years, with all these 'socializers' simply there for the spectacle of epstein as the sole beneficiary. and andrew was a coincidence.

Look, that's what the lawyer for the victims' said. Epstein kept the two worlds separate. It's not all that surprising - having sexual relations with minors is not only a terrible crime, but it's also a horrendous moral stain. It's not only understandable, but an important act of self-preservation, for Epstein to create some level of plausible deniability about whether these minors were engaging in actual sexual relations with him.

It's not especially credible that these women would be coming forward not just to tell their stories about Epstein but all the others who enabled him and trafficked them to his lair, and none of them is saying (either directly or through counsel) that there were other men involved (even without naming names), but this was something that was going on? That Epstein was providing these victims to "clients," but none of the actual victims or their lawyers are saying that it happened - even anonymously, even without identifying the other men, just that people other than Epstein and Maxwell were involved in the sexual acts? And in fact, counsel for some of the victims is actually saying the opposite - that this was all Epstein satisfying his own gross and evil appetites, rather than procuring minors for others?

I don't know - I don't think you should hold out any expectation that there's anything in the governments' files that points to anyone other than Epstein having sex with a minor (again, other than Giuffre's statements about Andrew) given that context. Plenty of opportunity to insinuate, as you've done here - but all those opportunities already amply exist with the material that's been publicly released, so I don't think the files will actually change that, if they are fully released.

Maybe you can answer this: how did Epstein amass his considerable wealth?

Don't know. Perhaps by shady, shady means indeed. Perhaps by fraud, perhaps by extortion, perhaps by theft - or perhaps by legal but unsavory means. But it is utterly implausible that the FBI files actually had any evidence of him doing so by blackmailing other folks over sex with minors and that it wouldn't result in a pretty intense criminal investigation and charges.

Remember, the heart of this conspiracy theory isn't that Epstein might have done any of this stuff - it's that the FBI has proof of it and is covering it up for the benefit of the rich and powerful. And that such proof would be disclosed if only the Epstein files were released in full.

albaby1: But it is utterly implausible that the FBI files actually had any evidence of him doing so by blackmailing other folks over sex with minors and that it wouldn't result in a pretty intense criminal investigation and charges.

Really?

Well, lessee. Epstein was arrested in July of 2019 on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors. Federal prosecutors revealed allegations that Epstein ran a “sex trafficking network” involving dozens of underage girls. Who the hell did he traffic them to?

Oh, and he was dead a month later.

Federal prosecutors revealed allegations that Epstein ran a “sex trafficking network” involving dozens of underage girls. Who the hell did he traffic them to?

To himself, clearly. Right? They charged Maxwell with sex trafficking as well, and they proved up in court that her victims went to Epstein. So we know that the DOJ had evidence of those trafficking activities.

Do you believe that the crime of sex trafficking is only committed if you traffic the people for the benefit of someone els? That would be incorrect. The statute applies to both the recipient and the procurer - to both the person who provides, and to the person who obtains, a trafficked individual.

If Epstein was "dead a month later," after sex trafficking charges filed in 2019, then clearly you have tip your hat to Hillary.

Wait July 2019--Trump had been president for going on 3 years by that time. Yeah, sure, Trump would allow Epstein to be prosecuted if Epstein or the DOJ had the goods on Trump.

no problem there, i have never held that any level of evidence would imprison trump for anything, after a nation that elected him twice.
and i am not saying there is or will be evidence, i am saying nothing such could exist as immune from permanent dispute given collateral damage to the entire conservative sphere.

Because he didn't have clients?

That's possibly true, and it will make it more humorous if that is how it ends up to be in appearance, because there is no way his base will buy that. Trump ends up being undone by a conspiracy theory that won't die? If he gets undone, which is something I'll believe when it happens, but that would be a strange irony. Cenk of TYT was thinking that Trump had his video radar up, thought Epstein was taping, so he didn't do anything that could be taped - wary. But that actually little to nothing was happening would be so ironic.

Don't you find it odd there are two suicides in this case?

No.

Brings to mind Trump's convo with his fixer.... talking about Nat Enqirer's David Pecker vis a vis the Stormy Daniels situation....
Trump told Michael Cohen,

'eh, maybe he gets hit by a truck."

Total gangster shit.

and he also wants to f**king kill Massie politically for betraying his orders and making this difficult for him. Greene too, apparently.

"maybe they get hit by a truck" too

'eh, maybe he gets hit by a truck."

And yet, few consider the possibility that Epstein and Giuffre were murdered, to prevent them spilling the beans?

Steve

Well, I scrolled back and didn't see any mention of this.

Maybe, if Lord Trump normalizes being a sexual predator, everyone will forget about Epstein?

Trump official intervened in investigation on behalf of Andrew Tate, report says

A senior member of the administration of President Donald Trump intervened on the behalf of Andrew and Tristan Tate, influencers who have been accused of sex trafficking and other crimes in the United Kingdom and Romania, according to a new investigative report from ProPublica.

Ingrassia, who at the time was working as a White House liaison to the Department of Homeland Security, is alleged to have "chided" investigators for seizing the Tates’ property when they entered the United States last year. That request, Ingrassia claimed, came directly from the White House, according to the report.

The Tates have long been vocal supporters of Trump and his Make America Great Again political movement.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/...

Steve

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.