Jeffrey Epstein - DOJ Report and Prison Video

[JMartJr]

What I find most interesting is this part

Maxwell initiated the meeting, multiple sources told ABC News.

Could you explain why? I mean, I guess I can see that it is somewhat interesting, but I'm missing why it is the most interesting bit...

 

[fizzBuzz]

Note that the one time, to date and to my knowledge, there was any sort of vote on it was when a subcommittee of the House Oversight Committee voted to subpoena such files, three of five Republicans voted in the affirmative.

Ro Khanna introduced an amendment to the GENIUS act last week that was voted down by Republicans. They said it (1) has nothing to do with the GENIUS act (which contains crypto regulations, etc.) and (2) rushing the release of all files may not be the best way to go about this if they care about protecting victims. As stated by Mike Johnson (see earlier interview video in this thread), the release of these files have to be done properly as to not expose victims.

The thing that strikes me is that everybody wants to release the info except the White House and the GOP Leadership

Two things:
1. I don't see any reason to think the WH doesn't want to release the files. As we've said, it could be there's no more files to release. We don't know what the WH's perspective is on this case. Because they know the full extent of the files and we don't. So I don't think we can say what they want to do.
2. Many GOP leadership have spoken out about releasing the Epstein files, including Mike Johnson. They clearly want to, it's just a matter of doing it the right way, according to them. And I think the Democrats are using this to play political games - it lets them say "see, they don't care about transparency" and "what are they hiding?", etc. Why do I think they're using this for political games? Because not once in the last four years did the Democrats try to have the Epstein files released through Congress.

But again, the GOP thinks they haven't seen all the files. The WH has seen them. When the GOP gets the files (or whatever they think is left of the files), and we all get them, the WH's position on this may make more sense and the conspiracy theorists will continue to theorize. Which is where I'm leaning is most likely to happen - as I said earlier, if anyone else is incriminated in these files, they would have been prosecuted under the previous administration.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Could you explain why? I mean, I guess I can see that it is somewhat interesting, but I'm missing why it is the most interesting bit...

Well.. "most" interesting is relative here lol not much in that article was very interesting. I think if she was the one who reached out to the DOJ and said "hey, I've got more info I've never shared" kind of thing - that's interesting. She could be lying, of course, to try and get a pardon or something. But I think her reaching out to the DOJ is much more interesting (and has more potential for big news) than the DOJ reaching out to her.

 

[Ann K]

To me, if the Epstein files incriminated ANYONE outside of Epstein and Maxwell, it would have come out in the last ~4 years by the previous administration. ESPECIALLY if the files incriminate Trump - which is what a lot of the left (on X) think. But so many people seem to be ignoring this.

It was grand jury records, and held in higher secrecy than just "somebody said so".

If the files suggest that Trump's involvement with Epstein really was just of the harmless social variety prior to their reported falling out in 2004, then the Biden administration would have had no obvious political reason to release them. (Former President Bill Clinton's name appears in the files that were already released, although there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on Clinton's part.)

But it also couldn't have done so without court approval. Grand jury testimony is secret by design: It allows jurors to confer about whether to charge someone with a crime confidentially and without outside influence or fear of public backlash. Such testimony is typically only released under exceptional circumstances, when a judge determines that the public interest overrides the interest in protecting the identity of witnesses, informants, and other people accused of crimes brought before the grand jury.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/why-didn-t-biden-release-224000723.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

 

[Mendel]

I don't know why they cannot release "The Epstein Files" or "The Epstein List."

Any name they release, who is not provably a pedophile, will sue the administration for compensation for the damage done to their reputation by that release.
And that's not even going into who's Trump's friend, donor, or has dirt on Trump.

 

[NoParty]

Its a little late in the game to suggest that the Left bought into this whole, stupid Q-Anon narrative.
(the Right picked the dumbest, laziest, most selfish guy around [DJT], & pretended he was secretly fighting pedophiles).

The Left does have a political interest in this now, after watching Trump dodge consequences for a lifetime
of bad behavior & crimes (business, political, sexual, etc.) never paying any real price...they realize that he
can actually finally feel some real consequences...even if it's because of dopey conspiracy theorist followers.

I have no idea whether Trump had sex with minors, with Epstein. No idea if Bondi is hiding a smoking gun.
But what has already come out, drip, drip, drip...looks pretty damned bad even without a smoking gun.
New pics every day, showing how tight Trump is--for 15 years--with a (now) known pedophile.
More cards, etc., too, that show how very close they were. Epstein called Trump his best friend.
Trump saying Epstein "likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them on the younger side,"
or his '92 remark about a little girl in Trump Tower: "I'm going to be dating her in 10 years" (and more)
look different with all the new info, and will make some people conclude that he's guilty.
A decent person can be given the benefit of the doubt. At this point in his life, Trump can get no such assumption.
(I'm not including the dozens of adult women who came forward, gave their names & explained how yes, like the jury said in the E. Jean Carroll case Trump lost in 2023, he does grab women by the pussy, etc....because the MAGA crowd is seemingly only excited about pedophilia).
https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/28/trump-sexual-misconduct-allegations-women

Even Trump's go-to story about him breaking off the relationship now must be compared to Epstein's brother
saying that it was Epstein who ended the relationship. I don't know much about Mark Epstein, but if there's a
"he-said, she said" with Trump, anyone is eminently more credible than chronic liar Trump.
https://www.newsweek.com/jeffrey-epstein-spoke-against-donald-trump-1859497

A feint to disclose grand jury records wasn't a bad trick: They won't be released, but you can say you
were finally trying to bring the transparency you promised...without bringing the transparency you promised.
I never really thought that what is still unseen, re. Epstein, would include any bombshells. But the more the
Trump Administration ham-handedly hides it, the more I think that there's no smoking gun, but lots more of
the "I like women on the younger side" stuff, that Trump's handlers know will irritate his supporters.
I'd rather he were held accountable for the sexual assaults, or the Jan. 6 treason, or the racist policies,
etc. But since his punishment for an ugly, ugly life is to be put back in the Oval Office, I too will enjoy watching him squirm.

 

[fizzBuzz]

It was grand jury records, and held in higher secrecy than just "somebody said so".

If the files suggest that Trump's involvement with Epstein really was just of the harmless social variety prior to their reported falling out in 2004, then the Biden administration would have had no obvious political reason to release them. (Former President Bill Clinton's name appears in the files that were already released, although there is no allegation of any wrongdoing on Clinton's part.)

But it also couldn't have done so without court approval. Grand jury testimony is secret by design: It allows jurors to confer about whether to charge someone with a crime confidentially and without outside influence or fear of public backlash. Such testimony is typically only released under exceptional circumstances, when a judge determines that the public interest overrides the interest in protecting the identity of witnesses, informants, and other people accused of crimes brought before the grand jury.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/why-didn-t-biden-release-224000723.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

I don't understand your point.

 

[Chacra]

Care to elaborate or are you just going to throw around unsubstantiated claims?

Here's a 56 part list of substantiations:

https://www.dailykos.com/history/user/CajsaLilliehook

And if course there's more to the story. Epstein and Maxwell went to jail for selling kids to sexual predators - yet none of the predators went to jail.

And just to get ahead of any assumptions I wish all of them immense pain and suffering for what's hopefully a short remainder of a shitty life regardless of their political affiliation, religion, gender, etc

 

[fizzBuzz]

I can post a random irrelevant list of Democratic child sex offenders from a random irrelevant person as well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftvsRightDebate/s/ICggg0qsVU

Epstein and Maxwell went to jail for selling kids to sexual predators

Any evidence for this? Or just more unsubstantiated claims?

I'm certainly not defending these two, they're evil. And Epstein could have very well done this, but to state it as fact with zero evidence makes me question your rationale.

 

[Ann K]

I don't understand your point.

You asked why the information was not released during the Biden administration. The need for a legal release of the files was the reason.

 

[FatPhil]

Epstein and Maxwell went to jail for selling kids to sexual predators

Any evidence for this? Or just more unsubstantiated claims?

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of a minor.

That is simply a fact. The statement you are objecting to is merely a paraphrase of it.

 

[Chacra]

I can post a random irrelevant list of Democratic child sex offenders from a random irrelevant person as well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftvsRightDebate/s/ICggg0qsVU


Any evidence for this? Or just more unsubstantiated claims?

Uh yeah the evidence is in the list posted. They link to sources citing the charges against each individual

I'm certainly not defending these two, they're evil. And Epstein could have very well done this, but to state it as fact with zero evidence makes me question your rationale.

Yes you are defending them - spending a kind of shocking amount of time and effort defending them. Denying, deflecting and what about isms.

I mentioned I don't care what their political affiliation was in case someone said oh here's a list of democrats and well ...

Why is information that you cite the only factual information and any information that opposes your view immediately invalid and you dismiss ?

 

[Chacra]

Senator Mullen states they are trying to give Trump cover in regards to the Epstein situation

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...mits-party-trying-give-trump-cover-rcna221110

"I'm sure this would be handled just like any other thing [the Democrats] have tried to go after like the baseless impeachments. Or the baseless special counsels. Or the unbelievable amount of charges they tried to file against the president," Mullin said. "I'm sure this would be handled the exact same way. What we're simply wanting to do here is give [Trump] cover."

 

[fizzBuzz]

You asked why the information was not released during the Biden administration. The need for a legal release of the files was the reason.

That's not what I said and I don't think I even said it in question form. I said if the files incriminate anyone outside of Epstein and Maxwell, those people would have been prosecuted under the previous administration (the prosecution of these people, obviously, would have come out to the public). I believe I've said this 4 times now in this thread.

ETA: After reading our exchange again, I get what you're saying and I agree with you - which I think is, the files wouldn't have been released to the public because it was grand jury files and it wouldn't have helped Biden politically in the event that Trump was not incriminated in the files. But what I meant to convey was if anyone else should have been prosecuted, the previous administration would have done so (whether the files were released to the public or not). This is why I object to claims like this:

Epstein and Maxwell went to jail for selling kids to sexual predators - yet none of the predators went to jail.

Which I've made very clear throughout this thread.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of conspiracy to transport minors with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of a minor.

That is simply a fact. The statement you are objecting to is merely a paraphrase of it.

You're missing this part. He said this

selling kids to sexual predators - yet none of the predators went to jail.

Epstein and Maxwell went to jail. So who else is being referred to. The people other than Epstein and Maxwell is who I am objecting to. If I should have made that clearer, my apologies.

So. @Chacra, who are these other people you are referring to?

 

[fizzBuzz]

Yes you are defending them - spending a kind of shocking amount of time and effort defending them. Denying, deflecting and what about isms.

No, I'm not. I'm defending the imaginary people you claim took part in Epstein and Maxwell's evil acts. Ya know, all these people you have ZERO evidence for.

 

[fizzBuzz]

Why is information that you cite the only factual information and any information that opposes your view immediately invalid and you dismiss ?

I don't dismiss your list of Republican predators as if it is not a credible list. I dismiss the list as it is irrelevant to the conversation. @NoParty made an unclear claim without evidence - which he often does. I asked him to first elaborate and explain what he means and then provide some evidence. You post a random list of Republican registered voters who are child sex predators... ???????

 

[deirdre]

Senator Mullen states they are trying to give Trump cover in regards to the Epstein situation

what "epstein situation"? do you mean not releasing the files for legal reasons? that situation?

 

[Ann K]

That's not what I said and I don't think I even said it in question form. I said if the files incriminate anyone outside of Epstein and Maxwell, those people would have been prosecuted under the previous administration (the prosecution of these people, obviously, would have come out to the public).

My apologies. Your quote was not in question form. It was:

To me, if the Epstein files incriminated ANYONE outside of Epstein and Maxwell, it would have come out in the last ~4 years by the previous administration. ESPECIALLY if the files incriminate Trump - which is what a lot of the left (on X) think. But so many people seem to be ignoring this.

I have just explained WHY the grand jury information did not "come out in the last ~4 years by the previous administration". The records were not yet released by a judge. And the Biden administration did not choose to leak it unlawfully.

The rule of law used to be observed here, remember?

 

[JMartJr]

Uh yeah the evidence is in the list posted. They link to sources citing the charges against each individual

In accordance with the "no click policy," that might need to be posted here, not just at the provided link.

On another point:
This discussion seems to be veering towards getting personal, one senses transgression of the politeness policy looming in the near future. It might be a good idea for everybody to take a step back, and a deep breath, and re-focus on debating points raised rather than the individuals making the points. We are at a moment in history where polite debating of politics is very rare, and therefore to be treasured.

 

[fizzBuzz]

I have just explained WHY the grand jury information did not "come out in the last ~4 years by the previous administration".

I think this is where the mix up is. I didn't claim that the grand jury transcripts would have come out in the last 4 years. I claimed the incrimination of anyone other than Epstein or Maxwell would have come out in the last 4 years - and this is obvious to me. If the files incriminate other people, those people would have been prosecuted and it would have been breaking news. If I should have worded my sentence differently, I accept that.

 

[JMartJr]

I didn't claim that the grand jury transcripts would have come out in the last 4 years. I claimed the incrimination of anyone other than Epstein or Maxwell would have come out in the last 4 years

Which may be part of the dilemma the administration finds itself in. The base is certain that the release will incriminate their favorite bugbears -- if what is released does not, I doubt the base will believe that everything has been released and that there is not a coverup.

 

[RTM]

Which may be part of the dilemma the administration finds itself in. The base is certain that the release will incriminate their favorite bugbears -- if what is released does not, I doubt the base will believe that everything has been released and that there is not a coverup.

Isn't this exactly what we're seeing with UFOs? Denial of retrieval programs/crashed crafts etc., are met with cries that the denials are proof of their very existence.

 

[yoshy]

New video by Voidzilla

top 5 lies in epstein footage

The lies are below (numbers are backward from the video), with my comments in brackets.

1. You're going to get video of the cell. [Claim substantiated directly by FBI Dir Kash Patel]
2. There was only one camera [Dan Bongino claims only one camera. Facts show at least 2 cameras recordings, with 9 others, with 5 or 6 that should have been working at the time.]
3. Footage shows "there's no one there but Epstein". [Again, Bongino: "There is nothing". Zilla: "The video shows several people in the area, including one after lockdown." And of course the guards charged with falsifying records.]
4. You're going to get the raw footage. [Again, BONGINOOOOOOOOO. Both videos provided were provided in Premier Pro.]
5. Quoting directly from FBI report: "anyone entering or attempting to enter the tier where Epstein's cell was located from the SHU common area would have been captured by this footage." [Zilla: LIE. He creates a 3D representation of the tier showing the quote is a lie. Previous reports from the DOJ already admitted this camera had a "Partial View" of the stairway to his cell."]

What the hell? Incompetence can of course explain this. We know this admin loves to lie.

I need Mick West to come over here and slap me with Escaping the Rabbit Hole (I have the hardcopy book) before I become Dale Gribble.

 

[elvenwear]

Isn't this exactly what we're seeing with UFOs? Denial of retrieval programs/crashed crafts etc., are met with cries that the denials are proof of their very existence.

So the Epstein list is just a bunch of alien names? I knew it.

 

[Giddierone]

Curious as to why the media keep referring to this drawing as a naked woman with Trump's signature as "pubic hair", as if the armless figure is facing toward us, when it seems to be a figure with shoulder blades facing away from us and the words forming the spine. [either way it's creepy].