Merged why the release of names associated with Epstein mean little to absolutely nothing.

[plague311]

The FBI already leaked ◊◊◊◊ about Trump they were not legally permitted to leak. This isn't hypothetical, it's known fact.

When? Source it for me.

Nor is that the only way they could use such information. Seriously, suppose for a second that there was information that implicated Trump in criminal behavior. What should they do with that information during the Biden presidency? Sit on it until Maxwell's appeals ran out? No! Obviously not. If they had information that implicated Trump in criminal behavior, they should have opened up a criminal investigation on Trump, right? That would be legal and proper, would it not?

Hard to tell, I don't know the ins and outs of the way the FBI runs things, but you weren't talking about Biden opening an investigation, were you? At least in the part I quoted you didn't mention it at all. You said Biden would have "used" the documents against Trump. I don't believe that to be the case and one of the reasons I don't believe Biden would have "used" the documents was for the reason I mentioned, there was an ongoing investigation.

I don't know where I read it but there was an article that said having Bondi open a criminal investigation was stupid because the FBI already looked through the documents and confirmed there was no one else to be charged. That's why I haven't been calling for criminal charges against Trump. I don't know if he committed any crimes, I haven't seen the documents.

And yet, they did not do so. Why not? Because they wanted to let a child predator AND a political opponent skate? Or because there was nothing there to go after? Which of those explanations is actually better for the Biden administration?

Neither of those explanations have ◊◊◊◊ all to do with anything I've said, so I don't have an answer for you. You seem to be bouncing around in your haste to defend your leader.

Not only could you not imagine Trump's opponents doing what they already did, you couldn't even imagine them doing the right thing. And you accuse me of projecting?

Cool, more word salad.

They published an email where Epstein claimed that Trump spent several hours alone with one of Epstein's victims. The Dems redacted the name of the victim (they had the unredacted version), so many at first took this to suggest some new revelation. But the victim was Virginia Guiffre. It's long been known that she had contact with Trump, but she never accused Trump of anything. So without that redaction, the email is a giant nothingburger. The redaction was an attempt to make it seem significant when it wasn't.

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about because I haven't read up on it. Perhaps you're right, I don't know. Was she underage? Were they alone? Just because she didn't accuse him of anything doesn't mean inappropriate things didn't happen. There are tons of victims that don't speak out, or end up having admiration for their abusers or any other countless reasons.

You made a claim that Biden would have released files to make Trump look bad, and now you're bringing up something that's happened recently.

Pick. A. ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊. Lane. I'm getting whiplash from this ◊◊◊◊.

 

[Ziggurat]

We had evidence that implicated Trump in criminal behavior.

With regards to Epstein? No we don't.

They opened up a criminal investigation on Trump. You said it was not legal and proper.

First, they have not opened any criminal investigation into Trump with respect to Epstein. Second, I said the FBI leaks about Trump were not legal and proper. And you don't have to take my word for it, the FBI inspector general has said as much.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

With regards to Epstein? No we don't.

We do if you take Trump's word for it

 

[dirtywick]

trump is telling reporters quiet piggy and begging boebert not to sign the petition to keep exonerating documents hidden that he turns white as a ghost when they ask about it

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not familiar with what you're talking about because I haven't read up on it. Perhaps you're right, I don't know. Was she underage? Were they alone? Just because she didn't accuse him of anything doesn't mean inappropriate things didn't happen. There are tons of victims that don't speak out, or end up having admiration for their abusers or any other countless reasons.

Virginia Guiffre DID speak out. And the only things she's said about Trump were complimentary. So Epstein mentioning contact between Guiffre and Trump isn't going anywhere.

You made a claim that Biden would have released files to make Trump look bad

No. I said the Biden admin would use the files. Releasing them isn't the only way to use them.

and now you're bringing up something that's happened recently.

The email that the dems released (not leaked) doesn't implicate Trump in criminal behavior. They tried to make it look like it might by redacting Guiffre's name, but there's nothing there. It doesn't even make him look bad.

There may be documents in there which do make Trump look bad. I am not expecting such documents but I don't discount the possibility. Stuff which makes him look bad but isn't criminal cannot prompt a criminal investigation and wouldn't necessarily be worth leaking, so it makes sense to me that such content, if it exists, might have remained hidden.

But my claim was more narrow than that. I'm arguing that there's nothing in there which implicates him in criminal conduct. If there were such documents, I think they would have been used. It doesn't make sense to me why the Biden administration would have done nothing with them. Possibly through leaks, possibly through criminal investigation, possibly through public release, or even some combination.

That's my claim. The emails which the Dems released (not leaked) do not implicate him in any criminal behavior. The fact that they didn't come out until now isn't surprising. I would be surprised if anything implicating him in criminal conduct were to come out now. Among other things, I would wonder why the Biden administration didn't open a criminal investigation into Trump for whatever criminal conduct they uncovered.

Are you arguing that the Biden administration would have motive to cover up or ignore criminal acts by Trump?

 

[Ziggurat]

We do if you take Trump's word for it

I think you lost the train of the conversation. We do not have Trump's word for it that we have evidence implicating Trump in criminal behavior with Epstein.

 

[Ziggurat]

Hard to tell, I don't know the ins and outs of the way the FBI runs things, but you weren't talking about Biden opening an investigation, were you? At least in the part I quoted you didn't mention it at all. You said Biden would have "used" the documents against Trump.

Opening an investigation against Trump is one of the ways that they could have used the documents against Trump, if those documents implicated Trump in criminal behavior. That is a way to use documents against Trump, and a way that I thought would be obvious. I did not specify criminal investigation as one of the uses, because it's only one of the potential ways to use such documents and because I thought people could figure it out. And perhaps I erred in this assumption. But the fact that I didn't make it explicit doesn't mean I wasn't intending that to be included.

 

[wareyin]

With regards to Epstein? No we don't.

Which is why I specifically wrote "his election interference cases, his illegal business practices, and his classified documents kept in the bathroom practices." Reading the full sentence will really help you next time.

And actually, we do, I just knew that someone who will deny Epstein and Trump's well documented decades of close friendship will in no way accept that there is evidence that Trump was into little girls (despite him bragging about doing it)

First, they have not opened any criminal investigation into Trump with respect to Epstein. Second, I said the FBI leaks about Trump were not legal and proper. And you don't have to take my word for it, the FBI inspector general has said as much.

There is a reason I wanted evidence that consisted of more than one of Trump's hand-picked lackeys making an accusation.

 

[wareyin]

Opening an investigation against Trump is one of the ways that they could have used the documents against Trump, if those documents implicated Trump in criminal behavior. That is a way to use documents against Trump, and a way that I thought would be obvious.

Trump was already facing multiple felony investigations in multiple jurisdictions. Trump openly bragged about wanting to date women younger than his teenage (at the time) daughter. Trump openly bragged about barging in on teenage beauty pageant changing rooms because he was hosting the event and nobody could stop him. If none of that moved the needle with his cult, how would one more criminal investigation or more talk about evidence that Trump was into underage girls do it?

More importantly, you're still stuck on the idea that everyone else is as corrupt as Trump is, and that somehow Biden refusing to corruptly weaponize the DOJ (as Trump is doing) is proof that Trump is innocent.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is why I specifically wrote "his election interference cases, his illegal business practices, and his classified documents kept in the bathroom practices." Reading the full sentence will really help you next time.

I did read that, but those were irrelevant to my claims. You were trying to move the goalpost. That's why I brought it back to the actual relevant claim.

And actually, we do, I just knew that someone who will deny Epstein and Trump's well documented decades of close friendship will in no way accept that there is evidence that Trump was into little girls (despite him bragging about doing it)

Let's see this alleged evidence of criminal activity involving Trump and Epstein.

There is a reason I wanted evidence that consisted of more than one of Trump's hand-picked lackeys making an accusation.

The FBI IG was a Trump hand-picked lackey? That's what you're going with?

 

[Ziggurat]

Trump was already facing multiple felony investigations in multiple jurisdictions.

Which demonstrates that they weren't shy about going after Trump. So why didn't they with respect to Epstein?

Well, an obvious possible answer is that there was nothing to go after him for. Do you have a better explanation?

Trump openly bragged about wanting to date women younger than his teenage (at the time) daughter.

You're arguing that Trump is gross. Stipulated. Where's the evidence of actual criminal conduct? Because this isn't it.

More importantly, you're still stuck on the idea that everyone else is as corrupt as Trump is, and that somehow Biden refusing to corruptly weaponize the DOJ (as Trump is doing) is proof that Trump is innocent.

Yeah, no. This is delusional on your part, because you have it exactly backwards. If there was evidence of Trump engaging in criminal conduct, then how is opening up a criminal investigation into him corrupt? It isn't. It's amazing to me that you're adopting the position that opening a criminal investigation when there IS evidence of criminal acts is somehow "corruptly weaponiz[ing] the DOJ". I'm the one suggesting that the Biden admin didn't do the wrong thing in this case. You're the one suggesting that they did.

 

[wareyin]

I did read that, but those were irrelevant to my claims. You were trying to move the goalpost. That's why I brought it back to the actual relevant claim.

No, I was pointing out that even when we have clear evidence of his criminal activity, you don't think investigations are proper. And so your "suppose for a second" hypothetical would still have been something you opposed, despite claiming it would have been legal and proper.

Pointing out that you would not be ok with something you have already made plain that you are not ok with is not moving the goalpost. It's calling out a falsehood.

Let's see this alleged evidence of criminal activity involving Trump and Epstein.

Yes, they should definitely release the files. Preferably unredacted.

The FBI IG was a Trump hand-picked lackey? That's what you're going with?

Given your vague description of an event that I am unable to find by searching, I have no clue whether it was an Inspector General who survived the Trump FBI purges, and Inspector General who was appointed by Kash Patel, or even if it was an FBI IG.

What I'm going with is that you have absolutely nothing but an accusation, but you called it a known fact in order to protect dear leader.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I was pointing out that even when we have clear evidence of his criminal activity, you don't think investigations are proper.

I have never once in this thread claimed any investigations are improper. If you want to talk about some other investigations, take them to the appropriate thread.

Given your vague description of an event that I am unable to find by searching

I assumed a level of familiarity with events that you obviously do not have. My mistake, I should assume that you are clueless and will endeavor to treat you as such in the future. Here is one example:

IG: Comey violated policies, 'set a dangerous example' but DOJ declined to prosecute

"I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a 'sorry we lied about you' would be nice," Comey tweeted Thursday.

www.nbcnews.com

"According an Office of the Inspector General report released Thursday, Comey violated DOJ and FBI policies, as well as the FBI's employment agreement, by keeping copies of four of his memos in a personal safe and asking a law professor friend to make one memo public after Trump fired him in May 2017."

This is not the only example of an anti-Trump leak from the FBI that was not justified, but it suffices for now.

 

[wareyin]

Which demonstrates that they weren't shy about going after Trump. So why didn't they with respect to Epstein?

Jesus, remember how I pointed out that skipping over relevant information was making you look foolish? "Multiple jurisdictions" is not the damn DOJ, and you damn well know that. "They" weren't going after your leader, Trump was criming so publicly and obviously that even REPUBLICANS in GEORGIA had to say something about it.

Well, an obvious possible answer is that there was nothing to go after him for. Do you have a better explanation?

That they weren't as corrupt as Trump. As I, and others, have already pointed out.

You're arguing that Trump is gross. Stipulated. Where's the evidence of actual criminal conduct? Because this isn't it.

You don't think barging in uninvited to a teenage dressing room would get normal people like you and me on a sex offender registry?

Yeah, no. This is delusional on your part, because you have it exactly backwards. If there was evidence of Trump engaging in criminal conduct, then how is opening up a criminal investigation into him corrupt? It isn't. It's amazing to me that you're adopting the position that opening a criminal investigation when there IS evidence of criminal acts is somehow "corruptly weaponiz[ing] the DOJ". I'm the one suggesting that the Biden admin didn't do the wrong thing in this case. You're the one suggesting that they did.

You are spinning this so much that you have turned yourself around, Zig.

I did not suggest that Biden did anything wrong by staying out of the DOJ investigation process. I pointed out that him doing so does not imply that Trump is innocent. I also pointed out that by expecting every President to be as criminal as Trump, and judging their actions thusly, you are coming to faulty conclusions.

i.e: if Trump had evidence that Biden was a criminal, Trump would have used it against Biden. Because Biden did NOT use any evidence of Trump being in the Epstein files, the only explanation Zig can see is that Trump is innocent. The very idea that a President will let things play out in the courts is foreign to you.

 

[wareyin]

I have never once in this thread claimed any investigations are improper. If you want to talk about some other investigations, take them to the appropriate thread.

Yes, you did. When you said Biden and the Democrats went after Trump. It was on this page, Zig.

I assumed a level of familiarity with events that you obviously do not have. My mistake, I should assume that you are clueless and will endeavor to treat you as such in the future. Here is one example:

IG: Comey violated policies, 'set a dangerous example' but DOJ declined to prosecute

"I don’t need a public apology from those who defamed me, but a quick message with a 'sorry we lied about you' would be nice," Comey tweeted Thursday.

www.nbcnews.com

"According an Office of the Inspector General report released Thursday, Comey violated DOJ and FBI policies, as well as the FBI's employment agreement, by keeping copies of four of his memos in a personal safe and asking a law professor friend to make one memo public after Trump fired him in May 2017."

This is not the only example of an anti-Trump leak from the FBI that was not justified, but it suffices for now.

Wait, that's what you're going with? That's this proof of using stuff against Trump? A record of his own words and actions?

No wonder nobody in this thread had any idea what you were talking about.

eta: and If you don't think "Michael Horowitz, we’re keeping" is a hand picked Trump lackey, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[Venom]

I'll say it in case someone else doesn't want to...

If there is any Dem, past or present, that shows up in the Epstein files then I hope they rot in prison and burn in hell for the rest of existence. I don't care who they are or what they did as a politician. ◊◊◊◊ them. ◊◊◊◊ them in their stupid asses. If they molested kids then let me personally be the one to lock the prison door.

That's what it's like to not be in a cult, Zigg. I don't put my ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ political party, or some politician that doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about me, above the safety and protection of children. Ever.

This case isn't about "molesting kids". It's about a rich guy who lived a double life who, in a short period in the 1990s and 2000s, received sexualized massages from young women around Palm Beach and New York, some of whom were underage, in exchange for money. When it came to those high schoolers in Palm Beach, many lied about their age or used fake IDs to get in the house. That's prostitution. And prostitution is illegal in the U.S. for the most part and there will be some technically underage females who get caught up in it.

Problem is the case has gotten QAnonized over the years, in large part due to plaintiff's lawyers and one of the prominent accusers, as well as advocacy journalists who reframed the scandal in Palm Beach into sex-trafficking to prominent people, with Epstein as the pimp.

Showing up "in the files" itself doesn't mean anything. It's ragebait.

Here's a document filed in 2016 and only released unredacted in January 2024 (p. 6). What it should have done is debunk the rumors that Clinton went to Epstein's island or that star witness Virginia Roberts ever met him. But it didn't. Because nobody seems to read "the files" they want released.

Each and every part of Plaintiff’s claims regarding President Clinton has conclusively been proven false. Former FBI Director Louis Freeh submitted a report wherein he concluded that President Clinton “did not, in fact travel to, nor was he present on, Little St. James Island between January 1, 2001 and January 1, 2003.” Menninger Decl., Ex. C.
Further, if any Secret Service agents had accompanied Clinton to that location, “they would have been required to make and file shift logs, travel vouchers, and related documentation relating to the visit,” and there was a “total absence” of any such documentation. Id. Remarkably, Plaintiff now even denies telling Churcher that she ever witnessed Ms. Maxwell flying President Clinton or his Secret Service anywhere, or joking with Clinton about “what a good job she did.” Menninger Decl., Ex. D. Plaintiff’s counsel remarkably instructed Plaintiff not to answer any additional questions about the other things Sharon Churcher inaccurately reported. Id. Lending even more incredulity to Plaintiff’s story, Ms. Maxwell only received her pilot’s license in mid-1999 casting insurmountable doubt that a recently retired president and his staff would be permitted to fly with her at the helm.

In any case, Roberts denied wrongdoing by Clinton on multiple occasions. But the fact that he was even mentioned in past filings was enough for speculation like this, from pres. candidate Donald Trump no less. Red meat for QAnontards who have hijacked the story.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wait, that's what you're going with? That's this proof of using stuff against Trump? A record of his own words and actions?

This is an example of an unjustified an unlawful leak of Trump info from the FBI. Do you dispute that? Do you think the facts of the case are wrong? Is it your contention that Comey did not leak that information? Or is it your contention that he did so in accordance with FBI protocols? What's the spin you're going with here?

 

[wareyin]

This is an example of an unjustified an unlawful leak of Trump info from the FBI. Do you dispute that? Do you think the facts of the case are wrong? Is it your contention that Comey did not leak that information? Or is it your contention that he did so in accordance with FBI protocols? What's the spin you're going with here?

This is an example of a policy violation that was not found to be illegal and that the DOJ declined to prosecute over. This 2017 memo also has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with your contention that the Biden administration would have leaked information damaging Trump if it benefitted them politically. That 'leak' happened under the Trump administration in 2017. There is no spin, this is you throwing out a red herring.

The fact remains: The DOJ was legally constrained from releasing Epstein evidence because of the ongoing Ghislaine Maxwell prosecution and appeals. The lack of a charge is proof of legal procedure, not proof of innocence.

 

[wareyin]

This case isn't about "molesting kids". It's about a rich guy who lived a double life who, in a short period in the 1990s and 2000s, received sexualized massages from young women around Palm Beach and New York, some of whom were underage, in exchange for money. When it came to those high schoolers in Palm Beach, many lied about their age or used fake IDs to get in the house. That's prostitution. And prostitution is illegal in the U.S. for the most part and there will be some technically underage females who get caught up in it.

Speaking of spin, this is quite an amusing take. Are we going with poor, innocent rich guy was somehow paying for "sexualized massages" (known in common speech as "sex") that he didn't want? Like, Palm Beach high schoolers were the predators here?

 

[plague311]

But my claim was more narrow than that.

Yes, you tend to do this combined with your newly found ability for super-disingenuousness. Narrow it to the point that it's "technically" correct.

I'm arguing that there's nothing in there which implicates him in criminal conduct.

I'm not arguing any different until I see the files. I never have. I have no idea why the ◊◊◊◊ you're bringing this to me in the first place.

If there were such documents, I think they would have been used. It doesn't make sense to me why the Biden administration would have done nothing with them. Possibly through leaks, possibly through criminal investigation, possibly through public release, or even some combination.

This has been addressed multiple times. There was an active court case and investigation going on. Just because you expect all presidents to act like Trump doesn't mean they do. If there was nothing in the files then they should have been released without any roadblocks. If everything is on the up-and-up then why fight tooth and nail to keep them hidden, and then call them a fraud? I don't know. You sure as ◊◊◊◊ don't know, so I'm going to wait and see.

That's my claim.

I...I honestly don't even care anymore. At this point the argument has become so circular that I have no real desire to interact with you anymore with regards to this topic. As the past has shown, you generally consider this a win, so you can have it. I'll walk away with my self-respect and knowledge that I don't have to bend over backwards to protect someone who brags about eye ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ teenagers.

You and I aren't the same. We're built different.

The emails which the Dems released (not leaked) do not implicate him in any criminal behavior. The fact that they didn't come out until now isn't surprising. I would be surprised if anything implicating him in criminal conduct were to come out now. Among other things, I would wonder why the Biden administration didn't open a criminal investigation into Trump for whatever criminal conduct they uncovered.

Are you arguing that the Biden administration would have motive to cover up or ignore criminal acts by Trump?

No, I'm not arguing that at all. As usual you're disingenuous ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ nonsense leads you to ask ridiculous questions.

Opening an investigation against Trump is one of the ways that they could have used the documents against Trump, if those documents implicated Trump in criminal behavior. That is a way to use documents against Trump, and a way that I thought would be obvious. I did not specify criminal investigation as one of the uses, because it's only one of the potential ways to use such documents and because I thought people could figure it out. And perhaps I erred in this assumption. But the fact that I didn't make it explicit doesn't mean I wasn't intending that to be included.

Cool.