DOJ Admits to Republicans That Epstein Files Are Even Worse for Trump

[SeltzerMist]

https://newrepublic.com/post/202813...-republicans-epstein-files-worse-donald-trump

I'm shocked

 

[titan_tim]

Honestly, not really much on the bone here. It's worse than they think? Maybe it's worse than THEY thought, but it's what the rest of us already know.

I hope there are enough safeguards in place to prevent Trump from ordering his lackies to burn evidence.

 

[SeltzerMist]

Sure but don't let them bury this

 

[Hanafuda]

Honestly, not really much on the bone here. It's worse than they think? Maybe it's worse than THEY thought, but it's what the rest of us already know.

I hope there are enough safeguards in place to prevent Trump from ordering his lackies to burn evidence.

Somebody said that somebody they know heard someone else say ....

Like you said, pretty tenuous. But I hope they do crack this wide open, regardless of what evidence there may be. Pictures of a man with 'half naked girls' could be chicks in bikinis poolside in public who wanted their picture taken with someone famous, or it could be something nasty. Or it could be photoshop, or AI. Rumor and indirect insinuations are not sufficient proof, though obviously some need a lot less evidence than that to be convinced.

 

[MrQQ]

Somebody said that somebody they know heard someone else say ....

Like you said, pretty tenuous. But I hope they do crack this wide open, regardless of what evidence there may be. Pictures of a man with 'half naked girls' could be chicks in bikinis poolside in public who wanted their picture taken with someone famous, or it could be something nasty. Rumor and indirect insinuations are not sufficient proof, though obviously some need a lot less evidence than that to be convinced.

Tell me you support a paedophile without telling me you support a paedophile

 

[Hanafuda]

Tell me you support a paedophile without telling me you support a paedophile

This is all so tiresome. No, I do not.
Got any proof? All it takes is a fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What you expect from others, because you apparently have it yourself, is a type of religious faith. You believe something without proof, because you want it to be true. It might be true, it might not be, but you believe it anyway irrespective of evidence.

And I'm an atheist. I need proof.

That shouldn't be a controversial position.

 

[titan_tim]

Somebody said that somebody they know heard someone else say ....

Like you said, pretty tenuous. But I hope they do crack this wide open, regardless of what evidence there may be. Pictures of a man with 'half naked girls' could be chicks in bikinis poolside in public who wanted their picture taken with someone famous, or it could be something nasty. Or it could be photoshop, or AI. Rumor and indirect insinuations are not sufficient proof, though obviously some need a lot less evidence than that to be convinced.

There's very little doubt that whatever they have is extremely damaging. Bondi and Patel never answering direct questions only further shows how bad it is.

Michael Wolff was pretty specific on one of the pictures where young girls of unknown ages are pointing and laughing at the stain on Trump's pants. This is a picture which Epstein willingly showed him and made the comment that he's smart enough to know he needs photos like that of Trump.

Which begs the question of if THAT'S what Epstein was willing to show a journalist, what else did he have that he wasn't willing to show.

 

[Xzi]

Any other president, any other administration would've put an end to this shutdown immediately after getting completely blown out in a round of elections. As much as Republicans love killing the poor by withholding medical coverage, it's 90% about preventing the release of the Epstein files at this point, only 10% about everything else.

 

[pustal]

Any other president, any other administration would've put an end to this shutdown immediately after getting completely blown out in a round of elections. As much as Republicans love killing the poor by withholding medical coverage, it's 90% about preventing the release of the Epstein files at this point, only 10% about everything else.

For sure, but don't underestimate the intent for soft eugenics. Same reason they want to kill the ACA, reduce access to medicine, including vaccines, etc.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

This is all so tiresome. No, I do not.
Got any proof? All it takes is a fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What you expect from others, because you apparently have it yourself, is a type of religious faith. You believe something without proof, because you want it to be true. It might be true, it might not be, but you believe it anyway irrespective of evidence.

And I'm an atheist. I need proof.

That shouldn't be a controversial position.

I can't help notice you always specify "beyond reasonable doubt". Sure, that's what we need for a conviction, but you aren't a criminal court.
Personally, I've not seen hard proof. No one has. But I don't need 99%, if someone seems even moderately likely to be involved with Epstein, I'd be hesitant to support them. Like, very generously, 20-30% chance from his close assosciation and previous strange comments,support of Maxwell, etc. Not really a fan of those odds. If nothing else I'd probably vote for the person with lower odds.

But you always specify that there could be all the suspicious circumstances in the world, but if it's not 100%, it's 0%. Its an admirable standard of proof, but probably a bit unwieldy for normal life. OJ Simpson is also innocent, right? Ex-Prince Andrew was just being normal when he lied about cutting ties and wrote to Epstein about "playing together" again?

Besides, I think you'll be disappointed if you're waiting for a trial to form an opinion. You already know the odds of rich people facing justice, even if he was 100% guilty, even if he wasn't the President with a stacked Supreme Court behind him.

 

[The Catboy]

Cool, now they just need to release them

 

[SeltzerMist]

Cool, now they just need to release them

May be over simplifying this but once the shutdown ends and that one rep gets sworn in, I think that moves the releasing forward

 

[Hanafuda]

I can't help notice you always specify "beyond reasonable doubt". Sure, that's what we need for a conviction, but you aren't a criminal court.
Personally, I've not seen hard proof. No one has. But I don't need 99%, if someone seems even moderately likely to be involved with Epstein, I'd be hesitant to support them. Like, very generously, 20-30% chance from his close assosciation and previous strange comments,support of Maxwell, etc. Not really a fan of those odds. If nothing else I'd probably vote for the person with lower odds.

But you always specify that there could be all the suspicious circumstances in the world, but if it's not 100%, it's 0%. Its an admirable standard of proof, but probably a bit unwieldy for normal life. OJ Simpson is also innocent, right? Ex-Prince Andrew was just being normal when he lied about cutting ties and wrote to Epstein about "playing together" again?

Besides, I think you'll be disappointed if you're waiting for a trial to form an opinion. You already know the odds of rich people facing justice, even if he was 100% guilty, even if he wasn't the President with a stacked Supreme Court behind him.

You're right about the rich and powerful being able to put obstacles in the way for their protection. That is a story as old as time, and one that will never change for as long as there are humans. I don't care by what ideological structure a nation/state claims to be governed, there will always be a shield wall surrounding the elite which requires extraordinary evidence to pierce. Nobody will ever fix this.

As for calling people "pedophile" without it having been proven, well I consider "pedophile" to be about the lowest attribute that can be hung on a person. "Murderer" is more benign in some ways. And yet, we don't really go around calling individual people, "murderer," unless it's an established fact. You can get away with the life-ruining accusations when it comes to someone like OJ or Trump or Hillary (being 'suicided' by the Clintons is/was a popular example of this on the Republican side for years), because they are public figures. But since I can't really think of something more repugnant that a human can do than sexually molest a child, and since it tends to stick like epoxy on someone once the accusation has been thrown on them whether its true or not, I try to be a little careful/cautious about wanting a little more than circumstantial evidence and speculation to justify a convenient conclusion that someone I oppose ideologically just happens to also be an active pedophile. How convenient it must be for you to not be restrained by such barriers to defamation and slander.

 

[CMDreamer]

This is all so tiresome. No, I do not.
Got any proof? All it takes is a fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[...]

And I'm an atheist. I need proof.

That shouldn't be a controversial position.

I agree with you, without proof an already convicted paedophile man can be U.S. president... twice.

Even more if that man states there are no Epstein's list, while people can see pictures of him (among many others) with Epstein, if that's not a reasonable doubt I don't know how to call it.

 

[SeltzerMist]

You're right about the rich and powerful being able to put obstacles in the way for their protection. That is a story as old as time, and one that will never change for as long as there are humans. I don't care by what ideological structure a nation/state claims to be governed, there will always be a shield wall surrounding the elite which requires extraordinary evidence to pierce. Nobody will ever fix this.

As for calling people "pedophile" without it having been proven, well I consider "pedophile" to be about the lowest attribute that can be hung on a person. "Murderer" is more benign in some ways. And yet, we don't really go around calling individual people, "murderer," unless it's an established fact. You can get away with the life-ruining accusations when it comes to someone like OJ or Trump or Hillary (being 'suicided' by the Clintons is/was a popular example of this on the Republican side for years), because they are public figures. But since I can't really think of something more repugnant that a human can do than sexually molest a child, and since it tends to stick like epoxy on someone once the accusation has been thrown on them whether its true or not, I try to be a little careful/cautious about wanting a little more than circumstantial evidence and speculation to justify a convenient conclusion that someone I oppose ideologically just happens to also be an active pedophile. How convenient it must be for you to not be restrained by such barriers to defamation and slander.

And yet MAGA overwhelmingly equate support for the LGBTQ community with pedophilia. That's what's tiresome, especially when MAGA are also overwhelmingly responsible for sexual assault.

 

[The Catboy]

May be over simplifying this but once the shutdown ends and that one rep gets sworn in, I think that moves the releasing forward

I have my doubts; nothing ever happens™ Trump will just do something stupid, the media will shift their focus, and nothing will come of this. The sad truth is, I don't even think Dems want to release the List because some of the names, like Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, etc, are either on the List or connected to Epstein. Plus, the connections to intelligence and Israel (allegedly, but mostly true) will continue to block the list from ever coming out.
If we actually want to see the list, there needs to be more action beyond voting and trusting the empty promises of politicians.

 

[Hanafuda]

I agree with you, without proof an already convicted paedophile man can be U.S. president... twice.

Even more if that man states there are no Epstein's list, while people can see pictures of him (among many others) with Epstein, if that's not a reasonable doubt I don't know how to call it.

Ok you're confusing me now. Are you saying Trump was convicted of pedophilia? Because he absolutely was not. His convictions involve falsification of business reports, and FWIW there was a remand order in that case last week. Federal circuit court said the District court erred on Trump's motion to remove the whole case to Federal court. So the whole thing may be going back to square one.

And declaring a person to be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on being in a couple photos with a person at public events is pure guilt by association. I hope you're never actually on a jury.

 

[lordofcombo]

This is all so tiresome. No, I do not.
Got any proof? All it takes is a fair trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

What you expect from others, because you apparently have it yourself, is a type of religious faith. You believe something without proof, because you want it to be true. It might be true, it might not be, but you believe it anyway irrespective of evidence.

And I'm an atheist. I need proof.

That shouldn't be a controversial position.

NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF.

As for Trump,he is 100% percent guilty.the question is how long can he get away with.Will he try the 2028 campaign? cuz my chances with presidential election winning and J.D Vance are the same.One Rep lunatics vacate the space,he is gonna get sued like hard.But i think his health is not good.He will probably not see 2030.

 

[Earthshine]

His convictions involve falsification of business reports

Also, sexual abuse. Which if it were your mother, daughter, sister, grandmother, etc. that a Dem had done this to, you'd say they were raped. Would you still support Trump if it were a female relative that he sexually assaulted? Or would you say it was a privilege and honor?

 

[Xzi]

There's no point in re-hashing the "evidence" argument, anybody who supported/voted for a man who was besties with Epstein for damn near twenty years was already more than happy to sweep pedophilia under the rug, along with any number of other serious crimes. The entrenched magats are simply incapable of objective hindsight or self-reflection.