Donald Trump and Bill Clinton attended orgy parties with underage girls.

[DiscostewSM]

Saw this one and laughed.
View attachment 556749

Heh, I'm seeing a number of memes about it.

 

[lordofcombo]

Ok, ok. I don't really come here to write books, but ok. Here's what you posted.




1. You do realize he had his people censor the names of pedophiles, right?

From what I've seen, there is no direct evidence of Trump directing or setting rules on the redactions. The "rules" are all pre-existing laws (Privacy Act & FOIA, for example), intelligence agencies, court orders requiring protection of certain names, etc. There are plenty of people on the internet like yourself saying that Trump is calling the shots, but nobody whistleblowing that it's actually happening.

https://theconversation.com/epstein...-information-is-released-to-the-public-275141

2. He's also pushing for justice to NOT happen for the victims, even pushing for people to forget this all happened.

I'll agree with you to a limited extent on this. I don't really have a problem with Trump denying culpability for himself - even if he were guilty he has that right. But he shouldn't be defending Bill Clinton or anyone else, when there's practically no way for him to know whether any other persons named in the files are guilty. Not his place.

why pedofuda you keep defending these peoples?why redacting anything in the first place?any name found in epstein should be charged.

 

[Hanafuda]

why pedofuda you keep defending these peoples?why redacting anything in the first place?any name found in epstein should be charged.

That's what Ro Khanna and Tom Massie thought too. So they doxxed four names from the files that had been redacted pursuant to the 1974 Privacy Act, in a speech on the floor of the US House. Turns out those four people, who Ro Khanna publicly smeared as powerful elite pedos, were just average guys used in a police lineup. Defamation lawsuits likely incoming.

 

[The Catboy]

That's what Ro Khanna and Tom Massie thought too. So they doxxed four names from the files that had been redacted pursuant to the 1974 Privacy Act, in a speech on the floor of the US House. Turns out those four people, who Ro Khanna publicly smeared as powerful elite pedos, were just average guys used in a police lineup. Defamation lawsuits likely incoming.

The dow is over 50000

 

[Hanafuda]

The dow is over 50000

I get the reference. I don't get your point though, unless a snarky shitpost is the best you could do. Someone suggested every name in those 'files' should be charged as a pedo. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think every person whose name appears in files kept from a government investigation are guilty of the same offense as the person being investigated.

 

[emigre]

As someone who isn't yank, can somone link me up something which details what's happened with this?

 

[The Catboy]

As someone who isn't yank, can somone link me up something which details what's happened with this?

Nothing, nothing is happening

 

[Sir Tortoise]

That's what Ro Khanna and Tom Massie thought too. So they doxxed four names from the files that had been redacted pursuant to the 1974 Privacy Act, in a speech on the floor of the US House. Turns out those four people, who Ro Khanna publicly smeared as powerful elite pedos, were just average guys used in a police lineup. Defamation lawsuits likely incoming.

By this point I'm 90% sure you have me blocked, but for the benefit of others, here is one of the emails that had their "average guy" sender "doxxed".

Defamation for what, buddy? Sending torture videos to Jeffrey fucking Epstein? This poor, poor, billionaire.

Meanwhile in this very thread, you've highlighted the names of others who have talked much less with Epstein. So you clearly don't give a shit about doxxing or privacy, you'll happily out those with Epstein connections (as you should!) but only when you think it benefits your argument.

You'll also just make stuff up if you think it helps. How exactly does the Privacy Act factor into this when the Epstein Files Transparency Act explicitly forbids redactions for the reasons that would enable? The DOJ acknowledged the redactions were a "mistake", so, you can't even get the official story straight.

Also, six people were named, not four. This is a cheap nitpick, but whatever information you're finding must be even cheaper. Maybe double-check stuff before you say it.

 

[Hanafuda]

By this point I'm 90% sure you have me blocked, but for the benefit of others, here is one of the emails that had their "average guy" sender "doxxed".

View attachment 557256

Defamation for what, buddy? Sending torture videos to Jeffrey fucking Epstein? This poor, poor, billionaire.

Meanwhile in this very thread, you've highlighted the names of others who have talked much less with Epstein. So you clearly don't give a shit about doxxing or privacy, you'll happily out those with Epstein connections (as you should!) but only when you think it benefits your argument.

Khanna named 6 in total. 4 of them were unrelated civilians used in a police lineup. Maybe your guy is one of the other two?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/13/four-men-unredacted-epstein-files-no-ties-ro-khanna

Khanna blames the DOJ for not warning him before he broke the law and defamed innocent people.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Khanna named 6 in total. 4 of them were unrelated civilians used in a police lineup. Maybe your guy is one of the other two?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/13/four-men-unredacted-epstein-files-no-ties-ro-khanna

Khanna blames the DOJ for not warning him before he broke the law and defamed innocent people.

Take it up with the government, then, because under the law those names should not have been redacted. They were only made notable because they were, incorrectly.

 

[Hanafuda]

Take it up with the government, then, because under the law those names should not have been redacted. They were only made notable because they were, incorrectly.

That sounds like an acknowledgement that 1) some names in the files are supposed to be redacted, by law, and 2) not every name in the file is a guilty person.

Only reason I posted was because someone suggested there should be no redactions whatsoever and every person whose name appears should be prosecuted. Unrealistic, to put it mildly.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

That sounds like an acknowledgement that 1) some names in the files are supposed to be redacted, by law, and 2) not every name in the file is a guilty person.

Only reason I posted was because someone suggested there should be no redactions whatsoever and every person whose name appears should be prosecuted. Unrealistic, to put it mildly.

Uh, yes, some names are meant to be redacted. For example, the victims? These ones aren't, though.

For more information on who is and isn't supposed to be redacted, I recommend Google.

 

[Hanafuda]

Uh, yes, some names are meant to be redacted. For example, the victims? These ones aren't, though.

For more information on who is and isn't supposed to be redacted, I recommend Google.

"Someone else fucked up" isn't a defense to wilfully breaking the law, but glad you agree.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

"Someone else fucked up" isn't a defense to wilfully breaking the law, but glad you agree.

What law was broken, and is the DOJ also breaking it as they have since unredacted the names as well?

I'll speed things up: https://www.congress.gov/119/bills/s2557/BILLS-119s2557is.htm

Prohibited Grounds for Withholding.--In carrying out subsection
(a), the Attorney General may not withhold from publication, delay the
publication of, or redact any record, document, communication, or
investigative material on the basis of embarrassment, reputational
harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official,
public figure, or foreign dignitary.

Add it to the list of violations along with the time limit, the need to actually justify the redactions, and the requirement to release all the files.

 

[Hanafuda]

What law was broken

Privacy Act of 1974, and probably others, were violated by Khanna's outing of redacted names. He didn't know at the time that the persons (4 of the 6) were innocent and unrelated, he only knew that DOJ had redacted those names. Illegal to release that info, but he did it with complete knowledge that it was a violation. (And that he'd get away with it, because he also has that 'elite' gov privilege.)

It doesn't matter that/if DOJ erred in redacting those names, if Khanna didn't know when he publicly named them.

It's a misdemeanor x4, up t $5000 fine per instance. But that'll never happen. Defamation cases by the affected individuals could cost the taxpayers millions, but Khanna will have those costs covered by the same Congressional defense (slush) fund that quietly covers the payoffs to sex assault complaints, etc.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

Privacy Act of 1974, and probably others, were violated by Khanna's outing of redacted names. He didn't know at the time that the persons (4 of the 6) were innocent and unrelated, he only knew that DOJ had redacted those names. Illegal to release that info, but he did it with complete knowledge that it was a violation. (And that he'd get away with it, because he also has that 'elite' gov privilege.)

It doesn't matter that/if DOJ erred in redacting those names, if Khanna didn't know when he publicly named them.

It's a misdemeanor x4, up t $5000 fine per instance. But that'll never happen. Defamation cases by the affected individuals could cost the taxpayers millions, but Khanna will have those costs covered by the same Congressional defense (slush) fund that quietly covers the payoffs to sex assault complaints, etc.

Do you want to read the rest of my post as well? There is also a law published after 1974 that might be relevant here. But you can't acknowledge that because otherwise the government would have broken the law with every other name listed unredacted in the files. There are thousands of names that were not redacted under the Privacy Act 1974, because the Epstein Files Transparency Act 2025 explicitly forbids those sorts of redactions except for the victims.

I assume thats why you're pretending that its somehow specifically unredacting them that matters, even if they were never supposed to be redacted. I mean, the DOJ did that too, but they probably don't know the law like you do. You are disagreeing with everyone here, maybe you should let them know.

 

[lordofcombo]

Privacy Act of 1974, and probably others, were violated by Khanna's outing of redacted names. He didn't know at the time that the persons (4 of the 6) were innocent and unrelated, he only knew that DOJ had redacted those names. Illegal to release that info, but he did it with complete knowledge that it was a violation. (And that he'd get away with it, because he also has that 'elite' gov privilege.)

It doesn't matter that/if DOJ erred in redacting those names, if Khanna didn't know when he publicly named them.

It's a misdemeanor x4, up t $5000 fine per instance. But that'll never happen. Defamation cases by the affected individuals could cost the taxpayers millions, but Khanna will have those costs covered by the same Congressional defense (slush) fund that quietly covers the payoffs to sex assault complaints, etc.

We dont care about privacy bs,its actually used to defend pedos.I love how you assumed Trump is innocent and defending him .the mental gymnastics,whataboutism.Spouting random names like Ro Khanna,that nobody is irrelevant.Epstein interviews are getting out little by little.I really wanna know what is your next excuse.As for pedos like clinton and others,i hope they get jailed too.

 

[SeltzerMist]

We dont care about privacy bs,its actually used to defend pedos.I love how you assumed Trump is innocent and defending him .the mental gymnastics,whataboutism.Spouting random names like Ro Khanna,that nobody is irrelevant.Epstein interviews are getting out little by little.I really wanna know what is your next excuse.As for pedos like clinton and others,i hope they get jailed too.

Yeah but like, Biden committed treason because a bunch of migrants from South America and Central America showed up.

 

[The Catboy]

I get the reference. I don't get your point though, unless a snarky shitpost is the best you could do. Someone suggested every name in those 'files' should be charged as a pedo. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think every person whose name appears in files kept from a government investigation are guilty of the same offense as the person being investigated.

Your posts read at the same level of excuses and nonsense as saying the Dow is up. It's impressive the hoops you are going through to deny reality.

 

[Vixi]

I love how you assumed Trump is innocent and defending him .

Leave the innocent pedos alone! Waaaah!