Epstein.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Epstein.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyq921zqqzo

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Epstein.

You’ve not been answering direct questions on here for years. You didn’t answer the question I asked you, so you, so predictably, ran true to form.

There are no questions to answer as we are now in the unravelling phase, so just enjoy the show.

[jon1959]

Re: Epstein.

I can't understand how some people believe every "news" item that they see or read.

Can you give us some examples of people who do that on here?

You’ve not been answering direct questions on here for years. You didn’t answer the question I asked you, so you, so predictably, ran true to form.

There are no questions to answer as we are now in the unravelling phase, so just enjoy the show.

The question is very simple and nothing to do with any 'unravelling phase' of whatever it is you think you see in the USA.

You made a claim. You were asked to justify it. You didn't or couldn't do that. As usual you wriggled away, deflected, and eventually came back with your trademark evasive psycho bollocks. It is what you do!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Re: Epstein.

The question is very simple and nothing to do with any 'unravelling phase' of whatever it is you think you see in the USA.

You made a claim. You were asked to justify it. You didn't or couldn't do that. As usual you wriggled away, deflected, and eventually came back with your trademark evasive psycho bollocks. It is what you do!

I don't know why you bother interacting with him or his multitude of pseudonyms on here. He's just a very poor WUM in tape loop mode.

[Wash DC Blue]

Re: Epstein.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyq921zqqzo

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Trump is listed quite prominently in the files.
But you do have to ask the question as to why The Democrats decided not to release that information when they had the chance?

[stevo]

Re: Epstein.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Trump is listed quite prominently in the files.
But you do have to ask the question as to why The Democrats decided not to release that information when they had the chance?

It doesn't really matter who is in power. The elite is the elite and they're all implicated in some way and ultimately cover each other's backs. Not forgetting the Royal Family of course. Once they start unravelling the string, who knows what will come out of all this.

[Dorcus]

Re: Epstein.

It doesn't really matter who is in power. The elite is the elite and they're all implicated in some way and ultimately cover each other's backs. Not forgetting the Royal Family of course. Once they start unravelling the string, who knows what will come out of all this.

...is the right answer 👍 the rich and powerful work to a different set of rules

[lardy]

Re: Epstein.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Trump is listed quite prominently in the files.
But you do have to ask the question as to why The Democrats decided not to release that information when they had the chance?

This is the situation as I understand it - not what I want it to be, as I'd love all that information to be used to punish whoever was genuinely involved, no matter who they are. But this is why I think the democrats didn't release it.

Firstly, it's not for Biden to order their release, as the president shouldn't overstep his bounds into the judiciary. The president doesn't control investigations and shouldn't be able to order the DOJ to do this or that. As far as I know, Biden never promised to release them while Trump did, hence the backlash. Biden followed these rules, not realising that the rules have changed (or don't really exist now) and probably thinking that Trump wouldn't be getting back in and it would all die down. Similar to how Biden persisted with Garland and wasted their four years.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, this sort of information is never normally just released by law enforcement. They would use it to build cases and prosecute - the fact that none of the DOJs have done this is shameful, but I can't think of any times when something like this was released to the public and press to sift through. But you do need this process because there are inevitably going to be innocent names in those files as well as the guilty ones, of various degrees of guilt. Is at least part of the reason that no indictments are forthcoming because it's powerful people involved? Almost certainly yes, and that applies for both blues and reds here.

[Wash DC Blue]

Re: Epstein.

This is the situation as I understand it - not what I want it to be, as I'd love all that information to be used to punish whoever was genuinely involved, no matter who they are. But this is why I think the democrats didn't release it.

Firstly, it's not for Biden to order their release, as the president shouldn't overstep his bounds into the judiciary. The president doesn't control investigations and shouldn't be able to order the DOJ to do this or that. As far as I know, Biden never promised to release them while Trump did, hence the backlash. Biden followed these rules, not realising that the rules have changed (or don't really exist now) and probably thinking that Trump wouldn't be getting back in and it would all die down. Similar to how Biden persisted with Garland and wasted their four years.

Secondly, and probably more importantly, this sort of information is never normally just released by law enforcement. They would use it to build cases and prosecute - the fact that none of the DOJs have done this is shameful, but I can't think of any times when something like this was released to the public and press to sift through. But you do need this process because there are inevitably going to be innocent names in those files as well as the guilty ones, of various degrees of guilt. Is at least part of the reason that no indictments are forthcoming because it's powerful people involved? Almost certainly yes, and that applies for both blues and reds here.

I don’t disagree with any of that.
Horrible murky world.

[Wash DC Blue]

Re: Epstein.

It doesn't really matter who is in power. The elite is the elite and they're all implicated in some way and ultimately cover each other's backs. Not forgetting the Royal Family of course. Once they start unravelling the string, who knows what will come out of all this.

Indeed, Trump did promise to release those files though.

[lardy]

Re: Epstein.

Indeed, Trump did promise to release those files though.

I find it mad that he did, and that Trump Jr and others pushed for it to be released when he's so obviously part of it. I guess they just relied on short memories and being able to flood the news cycle when they needed to.

Show us all the Epstein client list now!!! Why would anyone protect those scum bags?

Ask yourselves this question daily and the answer becomes very apparent!! https://t.co/FU8KC2Lg44

— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) July 8, 2023

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Epstein.

It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if Trump is listed quite prominently in the files.
But you do have to ask the question as to why The Democrats decided not to release that information when they had the chance?

ac314655613393-598b93f9a98f6.jpg

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Epstein.

I don't know why you bother interacting with him or his multitude of pseudonyms on here.

Your grasp of reality is slowly slipping away :hehe:

[Wales-Bales]

Re: Epstein.

The question is very simple and nothing to do with any 'unravelling phase' of whatever it is you think you see in the USA.

You made a claim. You were asked to justify it. You didn't or couldn't do that. As usual you wriggled away, deflected, and eventually came back with your trademark evasive psycho bollocks. It is what you do!

Why engage in discussions based on false premises with people who are susceptible to narrative engineering when events are unfolding in real-time?

[jon1959]

Re: Epstein.

Why engage in discussions based on false premises with people who are susceptible to narrative engineering when events are unfolding in real-time?

I don't think anyone wanted a discussion with you.

It was a simple question - maybe too simple?

You chose to ignore it - as usual.

No big deal.

Although helpful to know that your statement - that Paul questioned - was nothing but a false premise.