Epstein, Kiddies, And Trump. Oh, My

[Shadowy Man]

Justice Department withheld and removed some Epstein files related to Trump

An NPR investigation finds the public database of Epstein files is missing dozens of pages related to sexual abuse accusations against President Trump.

www.wesa.fm

According to this article there is “evidence of specific crimes” (note I am not saying “proof”). According to Derec’s standard can we now condemn Trump?

That would depend on what's in those files. I think Congress critters can see all the unredacted files in the SCIF. Maybe one of them can take a look see.
If it's like the over-the-top calls to the FBI tip line we have already seen, then they do not hold much credence. But it may be different. In any case, it needs to be investigated by professionals, not Reddit.

Again, what WESA wrote there is not very specific. No places, times, what allegedly happened of to whom, or the nature of the alleged evidence. It's not enough to conclude that it amounts to evidence of specific crimes.

Apparently the FBI documents of the interview with the victim have “mysteriously” disappeared from the files, noted by a gap in document number right where they were to be indexed.

 

[Jarhyn]

Like fucking seriously. My words are right there for anyone to read. I'm pretty sure I haven't forgotten to mention that those who I deem as guilty for not taking direct action are exactly the other participants who were such parties, and who can be identified in the evidence.

Their being there without having taken action makes them co-conspirators.

This is not even a legal gray area; the law is very clear on this point that not preventing a crime you are aware of and doing nothing about it after the fact is conspiracy to commit a crime, withholding of evidence, and so on.

I am saying no more or less that those who do not stop Trump after having so aided and abetted him in his criminal actions are guilty of criminal conspiracy, which bears the same penalties as the original crime and for good reason.

We know because of this evidence that there are more such people and I heartily feel that each one of them had a responsibility to act, and still do, given the magnitude of ongoing criminal conspiracy.

But I will reiterate, there are many folks we will never hear about who such specific people have just as much responsibility to take action against, and these are the people behind Epstein, the shareholders of that disgusting filth.

Yes, Epstein was Child Rape Inc, but any company has investors. In fact, it's hard to have any sort of international business involving wealthy folks (especially a prince of England) without having some of the wealthiest and oldest of "old money" catching a smell of what you're stepping in, which means they are in it, too. And while uncertainty is a cover for most, when there is so much ambiguity, I think that uncertainty becomes more a crime in its careful maintenance despite its removability.

If you think it doesn't have a still-living clone/competitor business, if you think "Grape-Co" isn't making out from the fall of "Child Rape Inc." and if you want to pretend that the Rothschilds, for instance, don't know or that they did anything but "nothing, or worse", I think I know a Nigerian Prince who could really use your help.

There are scores and scores of people with differing levels of responsibility to do something effective immediately, or if not immediately, to move the moment anyone else does to stop the crime in progress.

I mean fuck me, you can fucking search the forums for "Dindu" and look at who posted that disgrace of a thread, and know it aged like fucking milk.

We have someone seriously claiming that the lack of charges despite piles and piles of evidence, means they didn't do anything! Imagine that!

Fucking hypocrisy held high right there!

It's a whole administration being backed by a differently-skinned "didn't do anything" defense.

 

[TV and credit cards]

We are defined by the company we keep. When we are public figures likely to land on the front pages we know to be constantly vigilant about this aspect of our life. These are not stupid people. They consider who they are seen and associate with. That or they are expecting a high degree of secrecy in those associations. They've weighed the risk versus reward and made their decision.

Bill Gates 'took responsibility for his actions' over Epstein links, foundation says

"I apologize to other people who are drawn into this because of the mistake that I made," he said, according to the newspaper.
The Journal added that Gates also acknowledged that he had two affairs with Russian women that Epstein later discovered, but that they did not involve Epstein's victims.
"I did nothing illicit. I saw nothing illicit," Gates told the staff, according to the report.
Documents released by the DOJ also included pictures of the Microsoft (MSFT.O), opens new tab founder posing with women whose faces are redacted. Gates has previously said the relationship with Epstein was confined to philanthropy-related discussions and has said it was a mistake to meet with him.

Yeah Bill. You're just a simple fuck that got duped.

 

[Tigers!]

 

[ZiprHead]

Lawmaker names three men from the Epstein files on the House floor, demands investigation

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie on Tuesday named three men from the Epstein files that he said the Department of Justice should investigate.

wgme.com

Leon Black, Jes Staley and Leslie Wexner.

 

[Jarhyn]

Lawmaker names three men from the Epstein files on the House floor, demands investigation

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie on Tuesday named three men from the Epstein files that he said the Department of Justice should investigate.

wgme.com

Leon Black, Jes Staley and Leslie Wexner.

Like, why is it more about "Thomas Massie naming names" and not about "Republicans Leon Black, Jes Staley, and Leslie Wexner outed on senate floor for involvement with Epstein".

Oy @pood can you shed some light on this clear bias?

 

[Shadowy Man]

Lawmaker names three men from the Epstein files on the House floor, demands investigation

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie on Tuesday named three men from the Epstein files that he said the Department of Justice should investigate.

wgme.com

Leon Black, Jes Staley and Leslie Wexner.

Like, why is it more about "Thomas Massie naming names" and not about "Republicans Leon Black, Jes Staley, and Leslie Wexner outed on senate floor for involvement with Epstein".

Oy @pood can you shed some light on this clear bias?

These journalists were taught not to write in the passive voice?

 

[Jarhyn]

Lawmaker names three men from the Epstein files on the House floor, demands investigation

Kentucky GOP Rep. Thomas Massie on Tuesday named three men from the Epstein files that he said the Department of Justice should investigate.

wgme.com

Leon Black, Jes Staley and Leslie Wexner.

Like, why is it more about "Thomas Massie naming names" and not about "Republicans Leon Black, Jes Staley, and Leslie Wexner outed on senate floor for involvement with Epstein".

Oy @pood can you shed some light on this clear bias?

These journalists were taught not to write in the passive voice?

They can get fucked, then. Republicans need to be depicted as passive losers.

Granted, they have no problems doing that with Democrats.

The passive voice here makes a specific statement: it does not matter who outed them, it matters that they, Republicans, have been revealed as having ties with Epstein.

 

[Playball40]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'? No "evidence" is EVER enough for the likes of you, Derek et al as you all hate women.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'? No "evidence" is EVER enough for the likes of you, Derek et al as you all hate women.

I mean if you want to see what Derec claims as evidence, just stroll over to his "Dindu" thread. You'll have to use the search function, but there you can see him clearly attacking folks on "evidence".

Then, he's the one claiming "Trump Dindu Nuffin!!111" here.

I'm sure TSwizz is all over that thread too doing a song and dance? I don't have the time or care to scour it for ignored posts.

 

[TSwizzle]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'?

I would say on its own, it is insufficient.

No "evidence" is EVER enough for the likes of you, Derek et al as you all hate women.

lol, settle down petal.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'?

I would say on its own, it is insufficient.

Indeed, as far as the evidence made available right now, there isn't evidence Trump violated minors or facilitated human sex trafficking. Don't don't even know if Trump was involved in any direct or indirect way. There are very disturbing accusations, however, there was no FBI backup to determine the validity of said accusations.

Of course, Trump's DoJ illegal redacted documents and hasn't finished releasing them, so who knows. What we do know is that this was covered up by State and Federal officials of both parties.

 

[TSwizzle]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'?

I would say on its own, it is insufficient.

Indeed, as far as the evidence made available right now, there isn't evidence Trump violated minors or facilitated human sex trafficking. Don't don't even know if Trump was involved in any direct or indirect way. There are very disturbing accusations, however, there was no FBI backup to determine the validity of said accusations.

Of course, Trump's DoJ illegal redacted documents and hasn't finished releasing them, so who knows. What we do know is that this was covered up by State and Federal officials of both parties.

Ah, so there isn't "more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors" as claimed earlier.

 

[Elixir]

Indeed, as far as the evidence made available right now, there isn't publicly available evidence Trump violated minors or facilitated human sex trafficking.

FIFY. You could get two hundred victims testifying in unison with videos of everything they allege, and Swiz would rightly point out that that isn’t PROOF of anything.
The stupidity of people who deny the obvious like that, is forgivable if one allows that they have long since accepted the sexual abuse of children as the price of avoiding insufferable pricks.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'?

I would say on its own, it is insufficient.

Indeed, as far as the evidence made available right now, there isn't evidence Trump violated minors or facilitated human sex trafficking. Don't don't even know if Trump was involved in any direct or indirect way. There are very disturbing accusations, however, there was no FBI backup to determine the validity of said accusations.

Of course, Trump's DoJ illegal redacted documents and hasn't finished releasing them, so who knows. What we do know is that this was covered up by State and Federal officials of both parties.

Ah, so there isn't "more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors" as claimed earlier.

Yes, that is what I agreed to. I didn't say what SoHy said, that was SoHy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed, as far as the evidence made available right now, there isn't publicly available evidence Trump violated minors or facilitated human sex trafficking.

FIFY. You could get two hundred victims testifying in unison with videos of everything they allege, and Swiz would rightly point out that that isn’t PROOF of anything.
The stupidity of people who deny the obvious like that, is forgivable if one allows that they have long since accepted the sexual abuse of children as the price of avoiding insufferable pricks.

I won't say there isn't evidence. But we haven't seen it if it exists. This isn't like the secret documents case where Trump was caught red handed in possession of them. Of course, a highly partisan judge saved his ass on those crimes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'?

I would say on its own, it is insufficient.

Indeed, as far as the evidence made available right now, there isn't evidence Trump violated minors or facilitated human sex trafficking. Don't don't even know if Trump was involved in any direct or indirect way. There are very disturbing accusations, however, there was no FBI backup to determine the validity of said accusations.

Of course, Trump's DoJ illegal redacted documents and hasn't finished releasing them, so who knows. What we do know is that this was covered up by State and Federal officials of both parties.

Ah, so there isn't "more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors" as claimed earlier.

Yes, that is what I agreed to. I didn't say what SoHy said, that was SoHy.

Man, even agreeing with TSwizzle gets the eye roll. I don't think he even knows what he is saying anymore.

 

[Elixir]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, thank god we have people like Swiz cautioning us that we don’t know it’s a duck.

 

[southernhybrid]

I think there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors.

I haven’t followed this very much so could you cite this evidence? Or do you merely think there must be evidence ?

Do you consider sworn testimony 'evidence' or are those women just lyin'?

I would say on its own, it is insufficient.

Indeed, as far as the evidence made available right now, there isn't evidence Trump violated minors or facilitated human sex trafficking. Don't don't even know if Trump was involved in any direct or indirect way. There are very disturbing accusations, however, there was no FBI backup to determine the validity of said accusations.

Of course, Trump's DoJ illegal redacted documents and hasn't finished releasing them, so who knows. What we do know is that this was covered up by State and Federal officials of both parties.

Ah, so there isn't "more than enough evidence that Trump should be arrested and tried for sexually abusing young women, including possibly minors" as claimed earlier.

Yes, that is what I agreed to. I didn't say what SoHy said, that was SoHy.

I'll say it again, there is more than enough evidence that Trump should be tried or at least investigated. Is the felon guilty of these crimes? That will be up to a jury to decide. He was mentioned in the Epstein files about a 38,00 times. The million claim was false but the 38,000 claim seems to be true based on all that I've read. He lied about the card that he sent Epstein that included an outline of a woman's figure, and I think something about our little secret. His signature was as obvious as his ugly face, but he falsely claimed it wasn't his.

He lies every time his lips are moving. He's mentally deranged. Why were the files that mentioned Trump not released? Everyone, even Trump is entitled to a fair trial. Sometimes guilty people are found innocent and sometimes innocent people are found guilty. Either way is sad, but at least investigate and arrest the mother fucker and let a jury decide.

?What he did was in no way related to his duties as president, so the SCOTUS ruling should not apply when it comes to the Epstein files. How stupid can anyone be not to see the overwhelming evidence that Trump was involved a lot with Epstein? Over 20 women have already accused him of sexual assault He's made very inappropriate remarks about his daughter in the past. I don't know if he sexually abused minors or not, but due to his involvement with Epstein and how many times he was mentioned in the files, he needs to be investigated.

As a woman who once was able to share a rapist into leaving me alone after he followed me to my car and pushed me inside, I am outraged that so many people aren't taking this more seriously. Women almost never accuse someone of rape who didn't rape them. In fact, a large percentage of women never report a rape out of fear or shame.

 

[southernhybrid]

Okay, this cam out recently.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/25/...e_code=1.O1A._zqi.ZRK8nA7ljxeE&smid=url-share

Epstein Files Are Missing Records About Woman Who Made Claim Against Trump​

Documents released by the Justice Department briefly mention a woman’s unverified accusation that Donald J. Trump assaulted her in the 1980s, when she was a minor. But several memos related to her account are not in the files.

The vast trove of documents released by the Justice Department from its investigations into the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein failed to include some key materials related to a woman who made an accusation against President Trump, according to a review by The New York Times.

The materials are F.B.I. memos summarizing interviews the bureau did in connection to claims made in 2019 by a woman who came forward after Mr. Epstein’s arrest to say she had been sexually assaulted by both Mr. Trump and the financier decades earlier, when she was a minor.

The existence of the memos was revealed in an index listing the investigative materials related to her account, which was publicly released. According to that index, the F.B.I. conducted four interviews in connection with her claims and wrote summaries about each one. But only one summary of the four interviews, which describes her accusations against Mr. Epstein, was released by the Justice Department. The other three are missing.

The public files also do not include the underlying interview notes, which the index also indicates are part of the file. The Justice Department released similar interview notes in connection to F.B.I. interviews with other potential witnesses and victims.

I haven't even read the entire article yet, but I'm "gifting" it so it's not behind a paywall, if other would like to read it.