Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 hours ago, 'stache said:

but nothing to establish that they had sex with minors.

Possibly important to add "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There's probably oodles of stuff in there that heavily implicates Trump and others, maybe, probably even making it more likely than not that they abused minors with Epstein.

But that's not the burden of proof in a criminal case and if as a prosecutor you don't in pretty good faith believe the evidence can establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, its pretty close to unethical to indict on it.

And once the authorities decide not to indict, all that evidence in the normal case gets deep sixed and it stays there in perpetuity.

  • Like 2
Posted
21 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This stuff is extremely stage managed and this Admin, more than perhaps any other, is EXTREMELY cautious about the use of symbols and signaling around the President. 
 

DOJ and the FBI have press rooms and places for photo-ops.  Nothing is ever done at the White House without the explicit aim to show direct presidential support and direction. 

Is it possible that Bondi and these other "QMAGAts" got over their skis with this and didn't really have Trump's permiso?

Of course, it would be pure MAGAt of them not to realize that this shit is bad for the boss pretty much any way you slice it.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There's probably oodles of stuff in there that heavily implicates Trump and others, maybe, probably even making it more likely than not that they abused minors with Epstein.

But that's not the burden of proof in a criminal case

Which, according to DOJ standards, wouldn’t matter anyway if the target of investigation was the president. 

Posted
54 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Is it possible that Bondi and these other "QMAGAts" got over their skis with this and didn't really have Trump's permiso?

Of course, it would be pure MAGAt of them not to realize that this shit is bad for the boss pretty much any way you slice it.

No. Categorically no. No one uses the West Wing without going through Susie. 

Posted
5 hours ago, HOOKEM4 said:

This shit is so fascinating/insane. The focus for a large swath of 'merica for years has been this issue along with a substantial portion ofnthe campaign/messaging (dems are pedos).

What's really fascinating to me, is that for all of Trump's ability and expertise at finding and engaging audiences both on his TV show and in real life, and giving them what he wants (witness a lot of his rallies), he really fucked up here, not understanding two unique groups of people:

The conspiracy types.  He and the folks around him do not understand these people at all, because the conspiracy types are just marks to Trump and Co., people to be grifted off of. If they were ants, Trump would be the kid with the magnifying glass.  He's clearly confused why they aren't A) obeying his command to drop the topic and B) obsessed with it. These people exist around and outside of MAGA and are probably pretty close to single-issue voters. And whether they believe he is 100% in on the conspiracy to cover shit up, or that he's compromised in some way and has to go along with a cover-up, it doesn't matter to them because the outcome is the same - pedophiles/etc. are being covered up. In fact, him promising to release the files during the campaign, and now trying to cover up things after the binders given to right-wing influencers, and with Bondi's "Epstein client list sitting on my desk" bullshit is just more evidence in their minds that the conspiracy exists and goes all the way to the top of the government. 

Calling these people "weaklings" and claiming it was a Democrat hoax made things so much worse, because now they are pissed off - a lot of conspiracy nuts love conspiracies because in their minds, they know The Truth and it's like living in a Hollywood movie for them, like they are in on Major Shit, and the President of the United States is ridiculing them and claiming they are part of a hoax.

The other group he doesn't understand is the vloggers/bloggers on the fringe (that have a large following), that are right now considered "right-wing" but again, like the conspiracy nuts, they exist around and outside of MAGA - at the end of the day, they aren't chasing MAGA because MAGA is comfortably watching Fox News. Not that they wouldn't like some viral moments and some shout-outs in the MAGA blogosphere or whatever, but they aren't competing with Fox News, they are competing with each other and with the truly fringe outlets (News Max, etc.). Now among this group, there are True Believers that fall into the first category, and they will act just like the first group above. But there are also pragmatic types that are just making a quick buck off of this group. They could give a shit about Epstein, but Epstein brings in the eyeballs and the advertising bucks. Trump is not doing them any favors whatsoever, so they aren't necessarily going to fall in line (Charlie Kirk being an exception). The pragmatics are chasing the buck and Epstein is going to bring in more than talking about Trump or Trump's other policies/changes. Trump calling these people crazy, weaklings, hoaxers, Democrats, etc. is only going to add fuel to the fire.

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

GwLMMAIXsAAd-4m?format=jpg&name=small

Trump sues Wall Street Journal over Epstein report, seeks $10 billion

Reuters Link

Spoiler

WASHINGTON/NEW YORK - U.S. President Donald Trump sued the Wall Street Journal and its owners including Rupert Murdoch for at least $10 billion on Friday, over the newspaper's report that his name was on a 2003 birthday greeting for Jeffrey Epstein that included a sexually suggestive drawing and a reference to secrets they shared.

The lawsuit filed in Miami federal court names Murdoch, Dow Jones, News Corp (NWSA.O) and its Chief Executive Robert Thomson, and two Wall Street Journal reporters as defendants, saying they defamed Trump and caused him to suffer "overwhelming" financial and reputational harm.

...

The president has vehemently denied the Journal report, which Reuters has not verified, and had warned Murdoch that he planned to sue. Dow Jones, the parent of the newspaper, is a division of News Corp.

"We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS 'article' in the useless 'rag' that is, The Wall Street Journal," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

...

“Tellingly, the Article does not explain whether Defendants have obtained a copy of the letter, have seen it, have had it described to them, or any other circumstances that would otherwise lend credibility to the Article,” the lawsuit said.

...

The U.S. government on Friday filed a motion in Manhattan federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts in the cases of Epstein and former associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

...

"Public officials, lawmakers, pundits, and ordinary citizens remain deeply interested and concerned about the Epstein matter," Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in the filing. "After all, Jeffrey Epstein is the most infamous pedophile in American history."

...

The Journal said the letter bearing Trump's name was part of a leather-bound birthday book for Epstein that included messages from other high-profile people.

...

The newspaper said the letter concluded "Happy Birthday - and may every day be another wonderful secret," and featured the signature "Donald."

...

He was quoted in 2002 in New York magazine as saying, "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side."

...

Trump said he "knew him like everybody in Palm Beach knew him" but that "I had a falling out with him. I haven't spoken to him in 15 years. I was not a fan of his, that I can tell you."

This is a really long article so I tried to clip the highlights. 

A few points or my editorial on this piece of news.

First, the Wall Street Journal is a lot of things. It leans conservative typically, but to my knowledge is very well respected. One thing I've never heard is that it's "a rag". If others here differ on my view, I'd really like to know why. Perhaps there is something I am unaware of or changed.

Second, no one external has yet verified this document. While I don't doubt that's true, it's a very dangerous piece if they don't have proof. Given my first point, I struggle to believe that's the case.

Third, if true it's more evidence suggestive of dishonesty from Trump, and I think will continue to increase the public and media push for information.

If someone has the WSJ article I'd love to read it. I don't have a sub there anymore.

Finally, I've posted Coffee/voidzilla links here before. This 10 minute video from yesterday is a nice add on to this information. 

 

 

Edited by BurntEyes

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...