What evidence?Thank you for illustrating my point. Why would Trump be tampering with evidence if that evidence didn't implicate him?
Sure he did.
Trump disavows supporters pushing Jeffrey Epstein 'bulls---': 'I don't want their support anymore!'
In a lengthy Truth Social post, Trump called supporters "weaklings" for pushing the Justice Department to release more files related to Epstein.www.nbcnews.com
Only for private citizens. Trump may have been a private citizen back when he was molesting and trafficking children with Epstein but he's not now.
The public has a right to know these thimgs about our president...and Trump could make it happen right now.
Release the file complete with his name unredacted wherever it appears, otherwise he is part of the deep-state coverup of Epstein's pedo sex trafficking ring.
An innocent man would be showing the evidence to clear his name.
What is he waiting for?
BREAKING: Texts and Emails Indicate Hillary Clinton Campaign Directly Coordinated with Obama White House to Launch Trump-Russia Hoax
- Thread starter BackAgain
- Start date
MagicMike
Platinum Member
Evidence in the Epstein file of the same crimes that sent Maxwell to prison and also Epstein before Trump had him killed.
What is it? Why didn’t xiden prosecute Trump with it then?
Prove He's tampering with evidence.
BTW- only thing you have proven is your lack of awareness regarding the news.
The FBI employees reviewed the records using the Freedom of Information Act as their guide for deciding what information should be withheld. That alone isn’t uncommon. In the FOIA, Congress established nine exemptions as a way to balance the public’s right to know against the government’s need to protect sensitive interests, such as national security, official deliberations, ongoing law enforcement proceedings or privacy. When such competing interests arise in non-FOIA matters, those exemptions are often applied even if the exact language set forth in the FOIA statute doesn’t appear in the final record.
________________
While reviewing the Epstein files, FBI personnel identified numerous references to Trump in the documents, the people familiar with the matter told me. Dozens of other high-profile public figures also appeared, the people said. (The appearance of Trump’s name or others in the Epstein files is not evidence of a crime or even a suggestion of wrongdoing.)
In preparation for potential public release, the documents then went to a unit of FOIA officers who applied redactions in accordance with the nine exemptions. The people familiar with the matter said that Trump’s name, along with other high-profile individuals, was blacked out because he was a private citizen when the federal investigation of Epstein was launched in 2006.
In particular, the reviewers applied two FOIA exemptions to justify their redactions. The first, Exemption 6, protects individuals against “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” The Supreme Court has said the exemption protects "individuals from the injury and embarrassment" that would result from the disclosure of personal information in possession of the government.
The second, Exemption 7(C), protects personal information contained in law enforcement records, the disclosure of which “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”
_________________
If you’re surprised by the revelation that the FBI used privacy exemptions to withhold the name of a sitting president, you’re not alone. However, it’s common practice for government agencies to redact names on privacy grounds, even when they’re clearly public figures like Trump. I lost count of how many times the government invoked a privacy exemption in response to my FOIA requests to deny releasing records on public figures and government officials.
_________________
But the reality is, there’s established precedent to protect the identities of private citizens named in law enforcement files no matter how famous they are. It’s a really high bar to overcome. The privacy exemptions were designed to prevent the government from releasing personal information on individuals just because it wants to. Of course, the government does break the law sometimes.
_________________
I previously published information from Brad Edwards, former Epstein prosecutor, acknowledging Trump voluntarily provided an open ended question and answer period during his investigation of Epstein's earlier crimes. So there's one reason why Trump was redacted.
_________________
Also, FOIA case law has established that the names of private individuals contained in law enforcement files will not be released unless they have to be in order to confirm government misconduct.
_________________
That brings us up to today. After the FBI redacted the Epstein files, they were sent to Bondi. (Media reports said Bondi briefed Trump at the White House in May and told him he was named in the files.)
Then, on July 8, the Justice Department and FBI released an unsigned joint statement that said the FBI collected more than 300 gigabytes of data and physical evidence related to the Epstein investigation. However, the promises of “transparency” made earlier by Bondi and Patel didn’t materialize.
“While we have labored to provide the public with maximum information regarding Epstein,” the statement read, “it is the determination of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” The officials added that “much of the information is subject to court-ordered sealing.”
FOIA law congress passed.
LOL
MagicMike
Platinum Member
Because the majority of the records were sealed under court order and Trump's SCOTUS extended the appeal deadline twice to keep them sealed until after last year's election.
Anymore dumb questions?
Only ones relevant to this topic is the GJ transcripts which are sealed by law.
MagicMike
Platinum Member
Glad to see that fancy law degree from Trump University wasn't wasted on you Delldud.
dead people speak to you about appealsGlad to see that fancy law degree from Trump University wasn't wasted on you Delldud.
Looks more like your kinda University.
Sorry I made you look like an asshole again.......
One thing is you're consistent.
Are u Haley John Osment?Glad to see that fancy law degree from Trump University wasn't wasted on you Delldud.
Ir's a story with no interest Dook, until Hillary is arrested, and thrown in jail. As usual for you, the shit oozes from both your ears and your nose at the same time.It could be both.
MagicMike
Platinum Member
You certainly are not the brightest bulb on the string are you.
Yes, Epstein is dead. At least you got that right.
Individuals and entities that appealed or otherwise sought to keep Jeffrey Epstein-related records sealed include:
Ghislaine Maxwell: Maxwell, a former associate of Epstein convicted of sex trafficking, consistently fought against the release of documents from
a civil defamation lawsuit filed against her by Virginia Giuffre. Her attorneys argued that the release of certain documents would jeopardize her ability to receive a fair trial in the criminal case against her, among other privacy concerns. She also argued against the release of some records citing confidentiality agreements and the potential to inappropriately influence potential witnesses or victims.
- "Doe 183": This anonymous individual or entity actively attempted to prevent the unsealing of certain documents related to Epstein, particularly those concerning Epstein's relationship with former benefactor Les Wexner. The judge in the case indicated that Doe 183's relationship with Epstein had been the subject of "intense media coverage". Doe 183 and Wexner reportedly shared the same lawyer.
- The Department of Justice (DOJ): In February 2025, the DOJ stated its intention to release "thousands of pages" of never-before-disclosed documents related to Epstein, after reviewing and redacting them to protect the identities of Epstein's victims. However, in July 2025, the department reversed course, citing various reasons for non-disclosure, including that the release of the documents could jeopardize the ability to keep Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. The DOJ's core argument against disclosure for the past six years has been that it would jeopardize their ability to put – and keep – Ghislaine Maxwell in prison. They stated that "much of the material" related to the Epstein case was subject to court-ordered seals, prohibiting the DOJ from releasing it and that they would not permit the release of child pornography or sensitive details pertaining to the victims.
- A Federal Judge in Florida: In July 2025, a Florida federal judge rejected a request to unseal grand jury transcripts from Epstein's case in the 2000s, citing limited exceptions under which such transcripts can be disclosed.
- The FBI: The FBI has also resisted the release of additional documents, citing, among other reasons, the desire to protect the privacy of individuals and reputations, and to protect ongoing investigations. The agency has fought requests for document release invoking an exception to public records disclosure that allows for documents to be withheld if their release would interfere with law enforcement proceedings.
Why unsealing Epstein grand jury records could be a long process
Facing uproar among his MAGA base over the Jeffrey Epstein files, President Donald Trump is trying to deflect blame to others.
abcnews.go.com
So how did he appeal his case?
And maxwells case is still under appeal
And what does that have to do with xiden not prosecuting trump?
The Duke
Diamond Member
- Jul 30, 2022
- 43,107
- 56,017
- 3,488
STFU Chicom shill, don't quote me like that, I'll bitchslap your commie retard ass into last week.
MagicMike
Platinum Member
Try to keep up. Biden couldn't release the records while under seal, but Trump promised to do just that if elected.
Surely you must know you Q'anon conspiracies.
MagicMike
Platinum Member
Shut up Dukie you little peter-puffing snowflake!
You don't even understand what a commie is...and you can't "bitchslap" someone through a keyboard.
Why make stupid, empty threats like that?
Do you see dead people?
Why you write your own obituary?
No mention of your favorite president in your deflection.
That's another lie. There was never a pledge to unseal GJ transcripts.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
The Correction was not only confirmed this past week but more downside is now likely to occur- Started by Luckyone
- Replies: 0
-
-
Lessons from cops - How they act when interrogating criminals- Started by Robert W
- Replies: 0
-
