Did the Biden admin tamper with the Epstein files after Trump won the election ?

once upon a time, the Attorney General was the lawyer for the nation, not the Presiden’t personal attorney.

John Mitchell was a notable exception, providing cover for Nixon.

Then came Bill Barr, who ran cover for George W Bush and shamefully, for Trump.

Trump bought Bondi for a campaign contribution over the Trump U case, and she has provided cover for him ever since.
 
See:

 
When was the last time the Wall Street journal posted a fake letter purported to be from a president? WSJ is owned by Fox News owner Murdock.

It sure seems like something Trump should have released. What else is he hiding?
well the WSJ had better have said letter in there possession and they better have a strong chain of custody for said letter hand handwriting experts on hand .. cause Trumps just slapped a lawsuit on em !
 
See:

anyone that thinks releasing the Grand Jury evidence and witness testimony is nothing and an attempt to cover up is insane !
 
Press sec Leavit: Why didn’t Biden release this information he had for 4 years that we just said last week didn’t exist?
 
would it be a surprise that the reason the Epstein file isn't being released is because there is evidence that the last admin that had said files for 4 yrs tampered with evidence in an effort to implicate Trump during the nearly 3 months they had left in power after they were shocked by the loss they suffered to Trump ! is the reason the files haven't been released yet is because the DOJ has reason to believe that's exactly what happened .. Another Russia collusion like hoax conjured up again by the left ! would it be a surprise that the left once again tampered with something and altered documents to incriminate their political enemies ? after all they did it in 2016 ! they had 3 months to do exactly that after Trump won an election they were sure he couldn't win ! is Bondi investigating the chain of custody of the docs and evidence and uncovering info that that's what may have happened ! it would come as no surprise if that's what's going on .. if that's the case then the DOJ may be tight lipped until they get the info , evidence , and perpetrators involved ! and then the prosecutions for said perps will be forthcoming ..

remember the Buiden admin had ALL the files and info for 4 yrs and didn't say peep about what's in them .. Dems in the Senate even blocked a request to release info the DOJ had on Epstein in late 2023 .. the request was made by Senator Blackburn to release info on Epstein and Dems in the Senate blocked her request for a Subpoena ! so we are now to believe that after stonewalling and not releasing anything about the Democrat donors case in the 4 yrs they were in power Dems are now eagerly wanting the info released for a noble reason ? ..something stinks .. AGAIN !

Getting desperate.....aren't you, Kleetus?

Democrats have no dog in this fight, MAGA shit-for-brains. Trump and Bondi have no one to blame but themselves for this scandal.
 
Getting desperate.....aren't you, Kleetus?

Democrats have no dog in this fight, MAGA shit-for-brains. Trump and Bondi have no one to blame but themselves for this scandal.
and once again my thread is proven right ! the leftist journalist that put out the fake letter from Trump "Joseph Palazzolo" to Epstein once worked at Main Justice funded by Fusion GPS the opposition research firm that was behind the fake Russian dossier ..

 
15th post
/---/ The contact list is 1,800. Too many innocent people who merely attended an Epstein gala or donated to his charity would be harmed.

You would deny due process, evidence, and identifying victims for what purpose? To destroy lives, careers, and marriages?
If the list really is that long, anyone on it should be able to produce an alibi. That's not denying due process. Denying due process would be charging people just because they are on the list. When people discuss revealing the list, it's usually implied that this should also involve gathering related evidence to then pursue charges against people on the list that appear to have engage in illegal activity. It's not normally interpreted as charging everyone that appears on the list.

Now, you could say that reputations could be harmed among innocent people by revealing the full list, but given how the government is acting about the list currently, it doesn't seem like a lot of these people are innocent...
 
Back
Top Bottom