Flagging trump in the Epstein files

[sartre play]

BTW, I now believe the Pizza story after the steele dossier was found fake and planted by demofks. And the material released about obammy. Most likely it happened.

You actually believe that their was sex that included Hillary, in the basement of a pizza joint that had no basement?????

 

[jc456]

Lol, I am not part of any cult. I hate the Dems as much as you do.

he wasn't implying that at all, he was simply explaining their memes are all they have.

 

[Rawley]

I don't think he ever claimed to have them on his desk either. And I know he didn't run on releasing them.

The Cheeto Benito did. Are you gonna let him off the hook?

You don't even bother checking the bullshit your masters feed you anymore, do you?

 

[jc456]

You actually believe that their was sex that included Hillary, in the basement of a pizza joint that had no basement?????

why not? she has absolutely no believability in her life. Slick busted around town, why not her? Again, I don't believe liars and con fker games.

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[jc456]

 

[Synthaholic]

Was Garland Biden’s boss?

No. The President is the boss. So why are you saying that Blondi overruled Trump?

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Paradoxical#1]

She said LIST then backtracked and said she meant files.
The files on Epsteins crime are voluminous.
I doubt she could hold them all on her desk

That's right and makes her right. She misspoke because she thought the files would have some sort of list.

 

[rightwinger]

That's right and makes her right. She misspoke because she thought the files would have some sort of list.

Blondie lied and got caught

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Blondie lied and got caught

She admitted she misspoke as she was under the impression a "list" was in the documents. She is not like the Democrats and will not expose Democrats by breaking the law against releasing grand jury transcripts.

From unbiased AI Grok:


The claim about Pam Bondi and the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts involves a mix of fact, speculation, and misinformation, based on available information. Here's a breakdown:

1. Pam Bondi and Grand Jury Transcripts: President Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi on July 17, 2025, to seek the release of grand jury testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case, citing public interest and calling the Epstein controversy a "scam" perpetuated by Democrats. Bondi responded that she was ready to move the court to unseal the transcripts, subject to judicial approval. The Justice Department filed motions on July 18, 2025, to unseal these transcripts in both Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s cases, acknowledging that a federal judge (e.g., Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan) would need to approve the release due to the legal protections surrounding grand jury secrecy. However, a federal judge in Florida denied a similar request on July 23, 2025, indicating that releasing such transcripts is not straightforward and is highly protected under law. Therefore, Bondi’s actions appear to be within legal bounds, as she is seeking court approval rather than unilaterally releasing protected materials. There’s no evidence she intends to "break the law" to expose anyone, as the process requires judicial oversight.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. The "Client List" Claim: The claim that Bondi thought there was a "list" (presumably an incriminating Epstein client list) but found none aligns with reports. In February 2025, Bondi suggested on Fox News that she had materials related to Epstein on her desk for review, leading some to believe she was referring to a specific "client list." However, a DOJ-FBI memo released in July 2025 stated that a systematic review found no evidence of an incriminating client list or blackmail by Epstein against prominent figures. Bondi later clarified that her earlier comments referred to general Epstein-related materials, not a specific list. This has fueled criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, with some Trump supporters disappointed by the lack of a list and others, like Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), arguing that grand jury transcripts alone won’t reveal broader evidence (e.g., videos, emails, or FBI 302 witness interviews) that might implicate others. The absence of a list has been a point of contention, but there’s no indication Bondi misrepresented this intentionally; rather, it seems she initially raised expectations that couldn’t be met based on the evidence.
   
   
   
   
   
3. Context of Democratic Exposure: The idea that Bondi would "expose Democrats" by releasing transcripts likely stems from Trump’s narrative that Democrats have perpetuated an Epstein "hoax" to distract from other issues. He has claimed Democrats, who controlled the DOJ under prior administrations, would have released incriminating evidence if it existed. However, the push for transparency has bipartisan support, with figures like Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and former VP Mike Pence also calling for more releases. Democrats, like Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have raised concerns about Bondi’s handling of the files, alleging she pressured the FBI to flag records mentioning Trump, suggesting political motivations on both sides. The grand jury transcripts, even if released, are unlikely to fully satisfy those expecting a bombshell exposing specific political figures, as they represent only a fraction of the investigative material and are heavily redacted to protect victims and third parties.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Critical Perspective: The narrative around Epstein’s case is fraught with speculation and conspiracy theories, particularly among Trump’s base, who suspect a cover-up. However, the DOJ’s review, involving extensive FBI resources, found no client list or evidence of broader conspiracies, and Epstein’s 2019 death was ruled a suicide. The legal constraints on grand jury secrecy mean Bondi cannot release transcripts without court approval, and any claim that she’s withholding to avoid "breaking the law" oversimplifies the process. The expectation of a list exposing Democrats (or others) seems driven more by political rhetoric than evidence, as thousands of pages of Epstein-related documents are already public from prior lawsuits and Maxwell’s prosecution.
   
   
   
   
   

Conclusion: Bondi is navigating legal protocols to release grand jury transcripts as directed by Trump, not breaking any laws. Her earlier comments about a "list" appear to have been a miscommunication, as no such list was found. The focus on exposing Democrats seems more tied to political narratives than substantiated evidence in the transcripts, which may not satisfy demands for broader disclosures due to their limited scope and legal protections. Always cross-check such claims against primary sources, as public discourse around Epstein is heavily polarized. If you want me to dig deeper into specific documents or posts on X, let me know!

 

[rightwinger]

She admitted she misspoke as she was under the impression a "list" was in the documents. She is not like the Democrats and will not expose Democrats by breaking the law against releasing grand jury transcripts.

From unbiased AI Grok:


The claim about Pam Bondi and the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury transcripts involves a mix of fact, speculation, and misinformation, based on available information. Here's a breakdown:

1. Pam Bondi and Grand Jury Transcripts: President Trump directed Attorney General Pam Bondi on July 17, 2025, to seek the release of grand jury testimony related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case, citing public interest and calling the Epstein controversy a "scam" perpetuated by Democrats. Bondi responded that she was ready to move the court to unseal the transcripts, subject to judicial approval. The Justice Department filed motions on July 18, 2025, to unseal these transcripts in both Epstein’s and Ghislaine Maxwell’s cases, acknowledging that a federal judge (e.g., Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan) would need to approve the release due to the legal protections surrounding grand jury secrecy. However, a federal judge in Florida denied a similar request on July 23, 2025, indicating that releasing such transcripts is not straightforward and is highly protected under law. Therefore, Bondi’s actions appear to be within legal bounds, as she is seeking court approval rather than unilaterally releasing protected materials. There’s no evidence she intends to "break the law" to expose anyone, as the process requires judicial oversight.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. The "Client List" Claim: The claim that Bondi thought there was a "list" (presumably an incriminating Epstein client list) but found none aligns with reports. In February 2025, Bondi suggested on Fox News that she had materials related to Epstein on her desk for review, leading some to believe she was referring to a specific "client list." However, a DOJ-FBI memo released in July 2025 stated that a systematic review found no evidence of an incriminating client list or blackmail by Epstein against prominent figures. Bondi later clarified that her earlier comments referred to general Epstein-related materials, not a specific list. This has fueled criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, with some Trump supporters disappointed by the lack of a list and others, like Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.), arguing that grand jury transcripts alone won’t reveal broader evidence (e.g., videos, emails, or FBI 302 witness interviews) that might implicate others. The absence of a list has been a point of contention, but there’s no indication Bondi misrepresented this intentionally; rather, it seems she initially raised expectations that couldn’t be met based on the evidence.
   
   
   
   
   
3. Context of Democratic Exposure: The idea that Bondi would "expose Democrats" by releasing transcripts likely stems from Trump’s narrative that Democrats have perpetuated an Epstein "hoax" to distract from other issues. He has claimed Democrats, who controlled the DOJ under prior administrations, would have released incriminating evidence if it existed. However, the push for transparency has bipartisan support, with figures like Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and former VP Mike Pence also calling for more releases. Democrats, like Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have raised concerns about Bondi’s handling of the files, alleging she pressured the FBI to flag records mentioning Trump, suggesting political motivations on both sides. The grand jury transcripts, even if released, are unlikely to fully satisfy those expecting a bombshell exposing specific political figures, as they represent only a fraction of the investigative material and are heavily redacted to protect victims and third parties.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
4. Critical Perspective: The narrative around Epstein’s case is fraught with speculation and conspiracy theories, particularly among Trump’s base, who suspect a cover-up. However, the DOJ’s review, involving extensive FBI resources, found no client list or evidence of broader conspiracies, and Epstein’s 2019 death was ruled a suicide. The legal constraints on grand jury secrecy mean Bondi cannot release transcripts without court approval, and any claim that she’s withholding to avoid "breaking the law" oversimplifies the process. The expectation of a list exposing Democrats (or others) seems driven more by political rhetoric than evidence, as thousands of pages of Epstein-related documents are already public from prior lawsuits and Maxwell’s prosecution.
   
   
   
   

Conclusion: Bondi is navigating legal protocols to release grand jury transcripts as directed by Trump, not breaking any laws. Her earlier comments about a "list" appear to have been a miscommunication, as no such list was found. The focus on exposing Democrats seems more tied to political narratives than substantiated evidence in the transcripts, which may not satisfy demands for broader disclosures due to their limited scope and legal protections. Always cross-check such claims against primary sources, as public discourse around Epstein is heavily polarized. If you want me to dig deeper into specific documents or posts on X, let me know!

Blondie lied to impress MAGA

 

[Paradoxical#1]

Blondie lied to impress MAGA

proof please

 

[rightwinger]

proof please

In a Fox News interview on February 21, 2025, journalist John Roberts asked whether the Department of Justice would publish “the list of Jeffrey Epstein’s clients.” Bondi replied:

“It’s sitting on my desk right now to review; that has been a directive by President Trump. I’m reviewing that.”

 

[Nostra]

Banned him and still got paid for over a decade.

Trump is a shrewd businessman.

Thanks for posting.

 

[Nostra]

No. The President is the boss. So why are you saying that Blondi overruled Trump?

Why are you saying Garland overruled Biden?

 

[Dr. Phosphorous]

OH MY the pizza gate right wing insanity,
That ruined a mans life, because he really believed there where pedophiles in the basement,
Of a pizza place with NO basement.
That's how easy it is to get Some to believe ANYTHING If its about sex.

You MAGA dumb ***** actually believed that crazy shit......that's how ******* stupid and mentally ill you people are.

 

[jc456]

You MAGA dumb ***** actually believed that crazy shit......that's how ******* stupid and mentally ill you people are.

You believed Russia gate, go back in your basement

 

[Synthaholic]

Why are you saying Garland overruled Biden?

I didn't.