Now that we know Trump was mentioned in the Epstein files, it’s time to put up or STFU.

[X.Onasis]

Post the sworn statements.

You are long on claims, but have yet to produce any evidence from the Epstein/Clinton files.


.

The sworn statements exist, whether or not you believe them. That makes them evidence.
The very fact that you feel the need to ask me to post them indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do your own search.

 

[Hollie]

The sworn statements exist, whether or not you believe them. That makes them evidence.
The very fact that you feel the need to ask me to post them indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do your own search.

Another pointless, conspiracy theory laden democrat meltdown thread.

Trump was “ mentioned “. Yet the conspiracy theory loons can’t a’splain what the means.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Another pointless, conspiracy theory laden democrat meltdown thread.

Trump was “ mentioned “. Yet the conspiracy theory loons can’t a’splain what the means.

Whoopie Goldberg is mentioned.... she's scrambling

 

[Nostra]

Did OJ's prosecutors have any evidence against him, or are you completely unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "evidence"?

You see, when the government deemed her a “credible accuser,” that makes it credible evidence, regardless of whether or not she remains anonymous.
Kinda like even though trump's name got redacted, it doesn't exonerate him.

Like I said, "evidence", the thing you've been whining about this entire thread, does not mean "proof positive."

Anonymous accusations is all you have. Just because you say some govt guy deemed her credible means nothing. There were a shit-ton of Trump haters in the FBI, Simp. Page and Strzok ring a bell?

What evidence did they supposedly present?

 

[Nostra]

Did OJ's prosecutors have any evidence against him, or are you completely unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "evidence"?

You see, when the government deemed her a “credible accuser,” that makes it credible evidence, regardless of whether or not she remains anonymous.
Kinda like even though trump's name got redacted, it doesn't exonerate him.

Like I said, "evidence", the thing you've been whining about this entire thread, does not mean "proof positive."

OJ, huh?

Your desperation is cute, kid.

 

[Nostra]

The sworn statements exist, whether or not you believe them. That makes them evidence.
The very fact that you feel the need to ask me to post them indicates that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Do your own search.

Inside the Epstein/Clinton files is also an accusation that GHW Bush and Elon Musk were on a yacht with Epstein and they were eating human babies.


Clearly this makes Elon a cannibal.


.

 

[X.Onasis]

Unsurprisingly, your dodges, like your childish insults, are getting weaker.

 

[Nostra]

Unsurprisingly, your dodges, like your childish insults, are getting weaker.

Found any evidence yet, Crayon Muncher?

 

[X.Onasis]

Found any evidence yet, Crayon Muncher?

Still haven't figured out what the word means, eh? Color me unsurprised.

Here, I'll bet you find this cute:

 

[hadit]

you mean the unconstitutional surveillance? you do know that's a problem for pammy et al, right?

Wow, that's a problem for anyone trying to make that point. First, of course activity on government computers is monitored and recorded. They're government computers, after all. Second, did the congresscritters just click Okay without even reading the splash page that their activity would be monitored and recorded? Whenever I go onto client computers, that's what the splash page says.

btw, only partly released & heavily redacted. both of which are in violation of the law as well. it's all a stall to get to the supremes, but congress' actions will prevail.

Nope, it's complete and unredacted. Congress has nothing more to complain about. They'll just have to use DOJ computers to access it and have their search histories recorded. Naturally, that will show them desperately searching for their own names and Orange Man because they don't care about anyone else.

 

[Nostra]

Still haven't figured out what the word means, eh? Color me unsurprised.

Here, I'll bet you find this cute:

So you still have no evidence.

 

[X.Onasis]

 

[X.Onasis]

 

[playtime]

Link us up to redactions being a violation of the law, Short Bus.

lol ...

H.R.4405 - Epstein Files Transparency Act119th Congress (2025-2026) | ​

Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17] (Introduced 07/15/2025)

House - Judiciary

11/19/2025 Became Public Law No: 119-38. (All Actions)

PUBLIC LAW 119–38—NOV. 19, 2025 EPSTEIN FILES TRANSPARENCY ACT139 STAT. 656Public Law119–38119th CongressAn ActTo require the Attorney General to release all documents and records in possession of the Department of Justice relating to Jeffrey Epstein, and for other purposes.
Nov. 19, 2025

[H.R. 4405]

  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Epstein Files Transparency Act.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.  This Act may be cited as the “Epstein Files Transparency Act”.
SEC. 2. RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN.(a)
Deadline.

Public information.

In General.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall, subject to subsection (b), make publicly available in a searchable and downloadable format all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in the possession of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and United States Attorneys’ Offices, that relate to
1) Jeffrey Epstein including all investigations, prosecutions, or custodial matters.
(2)Ghislaine Maxwell.

(3) Flight logs or travel records, including but not limited to manifests, itineraries, pilot records, and customs or immigration documentation, for any aircraft, vessel, or vehicle owned, operated, or used by Jeffrey Epstein or any related entity.
(4) Individuals, including government officials, named or referenced in connection with Epstein’s criminal activities, civil settlements, immunity or plea agreements, or investigatory proceedings.(
5) Entities (corporate, nonprofit, academic, or governmental) with known or alleged ties to Epstein’s trafficking or financial networks.
(6) Any immunity deals, non-prosecution agreements, plea bargains, or sealed settlements involving Epstein or his associates.
(7) Internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, meeting notes, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate Epstein or his associates.(
8) All communications, memoranda, directives, logs, or metadata concerning the destruction, deletion, alteration, misplacement, or concealment of documents, recordings, or electronic data related to Epstein, his associates, his detention and death, or any investigative files.

(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written justification published in the Federal Register and submitted to Congress.

(3) To the extent that any covered information would otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that classified information to the maximum extent possible.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/4405/text

 

[playtime]

Wow, that's a problem for anyone trying to make that point.

uh-huh.

First, of course activity on government computers is monitored and recorded.

for the general public? of course. but that does not include a co equal branch of gov'ment.

They're government computers, after all.

Second, did the congresscritters just click Okay without even reading the splash page that their activity would be monitored and recorded?

you mean for the specifics re: the specific reason they were viewing specific files in a specific secure room on specific secure computers?

Whenever I go onto client computers, that's what the splash page says.

okey dokey!

Nope, it's complete and unredacted.

false & false.

Congress has nothing more to complain about. They'll just have to use DOJ computers to access it and have their search histories recorded. Naturally, that will show them desperately searching for their own names and Orange Man because they don't care about anyone else.

donny loves you long time.

 

[hadit]

uh-huh.
for the general public? of course. but that does not include a co equal branch of gov'ment.

Sure, run with that one. Congress is well known for leaking worse than a screen door on a submarine. This way they know if they tell their favorite reporter secure stuff that it will come back on them, and that shuts down one of their favorite smear tactics.

you mean for the specifics re: the specific reason they were viewing specific files in a specific secure room on specific secure computers?

What possible reason would they have to NOT want their activities on secure computers monitored?

okey dokey!

false & false.

Prove it.

donny loves you long time.

Sounds like you have some first hand experience?

It's even more important that all activities on secure government computers are recorded. They're secure, after all. Congress has nothing to complain about now that they can access everything unredacted and if they don't want their search histories recorded, they don't need to do any. Of course, that just means they don't really care about what's in there to be searched, they just don't want anyone knowing they're looking for their own names and the names of associates they want to protect and they don't want any leaks to their favorite reporters being traced back to them.

That's a more realistic reason why they're upset.