Two Reasons that Pam Bondi is a 101% FAILURE

[popscottpopscott]

Whataboutism | Definition, Examples, Etymology, Logical Fallacy, Politics, & Facts | Britannica

Whataboutism is the rhetorical practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation, by asking a different but related question, or by raising a different issue altogether.

www.britannica.com

whataboutism is the liberal rewording of precedent, like when Democrat gets away with it, and a Republican not dare..
Staying informed is when you are smart enough to realize Epstein was pedo'ing right under Obama's nose and he did nothing... Congress should have passed a 2012 Epstein transparency act, not a 2025 ETA. It took a Republican president Trump to indict Epstein in 2019

 

[jc456]

whataboutism is the liberal rewording of precedent, like when Democrat gets away with it, and a Republican not dare..
Staying informed is when you are smart enough to realize Epstein was pedo'ing right under Obama's nose and he did nothing... Congress should have passed a 2012 Epstein transparency act, not a 2025 ETA. It took a Republican president Trump to indict Epstein in 2019

Spot fkn on

 

[MisterBeale]

They are? Why were the congress talking about seeing the unredacted versions? Huh, they’re lying? Haaaaaaaaaahaha

The DoJ has only enabled folks, and members of congress, the ability to see half of what they need to in order to be in compliance.

 

[MisterBeale]

whataboutism is the liberal rewording of precedent, like when Democrat gets away with it, and a Republican not dare..
Staying informed is when you are smart enough to realize Epstein was pedo'ing right under Obama's nose and he did nothing... Congress should have passed a 2012 Epstein transparency act, not a 2025 ETA. It took a Republican president Trump to indict Epstein in 2019

Actually, George Bush was the first president that enabled this.

Epstein was first convicted in 2005 in a state charge that was plead down from a federal charge. The attorney on that case was Alex Acosta who then served under Bush.

Alex Acosta, former US attorney who negotiated Epstein's plea deal, appears before House Oversight Committee

Acosta didn't respond to questions as he walked into the committee room.

abcnews.com

You are ignoring the fact that I have already said, politicians in both parties are equally at fault.

 

[jc456]

The DoJ has only enabled folks, and members of congress, the ability to see half of what they need to in order to be in compliance.

Why aren’t they showing what they got? Are you suggesting that they’re holding out until everything is released? Haaaaaaaaaahaha

 

[dudmuck]

View attachment 1219178

 

[sparky]

i'm starting to think this is all one big nothing burger engineered to divert attention.....~S~

 

[OldFlame]

The DoJ has only enabled folks, and members of congress, the ability to see half of what they need to in order to be in compliance.

You're conflating two things to avoid answering why Massie isn't naming names.

1. The 'half' of the files that have been released have been completely unredacted for members of Congress to see and to search.
2. The other 'half' has not been released to the public.

The emails where he showed redacted information in the Bondi hearing are now viewable to him, as well as anything else he was questioning in the released files. He can see every name in the released files, yet I've not heard him speak up and start naming names? So why would it matter if the 2nd 'half' was released, why would he start naming names then, why wouldn't he start now with what he currently has available to him? If there's enough evidence to indict, let him put the case together, including the evidence from the released and unredacted files, and give it to the public?

 

[BackAgain]

There are 3 million pages that haven't been released. If all three million pages contain "victim redactions" then we have a MUCH bigger problem on our hands that we first thought.

Bogus assumption.

 

[BackAgain]

Nah. Just disagreement with your position.

The fact remains, you cannot establish the validity of your claim.

 

[MisterBeale]

Nah. Just disagreement with your position.

The fact remains, you cannot establish the validity of your claim.

Only b/c the DoJ and Barbi AG are breaking the law.

 

[MisterBeale]

You're conflating two things to avoid answering why Massie isn't naming names.

1. The 'half' of the files that have been released have been completely unredacted for members of Congress to see and to search.
2. The other 'half' has not been released to the public.

The emails where he showed redacted information in the Bondi hearing are now viewable to him, as well as anything else he was questioning in the released files. He can see every name in the released files, yet I've not heard him speak up and start naming names? So why would it matter if the 2nd 'half' was released, why would he start naming names then, why wouldn't he start now with what he currently has available to him? If there's enough evidence to indict, let him put the case together, including the evidence from the released and unredacted files, and give it to the public?

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information​

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[BackAgain]

Only b/c the DoJ and Barbi AG are breaking the law.

No. They aren’t.

 

[MisterBeale]

No. They aren’t.

Todd Blanche just 'gave away the game' on DOJ’s obfuscation: legal expert​

MSN

'They're Already Breaking The Law!': Thomas Massie Flames DOJ For Delayed Epstein Files Release​

I'll believe the folks that wrote the law before I believe your flawed interpretation of the law.

 

[BackAgain]

Todd Blanche just 'gave away the game' on DOJ’s obfuscation: legal expert​

MSN

'They're Already Breaking The Law!': Thomas Massie Flames DOJ For Delayed Epstein Files Release​

I'll believe the folks that wrote the law before I believe your flawed interpretation of the law.

You choose to believe what you want to believe.

Massie dislikes Trump and says some occasionally stupid shit on that basis alone.

And Blanche gave away nothing. “The law.”

Which law? How is it that the DOJ is supposedly breaking “the” law?

Be specific.

 

[dudmuck]

No. They aren’t.

 

[OldFlame]

Only b/c the DoJ and Barbi AG are breaking the law.

You have no idea how much they have released or not released.


Key Compliance Actions

• Total Document Release: The DOJ completed a massive document dump on January 30, 2026, which it describes as the final tranche of responsive materials. These files were collected from multiple sources, including the FBI, the Office of Inspector General, and investigations in New York and Florida.
• Reporting to Congress: As required by the Act, the DOJ submitted a formal letter to Congress on February 16, 2026, listing "politically exposed persons" and government officials mentioned in the files. This list reportedly contains approximately 280 to 300 names.
• Public Access: The materials are hosted in a searchable format at the DOJ Epstein Library. Due to the inclusion of sexually explicit material, users must verify they are over 18 to access the full collection.
• Redaction Justification: The DOJ stated it erred on the side of "over-collecting" and only withheld materials that were duplicates, privileged (attorney-client or deliberative process), or met specific legal exceptions, such as protecting the identities of victims.

 

[OldFlame]

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information​

18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information

www.law.cornell.edu

He didn't state it was 'classified', just redacted. And now his career is more important than exposing the truth apparently, so what separates him from anyone else in DC again?

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[MisterBeale]

You have no idea how much they have released or not released.


Key Compliance Actions

• Total Document Release: The DOJ completed a massive document dump on January 30, 2026, which it describes as the final tranche of responsive materials. These files were collected from multiple sources, including the FBI, the Office of Inspector General, and investigations in New York and Florida.
• Reporting to Congress: As required by the Act, the DOJ submitted a formal letter to Congress on February 16, 2026, listing "politically exposed persons" and government officials mentioned in the files. This list reportedly contains approximately 280 to 300 names.
• Public Access: The materials are hosted in a searchable format at the DOJ Epstein Library. Due to the inclusion of sexually explicit material, users must verify they are over 18 to access the full collection.
• Redaction Justification: The DOJ stated it erred on the side of "over-collecting" and only withheld materials that were duplicates, privileged (attorney-client or deliberative process), or met specific legal exceptions, such as protecting the identities of victims.

Trump’s DOJ has released just 2% of the Epstein files, report claims

Over the weekend, the DOJ sent a letter to Congress naming hundreds of high-profile people included in the files

www.independent.co.uk

Only 2 percent of Epstein files have been released by DOJ: analysis​

MSN