Whats going on with Clay Higgins ?

[Bitterhook]

This is from his X account.
“What was wrong with the bill three months ago is still wrong today. It abandons 250 years of criminal justice procedure in America,” Higgins said. “As written, this bill reveals and injures thousands of innocent people – witnesses, people who provided alibis, family members, etc. If enacted in its current form, this type of broad reveal of criminal investigative files, released to a rabid media, will absolutely result in innocent people being hurt. Not by my vote.”

It is a principled vote, which I respect no matter which side the politician is.

With the possible lack of solid evidence to act on, and the overabundance of exculpatory, speculative or suspicious evidence, this whole thing could turn into a bigger mess. As eager as many seem to be, and with the knowledge the media will go hog wild with whatever 'dirty laundry' they can manage to parse, a little caution out of respect for anyone who may be innocent or a victim, may be appropriate.

I am almost certain that Representative Higgin's intentions were not to jeopardize his political career or take a ton of heat to try and protect someone in a vote where he was surely going to be the only one, if not one of the few, to vote "no". He voted his principles and provided a word of caution, in hopes we consider what we are doing and at least attempt to restrain some of the crap that is going to happen.

 

[ColonelAngus]

With the possible lack of solid evidence to act on, and the overabundance of exculpatory, speculative or suspicious evidence, this whole thing could turn into a bigger mess. As eager as many seem to be, and with the knowledge the media will go hog wild with whatever 'dirty laundry' they can manage to parse, a little caution out of respect for anyone who may be innocent or a victim, may be appropriate.

I am almost certain that Representative Higgin's intentions were not to jeopardize his political career or take a ton of heat to try and protect someone in a vote where he was surely going to be the only one, if not one of the few, to vote "no". He voted his principles and provided a word of caution, in hopes we consider what we are doing and at least attempt to restrain some of the crap that is going to happen.

I need to subscribe to your newsletter! Good stuff!

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It could be possible that there is very little concrete evidence necessary to charge someone with a crime. Where it will never erase whatever speculation someone may pursue in regard to association with Epstein and his activities, as well as what could have happened, that's not concrete evidence. President Trump's supporters are upset, and there are some folks on Capitol Hill that have some explaining to do when they get home about their conduct in Congress.

I look at the situation with Larry Summers though. He has pulled back, and in some cases resigned, because he is ashamed of what he did. He didn't resign because he was defeated in a court of law, or because he was directly tied to a crime.

But again, the only thing I do know, is that some people are going to be trying to make mountains out of mole hills no matter what evidence the files reveal. Then you have people like the dope that started this thread, that will say or believe anything just to push an agenda. At least now we have another place to talk about it though.

Protects Trump as well.

 

[Bitterhook]

Protects Trump as well.

You mean, has an open mind and is more concerned in making observations than protecting anyone or supporting an agenda, and is not restricted to the narrowminded utter nonsense and completely unqualified statements you so desperately espouse to.

Thanks, damn you are good at this.

 

[BackAgain]

Your thread. Look it up.

Taint has a tendency to simply spew anything negative he can dish up about such matters without bothering to familiarize himself, first, with those pesky detail things.

 

[Papageorgio]

Protects Trump as well.

One Republican voting against it because it protects Trump? That is quite a stretch you are making and when you do not find incriminating evidence you will just claim he fixed it so it wouldn’t be in there. Pretty sick when you are hoping names will show up in a pedophile’s report, and please don’t tell me you are hoping for his name is not in there, that would be a huge lie.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

One Republican voting against it because it protects Trump? That is quite a stretch you are making and when you do not find incriminating evidence you will just claim he fixed it so it wouldn’t be in there. Pretty sick when you are hoping names will show up in a pedophile’s report, and please don’t tell me you are hoping for his name is not in there, that would be a huge lie.

I was commenting on his stopping the investigation. Handy for him and other paedos.
I hope all the guilty are named not just trumps political opponents. I doubt that will happen. I believe trump will not name himself.
Why would he after his efforts to stop their release.

 

[struth]

This is bizzarre. Only 1 rep voted against releasing the epstein files.Clay Higgins.
I have never heard of him. But he is probably from one of those shit kicking southern states.
Its a perverse vote for paedos.
Is Ckay just an oddball or is it likely that he is in the files himself ?
I think he should be investigated by Ms Bondis dept of "justice".

Clay Higgins was the only Republican to vote against the Epstein files release. Here’s what he said

GOP Rep. Clay Higgins, the only lawmaker to vote against the bipartisan bill to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, defended his opposition on Tuesday, saying the legislation was written i...

uk.news.yahoo.com

Tommy did you not read your link? He makes perfectly clear his position:

Tuesday, saying the legislation was written in such a way that it might harm innocent people.

 

[BackAgain]

Tommy did you not read your link? He makes perfectly clear his position:

Tuesday, saying the legislation was written in such a way that it might harm innocent people.

Agreed.

And some silly (and ill advised) disclosure without such a limiting Amendment is a bad idea.

I don’t mind disclosure other than that and the premature disclosure of any material that might aid a defendant (one of the johns) in a possible prosecution.

If warranted, I am still hoping for such a prosecution or prosecutions. In fact, I believe such a prosecution (or several prosecutions) would be wonderful.

 

[Papageorgio]

I was commenting on his stopping the investigation. Handy for him and other paedos.
I hope all the guilty are named not just trumps political opponents. I doubt that will happen. I believe trump will not name himself.
Why would he after his efforts to stop their release.

Trump is not in control of what is in the files or whose names are in there. All I know is the Democrats and the left wingers desperately want Trumps name in there including yourself. That is all you want, the rest of all the claims are just to sound moral.

 

[struth]

Trump is not in control of what is in the files or whose names are in there. All I know is the Democrats and the left wingers desperately want Trumps name in there including yourself. That is all you want, the rest of all the claims are just to sound moral.

So far, what's been exposed is Trump name comes up a lot....in emails between convicted pedo Jeff Epstein and many powerful Dems that heis close with. They love talking about him.,

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Trump is not in control of what is in the files or whose names are in there. All I know is the Democrats and the left wingers desperately want Trumps name in there including yourself. That is all you want, the rest of all the claims are just to sound moral.

Trump is the star of the files. He is working on the directors cut as we speak. He has to somehow make them look realistic without his name in them.
Impossible. Why are you doing his dirty work ?

 

[struth]

Trump is the star of the files. He is working on the directors cut as we speak. He has to somehow make them look realistic without his name in them.
Impossible. Why are you doing his dirty work ?

No doubt he is, we've seen so far from all the emails and text between Epstein and his pals in the Dem party, that they can't stop talking about Trump.

He's talking about about as much as you do.

 

[Bitterhook]

Trump is the star of the files. He is working on the directors cut as we speak. He has to somehow make them look realistic without his name in them.

Well, if that was in the least bit true, then you have seen all the files. Exactly how close were you with Jeffery Epstein?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Well, if that was in the least bit true, then you have seen all the files. Exactly how close were you with Jeffery Epstein?

More defence of groomers. God is watching all of you

 

[Bitterhook]

More defence of groomers. God is watching all of you

That's not how you acknowledge you were just talking out your ass. I am certainly not the one claiming to know what is in Epstein's Files and you can keep your disgusting fantasies to yourself. I am not worried about God watching me, but do you think you are doing God's work, or is that just more talking out your ass?

 

[Papageorgio]

Trump is the star of the files. He is working on the directors cut as we speak. He has to somehow make them look realistic without his name in them.
Impossible. Why are you doing his dirty work ?

What work? I am not the one that desperately wants Trump to be in a pedo’s file just to get him out of office. If you have proof of Trump making a directors cut you should let the authorities know.

The biggest issue is for four years is that Biden and his Democrats sat on this? I doubt it, if Trump was in there, Biden would have released it, I mean they prosecuted on a gotcha case and then when that didn’t work, why didn’t they go for the kill because the FBI have always had the info.

You don’t sit on this type of story, the Democrats are ruthless, as much as the GOP is.

There is nothing but that is why you are making up the directors cut BS too fall back on when this doesn’t get you your way.

 

[WEATHER53]

“Protecting the innocent” is vague and arbitrary
Revealing the participants is neither

 

[EMH]

This is bizzarre. Only 1 rep voted against releasing the epstein files.Clay Higgins.
I have never heard of him. But he is probably from one of those shit kicking southern states.
Its a perverse vote for paedos.
Is Ckay just an oddball or is it likely that he is in the files himself ?
I think he should be investigated by Ms Bondis dept of "justice".

Clay Higgins was the only Republican to vote against the Epstein files release. Here’s what he said

GOP Rep. Clay Higgins, the only lawmaker to vote against the bipartisan bill to force the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, defended his opposition on Tuesday, saying the legislation was written i...

uk.news.yahoo.com

Clay Higgins is a "Fox News Republican"

is he conservative? NO
is he patriotic to America? No
What does he care about? Israel and the cause of Zionist Fascism, nothing else

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Clay Higgins is a "Fox News Republican"

is he conservative? NO
is he patriotic to America? No
What does he care about? Israel and the cause of Zionist Fascism, nothing else

I would class you as an anti semite and holocaust denier. I cant take anything you say seriously.