• We are implementing a new rule regarding the posting of social media links and Youtube videos, the rule is simple if you are posting these links please say something about it rather than just dropping what we call a "drive by Link", a comment on your thoughts about the content must be included. Thank you

Politics Swamp drainage

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Since we know his appointment was illegal and unconstitutional, as stated by Judge Canon, I really hope this probe ends up bringing something.
 
over 1,000 FBI agents were instructed to flag every mention of Donald Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein files. Not to investigate. Not to disclose. To suppress. The FOIA team then systematically redacted his name alongside others before releasing the files to the public.

This wasn’t standard redaction. This was a federally coordinated censorship campaign, executed under the illusion of lawful exemption. And the justification? Trump was a “private citizen” when the Epstein investigation began in 2006.

FOIA exemption (b)(6) is being weaponized to protect one of the most publicly entangled names in Epstein’s orbit. They didn’t redact Clinton. They didn’t redact British royalty. But Trump photographed, recorded, and publicly tied to Epstein gets mass protection from federal employees.

This is not privacy protection. This is obstruction of federal transparency, executed at scale.

The FBI redacted Trump’s name knowing it would change the public’s perception of who Epstein’s network protected. That is willful manipulation of federal evidence, aided by the Department of Justice, which has since declared it will release nothing further. No more records. No more names. Nothing.

Pam Bondi Trump loyalist turned AG personally briefed him in May 2025 that he was named in the unredacted files. The fix was in before a single page hit public eyes.
 
Hiryu2.0 said:
over 1,000 FBI agents were instructed to flag every mention of Donald Trump in the Jeffrey Epstein files. Not to investigate. Not to disclose. To suppress. The FOIA team then systematically redacted his name alongside others before releasing the files to the public.

This wasn’t standard redaction. This was a federally coordinated censorship campaign, executed under the illusion of lawful exemption. And the justification? Trump was a “private citizen” when the Epstein investigation began in 2006.

FOIA exemption (b)(6) is being weaponized to protect one of the most publicly entangled names in Epstein’s orbit. They didn’t redact Clinton. They didn’t redact British royalty. But Trump photographed, recorded, and publicly tied to Epstein gets mass protection from federal employees.

This is not privacy protection. This is obstruction of federal transparency, executed at scale.

The FBI redacted Trump’s name knowing it would change the public’s perception of who Epstein’s network protected. That is willful manipulation of federal evidence, aided by the Department of Justice, which has since declared it will release nothing further. No more records. No more names. Nothing.

Pam Bondi Trump loyalist turned AG personally briefed him in May 2025 that he was named in the unredacted files. The fix was in before a single page hit public eyes.
Click to expand...

Again, thank you reddit.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

In addition to being nothing but reddit level rambling with no sources whatsoever.
 


Let's put a twist on it: suppose Jane Doe, the former 15-and-a-half-year-old victim, said back in, say, 2005 that yes, she had to crawl naked into a hot tub with Donald Trump two years earlier (in 2003). This was said then by a traumatised little girl, who was most likely interrogated in accordance with professional rules, so it is a 'frank' confession.
However, Jane Doe, even under the rules of sequestration (i.e. no meeting with the accused, no defence lawyers, questions asked in writing, judge decides with the help of an expert whether they can be asked at all, etc.) was not allowed to be questioned by anyone.
And Trump would have said in a possible trial that no, he certainly would not, and would have had an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time. She wouldn't have been able to recall the exact date (since she would have had to talk about one of the most traumatic events of her life) she would have been "torn apart".
This evidence was taken out of evidence by the prosecutors not to save Trump's (or anyone else's) ass, but because someone decided (professionally and correctly) that it was not necessary to have this evidence to reach a particular criminal conviction, and there is evidence where the girl's testimony can be neatly juxtaposed with other evidence, and Epstein will be locked up on that basis, but it will not weaken the prosecution's case or further traumatize the little girl (now an adult


And Trump would have said in a possible trial that no, he certainly would not, and would have had an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time. She wouldn't have been able to recall the exact date (since she would have had to talk about one of the most traumatic events of her life) she would have been "torn apart".
This evidence was taken out of evidence by the prosecutors not to save Trump's (or anyone else's) ass, but because someone decided (professionally and correctly) that it was not necessary to have this evidence to reach a particular criminal conviction, and there is evidence where the girl's testimony can be neatly juxtaposed with other evidence, and Epstein will be locked up on that basis, but it will not weaken the prosecution's case or further traumatize the little girl (now an adult).
Is this a hotbed for washing certain people out? Of course.
And who should do the sorting afterwards? The FBI headed by chief Trumpist Kash Patel and the Justice Department headed by chief Trumpist Pam Bondi. Most of the sources listed above are classified under various court orders, and based on what has been said here, I think it is no wonder that the judges don't want to unseal it.
 
Last edited:
Hiryu2.0 said:


Let's put a twist on it: suppose Jane Doe, the former 15-and-a-half-year-old victim, said back in, say, 2005 that yes, she had to crawl naked into a hot tub with Donald Trump two years earlier (in 2003). This was said then by a traumatised little girl, who was most likely interrogated in accordance with professional rules, so it is a 'frank' confession.
However, Jane Doe, even under the rules of sequestration (i.e. no meeting with the accused, no defence lawyers, questions asked in writing, judge decides with the help of an expert whether they can be asked at all, etc.) was not allowed to be questioned by anyone.
And Trump would have said in a possible trial that no, he certainly would not, and would have had an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time. She wouldn't have been able to recall the exact date (since she would have had to talk about one of the most traumatic events of her life) she would have been "torn apart".
This evidence was taken out of evidence by the prosecutors not to save Trump's (or anyone else's) ass, but because someone decided (professionally and correctly) that it was not necessary to have this evidence to reach a particular criminal conviction, and there is evidence where the girl's testimony can be neatly juxtaposed with other evidence, and Epstein will be locked up on that basis, but it will not weaken the prosecution's case or further traumatize the little girl (now an adult


And Trump would have said in a possible trial that no, he certainly would not, and would have had an alibi that he was elsewhere at the time. She wouldn't have been able to recall the exact date (since she would have had to talk about one of the most traumatic events of her life) she would have been "torn apart".
This evidence was taken out of evidence by the prosecutors not to save Trump's (or anyone else's) ass, but because someone decided (professionally and correctly) that it was not necessary to have this evidence to reach a particular criminal conviction, and there is evidence where the girl's testimony can be neatly juxtaposed with other evidence, and Epstein will be locked up on that basis, but it will not weaken the prosecution's case or further traumatize the little girl (now an adult).
Is this a hotbed for washing certain people out? Of course.
And who should do the sorting afterwards? The FBI headed by chief Trumpist Kash Patel and the Justice Department headed by chief Trumpist Pam Bondi. Most of the sources listed above are classified under various court orders, and based on what has been said here, I think it is no wonder that the judges don't want to unseal it.
Click to expand...
Although the drug dealer, the smuggler, the pimp is not bound by declaration and registration rules, registration develops organically. Accomplices have to be paid, corrupt officials have to be bribed, and painstaking care has to be taken to ensure that a late bill doesn't cause some official to come to the office and foul up the whole operation. It's no coincidence that for every Lucky Luciano, a Meyer Lansky

Even at lower levels, there is always either an excel file, a checkered notebook in which important things are kept. If the police find the checkered notebook, that's really unpleasant, especially for the police, because then they have to investigate further and track down all the important people who are in it. Or not. Or the checkered notebook could disappear.

So, even though I have not been involved in as many criminal cases as Dershowitz as a defence lawyer, I think there must have been a chequered booklet.

But even if there wasn't. Knowing all the material, I'm pretty sure you could put one together. It is another matter, and perhaps not surprising after such a long history, that it is in nobody's interest. If Trump did fall for it...well, they'd have a nice afternoon of whiskey and a good cry, and then the redistribution of positions would begin. And there would be a party where you can supposedly take a bubble bath with young girls...
 
1754471901123.webp

And Ch?
 
No words...
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
This Democrat party in the US is just a den of thieves, and mental illness, good grief!!! :mad: 🧐
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

diman
Rise of the Soviet T-34-76 60 years has lain in the swamp
Replies
7
Views
3K
diman
diman
Back
Top