Epstein Files

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is..

There is no way the deep state doesn't destroy incriminating or deep state destructive information regarding

Epstein
JFK assassination
911

Etc...

People who believe there is a treasure trove of bombshell evidence regarding these type of events must think the deep state is mentally challenged

Interesting how the beneficiaries to all these events are very similar, hmm...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russiagate. President Trump first oresidenicy was basically an attack on him. It was horrible and not true. You do not have to like him to conclude that we cannot be going after people based on politics.

Here's the problem with "Russiagate" -

I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy. I've hated the guy since the 1990s, when he was a notorious scammer and con man known to us working in land development in the NYC area.

But that said I have never believed he knowingly or intentionally colluded with Russia. I don't believe he takes orders from the Kremlin, and am skeptical of suggestions that Putin is blackmailing him etc. But that said I DO think there are two problem areas:

1. Russia ABSOLUTELY DID try to manipulate our elections, through social media, disinfo campaigns et cetera - and they continue to do so now.

2. Trump may well have unwittingly and unknowingly colluded with Russia by being their useful idiot for going along with some of the themes and sentiments that were part of the Russian disinfo/propaganda meddling in our elections.

So I agree when people say "Trump did not collude with Russia" - to the extent that he probably did not overtly or knowingly do so.

But I DISAGREE with people who want to just proclaim "Russiagate is not a thing" and slam the book shut on Russian interference or claims that Russia did not help Trump get elected, because there's plenty of evidence of Russia's meddling. And what's additionally problematic there is that Trump got so hysterical over the "Russiagate" stuff that he refused to so much as even allow it to be looked into during his term, leaving us open to even more Russian meddling and interference.

I refuse to close the book on it and you need to adjust your thinking and definition beyond "Trump directly colluded with Russia" if you want to deal with truths.

Yes, Russian interference is well documented and has happened against nearly all developed countries. Brexit was partly a result of Russian malfeasance during the campaign, for example.

It's true Trump did not collude. Same for Hillary Clinton and her emails, Hunter Biden and his laptop. None of these things are true.
And the purported Epstein assassination is another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russiagate. President Trump first oresidenicy was basically an attack on him. It was horrible and not true. You do not have to like him to conclude that we cannot be going after people based on politics.

Here's the problem with "Russiagate" -

I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy. I've hated the guy since the 1990s, when he was a notorious scammer and con man known to us working in land development in the NYC area.

But that said I have never believed he knowingly or intentionally colluded with Russia. I don't believe he takes orders from the Kremlin, and am skeptical of suggestions that Putin is blackmailing him etc. But that said I DO think there are two problem areas:

1. Russia ABSOLUTELY DID try to manipulate our elections, through social media, disinfo campaigns et cetera - and they continue to do so now.

2. Trump may well have unwittingly and unknowingly colluded with Russia by being their useful idiot for going along with some of the themes and sentiments that were part of the Russian disinfo/propaganda meddling in our elections.

So I agree when people say "Trump did not collude with Russia" - to the extent that he probably did not overtly or knowingly do so.

But I DISAGREE with people who want to just proclaim "Russiagate is not a thing" and slam the book shut on Russian interference or claims that Russia did not help Trump get elected, because there's plenty of evidence of Russia's meddling. And what's additionally problematic there is that Trump got so hysterical over the "Russiagate" stuff that he refused to so much as even allow it to be looked into during his term, leaving us open to even more Russian meddling and interference.

I refuse to close the book on it and you need to adjust your thinking and definition beyond "Trump directly colluded with Russia" if you want to deal with truths.

Yes, Russian interference is well documented and has happened against nearly all developed countries. Brexit was partly a result of Russian malfeasance during the campaign, for example.

It's true Trump did not collude. Same for Hillary Clinton and her emails, Hunter Biden and his laptop. None of these things are true.
And the purported Epstein assassination is another.

We can't really say much about how Epstein died until we actually see all the evidence. Right now they are still holding a ton of it back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Former MAGAs are now looking at nepo baby turned fanatic Zionist Bill Ackman and his deeply suspicious Israeli second wife.

It’s incredibly obvious this nepo baby nitwit married an Israeli honeypot spy with a faux academic bio.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they can’t pry more info out of Ghislaine.

She will be quietly"extradited " to Israel when things quiet down in couple of years where she will have access to the hidden billions.

She was sentenced to 20 years.

Wanna bet she’s released soon?

Can her lawyers use this "there's no list" situation to get her released or a retrial?

Exactly, there must be a way to make her talk, solitary confinement etc. also can we find more victims, unsure they’d even be able to identify their abusers though. Were the victims only Americans?

So you want to waterboard her in your etc scenario. Look, if the woman was going to talk she would have already done it. She saw what happened to Epstein and she did not want to join him. Also, she was not sentenced to the maximum allowable prison time, and I agree with the earlier poster. Before his term is out, Trump will extradite Maxwell to Israel, but that cannot happen as long as people continue to talk about Epstein and his list.

She was trafficking these 100s of underage girls to someone. Why can’t she be placed in solitary confinement or something until we get this information?

Exactly. Why wasn't that evidence included in her plea deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why they can’t pry more info out of Ghislaine.

She will be quietly"extradited " to Israel when things quiet down in couple of years where she will have access to the hidden billions.

She was sentenced to 20 years.

Wanna bet she’s released soon?

Can her lawyers use this "there's no list" situation to get her released or a retrial?

Exactly, there must be a way to make her talk, solitary confinement etc. also can we find more victims, unsure they’d even be able to identify their abusers though. Were the victims only Americans?

So you want to waterboard her in your etc scenario. Look, if the woman was going to talk she would have already done it. She saw what happened to Epstein and she did not want to join him. Also, she was not sentenced to the maximum allowable prison time, and I agree with the earlier poster. Before his term is out, Trump will extradite Maxwell to Israel, but that cannot happen as long as people continue to talk about Epstein and his list.

She was trafficking these 100s of underage girls to someone. Why can’t she be placed in solitary confinement or something until we get this information?

Exactly. Why wasn't that evidence included in her plea deal?

^^My bad. She was convicted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russiagate. President Trump first oresidenicy was basically an attack on him. It was horrible and not true. You do not have to like him to conclude that we cannot be going after people based on politics.

Here's the problem with "Russiagate" -

I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy. I've hated the guy since the 1990s, when he was a notorious scammer and con man known to us working in land development in the NYC area.

But that said I have never believed he knowingly or intentionally colluded with Russia. I don't believe he takes orders from the Kremlin, and am skeptical of suggestions that Putin is blackmailing him etc. But that said I DO think there are two problem areas:

1. Russia ABSOLUTELY DID try to manipulate our elections, through social media, disinfo campaigns et cetera - and they continue to do so now.

2. Trump may well have unwittingly and unknowingly colluded with Russia by being their useful idiot for going along with some of the themes and sentiments that were part of the Russian disinfo/propaganda meddling in our elections.

So I agree when people say "Trump did not collude with Russia" - to the extent that he probably did not overtly or knowingly do so.

But I DISAGREE with people who want to just proclaim "Russiagate is not a thing" and slam the book shut on Russian interference or claims that Russia did not help Trump get elected, because there's plenty of evidence of Russia's meddling. And what's additionally problematic there is that Trump got so hysterical over the "Russiagate" stuff that he refused to so much as even allow it to be looked into during his term, leaving us open to even more Russian meddling and interference.

I refuse to close the book on it and you need to adjust your thinking and definition beyond "Trump directly colluded with Russia" if you want to deal with truths.

Yes, Russian interference is well documented and has happened against nearly all developed countries. Brexit was partly a result of Russian malfeasance during the campaign, for example.

It's true Trump did not collude. Same for Hillary Clinton and her emails, Hunter Biden and his laptop. None of these things are true.
And the purported Epstein assassination is another.

The issue isn't just whether Epstein was assassinated, but whether he was encouraged or simply allowed to commit suicide. His situation should have prevented him from committing suicide, so at a minimum some negligence, perhaps intentional, was involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Former MAGAs are now looking at nepo baby turned fanatic Zionist Bill Ackman and his deeply suspicious Israeli second wife.

It’s incredibly obvious this nepo baby nitwit married an Israeli honeypot spy with a faux academic bio.

Edit this - he divorced his longtime wife and mother of his kids for this Israeli honeypot spy with a faux academic record

There’s a few articles out in the public domain about “how they met.” The timelines don’t add up, it’s clear she was using other people to get closer to him. It’s classic intel asset relationship development. She got booted from MIT once the plagiarism stuff hit the Internet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russiagate. President Trump first oresidenicy was basically an attack on him. It was horrible and not true. You do not have to like him to conclude that we cannot be going after people based on politics.

Here's the problem with "Russiagate" -

I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy. I've hated the guy since the 1990s, when he was a notorious scammer and con man known to us working in land development in the NYC area.

But that said I have never believed he knowingly or intentionally colluded with Russia. I don't believe he takes orders from the Kremlin, and am skeptical of suggestions that Putin is blackmailing him etc. But that said I DO think there are two problem areas:

1. Russia ABSOLUTELY DID try to manipulate our elections, through social media, disinfo campaigns et cetera - and they continue to do so now.

2. Trump may well have unwittingly and unknowingly colluded with Russia by being their useful idiot for going along with some of the themes and sentiments that were part of the Russian disinfo/propaganda meddling in our elections.

So I agree when people say "Trump did not collude with Russia" - to the extent that he probably did not overtly or knowingly do so.

But I DISAGREE with people who want to just proclaim "Russiagate is not a thing" and slam the book shut on Russian interference or claims that Russia did not help Trump get elected, because there's plenty of evidence of Russia's meddling. And what's additionally problematic there is that Trump got so hysterical over the "Russiagate" stuff that he refused to so much as even allow it to be looked into during his term, leaving us open to even more Russian meddling and interference.

I refuse to close the book on it and you need to adjust your thinking and definition beyond "Trump directly colluded with Russia" if you want to deal with truths.

He literally stood on a debate stage in front of America and asked Russia to spy on his political opponent. I’m not sure I see the innocence in that that you do. Also, how do you explain his kissing Putin’s @ss shortly after the election and then humiliating Zelensky on TV in a very orchestrated hit job?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bottom line is..

There is no way the deep state doesn't destroy incriminating or deep state destructive information regarding

Epstein
JFK assassination
911

Etc...

People who believe there is a treasure trove of bombshell evidence regarding these type of events must think the deep state is mentally challenged

You're missing the point - this is exactly the type of allegation that Trump, Bongino, and Patel promised to get to the bottom of and expose when they promised to DRAIN THE SWAMP and destroy the "deep state."

They are in charge and have shown a remarkable ability to use their power in ways that people did not anticipate. So how come they can't crack this nut?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a tempest in a teapot. The group who believes in Epstein conspiracies is minuscule compared to the millions of disgruntled Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, primarily due to inflation, and secondarily, due to rascism (spooked by fear of criminal migrants, just like the Nazi playbook pre-WWII).

Most Trump voters do not care about Epstein.
People think they do, because unsurprisingly, the Epstein-was-killed bunch are a raucous group on the internet. Now that they're fighting with the Trump White House, the mainstream media is making it look like the entire right is imploding, but it's not. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS. As usual, the media is exaggerating the fallout. This isn't Trump's moment of reckoning. All the crazies will just fall in line again, grumpily. It's not like they'd ever vote for Democrats, now, is it?

The only possible gain for Democrats is that fewer people will turn out on the right for the midterms. The single-issue, ex-QAnon, current-Epstein voter will just stay home. You know how few people that it? Lower turnout on the right was already predicted based on the criteria that ACTUALLY MATTER, ie, the ECONOMY.

If you want to predict the next election, read about how tariffs are causing inflation, even today, and how it will only get worse.

True. But it does highlight the complete whack jobs Trump installed and their bizarre side shows. I have some small sliver of hope that this is another factor that will turn the moneyed class against Trump.

Politically, it is not a tempest in a teapot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russiagate. President Trump first oresidenicy was basically an attack on him. It was horrible and not true. You do not have to like him to conclude that we cannot be going after people based on politics.

Here's the problem with "Russiagate" -

I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the guy. I've hated the guy since the 1990s, when he was a notorious scammer and con man known to us working in land development in the NYC area.

But that said I have never believed he knowingly or intentionally colluded with Russia. I don't believe he takes orders from the Kremlin, and am skeptical of suggestions that Putin is blackmailing him etc. But that said I DO think there are two problem areas:

1. Russia ABSOLUTELY DID try to manipulate our elections, through social media, disinfo campaigns et cetera - and they continue to do so now.

2. Trump may well have unwittingly and unknowingly colluded with Russia by being their useful idiot for going along with some of the themes and sentiments that were part of the Russian disinfo/propaganda meddling in our elections.

So I agree when people say "Trump did not collude with Russia" - to the extent that he probably did not overtly or knowingly do so.

But I DISAGREE with people who want to just proclaim "Russiagate is not a thing" and slam the book shut on Russian interference or claims that Russia did not help Trump get elected, because there's plenty of evidence of Russia's meddling. And what's additionally problematic there is that Trump got so hysterical over the "Russiagate" stuff that he refused to so much as even allow it to be looked into during his term, leaving us open to even more Russian meddling and interference.

I refuse to close the book on it and you need to adjust your thinking and definition beyond "Trump directly colluded with Russia" if you want to deal with truths.

Yes, Russian interference is well documented and has happened against nearly all developed countries. Brexit was partly a result of Russian malfeasance during the campaign, for example.

It's true Trump did not collude. Same for Hillary Clinton and her emails, Hunter Biden and his laptop. None of these things are true.
And the purported Epstein assassination is another.

The issue isn't just whether Epstein was assassinated, but whether he was encouraged or simply allowed to commit suicide. His situation should have prevented him from committing suicide, so at a minimum some negligence, perhaps intentional, was involved.

But this is what happens to normal people in prison, PP. He just didn’t get special treatment, that’s all. And that’s fine with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a tempest in a teapot. The group who believes in Epstein conspiracies is minuscule compared to the millions of disgruntled Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, primarily due to inflation, and secondarily, due to rascism (spooked by fear of criminal migrants, just like the Nazi playbook pre-WWII).

Most Trump voters do not care about Epstein.
People think they do, because unsurprisingly, the Epstein-was-killed bunch are a raucous group on the internet. Now that they're fighting with the Trump White House, the mainstream media is making it look like the entire right is imploding, but it's not. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS. As usual, the media is exaggerating the fallout. This isn't Trump's moment of reckoning. All the crazies will just fall in line again, grumpily. It's not like they'd ever vote for Democrats, now, is it?

The only possible gain for Democrats is that fewer people will turn out on the right for the midterms. The single-issue, ex-QAnon, current-Epstein voter will just stay home. You know how few people that it? Lower turnout on the right was already predicted based on the criteria that ACTUALLY MATTER, ie, the ECONOMY.

If you want to predict the next election, read about how tariffs are causing inflation, even today, and how it will only get worse.

True. But it does highlight the complete whack jobs Trump installed and their bizarre side shows. I have some small sliver of hope that this is another factor that will turn the moneyed class against Trump.

Politically, it is not a tempest in a teapot.

Only if you’re part of that small group. The rest of us don’t care at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is a tempest in a teapot. The group who believes in Epstein conspiracies is minuscule compared to the millions of disgruntled Americans who voted for Trump in 2024, primarily due to inflation, and secondarily, due to rascism (spooked by fear of criminal migrants, just like the Nazi playbook pre-WWII).

Most Trump voters do not care about Epstein.
People think they do, because unsurprisingly, the Epstein-was-killed bunch are a raucous group on the internet. Now that they're fighting with the Trump White House, the mainstream media is making it look like the entire right is imploding, but it's not. DO NOT FALL FOR THIS. As usual, the media is exaggerating the fallout. This isn't Trump's moment of reckoning. All the crazies will just fall in line again, grumpily. It's not like they'd ever vote for Democrats, now, is it?

The only possible gain for Democrats is that fewer people will turn out on the right for the midterms. The single-issue, ex-QAnon, current-Epstein voter will just stay home. You know how few people that it? Lower turnout on the right was already predicted based on the criteria that ACTUALLY MATTER, ie, the ECONOMY.

If you want to predict the next election, read about how tariffs are causing inflation, even today, and how it will only get worse.

Steve Bannon thinks that Trump may lose as much as 10% of his base over the Epstein debacle. Which could be disastrous in the midterms.

“It’s deeper than Epstein," former White House strategist and podcaster Steve Bannon told a crowd of young conservatives at Turning Point USA's Student Action Summit July 12. He went on to predict real electoral consequences for Republicans in the near future.

"For this to go away," Bannon said, "you’re going to lose 10 percent of the MAGA movement. If we lose 10 percent of the MAGA movement right now, we’re going to lose 40 seats in (2026), we’re going to lose the presidency."