Epstein Files

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1999181235860414721

BREAKING: No foreign government is blackmailing the United States with the Epstein files, per Ambassador Mike Huckabee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1999181235860414721

BREAKING: No foreign government is blackmailing the United States with the Epstein files, per Ambassador Mike Huckabee.

The lying evangelical preacher for his lying daughter! What else can he say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1999181235860414721

BREAKING: No foreign government is blackmailing the United States with the Epstein files, per Ambassador Mike Huckabee.

The lying evangelical preacher for his lying daughter! What else can he say.

Which means that a foreign government is DEFINITELY using the Epstein files to blackmail the United States. Thanks for confirming, Ambassador.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

🤮
gross. how many of those girls in that pic with trump are underaged

None were, the faces were blocked by the Dems so that people would assume they were children. The unredacted photo is online, they were all adults.

Trump is a married man and should not be photographed with women not his wife or his family.

Is that you, Mike Pence?

If I saw a photo of my husband surrounded by nubile young women the $hit would hit the fan because there is no good reason for this to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

What is any of this supposed to mean? So Epstein met with these famous people. We knew that. So Trump is in a photo with a group of women. Yes he liked women, we knew that.
And I don’t like any of them but none of this this seems new.

Not women. Girls. Children.

Wrong.
The Dems purposely blacked out the faces so the rubes would ASSUME they are underage.
If they have to lie about what they "found" you know there is nothing there.
That image has been around for more than 25 years.

We all know he's as guilty AF and the most incriminating pictures have already been removed. You know it too.

.
We don't know if they have been removed from the files sent to the Dems. I suspect there are far more incriminating photos and they will be released slowly to drive Trump into a ranting raving lunatic. He will be braying at the moon standing on the roof of the White House.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

🤮
gross. how many of those girls in that pic with trump are underaged

None were, the faces were blocked by the Dems so that people would assume they were children. The unredacted photo is online, they were all adults.

Wow, you really are in denial.

NP. What, exactly, did the PP say that is untrue that would mean s/he's in denial?

Follow along. Those pictures have been in the public for years. Those were not underaged girls and it made no sense that their faces were covered unless they were trying to imply the girls were underage.

If you read the posts here, it obviously worked with some of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

🤮
gross. how many of those girls in that pic with trump are underaged

None were, the faces were blocked by the Dems so that people would assume they were children. The unredacted photo is online, they were all adults.

Trump is a married man and should not be photographed with women not his wife or his family.

Is that you, Mike Pence?

If I saw a photo of my husband surrounded by nubile young women the $hit would hit the fan because there is no good reason for this to happen.

Does your husband own a beauty pageant?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

🤮
gross. how many of those girls in that pic with trump are underaged

None were, the faces were blocked by the Dems so that people would assume they were children. The unredacted photo is online, they were all adults.

Wow, you really are in denial.

NP. What, exactly, did the PP say that is untrue that would mean s/he's in denial?

Follow along. Those pictures have been in the public for years. Those were not underaged girls and it made no sense that their faces were covered unless they were trying to imply the girls were underage.

If you read the posts here, it obviously worked with some of you.

The names and faces of all the victims are redacted. Some of the trafficking victims were underaged and some were not.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

🤮
gross. how many of those girls in that pic with trump are underaged

None were, the faces were blocked by the Dems so that people would assume they were children. The unredacted photo is online, they were all adults.

Wow, you really are in denial.

NP. What, exactly, did the PP say that is untrue that would mean s/he's in denial?

Follow along. Those pictures have been in the public for years. Those were not underaged girls and it made no sense that their faces were covered unless they were trying to imply the girls were underage.

If you read the posts here, it obviously worked with some of you.

The names and faces of all the victims are redacted. Some of the trafficking victims were underaged and some were not.

Then, why did the Dems redact the faces of adult women who were not victims and had nothing to do with Epstein? Was it not to mislead people into thinking these women were victims and underage?
FWIW, this was a public picture of Hawaiian Tropic Models at Mar-a-Lago.
There was a reporter on MsNow who assumed they were underage because the Dems redacted their faces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

🤮
gross. how many of those girls in that pic with trump are underaged

None were, the faces were blocked by the Dems so that people would assume they were children. The unredacted photo is online, they were all adults.

Wow, you really are in denial.

NP. What, exactly, did the PP say that is untrue that would mean s/he's in denial?

Follow along. Those pictures have been in the public for years. Those were not underaged girls and it made no sense that their faces were covered unless they were trying to imply the girls were underage.

If you read the posts here, it obviously worked with some of you.

The names and faces of all the victims are redacted. Some of the trafficking victims were underaged and some were not.

Then, why did the Dems redact the faces of adult women who were not victims and had nothing to do with Epstein? Was it not to mislead people into thinking these women were victims and underage?
FWIW, this was a public picture of Hawaiian Tropic Models at Mar-a-Lago.
There was a reporter on MsNow who assumed they were underage because the Dems redacted their faces.

Many of those Hawaiian Tropic "adult women" were just 18 years old. Why is a grown man surrounding himself with teenage girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See 16 new photos:

https://www.cnn.com/2025/12/12/politics/epstein-photos-trump-clinton-bannon

🤮
gross. how many of those girls in that pic with trump are underaged

None were, the faces were blocked by the Dems so that people would assume they were children. The unredacted photo is online, they were all adults.

Wow, you really are in denial.

NP. What, exactly, did the PP say that is untrue that would mean s/he's in denial?

Follow along. Those pictures have been in the public for years. Those were not underaged girls and it made no sense that their faces were covered unless they were trying to imply the girls were underage.

If you read the posts here, it obviously worked with some of you.

The names and faces of all the victims are redacted. Some of the trafficking victims were underaged and some were not.

Then, why did the Dems redact the faces of adult women who were not victims and had nothing to do with Epstein? Was it not to mislead people into thinking these women were victims and underage?
FWIW, this was a public picture of Hawaiian Tropic Models at Mar-a-Lago.
There was a reporter on MsNow who assumed they were underage because the Dems redacted their faces.

How do we know "the Dems" did the redacting? Trump had the FBI spend nearly a million dollars to have 1000 agents redacting anything to do with himself and Epstein and young girls.

[Anonymous]

Truth... there are far more pictures of Trump with Epstein and teenaged girls than there are of him with his own children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Truth... there are far more pictures of Trump with Epstein and teenaged girls than there are of him with his own children.

and the pictures of him with a teenaged Ivanka are cringe.