Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will only release stuff that does not include DJT

I think this is very likely.
But do not underestimate how incompetent they are.
Anyway, it's going to get out, eventually. Too many people have seen the files. It will leak, all the filthy images, sickening as they are very likely to be. And the names of rich men who had sex with underage girls at Epstein's invitation. They will get out too.

its sure taking so long. and all the people that have seen these files sure have stayed mum

Anonymous wrote:They will only release stuff that does not include DJT

I think this is very likely.
But do not underestimate how incompetent they are.
Anyway, it's going to get out, eventually. Too many people have seen the files. It will leak, all the filthy images, sickening as they are very likely to be. And the names of rich men who had sex with underage girls at Epstein's invitation. They will get out too.

They will only release stuff that does not include DJT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't Epstein's recruitment of victims from Mar a lago make Trump an accessory to the act of recruitment?

Whatever could or couldn’t be criminally prosecuted, the fact that he knew and the furthest extent of his rage was to tell Ghislaine to ‘knock it off’ is what the majority of moral Americans find repugnant. He should have reported them to police and the fact that he didn’t reveals his moral bankruptcy and the high likelihood that his complicity in that and other morally repugnant behavior prevented him wanting to come onto the radar of law enforcement.

Exactly. Anything criminal is past the statute of limitations anyway. The issue now is what Trumps behavior says about him, not whether he could be prosecuted for it. Looking at this through a narrow criminal law lens is the wrong way to do it.

Don't be so sure about a statute of limitations barring charges. Some states, inlcuding Florida, have none when the victim is a minor, when there is a cover up, etc.

Yeah I’m sure DeSantis will let that happen…

Again, criminal law is way too narrow. There are many ways he could wriggle out of a criminal case that don’t mean he actually behaved in an appropriate manner. This is how Dems lost on the Russia stuff. Trump absolutely got Russian help to win the election, but Dems made it all about the Mueller investigation and it then ended up being about whether Mueller could prove a criminal law conspiracy, and that was absolutely the wrong question.

All fair. Just correcting the suggestion that the SOL for sure bars all claims.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't Epstein's recruitment of victims from Mar a lago make Trump an accessory to the act of recruitment?

Whatever could or couldn’t be criminally prosecuted, the fact that he knew and the furthest extent of his rage was to tell Ghislaine to ‘knock it off’ is what the majority of moral Americans find repugnant. He should have reported them to police and the fact that he didn’t reveals his moral bankruptcy and the high likelihood that his complicity in that and other morally repugnant behavior prevented him wanting to come onto the radar of law enforcement.

Exactly. Anything criminal is past the statute of limitations anyway. The issue now is what Trumps behavior says about him, not whether he could be prosecuted for it. Looking at this through a narrow criminal law lens is the wrong way to do it.

Don't be so sure about a statute of limitations barring charges. Some states, inlcuding Florida, have none when the victim is a minor, when there is a cover up, etc.

Yeah I’m sure DeSantis will let that happen…

Again, criminal law is way too narrow. There are many ways he could wriggle out of a criminal case that don’t mean he actually behaved in an appropriate manner. This is how Dems lost on the Russia stuff. Trump absolutely got Russian help to win the election, but Dems made it all about the Mueller investigation and it then ended up being about whether Mueller could prove a criminal law conspiracy, and that was absolutely the wrong question.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't Epstein's recruitment of victims from Mar a lago make Trump an accessory to the act of recruitment?

Whatever could or couldn’t be criminally prosecuted, the fact that he knew and the furthest extent of his rage was to tell Ghislaine to ‘knock it off’ is what the majority of moral Americans find repugnant. He should have reported them to police and the fact that he didn’t reveals his moral bankruptcy and the high likelihood that his complicity in that and other morally repugnant behavior prevented him wanting to come onto the radar of law enforcement.

Exactly. Anything criminal is past the statute of limitations anyway. The issue now is what Trumps behavior says about him, not whether he could be prosecuted for it. Looking at this through a narrow criminal law lens is the wrong way to do it.

Don't be so sure about a statute of limitations barring charges. Some states, inlcuding Florida, have none when the victim is a minor, when there is a cover up, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't Epstein's recruitment of victims from Mar a lago make Trump an accessory to the act of recruitment?

Whatever could or couldn’t be criminally prosecuted, the fact that he knew and the furthest extent of his rage was to tell Ghislaine to ‘knock it off’ is what the majority of moral Americans find repugnant. He should have reported them to police and the fact that he didn’t reveals his moral bankruptcy and the high likelihood that his complicity in that and other morally repugnant behavior prevented him wanting to come onto the radar of law enforcement.

Exactly. Anything criminal is past the statute of limitations anyway. The issue now is what Trumps behavior says about him, not whether he could be prosecuted for it. Looking at this through a narrow criminal law lens is the wrong way to do it.

Can anyone explain the Fox News login on this article? How does this excuse Trump from knowing about the girls?

""Democrats also redacted ‘she was the one that accused prince andrew’ [sic] in another Epstein email. By making this redaction, Democrats took away important context in the email that named Virginia Guiffre [sic], who worked at Mar-a-Lago, made allegations against Prince Andrew, and was recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell in the parking lot," the memo said.

"This changes the meaning in Epstein’s email where he states, ‘of course he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop.’"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-republicans-say-dems-twisting-epstein-probe-smear-trump-new-memo

Guys! It’s super important for everybody to keep talking about Epstein! This is big. Just keep on keeping on.

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't Epstein's recruitment of victims from Mar a lago make Trump an accessory to the act of recruitment?

Whatever could or couldn’t be criminally prosecuted, the fact that he knew and the furthest extent of his rage was to tell Ghislaine to ‘knock it off’ is what the majority of moral Americans find repugnant. He should have reported them to police and the fact that he didn’t reveals his moral bankruptcy and the high likelihood that his complicity in that and other morally repugnant behavior prevented him wanting to come onto the radar of law enforcement.