The Epstein Files
Now it is getting serious - too bad Virginia Giuffre still isn't alive to see it.
"Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor arrested after Epstein files revelations as King says ‘law must take its course’"
https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/and … e-02-19-26Yes, it shows that no one is above the law in the UK; it’s a shame that the same can’t be said for some in the USA.
Well, Nathanville, this is how they do it in Britain?
I wish that we had as much integrity within own government…
https://www.salon.com/2026/02/19/nobody … tein-ties/No great surprise there, given that Trump is referenced extensively throughout the unredacted Epstein documents—arguably one of the most far‑reaching cover‑ups in modern American history.
As an aside, it’s worth noting that “misconduct in public office” isn’t a statute passed by any UK government or Parliament. It’s an old common‑law (unwritten law) offence dating back to medieval Britain in the 13th century, and it has been used only rarely by the courts since then.What was astonishing is that even the King of England, Charles III, did not make any exception for his brother in this affair and supported the idea that the law should take its course.
To a Brit, the King’s position isn’t astonishing at all — I certainly don’t find it surprising. The monarchy survives on public trust, not political power, and King Charles knows that better than anyone.
His first duty isn’t to Andrew; it’s to the integrity of the Crown. Distancing the institution from his brother isn’t some extraordinary act of principle — it’s basic damage limitation.
If he’d tried to shield Andrew, it would have been catastrophic for the monarchy. A third of Brits already want the monarchy abolished, and any hint of protecting Andrew would have pushed that number far higher.
King Charles is fighting for the survival of the institution, and the only way to do that is to be seen doing the right thing.
Did Trump know, and did nothing, of what Epstein was visiting on those girls and women? There is no doubt in my mind - as Virginian Giuffre said in here book, Nobody's Girl, that "Don’t be fooled by those in Epstein’s circle who say they didn’t know what he was doing” and that "he didn’t hide it and that people watched"
Did Trump join in? The most I can say is that in my opinion he is certainly capable of it - especially given some of the creepy things he as said about Ivanka when she was their ages.Yep, given the scale of the cover‑up it would certainly seem so — and as you said, Trump is most certainly capable of it. What strikes me most, though, is how differently this would play out under UK law.
If the Epstein files were being released in Britain rather than the USA, there would almost certainly already be an Independent Public Inquiry. Under the Inquiries Act 2005 — introduced by the Labour Government — the government of the day is legally obliged to establish such an inquiry when matters of major public concern arise, especially where there is evidence of institutional failure or potential wrongdoing by people in positions of power.
A good example is the Covid‑19 Inquiry. Boris Johnson, as Prime Minister, was legally required to launch it under that Act, which he did on 28 June 2022. It has been long, detailed, and often uncomfortable for those involved, and it is now approaching its conclusion — the Inquiry is scheduled to end on 5 March 2026.
Crucially, the Inquiry has exposed the failures of Boris Johnson’s government and the wider establishment under his control at the time. So far, it has highlighted:
• poor preparedness
• chaotic leadership
• confused communication
• avoidable delays
• failures in procurement and care‑home protection
And regarding Johnson personally, it has shown:
• delayed decisions
• confusion and indecision
• poor communication
• scientific advice not always followed
• missing records
• a government struggling to function under pressure
The irony, of course, is that Johnson had a legal obligation to allow this level of scrutiny — because of a law introduced by a Labour (left-wing) government. That kind of statutory transparency simply doesn’t exist in the USA. If it did, Trump would almost certainly be facing similarly probing questions about what he knew, when he knew it, and why he did nothing.Documented testimony shows Trump did report what he knew about Epstein and Maxwell to the police many years ago.
I added this information because it's relevant due to its being documented and not just speculative.
What actually exists (documented evidence)
In newly released Epstein-case files, a 2019 FBI interview with former Palm Beach police chief Michael Reiter says Donald Trump called him during the original mid-2000s investigation.
The call was described as occurring in July 2006, when police were investigating Jeffrey Epstein.
Reiter told investigators Trump said:
“Thank goodness you’re stopping him, everyone has known he’s been doing this.”
Trump also reportedly warned police about Ghislaine Maxwell and urged them to focus on her.
The same document said Trump was “one of the very first people to call” authorities when the investigation became known.
So there is documented testimony from a police chief, preserved in FBI records, that Trump contacted police during the investigation.Sharlee, thanks for taking the time to lay that out — it’s always helpful when we can anchor the discussion in what’s actually documented rather than speculation.
You’re right that the newly released files include a 2019 FBI interview with former Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter, and that he told investigators Trump phoned him in 2006 and expressed approval of the Epstein investigation. That part is indeed in the record.
Where I think we may be talking past each other slightly is in how far that testimony goes. The document doesn’t show Trump reporting Epstein, initiating the investigation, or providing new evidence. There’s no police report, no contemporaneous note, no phone record, and no indication he contacted authorities before the case was public. It all comes down to one person’s recollection recorded thirteen years after the event.
And to be fair to everyone involved, even reliable people can misremember details over that kind of timespan — especially in high‑profile cases involving public figures who have, let’s say, given differing accounts over time. That’s why I’m sticking closely to what the document itself actually says, rather than reading more into it than the evidence supports.
For context, Reiter himself has a solid reputation. He was the police chief who pushed hard for Epstein to be prosecuted and even clashed with the State Attorney’s office when he felt Epstein was being given special treatment. There’s nothing in his record to suggest dishonesty. But his 2019 interview is still just that: a single recollection, many years after the fact, without any supporting documentation from 2006.
And just to be clear, even that interview doesn’t say Trump “reported” Epstein, was “one of the first to call,” or proactively “warned” police about Maxwell in the investigative sense. Those claims simply aren’t in any of the released material. The only documented source for any of this is Reiter’s long‑after‑the‑fact recollection — and even that doesn’t go as far as the narrative being built around it.
So yes — the call he describes is documented. But the broader claims being attached to it aren’t supported by the evidence we actually have.I see your points. The document comes from an investigative interview/statement taken by prosecutors and investigators during a criminal investigation. In such situations, the person (Reiter) is typically interviewed by the prosecutors, and a report or recorded statement is created. Those interviews are usually conducted under penalty of lying to federal investigators (which can be a crime). Still, they are not the same thing as testimony under oath in court or a deposition.
I found another interesting bit --- There is documentation indicating that Jeffrey Epstein was barred from Mar-a-Lago, and it does not originate as a media rumor.
In 2011, attorney Bradley Edwards, who represented one of Epstein’s victims, filed a sworn affidavit in federal court in connection with civil litigation involving Jeffrey Epstein. In that filing, Edwards stated that he had been told that Donald Trump had Epstein removed from Mar-a-Lago and banned him from the club years before Epstein’s criminal case became public.
Edwards later repeated this publicly in interviews and has said that Trump was the only high-profile individual who agreed to speak with his legal team and provide information during the early stages of the investigation.
To be precise, however: there is no publicly released written “ban letter” or membership termination document from Mar-a-Lago that has surfaced. The documentation that exists is sworn testimony (the affidavit) and related witness statements, not a recovered club record or expulsion notice.It is typical of what we have seen so much of for more than a decade...
Point the finger at Trump and repeat over and over again that he is guilty of the very crimes they (Democrats/Swamp) themselves are committing.
It was President Clinton, not President Trump, that was a frequent flyer to Epstein Island.
Our wonderful cable news is more interested in slandering than facts, ignoring who was deeply immersed with Epstein to continue to emphasize Trump...
Trump is no angel... but to pursue the Epstein - Trump connection while ignoring or dismissing those who really were heavily involved with Epstein just proves that it's about shaping the public perception that Trump is guilty of the crimes done by others.I just don't understand what drives you to make things up! There is NO documented evidence that Clinton, either one, went to Epstein's island. The only people who suggest it are right-wing conspiracy theorists.
You mean like the conspiracy theorists that exclaimed that Trump was dealing with Putin to fix our elections? That kind of theorist, that declared Trump was doing what they were actually doing themselves?
Funny, I didn't know you think the WH is on Epstein's island.
Funny, as I said, no documented evidence no matter how hard you try to make it up.
Ken, From what I’ve personally seen so far of the Epstein files, and I want to be clear that I’m only looking at what has actually been released, not speculating beyond it, I haven’t seen anything that indicates to me that Trump had much to do with Epstein beyond what was already publicly known. Even in the photos that have circulated, I haven’t seen anything involving Trump that appears inappropriate.
On the other hand, some of the images involving Bill Clinton are different. There are photos that could reasonably be interpreted as inappropriate or at least raise legitimate questions about his proximity to young women connected to Epstein. I’ve shared some of those images, and interestingly, there’s been very little response.
I’m simply going off what has been publicly presented. If more credible evidence emerges, then that should be evaluated fairly. But based on what’s currently available, I’m not seeing the level of connection some are implying.
U.K.'s ex-ambassador to the U.S. arrested after Epstein files release
Peter Mandelson was arrested amid an intensifying scandal after the U.S. Department of Justice released millions of documents, some of which appear to show him leaking sensitive political and market information to Epstein.What amuses me is that both Andrew Mountbatten‑Windsor and Peter Mandelson have been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office — an ancient medieval common‑law (unwritten law) offence, traceable back to at least the 13th century, and rarely used in modern times. It is a serious offence that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
But now that both have been arrested, we won’t hear much more for many months. Under British law, to prevent “trial by public opinion”, it is a criminal offence — contempt of court — for the media or anyone publishing information to release material that could create a substantial risk of serious prejudice if either were charged and the case went before a jury. Jurors must decide solely on the evidence presented in court, not on what appears in the media.As an interesting side line about laws - trial by combat, which became part of English law in 1066 was abolished in England in 1819.
I just heard about that law. Not entirely sure what to think about it. On the one hand, it "seems" fair but on the other it opens the door to gov't abuse of civil rights.
If this law applied to ordinary people, then yes — it would raise obvious civil‑liberty concerns. But that isn’t the case. The offence of misconduct in public office is very narrowly defined and applies only to senior officials: ministers, top civil servants, police chiefs, judges, and, in rare cases, members of the Royal Family acting in an official capacity on behalf of the Government. Ordinary citizens can’t be charged with it, so the potential for government abuse simply isn’t there.
Does the gag rule apply only to crimes like that? Not all arrests?
No, it’s not a “gagging rule” — and yes, it applies to all arrests in the UK.
Once someone is arrested and there’s a realistic chance the case could go before a jury, the contempt‑of‑court restrictions apply. The aim isn’t secrecy for its own sake, but to prevent anything being published that might create a substantial risk of prejudicing a future trial.
Once the jury has delivered its verdict, everything becomes public.
At that point the media are free to report the full details — the evidence, the background, and anything said in court.
And in high‑profile cases, since 2022 the judge’s sentencing remarks are broadcast live from the courtroom, delivered by the judge him/herself, on all the major UK news channels.
These broadcasts can run for an hour or more, with the judge summarising the facts, addressing each count separately, and explaining how the final sentence is reached.
Sharlee actually explained the principle behind it better than I ever could — her post captures the reasoning very well.
I actually agree with this, and I respect the reasoning behind it. The idea that a jury should decide a case based only on the evidence presented in court , not media coverage, makes a lot of sense to me. Once someone is arrested, the story often turns into speculation, and speculation can quickly become public judgment long before any facts are fully examined.
It’s also one of the reasons I try very hard not to make firm judgments or predictions based on media reporting alone. In my view, much of modern media is driven by clicks and ratings, and stories can be shaped in ways that emphasize drama rather than patience. Skilled wording can influence how people interpret events, even when all the facts are not yet known. I find that unfair to everyone involved, especially when reputations can be damaged long before a court ever hears the case.
I’m not saying journalists intentionally mislead in every case, but public opinion can form very quickly, and once it does it’s difficult to reverse, even if the evidence later points somewhere different. That’s why the British approach you described has value. It protects the accused, the integrity of the jury, and even the public from reacting to incomplete information.
Because of that, I’ve learned to be cautious. I’d rather wait for verified evidence presented in court than rely on early reporting or commentary. History has shown how dangerous rumor and assumption can be, and legal systems work best when the verdict comes from facts, not headlines.Absolutely — I’m fully with you on this one, Sharlee
Hey, I’m old, and I’ve been burned more times than I can count for jumping in too quickly and making bold predictions about how something would turn out. I’ve learned the hard way that certainty can make you look foolish. Still, it isn’t always easy to sit back and take a wait-and-see attitude, especially when the issue in front of you feels blatantly clear.
I get what you’re saying. I’ve always been the type who has to step back and think things through — usually over a coffee — before I’m comfortable saying anything definite. It’s just my nature to look at the evidence first and speak second.
But there have been times when that measured approach has meant I’ve missed opportunities because I didn’t act more rashly, and afterwards I’ve kicked myself for being too cautious.
And yes, “rash” is just my British way of saying acting quickly without overthinking it — I’m not sure if Americans use it quite the same way, but that’s what I mean by it.
DOJ releases missing Epstein files related to a woman who made an allegation against Trump
The Justice Department on Thursday released previously unseen documents from the Epstein files that included new summaries and notes from interviews the FBI conducted with a woman from South Carolina who made allegations against the late sex offender and President Donald Trump.
-They include 16 new pages that cover three additional FBI interview summaries with a woman who accused Trump of sexual abuse decades ago when she was a minor. Also included are two pages of an intake form documenting the initial call to the FBI from a friend who relayed the claims.
NPR's investigation previously found 53 pages that appeared to be missing from the public database.
Now that these documents are published, there are still 37 pages of records missing from the public database, including notes from the interviews, a law enforcement report and license records.-
In a series of 2019 interviews with the FBI, the woman said she was a sexual assault victim of Jeffrey Epstein. She also alleged that she was assaulted by Trump in the 1980s when she was between the ages of 13 and 15.
The newly released interviews describe the allegations in detail. They include how the woman says her mother was blackmailed by Epstein and that for years after the alleged abusive from the disgraced financier she received physical and verbal threats that she believed were directed by Epstein.
The woman initially contacted federal law enforcement shortly after Epstein was arrested in 2019 with a lengthy description of how he assaulted her on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, when she was 13 years old in or around 1984, according to a summary of the FBI interview that was previously released by the Justice Department.
The FBI determined that the woman’s initial allegations against Epstein were significant enough that the FBI followed up with her for three additional interviews. However, the fourth conversation was abbreviated.
The newly released documents do not include information about whether the agents considered the allegations credible or if they did additional work to verify or disprove the claims.
The Justice Department said in a statement Wednesday that it was working to “address victim concerns, redact personally identifiable information and any images of a sexual nature” and had taken 47,635 files offline for further review and redaction. The DOJ said it would be ready to reproduce them by the end of the week.
There is no evidence in the Wayback Machine internet archive that these documents were posted on the DOJ website before Thursday.
In a Feb. 24 post on X, the Justice Department said, “ALL responsive documents have been produced unless a document falls within one of the following categories: duplicates, privileged, or part of an ongoing federal investigation.”
On Thursday, when the missing files were posted on the DOJ website, the department said in a statement on X that it had “discovered 15 documents were incorrectly coded as duplicative.”
Epstein FilesThis is our first piece of hard evidence to support what we all suspected is true - Trump assaulted a minor girl. Why should we believe it? Three reasons: 1) the icky things he said about Ivanka when she was very young, 2) various statements he has made over time about liking young girls, and 3) 25+ women who have come forward and accused/sued Trump for sexual assault including one where a jury found that the allegation was TRUE. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect those dots
. "The newly released interviews describe the allegations in detail. They include how the woman says her mother was blackmailed by Epstein and that for years after the alleged abusive from the disgraced financier she received physical and verbal threats that she believed were directed by Epstein." - That pattern is corroborated by Virginia Giuffre and other survivors
"The FBI determined that the woman’s initial allegations against Epstein were significant enough that the FBI followed up with her for three additional interviews. However, the fourth conversation was abbreviated.
The newly released documents do not include information about whether the agents considered the allegations credible or if they did additional work to verify or disprove the claims." - If it was credible enough to reinterview, who stopped the FBI from following up?
The details of Trump's assault on the girl are similar to those reported by Virginia Giuffre and other survivors.
There is one female on this forum who should now believe these allegations against Trump given she fought adamantly to pin the same type of allegations against Biden when the accuser was much, much less credible as this oneWell, it seems Trump succeeded in at least one objective of his war with Iran: pushing renewed attention to his Epstein ties out of the news cycle.
People often say, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” After seeing the now very public allegation by a woman who says Trump tried to have a minor perform oral sex on him, I decided to lay out, in one place, Trump’s long history of alleged sexual misconduct toward women and girls.
I am not claiming that every allegation has been proven in a court of law. That would be false. But I am saying that when you step back and look at the overall pattern, it becomes much harder to dismiss Epstein-related allegations against Trump as inherently absurd or politically invented.
First, start with the pattern itself.
Trump has been accused, over decades, by a long list of women of unwanted kissing, groping, sexual assault, and related misconduct. I am listing only 20 or so here, because that should be enough for even the most committed Trump defender to see that there is a serious and repeated problem. Public timelines have counted more than 20 women overall.
(Sorry for the length but Trump has been a busy man.)
Jessica Leeds – about 40 – early 1980s – alleged Trump groped her on an airplane and put his hand up her skirt.
Jane Doe – about 14 – 1980s – alleged attempted forced oral sex in an Epstein-related context.
Ivana Trump – 40 – 1989 – alleged spousal rape during the divorce era; not adjudicated as such, and later public statements complicated the claim.
Stacey Williams – 1993 allegation, reported publicly in 2024 – alleged Trump groped her after Jeffrey Epstein brought her to Trump Tower; Trump’s campaign denied it.
“Katie Johnson” (pseudonym) – 13 – 1994 – alleged rape in an Epstein-related setting; lawsuits were filed and later withdrawn.
E. Jean Carroll – 52 – mid-1990s – alleged sexual assault in a department store dressing room. A jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded her $5 million.
Cathy Heller – adult – 1997 – alleged Trump grabbed her and tried to forcibly kiss her at Mar-a-Lago; publicly reported, no lawsuit found.
Temple Taggart McDowell – 21 – 1997 – alleged Trump kissed her directly on the lips during Miss USA-related interactions; publicly reported.
Amy Dorris – 24 – 1997 – alleged Trump forcibly kissed and groped her at the U.S. Open; publicly reported.
Karena Virginia – 27 – 1998 – alleged Trump grabbed her arm and touched the inside of her breast near the U.S. Open; publicly reported.
Mindy McGillivray – 23 – 2003 – alleged groping at Mar-a-Lago.
Rachel Crooks – 22 – 2005 – alleged forced kissing.
Natasha Stoynoff – about 40 – 2005 – alleged forced kissing; later testified under oath in the Carroll matter, where such testimony was admitted as pattern evidence and the verdict went against Trump.
Jessica Drake – 32 – 2006 – alleged Trump kissed her and two other women without consent and later offered money to get her to come to his room; publicly reported.
Ninni Laaksonen – 20 – 2006 – alleged Trump squeezed her buttocks before a TV appearance; publicly reported.
Summer Zervos – about 32 – 2007 – alleged forced kissing and groping. Her later defamation case was discontinued without compensation or apology.
Jill Harth – about 32 – 1990s allegation, raised in litigation later – alleged groping and attempted assault.
Cassandra Searles – 24 – 2013 – alleged Trump “continually grabbed” her buttocks and invited her to his hotel room.
Alva Johnson – about 42 – 2016 allegation – alleged unwanted kissing during the campaign; suit later dismissed.
Kristin Anderson / other publicly reported accusers – various years – alleged unwanted touching, kissing, or groping in social or business settings. Public timelines vary in exact count, but the pattern is unmistakable.
Before moving on, two additional women should be mentioned even though they do not fit neatly into the assault-accuser list.
Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were not part of the pattern of forced kissing, groping, or assault allegations listed above. But they do matter here for a different reason: Trump was found criminally liable for falsifying records to conceal the hush-money payment made to keep Stormy Daniels quiet before the 2016 election, and the same broader suppression effort also involved Karen McDougal, the former Playboy model, whose story was buried through the “catch-and-kill” scheme. That does not prove Epstein-related conduct. It does, however, show a willingness to hide sexually damaging stories from the public when Trump believed they could hurt him.
Second, consider that Trump was married during most of this period.
That matters because it makes it harder to pass this off as clumsy flirting, harmless misunderstanding, or the rough-and-tumble dating life of an unattached man. What it suggests instead is a long-running pattern of entitlement, sexual aggression, and disregard for consent.
Third, place that pattern next to Trump’s social relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
No, mere association does not prove participation in trafficking. It should not. But neither should it be waved away when the person in question has spent decades being publicly accused of sexual misconduct. At that point, the Epstein connection stops looking like a random guilt-by-association smear and starts looking like a relationship that deserves serious scrutiny.
Fourth, note that the issue is not whether every allegation has been adjudicated in court.
Most sexual abuse never results in a criminal conviction. Some cases are never filed. Some are filed and withdrawn. Some are dismissed on procedural grounds. Some end in settlement. That is the reality of sexual-abuse claims generally, especially when the accused is rich, famous, and powerful. So the absence of a criminal conviction on every allegation does not erase the pattern. It simply means the legal system did not fully resolve each case.
Fifth, when more than one allegation involves Epstein-linked conduct with a minor, it cannot honestly be dismissed as just random noise.
At that point, the broader pattern you see becomes relevant. A history of alleged sexual aggression toward women does not prove improper sexual relations with minors but it does make the accusation much more likely to be true. Specifically, it does make Epstein-related allegations far less easy to wave away as inherently absurd. In plain English, if someone has spent decades being accused of sexual misconduct, then an allegation placing him near Epstein’s predatory world is not coming out of nowhere.
Sixth, defenders of Trump almost always insist that every accuser must be lying, mistaken, politically motivated, or part of some coordinated smear.
That is possible in an individual case. It becomes much harder to believe across twenty or more allegations spanning decades, different settings, different women, and different stages of Trump’s life. At some point, the simpler explanation is not that all of these women independently fabricated similar kinds of misconduct, but that Trump has in fact behaved in the predatory way many of them describe.
Seventh, the standard here is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The question is whether the totality of the evidence, patterns, associations, and allegations makes suspicion reasonable to an intelligent, unbiased observer. On that standard, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that Trump’s relationship to Epstein deserves far more scrutiny than his defenders want to allow.
In short:
A man found liable by a jury for sexual abuse, a man accused by many women over many years of unwanted sexual conduct, and a man who moved in Epstein’s orbit does not get the benefit of automatic dismissal when Epstein-related allegations arise.
The total pattern does not prove every detail of every allegation. It does, however, make it entirely reasonable to suspect that Trump’s relationship to Epstein was darker than his defenders admit and that allegations connecting him to Epstein’s predatory world cannot honestly be dismissed out of hand.
That is not hysteria. That is pattern recognition.
If anybody believes Trump is innocent is proof they are brainwashed or a fool.Crickets - I guess, finally, the right-wing has acknowledged the fact that Trump, their president, is a sexual predator and likely trafficking in minors.
Or, they got tired of being told the truth about Trump and banned this forum to make themselves not feel bad.
[b/"Epstein survivors sue Justice Department and Google over release of private information?[/b]
It is about time!! Hope the settlement is about $10,000,000 each.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/27/us/epste … b_wall-met
Related Discussions
- 8
Political Pressure: The DOJ's Integrity at Risk of Weaponization
by Sharlee 14 months ago
Just read this article on AOL--- seems like the Democrats are attempting to weaponize the DOJ."Garland has said he wouldn’t make the second volume of Smith’s report, focused on the classified documents case, public while the charges against Nauta and De Oliveira are still being...
- 74
The Biden Crime Family
by Readmikenow 8 months ago
Note: This is from a left-wing publication.FBI Document Reveals Biden Family’s International Bribery SchemeIn a stunning turn of events, an unclassified FBI document has been released, implicating President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, in an alleged international bribery scheme. The document,...
- 791
The Frightening Violence of the Left
by Readmikenow 4 months ago
During the last few months the violence of the left has been put on full display. A health care executive is executed outside his hotel, Tela's are firebombed, IVF clinics are torched, Governor Shapiro's house in Pennsylvania is set on fire.The common thread in all of these incidents is they...
- 15
WEAPONIZATION
by Willowarbor 13 months ago
When DOJ lawyers take their oath, it's not just fancy words; it's a promise to uphold the Constitution above all else. Their duty is to justice and the rule of law, not to any political agenda. It took Bondi and Bove five whole days to do something so corrupt. Inform yourself about the...
- 37
The GOP and Hunter Biden’s Two Tired Government Special Treatment
by Mike Russo 2 years ago
Trump’s appointed judge, Aileen Cannon, in her classified documents trial wants the trial to be over by September. However, she wants all the lawyers on the case to have been granted top secret clearances. In terms of time, those two demands are in conflict with each other. I know having been...
- 18
Rope A Dope --- The Breaking Of The Powerful
by Sharlee 6 months ago
I’ve been closely following the Epstein saga, and I’ve started piecing together some patterns that are hard to ignore. When Trump first ran for president, he promised transparency and even said the Epstein documents would be released. Later, when AG Pam Bondi finally received those documents from...