why is that?

1) I don't want us to get it wrong and end up looking dumb, and have it empower him more, and
2) I really don't want to think that Biden's DOJ was sitting on evidence that Trump was heavily involved in a sex-trafficking ring, and didn't do SHIT?

Please understand that the 2nd statement is an underlying theme to pretty much everything I post on this subject. I don't want that to be true. They could've stopped ALL OF THIS HELL, and held a child sex trafficker to account, and just ... didn't? I guess I'm always trying to find reasons to why it cannot be, if that makes sense?

Even though I have ZERO doubt of his (and others') guilt -- even beyond trafficking, like blackmail, money laundering, etc. -- what intrigues me is how he is panicking about this. I thought that someone his regime would have gotten rid of any and all incriminating evidence. I certainly expect that to be the case as it concerns anything in government hands.

But the Dems have been releasing documents provided from the Epstein estate.

But he is panicking, and we're seeing people like MTG and Candace Owens defying him over the Epstein issue. Owens said a few days ago "You lost us when you called this a Democrat hoax."

The rats are bailing for a reason. It doesn't have to be a legal slam dunk to take him down. Losing his cult will do it, and the GOP knows it so he may lose more and more of them as well.

It's just the the Estate is in a position to furnish it, and Trump/Bondi/GQP have locked their vaults. Something coming from the Estate cannot mean that they're the only ones who have it, right? That would be mind-blowing to me. DoJ would've been totally kneecapped in prosecuting Maxwell!

Epstein was reported to the FBI as a rapist as early as 1996, and as a pedo as early as 2005. He got prosecuted and that inexplicable sweetheart deal in '07-08, sentence and probation happening in '09-10.

Trump and Epstein were public, high profile friends/associates for decades, it was very well known and openly spoken about even by themselves that they had similar tastes.

What the DOJ knew, or chose not to know, about Trump being a rapist/pedo alongside Epstein spans multiple presidents of both parties.

Your argument amounts to, in a nutshell ... I did nothing wrong because other people do things that are wrong.

Biden's DoJ was in a perfect position to right all that wrong, AND they are the ones that prosecuted Maxwell. IF there was the kind of evidence everyone here is clamoring for and imagining exists, they SHOULD NOT have fucking blown it off. Period. I don't care how others before them messed up.

Understand too I argued with wingnuts often around the time of Maxwells trial, as THEY tried to claim the Biden/Garland/Deep State nexus was not prosecuting Maxwell thoroughly, only accusing her of trafficking to Epstein, they're protecting Dems like Clinton and George Mitchell and Bill Richardson, etc. And that's when I really started looking at what was actually known, not just alleged in a lawsuit. I defended the prosecution and said "you know, none of that is proven, it's a CT", etc. So I have that other attachment as well.

I think (Victim) here is a Cop, and if not, not Virginia Guiffre. I'm on record

I'm not saying the DOJ under Biden did right, I am saying I don't understand why you expected them to do different than they did. To me that is a totally fantastical expectation.

Your apparent expectations for Biden's DOJ are way too high, imo, way out of step with the DOJ's long institutional history (timidity and kid gloves with the rich and well-connected; the reverse with the poor and marginalized). The DOJ is a small "c" conservative institution, and has been as long as most of us have been alive. Electing Biden had no effect on their nature.

Biden was a "establishment" guy not a "LOL, let's break stuff" guy, he was always going to leave the DOJ to its own devices. And so the DOJ did as they usually do.

sure

Not the OP, but Skittles, you give a good question, as you often do. Why is this SO important to some of us?

I can only speak for me. I have not sid much, but admit all this has triggered 75 yr old pain in me. I thought it was long ago "healed". It damaged me physically so no children. It affected my sense of worth even to today.

I never told. Too afraid. Why? Because adults in authority knew and could have stopped it.

America knew, and voted for him anyway. Twice. The people running Congress and Senate have the power to do something... and won't. I am one who believes this crime touches international leaders, wealthy business people, probably mobsters. My expectation is the crimes didn't die with Epstein.

Maybe silly on my part, but I almost desperately want us as a society to show every child in every country in the whole world that America will stand up for them..... as if we ever have.

My personal pain forces me to hope for them. It is too late for me. Probably none this makes sense. But it is the best I can do.

It claims the victim was Guiffre.

However, this email is from 2011. Virginia Guiffre left Epstein's orbit in ... checks notes ... 2002.

So, Trump wants us to believe that NINE YEARS later, Epstein is just randomly bringing up the time when Guiffre met Trump? His victim who said "he couldn't have been nicer" about Donald Trump?

WHY? That makes absolutely zero sense.

However, it WOULD make a lot of sense to NOT want to say "that was actually a COP", would it not?

just curious

I blast that motherfucker, and the GQP, all day, every day. Of COURSE I think he's vile disgusting POS. I'm POSITIVE that Trump absolutely knew what Epstein was doing, and didn't do shit. In fact, as I've often said, I think the vile POS tried to blackmail Epstein, and that is what the birthday card actually was, because Epstein knew Trump was laundering Russian money through his FL properties, and Trump knew what Epstein was up to. So the message was "you keep my secrets, I'll keep yours". Which is extremely vile. I'm just a lot LESS sure he was banging Epstein's victims, part of his "ring", etc. The evidence remains weak. I'm sorry, I call it as I see it

sources, and adversarial sources at that.

See post #2.

I'm calling BULLSHIT on what the White House claims.

And if it IS Giuffre, despite it making little sense in this context? Then it totally exonerates Trump (in this one context I mean), because she totally exonerated Trump.

people can be easily persuaded from bad-talking rich fucks

And it echoed OTHER times in the past where she said this very same thing.

And Virginia Guiffre was freaking FEARLESS. C'mon now. If this were someone else, maybe? Not her.

Ergo, if it's really Giuffre, and "him" is Trump? Then we got nothing. I don't think this is nothing. I think it's proof he knew and even talked to a cop about it. That is more incriminating, not less, versus it being Guiffre. Make sense?

very convenient she, like Epstein is DEAD. The actions these corrupt fuckers are taking to hide these files are enough alone to show just how fucking bad the facts must be......FUCK them and FUCK EVERYONE hiding or minimizing sex trafficking, it is DISGUSTING BEYOND BELIEF

OVER AND OUT

This is why I am saying (Victim) = Virginia Guiffre is the MOST desirable spin for the Regime. She can't say they're lying, obviously.

I am *specifically* talking about this email, okay? Just because he was a gentleman to Guiffre, that doesn't mean he's totally off the hook, but it means this email doesn't hurt Trump. Making (Victim) = VG saves his ass (for this email). This becomes non-incriminating.

OTOH, if (Victim) is actually (Cop), then he's in a ton of shit. He "didn't bark", even when given a golden opportunity. HE covered for Epstein. *I* think that's exactly what this email proves.

Please don't misread my intent and yell at me I am 100% with you on all you said. But the one thing I vary slightly on is that I think Trump would absolutely try to hide this shit solely because there's solid proof he knew, instead of stopping him, he covered for Epstein. Not that this is ALL he did wrong re: Epstein, but it would be enough, and I keep that idea in mind. That is pretty bad shit, on it's own. No?

The files aren't going to be released and Trumps actions look like a cover up. He can pardon himself if he really wants to, the entire damage is losing his political capital. Thats already happening because absent of the files, people are just assuming what's in them is bad.

Then again if they weren't, he'd have released them already.

What I said was a 100% honest assessment of how I would feel about it if the files are full of stuff that could nail Trump to the cross, get him impeached (and certainly could have kept him from being elected), and it was ignored for 4 years. I give the Biden DOJ the benefit of the doubt, because I don't think they WOULD have done that. This is probably why I am always proposing alternate ways of looking at things, because I will honestly be very disillusioned if there is ironclad shit in those files against Trump proving he was trafficking children. Since I am always thinking through that lens, my assessments often fly in the face of, shall we say, DU conventional thinking?

" If the con artist had nothing to hide, why put so much effort into quashing it? "

Well, this post speaks to that. If (Victim) is actually (Cop), it proves almost without question that not only did Trump take it on himself to say nothing, he actually, ACTIVELY covered for Epstein with the cops. Not exposing that, I could probably forgive the Biden DOJ for, because it's not raping kids.

At the same time, proof he did that WOULD rise to the level of something Trump would try HARD to quash, don't you think?

I don't know whether you are right or wrong in this instance but I do appreciate your efforts to analyze the situation and question what has regrettably become the conventional wisdom with many DU participants (some who also BTW seem to take satisfaction in crapping on anything that contradicts their beliefs including questioning of motives).

and whoever did that redacting on behalf of the estate must have done so knowing the identity, so your argument doesn't hold water unless you're suggesting that someone acting on behalf of the estate is seeking to warp the facts.

Meanwhile, it looks like Trump's got some more 'splaining to do:

Suppose there is one and only one place in the documents where "Donna Smith" appears (my theoretical cop). Maybe offhand the redactor don't know who that is, and in the context of the sentence, "Victim" makes sense, and they figure they can't really go wrong saying "Victim".

I hope someone from the Estate comes out and clarifies that " (Victim) " is definitely accurate (or if, for some reason, they actually aren't certain), and at least whether or not it is Guiffre, since the WH has let that out of the bag. I'm skeptical because VG is the *best* possible victim for it to be. She both called Trump a perfect gentleman, and she can't speak for herself anymore. I maintain that a cop/investigator's name makes slightly more sense in the sentence, and I'd be really surprised if it's VG. Victim = VG means the email is a nothingburger. Literally.

I also REALLY want to see the surrounding context. This appears to be the middle of discussion. What are they actually talking about, surrounding this blurb?

This other email? I'd be surprised if that's not some inside joke. In Dec. 2017 IQ47 was POTUS. I don't think he was regularly hanging around Epstein's place at that point. But if he was, then YEAH, he has a LOT to answer about

And that's going to be true of many loose ends and partially oblique hints and allegations in the files that will be dripped out in coming weeks.

You can tie yourself in knots with all this conjecture and "supposes", but that's about all that can be achieved without all the facts in some (possibly mythical) indisputable form.

Trump's innocence might be easier to defend and sustain if he and his regime weren't going to such great lengths to prevent the files being released.

It looks very fishy, smells worse, and given how many conspiracy theory-minded MAGAites there are and how hard Trump baited them on the stump with promises of a full reveal of all the sordid details, it's a brave strategy, Cotton ...

Trump is GUILTY OF SOMETHING related to Epstein. I don't know that I concur about the idea that they're going to "great lengths", for the simple fact that the "complete release of DoJ files" for any case is not a normal occurrence, it's not like SOP is being broken by Bondi not putting them out there. BUT there has definitely been enough signs that Trump wants them to stay hidden that I think there's shit he does not want coming out. So I for one am NOT defending Trump's "innocence", I'm just not sure exactly what he's guilty OF. BUT ... I know that motherfucker KNEW and said nothing. For absolute positive. The birthday cards PROVES that, even if the real meaning of it is a little more sketchy (again, in my mind).

When has normality ever been a boundary for a Trump administration?

When was Trump last driven to have to haul in the likes of Boebert to try to "persuade" her to toe the Trump line? If you don't consider that and other behind-the-scenes pressure - coupled with clodhopping public attempts to shut down the issue, to the extent that Ingraham asked a Republican Congressman today whether, as Trump declared, he was "stupid" or "bad" because he supported airing the Epstein evidence - as "great lengths", not to mention Johnson blatantly obstructing the swearing in of Grijalva, I don't know what would persuade you.

The latest desperate pivot by Trump and his mouthpieces to brand the Epstein affair just "a hoax" is proving highly inflammatory talk for the most vocal of his base in Congress, never mind the world at large. The "fake news" tactic's running out of road, and at a very treacherous point in Trump's term when many ugly chickens are coming home to roost.

It seems Giuffre didn't know Chump much at all, at least not during the 2 years that she "worked" for Epstein. By 2005 she escaped to Australia and lived in relative seclusion with her new husband Robert Giuffre. Because of that she probably never saw Chump on TV in the US.

Investigators spoke to Giuffre while preparing for Epstein's trial around 2007 or 08. She was shown photos of Chump and asked whether she ever saw "this man" at Epstein's house, or on the Lolita Express airplane, and Giuffre wasn't sure who he was. She said she'd never seen him on the airplane or at Epstein's house. This isn't the answer that Virginia would have given if she'd been raped or otherwise abused by Chump.

I haven't read her book yet, but I plan to get into it very soon.