Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Sorry to annoy everyone yet again, but much about that Epstein email hangs on the accuracy of one word [View all]AZJonnie
(2,261 posts)4. I have two answers for you
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?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
34 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sorry to annoy everyone yet again, but much about that Epstein email hangs on the accuracy of one word [View all]
AZJonnie
Yesterday
OP
I cannot possibly imagine that the DoJ does/did not have everything the Estate has in this regard, long ago
AZJonnie
Yesterday
#8
Well, not just Biden's DOJ. Sorry to burst the bubble you'd prefer to exist in, but it is true.
RockRaven
Yesterday
#10
Thanks for clarification. This is exactly the sort of cogent argument I always see from RockRaven
AZJonnie
18 hrs ago
#33
Well, that's very convenient since Giuffre REPEATEDLY exonerated Trump of any wrongdoing including in her book
AZJonnie
Yesterday
#7
Do you not see what I post, all day and every day? I mean obviously not everything, but generally?
AZJonnie
Yesterday
#15
The premise of this post is wrong, from what I've read. The ID is known, from multiple
RockRaven
Yesterday
#5
Because it was in her 2025 memoir that she just wrote, and her estate released posthumously
AZJonnie
Yesterday
#17
We are making the same point. Yes, she is gone, having exonerated him (to her knowledge) on her way out.
AZJonnie
Yesterday
#23
I get what you mean, but I was asked why *I* am so interested in the case near the top of the thread.
AZJonnie
Yesterday
#24
From what I've read, the "VICTIM" redaction was in the version of the files supplied by the estate,
Emrys
Yesterday
#25
Not suggesting anyone tried to warp the facts, but mistakes can be made on a task like that
AZJonnie
Yesterday
#26
It MIGHT be an inside joke, but to borrow the words of a past US president, "I want to hear him deny it."
Emrys
23 hrs ago
#28
I've said this like 20 times in various posts over months but not everyone see everything, so again lol
AZJonnie
22 hrs ago
#29