General Discussion

OneGrassRoot

(23,909 posts)

6. Is that email in question from the estate?

Wed Nov 12, 2025, 07:00 PM

Wednesday

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

3 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

TheRickles Emrys FakeNoose

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sorry to annoy everyone yet again, but much about that Epstein email hangs on the accuracy of one word [View all] AZJonnie Wednesday OP

you seem very vested in all of this Skittles Wednesday #1

to be honest every day I see dozens here incredibly vested in this. WarGamer Wednesday #3

I have two answers for you AZJonnie Wednesday #4

Is that email in question from the estate? OneGrassRoot Wednesday #6

I cannot possibly imagine that the DoJ does/did not have everything the Estate has in this regard, long ago AZJonnie Wednesday #8

Well, not just Biden's DOJ. Sorry to burst the bubble you'd prefer to exist in, but it is true. RockRaven Wednesday #10

I see you as rather a brilliant person so this reply surprises me. AZJonnie Wednesday #11

I believe my last post failed to communicate to you what I intended. RockRaven Wednesday #18

Thanks for clarification. This is exactly the sort of cogent argument I always see from RockRaven AZJonnie Yesterday #33

I don't think BeerBarrelPolka Yesterday #34

yeah OK Skittles Wednesday #12

Because Biden wanted to protect others. Sadly. Bluesaph Yesterday #32

I am one KentuckyWoman Wednesday #19

The White House released the name Abnredleg Wednesday #2

Well, that's very convenient since Giuffre REPEATEDLY exonerated Trump of any wrongdoing including in her book AZJonnie Wednesday #7

do you admit that Trump is one vile, disgusting POS??? Skittles Wednesday #13

Do you not see what I post, all day and every day? I mean obviously not everything, but generally? AZJonnie Wednesday #15

The premise of this post is wrong, from what I've read. The ID is known, from multiple RockRaven Wednesday #5

See my post #7 above this one. AZJonnie Wednesday #9

and how do you know she wasn't under duress? Skittles Wednesday #14

Because it was in her 2025 memoir that she just wrote, and her estate released posthumously AZJonnie Wednesday #17

speak for yourself Skittles Wednesday #21

We are making the same point. Yes, she is gone, having exonerated him (to her knowledge) on her way out. AZJonnie Wednesday #23

It doesn't matter Boo1 Wednesday #16

I want to address this part of your post Quiet Em Wednesday #20

I get what you mean, but I was asked why *I* am so interested in the case near the top of the thread. AZJonnie Wednesday #24

You are not annoying me and no apology is required. Disaffected Wednesday #22

From what I've read, the "VICTIM" redaction was in the version of the files supplied by the estate, Emrys Wednesday #25

Not suggesting anyone tried to warp the facts, but mistakes can be made on a task like that AZJonnie Wednesday #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 Wednesday #28

I've said this like 20 times in various posts over months but not everyone see everything, so again lol AZJonnie Yesterday #29

"the 'complete release of DoJ files' for any case is not a normal occurrence" Emrys Yesterday #30

Setting aside the details of our particular definitions of "great lengths", the point is we agree AZJonnie Yesterday #31

AZJohnny I agree with you that it wasn't Virginia Roberts Giuffre that Chump met at Epstein's house FakeNoose Wednesday #27