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

AZJonnie

(2,291 posts)
24. I get what you mean, but I was asked why *I* am so interested in the case near the top of the thread.
Wed Nov 12, 2025, 09:14 PM
Wednesday

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?

Recommendations

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

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 Thursday #33
I don't think BeerBarrelPolka Thursday #34
yeah OK Skittles Wednesday #12
Because Biden wanted to protect others. Sadly. Bluesaph Thursday #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 Thursday #29
"the 'complete release of DoJ files' for any case is not a normal occurrence" Emrys Thursday #30
Setting aside the details of our particular definitions of "great lengths", the point is we agree AZJonnie Thursday #31
AZJohnny I agree with you that it wasn't Virginia Roberts Giuffre that Chump met at Epstein's house FakeNoose Wednesday #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sorry to annoy everyone y...»Reply #24