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

(2,268 posts)
33. Thanks for clarification. This is exactly the sort of cogent argument I always see from RockRaven
Thu Nov 13, 2025, 03:54 AM
Yesterday


I still just have hard time reconciling the idea that "the files", if we could only SEE them, would prove horrific acts by Trump, bad enough to really bring him down ... and yet Biden's DoJ had them, and did nothing? So I push back on that idea, and I look for other explanations. So far I've always found one, and they are really not far-fetched. In this case of the email, it's totally not actionable, so very understandable no action was taken.

My guess is "the files", even the real ones, are not going to rise a whole lot above the level of this email in terms of Trump culpability. I think Trump obviously has shit to hide wrt Epstein, but I don't think that is actually "participating". Sorry, I just don't see it as likely, not ironclad, like on recordings type of shit. Now, I KNOW he KNEW, but I also think he and Epstein tried to blackmail each other. Epstein WRT Trump's money laundering for the Russians, and Trump WRT Epstein's sex crimes. I think that is what the birthday card was actually about, as you've probably read my saying in the past.

Blackmail, instead of turning Epstein in? That would be really bad, but not bad enough that I'd say I expected Garland to act on it. It IS however, if the evidence is compelling and it's deftly presented by Democrats and our allies, potentially bad enough to hurt IQ47 severely in the public eye. That would be a really bad look, especially if we can hammer home the Russian aspect.

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 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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sorry to annoy everyone y...»Reply #33