Trump
-
integrale_evo
- Posts: 5497
- Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2018 5:58 pm
Re: Trump
Oh I dunno, they're already pulling the "Er, I think you'll find it wasn't paedophilia, it was ephebophilia" line about Epstein, and describing 15 year old girls as 'barely legal' (when in point of fact, they are 'really quite obviously illegal') so it's definitely hit a nerve.
Question is, are they going to do the sensible thing and throw Trump to the fucking wolves, or are they going to do the absolutely fucking stupid and bonkers thing like, I dunno, decriminalising statutory rape before opening up a full investigation into the Epstein goings-on, so that there are fewer career destroying charges to throw at all their rich pals?
A few days ago I'd have said that was beyond the pale, even for MAGA, but "Well ackshualleeee"ing full on organised noncing has made me rethink the levels to which these freaks will stoop.
Question is, are they going to do the sensible thing and throw Trump to the fucking wolves, or are they going to do the absolutely fucking stupid and bonkers thing like, I dunno, decriminalising statutory rape before opening up a full investigation into the Epstein goings-on, so that there are fewer career destroying charges to throw at all their rich pals?
A few days ago I'd have said that was beyond the pale, even for MAGA, but "Well ackshualleeee"ing full on organised noncing has made me rethink the levels to which these freaks will stoop.
Re: Trump
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 66195.htmlTrump calls for release of Epstein files in shocking U-turn
The Evo forum really is a shadow of its former self. I remember when the internet was for the elite and now they seem to let any spastic on
IaFG Down Under Division
IaFG Down Under Division
Re: Trump
Yeah, then he'll start an investigation a few days before they're due to come out, causing them to be sealed again, most likely.
(one of the reasons they weren't fully released previously was apparently due to Epstein and Maxwells criminal and multiple civil trials being in progress)
(one of the reasons they weren't fully released previously was apparently due to Epstein and Maxwells criminal and multiple civil trials being in progress)
Re: Trump
They were asked to be released before by Trump , the Democrat appointed judge said no. If there was anything there to destroy Trump the democrats would have been all over it. They certainly tried every other way.Beany wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 4:31 pm Yeah, then he'll start an investigation a few days before they're due to come out, causing them to be sealed again, most likely.
(one of the reasons they weren't fully released previously was apparently due to Epstein and Maxwells criminal and multiple civil trials being in progress)
Dave!
Re: Trump
Nah - he's just realised this isn't going away, so he's switching tactics.V8Granite wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 5:44 pmThey were asked to be released before by Trump , the Democrat appointed judge said no. If there was anything there to destroy Trump the democrats would have been all over it. They certainly tried every other way.Beany wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 4:31 pm Yeah, then he'll start an investigation a few days before they're due to come out, causing them to be sealed again, most likely.
(one of the reasons they weren't fully released previously was apparently due to Epstein and Maxwells criminal and multiple civil trials being in progress)
Dave!
Donald Trump? Who is Donald Trump? I'm Donald J Trump as you all know. That's what everyone knows me as. It's the only thing Epstein every called me - he made a point of it - he said I had the most coolestest name ever. Ivanka calls me John all the time etc etc etc
Re: Trump
Agreed, he knows he'll lose the vote so has about faced. Transparent AF.mik wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 5:55 pmNah - he's just realised this isn't going away, so he's switching tactics.V8Granite wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 5:44 pmThey were asked to be released before by Trump , the Democrat appointed judge said no. If there was anything there to destroy Trump the democrats would have been all over it. They certainly tried every other way.Beany wrote: Mon Nov 17, 2025 4:31 pm Yeah, then he'll start an investigation a few days before they're due to come out, causing them to be sealed again, most likely.
(one of the reasons they weren't fully released previously was apparently due to Epstein and Maxwells criminal and multiple civil trials being in progress)
Dave!
The Evo forum really is a shadow of its former self. I remember when the internet was for the elite and now they seem to let any spastic on
IaFG Down Under Division
IaFG Down Under Division
Re: Trump
Did a bit more digging on this because I'm sick of seeing people claiming that politicians can just grab casefiles and evidence for political gain, because that's not how any of this works.
First off, I can't believe I'm having to point this out - that the judge who controls the files was put in place by Bush Senior, she's not even remotely a 'democrat appointed judge', that's just a flat out lie - her name is Loretta Preska and she has a wiki page you can check to verify that; and here she is signing off on an earlier release to the US Virgin Islands so they could use some docs in their cases against Epstein because she's the senior judge in this matter, and always has been.
The files in the civil case are under something like what we'd call reporting restrictions (because child abuse, obviously), and have been since the civil trial has been ongoing - so no, US politicians (or anyone outside the trial itself, frankly) have not had access to the files in the civil case since it got rolling about a decade ago, other than what has been chosen to be released since it was wound up. They're being redacted and cleaned up for release now by the courts (under Preskas direction - not the FBI or any politicians etc), and have been since late '24, being released in batches due to the scale and complexity.
As for the criminal case - if you think that members of congress can just pop over to the FBI and have a wee deek at what juicy stuff they've got in their evidence lockers, err, no; to make it more like our side of the pond, an MP can't just call up the CPS and and start rifling through the evidence of a juicy case tangentially related to the government to see what they can use to make the PM look bad. You can't do that in literally any modern legal system without serious political weight and public interest behind it.
Redaction and release of the criminal case files is entirely separate to the civil case docs, and would be handled by DoJ (that's why the release last week had Guiffres name redacted in one, not the other). The vote everyone is talking about is to compel them to do that AFAIK, as they normally wouldn't - just like over here, evidence that isn't used in open court/reported on is typically kept behind closed doors after the fact.
First off, I can't believe I'm having to point this out - that the judge who controls the files was put in place by Bush Senior, she's not even remotely a 'democrat appointed judge', that's just a flat out lie - her name is Loretta Preska and she has a wiki page you can check to verify that; and here she is signing off on an earlier release to the US Virgin Islands so they could use some docs in their cases against Epstein because she's the senior judge in this matter, and always has been.
The files in the civil case are under something like what we'd call reporting restrictions (because child abuse, obviously), and have been since the civil trial has been ongoing - so no, US politicians (or anyone outside the trial itself, frankly) have not had access to the files in the civil case since it got rolling about a decade ago, other than what has been chosen to be released since it was wound up. They're being redacted and cleaned up for release now by the courts (under Preskas direction - not the FBI or any politicians etc), and have been since late '24, being released in batches due to the scale and complexity.
As for the criminal case - if you think that members of congress can just pop over to the FBI and have a wee deek at what juicy stuff they've got in their evidence lockers, err, no; to make it more like our side of the pond, an MP can't just call up the CPS and and start rifling through the evidence of a juicy case tangentially related to the government to see what they can use to make the PM look bad. You can't do that in literally any modern legal system without serious political weight and public interest behind it.
Redaction and release of the criminal case files is entirely separate to the civil case docs, and would be handled by DoJ (that's why the release last week had Guiffres name redacted in one, not the other). The vote everyone is talking about is to compel them to do that AFAIK, as they normally wouldn't - just like over here, evidence that isn't used in open court/reported on is typically kept behind closed doors after the fact.