I assume that may have been Virginia Giuffre who said Trump had not been intimate with her.
The man though is an adjudicated rapist and that he has retained support despite this should tell us enough.
The Epstein files
- Thread starter billvon
- Start date
The man though is an adjudicated rapist and that he has retained support despite this should tell us enough.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
Not if we re trying to pin him down as complicit with Epstein in underage sex, which is the suspicion everyone is concerned about.
Well,the suspicion (that he has something to hide) is well founded.
That doesn't mean he has but, if I were a betting man and we could count on getting to the truth I would go something like 80% with extra points for intrinsic loathesomeness.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
That is not in doubt. The issue is whether he can be nailed, for once in his life. Or, whether he will look bad enough to turn the MAGA crowd against him. And I don’t believe this Epstein business will do it. Far too much hearsay, far too much circumstantial, little substance.
Ken Fabian
Registered Senior Member
Where is Wikileaks when you need it? Oh, yeah, taking it down was bipartisan politics at work, yay; no-one liked their dirty secrets hung out for all to see (and unfortunately I didn't think it was sufficiently non-partisan). A good idea that could be done better. Not that I think the biggest media/social media companies really prefer stories that are true but too discomforting over what gets the most views and clicks whilst not rocking boats they ride in. Best of all when their stories don't unduly upset the reigning king, who has been such a big source of clicks and views as well as more prosaic 'licensing' and payola opportunities. In addition to tax cuts as well.
Ken Fabian
Registered Senior Member
Not convinced the corruption and pressure goes one way between Trump and media in this; a couple of times it looked to me like some News Corp outlets would publish some ugly truths about Trump... but after some private discussion, the outlets would back down and not follow it up and later some commercially significant decisions/concessions for News Corp would emerge from the Administration. Not 'punished'.
As an Australian I am tempted to apologise for News Corp, an Australian export with even fewer benefits than fossil fuels (growth of which News Corp also support); from 'better' developing papers and radio stations (initially) into the tools to influence election outcomes and using that power to buy politicians and influence policy to commercial advantage in Australia, went on to do it at bigger scale in the UK and then USA. Missing is any overarching 'greater good', let alone truth in the face of power - redefining 'greater good' however necessary to advance News Corp profitability and power.
As an Australian I am tempted to apologise for News Corp, an Australian export with even fewer benefits than fossil fuels (growth of which News Corp also support); from 'better' developing papers and radio stations (initially) into the tools to influence election outcomes and using that power to buy politicians and influence policy to commercial advantage in Australia, went on to do it at bigger scale in the UK and then USA. Missing is any overarching 'greater good', let alone truth in the face of power - redefining 'greater good' however necessary to advance News Corp profitability and power.
It's almost certainly both. Compliant news organizations are rewarded with access, scoops, favorable FCC decisions and free publicity from the White House.
Achtung: Content Warning
If you want to know what they're trying to hide, the Department of Justice today posted 2025 email chain including several allegations against Donald Trump. A sentence none of us ever wanted to read, much less type, is that it includes an allegation that Trump and Epstein would present underage "calendar girls", and that Trump "measured the children's vulva and vagina by entering a finger and rated the children on tightness."
Another accuses celebrity Robin Leach of murder.
The document is a table of certain complaint summaries reaching back to the '90s. The summaries appear to be from the National Threat Operations Center (NTOC), and thus are raw claims with no investigative notes; the summaries appear to be from a pdf with the phrase "Alexander_Brothers" in the filename, who in turn seem to feature in a complaint that also includes a "British socialite", Victoria's Secret models, and BIll Clinton.
Chatter suggests the document was posted, pulled, and then reposted; that detail remains unclear. Content warning: This one's a tough read.
If you want to know what they're trying to hide, the Department of Justice today posted 2025 email chain including several allegations against Donald Trump. A sentence none of us ever wanted to read, much less type, is that it includes an allegation that Trump and Epstein would present underage "calendar girls", and that Trump "measured the children's vulva and vagina by entering a finger and rated the children on tightness."
Another accuses celebrity Robin Leach of murder.
The document is a table of certain complaint summaries reaching back to the '90s. The summaries appear to be from the National Threat Operations Center (NTOC), and thus are raw claims with no investigative notes; the summaries appear to be from a pdf with the phrase "Alexander_Brothers" in the filename, who in turn seem to feature in a complaint that also includes a "British socialite", Victoria's Secret models, and BIll Clinton.
Chatter suggests the document was posted, pulled, and then reposted; that detail remains unclear. Content warning: This one's a tough read.
Since this stuff has obviously been published, "they" are no longer "trying to hide" it, even if "they" were trying to hide it before.
While I'm no fan of Trump, allegations are just that - allegations. Anybody can make allegations. Allegations can be true or false.
It would be reasonable to assume that the National Threat Operations Center (NTOC) receives a shitload of "allegations".
Update: Now the Only Question Is Why
Any number of people can be found discussing the circumstance: Nobody seems to know why the Department of Justice pulled, and then reposted, the document. But the one thing we do know is that yes, for a while, the document disappeared from the DoJ release. Jamie Dupree↱, for instance, a longtime reporter and broadcaster, had managed to download a copy for his own review, and then posted it to the web during its absence from the DoJ site.
(Trying to project the reason why DoJ removed and then reposed that document is an exercise in futility.)
Any number of people can be found discussing the circumstance: Nobody seems to know why the Department of Justice pulled, and then reposted, the document. But the one thing we do know is that yes, for a while, the document disappeared from the DoJ release. Jamie Dupree↱, for instance, a longtime reporter and broadcaster, had managed to download a copy for his own review, and then posted it to the web during its absence from the DoJ site.
(Trying to project the reason why DoJ removed and then reposed that document is an exercise in futility.)
It's truly astounding. While 3 million--or 6 million--might sound like a lot to some people, attorneys--with teams--go through much, much larger piles of shit all the time. And it doesn't take them months to do so, nor thousands of hours of overtime. WTF?!
Who's on First? ("What Bases Are They Covering?" b/w "Footboccerugbasketpuck")
If ....
Okay, it's like, if something, then why? It's not quite the same bit I do about narrative contiguity, but there is a sense of consistency that stands out in all of this.
So, yesterday, DAG Blanche set off holyshit meters all over socmed, and while there is a context in which he may have been just reciting the standard, the thing is that it's hard to understand the Administration's habit because it is their habit to be hard to understand. That is, compared to the colloquy or shorthand necessary for misunderstanding, why be so specific on any particular occasion, or something thereabout.
In explaining what DoJ has withheld from public release, Blanche explained, "anything that depicts or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury, also not produced".
Was he reading from a standard? His words don't seem to be quoting chapter and verse, but if he is merely referring to a standard without regard for what the withheld material actually is, this, too, is easily seen as calculated blurring, at least compared to the way these people are behaving.
If we're cynical enough, the deleting and reposting of the NTOC summaries can look like a deliberate attempt to shape or focus the discussion; the question is how much from those calls can be verified, or even investigated. At this point, we can't be sure DoJ isn't currently holding a video of Robin Leach strangling a girl to death. Insofar as it would be good to clear that up, we should not look away from the rest of this mess: The bit about Bill Gates needing help sounds embarrassing at least; the part with Bari Weiss' wife is certainly interesting; the bit about Weiss' recent hire Peter Attia looks really, really bad; the would-be nom for Fed Chair is in the files; oh, and the guy who directed the Melania flop is in there, too, in redacted photographs hiding the identities of the females he is with. There's a bit about Nick Jarecki and Jason Calcanis that ought to be hilarious↱, except these are the Epstein files, so it's not funny. The part about Musk wanting to know which night would be the wildest is what it is. Commerce Secretary Lutnick's emails are profanely creepy. And, it's true, lots of people want to know whose name is redacted from the email about the torture video. And then there's the FBI tip about the Mexican trafficking operation, suggesting the founding commander of Seal Team 6 allegedly had a trove of video including Jeffrey Epstein and others abusing children.
A former defense attorney↱ reminds, "If what we've seen of the Epstein Files so far—heavily redacted and with 3 million pages still missing—is bad, keep in mind that the Files in full are a hundred times worse. That's how this works."
One of the morbid jokes going around is whether to simply presume the second Trump presidency is the Epstein Offenders Administration. The secondary redactions seem to be about more than just Trump. The transparency law wants to know about government officials and politically exposed persons; it may well be that part of the delay is trying to figure out who has what exposure compared to what they could possibly redact. If they're covering for a lot more people than just Donald, redactions will take longer.
Also, if, and just if, they're also trying to account for international political intrigue, i.e., foreign agency compromising individuals, yeah, redactions are going to need more time.
____________________
Notes:
@allenanalysis. "BREAKING: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche just admitted the DOJ excluded images showing 'death, physical abuse, or injury' from today's Epstein files release. Let that sink in. The government is acknowledging graphic evidence exists and chose to withhold it, while redacting names tied to Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful associates, including Donald Trump." X. 30 January 2026. X.com. 31 January 2026. status/2017584430257263097
@SethAbramson. "Former criminal defense attorney here. If what we've seen of the Epstein Files so far—heavily redacted and with 3 million pages still missing—is bad, keep in mind that the *Files in full* are a *hundred* times worse. That's how this works. You're seeing the G-rated version." X. 30 January 2026. X.com. 31 January 2026. status/2017397258929537121
If ....
Okay, it's like, if something, then why? It's not quite the same bit I do about narrative contiguity, but there is a sense of consistency that stands out in all of this.
So, yesterday, DAG Blanche set off holyshit meters all over socmed, and while there is a context in which he may have been just reciting the standard, the thing is that it's hard to understand the Administration's habit because it is their habit to be hard to understand. That is, compared to the colloquy or shorthand necessary for misunderstanding, why be so specific on any particular occasion, or something thereabout.
In explaining what DoJ has withheld from public release, Blanche explained, "anything that depicts or contain images of death, physical abuse, or injury, also not produced".
Was he reading from a standard? His words don't seem to be quoting chapter and verse, but if he is merely referring to a standard without regard for what the withheld material actually is, this, too, is easily seen as calculated blurring, at least compared to the way these people are behaving.
If we're cynical enough, the deleting and reposting of the NTOC summaries can look like a deliberate attempt to shape or focus the discussion; the question is how much from those calls can be verified, or even investigated. At this point, we can't be sure DoJ isn't currently holding a video of Robin Leach strangling a girl to death. Insofar as it would be good to clear that up, we should not look away from the rest of this mess: The bit about Bill Gates needing help sounds embarrassing at least; the part with Bari Weiss' wife is certainly interesting; the bit about Weiss' recent hire Peter Attia looks really, really bad; the would-be nom for Fed Chair is in the files; oh, and the guy who directed the Melania flop is in there, too, in redacted photographs hiding the identities of the females he is with. There's a bit about Nick Jarecki and Jason Calcanis that ought to be hilarious↱, except these are the Epstein files, so it's not funny. The part about Musk wanting to know which night would be the wildest is what it is. Commerce Secretary Lutnick's emails are profanely creepy. And, it's true, lots of people want to know whose name is redacted from the email about the torture video. And then there's the FBI tip about the Mexican trafficking operation, suggesting the founding commander of Seal Team 6 allegedly had a trove of video including Jeffrey Epstein and others abusing children.
A former defense attorney↱ reminds, "If what we've seen of the Epstein Files so far—heavily redacted and with 3 million pages still missing—is bad, keep in mind that the Files in full are a hundred times worse. That's how this works."
One of the morbid jokes going around is whether to simply presume the second Trump presidency is the Epstein Offenders Administration. The secondary redactions seem to be about more than just Trump. The transparency law wants to know about government officials and politically exposed persons; it may well be that part of the delay is trying to figure out who has what exposure compared to what they could possibly redact. If they're covering for a lot more people than just Donald, redactions will take longer.
Also, if, and just if, they're also trying to account for international political intrigue, i.e., foreign agency compromising individuals, yeah, redactions are going to need more time.
____________________
Notes:
@allenanalysis. "BREAKING: Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche just admitted the DOJ excluded images showing 'death, physical abuse, or injury' from today's Epstein files release. Let that sink in. The government is acknowledging graphic evidence exists and chose to withhold it, while redacting names tied to Jeffrey Epstein and his powerful associates, including Donald Trump." X. 30 January 2026. X.com. 31 January 2026. status/2017584430257263097
@SethAbramson. "Former criminal defense attorney here. If what we've seen of the Epstein Files so far—heavily redacted and with 3 million pages still missing—is bad, keep in mind that the *Files in full* are a *hundred* times worse. That's how this works. You're seeing the G-rated version." X. 30 January 2026. X.com. 31 January 2026. status/2017397258929537121
That assumes that the people trying to redact Trump's name were competent in their efforts. Based on recent events that is not a safe assumption. It is likely (IMO) that they simply missed redacting this.
I am constantly reminded of the Shane Gillis joke about how he looks like one of those guys who needs to "see the rest of the bodycam footage".
Rumors of Trump being a rapist have been circulating for decades. Rumors of Trump being a child rapist have been circulating for decades. Decades. Then there's all that stuff about threats, coercion, intimidation, and in some circles, even having people killed (like for having kicked a precious taillight maybe?). Moreover, he is an "adjudicated" rapist.
Personally, even without all that, anyone who as ever owned a beauty pageant and modeling agency for teenage girls is sketchy as fuck and in all likelihood...
Moreover, when a phrase like "preponderance of evidence, circumstantial and otherwise" is like the understatement of the century, I'm inclined to trust my spidey senses above everything else.
"Anything that depicts or contains images of death". Who made the decision to let a guy like Todd Blanche do press appoitments?
It would be nice if they'd release the other half of the files that hasn't been released yet, despite being well after the deadline.
Can Congress (or the Courts) force compliance with the bill it passed?
I understand that there are things that can be done to apply pressure, but there's nothing that, for example, means Congress or the Courts can go in and physically remove the documents from an office/computer/server. The US system seems to assume good-faith compliance by the co-equal branches, and that failure to abide would come with political consequences rather than anything else. If you don't care about such consequences, however, then there's no pressure that can really be applied to encourage enforcement.
Theoretically, if someone sues the Dept of Justice (DoJ) for release of the files, and the court agrees with them, they could find the DoJ itself in contempt of court, with individuals facing fines and/or imprisonment until such time as the law is adhered to (i.e. release of files). But that's only theoretical when talking about another supposedly "co-equal" branch of government (the Executive). If some "leftist activist federal judge" does try it, there's then the Supreme Court to contend with and whatever it comes up with to help Trump.
Also be mindful that can is different to will.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
That involves the sort of litigation that can take years, delays fueled by the victims rights issue. Pretending they care about victims provides them with excellent cover. And the administration overall "flood the zone" strategy keeps the courts clogged.
Wizard of Whatever
Registered Senior Member
Bolded ia a bad supposition, since you know nothing of their feelings, emotions, or carings.