1 + 1 + 1 = ?

[UT alum]

Weasel brags he’ll get those Epstein files released if he’s elected.

Attorney General announces “Nothing to see here”.

WSJ and AP report Weasel’s name appears several times in the files.

What is a reasonable response to this sequence of events?

[OlDawg]

13 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Weasel brags he’ll get those Epstein files released if he’s elected.

Attorney General announces “Nothing to see here”.

WSJ and AP report Weasel’s name appears several times in the files.

What is a reasonable response to this sequence of events?

[thetragichippy]

11 minutes ago, UT alum said:

Weasel brags he’ll get those Epstein files released if he’s elected.

Attorney General announces “Nothing to see here”.

WSJ and AP report Weasel’s name appears several times in the files.

What is a reasonable response to this sequence of events?

Trump asked for Epstein Grand Jury testimony to be released......Judge blocked it - and actually said he can't release it per law - so, who can legally release it? 

As far as his name in the files, Wouldn't you expect that? It was already known that they associated in social events and functions. Trump was on the flight logs with his family. It is known he banned him from Mara Lago over hitting on someone's daughter. 

Meanwhile, Obama looks like he will be the first President investigated for sabotaging an incoming president........But lets talk about Trump and Epstein in the late 1980's......

[Big girl]

40 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Trump asked for Epstein Grand Jury testimony to be released......Judge blocked it - and actually said he can't release it per law - so, who can legally release it? 

As far as his name in the files, Wouldn't you expect that? It was already known that they associated in social events and functions. Trump was on the flight logs with his family. It is known he banned him from Mara Lago over hitting on someone's daughter. 

Meanwhile, Obama looks like he will be the first President investigated for sabotaging an incoming president........But lets talk about Trump and Epstein in the late 1980's......

Nope. A bipartisan committee stated that Russia influenced the election. Marc Rubio signed it. Trump is using this as a diversion.

[Big girl]

46 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

Trump asked for Epstein Grand Jury testimony to be released......Judge blocked it - and actually said he can't release it per law - so, who can legally release it? 

As far as his name in the files, Wouldn't you expect that? It was already known that they associated in social events and functions. Trump was on the flight logs with his family. It is known he banned him from Mara Lago over hitting on someone's daughter. 

Meanwhile, Obama looks like he will be the first President investigated for sabotaging an incoming president........But lets talk about Trump and Epstein in the late 1980's......

I thought that Trump said at few days ago that there were not any files. Didn't he call it a Democratic hoax? So now they exist, and his name is mentioned.

[thetragichippy]

19 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Nope. A bipartisan committee stated that Russia influenced the election. Marc Rubio signed it. Trump is using this as a diversion.

Yup - The files and emails that Gabbard has made public were not available during that investigation. Like I have said before, there may not be any criminal charges for Obama due to Presidential immunity/statue of limitations. However, there are some others that flat out lied to Congress that may get in trouble. 

The bottom line is Obama knew the Russian investigation was based on paid for information from the Democratic party and said nothing.......His legacy forever will be tarnished. 

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

Nope. A bipartisan committee stated that Russia influenced the election. Marc Rubio signed it. Trump is using this as a diversion.

Just as inaccurate a statement as some from the Trump supporters.

FACT:

The bipartisan committee stated that Russia ATTEMPTED to influence the 2016 election. It also found it had little to no effect on the election results, and didn’t change any outcomes.

Did Russia interfere? The conclusion was ‘yes’. Just as they’ve done for decades.

Two separate issues that many conflate.

As far as a diversion, the timing is suspect. But, not definitive or out of the ordinary in politics. As I’ve mentioned, the Parties always seem to have something in hand ready to pull out in an emergency. Even if a diversion, it doesn’t make the accusation any less true. At the least, Obama has never acknowledged that Clinton paid for the dossier that blew the whole episode out of proportion, and led to some highly suspect surveillance of an opposing political campaign. He hasn’t admitted that to this day, even though he knew before the 2016 election.

[baddog]

3

[thetragichippy]

25 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

Obama has never acknowledged that Clinton paid for the dossier

He may very soon lol

[OlDawg]

23 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

He may very soon lol

Maybe. But, he has immunity, and the statute of limitations has run out on the others. Like you said elsewhere…legacies.

[Big girl]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Yup - The files and emails that Gabbard has made public were not available during that investigation. Like I have said before, there may not be any criminal charges for Obama due to Presidential immunity/statue of limitations. However, there are some others that flat out lied to Congress that may get in trouble. 

The bottom line is Obama knew the Russian investigation was based on paid for information from the Democratic party and said nothing.......His legacy forever will be tarnished. 

. Nothing is going to tarnish his legacy. He didnt do anything wrong

[Big girl]

I thought that Trump said at few days ago that there were not any files. Didn't he call it a Democratic hoax? So now they exist, and his name is mentioned

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, thetragichippy said:

Yup - The files and emails that Gabbard has made public were not available during that investigation. Like I have said before, there may not be any criminal charges for Obama due to Presidential immunity/statue of limitations. However, there are some others that flat out lied to Congress that may get in trouble. 

The bottom line is Obama knew the Russian investigation was based on paid for information from the Democratic party and said nothing.......His legacy forever will be tarnished. 

This appears to essentially be what caused the Michael Morton Act in Texas playing out in front of us.

In Brady v. Maryland the Supreme Court ruled that exculpatory evidence (tending to show not guilty) must be turned over to the defendant. Brady was charged with taking part in a robbery and murder. He confessed to the robbery but said that his accomplice was solely responsible for the murder. A jury convicted Brady of robbery and murder. Later it was discovered that the accomplice had already confessed to the murder but the prosecution withheld that evidence from the jury. Oops!

So under the Supreme Court Brady Rule, exculpatory evidence must be turned over to the defense. The prosecution, however, gets to determine what it thinks is exculpable.

Michael Morton was wrongfully convicted of murder in Texas where the prosecution withheld evidence. The prosecution basically said, we didn’t think that evidence was important so we didn’t give it to the defense.

Because of this unseen evidence, Texas passed the Michael Morton Act that requires turning over all police evidence to the defense and not making a determination on what the prosecution thinks is important.

So like a jury in the Michael Morton trial, it appears or is claimed that the bipartisan committee never saw some of the evidence. In Michael Morton’s case the jury rendered a verdict that seemed reasonable….. until the hidden evidence was discovered.

Did the same happen in the bipartisan committee? That is the accusation but the Democrats aren’t interested in hearing the evidence for obvious reasons. Like the Michael Morton case, where a man was wrongfully convicted of murder, the Democrats are apparently satisfied with, “Oh well, it’s the evidence that we had at the time, case closed”. 

[OlDawg]

1 hour ago, Big girl said:

. Nothing is going to tarnish his legacy. He didnt do anything wrong

• $1.7 Billion to Iran as a bribe
• Soylendra
• PRISM
• Fast & Furious
• "You Can Keep It"
• IRS Targeting
• Benghazi

REALLY?

 

[Reagan]

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

I thought that Trump said at few days ago that there were not any files. Didn't he call it a Democratic hoax? So now they exist, and his name is mentioned.

 

There are many reasons why a name might be mentioned.  

[thetragichippy]

14 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

• $1.7 Billion to Iran as a bribe
• Soylendra
• PRISM
• Fast & Furious
• "You Can Keep It"
• IRS Targeting
• Benghazi

REALLY?

 

Not to mention the current storm

[Boyz N Da Hood]

4 minutes ago, Reagan said:

 

There are many reasons why a name might be mentioned.  

Man you reason with any story/news that possibly exonerates the clown... use your brain sometimes! Yall claim no way D's had this info but Saturday on it during last election.. is it safe to say now thatba judge blocked the release is the reason they didn'tuse it? We can go in circles all day with these games yall play... the more it's talked about the guiltier he looks

 

[DCT]

4 hours ago, UT alum said:

Weasel brags he’ll get those Epstein files released if he’s elected.

Attorney General announces “Nothing to see here”.

WSJ and AP report Weasel’s name appears several times in the files.

What is a reasonable response to this sequence of events?

MAGA cult has gotten accustomed to this con man.  They will continue to circle the wagon.  Protector of a pedophilia and or accomplish.  Spin master.

[Big girl]

35 minutes ago, OlDawg said:

• $1.7 Billion to Iran as a bribe
• Soylendra
• PRISM
• Fast & Furious
• "You Can Keep It"
• IRS Targeting
• Benghazi

REALLY?

 

Lol. Look up all of those things, then tell me how he is guilty. Trump make Obama look like a choir boy.

[Big girl]

I thought that Trump said at few days ago that there were not any files. Didn't he call it a Democratic hoax? So now they exist, and Trump's name is mentioned.

[DCT]

4 hours ago, OlDawg said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Innocent Babies were hurt.  When do we say enough is enough?  

[UT alum]

4 hours ago, thetragichippy said:

Trump asked for Epstein Grand Jury testimony to be released......Judge blocked it - and actually said he can't release it per law - so, who can legally release it? 

As far as his name in the files, Wouldn't you expect that? It was already known that they associated in social events and functions. Trump was on the flight logs with his family. It is known he banned him from Mara Lago over hitting on someone's daughter. 

Meanwhile, Obama looks like he will be the first President investigated for sabotaging an incoming president........But let’s talk about Trump and Epstein in the late 1980's......

The House Judiciary committee is going to get the whole file. You lie down with dogs you get to with fleas.

[thetragichippy]

14 minutes ago, UT alum said:

The House Judiciary committee is going to get the whole file.

The one that Trump requested to be released or the recently unclassified files that Gabbard was went through? 

It is a nothing burger, but maybe, just maybe, ya'll will get him thins time🤣

[OlDawg]

32 minutes ago, DCT said:

Innocent Babies were hurt.  When do we say enough is enough?  

I assume enough will be enough in 2028, unless you can impeach or otherwise remove sooner.

This has nothing to do with pedophilia for you.

[UT alum]

5 hours ago, OlDawg said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

No answer to the question? Just an infantile meme?