Well if Tony Siragusa says it, I believe it.

GMaster0 said:

---

What makes this situation so insane is that for years people have carried on about how important these files/client list are and how so many people are going down.

It turns out the most powerful person in theworld is somehow mentioned and or involved in this muck and folks now want to forget it? WTF is going on?

---

The Cult Leader hath spoken, and he must be defended at all costs. Not complicated.

will25u said:

---

I’m told there is a whistleblower provided recording of the conspirators planning the Epstein birthday card story and demanding the story break BEFORE Director Tulsi Gabbard released the details of how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful… https://t.co/Fyax0lJjhb pic.twitter.com/KNrK7edVko

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) July 23, 2025

---

How much you want to bet the recording is never released? Or if released that it is an AI fake?

Francis Macomber said:

---

will25u said:

---

I’m told there is a whistleblower provided recording of the conspirators planning the Epstein birthday card story and demanding the story break BEFORE Director Tulsi Gabbard released the details of how in 2016, intelligence was politicized and weaponized by the most powerful… https://t.co/Fyax0lJjhb pic.twitter.com/KNrK7edVko

— Tony Seruga (@TonySeruga) July 23, 2025

---

How much you want to bet the recording is never released? Or if released that it is an AI fake?

---

I've thought about this alot lately. We are already at the point of audio AI being basically indistinguishable from a real recording. The amount of disinformation and psyops we are going to be subjected to will be sickening.

The Kraken said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

lol no surprise Rosenberg…

---

Because her last name is Rosenberg?

---

No surprise because at every turn the information is kept secret

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

lol no surprise Rosenberg…

---

Because her last name is Rosenberg?

---

No surprise because at every turn the information is kept secret

---

Then why mention her last name?

Because it was rhetorical in nature. Can we not mention peoples names now?

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

Keyno said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

What time frame and what qualifies as good friend versus social acquaintance? I REALLY don't think Trump covering for Epstein in 2025 when the dude died in 2019 in prison for child porn and sexual assault. Surely one can assemble a timeline of Trump comments or social events with Epstein and get an idea when things went sour.

---

Everyone knew what Epstein was up to. He didn't nickname his plane the Lolita Express- others who hung out with him did.

---

https://www.independentsentinel.com/cindy-mccain-knew-all-about-jeffrey-epstein-everyone-did/

---

If you didn't live through the late '60s to the early '90s, then it probably doesn't make much sense. But then teens were given a lot more autonomy and freedom than kids today. By a long shot. And the sexual revolution was creating a more permissive attitude about sex. Quite a few celebrities and others were, in fact, hooking up with teens. Respectable people sort of looked down their noses at guys who did that, and maybe an angry dad would throw hands, but it generally wasn't something you called the cops over.

Epstein was in hot water now because 1., our mores have changed; and 2., because he wasn't Robert Plant or Vince Neil and used coercive force to get what he wanted.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Because it was rhetorical in nature. Can we not mention peoples names now?

---

Is this also rhetorical? Of course you cannot mention some peoples names

Pretty sure pedophilia was on the books back then. What the **** are you talking about?

Edit: Also, we aren't talking about consensual relationships here, not "merely" statutory rape.

Fake news. Just last year we heard that Michael Cohen was Trumps best friend.

Trump has a lot of best friends who take a quick chance to hang on to his name once they are kicked from the nest.

It's an ol tale told over and over again and not just with Trump.

Fake news is fake.

GMaster0 said:

---

It turns out the most powerful person in theworld is somehow mentioned and or involved in this muck and folks now want to forget it? WTF is going on?

---

a loud, conspiratorial, and influential minority of his support base built a mythology around him as the deific figure who would finally vanquish the ultimate evil: a global cabal of elite puppetmaster pedophiles for whom epstein was the front man.

trump and the parasitic ecosystem of grifters that grew around him leaned into this mythos and fed it with winks and nods for political gain (some may have even believed it!), but couldn't ever live up to its expectations. now they've lost the reins and everyone is waking up to the betrayal and con job, and the few people still on board left holding the bag are in violent denial.

A couple Massie interviews on Epstein bill/Johnson pushing the vote to September:

ICYMI: Yesterday I joined @SchmittNYC on @NEWSMAX's "Rob Schmitt Tonight" to discuss the Epstein files.

The American people voted for transparency so I’m forcing a vote to release the Epstein files. pic.twitter.com/858iDgIzDg

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 23, 2025

Timcast: (Starts at 33:00)

I'll be live with @timcast at 12:30 PM ET. Tune in!https://t.co/656yAjHQl4

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) July 23, 2025

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

Pretty sure pedophilia was on the books back then. What the **** are you talking about?

Edit: Also, we aren't talking about consensual relationships here, not "merely" statutory rape.

---

Stuff like this:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4870401-teenage-girls-dating-older-guys-is-this-now-less-of-an-issue-than-in-the-90s

Go look look up the stories about a bunch of rock stars and actors, and you'll find tales of underage girls. Yes, there were laws on the books, but the enforcement was spotty at best. And the age of consent in a lot of places was 16.

I'm not defending it or saying it's right. I'm just saying the attitude about teen girls with older men wasn't the same as it now.

BBRex said:

---

f1ghtintexasaggie said:

---

Pretty sure pedophilia was on the books back then. What the **** are you talking about?

Edit: Also, we aren't talking about consensual relationships here, not "merely" statutory rape.

---

Stuff like this:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/4870401-teenage-girls-dating-older-guys-is-this-now-less-of-an-issue-than-in-the-90s

Go look look up the stories about a bunch of rock stars and actors, and you'll find tales of underage girls. Yes, there were laws on the books, but the enforcement was spotty at best. And the age of consent in a lot of places was 16.

I'm not defending it or saying it's right. I'm just saying the attitude about teen girls with older men wasn't the same as it now.

---

Modern times media tried to retroactively smear THE KING Elvis Presley as some pedophile for having teenage girlfriends in like the 1950's and 60's. But all of his "victims" that agreed to interview were like "Lol we knew what we were doing and we loved him".

Not defending inappropriate behavior, but times have changed, the 70s and 80s we're different. Also not saying Trump was with anyone underage, but...

"Heavy Metal Parking Lot" from May 31, 1986, documenting a Judas Priest concert at the Capital Centre in Landover, Maryland.

"I'm David Hillby, I'm 20 years old"
"I'm Dawn, I'm 13"

wild pic.twitter.com/7ta2fAFVVM

— Ryan (@b00mvang) September 19, 2024

TRENDING: A WILD CRIS COLLINSWORTH INTERVIEW.

“Not gonna deny it, I walk around with $100 bills hanging out of my pocket high school girls love me. 14 to 18, big star with them”

“I like girls that aren't too bright cause you can trick them a little bit”pic.twitter.com/Ti71SHO6H3

— MLFootball (@_MLFootball) February 7, 2025

Yeah, I ran across this gem not too long ago while looking at music posts on social media.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT6rRgvpN/

The comments section is enlightening. In a sad way.

Again, with Epstein we aren't talking about statutory rape. He trafficked these girls and *****d them out to his friends. This isn't about changing social mores, but as a 90s kid myself, I'd argue things had seemed to changed sufficiently that any kind of pedophilia, forced or statutory, was abhorrent and to be taken seriously and legally by that time if discovered.

Personally, I don't care what time period we're talking about. If you're sniffing around young girls when you're well past 18 yourself, you deserve a bullet to the brain. You can keep your cultural relativism.

Unfortunately its not that easy to prove the clients guilty. Each one of them will claim they were told the girl was of age. Its easier to prove the grooming and trafficking element. And its easiest to prove the Esptein ties to government deals/ops.

Everyone is going backwards. Start with the ties to gov deals. Take away any leverage the clients have. We all saw how Epstein was treated in FL, and why he was treated that way. The prosecutor admited it was bc he "belonged to intel" making Epstein "above his pay grade".

Seeing a lot of posts suggesting this is the norm because it was happening 50 years ago. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

revvie said:

---

Seeing a lot of posts suggesting this is the norm because it was happening 50 years ago. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

---

One of the lowest ages of consent was always Delaware. Think it was one of the last to have it as low as 12. Which is better than when it used to be 7 in Delaware.

Seven.

No wonder Joe sniffed the hair.

Calm down, big guy. I'm explaining how things were, not defending it to you or anyone else. The question was raised about how come nobody did anything about Epstein if they knew he liked teen girls. I was answering it, in part.

We know he was a rapist. When I said he wasn't Robert Plant or Vince Neil, I said he was coercing girls into sex. It was pretty obvious he was going to be convicted of rape. But the rest of what you're saying is conjecture. Maybe there is some big pedophile ring, but it is seemingly more and more unlikely.

So what.

revvie said:

---

Seeing a lot of posts suggesting this is the norm because it was happening 50 years ago. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

---

Yup. Planting the seeds of justifying it due to his age. Not creepy at all.

Alright, since it passed o er you.

You cannot pass the judgment you are attempting to pass on what folks did in the past when societal norms and circumstances were different.

So, do we now view slavery as abhorrent? Yes. Was it always a poor way to treat people? Yes. Was it always illegal? No.

Did certain developments in society necessitate slavery? Yes.

Does slavery still exist in many forms? Also, yes.

But people demand reparations over a specific set of circumstances that existed decades ago judged by today standards.

You can have an opinion on what you think the age of consent should have been in 1875 rural America, you can have an opinion on whether is was appropriate for many states to have it at 10-12 years old well into the 1990s when some of this was taking place.

But having an opinion on it and casting judgment should be two separate things.

It's a dangerous concept like throwing people in jail for voting MAGA when it's been outlawed by Hunter Biden on Jan 21, 2029.

Ervin Burrell said:

---

revvie said:

---

Seeing a lot of posts suggesting this is the norm because it was happening 50 years ago. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

---

Yup. Planting the seeds of justifying it due to his age. Not creepy at all.

---

What are you talking about? Nobody is trying to justify anything.

Ervin Burrell said:

---

revvie said:

---

Seeing a lot of posts suggesting this is the norm because it was happening 50 years ago. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

---

Yup. Planting the seeds of justifying it due to his age. Not creepy at all.

---

Lots of folks who were weirdly silent on Joes shower time with Ashley and Hunters story time with his dead brothers niece seem oddly at ease with convicting Trump as a pedi and MAGA as defenders of pedo.

That's what creeps the average American out.

BBRex said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

revvie said:

---

Seeing a lot of posts suggesting this is the norm because it was happening 50 years ago. It wasn't right then and it isn't right now.

---

Yup. Planting the seeds of justifying it due to his age. Not creepy at all.

---

What are you talking about? Nobody is trying to justify anything.

---

Others besides you have brought it up. Not sure why someone would even bring it up if they weren't trying to use it as a defense.

The plaintiff's attorney to most of the victims was on tv tonight and he claims to have clients that are as young as 14

Was it just Tulsi that mentioned the term "strike force" or did Bondi use it as well?

I also thought it a weird term until I went back to a book I was reading. Strike force would indicate a more targeted, tactical approach. Task force w to me means broader initiative.

Who knows, just a thought.

Yeah, it's terrible. Are any of his plaintiffs able to provide credible evidence on anyone besides Epstein? That's the key question going forward.

We've known for a long time with 100% certainty that the Feds use private intermediaries to get around sanctions, embargos, regulations, internal red tape/approvals, etc. It used to be guys like Khashoggi and Epstein, then it later became "philanthropic" foundations and NGOs like USAID etc, who were the financial underwriters, facilitators, and fixers for governments.

Patel and Bongino are no longer podcasters looking to expose the deepstate, they are the new Feds trying to be better deepstate stewards. They still see it as their duty to protect and maintain the agency's flexibility to execute its mission without adding new red tape. Epstein was an old tool, now dead. They see no reason to expose him, especially if they learned their boss banged a couple Epstein hookers in the 80s as a NY RE tycoon.

The ONLY way any of this gets cracked open is if the press forces the WH to answer who told Alex Acosta that Epstein "belonged to intel" and that a plea deal was needed bc the situation was "above his pay grade".

FobTies said:

---

We've known for a long time with 100% certainty that the Feds use private intermediaries to get around sanctions, embargos, regulations, internal red tape/approvals, etc. It used to be guys like Khashoggi and Epstein, then it later became "philanthropic" foundations and NGOs like USAID etc, who were the financial underwriters, facilitators, and fixers for governments.

Patel and Bongino are no longer podcasters looking to expose the deepstate, they are the new Feds trying to be better deepstate stewards. They still see it as their duty to protect and maintain the agency's flexibility to execute its mission without adding new red tape. Epstein was an old tool, now dead. They see no reason to expose him, especially if they learned their boss banged a couple Epstein hookers in the 80s as a NY RE tycoon.

The ONLY way any of this gets cracked open is if the press forces the WH to answer who told Alex Acosta that Epstein "belonged to intel" and that a plea deal was needed bc the situation was "above his pay grade".

---

Yeah unfortunately the press has no way to force the WH to do anything. Acosta is not going to answer that. So that's a dead end. Trump will continue to deflect and obfuscate forever. Best hope is Massie forces all the GOP to vote yay or nay on dislcosure. And we primary all the GOP that votes it down. Its the midterms of a lame duck President, they were going to get voted out anyway

🔥🚨DEVELOPING: On July 6, 2007, a 23-page letter from Jeffrey Epstein's lawyers Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt stated that Epstein was Co-founder of the Clinton Global Initiative which became the Clinton Foundation.

The letter was tied to a successful plea deal before… pic.twitter.com/N855ZgJvWw

— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) July 24, 2025

One thing Russiagate taught me is that whenever Clinton-Obama press is up in arms about something to do with Trump, they are covering for a Clinton-Obama connection hiding in plain sight. Still the case with Epstein, imho.

sending them to primary will make zero difference if the ones that replace them continue the same patterns

it is never different. just lipstick on different pigs.