setsmachine said:

---

So do you believe the original claim of the Justice Dept that there is no list of clients that need to be prosecuted?

---

I do not believe there was ever a "client list". At best it was a euphemism to describe a convoluted stack of files that no one ever bothered to make sense of when it mattered, when it was timely.

And there is a repository sitting on Bryan, TX who could write everything down at any moment. Why the Biden DOJ refused to speak with her is beyond me. When Blanche went to at least hear her out, the media castigated it as a Trump coverup and evidently her information was either inconsistent or her demands were too high. Would be nice to brain dump her of anyone was interested in what happened, with who, where and when.

Regarding the rest, you can get my opinions on this topic on this thread. If you have not bothered to read the thread beginning to end, then I have nothing further to provide until you do.

Just to de-rail this thread.

I have noticed that the Democrats are employing the phrase Epstein-like against Republicans, while ignoring the fact that the Democrats were actually Epstein-ites.

Some are accepting a loss in the midterms and pivoting to Trump is an epsteiner and rapist of Swedish meatballs in the 1990s.

But remember, they only care about justice for the victims…

doubledog said:

---

Just to de-rail this thread.

I have noticed that the Democrats are employing the phrase Epstein-like against Republicans, while ignoring the fact that the Democrats were actually Epstein-ites.

---

and i have noticed that Republicans are still trying to use it where convenient ie the Senate race, while ignoring all of the Republican ties.

Unfortunately were never going to get any answers because folks would rather try and score political points rather than actually demand answers from those in charge.

AgDev01 said:

---

doubledog said:

---

Just to de-rail this thread.

I have noticed that the Democrats are employing the phrase Epstein-like against Republicans, while ignoring the fact that the Democrats were actually Epstein-ites.

---

and i have noticed that Republicans are still trying to use it where convenient ie the Senate race, while ignoring all of the Republican ties.

Unfortunately were never going to get any answers because folks would rather try and score political points rather than actually demand answers from those in charge.

---

Yes you did.

Others such as I point to the actual circumstances of how long it has been since the alleged crimes occurred, the incredibly amount of misinformation that continues to persist regarding Epstein, and the fantastification of it all because Epstein had some ties to Trump at some point in the billionaire circles of NYC.

Justice for the victims is largely immaterial to me. Obviously they should get justice but the most important issue is the fact (or perception) that we no longer have equal enforcement of the law.

Queso1 said:

---

Justice for the victims is largely immaterial to me. Obviously they should get justice but the most important issue is the fact (or perception) that we no longer have equal enforcement of the law.

---

Epstein is dead. Ghislaine is in jail.

You are not putting Prince Andrew behind bars. Like it or not, its not happening.

Others with any sort of solid link have been for the most part sent into the woods.

So if justice for the victims is "immaterial" to you, what does "equal enforcement of the law" mean?

Despite modern lip service to the contrary, the state does not enforce the law for the victims. The state enforces the law for the citizens.

Equal enforcement of the law means that you don't get a pass because you are a prince or an industry mogul. But, you knew that.

Queso1 said:

---

Despite modern lip service to the contrary, the state does not enforce the law for the victims. The state enforces the law for the citizens.

Equal enforcement of the law means that you don't get a pass because you are a prince or an industry mogul. But, you knew that.

---

I do know the second sentence, though you have to factor in reality, which I did.

So law enforcement is for citizens only? I am okay with that, should make the job of ICE much easier. Non-citizens should NOT have any rights under our Constitution. Its a pure misreading of the text.

But here the victims are also citizens for the most part so your first sentence seems to miss the mark. Doubly so since several of the accused are non-citizens.

You have an appetite for a conspiracy theory. That's fine, just admit it you are in it for the popcorn and go with that. Life is better when you are honest.

I disagree somewhat on the non-citizen right to due process. If you enter the country illegally, you should forfeit those rights and be summarily ejected to your nation of origin. However, people here legally should be entitled to due process.

As for the conspiracy minded stuff, I was a huge acceptor of things prior to Covid/2020/2021. I don't couch it so much as conspiracy - I just don't believe a damned thing the US government says - and that doesn't change because "my guy" got elected.

GMaster0 said:

---

Dimond1968 said:

---

Likely why Trump flipped. Seems that was the start right there.

---

Also Trump is mentioned more in the Epstein files than Jesus is in the Bible. So there's that too.

---

You may want to be a bit more discerning than just "i dont believe anything the government says". Sometimes, there is no alternative and sometimes they are actually being "honest" about where things are.

I can accept with Epstein that absent some actual new information or Ghislaine flipping, there is simply nothing in the Epstein files that rises to their being a winnable prosecution.

Like it not, prosecutors only go if there is an overwhelming chance for a win. Given the bankrolls of the defendants, age of the crimes, and lack of hard evidence, things are what they are.

For conspiracies, as said time and again at best Epstein may have served as a useful idiot even as a bit of a honeypot, but if you understand even a bit about the espionage game its a wide wide wide net of assets. So connections mean little.

Queso1 said:

---

It's odd that the notion of disbelief was considered completely rational under Biden; however, we are supposed to suspend that during Trump. The government didn't change..just the figurehead.

---

It changed but changed for the worse. It was expected that Dems and many Republicans don't think there should be equal government - that's the swamp!

The worse part is the person who promised and had opportunities to change that has now embraced it.

Queso1 said:

---

It's odd that the notion of disbelief was considered completely rational under Biden; however, we are supposed to suspend that during Trump. The government didn't change..just the figurehead.

---

Said no one recently on this thread.

AGHouston11 said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

It's odd that the notion of disbelief was considered completely rational under Biden; however, we are supposed to suspend that during Trump. The government didn't change..just the figurehead.

---

It changed but changed for the worse. It was expected that Dems and many Republicans don't think there should be equal government - that's the swamp!

The worse part is the person who promised and had opportunities to change that has now embraced it.

---

How many files released under Trump v Biden?

Ok, thanks. So one delivered and one covered up. Glad to get that out of the way (again).

Queso1 said:

---

It's odd that the notion of disbelief was considered completely rational under Biden; however, we are supposed to suspend that during Trump. The government didn't change..just the figurehead.

---

Yea but trump is a follower of Christ and biden is a demon