Jeffrey Epstein
85,760 Views |
1064 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by Haloski
wifeisafurd said:
I don't see how the lawsuit moves forward either, though both the signature on the card and his current signature look machine made or are use of a stamp. That suggests he either used the machine or stamp or authorized the use.
Maybe it was an auto-pen.
JUST IN: Every Republican on the House Rules Committee voted to block the Epstein Files Transparency Act from advancing. pic.twitter.com/jt7M2CaAZF
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) September 9, 2025
Cal88 said:JUST IN: Every Republican on the House Rules Committee voted to block the Epstein Files Transparency Act from advancing. pic.twitter.com/jt7M2CaAZF
— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) September 9, 2025
This isn't suspicious at all. Seems totally cool to vote against releasing this stuff.
sycasey said:wifeisafurd said:
I don't see how the lawsuit moves forward either, though both the signature on the card and his current signature look machine made or are use of a stamp. That suggests he either used the machine or stamp or authorized the use.
Maybe it was an auto-pen.
Yea, I can see that. Whatever way that signature was put on s/b under Trump's control. Also, the etching of the women looks to symmetrical and precise to be hand drawn. If this was with the rest of the cards, is there really any doubt Trump didn't intend for the card to be sent. Moreover, even if the card turns out not be real, I don't see how you can hold the WSJ liable under current law.
cal83dls79 said:wifeisafurd said:
I don't see how the lawsuit moves forward either, though both the signature on the card and his current signature look machine made or are use of a stamp. That suggests he either used the machine or stamp or authorized the use.
or that it's his signature
So Trump signs everything with same exact height on each letter and same exact length iolcdugi the length of the the undersign and when he changes it, it is the same exact way after every change? I appreciate that you may not like Trump, but no one rational possibly believes that. Has to be auto pen or some type of stamp.
I think Trump should call the Democrats' bluff and release everything he's legally allowed to. Every single politician, CEO, investment banker, and rich person. Let's get it all out in the open.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
ACC Bear said:
I think Trump should call the Democrats' bluff and release everything he's legally allowed to. Every single politician, CEO, investment banker, and rich person. Let's get it all out in the open.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
That isn't some massive novel idea, that's what was promised from the start. Why is he "calling a bluff" when the action characterized as such is exactly what his administration has thus far been resistant to?
It's more than a little disingenuous to try and reframe it like that. Nice try, but no soup for you.
Release everything!
Haloski said:ACC Bear said:
I think Trump should call the Democrats' bluff and release everything he's legally allowed to. Every single politician, CEO, investment banker, and rich person. Let's get it all out in the open.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
That isn't some massive novel idea, that's what was promised from the start. Why is he "calling a bluff" when the action characterized as such is exactly what his administration has thus far been resistant to?
It's more than a little disingenuous to try and reframe it like that. Nice try, but no soup for you.
Release everything!
Because regardless of what they said they were going to do, it's an open secret in D.C. that nobody wants this stuff to ever see the light of day.
Trump is in an unique position where he can't run for re-election and everybody already thinks he's scum anyway, so what's the downside here? Dems and the corporate media are doing their best to reframe this as a Trump-only issue because his government is in power and has the ability to make some of this stuff public, but I think he should follow through and show the world just how two-faced all these folks are when some of their allies get caught.
You can even see it with how this birthday book is being covered. There's 238 pages in this book. Do we have 238 names to go with it? Nope, we just see the same 5-6 names being repeated over and over. I don't care enough to want to look through this piece of trash and try to figure who goes with which page, but you can see how deceptive the coverage is when they only focus on certain people.
This picture is far more disturbing than that Trump drawing and poem.
ACC Bear said:Haloski said:ACC Bear said:
I think Trump should call the Democrats' bluff and release everything he's legally allowed to. Every single politician, CEO, investment banker, and rich person. Let's get it all out in the open.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
That isn't some massive novel idea, that's what was promised from the start. Why is he "calling a bluff" when the action characterized as such is exactly what his administration has thus far been resistant to?
It's more than a little disingenuous to try and reframe it like that. Nice try, but no soup for you.
Release everything!
Because regardless of what they said they were going to do, it's an open secret in D.C. that nobody wants this stuff to ever see the light of day.
Trump is in an unique position where he can't run for re-election and everybody already thinks he's scum anyway, so what's the downside here? Dems and the corporate media are doing their best to reframe this as a Trump-only issue because his government is in power and has the ability to make some of this stuff public, but I think he should follow through and show the world just how two-faced all these folks are when some of their allies get caught.
You can even see it with how this birthday book is being covered. There's 238 pages in this book. Do we have 238 names to go with it? Nope, we just see the same 5-6 names being repeated over and over. I don't care enough to want to look through this piece of trash and try to figure who goes with which page, but you can see how deceptive the coverage is when they only focus on certain people.
This picture is far more disturbing than that Trump drawing and poem.
Yep. Release everything!
While I won't ever defend Epstein, I'll point out that the kids in the 1983 picture would be 20 years older in the 2003 picture and over the age of consent.ACC Bear said:Haloski said:ACC Bear said:
I think Trump should call the Democrats' bluff and release everything he's legally allowed to. Every single politician, CEO, investment banker, and rich person. Let's get it all out in the open.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
That isn't some massive novel idea, that's what was promised from the start. Why is he "calling a bluff" when the action characterized as such is exactly what his administration has thus far been resistant to?
It's more than a little disingenuous to try and reframe it like that. Nice try, but no soup for you.
Release everything!
Because regardless of what they said they were going to do, it's an open secret in D.C. that nobody wants this stuff to ever see the light of day.
Trump is in an unique position where he can't run for re-election and everybody already thinks he's scum anyway, so what's the downside here? Dems and the corporate media are doing their best to reframe this as a Trump-only issue because his government is in power and has the ability to make some of this stuff public, but I think he should follow through and show the world just how two-faced all these folks are when some of their allies get caught.
You can even see it with how this birthday book is being covered. There's 238 pages in this book. Do we have 238 names to go with it? Nope, we just see the same 5-6 names being repeated over and over. I don't care enough to want to look through this piece of trash and try to figure who goes with which page, but you can see how deceptive the coverage is when they only focus on certain people.
This picture is far more disturbing than that Trump drawing and poem.
smh said:
Great cartoon, but to be serious for a second, if somehow Trump were to perish during this term and J.D. Vance were to thus become President, don't be shocked if his first "Executive Order" would be to put Trump's "Big Beautiful Face" on Mt. Rushmore ....
Edit: Vance is just as much of a clown as Trump, but fortunately without the charisma. He will never become President unless Trump cannot complete his second term.
Eastern Oregon Bear said:ACC Bear said:Haloski said:ACC Bear said:
I think Trump should call the Democrats' bluff and release everything he's legally allowed to. Every single politician, CEO, investment banker, and rich person. Let's get it all out in the open.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
That isn't some massive novel idea, that's what was promised from the start. Why is he "calling a bluff" when the action characterized as such is exactly what his administration has thus far been resistant to?
It's more than a little disingenuous to try and reframe it like that. Nice try, but no soup for you.
Release everything!
Because regardless of what they said they were going to do, it's an open secret in D.C. that nobody wants this stuff to ever see the light of day.
Trump is in an unique position where he can't run for re-election and everybody already thinks he's scum anyway, so what's the downside here? Dems and the corporate media are doing their best to reframe this as a Trump-only issue because his government is in power and has the ability to make some of this stuff public, but I think he should follow through and show the world just how two-faced all these folks are when some of their allies get caught.
You can even see it with how this birthday book is being covered. There's 238 pages in this book. Do we have 238 names to go with it? Nope, we just see the same 5-6 names being repeated over and over. I don't care enough to want to look through this piece of trash and try to figure who goes with which page, but you can see how deceptive the coverage is when they only focus on certain people.
This picture is far more disturbing than that Trump drawing and poem.
While I won't ever defend Epstein, I'll point out that the kids in the 1983 picture would be 20 years older in the 2003 picture and over the age of consent.
This comment here is the essence of why I take none of the Democrats seriously when they talk about Trump and Epstein. On the one hand, they want to make you think that they think it's the scandal of the century that he is associated with him, but then you peel back the onion and the Democrat writes in response to the above cartoon "What's wrong with grooming young girls? They were of the age of consent later?"
You have a unique method of "not defending" Epstein.
not entirely unlike the OP who's interest in exposing the list is now discrediting it's authenticity. Now that's a serious person.ACC Bear said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:ACC Bear said:Haloski said:ACC Bear said:
I think Trump should call the Democrats' bluff and release everything he's legally allowed to. Every single politician, CEO, investment banker, and rich person. Let's get it all out in the open.
Nobody in either party wants that to happen because it burns the donor bases of both parties, which is why Democrats feel like they can pretend they support full disclosure when they ran from it during Biden's term.
That isn't some massive novel idea, that's what was promised from the start. Why is he "calling a bluff" when the action characterized as such is exactly what his administration has thus far been resistant to?
It's more than a little disingenuous to try and reframe it like that. Nice try, but no soup for you.
Release everything!
Because regardless of what they said they were going to do, it's an open secret in D.C. that nobody wants this stuff to ever see the light of day.
Trump is in an unique position where he can't run for re-election and everybody already thinks he's scum anyway, so what's the downside here? Dems and the corporate media are doing their best to reframe this as a Trump-only issue because his government is in power and has the ability to make some of this stuff public, but I think he should follow through and show the world just how two-faced all these folks are when some of their allies get caught.
You can even see it with how this birthday book is being covered. There's 238 pages in this book. Do we have 238 names to go with it? Nope, we just see the same 5-6 names being repeated over and over. I don't care enough to want to look through this piece of trash and try to figure who goes with which page, but you can see how deceptive the coverage is when they only focus on certain people.
This picture is far more disturbing than that Trump drawing and poem.
While I won't ever defend Epstein, I'll point out that the kids in the 1983 picture would be 20 years older in the 2003 picture and over the age of consent.
This comment here is the essence of why I take none of the Democrats seriously when they talk about Trump and Epstein. On the one hand, they want to make you think that they think it's the scandal of the century that he is associated with him, but then you peel back the onion and the Democrat writes in response to the above cartoon "What's wrong with grooming young girls? They were of the age of consent later?"
You have a unique method of "not defending" Epstein.
Priest of the Patty Hearst Shrine
BLOOMBERG
DiabloWags said:
BLOOMBERG
I don't really think that this is of any import unless the emails have incriminating material. We already know that Epstein and Maxwell were close, and for a long long time.
Just release all the files.
…and just in case we forgot where we stand on this:
Republicans blocked a vote in the Senate the other day to release the Epstein files. Claim what you want about motivations, but if they really wanted this information out there, they wouldn't do this.
They're shielding people. We finally have the opportunity and bipartisan will of the voters to expose those involved and they're slowing this as much as they can. It's gross.
Republicans blocked a vote in the Senate the other day to release the Epstein files. Claim what you want about motivations, but if they really wanted this information out there, they wouldn't do this.
They're shielding people. We finally have the opportunity and bipartisan will of the voters to expose those involved and they're slowing this as much as they can. It's gross.
Haloski said:
…and just in case we forgot where we stand on this:
Republicans blocked a vote in the Senate the other day to release the Epstein files. Claim what you want about motivations, but if they really wanted this information out there, they wouldn't do this.
They're shielding people. We finally have the opportunity and bipartisan will of the voters to expose those involved and they're slowing this as much as they can. It's gross.
This is, of course, a lie.
We have always had the bipartisan will to expose the Epstein clients, just like we have bipartisan will to fix healthcare, end the Ukraine proxy war, and stop supporting the Israeli genocide. What we don't have is a government that represents the will of its voters.
In the case of the Epstein client list, what we do have is a bipartisan will of our government to never let that information see the light of day. You of course know this because there was no effort by the Biden administration nor the Democratic Congress to release that information when they had control of government, but you pretend not to.
ACC Bear said:Haloski said:
…and just in case we forgot where we stand on this:
Republicans blocked a vote in the Senate the other day to release the Epstein files. Claim what you want about motivations, but if they really wanted this information out there, they wouldn't do this.
They're shielding people. We finally have the opportunity and bipartisan will of the voters to expose those involved and they're slowing this as much as they can. It's gross.
This is, of course, a lie.
We have always had the bipartisan will to expose the Epstein clients, just like we have bipartisan will to fix healthcare, end the Ukraine proxy war, and stop supporting the Israeli genocide. What we don't have is a government that represents the will of its voters.
In the case of the Epstein client list, what we do have is a bipartisan will of our government to never let that information see the light of day. You of course know this because there was no effort by the Biden administration nor the Democratic Congress to release that information when they had control of government, but you pretend not to.
I'm not pretending anything. Of course the Biden admin could have. They never did and I've absolutely acknowledged that. They didn't even feign interest in doing so at the time.
Whatever the case, all that's needed to release the files at this point is some Republicans to vote in favor of it. They've had and will have again the opportunity to do so. The DOJ/FBI/Trump admin clearly aren't going to make it happen.
Furthermore, nobody that was previously in power had run on releasing all of the information. The people that are currently able to more or less do whatever they want DID in fact push and run on this. This thread is proof of that. The binders are proof of that.
You clearly seem to think it's a charade on both sides and I don't fault you. You very well may be right. Maybe the Dems are colluding with the Republicans with an agreement that none of the Rs will vote in such a way to advance the issue.
One thing is for damn sure: the Trump administration could make all of this a moot point with one single action: release the files. …and that, of course, is most definitely not a lie.
Haloski said:ACC Bear said:Haloski said:
…and just in case we forgot where we stand on this:
Republicans blocked a vote in the Senate the other day to release the Epstein files. Claim what you want about motivations, but if they really wanted this information out there, they wouldn't do this.
They're shielding people. We finally have the opportunity and bipartisan will of the voters to expose those involved and they're slowing this as much as they can. It's gross.
This is, of course, a lie.
We have always had the bipartisan will to expose the Epstein clients, just like we have bipartisan will to fix healthcare, end the Ukraine proxy war, and stop supporting the Israeli genocide. What we don't have is a government that represents the will of its voters.
In the case of the Epstein client list, what we do have is a bipartisan will of our government to never let that information see the light of day. You of course know this because there was no effort by the Biden administration nor the Democratic Congress to release that information when they had control of government, but you pretend not to.
I'm not pretending anything.
(snip)
Whatever the case, all that's needed to release the files at this point is some Republicans to vote in favor of it.
Goes right back to pretending it's only the Republicans holding this up
If and when the Democrats gain the White House and/or Congress, you won't hear any more about Epstein, but continue on with your stupid charade.
Peter Mandelson, the UK ambassador to Washington.
Another pedo.
In a 10-page message in the now-infamous 2003 scrapbook, he called Epstein his "best pal" and included several photos of himself. Describing the financier as "mysterious," Mandelson said that he would often be left alone with Epstein's "interesting" friendsan assertion that appeared over a picture of an unknown young woman in her underwear.
The Epstein Scandal Finally Takes Down a Politician
Getting worse all the time.
BREAKING:
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 16, 2025
🇺🇲 The FBI Director Kash Patel now defends Jeffrey Epstein and says there's no evidence Jeffrey trafficked children and women:
"There is no credible evidence in the ‘Epstein files’ that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women to others" pic.twitter.com/aXTsbPi4WE
NEW: While the country was distracted by Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the Senate quietly voted to block the release of the Epstein files.
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) September 16, 2025
51–49.
One vote short of transparency.
And not a single outlet led with it.
They know exactly what they’re doing.
UVU contaminating the crime scene, constructing a new stage right now. Just like Butler.
That Kash Patel Deer In The Headlights look never gets old.Cal88 said:
Getting worse all the time.BREAKING:
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 16, 2025
🇺🇲 The FBI Director Kash Patel now defends Jeffrey Epstein and says there's no evidence Jeffrey trafficked children and women:
"There is no credible evidence in the ‘Epstein files’ that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women to others" pic.twitter.com/aXTsbPi4WE
Eastern Oregon Bear said:That Kash Patel Deer In The Headlights look never gets old.Cal88 said:
Getting worse all the time.BREAKING:
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 16, 2025
🇺🇲 The FBI Director Kash Patel now defends Jeffrey Epstein and says there's no evidence Jeffrey trafficked children and women:
"There is no credible evidence in the ‘Epstein files’ that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women to others" pic.twitter.com/aXTsbPi4WE
If the crimes weren't so awful this whole magat clownshow on Epstein would be hilarious. The joke has been on their supporters all along.
Cal88 said:NEW: While the country was distracted by Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the Senate quietly voted to block the release of the Epstein files.
— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) September 16, 2025
51–49.
One vote short of transparency.
And not a single outlet led with it.
They know exactly what they’re doing.
Carefully curated bi-partisan vote.
Who is in danger of losing an election in 2026? Who's safe? Make it close so it seems like it could actually happen someday. Distract from the US sponsored genocide and the failed proxy war.
American Government.
Massie: According to victims these documents in your possession, detail at least 20 men, including Staley, CEO Barclays Bank, who Jeffrey Epstein trafficked victims to.Â
— Acyn (@Acyn) September 17, 2025
That list includes 19 over individuals, one Hollywood producer worth a few hundred million dollars. One very… pic.twitter.com/D5pztFM54C
dajo9 said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:That Kash Patel Deer In The Headlights look never gets old.Cal88 said:
Getting worse all the time.BREAKING:
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 16, 2025
🇺🇲 The FBI Director Kash Patel now defends Jeffrey Epstein and says there's no evidence Jeffrey trafficked children and women:
"There is no credible evidence in the ‘Epstein files’ that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women to others" pic.twitter.com/aXTsbPi4WE
If the crimes weren't so awful this whole magat clownshow on Epstein would be hilarious. The joke has been on their supporters all along.
The Autopen slept on this for four years.
About six names were released prior to JE hit job. Four-five Wall Street / New York titans, one major Democrat politician. But I don't recall billionaires being listed. Was JE being too cute? When the list was released, I recall thinking "Oh sh-t."
Oh well, then it's OK to keep sleeping on it then.movielover said:dajo9 said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:That Kash Patel Deer In The Headlights look never gets old.Cal88 said:
Getting worse all the time.BREAKING:
— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) September 16, 2025
🇺🇲 The FBI Director Kash Patel now defends Jeffrey Epstein and says there's no evidence Jeffrey trafficked children and women:
"There is no credible evidence in the ‘Epstein files’ that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women to others" pic.twitter.com/aXTsbPi4WE
If the crimes weren't so awful this whole magat clownshow on Epstein would be hilarious. The joke has been on their supporters all along.
The Autopen slept on this for four years.
You have to be pretty bad at this to get owned by Eric Swalwell.
FBI Director Patel declined to answer and started reciting his ABCs after he was asked if he told AG Bondi that Trump’s name was in the Epstein files.
— AF Post (@AFpost) September 17, 2025
Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/xlsg4adxcy
sycasey said:
You have to be pretty bad at this to get owned by Eric Swalwell.FBI Director Patel declined to answer and started reciting his ABCs after he was asked if he told AG Bondi that Trump’s name was in the Epstein files.
— AF Post (@AFpost) September 17, 2025
Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/xlsg4adxcy
Democrats are really bad at this. They try so hard for their click-bait moments and they just make themselves look like clowns.
Featured Stories
See All
Bears Hold Off North Carolina, 21-18
by Jim McGill
Paws Plays of the Week E6: Cal vs Duke
by Mike Pawlawski
Paws Analysis: Hard Lessons, Clear Fixes and a Friday Night Gut Check
by Mike Pawlawski