
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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.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:
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.
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.
DiabloWags said:
BLOOMBERG
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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