Epstein - The Epstein Files Act Is Now Law

[PalmettoTiger1]

Fair enough, found it and attached it to quote. I had searched "Client List" so I guess it excluded just list.

I still think it is truly semantics. Here is the video he posted:

She is asked "The DOJ may releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, will that really happen?"

She responds "IT is sitting on my desk right now to review"

The IT is said after she is asked if the DOJ is releasing the list of Epsteins clients. The sentence comes right after she is asked, using the phrase "list of clients".

So like, I guess you're saying she didn't say the specific words "I have the client list", but when asked "Do you have X?" And you reply, "It is on my desk" is someone crazy for making a CLEAR inference that X is what is on her desk?

My point is she was referring to the Epstein filed that she had access to.

Consider that there are 33,000 files or folders

Do you really think she had 33,000 folders on her desk

When being questioned by media people can not clearly hear what was said or asked

I know this because I have had news people do stuff to me

This one specific video provided where I believe AG Pam Bondi when asked the question about it was her reference to the ENTIRE EPSTEIN FILES

There was no followup or clarification by the interviewer

She was referring to IT being the total Epstein files which at that moment were probably in the SCIF

Of course this one instance can and will be used to claim she had the list

My opinion is there was a list at some point in the past however it was taken over by the CIA , MOSSAD OR SOME INTELLIGENCE GROUP TO BE USED FOR BLACKMAIL

THAT so called list can not be trusted as it is now corrupted

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Fair enough, found it and attached it to quote. I had searched "Client List" so I guess it excluded just list.

I still think it is truly semantics. Here is the video he posted:

She is asked "The DOJ may releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients, will that really happen?"

She responds "IT is sitting on my desk right now to review"

The IT is said after she is asked if the DOJ is releasing the list of Epsteins clients. The sentence comes right after she is asked, using the phrase "list of clients".

So like, I guess you're saying she didn't say the specific words "I have the client list", but when asked "Do you have X?" And you reply, "It is on my desk" is someone crazy for making a CLEAR inference that X is what is on her desk?

Had a second thought that needs saying.

Let’s just for fun say she in referring to IT was referring to a so called client list.

OK she examines the so called files with the so called list

FINDS NOTHING

OK I get it that now there is a lot of disappointed people but in the review it is found NO CLIENT LIST

That is just as plausible as some claim she is hiding the client list.

This mess started many Presidents and Administrations ago so I don’t blame one specific one for the fiasco

 

[dpic73]

My point is she was referring to the Epstein filed that she had access to.

Consider that there are 33,000 files or folders

Do you really think she had 33,000 folders on her desk

When being questioned by media people can not clearly hear what was said or asked

I know this because I have had news people do stuff to me

This one specific video provided where I believe AG Pam Bondi when asked the question about it was her reference to the ENTIRE EPSTEIN FILES

There was no followup or clarification by the interviewer

She was referring to IT being the total Epstein files which at that moment were probably in the SCIF

Of course this one instance can and will be used to claim she had the list

My opinion is there was a list at some point in the past however it was taken over by the CIA , MOSSAD OR SOME INTELLIGENCE GROUP TO BE USED FOR BLACKMAIL

THAT so called list can not be trusted as it is now corrupted

You're just making this up - pulling it straight out of your *** while the facts are staring you right in the face. Your opinions are not FACTS.

 

[other1]

The question I asked of @dpic73 was provide me with a video clip of Pam Bondi saying she had the client list sitting on her desk

The clip you provided showed her saying the files were on her desk

First I would say that was impossible as 33,000 files would bury her desk

Secondly files are NOT A CLIENT LIST

So provide me that video showing her saying she has the Epstein client list on her desk.

I want to be as informed as you

If a client list does exist how do you know that it doesn't exist in the files??

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Had a second thought that needs saying.

Let’s just for fun say she in referring to IT was referring to a so called client list.

OK she examines the so called files with the so called list

FINDS NOTHING

OK I get it that now there is a lot of disappointed people but in the review it is found NO CLIENT LIST

That is just as plausible as some claim she is hiding the client list.

This mess started many Presidents and Administrations ago so I don’t blame one specific one for the fiasco

Man, you just kept calling him out and asking if she said she had the client list.

She clearly infers it. It actually makes a lot more sense that she would have a list of people on her desk, than the room full of docs that case would likely acquire as the investigation goes.

I'm just saying, you repeatedly called him out over and over, and he shared the video.

It's fine. I am not of the opinion that there was a clear client list for the nefarious things he was doing, rather just a list of clients for his financial services (and I would imagine some legit, some not legit).

All I am saying is you kept calling him out, and he was right. She heavily implied she had the list on her desk, even if she didn't use the words "I have the client list on my desk".

 

[other1]

It is sitting on my desk to review

My interpretation was she has access to the files to review them but with 33,000 files they are NOT SITTING ON HER DESK

I did not hear her say the words Client List

I heard FILES

I agree with you that I AM A TRUTH LUNATIC

The truth according to you??

 

[other1]

Release of ‘missing minute’ of Epstein video contradicts Bondi claim cameras stopped recording

Video taken outside Epstein’s cell on night he died is part of new materials released by House oversight committee

www.theguardian.com

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Man, you just kept calling him out and asking if she said she had the client list.

She clearly infers it. It actually makes a lot more sense that she would have a list of people on her desk, than the room full of docs that case would likely acquire as the investigation goes.

I'm just saying, you repeatedly called him out over and over, and he shared the video.

It's fine. I am not of the opinion that there was a clear client list for the nefarious things he was doing, rather just a list of clients for his financial services (and I would imagine some legit, some not legit).

All I am saying is you kept calling him out, and he was right. She heavily implied she had the list on her desk, even if she didn't use the words "I have the client list on my desk".

You guys desperately want what she was saying to as you said the inference was the answer you needed.

I still contend that she was referring to the Epstein files in general as nowhere can I find she mention a client list she was reviewing.

If in court an attorney would eat this heresy apart as you folks are putting thoughts into her words which as not specific to the WORDS CLIENT LIST FOR HER.

I have seen nothing to change my mind.

BTW LOVE THE JOB TRUMP IS DOING AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO TROOPS IN THE CITIES AND HIN DOUBLING DOWN ON LIBERAL KNOW IT ALL AMERICANS WHO WANT TO DESTROY WHAT I VALUE FOR FAMILY

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

You're just making this up - pulling it straight out of your *** while the facts are staring you right in the face. Your opinions are not FACTS.

Better than your chicken crap speculations

 

[fatpiggy]

What is Boone going to do with himself now? He was SO sure Trump was going to be implicated.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

You guys desperately want what she was saying to as you said the inference was the answer you needed.

I still contend that she was referring to the Epstein files in general as nowhere can I find she mention a client list she was reviewing.

If in court an attorney would eat this heresy apart as you folks are putting thoughts into her words which as not specific to the WORDS CLIENT LIST FOR HER.

I have seen nothing to change my mind.

BTW LOVE THE JOB TRUMP IS DOING AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO TROOPS IN THE CITIES AND HIN DOUBLING DOWN ON LIBERAL KNOW IT ALL AMERICANS WHO WANT TO DESTROY WHAT I VALUE FOR FAMILY

Man, I've said repeatedly I don't think the files directly implicate Trump.

But her inference one million percent was that she had the list on her desk. It is fine to me for her to go back and clarify, that isn't what I actually meant. But I think it's silly to say that someone hears her respond it is on my desk, when asked about the client list, and they are the ones doing wild speculation. Like, she may have meant, I have files on my desk, or a summary of them, or whatever, but she said it is on my desk when asked about it.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Man, I've said repeatedly I don't think the files directly implicate Trump.

But her inference one million percent was that she had the list on her desk. It is fine to me for her to go back and clarify, that isn't what I actually meant. But I think it's silly to say that someone hears her respond it is on my desk, when asked about the client list, and they are the ones doing wild speculation. Like, she may have meant, I have files on my desk, or a summary of them, or whatever, but she said it is on my desk when asked about it.

Man it is hard to get through about the EPSTEIN FILES and how they are being held.

People keep saying on her desk or she said it (I think she was referring to the Epstein Files on her desk as a manner of speak or METAPHOR)

The files 33,000 are NOT ON HER DESK. She has access to them.

Surely you are aware of files sizes and if the files were on her desk, it would be a mound covering her up.

I am still calling out anyone and everyone to show me AG Pam Bondi saying she had the EPSTEIN CLIENT LIST ON HER DESK OR POSSESSION as she was asked a question which she was referring to having access through probably a SCIF the files she could review.

IT could just as easily meant she had access to EPSTEIN FILES TO REVIEW instead of taking the stretch to say IT MEANT EPSTEIN CLIENT FILES LIST.

If that was the only PROOF one can offer that there was a list and somehow PAM BONDI, has it, then you folks are MIGHTY WEAK in proving your case if it was in court unless a Biden Judge is handling it and you are in Washington DC or NYC where there is bias in the courts.

 

[yoshi121374]

Man it is hard to get through about the EPSTEIN FILES and how they are being held.

People keep saying on her desk or she said it (I think she was referring to the Epstein Files on her desk as a manner of speak or METAPHOR)

The files 33,000 are NOT ON HER DESK. She has access to them.

Surely you are aware of files sizes and if the files were on her desk, it would be a mound covering her up.

I am still calling out anyone and everyone to show me AG Pam Bondi saying she had the EPSTEIN CLIENT LIST ON HER DESK OR POSSESSION as she was asked a question which she was referring to having access through probably a SCIF the files she could review.

IT could just as easily meant she had access to EPSTEIN FILES TO REVIEW instead of taking the stretch to say IT MEANT EPSTEIN CLIENT FILES LIST.

If that was the only PROOF one can offer that there was a list and somehow PAM BONDI, has it, then you folks are MIGHTY WEAK in proving your case if it was in court unless a Biden Judge is handling it and you are in Washington DC or NYC where there is bias in the courts.

And this logic is why MAGA is infuriating to discuss topics with.

Dude, this really isn't debatable.

 

[dpic73]

And this logic is why MAGA is infuriating to discuss topics with.

Dude, this really isn't debatable.

If facts don't matter, you might be a MAGA .

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Man it is hard to get through about the EPSTEIN FILES and how they are being held.

People keep saying on her desk or she said it (I think she was referring to the Epstein Files on her desk as a manner of speak or METAPHOR)

The files 33,000 are NOT ON HER DESK. She has access to them.

Surely you are aware of files sizes and if the files were on her desk, it would be a mound covering her up.

I am still calling out anyone and everyone to show me AG Pam Bondi saying she had the EPSTEIN CLIENT LIST ON HER DESK OR POSSESSION as she was asked a question which she was referring to having access through probably a SCIF the files she could review.

IT could just as easily meant she had access to EPSTEIN FILES TO REVIEW instead of taking the stretch to say IT MEANT EPSTEIN CLIENT FILES LIST.

If that was the only PROOF one can offer that there was a list and somehow PAM BONDI, has it, then you folks are MIGHTY WEAK in proving your case if it was in court unless a Biden Judge is handling it and you are in Washington DC or NYC where there is bias in the courts.

There is no way to hear what she said and not infer she had the client list on her desk.

I don't have an issue with her clarifying at a later date. But there is no other way to infer what she actually said.


Zero people are saying she had every single file on her desk. Why it is, again, ridiculous to say that SHE meant that she had the files on her desk, not "the list" which is what was asked for. (I am assuming she had an investigative summary of what they had so far, or her predecessors conclusions, or thoughts on whether to charge and why, etc).

 

[baltimorened]

Release of ‘missing minute’ of Epstein video contradicts Bondi claim cameras stopped recording

Video taken outside Epstein’s cell on night he died is part of new materials released by House oversight committee

www.theguardian.com

in this day and age of video cameras everywhere, why would anybody lie. Its not like no one would have suspected a camera outside Epstein's cell.

 

[UrHuckleberry]

Interesting, survivors said today that if the government won't release the list of names, they would.

Will be really interesting.

 

[dpic73]

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

OK I AM GOING TO PROVIDE HER EXPLANATION I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOLKS

Just listen to the video as it refutes all of you folk's conspiracy theories

Bing Videos

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Interesting, survivors said today that if the government won't release the list of names, they would.

Will be really interesting.

I say go for it. Be prepared to prove what they claim and NOT DO THE DEMOCRATIC ME TOO accusing people with no evidence to corroborate

 

[dpic73]

OK I AM GOING TO PROVIDE HER EXPLANATION I HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU FOLKS

Just listen to the video as it refutes all of you folk's conspiracy theories

Bing Videos

It doesn't refute a damn thing, in fact she confirmed that's what she said on the Fox Video, then clarified what she "meant.".

That doesn't change the fact of what she said in the video that you said she didn't say and that was the ONLY thing we were discussing.

Again, I have no idea why you tagged me for this discussion but you did and I proved you wrong. Get over yourself.

 

[dpic73]

I say go for it. Be prepared to prove what they claim and NOT DO THE DEMOCRATIC ME TOO accusing people with no evidence to corroborate

Oh so now we're shaming the victims, is that where we are?

 

[MTTiger19]

Interesting, survivors said today that if the government won't release the list of names, they would.

Will be really interesting.

Here’s the clip.

 

[dpic73]

Here’s the clip.

I've always wondered why there has never been a leak of the johns, outside of Giuffre fingering Prince Andrew. It would be weird for them to be under a gag order I would think, so if someone famous is revealed, I'd be surprised. But, if Trump isn't implicated, his push to obstruct the findings makes no sense.

 

[other1]

I've always wondered why there has never been a leak of the johns, outside of Giuffre fingering Prince Andrew. It would be weird for them to be under a gag order I would think, so if someone famous is revealed, I'd be surprised. But, if Trump isn't implicated, his push to obstruct the findings makes no sense.

Why do you think Johnson's dancing around the issue??

 

[UrHuckleberry]

I say go for it. Be prepared to prove what they claim and NOT DO THE DEMOCRATIC ME TOO accusing people with no evidence to corroborate

I feel confident that I will drop any support of any democrats that are named, and that MAGA will claim any information about Trump is made up.

Someone's name being on a list from survivors certainly isn't enough to charge anyone at all. Regardless of political information.

 

[other1]

I say go for it. Be prepared to prove what they claim and NOT DO THE DEMOCRATIC ME TOO accusing people with no evidence to corroborate

If they implicated Biden, Obama or Clinton you'd be singing a different tune.

 

[dpic73]

Why do you think Johnson's dancing around the issue??

Because he's a puppet who does what he's told. I'm not ready to believe Trump is definitely one of the abusers but he's got to be guilty of "something" based on how hard he's trying to keep them from being revealed. Absolutely bizarre that he's telling Republicans that it's a hostile act against his administration if they cooperate with the victims, if he's not involved.

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

If they implicated Biden, Obama or Clinton you'd be singing a different tune.

SAME TUNE RELEASE THE RECORDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE

 

[hopefultiger13]

Man, you just kept calling him out and asking if she said she had the client list.

She clearly infers it. It actually makes a lot more sense that she would have a list of people on her desk, than the room full of docs that case would likely acquire as the investigation goes.

I'm just saying, you repeatedly called him out over and over, and he shared the video.

It's fine. I am not of the opinion that there was a clear client list for the nefarious things he was doing, rather just a list of clients for his financial services (and I would imagine some legit, some not legit).

All I am saying is you kept calling him out, and he was right. She heavily implied she had the list on her desk, even if she didn't use the words "I have the client list on my desk".

Like almost anyone on here, I have no freaking idea of what's going on with the Epstein files.

I do think that there's not much doubt that Epstein was enticing underage girls to hook up with his friends/business associates.

And just to be clear on terms, I think about it like this. Underage women = girls. And sex with someone under the age of consent/non consentual sex = rape.

And everyone involved (or just around at the time) wants no part of any of this. Lot's of really rich and powerful folks were associating with Epstein back in the day and they definitely didn't WANT to know the age of any of these girls. They either hooked up with them, turned a blind eye to what was going on, or just didn't notice what was going on. While I suppose that option 3 isn't terrible, there's no good look among those options and no one wants to be associated with the situation even if they did nothing wrong.

Trump's no different. And everyone on this board knows what I think of Trump, but to me, he's innocent of anything involving this until he's actually found guilty. Just b/c I don't like him doesn't mean he did something wrong. And fyi, no matter WHAT the Epstein files show, the statute of limitations applies and no one is going to jail for this. That's the unfortunate fact of the matter.

IMHO, this is what's going on with the Trump Administration and the Epstein files: They went after this issue b/c it was low hanging fruit during the election. Again, I've no idea what's in those files if anything. The DOJ during the Biden administration took over the investigation from the Trump administration and they told us there was nothing to see here... As Trump himself pointed out just today, you can give people everything and they won't be satisfied... This is EXACTLY what happened to the investigation when Biden was President. There was no list of people that were hooking up with underage girls and it looks like Epstein killed himself.

No doubt folks were doing that on Epstein's Island, but as with a lot of criminal activity, you generally try and hide that sort of thing, not collect evidence. I GUESS Epstein COULD have been collecting stuff for blackmail, but that seems like a spectacularly BAD idea to me. I mean, you have all these folks that you know and are friends with... POWERFUL and RICH people. And they are coming out to your place to have fun and bang young girls. I mean, you are on good terms with these folks and they would probably help you out if you needed it. And you try and blackmail them? That sounds like a good way to get a bullet to the back of the head when these folks are able to find said evidence and remember, these are the types of folks that have a ton of power and money to spend to find it.

Anyway, Trump gets elected and he and his administrators have done what they do best... run their mouths with little regard to the truth. Usually this works out fine for Trump as his supporters don't really care what he says or does. This one is different for some reason. So he gets in office and the MAGA folks are asking about the files. And again, Trump and his administrators do what they do best... run their mouths with little regard to the truth. So his AG, who probably hasn't even given the Epstein files more than a passing thought, is on the spot and she kicks the can down the road by saying that these files on on her desk and they will be released shortly (like Trump's healthcare plan). But (unlike the healthcare plan) this simply won't go away and Trump and company are finally forced to fess up agree with the Biden Administration that there's nothing to see here.

But of course they can't just say, Biden and Company were right and we've been bitching about nothing. So now this subject that they were having a fit about is a "Democratic Hoax" when they are forced to talk about it. And god knows Trump has been doing and saying damn near everything to make this go away, but it just won't. I do think that eventually all of it will be released and we'll see that a lot of folks (including Trump) will be in those files, but will not be implicated in any crime. They will just be busted as hanging out with Epstein.

 

[dpic73]

Like almost anyone on here, I have no freaking idea of what's going on with the Epstein files.

I do think that there's not much doubt that Epstein was enticing underage girls to hook up with his friends/business associates.

And just to be clear on terms, I think about it like this. Underage women = girls. And sex with someone under the age of consent/non consentual sex = rape.

And everyone involved (or just around at the time) wants no part of any of this. Lot's of really rich and powerful folks were associating with Epstein back in the day and they definitely didn't WANT to know the age of any of these girls. They either hooked up with them, turned a blind eye to what was going on, or just didn't notice what was going on. While I suppose that option 3 isn't terrible, there's no good look among those options and no one wants to be associated with the situation even if they did nothing wrong.

Trump's no different. And everyone on this board knows what I think of Trump, but to me, he's innocent of anything involving this until he's actually found guilty. Just b/c I don't like him doesn't mean he did something wrong. And fyi, no matter WHAT the Epstein files show, the statute of limitations applies and no one is going to jail for this. That's the unfortunate fact of the matter.

IMHO, this is what's going on with the Trump Administration and the Epstein files: They went after this issue b/c it was low hanging fruit during the election. Again, I've no idea what's in those files if anything. The DOJ during the Biden administration took over the investigation from the Trump administration and they told us there was nothing to see here... As Trump himself pointed out just today, you can give people everything and they won't be satisfied... This is EXACTLY what happened to the investigation when Biden was President. There was no list of people that were hooking up with underage girls and it looks like Epstein killed himself.

No doubt folks were doing that on Epstein's Island, but as with a lot of criminal activity, you generally try and hide that sort of thing, not collect evidence. I GUESS Epstein COULD have been collecting stuff for blackmail, but that seems like a spectacularly BAD idea to me. I mean, you have all these folks that you know and are friends with... POWERFUL and RICH people. And they are coming out to your place to have fun and bang young girls. I mean, you are on good terms with these folks and they would probably help you out if you needed it. And you try and blackmail them? That sounds like a good way to get a bullet to the back of the head when these folks are able to find said evidence and remember, these are the types of folks that have a ton of power and money to spend to find it.

Anyway, Trump gets elected and he and his administrators have done what they do best... run their mouths with little regard to the truth. Usually this works out fine for Trump as his supporters don't really care what he says or does. This one is different for some reason. So he gets in office and the MAGA folks are asking about the files. And again, Trump and his administrators do what they do best... run their mouths with little regard to the truth. So his AG, who probably hasn't even given the Epstein files more than a passing thought, is on the spot and she kicks the can down the road by saying that these files on on her desk and they will be released shortly (like Trump's healthcare plan). But (unlike the healthcare plan) this simply won't go away and Trump and company are finally forced to fess up agree with the Biden Administration that there's nothing to see here.

But of course they can't just say, Biden and Company were right and we've been bitching about nothing. So now this subject that they were having a fit about is a "Democratic Hoax" when they are forced to talk about it. And god knows Trump has been doing and saying damn near everything to make this go away, but it just won't. I do think that eventually all of it will be released and we'll see that a lot of folks (including Trump) will be in those files, but will not be implicated in any crime. They will just be busted as hanging out with Epstein.

A lot of this is true except for the charge that the Biden admin said there was nothing to see here. They literally said nothing about it at all that I can find, other than this quip from Wasserman Schultz.

“Pushes for oversight and record releases were at times tempered by a need to respect both the victims’ pursuit of justice in courts and their fears of reprisals,” Wasserman Schultz told PolitiFact. “As disclosures were denied or delayed, we did what lawmakers do and legislated to protect future victims.”

 

[hopefultiger13]

On the OK to lie

If we fired employees or didn’t elect someone for lying Washington DC would be a GHOST TOWN

No, it wouldn't be. If we fired employees and didn't elect people for lying, Washington would have employees and elected officials who don't lie. I agree that we wouldn't have the current group on either side of aisle. But there are plenty of good people out there who don't lie, steal, and cheat. Unfortunately, we love to elect people that do b/c they tell us what we want to hear.

Here's my Presidential speech on how I'm going to handle the national debt.

"Folks we are in a bad financial hole and we are going to have some trouble getting out of it. The size of the government is going to shrink and we are going to have fewer social programs, research projects, and budgets are going to be cut and people are going to be laid off. If you are rich, your taxes are going up. If you are middle class, your taxes are going to go up. If you are poor or are on social security, your taxes are going to go up. We've been living beyond our means for generations and that bill is coming due. To get out of this mess, EVERYONE is going to have to cut back and feel some pain until we can get a handle on our debt."

I wouldn't get a single vote.

 

[hopefultiger13]

The question I asked of @dpic73 was provide me with a video clip of Pam Bondi saying she had the client list sitting on her desk

The clip you provided showed her saying the files were on her desk

First I would say that was impossible as 33,000 files would bury her desk

Secondly files are NOT A CLIENT LIST

So provide me that video showing her saying she has the Epstein client list on her desk.

I want to be as informed as you

BILL CLINTON FAMOUSLY SAID DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY "IT"

Dude, you definitely are out of your tree here. What did you think when Bill Clinton said it depends on what you mean by it? Did you think, oh well THAT explains it. I guess he DIDN'T have sex with her? Or did you think that he was full of ****? Because I thought he was full of ****... and so did most of the rest of the country.

Again, here's the quote from that video, WORD FOR WORD:

Reporter: "...the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffery Epstein's clients, will that really happen?"

Bondi "It's on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump..."

Any normal person would think that the "It" refers to the client list. But here's another reason for you. Bondi seems well spoken and educated. I don't think I've ever heard her use bad grammar. IF she was referring to the files (PLURAL) wouldn't it go like this?

Reporter: "...the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffery Epstein's clients, will that really happen?"

(Bondie now answers but refers to the files (PLURAL)

Bondi "They are on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump..."

<<It's>> is a contraction of <<it>> short for <<it is>>. <<It>> is a singular pronoun.

For instance, I ask "You have two cars, where are they?"

Do you answer "It's in the garage"? OR

Do you answer "They are in the garage"?

Bondi wasn't referring to the files, or she would have said "They are on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive of President Trump..."

She was straight up lying and in my opinion, not because there's really anything mind blowing in the files (like a list), but because there actually isn't anything super damning there, just mildly disturbing and Trump is in there with a lot of others on both sides of the aisle.

I'm with most of the board here in that I don't think that these files (or client list if there is one), directly implicate President Trump. The reason for this is that if there was a direct implication, the Biden Administration would have released it and damn the consequences. TDS, remember? Likewise, if they directly implicated only the Dems, Trump would have released it. IMHO, these files will show that LOTS of people on both sides of the aisle were hanging out with this guy and enjoying it (INCLUDING Trump). But they don't give a smoking gun on anyone.

 

[other1]

SAME TUNE RELEASE THE RECORDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE

Shallow response. BTW, trump calling the whole situation a hoax speaks volumes. He should keep his mouth shut, impossible, I know, but it appears he has something to hide.

 

[dpic73]

Shallow response. BTW, trump calling the whole situation a hoax speaks volumes. He should keep his mouth shut, impossible, I know, but it appears he has something to hide.

When that even pisses MTG off, you know it's bad. Is she turning on Donny T?

 

[dpic73]

Great recap.Hilarious!

1.2M views · 54K reactions | 🔥🔥🔥🔥 | The Resistance

🔥🔥🔥🔥

www.facebook.com

 

[yoshi121374]

When that even pisses MTG off, you know it's bad. Is she turning on Donny T?

When you lose MTG...

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

Dude, you definitely are out of your tree here. What did you think when Bill Clinton said it depends on what you mean by it? Did you think, oh well THAT explains it. I guess he DIDN'T have sex with her? Or did you think that he was full of ****? Because I thought he was full of ****... and so did most of the rest of the country.

Again, here's the quote from that video, WORD FOR WORD:

Reporter: "...the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffery Epstein's clients, will that really happen?"

Bondi "It's on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump..."

Any normal person would think that the "It" refers to the client list. But here's another reason for you. Bondi seems well spoken and educated. I don't think I've ever heard her use bad grammar. IF she was referring to the files (PLURAL) wouldn't it go like this?

Reporter: "...the DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffery Epstein's clients, will that really happen?"

(Bondie now answers but refers to the files (PLURAL)

Bondi "They are on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive by President Trump..."

<<It's>> is a contraction of <<it>> short for <<it is>>. <<It>> is a singular pronoun.

For instance, I ask "You have two cars, where are they?"

Do you answer "It's in the garage"? OR

Do you answer "They are in the garage"?

Bondi wasn't referring to the files, or she would have said "They are on my desk right now to review. That's been a directive of President Trump..."

She was straight up lying and in my opinion, not because there's really anything mind blowing in the files (like a list), but because there actually isn't anything super damning there, just mildly disturbing and Trump is in there with a lot of others on both sides of the aisle.

I'm with most of the board here in that I don't think that these files (or client list if there is one), directly implicate President Trump. The reason for this is that if there was a direct implication, the Biden Administration would have released it and damn the consequences. TDS, remember? Likewise, if they directly implicated only the Dems, Trump would have released it. IMHO, these files will show that LOTS of people on both sides of the aisle were hanging out with this guy and enjoying it (INCLUDING Trump). But they don't give a smoking gun on anyone.

You used a lot of words to say NOTHING

I supplied in another post on where Pam Bondi said when she said IT she was referring to files of Epstein , the Kennedy assassination and the MLK assassination.

The good news is I counter the wild conspiracy mob rant where you folk interpret words and thoughts to match your pathetic agendas and narratives

Keep pounding on me as I can take the crap from political losers

LOVE THE JOB TRUMPS DOING AND AM VOTING FOR HIM AGAIN IN 2028 FOR PRESIDENT EVEN IF HECAN’T SERVE

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

No, it wouldn't be. If we fired employees and didn't elect people for lying, Washington would have employees and elected officials who don't lie. I agree that we wouldn't have the current group on either side of aisle. But there are plenty of good people out there who don't lie, steal, and cheat. Unfortunately, we love to elect people that do b/c they tell us what we want to hear.

Here's my Presidential speech on how I'm going to handle the national debt.

"Folks we are in a bad financial hole and we are going to have some trouble getting out of it. The size of the government is going to shrink and we are going to have fewer social programs, research projects, and budgets are going to be cut and people are going to be laid off. If you are rich, your taxes are going up. If you are middle class, your taxes are going to go up. If you are poor or are on social security, your taxes are going to go up. We've been living beyond our means for generations and that bill is coming due. To get out of this mess, EVERYONE is going to have to cut back and feel some pain until we can get a handle on our debt."

I wouldn't get a single vote.

No, it wouldn't be. If we fired employees and didn't elect people for lying, Washington would have employees and elected officials who don't lie. I agree that we wouldn't have the current group on either side of aisle. But there are plenty of good people out there who don't lie, steal, and cheat. Unfortunately, we love to elect people that do b/c they tell us what we want to hear.

Here's my Presidential speech on how I'm going to handle the national debt.

"Folks we are in a bad financial hole and we are going to have some trouble getting out of it. The size of the government is going to shrink and we are going to have fewer social programs, research projects, and budgets are going to be cut and people are going to be laid off. If you are rich, your taxes are going up. If you are middle class, your taxes are going to go up. If you are poor or are on social security, your taxes are going to go up. We've been living beyond our means for generations and that bill is coming due. To get out of this mess, EVERYONE is going to have to cut back and feel some pain until we can get a handle on our debt."

I wouldn't get a single vote.

I would AGREE you would never get my vote because you are not common sense , realistic or practical and lack political savvy

 

[PalmettoTiger1]

It doesn't refute a damn thing, in fact she confirmed that's what she said on the Fox Video, then clarified what she "meant.".

That doesn't change the fact of what she said in the video that you said she didn't say and that was the ONLY thing we were discussing.

Again, I have no idea why you tagged me for this discussion but you did and I proved you wrong. Get over yourself.

Dude you are really narcissitic