Today's Epstein Dump
- Thread starter Chumpsky
- Start date
The allegations against Trump in today's release are absolutely heinous. Doj has already removed the worst, but the internet has screenshots.
If these files ever really see the light of day, millions of Trump supporters will kts.
If these files ever really see the light of day, millions of Trump supporters will kts.
I just tried to load some of the most heinous and as you can see, it didn't populate. Elon's idea of free speech?
Chumpsky: That stuff in your first and second posts; is that stuff taken from the Epstein stuff that was released today?! That's a little bit darker than I had imagined, even for a crook like Trump. I wanna hope that is not true. Moreover, if it IS genuine, then I would have thought there would already be reports in the media about it. Whether it is true or not, it's about as salacious as it gets.
Here was my expectation:
1. Anything that the DOJ releases concerning the Epstein files was gonna be heavily redacted to obscure Trump's name, any references that obviously pertain to Trump, and any account of activities or events that Trump participated in that were illegal or inappropriate.
2. If such wholesale redactions occurred, we would soon start to see leaks of these same files and records, but without the redactions. Keep in mind that a bunch of people have likely had access to these files and records. I'm pretty sure that most of this stuff has been copied and is in the hands of multiple people, not all of them MAGA.
3. If leaks occur, then Trump and MAGA World will argue that the leaked information is fake, and has been manipulated by Deep State actors to smear Trump.
If the stuff you posted above is genuine, and from the Epstein files, Trump's minions at the DOJ did a shockingly poor job of covering for him.
Here was my expectation:
1. Anything that the DOJ releases concerning the Epstein files was gonna be heavily redacted to obscure Trump's name, any references that obviously pertain to Trump, and any account of activities or events that Trump participated in that were illegal or inappropriate.
2. If such wholesale redactions occurred, we would soon start to see leaks of these same files and records, but without the redactions. Keep in mind that a bunch of people have likely had access to these files and records. I'm pretty sure that most of this stuff has been copied and is in the hands of multiple people, not all of them MAGA.
3. If leaks occur, then Trump and MAGA World will argue that the leaked information is fake, and has been manipulated by Deep State actors to smear Trump.
If the stuff you posted above is genuine, and from the Epstein files, Trump's minions at the DOJ did a shockingly poor job of covering for him.
Last edited:
LMAO at Robin Leach being repeatedly mentioned in the stuff posted above. If it is true, it puts a whole new spin on the phrase "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous." Yikes.
Actually, in regards to item 3, we'd steal one from you and claim it is RUSSIAN DISINFORMATION... lol....
well, one thing I've learned over the years, if it's on the internet it is 100% accurate
Making it even more ridiculous that the admin tried to claim that they didn't have any files and it was all a hoax.
Seriously, Bondi should be fired.
Whoah .. where is Fatpiggy after asking what people thought of that guy who was just nominated?
I'm not sure how a respectable journalist would even report on this. (Cue MAGA comments about the "Lamestream Media.") Carefully, that's for sure.
But how do you even begin to obtain corroborating accounts or evidence? You won't get it from Trump or Maxwell. Epstein is dead. Some of the victims are dead. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the surviving victims are terrified of testifying about this. Some really rich and powerful people would be implicated in very dark crimes if these accounts are anywhere close to being factual.
I wonder what kind of investigative work, if any, has previously been done with respect to these complaints and allegations. Hopefully, that gets made public as well.
But how do you even begin to obtain corroborating accounts or evidence? You won't get it from Trump or Maxwell. Epstein is dead. Some of the victims are dead. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the surviving victims are terrified of testifying about this. Some really rich and powerful people would be implicated in very dark crimes if these accounts are anywhere close to being factual.
I wonder what kind of investigative work, if any, has previously been done with respect to these complaints and allegations. Hopefully, that gets made public as well.
you might have missed my post today..it has been reported a couple of places, that Maxwell in some document/court filing (whatever, I don't remember where I read it) said that 25 men have settled with victims...I would assume, that anybody signing a settlement would have included a NDA and that might be the cause of victims not coming forward
im waiting
Well see this is the deal: These were witness testimony that was being collected to use against Epstein. Any that was used would have been used to prosecute him. They would need more than just testimony, they would have to corraborate it with physical evidence if possible. So, there could be bad testimony in this collection. It would be a hell of a journalistic effort to prove any of this. But if they did, and it was Trump, what would happen? I think it would be a tipping point for a lot of magas.
How was this information released? By publication on the DOJ website or some other website? How could the DOJ "delete" it if it was not put up on some website that DOJ controls? And if it was put up on a website, deleting it after the fact is like closing the barn door after the horse is already out. What a waste of time and effort. In fact, releasing and then deleting this stuff would seem to lend it additional credibility.
I'm really wondering if the media is gonna report on this, and how they're gonna do so. I would think they HAVE TO, If is salacious beyond description, but it is also newsworthy. I would expect a heavy quantum of disclaimers and qualifications about these being unproven allegations, but I don't think the media can simply ignore this in its entirety.
As a matter of federal law, it appears the enforceability of such NDA's would hinge on whether they were "pre-dispute" or "post-dispute." Further, it appears that the federal law (i.e., the "Speak Out Act") does not bar states from enacting even more restrictive laws regarding the use of NDA, which I read to mean laws that put even greater restrictions on a party's ability to use an NDA to preclude a sexual harassment or sexual abuse victim from speaking out. Here is some info I found via a cursory search of the Web
NDAs settling sexual abuse or harassment claims are generally enforceable if signed after a dispute arises, but the 2022 federal Speak Out Act voids any pre-dispute NDAs that restrict future reporting. While settlements can keep details confidential, federal and state laws (like in CA and NY) prevent using NDAs to silence victims from discussing misconduct.
In 2022, Congress passed the Speak Out Act, which applies to both non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreements. The legislation was signed into law by President Biden on December 7, 2022. The heart of the legislation is that:
“No nondisclosure clause or nondisparagement clause agreed to before the dispute arises shall be judicially enforceable in instances in which conduct is alleged to have violated Federal, Tribal, or State law.”
The Speak Out Act applies retroactively to all NDAs that were already signed prior to the passage of the legislation. The law makes it illegal to enforce an NDA that would prevent a sexual harassment or assault victim from speaking out about their allegations. The law makes it clear that it applies to any claim that is filed after the date that the bill was signed into law, regardless of when the NDA was dated.
Further, the Speak Out Act does not prevent a state from passing even more restrictive laws regarding the use of NDAs.
I imagine a whole lot of people are lawyering up as we post about this stuff. What a depressing bunch of facts to have to deal with as an attorney, but the client money is just as green, and a lot of it is gonna get spent.
I'm pretty sure it was released by the DOJ and then they tried to remove it from the released files.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! The MAGA update on "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is entitled "Kevin Warsh Goes to Pedo Island; With a Teenage Female Friend."
Oh, c'mon now, tboone. That CAN'T be real. "I loved the torture video?" What's next, "I'm here for the gang bang?" ROFL
apparently there is already a whole mythology built around JP Morgan and Epstein
I think your assumption may still be right on the money. It appears that NDA's given to the victims contemporaneously with their trips to Pedo Island or Epstein's other homes (or perhaps one of Trump's homes) would NOT be enforceable because they would be regarded as "pre-dispute NDA's."it was only an assumption on my part....
But NDA's signed in the context of a settlement of a sexual harassment or sexual assault claim (i.e., "post dispute NDA's") would appear to be enforceable as long as applicable state law did not preclude them from being enforced.
Edit: But most NDA's that I have prepared or reviewed contain an exception that allows either party to the NDA to discuss or disclose matters they would otherwise be obligated to keep confidential, IF their discussion or disclosure of such otherwise confidential matters is done in response to subpoena or other legal compulsion. So if a victim who is party to an NDA that had such a provision is called to testify before Congress or in a trial of some sort, then even a "post-dispute NDA" might not prevent discussion or disclosure.
Last edited:
There is no tipping point for the MAGAs. They will support him no matter what. They are heartless "people" who only know loyalty to a criminal. They would rather see this country fall than see Trump face the consequences he deserves
I see your point here, but I think these guys just got comfortable believing they were (are?) untouchable.
Or we could start, do any of the allegations have credible evidence to go with them?
I'll concede that some of the stuff seems over the top. Particularly Robin Leach strangling a girl to death (he's not strong enough), and the report that Ivanka was there. I suppose she could have been in some other part of Epstein's yuge house when these hijinx were going on, but I still think that's a stretch.
Fatpiggy: Trump never flew on Epstein's jet.
Normal people: Looks like he did a bunch.
Fp: Well, he's not mentioned in the Epstein files
Np: Looks like he's mentioned thousands of times and more than any other individual
Fp: Yeah but there's no allegations he did anything to a minor
Np: Here's lots of allegations that he did things to minors
Fp: Oh but THOSE allegations aren't believable
Normal people: Looks like he did a bunch.
Fp: Well, he's not mentioned in the Epstein files
Np: Looks like he's mentioned thousands of times and more than any other individual
Fp: Yeah but there's no allegations he did anything to a minor
Np: Here's lots of allegations that he did things to minors
Fp: Oh but THOSE allegations aren't believable