Law Trump says the Epstein list is a conspiracy created by Obama and Clinton

[Cajun]

It

took years to even begin the prosecution of trump for the files he stole and lied about. That kind of case usually takes 12-18 months.

I don't agree with you. I think it was pulled out just before the election to keep him from running. But there is normally somewhat of a rush when you are talking about child predators which in this case seems accurate so that they will not offend before they are actually charged

 

[Cajun]

No offense, but I don't really see how your point makes sense. Epstein was set to go to trial, killed himself, and then Ghislaine was convicted, all within that time frame. If you're talking about going after others that were involved, whether it's John's or henchmen types, it would likely have had to have happened after all of that. We don't really know what Garland was doing from 2022-2024, so it is possible they weren't looking into anything, but that's a 2 year stretch, not 6. And we also know that Senator Wyden, who chaired the finance committee, started the investigation into Epstein's finances in 2022. Also, nothing ever really moves fast, especially when congress is involved. Hell, they're on vacation or recess or shut down because they can't agree on anything, for like half the year.

Anyway, we know there's a there, there, despite Trump saying there's nothing to see, and Maxwell saying she never saw nobody doin nuthin, ever.

From an interview with Wyden:
"
--Well, we found, for example, 4,700 wire transfers [and that's just the one bank they were able to look at, Epstein used many, including Russian banks], and there were details about women and girls being trafficked. And we've seen evidence of a paper trail, account records, treasury files. We have details about Epstein henchman who carried out his orders, information about banks looking the other way, government agencies sleepwalking, and I think that it's just important now if you're looking at a rigged financial system to make sure that all the facts come out.

--We asked the Treasury Department during the Biden administration to show us the materials, show us the suspicious activity reports. They did. We asked to sit with them [Garland's office] and look at the files. They allowed us to do it."

I'll grant you that it's entirely plausible, likely even, that high level figures are being protected behind the scenes, and nothing ever would have been or will be released by anyone. But even right now, at least Massie and Khanna are planning to force a floor vote to compel the full release of the files after Congress returns from recess. We'll see how that goes.

I have no doubt if Epstein was a child sex trafficker that he also did a lot of shady business. He's dead so there's really no reason to investigate further unless you're trying to catch guys that were tied to him maybe. The length of time that this information has been shelved, I do think it's likely there are some very powerful people in there. Whether they can be linked to the actual sex crimes is a different story. Epstein did hang out with a lot of powerful people from all walks of life from science to Hollywood to politicians. Not all of them were in the sex trafficking part of what he was doing. But if there are some that are in there that don't want to be named then its possible that nothing will come out. This case was so high profile that it would have been on any AG's radar. Not sure why Garland didnt do anything substantial. Why did Bondi indicate their release if she thought it would incriminate Trump then pull back? I think it's likely people that can be incriminated in there were unknown to her in terms of influence but someone got the word. Its strange all around.

Anyway thanks so much for the honest chat. I heard this thread was getting out of hand which is why I commented at all but it's always nice when you can discuss without insults.

 

[Soggust]

I would imagine her lawyers negotiated that based on how cooperative and forthcoming she was. If she refuses to answer a bunch of questions, she doesn't get the transfer.

Zero chance.

They would offer her a proffer session if they weren't sure whether or not she had valuable intel.

You don't get a deal for simply showing up to talk. The information has to be truthful and useful.

There is no scenario where a normal admin gives a deal in exchange for simply showing up denying guilt.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

My point is if they wanted to catch big fish they could have cut her a deal even to release her. I have no idea why she was transferred. What the level of security prison she was in before versus now. Someone mentioned minimum to minimum but dont know.

You're not going to catch an anchovie with her claiming her innocence and denying she saw anything improper.

 

[Cajun]

You're not going to catch an anchovie with her claiming her innocence and denying she saw anything improper.

I didn't say that. But the fact that she will likely spend the rest of her life in prison is a good reason to bargain. Again there are Mafia killers that are put into Witness Protection just to catch the big fish. And of course I'm not saying I don't want her to pay for her crimes. Of course I do. But I think there are massive deals that get her out of prison if they really wanted to. It also could be as some have said she has no credibility and her testimony would be pointless. Maybe she had no proof to offer. Who knows

 

[LangfordBarrow]

So for the last 6 years no one has done anything with her. Trump now has control of his own AG so likely nothing would happen to her anyway. I just don't see the point of all of this

She made statements clearing Trump and got a sweetheart transfer. The point seems to be pretty obvious. I think you're a good guy but you've got your deflector shields set to maximum strength.

 

[Soggust]

I didn't say that. But the fact that she will likely spend the rest of her life in prison is a good reason to bargain. Again there are Mafia killers that are put into Witness Protection just to catch the big fish. And of course I'm not saying I don't want her to pay for her crimes. Of course I do. But I think there are massive deals that get her out of prison if they really wanted to. It also could be as some have said she has no credibility and her testimony would be pointless. Maybe she had no proof to offer. Who knows

But as others have mentioned, those mafia killers who got WP ended up giving up names. Ghislane didn't give up names but still got a transfer to a lower security prison.

Surely, that's gotta set off alarm bells, right?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Unless you believe she is innocent then she has no reason to not bargain. As to her lying and canceling out her testimony, then it's pointless to do anything with her anyway.

They did do something with her. They transferred her to a cushy prison she shouldn't qualify for...

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I do think she got what she deserved. On that we agree. She may well due in prison. And my point is for 6 years that has been very little movement in the way of trials or convictions. No one has been in a hurry to do anything. Even with AG's from both sides seeing all of the evidence.

What someone has done is claim it's a hoax and to stop talking about it or you can't be MAGA anymore...

 

[Cajun]

She stated she made statements clearing Trump and got a sweetheart transfer. The point seems to be pretty obvious. I think you're a good guy but you've got your deflector shields set to maximum strength.

All that will do is delay something. She has a 20-year sentence. The next AG could get her released. I'm just looking at everything as a whole. Why would Trump even offer something he didn't have to knowing it would incriminate him? Why did Pam Bondi seem confident about releasing the files knowing they would incriminate Trump? If there's evidence of trump in there why didn't Garland take a hand?

 

[Cajun]

What someone has done is claim it's a hoax and to stop talking about it or you can't be MAGA anymore...

The list? I dont know but the murder of epstein, the high profile people, the sex trafficking.... those things are not a hoax. The party goes on with or without Trump. It seems split atm over some of these things.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I didn't say that. But the fact that she will likely spend the rest of her life in prison is a good reason to bargain. Again there are Mafia killers that are put into Witness Protection just to catch the big fish. And of course I'm not saying I don't want her to pay for her crimes. Of course I do. But I think there are massive deals that get her out of prison if they really wanted to. It also could be as some have said she has no credibility and her testimony would be pointless. Maybe she had no proof to offer. Who knows

We know she was transferred into a prison she needed a waiver to get into after an interview with one of Trump's personal lawyers.

 

[Cajun]

We know she was transferred into a prison she needed a waiver to get into after an interview with one of Trump's personal lawyers.

I thought she met with the justice department. Again all of the other questions I stated are valid. If I was the DNC I would have cut her a deal to let her out if Trump was involved and she knew it during Bidens term. People are already saying she has no credible testimony and has lied over and over. So I don't know what cutting a deal will do one way or another without her possessing some type of proof.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

I thought she met with the justice department. Again all of the other questions I stated are valid. If I was the DNC I would have cut her a deal to let her out if Trump was involved and she knew it during Bidens term. People are already saying she has no credible testimony and has lied over and over. So I don't know what cutting a deal will do one way or another without her possessing some type of proof.

Nobody was going to cut her a deal. She lacks any credibility. She's maintaining her innocence and trying to get her conviction tossed. The only one who has done anything for her is Trump yet you're not interested in why since she didn't offer anything in return other than making statements that clear Trump.

 

[curryjunkie]

That I can't say. Nor why nothing was done before this. Trump's only been in office for months. This happened in 2019. And yes Trump was but Biden and the AG had access to Epstein files for 4 years. That's exactly my point

But but Biden...

 

[Cajun]

Nobody was going to cut her a deal. She lacks any credibility. She's maintaining her innocence and trying to get her conviction tossed. The only one who has done anything for her is Trump yet you're not interested in why since she didn't offer anything in return other than making statements that clear Trump.

I don't know why because he hasn't said. If her testimony is worthless then why does Trump even care? Again all of my previous questions are valid.

 

[curryjunkie]

I haven't read a whole lot on it and the recent developments. If you're talking about Maxwell I'm really not sure.

There's the ol fall back position..

 

[Cajun]

There's the ol fall back position..

Cheers

 

[curryjunkie]

Cheers

Mr " centrist" doin your usual bullshit..

 

[sickc0d3r]

I have no doubt if Epstein was a child sex trafficker that he also did a lot of shady business. He's dead so there's really no reason to investigate further unless you're trying to catch guys that were tied to him maybe. The length of time that this information has been shelved, I do think it's likely there are some very powerful people in there. Whether they can be linked to the actual sex crimes is a different story. Epstein did hang out with a lot of powerful people from all walks of life from science to Hollywood to politicians. Not all of them were in the sex trafficking part of what he was doing. But if there are some that are in there that don't want to be named then its possible that nothing will come out. This case was so high profile that it would have been on any AG's radar. Not sure why Garland didnt do anything substantial. Why did Bondi indicate their release if she thought it would incriminate Trump then pull back? I think it's likely people that can be incriminated in there were unknown to her in terms of influence but someone got the word. Its strange all around.

Anyway thanks so much for the honest chat. I heard this thread was getting out of hand which is why I commented at all but it's always nice when you can discuss without insults.

Well, I consider you a good poster that I tend to disagree with. I only insult the shit posters

Anyway, last word on this for me today (probably). There were multiple investigations into Trump that Garland was dealing with. Those had huge implications, and Garland is notoriously careful, to the point that he was criticized by the left and the right throughout his time there. Definitely not a guy that takes things lightly and moves quickly, especially when they involve such high stakes individuals. I'm not sure given all that was going on with Trump he would have focused on the Epstein stuff.

As far as Trump and the Epstein files go, I figure it's very unlikely he's implicated in anything illegal, at least blatantly or obviously. BUT, he has stated publicly that "a lot of things in the files were fake about me". So he clearly was mentioned within the investigation, and he clearly doesn't like what was said or captured. My guess? It's embarrassing stuff, not necessarily illegal. Although that remains a possibility, and his actions with the Ghislaine move so far make him look more guilty than innocent.