XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc
From: cryharder@pussies.net
On 2/12/26 3:49 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2026-02-12 10:41, Meme them till they cry wrote:
>> On 2/12/26 1:19 PM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2026-02-12 09:47, Meme them till they cry wrote:
>>>> On 2/12/26 12:16 PM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2026-02-12 08:56, Meme them till they cry wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/12/26 11:43 AM, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>> Socialism is for losers wrote in
>>>>>>> news:01fpokhj028c4m7m7at2sdob5dfb431p97@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 16:07:42 +0000, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Socialism is for losers wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:lvqmokli1khclbi61c4d9t0ts4r9eq51ir@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 17:02:17 +0000, Lee
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:10mffk4$lo$5@reader2.panix.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Do you think that Donald Trump was involved
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in crimes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | allegedly committed by Jeffrey Epstein?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Yes.....: 46%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | No......: 30%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> | Not sure: 24%
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>> | President Donald Trump has repeatedly maintained that he
>>>>>>>>>>>> | had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's sex crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>> | But in July 2006, just as Jeffrey Epstein's criminal sex
>>>>>>>>>>>> | charge became public, Trump called then-Palm Beach police
>>>>>>>>>>>> | chief Michael Reiter to tell him that Epstein's activities
>>>>>>>>>>>> | with teenaged girls were well known in both New York and
>>>>>>>>>>>> | Palm Beach.
>>>>>>>>>>>> |
>>>>>>>>>>>> | "Thank goodness you're stopping him, everyone has known
>>>>>>>>>>>> | he's been doing this," Trump told Reiter, according to a
>>>>>>>>>>>> | 2019 FBI interview with Reiter contained in the Justice
>>>>>>>>>>>> | Department's Epstein case files.
>>>>>>>>>>>> | ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> government/article314631578.
>>>>>>>>>>>> html>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> --bks
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The same Trump who paid Stormy Daniels
>>>>>>>>>>> #130,000 to deny the sex he never had with
>>>>>>>>>>> her.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Stormy Daniels was an adult.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And Trump lied about screwing
>>>>>>>>> her and bribing her.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can't condemn him for that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't condemn Trump for anything.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Who wouldn't have lied about screwing her?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you admit Trump lied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that you care about that....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just your daily reminder that Trump released 3.5 million more
>>>>>> documents from the Epstein files than Biden.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because Congress passed a law requiring it...
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and he's actually in violation OF that law.
>>>>
>>>> Now explain Biden's failure to release them; or even democrats'
>>>> failure to seek their release at any other time except during
>>>> Trump's presidencies.
>>>
>>> Biden obeyed the laws which applied at that time.
>>
>> Non sequitur. There was no law requiring the release of the Epstein
>> files during his administration, so his DOJ released exactly zero
>> pages from the full investigative trove. Democrats in Congress didn't
>> push for any legislation to force it either, despite controlling the
>> House for part of his term. They had four years and did nothing.
>
> There were laws that required they remain confidential.
No, there weren't.
>>
>>> Now explain why MAGAts are both claiming that the files are a hoax
>>> AND that they implicated Democrats...
>>
>> Beats me. If it's a hoax, why did Trump sign the law mandating their
>> release?
>
> Because he expected his toadies to redact his name...
>
> ...which they spent months doing.
That certainly explains why his name appears unredacted over 1 million
times.
>>
>>> ...despite Democrats leading the charge to get the law passed that
>>> requires their release...
>>
>> Since when is Thomas Massie a democrat? Massie, not Democrats, filed
>> the discharge petition to force the vote when it stalled. It got
>> bipartisan support: 427-1 in the House, unanimous in the Senate, and
>> Trump signed it. If Democrats were hiding something, why push for a
>> law forcing full release? This was a rare win for transparency across
>> parties—credit where due, but it's not a one-sided story."
>
> He filed the discharge petition along with a Democrat, Ro Khanna...
>
> ...and that petition got just 4 Republicans who signed on to it...
>
> ...as opposed to all the Democrats.
>
> The 427-1 vote was after Trump had finally capitulated...
>
> ...and someone explained to him how they could fiddle with actual
> compliance.
But that's exactly why it's bipartisan: A Republican (Massie) initiated
the forcing mechanism when the bill stalled under Republican control,
and a Democrat (Khanna) co-sponsored from the start. The petition got
the job done, leading to the House passing it 427-1 on November 18, 2025
(only Clay Higgins voted no), the Senate passing unanimously the next
day, and Trump signing it into law on November 19, 2025.
>>
>> By the way, why didn't democrats lead the charge when Biden was
>> president?
>>
>>> ...while the DoJ is still trying to avoid fully complying with that law.
>>
>> The DOJ did miss the Dec. 19 deadline and got slammed for it—
>> bipartisan lawmakers like Massie (R) and Khanna (D) called it a
>> 'massive failure' and threatened contempt against AG Bondi. But they
>> released over 3.5 million pages by Jan. 30, plus thousands of videos/
>> images, and claim it's full compliance with the law Trump signed.
>> Critics say redactions are too heavy and not everything's out (e.g.,
>> maybe up to 6 million pages total), then turn around and whone that
>> too much was released. If they're 'avoiding' compliance, why release
>> millions after the backlash? This is more about bureaucratic delays
>> and privacy fights than a cover- up—bipartisan pressure fixed the
>> initial fumble.
> Because they've been scrubbing as many mentions of Donald Trump from
> what they've released as the feel they can get away with.
>
> To the point that the word "don't" is redacted in some documents because
> it consists of "don" and "t".
>
> The DoJ is clearly redacting things other than information that can
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
