Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
If that were the case why did the DOJ release this memo 10 days ago?
You’re exactly right. Releasing names during an investigation is standard practice. So the question becomes, has the investigation progressed to the point where names can be released? The criminal justice system is designed to protect the rights of the innocent, sometimes to the detriment of justice itself.
An example might be a neighbor who you casually associated with is found to be running a sex trafficking ring and has videos of every visitor to his house. While Epstein is not your average neighbor, the same discretion should be applied to both situations. We’ve seen lives ruined for less.
Expecting that my visits to my neighbor's house be concealed is far more damning than not worrying about it and just offering a simple truthful statement like "he was my neighbor so I was over there for random neighborly reasons. I had no idea what he was up to and there's no evidence to suggest I was involved with any of that."
It's unfortunate for me if some people don't believe that or think differently of me as a result, but that's hardly a compelling reason to keep the info hidden.
I think it's just time to accept that Trump probably fucked some kids, his buddies fucked some kids and his high powered enemies fucked some kids..... so us peasants are never really gonna know who did it and the same fuckers are gonna get to continue on being kid fuckers.
The question is now, who's the next Epstein?
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Free shipping: VITALMX
"Innocent until proven guilty" (I prefer "unless" since "until" presumes guilt and that it is just a matter of time until it's proven) is a legal principle that specifies to whom the burden of proof falls in a legal proceeding. It isn't a blanket privacy guarantee. Furthermore, in general discourse, truth is a defense. in other words, it someone says "X visited Epstein at his home on multiple occasions" and it is true that that happened, it is not defamatory to say so. If someone baselessly says "X had sex with minors" and someone having said so causes damages to X, then X is within their rights to seek restitution for damages in court for financial and reputational harm and distress. Furthermore, a prosecutor can accuse someone if they have probable cause. The court has to presume them innocent unless proven guilty, but the prosecutor can express their belief that the person has committed a crime.
A prosecutor (which is what the AG is) can have other prudential reasons for keeping things under wraps (e.g. not wanting to jeopardize an ongoing investigation). Things do get a bit tricky when information is true but invites an adverse inference. If, for example, releasing information will put someone's life in danger, then even if it is true, that can be a reason not to release it. Risk of adverse inference in such cases need to be weighed against the public interest. If the public interest is only minimally affected but the risk of adverse inference leading to damage is high, that can be a compelling reason not to release the information. But if information known to be true is in the public interest to a high degree and there isn't compelling reason to not release it, then they should release it. This is a case where the public interest is at the highest level (by "interest" I don't mean "we find it interesting"; rather, I mean "it is in the interest of children to be protected from pedophiles", which I think we all agree is a weighty interest). And when weighing reasons, "my friends will be implicated" should not factor in as compelling, or even relevant.
POTUS is a underage girl fucker…. Essentially. And many more people in power.
I bet Mossad has videos of Trump in pissing videos and probably worse.
Explain the massive turnaround from campaign promises?
Why do people with the wealth to have any luxury they want often turn to sordid pleasures?
Is life so boring they need to do freakshow shit..
Was it a campaign promise? I thought he hedged and looked uncomfortable when asked about it - the too many innocent people could get hurt line. JFK for sure, Epstein not as much. I think in his orbit may have been saying it but Trump himself, not so much. I could be wrong - if there’s footage of him campaigning on this I haven’t seen it.
You can find examples of Trump minions all over the place saying he'd release it if he got elected.
I'm sure examples have been posted here.
Hell, I've seen them where JD Vance said it should and would be released.
Bottom line, Trump took a 180 from what he said he'd do and instead of draining the swamp, this time, he's put armed guards around it to keep the swamp creatures safe.
Does anyone know why JP Morgan settled with Epstein victims to the tune of $290,000,000?
Minions yes, Trump not so much. He might have been thinking STFU while they were talking about it.
He did not tell them to STFU though. And let’s not forget his appointee (Bondi) post election stating that the release is eminent, I’m paraphrasing. And then the binder release to “influencers” litterally at the whitehouse.
Jr gets it. Probably the only time in his life he was on the right side of an issue
Lies
True. It would have looked bad if he had, and he had an election to win. He sure didn’t go out of his way to talk about it, and he sure is telling anyone who does to STFU now though. Apparently people who don’t want to let it go are “bad people”. That’s all but a few people here.
It just feels to me like “Trump campaigned on this” is one of those things that everyone assumes is true because it’s been repeated so often but nobody stops to consider whether it really is true. It seems the most people can come up with is that his minions talked about it and Trump not making a fuss about it implies that he agreed with them. It’s not obvious that he did. When pressed to say something himself, he was very guarded and careful, which is extremely uncharacteristic for him.
I would be happy to be corrected on this. It’s not meant as a defense either. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Wow, OK.
I guess that's settled then.
At the time, everyone, including myself thought this was a hoax, but I’m thinking about it differently now.
Dude definitely pushed all of his chips into the middle of the table.
To answer the dude with a sexual inuendo for a screen name's question, the rich and powerful get off on doing what society says they can't do. For them it's about pain and anguish being inflicted upon people they see as beneath them. It's literally what they live for.
A good overview of the current situation. The WSJ story is quite bad for Trump and even Newsmax is taking note of how so many Trump supporters are very unhappy with the way he’s handling this
Pit Row
It isn’t overwhelming proof, but it’s definitely a bizarre ‘coincidence’ that Virginia Giuffre was actually recruited while she was working at Mar-a-Lago. The intersecting pathways just seem to be pretty numerous.
DJT is now suing the Wall Street Journal over what he claims is a fake letter written to JE.
Who could have seen this coming except everyone.
Haa Haa!
Flight logs are public, they show passengers, points of departure and arrivals, see for yourself...
https://dn721801.ca.archive.org/0/items/epstein-flight-logs-unredacted_202304/EPSTEIN%20FLIGHT%20LOGS%20UNREDACTED.pdf
You are a lunatic. Who else do you have on your lunatic list of yours?
We want names!
*Reported* ^
Unhinged Vitards....good lord.
I have to say, best case is President Trump is protecting pedophiles and should be prosecuted. Worst case, he himself is a pedophile, and should be prosecuted. I wish I could see a way for my opinion to be otherwise, but I can’t.
Please note how I said “my opinion”, because with the evidence being hidden (actively by President Trump), there is no way to know.
I would like to hear the most generous defense of not just releasing all the info that exists?
Why not do it?
If it's just protecting the innocent that might have their name put out there when they aren't a degenerate POS..... I feel like I've addressed that.
Curious if there's any other argument for not just unloading it all?
Shouldn't be a partisan issue.
The best arguments would apply only if there is an intention to prosecute. You’d want to avoid:
Witness intimidation
Prejudicing a jury
Possibly national security issues
Giving defendants the opportunity to flee
Not adequately balancing public interest vs privacy. None of us can solve this here as clever as we might think we are - these issues can be quite complex and require a case by case, detailed analysis (eg some people may be more vulnerable than others, and it’s not just perpetrators privacy at stake, its victims as well)
Compromising the ability to make deals with potential witnesses. Immunity in exchange for testimony may seem distasteful but is often necessary.
That’s what I can come up with off the top of my head. None of this means nothing can be released, caution is prudent if you don’t want to subject victims to further harm or compromise a potential prosecution. Rash action tends to have unintended adverse consequences.
Edit: the victim privacy issue applies whether or not there’s any prosecution.
Tomorrow some of you will be complaining about this new twist:
https://youtu.be/e_dPa6C0G-g
Stick your reports up your ass
Post a reply to: Epstein list incoming today