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.
The Judge would only release the Grand Jury testimony if there was a valid legal argument, Trump knew this would never happen, he could and still can release the DOJ's file with a Presidential Order.
Come on Homer, why doesn't your daddy release the files, what is he hiding, is Trump a pedophile, did Trump order Epstein's death?
Should he release it f there wasn’t a valid legal argument? I could hear it now from the left (If he issued one), “Trump DOJ defies court order! Unconstitutional!! Impeach!”
The judge being a Democratic is irrelevant. A judge ought to be bound by the law. The judge thus ought not say yes to something he believed (as almost any judge would) that the law forbids. I can pretty much guarantee that the DOJ knew that this would be the outcome. This was never part of a substantive legal strategy. But if it has people mad at a “liberal judge”, then it’s a win for the administration.
I think he’s saying that there is plenty they could release without releasing the grand jury proceedings. I think it’s not clear what they should release - we don’t have enough information know this. I don’t think anyone should want the DOJ to be reckless or rash by releasing information that could violate victims’ privacy rights or that could compromise an investigation. The legal issues surrounding this information are likely more complicated than people generally realize.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Both sides have had plenty of opportunity to release everything they can and neither side has done so or has any intention to. They're only continuing the public slap fight to maintain the lie that it's the other side preventing them from doing it. Both sides suck and the nonstop arguing about which side sucks slightly more is stupid. Just stop. Whichever side you're on, that side sucks and they played you.
Whatever justice may someday come on this issue, it won't be because of anything a politician made happen. Unless the files get hacked or leaked or something along those lines they'll never see the light of day.
The law does Not forbid it.
Thanks
Luke
Too funny......there is no pedo list.....Captain Kangaroo.
She was going to review the file which was on her desk.......but you knew that.
And Trump is not on a pedo list you mental case.
That’s quite an argument you’ve got there.
Unfortunately, you’re probably right.
Is it not true?
If there is a pedo list, why doesn't he sign a Presidential Order to release all the DOJ file on Epstein, what is he hiding?
* , Esquire
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45456
“the secrecy of grand jury proceedings "must not be broken except where there is a compelling necessity," and the "instances when that need will outweigh the countervailing policy" of secrecy "must be shown with particularity" by the requester.205”
The default position is secrecy unless “compelling necessity” can be shown to outweigh it. So it depends on whether the DOJ has demonstrated that to the court’s satisfaction. The judge was not satisfied that compelling necessity had been proven and it’s his opinion that matters.
The judge has determined that the public would not learn anything of interest about the matter that isn’t already generally known. (In my opinion the fact that Brad Edwards, who represented several of Epstein’s victims, agrees with the judge on this point lends considerable credibility to the judge’s claim given Edwards’ interest in justice for the victims). If the public is not substantially going to benefit from the release of the testimony then compelling necessity would appear to be absent while the general position protecting secrecy remains present. If that is correct then the judge ought not release the information.
It’s not that there isn’t anything important there. It’s Grand Jury testimony - of course it’s important. It’s a matter of whether the information is going to inform the public regarding the sorts of things we want to know. The judge thinks it wouldn’t and given that we don’t have the testimony, what basis do we have to disagree? If the judge was mistaken, it’s certainly not obvious. As I mentioned, someone who does know and is actively pursuing justice for the victims agrees (Brad Edwards). Do you know more than he knows?
You’re welcome.
Keep protecting those pedo’s and rapists:
“The 18-year-old relative of Utah Senate President Stuart Adams who was charged with raping a 13-year-old—and later received a markedly lighter outcome after Adams advanced a change to Utah law—is his step-grandchild.
The Salt Lake Tribune reported that in 2023 an 18-year-old high school student was charged with two counts of rape of a child and two counts of sodomy on a child - both first-degree felonies - after having sex with the 13-year-old.
At the time, Utah law allowed 17-year-olds who had sex with 13-year-olds to be charged as juveniles with a third-degree felony (unlawful sexual activity). Anyone under 14 cannot legally consent.
According to the Tribune report, during the 2024 legislative session, Adams proposed a change allowing prosecutors, in limited circumstances, to treat 18-year-old high school students accused of child rape as minors—exposing them to lesser charges instead of first-degree felonies.
Although the law was not made retroactive, the prosecutor, judge, and defense attorney in the case all acknowledged that it was a major factor in their decision to offer the 18-year-old a plea deal, resulting in guilty pleas to second-degree felony aggravated assault and three misdemeanor counts of sexual battery. The deal also spared the 18-year-old from sex-offender registration.
Utah Political Watch has confirmed that the perpetrator is Adams’ step-grandchild.”
You said the law forbid it...the judge can release if he wants.....so.
Thank you
Luke
Judges aren’t supposed to do thing based on whether they want to or not. They are supposed to be impartial and make decisions based off n precedent the rule of law and the constitution.
Thank you for your attention in this matter
Bringing up what the judge can do “if he wants” is asinine. Rules of criminal procedure are part of the law and the judge is bound to follow the law as he understands it and its application to the case before him. What the judge wants beyond that is irrelevant.
Bro, you are just like the people who were defending “sharp as a tack”.
Pit Row
So if he decides to release...he can correct?
He is able to release on his own accord if he makes the decision to, correct?
Are you trying to say something?
Just so you are clear, I'm 100% for releasing all the Epstein stuff, even Grand Jury.
Thank you
Luke
We need to be clear about what “he is able to” means. There are different senses of “I can or cannot decide to do x”. “I can’t shoplift” could mean “I ought not shoplift” or it could mean “I physically am being prevented from shoplifting” (among other things - I can’t shoplift if I’m not in a store but we can ignore such cases). When I’m shopping I can’t shoplift because I believe that I ought not shoplift and I treat that as a constraint on my behaviour - no matter how much I want the item (if, say, I can’t afford it but really want it). I treat reasons as constraints on my actions. I can want the item but not want to shoplift. I can want to shoplift but not do it because I have reason not to. My overriding want is to act in accordance with the reasons that apply to me. But if I didn’t care about what I ought to do or not do, then yes, if I were to make the decision to shoplift I am able to shoplift. But I won’t - even if I knew I could get away with it - because the reasons I have for behaving a certain way matter to me. Just like the reasons that a judge has for a ruling matter to him. He could do whatever he wanted if he didn’t care about those reasons. But he’s constrained by them just like we’re all constrained by reasons such as legal or moral reasons - unless you’re a psychopath. So he could release the testimony just like I could shoplift. But we don’t want to live in a world where judges act like that.
He has the ability to release if he deems it prudent to do so, he thinks it is not prudent, which begs the question why?
Why are you dudes so adamant to get some Epstein stuff released and not other things....perplexing. Release it all, so the vitards can sleep at night I say!
It’s really not perplexing. You can want information and also care about the rule of law. If you want to know why he decided as he did, read the decision - it’s public record so there’s.no question to beg. I’m pretty sure he cares about the law more than the quality of vitards’ sleep.
it's perplexing to those in a cult. they can't understand wanting justice brought no matter who is guilty.
threads like this make a mockery of the republican base and they can't even comprehend that they are the butt of yet another sad, pathetic, disgusting joke.
Yes, it is perplexing. Do you want the all info released or not?
You have many vitards going bonkers over the "pedo list" and want all the Epstein stuff released, yet you are working hard to argue it should not? The judge could release the info if he thought it was prudent. I'm not sure what is in there that he feels it needs to be kept secret.
Luke
I can’t overstate how astonished I am by this conversation.
Do you get astonished easily?
I have been very clear on my stance on this subject, you care not to see it perhaps?
Thank you
Luke
Most people aren’t completely immune to reason, but in some cases, it’s like playing chess with a pigeon.
Post a reply to: Epstein list incoming today