Jefferey Epstein found dead in jail cell

#4,252
#4,252
Sandman 423 said:
I tend to think if there was that it would have been leaked by now.
Click to expand...

Jeffery was going to sing and we saw what happened to him.

If you think Bondi made the unilateral decision to not release the (now nonexistent) files, then I've got some ocean front property to sell you in Wyoming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sonofUT62
#4,255
#4,255
Septic said:
Jeffery was going to sing and we saw what happened to him.

If you think Bondi made the unilateral decision to not release the (now nonexistent) files, then I've got some ocean front property to sell you in Wyoming.
Click to expand...
Most likely there's evidence of everybody in the files. Every political party, major player, etc. There also is most likely made-up evidence of people on there. The time should be taken to clarify everything. This BS we see now isn't going to cut it.
 
#4,260
#4,260
I'm not sure why there would be any surprise his name is in the files. I always assumed it was. Along with a ton of other people who may or may not be pedos. We knew he traveled on his plane. We knew they were friends for over a decade. The only new thing, IMO, that's come out is the birthday card
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, MemphisVol77, TrumpedUpVol and 1 other person
#4,262
#4,262
Sandman 423 said:
You being a lawyer and all… How much of this evidence can the justice department just release? What is it you know exists that you want to see?
Click to expand...

Of the entire file?

There would have to be a privilege of some kind, or a statutory exemption of which I'm not aware. The most common privilege claim for this would be that there is an ongoing criminal investigation, but if that were the case they'd have had to say so in response to any formal inquiries. And even that privilege is not absolute.

The only thing I've heard even remotely coming close to a claim of privilege is the worry that people could be named who are not actually guilty of anything. But that is not a legal objection, its a judgment of no legal meaning. And that is particularly so when, if it were just a person who got a ride on an airplane, but there is no report of misconduct, they can dismiss on that grounds.

Point is, if there were a legitimate, real, legal objection or privilege it would have been invoked.

And as above my worry is that Trump and Bondi are now going to claim that the denial of the motion to release the grand jury testimony equates to that, and it simply does not.


If you are asking just about the grand jury proceedings, there is a federal rule of criminal procedure, 6 which is quite involved, but the part that would apply here, seems to me to be this:
(E) The court may authorize disclosure—at a time, in a manner, and subject to any other conditions that it directs—of a grand-jury matter:
(i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;
(ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;
(iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;
(iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or
(v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.


The law surrounding when such a showing has been made is complex. State rules may be different and less complex. Depends on which grand jury we are talking about -- state or federal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#4,263
#4,263
volfanhill said:
I'm not sure why there would be any surprise his name is in the files. I always assumed it was. Along with a ton of other people who may or may not be pedos. We knew he traveled on his plane. We knew they were friends for over a decade. The only new thing, IMO, that's come out is the birthday card
Click to expand...


Then he has nothing to worry about and this dodging and contradicting oneself by the minute is completely unnecessary.
 
#4,265
#4,265
volfanhill said:
I'm not sure why there would be any surprise his name is in the files. I always assumed it was. Along with a ton of other people who may or may not be pedos. We knew he traveled on his plane. We knew they were friends for over a decade. The only new thing, IMO, that's come out is the birthday card
Click to expand...
I'm becoming more here myself.
For the sake of argument let's say there were 10 people "named" in the file, 5 R's and 5 D's. None of them have even a scintilla of anything resembling actionable evidence against them. There is a 100% chance people (not necessarily everyone, but not a small number either) would absolutely, positively leap to guilt by association. In part it would actually be fueled by if "they" are going to make such assumptions about "our" side, whichever that may be, we're damn sure not going to treat "their" side any different.

If there is a list that has people directly associating with Epstein on it being named will be toxic as hell, the end. All, some or not a one of them could be guilty of pedo action and it won't make a bit of difference to people willing to run with the narrative. If Trump, by simply being the political man of the moment is named, the running with it will look like the start of the NY Marathon.
 
#4,267
#4,267
hndog609 said:
I'm becoming more here myself.
For the sake of argument let's say there were 10 people "named" in the file, 5 R's and 5 D's. None of them have even a scintilla of anything resembling actionable evidence against them. There is a 100% chance people (not necessarily everyone, but not a small number either) would absolutely, positively leap to guilt by association. In part it would actually be fueled by if "they" are going to make such assumptions about "our" side, whichever that may be, we're damn sure not going to treat "their" side any different.

If there is a list that has people directly associating with Epstein on it being named will be toxic as hell, the end. All, some or not a one of them could be guilty of pedo action and it won't make a bit of difference to people willing to run with the narrative. If Trump, by simply being the political man of the moment is named, the running with it will look like the start of the NY Marathon.
Click to expand...
I'm interested in the evidence that the FBI filed away that was pictures and videos that were labeled with the perps names. We know those exist
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, marcusluvsvols, hndog609 and 1 other person
#4,270
#4,270
NashVol11 said:
Government sources have a lot more insight on these topics than non-government sources do. Why did you avoid my question? Too challenging to a lazy worldview?
Click to expand...
I thought your question was rhetorical but since it wasn’t.

If I was to give out information, I would put my name on it. If I thought it was important enough to leak it then I would think it was important enough to lose my job over it.

What is my worldview and how is it lazy?
 
#4,271
#4,271
When Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department’s review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, she told him that his name appeared in the files, sources familiar with the discussion told CNN.

The conversation, which also included Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, was characterized by two White House officials as a “routine briefing” that covered the scope of the Justice Department’s findings. Trump’s name appearing in the files, they said, was not the sole focus of the discussions.

Bondi also raised in the meeting that several names of high-profile figures were also mentioned, and that investigators did not find evidence of a so-called client list or evidence refuting that Epstein died by suicide, the officials said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dobbs 4 Heisman
#4,272
#4,272
MontyPython said:
When Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department’s review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, she told him that his name appeared in the files, sources familiar with the discussion told CNN.

The conversation, which also included Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, was characterized by two White House officials as a “routine briefing” that covered the scope of the Justice Department’s findings. Trump’s name appearing in the files, they said, was not the sole focus of the discussions.

Bondi also raised in the meeting that several names of high-profile figures were also mentioned, and that investigators did not find evidence of a so-called client list or evidence refuting that Epstein died by suicide, the officials said.
Click to expand...


Laying the groundwork and minimizing it in advance ....
 
#4,273
#4,273
Sandman 423 said:
Wow, I never figured you for a conspiracy guy.
Click to expand...

Every reasonable person should accept that conspiracies happen.

Vast conspiracies? I'm out on basically all of those, but a conspiracy as small as this one is totally plausible and would explain a lot.

We're not talking about QAnon and The Storm here. We're not talking about huge chunks of our government conspiring to pull off 9/11. We're talking about one guy blackmailing some powerful people, and then a cover-up. It barely tips the conspiracy scale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MontyPython, DuckInAPen, MercyPercy and 1 other person
#4,274
#4,274
Sandman 423 said:
I thought your question was rhetorical but since it wasn’t.

If I was to give out information, I would put my name on it. If I thought it was important enough to leak it then I would think it was important enough to lose my job over it.
Click to expand...
Good for you, but not everyone is willing to lose their livelihood over a leak nor should they be
Sandman 423 said:
What is my worldview and how is it lazy?
Click to expand...
Apparently, that everything that comes from unnamed sources (which includes Watergate, btw) can just be disregarded
 
#4,275
#4,275
lawgator1 said:
Laying the groundwork and minimizing it in advance ....
Click to expand...
Does a name appearing in files mean he took part in illegal activity? Or does it indicate he was an acquaintance, did business with him, or appeared on flight logs?

So far from what I can tell the Epstein files are a huge file on him, his business practices, people he did business with, people he socialized with, ect. It's not a client list of people he trafficked young girls to. Maybe some of those people are guilty. Maybe a list like that exists, but I don't think it's in the generic Epstein file currently being searched.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top