Trump being destroyed and forced out of office for being a pedophile would be enough for me to start believing in karma and adopt Buddhism.
Not only that, but they would be able to get testimony under oath from him (and from numerous other people) about a wide array of Epstein related subjects. Hypothetically, the lawyers could ask about whatever they want really, and if it's in the federal system they have up to 7 hours by right to do so. The trouble is that the corporate media has of late been caving rather than fighting Trump's flimsy lawsuits. Under libel law, the press has extremely broad immunity in cases with public figures, which Trump obviously is. And yet, because Trump is in control of the FCC and is fairly transparent about using it as a stick against their corporate interests, they may cave rather than go through discovery and reach the end. The most recent lawsuit involved CBS paying $16 million over its allegedly deceptive editing of a Kamala Harris interview with 60 Minutes. The alleged deception was that they asked her a question about Israel, and she gave an answer that they published the second part of while leaving the first part on the cutting room floor. Neither part was particularly eloquent or controversial or problematic, and the two parts didn't contradict each other. And of course it's standard practice to edit answers down for clarity and brevity. And on top of that, even if for argument's sake it could be shown that CBS had maliciously edited the interview to favor Harris, they have a First Amendment Right to do so. And even on top of that and if you assumed that the First Amendment either didn't apply or their actions somehow went outside the scope of First Amendment protections, Trump couldn't show he was actually harmed by these alleged misdeeds because he won. So it's pretty clear that settling that case for $16 million doesn't make sense from a merits perspective. But it does when the FCC might mess around with a billion-dollar merger that CBS's corporate parent, Paramount, is looking to achieve. I'm looking forward to hearing a certain history buff and First Amendment devotee chime in and decry the actions of the Trump administration here in attacking the press any day now...
That particular individual seems to believe that if a media entity is lying, they do deserve to be attacked by the (Republican) president and sued. Fortunately for that particular individual, none of the news outlets that particular individual watches or listens to ever lies, so this is apparently just a liberal media problem for that particular individual. Thankfully, that particular individual is a MAGA cult member and no one cares what that particular individual thinks or says.
Shane Gillis, hosting the ESPYS: “Actually, there was supposed to be an Epstein joke here but I guess it got deleted. Must have probably deleted itself right? Probably never existed, actually. Let’s move on as a country and ignore that.” https://bsky.app/profile/sahilkapur.bsky.social/post/3lu4sc7el5s2c Whole clip is worth watching.
Someone pointed out that "enigma" is an anagram for this word No way that Trump is smart enough to figure that out for himself, but someone, like Epstein, might very well have mentioned it to him.
I think this is pushing it a tad. When I first read this, I was dubious that Trump even knew the word "enigma", but apparently Donnie J and a bunch of other MAGA twats tried that argument to excuse FWOTUS and someone turned up a case of Trump saying it at a rally in 2015. Epstein might have convinced him to say "enigma" because "it's a clever way of saying secret pedo stuff" but I doubt Trump has enough braincells to have also learnt the correct usage as he applied in 2015.
If even a hint of corruption under Biden occurred, righties screamed their heads off. Now Trump is openly and blatantly corrupt and that's all good. Hypocrites.
I can't decide if it would be better if Bill Clinton tweeted a call to release the Epstein list or if he tweeted that that Trump's privacy is being invaded. I don't have an understanding of how people get completely wrapped up in conspiracies. Hard to say which message makes them more suspicious. https://bsky.app/profile/somanymonkeys.bsky.social/post/3lubbbl75ys2n OMG, LOL. If Clinton went all in on defending Trump’s right to privacy and saying the files needed to be buried and everyone just move on I would donate $100 to his foundation. Would be first round ballot inductee into the Trolling Hall of Fame.
I wanted to quote you again both because I'm hoping you will find the time to answer my questions upthread, but also to point out a few other reasons why people might not disclose information out of the Epstein files that have nothing to do with protecting Democrats: 1. Though Epstein is dead, his co-defendant and girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell is still alive and appealing her conviction. Disclosing investigatory materials while her appeal is underway might not be such a great thing. 2. There might be other ongoing investigations related to Epstein or Maxwell that disclosure might cause issues for. 3. Disclosure of materials in the Epstein files could blow back on the innocent victims, namely the children he trafficked. 4. Disclosure of materials in the Epstein files could set a bad precedent where disclosure of investigatory documents/methods here might cause calls for disclosure in other cases. Even if it's potentially harmless here, it's could be harmful elsewhere. For what it's worth, I acknowledge each of these arguments have their limits and flaws. And I don't have any particular reason that they are at work here. But they and potentially other reasons that don't come to mind would potentially be why someone might not be so eager to release the records. Why do they not apply to the reasons the Republicans might not want to be releasing the records? Well first, because none of them have articulated these reasons. If any did, I might be charitable and give them the benefit of the doubt.
Trump did end up deciding to sue but he at first secured one of the top legal minds in the country. Mr. Pro Se, Esq.
Before Jeffrey Epstein's arrest, Steve Bannon filmed about 15 hours of footage for a documentary on him. It's never been released. Epstein's brother told @nbcnews.com he wants to see it. Bannon is saying he'll release the documentary "early next year" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/tr...n-15-hours-brother-jeffrey-epstein-rcna219630 https://bsky.app/profile/aterkel.bsky.social/post/3lubso3tyls2h
Much like Yam Tits thinking that asylum seekers have something to do with mental institutions, he and his lawyers don't understand what the word "exclusive" means.
You know, the argument that "This couldn't have been written by Trump, he doesn't know what that word means" is not exactly a winning argument, regardless of how accurate it is.
If I could blink people out of existence, as if they'd never been born, those two would be at the top of the list. Though you could argue that if Rupert were never born US politics might not be in the shape that it's in and Biff would never have run for president, much less won.
The Hashtag That Shows Trump Is Losing Control of MAGA Great comment on the article (emphasis in the original)
