- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LIVE Attorney General Pam Bondi Questioned over Jeffrey Epstein And other issues
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:12 am to CharlesLSU
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:12 am to CharlesLSU
quote:
Why hasn’t she indicted anyone from the Efiles? Why redact the perps names yet not the victims?
Anyone?
for the same reason Bidem's clown didn't? What new evidence has been discovered that wasn't available during that 4 years? She is not finished yet.
0
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:15 am to CharlesLSU
quote:
Why hasn’t she indicted anyone from the Efiles? Why redact the perps names yet not the victims?
Statute of limitations? I suspect there is no preserved DNA evidence. How are they going to build a case without it? I hope by the time I die, the fervor around JE morphs into something else. I wonder if they have anything on JD Vance?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:18 am to aTmTexas Dillo
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:21 am to cajunangelle
What a mess this hearing is
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:29 am to cajunangelle
The Epstein thing is a non-partisan shite-show that has people from both parties, multiple countries and industries involved.
There have been attempts from all angles at covering up, or at least restricting, the release of the files.
It stinks, and has from day 1. Now, even people who want to do the right thing are tainted by past attempts at cover up.
There have been attempts from all angles at covering up, or at least restricting, the release of the files.
It stinks, and has from day 1. Now, even people who want to do the right thing are tainted by past attempts at cover up.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:35 am to Bjorn Cyborg
I don't follow this close but what is the reason for redactions of the non victims?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:37 am to LEASTBAY
quote:
I don't follow this close but what is the reason for redactions of the non victims?
If they're not victims, why would you put their name and identifying information out there? So they can have their lives ruined?
The information we need is the information on his co-conspirators. Anyone who is not involved in the crimes has the right to privacy in this.
This post was edited on 2/11/26 at 11:39 am
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:40 am to AlterEd
Just curious. So if I were to read through the emails or whatever and it's obvious the person is admitting to a crime in the email that name is never redacted in any of the documents?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:42 am to cajunangelle
Pam Bondi has to be one of the dumbest people that we have ever had in government. Just totally incompetent
This post was edited on 2/11/26 at 11:43 am
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:43 am to LEASTBAY
I don't know. I don't think I've seen any emails where someone is outright admitting to a crime. I've seen some disgusting emails, but the people seem clever enough to crouch their words behind code. For instance, some professor at UCLA asked Epstein for advice on how to get an infant to suck his "pacifier" more vigorously apparently. While you and I and everyone else may know what he means, he is not outright admitting to a crime.
It's disgusting. And the good news is that, I believe, in that case the man's name was not redacted. And UCLA is not renewing his contract to remain employed by the university.
He should be investigated and prosecuted, obviously.
It's disgusting. And the good news is that, I believe, in that case the man's name was not redacted. And UCLA is not renewing his contract to remain employed by the university.
He should be investigated and prosecuted, obviously.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:44 am to AlterEd
Makes some sense.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:46 am to LEASTBAY
This thing is not nearly as straight forward or cut and dry as people think it is. This is a very difficult task for the DoJ to handle for a lot of reasons. I believe this is why the Democrats are pushing so hard for it to be done quickly. They know it's a damn near impossible task and they're hoping the DoJ fricks it all up and tarnishes any potential ongoing investigations. They're hoping to poison the well.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:47 am to AlterEd
quote:
So they can have their lives ruined?
Tough shite. Seemingly innocent people get swept up in criminal investigations all the time. Be careful who you associate with.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:48 am to AlterEd
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:49 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
Tough shite.
Take it up with Thomas Massie.
quote:
Seemingly innocent people get swept up in criminal investigations all the time.
Irrelevant.
quote:
Be careful who you associate with.
Fallacy.
I'm not making excuses. Just telling you how it is.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:53 am to cajunangelle
I'll give Massie this. He is right about the 302's. The information we need is in those forms and they're redacted.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:54 am to AlterEd
quote:
Just telling you how it is.
OK wise man letting us commoners in on your inside baseball knowledge.
But that's a lot of excuses for someone not making excuses.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:56 am to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
But that's a lot of excuses for someone not making excuses.
frick you, man. I've been telling people and trying to bring awareness to this for damn near a decade. The law is the law. If people want more, they need to be hounding their reps to bring a new bill to the floor that doesn't allow the DoJ to redact information they don't want redacted. It's just that simple.
But the problem will be getting it passed. They'll argue the potential is too great to open up the federal government to massive amounts of litigation from people suing the government.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 11:57 am to Tmcgin
Again, you choade, show us some proof, or STFU.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 12:08 pm to AlterEd
That makes sense.
I was looking for the JE files thread. Got to run now. Mario Nefal on X has interesting files that say who started the epstein mossad theory.
Looks like primary to JE is usa cia others piggy back off of. So the muh joos is a boogeyman possibly. They are all on the take not just israel. But mossad as a boogeyman divides MAGA.
I was looking for the JE files thread. Got to run now. Mario Nefal on X has interesting files that say who started the epstein mossad theory.
Looks like primary to JE is usa cia others piggy back off of. So the muh joos is a boogeyman possibly. They are all on the take not just israel. But mossad as a boogeyman divides MAGA.
This post was edited on 2/11/26 at 12:09 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News