0
- 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: Massie has 212 Democrats support for Epstein 2.0
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:07 pm to djsdawg
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:07 pm to djsdawg
I know a couple of other principled Republicans who are true patriots for standing shoulder to shoulder with Democrats against that evil dictator: Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:08 pm to DeBoar
Congrats republicans, you managed to make democrats right about something and give them the moral highground.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:08 pm to BoarEd
quote:
And don't you think that if they ignored the first federal law with no repercussions to be found that they'll just ignore this one too? And that therefore this is simply more grandstanding?
OK, tell us why you think the Trump DOJ has said “frick federal law, we will not comply”
I don’t know for certain, but it’s pretty plain. And no, has nothing to do with Trump on some island.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:10 pm to 3down10
Lol no not even a little bit
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:12 pm to BoarEd
quote:
And don't you think that if they ignored the first federal law with no repercussions to be found that they'll just ignore this one too?
That's the difference. 2.0 has all sorts of enforcement provisions including criminal sanctions.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:14 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Criminal sanctions?? Such as?? And for what, exactly??
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:15 pm to Jbird
quote:
Lol no not even a little bit
The files should be released and protecting pedos is not the play.
The fact this isn't non partisan is a serious misplay by republicans less than a month before mid terms.
What do republicans have to gain here by voting against it?
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:16 pm to Jbird
quote:
Wtf r u babbling about.
If there was a chance in hell they could nuke drumf the Lois Lerner would have been deployed
What are you babbling about?
Republicans (including Massie and me) know that Trump isn't implicated in the Epstein Files. Most Republicans think there is a Deep State.
Many of us think full disclosure of the Epstein Files might help expose some of the Deep State.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:18 pm to 3down10
Because when you say the extreme such as it’s a foregone conclusion that they’re “protecting pedos,” no one with an ounce of common sense is going to view you as nonpartisan. It’s like you’re not even trying to conceal it whatsoever.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:20 pm to davyjones
quote:
Criminal sanctions?? Such as?? And for what, exactly??
Section 2(f)(1) — Exact text
“(f) PENALTIES.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.— Any officer or employee of the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or United States Attorneys’ offices, including the Attorney General of the United States and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who conceals, removes, destroys, mutilates, falsifies, withholds, misrepresents, or makes a materially false statement or certification concerning any record, document, communication, investigative material justification, report, summary, or publication required under this Act shall be fined or imprisoned under sections 1001, 1505, 1519, and 2071 of title 18, United States Code, as applicable, provided that the relevant mens rea requirements under those statutes shall be required to be met.”
Section 2(f)(2) — Obstruction of proceedings
“(2) OBSTRUCTION OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES, AND COMMITTEES.— For purposes of section 1505 of title 18, United States Code, any congressional review, hearing, inquiry, report, certification, or enforcement proceeding relating to compliance with this Act shall be deemed a proceeding before a department, agency, or committee of Congress.”
Section 2(f)(3) — Destruction or falsification of records
“(3) DESTRUCTION, ALTERATION, OR FALSIFICATION OF RECORDS.— For purposes of section 1519 of title 18, United States Code, compliance with this Act shall be deemed a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States.”
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:20 pm to davyjones
quote:
Because when you say the extreme such as it’s a foregone conclusion that they’re “protecting pedos,” no one with an ounce of common sense is going to view you as nonpartisan. It’s like you’re not even trying to conceal it whatsoever.
It was previously mostly used by republicans.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:22 pm to DeBoar
Let them have him, we’ll keep Fetterman.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:24 pm to DeBoar
Is the bill text the same as the last one?
We already have all the documents.
We already have all the documents.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:24 pm to 3down10
quote:
was previously mostly used by republicans.
This has been such a weird switch. What could be the possible, principled objection to full release of the Epstein files?
If the remaining portions turn out to be a nothing burger, so what?
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:24 pm to IvoryBillMatt
What’s the main section heading under which that you posted there exists? In other words, what main official federal regulation does this fall under?
And thanks for the previous response.
And thanks for the previous response.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:25 pm to 3down10
Why Republicans?
The Biden and Obama administrations both had the ability.
They didn't do a fricking thing
The Biden and Obama administrations both had the ability.
They didn't do a fricking thing
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:25 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Nice tap dance
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:26 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Nobody has said they object to anything. Anything legitimate and real, that is. Plus, y’all have no clue what exists to even object to or not.
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:29 pm to Jbird
quote:
Why Republicans?
The Biden and Obama administrations both had the ability.
They didn't do a fricking thing
I think you just pointed out the club and company you are in/with.
This post was edited on 10/9/26 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 10/9/26 at 4:29 pm to davyjones
quote:
What’s the main section heading under which that you posted there exists? In other words, what main official federal regulation does this fall under?
And thanks for the previous response.
You're welcome. Here's the link to the entire bill:
Epstein Files Transparency Act 2.0
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News