What's new
By:

Epstein is in Trouble

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
The Thriller said:
I’m guessing Garland wanting to “move past” perceived political vendettas was the primary motive here, not because he was trying to protect donors. It took him over one year to look into Jan 6. And that was only after Cheney and the Jan 6 commission made it so obvious that Garland needed to investigate it that the DOJ would’ve been burned down had he ignored it any longer. Garland was overly cautious. Had garland done his job and delivered swift justice instead of tip toeing around everything, we would be in a far better place right now.
Click to expand...

The Rapist should have been executed for treason and they did nothing.
 
str8line said:
The Rapist should have been executed for treason and they did nothing.
Click to expand...
I'm going to go a bit further and say that there should have been a pile of bodies on the doorstep of the capitol on Jan. 6th like there would have been if the people doing what they did would have been black.
 

​

'Bring her in': House Republican calls for Pam Bondi to testify​

Story by Robert Davis
• 1h•
2 min read


 
str8line said:
The Rapist should have been executed for treason and they did nothing.
Click to expand...
He absolutely should’ve faced severe justice, rendering him ineligible for public office and behind bars. Garland was woefully insufficient for the moment and we’re all paying for it. Which is why I’m pretty sure the Epstein list was put on ice. He was too cautious and didn’t want to split the country further with what would likely be perceived as weaponizing the DOJ. Which, ironically is what the GOP accused him of doing anyway and what they’re actively doing today. Democrats consistently being butter knives to gun fights. At some point they need to fight back and fight back hard. And the damn public needs to support them for longer than 5 seconds or else our democracy is doomed (it might actually have already passed that point).
 
The Thriller said:
I’m guessing Garland wanting to “move past” perceived political vendettas was the primary motive here, not because he was trying to protect donors. It took him over one year to look into Jan 6. And that was only after Cheney and the Jan 6 commission made it so obvious that Garland needed to investigate it that the DOJ would’ve been burned down had he ignored it any longer. Garland was overly cautious. Had garland done his job and delivered swift justice instead of tip toeing around everything, we would be in a far better place right now.
Click to expand...
That's jan 6. A huge mistake they didn't go against it hard. But Epstein is something else entirely.
 
LogGrad98 said:
That's jan 6. A huge mistake they didn't go against it hard. But Epstein is something else entirely.
Click to expand...
How so?

The motive that prompted Garland to drag his feet to prosecute Trump is likely the same motive that prevented him from aggressively prosecuting Epstein’s fellow pedo buddies, like Trump. “Let’s just return to normal guys and move on let’s let the country heal and not give Fox News any additional fodder…”
 
The Thriller said:
How so?

The motive that prompted Garland to drag his feet to prosecute Trump is likely the same motive that prevented him from aggressively prosecuting Epstein’s fellow pedo buddies, like Trump. “Let’s just return to normal guys and move on let’s let the country heal and not give Fox News any additional fodder…”
Click to expand...
You are missing the subtext. The issues that prompted the failure to go after the Jan 6th insurrection could have been as simple as delays from the other departments brought on by the republicans trying to keep the window open to hopefully win the next election, in which they succeeded. The Epstein issue is more likely to be those with deep pockets who did not want their name dragged through the mud, therefore affecting dem and repub just as likely and with much stronger push-back affecting politicians on both sides. Completely different scenarios. Threatening a political party with losing an election is a completely different animal from threatening to tie big and powerful names forever to full-on pedophilia. The former potentially ties up committees for a long time in litigation, the latter ends up with questionable suicides as soon as it is clear they might be willing to spill the beans instead of go down alone. Night and day scenarios.
 
LogGrad98 said:
You are missing the subtext. The issues that prompted the failure to go after the Jan 6th insurrection could have been as simple as delays from the other departments brought on by the republicans trying to keep the window open to hopefully win the next election, in which they succeeded. The Epstein issue is more likely to be those with deep pockets who did not want their name dragged through the mud, therefore affecting dem and repub just as likely and with much stronger push-back affecting politicians on both sides. Completely different scenarios. Threatening a political party with losing an election is a completely different animal from threatening to tie big and powerful names forever to full-on pedophilia. The former potentially ties up committees for a long time in litigation, the latter ends up with questionable suicides as soon as it is clear they might be willing to spill the beans instead of go down alone. Night and day scenarios.
Click to expand...
Disagree. Where has it been reported that garland dragged his feet because he was waiting for other agencies to conduct investigations? I’ve never read this. Yet, it been reported many times that it wasn’t until Cheney and the Jan 6 commission put pressure on him that he finally acted. Had Cheney and the Jan 6 commission not happened or not been as successful, it’s likely that many of the Jan 6 investigations would’ve stalled out… well stalled out even worse than they ended up doing.

Garland didn’t want to rock the boat because imprisoning a former president either because of his Jan 6 crimes or because he raped children would be a horrific look. Huge mistake, but Garland prioritized “normalcy and stability” over everything else.
 
The Thriller said:
Disagree. Where has it been reported that garland dragged his feet because he was waiting for other agencies to conduct investigations? I’ve never read this. Yet, it been reported many times that it wasn’t until Cheney and the Jan 6 commission put pressure on him that he finally acted. Had Cheney and the Jan 6 commission not happened or not been as successful, it’s likely that many of the Jan 6 investigations would’ve stalled out… well stalled out even worse than they ended up doing.

Garland didn’t want to rock the boat because imprisoning a former president either because of his Jan 6 crimes or because he raped children would be a horrific look. Huge mistake, but Garland prioritized “normalcy and stability” over everything else.
Click to expand...
Please point out where I stated it was sealed in court as a fact? Thank you for your overreaction though. You always take the side of the "sainted" democrats vs the "demonic" republican as reliably as Trump diddled children. You need to break through your blinders and see the world of politics for what it really is, and corruption rarely is a fully one-sided thing.

By the way, in no way did I imply that democrats were holding up any committee action, I actually called out republicans for taking that role. as you skimmed over. Silly you could have bolstered the sainthood of the venerated democrats if you had but read it a bit more carefully. I merely pointed out one plausible reason for a delay in one of the investigations while explaining a plausible second type of delay for the other investigation. That was all.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Please point out where I stated it was sealed in court as a fact? Thank you for your overreaction though. You always take the side of the "sainted" democrats vs the "demonic" republican as reliably as Trump diddled children. You need to break through your blinders and see the world of politics for what it really is, and corruption rarely is a fully one-sided thing.

By the way, in no way did I imply that democrats were holding up any committee action, I actually called out republicans for taking that role. as you skimmed over. Silly you could have bolstered the sainthood of the venerated democrats if you had but read it a bit more carefully. I merely pointed out one plausible reason for a delay in one of the investigations while explaining a plausible second type of delay for the other investigation. That was all.
Click to expand...
Overreaction? Sainthood of Democrats? Huh? Why are you acting like this? I don’t think anything I’ve said should justify this type of post from you.

The evidence points to garland being altruistic and a respecter of norms to a fault, not corrupt to a fault. Had he been corrupt, he would’ve packed Trump’s fat *** into a prison cell years ago. I just don’t see where your argument holds any merit.

Where as garland shown corruption? Has he shown any vulnerability for this sort of thing? Which democratic donors? Democrats don’t have many big donors or networks, unlike the GOP which hosts some of the richest people on earth and most well funded networks of think tanks, capitalists, and propagandists. If garland knowingly tanked these files because it would expose many on the left, then wouldn’t he have expected a future (non Trump) Republican president to expose this corruption and destroy the Democratic party? I just don’t see where your argument has merit. Could garland have covered up for leftist pedos? Sure, I guess it’s possible. I just don’t find it probable. Especially given the evidence that garland was overly optimistic and overly cautious. He wanted to return to normal. Which is why he dragged his feet with Jan 6 and Epstein; it would’ve caused too much uproar in a country attempting to heal from Trump, Covid, and George Floyd.

If we’re going to paint a broad brush then I can do it too. I believe many (former republicans) who are anti Trump retain their mistrust and cynicism of government. Which at times is good. But it can place blinders over eyes as well. Always assuming that all public employees have the worst motives serves us poorly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Apparently Mike Johnson is afraid of the truth here. Man, at least try to pretend he's not guilty. This is like the stereotypical "I plead the 5th" from the obvious bad guy in a bad crime drama. Good hell.

www.bbc.com

US House speaker shuts down chamber to block Epstein vote - BBC News

The decision to bring forward the summer recess means Republican leaders can delay a politically fraught vote on the disclosures.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top