General Discussion

AZJonnie

(2,353 posts)

4. I have two answers for you

Wed Nov 12, 2025, 06:54 PM

Nov 12

1) I don't want us to get it wrong and end up looking dumb, and have it empower him more, and
2) I really don't want to think that Biden's DOJ was sitting on evidence that Trump was heavily involved in a sex-trafficking ring, and didn't do SHIT?

Please understand that the 2nd statement is an underlying theme to pretty much everything I post on this subject. I don't want that to be true. They could've stopped ALL OF THIS HELL, and held a child sex trafficker to account, and just ... didn't? I guess I'm always trying to find reasons to why it cannot be, if that makes sense?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

FakeNoose

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sorry to annoy everyone yet again, but much about that Epstein email hangs on the accuracy of one word [View all] AZJonnie Nov 12 OP

you seem very vested in all of this Skittles Nov 12 #1

to be honest every day I see dozens here incredibly vested in this. WarGamer Nov 12 #3

I have two answers for you AZJonnie Nov 12 #4

Is that email in question from the estate? OneGrassRoot Nov 12 #6

I cannot possibly imagine that the DoJ does/did not have everything the Estate has in this regard, long ago AZJonnie Nov 12 #8

Well, not just Biden's DOJ. Sorry to burst the bubble you'd prefer to exist in, but it is true. RockRaven Nov 12 #10

I see you as rather a brilliant person so this reply surprises me. AZJonnie Nov 12 #11

I believe my last post failed to communicate to you what I intended. RockRaven Nov 12 #18

Thanks for clarification. This is exactly the sort of cogent argument I always see from RockRaven AZJonnie Nov 13 #33

I don't think BeerBarrelPolka Nov 13 #34

yeah OK Skittles Nov 12 #12

Because Biden wanted to protect others. Sadly. Bluesaph Nov 13 #32

I am one KentuckyWoman Nov 12 #19

The White House released the name Abnredleg Nov 12 #2

Well, that's very convenient since Giuffre REPEATEDLY exonerated Trump of any wrongdoing including in her book AZJonnie Nov 12 #7

do you admit that Trump is one vile, disgusting POS??? Skittles Nov 12 #13

Do you not see what I post, all day and every day? I mean obviously not everything, but generally? AZJonnie Nov 12 #15

The premise of this post is wrong, from what I've read. The ID is known, from multiple RockRaven Nov 12 #5

See my post #7 above this one. AZJonnie Nov 12 #9

and how do you know she wasn't under duress? Skittles Nov 12 #14

Because it was in her 2025 memoir that she just wrote, and her estate released posthumously AZJonnie Nov 12 #17

speak for yourself Skittles Nov 12 #21

We are making the same point. Yes, she is gone, having exonerated him (to her knowledge) on her way out. AZJonnie Nov 12 #23

It doesn't matter Boo1 Nov 12 #16

I want to address this part of your post Quiet Em Nov 12 #20

I get what you mean, but I was asked why *I* am so interested in the case near the top of the thread. AZJonnie Nov 12 #24

You are not annoying me and no apology is required. Disaffected Nov 12 #22

From what I've read, the "VICTIM" redaction was in the version of the files supplied by the estate, Emrys Nov 12 #25

Not suggesting anyone tried to warp the facts, but mistakes can be made on a task like that AZJonnie Nov 12 #26

It MIGHT be an inside joke, but to borrow the words of a past US president, "I want to hear him deny it." Emrys Nov 12 #28

I've said this like 20 times in various posts over months but not everyone see everything, so again lol AZJonnie Nov 13 #29

"the 'complete release of DoJ files' for any case is not a normal occurrence" Emrys Nov 13 #30

Setting aside the details of our particular definitions of "great lengths", the point is we agree AZJonnie Nov 13 #31

AZJohnny I agree with you that it wasn't Virginia Roberts Giuffre that Chump met at Epstein's house FakeNoose Nov 12 #27