• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    38
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Its crazy how Pam Bondi the Attorney General says there was no epstein files client list when a few months ago she said on live tv that she was currently reviewing the epstein files client list

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      44 days ago

      It’s sketchy but also feasibly explained by incompetence. “Oh yeah I just started on that homework assignment last night” tier of bullshit.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      She tried to walk back the comments about the file being on her desk, except she made those comments multiple times on different shows. She promised results within days, then nothing. Suddenly there is no list, and right wing news shows are now even saying Epstein wasn’t a bad guy and was set up

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Next itll be that there was no Epstein. He was made up by the Democrats who are secretly in cahoots with China or some shit

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        It will be technically correct. As in, no one has put all Epstein’s client’s names together in one group, so there has never been a (master) list.

        We know that Prince Andrew is somewhere so there can’t be zero clients.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          24 days ago

          There may never have been a full list, but there was a little black book from 2008 or so. It’s a list of names and phone numbers. Donald Trump has four numbers listed.

          The problem is, there were also arguably innocent people in that book as well. Epstein was a piece of shit, but he was a piece of shit who liked to give money to charity. He also liked to hang out with smart people, like actual scientists and such.

          Just saying that by itself, the black book is fairly weak. Combined with other evidence, and it could be a client list.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            14 days ago

            Wait a second. You’re saying this piece of evidence that would be the starting point to investigations of everyone on that list is weak?

            And, that could very easily be combined with the videos, and only after substantiating evidence is found would anyone be charged with a crime.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              13 days ago

              That’s how investigations normally work.

              You take one piece of evidence, combine it with more evidence, and eventually you have a full case.

              The Feds have the back book (and so does the internet, because it was leaked online). The feds also have a lot of video that I personally don’t want to see, but it should be enough to connect at least a few names.

              The fact that they refuse to connect any names means that Trump is in too many of those videos.