I understand the reporting is like "LOOK AT ALL THESE CRIMES" but the files themselves are stuff like "Tee hee I know some girls for you".
How do you get from that to an arrest or conviction? If you unredacted that person, identified them and called them would they tell you that the girls were all 18 or older? Or would they incriminate themselves? Do you know it hasn't already been followed up on?
I honestly dont understand what people are expecting here.
There's an great photo of Pam Bondi avoiding looking at all the Epstein victims when they raise their hands to indicate that they have not been contacted by the Justice Department to follow up their complaints, it is only a day or two old.
Watch the Pam Bondi video this week where she is getting grilled about the Epstein files, and her rebuttal is that we should thank Trump for the Dow Jones being over 50,000. Watch the interaction with the Epstein survivors in the room.
So is the issue that, the files were released and we now have 100000 people to lock up.
Or is the issue that, now we have some transparency, we can see the FBI is misallocating resources?
Because I keep hearing the former, but if the issue is that theres a bunch of crimes that have been reported that werent investigated, thats more of a process issue.
Just some examples. If you watch the hearings from two days ago, you'll see that DOJ refuses to interview or speak to the victims to gather more info, and ignored a report from DJT's limo driver that he spoke with a (now deceased) victim that was murdered (head blown off, cops said it couldn't be suicide). That report asserts that DJT and JEE raped her, but they never even spoke to him or followed up.
There is a clear pattern of inaction, going back several administrations.
In the files there are scanned documents from the FBI reporting direct testimony from the victims of rape, violence, murder from prominent politicians, bankers, et cetera.
Start with... investigating that?
Ask them: why this person should be going around telling people you raped her? Have you ever met?
You know, like law enforcement does when there is the suspect of a crime.
>>but the files themselves are stuff like "Tee hee I know some girls for you".
Really? Like the multiple "thank you for the pizza" e-mails which the sender was censored, or the whole obsession they have around "jerky" and how to cook jerky, "walk the jerky", or when it was mentioned that Epstein would eat less jerky because he was having some intestinal issues? Even mentioning these things, it still is such a small portion of all the sick shit that is on the files, pictures with literal children, a video of Epstein using a magnifying glass to burn a woman, and you're literally calling it a nothingburger?
The investigation should have been when those allegations were made, not when a bunch of "lets order pizza and play xbox live" emails were released to public 10 years later.
I understand the reporting is like "LOOK AT ALL THESE CRIMES" but the files themselves are stuff like "Tee hee I know some girls for you".
How do you get from that to an arrest or conviction? If you unredacted that person, identified them and called them would they tell you that the girls were all 18 or older? Or would they incriminate themselves? Do you know it hasn't already been followed up on?
I honestly dont understand what people are expecting here.