Nancy Mace: "We moved to subpoena Attorney General Bondi because the Department of Justice has not complied with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. They claim all files have been released. The facts say otherwise. Key evidence remains hidden from the public and from victims seeking justice."
I don't think it'll happen, but she could be looking at jail time. There is a precedent for a US AG going to jail, but I bet she just falls on her sword and loses her job.
As long as she protects Trump, there is a pardon in her future should she need it.
@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
I fully support the release of all Epstein information and have from the moment he was arrested, unlike the American left that remained silent for 4 years during the Biden Regime. If Kamala had won NOTHING would have been released and leftists would have never said a word just like they didn't say a word the previous 4 years.
”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
Isn't the DOJ suppose to be non-partisan?
”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
You don’t understand. Butch heard a senator call the accusation compelling, so it is compelling.
Yes.”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
Isn't the DOJ suppose to be non-partisan?
Does that make my point stronger or weaker in your eyes? The FBI and DOJ knew about these unverified accusations for the entire Biden presidency. And yet they did nothing. What does that tell you about how "compelling" the evidence is against Trump regarding this accusation?
”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
You just earned a daily dumby.
Another person ignorant of how the legal system works.”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
You just earned a daily dumby.
Yes.”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
Isn't the DOJ suppose to be non-partisan?
Does that make my point stronger or weaker in your eyes? The FBI and DOJ knew about these unverified accusations for the entire Biden presidency. And yet they did nothing. What does that tell you about how "compelling" the evidence is against Trump regarding this accusation?
When was the appeals process all done for the Epstein stuff? Wasn't it pretty late in Biden’s presidency?
That has nothing to do with it. If in investigating a crime, a law enforcement agency uncovers "compelling" evidence of another one, you think they sit on it, waiting for the first investigation or prosecution to wrap up? No, they open a new investigation into the new crime.Yes.”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
Isn't the DOJ suppose to be non-partisan?
Does that make my point stronger or weaker in your eyes? The FBI and DOJ knew about these unverified accusations for the entire Biden presidency. And yet they did nothing. What does that tell you about how "compelling" the evidence is against Trump regarding this accusation?
When was the appeals process all done for the Epstein stuff? Wasn't it pretty late in Biden’s presidency?
That the FBI didn't do that and the DOJ never wanted to go further belies the notion that there is "compelling" evidence here: it's a single uncorroborated account from the mid 80s, that was never pursued by the claimant.
Couldn't there be compelling evidence AND the Biden DOJ/FBI ignored it(or worse try to bury it like Trump is doing)?That has nothing to do with it. If in investigating a crime, a law enforcement agency uncovers "compelling" evidence of another one, you think they sit on it, waiting for the first investigation or prosecution to wrap up? No, they open a new investigation into the new crime.Yes.”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
Isn't the DOJ suppose to be non-partisan?
Does that make my point stronger or weaker in your eyes? The FBI and DOJ knew about these unverified accusations for the entire Biden presidency. And yet they did nothing. What does that tell you about how "compelling" the evidence is against Trump regarding this accusation?
When was the appeals process all done for the Epstein stuff? Wasn't it pretty late in Biden’s presidency?
That the FBI didn't do that and the DOJ never wanted to go further belies the notion that there is "compelling" evidence here: it's a single uncorroborated account from the mid 80s, that was never pursued by the claimant.
Logically? Sure. All conspiracy theories are logically possible, no matter how wacky.Couldn't there be compelling evidence AND the Biden DOJ/FBI ignored it(or worse try to bury it like Trump is doing)?That has nothing to do with it. If in investigating a crime, a law enforcement agency uncovers "compelling" evidence of another one, you think they sit on it, waiting for the first investigation or prosecution to wrap up? No, they open a new investigation into the new crime.Yes.”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
Isn't the DOJ suppose to be non-partisan?
Does that make my point stronger or weaker in your eyes? The FBI and DOJ knew about these unverified accusations for the entire Biden presidency. And yet they did nothing. What does that tell you about how "compelling" the evidence is against Trump regarding this accusation?
When was the appeals process all done for the Epstein stuff? Wasn't it pretty late in Biden’s presidency?
That the FBI didn't do that and the DOJ never wanted to go further belies the notion that there is "compelling" evidence here: it's a single uncorroborated account from the mid 80s, that was never pursued by the claimant.
Is there here, in reality, compelling evidence? No (or, at least, not that we've seen). So far it's a single uncorroborated account from the mid 80s, that was never pursued by the claimant.
Once again, I'm amazed at how the political tribes have both done 180s on their views on this stuff.
That's 100 percent true.Once again, I'm amazed at how the political tribes have both done 180s on their views on this stuff.
I don't know that the "tribes" have done a 180. Except for who people believe were co-conspirators, it's always been a pretty bipartisan issue amongst the common folk. Release the files and arrest the pedos.Logically? Sure. All conspiracy theories are logically possible, no matter how wacky.Couldn't there be compelling evidence AND the Biden DOJ/FBI ignored it(or worse try to bury it like Trump is doing)?That has nothing to do with it. If in investigating a crime, a law enforcement agency uncovers "compelling" evidence of another one, you think they sit on it, waiting for the first investigation or prosecution to wrap up? No, they open a new investigation into the new crime.Yes.”Compelling?”@hhlurker Wow. Bondi clearly lied when she testified that there is no evidence in the Epstein Files that Trump committed a crime. There's compelling evidence that he committed a particularly heinous crime.
So Biden’s DOJ protected Trump?
Isn't the DOJ suppose to be non-partisan?
Does that make my point stronger or weaker in your eyes? The FBI and DOJ knew about these unverified accusations for the entire Biden presidency. And yet they did nothing. What does that tell you about how "compelling" the evidence is against Trump regarding this accusation?
When was the appeals process all done for the Epstein stuff? Wasn't it pretty late in Biden’s presidency?
That the FBI didn't do that and the DOJ never wanted to go further belies the notion that there is "compelling" evidence here: it's a single uncorroborated account from the mid 80s, that was never pursued by the claimant.
Is there here, in reality, compelling evidence? No (or, at least, not that we've seen). So far it's a single uncorroborated account from the mid 80s, that was never pursued by the claimant.
Once again, I'm amazed at how the political tribes have both done 180s on their views on this stuff.
But yes, a lot of people have done a 180. Chuck Schumer never talked about Epstein during Bidens presidency. He now tweets about it daily. Conversely, guys like Dan Bongino and Kash Patel literally made millions and became names in the MAGA-sphere by non stop pushing the Epstein story. Now they get mad when people mention it.