They said they had seen the names but all they did was read names off a DOJ press release. They said they were part of an Epstein criminal operation.
Was that true?
They saw the names because they reviewed unredacted files. I believe what they said was that these six names shouldn't have been redacted based on the law they spearheaded, and that in their reading of the unredacted files, they appeared to be "likely incriminated" by the files. Asking if that's true is asking to read Massie and Khanna's minds.
They said they had seen the names but all they did was read names off a DOJ press release. They said they were part of an Epstein criminal operation.
Was that true?
They saw the names because they reviewed unredacted files. I believe what they said was that these six names shouldn't have been redacted based on the law they spearheaded, and that in their reading of the unredacted files, they appeared to be "likely incriminated" by the files. Asking if that's true is asking to read Massie and Khanna's minds.
As your article notes…these people (the names read in public) were not part of a criminal operation with regards to the Epstein investigation.
Massie and Khanna said they had seen names and would read them in public . The only names read were those off the DOJ release. If there was a list…and the congressmen had the names…why were the only names read those that had nothing to do with anything?
They said they had seen the names but all they did was read names off a DOJ press release. They said they were part of an Epstein criminal operation.
Was that true?
They saw the names because they reviewed unredacted files. I believe what they said was that these six names shouldn't have been redacted based on the law they spearheaded, and that in their reading of the unredacted files, they appeared to be "likely incriminated" by the files. Asking if that's true is asking to read Massie and Khanna's minds.
As your article notes…these people (the names read in public) were not part of a criminal operation with regards to the Epstein investigation.
Massie and Khanna said they had seen names and would read them in public . The only names read were those off the DOJ release. If there was a list…and the congressmen had the names…why were the only names read those that had nothing to do with anything?
My understanding is that the six names the DOJ released were the six they were talking about. They have continued to review unredacted files, as I understand it, and there may be more names later. But they did as promised with those six.
Here’s the thing with Massie. I also like him, and think the country would be a much better place if we had 535 Massie’s in congress.
He is going to the mat on the Epstein files and that doesn’t bother me. What does is he seems more willing to engage in this crusade rather than other ostensibly Libertarian priorities.
Can he bring this energy on Social Security cuts? Medicare? Stuff that actually matters.
That might be pissing in the wind but I’d love to see the sustained effort on those things that he’s shown with Epstein.
It's just smart politics. Massie knows that the admin's handling of this whole thing has been wildly unpopular, and, without the sheer force of Trump's own personality, would be politically unsustainable. Once Trump finally fades into the background, everyone else will be left holding the bag, careers ruined, while the people who were the public face of opposition, like Massie, will gain immense political capital all along the ideological spectrum.
If Harris had won the entire thing would've been buried and you would've seen nothing. But yes, Bondi is a disaster.
They said they had seen the names but all they did was read names off a DOJ press release. They said they were part of an Epstein criminal operation.
Was that true?
They saw the names because they reviewed unredacted files. I believe what they said was that these six names shouldn't have been redacted based on the law they spearheaded, and that in their reading of the unredacted files, they appeared to be "likely incriminated" by the files. Asking if that's true is asking to read Massie and Khanna's minds.
As your article notes…these people (the names read in public) were not part of a criminal operation with regards to the Epstein investigation.
Massie and Khanna said they had seen names and would read them in public . The only names read were those off the DOJ release. If there was a list…and the congressmen had the names…why were the only names read those that had nothing to do with anything?
My understanding is that the six names the DOJ released were the six they were talking about. They have continued to review unredacted files, as I understand it, and there may be more names later. But they did as promised with those six.
I think we can conclude there is not an Epstein list and there never was an Epstein list
They said they had seen the names but all they did was read names off a DOJ press release. They said they were part of an Epstein criminal operation.
Was that true?
They saw the names because they reviewed unredacted files. I believe what they said was that these six names shouldn't have been redacted based on the law they spearheaded, and that in their reading of the unredacted files, they appeared to be "likely incriminated" by the files. Asking if that's true is asking to read Massie and Khanna's minds.
As your article notes…these people (the names read in public) were not part of a criminal operation with regards to the Epstein investigation.
Massie and Khanna said they had seen names and would read them in public . The only names read were those off the DOJ release. If there was a list…and the congressmen had the names…why were the only names read those that had nothing to do with anything?
My understanding is that the six names the DOJ released were the six they were talking about. They have continued to review unredacted files, as I understand it, and there may be more names later. But they did as promised with those six.
I think we can conclude there is not an Epstein list and there never was an Epstein list
I've been saying that since this whole thing started. So what?
Here’s the thing with Massie. I also like him, and think the country would be a much better place if we had 535 Massie’s in congress.
He is going to the mat on the Epstein files and that doesn’t bother me. What does is he seems more willing to engage in this crusade rather than other ostensibly Libertarian priorities.
Can he bring this energy on Social Security cuts? Medicare? Stuff that actually matters.
That might be pissing in the wind but I’d love to see the sustained effort on those things that he’s shown with Epstein.
It's just smart politics. Massie knows that the admin's handling of this whole thing has been wildly unpopular, and, without the sheer force of Trump's own personality, would be politically unsustainable. Once Trump finally fades into the background, everyone else will be left holding the bag, careers ruined, while the people who were the public face of opposition, like Massie, will gain immense political capital all along the ideological spectrum.
If Harris had won the entire thing would've been buried and you would've seen nothing. But yes, Bondi is a disaster.
LOL. You're so intent on playing partisan games you can't even have a rational discussion about politics. Sad.
They said they had seen the names but all they did was read names off a DOJ press release. They said they were part of an Epstein criminal operation.
Was that true?
They saw the names because they reviewed unredacted files. I believe what they said was that these six names shouldn't have been redacted based on the law they spearheaded, and that in their reading of the unredacted files, they appeared to be "likely incriminated" by the files. Asking if that's true is asking to read Massie and Khanna's minds.
As your article notes…these people (the names read in public) were not part of a criminal operation with regards to the Epstein investigation.
Massie and Khanna said they had seen names and would read them in public . The only names read were those off the DOJ release. If there was a list…and the congressmen had the names…why were the only names read those that had nothing to do with anything?
My understanding is that the six names the DOJ released were the six they were talking about. They have continued to review unredacted files, as I understand it, and there may be more names later. But they did as promised with those six.
I think we can conclude there is not an Epstein list and there never was an Epstein list
I've been saying that since this whole thing started. So what?
Butch said Bondi was protecting Pedos…I guess we are in agreement.
I feel like you are talking about multiple things at the same time and trying to score points by confusing the discussion.They said they had seen the names but all they did was read names off a DOJ press release. They said they were part of an Epstein criminal operation.
Was that true?
They saw the names because they reviewed unredacted files. I believe what they said was that these six names shouldn't have been redacted based on the law they spearheaded, and that in their reading of the unredacted files, they appeared to be "likely incriminated" by the files. Asking if that's true is asking to read Massie and Khanna's minds.
As your article notes…these people (the names read in public) were not part of a criminal operation with regards to the Epstein investigation.
Massie and Khanna said they had seen names and would read them in public . The only names read were those off the DOJ release. If there was a list…and the congressmen had the names…why were the only names read those that had nothing to do with anything?
My understanding is that the six names the DOJ released were the six they were talking about. They have continued to review unredacted files, as I understand it, and there may be more names later. But they did as promised with those six.
I think we can conclude there is not an Epstein list and there never was an Epstein list
I've been saying that since this whole thing started. So what?
Butch said Bondi was protecting Pedos…I guess we are in agreement.
My discussion started when Butch said the DOJ was protecting “pedos”…I’ve just presented my case from there using multiple posts. I don’t see how this could be labeled as attempting to score political points
My discussion started when Butch said the DOJ was protecting “pedos”
Who wrote to Epstein, "I found at least 3 very good young poor." His name was redacted and, to my knowledge, still not disclosed.
Who wrote to Epstein, "Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty." His name was redacted and, to my knowledge, still undisclosed.
Who wrote in 2019 to a radio host in New Mexico that "somewhere in the hills outside of Zorro [Epstein's New Mexico ranch], two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madam G." "Both died by strangulation during rough, fetish sex," according to the writer of the email. The allegations came from someone who claimed they were a former employee at the ranch. This document is in the Epstein files, but the writer/email sender's name was redacted by the DOJ. According to the file, the radio host forwarded the email four days later to a redacted email address. The radio host, Eddy Aragon, said this week that he went to the local FBI office with the email and forwarded it to an FBI agent. Aragon was never contacted by law enforcement about the email, and it's unclear if the allegations were ever investigated by the FBI.
Who are the three men named with Epstein in the draft indictment out of the Southern District of Florida, abandoned as part of Epstein's sweetheart plea deal, accused of conspiring to "persuade, induce and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution."
Why are the men's names redacted (and, to my knowledge, still not disclosed) in a number of victim statements?
These are just some of many examples.
Tell me again why my argument is flawed.
My discussion started when Butch said the DOJ was protecting “pedos”
Who wrote to Epstein, "I found at least 3 very good young poor." His name was redacted and, to my knowledge, still not disclosed.
Who wrote to Epstein, "Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty." His name was redacted and, to my knowledge, still undisclosed.
Who wrote in 2019 to a radio host in New Mexico that "somewhere in the hills outside of Zorro [Epstein's New Mexico ranch], two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madam G." "Both died by strangulation during rough, fetish sex," according to the writer of the email. The allegations came from someone who claimed they were a former employee at the ranch. This document is in the Epstein files, but the writer/email sender's name was redacted by the DOJ. According to the file, the radio host forwarded the email four days later to a redacted email address. The radio host, Eddy Aragon, said this week that he went to the local FBI office with the email and forwarded it to an FBI agent. Aragon was never contacted by law enforcement about the email, and it's unclear if the allegations were ever investigated by the FBI.
Who are the three men named with Epstein in the draft indictment out of the Southern District of Florida, abandoned as part of Epstein's sweetheart plea deal, accused of conspiring to "persuade, induce and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution."
Why are the men's names redacted (and, to my knowledge, still not disclosed) in a number of victim statements?
These are just some of many examples.
Tell me again why my argument is flawed.
Khanna and Massie saw the files. They can name them and call them “pedophiles” in public. Why haven’t they?
Khanna and Massie saw the files. They can name them and call them “pedophiles” in public. Why haven’t they?
What evidence do you have that Khanna and Massie saw unredacted versions of what I've referenced? They've both stated publicly that much of what they've viewed remains redacted. While some of the documents appear to have been redacted by the FBI or grand juries before they arrived at Trump Justice, the EFTA requires that the original materials be unredacted.
The over-redacted files include "302s" - - summaries of FBI interviews with victims, and prosecution memos. I've mentioned those previously. "They are protecting some of these men. Maybe it was not intentionally but the law is very clear. They need to comply with the law," said Khanna.
Trump Justice is already way overdue in providing a detailed report explaining the various redactions.
"I would like to give the DOJ a chance to say they made a mistake and over-redacted, and let them unredact those men’s names. But they're already breaking the law — look, they’re way past the deadline," said Massie.
Nancy Mace has weighed in as well (below).
Once everything is properly unredacted and in the public domain (or at least before Congress), there won't be any need for Khanna, Massie or anyone else in Congress to engage in name-calling. The documents will speak for themselves and, presumably, criminal investigations will follow.
At this point it appears you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. I'm out.
My discussion started when Butch said the DOJ was protecting “pedos”
Who wrote to Epstein, "I found at least 3 very good young poor." His name was redacted and, to my knowledge, still not disclosed.
Who wrote to Epstein, "Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty." His name was redacted and, to my knowledge, still undisclosed.
Who wrote in 2019 to a radio host in New Mexico that "somewhere in the hills outside of Zorro [Epstein's New Mexico ranch], two foreign girls were buried on orders of Jeffrey and Madam G." "Both died by strangulation during rough, fetish sex," according to the writer of the email. The allegations came from someone who claimed they were a former employee at the ranch. This document is in the Epstein files, but the writer/email sender's name was redacted by the DOJ. According to the file, the radio host forwarded the email four days later to a redacted email address. The radio host, Eddy Aragon, said this week that he went to the local FBI office with the email and forwarded it to an FBI agent. Aragon was never contacted by law enforcement about the email, and it's unclear if the allegations were ever investigated by the FBI.
Who are the three men named with Epstein in the draft indictment out of the Southern District of Florida, abandoned as part of Epstein's sweetheart plea deal, accused of conspiring to "persuade, induce and entice individuals who had not attained the age of 18 years to engage in prostitution."
Why are the men's names redacted (and, to my knowledge, still not disclosed) in a number of victim statements?
These are just some of many examples.
Tell me again why my argument is flawed.
Khanna and Massie saw the files. They can name them and call them “pedophiles” in public. Why haven’t they?
They haven't reviewed all the files.
Latest Post: Robert Mueller Our newest member: Tom Dillman Recent Posts Unread Posts
