Also, we are allowed to post opinion pieces on Coogfans. In fact, that is exactly what message boards like this are for! A bunch of opinions.
4 Likes
dustin, re-read my post. Does it say NOW or not? Come on.
It does say now. So what you’re saying is you read it earlier then waited until the article was taken down to complain about it? I guess you didn’t think it was worthy of complaint when you first read it, only after it was taken down.
1 Like
The link that was posted is gone now.
1 Like
We are well on our way to releasing 1% of the files. What more could you ask?
1 Like
1 Like
I do not understand. If I try to post a link that has that someone’s name in it it is immediately blocked.
What is the difference here?
2 Likes
Use a url shortener.
But I thought we could not use any political links/articles?
Has it changed?
That’s not a political article. It is totally in line with this thread, also.
This thread is borderline political but we have tried to address the strictly political posts and comments here.
Not quite. This article fails to mention that the previous doj changed the p.o.s. epstein files accpetance data. Meaning, anything false, innuendo or others files had to be admitted. This is why you have a ton of propaganda stuff that is now part of the p.o.s epstein files case.
Maybe because that claim has no basis in fact. An investigation, especially a high profile one, is absolutely going to include false leads and stuff that goes nowhere. Those files would be rand should be retained even if they would never be a part of any actual criminal case presented in court. The law that caused the release (approved by Congress and signed by the President) is for all files, not just some specific set of files.
Even if that was factual, that period of investigation included the current Presidents first term where many of those documents would have been generated as well.
However it strains credibility to think the prior administrations were so cunning as to fill up the investigation with information and documents that might make the current President look bad because they somehow knew he would sign a law requiring their release after he was already President.
I also find that contrary to your other argument that nothing bad for the current guy was in the files or they would have used it before the election.
I don’t think both of those thing could be true at the same time.
Really though, as the article pointed out, the DOJ could have released all the actually verified leads and information, victim statements, etc. first. Instead of how they have been releasing it.
4 Likes
Lots of the “fake” stuff we’ve seen in the files came in 2020.
1 Like
Everybody knows that if they were any “smoke” prior to 2016 and going into 2024 we would have been aware of it already.
1 Like
Epstein wasn’t even arrested until 2019, so how could there be smoke.
There clearly is smoke otherwise the current administration/ DOJ wouldn’t be going to great lengths to stop the release or delay the release of the files
Don’t be naive
2 Likes
I love how you try to argue there’s no smoke in there, when there clearly is as we have all seen. Then at the same time you claim that the smoke (that isn’t there) was planted there by Dems in some divine plan because they could see the future to know it would be released while this guy was President.
4 Likes
“Clearly is” Says who? You?
Where is it? Bring us facts instead of innuendos.
1 Like