America’s biggest divide = our sense humor
3 Likes
Don’t quit your day job.
(Now that’s humorous)
As we’ve said before, this is bull. They should have chased down every lead and every accusation. Some absolutely turn out to be bull, but they don’t then he to say these files aren’t part of the group - that would be covering it up. The Epstein files being released and those still to be released absolutely should include everything. That’s transparency.
Would all the bull end up in a court filing? No. But you wouldn’t expunge it from the record of the investigation.
Could the doJ do a better job labeling what they release as being unfounded? Sure, probably. But it absolutely belongs in the files. For one, that’s a record you already investigated it and what you found. If that isn’t there, the same thing could come up again and cause investigators to have to chase it down for the second time.
Just look at the JFK files, those have unfounded but investigated theories etc relating to the umbrella man, the tramps, etc.
No one was just putting junk in there because they had some crazy foresight to know it was going to get released during this administration and it might cause the admin to look bad.
Perhaps some of the lawyers can explain what would be typically disclosed as discovery. Including some of this stuff, the leads that went nowhere, unfounded accusations, etc.
2 Likes
Whataboutisms
I see the flag boys are trying to hide things. Sorry the truth hurts
1 Like
You think it is bull? Take your case with the then DOJ. The present DOJ has been asked to release all the files. That is what they are doing. Like it or not that is reality. Now you and others have to decipher between these millions of files of what is proven through an investigation and what is purely rumors, threats etc…
If any of these accusations were close to be true a certain someone would be indicted today. Is he? I will let you answer that one. You can report on a many innuendos as you want. Again that is your prerogative. Journalism starts with reporting facts after they these same facts have been verified by at least two to three sources. Otherwise you are giving an opinion which is no longer journalism but innuendos. Only responsible news outlets report facts. Do you understand the main difference between the two?
It’s really impressive how many words you use while saying actually nothing. Do you practice that skill?
2 Likes
Are you seriously saying this DOJ would indict the current President if there were evidence??? Thanks for the laughs as always I love your sense of humor
3 Likes
Nah, that’s a hack bit people who aren’t funny throw out. Not saying you aren’t funny, but now you know.
Do you seriously believe your question is a serious question?
Flagged for gif theft and not recognizing the irony of you using it
2 Likes
Mos Def.
I doubt that either president would ever get indicted. No matter if it was Loretta, Garland, or Bondi as AG. They’re both protected for some reason. When you find out why, please post it here for us.
You really want someone to explain why she’s protecting the rich and powerful, outside of this big oops of a release? Especially someone she works for currently?
I agree. That’s why i wouldn’t make such a hilarious claim like 92010Coogs did. Its never happened, even Nixon resigned before being indicted
Not what I said, I said I wanted him to say why 5 AGs (or is it 6/7) have protected both presidents. (Both is plural)
Well, many of those AGs were under one person, but you have to start with the sweetheart deal Epstein received back in 2019, under Alex Acosta who then became labor secretary under the current guy. That’s where this cover up started. Detective work has to start there and see where it leads.
You did see I was replying to 92010Coogs? You are readings his posts/rants? Its his logic, not mine
Rants?
Is that a friendly, Coogfans way to respond Cougardue?
I have a good sense of humor.
1 Like