EDIT: I actually misread the comment; I think we're likely in agreement. My bad.
His scandals are all about shirking job responsibilities to party and sightsee. That's not great from the FBI director but its way more normal than the rest of them.
I mean, if I can send troops, I would bet on sending troops, wont I?
those gamblers who aren't Trump or any 'event initiators themselves' must be idiots of extraordinary quality
https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Against-King-Kash-Patel/dp/19555...
this iran hack is a dismal propaganda failure...
nothing much to see I guess
if you're digging amazon FOR them, what's the point of their activity?
and by "digging", yes it's digging because is that link THE FIRST RECOMMENDED THING from amazon?
gosh I didn't even say "trump cabinet is the best and perfect"...
...damn did you get like 300 on SAT reading?
He sucked up to get his position and realized - through the fbi - that the cabinet and administration is crazy
The media works for the same people both parties do. If capital wanted to manufacture Democrat-aligned outrage they could easily do so overnight.
But it's a complete mistake to think about politics in a partisan manner at all. Of course the democrats won't ever fight for you. Doing anything decreases chances of getting elected again.
Whatever force will depose capital won't come from the two-party system.
Fewer outlets serving larger populations means stricter control over messaging, and a better propaganda base.
Those times have passed. I'll restate what I said in a comment some days ago:
>> 50 years ago the press was "impeaching" presidents. Today presidents are "impeaching" the press
The current strategy is "keep the outrage hose on full blast and eventually people get desensitized". It works.
* The contents of Dan Rather report on GWB was true. There was one document which was sketchy, but the whole report didn't hinge on the one document from an officer's office. (E.g. Ex-senator Ben Barnes's interview is reasonably indicting: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transcript-barnes-on-bush/)
The media did fall down though. Only one outlet went to the the Officer's
secretary (who was still alive) to ask if she had typed the document.
She looked at it and said (summarizing here) that it wasn't the document
she typed, but it was the same contents.
It's a mess, and the only way out of it is probably limits own media ownership.
Now look at where we're at. It really is wild. Right, wrong, or indifferent. How far we've shifted is absolutely wild.
Im sure they are all doing it...
that just means the operation is a dismal failure -- nothing to see
this really undermines iran hackers' claims regarding 'big things' on trump administration
The fact that they released it publicly means that the most embarrassing part of it is just the hack in itself.
There is no evidence released to the public directly linking those two men to specific sex acts by name. There is unnamed evidence released by the US DOJ specifically describing the assault I described in the prior comment. Again, none of this is theoretical, conspiracy, or conjecture. It’s in the documents released by the government that the government has confirmed as authentic.
In the case of both Clinton and Trump, there is no evidence that either of them visited Little St. James, and plenty of evidence otherwise - for example, Epstein even says so about Clinton in an email.
> It’s in the documents released by the government that the government has confirmed as authentic.
The documents are "authentic" in that yes, a real schizo did really tell the government he heard it secondhand 30 years ago that this happened and also that he discovered Hilary Clinton was behind the WTC bombing. (For some reason, people like you always leave that part of the bombshell revelations out.) I am for total transparency generally, but this whole saga has been a major disappointment for me in that the level of public discourse is so lazy and low that its clear that in a purely utilitarian way, it would have been better to not release it. Hopefully long-term the sacrifice of many people whose reputations are being destroyed over little or nothing is worth it. Every crank call about celebrities is being treated as gospel.
No, wait:
In 2008, Epstein reached a plea deal with prosecutors after the parents of a 14-year-old girl told Florida police that Epstein had molested their daughter at his Palm Beach home.
Correct, the vast majority of his criminal activity appeared to be in his Palm Beach home and in New York, where he recruited high dozens to hundreds of high school girls for his personal sexualized massages. It actually appears only a very small amount of his illicit activity ever took place on the island, which makes it all the more ironic that's what the conspiracy theorists focus on.
I was willing to be more than openmminded about the conspiracists' mass trafficking ring (ie, beyond the two people charged) angle, but the ironic thing is about the Epstein files is they revealed it was almost all smoke. Of course, in the conspirational mindset, all contradicting evidence is actually, secretly, when you apply the correct hermeutics, even more damning, or else evidence of a coverup.
and a few massive conspiracy shaped holes - eg: the references to missing content regarding Trump and a few other. Oh, and the shortfall between what has been released Vs what has been indexed, the black paging, and the hints from those that have seen but are sworn to not tell about that which they have seen but cannot recount.
Still, at least we seem to agree that PedoIsland is a misdirect when it comes to determining who did what to whom and where.
I can't see Pam Bondi coming clean here anytime soon.
The people who were victimized by anyone other than Epstein and Maxwell could come forward at any time, just as dozens of Epstein's victims have. They have some of the highest-powered civil lawyers in America, hundreds of millions of dollars in settlement funds available, and vast swaths of the country behind them.
That they haven't should tell you something.
The people who have come forward about Epstein's abuses have little to worry about because that man is dead and he's a perfect scapegoat for all the the other ultra-rich who took part in the abuses.
And again, millions of dollars are available from settlement funds if Epstein was involved, there’s already some of the best lawyers in the country begging to represent you, and there’s people volunteering to pay for your security needs.
You’re also ignoring the many victims that came out before Epstein died.
This is just an excuse to perpetuate the conspiracy theories. It doesn’t hold water. And of course if anything was released from super secret “the files” they’re definitely still covering up, they’d become publicly known.
Surely you see how this line of reasoning is identical to that of any other conspiracy or moral panic.
They've been caught trying to do Trump related reactions at least three times now.
The whole thing falls apart the moment you examine the actual evidence and think about it. It’s really disappointing that smart people on even this forum get wrapped up into this junk.
Did you know that Epstein's hard drives were removed by a private investigator, and that the FBI and DOJ never had them to begin with? They were removed before they were searched by law enforcement.
https://abcnews.com/US/house-oversight-panel-seeks-testimony...
https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-safe-diamond...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/03/27/epstein-private-...
This isn’t even news, it was a big deal back in the day and is covered extensively in the report about the DoJ’s conduct. Read the reports and consider the context; this is a nothingburger. But because the conspiracy theory has been started, everything that happens will be read as supporting it. Epstein had very good reasons for destroying evidence of his own deeds without any need for anyone else being involved. (The evidence the DoJ collected was very weak and they weren’t sure it would sustain a prosecution, which is partly why they were glad to go with a plea deal.) You’re coming in primed to believe there’s already a conspiracy about something else altogether.
Did you just ask, in a post about evidence being taken and keep from investigators, why there isn't evidence?
> This isn’t even news, it was a big deal back in the day and is covered extensively in the report about the DoJ’s conduct.
Then why is it news FROM TODAY/YESTERDAY?
---
In a March 19 deposition with the House Oversight Committee, Darren Indyke, Epstein's longtime personal attorney, said he learned after Epstein's 2008 conviction that the hard drives were in the possession of Riley Kiraly, a private investigations firm.
"The Committee requests that you make yourself available for a transcribed interview to provide insight into the contents, removal, storage, and location of materials removed from Mr. Epstein's Palm Beach home," the letter to Riley says.
source: https://www.businessinsider.com/jeffrey-epstein-safe-diamond...
You can CTRL-F "computer" and get 92 matches indicating their importance:
https://context-cdn.washingtonpost.com/notes/prod/default/do....
It seems that the only "news" is the bit that you mentioned about Indyke/Riley. Indyke apparently was not involved in the Florida case. At least he isn't mentioned in the linked DOJ report among Epstein's counsel.
I don't know what it would take for it to be deemed necessary to seize the equipment that the prosecution failed to get almost 20 years ago.
The sibling commenter addressed the timeline, but you still seem to be missing the point: harddrive or no harddrive, there would have been witnesses - at least the victims- of the grand conspiracy theory involving other men. Instead, you're limited to Maria Farmer (26 when she was victimized by Epstein, rarely seen in public because she makes wild accusations about random people including the journalists interviewing her - she is currently convinced that Whitney Webb murdered a chef) and Virginia Giuffre (underage victim and confirmed fabulist, who also, for the record, said Trump did nothing wrong and endorsed his Presidency). There never was any evidence of the organized conspiracy of elites part of the Epstein story. Read the testimony! Again and again the women say there were no other men.
You're concluding that computer equipment Epstein had every reason to hide from law enforcement to cover up more concrete evidence of his solicitation of minors actually contains evidence of a totally different thing that nobody was claiming at the time - a grand sex trafficking conspiracy involving powerful billionaires and politicians. But there's no reason to think that's the case.
At the end of the day, if any of this happened, these women could come forward. They're entitled to millions in settlement money already (and you don't even have to go to court to get it - its an administrative process, not a judicial one; and it's big money, Annie Farmer alone got at least 1.5 million), and naming additional names would open the door to even more! They already have some of the best civil attorneys in the country! An unrelated case has already shown that you can win a civil suit against the most powerful man in the country, even with no evidence besides your testimony! That they have not, combined with the total lack of evidence, suggests they don't exist.
But because the mindset behind this is conspiratorial, it will always be "there IS evidence - it's just being covered up!". And no amount of releases will ever be enough - because they can't show it to be true, which just proves there's a coverup! It's never-ending.
Many of these women did not want to go to court. They did not want to talk to media. They did not want to relieve the trauma of these events. Money is a huge motivator for some people but not all. Imagine decades after the event, you've settled down. Maybe you have a career or a family. Kids. Do you want to drag them through that? Have their spouse get asked questions at work or jokes made to their kids by other kids? Of course not.
When the DOJ leaked many of their names, that was a threat. That was a threat. I could also imagine many individuals involved in this wouldn't know the names of the abused. Why would they? Now they do, for many. That's enough to get pressure on people to shut the fuck up. Not all the names were released!
I'll leave you some notes:
--- Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/epstein-survivors-felt-...
---
"Six survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse and two members of another accuser’s family said they felt "degraded" during Wednesday's contentious House Judiciary Committee hearing"
---
[Bondi] "She was specifically questioned about why released files were heavily redacted and why several survivors' names were not."
---
"At one point, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., asked Epstein survivors in the room to stand up and raise their hands if they hadn’t had the opportunity to meet with the Justice Department. Every single one raised their hand."
---
"Bensky has said she was 17 and a budding ballerina in 2004 when Epstein sexually abused her at his New York City mansion.
“I felt like such a ghost walking through Epstein’s mansion.
I felt like there were so many people who saw me.
There were so many people who should have spoken up," Bensky said."
---
Re: Conspiracy
I mean...
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/doj-name...
---
Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/02/flawed-epste...
"Despite the scale of disclosures, experts warned of serious compliance failures and botched redactions that exposed sensitive victim information, with harm often occurring before records were withdrawn. Accountability has been limited, with only one close associate under investigation. Under international human rights law, States are obligated to prevent, investigate and punish violence against women and girls, including acts committed by private actors."
"“The failure to safeguard their privacy puts them at risk of retaliation and stigma. The reluctance to fully disclose information or broaden investigations, has left many survivors feeling retraumatised...”
“Any suggestion that it is time to move on from the ‘Epstein files’ is unacceptable. It represents a failure of responsibility towards victims,” they said.
“Resignations of implicated individuals alone are not an adequate substitute for criminal accountability,” the experts said. They welcomed steps by some governments to probe current and former officials and private individuals named in the files. They called on other states to do the same.
---
Final note: > there would have been witnesses
Yes, and they don't want to admit to being there because of the liability.
Also, are you suggesting we should convict people and impeach them based on anonymous accusations? Do you believe in the Sixth Amendment? Surely you don't believe that we should be able to destroy notable figures based on anonymous denouncements? There is no universe where anything happens without people coming forward!
You're caught in a bind though, because the conspiracy relies on all these victims of other men existing, but mysteriously not coming forward, unlike the dozens of the victims who say only Epstein was involved, so you have to come up with fictitious reasons why they aren't materializing. What do you even want? Presumably, it's for these shadowy pedophiles to be taken down...but they can't be taken down without the victims coming forward, files or no files!
This is particularly ironic that, instead of endlessly litigating a conspiracy theory that's fairly well exhausted, there is open child prostitution going on right now (instead of 30 years ago) in LA on "the Blade", and we are doing approximately nothing about it, and not nearly enough people care. Imagine if all the energy of these conspiracy theorists was focused on stopping something actually happening now.
https://www.npr.org/2016/09/08/493133413/colin-powells-ways-...
Of course that pales in comparison with the practices of the GWB White House:
https://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-hous...
medical diagnoses can be incredibly useful in understanding past and future actions
>there shouldn't be anything damning to release. ie, there ought not to be if the director is acting professionally
that "if" is doing some heavy lifting given who we are discussing
I have no idea why this would be the default assumption for somebody as sloppy and erratic as Patel. Look at how many people were emailing damning stuff to/from Epstein's personal email accounts from their own personal email accounts!
Aren't these the same people who apparently used Signal with a journalist in the chat, and had military conversations in that very chat?
Color me surprised if these people haven't heard of opsec before, and mix their work/personal life all over the place.
Signal is one of the most secure communication platforms out there, but it is obviously not immune to human error or social engineering.
That might be true amongst the communication platforms available for the average Joe. It is definietly not the most secure communication platform available for someone high ranking in the USA government.
> it is obviously not immune to human error or social engineering
Nothing is immune. But there are systems more and systems less prone to these issues.
> Alexa Henning, spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, tweeted last week that “widespread use” of Signal began under the Biden administration, adding that “at ODNI, when I got my phone, it was pre-installed.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/02/inside-the-hazy-fra...
Your own article makes this exact point: > Matthew Shoemaker, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who left the agency in 2021, said that while Signal was used during his time in government, “it was almost exclusively restricted to scheduling purposes,” such as letting their boss know that they’ll be late to work because of personal circumstances. “That’s why Signalgate is all the more staggering — because these senior leaders were doing the exact opposite of what even my most junior intelligence officers knew not to do,” he said.
You're doing bullshit partisan whataboutism. "well the democrats did it first".
This has nothing to do with adding the wrong contacts. It has to do with putting highly-sensitive material into Signal to circumvent the law around records preservation and as a result creating a situation where it's possible to accidentally add the wrong contact and therefore exposing that information to a journalist.
My comment above already mentions public records of the DoD contracting out archiving of the Signal chat, so it doesn't in fact circumvent laws around preservation.
> You're doing bullshit partisan whataboutism. "well the democrats did it first".
I don't think it's a huge sin for government workers to be using Signal, remote work and messaging is the new norm and they will use something whether we like it or not, and Signal is the least bad option. I don't blame the Biden DoD for experimenting down that road at all, as I'm skeptical they'd build something better internally - and to your hyperpolitical points I don't see large distinctions between these type of tech choices between administrations (the DoD staff largely remains the same even when presidents change).
The issue with encryption and security will always be human security practices come first-and-foremost, technology second. They failed an OPSEC checklist when using group chats and need to implement better identification management. That's the sort of lesson that large organizations frequently need to re-learn the hard way when adopting new (and often better) things.
This was just a good lesson in security hygiene
1. Classified information. Was it legal to put that into the DoD approved Signal build? The media coverage at the time gave me the impression that it was not.
2. Records keeping. Were the Trump admin chats in question properly archived then? I had been led to believe that they weren't. Do you believe that to be incorrect?
> I don't blame the Biden DoD for experimenting down that road at all
The person you're replying to never criticized them for such.
'Aren't these the same people who apparently used Signal with a journalist...'
The whole thing looked like a digital version of a stage whisper.
Let me guess, the "leak" was intentional just to break a bunch of laws and to cause a bunch of people to get fired and leave their posts?
https://www.tabletmag.com/the-scroll/articles/march-25-kash-...
Or that he was participating in actively covering up the Epstein crime portfolio.
Maybe it wouldn’t be enough to get American citizens in an uproar, but the rest of the world certainly pays attention to these things.
If they wanted to maintain access, they certainly wouldn't celebrate it publicly, which is why I assume they want to release information. But, there shouldn't be anything damning to release. ie, there ought not to be if the director is acting professionally. We'll see how the facts bear out. I also suppose it's possible they're just going for any win they can and there's nothing interesting here whatsoever, or it's a really boring secondary address or something.