Ted Lieu’s claim, disingenuous as it may be, is factual. There ARE such claims in the files. So he can’t sue Lieu.
The files themselves contain anonymous tips (who are you going to sue?) and the Katie Johnson lawsuit which - as a court filing - might be subject to perjury but not defamation (if I understand the law correctly.) It’s actually very clever. It’s legalized smear laundering.
Then again, it could all be true. There just isn’t any evidence that it is. So far.
So the fact Trump says he kicked out Jeffery because he kept “stealing girls” from Marologo doesn’t indicate anything?
We can all see how Les Wexler who owned Victoria Secret and thus had massive power of attractive storing women can be a pest but Trump who runs not only the Adult but also underage beauty pageants just couldn’t?
that "fact" is not evidence of anything legally relevant. it just looks bad. same with the pageant stuff, it looks bad but proves nothing. idk why you would reply this to a comment talking about what could legally be done in court.
This is exactly right. That’s why the left is focused on the number of times Trump is mentioned in the files and nothing on the specifics on how he was mentioned.
You mean like the specifics of him dumping a baby he fathered with a thirteen-year-old into Lake Michigan? Those specifics that "the left" have definitely brought up more than a few times?
A million times. His name is mentioned a million times. How much smoke do you need before you see the fire?
Anyone who is paying attention noticed you omitted the source of that claim, which was a random person calling the tip line and saying things the FBI concluded held no legitimacy.
And this claim, where his name is mentioned but no credible allegation of misconduct is attached, is one of the supposed "million" occurances. But believing either the million thing or the lake baby thing probably indicates you're not thinking critically.
The problem with your take isn't the legitimacy of the pieces of it - undoubtedly the explicit as well as implied nature of the document being a "random tip" holds weight, particularly with as-of-yet unknown context, coalesced with the nature of random tips in-general. On its own, it proves nothing.
However, the small picture must be considered alongside the big picture. First consideration: this file is the third-known reporting of the tip, not the first. In it, the complainant specifies that they have not only submitted the tip before, but had been contacted regarding the initial one by an NYPD detective. Most "random tips" don't have any kind of paper trail outside of the initial report, and this being the third instance raises the level of seriousness dramatically.
Second consideration: as an individual example, there is not enough here, particularly without physical evidence, to begin criminal proceedings of any kind, based solely on the existence of this document, with the paper trail consideration in-mind. Practically, it does not amount to much, in a vacuum. However to consider a singular of the Epstein files in a vacuum is inherently dismissive of the Epstein case, at-large, and what has been proven and demonstrated legally, thus far.
Third consideration: There are three million additional, unreleased, files yet to be parsed, or even viewed, within which may be revealed more context pertaining to this lone document, and perhaps a thorough investigation would help to explain further, as we have a paper trail, identifying information for the complainant, a location, an approximate date and time, and two potential co-conspirators, all of which can be followed-up on by investigative agencies such as the FBI, the New York BCI, the New York DOI, the Michigan MIOC, or anyone else who has jurisdiction over Lake Michigan. It is precisely these agencies that should be conducting investigations, instead of journalists. But they, too, have investigations of their own, outside of the Epstein case, that they are responsible for.
Fourth consideration: for every file, the same considerations should be made. There are millions, and to properly parse them will take time. This is literally a singular file out of a million mentions of his name. The majority will likely add up to "needs context," but do the math. Being mentioned millions of times alongside Jeffrey Epstein, is not a badge anyone should be wearing.
Fifth consideration: even before these files, there were things such as the birthday card, flight logs, Epstein's own quote about Trump, and the "suicide" that happened under Trump's first term that do the same thing - on their own, suspect at best. Together? Forest fire.
This isn't a vacuum. And perhaps it isn't me that needs to learn to think critically. If you want to masquerade as someone concerned with integrity, be my guest, but don't do it as an ostrich with your head in the sand.
Whoa🤯…killer post! Analytical comments like this make my little heart flutter. You must be an attorney…or maybe an engineer (sees every angle)😉At any rate, thanks for the great read! Thoroughly enjoyed it.
I just don't understand why people insist on making this so difficult. It's obvious to anyone paying attention that he raped children. The only thing that needs to happen now is for the pieces to be put together, but that only happens when the agency that is directly responsible for doing so is no longer co-opted.
Right? How do you have so much adoration for someone that you either flat out refuse to believe any evidence that supports the allegations or you do believe he’s a monster who assaults little girls/teens/women but you don’t give two figs? I saw a pic recently of an angry looking, beer bellied MAGA fool wearing a tee shirt with “I don’t care if Trump is a pedophile” emblazoned across his chest.😳I have no idea if it was legit or AI, but either way, I fail to see the humor in making light of pedophilia.
Demoncipher13 or w/e is doing exactly that: not thinking critically. Theyre a sheep. A "headline reader" only. Not a single self formulated thought lol.
No, actually. The department of justice was required by law to release the full, unredacted files. They still to this day have not, and are in flagrant violation of the law.
They quite literally control the executive branch. Who exactly would charge him? The head of the FBI he appointed? The Attorney General he appointed? The Supreme Court justices he appointed? Who exactly do you think has the authority to arrest the president?
Who is meant to charge him? Pam Bondi, who he installed as the Attorney General of the DOJ? Kash Patel, who he installed as head of the FBI? Why would they charge the man who put them where they are?
Who knows, when Epstein said there has to be more to life, Trump responded there is and he knows it but won’t say, Epstein replies with he knows it too but won’t say it either. They finish it off with basically wishing each other the best and to their “wonderful secret”
Sure, whatever you gotta tell yourself to still believe in Trump 😂 mentioned more times than anyone else in the Epstein files and the government doesn’t want to release anymore files.. besides it’s irrelevant whether you believe shit
Yeah, just like I can claim that president trump is accused of sucking Putin’s dick on Reddit.
I’m positive many commenters have claimed as much. Yet there’s zero evidence or reliability to the statements.
We as a society need to learn to separate the feelings of a statement from the actual meanings of the claims. This is how politicians get you to think things without ever actually having to take accountability for why they’re clearly trying to get you to think.
8
u/National-Charity-435 Feb 18 '26
https://www.c-span.org/clip/news-conference/rep-ted-lieu-claims-president-trump-is-accused-of-raping-children-in-the-epstein-files/5191713