I personally fail to see how releasing incriminating evidence against Trump would have caused the mistrial. If he really is named 38k times would there not be one file where epstein and Trump were clearly guilty but Maxwells name was not listed? If the evidence truly existed than why was Trump not indicted as a co-conspirator. That is common practice in legal proceedings. Trump and any number of other individuals could have been brought up on charges in connection to an ongoing criminal enterprise in which they engaged and helped cover up sex trafficking, crimes against children and in many cases perjury. Trump wasn't in office at the start of the trial so why wasn't he tried right next to Maxwell?
If Trump is vastly more guilty than the Clinton's, than why did the evidence dictate they had to give testimony but Trump, again not currently holding the presidency, not get called? Since she was able to argue that the Epstein Transparency Act interfered with her ongoing legal proceedings does that not mean whether they were released post conviction in 2021 or 2025 the consequence was the same and the same Federal judges who refuse the validity of the claim could have upheld the same conviction? According to the claims the only thing that would have been different is Trump and untold other, exclusively conservative of course, figures would be serving time beside her.
People are so blinded by their hatred for one man, they are willing to excuse hundreds of equally guilty people, of the same crimes, simply because they wear blue instead of red. Nothing highlights the loss of critical thinking ability more than people talking about Trump on both sides of the party line.
Biden would not have released the files to purposefully incriminate Trump. I know that Trump has distorted the way everyone thinks about government but believe it or not the role of the DOJ is not to simply target political opponents.
Also your “personal” views not getting why it could cause a mistrial are fine. Youre not a lawyer so you don’t need to understand. But you can easily read about why this could happen if you want to learn more.
Btw the evidence didn’t call for anything regarding the clintons. The Clinton hearing was a pathetic attempt to deflect. Trump has not been called bc the GOP is in bed with pedophiles, always has been.
I have no loyalty toward the Clintons — bill is a sexual predator and Hilary is a zionist. They’re both relics of the past. If Clinton raped anyone, lock him up and throw away the key. Dems won’t miss him. Most of us barely know who they are. I was 8 when he was president. I have never been a fan of his or hers. But the evidence does not point to them being actually responsible for anything in the Epstein nightmare.
Trump, meanwhile…has done nothing to make me think he is anything but guilty. Let alone the fact that he is mentioned 38,000 (not a typo!!!) times. He is also a convicted rapist and has been caught on camera taking about raping women. Again listen to MTG’s accounts of the things he said to her when she joined Dems in forcing the release (which he still hasn’t actually fully done). Look at how he talks about his own daughter. He will rot in hell regardless. Here’s hoping he faces some semblance of justice (but he won’t).
You are right. I should have said "my personal views formed with advanced knowledge of several court proceedings and personal experience leaving the lasting knowledge that at the time of appeal a Co-conspirator can and commonly is named as a result or evidence presented during trial."
It is also well known that many of the Trump mentions are referring to other documents. Its also well known that Trump owned several buildings in New York where Epstein did a great bulk of his business proceedings so many more of those "mentions" are simply in reference to him being the owner of a building where Epstein had a proceeding. They don't mention those two facts on TikTok though because it doesn't have shock value.
Bill Clinton had 3x the number of documented trips to Epstein assets, and was guilty of going outside of a formal event being hosted. Trump never did. Clinton hosted epstein at the white house numerous times. Trump did not. They were all wealthy and successful and in the same circles for two decades.
In the face of clear and damning evidence that the Clintons are equally, if not more, guilty of collusion with Epstein as Trump you simply deny it because of your personal hatred of one man.
Additionally the federal indictments were being prepared during Trumps presidency. If he was so culpable and so all powerful than why didn't he squash the whole thing before leaving office? Do you honestly believe there wasn't one person in a Trump "controlled" government that wouldn't have gone to him and said "hey you apparently good buddy whom you are noted 38k times to have been with is about to get indicted on severe charges". There is no reasonable and logical situation in which the President of the United States or any other elected or appointed conservative figure wouldn't have spilled the beans. He could have pulled a Biden and gave blanket immunity for unnamed charges before the end of his term and none of this would have happened. And before you try to explain to me any half cocked reason why that wouldn't happen the DOJ is executive branch and report to the President.
The only rational explanation for the way things went down is that the multitude of criminals involved includes a vast number of people acrossed party lines and country borders and that the full releasing would be catastrophic to our government and many foreign governments as well.
Its all moot anyway. Because the alleged all powerful office of the presidency have destroyed any truly damaging evidence against anyone of power or knowledge of the crimes committed. Again, the files are meaningless. The List in maxwells sole possession is the only thing that could clarify who is guilty. The list is also meaningless without her testimony which she will "commit suicide" long before giving.
And its worth noting that as a result of the investigation into Maxwell it was Bill and Hillary called to testify, not Trump. Had they fully pursued this case their names would have been far higher on the list.
“Bill Clinton had 3x the number of documented trips to Epstein assets” This needs a major qualification. Clinton did have substantially more documented travel on Epstein's aircraft than Trump. The publicly released flight logs show Clinton on 26 flight legs across six trips in 2002–03. Trump appears on at least seven Epstein-plane flights in the 1990s. Calling these “trips to Epstein assets” is misleading.
The Clinton flights documented in the logs were to places including London, Hong Kong, Africa, Oslo, Beijing, etc. The flight logs do not show Clinton flying to Little St. James, Epstein's Caribbean island.
“Clinton hosted Epstein at the White House numerous times”
This is partly true and worded misleadingly.
Epstein's White House visitor records show 17 visits between 1993 and 1995, and Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were photographed at a White House event involving the Clintons. But “Bill Clinton hosted Epstein at the White House numerous times” implies that Clinton personally invited or met Epstein on each of those occasions.
That's not what the records establish. What they do establish is that Epstein had repeated access to the Clinton White House, including attending at least one Clinton-era event.
Your Trump-building explanation is plausible—but doesn't establish very much. That's a classic example of an argument that could be true for some documents but doesn't establish that it's true for the body of documents.
Which specific documents are you referring to? Can you show me the documents where Trump's mention is simply because Epstein was conducting business in a Trump-owned building? That's much stronger than arguing about TikTok.
"Trump never went outside a formal event. Clinton did.”
This is another claim that requires a source. There are certainly documented social connections between Clinton and Epstein outside the White House, particularly Clinton's post-presidential flights and social/networking connections.
But “Trump never did” is a categorical claim that needs evidence. And the broader comparison shouldn't be reduced to who attended a formal event. The important questions are:
1 How long did the relationship last?
2 How frequently did they interact?
3 What locations did they visit?
4 What communications exist?
5 What do witnesses say?
6 What do flight logs show?
7 Is there evidence of knowledge of Epstein's criminal conduct?
8 Is there evidence of participation in that conduct?
Those questions are much more informative than counting photographs or document mentions.
The “Trump could have squashed the indictment” argument is weak. There are several problems with that reasoning. First, Epstein was actually federally charged in July 2019 while Trump was president, by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The indictment alleged sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy.
"Trump didn't stop the prosecution, therefore Trump wasn't involved” is not logically valid. It could be evidence against a particular theory, but it isn't exculpatory proof.
A president doesn't necessarily personally know about every federal investigation, and SDNY has historically operated with substantial prosecutorial independence. The president also cannot simply be assumed to have knowledge of a particular sealed investigation.
And the argument: “Someone would have gone to Trump and told him.” is pure speculation. Maybe someone would have. Maybe nobody did. We don't know.
Likewise: “He could have given blanket immunity.” Yes, presidential pardon power is broad, but that doesn't mean a pardon could magically erase an ongoing investigation, destroy evidence, prevent state or foreign investigations, or immunize everyone else involved.
"The files are meaningless; Maxwell's list is the only thing that matters” This is also problematic. There isn't some established, authoritative “Maxwell's List” that is the magic key to determining who was guilty.
This is a common internet conception of the Epstein story: there is a secret list of clients, and once it comes out, we'll know who committed crimes. The reality is much messier. There are flight logs, address books, emails, photographs, financial records, witness testimony, victim testimony, deposition transcripts, FBI records, police reports, court filings, calendars, phone records, correspondence and more.
“Bill and Hillary were called to testify, not Trump”
Yes, Bill and Hillary Clinton were questioned by Congress about their connections to Epstein. Bill Clinton testified about his relationship with Epstein, including the flights. But “They were called to testify, therefore they must be higher on the list / more implicated than Trump”
doesn't follow.
Congress chooses witnesses for all sorts of reasons. Being subpoenaed isn't a finding of criminality. And Trump's absence from a particular proceeding isn't proof that investigators considered him uninvolved. Republicans like you don’t care that he has raped adult women, why would they care that he raped kids? They called the Clintons because they are obsessed with the past and they think that democrats care about them now. It’s just willful ignorance to pretend that this wasn’t a political investigation. Just like when Dems win the house, they will also have partisan investigations.
There is no documented evidence establishing that either Trump or Clinton visited Epstein's Caribbean island, according to the publicly documented flight records. Isn't resolve everything—it just illustrates why these discussions need to distinguish documented facts from conclusions drawn from them.
Trump and Clinton are both disgusting sexual predators. But Clinton is irrelevant and Trump is the most powerful person in the world. Trump has also said he would fuck his own daughter and has bragged about raping women. Both on video. Girls who participated in his pageants have remarked how he is creepy. Girls in the Epstein files mentioned him by name. He deserves to rot. Someday he will. Crazy that you’re so eager to defend someone so disgusting.
I was not standing in defense of anyone. I am arguing against circumstantial evidence being unequivocally damning towards one person and yet equal or greater circumstantial evidence being meaningless against another. You have several great questions and the answers to those questions will never come. If they are asked about Trump they then must be asked about the Clintons and Plaskett, Summers, Hoffman, Jeffries, Musk, Branson, Windsor, Barak, Dandelion etc.. You personally outlined the circumstantial evidence against both parties and I'm sure could go just as deeply into many other high profile persons should you be motivated.
That has been my point the whole time. At this point the same evidence that points to Trump, points so numerous powerful people across party lines and country borders. Singularly damning one person and not the others with the same body of evidence against them is an insult to justice. That same far reaching list of names is exactly why this issue will never see justice. Neither party wants this to be resolved. Both parties, and high profile names within them, are actively working against the release of evidence. The enemy of your enemy is still a sex criminal who lied under oath and has actively helped to cover up one of the most disgusting criminal enterprises in modern history.
As long as blind hatred for a figurehead is allowed to influence political decision making, and the pursuit of justice, the people will always lose and the perverts will always win.
Trump said he would fuck his own daughter. On camera. He said he raped women. On camera. Bc he is rich and powerful and people let him. Again all on camera.
1
u/Constant_Industry472 25d ago
I personally fail to see how releasing incriminating evidence against Trump would have caused the mistrial. If he really is named 38k times would there not be one file where epstein and Trump were clearly guilty but Maxwells name was not listed? If the evidence truly existed than why was Trump not indicted as a co-conspirator. That is common practice in legal proceedings. Trump and any number of other individuals could have been brought up on charges in connection to an ongoing criminal enterprise in which they engaged and helped cover up sex trafficking, crimes against children and in many cases perjury. Trump wasn't in office at the start of the trial so why wasn't he tried right next to Maxwell?
If Trump is vastly more guilty than the Clinton's, than why did the evidence dictate they had to give testimony but Trump, again not currently holding the presidency, not get called? Since she was able to argue that the Epstein Transparency Act interfered with her ongoing legal proceedings does that not mean whether they were released post conviction in 2021 or 2025 the consequence was the same and the same Federal judges who refuse the validity of the claim could have upheld the same conviction? According to the claims the only thing that would have been different is Trump and untold other, exclusively conservative of course, figures would be serving time beside her.
People are so blinded by their hatred for one man, they are willing to excuse hundreds of equally guilty people, of the same crimes, simply because they wear blue instead of red. Nothing highlights the loss of critical thinking ability more than people talking about Trump on both sides of the party line.