I'm 48, so ad hom by calling me a boomer has been flagged.

You don't like the analogy because it's apt. Yours make no sense.

Don't you have a tabloid or two to read?

flown-the-coop said:

---

I'm 48, so ad hom by calling me a boomer has been flagged.

You don't like the analogy because it's apt. Yours make no sense.

Don't you have a tabloid or two to read?

---

never called you a boomer, the analogy was boomer esque. Good job trying to tattle though.

If my analogy didn't make sense yours didn't either. Its almost like politics and football are two separate topics or something.

This has truly become Anon for leftists. There is no there there. If there was, all would have come out under Biden before the election. But Dems keep releasing old photos and stuff knowing their lapdogs, waiting to be told what to think, will swallow it whole.

People are so easily manipulated.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I don't think I'm the one that is confused here, because the fundamental right to confront your accuser only applies once someone has been criminally charged. Whether names should be published or not comes down a moral and ethical decision.

---

If the DOJ is going to publish unconfirmed accusations, redacted information and unverified evidence where they leave the accused unreacted, you think that is consistent with the protections provided for in the 6th?

You again ignore the purpose of the protection in order to fit your desires.

Sorry, if the DOJ is the one publishing then it needs to be redacted both ways or not redacted at all.

---

Let's take a look at what the sixth amendment actually says.

Quote:

---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

The purpose of the protection is clear as day as written. No one has been criminally charged, and likely never will. So whether DOJ publishes names or not is not a legal issue. But for you just yesterday to want to publish the names and bank accounts of a grand jury just because they didn't decide the way you think they should have (when grand jury secrecy has been enshrined in our law that predates the US Constitution), but then decry how the process here must be followed, is a bit hypocritical.

#BREAKING: Todd Blanche says DOJ won’t release full Esptein files to Congress by Friday deadline https://t.co/W6xNLSSwr8

— The Hill (@thehill) December 19, 2025

DOJ confirms they will violate the law and not release it all today.

techno-ag said:

---

This has truly become Anon for leftists. There is no there there. If there was, all would have come out under Biden before the election. But Dems keep releasing old photos and stuff knowing their lapdogs, waiting to be told what to think, will swallow it whole.

People are so easily manipulated.

---

Again, I know I've already said this in this thread before:

Qanon wasn't real and this is. If you can't figure that out, I'm very sorry.

ETFan said:

---

techno-ag said:

---

This has truly become Anon for leftists. There is no there there. If there was, all would have come out under Biden before the election. But Dems keep releasing old photos and stuff knowing their lapdogs, waiting to be told what to think, will swallow it whole.

People are so easily manipulated.

---

Again, I know I've already said this in this thread before:

Qanon wasn't real and this is. If you can't figure that out, I'm very sorry.

---

Portions of both are real.

There is a reason prosecutors want photo evidence of a crime shown to the jury. It's human to want somebody to pay for the crime. In this instance the man responsible is dead. Democrats are using his old crimes to try and generate emotional outrage against Trump.

And you are all falling for it like chumps.

techno-ag said:

---

This has truly become Anon for leftists. There is no there there. If there was, all would have come out under Biden before the election. But Dems keep releasing old photos and stuff knowing their lapdogs, waiting to be told what to think, will swallow it whole.

People are so easily manipulated.

---

"Maybe if we describe the push for transparency as a Dem position, the people will stop pushing for transparency"

Hard to say its a hoax while also running from transparency. If theres nothing there, release it all and own the libs insinuating there is something there.

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I don't think I'm the one that is confused here, because the fundamental right to confront your accuser only applies once someone has been criminally charged. Whether names should be published or not comes down a moral and ethical decision.

---

If the DOJ is going to publish unconfirmed accusations, redacted information and unverified evidence where they leave the accused unreacted, you think that is consistent with the protections provided for in the 6th?

You again ignore the purpose of the protection in order to fit your desires.

Sorry, if the DOJ is the one publishing then it needs to be redacted both ways or not redacted at all.

---

Let's take a look at what the sixth amendment actually says.

Quote:

---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

The purpose of the protection is clear as day as written. No one has been criminally charged, and likely never will. So whether DOJ publishes names or not is not a legal issue. But for you just yesterday to want to publish the names and bank accounts of a grand jury just because they didn't decide the way you think they should have (when grand jury secrecy has been enshrined in our law that predates the US Constitution), but then decry how the process here must be followed, is a bit hypocritical.

---

It also prescribes trial with an impartial jury, which you seem to be just fine with trial juries and grand juries alike NOT being impartial.

Thats not a bit hypocritical, its the epitome of it.

Schumer now is the champion of Epstein victims. This is who Massie is aligned with.

Quote:

---

"Senate Democrats are working closely with attorneys for the victims of Jeffrey Epstein and with outside legal experts to assess what documents are being withheld and what is being covered up by Pam Bondi. We will not stop until the whole truth comes out."

---

..."unless Dems retaken power then we will stop and ensure the truth never comes out".

Meanwhile, Trump is working feverishly to dump 100,000s of documents and providing more as the filtering and redactions are completed.

And all the libs and tabloiders can do is scream "cover up", which is ironic, because they will actually cover things up as the edit any released documents and publish them via MSM to mislead the public.

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

HTownAg98 said:

---

I don't think I'm the one that is confused here, because the fundamental right to confront your accuser only applies once someone has been criminally charged. Whether names should be published or not comes down a moral and ethical decision.

---

If the DOJ is going to publish unconfirmed accusations, redacted information and unverified evidence where they leave the accused unreacted, you think that is consistent with the protections provided for in the 6th?

You again ignore the purpose of the protection in order to fit your desires.

Sorry, if the DOJ is the one publishing then it needs to be redacted both ways or not redacted at all.

---

Let's take a look at what the sixth amendment actually says.

Quote:

---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

---

The purpose of the protection is clear as day as written. No one has been criminally charged, and likely never will. So whether DOJ publishes names or not is not a legal issue. But for you just yesterday to want to publish the names and bank accounts of a grand jury just because they didn't decide the way you think they should have (when grand jury secrecy has been enshrined in our law that predates the US Constitution), but then decry how the process here must be followed, is a bit hypocritical.

---

It also prescribes trial with an impartial jury, which you seem to be just fine with trial juries and grand juries alike NOT being impartial.

Thats not a bit hypocritical, its the epitome of it.

---

Assuming facts not in the record.

flown-the-coop said:

---

Schumer now is the champion of Epstein victims. This is who Massie is aligned with.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy?wprov=sfla1

PaulsBunions said:

---

#BREAKING: Todd Blanche says DOJ won’t release full Esptein files to Congress by Friday deadline https://t.co/W6xNLSSwr8

— The Hill (@thehill) December 19, 2025

DOJ confirms they will violate the law and not release it all today.

---

Tend to think this will not help quell all the "conspiracy theories" about a massive years long cover up

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

But I thought you said you wanted justice… you know, for the victims.

You and others seem to think this is about Trump and "transparency".

For those wanting more files, have you finished going through the close to 100,000 docs that Trump DOJ and Rs in congress have released? I know the Dems have as they are working harder than the DOJ to selectively redact thinks to mislead the public.

---

Do you think transparency and justice for the victims are mutually exclusive? I agree that the Dems are selectively releasing the files, that's why it is preferable to force the gov to release it all rather than what is politically convenient for both parties.

---

Exactly.

There's nothing better than putting everything out there without any redactions save for victims information.

---

In America where I live, the accused has the constitutional right to confront their accuser. If you release the accusations then you must notify the accused so they can confront their accuser.

You kids are demanding trial in the court of MSM/DNC opinion where they have already shown they will redact, manipulate and fabricate to push a narrative.

Continuing to show it's not about the victims for you guys.

---

Would you rather nothing and no name, including anyone on the left, come out then?

I'd imagine that you never demanded for the Epstein Files to be released, especially before Trump got in office this year by your stance.

For those that did and them released and all of a sudden they didn't, what changed? Don't they want justice anymore?

Ag13 said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

#BREAKING: Todd Blanche says DOJ won’t release full Esptein files to Congress by Friday deadline https://t.co/W6xNLSSwr8

— The Hill (@thehill) December 19, 2025

DOJ confirms they will violate the law and not release it all today.

---

Tend to think this will not help quell all the "conspiracy theories" about a massive years long cover up

---

Nope. We're in the upside down. Coverups are now transparency. Wanting pedos arrested is political. Hoax now means real. Etc.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would you rather nothing and no name, including anyone on the left, come out then?

I'd imagine that you never demanded for the Epstein Files to be released, especially before Trump got in office this year by your stance.

For those that did and them released and all of a sudden they didn't, what changed? Don't they want justice anymore?

---

yesterday people were up in arms on how much money would be wasted on adding Trump's name to the Kennedy Center.

Today we want endless time and funds spent sorting through 100,000s of documents to redact names of witnesses and victims because we just KNOW Trump and Bondi are covering something up.

No Spin Ag said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

PaulsBunions said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

But I thought you said you wanted justice… you know, for the victims.

You and others seem to think this is about Trump and "transparency".

For those wanting more files, have you finished going through the close to 100,000 docs that Trump DOJ and Rs in congress have released? I know the Dems have as they are working harder than the DOJ to selectively redact thinks to mislead the public.

---

Do you think transparency and justice for the victims are mutually exclusive? I agree that the Dems are selectively releasing the files, that's why it is preferable to force the gov to release it all rather than what is politically convenient for both parties.

---

Exactly.

There's nothing better than putting everything out there without any redactions save for victims information.

---

In America where I live, the accused has the constitutional right to confront their accuser. If you release the accusations then you must notify the accused so they can confront their accuser.

You kids are demanding trial in the court of MSM/DNC opinion where they have already shown they will redact, manipulate and fabricate to push a narrative.

Continuing to show it's not about the victims for you guys.

---

Would you rather nothing and no name, including anyone on the left, come out then?

I'd imagine that you never demanded for the Epstein Files to be released, especially before Trump got in office this year by your stance.

For those that did and them released and all of a sudden they didn't, what changed? Don't they want justice anymore?

---

He hides behind the statement that he wants them all released. But he also says it's a waste of time and resources pursuing this and calls it tabloid nonsense. Good luck having an honest discussion with those conflicting statements when it's clear as day that there is significant effort by people in power to stop any info regarding this topic from being released.

To play along with the tabloid storyline, politicians have put a lot more effort in satisfying the publics desire for the flavor of the month political topics in the past. This one, even if it ends up being a tabloid nonsense topic, has significant pushback from people in power thus common sense says there probably is more than just smoke there.

Tea Party said:

---

He hides behind the statement that he wants them all released. But he also says it's a waste of time and resources pursuing this and calls it tabloid nonsense. Good luck having an honest discussion with those conflicting statements when it's clear as day that there is significant effort by people in power to stop any info regarding this topic from being released.

To play along with the tabloid storyline, politicians have put a lot more effort in satisfying the publics desire for the flavor of the month political topics in the past. This one, even if it ends up being a tabloid nonsense topic, has significant pushback from people in power thus common sense says there probably is more than just smoke there.

---

I can support the full release and also be quite confident the time being spent on these "files" is a waste of time and resources.

Common sense tells you there likely is nothing but lingering wisps of smoke at this point. I would be more than happy to be wrong. I would be shocked if Trump is implicated in any fashion, again based on common sense, but my opinion and conclusion at this point is that there is not much there thre.

That does not mean I oppose the release. Quite the opposite. I have ALWAYS called for the complete unredacted release of the files.

I can at the same time believe it will result in nothing substantial.

Now tell me how the **** is that hiding behind anything?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would you rather nothing and no name, including anyone on the left, come out then?

I'd imagine that you never demanded for the Epstein Files to be released, especially before Trump got in office this year by your stance.

For those that did and them released and all of a sudden they didn't, what changed? Don't they want justice anymore?

---

yesterday people were up in arms on how much money would be wasted on adding Trump's name to the Kennedy Center.

Today we want endless time and funds spent sorting through 100,000s of documents to redact names of witnesses and victims because we just KNOW Trump and Bondi are covering something up.

---

I'd consider outing rich pedos one of the better uses of government resources I can think of.

---

Great, you think that happens here? And will you hold the Obama / Biden admins accountable for not following up on information they long had in their possession and CHOSE to NOT act upon?

PaulsBunions said:

---

We now know why @SpeakerJohnson rushed to send everyone home last night.

Enforcing the Friday deadline against the DoJ is supposed to be done by Congress.

Who is now on vacation until Jan 5th.

Either @SpeakerJohnson or @LeaderJohnThune must reconvene and enforce the law.… https://t.co/0gEDqpgccF

— Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth) (@adamscochran) December 19, 2025

If I don't pay my taxes by a specific day I am in violation of the law and the government send its goons after me. But if the Gov doesn't meet its deadlines and violates the law, don't worry the goons are all on vacation. Rules for thee and not for me

---

And it's a timeless tale indeed

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would you rather nothing and no name, including anyone on the left, come out then?

I'd imagine that you never demanded for the Epstein Files to be released, especially before Trump got in office this year by your stance.

For those that did and them released and all of a sudden they didn't, what changed? Don't they want justice anymore?

---

yesterday people were up in arms on how much money would be wasted on adding Trump's name to the Kennedy Center.

Today we want endless time and funds spent sorting through 100,000s of documents to redact names of witnesses and victims because we just KNOW Trump and Bondi are covering something up.

---

You're so full of **** it's honestly impressive.

Johnson sent congress home so the DOJ could break the law, and EXACTLY as I said yesterday, you'd be here to defend it.

---

I take ad homs from libs as a compliment. Thank you.

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

You're so full of **** it's honestly impressive.

Johnson sent congress home so the DOJ could break the law, and EXACTLY as I said yesterday, you'd be here to defend it.

---

I take ad homs from libs as a compliment. Thank you.

---

Please defend this admin breaking the law.

Please explain how this is transparency.

---

No documents released today and they said they will not be releasing documents? Because I had not heard that. You have a link?

PaulsBunions said:

---

We now know why @SpeakerJohnson rushed to send everyone home last night.

Enforcing the Friday deadline against the DoJ is supposed to be done by Congress.

Who is now on vacation until Jan 5th.

Either @SpeakerJohnson or @LeaderJohnThune must reconvene and enforce the law.… https://t.co/0gEDqpgccF

— Adam Cochran (adamscochran.eth) (@adamscochran) December 19, 2025

If I don't pay my taxes by a specific day I am in violation of the law and the government send its goons after me. But if the Gov doesn't meet its deadlines and violates the law, don't worry the goons are all on vacation. Rules for thee and not for me

---

Well said. And despite this, you have simps like FTC who goaltend feverishly night and day for the politicians on "their team." His cult leader wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire, yet he spends countless hours on here defending him to the death. Such. A. God. Damn. Joke.

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would you rather nothing and no name, including anyone on the left, come out then?

I'd imagine that you never demanded for the Epstein Files to be released, especially before Trump got in office this year by your stance.

For those that did and them released and all of a sudden they didn't, what changed? Don't they want justice anymore?

---

yesterday people were up in arms on how much money would be wasted on adding Trump's name to the Kennedy Center.

Today we want endless time and funds spent sorting through 100,000s of documents to redact names of witnesses and victims because we just KNOW Trump and Bondi are covering something up.

---

You're so full of **** it's honestly impressive.

Johnson sent congress home so the DOJ could break the law, and EXACTLY as I said yesterday, you'd be here to defend it.

---

I take ad homs from libs as a compliment. Thank you.

---

Please defend this admin breaking the law.

Please explain how this is transparency.

---

Or don't.

I would be content with them publishing the Epstein Encyclopedia including all domestic and foreign intelligence ties, financial connections and financiers, and redact all mention of his sexual exploits. That will do more harm to the deep state than anything else ever has or will. (Hint; this they will NEVER do.)

OG (real) MAGA would be freaking elated for that.

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

ETFan said:

---

You're so full of **** it's honestly impressive.

Johnson sent congress home so the DOJ could break the law, and EXACTLY as I said yesterday, you'd be here to defend it.

---

I take ad homs from libs as a compliment. Thank you.

---

Please defend this admin breaking the law.

Please explain how this is transparency.

---

No documents released today and they said they will not be releasing documents? Because I had not heard that. You have a link?

---

scroll up

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3548558/replies/71565580

pic.twitter.com/GjZIlCAUyJ

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) December 19, 2025

flown-the-coop said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Would you rather nothing and no name, including anyone on the left, come out then?

I'd imagine that you never demanded for the Epstein Files to be released, especially before Trump got in office this year by your stance.

For those that did and them released and all of a sudden they didn't, what changed? Don't they want justice anymore?

---

yesterday people were up in arms on how much money would be wasted on adding Trump's name to the Kennedy Center.

Today we want endless time and funds spent sorting through 100,000s of documents to redact names of witnesses and victims because we just KNOW Trump and Bondi are covering something up.

---

I'd consider outing rich pedos one of the better uses of government resources I can think of.

---

Great, you think that happens here? And will you hold the Obama / Biden admins accountable for not following up on information they long had in their possession and CHOSE to NOT act upon?

---

My guess is yes, there are a few more Prince Andrew/Larry Summers type names that will be released if they actually release everything and don't hold back info.
And yes, unlike some people I don't really give a **** what party is involved. If Biden and co were covering it up to protect their donors then yes they are just as responsible as Trump would be.

FWTXAg said:

---

I refuse to beileive that most of the stupid opinions I see from either side are not just from paid actors. The level of support and defense for people and institutions that wouldn't spit on the common American if they were on fire is astounding.

How anyone truly supports or defends a politician or party in 2025 with all of the information available to us is mind boggling. We should all want it ALL burned down. ALL politicians are immoral disengenous pieces of garbage.

---