DOJ: Epstein killed himself, no client list

523,623 Views | 6037 Replies | Last: 1 min ago by Zachary Klement
Ervin Burrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
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?

"It's okay that my cult leader is acting the same way his predecessors (who I view as antichrists) did because he's on my team, and really, really, really cares about me. Plus, he occasionally owns the libtards!!!!!"
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ervin Burrell said:

PaulsBunions said:



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." Such a f'ing joke.

Where am I goaltending here? I think some of the posts on here are nothing but tabloiders looking for dirt on Trump (and potentially other rich folk).

I fully expect there to be plenty of information indicating Dem / Lib involvement with Epstein and his associated activities.

Even MS Now has a pundit along with one of the lawyers of the victims (Blum?) going over this. Attorney is spouting about how he knows about certain names of potential perps and if he doesn't see those names then he will KNOW a cover up is afoot. If he knows this, why is he not putting forth those names?

And the pundit makes the same logical argument I have made. First, DOJ has until end of today to release before they are in any potential violation of the recently passed law. They are releasing a substantial amount of documents indicating they are intending to comply. Remaining documents and missed deadline are matters to be adjudicated to determine whether or not the DOJ is complying with the law.

She is a black woman on MS Now. Is she simping for Trump? (https://www.listonabramson.com/catherine-a-christian/)?
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ervin Burrell said:

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?

"It's okay that my cult leader is acting the same way his predecessors (who I view as antichrists) did because he's on my team, and really, really, really cares about me. Plus, he occasionally owns the libtards!!!!!"

Along with their evil, heathen followers who actually do exhibit cultish behavior.

But nothing on why you guys think there is something there and nothing about why previous admins sat on it.

Crickets.

But its about the victims and not Trump. Right? ....Right?
Ervin Burrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

Ervin Burrell said:

PaulsBunions said:



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." Such a f'ing joke.

Where am I goaltending here? I think some of the posts on here are nothing but tabloiders looking for dirt on Trump (and potentially other rich folk).

I fully expect there to be plenty of information indicating Dem / Lib involvement with Epstein and his associated activities.

Even MS Now has a pundit along with one of the lawyers of the victims (Blum?) going over this. Attorney is spouting about how he knows about certain names of potential perps and if he doesn't see those names then he will KNOW a cover up is afoot. If he knows this, why is he not putting forth those names?

And the pundit makes the same logical argument I have made. First, DOJ has until end of today to release before they are in any potential violation of the recently passed law. They are releasing a substantial amount of documents indicating they are intending to comply. Remaining documents and missed deadline are matters to be adjudicated to determine whether or not the DOJ is complying with the law.

She is a black woman on MS Now. Is she simping for Trump? (https://www.listonabramson.com/catherine-a-christian/)?

It's literally all you do, every single day...on this thread and any other you post on. You defend to death someone who couldn't care less about you, and it's both hilarious and sad. Trump could murder an infant on live television and you'd be here telling everyone that the baby somehow deserved it.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ervin Burrell said:

It's literally all you do, every single day...on this thread and any other you post on. You defend to death someone who couldn't care less about you, and it's both hilarious and sad. Trump could murder an infant on live television and you'd be here telling everyone that the baby somehow deserved it.

But you think attacking Trump all day, every single day for a decade is not hilarious and sad?

And its your team that believes in murdering babies, not mine.

Its amazing the TDS sufferers think calling out someone defending Trump proves they don't suffer from chronic TDS.
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
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.


That didn't answer my question.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.


Who said I'm supporting the libs? Please re review the association fallacy link I gave you earlier.

Do you think Deputy AG Blanche was lying when he said all of the files won't be released today?
No Spin Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

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?


Good to see you want everything released and out in the open.

ETA: It may be a complete waste of time, but this country has wasted time and money on less important things.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Rex Racer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
docb said:

flown-the-coop said:

docb said:

And just how do you know that he is innocent? We will never know but you trying to blast everyone wanting to know answers or thinking he is guilty is nothing more than pure stupidity on your part. You are just a follower and not capable of making rationale judgements.

You think someone is a pedo because they were photographed with someone at parties that had nothing to do with pedos or sex or anything of the like.

Yep, much stupidity on my part. Just a follower, not capable of rationale judgements.

Just curious. Have you ever palled around with a pedophile?

I used to work with 2 of them. Had no idea until one of them was handcuffed in the office, and the other one was arrested after leaving my company.

Even went to a Dallas Cowboys game with one of them and tailgated.

Throw the book at me.

Given the stats, I guarantee that you have known more than one of them in your life, as well. You just don't know it.
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No Spin Ag said:

flown-the-coop said:

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?


Good to see you want everything released and out in the open.

ETA: It may be a complete waste of time, but this country has wasted time and money on less important things.


It will only prove to be a waste of time if the DOJ, CIA, and FBI have succesfully white washed who Jeffrey Epstein really was and minimize him into being simply a sexual deviant and piece of human trash.

Anyone who thinks at this point that Epstein wasn't involved with very high levels of our government in crooked backroom deals is choosing to be wilfully ignorant. This is a very, very big deal.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No Spin Ag 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.


That didn't answer my question.

No and I think the only thing I have ever said that could be taken that way is I support full unredacted release or none at all.

I believe redacted release is not going to put any of this to rest for any one no matter what your preconceived opinions are on those involved in the whole affair (to include this phase of document release) will not change without full unredacted release.

And I am confident I will be proven correct on that.

You asked "what changed" as well regarding the release. Trump, Bondi and others have covered this. I found this thread that linked an article with the following:
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3548558
Quote:

President Trump's Justice Department and FBI have concluded they have no evidence that convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed powerful figures, kept a "client list" or was murdered, according to a memo detailing the findings obtained by Axios.

So far, that determination has held up.

In the interim we have had Dem manipulated emails, pictures and birthday
Queso1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.


I can't believe that I agree with this scum bag.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.


Who said I'm supporting the libs? Please re review the association fallacy link I gave you earlier.

Do you think Deputy AG Blanche was lying when he said all of the files won't be released today?


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?
J. Walter Weatherman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

Ervin Burrell said:

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?

"It's okay that my cult leader is acting the same way his predecessors (who I view as antichrists) did because he's on my team, and really, really, really cares about me. Plus, he occasionally owns the libtards!!!!!"

Along with their evil, heathen followers who actually do exhibit cultish behavior.

But nothing on why you guys think there is something there and nothing about why previous admins sat on it.

Crickets.

But it's about the victims and not Trump. Right? ....Right?


I expect the Dems to protect their rich pedo friends. I guess I mistakenly thought Trump would actually fulfill his campaign promise and release everything when he got in office. I understand you see every single thing in life through a red vs blue political lens, but most of us don't really care what team these people are on. Release it all.
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

No Spin Ag 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.


That didn't answer my question.

No and I think the only thing I have ever said that could be taken that way is I support full unredacted release or none at all.

I believe redacted release is not going to put any of this to rest for any one no matter what your preconceived opinions are on those involved in the whole affair (to include this phase of document release) will not change without full unredacted release.

And I am confident I will be proven correct on that.

You asked "what changed" as well regarding the release. Trump, Bondi and others have covered this. I found this thread that linked an article with the following:
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3548558
Quote:

President Trump's Justice Department and FBI have concluded they have no evidence that convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed powerful figures, kept a "client list" or was murdered, according to a memo detailing the findings obtained by Axios.

So far, that determination has held up.

In the interim we have had Dem manipulated emails, pictures and birthday


Bondi reopened the investigation in November, that article is out of date.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/changed-pam-bondi-grilled-opening-184203079.html
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
No Spin Ag said:


Good to see you want everything released and out in the open.


ETA: It may be a complete waste of time, but this country has wasted time and money on less important things.

Yea, that's always been the case. Why the heck would I want anything withheld? Reality is that things will be withheld and as such I think the cleanup of misinformation will consume considerable time and resources. Again, just last week the Dems released misleading, altered information in an effort to smear Trump.

Is the public served by the Dems receiving more and more information? BTW - They likely have copies of 98% of the information that will be released. They already have them cross-referenced, redacted, selectively edited and ready to roll.

I am not in the files and even if I was I would want the opportunity to address why I was in the files. But I would not be looking forward to having to combat the MSM and libs who want to paint ftc as a bad guy much like docb attempted to do yesterday.
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.


Who said I'm supporting the libs? Please re review the association fallacy link I gave you earlier.

Do you think Deputy AG Blanche was lying when he said all of the files won't be released today?


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


There's nothing to "determine". The law states they must all be released today. They stated they will not comply with the law by saying they won't release it all today.

flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:


Bondi reopened the investigation in November, that article is out of date.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/changed-pam-bondi-grilled-opening-184203079.html

C'mon man. You are just trying to troll at this point. This is from your own link.
Quote:

Bondi made a reference to new "information," but she did not specifically say what this information is when asked "what changed."

"Information that has come forward information. There's information that new information, additional information and, again, we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads. If there are any victims, we encourage all victims to come forward and we will continue to provide maximum transparency under the law," she said.


You can choose not to believe her. Nothing I can do about that.
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Reread your linked comment,

"President Trump's Justice Department and FBI have concluded they have no evidence that convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed powerful figures, kept a "client list" or was murdered, according to a memo detailing the findings obtained by Axios."

"So far, that determination has held up"

The determination has not held up as they supposedly found new information and relaunched the investigation. That's all I'm saying.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


There's nothing to "determine". The law states they must all be released today. They stated they will

You are really poor at reviewing your source material. Section 2 (c) contradicts your representation of what the law says.

What are the consequences of missing the deadline? And will they really miss the deadline?

They have 15 days to explain any information withheld. Are you going to say that "we are still reviewing information for redaction as it relates to the Section 2 (c) Permitted Withholdings" will be considered as having violated the law?

Quote:

SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Within 15 days of completion of the release required under Section 2, the Attorney General shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report listing:
(1) All categories of records released and withheld.

ETFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.


Who said I'm supporting the libs? Please re review the association fallacy link I gave you earlier.

Do you think Deputy AG Blanche was lying when he said all of the files won't be released today?


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


If it's not all released today they haven't complied. This is really simple.

Edit: unbelievable.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:

Reread your linked comment,

"President Trump's Justice Department and FBI have concluded they have no evidence that convicted sex offender and disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein blackmailed powerful figures, kept a "client list" or was murdered, according to a memo detailing the findings obtained by Axios."

"So far, that determination has held up"

The determination has not held up as they supposedly found new information and relaunched the investigation. That's all I'm saying.

Did Bondi say that new information came from within the DOJ files? My understanding is that it likely related to documents released by his estate.

Dude, just be patient and wait on the tabloids to be published. Right now you are reaching.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ETFan said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.


Who said I'm supporting the libs? Please re review the association fallacy link I gave you earlier.

Do you think Deputy AG Blanche was lying when he said all of the files won't be released today?


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


If it's not all released today they haven't complied. This is really simple.

You probably should have waited to read the post just prior to yours.

Its government, its never really simple.
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


There's nothing to "determine". The law states they must all be released today. They stated they will

You are really poor at reviewing your source material. Section 2 (c) contradicts your representation of what the law says.

What are the consequences of missing the deadline? And will they really miss the deadline?

They have 15 days to explain any information withheld. Are you going to say that "we are still reviewing information for redaction as it relates to the Section 2 (c) Permitted Withholdings" will be considered as having violated the law?

Quote:

SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Within 15 days of completion of the release required under Section 2, the Attorney General shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report listing:
(1) All categories of records released and withheld.




Prohibited Grounds for Withholding.--No record shall be
withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of any of the following:
``(1) Embarrassment, reputational harm, or political
sensitivity, including to any government official, public
figure, or foreign dignitary.
``(c) Permitted Withholdings.--
``(1) The Attorney General may withhold or redact the
segregable portions of records that--
``(A) contain personally identifiable information
of victims or victims' personal and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
``(B) depicts or contains child sexual abuse
materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and
prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252-2252A;
``(C) would jeopardize an active federal
investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that
such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;
``(D) depicts or contains images of death, physical
abuse, or injury of any person; or
``(E) contain information specifically authorized
under criteria established by an Executive order to be
kept secret in the interest of national defense or
foreign policy and are in fact properly classified
pursuant to such Executive order.
``(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written
justification published in the Federal Register and submitted
to Congress.
``(3) To the extent that any covered information would
otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information
under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that
classified information to the maximum extent possible.
``(A). If the Attorney General makes a
determination that covered information may not be
declassified and made available in a manner that
protects the national security of the United States,
including methods or sources related to national
security, the Attorney General shall release an
unclassified summary for each of the redacted or
withheld classified information.
``(4) All decisions to classify any covered information
after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register
and submitted to Congress, including the date of
classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and
an unclassified summary of the justification.


"We did not have enough time to do our jobs" is not a permitted witholding.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:


"We did not have enough time to do our jobs" is not a permitted witholding.

They have 15 days to report their reasons.

Was there a provision that said if a determination has not been made by the deadline, then it must be released?

I didn't see what the punishment was for non-compliance. Contempt of Congress? Which can be remedied by them ultimately providing the information.

Edited to add: Under your take (and that of MSM currently), then if they have not looked at certain files and they released them and they contained CSAM and they published that, would that not also be a violation of the law? have you thought through your position at all? Or just Get Trump?
FWTXAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


There's nothing to "determine". The law states they must all be released today. They stated they will

You are really poor at reviewing your source material. Section 2 (c) contradicts your representation of what the law says.

What are the consequences of missing the deadline? And will they really miss the deadline?

They have 15 days to explain any information withheld. Are you going to say that "we are still reviewing information for redaction as it relates to the Section 2 (c) Permitted Withholdings" will be considered as having violated the law?

Quote:

SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Within 15 days of completion of the release required under Section 2, the Attorney General shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report listing:
(1) All categories of records released and withheld.




Prohibited Grounds for Withholding.--No record shall be
withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of any of the following:
``(1) Embarrassment, reputational harm, or political
sensitivity, including to any government official, public
figure, or foreign dignitary.
``(c) Permitted Withholdings.--
``(1) The Attorney General may withhold or redact the
segregable portions of records that--
``(A) contain personally identifiable information
of victims or victims' personal and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
``(B) depicts or contains child sexual abuse
materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and
prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252-2252A;
``(C) would jeopardize an active federal
investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that
such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;
``(D) depicts or contains images of death, physical
abuse, or injury of any person; or
``(E) contain information specifically authorized
under criteria established by an Executive order to be
kept secret in the interest of national defense or
foreign policy and are in fact properly classified
pursuant to such Executive order.
``(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written
justification published in the Federal Register and submitted
to Congress.
``(3) To the extent that any covered information would
otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information
under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that
classified information to the maximum extent possible.
``(A). If the Attorney General makes a
determination that covered information may not be
declassified and made available in a manner that
protects the national security of the United States,
including methods or sources related to national
security, the Attorney General shall release an
unclassified summary for each of the redacted or
withheld classified information.
``(4) All decisions to classify any covered information
after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register
and submitted to Congress, including the date of
classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and
an unclassified summary of the justification.


"We did not have enough time to do our jobs" is not a permitted witholding.


You're arguing with someone who previously said this law had no teeth if I remember correctly, don't work too hard to convince these partisan hacks of anything. It will not work, they actually believe in politicians and their "policies" lol
ETFan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop said:

ETFan said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.


Who said I'm supporting the libs? Please re review the association fallacy link I gave you earlier.

Do you think Deputy AG Blanche was lying when he said all of the files won't be released today?


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


If it's not all released today they haven't complied. This is really simple.

You probably should have waited to read the post just prior to yours.

Its government, its never really simple.


It really is that simple. I'm sorry you feel so compelled to find a defense for every single attempt by this admin to stop the release.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FWTXAg said:


You're arguing with someone who previously said this law had no teeth if I remember correctly, don't work too hard to convince these partisan hacks of anything. It will not work, they actually believe in politicians and their "policies" lol

It actually doesn't have any teeth. Maybe Massie and buddy Ro need to go to legislating 101. Instead of driving clicks and donations, they could have coordinated with the DOJ about how much time would be needed to fully comply and put that into the law. They could have added teeth. They chose not to.

But that makes me wrong? Hot take right there.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ETFan said:


It really is that simple. I'm sorry you feel so compelled to find a defense for every single attempt by this admin to stop the release.

How are they stopping the release by releasing hundred of thousands of documents with no indication they will not release more?
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FWTXAg said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


There's nothing to "determine". The law states they must all be released today. They stated they will

You are really poor at reviewing your source material. Section 2 (c) contradicts your representation of what the law says.

What are the consequences of missing the deadline? And will they really miss the deadline?

They have 15 days to explain any information withheld. Are you going to say that "we are still reviewing information for redaction as it relates to the Section 2 (c) Permitted Withholdings" will be considered as having violated the law?

Quote:

SEC. 3. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Within 15 days of completion of the release required under Section 2, the Attorney General shall submit to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary a report listing:
(1) All categories of records released and withheld.




Prohibited Grounds for Withholding.--No record shall be
withheld, delayed, or redacted on the basis of any of the following:
``(1) Embarrassment, reputational harm, or political
sensitivity, including to any government official, public
figure, or foreign dignitary.
``(c) Permitted Withholdings.--
``(1) The Attorney General may withhold or redact the
segregable portions of records that--
``(A) contain personally identifiable information
of victims or victims' personal and medical files and
similar files the disclosure of which would constitute
a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy;
``(B) depicts or contains child sexual abuse
materials (CSAM) as defined under 18 U.S.C. 2256 and
prohibited under 18 U.S.C. 2252-2252A;
``(C) would jeopardize an active federal
investigation or ongoing prosecution, provided that
such withholding is narrowly tailored and temporary;
``(D) depicts or contains images of death, physical
abuse, or injury of any person; or
``(E) contain information specifically authorized
under criteria established by an Executive order to be
kept secret in the interest of national defense or
foreign policy and are in fact properly classified
pursuant to such Executive order.
``(2) All redactions must be accompanied by a written
justification published in the Federal Register and submitted
to Congress.
``(3) To the extent that any covered information would
otherwise be redacted or withheld as classified information
under this section, the Attorney General shall declassify that
classified information to the maximum extent possible.
``(A). If the Attorney General makes a
determination that covered information may not be
declassified and made available in a manner that
protects the national security of the United States,
including methods or sources related to national
security, the Attorney General shall release an
unclassified summary for each of the redacted or
withheld classified information.
``(4) All decisions to classify any covered information
after July 1, 2025 shall be published in the Federal Register
and submitted to Congress, including the date of
classification, the identity of the classifying authority, and
an unclassified summary of the justification.


"We did not have enough time to do our jobs" is not a permitted witholding.


You're arguing with someone who previously said this law had no teeth if I remember correctly, don't work too hard to convince these partisan hacks of anything. It will not work, they actually believe in politicians and their "policies" lol


Yeah after his latest idiotic statement I'm giving up, he is not a serious person. I'll still be posting here with news though.
Queso1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ETFan said:

flown-the-coop said:

ETFan said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:

flown-the-coop said:

PaulsBunions said:



Congratulations to Trump/Bondi/Patel for giving the Demonrats an easy win.

Congrats on you supporting the libs in their new talking points today.

By the way, the deadline hasn't passed.


Who said I'm supporting the libs? Please re review the association fallacy link I gave you earlier.

Do you think Deputy AG Blanche was lying when he said all of the files won't be released today?


Nadler switch parties?

Blanche indicated they will not get to all the files out and why. Whether that truly violates the "law" will be determined, though nothing has indicated they do not intend to full comply. Did he say he was NOT going to ultimately comply? Or that they needed more time?


If it's not all released today they haven't complied. This is really simple.

You probably should have waited to read the post just prior to yours.

Its government, its never really simple.


It really is that simple. I'm sorry you feel so compelled to find a defense for every single attempt by this admin to stop the release.


Carries the water on every single thread and every single issue.
PaulsBunions
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Oversight Dems statement:

Ervin Burrell
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

ETFan said:


It really is that simple. I'm sorry you feel so compelled to find a defense for every single attempt by this admin to stop the release.

How are they stopping the release by releasing hundred of thousands of documents with no indication they will not release more?

Did you miss them adjourning early for Xmas yesterday, suspiciously one day before the files were due to be released? What a coincidence! Christ you're insufferable.
First Page Last Page
Page 147 of 173
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.