Jeffrey Epstein and Friends

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Shadow quoting is back! I’ll check with the nary a knicker bunched before posting bullshite or A.I. going forward. Good to have a gatekeeper!

mickeyrat

meidastouch adbook post

BREAKING: DOJ Files Indicate FBI Sought to Pursue Child Sex Trafficking Investigation Into Trump Based on Accuser’s Account

Bombshell new reporting by journalist Roger Sollenberger

Newly surfaced details from the DOJ’s Epstein files make one thing unmistakably clear: federal authorities took seriously the allegation from an Epstein victim who told the FBI that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her as a child — and sought her cooperation in what appears to have been a potential criminal child sex trafficking investigation.

As first reported by Roger Sollenberger, internal FBI records show the woman was identified as a victim who “claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate.” Former senior DOJ officials say this language strongly indicates that federal investigators approached her about helping pursue a criminal case involving Trump.

In other words, the FBI was not dismissing her account. They were attempting to build a case.

The internal email, dated July 22, 2025 and titled “Names in JE file,” lists Trump first among “positive case hits.” Notably, none of the other prominent names mentioned in Epstein-related materials carry similar annotations suggesting a victim allegation tied to potential prosecution.

This aligns with other reporting showing that the woman held a uniquely sensitive status in the DOJ’s files. She is reportedly the only victim marked “PROTECT SOURCE” — a designation indicating heightened concern about retaliation.

In one released FBI interview, her attorney cited “fear of retaliation” when Trump’s name was raised. That context sheds light on why she may have declined to cooperate further, even as investigators appeared interested in moving forward.

At least four FBI interviews with the accuser exist. Yet only one has been released publicly.

The remaining interviews — along with accompanying FBI notes — remain in federal possession but undisclosed, despite the DOJ acknowledging that versions of these materials exist outside the protective order tied to the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

The DOJ’s handling of the broader Epstein file release has already drawn intense criticism. The rollout exposed sensitive victim information, including names, identifying details, and reportedly even uncensored images of young females.

Adding to the controversy, the DOJ initially published the name of the Trump accuser before later redacting it. Another identifying detail tied to her case reportedly remains unredacted in the public database.

Taken together, the records suggest the federal government viewed this woman’s allegation not as peripheral, but as potentially central to a prosecutable matter.

A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Elect a clown, expect a clown show. Naaaaa, it’s always been like this, DC  just DC’ing. Oh yea, Hillary testifies today and Bill tomorrow. Wonder if they’ll ask her about Comet Pizza?

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/26/politics/epstein-photos-redacted-nudes

gimmesometruth27

mickeyrat said:

meidastouch adbook post

BREAKING: DOJ Files Indicate FBI Sought to Pursue Child Sex Trafficking Investigation Into Trump Based on Accuser’s Account

Bombshell new reporting by journalist Roger Sollenberger

Newly surfaced details from the DOJ’s Epstein files make one thing unmistakably clear: federal authorities took seriously the allegation from an Epstein victim who told the FBI that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her as a child — and sought her cooperation in what appears to have been a potential criminal child sex trafficking investigation.

As first reported by Roger Sollenberger, internal FBI records show the woman was identified as a victim who “claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate.” Former senior DOJ officials say this language strongly indicates that federal investigators approached her about helping pursue a criminal case involving Trump.

In other words, the FBI was not dismissing her account. They were attempting to build a case.

The internal email, dated July 22, 2025 and titled “Names in JE file,” lists Trump first among “positive case hits.” Notably, none of the other prominent names mentioned in Epstein-related materials carry similar annotations suggesting a victim allegation tied to potential prosecution.

This aligns with other reporting showing that the woman held a uniquely sensitive status in the DOJ’s files. She is reportedly the only victim marked “PROTECT SOURCE” — a designation indicating heightened concern about retaliation.

In one released FBI interview, her attorney cited “fear of retaliation” when Trump’s name was raised. That context sheds light on why she may have declined to cooperate further, even as investigators appeared interested in moving forward.

At least four FBI interviews with the accuser exist. Yet only one has been released publicly.

The remaining interviews — along with accompanying FBI notes — remain in federal possession but undisclosed, despite the DOJ acknowledging that versions of these materials exist outside the protective order tied to the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

The DOJ’s handling of the broader Epstein file release has already drawn intense criticism. The rollout exposed sensitive victim information, including names, identifying details, and reportedly even uncensored images of young females.

Adding to the controversy, the DOJ initially published the name of the Trump accuser before later redacting it. Another identifying detail tied to her case reportedly remains unredacted in the public database.

Taken together, the records suggest the federal government viewed this woman’s allegation not as peripheral, but as potentially central to a prosecutable matter.

A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

someone grab a shovel, because they are gonna bury this 100 feet deep.

Halifax2TheMax

gimmesometruth27 said:

mickeyrat said:

meidastouch adbook post

BREAKING: DOJ Files Indicate FBI Sought to Pursue Child Sex Trafficking Investigation Into Trump Based on Accuser’s Account

Bombshell new reporting by journalist Roger Sollenberger

Newly surfaced details from the DOJ’s Epstein files make one thing unmistakably clear: federal authorities took seriously the allegation from an Epstein victim who told the FBI that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her as a child — and sought her cooperation in what appears to have been a potential criminal child sex trafficking investigation.

As first reported by Roger Sollenberger, internal FBI records show the woman was identified as a victim who “claimed abuse by Trump but ultimately refused to cooperate.” Former senior DOJ officials say this language strongly indicates that federal investigators approached her about helping pursue a criminal case involving Trump.

In other words, the FBI was not dismissing her account. They were attempting to build a case.

The internal email, dated July 22, 2025 and titled “Names in JE file,” lists Trump first among “positive case hits.” Notably, none of the other prominent names mentioned in Epstein-related materials carry similar annotations suggesting a victim allegation tied to potential prosecution.

This aligns with other reporting showing that the woman held a uniquely sensitive status in the DOJ’s files. She is reportedly the only victim marked “PROTECT SOURCE” — a designation indicating heightened concern about retaliation.

In one released FBI interview, her attorney cited “fear of retaliation” when Trump’s name was raised. That context sheds light on why she may have declined to cooperate further, even as investigators appeared interested in moving forward.

At least four FBI interviews with the accuser exist. Yet only one has been released publicly.

The remaining interviews — along with accompanying FBI notes — remain in federal possession but undisclosed, despite the DOJ acknowledging that versions of these materials exist outside the protective order tied to the Ghislaine Maxwell case.

The DOJ’s handling of the broader Epstein file release has already drawn intense criticism. The rollout exposed sensitive victim information, including names, identifying details, and reportedly even uncensored images of young females.

Adding to the controversy, the DOJ initially published the name of the Trump accuser before later redacting it. Another identifying detail tied to her case reportedly remains unredacted in the public database.

Taken together, the records suggest the federal government viewed this woman’s allegation not as peripheral, but as potentially central to a prosecutable matter.

A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

someone grab a shovel, because they are gonna bury this 100 feet deep.

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

They already have and it’s much too late for any sense of justice to prevail. And the press has been complicit. A lot, and I mean a lot, of this has been previously reported but not by the major players in the game, and not at the time and to the extent that it may have made a difference.

PJ_Soul

Halifax2TheMax said:

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Can we post things like this or will it twist knickers into a bunch? Asking the audience of 7. And yes, there’s an Epstein reference.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DVK9YijEUPK/?igsh=MWN6OW1hMXdienpzZA==

LOL

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

From NYT coverage:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton briefly halted her closed-door testimony before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday afternoon after learning that a Republican attendee had leaked an image from inside the deposition, prompting an eruption in the room as her lawyers vociferously objected.

Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado shared a photograph of Mrs. Clinton answering questions, which was posted on social media by Benny Johnson, a right-wing podcaster. Mrs. Clinton’s attorneys immediately asked to pause the proceedings, noting that the former secretary of state had been denied her request for a public hearing. The deposition resumed about 30 minutes later.

The disruption came after a defiant opening statement from Mrs. Clinton, who decried House Republicans for forcing her to participate in their investigation into the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and accused them of using her as a prop in “partisan political theater.”

“You have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump’s actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers,” she said according to a copy of her statement provided in advance.

“You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files,” she added, noting that not a single Republican had attended a closed-door session last week in Ohio to depose Leslie Wexner, the retail billionaire and prolific donor to G.O.P. candidates.

Representative Suhas Subramanyam, Democrat of Virginia, said the first hour of the deposition before the interruption had been an embarrassment to Republicans, turning up nothing of significance.

“Secretary Clinton is puzzled as to why she’s here answering questions,” he said. “I’m trying to figure out what else to ask her. She doesn’t know much.”

He said that Republicans had grilled her about Mr. Epstein’s involvement in raising money for the Clinton Global Initiative. But Mrs. Clinton was a senator during the years when her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was starting his foundation. And she told the committee she had not been involved.

Speaking to reporters ahead of the deposition, Representative James R. Comer of Kentucky, the Republican chairman of the Oversight Committee, appeared defensive about why the panel was investigating Mrs. Clinton, a Democrat who has said she never met or spoke to Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019. 

Mr. Comer noted that Democrats on the committee had voted to hold both Clintons in contempt of Congress if they did not appear to testify. He also reiterated his claim that Hillary Clinton was of interest to the committee because Ms. Maxwell, a longtime companion of Epstein, attended her daughter Chelsea Clinton’s wedding.

Mr. Subramanyam said Ms. Maxwell had been “a guest of a guest at the wedding,” adding that Mrs. Clinton “didn’t really know or talk to her in any way.”

Some Democrats on the Oversight Committee were careful not to criticize Republicans on the panel for investigating the Clintons, saying that they were happy to question to anyone who might have knowledge of Mr. Epstein’s and Ms. Maxwell’s crimes. 

Others were more blunt. “There is no indication — zero, zip, zilch, nada — that Secretary Clinton had any knowledge of Epstein’s crimes,” said Representative James Walkinshaw, Democrat of Virginia. “My fear is we’re here today as part of a political exercise, part of a long-running fever dream where Republicans want to lock up Secretary Clinton.”

In her opening comments, Mrs. Clinton said that she had never met Epstein and knew nothing of his criminal activities. 

“I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein,” she said, according to her prepared statement. “I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.”

Mr. Clinton is slated to testify on Friday.

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

From NYT coverage:

Representative Robert Garcia of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, came out to make some brief remarks at the two-hour mark of Hillary Clinton’s deposition. “Secretary Clinton never met Jeffrey Epstein, she never visited the island, she never flew on his plane,” he said. “Zero knowledge of any wrongdoing.” 

Garcia said that the Republicans had broken their own rules by releasing photos of the closed deposition and that Clinton had been gracious to continue to answer questions.

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

From NYT coverage:

Representative Yassamin Ansari, Democrat of Arizona, also took a break to speak to reporters outside a performing arts center in Chappaqua, N.Y., where the House Oversight Committee investigating the Epstein matter has been taking a deposition from Hillary Clinton. “We are sitting through an incredibly unserious clown show of a deposition,” she said, adding that Republicans in Congress were more concerned with getting photos of the closed proceeding out than “than holding anyone accountable.”

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

From NYT coverage:

Representative Robert Garcia, a California Democrat, is now calling on the Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer of Kentucky, to release a full transcript of Hillary Clinton’s deposition within 24 hours of its conclusion. He is asking that reporters be allowed into the room on Friday to hear former President Bill Clinton’s deposition. A spokeswoman for Comer has previously said the committee intends to release the full transcript and video, both unedited, but did not say when.

mickeyrat

BREAKING: As Hillary Clinton heads into a closed-door deposition related to the Epstein investigation, she released a pointed opening statement, making clear she knew nothing about Epstein and slamming the Republicans for not allowing her to testify in public.

Below is her full, unedited statement:

SECRETARY CLINTON'S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee... as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.

As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.

The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.

As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.

Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It's unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.

Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government's handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein's crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before the Committee. Five of the six former attorneys general were allowed to submit brief statements stating they had no information to provide.

You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today, despite espousing the need for transparency on dozens of occasions.

You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not a single Republican Member showed up for Les Wexner's deposition.

This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors, as well as the public who also want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors. And I am furious on their behalf.

I have spent my life advocating for women and girls. I have worked hard to stop the terrible abuses so many women and girls face here and around the world, including human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual slavery. For too long, these have been largely invisible crimes or not treated as crimes at all. But the survivors are real and they are entitled to better.

In Southeast Asia, I met girls as young as twelve years old who were forced into prostitution and raped repeatedly. Some were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I met mothers who told me how they lost daughters to trafficking and did not know where to turn. In settings around the world, I met survivors trying to rebuild their lives and help rescue others — with little support from people in power, who too often turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder.

If you are new to this issue, let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein was a heinous individual, but he's far from alone. This is not a one-off tabloid sensation or a political scandal.

It's a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll.

My work combatting sex trafficking goes back to my days as First Lady. I worked to pass the first federal legislation against trafficking and was proud that my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which increased support for survivors and gave prosecutors better tools for going after traffickers.

As Secretary of State, I appointed a former federal prosecutor, Lou deBaca, to ramp up our global antitrafficking efforts. I oversaw nearly 170 anti-trafficking programs in 70 nations and directly pressed foreign leaders to crack down on trafficking networks in their countries. Every year we published a global report to shine a light on abuses.

The findings of those reports triggered sanctions on countries failing to make progress, so they became a powerful diplomatic tool to drive concrete action.

I insisted that the United States be included in the report for the first time ever in 2011. Because we must hold ourselves not just to the same standard as the rest of the world but to an even higher one. Sex trafficking and modern slavery should have no place in America. None.

Infuriatingly, the Trump Administration gutted the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department, cutting more than 70 percent of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked so hard to prevent trafficking crimes. The annual trafficking report, required by law, was delayed for months. The message from the Trump Administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer: combatting human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump White House.

That is a tragedy. It's a scandal. It deserves vigorous investigation and oversight.

A committee endeavoring to stop human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008.

A committee run by elected officials with a commitment to transparency would ensure the full release of all the files.

It would ensure that the lawful redactions of those files protected the victims and survivors, not powerful men and political allies.

It would get to the bottom of reports that DOJ withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accuses President Trump of heinous crimes.

It would subpoena anyone who asked on which night there would be the "wildest party" on Epstein's island.

It would demand testimony from prosecutors in Florida and New York about why they gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and chose not to pursue others who may have been implicated.

It would demand that Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi testify about why this administration is abandoning survivors and playing into the hands of traffickers.

It would seek out officers on the front lines of this fight and ask them what support they need.

It would put forth legislation to provide more resources and force this administration to act.

But that's not happening.

Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump's actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.

If this Committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein's trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement; it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.

If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions. There is too much that needs to be done.

What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?

My challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust the American people have given you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. They expect you to use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein's crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking.

gimmesometruth27

why did boebert have benny johnson post a photo of hillary testifying when they were instructed at the very beginning of the hearing that no photos were to be taken of the proceedings and posted??

these people are deeply unserious.

Gern Blansten

It's so fucking depressing to see Clinton speak and think about how much better off we would be if she would have won.

Unreal

PJ_Soul

Gern Blansten said:

It's so fucking depressing to see Clinton speak and think about how much better off we would be if she would have won.

Unreal

It totally is, and infuriating... But I don't know wtf America thought it was doing back then. I remember the Hillary hate going on, and it very obviously defied logic, but everyone totally ran with it, and not just the right wing. It was fucking nuts. 

gimmesometruth27

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

It's so fucking depressing to see Clinton speak and think about how much better off we would be if she would have won.

Unreal

It totally is, and infuriating... But I don't know wtf America thought it was doing back then. I remember the Hillary hate going on, and it very obviously defied logic, but everyone totally ran with it, and not just the right wing. It was fucking nuts. 

people thought she would be too emotional.


clearly they lacked the foresight to see that a man could be infinitely more emotional and less stable. yet here we are for a second time.

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

BREAKING: As Hillary Clinton heads into a closed-door deposition related to the Epstein investigation, she released a pointed opening statement, making clear she knew nothing about Epstein and slamming the Republicans for not allowing her to testify in public.

Below is her full, unedited statement:

SECRETARY CLINTON'S OPENING STATEMENT

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the Committee... as a former Senator, I have respect for legislative oversight and I expect its exercise, as do the American people, to be principled and fearless in pursuit of truth and accountability.

As we all know, however, too often Congressional investigations are partisan political theater, which is an abdication of duty and an insult to the American people.

The Committee justified its subpoena to me based on its assumption that I have information regarding the investigations into the criminal activities of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Let me be as clear as I can. I do not.

As I stated in my sworn declaration on January 13, I had no idea about their criminal activities. I do not recall ever encountering Mr. Epstein. I never flew on his plane or visited his island, homes or offices. I have nothing to add to that.

Like every decent person, I have been horrified by what we have learned about their crimes. It's unfathomable that Mr. Epstein initially got a slap on the wrist in 2008, which allowed him to continue his predatory practices for another decade.

Mr. Chairman, your investigation is supposed to be assessing the federal government's handling of the investigations and prosecutions of Epstein and his crimes. You subpoenaed eight law enforcement officials, all of whom ran the Department of Justice or directed the FBI when Epstein's crimes were investigated and prosecuted. Of those eight, only one appeared before the Committee. Five of the six former attorneys general were allowed to submit brief statements stating they had no information to provide.

You have held zero public hearings, refused to allow the media to attend them, including today, despite espousing the need for transparency on dozens of occasions.

You have made little effort to call the people who show up most prominently in the Epstein files. And when you did, not a single Republican Member showed up for Les Wexner's deposition.

This institutional failure is designed to protect one political party and one public official, rather than to seek truth and justice for the victims and survivors, as well as the public who also want to get to the bottom of this matter. My heart breaks for the survivors. And I am furious on their behalf.

I have spent my life advocating for women and girls. I have worked hard to stop the terrible abuses so many women and girls face here and around the world, including human trafficking, forced labor, and sexual slavery. For too long, these have been largely invisible crimes or not treated as crimes at all. But the survivors are real and they are entitled to better.

In Southeast Asia, I met girls as young as twelve years old who were forced into prostitution and raped repeatedly. Some were dying of AIDS. In Eastern Europe, I met mothers who told me how they lost daughters to trafficking and did not know where to turn. In settings around the world, I met survivors trying to rebuild their lives and help rescue others — with little support from people in power, who too often turned a blind eye and a cold shoulder.

If you are new to this issue, let me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein was a heinous individual, but he's far from alone. This is not a one-off tabloid sensation or a political scandal.

It's a global scourge with an unimaginable human toll.

My work combatting sex trafficking goes back to my days as First Lady. I worked to pass the first federal legislation against trafficking and was proud that my husband signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which increased support for survivors and gave prosecutors better tools for going after traffickers.

As Secretary of State, I appointed a former federal prosecutor, Lou deBaca, to ramp up our global antitrafficking efforts. I oversaw nearly 170 anti-trafficking programs in 70 nations and directly pressed foreign leaders to crack down on trafficking networks in their countries. Every year we published a global report to shine a light on abuses.

The findings of those reports triggered sanctions on countries failing to make progress, so they became a powerful diplomatic tool to drive concrete action.

I insisted that the United States be included in the report for the first time ever in 2011. Because we must hold ourselves not just to the same standard as the rest of the world but to an even higher one. Sex trafficking and modern slavery should have no place in America. None.

Infuriatingly, the Trump Administration gutted the Trafficking in Persons Office at the State Department, cutting more than 70 percent of the career civil and foreign service experts who worked so hard to prevent trafficking crimes. The annual trafficking report, required by law, was delayed for months. The message from the Trump Administration to the American people and the world could not be clearer: combatting human trafficking is no longer an American priority under the Trump White House.

That is a tragedy. It's a scandal. It deserves vigorous investigation and oversight.

A committee endeavoring to stop human trafficking would seek to understand what specific steps are needed to fix a system that allowed Epstein to get away with his crimes in 2008.

A committee run by elected officials with a commitment to transparency would ensure the full release of all the files.

It would ensure that the lawful redactions of those files protected the victims and survivors, not powerful men and political allies.

It would get to the bottom of reports that DOJ withheld FBI interviews in which a survivor accuses President Trump of heinous crimes.

It would subpoena anyone who asked on which night there would be the "wildest party" on Epstein's island.

It would demand testimony from prosecutors in Florida and New York about why they gave Epstein a sweetheart deal and chose not to pursue others who may have been implicated.

It would demand that Secretary Rubio and Attorney General Bondi testify about why this administration is abandoning survivors and playing into the hands of traffickers.

It would seek out officers on the front lines of this fight and ask them what support they need.

It would put forth legislation to provide more resources and force this administration to act.

But that's not happening.

Instead, you have compelled me to testify, fully aware that I have no knowledge that would assist your investigation, in order to distract attention from President Trump's actions and to cover them up despite legitimate calls for answers.

If this Committee is serious about learning the truth about Epstein's trafficking crimes, it would not rely on press gaggles to get answers from our current president on his involvement; it would ask him directly under oath about the tens of thousands of times he shows up in the Epstein files.

If the majority was serious, it would not waste time on fishing expeditions. There is too much that needs to be done.

What is being held back? Who is being protected? And why the cover-up?

My challenge to you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, is the same challenge I put to myself throughout my long service to this nation. How to be worthy of the trust the American people have given you. They expect statesmanship, not gamesmanship. Leading, not grandstanding. They expect you to use your power to get to the truth and to do more to help survivors of Epstein's crimes as well as the millions more who are victims of sex trafficking.

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

I hope she read her opening statement out loud and on camera, which I hope pans or has a split screen so you can see the repub clowns’ facial expressions and not allowed it to just be entered into the record.

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

There’s a reason for the “sloppiness” and “carelessness”. No secret what the DOJ did and why they did it. Some might just say, “it’s been this way for decades”, or “just DC, DC’ing” or that you’re an “idealist” and don’t understand “how things really work in DC”, as they dismiss it and ask what lies CCOOTWH has told. It’s how it happens, folks, and it’s got Rodger Dodger Stone’s and Pam Bondage’s fingerprints all over it.

Justice Department Exposed Cooperating Witnesses in Epstein Files

The disclosure is the latest example of how the urgent push to release the files led to the government publicizing information it would normally keep under wraps.

consequences.

The simple words, “proffer at 500,” amounted to a sign that seven of the defendants listed on two 2019 documents released in the files were either cooperating with federal prosecutors or seeking to do so.

And in fact, several of the men whose names appeared with that phrase on the internal documents did cooperate, after talking to prosecutors in what are known as proffer sessions at 500 Pearl Street, the address of the federal district courthouse in Manhattan.

By failing to redact the names of those seven people, who were being held at the Manhattan jail where Mr. Epstein was awaiting trial, the government may have put them in harm’s way. The disclosure of the names could also send a chilling message to anyone else considering whether to cooperate with the authorities.

When initially informed that the names had been included in the Epstein Files, the Justice Department did not redact the documents further or remove them from the online database. A spokeswoman said that the word proffer “did not necessarily mean cooperator.”

But after The New York Times confirmed that at least three of the seven people had in fact cooperated with the government, and then informed the department, agency officials took down the files. They then restored them with the names and notations redacted.

Even if the people in question had not cooperated, legal experts said, the phrase could indicate that they had attempted to do so, which would still have put them in harm’s way by signaling to co-defendants and criminal associates that they were willing to provide information to prosecutors.

“It’s very upsetting,” said Marc Greenwald, a partner at Quinn Emanuel and a former prosecutor who was involved in one of the seven cases, adding that in many instances the names of those who cooperate are never revealed to the public, and should not be. “Some of these gangs and transnational organizations have long memories,” Mr. Greenwald said.

The Times has not named the seven people, or provided any other identifying information.

The disclosure is the latest example underscoring how the urgent push to release the files resulted in the Justice Department publicizing information that prosecutors would normally take pains to keep private. The agency also released dozens of unredacted nude images on its website, showing young women or possibly minors, and re-exposed the names and identifying information of women who have accused Mr. Epstein.

The failure to redact the inmates’ names makes plain that it is not only the rich and powerful who have been imperiled by the rush to release the files. Their publication has also affected people from very different stations in life who never traveled to Mr. Epstein’s private island, flew on his private jet or did business with him.

The revelation also raises questions about what other sensitive information might have slipped through the Justice Department’s hasty redaction process and remain, in effect, hidden in plain sight in the vast online digital repository that contains the files.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/26/nyregion/epstein-cooperating-witnesses-redaction-error.html

PJ_Soul

gimmesometruth27 said:

PJ_Soul said:

Gern Blansten said:

It's so fucking depressing to see Clinton speak and think about how much better off we would be if she would have won.

Unreal

It totally is, and infuriating... But I don't know wtf America thought it was doing back then. I remember the Hillary hate going on, and it very obviously defied logic, but everyone totally ran with it, and not just the right wing. It was fucking nuts. 

people thought she would be too emotional.


clearly they lacked the foresight to see that a man could be infinitely more emotional and less stable. yet here we are for a second time.

That actually wasn't my impression at all. I don't feel it was about her being a woman. I remember it being all about the fucking email bullshit, and fucking Benghazi somehow, and then Comey fucked it all up. As a feminist, I genuinely never felt like the anti-Hillary insanity had anything to do with sexism. I mean, maybe there were some going that way, but i don't feel like that was what made difference.... ultimately, I think that if poor Comey hadn't done what he did right before the election, Hillary would have squeaked through, which is devastating. However, the general hate before that was ALL the media's fault. 

cincybearcat

I think the fact that the Clintons are just sleezy and unlikeable in many ways was a big issue.  That said, she was still the most likeable candidate on the ballot.  Hillary lost the midwest and here is what AI has to say about why...

1. Erosion with white working-class voters
Counties across Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that had supported Barack Obama swung sharply toward **Donald Trump. Trump’s economic populist message on trade, manufacturing, and globalization resonated with many non-college white voters who felt economically left behind.

2. Trade and economic messaging mismatch
Trump hammered NAFTA and outsourcing in industrial regions. Clinton’s long public record—including past support for some trade agreements—made it harder to fully neutralize that attack, even though her campaign proposed pro-worker policies.

3. Campaign strategy and resource allocation
Clinton’s campaign invested heavily in Sun Belt opportunities and data-driven turnout modeling that assumed the “Blue Wall” was relatively secure. She did not visit Wisconsin after the convention, and late resources were spread thin when the race tightened.

4. Rural and small-town surge for Trump
Trump ran up very large margins in rural counties across the Midwest, overwhelming Democratic gains in urban areas. This geographic polarization was stronger than in prior elections.

5. Long-standing image and trust issues
Clinton entered the race with relatively high unfavorable ratings after decades in national politics. In the Midwest, where persuasion margins were thin, this made swing voters more willing to consider change.

---

Why Democratic turnout was relatively low

1. Drop-off from Obama-era enthusiasm
Obama’s historic candidacies in 2008 and 2012 produced unusually high turnout among young voters and Black voters. Replicating that surge proved difficult for any successor.

2. Late-campaign uncertainty from the FBI letter
The late October announcement by James Comey about reviewing Clinton emails coincided with a measurable tightening in polls. Research suggests it particularly affected soft Democratic and undecided voters.

3. Lack of strong anti-Trump consolidation early
Some Democratic-leaning voters disliked both candidates and either stayed home or voted third party. This mattered in extremely close states.

4. Complacency from polling and expectations
Public polling and media forecasts widely favored Clinton. Some analysts believe this may have reduced urgency among marginal Democratic voters in key states.

5. Voter suppression and voting rule changes (debated impact)
Strict voter ID laws and administrative changes in states like Wisconsin were argued by some researchers and civil rights groups to have reduced turnout among certain Democratic-leaning groups, though scholars debate the size of this effect.

---

Bottom line

Clinton’s loss in the Midwest came from small shifts across multiple groups and regions, combined with slightly lower Democratic turnout in precisely the states where margins were razor thin.

If you’d like, I can show the exact county swings in Michigan/Wisconsin/Pennsylvania that flipped the election—they’re pretty striking.

Halifax2TheMax

*The following opinion is mine and mine alone and does not represent the views of my family, friends, government and/or my past, present or future employer. US Department of State: 1-888-407-4747.

Anyone else find it ironic that on the same day that Hillary testified regarding the poor and criminal behaviour of men, the US women’s gold medal hockey team had to hold a press conference to explain the poor behaviour of men? What a country.

Women, it’s all their fault. For everything.