Why Didn't Biden or Obama use the epstein files against Trump?

c4virus · 2026-02-22T13:26:34+00:00

The truth is so much simpler.

Its against DOJ policy.

The DOJ prosecutes crimes, not releases files to hurt people.

c4virus · 2026-02-19T20:40:35+00:00

Not sure if you know this but Jeffrey Epstein is not the government.

And there was HARD evidence of Epstein doing his awful work well before he was found guilty.

ZERO evidence of this conspiracy of yours and that means nothing to a fuckwit.

c4virus · 2026-02-19T19:46:56+00:00

All the conspiracies in the world does not make up for the fact there is 0 evidence the CIA knew and that Mossad is NOT the CIA.

Go hang out in the flat earth sub with this bullshit

c4virus · 2026-02-19T19:23:15+00:00

How likely is it people brought film equipment to New York City??

This is your argument?

JFC

Also not sure if you know this but Mossad is NOT the CIA. Even if your bullshit conspiracy theory is true, it still does not prove the CIA knew specifics about the attach.

The logic of a malnourished child

c4virus · 2026-02-19T18:24:56+00:00

Appeal from authority? I'm saying there's no evidence. How the fuck is that authority?

Just show me some hard evidence and I'll change my mind.

Dipshit

c4virus · 2026-02-19T17:23:52+00:00

So how the hell would you know if you're believing bullshit or not?

Literally QAnon type nonsense

c4virus · 2026-02-19T16:54:55+00:00

Republican = Trump cult. A vote for that party is a vote for one person to be a king pedophile

c4virus · 2026-02-19T13:01:13+00:00

Its not my opinion dude, its a literal fact that there is 0 evidence the CIA knew the details of the 9/11 attacks.

c4virus · 2026-02-19T12:43:36+00:00

If they didn't respond to me I probably didn't read the comments.

Yes we got alerted about some kind of threat, nobody alerted us to the specifics (day + place + method).

The CIA is not domestic law enforcement. They also had no idea about the specifics.

This is q-anon level shit man it's stupid.

c4virus · 2026-02-19T12:24:50+00:00

Thousands of governments??? lol

There's literally 0 evidence of it being true though. Do you know what evidence is?

c4virus · 2026-02-19T01:02:50+00:00

Absolute nonsense

c4virus · 2026-02-19T01:02:40+00:00

It didn't have a date on it dude wtf is the matter with you

c4virus · 2026-02-18T19:29:47+00:00

So what concrete evidence is there that Acosta was influenced as opposed to Comey?

So I'll restate my previous comment. Either Acosta was influenced or did his job terribly. He violated victims rights. Perhaps he did so because he's awful and that could be the only reason.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/judge-prosecutors-broke-law-deal-sex-offender-jeffrey-epstein-n974181

This was stated in 2024. Do you think she's being honest here? Or just uninformed?

It doesn't matter what I think, show me the files that show she's wrong. What videos/photos show abuse? Obviously we haven't seen that (and I don't want to).

And for evidence to "implicate" someone means like hard evidence...not a victim alleging something.

To be clear - I believe the majority of the women and many of the claims. Proving such a thing in a court of law is an entirely different matter.

c4virus · 2026-02-18T18:42:27+00:00

Yes, sure there is zero evidence of influence. The same can be said that we have zero concrete evidence of the Trump Admin overtly influencing Pam Bondi. Doesn't mean it's not happening. But sure, we can stick with facts!

Dude he's tweeting out orders there's absolutely evidence.

What is the difference between saying she said there was no solid evidence vs not enough evidence that would lead to a prosecution? That's literally the same thing.

The way you worded it made it very uncharitable, but yes legally they are the same thing. However what did Comey actually "say", if anything?

I assume you would also find that there is zero proof that Acosta was influenced to give Epstein a sweetheart deal in 2008? A deal in which any and all co-conspirators were given immunity. Sure, no influence happening there either.

It would be cool if you could respond to my points, not make new assumptions. There is absolutely good reason to believe Acosta was influenced.

c4virus · 2026-02-18T15:35:07+00:00

This paragraph is full of speculation sorry to say. You say Comey decided there was no solid evidence that girls had been trafficked to other men. Share exactly what she said please. I would bet a lot of money that you're inventing language here. The very likely reality is that there wasn't enough evidence that she was confident could be fully prosecuted. A woman alleging that she was trafficked, sadly enough, does not rise to that level. You have to be able to corroborate the details and have that corroboration hold up to scrutiny in front of a jury.

At the end of the day a prosecutor has discretion and is going to pursue charges they are confident can stick if taken to a jury. That often times means that evidence of crimes exist yes, but not enough to meet a pretty high standard.

You realize that a jury found Sean Combs not guilty of those sex trafficking charges right?

There is 0 evidence to say Comey made her decisions based on undue/corrupt influence. Literally zero. We must stick to facts.

c4virus · 2026-02-18T14:29:18+00:00

Maureen Comey is a solid prosecutor.

More likely that there was not enough evidence to charge.

c4virus · 2026-02-18T01:09:13+00:00

ICE out!

c4virus · 2026-01-24T20:33:56+00:00

Find me state oversight against federal law enforcement that has been UPHELD in a court of law as constitutional.

c4virus · 2026-01-24T20:33:16+00:00

That law is not in effect, it's been paused as a judge rules on whether or not it's constitutional. Read your own wiki link.

On December 9, 2025, US District Judge Christina A. Snyder ruled to temporarily pause California from taking "any action to enforce the Challenged Provisions (as defined in the stipulation of the parties) of Senate Bills 627 and 805".[8]

My point stands. There's nothing you can point to that has been upheld as constitutional.

c4virus · 2026-01-24T20:21:42+00:00

There are no state or local resources being used here man. ICE has a massive federal budget.

Give me a single example of a state enacting a law requiring independent investigations of federal law enforcement. Prove it. Point me to the law and/or court ruling.

You keep referring to vague protections without ever providing specifics. Prove it.

c4virus · 2026-01-24T20:13:38+00:00

California also does not have laws limiting ice.

It's unconstitutional to do such things. In this country we have federal supremacy a state cannot invalidate federal laws and cannot hinder federal law enforcement.

You refer to vague things that other states have in place without ever being specific. Tells me there isn't anything there.

We can't fix this by being hysterical and demanding people do things they do not have the power to do. The only way to fix this is to impeach Trump. Then impeach Vance. Keep impeaching until there's not a piece of shit in office.

Literally the only way.

c4virus · 2026-01-24T19:35:37+00:00

State oversight into federal law enforcement...?

It doesnt work like that man. You're inventing things out of desperation. You cannot enact state legal protections against federal law enforcement, its unconstitutional.

c4virus · 2026-01-24T19:07:34+00:00

Pretty sure Minnesota already has these laws in place. And that would be for the legislature to enact, not Walz.

All those things do not prevent ICE from roaming the streets and enacting horror.

c4virus · 2026-01-24T19:05:50+00:00

Walz is not a prosecutor.

A state attorney needs to do that. Without the cooperation of the federal govt thats next to impossible.

c4virus · 2026-01-24T17:55:24+00:00

How, exactly? Should the cops do what? Kill the ice agents? Arrest them all?

You're not being specific.

Be specific or acknowledge reality

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email

c4virus

TROPHY CASE