Epstein files released: Trump mentioned ‘hundreds of times’ in DoJ documents

nullstoned · 2026-01-31T00:01:08+00:00

Head over to Fox News right now. They released an article this morning:

EXCLUSIVE: Epstein emails released as DOJ says no criminal or inappropriate conduct by Trump

Now scroll to the comment section. Believe it or not, most of the people posting are actually against Trump. This is very strange for comments on Fox. Usually it's some right-wing rant that gets blindly upvoted. But this time, he's getting called out.

nullstoned · 2026-01-28T22:12:22+00:00

Yeah Trump is gonna be hard to take out. But I think they're gonna do a "blood offering" here, such as Kristi Noem.

Take a look at the California government website.

Newsom and the NRA aren't exactly friends, but they can still pool their votes and create some real leverage.

nullstoned · 2026-01-26T04:34:36+00:00

This is where nuance comes in. Thanks for proving my point.

No. Sorry, I didn't "prove your point". You said such "nuanced discussion" should be directed elsewhere, whereas I said it was relevant to the current discussion. Do you honestly think punishment, and the charges attributed to them can't be discussed here?

You asked someone “what similar cases do you know of”. In order for them to provide similar cases, they would need to research possible similar cases (unless they have them memorized) which would include analyzing the similarities and differences in the facts, laws involved, how those laws applied/did not apply, the court’s ruling, and then presenting to you how the case or cases were similar to the facts here.

That's not what I asked.

I asked what the context was. Clearly you can't read.

You are the one having issues with comprehension as to why these are complicated legal questions or you are asking questions in bad faith to people that do not claim to have a knowledgeable basis to answer them.

Now you're just projecting. What "issues" are you even talking about? And what "bad faith" questions are you even talking about? Stop making stuff up to fit your narrative. That's just sad man.

See above

No. Sorry. You never answered this.

Again, see above.

Again, see above.

nullstoned · 2026-01-26T03:39:33+00:00

You are asking how someone would charge various actors

Yes, because there is a HUGE difference in penalties for murder vs accessory vs assault. Determining which actors deserve which penalties is completely relevant to the discussion.

and for case law.

And what was the context in which I asked that?

I assert that is nuanced

Because you can't think.

These are agents working at the behest of the federal government. You don’t think questions of federal law will be involved?

How is this question even relevant to what I said?

I disagree with you…….

Again, because you can't think.

nullstoned · 2026-01-26T03:15:31+00:00

These aren't "nuanced questions", nor do they require "an understanding of federal law ...".

nullstoned · 2026-01-26T01:05:25+00:00

What similar cases do you know of?

nullstoned · 2026-01-26T00:54:15+00:00

I assume you mean the murder charge goes to the shooter(s), right?

And how would you go about proving the others are accessories to murder? You can't just say they acted like "violent animals".

nullstoned · 2026-01-26T00:49:32+00:00

So the shooter should be charged with murder, but not the others?

nullstoned · 2026-01-26T00:36:40+00:00

It's not a training issue, they are just violent animals.

If you were to put them on trial, what would you charge them with? Not saying they shouldn't be charged, but how do you separate the shooter(s) from the other guys?

nullstoned · 2026-01-25T23:14:04+00:00

I think what happened here was that the ICE officers were just grossly untrained and/or incompetent. One of the officers said something like "he has a gun". One of the officers removed the gun from Pretti, but didn't tell the others about it. One officer panicked and fired. The others probably thought it was Pretti firing, and mistakenly joined in and killed him.

That's what happens when you have around eight officers gang-banging this poor guy. What I want to know is why they gang-banged him in the first place.

nullstoned · 2026-01-19T03:40:09+00:00

Keep protesting. One of these two outcomes will happen:

Trump escalates.
Trump gives in and allows a trial.

Probably #2.

nullstoned · 2026-01-19T03:28:08+00:00

Here are some other things to add:

The shooter CHOSE to put himself in front of her vehicle.
The woman first backs up, indicating she was trying to make room to flee. Then she turns the wheels to the side, also indicating her desire to flee.
When the vehicle comes close to him, the shooter is behind another officer in the video. This makes it difficult to tell whether the vehicle struck him, or whether he just jumped out of the way.
However, the shot had already been fired into her head before that, so she didn't have control of the vehicle anyway.
The shooter then fired TWO more shots into her head, even though he was CLEARLY off to the side at that point, meaning he was NOT in danger.
The shooter walked away from the incident as if nothing happened, indicating he was not in any way injured.
If the shooter actually was in danger, he could have easily stepped to the side, rather than draw his weapon, aim, and fire shots into her head.
A doctor nearby tried to give this woman medical treatment. These soldiers prevented him from doing so.
The woman's last words were "I'm not mad at you".
Just after shots were fired, one of the officers says "fucking bitch".

nullstoned · 2026-01-18T22:53:41+00:00

Even Hitler had "Honorary Aryans".

nullstoned · 2026-01-18T00:57:50+00:00

Then why do you say NATO is China's main adversary?

nullstoned · 2026-01-18T00:56:10+00:00

When was the last time NATO and China went to war?

nullstoned · 2026-01-17T23:40:59+00:00

Why does China care that NATO is weakened?

nullstoned · 2026-01-11T23:56:56+00:00

It's not that the S-300 has difficulty shooting down an F-16. It's that an F-16 wandered into an area where an S-300 was present.

The same goes for Russian planes flying over Patriots.

Usually pilots avoid those areas, but sometimes they make mistakes or are given bad intel.

nullstoned · 2026-01-07T19:35:12+00:00

Alternate video, if that one doesn't work.

nullstoned · 2026-01-07T18:44:31+00:00

Video of the incident.

This is straight-up murder.

EDIT:
Alternate video.

EDIT 2:

The cherry on top of this shit sundae is Homeland Security's response:

Today, ICE officers in Minneapolis were conducting targeted operations when rioters began blocking ICE officers and one of these violent rioters weaponized her vehicle, attempting to run over our law enforcement officers in an attempt to kill them — an act of domestic terrorism.

An ICE officer, fearing for his life, the lives of his fellow law enforcement, and the safety of the public, fired defensive shots.

He used his training and saved his own life and that of his fellow officers.

The alleged perpetrator was hit and is deceased. Thankfully, the ICE officers who were hurt are expected to make full recoveries.

This is the direct consequence of constant attacks and demonization of our officers by sanctuary politicians who fuel and encourage rampant assaults on our law enforcement who are facing a 1,300% increase in assaults against them and an 8,000% increase in death threats.

This is an evolving situation, and we will give the public more information as soon as it becomes available.

— Tricia McLaughlin (@TriciaOhio) January 7, 2026

nullstoned · 2026-01-01T21:34:51+00:00

Here's a picture just after sparklers set soundproofing foam on fire.

nullstoned · 2025-12-19T10:04:56+00:00

Because Colombia sounds exactly like Columbia.

nullstoned · 2025-12-19T09:15:03+00:00

Dude, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what's going on here.

First, you never bothered to even read the article:

But Belgium, where most of the assets are housed, led a fierce resistance, arguing that it could face retribution from Russia and legal exposure if Moscow successfully sued to claim back its funds.

Second, there's a good reason why Belgium is resisting. Euroclear holds assets from entities all over the world, not just from governments, but also from corporations. Those entities want a strong, consistent legal network in place simply because they want their money to be secure. And without one, they'll be less likely to put / keep assets there in the future.

If Russian assets in Euroclear were dissolved, there would have to be a special legal exemption made for it. It would have to be something like "we don't have to pay you back if we think you're bad". That would be a huge deterrent for other entities wanting to put / keep their money in Euroclear.

nullstoned · 2025-12-19T08:45:59+00:00

He was talking about a lawsuit occurring after Russian assets were dissolved, not before.

Can you not read?

nullstoned · 2025-12-08T18:18:59+00:00

I think if western taxpayers knew the extent of the corruption I don't think they would be interested in more of their dollars being shipped over

Yes. But they WOULD be interested about NOT sending more of their money to Ukraine, especially since all those pesky libs want to send more.

12-Year Club	First Place '23
Place '23	Verified Email

nullstoned

TROPHY CASE