ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 79,845
Incorrect.The files were made available. Appenrantly full public disclosure would be a violation of grand jury rules.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Incorrect.The files were made available. Appenrantly full public disclosure would be a violation of grand jury rules.
what victims?
Either the law matters or it doesn't.Youll get him someday.
Comrade.
Either the law matters or it doesn't.
To you, certainly.Still havent figured out it doesnt huh?
To you, certainly.
Not in a skiffIncorrect.
The full files have not been released as required by the law.Not in a skiff
No, the unredacted Jeffrey Epstein files were not released to members of Congress inside a secure government SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, sometimes misheard or misspelled as a skiff).
Instead, the Department of Justice (DOJ) allowed members of Congress to review unredacted versions of millions of pages of Epstein-related documents on computers located in a DOJ satellite office in Washington, D.C.
Key Details of the Review Process:
- Location: Lawmakers traveled to a DOJ office rather than viewing classified-style compartments or a congressional SCIF.
- Access Rules: Only individual members of Congress were allowed to view the files on computer screens; they could not bring their staff, remove physical documents, or bring in any electronic devices (though taking handwritten notes was permitted).
- Process: Lawmakers had to give the DOJ 24 hours' notice to schedule their in-person review.
- Aftermath: Following reviews by bipartisan lawmakers—such as Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Ro Khanna, and Rep. Jamie Raskin—several members publicly criticized the DOJ over what they considered unnecessary or mysterious redactions in the files.
Where did you get that info?The full files have not been released as required by the law.
The files that have been released have redacted suspect names incorrectly and unredacted victim names incorrectly.
The law has not been enforced.
Pick a site.Where did you get that info?
This is hilarious coming from the weirdoI don't know. why are we letting foreigners sit around and tell us they're going to enter our homes whether we like it or not without pulverizing them into oblivion?
may as well wait around for reparations.
you are focused on Trump. many, many other politicians and celebrities are tied to the Epstein files. you just want him to be guilty.
I'd like to know the truth. I want guilty parties punished~but its not going to happen like this. this is just wasting time trolling.
May as well rename them to the "Ontario files".
This is hilarious coming from the weirdowho just copies and pastes unfounded nonsense from Twitter.
Start small, like thinking for yourself,Someday i hope to rise to your levels of insight and honesty.
Start small, like thinking for yourself,.
I make sure the memes, links, and pics I post are verified,You think you do that?
I make sure the memes, links, and pics I post are verified,.
You?![]()
Did you actually read what that tweet said,
David Copperfield's name jumped out. The rest were already known.Anyone interesting on the list. When was that speech, somehow I missed it.
What was Maxwell convicted of?Epstein and Maxwell were convicted.
They actually wanted to condemn... a word? Jayyyysus, your Republicans are such whiny little fucks
They actually wanted to condemn... a word? Jayyyysus, your Republicans are such whiny little fucks
Like the President of your country who was was a birther? Now that conspiracy theoy was also pretty fucking stupidWhat a stupid fucking birthing person thing to say.
They just wrapped the save act in a stupid wrapper so they could do a gotcha moment.They actually wanted to condemn... a word? Jayyyysus, your Republicans are such whiny little fucks