Eric Swalwell:

[applegrove]

— ℂ𝕒𝕥𝕞𝕒𝕟ℝ𝕖𝕤𝕚𝕤𝕥𝕤 🏳️‍🌈 ✡️ 😸 🌊 (@stevefm20.bsky.social) 2025-07-08T03:42:53.260Z

[spanone]

1. K&R

[ZDU]

2. Hear, HEAR!

[W_HAMILTON]

3. Good point, which I hadn't thought of.

I thought of a similar rationale, though, that pointed to why Trump almost assuredly was on Epstein's client list. I'll copy and paste it here as well:

If there was any big-name Democrat on that list, regardless of whether there were Republicans or not, Trump would have happily had his people release it because he would care more about hurting the big-name Democrats he constantly attacks than protecting any Republican other than himself.

And yet it wasn't released.

That says to me (1) there were no big-name Democrats on it and/or (2) Trump is plastered all over that list and releasing even a portion of it would have spelled doom for his big orange ass because the entire list would have eventually been seen through discovery once his MAGA goons did end up charging someone.

[Gimpyknee]

7. But, but the FBI says there is no list.

[W_HAMILTON]

12. The FBI also told The New York Times that it didn't see a link between Trump and Russia.

And FBI underlings threatened to go public, right before the election, with """news""" about the bullshit investigation into Hillary's emails unless Comey made an announcement himself. Needless to say, nothing became of that -- well, other than helping Trump/Russia steal the presidency, that is.

[hadEnuf]

15. The FBI is headed by Kash Patel.

'nuff said.

[ancianita]

4. AMEN!

Thanks for posting this!

[FalloutShelter]

5. Boom!

[returnee]

6. How can on be in a non-existent file? n/t

[Wiz Imp]

9. We know there are files. Even if there's nothing else (doubtful), there are massive files of information

related to Epstein's prosecution. They are now saying there is no "client list". Swalwell is referring to the files, NOT a client list.

[W_HAMILTON]

13. If there's a non-existent file, why did Pam Bondi say the list of clients was sitting on her desk to review?

[returnee]

23. My intention was to point out...

…the inherent contradictions in their stories. These clowns are so stupid and so transparent.

[Wiz Imp]

8. Rather Obvious, Don'cha Think?

[IronLionZion]

10. He can prove his innocence by releasing the files

but no, they chose to pretend the files never existed. hmm...

[republianmushroom]

11. Nails it.

[MLWR]

14. There is also the issue that neither Bondi's nor Patel's word is anything to bet on.

[Skittles]

16. PREACH IT BROTHER ERIC

[Hassler]

17. And we have TACO denying ever being

At Epstein's island despite not being asked about it.

[kentuck]

18. Good read by Swalwell!

At his press conference today, Trump asked why people were even interested in such a story? Isn't it just an old story?

[Hornedfrog2000]

19. If it speaks volumes

Then accuse him of being a pedo, and lets get to discovery. Have every single dem get on message and demand answers for the missing minute of video? How hard is it to be provacative? If democrats were on TV calling trump a pedophile every minute of their interview, people would be in a fucking tizzy.... but noooooo. We dont do that sort if thing

[Wounded Bear]

20. If he doesn't sue, it must be true...

[live love laugh]

22. I love it! 💙

[electric_blue68]

25. Bwah! 🥇

[Hotler]

21. If no list is true, why aren't repugs dancing with joy and showing no fear of the orange one.

Without the specter of blackmail for kid touching hanging over their head they can be free to say how they really feel about the orange convict. No longer will they have to cry on the shoulders of Dems in private because they feel afraid.

[ToxMarz]

24. I would also bet he knows that Musk actually has the receipts (and is willing to show them)

Otherwise he would sue him knowing he couldn't prove what he's saying, even if it's true.

Musk is just as bad, he won't release the dirt as long as he thinks he can leverage it for his own benefit.

[Simeon Salus]

26. K&R

This should stay at the top for days...