Going after Democrats on Epstein by Trump is a huge mistake.

[yellowcanine]

In the legal world, “Discovery” is a wonderful thing for defendants. But my guess is that this is all a bluff. Lots of smoke and mirrors but there will be no indictments.

[chicoescuela]

1. Tsf and Blondi are not very smart. I agree it is a mistake.

[Chasstev365]

2. He's only doing it for them to say "its an open investigation" so the files can't be released

[johnnyfins]

3. This is correct.

They would NEVER let it get to a discovery stage.

[gab13by13]

4. Andrew Weissmann said the same, yesterday.

[allegorical oracle]

13. Yep -- stalls the file release while also dragging Dems thru the mud. A two-fer.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

15. Oh, he thinks it'll drag Dems through the mud,

they only one that'll get dragged through the mud are Blondi and Been A Dick, well, that's not quite true, they already live in the mud like rePIGS.

[niyad]

16. Please do not insult our porcine brethren and sistren by lumping them

in with the scum!

[MarineCombatEngineer]

17. Sowwy.

[niyad]

18. Snort!!!

[marked50]

5. Are there any statute of limitations on any possible charges for things that may want to charge?-n/t

[mackdaddy]

6. Blaming others for things Trump is guilty of is one of his go-to moves.

Pretty much always has been.

He felony convictions were for business fraud. His civil losses are for sexual assault and loan fraud.

Anyone checked any of Trump's mortgage documents?

How much 'tax advice' did Donnie get from ole' pal Jeffrey?

[HarryM]

9. It's his only move

Every accusation is a confession

[twodogsbarking]

7. He wears a fuckin' ball cap everywhere. The President. WTF.

[hay rick]

12. The common touch?

[Alice Kramden]

14. Bad hair day

Every day

[drmeow]

8. No indictments

will actually further piss off the MAGAts screaming to release the files!

[paleotn]

10. Rantings of a crazy man who feels trapped...

And he's wondering what's the next shoe that's going to fall in the Epstein / Trump saga. He's trying to reinflate an old pack of lies. Sorry, Donnie. Not happening.

[karynnj]

11. They are ignoring there is a HUGE difference between the relationships

of any Democrats and Trump with Epstein. Barring new information, the Democrats met with Epstein because he gave campaign contributions and also contributed to universities. This is campaign financing rearing its ugly head.


With Bill Clinton, we know Epstein let him use his jet for travel to Africa for his foundation's charitable work. That was a huge gift, but super wealthy people are the main funders of NGOs like the foundation. For the politicians, several donated his contributions after charges came out. The politician can not be expected to vet every campaign contribution.

With Trump, you have Epstein's BFF for 15 years and he is mentioned in over half the email threads provided by the Epstein estate. This is significantly more than Bill Clinton. I would bet the majority of Clinton mentions will end up being either name dropping or someone writing about legitimate things Clinton was doing.

[Trueblue Texan]

19. I think they should absolutely vet any large donations.

True they can’t vet every $5 and $10 donation, but the ones in the hundreds of thousands they certainly better.

[karynnj]

20. Hundreds of thousands, yes

What about the maximum donation to a campaign? Not to mention, prior to, I think, 2008, would Epstein have looked suspicious?

In a NYT article explaining his links to Chase, they explained how his ability to network among powerful people made others trust him.

[Wiz Imp]

22. There are 2 prominent Democrats who have been named by one or more of Epstein's victims

Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell. I'm not aware of a single person who has ever tried to deny or downplay those allegations. That's because when it comes to sex trafficking and money laundering, the crimes are so abhorrent that all Democrats aren't ever going to excuse it. Democrats have a moral compass that makes clear thing like sex trafficking are abhorrent and need to be prosecuted. The political party of the offender is irrelevant. They are despicable human beings.

Many/Most Republican politicians on the other hand ALWAYS put the Party above the country. There is no crime that a Republican won't excuse as long it was committed by another Republican. IOKIYAR has been sacred gospel to Republicans for decades.

[True Dough]

28. Did you see this one?

Extremely troubling how much influence Epstein had. This can be verified by other credible sources. It's not just some tweeter making something up, unfortunately.

Link to tweet

[Wiz Imp]

30. Yikes! This should probably be the end of her career.

I'll be curious as to what explanation she gives for this. The fact that she represents the Virgin Islands where Epstein's island was located is no coincidence. There could be an innocent explanation for it. But in the end, she clearly was taking direction from Epstein which should be disqualifying.

Plaskett has served as the non-voting delegate to Congress from the VI since 2015. As a non-voting delegate, she has no real power (she can't vote on any legislation) but she can serve on Committees and participate in hearings. As a non-voting member, she was unable to sign the discharge petition for the Epstein files so we have no idea if she would have signed it if given the chance. What we do know, however, is that EVERY SINGLE Democrat who is a voting member DID SIGN the petition. So that implies every current voting Democrat in the House places justice for the victims above any fear of potential embarrassment (or worse) of Democrats from info in the files.

I found this interesting - I was not aware of this before.

Before 2008, Plaskett was a member of the Republican Party, and was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve in the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. She switched to the Democratic Party in late 2008 because she believed it was a better place to have new ideas heard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Plaskett

[True Dough]

32. The dalliance with the ReTHugs comes as news to me as well

She has some explaining to do now.

[Wiz Imp]

23. I looked at a handful of the documents which mentioned Clinton

Every single document I looked at was a court document which contained apparent testimony which completely exonerated Clinton of ever visiting Epstein's island or having any connection to Epstein's sex trafficking.

[Ponietz]

21. This will kick the can down the road for 6 to 12 months

[Vinca]

24. For some strange reason, he thinks Democrats will back off if Democrats are involved. No! We won't!

A pedo is a pedo is a pedo. What we will do is use the opportunity to expose people who are not Democrats.

[CanonRay]

25. But while it's being "investigated" the Epstein files will be frozen

so we will never see them.

[RockCreek]

27. Hopefly leaks will continue and outrage that they haven't been released will grow

[Ping Tung]

26. Is this his version of "Aw, maw, everybody else gets to do it." excuse?.

[Norbert]

29. When was Clinton going to jet down to the island

Unlike IQ47, he was actually working his job in the 1990s.

[republianmushroom]

31. Just deflection.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

33. MaddowBlog-Trump eyes federal Epstein investigation that targets his foes, but not himself

The president wants the public to see the Epstein scandal as a hoax — except the parts related to people he doesn’t like.

Trump expects the DOJ to launch investigations into figures mentioned in the Epstein materials — but not himself.

He also wants us to see the underlying scandal as a “hoax,” except the parts related to people he doesn’t like, indifferent to the obvious contraction. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...

— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-11-14T16:56:13.198Z

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-eyes-federal-epstein-investigation-targets-foes-not-rcna243939

The revelations dovetailed with Republicans on the same committee releasing a tranche of 20,000 documents it received from the Epstein estate in response to a congressional subpoena. An MSNBC report noted that some of the additional email correspondence between Epstein and his associates was “unflattering” to Trump. A related report in The New York Times summarized, in reference to the documents: “Mr. Epstein insulted Mr. Trump and hinted that he had damaging information on him.”

In the immediate aftermath of the reports, the usually talkative president had very little to say about the reporting (which includes allegations that have not been substantiated by MSNBC). The Republican published a handful of missives to his social media platform on the matter, but most focused on his appeals to GOP lawmakers to follow his lead on the scandal......

There’s no point in trying to summarize in a single blog post every error of fact and judgment in the president’s 116-word rant — the Russia scandal, for example, still isn’t a scam — but the bottom line comprises three key elements.

The first is that Trump wants federal law enforcement to initiate an investigation into a variety of prominent figures mentioned in the Epstein materials — but not himself. That’s a tough position to take seriously.

The second is that the president wants the public to see the underlying controversy as a hoax, except for the parts related to people he doesn’t like. How does Trump reconcile the obvious contraction? By ignoring it.

Finally, it’s worth emphasizing that the president continues to act as if he has decision-making authority at the Justice Department and the FBI. There is no modern precedent for a White House publicly declaring which of the president’s political foes deserve to be targeted with federal investigations, but in 2025 it has become an alarmingly common occurrence.

In late September, Trump used his platform to direct Attorney General Pam Bondi to go after three of his perceived political enemies. In October, he did it again, adding additional names to his enemies list. On Friday morning, he barked related orders.

I cut trump's tweet/truth social post from this post. If you want to read trump's tweet/truth social post go to the article. I try not to repost trump's disgusting social media posts when I can.