Photos, vids, etc ....

[sear]

"Not sure, but since no one is going to actually have any first hand corroborating testimony, all releasing the files would do is slander more people and prove nothing." R5 #2,940

"Slander"?
I wouldn't know. I haven't analyzed the content of the files. Perhaps they contain "slander". Perhaps not.

How can we account for Trump continuing to stonewall the release of the information?
Because President Trump is so noble a human, so impeccable in character, that he heroically jeopardizes his own flawless character and reputation to protect others?

Have you forgotten Trump's dozens of felony convictions? Have you forgotten he pardoned the January 6 insurrectionists? And tried to plunder our $treasury for $1.776 $Billion to share with them, to reward them for their disloyalty to the Constitution, and their loyalty to him?

"In this journey, I will never lie to you. I will never tell you something I do not believe." Donald Trump 16/08/18

Can you name any person in this solar-system that lies more than President Trump?

Trump's War against Iran is wildly unpopular within the U.S. electorate, with election day less than 1,000 hours away.
Hasn't Trump announced Iran will capitulate right after the U.S. election?

 

[Rigby5]

"Slander"?
I wouldn't know. I haven't analyzed the content of the files. Perhaps they contain "slander". Perhaps not.

How can we account for Trump continuing to stonewall the release of the information?
Because President Trump is so noble a human, so impeccable in character, that he heroically jeopardizes his own flawless character and reputation to protect others?

Have you forgotten Trump's dozens of felony convictions? Have you forgotten he pardoned the January 6 insurrectionists? And tried to plunder our $treasury for $1.776 $Billion to share with them, to reward them for their disloyalty to the Constitution, and their loyalty to him?

Can you name any person in this solar-system that lies more than President Trump?

Trump's War against Iran is wildly unpopular within the U.S. electorate, with election day less than 1,000 hours away.
Hasn't Trump announced Iran will capitulate right after the U.S. election?

When you release one sided allegations to the press that have not been established in a court of law, that is slander.
Does not mean the person is not guilty, but is still wrong to release since they also could be innocent and left with no means to prove their innocence.

Certainly I would not be surprised if Trump was guilty, but releasing testimony like that is not really legal.

Trump should be prosecuted for the tariffs, ICE crimes, Venezuela, Iran, Palestine, and the Ukraine.
So Epstein's Island is not necessary.

 

[Shiftless2]

Not sure, but since no one is going to actually have any first hand corroborating testimony, all releasing the files would do is slander more people and prove nothing.

So you're saying that first hand depositions count for nothing?

That's as bad as the MAGAt's who said that "It's not fair to blame Trump. After all, where were those girls' parents?"

 

[sear]

"When you release one sided allegations to the press that have not been established in a court of law, that is slander." R5 #2,942

slan·der (slăndər)
n.
1. Law Oral communication of false and malicious statements that damage the reputation of another.
2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
v.tr.
To utter a slander about. See Synonyms at malign.
[Middle English slaundre, from Old French esclandre, alteration of escandle, from Latin scandalum, cause of offense, stumbling block; see SCANDAL.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

I haven't read the Epstein files.
I don't know whether they're slanderous or not. You seem confident about the contents. Upon what is your confidence based?

"Does not mean the person is not guilty, but is still wrong to release since they also could be innocent and left with no means to prove their innocence."
"Certainly I would not be surprised if Trump was guilty, but releasing testimony like that is not really legal." R5 #2,942

Trump signs bill ordering US justice department to release Epstein files​

20 November 2025 / Sakshi Venkatramanand
David Willis,North America correspondent

Trump signs bill ordering release of Jeffrey Epstein files

The bill gives the US Justice Department 30 days to release all the files in a searchable format.

www.bbc.com

It can't be illegal if President Trump signs the bill for it into law.

 

[Rigby5]

So you're saying that first hand depositions count for nothing?

That's as bad as the MAGAt's who said that "It's not fair to blame Trump. After all, where were those girls' parents?"

Absolutely it is criminal to ever release mere "depositions".
They are NOT at all acceptable proof of anything, since the accused has no ability to face and refute the accusations.
Only after a trial where the accused has cross examined the accusations, can you release any testimony.

 

[sear]

"Absolutely it is criminal to ever release mere "depositions"." R5 #2,945

United States Constitution B.O.R. ARTICLE #1: Ratified December 15, 1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Absolutely" "criminal"?
Such publication is a Constitutionally enumerated right.

 

[Rigby5]

United States Constitution B.O.R. ARTICLE #1: Ratified December 15, 1791
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Absolutely" "criminal"?
Such publication is a Constitutionally enumerated right.

These depositions are not political opinion expressions, but allegations and accusations of actual criminal behavior.
And if they are wrong, they are themselves criminal libel.
So before they can be published, they are required by law to be verified.
Which can only happen in a judicial court of law.

 

[Shiftless2]

They're sworn statements taken under oath. That's all that has to be said when they are published. You'll notice that Trump (the guy who sues anyone for anything) has never sued the people who swore those depositions or the papers that published them? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he and anyone associated with him would have to testify under oath could it.

Discovery is a wonderful thing.

 

[Rigby5]

They're sworn statements taken under oath. That's all that has to be said when they are published. You'll notice that Trump (the guy who sues anyone for anything) has never sued the people who swore those depositions or the papers that published them? Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that he and anyone associated with him would have to testify under oath could it.

Discovery is a wonderful thing.

From what I know about the law, these depositions were only for use by the prosecution, similar to a grand jury testimony, and not legal to publish.
Sworn statements under oath do not make them more true.
And I do not agree no more has to be said when published.
I believe it is illegal to only publish one side, without the corresponding rebuttal.