Photos, vids, etc ....

Please note, the link below connects to an official U.S. federal government site, coexisting with the Trump administration.
Rigby5 said:
"Laws have to be generic principles, not a dictate in a specific case, so there can not be a law that forces files to be released." R5 #2,960
Click to expand...

Public Law No: 119-38 (11/19/2025)​

Epstein Files Transparency Act
This act requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish (in a searchable and downloadable format) all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ's possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein.
This includes (1) materials that relate to Ghislaine Maxwell, (2) flight logs and travel records, and (3) individuals named or referenced (including government officials) in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ is permitted to withhold certain information such as the personal information of victims and materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation.
 
Rigby5 said:
The problem with the Epstein files is that even publishing the names of victims is likely illegal and harmful to them.
Click to expand...
Generally it will be - after all, many (most?) or them were minors so publishing their names would be illegal. That's why sex crime cases involving children don't include the victims' names - and, if they would be identifiable from details of the crime (i.e., the perpetrator was a parent) even that information isn't published. But publishing sworn testimony that alleges that "John Smith" raped someone is common practice (unless John Smith is also underage).

Laws have to be generic principles, not a dictate in a specific case, so there can not be a law that forces files to be released.
Click to expand...

In this case there is a specific law that says the Epstein files must be released so it's not a question of whether an existing law applies. (See #2,944 above)
 
sear said:
Please note, the link below connects to an official U.S. federal government site, coexisting with the Trump administration.

Public Law No: 119-38 (11/19/2025)​

Epstein Files Transparency Act
This act requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish (in a searchable and downloadable format) all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials in DOJ's possession that relate to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein.
This includes (1) materials that relate to Ghislaine Maxwell, (2) flight logs and travel records, and (3) individuals named or referenced (including government officials) in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein.
DOJ is permitted to withhold certain information such as the personal information of victims and materials that would jeopardize an active federal investigation.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt Congress has passed such a law. I am just saying it is illegal for Congress to do that since it violates individual rights.
 
Shiftless2 said:
Generally it will be - after all, many (most?) or them were minors so publishing their names would be illegal. That's why sex crime cases involving children don't include the victims' names - and, if they would be identifiable from details of the crime (i.e., the perpetrator was a parent) even that information isn't published. But publishing sworn testimony that alleges that "John Smith" raped someone is common practice (unless John Smith is also underage).



In this case there is a specific law that says the Epstein files must be released so it's not a question of whether an existing law applies. (See #2,944 above)
Click to expand...

That does not make this specific law legal.
 
7d16e0d08466013fc621005056a9545d
 
Rigby5 said:
"it is illegal for Congress to do that since it violates individual rights." R5 #2,963
"That does not make this specific law legal." R5 #2,964
Click to expand...
It's not uncommon for interests to conflict.
One layman's explanation of "Liberty", - your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins. -

Certainly we should consider the risk of compounding the detriment inflicted on abuse victims, minors.
Does it make sense to pre-judge their preference?
There may be some, even if Trump / Epstein files disclosure would exempt them, that prefer the files be published.
And perhaps some not.
Which of these two should prevail?

All that in context of the public right / need to know, particularly when it bears directly on POTUS, the guy whose finger is on "the" button.

That's not to be dismissive of your support for individual rights.
But it's a mistake to consider only half the equation.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"Turning Point USA was founded in 2012 by Charlie Kirk and Bill Montgomery. Two of their major policy pushes were a more prominent gun culture and zero COVID restrictions. Bill Montgomery died from COVID. Charlie Kirk died from gun violence." S2 #2,970
Click to expand...
Really?
Perhaps then we can consider them "successful". Right? Far Right?
 
I do have to say I liked Charlie Kirk much better when he was still alive. In those days I'd never heard of him (same went for the majority of the public.)
 
sear said:
It's not uncommon for interests to conflict.
One layman's explanation of "Liberty", - your right to flail your fist ends short of where my nose begins. -

Certainly we should consider the risk of compounding the detriment inflicted on abuse victims, minors.
Does it make sense to pre-judge their preference?
There may be some, even if Trump / Epstein files disclosure would exempt them, that prefer the files be published.
And perhaps some not.
Which of these two should prevail?

All that in context of the public right / need to know, particularly when it bears directly on POTUS, the guy whose finger is on "the" button.

That's not to be dismissive of your support for individual rights.
But it's a mistake to consider only half the equation.
Click to expand...

I am not sure of the details, but I believe this testimony was the equivalent of a grand jury, which is illegal to publish.
The harm in publishing is not just to the minor females who will be ridiculed, and to the ones falsely slandered, but to the future grand juries that will no longer be able to force people to testify at all.
 
Shiftless2 said:
View attachment 6593
Click to expand...

While I appreciate the humor, the reality is that covid actually killed no one.
Those that died were killed by pneumonia from an over active auto-immune response.
And since Bill Montgomery was over 80 years old, that would be fault of covid restrictions that made the epidemic linger for over 3 years.
With Charlie Kirk, you could also say gun culture worked, since it allowed this reaction to his rhetoric.
 
Rigby5 said:
"While some laws may violate some rights, they are supposed to be justified by protecting more rights than they violate?" R5 #2,973
Click to expand...
That's a fundamental of Utilitarianism.

u·til·i·tar·i·an·ism (y-tĭl′ĭ-târē-ə-nĭz′əm)
n.
1. The belief that the value of a thing or an action is determined by its utility.
2. The ethical theory proposed by Jeremy Bentham and James Mill that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top