The Department of Justice spoke four separate times to a woman who credibly accused Donald Trump of having sex with a minor he met through Jeffrey Epstein—but most accusations against the president appear to have been removed from the government’s documents on the alleged sex trafficker. 

A 21-page slideshow buried in the massive trove of Epstein-related documents included allegations that sometime between 1983 and 1985, Trump forced a woman to give him oral sex when she was in her early teens. When the woman bit down on Trump’s exposed penis, he allegedly punched her in the head and kicked her out. That same woman told the DOJ that Epstein had introduced her to Trump in 1984.

Yet last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi insisted that there was “no evidence” that Trump had committed any crime—adding to the growing pile of denials from Trump officials that constitute a sweeping cover-up of the president’s alleged wrongdoing. 

Justice Department records indicate that the FBI spoke to this woman not once but at least four separate times, according to independent journalist Roger Sollenberger. Now those records appear to have been removed from public viewing—despite the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which requires all documents relating to the alleged sex trafficker to be made public. 

Sollenberger discovered a record of four separate interviews, which took place in the summer of 2019, in a separate database of documents downloaded from the government’s public files on Epstein. That document indicated that the first of the four interviews was conducted on July 24, 2019, and the last conducted on October 16, 2019. That document was given to Ghislaine Maxwell’s lawyers as part of her trial, though the specific allegations predated Maxwell’s involvement with Epstein, Sollenberger wrote.

The woman’s first interview was entered into the FBI’s case files on August 9, 2019, just one day before Epstein was found dead in his jail cell. FBI agents typically have a deadline of five working days to file interview write-ups, indicating an abnormal 16-day gap, Sollenberger noted.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 8 months ago (32 children)

Welcome to fascism. Just couldn't vote for Harris? You did this.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    The capitalist class did this to us. Blame the people who allowed fascism to rise...which absolutely includes Biden and Harris!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago

    The people still voted for trump in greater numbers than Harris. No ifs or buts about that fact. It is the people's responsibility to stay educated and to actually go vote. It's been shown that nations with compulsory voting gain more support for the left. Yes, there is a problem with the Epstein class and capitalism, but that doesn't absolve non-voters and those who voted for fascism from blame.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Bro the people that didn't vote for harris ain't here. Not enough of them to realistically blame, anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    But how else do people like this feel superior without having an under class to constantly shit on? By the merit of their own achievements? Hah!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago*

    Its mostly people that are too "individualism pilled" to realize that trump and maga are a fabricated phenomena by wealthy individuals who have been given too much power by society.

    And realistically its not that people are wholly misinformed, just a mix of optimistic, detached, isolated, and understandably angry.

    The vast majority of people didn't foresee what is happening now but its clear the DNC did and saw a lot of acceptable risks in the way they dealt with biden and harris.

    I'd call the real issue the "Chuck Schumer worldview"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 8 months ago (7 children)

    Are we just going to ignore that the DOJ had all of these documents while Biden was president and just twiddled their thumbs apparently?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Like they released the JFK files after JFK was killed? Or how they arrested arrested Reagan for illegally selling arms to Iran to fund death squads in the americas? Idk man there's a long history of presidents just sitting on this kind of shit and Biden is not exactly brave.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t really disagree. My point is more that if Biden or his AG had actually pursued this with the degree of seriousness it deserves, Trump would likely not be president. People need better options than to vote for a pedophile rapist or someone who let pedophile rapists go free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago*

    I would go on a step further and say, we should remember some norms suck and we should be asking candidates if they will prosecute previous administrations and what for.

    Like the norm of not prosecuting presidents is possibly the most destructive and vile norm and has lead exclusively to terrible outcomes, from the contras, to jan 6th, to the Iraq war, to epstein secrecy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    President's used to let the justice department carry out justice as it saw fit. Now it's a legal apparatus for the president to weaponize.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    What are you talking about? Presidents have directed the DOJ to look into specific crimes and even have created special investigatory tasks forces all the time. Obama did exactly that after 2008 in order to investigate financial fraud. Don’t you think that a child sex trafficking ring involving some of the US’s most rich and powerful people, including former presidents, deserves to be prioritized in the same way?

    At the very least Biden is responsible for appointing Merrick Garland of all people. Remember this was after Epstein’s apparent “suicide”.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    But Harris didn’t say she was going to solve all the world’s problems immediately! She wanted to personally murder every single Palestinian person. Or something.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    She had a funny laugh.

    But realistically she had a vagina and voters aren't super fond of that. If she'd have been a man, she'd have won. I'll get downvoted and accused of being misogynist but it's voters who are, especially women.

    And now she's running again and god help us if the party makes the same mistake in 2028, if we have real elections.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    Yea, your take is absolutely not realistic in the slightest.

    She lost because she was a genocide enabling, corporatist pig who tried to demand votes from people that she refused to represent the interests of.

    Her being a woman had nothing to do with why she lost. The only people who gave a shit about that were Republicans and they were never going to flip sides to begin with regardless of how much the Democrats try to capitulate to them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (3 children)

    She lost because she was a genocide enabling, corporatist pig who tried to demand votes from people that she refused to represent the interests of.

    Because Trump was certainly none of those things. He totally represented working class people, immigrants, and world peace. There is obviously nothing that Trump has done past and present that would suggest otherwise.

    The only difference between him and Kamala is... What again? Sorry, I'm having a hard time finding anything different between the two of them other than their genitals.

    She 100% lost because she is a woman. People would rather vote for their own economic demise and livelihood rather than vote for a woman. Don't give Americans too much credit, the majority of them can't even fucking read.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Congrats on missing the entire point. Is the ignorance intentional? Or are you just this bad at piecing things together?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 child)
  • [–] -2 points 8 months ago*

    You said people wanted radical change. They elected Trump in 2016 so what change?

    You said Americans were feeling Biden was failing them due to their bank accounts. Yet they re-elected Trump while he was president during one of the worst economic times in US history.

    Trump marketed that he would fix the economy, but during his first term he tanked it and Biden brought it back up.

    I've never accused Americans of being smart, but come on dude... We all know why people voted for Trump. It wasn't because he was radical change or economic growth since there was already 4 years of proof he was full of shit.

    America just didn't want a woman. A fucking moose could have run against Kamala and won because Americans are pretentious idiots.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Miss me with the false dichotomy bullshit. Just because someone was against Kalama doesn't mean they are an advocate for Trump.

    Your simple minded perspective is no excuse for your lack of understanding about politics.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    America still hates women too much for that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Yes, because she was a woman, not because she was a genocide enabling, corporatist pig who did not align with the interests of the people she tried to demand a vote from.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I would agree with you that was why except that the guy who won is also that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    I mean, sure if you want to be incredibly simple minded about it and ignore all the context around the two platforms.

    But, then again, neoliberals enable fascists so I guess I get it's hard to tell the two apart for those who don't know the nuances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    It's amazing to see people like you talk openly about being the problem yet are completely unable to see it and act indignant at the same time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment