President Donald Trump now says House Republicans should vote to release files in the Jeffrey Epstein case.

https://apnews.com/article/epstein-files-house-sex-trafficking-investigation-c46716743f6f65f2f3b74906365da58b

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
39 comments in c/news@lemmy.world view that post
[–] [S] 135 points 11 months ago (3 children)

He also ordered the doj to open a new investigation which allows his doj to bar any release of the files related to an “open case.” His followers have to be irredeemably brainwashed to accept this.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    which allows his doj to bar any release of the files related to an “open case.”

    What is that based on? Law? Doesn’t seem like the DOJ’s policies should be able to override one of the three constitutionally prescribed authorities of our country..

    Really it will be the GOP letting it happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    No, the current bill proposed allows the DOJ to redact any information related to victims or an ongoing case.

    By opening a huge investigation, it basically means they can redact anything they feel like because "ongoing investigation".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 64 points 11 months ago

    Now that he knows the vote is going to go against him, time for plan B. He can't let it appear that Congress would actually defy him so he has to "call for" it to happen so they still appear to be obeying him.

    I'd be surprised if his minions in charge of the DOJ haven't already destroyed anything damaging to him as soon as they could get hold of it, but in any case we know they have a plan in place for DOJ to not release anything bad for him.

  • source
  • [–] 49 points 11 months ago

    After thousands of FBI agents redacted all mentions of him?

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    Donald! You can just tell the DOJ to release them. You campaigned on releasing them, so just do it. They don't need to vote on it if you just do it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Let's all mentally prepare ourselves for Trump to claim he wishes he could release these documents but his gosh darn DOJ just won't do it because they're using them to investigate Bill Clinton or whoever and he certainly wouldn't ever want to interfere with a federal investigation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 64 points 11 months ago

    At this point, I refuse to believe that the original files will be released unedited.

    Trump's team has a had unrestricted access to the files for a very long time. The original files probably exists somewhere, they are too valuable for a career politician to not either do a quick ctrl+c ctrl+v or just doing a classic photographing the screen.

  • source
  • [–] 24 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    This is called "getting ahead of the story." The only problem is this story is a speeding freight train, and it's going to turn everyone in its path into a pink mist.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    I have been concerned for a long time that they may try to release doctored documents

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    He just got a text that they finished replacing references to his name with Clinton, no need to delay anymore

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    Isn't it, you know a conflict of interest for him to have the ability to veto it if it passes the House and Senate, considering he's involved in all this?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    In theory, they can pass this with a veto-proof majority.

    In practice, you may have spotted a flaw in the US Constitution here. I'll add it to the pile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    The Founders: "Look, you guys were supposed to keep improving on it more than you did."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Also the Founders: " Oh God is that a woman voting? Is that a black person who has rights? What are those filthy Irish people are doing everywhere? This government was only supposed to be for wealthy white landowning Anglo-Saxon Protestants."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    Except they knew times would change, and so would those things in the public eye, so the document they wrote had to be malleable as well. If you think about it, while a lot of society has improved in respect to those topics, there's still people who think that way, and we haven't come as far as we should have in this time. So let's not get too high and mighty because again, we could have been a lot further along by now.

    Keep in mind that future us will be doing the same thing, looking back at what we're doing or not doing and wondering, wtf was their problem?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 37 points 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Hm? I feel like a lot of people said he did a lot of fucking things wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    Pretty sure it was assumed he might be in them, but it only became extremely obvious that something potentially damning was in them when he started fighting it so hard despite saying he'd release them before getting elected.

    But if you mean in general, then yeah, for sure lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    He’s protecting the trove of blackmail itself. It’s not about a specific who that’s in it— blackmail material loses its value once it’s released and that is decades and dozens of powerful people who will suddenly be useless. Epstein and Maxwell weren’t making their money from trafficking. They were making their money from collecting and selling all manner of secrets.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    If it's going to happen anyway, they might as well claim political credit for the thing they used to oppose, right?

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago

    They control the department of justice, both houses of congress, and the supreme court

    Don’t get your hopes up

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Man this "hoax" sure has a lot of material

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    It's wild how long the FBI needed to clean the files. I guess they are done now?

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 11 months ago

    "We'd love to. But only the bits of it we want to show you"

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    DOJ: 'Nope, still investigating the Dem names in there.... Dunno how much longer this will take... Wish we could help you...'

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago

    They will play the democrat card.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    I can't decide if Trump thinks this will make him look like less of a lame duck when the vote passes the house, or if Trump is trying to reverse psychology them out of it.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    Ok... You heard him! Release them!

  • source
  • 30 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 69 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    "A veto-proof majority"

    Imagine Trump vetoing this

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

    I hope we fall a few votes short of veto-proof. Then Trump vetos. Then we get a veto-proof vote. Maybe that's asking for too much, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    For storytelling purposes, I like your idea a lot. The dramatic tension and release are there, and at epic proportions in terms of potential real-world devastating impact on powerful people.

    But... For lived reality, I really would love the easy win without the added will-they-won't-they drama. If this hits TACOman's desk, he's probably going to veto it anyway, so we will all still need to wait and see if anyone flips their stance during the veto override vote, and that's plenty enough to be worried about on its own.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago

    He ordered the shutdown of paying snap benefits, rejected court orders forcing him to, threatened states that paid anyway, then blamed democrats for snap benefits not being paid.

    He just says whatever lie he wants to be true and his shit-eating cult just, well, eats all the shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    If I were a Republican, I would want Trump to veto it. Simply because he has nothing to lose if Congress does have the votes to overturn a presidential veto. The Republicans that voted for the release look good and it helps their numbers. Trump isn't getting re-elected anyway, that's why he's digging so hard. It's actually a smart move for anyone in the party who isn't in the Epstein files. The idea is that those who are will quietly go away, and as for Trump, he's not going to get impeached or anything, because Congress doesn't have the votes, and if enough Republicans fought for the release of the files, they should do well next year against their Democrat challengers. Republicans keep the majority, no impeachment. That's probably the game plan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 31 points 11 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Republicans have been accommodating, shielding, covering and delaying for the old fat orange felon right up until they saw the handwriting on the wall. They would continue if it were possible. They are co-conspirators.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    right up until they saw the handwriting on the wall.

    That's it exactly.

    They have realized that this train is coming whether they want it to or not. And they're choosing to jump on board rather than getting run over.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    IF the midterms are free and fair (a big if, considering the efforts by the GOP to ratfuck every federal election since Biden won) then the Democrats need to make electoral reform a priority. Proportional representation in Congress and replacing the electoral college with ranked choice/runoff ballots is the only feasible way to save what's left of US democracy besides a revolution.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    You’re right, but just look at what happened to Biden’s “day 1 priority” Voting Rights Act. Dumpstered after 1 week in office.

    How do you propose we hold democrats’ feet to the fire and force them to work on passing such legislation?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    That doesn’t solve campaign finance laws or any of the other issues stemming from Citizens United.

    Politicians have not represented their voters for a long time they represent their wealthy donors. Changing the mechanism for how we vote won’t change enough.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago*

    It does in an indirect way due to having more parties.

    Let's say you have $1M to try to buy off some politicians with campaign funds. If there are only two viable candidates, you give $500k to both. Now you've bought both parties and can win no matter the outcome.

    If there are three or four or five parties, though, you have to guess who is going to win. You can't split it up that many times and still have much influence on the politicians in question. Your funds can be easily swamped out by grassroots groups. Your guess based on polling can also end up being dead wrong when some party makes a sudden surge in the final weeks.

    That said, it'd still be better if we ditched Citizens United and publicly funded elections.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago

    Narrator: they were, for the most part, wrong.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    I've been saying this for a long time, but in software development, we have many practices that I think should be carried over to government.

    One example is the idea of doing one change at a time. A decent software engineer would never accept a request that had a lot of wide-ranging changes. They would force all of the changes to be submitted individually, and to be accepted or rejected on their own merits.

    Politicians constantly create enormous abominations of bills, like the ill-named "Big Beautiful Bill". With something like that, individual politicians have their power greatly diminished. They can do nothing but vote along party lines. They probably don't even have time to read the contents of the bill they are voting for. The only ones who have any power at all are the party leaders and those in the committees where those bills are created. But committee membership is limited.

    You can see what happens when things are separated. If your bill is simply about releasing the Epstein files, and nothing else, then it's very difficult to explain why you'd vote against that. Suddenly, the individual politicians have the power they were intended to have by the founding fathers, as well as the ability to be held accountable by their constituents.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    They probably don't even have time to read the contents of the bill they are voting for.

    cough PATRIOT Act

    I always wonder, there wasn't enough time to read through it and debate it because we had to act quickly, but damn, someone sure wrote it quickly. Unless it was there all along, waiting for a crisis.

    Not even suggesting the crisis itself was a conspiracy, only that they were ready to jump on anything to gain power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    Not even suggesting the crisis itself was a conspiracy, only that they were ready to jump on anything to gain power.

    Yup. Just like project 2025, portions of which were more likely than not written in the early 90s if not before.

    Hell, whether it's The Heritage Foundation, ALEC, The John Birch Society, or some of the hundreds of others, it's almost 100% certain that the abominable patriot act was written mostly or solely by dark money financed far right think tanks.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Software development has the advantage of happening in an environment where the cost of failure is relatively low. A bad change might be caught by the test suite before it ever sees production. If it does get to production, there might be consequences, but not the kind that typically kills people.

    In fact, I think software engineering in general should lean into this idea on most things. Don't try to ignore failure, but catch failure as fast as possible. Things like medical devices and aeronautic software should continue using formal verification methods, but the rest of us should iterate fast.

    Iterating fast doesn't work for other things. I'm a programmer by trade, but I have enough electrical knowledge that I once took up a contract for designing a PCB. I tried to do the "one thing at a time" approach, and it just doesn't work very well there. Non-trivial PCBs will have errors in them the first few times you try them, and you'll need to go back for a redesign. In software, that potentially takes minutes or even seconds. But in PCBs, you have to order out to a company to make them and wait at least a week for them to turn it around. Even if you have equipment to do it yourself, it still takes hours. You just have to batch up your changes. (Electrical simulators can potentially help with this, though.)

    In government, the effects of policy could take years or even decades to work out. Single change at a time would be a stranglehold on the ability to fix problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    You are closely tying together the timelines for the way that the change is proposed/designed/approved and the way that the change is validated/iterated. There is no need to do that, and I'm not sure how you came to that way of thinking.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    The fact that WH is green lighting this effort is super sus. The witches are mixing the pot….

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago

    So block it and once you can't stop it everyone pretends like they wanted it like that the whole time. classic.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago

    I don't care what they say (for the most part). I care what they do.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    So the orange cancer stalled long enough for the FBI to scrub his name from the files then? Wouldn't doubt it if he had them add new names.

    🖕🤬

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    They are going to release 1 page, entirely redacted except for Bill Clinton's name.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago*

    Hypothetically, the files get released and contain damming evidence against Trump, evidence that would get any normal citizen immediately arrested. I demand to know WHAT WILL BE DONE THEN? WHAT IN UNCLE SAM'S NAME IS THE PLAN TO HOLD HIM ACCOUNTABLE?

  • source
  • 2 comments in c/usa@midwest.social view that post
    [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I wonder how much was redacted during their "vacations."

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    As a conservative this has drawn out to long just release the files unredacted minus victims names so tired of hearing about the hearing about the files...let the chips fall were the may...it should be all of them republicans and democrats Should be voting to release ...as horrific as his convicted crimes are...Jeffrey Epstein openly discussed a disturbing plan to impregnate multiple women at his New Mexico ranch to "seed the human race" with his own DNA, a concept rooted in his interest in transhumanism and eugenics. They say there is no evidence that he started this...right...George Church's Lab: Epstein's non-profit organization, the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, provided donations to Church's lab between 2005 and 2007. Church's lab is known for pioneering various genetic technologies and was involved in founding companies such as Editas Medicine, which focuses on gene therapy... There is much more just st dive into it...The rabbit hole is deep and Elon musk his buddy holds beliefs that align with aspects of transhumanism, advocating for the use of advanced technology, particularly brain-computer interfaces, to augment human capabilities and ensure humanity's future in an age of artificial intelligence. He does not explicitly identify as a transhumanist but his ideas and work are often described as such...

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/conservative@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    Any Republican who hasn't visited the island would be fine releasing the files. A vote against it is a strong indicator that they're in them.

  • source