When a trove of Jeffrey Epstein’s emails were made public this week, Donald J. Trump’s name was all over them. But on Friday, when Mr. Trump demanded that the Justice Department investigate a list of powerful men mentioned in the emails, his own name was nowhere to be seen — he had singled out only Democrats.
Equally remarkable was how quickly Attorney General Pam Bondi acquiesced to his demand, even though four months ago the Justice Department formally declared that nothing in the Epstein files warranted further investigation.

https://archive.ph/npF7a

 

This is an absolutely brilliant ploy by Trump. No one will notice he's attempting to deflect suspicion away from himself.

Does this mean part of the files can not be released due to an active investigation?

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Does this mean part of the files can not be released due to an active investigation?

Interesting point. Could be. Although, I think if the pending legislation gets passed and becomes law, that would probably override DOJ policy.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Does this mean part of the files can not be released due to an active investigation?

It's a widely circulated speculation on social media that this move is timed to preempt or block full release of remaining Epstein files (pushed by recent congressional bills and victim advocacy), by allowing the DOJ to cite an "ongoing investigation" as grounds for withholding documents—echoing Bondi's past phrasing in unrelated cases. Critics, including Democrats and Epstein survivors' advocates, have raised similar concerns about potential politicization and delays, especially after this week's partial file releases highlighted Epstein's unsubstantiated claims about Trump (which Trump has denied). Whether it succeeds in stalling transparency remains unclear, as congressional votes on release bills could override DOJ discretion.

Polymarket market —currently pricing a 92% chance of "Yes" for the U.S. House passing any Epstein disclosure bill or resolution by December 31, 2025. It covers bills like H.R. 4405 (the Epstein Files Transparency Act), which would legally require the DOJ to release related documents, thereby preempting agency discretion (e.g., withholding under an "ongoing investigation" pretext). With the House vote potentially as soon as next week via discharge petition, this market's odds reflect strong momentum despite White House opposition.

13 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

Polymarket market —currently pricing a 92% chance of "Yes" for the U.S. House passing any Epstein disclosure bill or resolution by December 31, 2025. It covers bills like H.R. 4405 (the Epstein Files Transparency Act), which would legally require the DOJ to release related documents, thereby preempting agency discretion (e.g., withholding under an "ongoing investigation" pretext). With the House vote potentially as soon as next week via discharge petition, this market's odds reflect strong momentum despite White House opposition.

What are the odds of it passing the Senate?

Oh  oh. Maybe they need to look into this too.

Many other names of top politicians and top CEO's are obviously involved. But depending on who, they could try to hush hush up the names of any such disgusting people. 

30 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Oh  oh. Maybe they need to look into this too.

 

 

If you look at the ligature marks, assuming the autopsy photos are genuine, he was strangled.

 

It is 'claimed' it was done like this (suicide/no way that was murder) to send a message to anyone thinking of talking.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

If you look at the ligature marks, assuming the autopsy photos are genuine, he was strangled.

 

It is 'claimed' it was done like this (suicide/no way that was murder) to send a message to anyone thinking of talking.

 

 

The only one they wanted to prevent from talking was Epstein. After all, from one of Epstein's emails, “I'm the one that can take him (Trump) down“.

7 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

What are the odds of it passing the Senate?

No standalone Polymarket exists for Senate passage, but the combined "Congress passes" market (requiring identical bills from both chambers) trades at just 16% yes odds by year-end. Senate Republicans (53-47 majority) already killed a similar disclosure amendment in September 2025 via a 51-49 party-line tabling vote on an unrelated bill, signaling strong opposition tied to President Trump's public resistance. Expect similar blocking (e.g., via filibuster or tabling) if it reaches them, with ~3 GOP defectors possible based on prior vote but not enough for the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles. Even if passed, Trump has signaled a veto.

1 hour ago, gargamon said:

Oh  oh. Maybe they need to look into this too.

Ignored in relevance is the fact that an associate of Epstein closely involved  also died in very similar manner in a European  prison cell in 2022.

1 hour ago, gargamon said:

Oh  oh. Maybe they need to look into this too.

 

Apparently this sad excuse for a human being is now a "woke Right moron", whatever that is.

 

https://x.com/WarClandestine/status/1988743448896442636

 

 

58 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

No standalone Polymarket exists for Senate passage, but the combined "Congress passes" market (requiring identical bills from both chambers) trades at just 16% yes odds by year-end. Senate Republicans (53-47 majority) already killed a similar disclosure amendment in September 2025 via a 51-49 party-line tabling vote on an unrelated bill, signaling strong opposition tied to President Trump's public resistance. Expect similar blocking (e.g., via filibuster or tabling) if it reaches them, with ~3 GOP defectors possible based on prior vote but not enough for the 60 votes needed to overcome procedural hurdles. Even if passed, Trump has signaled a veto.

I don't know which Republican senators are up for re-election but I know that many Republicans in the House are nervous about what a "no" vote would mean for their chances for re-election.