From the article:

The US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday announced a massive document dump from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including thousands of emails discussing a wide range of topics, including women, blackmail, and spending the holidays with Donald Trump.

The 20,000 documents come in the form of poorly organized folders with unhelpful labels, screenshots of emails, and heavily redacted spreadsheets. Some of the files are devoid of context, such as a video in the NATIVES folder of a dog playing with plushies of Trump and Hillary Clinton, while others are broken up in confusing ways, like email chains split into several PDFs.

To make this massive data dump more accessible, COURIER has compiled the 20,000 documents from Epstein’s estate into an easily searchable repository via Google Pinpoint.

Use the search tool here.

 

Pinpoint - From the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein

https://journaliststudio.google.com/pinpoint/search?collection=092314e384a58618&utm_source=collection_share_link

10 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

From the article:

The US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday announced a massive document dump from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including thousands of emails discussing a wide range of topics, including women, blackmail, and spending the holidays with Donald Trump.

The 20,000 documents come in the form of poorly organized folders with unhelpful labels, screenshots of emails, and heavily redacted spreadsheets. Some of the files are devoid of context, such as a video in the NATIVES folder of a dog playing with plushies of Trump and Hillary Clinton, while others are broken up in confusing ways, like email chains split into several PDFs.

To make this massive data dump more accessible, COURIER has compiled the 20,000 documents from Epstein’s estate into an easily searchable repository via Google Pinpoint.

Use the search tool here.

 

Pinpoint - From the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein

https://journaliststudio.google.com/pinpoint/search?collection=092314e384a58618&utm_source=collection_share_link

I typed "Trump" in their search engine, and it comes up with 2012 results! 🤣🤣🤣

 

Clinton: 213

Andrew: 127

Schumer: 10

7 minutes ago, candide said:

I typed "Trump" in their search engine, and it comes up with 2012 results! 🤣🤣🤣

 

Clinton: 213

Andrew: 127

Schumer: 10

Why stop there , the few PDF files I clicked on had nothing of any interest in them , just the Presidents name written in connection with some totally boring irrelevant articles, nothing to do with any sexual misconduct 

No doubt somebody more fully "committed" will examine every single page in detail and report back in the very near future as soon as they find anything, no matter how contrived

Your "revelation" proves absolutely nothing why did you even bother?

10 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

From the article:

The US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday announced a massive document dump from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including thousands of emails discussing a wide range of topics, including women, blackmail, and spending the holidays with Donald Trump.

The 20,000 documents come in the form of poorly organized folders with unhelpful labels, screenshots of emails, and heavily redacted spreadsheets. Some of the files are devoid of context, such as a video in the NATIVES folder of a dog playing with plushies of Trump and Hillary Clinton, while others are broken up in confusing ways, like email chains split into several PDFs.

To make this massive data dump more accessible, COURIER has compiled the 20,000 documents from Epstein’s estate into an easily searchable repository via Google Pinpoint.

Use the search tool here.

 

Pinpoint - From the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein

https://journaliststudio.google.com/pinpoint/search?collection=092314e384a58618&utm_source=collection_share_link

Why , just why?   nothing better to do?

11 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Why stop there , the few PDF files I clicked on had nothing of any interest in them , just the Presidents name written in connection with some totally boring irrelevant articles, nothing to do with any sexual misconduct 

No doubt somebody more fully "committed" will examine every single page in detail and report back in the very near future as soon as they find anything, no matter how contrived

Your "revelation" proves absolutely nothing why did you even bother?

I never claimed there was sexual misconduct.

 

I just noticed he's all over these files.

4 minutes ago, candide said:

I never claimed there was sexual misconduct.

 

I just noticed he's all over these files.

He appears to be mentioned more times than Epstein himself, what a load of garbage 

41 minutes ago, candide said:

I typed "Trump" in their search engine, and it comes up with 2012 results! 

That’s nothing compared to how many times Trump is mentioned on A/N.

8 minutes ago, candide said:

I just noticed he's all over these files.

He’s all over the place, the most popular individual in recent history, if not in all time.

11 hours ago, kwonitoy said:

From the article:

The US House Oversight Committee on Wednesday announced a massive document dump from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate, including thousands of emails discussing a wide range of topics, including women, blackmail, and spending the holidays with Donald Trump.

The 20,000 documents come in the form of poorly organized folders with unhelpful labels, screenshots of emails, and heavily redacted spreadsheets. Some of the files are devoid of context, such as a video in the NATIVES folder of a dog playing with plushies of Trump and Hillary Clinton, while others are broken up in confusing ways, like email chains split into several PDFs.

To make this massive data dump more accessible, COURIER has compiled the 20,000 documents from Epstein’s estate into an easily searchable repository via Google Pinpoint.

Use the search tool here.

 

Pinpoint - From the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein

https://journaliststudio.google.com/pinpoint/search?collection=092314e384a58618&utm_source=collection_share_link

Okay friends on the left, start digging and let us know what you’ve been waiting to find out. 

6 minutes ago, novacova said:

He’s all over the place, the most popular individual in recent history, if not in all time.

Or most unpopular.

"Meaning of unpopular in English
unpopular
adjective

not liked by many people:

Night flights from the airport are unpopular.
The president is becoming increasingly unpopular."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/unpopular

How many times Clinton ?

Flame removed 

 

@novacova

7 minutes ago, novacova said:

<—5!

Yeah right, not making a lick of sense as usual. Possibly due to a Trump obsession. Obsessive…give that a ponder—>👀 

More of the same. Just empty insults including a lame attempt at making it personal. In other words, you've got nothing.

2 hours ago, candide said:

I typed "Trump" in their search engine, and it comes up with 2012 results! 🤣🤣🤣

 

Clinton: 213

Andrew: 127

Schumer: 10

 

1 hour ago, FlorC said:

How many times Clinton ?

213

19 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

More of the same. Just empty insults including a lame attempt at making it personal. In other words

Insults, what insults? It’s a clear fact that some folks become obsessed with others, running over and over on the hamster wheel, especially these days with political views to the point where some become severely offended by opposing views and erroneously make delusional interpretations of being insulted, though in reality it’s just a different perspective is all. And pointing these things out from this perspective is important for the sake of rational civility, whether by irony, humor or flat out bluntness. Lighten up and try to go easy on yourself, you’ll definitely sleep better.

20 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

you've got nothing.

What do you have besides reiterating msm? How about some authenticity and credible insight with some independent thought, something worth engaging with opposed to the same perpetual mind numbing nonsense of dead-end media junk that leads to the same sum, nothing, that’s it, nothing. Perhaps it’s a project you can work on for us, give it a shot and surprise us.

3 minutes ago, novacova said:

Insults, what insults? It’s a clear fact that some folks become obsessed with others, running over and over on the hamster wheel, especially these days with political views to the point where some become severely offended by opposing views and erroneously make delusional interpretations of being insulted, though in reality it’s just a different perspective is all. And pointing these things out from this perspective is important for the sake of rational civility, whether by irony, humor or flat out bluntness. Lighten up and try to go easy on yourself, you’ll definitely sleep better.

What do you have besides reiterating msm? How about some authenticity and credible insight with some independent thought, something worth engaging with opposed to the same perpetual mind numbing nonsense of dead-end media junk that leads to the same sum, nothing, that’s it, nothing. Perhaps it’s a project you can work on for us, give it a shot and surprise us.

Here's what you wrote:

"Yeah right, not making a lick of sense as usual. Possibly due to a Trump obsession. Obsessive…give that a ponder"

 

You claim that I wasn't making a lick of sense but you offered no analysis why. Just an empty claim. You could have asked why do I think that "unpopular" was more suitable than "popular". That would be the rational way to engage. And then I would have explained to you why I believe that is the case. Which I will do now. For one thing, the recent elections seemed to be a pretty harsh rebuke. Trump's sudden lowering of certain food tariffs seems to be a tacit acknowledgement of that.   For another, even the pollsters who ordinarily put Trump in positive or only slightly negative territory now have him down considerably. Rasmussen, which is probably the most well know of these pollsters, currently has him down by 10%.  Real Clear Politics has him down by an average of 12.4%. 

 

When you make unflattering comments about someone's personality or mental condition, or offer dubious diagnoses,  that is not addressing the issues. And that is pretty much all you do when it comes to me instead of offering any evidence or even reasoning about the issues in question and the points I have raised.  This forum is supposed to be about the issues, which is why personal comments  about the members meet with the moderators disapproval. You may not believe this but some members actually get reproached and have their comments removed by the moderators because they transgress against that disapproval.

 

I am puzzled as to why you consider the introduction of corroborating evidence to bolster arguments or to counter the arguments of others strikes you as somehow inauthentic.  It strikes me that simply to offer opinions without basing them in fact might be suitable for games of fantasy like Dungeons and Dragons. (Although I have to confess that I have never played Dungeons or Dragons or anything similar so I may be getting that wrong).  But since the issues discussed here are tied to the actual world, it seems to me that not using data and such to support one's arguments would be an intellectual dereliction of duty. But given your apparent opposition to the use of verifiable facts, perhaps you might want to consider engaging in creating actual fiction in some other forum somewhere else  instead of merely rejecting reality in this one. 

 

Have a nice evening.

 

 

7 hours ago, candide said:

I typed "Trump" in their search engine, and it comes up with 2012 results! 🤣🤣🤣

 

Clinton: 213

Andrew: 127

Schumer: 10

 

And here you go. Why Republicans, Democrats (or those or identify as "conservative" or "liberal") in the US both don't get it. Both camps look at the documents as a means to embarass the other camp. Both sides are equally wrong in that they completely ignore the victims.

 

The stats are misleading, as not only is that search tool inadequate (try searching by date) but much of the emails  were between Eptein, Michael Wolff and a journalist, who were all interested in Trump, because he was a newly elected President. But anyone look at this data by word occurence frequency is an utter fool and unfeeling barsteward, Left or Right.

 

Republicans are wrong is suggesting the reason nothing was released before was either because there is nothing to harm their leader, or because something is deeply damaging to the Democrats. The Democrats sat on them for the same reasons why Trump sat on them; the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the rights of the individual, ie. such revelations would be damaging to society, rather than such revelations would prevent further abuse.

 

At the very least, prior to 2016, Donald Trump knew. He knew about Epstein, he had a fair idea what was going on. But he said nothing. That in itself should be a resigning matter.

 

The conspiracy of silence pervades the West, it condones child abuse. It enabled Garry Glitter, Jonathan King, Jimmy Saville, Bill Cosby, Rold Harris, Stuart Hall, R Kelly, Harvey Epstein, R Kelly, Roman Polanski, Steven Tyler, Woody Allen, Michael Jackson,  and now Jeffrey Epstein, and perhaps other men of wealth and power.

 

Queen Elizabeth, God rest her soul, was guided by duty, her duty to the Throne, and that duty lead her to cover up for her son. King Charles is different, possibly influenced by his son, who is more worldly. Charles did the right thing. It might well bring down the House of Windsor, but his conscience is clear.

 

So what if the revelations damage either the Republican or Democrat parties. Who cares about that. Even if you believe Trump is doing good things for America, so what if it does turn out he is a child abuser. Does it mean that child abuse is worth it, if 1 million jobs are reshored, or you receive a $2000 tariff check to spend on a new TV or grill?

 

Trump originally talked about "draining the Swamp", which became little more than a crude Reds Under the Beds all over again. The Swamp is the Establishment, which is neither Left wing or Right wing. Its not ideological It exists to preserve the status quo at the expense of the individual. Successive cover ups not only enable true abusers, they create an atmosphere of innuendo that allows innocent men to be hounded almost to the grave (or actually the grave), such as Cliff Richard, Kevin Spacey, Leon Brittan and Harvey Proctor.

 

The revelations should be out there. Politicians who resisted release of such material should be voted out of office.

7 hours ago, FlorC said:

How many times Clinton ?

 

Why does the count matter to you? You think this is a pissing  contest, which party has the most/least pedophiles/rapists?

14 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

 

Why does the count matter to you? You think this is a pissing  contest, which party has the most/least pedophiles/rapists?

 

33,000 used to be an important number, too.

9 hours ago, candide said:

I typed "Trump" in their search engine, and it comes up with 2012 results! 🤣🤣🤣

And not one of them implicated Trump in any wrongdoing.