On Trump

[mtrycrafts]

According to The Atlantic, less than 1% of the Epstein files have been released.

>>>But what actually arrived on December 19, the Friday before Christmas, was a relatively small (and sloppily redacted) tranche of files that raised far more questions than it answered. Nearly a month later, not a whole lot has changed. Despite having published a second batch, the DOJ has still released less than 1 percent of the millions of documents now under review. . . . Each new revelation about the files seems to multiply the unknowns.<<< (emphasis added)

What’s Going on With the Epstein Files?

Less than 1 percent of them have been released.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 19, 2025 and the deadline to release the files was December 19, 2025. At the present rate (1% every 2 months) it will be almost 17 years before all of the files are released.

The DOJ has made various statements concerning the reasons for the delay. From the Atlantic article:

>>>In a letter yesterday, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other DOJ officials framed the problem as purely logistical, citing “inevitable glitches due to the sheer volume of materials.”<<<

Did Trump not know there were logistical issues when he signed the act into law? Was he truely clueless about what was involved? "Clueless" seems plausible, but I'm inclined to think he signed it for PR/political purposes without intending to comply with the law.

Trump is not shy about blasting prosecutors if they don't after his political oponents:

>>>At the event for U.S. attorneys, Trump reportedly chided his U.S. attorneys for failing to prosecute his opponents quickly enough.

The Wall Street Journal reported that he called the prosecutors weak and ineffective, suggesting they were making it difficult for Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to do their jobs.<<<

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5693481-doj-fights-trump-prosecutors-setbacks/

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think Trump gone after the DOJ for not releasing the Epstein files quickly enough.

I have no doubt tha releasing the Epstein files is a massive undertaking that requires significant resources, but still, 1%?

He is also clueless. Just saw a clip about a pardon. He said I was told by someone good to pardon a criminal. He has no clue what the person did or ir is not concerned. Most likely another under the table $$$ exchange for the pardon.

 

[lovinthehd]

He is also clueless. Just saw a clip about a pardon. He said I was told by someone good to pardon a criminal. He has no clue what the person did or ir is not concerned. Most likely another under the table $$$ exchange for the pardon.

D'oh. He never knows anyone he knows in a negative way.

 

[Dude#1279435]

According to The Atlantic, less than 1% of the Epstein files have been released.

>>>But what actually arrived on December 19, the Friday before Christmas, was a relatively small (and sloppily redacted) tranche of files that raised far more questions than it answered. Nearly a month later, not a whole lot has changed. Despite having published a second batch, the DOJ has still released less than 1 percent of the millions of documents now under review. . . . Each new revelation about the files seems to multiply the unknowns.<<< (emphasis added)

What’s Going on With the Epstein Files?

Less than 1 percent of them have been released.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 19, 2025 and the deadline to release the files was December 19, 2025. At the present rate (1% every 2 months) it will be almost 17 years before all of the files are released.

The DOJ has made various statements concerning the reasons for the delay. From the Atlantic article:

>>>In a letter yesterday, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other DOJ officials framed the problem as purely logistical, citing “inevitable glitches due to the sheer volume of materials.”<<<

Did Trump not know there were logistical issues when he signed the act into law? Was he truely clueless about what was involved? "Clueless" seems plausible, but I'm inclined to think he signed it for PR/political purposes without intending to comply with the law.

Trump is not shy about blasting prosecutors if they don't after his political oponents:

>>>At the event for U.S. attorneys, Trump reportedly chided his U.S. attorneys for failing to prosecute his opponents quickly enough.

The Wall Street Journal reported that he called the prosecutors weak and ineffective, suggesting they were making it difficult for Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to do their jobs.<<<

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5693481-doj-fights-trump-prosecutors-setbacks/

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think Trump gone after the DOJ for not releasing the Epstein files quickly enough.

I have no doubt tha releasing the Epstein files is a massive undertaking that requires significant resources, but still, 1%?

I've already seen the files. Not in the physical sense but I watch video of Trump/Epstein looking buddy buddy and concluded Trump knew about Epstein's activities. Sure I guuuuueeeeesssss we need the files for proof but it's Trump. I'd be entirely surprised if he didn't know about it. I think most people out there have concluded the same to include the right, with exception to maybe MAGA.

 

[GO-NAD!]

According to The Atlantic, less than 1% of the Epstein files have been released.

>>>But what actually arrived on December 19, the Friday before Christmas, was a relatively small (and sloppily redacted) tranche of files that raised far more questions than it answered. Nearly a month later, not a whole lot has changed. Despite having published a second batch, the DOJ has still released less than 1 percent of the millions of documents now under review. . . . Each new revelation about the files seems to multiply the unknowns.<<< (emphasis added)

What’s Going on With the Epstein Files?

Less than 1 percent of them have been released.

www.theatlantic.com

Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act on November 19, 2025 and the deadline to release the files was December 19, 2025. At the present rate (1% every 2 months) it will be almost 17 years before all of the files are released.

The DOJ has made various statements concerning the reasons for the delay. From the Atlantic article:

>>>In a letter yesterday, Attorney General Pam Bondi and other DOJ officials framed the problem as purely logistical, citing “inevitable glitches due to the sheer volume of materials.”<<<

Did Trump not know there were logistical issues when he signed the act into law? Was he truely clueless about what was involved? "Clueless" seems plausible, but I'm inclined to think he signed it for PR/political purposes without intending to comply with the law.

Trump is not shy about blasting prosecutors if they don't after his political oponents:

>>>At the event for U.S. attorneys, Trump reportedly chided his U.S. attorneys for failing to prosecute his opponents quickly enough.

The Wall Street Journal reported that he called the prosecutors weak and ineffective, suggesting they were making it difficult for Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to do their jobs.<<<

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5693481-doj-fights-trump-prosecutors-setbacks/

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think Trump gone after the DOJ for not releasing the Epstein files quickly enough.

I have no doubt tha releasing the Epstein files is a massive undertaking that requires significant resources, but still, 1%?

C'mon man, have some sympathy for the poor DOJ! How are supposed to comply with the Epstein Files Transparency Act when they're too busy trying to dig up dirt on Walz, Frey and Renee Good's wife!?

 

[Dude#1279435]

She claims they asked if she had any weapons inside the house and if she attended any Democrat functions LOL.

Secret Service visits mom who posted she wants trials for Trump officials

Nebraska mom Jamie Bonkiewicz filmed her interaction with Secret Service agents who came to her door because of a tweet. "The Secret Service came to my door today because of a tweet. No threats. No violence. Just words. That’s where we are now," she wrote on X in a thread about the ordeal. "For...

www.alternet.org

They could not confirm if he was stabbed, but the irony of having a J6 attendee at an ICE rally.

Jan. 6 provocateur says he was stabbed at pro-ICE Minneapolis rally

The event was held amid heightened tensions in the city following the killing of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE officer this month.

www.nbcnews.com

The funniest thing to me is it wasn't that long ago it was called the "deep state."

 

[Dude#1279435]

One take on Greenland.

Trump’s Greenland Threats Paper Over a Lack of Arctic Strategy

U.S. efforts to counter Russia and China need allies, not targets.

foreignpolicy.com

 

[Dude#1279435]

Trump 'no longer thinks purely of peace' after not getting peace prize.

PBS said MLK Day was removed from "free" days at natl parks and Flag Day was added, which happens to be on Trump's bday. Boy sure makes me proud to be an American.

 

[dlaloum]

Trump 'no longer thinks purely of peace' after not getting peace prize.

PBS said MLK Day was removed from "free" days at natl parks and Flag Day was added, which happens to be on Trump's bday. Boy sure makes me proud to be an American.

Just as Italians are proud of some of their historic emperors... Caligula, Nero,...

 

[Dude#1279435]

Just as Italians are proud of some of their historic emperors... Caligula, Nero,...

MLK will out live Trump.

 

[Dude#1279435]

They said Trump is the first president to not acknowledge MLK Day or something to the effect. That fits since I believe Juneteenth he bypassed for a rally a few years back. While I can vaguely see the 'white grievance over black victimhood,' on the other end whites are at the top so no amount of white grievance really amounts to much. Plus ending MLK Day at natl parks when he could have just promoted Flag Day.

 

[little wing]

I don't get into polital conversions much, but is anybody watching this press conference right now? He's mumbling, and showing pictures of people that were arrested in Mn. He's freaking unhinged.. Fit for a straight jacket. lol

 

[Mr._Clark]

From the NYT editorial board:

>>>A review by the editorial board relying on analyses from news organizations shows that Mr. Trump has used the office of the presidency to make at least $1.4 billion. We know this number to be an underestimate because some of his profits remain hidden from public view. And they continue to grow.<<< (emphasis added)

Opinion | How Trump Has Used the Presidency to Make at Least $1.4 Billion

The president took an oath to serve the American people. Instead, he’s focused his second term on enriching himself and his family.

www.nytimes.com

And that's just one year.

As I see it, Trump is teaching future presidents how to use the presidency to rake in truly massive amount of wealth.

Even if he's impeached and removed from office, he can still walk away with a huge orange smile on his face (yeah, I know, he'd probably be furious and claim he was a victim of some sort).

 

[Mr._Clark]

Here's a snip of an interview with Trump:

>>>Tyler Pager
Just quickly, last one on Greenland. Are you prepared to send troops to Greenland if they do not give over the territory?

President Trump
Well, we already have troops —
Tyler Pager
But more troops to militarily take it over.
President Trump
Sure, I’d have more.
Tyler Pager
Would you take it over with the military?
President Trump
I mean, don’t forget, we have, you know, a good section of troops. And I’ve had troops there, and I’ve upped it. We already have troops in Greenland.
David E. Sanger
I was there this summer, and you’ve got — we had 16 bases the U.S. gave up. We have the right under the treaty to reopen them, as you know.
President Trump
Well that was with Biden, gave up —
David E. Sanger
No, no, this was — it was at the end of the Cold War, OK.
President Trump
Oh, you mean in Greenland?
David E. Sanger
We had, in Greenland —
President Trump
Oh good, because you needed them at the time.

David E. Sanger
— we had START. In the 1951 agreement, though, it says the United States can reopen these bases [in Greenland] anytime you want. You can send as many troops as you want.
President Trump
That’s right.
David E. Sanger
And you haven’t done it. How come?
President Trump
Because I want to do it properly.
David E. Sanger
And properly means own it?
President Trump
Really it is, to me, it’s ownership. Ownership is very important.
David E. Sanger
Why is ownership important here?
President Trump
Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.
David E. Sanger
So you’re going to ask them to buy it?
Katie Rogers
Psychologically important to you or to the United States?

President Trump
Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html

First, notice how quickly Trump got confused and forgot that they were talking about Greenland when he tried to blame Biden for closing 16 bases in Greenland.

In one sense, I'll give Trump credit because it seems as if he's being somewhat honest about his motive.

On the other hand, his motive "Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success." is bonkers.

 

[dlaloum]

I don't get into polital conversions much, but is anybody watching this press conference right now? He's mumbling, and showing pictures of people that were arrested in Mn. He's freaking unhinged.. Fit for a straight jacket. lol

One does wonder whether his cabinet are happy to keep things going this way, with an eye to ultimately ousting him due to mental instability, and then pinning all the blame on him... Giving Vance and co a clearer path to possible electoral survival....

Is the orange toddler being set up as a scapegoat?

 

[Dude#1279435]

‘I Like the Hell’s Angels’: Trump Praises Notorious Biker Gang He Claims Are ‘Babies’ Compared to Migrants

"The Hell's Angels are now considered a nice, high-quality person. I like the Hell's Angels. They voted for me."

www.mediaite.com

>>>“No, they make our criminals look like babies. They make our Hell’s Angels look like the sweetest people on Earth. The Hell’s Angels are now considered a nice, high-quality person. I like the Hell’s Angels. They voted for me,” Trump continued, offering praise for the notorious biker gang, which is often associated with organized crime and labeled an Outlaw Motorcycle Gang by the Justice Department.

“They protected me, actually, believe it or not. But they make our criminals look like babies. These are some of the most vicious people anywhere in the world,” Trump continued, adding:

They came from the Congo. The prisons—I know the Congo because I ended the war with the Congo and Rwanda. Tough group, very tough group. They came from prisons in the Congo, some of the toughest, meanest people you’ll ever meet. Thank you very much. They allowed them to come into America.

These are tough people. Before my election, 100 percent of net job creation was going to foreign migrants. Since my inauguration, 100 percent of the net jobs created have gone to American-born citizens. That’s a big thing. In other words, we’re now taking care of our people. 100 percent of net jobs created have gone to American-born people. Before that, we didn’t care.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Here's a snip of an interview with Trump:

>>>Tyler Pager
Just quickly, last one on Greenland. Are you prepared to send troops to Greenland if they do not give over the territory?

President Trump
Well, we already have troops —
Tyler Pager
But more troops to militarily take it over.
President Trump
Sure, I’d have more.
Tyler Pager
Would you take it over with the military?
President Trump
I mean, don’t forget, we have, you know, a good section of troops. And I’ve had troops there, and I’ve upped it. We already have troops in Greenland.
David E. Sanger
I was there this summer, and you’ve got — we had 16 bases the U.S. gave up. We have the right under the treaty to reopen them, as you know.
President Trump
Well that was with Biden, gave up —
David E. Sanger
No, no, this was — it was at the end of the Cold War, OK.
President Trump
Oh, you mean in Greenland?
David E. Sanger
We had, in Greenland —
President Trump
Oh good, because you needed them at the time.

David E. Sanger
— we had START. In the 1951 agreement, though, it says the United States can reopen these bases [in Greenland] anytime you want. You can send as many troops as you want.
President Trump
That’s right.
David E. Sanger
And you haven’t done it. How come?
President Trump
Because I want to do it properly.
David E. Sanger
And properly means own it?
President Trump
Really it is, to me, it’s ownership. Ownership is very important.
David E. Sanger
Why is ownership important here?
President Trump
Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do, whether you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document, that you can have a base.
David E. Sanger
So you’re going to ask them to buy it?
Katie Rogers
Psychologically important to you or to the United States?

President Trump
Psychologically important for me. Now, maybe another president would feel differently, but so far I’ve been right about everything.<<<(emphasis added)

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trump-interview-transcript.html

First, notice how quickly Trump got confused and forgot that they were talking about Greenland when he tried to blame Biden for closing 16 bases in Greenland.

In one sense, I'll give Trump credit because it seems as if he's being somewhat honest about his motive.

On the other hand, his motive "Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success." is bonkers.

An analyst described it as a NY real estate transaction who needs this for his legacy.

 

[GO-NAD!]

One does wonder whether his cabinet are happy to keep things going this way, with an eye to ultimately ousting him due to mental instability, and then pinning all the blame on him... Giving Vance and co a clearer path to possible electoral survival....

Is the orange toddler being set up as a scapegoat?

I'm not sure that it's within the powers of the cabinet to have him removed, for any reason. I have the impression that it's up to Congress to get that ball rolling. Regardless, I think their political and social futures hinge on keeping Trump in the Whitehouse.

Vance is smart enough* to know that at least half of the cabinet would have to be dumped ASAP, as they are grossly incompetent and political liabilities.

As for his own electoral prospects, he'd be nowhere without Trump. His only chance of becoming president is if Trump is removed from office or takes the dirt nap. This administration will be so tainted, that Vance's political career will be done at the end of this term.

*With his background in mind, he must be fairly bright when his career success - prior to entering politics - is considered. But, in order to show support for his boss' nonsense, he has to come across as a crass boor.

 

[Mr._Clark]

The case against Letitia James was tossed because the judge ruled that the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, was not lawfully appointed. So, Trumpdick brought in yet another prosecutor and attempted to re-indict her, but failed:

. . .

Trumpdick has turned the DOJ into his own personal sh*t show. And all of this is being paid for by the taxpayers.

This chapter of the sh*t show has apparently drawn to a close.

>>>Lindsey Halligan, a Trump-appointed federal attorney who led the failed prosecutions of two of the president’s political opponents, has left her position at the US justice department, attorney general Pam Bondi said on Tuesday.

The departure of Halligan, who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney, comes after multiple judges have sharply criticized her and cast doubts on her ability to lawfully remain in her position. . . .

David Novak, a federal judge, said he was removing the words “United States attorney” from the signature of an indictment, saying Halligan was prohibited from continuing to present herself with that title . . .

“No matter all of her machinations, Ms Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position. And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement made in direct defiance of valid court orders,” Novak wrote. “In short, this charade of Ms Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end.”<<<(emphasis added)

Lindsey Halligan leaves post as US attorney after judges’ sharp criticism

Trump-appointed federal attorney with no prosecutorial experience led failed cases against president’s political foes

www.theguardian.com

The DOJ previously filed a hyper-aggressive response attacking the judge:

>>>The Court’s thinly veiled threat to use attorney discipline to cudgel the Executive Branch into conforming its legal position in all criminal prosecutions to the views of a single district judge is a gross abuse of power and an affront to the separation of powers.<<<

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311/gov.uscourts.vaed.586311.22.0.pdf

What's curious about this is that the DOJ's arguments were not completely without merit. The aggressive tone in the filing was counter-productive. My impression is that the court filing was intended to appease Trump ("See, we are not weak, we went after the judge in the strongest possible terms").

>>>President Trump has complained to aides repeatedly in recent weeks about Attorney General Pam Bondi, describing her as weak and an ineffective enforcer of his agenda . . .<<<

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-has-complained-about-pam-bondi-repeatedly-to-aides

This is speculative on my part, of course, I really don't know why the DOJ decided to take a hyper-aggressive approach.

Regardless of the reasons, it was not effective.

 

[Mikado463]

I believe one of those 'multiple judges' was a Trump appointee from his first term, LMAO !