Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Normal people. 

These Libbie accusations are only to distract from the ongoing Libbie fraud.

  • Haha 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Normal people. 

These Libbie accusations are only to distract from the ongoing Libbie fraud.

^This is always the kind of BULLSHIT you post when you got BUPKIS. LMAO

Posted

Bombshell Epstein File Reveals FBI Interviewed Underage Trump Accuser

Quote

A paper trail starting with an FBI slideshow is raising new questions about the president.

The FBI interviewed a Jeffrey Epstein victim who alleged that President Donald Trump sexually abused her when she was a teenager, documents from the Justice Department file dump revealed.

A 21-page slideshow from the Epstein files summarizing the government’s long-running probe into Epstein and his girlfriend-slash-accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell included two allegations against Trump, whose years-long friendship with the disgraced New York financier was well documented. It remains unclear what became of the investigation into the accusations.

Under a slide titled “Prominent Names,” the slideshow read: “[Redacted] stated Epstein introduced her to Trump who subsequently forced her head down to his exposed penis which she subsequently bit. In response, Trump punched her in the head and kicked her out. (date range 1983-1985, [redacted] would have been 13-15).”

Department of Justice

The same allegation appeared in a July 2025 email thread between FBI employees.

Department of Justice

 

Posted

Meanwhile, Republicans are working to better the lives of Americans.

Please Libbies...stay the course.

  • Haha 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Meanwhile, Republicans are working to better the lives of Americans.

Please Libbies...stay the course.

They are working hard to suppress the votes of Americans cause Trump's polls are in the TOILET.

Posted (edited)

FBI Interviews with Underage Trump Accuser, Epstein Data Shows

Quote

The FBI spoke at least four times with a woman who credibly accused Trump of sexually assaulting her when she was a minor, Epstein files show. That document is no longer accessible on the DOJ website.

On Sunday, I reported that the FBI interviewed a victim who accused President Donald Trump of sexually and violently assaulting her when she was 13-15 years old. I also reported that some of the Justice Department’s case files for this woman — who later sued and reportedly received a settlement from Jeffrey Epstein’s estate for sexual abuse allegations in the same timeframe — appear to be missing from the government’s publicly searchable Epstein database.

However, I have now found DOJ records showing that the FBI did not just interview this woman once. The FBI interviewed this woman — who claimed that Trump forced her to give him oral sex when she was in her early teens, then punched her in the head after she bit his penis and kicked her out — at least four times.

But the DOJ’s file associated with those records — a document cataloguing information that the government provided counsel for convicted Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell during her trial — has apparently been removed.

This revelation adds to the mounting pile of evidence undermining statements from Attorney General Pam Bondi and other senior administration officials assuring the public that the Epstein file release has been transparent, complete, and bereft of any evidence implicating Trump in wrongdoing.

But my initial report also raised questions about files associated with the victim’s case number — 3501.045 — that do not appear to be in the Epstein database. In other words, the case seems to be incomplete.

Quick background on my first report about the accuser, if you need it; if not, feel free to skip this paragraph. My reporting showed the FBI found this woman’s allegations credible enough to warrant a formal interview, which she gave with her attorney present in July 2019 — and now, as I have just learned, credible enough for three other interviews. The woman’s attorney told agents in that first interview that she would only speak to them at the time about Epstein, and not any other people — including, by name, Donald Trump — specifying the reason as a “fear of retaliation.” But “credible” doesn’t mean the woman’s claims were verified, or even that they could be independently verified — which her initial interview suggests may be impossible, since she did not memorialize the abuse in writing when it happened to her, as early as age 13. And it doesn’t mean the DOJ believed it could seek charges because of her claims alone, especially since they’d need her to cooperate as a witness if they did want to bring charges. We don’t even know if the DOJ arrived at any final disposition regarding this woman’s allegations against the president. It just means the FBI found her to be credible in 2019, and six years later included her allegation as a bullet point in a comprehensive internal presentation about the Epstein and Maxwell case history, assembled last summer.

Today, I searched for the victim’s case in an AI-powered database (epstein-data.com) of files that have been downloaded at some point from the DOJ’s public released data. That turned up a document I hadn’t seen before, showing that the FBI conducted not one but four interviews with this victim. The four interviews took place in the summer of 2019, after the initial tip was given in the days following Epstein’s arrest. The document also accounts for FBI “interview notes” associated with three of those four interviews. Here’s a screenshot of the records.

https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F29148b48-ab92-48d6-937e-c68206c3a1c7_2324x652.png

The only reason the public can see that screenshot today is because in late January, this Epstein database document happened to get saved in the Wayback Machine, a webpage archiving service.

Here is the link to that archived record of the document.

The AI database also saved this file before the document was taken offline, and the database associates that file with a DOJ internet address. This is the address: https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet 9/EFTA00095751.pdf

But as of this writing today, that address returns “page not found.”

 

Edited by robosmith
Posted
3 hours ago, robosmith said:

NAKED LINK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

46 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The case ID for the claimed blackmail files that were deleted from the Epstein transparency database, is the same as that in OP for this thread.

See database list in video: #3501-045

"Deleted Epstein files point to blackmail" VIDEO

So you're saying the charges against trump weren't credible and the FBI determined it wasn't worth investigating.

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
3 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

More Facebook videos from Robo, seriously do you go anywhere else for your news?

If its not the intern ex soft porn actress that you simp for its random dummycrats no one has heard of.

 

It's enough to stump you for a rebuttal. LMAO

I don't care if I find SIX videos on FB as long as they're all corroborating each other.

But you're too stupid to read the substack feature by the ex-Daily Beast reporter Roger Sollenberger or any of the Epstein database documents which TELL YOU that the FBI found the witness CREDIBLE. Which you are NOT. 

Posted
41 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Only ONE cherry picked poll says he is even above water. AKA desperation on your part.

All OTHERS are underwater with the average -8pts. LMAO

Quote
RCP Average 1/27 - 2/19 42.3 55.4
Spread-13.1
Rasmussen Reports 2/15 - 2/19 1500 LV 47 51
Spread-4
Big Data Poll 2/16 - 2/18 2012 RV 42 55
Spread-13
InsiderAdvantage 2/17 - 2/18 800 LV 50 46
Spread+4
Economist/YouGov 2/13 - 2/16 1512 RV 43 55
Spread-12
Morning Consult 2/13 - 2/16 2200 RV 43 55
Spread-12
RMG Research* 2/11 - 2/19 3000 RV 47 52
Spread-5
Reuters/Ipsos 2/13 - 2/16 1117 A 38 60
Spread-22
Quantus Insights 2/13 - 2/13 1515 LV 43 56
Spread-13
Yahoo News 2/9 - 2/12 1149 RV 42 56
Spread-14
AP/NORC** 2/6 - 2/9 1156 A 36 62
Spread-26
NBC News Decision Desk 1/27 - 2/6 21995 A 39 61
Spread-22
Quinnipiac 1/29 - 2/2 1191 RV 37 56
Spread-19

 

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, robosmith said:

Only ONE cherry picked poll says he is even above water. AKA desperation on your part.

All OTHERS are underwater with the average -8pts. LMAO

 

 Cool. Now do democrats.

Edited by gatomontes99

Don't you think that if I were wrong that I would know it? 

 

 

Posted
10 hours ago, robosmith said:

It's enough to stump you for a rebuttal. LMAO

I don't care if I find SIX videos on FB as long as they're all corroborating each other.

But you're too stupid to read the substack feature by the ex-Daily Beast reporter Roger Sollenberger or any of the Epstein database documents which TELL YOU that the FBI found the witness CREDIBLE. Which you are NOT. 

The Daily Beast? Holy crap you seemed to quote a report of the most left wing dishonest piece of trash newsite on the web. Im sorry I never worked for a propaganda website but I can make shit up too, its not too hard.

Posted
9 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

The Daily Beast? Holy crap you seemed to quote a report of the most left wing dishonest piece of trash newsite on the web. Im sorry I never worked for a propaganda website but I can make shit up too, its not too hard.

Meanwhile you MAGA right keep posting BULLSHIT from the ONLY "news" channel which had to pay $800M for LYING.

NO ONE ELSE. So don't tell me about "dishonest piece of trash newsite,: because you don't even know what that means.

Posted
4 hours ago, robosmith said:

Meanwhile you MAGA right keep posting BULLSHIT from the ONLY "news" channel which had to pay $800M for LYING.

NO ONE ELSE. So don't tell me about "dishonest piece of trash newsite,: because you don't even know what that means.

Well we've been over this, that's not true. NBC and CNN have both had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for lying

  • Like 1

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

Well we've been over this, that's not true. NBC and CNN have both had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for lying

Prove it comes close to $800M EACH. You CANNOT. LMAO

Posted
41 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Prove it comes close to $800M EACH. You CANNOT. LMAO

Not doing this with you again Robo Smith, you know you're a liar you know you're lying we know you're lying obviously you're okay with being known as a liar

  • Like 1

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
13 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Not doing this with you again Robo Smith, you know you're a liar you know you're lying we know you're lying obviously you're okay with being known as a liar

I knew you could NOT make good on your CLAIMS and now you're just ^deflecting, CdnLIAR.

Posted
18 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I knew you could NOT make good on your CLAIMS and now you're just ^deflecting, CdnLIAR.

I knew you'd lie about it. Every time you accuse somebody of something it's always an admission with you.

CNN and NBC and a bunch of others have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for lying. They even got caught manufacturing and faking their stories and fox news never got caught for that

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Posted
On 2/23/2026 at 11:29 AM, CdnFox said:

I knew you'd lie about it. Every time you accuse somebody of something it's always an admission with you.

CNN and NBC and a bunch of others have had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for lying. They even got caught manufacturing and faking their stories and fox news never got caught for that

IF you had EVIDENCE you'd have posted it, BUT you HAVE NONE. LMAO

AGAIN: NO one ELSE has come near the $800M penalty FOS LIES PAID for LYING.

Of course you are FOOL ENOUGH quadruple down on YOUR LIES.

Posted
6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

IF you had EVIDENCE you'd have posted it, BUT you HAVE NONE. LMAO

AGAIN: NO one ELSE has come near the $800M penalty FOS LIES PAID for LYING.

Of course you are FOOL ENOUGH quadruple down on YOUR LIES.

Well, you may not have been fined, but you certainly put out more lies here than they ever have. 

 

 

Posted
1 hour ago, robosmith said:

IF you had EVIDENCE you'd have posted it, BUT you HAVE NONE. LMAO

AGAIN: NO one ELSE has come near the $800M penalty FOS LIES PAID for LYING.

Of course you are FOOL ENOUGH quadruple down on YOUR LIES.

It's already proven and it's proven you're a liar.  So TWO wins for me :)  You've got BUPKIS!!!!!!!

Also what kind of loser pretends i'm on 'ignore' and then replies to me? Twat :) 

 

"That which doesn't kill me...

Had better start running."

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      11,017
    • Most Online
      2,945

    Newest Member
    taylor66
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...