Lawmakers seeking to force the release of files related to the sex trafficking investigation into Jeffrey Epstein are predicting a big win in the House this week with a “deluge of Republicans” voting for their bill and bucking the GOP leadership and Donald Trump, who for months have disparaged their effort.
The bill would force the Justice Department to release all files and communications related to Epstein, as well as any information about the investigation into his death in federal prison. Information about Epstein’s victims or ongoing federal investigations would be allowed to be redacted.
“There could be 100 or more” votes from Republicans, said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., among the lawmakers discussing the legislation on Sunday news show appearances. “I’m hoping to get a veto-proof majority on this legislation when it comes up for a vote.”
The fact that WH is green lighting this effort is super sus. The witches are mixing the pot….
They will open another Epstein enquiry, and then will not be able to release any further documents while it is still “under investigation”.
You know, how tRump delayed and then NEVER released his taxes because they are perpetually “under audit”.
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.
🖕🤬
The fact that orange is now about facing the issue makes that very likely.
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?
“A veto-proof majority”
Imagine Trump vetoing this
I like how now that it’s inevitable, he’s pivoted to saying the Republicans should release them. He’s like a fucking toddler who shit himself and is insisting he meant to do that.
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.
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.
He is going to 100% pocket veto it.
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.
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.
The one change at a time works only when there isn’t so much overhead it grinds the system to a haul. The government isn’t software, and software development has less overhead than running a whole country. At this level of overhead, one change at a time would mean we would get sufficiently less passes. Software development is also about efficiency and understanding when to make trade offs. You have to trade off the one change at a time paradigm so you can accomplish your job.
Narrator: they were, for the most part, wrong.
I don’t care what they say (for the most part). I care what they do.
