G roup
O f
P edos
this post was submitted on 15 Jul 2025
633 points (99.5% liked)
politics
24780 readers
2632 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Gross Old Pedos
Every Democratic candidate should make that a specific focus of their campaign marketing - that their opponent voted AGAINST releasing the Epstein Files, juxtaposed with any statements they may have made demanding that they be released.
And if it's an incumbent Democrat, claim that their opponent is a vicious hard core MAGA, and they definitely would have voted for against the release.
Huh. That's weird.
Now just WHY would the Gang of Pedos be going out of their way to protect pedos? So strange, I thought they were the party that was going to get to the bottom of Qanon and release "the storm" on pedos, which were all presumed to be Democrats?
pikachu_face.jpg here
load more comments
(5 replies)
Trump raped kids
And if you don’t believe the probability that occured… he admitted on daytime television that he was attracted to his own daughter!
There are pics of trump and Ivanka that make people in Alabama uncomfortable...
Amazing how shocked people are by this.
WhY Don'T TeH DEmS ReLEAse ThE LiST?
Damn, if only the Dems had the presidency at some point, potentially between his death and now.
I don't think there a list that says "This is all the bad people I did bad things for", but if there was it should've been released already, and if there's not then this is just theater. They're entitled to theatre, but I'm not really sure what your comment is supposed to imply. Is it implying "look the dems want it released!", because this is the weakest attempt at doing that imaginable. If they wanted it released they had years to figure it out and it would've prevented maga from using it as a rallying point.
Neither party wants this shit released. There are republicans and democrats incriminated in it.
There are rich people incriminated in it, and they don't much care what flavour of neoliberal is in power, as long as they get to continue their affairs unmolested.
load more comments
(7 replies)
imma throat punch first mofo that says that
Why is it not expected that they'll release a document that says:
My Clients
Hilary Clinton Bill Clinton Taylor Swift Hillary Clinton Obama Rosie O Donnell Joe Biden Laughing Kamala Abrego Garcia
By Jeffery Epstein
You forgot to add Hillary Clinton, and it's Barack HUSSEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNN Obama
The Big Beautiful Bill also bundled a bunch of unrelated things, and that still got GOP votes.
Not to throw gas on the fire, but as an outsider, why didn’t Biden release those files in the 4 years he was president?
It's not usual procedure for evidence to be released to the public, and both Biden and his pick for the DoJ, Merrick Garland, were unimaginative precedent-driven ghouls who wouldn't take a piss if it didn't have a court case and bipartisan agreement in the past five years authorizing it.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Because the "high road" and "Moral Victories" were the primary focus of his presidency. He made absolutely no effort to curtail and obvious dictator coming to power save for "pre-emptive" pardons on the people that were trying. So releasing the Epstein files was contradictory to his style of leadership which is not what we needed. I am not anti-biden, but I really am disappointed that he kept stepping on every land mine the donvict laid out for him as if on purpose sometimes.
47's tenure might make you forget a few things about how presidencies are supposed to work. Releasing evidence is not something the president does, typically.
There are Democrats on the list also. Neither party wants this shit to actually come out.
Public deserves to see ALL who are on it, both parties. Burn them all.
I agree with you, I just don't expect it to happen.
Not saying this happened under Biden, but why would those files be released when they could be used to prosecute those in there? It was the Republicans and more specific MAGA pushing for a release and making it an election topic. At least for me (European), the list, if it exists in this form, is something you base investigations on. You gain nothing from releasing it to the public. But Republicans used it to feed their fringe conspiracy voter base, so the question is not exactly "why don't they release it", but rather "why don't they release it after talking about it for years and then putting the radio hosts who talked about it into key administration positions just to after claiming the files are on their desk stating that they don't actually exist while simultaneously damaging people on release". And it's not like any potential list came up during Biden's admin. Epstein was arrested and died under Trump.
I'd also think that some people have some kind of Dead Man Switch for releasing the relevant documents (if they exist).
I actually think it should be released publicly. There will be no justice without transparency. The people involved are to powerful to expect it to be handled justly.
Personally, I'm not a fan of vigilante justice, regardless of the crime, and this is certainly what this would lead to. But the big scandal is actually that there seemed to be no investigation into people apart from Epstein and Maxwell; this is the question people should be asking in my opinion: why has nobody else been prosecuted?
Fear of a domino effect? One person rats on another. Suddenly, you got a whole bunch of powerful people in trouble. I just wish someone would leak it. How is everyone who comes in contact with this list okay with it? Like not one person is like "what the fuck?" It boggles my mind.
Generally neither am I. But I also feel no laws should protect the ultra wealthy, especially when the crimes are global. Somebody must take the powerful down and it isn’t going to be the powerful.
I guess that makes sense, use them to build a case, which just got derailed when trump took over remember Elon said Trump was in the filles which indicates he saw them. They probably got dodged into a shredder
Either way, this only works in the Democrats favor. Now the crazy MAGAts have more people to be pissed at and not vote for.
House Republicans want to rape your kids too.
What happened: The House Rules Committee, which prepares legislation for votes on the House floor, voted 5 to 6 against attaching Khanna's amendment to a procedural measure related to the GENIUS Act and a defense funding bill.
Republicans said the amendment was not pertinent to the GENIUS Act, which would create the first regulatory framework for stablecoins, or the defense funding bill.
I hope the next step is one page bill to vote on and not an amendment to an unrelated bill.
I feel like this amendment gives Republicans full cover since they can just say, "It was an unrelated amendment" and they'd be right.
Just the other day Rep Khanna tweeted,
On Tuesday, I'm introducing an amendment to force a vote demanding the FULL Epstein files be released to the public. The Speaker must call a vote & put every Congress member on record.
But had this amendment passed it would not have put every Congress member on record. Had this amendment passed Congress would have been voting on the "GENIUS Act" and defense funding bill.
We would have been in the EXACT same situation as we JUST had with the "Big Beautiful Bill". People voting for it and then saying, "Oh, but I don't agree with it."
Had his amendment passed Democrats could then vote against the bill by saying, "The GENIUS Act and defense spending bill are terrible pieces of legislation. I also want the list released, but I couldn't vote for this bill for other reasons."
And yes, a one page bill that says to release the files would never actually get a congressional vote. The Speaker of the House would never bring it for a vote. Some procedural nonsense would block it. BUT make those fuckers defend their decision.
Just because Democrats are in the minority doesn't mean they have to give up at the slightest inconvenience. Push this hard. You've found a weak spot, hit back! Push Republicans. Fuck, push Democrats if you have to.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Most people do not follow the minutia of government and will not even know any of this happened.
Well of course they did. They're all on the list. So are their donors.
Do not fear, pilgrim. I shall enlighten you on the ways of our LORD.
You see, the LORD knows that his agents require compensation for their holy work. Therefore, God proactively created children to serve his most worthy agents, and thus, serve the LORD! It would be an honor to be chosen for such a holy task.
The Republicans understand Epstein's holy mission, and wish to see it upheld. Such is why Epstein was smited by the hand of God when he turned his back on God's light. No treason shall be tolerated in the eyes of the LORD.
It is the Devil who wants such children freed from their duty. To distract such children from their holy task exudes the grave sin of sloth. We must stand firm against such demonic influence if God's Plan is to succeed.
Please be aware that I am roleplaying as a evangelical whackjob in this comment. Sometimes obviously fake comments are taken as truth.
You know some people say Mary (mother of Jesus) was raped by a priest, as a young girl. Hence the "divine conception". You could be uncomfortably close to historical truth.
load more comments
(3 replies)
That's not remotely surprising, but I would like to know how many Democrats voted no.
None. All 4 Democrats on the committee voted in favor. It wasn't a floor vote, it was an amendment to a crypto bill in committee.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›