1429
Seems like the most reasonable explanation
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2025
1429 points (100.0% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
7695 readers
997 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm struggling to reconcile this with the previous reason given for not releasing the files, that they were a national security risk. So, releasing no evidence would have been a risk to national security after Epstein was dead?
Trump probably collected millions in extortion money from everybody on that list
The government lies.
It doesn't matter when or where you read this, it's always true.
Yes and no. It depends on the part of the government in question.
Take the Government Accountability Office. I pretty much trust anything they put out. The same goes for NASA, and until this year, NOAA.
OSHA also tends to get a pass.
Homeland Security or the FBI? My sodium intake becomes dangerously high.
And that's even before Trump returned to power.
Were they a risk because they were dirt on politicians? We could have resolved that by getting rid of those politicians.