By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a scathing criticism, Biden launched an expletive-laden attack on prominent figures within the Democratic Party. He singled out George Clooney, accusing him of undermining the president with a public advertisement. Further targets included Democratic strategist James Carville, former Obama advisor David Axelrod, and the hosts of Pod Save America, all of whom were rebuked for their perceived lack of accomplishments and influence. Biden defended his own political career, highlighting his successes in the Senate and as president.
Read the original article here
**FBI’s Process to Check Epstein Files for Trump Mentions Was Pure Chaos**
The sheer disarray of the FBI’s process to sift through the Epstein files, specifically for mentions of Donald Trump, paints a picture of incompetence and, frankly, a bit of a mess. It sounds like a poorly organized operation from the get-go. The files, according to reports, were stored on a shared drive accessible to a much wider group of people than usual, without the typical security restrictions in place. This means a lot of people potentially had access to these sensitive documents.
This open access, or lack thereof, opens the door for some serious concerns. The idea of sensitive files related to a high-profile case, particularly one involving allegations of sex trafficking and high-profile figures, being accessible to a large number of people is a recipe for potential leaks, manipulation, and, as some suggest, even “kompromat” – the use of compromising information to exert influence.
The idea that the FBI was basically crowdsourcing the search process by using a simple “CTRL + F” search function to look for “Trump” is hard to believe. If the search was so simple, it further highlights the lack of care in this process. It raises questions about the motives behind the whole thing and the implications of how these files are handled. Did the FBI care more about protecting Trump’s image than uncovering the truth? It’s a question worth asking.
The lack of a secure process is concerning. Given the nature of the case and the high-profile figures involved, a more rigorous and secure approach would have been expected. It also creates a perfect environment for anyone to manipulate the files to fit their narrative. The lack of chain of custody in this situation casts doubt on the files’ integrity. If the information is released, it could be dismissed as unreliable, manipulated, and easily contested.
The fact that this all fell to a blogger to get the scoop is both telling and frustrating. It’s a clear indicator of a breakdown in the traditional media system. The whole situation is chaotic, from the shared drive to the potential for manipulation. The more attention this story gets, the less attention is being paid to the serious issues.
There’s speculation that the whole operation was designed to protect Donald Trump. Why would it be so hard to do the bare minimum and have the files remain secure? You can’t help but wonder if the goal was damage control rather than a thorough investigation. The entire approach seems calculated, with possible intent to muddy the waters. It is like they’re setting the stage to dismiss anything that comes out as a fabrication. It makes you question if there really was an investigation or if it was all a charade.
The process of checking these files, assuming it was primarily focused on finding Trump’s name, raises questions about the nature of the investigation. Was it to find damaging information on Trump or to protect him? The whole thing seems fishy. It’s a clear indication that there may be more at play than meets the eye, and the public is left to grapple with the fallout.
The lack of transparency and the seemingly disorganized approach to handling these sensitive files raises serious questions about the FBI’s priorities and its commitment to uncovering the truth. It’s a situation that invites cynicism and raises concerns about whether justice can be served in a case as complex and politically charged as the Epstein scandal. It’s a complete mess.