By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Democratic congressman has urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate a grave allegation surfaced in the unsealed Epstein files. The congressman pointed to a witness who reported a girl, later deceased, claiming she was raped by both Trump and Epstein, and questioned why the Department of Justice (DOJ) had not interviewed this witness. This call follows Bondi’s contentious appearance before the House Judiciary Committee, where she faced accusations of dishonesty regarding the DOJ’s handling of the Epstein case. Lawmakers also expressed concern over the DOJ’s apparent monitoring of their searches within the Epstein files, a practice described as “creepy” by some.
Read the original article here
The call for the Department of Justice to interview the FBI caller who made a rape allegation against Donald Trump stems from a deep-seated concern about the impartiality and integrity of the justice system. There’s a palpable sense that the current administration, and specifically individuals within the DOJ, are compromised, making a truly neutral investigation highly improbable. The argument suggests that the DOJ, under its current leadership, might be more inclined to protect certain individuals rather than pursue justice, particularly in cases involving serious allegations.
This skepticism is amplified by observations of behavior that is perceived as partisan and overly deferential to the President. Instead of focusing on substantive matters of justice and due process, there are accusations that certain officials prioritize political optics and pleasing the President, as evidenced by references to discussions about economic indicators like the Dow Jones Industrial Average during crucial hearings. The notion that the Attorney General, a position meant to be non-partisan, would engage in such behavior fuels the demand for an independent review.
Furthermore, the perceived lack of action on serious allegations, contrasted with what are seen as overzealous investigations into political opponents or protesters, creates an environment of distrust. The argument posits that while certain individuals within the DOJ might readily pursue investigations into other matters, they appear hesitant or unwilling to fully investigate credible allegations of grave offenses. This selective approach to justice is seen as a significant flaw that undermines public faith in the institutions responsible for upholding the law.
The assertion that the current DOJ is “fully compromised” is a strong one, leading to the conclusion that interviews with victims or accusers by this body might not yield truthful or complete results. The concern is that any information gathered could be suppressed or manipulated to protect those in power. This has led to the idea that before any interviews are conducted by the DOJ, a thorough review and potential removal of compromised employees is necessary to ensure a clean slate.
The reliance on settlements and Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to potentially hide or cover up federal crimes is also a significant point of contention. The argument is that such agreements, while perhaps legally binding in civil matters, should not be allowed to obstruct or conceal evidence of criminal activity. This creates a loophole that allows perpetrators to escape accountability, further eroding the principle of equal justice under the law.
There’s a clear sentiment that the focus often shifts to investigating the survivors or accusers rather than the alleged perpetrators. This is seen as a reversal of the natural order of justice, where the accused should be investigated. The consistent return to discussions about economic success, like the Dow’s performance, while allegations of serious crimes remain unaddressed, is perceived as a deliberate distraction tactic.
The process of how such an interview would even unfold under the current DOJ is questioned. The fear is that the same potentially corrupted FBI, operating under the same leadership, would conduct the interview and then proceed to bury the evidence. This highlights a lack of faith in the established structures to conduct a fair and thorough investigation. The treatment of elected representatives with what is described as contempt during congressional hearings further fuels the perception of disrespect for the oversight functions of government.
The use of terms like “Trump derangement syndrome” by officials in a formal setting is viewed as a tactic to deflect from serious issues and cater to a specific political base. The contrast between dismissive or combative responses during hearings and the prioritization of political messaging is stark and, to many, indicative of a compromised agenda. The idea that a chief law enforcement officer would engage in such partisan “sound bite farming” is seen as a departure from the expected solemnity and integrity of their office.
Some express a weariness with the constant discussion of “timelines,” recognizing that the current political reality is what it is, however deeply flawed. There’s a sense of frustration and even fatalism that permeates these discussions, suggesting that the current situation is both “insane” and deeply problematic. The comparison to how such behavior might be perceived and handled in other countries further emphasizes the perceived dysfunction.
The persistent questioning of whether victims have apologized to Donald Trump, rather than the other way around, is seen as a deeply disturbing reversal of roles, casting the accusers as the offenders. The repeated assertion, even if met with resistance, that “Trump rapes kids” underscores the gravity of the allegations and the urgency with which many believe they should be investigated.
The suggestion is made that if the DOJ cannot or will not conduct a proper investigation, the responsibility should fall to Congress to interview the accusers directly. This would bring the testimonies into a public forum where they could be heard and considered by elected officials and, by extension, the public. The idea of “believing the women” is a recurring theme, emphasizing the importance of giving credence to their accounts.
The notion that investigating a convicted sex offender or a known “conman” is not a “witch hunt” is a counter-argument to common political defenses used to dismiss investigations. The assertion that “Republicans fucking hate due process” and democracy itself is a strong indictment of their approach to these issues.
There’s also a consideration of the legal ramifications, with the concern that a “sham investigation” by the current DOJ could complicate future legal proceedings. The argument is that a more thorough and transparent process, even if initiated by Congress, might be more effective in achieving justice and accountability. The use of insulting language is discouraged as a means of pushing for social decency, highlighting the disconnect between the desired outcome and the methods employed.
The idea of the Attorney General being a federally elected position is raised as a potential solution to ensure greater accountability to the public. The frustration is evident when allegations of serious crimes are juxtaposed with the President’s apparent concern for financial markets. The belief that the current DOJ has “zero desire to follow up on any of this” leads to the conclusion that any internal interview would be futile.
The legal concept that evidence of a crime cannot be shielded by NDAs is acknowledged, but the practical reality is that government entities may not always be bound by the same strictures as individuals. The direct and matter-of-fact approach of certain elected officials, like Jamie Raskin, is appreciated as a refreshing contrast to perceived evasiveness. The constitutional duty of Congress to conduct oversight and enforce transparency is emphasized, with suggestions that funding could be withheld until there is accountability. The “sycophancy of MAGA” is identified as the “real TDS.” The notion that the current situation is a “longing for what could’ve been” if certain past events had gone differently is acknowledged, but the resolve to “fight till I’m dead” signifies a refusal to succumb to fatalism. The ultimate conclusion is that if the FBI and DOJ cannot be trusted, Congress should take the lead in interviewing the accusers.