By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Attorney General Pam Bondi has asserted that no evidence of criminal activity by Trump exists, a statement that contributes to a pattern of denials from Trump officials. Simultaneously, FBI records, discovered by journalist Roger Sollenberger, reveal the bureau interviewed a specific woman at least four times during the summer of 2019. These interview records, which were accessible through a separate Epstein document database and provided to Ghislaine Maxwell’s defense, have since been removed from public view, despite legislation mandating transparency regarding Epstein-related documents.
Read the original article here
The Department of Justice, in a move that has raised significant eyebrows and fueled considerable suspicion, appears to have deliberately removed records of interviews with an accuser who alleged sexual assault by Donald Trump when she was underage. This decision, involving the FBI’s extensive questioning of one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims on four separate occasions regarding her claims against Trump, has led many to believe that a concerted effort is underway to conceal potentially damaging information. The mere fact that the FBI conducted multiple interviews suggests a level of seriousness attributed to the allegation by the investigators themselves at the time, making their subsequent removal from official files all the more perplexing and indicative of a deliberate act of suppression.
The implications of this redaction are profound, casting a shadow over the transparency and integrity of the DOJ’s handling of sensitive cases. The sheer volume of interviews conducted by the FBI, four times over, suggests that the accuser’s testimony was deemed significant enough to warrant repeated examination. To then scrub these records from the Epstein files is not merely an administrative oversight; it strongly suggests an intentional effort to prevent this information from surfacing, particularly in light of the ongoing legal proceedings and public scrutiny surrounding Donald Trump. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that this action is designed to protect Trump, especially when considering the other deeply troubling allegations and revelations that have emerged from the Epstein investigation.
Many observers are expressing outrage, viewing this act as a blatant cover-up and a disturbing illustration of how certain individuals, particularly those in positions of power, can be shielded from accountability. The concern is that this is not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of protecting powerful figures from the consequences of their alleged actions. The fact that the alleged assault occurred when the accuser was a minor only amplifies the gravity of the situation and the disgust felt by those who see this as an endorsement of egregious misconduct. The language used in reporting such matters, sometimes softening the reality of child abuse by referring to “young teens” rather than the unequivocal term “children,” is also being called out as a form of “sanewashing” that diminishes the severity of the alleged crimes.
The belief that these interviews were scrubbed to prevent incriminating evidence against Trump from becoming public is a prevalent sentiment. This suspicion is further compounded by the history of Epstein’s connections to powerful individuals and the alleged complicity of various figures in facilitating his activities and protecting those associated with him. The removal of these records, therefore, is not seen in isolation but as another piece of evidence in a perceived larger conspiracy to hide the truth. The hope is that individuals who may have retained copies of the original files will come forward, allowing for a comparison and potentially exposing the extent of the redaction.
Bringing the FBI agents who conducted these interviews before Congress to testify is being proposed as a crucial step to uncover what transpired. Even if the documents themselves have been removed, the agents’ firsthand accounts could shed light on the credibility of the accuser and the nature of her allegations. The argument is that the DOJ and FBI may never fully recover from the damage to their reputation if these actions are not thoroughly investigated and explained. The perception of the DOJ as the “Department of Just Us” is a harsh critique but reflects the deep mistrust that such actions engender.
The comparison of this situation to other high-profile cases, such as the arrest of Prince Andrew in the UK in connection with Epstein’s activities, highlights a desire for equal justice. The suggestion that political parties should focus relentlessly on this issue, making it a central talking point, underscores the perceived significance of these allegations and the potential political ramifications. The idea that this cover-up could be even larger than Watergate speaks to the profound level of concern and disillusionment felt by many. The notion that the internet is forever, and that attempts to scrub digital records only serve to further highlight guilt and obstruction, is a widely held belief in the digital age.
The concern is that without a significant change within the DOJ, Donald Trump will continue to evade accountability. The argument is that the current leadership is actively obstructing justice by protecting individuals accused of horrific crimes. The hope is for a purge of those involved, allowing for an unbiased investigation and the filing of appropriate charges. The demand for links to the original accusations and FBI statements regarding the accuser’s credibility indicates a desire for verifiable evidence and a rejection of what is perceived as a deliberate attempt to bury the truth. The sentiment is clear: those responsible for this perceived cover-up should face severe consequences, including potential impeachment and imprisonment. The wider implications of the Epstein files, encompassing not just pedophilia but also homicide, money laundering, and international security breaches, further underscore the need for complete transparency and accountability.