Trump 2.0

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5739
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Trump 2.0

Post by jimbob »

We have the smoking gun for bad faith.

File #468 was initially released and then deleted.

https://x.com/OversightDems/status/2002430296172745079

And it is a not-very damning but distasteful photo including Trump with young woman in bikinis. Also there was no possible legal reason to redact this.

Then there is a photo of Bill Clinton and Michael Jackson with Diana Ross and three redacted kids.

Except that they are Ewan Ross and Michael Jackson's kids.

https://m.imdb.com/news/ni65628031/?ref_=nwc_art_perm

In fact Joseph Schmidt had been secretly filmed predicting this would happen

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/11/2 ... g-00666788
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5739
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: Trump 2.0

Post by jimbob »

So, to recap:

At least one Jane Doe has her name illegally left in the released files.

At least one shot of Clinton with redacted individuals should not have had anyone redacted as they were not victims but the kids of the other two identifiable people in the photo (Michael Jackson and Diana Ross)

And at least one photo of Trump (with young women or girls in bikinis) was removed, when there was no legal reason to do so.

It's almost as though the FBI is concentrating on trying to pretend that people other than Trump were far more important. And a smear campaign.

Yes, one Jane Doe has complained as her name was left in the released files.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
Post Reply