Sunday, February 15, 2026

Yes, It’s a Cover-Up: Trump-Epstein Files πŸ’πŸ’©

The government promised transparency on the Epstein files, Congress passed a law, the President signed it, and the Justice Department responded by releasing a pile of blacked-out paperwork while telling the public to "trust us." The problem is, the only people who know what's missing are the same people who'd have every reason to hide it. And if you're wondering whether that smells like a cover-up " congratulations, your nose still works.

Comments

Now let's slow this down and really chew it.

First, let's get something straight. This wasn't some accidental paperwork snafu or clerical oopsie. Congress explicitly ordered the Epstein records to be released. Not summarized. Not selectively redacted into legal Mad Libs. Released. The public was told, You're going to see what happened, who was involved, and how deep this thing went.

What they got instead was a stack of documents that look like they were edited by a Sharpie-happy raccoon.

Names gone. Connections erased. Timelines fuzzy. Accountability floating somewhere out there like Bigfoot: rumored, blurry, never quite caught on camera.

And then comes the punchline: the Department of Justice says, "We've complied."

That's it. That's the proof. Trust us.

Trust.
From the same institution that somehow lost track of a high-profile sex trafficker in federal custody.
Trust.
From the people who decide what you're allowed to see and what you're not allowed to even know exists.

Here's the trick: you cannot independently verify a cover-up when the people accused of covering it up are the sole custodians of the evidence. That's not paranoia, that's basic logic. That's kindergarten epistemology.

If the government releases documents and says, "That's everything," there is no referee. No outside audit. No neutral party counting pages and saying, "Yep, all here." The Justice Department grades its own homework and hands itself an A-minus for effort.

And notice how carefully everyone dances around the phrase cover-up. Journalists hesitate. Officials bristle. Because to prove a cover-up, you'd need access to the very material being withheld. It's a perfect loop. A bureaucratic ouroboros eating its own tail while asking you to applaud its transparency.

Meanwhile, the redactions aren't protecting victims; that excuse collapses fast. They're protecting reputations. Powerful ones. The kind that don't enjoy daylight. The kind that get nervous when names, dates, and flight logs start lining up like dominoes.

And here's the real damage. This isn't just about Epstein anymore. This is about institutional trust. When the government says "believe us" while actively limiting what can be believed, it trains the public to assume deception as the default setting.

That's how cynicism becomes rational.

So no, you don't need a secret memo labeled COVER-UP PLAN. You don't need a villain twirling a mustache in a DOJ conference room. All you need is power, opacity, and a system that says, "If you can't see it, you can't prove it."

And that's the quiet brilliance of the con.

Because in the end, the public is left holding a bag full of black ink, empty of answers, while being told this is what accountability looks like.

Which is funny.
Not ha-ha funny.
More like "Jesus Christ, are you kidding me?" funny.

And that's the way it is when the people in charge decide truth is need-to-know, and you don't need to know.

#1 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2026-02-15 05:31 PM

It's the biggest cover-up and biggest criminal conspiracy in American history.

Republicans who aren't named Thomas Massie simply don't care.

#2 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-15 05:51 PM

And Massie is getting legit death threats for his disbelief of the Lyin' King.

MGT better mind her Ps and Qs, too.

#3 | Posted by Corky at 2026-02-15 05:55 PM

MTG... MGT is Muslim Girls Training, so obviously not the same thing!

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2026-02-15 05:58 PM

@#1 ... And then comes the punchline: the Department of Justice says, "We've complied."

That's it. That's the proof. Trust us. ...

You'd think that the DoJ would know when they might be violating a Federal law.

Let's see, At the top of the DoJ is AG Bondi.

en.wikipedia.org

... In 2020, Bondi was one of President Donald Trump's defense lawyers during his first impeachment trial. ...

In August 2018, while still serving as Florida attorney general, Bondi co-hosted The Five on Fox News three days in a row while also appearing on Sean Hannity's Fox News show.[33] Fox News claimed that the Florida Commission on Ethics had approved Bondi's appearance on the program; however, the spokeswoman for the commission denied that, telling the Tampa Bay Times that no decision was made by the commission and that the commission's general counsel did not make a determination whether or not Bondi's appearance as a host violated the Florida Code of Ethics. The Tampa Bay Times described it as "unprecedented" for a sitting elected official to host a TV show.[33] ...

In 2013, Bondi received scrutiny following a campaign donation from Donald Trump.[34] Prior to the donation, Bondi had received at least 22 fraud complaints regarding Trump University. A spokesperson for Bondi announced that her office was considering joining a lawsuit initiated by Eric Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, regarding potential tax fraud charges against Trump.[35][36] Four days later, And Justice for All, a political action committee established by Bondi to support her re-election, received a $25,000 donation from the Donald J. Trump Foundation. Bondi subsequently declined to join the lawsuit against Trump University. Both Bondi and Trump have defended the propriety of the donation.[37][38] ...


OK, a possible conflict of interest there.

So, who is the Dep AG?

Oh, Dep AG Blanche.

en.wikipedia.org

... Blanche was later employed by the law firm WilmerHale,[8] where he represented clients including Igor Fruman and Paul Manafort during the latter's 2016 fraud trial.[8][13][14] ...

Blanche left the Cadwalader firm in 2023[8] and founded Blanche Law to represent former U.S. president Donald Trump[13][8] during his 2024 criminal trial in New York City.[8] ...


Pres Trump's personal lawyer? Is there a conflict of interest there?


#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-15 06:12 PM

@3 ... MGT better mind her Ps and Qs, too. ...

Looks like she has already been receiving them ...

Marjorie Taylor Greene says she is receiving threats amid rift with Trump (November 2025)
www.cbsnews.com

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-15 06:15 PM

Only 2 percent of Epstein files have been released by DOJ

www.alternet.org

#7 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2026-02-15 06:24 PM

@#7

More from the article cited in #7...

... The UK's Channel 4 News reported this week that the Justice Department isn't being honest about what they have on trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, his accomplices and the years of investigation done by the federal government.

According to its analysis of emails in the latest batch of 3.5 million pages, the Epstein files suggest that what has been released is only a small fraction of what there is. "Potentially only 2 percent of the information the FBI retrieved from Epstein's homes," is what has been shared with the public.

Survivors of Epstein have told members of Congress and the media that the Justice Department has consistently refused to follow the law passed by Congress mandating the release.

Speaking to the House Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to meet with survivors. In fact, she wouldn't even turn around to look at them when they were acknowledged. Instead, she demanded that Congress spend its time praising Dow Jones stock numbers rather than asking about the Epstein files. ...


#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-15 07:23 PM

@#8 ... Speaking to the House Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General Pam Bondi refused to meet with survivors. In fact, she wouldn't even turn around to look at them when they were acknowledged. ...

When I saw that part of her "testimony" my heart hit the floor. AG Bondi refused to even acknowledge the survivors of Epstein's abuse.


#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-15 07:26 PM

"When I saw that part of her "testimony" my heart hit the floor."

You better install a mine shaft elevator, buddy.
This rape and murder coverup party is just getting started.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-02-15 07:55 PM

@#10 ... This rape and murder coverup party is just getting started. ...

While I am reluctant to call it a "party," I do agree that the future may hold worse revelations.

Why else would the Trump admin be working so hard on the apparent cover-up?

Who is Pres Trump trying to protect?

Even if it is Elvis Presley (whose name the DoJ apparently released as a mention in the Epstein files) ... I say, stop the cover-up and let Justice be served for the victims.


#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-15 08:12 PM

Raping underage kids has long been a tradition in the Republican Party.

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2026-02-15 08:36 PM

@#12 ... Raping underage kids has long been a tradition in the Republican Party. ...

I don't care about the party regarding the Epstein files.

I want Justice for the victims of the Epstein abuse.

Regardless of political party.


Why is the "From" address redacted in this email?


#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-02-15 08:48 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

Fox News Analyst on Trump: 'Intolerable, Impeachable' (57 comments)

Florida Honors Parkland Victims (36 comments)

Trump to Issue Executive Order on Voter ID Before Election (28 comments)

Trump's Hand Is Bruised Again (25 comments)

Trump Secretly Yanks National Guard Out of Three Blue Cities (22 comments)

Gabbard Whistleblower Complaint Concerns Conversation about Jared Kushner (20 comments)

ICE: Federal Agents Appear to Have Lied About Events that Led to Shooting (16 comments)

White House uses USAID Funds for Budget Director Vought's Security: Reuters (16 comments)

Courts Ruled 4,400 Times That ICE Jailed People Illegally (13 comments)

Florida Couple Incite Picklebrawl (12 comments)